Class 175 future speculation

[Iskra]

I’ve been through it in this thread and others before. I can only say so much but Northern are getting together a business plan to replace the 15x fleet by 2030 and have got the expressions of interest in
from manufacturers of bi-mode units. That’s all I can say at this time.

They are just for the 15x replacement so no speculating on replacing 323’s (that plan is still going ahead for 17 WMT units to replace the 319’s) or 333’s. 175’s aren’t coming nor are anyone else’s 158’s as it stands.

Yes things can change but that is the current status quo and any speculation to the contrary is totally futile.

Thank you. It is comforting to know that there is a plan and that preliminary action is being taken to replace such a large fleet

 

[12LDA28C]

Could GWR then take the 165s from Chiltern (i’ve not heard they are struggling with parts like Chiltern)

They are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are.

Presumably whoever keeps a 165 fleet could improve the parts situation by treating the remaining units as Christmas trees, if the ROSCO is willing to do that (and I can't see why they wouldn't be, there's no other obvious home for them).

 

[Wolfie]

Presumably whoever keeps a 165 fleet could improve the parts situation by treating the remaining units as Christmas trees, if the ROSCO is willing to do that (and I can't see why they wouldn't be, there's no other obvious home for them).

Are the 165s (and indeed 166s) all owned by the same ROSCO?

 

[12LDA28C]

Are the 165s (and indeed 166s) all owned by the same ROSCO?

Yes, I believe Angel Trains

 

[Wolfie]

Yes, I believe Angel Trains

TY

 

[Rhydgaled]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with 195s

No, but that poster is (reasonably enough) aggrieved that they don't even have a bare-minimum passive provision for conversion to bi-mode or electric-only operation in the future.

I can understand why it didn't happen with the 195s, and why it hasn't happened on 196s and 197s, and I'm nowhere near as vocal about it, but I do share the disappointment that it sets us up for either running them under wires for years or binning them off early while there's still life left in the bodies.

XAM2175 is correct - the CAF Civity UK DMUs mean we are highly likely to either fail to decarbonise the UK rail network or scrap them while there's still life left in the bodies (which itself isn't a very enviromentally friendly course of action and the reason why I think we should be making use of stock like the 175s rather than scrapping them and building new diesels to replace them).

I tend to think that the existence of stock such as 195/196/197 means we should really be avoiding hydrogen/battery/bionic duckweed between now and 2050. Presumably in 10 years from now we will have a proper idea of what self powered is going to mean, very long term.

We already have a reasonably good idea of what the industry thinks a 'decarbonised' UK rail network would look like in 2050: Network Rail's Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS). The existence of the 'Cavity Abominations' (and Eversholt's 10x 3-car hydrogen Aventras, which as far as I know have no provision for a pantograph) means some of the additional electrification recommended in that report would not be utilsed (everything would be burning diesel (or hydrogen in the case of the Aventras) under the wires) for many years unless stock was scrapped with plenty of life left in the bodies. What we really need to be avoiding between now and 2050 (and should already have been avoiding since 2010) is building any new trains that are not equipped with a fully-functional pantograph (unless there are capable of having a pantograph added easily, as I believe is the case with the 707s).

In the meantime we have a fleet of diesel units we wouldn't have got if the DfT had thought about the very long term questions now.

Exactly; the 195s, 196s and 197s were the result of only thinking about the short-term and were not a future-proofed idea and the fact that we have them now has put us in a very difficult position.

As the 195/6/7 family are all DMMU and not DEMU, I don't think it would be a simple process to convert them to electric units, because the whole drivetrain would need to be changed.

Exactly, and their bodyshells have a lifespan stretching beyond the 2050 net-zero target, which I believe is legally binding. To steer us back on-topic, the class 175s have the advantage (compared to the Civities) that they will be 40 years old (and therefore life-expired) around 2040, neatly going out of service exactly when we should be switching on some more wires.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I read their question as on the 150/0s being particularly useful for the Penistone line.

The platform extensions that were done a few years ago were for 60m (3x20m) formations. You can argue the sense of that decision given that no 20m DMUs have been built since the 150s, and are unlikely to be in the future given the space requirements for things like exhaust treatment and the like, but we are where we are. Any future fleet for the route will mean either a capacity drop, or additional spending on further platform extensions.

 

[D365]

Exactly, and their bodyshells have a lifespan stretching beyond the 2050 net-zero target, which I believe is legally binding. To steer us back on-topic, the class 175s have the advantage (compared to the Civities) that they will be 40 years old (and therefore life-expired) around 2040, neatly going out of service exactly when we should be switching on some more wires.

What’s your citation for the planned/expected lifespans? Diesel multiple units, traditionally, are designed for a 30 year lifespan.

 

[Philip]

As a potential future operator, what are the odds of ScotRail taking on the fleet? They'll need to replace their HSTs soon and they also have Sprinter stock which 175s could replace on a short term basis until new units are built.

It seems unlikely that 175s will be used for any purpose in the Chilterns other than replacing LHCS; new-build units more likely for replacing 165s, 168s staying where they are and EWR will be using 196s. This will leave a lot of redundant 175 stock as you'd probably only need about 10 or 11 for the LHCS replacement.

