Class 175 future speculation

[Philip]

I agree - 195s are a better replacement for Sprinters than 175s. Assuming by 'Sprinters' you mean specifically class 150s (and are not including 'Super Sprinters' and 'Express Sprinters' in that) and that said 'Sprinters' (class 150s) are actually being used on routes where 150s are appropriate.

150s are (often?) the booked stock on services they really shouldn't be used on. For example, the Fishguard-Cardiff express boat train was booked for a 150 for many years under ATW - a class 175 would have been a massively more appropriate train for that working than the 150 but ATW just couldn't spare a 175 for it. So really the point should be something along the lines of: "Class 175s are not a good choice of unit for routes where a class 150 would be appropriate". It's the characteristics of the route that should be important, not what is currently working the route. Long-distance, limited-stop, services* are where the 175s would be a good fit.

* similar to the Swansea-Manchester route they currenly ply for TfW - it's just unfortunate that TfW don't have enough 175s to provide the necessary capacity on this route given the other similar routes in the franchise

They are not a long distance/intercity train, they're too short for long distance work and are I would say they're not reliable enough for long distance work away from a dedicated heavy maintenance depot either. However, they're still a very good regional express unit which is what they were built for in the first place, which is why they'd be a good replacement for Northern 155s, 156s and 158s; they'd be suitable for some current 150 diagrams too, like Clitheroe and Sheffield via Marple.

Manchester-South Wales is not really a traditional 'intercity' service as most people use the service for the multiple shorter journeys which are available en route, like Hereford-Cardiff/Shrewsbury, Manchester-Crewe/Shrewsbury, Newport/Cardiff-Swansea. I know there will be a fair number of Manchester-Cardiff passengers who use it, but it isn't the dominant journey and I doubt it compares with the number of Manchester-Birmingham & London passengers and probably not even with Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh.

 

[tbtc]

It's been said that maintainance is particularly critical for these units to prevent them from falling apart basically

This is the fundamental problem with these short and non-standard units - why would a TOC be so keen to be lumbered with such high maintenance trains that require significantly more TLC than other DMUs?

For example, we can talk about cascading 170s around the UK and nobody says “ah, but they’ll need a depot dedicated to them and a large team of Turbostar-specialists to maintain the fleet” (because these are normal DMUs with normal requirements)

I suspect that it’s only the doors that mean that the 175s have some supporters on threads like these (because that makes them a “proper” train in the eyes of the kind of people who’s personal comfort is more important than dwell times etc on Provincial routes)

Northern have already said they want to start phasing out Sprinters over the next few years, so 175s would be a suitable replacement for some of the Sprinters

I’m always sceptical of claims that a particular TOC “wants” a particular stock (or to be rid of a particular stock), since none of that matters any more, it’s all at the whims of the Government

Staff at some TOCs may “want” some of the growing number of modern EMUs sat idle in sidings but if our Westminster overlords won’t sign the cheques then it all amounts to nothing

TOC aspiration used to mean something but now they just merely comply with what their paymasters in London decide

The problem at Northern is that they promised the 195s for “flagship” routes (like fast Calder Valley services), as part of the aspirational Northern Connect brand, but now have a surplus of faster DMUs so that they’ve been using 158s/170s on stoppers they aren’t suited to

There’s a DMU shortage, but it’s a shortage of of fast accelerating wide central doored 150s geared for 75mph and suited for routes where top speed matters a lot less than coping with the stop/start nature of services with frequent stops

Adding 100mph end doored 175s to the fleet of end doored 156s/ 90mph end doored 158s/ 100mph 170s/ 100mph 195s would just mean more unsuitable stock trying to do the job of a humble 150 (on services where fast acceleration is more important than to speed, and wide central doors keep dwell times low)

You could take the swanky 195s and move them onto routes like Warrington Central but that’d be removing the only modern trains from a number of routes and putting trains like 158s on services which were intended to be high profile - can’t see that going down well with the elected representatives from Bradford etc

It’ll be unpopular to say but IMHO reliable 230/769s would have been much better as 150 replacements - it’s a real shame that those trains didn’t work properly

 

[Xavi]

The current 158/159 are bad enough at SWT with very long dwell times and a very unsuitable layout for the type of work they are used on.

