Class 175 future speculation

[Rhydgaled]

And yet Greater Anglia don't seem to have a problem with the one door vs two (although I am aware the doors on their trains are wider).
Unless some actual research has been done into this, it's all just guess work.

The FLIRTs are very out of the ordinary for the UK, I find it hard to compare them with anything. The GA ones only have one door per side on each coach, but the coaches are shorter.

Do the 175s do any 3 hour + journeys that are utilised for that whole 3 hours plus?

They do Manchester to Milford Haven which is well over 3 hours (nearer 5 if I recall correctly). I doubt many people use it for a longer run than Manchester-Swansea, but a few do occasionally (I think my Dad has done Clunderwen to Manchester) and I'm pretty sure Manchester-Swansea is around 3 hours.

All the Voyagers/Merdians will hopefully end up at XC. They need the extra capacity. In fact, the 175s could also help them out.....

I suppose the 175s could be a good fit on Cardiff-Nottingham if Wales loses them. As for Voyagers/Meridians, I think XC should get all the 221s and most of the 222s (with the 4-car 222s being stored and the centre cars used to lengthen some of the others so there are more 7-car sets). That should allow them to retire the 220s and run the 4-car 221s in multiple with a 5-car set as 9-car trains alongside the 7-car 222s and IC125s on the Edinburgh-Plymouth route.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

On the unlikely event of SWR electrifying to Salisbury and replacing the XX:50 to Salisbury with a Desiro (458s are coming and will shift a few from the PDL), then there are enough 175s to work 3+3+2 services on the hourly service to Exeter, with the rear two detaching at Salisbury or Yeovil, and 2 cars on the Romsey rounders. This would use up 13/15 three cars and 6-8 two cars.

Possibly a reduction in capacity from 9 car 159s but long Desiros on the Waterloo Salisbury service would help eat that demand up, and many 159s are still six cars anyway, with three car beyond Salisbury.

Just helps to replace trains 7-10 years older than them, and they have arguably a more appropriate intercity layout anyway with better air con and end doors. The buffet could be removed in favour of extra seating as per on Class 444s.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

On the unlikely event of SWR electrifying to Salisbury and replacing the XX:50 to Salisbury with a Desiro (458s are coming and will shift a few from the PDL), then there are enough 175s to work 3+3+2 services on the hourly service to Exeter, with the rear two detaching at Salisbury or Yeovil, and 2 cars on the Romsey rounders. This would use up 13/15 three cars and 6-8 two cars.

Possibly a reduction in capacity from 9 car 159s but long Desiros on the Waterloo Salisbury service would help eat that demand up, and many 159s are still six cars anyway, with three car beyond Salisbury.

Just helps to replace trains 7-10 years older than them, and they have arguably a more appropriate intercity layout anyway with better air con and end doors. The buffet could be removed in favour of extra seating as per on Class 444s.

Edit - silly me, no buffet - that’s 180s. Although four of those are going to be free soon too, and potentially you could use some intermediate carriages to lengthen a few two carriage 175s to three.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Edit - silly me, no buffet - that’s 180s. Although four of those are going to be free soon too, and potentially you could use some intermediate carriages to lengthen a few two carriage 175s to three.

I see what you mean about the 175's being newer basically but with 3 Class 175's coupled together, you'd need more staff. With the older 158's and 159's you can walk through the whole train.

 

[Wolfie]

The FLIRTs are very out of the ordinary for the UK, I find it hard to compare them with anything. The GA ones only have one door per side on each coach, but the coaches are shorter.


They do Manchester to Milford Haven which is well over 3 hours (nearer 5 if I recall correctly). I doubt many people use it for a longer run than Manchester-Swansea, but a few do occasionally (I think my Dad has done Clunderwen to Manchester) and I'm pretty sure Manchester-Swansea is around 3 hours.


I suppose the 175s could be a good fit on Cardiff-Nottingham if Wales loses them. As for Voyagers/Meridians, I think XC should get all the 221s and most of the 222s (with the 4-car 222s being stored and the centre cars used to lengthen some of the others so there are more 7-car sets). That should allow them to retire the 220s and run the 4-car 221s in multiple with a 5-car set as 9-car trains alongside the 7-car 222s and IC125s on the Edinburgh-Plymouth route.

With respect to XC far more likely and sensible (fleet commonalities) that they would retain the 220s and retire the HSTs.

 

[Rhydgaled]

With respect to XC far more likely and sensible (fleet commonalities) that they would retain the 220s and retire the HSTs.

