Class 175 future speculation

[Caaardiff]

27 units is a micro fleet. Who would want just 11 or 16 units of a type? Would send the logistics bill through the roof.

TfW have done exactly that already with a fleet of 12 (now 11) 170's which were in the original plan to remain for such services. They will also have a smaller fleet of ageing and expensive to maintain 153's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me they just need to order a few more 197s so they eliminate the two annoying microfleets (153 and 230).

175s would do well going to Northern, that could allow some 156s to go, and be used on Barrow/Windermere to release 195s so their acceleration can better benefit local stopping diesel routes with many stations like the CLC and Atherton line.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Just an out there suggestion. Buy Landore, set up a maintenance Depot for Mk4+loco and a smaller fleet of 175s, with heavy maintenance of the 175's going elsewhere. Ditch the 153's and retain all 11 2 car 175's to work Heart of Wales and West Wales services. Subject to the levels of work required for 175's to work the whole HOWL.
Why? A more reliable fleet with suitable capacity vs ageing 153s.

The intention is to increase HOWL services anyway, and Pembroke Dock services need to be improved and work to Swansea or even Cardiff.

It will then mean, which other TOC would want to take on just 16 3 car 175s? Or would they want the whole 2 and 3 car fleet.

If the heavy maintenance of the 175's could go to Longsight, then TfW could keep the 3-cars as well and use the Swansea-Manchester route to cycle the units between Landore and Longsight.

 

[Caaardiff]

If the heavy maintenance of the 175's could go to Longsight, then TfW could keep the 3-cars as well and use the Swansea-Manchester route to cycle the units between Landore and Longsight.

The Manchester route will be operated by 197s and Mk4s. That won't be changing.

 

[Wolfie]

TfW have done exactly that already with a fleet of 12 (now 11) 170's which were in the original plan to remain for such services. They will also have a smaller fleet of ageing and expensive to maintain 153's.

True enough. The difference of course is that there are also lots of 170s elsewhere.

 

[wobman]

If the heavy maintenance of the 175's could go to Longsight, then TfW could keep the 3-cars as well and use the Swansea-Manchester route to cycle the units between Landore and Longsight.

It would be a logistical nightmare for TFW, it would be an all or nothing lease agreement . when the 175 units were shared at the start of the ATW franchise. There's was multiple empty stock and unit swaps at Piccadilly and Oxford road.
The congestion at Manchester is far worse and the impact on other tocs would cost TFW a fortune.

If TFW were to retain the 175 units, a new heavy maintenance facility would be needed close to were they will be working. The units work well if they are well maintained, it's when the maintenance gets skipped the reliability drops Alstom have found.

They would be great on the heart of Wales route, but the 153's are the cheap plan it seams on that route.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

27 units is a micro fleet. Who would want just 11 or 16 units of a type? Would send the logistics bill through the roof.

27 units of 2&3-car sets is hardly a micro-fleet. There's an argument that Northern's 7 class 155s are a microfleet (even more so once the similar 153s go), but the 175 fleet is not in the same ballpark. In any case, "microfleets" seem to be treated as a cardinal sin on this site, despite there being cases where a microfleet is actually the least-worst solution.

The Stourbridge 139s being the obvious example: I'm sure CAF could produce a couple of single-car versions of the 196s for that line if it was currently still being served by 153s or 121s, but they'd be overkill for the route and any savings from commonality of spares would probably be cancelled out by the higher running costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'd be a microfleet too. If you wanted to standardise it you'd extend the platform at Town and use a 2-car 172.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To me they just need to order a few more 197s so they eliminate the two annoying microfleets (153 and 230).

175s would do well going to Northern, that could allow some 156s to go, and be used on Barrow/Windermere to release 195s so their acceleration can better benefit local stopping diesel routes with many stations like the CLC and Atherton line.

Northern have a large fleet of 156s and will gain more, so getting rid of some but not all would be pointless. The 155s would be the obvious target, but even then there are many 156s unspoken for that would be the obvious replacement as Northern already have a large fleet.