Most customers would disagree. Dwell time is only of any significance at Basingstoke and Woking which are also served by 444s.

 

[Grumpy]

the kind of people who’s personal comfort is more important than dwell times etc on Provincial routes

What's wrong with that?

 

[Mikey C]

Sending the 175s to Chiltern Railways or Southern Rail would be a disaster. These railways use their fleets of 165/166/170/171/172 on busy services packed with commuters with frequent stops. So they really require 170/185 style trains with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions. So i do not think sending them to Chiltern Railways or Southern Rail would be good.

They would surely be replacements for the Chiltern loco hauled Mk3s though, so replacing end door stock operating on longer distance services with relatively few stops.

 

[Philip]

They would surely be replacements for the Chiltern loco hauled Mk3s though, so replacing end door stock operating on longer distance services with relatively few stops.

It seems likely that the Chiltern loco stock won't be replaced and even if it is then a handful of 170s would make more sense as these could be converted to 168s to create a more uniform fleet. It's pretty academic though because the LHCS will probably be withdrawn without replacement.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Sending them to SWT to replace the 158/159 would be an option too but not really ideal as SWT really needs a fleet of 170/185 style trains with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions. The current 158/159 are bad enough at SWT with very long dwell times and a very unsuitable layout for the type of work they are used on. So the 175s could be sent to SWT and would be a small improvement on the 158/159 but ideally they just need some new trains with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions.

No way. What SWR need to replace their 158s/159s (with the possible exception of the Romsey-Salisbury 'figure of six' services) is new 100mph bi-mode units similar to the 444s with single-width doors. Double doors should be a no-no on long-distance services (regardless of whether they are regional, regional express or InterCity servies) - if passengers are going to be on the train for a long time then seating space should not be sacrificed for dwell-times and standing room. The 175s would be ok as an interim 158/159 replacement if it wasn't for the fact that portion-working is involved.

Scotrail is an option too and is probably the second best option if Northern Rail do not take them. I think the 175s would be a great replacement for the 156/158 on the lines up to, Fort William, Kyle Of Lochalsh, Mallaig, Oban, Thurso, Wick, etc. Scotrail have a large fleet of 156/158 that really need replacing and are very unsuitable for these scenic routes so sending the 175s to Scotrail is a good option too i think.

ScotRail have ruined their 156s by fitting Ironing Board seating but what's wrong with the 158s for scenic lines? The 175s, being diesel-only, don't really fit with ScotRail's decarbonisation agenda and the West Highland uses portion working so the 175's lack of end gangways is not ideal.

They are not a long distance/intercity train, they're too short for long distance work and are I would say they're not reliable enough for long distance work away from a dedicated heavy maintenance depot either. However, they're still a very good regional express unit which is what they were built for in the first place, which is why they'd be a good replacement for Northern 155s, 156s and 158s; they'd be suitable for some current 150 diagrams too, like Clitheroe and Sheffield via Marple.

Manchester-South Wales is not really a traditional 'intercity' service as most people use the service for the multiple shorter journeys which are available en route, like Hereford-Cardiff/Shrewsbury, Manchester-Crewe/Shrewsbury, Newport/Cardiff-Swansea. I know there will be a fair number of Manchester-Cardiff passengers who use it, but it isn't the dominant journey and I doubt it compares with the number of Manchester-Birmingham & London passengers and probably not even with Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh.

I would agree that the class 175s are not 'InterCity' but to me 'Regional Express' is normally long-distance (InterCity is mostly LDHS (Long Distance High Speed) stock). Three hours from Aberystwyth to Birmingham is clearly a long-distance journey, but is certainly 'Regional Express' and not 'InterCity'. I agree that Northern probably has a number of routes where the 175s would be suitable, York-Blackpool perhaps?