Far more likely perhaps, but while sensible in some ways (fleet commonality and age of stock) it would not be so in others (capacity and fuel consumption). The best option for replacing the XC IC125s in my view is completing GWML electrification to Oxford and Bristol and cascading 14 class 800s from GWR to XC as 8-car sets using the centre cars from two 5-car 800s so every non-driving vehicle has an engine. The redundant class 800 driving cars this would leave behind would be used with new EMU vehicles to make up 14 9-car class 807 EMUs for GWR.

Edit - silly me, no buffet - that’s 180s. Although four of those are going to be free soon too, and potentially you could use some intermediate carriages to lengthen a few two carriage 175s to three.

There are only eleven 2-car 175s so, if you were to decommission four 180s you would have enough intermediate carriages (12) to lengthen all the 175s to three carriages with one vehicle left over. Alternatively, if you had 12 coaches you could insert into 175s you could lengthen six of the 3-car units to 5-car which would almost allow you to run the nine or ten diagrams on Swansea-Manchester with either a 5-car 175 or a mark 4 set (2 or 3 diagrams would still need to be formed of a 2-car coupled to a 3-car though to give a maintainance float). Of course, that all assumes the vehicles from the 180s would be compatible with the 175s, which may not be the case.

 

[Wolfie]

Edit - silly me, no buffet - that’s 180s. Although four of those are going to be free soon too, and potentially you could use some intermediate carriages to lengthen a few two carriage 175s to three.

What would such lengthening, if actually possible, do to train performance?

 

[Caaardiff]

Far more likely perhaps, but while sensible in some ways (fleet commonality and age of stock) it would not be so in others (capacity and fuel consumption). The best option for replacing the XC IC125s in my view is completing GWML electrification to Oxford and Bristol and cascading 14 class 800s from GWR to XC as 8-car sets using the centre cars from two 5-car 800s so every non-driving vehicle has an engine. The redundant class 800 driving cars this would leave behind would be used with new EMU vehicles to make up 14 9-car class 807 EMUs for GWR.

There are only eleven 2-car 175s so, if you were to decommission four 180s you would have enough intermediate carriages (12) to lengthen all the 175s to three carriages with one vehicle left over. Alternatively, if you had 12 coaches you could insert into 175s you could lengthen six of the 3-car units to 5-car which would almost allow you to run the nine or ten diagrams on Swansea-Manchester with either a 5-car 175 or a mark 4 set (2 or 3 diagrams would still need to be formed of a 2-car coupled to a 3-car though to give a maintainance float). Of course, that all assumes the vehicles from the 180s would be compatible with the 175s, which may not be the case.

Why mess around splitting GWR sets if XC could just have new sets? I would've thought the 5 car sets work quite well for GWR's versatility.

175's aren't staying with TfW so no point in lengthening them. Also a good point raised, is it as simple as just plonking a few extra carriages in the middle of the power cars and everything is hunky dory?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Why mess around splitting GWR sets if XC could just have new sets? I would've thought the 5 car sets work quite well for GWR's versatility.

GWR would still have 30 five-car IETs if you did what I suggested - I think that would be plenty of versatility. In all, they would have:

• 30x 5-car bi-modes (8 class 800s and 22 class 802s)
• 35x 9-car bi-modes (21 class 800s and 14 class 802s as now)
• 14x 9-car EMUs (class 807)

New sets for XC would presumably mean new diesel engines and GWR running bi-modes under the wires all day instead of getting some EMUs. I suppose you could just take the diesel engines out of the GWR bi-modes and use them in the new XC units. However, running 5-car 800s in pairs is inefficient (10 coaches of weight but seating capacity is basically equal to a 9-car set, and you can't move between the two sets while the train is moving), and I think GWR has too many driving cars in it's current IET fleet so at the very least I would like to see the new XC fleet using ex-GWR driving cars.

a good point raised, is it as simple as just plonking a few extra carriages in the middle of the power cars and everything is hunky dory?

Aren't all vehicles powered on both 175s and 180s? In which case I assume the drivetrain and/or the diesel engine itself are different on the 125mph class 180 compared to the 100mph class 175 which I suspect would give some issues if you did try to combine them.

 

[irish_rail]

GWR would still have 30 five-car IETs if you did what I suggested - I think that would be plenty of versatility. In all, they would have:

• 30x 5-car bi-modes (8 class 800s and 22 class 802s)
• 35x 9-car bi-modes (21 class 800s and 14 class 802s as now)
• 14x 9-car EMUs (class 807)

New sets for XC would presumably mean new diesel engines and GWR running bi-modes under the wires all day instead of getting some EMUs. I suppose you could just take the diesel engines out of the GWR bi-modes and use them in the new XC units. However, running 5-car 800s in pairs is inefficient (10 coaches of weight but seating capacity is basically equal to a 9-car set, and you can't move between the two sets while the train is moving), and I think GWR has too many driving cars in it's current IET fleet so at the very least I would like to see the new XC fleet using ex-GWR driving cars.