 

[stevieinselby]

What’s your citation for the planned/expected lifespans? Diesel multiple units, traditionally, are designed for a 30 year lifespan.

Pacers were in service for about 35 years, and would have been kept running for longer if it wasn't for them falling foul of accessibility legislation.
Sprinters have been in service for 39 years and counting, and there's no sign of them disappearing imminently.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

and there's no sign of them disappearing imminently.

Northern are looking to have theirs gone by 2030, TfW are replacing theirs with their new trains (except like 12 153s) although GWR, EMR, LNWR (who don't even have theirs yet) and SWR don't seem to have plans in place.

 

[stevieinselby]

Northern are looking to have theirs gone by 2030, TfW are replacing theirs with their new trains (except like 12 153s) although GWR, EMR, LNWR (who don't even have theirs yet) and SWR don't seem to have plans in place.

I don't count 7 years away as "imminently" ... that could leave them running in service for ~45 years, which is well outside the 30 year lifespan that D365 was suggesting!

 

[Bletchleyite]

30-50 years does seem the norm, but there's no specific reason it has to be, you can keep a train going forever if you want, it just depends on the point when it becomes uneconomic.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I don't count 7 years away as "imminently"

Well we can't just throw the sprinters in a pit and be almost 500 passenger trains down.
There's gonna be a wait.

 

[Anonymous10]

I don't count 7 years away as "imminently" ... that could leave them running in service for ~45 years, which is well outside the 30 year lifespan that D365 was suggesting!

What's your definition of imminent? In terms of fleets I'd say about 5 years

 

[stevieinselby]

What's your definition of imminent? In terms of fleets I'd say about 5 years

I was replying to a post that said DMUs are designed for a 30-year lifespan, but pointing out that the class 150s have already been on the tracks for 39 years and have got several more years to go before they're replaced, which means they will be about 45 years old by the time they are retired, that's all I meant.

 

[12LDA28C]

As a potential future operator, what are the odds of ScotRail taking on the fleet? They'll need to replace their HSTs soon and they also have Sprinter stock which 175s could replace on a short term basis until new units are built.

ScotRail are strongly rumoured to be getting the 222s so very unlikely they will take the 175s as well.

 

[D365]

I was replying to a post that said DMUs are designed for a 30-year lifespan, but pointing out that the class 150s have already been on the tracks for 39 years and have got several more years to go before they're replaced, which means they will be about 45 years old by the time they are retired, that's all I meant.

You're talking about two different things.

 

[warwickshire]

Is Transpennie Express possible at all, for ex TFW 175 to move to. Ie to possible to replace the Class 68s and Mk5s, as it has been mentioned elsewhere that in another thread on here that Transpennie Express want rid of them. Or rumours to be. Throwing a long pun in here, but could they go to Transpennie Express and still be maintained at Longsight instead of the 68s and Mk5s. Is this a possibility. 175 to Transpennie Express maybe????.

 

[skyhigh]

Is Transpennie Express possible at all, for ex TFW 175 to move to. Ie to possible to replace the Class 68s and Mk5s, as it has been mentioned elsewhere that in another thread on here that Transpennie Express want rid of them. Or rumours to be. Throwing a long pun in here, but could they go to Transpennie Express and still be maintained at Longsight instead of the 68s and Mk5s. Is this a possibility. 175 to Transpennie Express maybe????.

Not a chance.

 

[Philip]

TPE will probably get more Azumas to replace the LHCS.

As has been speculated for a long time, the most likely future for 175s is Northern, either based at Longsight or Heaton as a short term replacement for some of the Sprinters until the new-build hybrid stock arrives, with a small handful possibly going to Chiltern to replace their LHCS.

 

[Nym]

Point of note, they're WoE IETs that are used by TPE. "Azuma" is a dumb brand produced by Virgin / EC Trains.

 

[JonathanH]

TPE will probably get more Azumas to replace the LHCS.

Who is paying?

As has been speculated for a long time, the most likely future for 175s is the majority going to Northern either based at Longsight or Heaton as a short term replacement for some Sprinters until new-build hybrid stock arrives, with a small handful possibly going to Chiltern to replace their LHCS.

Speculation doesn't equal fact, and other posters (eg 'Neptune' who appears to be on the inside) have confirmed multiple times in this thread that 175s aren't going to Northern.

Which bit of the following two posts supports the idea that it is worth speculating about a future for 175s at Northern?

We’ve been over this before and now it’s back using a speculative post to bring the ‘idea’ back up in this speculative post.

It won’t happen because Northern, as mentioned numerous times, have a 15x replacement plan in place which includes the North East fleet.

Also there aren’t enough 175’s for the NE services as it stands now and made worse due to the uplift with the Durham Coast fasts (now happening in Dec 23 due to Hartlepool not being ready) and Ashington in the future.

Finally as mentioned elsewhere the 180’s are being replaced by ex AWC 221’s.

