Class 175 future speculation

[positron]

Given they should be available now I wonder if that's a mistake? What are they going to be doing for over half a year?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Given they should be available now I wonder if that's a mistake? What are they going to be doing for over half a year?

Presumably while they may not be in use, the lease still runs until 2024 Q2, so they would not be available until that point?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably while they may not be in use, the lease still runs until 2024 Q2, so they would not be available until that point?

If the lease is ongoing why have TfW rushed to withdraw them? Was a major exam due?

 

[positron]

https://angeltrains.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Rolling-stock-lease-or-disposal.pdf

Here's a link to the original document that the above screenshot came from. The date seems to suggest it's from this year but then it still has 153s available from 2021 on it? I wonder if it's actually outdated and they're available sooner?

I can't see Tfw withdrawing them so quickly and still paying for the lease till next year?

Something doesn't quite add up?

 

[skyhigh]

Here's a link to the original document that the above screenshot came from. The date seems to suggest it's from this year but then it still has 153s available from 2021 on it? I wonder if it's actually outdated and they're available sooner?

I presume it means that the 153s were available from that date and either there has been no reasonable offers yet or they've changed their mind and are now open to disposing of the assets.

The 507s listed as available seem to match the units that haven't been scrapped already so it seems reasonably up to date to me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2023 ==

I can't see Tfw withdrawing them so quickly and still paying for the lease till next year?

Hard to say without being privy to the lease details. It could possibly be the case that exams are due and it was calculated to be better value to withdraw them and pay the lease than pay for the exams and lease given that the replacements were coming online.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

https://angeltrains.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Rolling-stock-lease-or-disposal.pdf

Here's a link to the original document that the above screenshot came from. The date seems to suggest it's from this year but then it still has 153s available from 2021 on it? I wonder if it's actually outdated and they're available sooner?

I can't see Tfw withdrawing them so quickly and still paying for the lease till next year?

Something doesn't quite add up?

Could it be they'll need work done to them if anyone takes them on* which would take until 2024 Q2 to have a sensible fleet volume available?





*This is where we see the DfT force them on a TOC or two as a microfleet to solve a stock shortage caused by earlier DfT decisions and then abandon the conversion at the last minute isn't it...?!

 

[43102EMR]

Last I heard, Angel Trains found a lessee but that seems to have obviously changed - can imagine their “thermal incidents” over the past year haven’t worked in their favour…

 

[Caaardiff]

They need to be handed back to Angel in decent condition. With CAF taking on so many 197's now there isn't much scope to complete 175 works as well. Some maintenance is still being done at Chester prior to them going back to Angel but I think the majority of the work is being done at Landore or the heavy maintenance at Ilford. To keep them in service would require more from CAF to keep them maintained while being in service developing issues, which they can't do anymore.

 

[Grumpy]

Do we actually know why tfw got rid? Was it high maintenance costs? Unreliability? High leasing costs? Spare part availability?

 

[Anonymous10]

Do we actually know why tfw got rid? Was it high maintenance costs? Unreliability? High leasing costs? Spare part availability?

Public reason was a fleet type of only 1 type of unit for nearly all routes excluding the metro area.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

They need to be handed back to Angel in decent condition. With CAF taking on so many 197's now there isn't much scope to complete 175 works as well. Some maintenance is still being done at Chester prior to them going back to Angel but I think the majority of the work is being done at Landore or the heavy maintenance at Ilford. To keep them in service would require more from CAF to keep them maintained while being in service developing issues, which they can't do anymore.

4 x 175 sets on Chester sidings this evening. 1 x 3 car and 3 x 2 car.

 

[The_Train]

Last I heard, Angel Trains found a lessee but that seems to have obviously changed - can imagine their “thermal incidents” over the past year haven’t worked in their favour…

I suspect the TOC who was interested has found an alternative route to head down for their future stock requirements

 

[JonathanH]

I suspect the TOC who was interested has found an alternative route to head down for their future stock requirements

Or decided they can cope with what they already have.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The only extra protection it provides is it limits the unit to 90mph (or 75mph if the driver sets it up that way, for use when attached to a 150/153). We need maintenance's permission to isolate it but I think that's more because only maintenance staff are able to switch it back on after it's been isolated, so the unit needs to be met by a fitter before it can go back down the Cambrian.

There is supposedly a change coming with the 197s in that they won't be running in level 0 when off the Cambrian, but we haven't been told yet how exactly that's going to work.

Even if the ruling is that ETCS must be turned on, it's still not the end of the world. It takes about 2 minutes to teach a driver how to turn it on in level 0 - it's really not complicated at all.

Interesting; I thought the reason for only having 21 class 197s fitted with ETCS rather than all 77 was that there was a wait of 2-3 minutes or something at every reversal while the ETCS reboots and that they didn't want to incur this delay when away from the Cambrian.

 

[craigybagel]

Interesting; I thought the reason for only having 21 class 197s fitted with ETCS rather than all 77 was that there was a wait of 2-3 minutes or something at every reversal while the ETCS reboots and that they didn't want to incur this delay when away from the Cambrian.

It does take a while that's true, though hopefully technology will have come on enough that ERTMS will be quicker to start up on the 197s. I have driven 197003 in training that had ERTMS installed but it was isolated so I can't comment on how it works.

Of the two minutes it takes to set up ERTMS on a 158, 90 seconds of it is spent staring at a blank screen waiting for the system to boot up before you can do anything. Actually inputting the data takes very little time at all once you get the hang of it.

I suspect the main reason for not fitting it on 197s is probably cost.