I suspect that it’s only the doors that mean that the 175s have some supporters on threads like these (because that makes them a “proper” train in the eyes of the kind of people who’s personal comfort is more important than dwell times etc on Provincial routes)

The 175s have more legroom, more tables, more toilets and better window-alignment than stock which prioritises dwell times and standing room by fitting wider doors. Passenger comfort should absolutely be considered more important than dwell times and standing room, except on short-distance stopping services where the stops are so close together that the dwell times matter and some passengers making short hops might not mind standing. Nobody should be expected to stand for the 10+ minutes between stops on the 'express' part of regional express services, so the wide doors have zero benefit when the train is moving and the train is probably spending more time moving then 'dwelling' so the wide doors on 170s etc. are just a waste of space for the majority of the time.

The problem at Northern is that they promised the 195s for “flagship” routes (like fast Calder Valley services), as part of the aspirational Northern Connect brand, but now have a surplus of faster DMUs so that they’ve been using 158s/170s on stoppers they aren’t suited to

There’s a DMU shortage, but it’s a shortage of of fast accelerating wide central doored 150s geared for 75mph and suited for routes where top speed matters a lot less than coping with the stop/start nature of services with frequent stops

Adding 100mph end doored 175s to the fleet of end doored 156s/ 90mph end doored 158s/ 100mph 170s/ 100mph 195s would just mean more unsuitable stock trying to do the job of a humble 150 (on services where fast acceleration is more important than to speed, and wide central doors keep dwell times low)

You could take the swanky 195s and move them onto routes like Warrington Central but that’d be removing the only modern trains from a number of routes and putting trains like 158s on services which were intended to be high profile - can’t see that going down well with the elected representatives from Bradford etc

If I represented somewhere relevant I would be happy to see the back of 195s, with their ironing board seats and wide doors, on regional express services, provided the replacements were top-notch. The 175s would be a good fit although I think the seats might need repadding (I thought it would have been done at the TfW refresh, but I think I've seen some seats on refreshed units that still have the slipped padding and lump of metal with just the seat cover over it). Earmarking the 195s for 'flagship' routes was a big mistake in the first place.

It’ll be unpopular to say but IMHO reliable 230/769s would have been much better as 150 replacements - it’s a real shame that those trains didn’t work properly

It is indeed a shame that the 769s are so unreliable, and took much longer to create than Porterbrook claimed in their advertising. Before the 769's poor reliablity became clear, they would have been my prefered option to replace 150s and Pacers on the Cardiff Metro (since the diesel engines mean they could be introduced before electrification while the electric mode meant they could stick around after electrification).

They would surely be replacements for the Chiltern loco hauled Mk3s though, so replacing end door stock operating on longer distance services with relatively few stops.

There are only four Chiltern mark 3 plug-door sets though I think, so that uses eight 175/1s (running in pairs to create 6-car trains) to replace the mark 3 stock. I'm not sure how many of Chiltern's DMU-worked London-Birmingham/Oxford services have a similarly limited number of stops - if the fast services are quite frequent I suppose there might be scope to extend end-door operation beyond the current mark 3 workings with more 175s and release some 168s either for stoppers closer to London or for release to Northern/EMR etc. Otherwise Chiltern just doesn't have enough work for the whole 175 fleet and might as well keep the mark 3s and send the 175s elsewhere (like Northern or GWR - I know the latter is ditching the Castle sets anyway but there's still the Cardiff-Portsmouth with could really do with a reintroduction of regional express standard stock in 5-car formations which the 175s could be a good solution for) instead.

 

[D365]

That is why I suspect they may end up at GWR. Yes, it may have been a few years since any depots at GWR have done any work on very similar class 180 units, but if any of the expertise that was at the GWR Old Oak Common depot has moved over to say the Old Oak Common Hitachi depot or the depot where the Elizabeth line class 345 are stabled, then I suspect that they could end up at GWR, rather than Chiltern.