Aren't all vehicles powered on both 175s and 180s? In which case I assume the drivetrain and/or the diesel engine itself are different on the 125mph class 180 compared to the 100mph class 175 which I suspect would give some issues if you did try to combine them.

807s for GWR? No thanks. All that will do is make unit allocations even more difficult as it reduces the pool of trains that can be used beyond Newbury. There are still big delays at Paddington on Plymouth bound trains due to needing a pair of 802s and not an 800 or 9 car 800 or 802 on certain services.
A fleet of pure EMUS in place of bi modes doesn't sit well with me.
However I do think lengthening some of the GWR 5 car sets to 7 or 9 might be a better idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would such lengthening, if actually possible, do to train performance?

Nothing at all because all vehicles in 175/180s are powered. They are a bit like Sprinters in that regard with mostly independent vehicles. Indeed, what the 175 basically is is an upgraded 156.

 

[wobman]

Why mess around splitting GWR sets if XC could just have new sets? I would've thought the 5 car sets work quite well for GWR's versatility.

175's aren't staying with TfW so no point in lengthening them. Also a good point raised, is it as simple as just plonking a few extra carriages in the middle of the power cars and everything is hunky dory?

I know ATW looked at lengthening the 175 units years ago, Alstom said no it's more complicated than you think and taking cars from 180's couldn't be done they told ATW.

The 175's are the best units TFW have and they are the first to go, it's a shame as the refurbished units are nice.

 

[MattRat]

Far more likely perhaps, but while sensible in some ways (fleet commonality and age of stock) it would not be so in others (capacity and fuel consumption). The best option for replacing the XC IC125s in my view is completing GWML electrification to Oxford and Bristol and cascading 14 class 800s from GWR to XC as 8-car sets using the centre cars from two 5-car 800s so every non-driving vehicle has an engine. The redundant class 800 driving cars this would leave behind would be used with new EMU vehicles to make up 14 9-car class 807 EMUs for GWR.

There are only eleven 2-car 175s so, if you were to decommission four 180s you would have enough intermediate carriages (12) to lengthen all the 175s to three carriages with one vehicle left over. Alternatively, if you had 12 coaches you could insert into 175s you could lengthen six of the 3-car units to 5-car which would almost allow you to run the nine or ten diagrams on Swansea-Manchester with either a 5-car 175 or a mark 4 set (2 or 3 diagrams would still need to be formed of a 2-car coupled to a 3-car though to give a maintainance float). Of course, that all assumes the vehicles from the 180s would be compatible with the 175s, which may not be the case.

Why not use 175s to lengthen 180s, which can then be used to help replace the HSTs? Also, the line to Bristol should be electrified regardless, but I feel that's a topic for another thread.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not use 175s to lengthen 180s, which can then be used to help replace the HSTs?

Because 180s are unreliable dross and need scrapped?

 

[MattRat]

Because 180s are unreliable dross and need scrapped?

You'd end up with 13 9 car 180s though, and that would really help with capacity and being able to allow Voyagers to run less important services.

 

[JonathanH]

You'd end up with 13 9 car 180s though, and that would really help with capacity and being able to allow Voyagers to run less important services.

Voyagers aren't any use for 'less important services'.

 

[wobman]

You'd end up with 13 9 car 180s though, and that would really help with capacity and being able to allow Voyagers to run less important services.

There's a real shortage of quality DMUs such as the 175's it doesn't make sense to split them, the Rosco will have plenty of interest in the refurbished 175's when they come off lease with TFW.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You'd end up with 13 9 car 180s though, and that would really help with capacity and being able to allow Voyagers to run less important services.

When they weren't broken down.

 

[Wolfie]

You'd end up with 13 9 car 180s though, and that would really help with capacity and being able to allow Voyagers to run less important services.

Voyagers may not be popular with enthusiasts and may need (at least XC's) a decent refurb but they are reliable people movers. Why in God's name, even if merging 180s and 175s was actually possible which other posts suggest is unlikely without disproportionately expensive work, would you want to replace them with unreliable self-combusting garbage?

 

[Rhydgaled]

807s for GWR? No thanks. All that will do is make unit allocations even more difficult as it reduces the pool of trains that can be used beyond Newbury. There are still big delays at Paddington on Plymouth bound trains due to needing a pair of 802s and not an 800 or 9 car 800 or 802 on certain services.
A fleet of pure EMUS in place of bi modes doesn't sit well with me.
However I do think lengthening some of the GWR 5 car sets to 7 or 9 might be a better idea.

I'll respond by PM as this I've lead us rather off-topic by bringing GWR into it.