 

[Energy]

I suspect the main reason for not fitting it on 197s is probably cost.

I thought so as well, the rest are ETCS ready at least.

 

[Bob Price]

Apparently in the same magazine Chiltern have ruled out their use.

Threads • Log in

Join Threads to share ideas, ask questions, post random thoughts, find your people and more. Log in with your Instagram.

www.threads.net

 

[Caaardiff]

Is everyone completely missing the point here? Angel wouldn't have listed them as available if there was interest from any TOC. They've known they'll be available for months, if not years. If there's no takers now, they'll either be scrapped or forced upon a TOC by the DfT, if that's even possible.

 

[JonathanH]

If there's no takers now, they'll either be scrapped or forced upon a TOC by the DfT, if that's even possible.

Would the DfT really be able to produce funding for a TOC to lease a train fleet just to prevent the units being scrapped?

 

[The Prisoner]

Seems a little bizarre having them listed on Angel's site like they were for sale in Auto Trader!

I'd suggested in another thread that they will probably end up abroad now (HST Mexico style) given that there is no logical home for them on the network in this country.

From a commercial perspective a scrap (disposal) bid is not likely to be huge, but will be considered as an offset against ongoing and mounting storage costs (see class 365).

If someone wanted these at their cheapest possible price now would be the time to move for them as a bid would simply have to be higher than their scrap value to be worthwhile to the ROSCO and selling them abroad is a clean disposal of an asset whose value will have been written off by now in all likelihood.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd suggested in another thread that they will probably end up abroad now (HST Mexico style) given that there is no logical home for them on the network in this country.

There are plenty of logical homes for them - the DfT just won't pay. They'd not be long-term homes, but would be a 5-10 year lease while other new stock is procured, which as we know takes a very long time.

Northern: to remove some 15x by cascade
GWR: as Northern
Chiltern: to remove some 165s by cascade
ScotRail: to replace HSTs

All of those are feasible. The DfT just won't fund them as the status quo is cheaper.

 

[JonathanH]

There are plenty of logical homes for them - the DfT just won't pay. They'd not be long-term homes, but would be a 5-10 year lease while other new stock is procured, which as we know takes a very long time.

Northern: to remove some 15x by cascade
GWR: as Northern
Chiltern: to remove some 165s by cascade
ScotRail: to replace HSTs

All of those are feasible. The DfT just won't fund them as the status quo is cheaper.

For all the 'forum ideal ideas' of using 175s and binning off older stock, there really isn't any point. It isn't even likely to just be about funding. In each case, the operational use of the existing stock is known whereas 175s would bring different challenges.

 

[The Prisoner]

There are plenty of logical homes for them - the DfT just won't pay. They'd not be long-term homes, but would be a 5-10 year lease while other new stock is procured, which as we know takes a very long time.

Northern: to remove some 15x by cascade
GWR: as Northern
Chiltern: to remove some 165s by cascade
ScotRail: to replace HSTs

All of those are feasible. The DfT just won't fund them as the status quo is cheaper.

Appreciate those are feasible and logical homes, but as you say the DfT won't pay so it's pie in the sky....

 

[Energy]

Northern: to remove some 15x by cascade

Not suited, they'd just increase the Northern fleet for now with Northern's strategy clearly in new build, and end door units are not what Northern need.

GWR: as Northern

Why would GWR go for the 175s when the 158s become available shortly after? GWR have their own stock replacement plan.

Chiltern: to remove some 165s by cascade

The TOC clearly doesn't want them or the 180s.

ScotRail: to replace HSTs

This comes under Transport Scotland, not the DfT. The HSTs are on lease till 2030.

All of those are feasible. The DfT just won't fund them as the status quo is cheaper.

Or that the 175s are hardly perfect for any TOC?

 

[Iskra]

I doubt it’s just about money, introducing a new fleet to already stretched TOC’s is just going to create a TPE-style operational resilience issue due to the training needed. This probably isn’t worth it for a fleet with a relatively short life span remaining. The timing just isn’t right for some of those on the list (Northern and GWR).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not suited, they'd just increase the Northern fleet for now with Northern's strategy clearly in new build

But those aren't likely to enter service for 5-10 years, tending towards 10.

and end door units are not what Northern need.

They could replace the 156s which are literally falling to bits (the EMR ones particularly bad, I believe).

Or that the 175s are hardly perfect for any TOC?

Perfection is the enemy of the good. (I should have a macro to automatically type that on here!)

 

[Iskra]

But those aren't likely to enter service for 5-10 years, tending towards 10.



They could replace the 156s which are literally falling to bits (the EMR ones particularly bad, I believe).



Perfection is the enemy of the good. (I should have a macro to automatically type that on here!)

EMR Nottingham-Liverpool might not be a bad shout in 3/4/5/6 car formations.

Edit: Lack of gangways could be a issue though so maybe not- stick them on a different route to free up 158’s to double up on the Nottingham-Liverpool route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

EMR Nottingham-Liverpool might not be a bad shout in 3/4/5/6 car formations.

Would love to know which TOC it was that allegedly signed for them but then it seems withdrew, and why. Suspect we'll never know though.

 

[Dai Corner]

A poster on another forum who is in a good position to know that they're not going to GWR and doesn't usually speculate has said they're almost certainly going to Northern for this reason.

They could replace the 156s which are literally falling to bits (the EMR ones particularly bad, I believe).

 

[Bletchleyite]

A poster on another forum who is in a good position to know that they're not going to GWR and doesn't usually speculate has said they're almost certainly going to Northern for this reason.

I wonder if the TOC that signed for them and then pulled out could be Northern, that'd add up.