I've just posted that microfleets aren't always a bad thing, but there's no point in replacing one microfleet with another, or creating one where there wasn't one before.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2021 ==

They'd be a microfleet too. If you wanted to standardise it you'd extend the platform at Town and use a 2-car 172.

Which would still be overkill. Until something involving the trams emerges, the current situation is still the least-worst option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've just posted that microfleets aren't always a bad thing, but there's no point in replacing one microfleet with another, or creating one where there wasn't one before.

I've explained the point of sending 175s to Northern upthread - because they are a good fit for long distance "NorthWest Express" services (i.e. Barrow/Windermere), and allow 195s to be released for use on urban local stopping services (Warrington C, Atherton, Marple/Rose Hill) where their performance and capacity is a step change, just like 172s were on the Snow Hill Lines.

Sure, you could use 158s on some of them, but for Barrow and Windermere 100mph, not 90mph, units are required.

 

[wobman]

I've explained the point of sending 175s to Northern upthread - because they are a good fit for long distance "NorthWest Express" services (i.e. Barrow/Windermere), and allow 195s to be released for use on urban local stopping services (Warrington C, Atherton, Marple/Rose Hill) where their performance and capacity is a step change, just like 172s were on the Snow Hill Lines.

Sure, you could use 158s on some of them, but for Barrow and Windermere 100mph, not 90mph, units are required.

The 175's used to run over the many of the routes northern would run them on IF they go them, so route clearance wouldn't be an issue.
The idea of longer distance routes would be ideal for the 175's, I've been on 175's as a passenger many times and it's such a nice customer experience. Compare the same routes on a 150 or 153 I know what I prefer.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I've explained the point of sending 175s to Northern upthread - because they are a good fit for long distance "NorthWest Express" services (i.e. Barrow/Windermere), and allow 195s to be released for use on urban local stopping services (Warrington C, Atherton, Marple/Rose Hill) where their performance and capacity is a step change, just like 172s were on the Snow Hill Lines.

Sure, you could use 158s on some of them, but for Barrow and Windermere 100mph, not 90mph, units are required.

I agree that they're ideal for those routes (after all, those routes are among the ones the units were originally procured for). But if they were to replace some (note, not ALL) of the 156s (as was suggested upthread) that creates a more diverse fleet with all the complications that brings, which are forever being brought up on this site.

Back to my original point about microfleets, the advantages of uniformity are all well and good if all use cases are broadly similar. But if they aren't, those advantages will be diminished to an extent. Looking at Stourbridge again, if the main stock on the Snow Hill lines was 170s, that wouldn't make it a good idea to use one on the branch. If the 172s (with their more efficient low-speed performance) had been around when the PPMs were being procured, then there would be a case for extending the platforms on the branch and using a 2-car set from the main fleet- or even, as I said previously, having a couple of single car versions which would only be a microfleet in the strictest sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that they're ideal for those routes (after all, those routes are among the ones the units were originally procured for). But if they were to replace some (note, not ALL) of the 156s (as was suggested upthread) that creates a more diverse fleet with all the complications that brings, which are forever being brought up on this site.

Though if you used them to replace 155s and some 156s, that would leave you with the same number of different types of unit, so no negative.

The only real downside I see is more end-doored units on Castlefield, but if we already accept the Scottish service, we could accept one more without too much damage, particularly if we were able to change the Nottingham to doors at thirds using e.g. 185s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Though if you used them to replace 155s and some 156s, that would leave you with the same number of different types of unit, so no negative.

The only real downside I see is more end-doored units on Castlefield, but if we already accept the Scottish service, we could accept one more without too much damage, particularly if we were able to change the Nottingham to doors at thirds using e.g. 185s.

