Class 175 future speculation

[tomuk]

Is it at High Wycombe that Chiltern have DOO monitors to the right of the track on the formation of the former through lines?

 

[krus_aragon]

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.

That's my local (layman's) understanding too.

 

[craigybagel]

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.

True, but I wasn't worried about not being able to look down the train physically. What I am worried about is not being able to see the monitors on the platform that are necessary at some (most?) Chiltern DOO stations. From the drivers seat you have next to no view sideways and I can't see how it would be possible to view the monitors.

 

[warwickshire]

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.

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.

Correct. When very brand new on First North Western. It was Driver open. Guard Close. Didn't last long. Until it became Guard open and Guard close.
Also guards had to be trained a second time on them including to learn door deselect. Helsby and Newton le willows was certainly a couple of stations of where the issues occurred. Especially on a 6 car 175 Holyhead to Manchester Piccadilly service. Whilst a two car 158 service Chester to Manchester Piccadilly wasn't booked to call.
However this was found out by trial and error. Very early on. Sadly it did happen at Helsby. Door opened of the platform.
Which is how this problem got discovered and resolved.
By using door deselect and also by changing services over. Ie two Car 158 Chester to Manchester Piccadilly to call.
Instead of the 6 car 175.
However on chiltern same issues will occur for example, at Hatton, if a 6 car 175 is used . Door deselect required to be used. By guard. Due to it being 5 cars. Just like the West Midlands peak hour 172 services do exactly the same.
So if used Chiltern will have to Guard open and Guard close. Due to same principle at some stations.
If lock out a coach. Due to Driver open and Guard close could cause issues overcrowding etc.

 

[tomuk]

Chiltern have guards north of Banbury don't they?

 

[craigybagel]

Correct. When very brand new on First North Western. It was Driver open. Guard Close. Didn't last long. Until it became Guard open and Guard close.
Also guards had to be trained a second time on them including to learn door deselect. Helsby and Newton le willows was certainly a couple of stations of where the issues occurred. Especially on a 6 car 175 Holyhead to Manchester Piccadilly service. Whilst a two car 158 service Chester to Manchester Piccadilly wasn't booked to call.
However this was found out by trial and error. Very early on. Sadly it did happen at Helsby. Door opened of the platform.
Which is how this problem got discovered and resolved.
By using door deselect and also by changing services over. Ie two Car 158 Chester to Manchester Piccadilly to call.
Instead of the 6 car 175.
However on chiltern same issues will occur for example, at Hatton, if a 6 car 175 is used . Door deselect required to be used. By guard. Due to it being 5 cars. Just like the West Midlands peak hour 172 services do exactly the same.
So if used Chiltern will have to Guard open and Guard close. Due to same principle at some stations.
If lock out a coach. Due to Driver open and Guard close could cause issues overcrowding etc.

Interesting. I guess I'm not going mad after all!

Chiltern have guards north of Banbury don't they?

Indeed they do. North of Banbury for everything, South of there only for MKIIIs (plus the West Ealing parliamentary).

175s can only isolate individual units rather than individual carriages for short platforms. Maybe that can be changed if enough money is thrown at the problem, as with the unsuitability for DOO using platform equipment, but do Chiltern or anyone else want to go to the effort?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting. I guess I'm not going mad after all!

This was definitely not my recollection, but if @warwickshire was involved in working them they may well be correct and I may remember wrong!

175s can only isolate individual units rather than individual carriages for short platforms. Maybe that can be changed if enough money is thrown at the problem, as with the unsuitability for DOO using platform equipment, but do Chiltern or anyone else want to go to the effort?

Cheaper than running 68s round the place.

 

[craigybagel]

This was definitely not my recollection, but if @warwickshire was involved in working them they may well be correct and I may remember wrong!

To be fair I was going off something I read in RAIL back in the day, and also the odd 3rd hand remark from some of my more senior colleagues - and neither of those are renowned for their accuracy so I was happy to believe either way on that one!

Important thing for now anyway is that the units are set up purely for full guards control.

Cheaper than running 68s round the place.

Fair point

 

[Philip]

Cheaper than running 68s round the place.

But probably quite a bit more expensive than using 170s and further reason for not replacing the loco stock at all if 175s were the only replacement option.

