Class 175 future speculation

[zwk500]

EMR serve Cleethorpes which isn't that far from Hull.

In the same way Dover isn't that far from France.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Northern have lots of old diesel stock which needs replacing. There may well be a plan to replace them with new units for the long term, but this won't be for a good few years so there's a case for more modern and less polluting 175s replacing the 155s and 156s until the new stock arrives.

Are you proposing using 11 2 cars and 16 3 cars to replace 7 155s and 66 156s?

 

[Energy]

Maybe not as the crow flies but over 70 miles by train so it is way too far before the multiple other reasons

No obstacles in the way

 

[Philip]

The DfT aim to run train services as well as possible within the budget set by the treasury, not to keep the 175s in work.

Northern have plans for new rolling stock to replace sprinters, why would the DfT spend cash on training staff, sorting maintanence and leasing the 175s just for them to be replaced a few years later?

You can make the same arguments against Chiltern taking them on, but this seems to be flavour of the month here despite the fact that only a handful of the fleet would be utilized, which is an inefficient use of stock. Northern could utilize the whole fleet and get rid of some Sprinters or the small fleet of 170s - and in the latter scenario these 170s could then replace Chiltern's LHCS I don't see why that is a particularly illogical solution if DfT decides not to scrap 175s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2023 ==

In your opinion.

Wonder what @Neptune would say...

I've seen what this poster has said numerous times, but as it stands the future of these units is still up in the air to us and until there is public official confirmation, still open to debate and speculation.

 

[Wolfie]

In your opinion.

Wonder what @Neptune would say...

Actually starting to feel like an obsession to be shoe-horned into any vaguely relevant thread.

 

[Philip]

Actually starting to feel like an obsession to be shoe-horned into any vaguely relevant thread.

You'll find I keep these suggestions to this particular thread, as it is the thread for speculation on future 175 use.

There would be uproar if someone suggested sending the 185s or Voyagers for scrap instead of finding good use for them at Northern (or whoever); the 175s are of a similar era and if the maintenance/reliability problems could be sorted then it would be a waste of good quality trains in scrapping them.

 

[skyhigh]

I've seen what this poster has said numerous times, but as it stands the future of these units is still up in the air to us and until there is public official confirmation, still open to debate and speculation.

There's debate and reasonable speculation. Then there's fantasy. A lot of your ideas are the latter. You don't help yourself by making yourself look silly with comments such as "it's not far from Cleethorpes to Hull".

When it comes to Northern:
They have just spent a lot of money making a purpose built depot for 170s
They did this because Neville Hill was over capacity.

Now you're suggesting giving the 170s to another operator but keeping them based at Hull. So where will the 175s be based? As Botanic Gardens and Neville Hill will be full...

And that's not to mention the investment in support for 170s i.e. the purpose designed Aircon unit overhaul line that Northern now have on site.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

So where would the 175s be based? As Botanic Gardens and Neville Hill will be full...

Longsight?

 

[Neptune]

No I’m sorry but claiming that Cleethorpes is close to Hull ignoring the lack of rail connection and the huge expanse of water called the Humber that are in the way prove to me that this is a thread that is simply not worth bothering with.

I’ve said what I have on the subject and given all the relevant information that I am able to and I’ve basically been told I don’t know my job and that this posters ideas are actually nearer the mark of what should/will happen than what is actually happening (tell me again what your job is in Northern planning please Philip, you can pop across and shadow me for the day if you wish, then you’ll never bring the subject of 175’s at Northern up ever again, I guarantee it).

I’m just sick of the headaches from banging my head against the wall.

Put it this way, I shall never stick my neck out ever again on here regards information on Northern’s new fleet proposals. Everyone can now wait for the press releases like everyone else.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

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?

Exactly this!

 

[Energy]

Put it this way, I shall never stick my neck out ever again on here regards information on Northern’s new fleet proposals. Everyone can now wait for the press releases like everyone else.

Shame, the knowledge of what Northern were actually doing was useful. Out of interest (if you're still watching the thread after all this) what are the rough timescales to expect a tender?

 

[Philip]

No I’m sorry but claiming that Cleethorpes is close to Hull ignoring the lack of rail connection and the huge expanse of water called the Humber that are in the way prove to me that this is a thread that is simply not worth bothering with.

I'll admit this was a mistake on my part and I should have looked at the map before posting. The point I'm making is that, hypothetically, even if Northern's 170s went elsewhere and the 175s replaced them, Hull depot could still fulfill its role as a 170 depot on behalf of EMR, if for example the first and last Hull-Sheffield services were formed of EMR 170s (worked by Northern crew).

I’ve said what I have on the subject and given all the relevant information that I am able to and I’ve basically been told I don’t know my job and that this posters ideas are actually nearer the mark of what should/will happen than what is actually happening (tell me again what your job is in Northern planning please Philip, you can pop across and shadow me for the day if you wish, then you’ll never bring the subject of 175’s at Northern up ever again, I guarantee it).

I’m just sick of the headaches from banging my head against the wall.