However, if that OOC expertise went to Wembley to the Chiltern depot to work om the LHS services, then you have there people that had passed knowledge of the similar class 180 units which would be perfect for the maintenance for the class 175 units.

I’m seriously confused by this. GWR diesels are based out of Reading and St Phillip’s Marsh, so I’m not sure what this speculation on staff movements is in aid of.

Class 175 units are not good replacements for sprinters. In fact a better replacement would be using the class 195 units in place of the sprinters at Northern.

This I agree with. The 195s are effectively a modern 150.

 

[RobShipway]

I’m seriously confused by this. GWR diesels are based out of Reading and St Phillip’s Marsh, so I’m not sure what this speculation on staff movements is in aid of.


This I agree with. The 195s are effectively a modern 150.

I believe that some of the staff that worked at OOC, who would have been doing maintenance on class 180 which are basically class 175 units with 125mph top speed, instead of 100mph where relocated to either Reading, Hitachi OOC depot or St Phillip's Marsh? So, with previously having experience with the class 180's, they would have knowledge of how to be maintaining the class 175 units.

 

[Energy]

I’m seriously confused by this. GWR diesels are based out of Reading and St Phillip’s Marsh, so I’m not sure what this speculation on staff movements is in aid of.

Indeed, I'm fairly sure OOC staff moved over to North Pole with the IEP contract. Hitachi will have no interest in 175 maintanence and North Pole is nowhere near where the 175s would operate.

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed, I'm fairly sure OOC staff moved over to North Pole with the IEP contract.

No TUPE on the Great Western contract. In contrast, there was a TUPE transfer on the East Coast side.

 

[Energy]

No TUPE on the Great Western contract. In contrast, there was a TUPE transfer on the East Coast side.

Odd. Were the staff made redundant then or transferred to Crossrail?

 

[12LDA28C]

There are only four Chiltern mark 3 plug-door sets though I think, so that uses eight 175/1s (running in pairs to create 6-car trains) to replace the mark 3 stock. I'm not sure how many of Chiltern's DMU-worked London-Birmingham/Oxford services have a similarly limited number of stops - if the fast services are quite frequent I suppose there might be scope to extend end-door operation beyond the current mark 3 workings with more 175s and release some 168s either for stoppers closer to London or for release to Northern/EMR etc. Otherwise Chiltern just doesn't have enough work for the whole 175 fleet and might as well keep the mark 3s and send the 175s elsewhere (like Northern or GWR - I know the latter is ditching the Castle sets anyway but there's still the Cardiff-Portsmouth with could really do with a reintroduction of regional express standard stock in 5-car formations which the 175s could be a good solution for) instead.

Class 168s are not suitable for local stopping services, indeed the whole reason for them being built circa 1998 onwards was to work fast 100mph limited-stop trains to Birmingham.

Given the severe shortage of stock which is ongoing right now at Chiltern, the sooner any additional stock arrives the better, waiting until the LHCS goes off-lease in 2024 would not be ideal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2022 ==

Sending the 175s to Chiltern Railways or Southern Rail would be a disaster. These railways use their fleets of 165/166/170/171/172 on busy services packed with commuters with frequent stops. So they really require 170/185 style trains with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions. So i do not think sending them to Chiltern Railways or Southern Rail would be good.

No 166s at Chiltern or Southern. And Chiltern's 'Mainline' services to Oxford and Birmingham are generally limited stop so 175s would be a reasonable fit.

 

[D365]

I believe that some of the staff that worked at OOC, who would have been doing maintenance on class 180 which are basically class 175 units with 125mph top speed, instead of 100mph where relocated to either Reading, Hitachi OOC depot or St Phillip's Marsh? So, with previously having experience with the class 180's, they would have knowledge of how to be maintaining the class 175 units.

But the staff are now busy with Hitachi and/or British Rail units.