 

[Energy]

But probably quite a bit more expensive than using 170s and further reason for not replacing the loco stock at all if 175s were the only replacement option.

And where are these 170s coming from? Northern are invesring in a depot for theirs right now, EMR wouldn't be a bad place to swap for some 175s.

 

[warwickshire]

This was definitely not my recollection, but if @warwickshire was involved in working them they may well be correct and I may remember wrong!



Cheaper than running 68s round the place.

Yes I was First North Western days.
When brand new. One hundred percent Helsby and Newton le willows. Sundays was the worst. On the Holyhead to Manchester Piccadilly services 6 car 175. Yet a two car 158 Chester to Manchester Piccadilly service followed us. Was most certainly at first driver open. Guard close. Was trained as such and had to wait for driver to open doors first. Then close. Only lasted a couple of months. 175 at times had other issues as well. By doing it this way after we closed them. System told driver doors open but was actually closed. Game over.. Chester was the Depot With Chester guards and drivers and Manchester Piccadilly guards link3 the first to sign them. Due to link 3 signing Chester. However Manchester airport guards only and Barrow and Blackpool crews followed and Manchester Piccadilly link one drivers ie Barrow. Etc also followed. Back to the door method only lasted around two to three months .
With all guards and Chester and Manchester Piccadilly link3 . For example being shown the door deselect and as a urgent priority and door deselect being used. To solve all issues. Door system and small stations ie to big. Guards had overall control and door de select to do. Trial and error.
However on the route. Not fair to deny newton le willows or helsby of a service.
Train to big. What also didn't help matters at the time at Manchester Piccadilly was the RMT at the same time briefly for this thread to save costs on a guard. Sometimes overtime or even rdw. Or no guard at all especially the latter no guard. And a spare 323 New boil in the bag driver as they was called in those days. With around only 6 months training. Ie 323 only sparkie link driver. Electric routes. If spare would work vice guard especially on a hadfield. Then on way back would drive it to save changing ends with another 323 sparkie link driver to get hours in. Ie driving hours. However due to incidents occurring at Helsby same time. Ie passengers trying to get off but not on platform. Due to length. It got spotted. Very quickly hence the quick modification and guard open and guard close. Also same time rmt quickly changed its stance on the 323 issues as well to only in a extreme emergency no guard ie driver vice guard. 323s . Mainly last train if spare driver available.

 

[Philip]

There's still a working link here showing the list of diagrams for 175s in the 2001 timetable:

http://www.nwrail.org.uk/sum01-175.txt

It shows an unusual early morning passenger service between Wigan NW and Manchester Airport following an ECS from Chester. Does anyone remember which route it took from Wigan and how long it lasted for?

 

[class397tpe]

And where are these 170s coming from? Northern are invesring in a depot for theirs right now, EMR wouldn't be a bad place to swap for some 175s.

If Chiltern wants more stock, and 175s won't work, maybe it could order itself some new stock instead of people suggesting it should nick 170s from everyone else. Hands off Northern and EMRs 170s! EMR especially has been shafted enough already.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If Chiltern wants more stock, and 175s won't work, maybe it could order itself some new stock instead of people suggesting it should nick 170s from everyone else. Hands off Northern and EMRs 170s! EMR especially has been shafted enough already.

The possible reasons most-often raised as to why 175s might not work seem to be that there are too many 175s or issues with selective door release at short platforms. Regarding the former, it seems that, if Chiltern gets rid of its LHCS and TfW won't keep the 175s, the sensible thing would be for all the 175s to go to Chiltern and some 170s to go the other way (from Chiltern to EMR or Northern) so that Chiltern doesn't end up with too much stock and the 175s aren't split between TOCs.

As for the latter issue...

on chiltern same issues will occur for example, at Hatton, if a 6 car 175 is used . Door deselect required to be used. By guard. Due to it being 5 cars. Just like the West Midlands peak hour 172 services do exactly the same.

Are they any stations on Chiltern Mainline routes which are too short to accomodate 5 coaches? And do any stations on Chiltern Mainline routes have platforms which will accomodate 5 coaches but not 6 and have trains calling at them which would be overcrowded if former of just 5 coaches? The LHCS mainly seems to be on fast services which I assume don't stop at (m)any places with short platforms - if those are the only workings busy enough to need 6 coaches having 6-car 175s replace those and 5-car 175s on other workings might be workable.