Put it this way, I shall never stick my neck out ever again on here regards information on Northern’s new fleet proposals. Everyone can now wait for the press releases like everyone else.

Northern's plans are not in the public domain though, so why say anything in the first place? The DfT/Angel Trains could decide tomorrow that they'll send the 175s to Northern and Northern would have to accept the units and begin making plans to accomodate them, even if they're currently not planning to take them on. This is why the information is not in the public domain, because the DfT haven't publically decided which TOC will operate these units next.

Until this point I don't see why we can't speculate and give reasons why they may be a good fit for Northern work.

 

[Energy]

Northern's plans are not in the public domain though, so why say anything in the first place?

Because Neptune obviously has inside knowledge and can share what Northern's plans are.

The DfT/Angel Trains could decide tomorrow that they'll send the 175s to Northern and Northern would have to accept the units and begin making plans to accomodate them, even if they're currently not planning to take them on.

They could, but they won't.

The DfT structure now is TOCs are either under OLR or under management contracts which are rewarded when the company does what the DfT wants. Northern wouldn't start making plans for a new fleet without DfT support. The DfT will have instructed Northern (or approved Northern's suggestion) to investigate the cost of new rolling stock and come up with a business case before the DfT decide whether to sign off on it.

Part of that will be coming up with a tender to put out to manufacturers, the tender will be what works for Northern but they'll likely have a bidder which they expect to do well. Going by what @Neptune has said previously Northern are currently in that stage with Northern likely opting for bimode (or battery) units. Once they have received bids from manufacturers they'll write up the business case and give it to the DfT who get the final say.

Its possible that a new fleet comes up cheaper if spares for the existing fleet are hard to come by (see Networkers) or you can switch to battery or EMUs will require less maintenance and are cheaper to run, in which case you can be very sure that it will get sign off. What will likely happen is that the new fleet will cost more and will be covered by increased passenger numbers, fare increases or subsidy increases. For the former the DfT and the treasury will consider a risk that passenger numbers do not increase and for the latter the treasury would consider whether new trains will increase the economy.

They will have considered the 175s and how they would fit within Northern's operations, and will have found that they do not fit well. The DfT will not waste money on the 175s giving them to an operator in which they don't fit and spending the money on maintenance facilities and staff training.

 

[InkyScrolls]

No I’m sorry but claiming that Cleethorpes is close to Hull ignoring the lack of rail connection and the huge expanse of water called the Humber that are in the way prove to me that this is a thread that is simply not worth bothering with.

I’ve said what I have on the subject and given all the relevant information that I am able to and I’ve basically been told I don’t know my job and that this posters ideas are actually nearer the mark of what should/will happen than what is actually happening (tell me again what your job is in Northern planning please Philip, you can pop across and shadow me for the day if you wish, then you’ll never bring the subject of 175’s at Northern up ever again, I guarantee it).

I’m just sick of the headaches from banging my head against the wall.

Put it this way, I shall never stick my neck out ever again on here regards information on Northern’s new fleet proposals. Everyone can now wait for the press releases like everyone else.

I don't blame you - and thank you for all the actual information you have given us!

 

[vicbury]

Well I never said they would necessarily maintane them brilliantly, my point was that if taken care of there's nothing inherently wrong with them.

Given their history of 'thermal incidents', I'm not sure I'd particularly welcome travelling on them through the Severn Tunnel! Could Network Rail refuse to allow them through?

 

[Rhydgaled]

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

As others have said, many Sprinters are expected to last at least 40 years in service, as IC125s (albeit with replacement MTU/VP185 engines). While perhaps the internal combustion engine itself doesn't last for the whole life of the train the bodyshell presumably is where most of the energy used to build the train (producing steel/aluminium) is required. It is also the bodyshell which I consider to have a 35-40 year life, at least. I do have a couple of 'citations' to back me up on this:

• Porterbrook (paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 refer to an asset life of circa 35 years) https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/13912/html/
• British Railways Board (table 35, https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoTBRB_Electrification1981.pdf lists various types of stock with projected lives of 25-40 years)

Additionally, I seem to recall an EMU order sometime in the last 10-15 years (I have a feeling it was either the 707s or 777s, but I can't find the quote) which came with a 40 year maintenance contract.

 

[Anonymous10]

Given their history of 'thermal incidents', I'm not sure I'd particularly welcome travelling on them through the Severn Tunnel! Could Network Rail refuse to allow them through?

I mean that's if correctly maintained they are fairly good. They even seemed to have really settled down until caf subcontracted it out further.

 

[Wolfie]

As others have said, many Sprinters are expected to last at least 40 years in service, as IC125s (albeit with replacement MTU/VP185 engines). While perhaps the internal combustion engine itself doesn't last for the whole life of the train the bodyshell presumably is where most of the energy used to build the train (producing steel/aluminium) is required. It is also the bodyshell which I consider to have a 35-40 year life, at least. I do have a couple of 'citations' to back me up on this:

• Porterbrook (paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 refer to an asset life of circa 35 years) https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/13912/html/
• British Railways Board (table 35, https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoTBRB_Electrification1981.pdf lists various types of stock with projected lives of 25-40 years)

Additionally, I seem to recall an EMU order sometime in the last 10-15 years (I have a feeling it was either the 707s or 777s, but I can't find the quote) which came with a 40 year maintenance contract.

