Class 175 future speculation

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The 175s haven't had a full refurbishment, just TfW's "re-trimming of whatever seats were fitted, wood-effect veneering of whatever tables were fitted, and re-painting of whatever other fittings were present" - in the 175s' case they were all original (I saw a remaining trace of FNW purple around the edge of a small toilet mirror) - and re-carpeting of the floors and power socket upgrades. They had not had the seats, tables, luggage racks, toilet fittings etc, completely replaced like on the then-ATW 158s in the early 2010s, which meant a much better result after TfW's "refurbishment" on those units.

What else did you want for them? The seats, tables, etc. are absolutely fine.

 

[Starmill]

The 175s haven't had a full refurbishment, just TfW's "re-trimming of whatever seats were fitted, wood-effect veneering of whatever tables were fitted, and re-painting of whatever other fittings were present" - in the 175s' case they were all original (I saw a remaining trace of FNW purple around the edge of a small toilet mirror) - and re-carpeting of the floors and power socket upgrades. They had not had the seats, tables, luggage racks, toilet fittings etc, completely replaced like on the then-ATW 158s in the early 2010s, which meant a much better result after TfW's "refurbishment" on those units.

The original fittings in 158s were older and cheaper than the ones in 175s.

 

[anamyd]

What else did you want for them? The seats, tables, etc. are absolutely fine.

What I was getting at was TfW's "refurbishments" are not up to the standard of a full, proper train refurbishment. Just to the standard that'll "do" for them being with them for only a few more years. The several issues can be the next operator's problem...

 

[anamyd]

The original fittings in 158s were older and cheaper than the ones in 175s.

The seats and tables fitted to the 158s under ATW in 2010-2012 replaced ones fitted under Wales & West in the late 90s, so they were replaced at about 10-15 years old. The ones in the 175s were 22 years old at the time of TfW's "refurbishment", yet weren't replaced. Cheaper?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The seats and tables fitted to the 158s under ATW in 2010-2012 replaced ones fitted under Wales & West in the late 90s, so they were replaced at about 10-15 years old. The ones in the 175s were 22 years old at the time of TfW's "refurbishment", yet weren't replaced. Cheaper?

The 175 seats are rather well regarded, though, why pay money to make the train worse?

 

[Starmill]

The seats and tables fitted to the 158s under ATW in 2010-2012 replaced ones fitted under Wales & West in the late 90s, so they were replaced at about 10-15 years old. The ones in the 175s were 22 years old at the time of TfW's "refurbishment", yet weren't replaced. Cheaper?

There were various different low quality interiors in the 158s. These were changed so they'd all have the same high quality interior. The 175s already had a uniform and reasonably smart interior, on which more money was spent on at their initiation than is on new trains today. ATW had allowed it to degrade but it is still fundamentally one of the best interiors on a regional train in this country. It is definitely a much nicer interior than what has gone into the 195s for example, or the new interior in ScotRail 156s, both of which are penny pinching jobs.

 

[Philip]

That's just pure crayonista.

Or, as I keep saying, send all the 175s to Chiltern and either displace 165s (to GWR vice 769s?) or 168s. Turbostars are far more useful across multiple operators - you could even send the 168s to Northern (and re-wire the couplers to make then 170s) and maintain them at Botanic Gardens.

That argument could work the other way though, with Northern 170s going to Chiltern for conversion to 168s and 175s to Northern in place. Both are nothing more than ideas at this stage because there has been no mention of Chiltern looking to get rid of 165s/168s, nor Northern taking on 175s.

 

[Mikey C]

That argument could work the other way though, with Northern 170s going to Chiltern for conversion to 168s and 175s to Northern in place. Both are nothing more than ideas at this stage because there has been no mention of Chiltern looking to get rid of 165s/168s, nor Northern taking on 175s.

Chiltern do have too many 165s though, 75mph trains operating stopping services on the 2 track 100mph mainline causes issues which wouldn't exist if they could be replaced with 100mph stock (leaving the 165s for just the Aylesbury vs Amersham services)

 

[Philip]

Chiltern do have too many 165s though, 75mph trains operating stopping services on the 2 track 100mph mainline causes issues which wouldn't exist if they could be replaced with 100mph stock (leaving the 165s for just the Aylesbury vs Amersham services)

And likewise Northern have too many Sprinters, but unlike Chiltern with their 16xs, Northern have committed to getting rid of all of their Sprinters by the end of the decade - so 175s are an obvious more modern replacement for some of these Sprinters.

 

[The Planner]

Chiltern do have too many 165s though, 75mph trains operating stopping services on the 2 track 100mph mainline causes issues which wouldn't exist if they could be replaced with 100mph stock (leaving the 165s for just the Aylesbury vs Amersham services)

Only if they can get to over 75mph in between stops, otherwise it makes naff all difference.

 

[warwickshire]

That argument could work the other way though, with Northern 170s going to Chiltern for conversion to 168s and 175s to Northern in place. Both are nothing more than ideas at this stage because there has been no mention of Chiltern looking to get rid of 165s/168s, nor Northern taking on 175s.