Why not use 175s to lengthen 180s, which can then be used to help replace the HSTs? Also, the line to Bristol should be electrified regardless, but I feel that's a topic for another thread.....

Because 175s are 100mph units, so inserting 175 vehicles into 180s would reduce them to 100mph maximum which wouldn't be much use for replacing HSTs.

You'd end up with 13 9 car 180s though, and that would really help with capacity and being able to allow Voyagers to run less important services.

I don't see how. There are only 16 3-car 175s (and therefore only 16 class 175 centre cars). If you want 9-car 180s and are happy to leave aside the different maximum speed, 16 class 175 centre cars would give you four 9-car 180s, ten 5-car 180s (unchanged) and twenty seven 2-car 175s.

Voyagers aren't any use for 'less important services'.

(Single) Voyagers aren't any use full stop. A line doesn't get upgraded to 125mph unless it is pretty busy, which means 125mph trains should generally be rather longer than the Voyagers are. A 9-car Voyager, apart from the amount of greenhouse gas it spews out, wouldn't be too bad.

Why in God's name, even if merging 180s and 175s was actually possible which other posts suggest is unlikely without disproportionately expensive work, would you want to replace them with unreliable self-combusting garbage?

Because the 180s and 175s have one of the best interiors on the network (legroom at any rate) - fix the reliability issues and they would be one of the best diesel trains on the network.

 

[WestRiding]

Because the 180s and 175s have one of the best interiors on the network (legroom at any rate) - fix the reliability issues and they would be one of the best diesel trains on the network.

I have to agree, the seats are comfy, the windows match, and the leg room is excellent. The last of the good DMUs at point of building.

 

[Wolfie]

Because the 180s and 175s have one of the best interiors on the network (legroom at any rate) - fix the reliability issues and they would be one of the best diesel trains on the network.

If fixing the reliability issues with these trains, particularly the 180s, was as easy as you make it sound then numerous operators wouldn't have got shot ASAP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2021 ==

I have to agree, the seats are comfy, the windows match, and the leg room is excellent.

I wouldn't argue albeit that the seat mountings aren't ideal.

 

[HSTEd]

The Hull Trains Class 180s had an annoying design flaw in first class - the tables on the single seat side weren't secured to the bodyside so would vibrate alarmingly at certain engine/train speeds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Hull Trains Class 180s had an annoying design flaw in first class - the tables on the single seat side weren't secured to the bodyside so would vibrate alarming at certain engine/train speeds.

None of the seats or tables in 175/180s are secured to the wall, so you get varying degrees of this. The reason is that for soundproofing/anti-vibration reasons it's a "floating floor".

It wasn't really successful, and so it's the only design I've noted that doesn't bolt things to the sidewall.

 

[MattRat]

I don't see how. There are only 16 3-car 175s (and therefore only 16 class 175 centre cars). If you want 9-car 180s and are happy to leave aside the different maximum speed, 16 class 175 centre cars would give you four 9-car 180s, ten 5-car 180s (unchanged) and twenty seven 2-car 175s.

Apologies, I messed up on a couple of things. I assumed all 175s were two car, and that you could just modify end cars to work in the set. So in reality it would be 14 6 car 180s, although as you say that limits top speed which makes the whole thing pointless. I guess lengthening 175s instead makes far more sense, and it would still give much needed capacity to XC.

 

[BayPaul]

Apologies, I messed up on a couple of things. I assumed all 175s were two car, and that you could just modify end cars to work in the set. So in reality it would be 14 6 car 180s, although as you say that limits top speed which makes the whole thing pointless. I guess lengthening 175s instead makes far more sense, and it would still give much needed capacity to XC.

Surely its much, much easier just to give them additional 221/222s, (or built new 80x) rather than making very expensive modifications to very unreliable trains!

 

[MattRat]

Surely its much, much easier just to give them additional 221/222s, (or built new 80x) rather than making very expensive modifications to very unreliable trains!

Well, they should have 221s and 222s transferred to them too. The problem with buying new rolling stock however, is governments dragging their feet over it. That's why we have to constantly nudge them the right way, rather than one big push, as they are less likely to see what is happening if it's 1000 tiny nudges.

 

[XAM2175]

That's why we have to constantly nudge them the right way, rather than one big push, as they are less likely to see what is happening if it's 1000 tiny nudges.

What does this mean?

 

[MattRat]

What does this mean?

It means doing things by halves. Focus on the capacity issue first, then the age of the rolling stock, rather than both at once.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It means doing things by halves. Focus on the capacity issue first, then the age of the rolling stock, rather than both at once.

Whether we are talking 175s (as we should be in this topic) or Voyagers, the age of the rolling stock is of no great concern at the moment (except that TfW are trying to replace 175s before there is any need to do so, which is wasteful if it results in the 175s going for scrap).