 

[Prestige15]

EMR would be a sutible for the 175's on the Norwich - Liverpool routes. There is 27 sets (vs 26 158's) and probably have similar number of seats and the fact some are 3 cars, they can easily run as 5/6 cars between Liverpool - Nottingham, Which also could resulting more Turbostars running in multiples

 

[Bevan Price]

What passengers might prefer, and what Treasury/DfT will allow are completely different. If Class 350/2 have an uncertain future, then so have Class 175.
The likely future for both seems to be a long "holiday" in somewhere like Long Marston, or possible sale to somewhere in Eastern Europe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Albania presumably need a fleet for their rebuild, but I'd imagine they will stick with low platforms so won't want UK stock.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What passengers might prefer, and what Treasury/DfT will allow are completely different. If Class 350/2 have an uncertain future, then so have Class 175.

What about the Southern 313s? Surely they should go before a more-modern fleet like the 350s? Yes, if the Treasury/DfT can see a way to drop stock without replacement then (worryingly) they might well do so, but if it's a choice between axing the 313s XOR the 350s, wouldn't they axe the older units

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about the Southern 313s? Surely they should go before a more-modern fleet like the 350s? Yes, if the Treasury/DfT can see a way to drop stock without replacement then (worryingly) they might well do so, but if it's a choice between axing the 313s XOR the 350s, wouldn't they axe the older units

There's not much relevance between 313s and 350/2s, as the former are third rail* and the latter OHLE. Only the 350/1s had shoes.

DMUs (i.e. 175s) possibly have a less uncertain future (unless there's a son of Serpell on the way) because there's a massive shortage of them.

* OK, they have pantographs, but I don't think any run under the wires any more.

 

[bramling]

What about the Southern 313s? Surely they should go before a more-modern fleet like the 350s? Yes, if the Treasury/DfT can see a way to drop stock without replacement then (worryingly) they might well do so, but if it's a choice between axing the 313s XOR the 350s, wouldn't they axe the older units

The way things are going at the moment the DFT would seem to have no problem axing both. We already saw the 365s go before the Southern 313s because it was operationally expedient to do things that way.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The way things are going at the moment the DFT would seem to have no problem axing both. We already saw the 365s go before the Southern 313s because it was operationally expedient to do things that way.

True. The way things are going at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing closure notices going up like in the Beeching period.

 

[The Ham]

True. The way things are going at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing closure notices going up like in the Beeching period.

Rail use is currently (last 12 months, so includes December 21 when there were still things being cancelled due to Covid - such as office parties) comparable to 2009 in terms of rail use (1.2bn passengers), this is higher than anything seen in the 50's and 60's (0.8bn to 1.1bn) on a smaller network than was the case for much of that time.

Georg over the last year has been significant, as if we took the last quarter and applied it over the next three quarters it would have annual passenger numbers of 1.4bn (circa 2011), and that is likely to be lower than what is seen as the daily (since Covid) mode of travel data had seen growth appear to continue to trend upwards from Q2 of 2022/23.

Yes we're still behind 2019, but between 2009 and 2019 some inter regional rail travel grew by 75% (and I'm not sure if that's the highest at I've not looked at every case) and so even reaching 2015 passenger numbers would still get us to being the 15th busiest year out of 138 years (there's 12 of the last 150 which are during the world wars, so have no data).

 

[12LDA28C]

What passengers might prefer, and what Treasury/DfT will allow are completely different. If Class 350/2 have an uncertain future, then so have Class 175.
The likely future for both seems to be a long "holiday" in somewhere like Long Marston, or possible sale to somewhere in Eastern Europe.

Not sure about that. Chiltern have certainly expressed an interest in the 175s I believe.

 

[Philip]

Not sure about that. Chiltern have certainly expressed an interest in the 175s I believe.

That doesn't mean they're going to acquire them and besides the document where it mentioned 175s was from 2021, before the 'rail cuts scheme' really got going. If they were very keen and the DfT approved then it would have provably been announced by now.