True. Also Chiltern have ex two northern managers who are now on Chiltern. So very likely something could well happen.
Managers still have contacts and links.
Maybe if no 175 to Chiltern.
Highly probably 175 could well go northern . Some 170 go to Chiltern for mk3 replacement. Conversion to 168.
Pity cannot happen sooner than later.
Mk3 failures on Chiltern are starting to creep quite high again. At least once a week. Sometimes twice. Even it is just to send some 170 to Chiltern and replace the 155 fleet. However again wait and see. But another possibility that could happen with the 175s.

 

[Mikey C]

Only if they can get to over 75mph in between stops, otherwise it makes naff all difference.

Wasn't that the point of the 172s, 100mph DMUs with faster acceleration...

 

[The Planner]

Wasn't that the point of the 172s, 100mph DMUs with faster acceleration...

All 4 of them?

 

[Energy]

Wasn't that the point of the 172s, 100mph DMUs with faster acceleration...

4 units weren't going to make a massive difference with the 39 165s.

From what I remember, they were ordered as an addon to the London Overground units for the Chiltern Metro services though at least in recent years they spent their time mostly in the depot or on the Stratford runs (maybe also Leamington to Birmingham though I think their depot was quite far away from this route so usually it was 165/166).

It doesn't help that the 165/166s are known to have little acceleration.

 

[CR165022]

Chiltern do have too many 165s though, 75mph trains operating stopping services on the 2 track 100mph mainline causes issues which wouldn't exist if they could be replaced with 100mph stock (leaving the 165s for just the Aylesbury vs Amersham services)

they have enough 165s, just not enough 168s, they only need the 165s for aylesbury via amersham and aylesbury via high wycombe (although the latter should just be the risborough shuttle in my opinion but i wont talk about that), before 2020 it was 168s doing all mainline services bar the aylesbury stoppers, nowadays the 168s only really do the birminghams, with 165s doing the oxfords, however it does make sense as 165s have more capacity, which is good for bicester village as that can get very busy. Yes, the 172s didnt help much but nowadays they have also lost a 4 car 168 and 2 165s, which which is why getting 170s from northern makes sense

 

[Neptune]

they have enough 165s, just not enough 168s, they only need the 165s for aylesbury via amersham and aylesbury via high wycombe (although the latter should just be the risborough shuttle in my opinion but i wont talk about that), before 2020 it was 168s doing all mainline services bar the aylesbury stoppers, nowadays the 168s only really do the birminghams, with 165s doing the oxfords, however it does make sense as 165s have more capacity, which is good for bicester village as that can get very busy. Yes, the 172s didnt help much but nowadays they have also lost a 4 car 168 and 2 165s, which which is why getting 170s from northern makes sense

For crying out loud why does everyone have their eyes on the Northern 170’s. It’s almost as if Northern have said they don’t want them and they suddenly aren’t spending a hell of a lot of money on Hull Botanic Gardens as a dedicated maintenance facility for them.

I wish people would change the bloody record and concentrate on the units that actually will be available.

 

[Starmill]

Wasn't that the point of the 172s, 100mph DMUs with faster acceleration...

Not really. Chiltern wanted to run Gerrards Cross terminators all day, which ended up not happening. Although of course confusingly there are now more trains that turn back at Gerrards Cross.

 

[Agent_Squash]

And likewise Northern have too many Sprinters, but unlike Chiltern with their 16xs, Northern have committed to getting rid of all of their Sprinters by the end of the decade - so 175s are an obvious more modern replacement for some of these Sprinters.

More 195s are the obvious replacement for the Sprinters. Ideally bi-mode so trains don't run 100 miles under the wires.

We should be replacing life expired stock with new stock, not haphazardly replacing it with 22 year old trains.

 

[QSK19]

We should be replacing life expired stock with new stock, not haphazardly replacing it with 22 year old trains.

EMR being the exception, of course!

 

[CyrusWuff]

Ultimately Chiltern's rolling stock plan depends on what the DfT/Treasury will let them have.

There's a possibility, despite what's in the Business Plan for the National Rail Contract, that that could end up as losing the Mk3s with no replacement.

 

[Agent_Squash]

EMR being the exception, of course!

The DfT brief was that levelling up only applies north of Crewe!

(in all seriousness, EMR has basically become the new Northern of stock - which doesn't work as all the stock is all around the same age...)

 

[Starmill]

Ultimately Chiltern's rolling stock plan depends on what the DfT/Treasury will let them have.

There's a possibility, despite what's in the Business Plan for the National Rail Contract, that that could end up as losing the Mk3s with no replacement.

It's not like there wouldn't be headroom to pare back capacity on some services. The option to withdraw between Kidderminster and Birmingham Snow Hill and cut back train length on West Midlands and Oxford services is there.

 

[craigybagel]

We should be replacing life expired stock with new stock, not haphazardly replacing it with 22 year old trains.