 

[Philip]

The possible reasons most-often raised as to why 175s might not work seem to be that there are too many 175s or issues with selective door release at short platforms. Regarding the former, it seems that, if Chiltern gets rid of its LHCS and TfW won't keep the 175s, the sensible thing would be for all the 175s to go to Chiltern and some 170s to go the other way (from Chiltern to EMR or Northern) so that Chiltern doesn't end up with too much stock and the 175s aren't split between TOCs.

As for the latter issue...


Are they any stations on Chiltern Mainline routes which are too short to accomodate 5 coaches? And do any stations on Chiltern Mainline routes have platforms which will accomodate 5 coaches but not 6 and have trains calling at them which would be overcrowded if former of just 5 coaches? The LHCS mainly seems to be on fast services which I assume don't stop at (m)any places with short platforms - if those are the only workings busy enough to need 6 coaches having 6-car 175s replace those and 5-car 175s on other workings might be workable.

Going off other responses and the problems highlighted, I would say the most likely solutions for Chiltern LHCS replacement will either be a few extra 170s from somewhere for conversion to 168s (and hybrid working), or nothing at all.

If Northern don't want 175s (or the DfT don't want to send them there) then perhaps EMR or ScotRail could be potential operators? EMR for 158/Sprinter replacement, ScotRail for HST or Sprinter replacement.

 

[The Planner]

If Chiltern wants more stock, and 175s won't work, maybe it could order itself some new stock instead of people suggesting it should nick 170s from everyone else. Hands off Northern and EMRs 170s! EMR especially has been shafted enough already.

And if it needs the units before the lead time to get new stock?

 

[Agent_Squash]

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

There is no reason for TOCs to be saddled with stock that will have to be refurbished to modern standards anyway and still need to be replaced in a few years time again.

Unless the DfT is going to commit to a rolling electrification programme and the 175s would be stop gaps - but even really, life expired stock should be replaced with at least diesel hybrid stock which can be converted to electric / hydrogen / bionic duckweed as necessary. Rather than spending years polluting the environment more than need be.

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.

Gangwayed stock isn’t the be all and end all. My line saw 195s replacing 185s and, in combination with a massively improved service offering, has seen massive ridership growth and will become 6 cars on some services from December.

People aren’t as fussed as these forums make them out to be. The 195s and 331s are very capable units (built on the cheap admittedly), and it would be ridiculous to procure new stock that would probably be incompatible with relatively new stock.

The 175s seats are nice - but seat comfort is entirely subjective!

 

[warwickshire]

The possible reasons most-often raised as to why 175s might not work seem to be that there are too many 175s or issues with selective door release at short platforms. Regarding the former, it seems that, if Chiltern gets rid of its LHCS and TfW won't keep the 175s, the sensible thing would be for all the 175s to go to Chiltern and some 170s to go the other way (from Chiltern to EMR or Northern) so that Chiltern doesn't end up with too much stock and the 175s aren't split between TOCs.

As for the latter issue...


Are they any stations on Chiltern Mainline routes which are too short to accomodate 5 coaches? And do any stations on Chiltern Mainline routes have platforms which will accomodate 5 coaches but not 6 and have trains calling at them which would be overcrowded if former of just 5 coaches? The LHCS mainly seems to be on fast services which I assume don't stop at (m)any places with short platforms - if those are the only workings busy enough to need 6 coaches having 6-car 175s replace those and 5-car 175s on other workings might be workable.

