Class 175 future speculation

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. Also going by this door obsession and looking at mk1/early mk2 coaches which had 3 doors means they should only be seen on the Elizabeth Line!

Also the excruciating seat obsession this particular poster has alongside many others on here have is all personal opinion and should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Too many believe that theirs is the only opinion that is correct and that counts and everyone else is wrong. I personally like the seat comfort in the 80x and therefore the 197. Does it make me right or wrong? No. *But too many posters on here think that a seat they don’t like is bad for everybody because they say so.

A seat that is disliked by a significant number of people is a bad one. There are plenty of designs you almost never hear complaints about, e.g. the one in the Desiro - these are good seats.

 

[Neptune]

A seat that is disliked by a significant number of people is a bad one.

Not in everyone’s opinion. This is my point.

Do you know that everything you have an opinion on is not necessarily a fact? You don’t like the seat in the 80x fleet (jeez don’t we know that) but do you actually know a ‘significant number’ of the millions of people that use them don’t like them? No, me neither. No doubt you’ll quote someone from Modern Railways who also doesn’t like them but again, their ‘opinion’ isn’t ‘fact’.

There are plenty of designs you almost never hear complaints about, e.g. the one in the Desiro - these are good seats.

Yes I find them comfy too but you must accept that not everyone will.

By the way a few enthusiasts on here doesn’t count! How many people on here like the IC70? Lots and seemingly inextricably linked to the beloved HST. I personally find them a hideously uncomfortable seat with an awful backache inducing rake and awful thick fixed armrests. The other seat which enjoys a love in with enthusiasts is the original 158 seat which again I find extremely uncomfortable due to the raked back seat and the poor legroom in the airline seats which I prefer to sit in. Give me the seats Northern have put in the 2 car units with their decent more upright backrest which helps my glass back (no doubt brought on by over cushioned takes back seats of yesteryear), comfortable contoured base and slimline frame enabling excellent legroom with a larger seat back tray than the original.

And the best seat in my opinion? The one in the EMR 158’s. Similar to the northern seat but with a better tray table with the extendable bit.

That’s just my opinion and nobody else is right or wrong.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not in everyone’s opinion. This is my point.

No, it's fact. A key part of the design brief for a public transport seat is that it is comfortable to the vast majority of users of a wide variety of shapes, sizes and weights. (There's probably a more scientific way of expressing it than that).

Any seat that doesn't fulfil that brief is a bad seat.

Even if I like it, if a lot of others don't (e.g. the ironing board) it is still a bad design.

 

[zwk500]

A seat that is disliked by a significant number of people is a bad one. There are plenty of designs you almost never hear complaints about, e.g. the one in the Desiro - these are good seats.

Or maybe you don't hear the complaints because people aren't bothered enough to complain. The refurbed Desiros were quite comfortable, but I found on some of the older Desiros that I could start going numb. Although the seat spacing was a bigger issue on Desiros for me than the comfort.
Similarly on 700s, I don't like the seats they have and find them uncomfortable to sit on all the way from London to Haywards Heath but I don't see them as worth of a viking sacrifice as some press report would like you to believe.
Regarding 800s - I've only sampled LNER Azumas and found the seats OK. They're a far cry from the IC225 Mallard seats but they're not uncomfortable, although I tend to only do a maximum of 2hrs on an LNER train and if I was doing the 4hr London-Edinburgh run I'd need to get up and walk around halfway through.

 

[Neptune]

No, it's fact. A key part of the design brief for a public transport seat is that it is comfortable to the vast majority of users of a wide variety of shapes, sizes and weights. (There's probably a more scientific way of expressing it than that).

Any seat that doesn't fulfil that brief is a bad seat.

Even if I like it, if a lot of others don't (e.g. the ironing board) it is still a bad design.

So let’s see the actual market research you’ve obviously done on every single seat to back it all up then.

If I find it comfy, it’s comfy in my opinion.
If I find it uncomfortable, it’s uncomfortable in my opinion.