Not if the end result is a perfectly useable mid life fleet going for scrap early.

With regards to Chiltern, I would have thought that if they really are looking to replace their MKIIIs, they'd want a fleet suitable for DOO, so they don't need to use guards South of Banbury at all (at the moment they're only used on MKIIIs).

I'm not sure how easy it is to adapt 175s - they already have door controls for the driver but the window is in completely the wrong position for the platform mirrors and monitors that Chiltern use, so it would need external CCTV cameras and an in cab monitor fitting. Might be easier to send them to a DGO operator that uses 170s and in turn cascade some of those 170s to Chiltern.

 

[Rhydgaled]

We should be replacing life expired stock with new stock, not haphazardly replacing it with 22 year old trains.

Not if the end result is a perfectly useable mid life fleet going for scrap early.

Agreed.

More 195s are the obvious replacement for the Sprinters. Ideally bi-mode so trains don't run 100 miles under the wires.

If they were bi-mode they probably wouldn't be called 195s, more likely to be 23x or 7xx.

Personally though I think the only trains the 195s are vaugely suitable to replace are the 150/1s. Gangwayed units such as 150/2s should have gangwayed replacements (eg. 730, 196 and 385) and this would be preferable for all new sub-115mph units. The 195/331 cab design should never be used again for any new units. For long-distance, limited stop regional services (the sort of thing the 158s were built for) we should be looking at something like a 444 or 442 in terms of new-builds but other than the lack of end gangways and electric traction it should be the 175s that set the quality bar in many respects.

The seats and tables fitted to the 158s under ATW in 2010-2012 replaced ones fitted under Wales & West in the late 90s, so they were replaced at about 10-15 years old. The ones in the 175s were 22 years old at the time of TfW's "refurbishment", yet weren't replaced. Cheaper?

The 175 seats are rather well regarded, though, why pay money to make the train worse?

Before the TfW refresh I noticed some of the seats on the 175s had worn badly, with padding having shifted leaving part of the frame almost exposed. Fully refreshing the existing seats to their original specification would not have been making the train worse and, if the TfW refresh has not dealt with that issue I would suggest it needs dealing with ASAP, prefrably by repairing rather than replacing and, if replacement is the only option, selecting the replacement seat VERY carefully (and not buying from Fainsa).

 

[krus_aragon]

With regards to Chiltern, I would have thought that if they really are looking to replace their MKIIIs, they'd want a fleet suitable for DOO, so they don't need to use guards South of Banbury at all (at the moment they're only used on MKIIIs).

I'm not sure how easy it is to adapt 175s - they already have door controls for the driver but the window is in completely the wrong position for the platform mirrors and monitors that Chiltern use, so it would need external CCTV cameras and an in cab monitor fitting. Might be easier to send them to a DGO operator that uses 170s and in turn cascade some of those 170s to Chiltern

As you probably know (but others may not), the 175s were built with provision for drivers to release doors on arrival at stations, though First North Western and their successors never made use of this.

 

[Philip]

As you probably know (but others may not), the 175s were built with provision for drivers to release doors on arrival at stations, though First North Western and their successors never made use of this.

This was mentioned in the quoted post, the problem is the position of the cab window and the potential need for cameras and cab monitoring equipment fitting to be suitable to work the line.

 

[craigybagel]

As you probably know (but others may not), the 175s were built with provision for drivers to release doors on arrival at stations, though First North Western and their successors never made use of this.

AFAIK FNW very briefly did use them at the start, but there were fears about some of the very short platforms on their routes and it didn't last long. The door release buttons have been disabled - although the close buttons do still function.

This was mentioned in the quoted post, the problem is the position of the cab window and the potential need for cameras and cab monitoring equipment fitting to be suitable to work the line.

Indeed. I'm not an expert as I've (thankfully) never worked DOO, but the only view out of the window is backwards over the drivers left shoulder. It's physically impossible to stick your head out of the window from the drivers seat. I can't see how that can be made to work with Chiltern's DOO equipment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

AFAIK FNW very briefly did use them at the start, but there were fears about some of the very short platforms on their routes and it didn't last long

They were never used so far as I recall. The drivers refused to use them (it was seen as a step towards DOO), and it was going to lead to strikes (possibly did, I forget). They were disabled so the TOC couldn't be tempted to change their mind on the agreement.

 

[craigybagel]

They were never used so far as I recall. The drivers refused to use them (it was seen as a step towards DOO), and it was going to lead to strikes (possibly did, I forget). They were disabled so the TOC couldn't be tempted to change their mind on the agreement.

Fair enough - it was well before my time anyway.

 

[mmh]

Indeed. I'm not an expert as I've (thankfully) never worked DOO, but the only view out of the window is backwards over the drivers left shoulder. It's physically impossible to stick your head out of the window from the drivers seat. I can't see how that can be made to work with Chiltern's DOO equipment.

Isn't the same the case at many DOO served platforms? Not all platforms are on the left, so you'd never be able to get your head out of the window from the seat at every platform.