Without getting too far into the weeds away from 175s, there's going to be a surplus of 156s in a few months and using those to get rid of the 155s would seem a no-brainer. As I suggested in another thread, taking more than 7 would be smart as it would give a bit more resilience, but everything is controlled down to the penny in Northern land. With the units being owned by the Roscos, it's hard to justify leasing more units than the absolute bare minimum requirement. If they were still owned by BR/DfT they'd effectively be amortised by now.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If the heavy maintenance of the 175's could go to Longsight, then TfW could keep the 3-cars as well and use the Swansea-Manchester route to cycle the units between Landore and Longsight.

It would be a logistical nightmare for TFW, it would be an all or nothing lease agreement . when the 175 units were shared at the start of the ATW franchise. There's was multiple empty stock and unit swaps at Piccadilly and Oxford road.
The congestion at Manchester is far worse and the impact on other tocs would cost TFW a fortune.

If TFW were to retain the 175 units, a new heavy maintenance facility would be needed close to were they will be working. The units work well if they are well maintained, it's when the maintenance gets skipped the reliability drops Alstom have found.

If they were to be working Manchester-Swansea, as my post was suggesting, then TfW would have all 27 units and Longsight would be close to where they would be working. The main issue I can think of is if Longsight does not have the capacity to maintain the 175s in addition to its current work - it was someone else who first suggested that Longsight could be used and I don't know whether they know if Longsight has capacity.

 

[southern442]

My idea is that South Western Railway would introduce a half an hour service pattern in each direction on the Wessex mainline between London Waterloo and Exeter Central with one of the two trains running onto Exeter St David's.

(Firstly, the Waterloo-Exeter line is the West of England mainline, not the Wessex Mainline - that's the Southampton to Bristol route - but that's quite pedantic of me so I apologise)

Secondly, half-hourly on the WoE isn't possible due to infrastructure restraints - indeed the only thing keeping them hourly is the loop at Axminster.

Thirdly, having two fleets running one service isn't necessarily a bad thing, but having two completely different and totally incompatible fleets running one service is. I mean, it hypothetically could be done with the most genius of planning staff, but realistically it is so much more operationally convenient to take more 158s for example if anyone ever wanted to do this.

 

[Philip]

To me they just need to order a few more 197s so they eliminate the two annoying microfleets (153 and 230).

175s would do well going to Northern, that could allow some 156s to go, and be used on Barrow/Windermere to release 195s so their acceleration can better benefit local stopping diesel routes with many stations like the CLC and Atherton line.

What would you do with all the 175s left surplus though? Even if running in multiple the Barrow/Windermere service would only take a total of about 12 units.

 

[craigybagel]

From my local sources in the Midlands.
Possibly chiltern railways to replace the mk3s. But again disclaimer a possibility.

One of the more sensible rumours I must admit. If they took the entire fleet that would be enough to replace the MKIIIs, the 172s and even leave some left over to potentially cascade 168s somewhere else?

Would of thought the 175s would go back north, since they where new to first north western and used on the barrow/windermere to airport services but maintained in Chester.

Where they were used in the past should make very little impact on where they go in the future.

 

[warwickshire]

One of the more sensible rumours I must admit. If they took the entire fleet that would be enough to replace the MKIIIs, the 172s and even leave some left over to potentially cascade 168s somewhere else?

Where they were used in the past should make very little impact on where they go in the future.

Yes a rumour I keep on constantly hearing again disclaimer However they are cleared for the line.
Don't forget they did the kidderminster to haddenham tame Parkway trials when on test very brand new.
Either agree 168 cascade or keep for capacity as especially off peak and weekend services are quite full and standing.
Also to strengthen the Stratford upon avon and Birmingham moor Street shuttles to leamington Spa and send the 165 south off banbury so in reality 165 shouldn't venture north off banbury unless with a two car 1683 for example.

 

[43096]

One of the more sensible rumours I must admit. If they took the entire fleet that would be enough to replace the MKIIIs, the 172s and even leave some left over to potentially cascade 168s somewhere else?

The 172s have already gone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would you do with all the 175s left surplus though? Even if running in multiple the Barrow/Windermere service would only take a total of about 12 units.

They are suited for almost* anything that currently uses a 156 or 158, not just those two. They basically are an uprated 156.

