Class 175 future speculation

[JonathanH]

I wonder if the TOC that signed for them and then pulled out could be Northern, that'd add up.

That would be at odds with the informed postings about them not going to Northern, such as this one - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-175-future-speculation.218095/page-44#post-6405754

 

[The Prisoner]

As per my post earlier this will be a simple equation for Angel:

Scrap: weight of each carriage is approx 60 tonnes. The value of end of life used cars is £130 per ton (https://www.a1groupuk.com/waste-management/commercial-services/metal-recycling/metal-prices). Would imagine trains have a slightly higher metal concentration due to the larger body shells, so let's say £200/ton - that puts a 175/0 at £12k scrap value and a 175/1 at £18k. Might be more or less, but not going to be a huge amount more.

Store: Cost to warm store has to be a grand at least per unit per month as they will need starting etc. and some token security and other costs.

So let's just say 1k per unit per month is the right money to store (think it could be more) Angel won't hold on to them for long as storing for a year would zero their overall worth to the balance sheet, whereas they could scrap for over £400k back in the coffers right now.

Those figures could be higher or lower in reality, but the fact that "Lease or Disposal" is on their pdf (and of course as I mentioned earlier disposal could be sale overseas) means that the razor blade option is a very big reality.

I think those assumptions are backed up by the ongoing class 156 auction for a unit in good working order for £50k https://apex-group.com/auction#!/auctionDetails/6436 where I dare say the scrap price is roughly the 12k a 175/0 would be cut up for.

The class 365s sum up this argument better than I could - if there are no takers (due to DfT or otherwise) better to scrap and take the money than keep a cost bleeding liability on the books parked up in a siding.

Shame as the units are excellent, but if there is no room at the inn you will be reusing them as Wilkinsons Sword or Gillette within 12 months

 

[warwickshire]

Would love to know which TOC it was that allegedly signed for them but then it seems withdrew, and why. Suspect we'll never know though.

Possible Chiltern, hence other post about md and rail express, from op ref 1487, mentioned way back, on here about a tender proposal in writing for them, it's possible due to the Mk5 now available from transpennie express, they might well get them, noise issues permitting as, traction conversion and traction refreshers will be easier than, new training for 175.
But only again pure speculation.
But same could be possible for other tocs.

 

[Wolfie]

There are plenty of logical homes for them - the DfT just won't pay. They'd not be long-term homes, but would be a 5-10 year lease while other new stock is procured, which as we know takes a very long time.

Northern: to remove some 15x by cascade
GWR: as Northern
Chiltern: to remove some 165s by cascade
ScotRail: to replace HSTs

All of those are feasible. The DfT just won't fund them as the status quo is cheaper.

DfT might, just might, agree if the existing stock was also supplied by Angel and there was no/minimal cost to change. There are scenarios where that might suit Angel.

Not sure what DfT have to do with ScotRail though....

 

[BayPaul]

There are plenty of logical homes for them - the DfT just won't pay. They'd not be long-term homes, but would be a 5-10 year lease while other new stock is procured, which as we know takes a very long time.

Northern: to remove some 15x by cascade
GWR: as Northern
Chiltern: to remove some 165s by cascade
ScotRail: to replace HSTs

All of those are feasible. The DfT just won't fund them as the status quo is cheaper.

I'm all for criticising the DfT, but I disagree here. If the DfT had a big pot of money for these TOCs, why spend it on 175s? Much better to buy CAF bi-modes for Northern for example, saving on training, and giving a fleet that is fit for the long term, rather than a 5 year stop gap, and probably not a massive difference in leasing + operating costs.

For GWR, the 158s are clearly a much better option and not very far away.

For Chiltern, I can't see the benefit of replacing half a fleet. Either the 165s need to go, in which case replace them all, or they are fine, in which case keep them. What do you gain by replacing some with an incompatible fleet needing more training and which is hardly renowned for reliability.

For Scotrail, if a short term HST replacement is needed then 222s look more sensible.


Railways are here to efficiently carry passengers, not to be homes for trains that have reached the end of their fitness for purpose but which enthusiasts can't help but try to find homes for! When that happens at an official level you get disasters like the 442 conversion for SWR or HSTs for Scotrail!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The benefit of replacing some 165s is that the remaining ones could be broken for parts. A big problem with these units Chiltern has been having is a lack of available parts.

 

[Mikey C]

The benefit of replacing some 165s is that the remaining ones could be broken for parts. A big problem with these units Chiltern has been having is a lack of available parts.

Much newer trains obviously, but Southeastern have gained another micro fleet in the 707s which only partially replaces the 465s/466s, but does enable them to get rid of the worst examples.

If Chiltern could use the 175s to replace the Mk3s AND all the 165s operating mainline services, so that they all use 100mph stock that would surely be an improvement.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm all for criticising the DfT, but I disagree here. If the DfT had a big pot of money for these TOCs, why spend it on 175s? Much better to buy CAF bi-modes for Northern for example, saving on training, and giving a fleet that is fit for the long term, rather than a 5 year stop gap, and probably not a massive difference in leasing + operating costs.

Looking at how long the 150s have lasted, the 175s should be good for rather longer than 5 years yet, more like 15-20.