It’s like bloody Groundhog Day on here. The very second Northern gets mentioned yet again, everyone decides that Heaton, no Longsight, no Newton Heath is the ultimate place for them (despite the fact that I’ve already explained the fleet plan as far as I am permitted which doesn’t involve 175’s).

Seriously this is a speculation thread and I’ve already debunked any speculation regarding 175’s and Northern so now it’s flying off into an ‘ignore the reality of the speculation’ thread.

 

[Philip]

Who is paying?

Probablt the same people who paid for the initial order I would guess.

Speculation doesn't equal fact, and other posters (eg 'Neptune' who appears to be on the inside) have confirmed multiple times in this thread that 175s aren't going to Northern.

Even those on the inside don't necessarily know the plans the DfT or ROSCO have for a fleet of trains. The Northern MD might declare in meetings that there are no plans for taking on a particular fleet, but further behind the scenes within the DfT, it could be a different story. From a logical point of view, I think a Northern/Chiltern split makes the most sense because of the reasons outlined.

An aternative which I've mentioned before, to avoid splitting the fleet, would be to send all 175s to Northern and for Northern's 170s to go to Chiltern for conversion to 168s and LHCS replacement. Perhaps the 170 depot at Hull could still be used to maintain some of EMR's 170s?

 

[zwk500]

Even those on the inside don't necessarily know the plans the DfT or ROSCO have for a fleet of trains. The Northern MD might declare in meetings that there are no plans for taking on a particular fleet, but further behind the scenes within the DfT, it could be a different story. From a logical point of view, I think a Northern/Chiltern split makes the most sense because of the reasons outlined.

People on the inside are likely to have a better idea than those who are outside, though. The railway grapevine is extremely efficient.

 

[Neptune]

Even those on the inside don't necessarily know the plans the DfT or ROSCO have for a fleet of trains.

I guarantee I know the plans better than the DfT and ROSCO’s.

The Northern MD might declare in meetings that there are no plans for taking on a particular fleet,

Nick isn’t directly involved in fleet procurement so declares nothing in meetings as he isn’t there. As you would expect, one of his direct reports is involved.

but further behind the scenes within the DfT, it could be a different story. From a logical point of view, I think a Northern/Chiltern split makes the most sense because of the reasons outlined.

No it doesn’t. What you think and the reality of the railway business are 2 very different things as has been highlighted across many threads.

An aternative which I've mentioned before, to avoid splitting the fleet, would be to send all 175s to Northern and for Northern's 170s to go to Chiltern for conversion to 168s and LHCS replacement.

Sleep, eat, debunk, repeat.

Perhaps the 170 depot at Hull could still be used to maintain some of EMR's 170s?

Seriously? Which EMR 170’s go near Hull and why are you loading capacity issues back onto Neville Hill as a result.

You really need to digest what is explained to you about how Northern’s fleet operations run before making ridiculous repeated arguments and now ridiculous ideas about maintaining someone else’s units that go nowhere near our depot whilst loading issues onto another of our depots, just to get your beloved 175’s to Northern.

 

[43102EMR]

TPE will probably get more Azumas to replace the LHCS.

TPE aren’t replacing the LHCS.

 

[3RDGEN]

If you exclude Scotrail who say they don't want anymore secondhand trains there's only Northern, EMR, Chiltern & GWR who have second generation diesel fleets that could need a short-term replacement to buy some time until the next generation fleets arrive.

Northern - Too many fleets already, shame as you could give the maintenance problem back to Alstom at Crofton.

EMR - The fleet sizes match up well and you can choose between 27 * 2 up to 11 * 2 and 16 *3 allowing the Liverpool - Nott - Norwich services to be strengthened. Like for like replacement train with Nottingham taking on the maintenance, issues with differential speed restrictions have been raised previously. The released 158's could be used for internal cascades within Northern / GWR to replace some 15x's.

Chiltern - Replace the LHCS and cascade 168's to replace some 165's but not the full fleet so Chiltern get another fleet to worry about. 165's to scrap or GWR for 150 replacement / extra capacity.

GWR - Cardiff to Portsmouth and associated services, far more suitable than 16x on that route and again an internal cascade see's
150 replacement / extra capacity.

The above options see some second generation units withdrawn in the next couple of years, allow some capacity increases and improve the passenger environment. Problem is the cost of training / route clearance / leasing charges and operating costs. The big question is do the DfT want cascades like these with the costs involved, same goes for the TfW 158's, or are they going to wait for the next generation units to arrive?

 

[Anvil1984]

Northern - Too many fleets already, shame as you could give the maintenance problem back to Alstom at Crofton.

EMR - The fleet sizes match up well and you can choose between 27 * 2 up to 11 * 2 and 16 *3 allowing the Liverpool - Nott - Norwich services to be strengthened. Like for like replacement train with Nottingham taking on the maintenance, issues with differential speed restrictions have been raised previously. The released 158's could be used for internal cascades within Northern / GWR to replace some 15x's.

I believe Neptune has said that Northern aren’t planning on Northern taking on 158s cascaded from other TOCs, which is a shame as I’d rather see a bunch of those in the North East rather in the interim than the 175s or running the 156s into the ground for another 7 years