That your opinion is different is absolutely fine. We’re all different.

Honestly, listen to others for once instead of telling everyone that you’re opinion is fact. Boring soundbites from Modern Railways columnists (eg. ironing boards) and your opinion alone does not make it fact, same as my opinion doesn’t make anything fact.

 

[Mag_seven]

OK folks can we ditch the seat wibble please and get back onto discussing the topic of this thread which is Class 175 future speculation.

thanks

 

[317 forever]

Class 220 and maybe 221 units may have a good resale value if sold abroad. So they could be withdrawn and replaced by spare 175s & 185s. This would have the added advantage of often providing longer trains than the 4-car 220s at least.

 

[JonathanH]

Class 220 and maybe 221 units may have a good resale value if sold abroad.

Why?

So they could be withdrawn and replaced by spare 175s & 185s.

That would need the timetable to be rewritten as neither class can do 125mph.

This would have the added advantage of often providing longer trains than the 4-car 220s at least.

Really? If you run two 220s together you get an 8-car train.

 

[zwk500]

Class 220 and maybe 221 units may have a good resale value if sold abroad.

No they wouldn't. The requirement for high-speed DMUs with Tilt function that fit the UK loading gauge is not needed outside GB. The only place they might possibly go is Australia, and I don't see any reason they'd pick up 2nd hand trains from the far side of the world and ship them over instead of buying new.

 

[skyhigh]

Class 220 and maybe 221 units may have a good resale value if sold abroad.

As scrap metal, maybe.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

No they wouldn't. The requirement for high-speed DMUs with Tilt function that fit the UK loading gauge is not needed outside GB. The only place they might possibly go is Australia, and I don't see any reason they'd pick up 2nd hand trains from the far side of the world and ship them over instead of buying new.

And even they would be useless, as no train in Australia ever runs at speed of more than 160 km/h (100mph) in passanger service

 

[zwk500]

And even they would be useless, as no train in Australia ever runs at speed of more than 160 km/h (100mph) in passanger service

They wouldn't necessarily be useless for 100mph lines, just that there would be other options.
The Perth-Adelaide line could probably be upgraded for more than 160kph, although the thought of doing that length of journey on a Voyager would be quite off-putting.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Class 220 and maybe 221 units may have a good resale value if sold abroad. So they could be withdrawn and replaced by spare 175s & 185s. This would have the added advantage of often providing longer trains than the 4-car 220s at least.

There's a good home for 175s/185s at Northern to get rid of the 150s through cascades.
When XC are likely just about to get the rest of the Voyagers, plus perhaps the 222s, then it makes sense to have one similar Bombardier fleet for maintenance reasons.

 

[jackot]

There's a good home for 175s/185s at Northern to get rid of the 150s through cascades.
When XC are likely just about to get the rest of the Voyagers, plus perhaps the 222s, then it makes sense to have one similar Bombardier fleet for maintenance reasons.

The 175s don't really make sense to replace the 150s, and they are another small fleet, of which Northern has plenty - which adds to their operational complexity. The 185s also are not ideal replacements either, factoring in their weight and fuel economy. Neither trains are particularly advantageous over the 150s from an economical perspective either.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If GWR can somewhat manage to operate without a replacement for the HSTs, I think they have no choice but to do so. The 175s would have been helpful capacity-wise for them, but I can't see them rushing to buy any sort of Alstom DMU after FGWs joys with the 180s, and especially with money tight at the moment. Northern won't want another micro fleet and I struggle to see Chiltern wanting 175s, even if it would mean huge savings by ditching the 68s and Mk3s - the costs associated with a new fleet seem to big to ignore here, and they are not exactly in perfect condition.

It seems the future is looking rather bleak for the corroding coradias, or the Corrodias as I call them

What about EWR though? Chiltern will need extra stock to cover that and replacing the LHCS.
It's going to be operating out of Oxford, so it'd be stupid for WMT to give up some of their 196s to Chiltern to run it when they could have a decent sized fleet to replace both without leaving WMT short.