Yes Lapworth up platform is 5.
But down is 7. Hatton both up and down are 5. Kings sutton up and down 5. South Ruslip up 5. Ones to watch out for especially at weekends on Birmingham to London services. Of whereby on a 168 165 dmu sometimes more than 5 sees the rear non accommodating coaches to be lou. Locked out of use. However locomotive services aren't usually booked to call.
However some occasions has been known to terminate mk3 at South Ruslip if disruption. Hence the need for door deselect. However if a 6 car 175 in use especially on 6 car Birmingham to London Marylebone and calls say Lapworth and Hatton on the up to London for example, rather than locking a vehicle out on a 168 165 dmu means on a 6 car 175 full capacity. All coaches available via door deselect.
However if permission for locomotive hauled to stop ie rare occasion. No issue due to door de select. However out of interest between Kidderminster and Birmingham Snow Hill both directions. Services at The Hawthorns. Smethwick High Level. Stourbridge Junction and Kidderminster station stops mk3s use door deselect due to size of train and rear mk3 coach not at platform. However a 6 car 175 should fit nicely though between Birmingham moor Street and kidderminster though.
But Lapworth and Hatton of this world in the main for a 6 car 175 a guard and door deselect is the obvious answer.

 

[craigybagel]

There is no reason for TOCs to be saddled with stock that will have to be refurbished to modern standards anyway and still need to be replaced in a few years time again.

Unless the DfT is going to commit to a rolling electrification programme and the 175s would be stop gaps - but even really, life expired stock should be replaced with at least diesel hybrid stock which can be converted to electric / hydrogen / bionic duckweed as necessary. Rather than spending years polluting the environment more than need be.

Other than the lack of provision for DOO, the 175s already have been refurbished to modern standards.

If they were to hypothetically go to Chiltern to replace the MKIIIs, their age isn't all that dissimilar to the rest of the Chiltern fleet - and you'd have to think the Chiltern route would be a fairly big priority for electrification around about the time that combined fleet would be ready for retirement....

 

[317 forever]

Another option is CrossCountry Cardiff - Birmingham - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted Airport, as they were built for long distance services. Then the 170s could replace for example Northern Sprinters, which we were reminded above will need replacing over the next few years.

 

[43096]

Another option is CrossCountry Cardiff - Birmingham - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted Airport, as they were built for long distance services. Then the 170s could replace for example Northern Sprinters, which we were reminded above will need replacing over the next few years.

Nice idea. The numbers don’t quite add up (XC 170 fleet = 80 vehicles, 175 fleet = 70 vehicles), but adding some more Voyagers from Avanti could cover the gap.

 

[43102EMR]

Another option is CrossCountry Cardiff - Birmingham - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted Airport, as they were built for long distance services. Then the 170s could replace for example Northern Sprinters, which we were reminded above will need replacing over the next few years.

The 170s will likely go to EMR as opposed to Northern (frankly I don’t even know why extra 170s for Northern is even being considered), then EMR 158s to Northern which is a more likely move.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is no reason for TOCs to be saddled with stock that will have to be refurbished to modern standards anyway and still need to be replaced in a few years time again.

Unless the DfT is going to commit to a rolling electrification programme and the 175s would be stop gaps - but even really, life expired stock should be replaced with at least diesel hybrid stock which can be converted to electric / hydrogen / bionic duckweed as necessary. Rather than spending years polluting the environment more than need be.

Are you forgetting that the manufacture of a new train pollutes the environment as well? Also, despite having a vauge ambition to remove all diesel-only passenger trains by 2040 the government have not outlawed procurement of new diesel-only trains so, given the trend for new stock to be built on-the-cheap (195s, 331s, 197s) with Northern apparently having gone out to tender for funding for additional 195s it is fairly likely that any new build diesel stock would be just as unable to make use of electrification infrustructure as the class 175s are.

Therefore, it is likely a choice between:

• 175s polluting the environment for another 15-18 years (until somewhere around 2038) or
• a large burst of pollution from the construction of a new batch of 195s (or similar) now, followed by these polluting the environment for another 35-40 years

Until full future-proofing (easy convertion to electric) is made mandatory on ALL new trains I would be VERY careful about suggesting new trains.

Gangwayed stock isn’t the be all and end all. My line saw 195s replacing 185s and, in combination with a massively improved service offering, has seen massive ridership growth and will become 6 cars on some services from December.

People aren’t as fussed as these forums make them out to be. The 195s and 331s are very capable units (built on the cheap admittedly), and it would be ridiculous to procure new stock that would probably be incompatible with relatively new stock.