Railways are here to efficiently carry passengers, not to be homes for trains that have reached the end of their fitness for purpose but which enthusiasts can't help but try to find homes for! When that happens at an official level you get disasters like the 442 conversion for SWR or HSTs for Scotrail!

From my point of view (ie. a passenger, not rail staff) 442s would have been more fit-for-purpose on WAT-PMH fast services than 458s and a ScotRail HST is more fit-for-purpose on the Inter7City network than 158s or 170s (although economically, with two power cars and an excessively high top-speed a hypothetical 5-car class 175 (no intermediate cabs) would probably have been a better choice).

Returning to the topic at hand, class 175s would be more fit-for-purpose than alternative stock (in brackets) in at least the following suituations:

• in pairs on GWR's Cardiff-Portsmouth service (instead of 165s and 166s)
• in pairs on Northern's Leeds-Carlisle*, Chester-Leeds and Blackpool-York (instead of 195s - * not sure if they're used there)
• in pairs on XC's Cardiff-Nottingham route** (instead of 170s) ** not Birmingham-Stansted due to Sprinter differentials
• on TfW's Conwy Valley, Heart Of Wales, Swansea - Milford Haven, Swansea-Fishguard and Swansea - Pembroke Dock services (instead of 197s and 153s)
• on various new services, which would be desirable to attract modal shift from road (eg. Cardiff - Carmarthen/Pembs. express services via the Swansea District Line, where the 175s would be far more suitable than Cavities).

 

[pokemonsuper9]

in pairs on Northern's Leeds-Carlisle* (instead of 195s - * not sure if they're used there)

They're not, it's purely 158s.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Looking at how long the 150s have lasted, the 175s should be good for rather longer than 5 years yet, more like 15-20.


From my point of view (ie. a passenger, not rail staff) 442s would have been more fit-for-purpose on WAT-PMH fast services than 458s and a ScotRail HST is more fit-for-purpose on the Inter7City network than 158s or 170s (although economically, with two power cars and an excessively high top-speed a hypothetical 5-car class 175 (no intermediate cabs) would probably have been a better choice).

Returning to the topic at hand, class 175s would be more fit-for-purpose than alternative stock (in brackets) in at least the following suituations:

• in pairs on GWR's Cardiff-Portsmouth service (instead of 165s and 166s)
• in pairs on Northern's Leeds-Carlisle*, Chester-Leeds and Blackpool-York (instead of 195s - * not sure if they're used there)
• in pairs on XC's Cardiff-Nottingham route** (instead of 170s) ** not Birmingham-Stansted due to Sprinter differentials
• on TfW's Conwy Valley, Heart Of Wales, Swansea - Milford Haven, Swansea-Fishguard and Swansea - Pembroke Dock services (instead of 197s and 153s)
• on various new services, which would be desirable to attract modal shift from road (eg. Cardiff - Carmarthen/Pembs. express services via the Swansea District Line, where the 175s would be far more suitable than Cavities).

How are 175s more suited to Chester to Leeds services than 195s?

 

[ScottGallagher]

I'd love them on the Furness/Cumbrian Coast - but as nothing that's around now but a 156 is cleared in passenger service past Millom that won't happen

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd love them on the Furness/Cumbrian Coast - but as nothing that's around now but a 156 is cleared in passenger service past Millom that won't happen

That work is going to need to be done at some point...

 

[Rhydgaled]

How are 175s more suited to Chester to Leeds services than 195s?

Over two hours on an ironing board (which is what you get on a 195)? No thanks. Northern are non-stop between Chester and Warrington too (unlike TfW) so the Leeds-Chester is the faster service on that section of route. I guess between Manchester and Leeds Northern are the secondary, slower, service compared to TPE so maybe long-distance passengers are expected to change onto TPE in Manchester and Northern's service shouldn't be seen as a long-distance inter-urban? If we assume passengers won't change to TPE then Leeds-Chester is a long-distance inter-urban and three toilets for three carriages (on a 175) is therefore way more appropriate than a 195's one toilet for three carriages.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Over two hours on an ironing board (which is what you get on a 195)? No thanks. Northern are non-stop between Chester and Warrington too (unlike TfW) so the Leeds-Chester is the faster service on that section of route. I guess between Manchester and Leeds Northern are the secondary, slower, service compared to TPE so maybe long-distance passengers are expected to change onto TPE in Manchester and Northern's service shouldn't be seen as a long-distance inter-urban? If we assume passengers won't change to TPE then Leeds-Chester is a long-distance inter-urban and three toilets for three carriages (on a 175) is therefore way more appropriate than a 195's one toilet for three carriages.

Not all Northern are non-stop, plenty of services stopping at Helsby, Frodsham and Runcorn East. I’d much rather have a 195 personally, but either way we won’t be seeing 175s on the route I’m quite sure.

 

[ScottGallagher]

That work is going to need to be done at some point...

I thought it was underway but it's gone quiet on that front, maybe it's part of the upgrade announced by Rishi!

 

[12LDA28C]

Much newer trains obviously, but Southeastern have gained another micro fleet in the 707s which only partially replaces the 465s/466s, but does enable them to get rid of the worst examples.