 

[zwk500]

What about EWR though? Chiltern will need extra stock to cover that and replacing the LHCS.
It's going to be operating out of Oxford, so it'd be stupid for WMT to give up some of their 196s to Chiltern to run it when they could have a decent sized fleet to replace both without leaving WMT short.

The EWR fleet is going to be based at Bletchley, IIRC.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The 175s don't really make sense to replace the 150s, and they are another small fleet, of which Northern has plenty - which adds to their operational complexity. The 185s also are not ideal replacements either, factoring in their weight and fuel economy. Neither trains are particularly advantageous over the 150s from an economical perspective either.

185s/175s would be cascading the 158s and 170s to replace 150s, so, although they are unsuitable for direct replacement, they would help replace possibly the worst fleet on the network in Northern's 150s, which are horribly unreliable as we all know.
185s alone would do the job of cascades to replace the moving scrap members of the 150 class and 175s to Chiltern to replace LHCS and provide for EMR.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==

The EWR fleet is going to be based at Bletchley, IIRC.

Oh OK, understandable. Plus I forgot to mention the Marston Vale issue with suitable stock would be solved at the same time.

 

[JonathanH]

It is probably cheaper (and more appropriate) in the short term to leave the 150s in service where they are and park up 175s, as 150s have better dwell times for many of the services they run.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It is probably cheaper (and more appropriate) in the short term to leave the 150s in service where they are and park up 175s, as 150s have better dwell times for many of the services they run.

If the 150s run that day, that is!
I don't know where you live, but some of Northern's 150s frequently have issues starting.

 

[skyhigh]

I don't know where you live, but some of Northern's 150s frequently have issues starting.

the worst fleet on the network in Northern's 150s, which are horribly unreliable as we all know.

I don't really agree with your opinion. Looking at the latest miles per technical incident the Northern 150s are actually more reliable than 158s...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

185s/175s would be cascading the 158s and 170s to replace 150s, so, although they are unsuitable for direct replacement, they would help replace possibly the worst fleet on the network in Northern's 150s, which are horribly unreliable as we all know.

I'm not sure they are "horribly unreliable" to be honest. I'm also not convinced they're the "worst" in Northern's fleet simply because they're the oldest. 170s aren't ideal for all-stations work, and being 23m vehicles they're (in 3-car form as all of Northern's 170s are) too long for routes that currently take 3-car 150s. 158s fall foul of the same problem, so an internal cascade won't help either.

 

[Meerkat]

The 175s could replace the 195s that are doing the Northern Connect stuff, with the 195s replacing some 150s.
Or replace 158s to get rid of the oldest/worst 155/156s
Does Northern send end door stock through Castlefield? If so 185s could replace them…IF their weight didn’t slow them down too much elsewhere. And/replace the EMR 158s on the Nottingham run.

 

[JonathanH]

The 175s could replace the 195s that are doing the Northern Connect stuff, with the 195s replacing some 150s.
Or replace 158s to get rid of the oldest/worst 155/156s
Does Northern send end door stock through Castlefield? If so 185s could replace them…IF their weight didn’t slow them down too much elsewhere. And/replace the EMR 158s on the Nottingham run.

Yes, but every time it comes back to traincrew knowledge and training.

'Bald Rick' indicated in another thread that this cost easily runs into millions, at a time when a) the railway has no money and b) there are industrial relations issues.

Anything that involves moving small fleets around requiring significant driver training is not going to happen. To put it in context, driver training for a small fleet costs the same as for a large fleet, for any given number of drivers. With a lot of drivers to do, training for a new fleet can run into millions…

That is probably why no one is interested in the 175s.

 

[Neptune]

The 175s could replace the 195s that are doing the Northern Connect stuff, with the 195s replacing some 150s.

You do know that Northern Connect does not exist. The plans for it disappeared alongside Arriva Rail North on 1st March 2020!