Not having end-gangways is of course not an issue on services where the unit is running alone. Where they run in multiple, there are all sorts of possible issues although many only apply in certain suituations so would not impact on that many passengers, for example (relevant to this thread) if the 175s had gangways it would ensure passengers were able to alight at short platforms if unit deselect was used to prevent the doors on one unit being openned.

As for 'normals' not being fussed about things - on our last trip my mother said she thought the best train of the trip were 2 out of 3 of the TfW class 158s - because they were the only trains on the entire trip where she was able to get a hot drink (because the trolley came through - not sure why we didn't see one on the TPE double-185 from Manchester to York - possibly it was in the other unit and couldn't get through to us because of the lack of gangways!).

The 175s seats are nice - but seat comfort is entirely subjective!

Not entirely, the RSSB did a study which provided objective scores for different seats.

frankly I don’t even know why extra 170s for Northern is even being considered

Perhaps because Northern have loads of 150/1s which need replacement? This could be done by Northern obtaining the 175s, or additional 158s or 170s, to replace 195s which then would be cascaded to eliminate the 150/1s?

 

[43102EMR]

Perhaps because Northern have loads of 150/1s which need replacement? This could be done by Northern obtaining the 175s, or additional 158s or 170s, to replace 195s which then would be cascaded to eliminate the 150/1s?

There are other DMUs besides the 170s, which EMR clearly need more than Northern to get a more uniformed fleet - besides as recent events have shown, it’s pretty obvious by now that any free 170s will be snatched up by EMR anyways.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There are other DMUs besides the 170s, which EMR clearly need more than Northern to get a more uniformed fleet - besides as recent events have shown, it’s pretty obvious by now that any free 170s will be snatched up by EMR anyways.

EMR (eventually) having four fleets (810s, 158s or 175s, 360s and 170s) would still be a more-uniform fleet than Northern's ten or more different types. I also think there is such a thing as too uniform - not all services are the same and, despite some refering to 158s and 170s as 'Jack Of All Trades' units each type is clearly better suited to certain markets than the other. There is also an element of silo mentality when discussing uniform fleets - if we take a step back the UK train fleet as a whole is no more uniform regardless of where the 175s are used. Yes there will be ways of using them that are more efficient than others (eg. sending half the fleet to Cornwall and the other half to Newcastle would be silly) but the idea that somewhere like Swansea has depot facilities that can effectively only be used by some of the services ending up there is equally nonsensical.

 

[Neptune]

The 170s will likely go to EMR as opposed to Northern (frankly I don’t even know why extra 170s for Northern is even being considered), then EMR 158s to Northern which is a more likely move.

Yes because Northern’s desire to be rid of 15x’s would be met easily by taking on more 158’s from EMR.

There are other DMUs besides the 170s, which EMR clearly need more than Northern to get a more uniformed fleet - besides as recent events have shown, it’s pretty obvious by now that any free 170s will be snatched up by EMR anyways.

Yes because Northerns fleet is already far more uniform than EMR’s, oh hang on a minute…..

 

[43102EMR]

Yes because Northern’s desire to be rid of 15x’s would be met easily by taking on more 158’s from EMR.

Yes because Northerns fleet is already far more uniform than EMR’s, oh hang on a minute…..

You do realise they were referring to 150s and 156s, not the 158s?

 

[Neptune]

You do realise they were referring to 150s and 156s, not the 158s?

Yes but in what way does taking on more 15x units from the early 90’s make sense?

What makes more sense is for Northern’s planned fleet renewal to actually consist of new bi-mode units of one type (preferably CAF Civity’s so they are a natural fit in to Northern’s fleet for staff/maintenance familiarity). Not someone else’s scrap to replace our scrap.

We’ve had far too many years of taking on crap units from elsewhere and before it gets mentioned how badly off EMR are and how Northern got 101 new units tell me this, just how many 35 year old pacers did EMR have that needed replacing?

 

[rjames87]

Can carriages from 180s be inserted into 175s or are they completely different? I’m guessing there won’t be anyone in a rush for the remaining 180s once EMR are finished with them.

 

[RobShipway]

Can carriages from 180s be inserted into 175s or are they completely different? I’m guessing there won’t be anyone in a rush for the remaining 180s once EMR are finished with them.

Even if the class 180 carriages are compatible with the class 175 units, you only have 11 carriages to add to 27 trains.