Re your last para l wonder if that was an attempt to avoid the spares issues which have bedevilled the Networker DMUs of late?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2023 ==

I mean that's if incorrectly maintained they are fairly good. They even seemed to have really settled down until caf subcontracted it out further.

Methinks that you have a superfluous "in" which very definitely changes the meaning lol....

 

[Anonymous10]

Re your last para l wonder if that was an attempt to avoid the spares issues which have bedevilled the Networker DMUs of late?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2023 ==


Methinks that you have a superfluous "in" which very definitely changes the meaning lol....

Indeed I did teaches me not to type on My phone while discussing a movie. Now edited

 

[liamf656]

In the same way Dover isn't that far from France.

This one made me laugh

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2023 ==

Exactly this!

Don’t encourage him!!

 

[Caaardiff]

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:73554/2023-06-30/detailed

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:73608/2023-06-30/detailed

Reports this is 175104 that has now gone into off lease storage at Holyhead and 175112 moving to Chester for repairs.

I make that....
175002 (Landore)
175004 (Landore)
175005 (Landore)
175006 (Landore)
175007 (Landore)
175008 (Moved by road - reformed with other damaged part of 101)
175011 (Crewe Gresty)

175104 (Holyhead)
175106 (Holyhead)

175001 is stored at Holyhead but still with TFW, probably waiting end of lease works.

 

[317 forever]

I think a reason was given some months ago about why they should not replace EMR 158s.

 

[tomm]

Is it a possibility all 2 car 175s heading to Chiltern end of this summer.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Is it a possibility all 2 car 175s heading to Chiltern end of this summer.

They’re going somewhere. Where exactly though, is yet to be confirmed.

A driver told me yesterday he’d heard 2 cars to Chiltern end of August and 3 cars to Great Western by the end of the year, but that could be all sorts of depot wibble. All I can say is, if it is Chiltern they’ll need to pair them up.

There is of course all of the speculation of their future in a designated discussion, but now that it’s been confirmed internally that the 175/0s have an imminent transfer, I really want to know what’s actually happening. Hoping very much for an update soon.

 

[JonathanH]

All I can say is, if it is Chiltern they’ll need to pair them up.

11 2-car 175s wouldn't provide a lot of capacity if the desire was to bin off the locomotive hauled sets. I guess that forming them in three triplets could just about do it.

3 cars to Great Western by the end of the year

In contrast, 48 carriages to GWR seems like overkill, given there was already a credible plan to eliminate the HSTs using the existing fleet, and the pressure at GWR seems to have been to avoid the need for the huge training effort a new fleet would represent.

As you say.

Hoping very much for an update soon.

 

[Xavi]

48 carriages to GWR seems like overkill

GWR shortforming many services each day despite remaining Castle diagrams. Does not mean 175 transfer will happen though.

 

[43096]

A driver told me yesterday he’d heard 2 cars to Chiltern end of August and 3 cars to Great Western by the end of the year, but that could be all sorts of depot wibble. All I can say is, if it is Chiltern they’ll need to pair them up.

Because drivers obviously know what the owning company is doing with them...

 

[Jez]

If they went to GWR which route would they use them on? If it was the Portsmouth to Cardiff's would 3 carriages not be a step backwards as most are 4 or 5 carriages now? They are suitable for the route however, much better than the 165's that are used on most of them now.

 

[JonathanH]

If they went to GWR which route would they use them on? If it was the Portsmouth to Cardiff's would 3 carriages not be a step backwards as most are 4 or 5 carriages now?

Previous changes have indicated that GWR have wanted Fratton traincrew not to lose knowledge of 158s and 166s so a total takeover by 175s wouldn't be easy. I don't think they are able to run 6-car on the route. It doesn't appear at first sight to ring true with previous discussions.

They are suitable for the route however, much better than the 165's that are used on most of them now.

A 3-car 175 might provide more comfort to people who get a seat than a 3-car 166, but fewer people are able to sit down.

The 'no one sits in the middle seat' cliche doesn't apply when there is crush loading.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If they went to GWR which route would they use them on? If it was the Portsmouth to Cardiff's would 3 carriages not be a step backwards as most are 4 or 5 carriages now? They are suitable for the route however, much better than the 165's that are used on most of them now.

If you can couple 16x, why can’t you couple 175s?
Anyway, they’re not mostly 5s. There’s only one 5 diagram per day to allow for MetroWest enhancements. Good for Bristol Salisbury, doesn’t do a lot for those in the extremities which don’t get more trains, just shorter ones.

I’d imagine they’d replace HST diagram routes anyway, as the originally planned 80x unfortunately have awful availability, and if what I’ve heard is correct, not-ideal gears.