 

[AlastairFraser]

I don't really agree with your opinion. Looking at the latest miles per technical incident the Northern 150s are actually more reliable than 158s...

That surprises me - is there a vast difference between Newton Heath and Heaton 150s? My experience is with the North West 150s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==

I'm not sure they are "horribly unreliable" to be honest. I'm also not convinced they're the "worst" in Northern's fleet simply because they're the oldest. 170s aren't ideal for all-stations work, and being 23m vehicles they're (in 3-car form as all of Northern's 170s are) too long for routes that currently take 3-car 150s. 158s fall foul of the same problem, so an internal cascade won't help either.

I think this must come down to the divide across the Pennine - I partially commute on a 150 served line in the North West and 150s have failed many times starting, door faults, toilet faults, etc.
While the occasional 156 tends to be more robust.

Apart from their carriage length, what makes the 170 an issue for all stations work? I know Northern don't have an issue with using 158s for it, as they pop up on the Colne stopper in peaks.

 

[Anvil1984]

That surprises me - is there a vast difference between Newton Heath and Heaton 150s? My experience is with the North West 150s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==


I think this must come down to the divide across the Pennine - I partially commute on a 150 served line in the North West and 150s have failed many times starting, door faults, toilet faults, etc.
While the occasional 156 tends to be more robust.

Apart from their carriage length, what makes the 170 an issue for all stations work? I know Northern don't have an issue with using 158s for it, as they pop up on the Colne stopper in peaks.

Being pedantic but there are no 150s based at Heaton. They are split between Newton Heath (predominantly 150/1 fleet) and Neville Hill (150/2 and the 150/0s since December IIRC)

 

[AlastairFraser]

Being pedantic but there are no 150s based at Heaton. They are split between Newton Heath (predominantly 150/1 fleet) and Neville Hill (150/2 and the 150/0s since December IIRC)

No, it's an important clarification. I guess Heaton must be mostly 156 then.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Apart from their carriage length, what makes the 170 an issue for all stations work? I know Northern don't have an issue with using 158s for it, as they pop up on the Colne stopper in peaks.

The drivetrain of 170s is more suited to limited-stop services, as they don't get out of "first gear" (this might not be the correct terminology, I'm no mechanic) until above 60mph, which increases fuel consumption on stopping services. It isn't a deal-breaker but it also isn't ideal. 195s would be the ideal units for diesel stoppers, but again being 24m vehicles means a maximum of 2-cars on routes that can currently take a 3-car 150.

158s are very similar to other Sprinters in terms of operation, other than the higher top speed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==

No, it's an important clarification. I guess Heaton must be mostly 156 then.

156s and (mostly Perkins-engined) 158s at Heaton.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The drivetrain of 170s is more suited to limited-stop services, as they don't get out of "first gear" (this might not be the correct terminology, I'm no mechanic) until above 60mph, which increases fuel consumption on stopping services. It isn't a deal-breaker but it also isn't ideal. 195s would be the ideal units for diesel stoppers, but again being 24m vehicles means a maximum of 2-cars on routes that can currently take a 3-car 150.

158s are very similar to other Sprinters in terms of operation, other than the higher top speed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==


156s and (mostly Perkins-engined) 158s at Heaton.

That's a strange decision for a unit like the 170, with its' suburban interior layout.
Perhaps use them and the 185s to swap for most of the current 158 routes?

 

[jackot]

That's a strange decision for a unit like the 170, with its' suburban interior layout.
Perhaps use them and the 185s to swap for most of the current 158 routes?

Considering the sorts of routes that the 170s operated when they were introduced (London-Salisbury, Inverness–Glasgow, St Pancras-Nottingham), it made some sense - most operators intended to use them for longer-distance services. As was said above, it doesn't make a huge difference operationally but probably would not help with fuel economy or longevity of the drivetrain. They are definitely more suited to the 156 or 158 type of operations as you said. The 175s were designed for similar sort of work (if not a bit more long-distance), but with more of a 158-style door and vestibule layout.