The only way this would be logical is if Chiltern got rid of their 165 fleet so that the whole 175 fleet could be utilised, rather than a small handful replacing the LHCS (which probably won't be replaced anyway). However, I'd say it is unlikely at this stage that the 165s will leave and even if they did I'd say 170s from ScotRail (and possibly elsewhere) would be the logical replacement, as these could be converted to 168s, creating a uniform fleet.

 

[12LDA28C]

That doesn't mean they're going to acquire them and besides the document where it mentioned 175s was from 2021, before the 'rail cuts scheme' really got going. If they were very keen and the DfT approved then it would have provably been announced by now.

The only way this would be logical is if Chiltern got rid of their 165 fleet so that the whole 175 fleet could be utilised, rather than a small handful replacing the LHCS (which probably won't be replaced anyway). However, I'd say it is unlikely at this stage that the 165s will leave and even if they did I'd say 170s from ScotRail (and possibly elsewhere) would be the logical replacement, as these could be converted to 168s, creating a uniform fleet.

The 165s are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain parts for and maintain which is part of the reason why Chiltern are looking for new / replacement units.

 

[Philip]

The 165s are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain parts for and maintain which is part of the reason why Chiltern are looking for new / replacement units.

You could say the same thing for the 175s and 180s, both obtaining parts and maintaining them; 170s would be better as 165 cascade replacements, or Civities if they order a new fleet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could say the same thing for the 175s and 180s, both obtaining parts and maintaining them; 170s would be better as 165 cascade replacements, or Civities if they order a new fleet.

If Chiltern order new mechanical DMUs then the world really has gone mad. It needs electrifying.

The sensible choice is to put the issue off for 10 years or so by taking more recent spare DMUs e.g. 170/175 and removing some 165s and the LHCS, or to go bi-mode with batteries (so the engines aren't on inside London or Birmingham). I tend towards the former - now doesn't seem to be a good time for making long term choices on the railway, so I'd advocate the 175s.

 

[RailWonderer]

That doesn't mean they're going to acquire them and besides the document where it mentioned 175s was from 2021, before the 'rail cuts scheme' really got going. If they were very keen and the DfT approved then it would have provably been announced by now.

The only way this would be logical is if Chiltern got rid of their 165 fleet so that the whole 175 fleet could be utilised, rather than a small handful replacing the LHCS (which probably won't be replaced anyway). However, I'd say it is unlikely at this stage that the 165s will leave and even if they did I'd say 170s from ScotRail (and possibly elsewhere) would be the logical replacement, as these could be converted to 168s, creating a uniform fleet.

Scotrail will not be getting rid of any more 170s, they always wishfully think they will get more electrification but they won't anytime soon. The Corby electrification and the debacle of the GWR scheme left a bitter taste in the DafT's mouth.

If Chiltern order new mechanical DMUs then the world really has gone mad. It needs electrifying.

The sensible choice is to put the issue off for 10 years or so by taking more recent spare DMUs e.g. 170/175 and removing some 165s and the LHCS, or to go bi-mode with batteries (so the engines aren't on inside London or Birmingham). I tend towards the former - now doesn't seem to be a good time for making long term choices on the railway, so I'd advocate the 175s.

The Chiltern line should be, but is not on the priority list for electrification. I agree on the 175s being an interrim because they can last until the line gets electrification and brand new EMUs in 15-20 years time.

 

[Philip]

If Chiltern order new mechanical DMUs then the world really has gone mad. It needs electrifying.

The sensible choice is to put the issue off for 10 years or so by taking more recent spare DMUs e.g. 170/175 and removing some 165s and the LHCS, or to go bi-mode with batteries (so the engines aren't on inside London or Birmingham). I tend towards the former - now doesn't seem to be a good time for making long term choices on the railway, so I'd advocate the 175s.

Removing 165s and replacing with 175s doesn't make sense either if the reason is for obtaining parts and easier maintenance, the latter will be even more difficult.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Removing 165s and replacing with 175s doesn't make sense either if the reason is for obtaining parts and easier maintenance, the latter will be even more difficult.

Why?