They could be used to directly scrap 155s and 156s, or as part of a cascade to scrap 150s.

* Not the Cumbrian Coast where I believe they don't fit, but at some point that work will need doing...

 

[JonathanH]

One of the more sensible rumours I must admit. If they took the entire fleet that would be enough to replace the MKIIIs, the 172s and even leave some left over to potentially cascade 168s somewhere else?

The Chiltern 172s have already gone. The MkIIIs ought to be displaced without replacement - should just be no issue about doing that.

Freeing up 168s might be a reasonable use but the question would be why, given it is one fleet for another with all the training that needs, both directly for traincrew and for depot staff. 175s haven't yet been used for DOO work either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Freeing up 168s might be a reasonable use but the question would be why, given it is one fleet for another with all the training that needs, both directly for traincrew and for depot staff. 175s haven't yet been used for DOO work either.

This is why sending them to Northern would to me make sense. If Chiltern need more units, send them some of Northern's 170s in return, they are being used on unsuitable services anyway.

As for DOO, Chiltern is mirrors and platform cameras anyway, so provided there isn't a visibility issue they should work.

 

[warwickshire]

This is why sending them to Northern would to me make sense. If Chiltern need more units, send them some of Northern's 170s in return, they are being used on unsuitable services anyway.

As for DOO, Chiltern is mirrors and platform cameras anyway, so provided there isn't a visibility issue they should work.

Unless 175 do go to northern and 170 get swapped over to go to chiltern railways maybe.

 

[mmh]

This is why sending them to Northern would to me make sense. If Chiltern need more units, send them some of Northern's 170s in return, they are being used on unsuitable services anyway.

As for DOO, Chiltern is mirrors and platform cameras anyway, so provided there isn't a visibility issue they should work.

Do 175s have cab door controls? TFW use of them is always guard open and close from the vestibule panels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do 175s have cab door controls? TFW use of them is always guard open and close from the vestibule panels.

I have a feeling they were removed or disabled to prevent FNW thinking they could move to DOO, however refitting them is hardly a difficult job in the scheme of things.

 

[L401CJF]

Do 175s have cab door controls? TFW use of them is always guard open and close from the vestibule panels.

They have door controls on the drivers desk. There are also door controls on the cab wall (behind the drivers and 2nd man seats) for the conductor to use.

I have a feeling they were removed or disabled to prevent FNW thinking they could move to DOO, however refitting them is hardly a difficult job in the scheme of things.

They are still fitted, but presumably theyre disabled.

 

[krus_aragon]

When originally built, there was a plan for drivers to release doors on arrival. Though that was never put into practice, of course.

 

[craigybagel]

The Chiltern 172s have already gone. The MkIIIs ought to be displaced without replacement - should just be no issue about doing that.

I'm aware of that. But can Chiltern cope in the future if passenger numbers go back up without them?

Freeing up 168s might be a reasonable use but the question would be why, given it is one fleet for another with all the training that needs, both directly for traincrew and for depot staff. 175s haven't yet been used for DOO work either.

Crews will need training wherever they go.

Do 175s have cab door controls? TFW use of them is always guard open and close from the vestibule panels.

I have a feeling they were removed or disabled to prevent FNW thinking they could move to DOO, however refitting them is hardly a difficult job in the scheme of things.

They have door controls on the drivers desk. There are also door controls on the cab wall (behind the drivers and 2nd man seats) for the conductor to use.

They are still fitted, but presumably theyre disabled.

Cabs are fitted with door open and close buttons. The open buttons have been disabled, but are still present. The close buttons still work.

 

[skyhigh]

This is why sending them to Northern would to me make sense. If Chiltern need more units, send them some of Northern's 170s in return, they are being used on unsuitable services anyway.

Which neglects the fact that Botanic Gardens is currently being upgraded at considerable cost to a full depot specifically to care for the 170s, and that there's already a plan to reshuffle them onto more suitable routes with 195s backfilling (with the only traction training required being at a single small depot).