If Chiltern could use the 175s to replace the Mk3s AND all the 165s operating mainline services, so that they all use 100mph stock that would surely be an improvement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Nov 2023 ==

The benefit of replacing some 165s is that the remaining ones could be broken for parts. A big problem with these units Chiltern has been having is a lack of available parts.

Chiltern will not be replacing 165s with 175s. They've already put out a tender for new trains to replace the 165s.

 

[43102EMR]

Or decided they can cope with what they already have.

Or (as is more the common case these days) the DfT said no.

 

[Energy]

Or (as is more the common case these days) the DfT said no.

DfT doesn't control Scotrail, TfW, or open access. Sources on this forum have pointed to Northern and GWR not considering them so likely Chiltern has found other stock through the new stock tender.

 

[43102EMR]

DfT doesn't control Scotrail, TfW, or open access. Sources on this forum have pointed to Northern and GWR not considering them so likely Chiltern has found other stock through the new stock tender.

Yes I’m aware, but realistically Scotrail won’t take on more diesel units, the OAOs are high speed operators and TfW are the ones ditching them in the first place, so that leaves just the English operators (who are controlled by the tight fisted DfT).

175s were an option in Chiltern’s direct award, but likely as you said they must have found a better option elsewhere.

 

[Grumpy]

Public reason was a fleet type of only 1 type of unit for nearly all routes excluding the metro area.

Thanks.

 

[Energy]

who are controlled by the tight fisted DfT).

175s were an option in Chiltern’s direct award, but likely as you said they must have found a better option elsewhere.

Tight-fisted or just reasonable? You can look through this thread and find plenty of reasons why 175s aren't suitable for various DfT operations.

The DfT looks at the railway like a business, they wouldn't spend money and time training on a unit they only have for a few years. This might be boring for enthusiasts but its ultimately ticket-payers/tax-payers money.

 

[43102EMR]

Tight-fisted or just reasonable? You can look through this thread and find plenty of reasons why 175s aren't suitable for various DfT operations.

Still tight fisted - the only reason the 175s had the problems they did towards the end of their time with TfW was because CAF weren’t maintaining them properly. Whilst there were fire issues before the ones over the past year or so, they were very minimal and rarely happened.

The 175s are easily one of the UK’s best DMUs, just a shame that 1) The fires happened as frequently as they did and 2) There’s very little compatibility with existing stock with other TOCs.

 

[Energy]

Whilst there were fire issues before the ones over the past year or so, they were very minimal and rarely happened.

That isn't a positive, 170s and 158s don't catch fire and that doesn't make them exceptional units.

EMR - Can't use sprinter differentials on Liverpool - Norwich, not compatible with 170s on other routes
Northern - Already planned new build replacements expected in 2028, too few to completely replace any Northern fleets, end door configuration less suitable for most of Northern, incompatible with all of Northern's fleets (not a show stopper but makes it more difficult).
GWR - TfW 158s are available and wouldn't require additional staff training.
Chiltern - Too many to replace 68/mk3s alone, too few to replace the 165s, end door configuration isn't ideal.

None of these are because of the 175s unreliability. I don't have anything against the 175s, if there is a suitable operation for them I'd be happy for them to be reused.

 

[Purple Train]

Chiltern will not be replacing 165s with 175s. They've already put out a tender for new trains to replace the 165s.

I don't know if it's just me, but orders for new trains does seem to me rather weird when there is a not insignificant amount of stored stock that could be used, and the DfT seem to have a habit of forcing TOCs to use the cheaper version of a sneeze, let alone cheaper rolling stock strategy.

Although, of course, buying new units may well be better than leasing a bunch of mobile bonfires.

 

[Energy]

when there is a not insignificant amount of stored stock that could be used

Like what? Too few 175s for Chiltern and the 769s don't work.

I don't know if it's just me, but orders for new trains does seem to me rather weird

DfT will consider the whole cost, good spare parts supply, reducing fleet types and fuel consumption can all affect this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing with Chiltern is that what would really make sense would be the 175s and perhaps the Mk5as, and a 10 year electrification plan. What they'll get, though, is more DMUs.

 

[Mikey C]

Chiltern - Too many to replace 68/mk3s alone, too few to replace the 165s, end door configuration isn't ideal.

Which is why I suggested using the 175s to replace the 68/mk3s and some of the 165s, so that the remaining ones can be kept to the services via Amersham.

That way Chiltern won't need any new stock for say 10 years, by which time the future electrification plans should be more defined.

To me that makes more sense that ordering a 165 replacement now.

 

[Dan G]

GWR - TfW 158s are available and wouldn't require additional staff training.

They are? That's news to GWR, TfW, and, well everybody.

When is the first 158 being transferred to GWR?

 

[Energy]

They are? That's news to GWR, TfW, and, well everybody.

When is the first 158 being transferred to GWR?

I said available, not that they were transferring. Clarence Yard has previously mentioned that GWR has its eyes on the TfW 158s, though this obviously isn't any confirmation of a transfer so wait until a formal announcement.

The thing with Chiltern is that what would really make sense would be the 175s and perhaps the Mk5as, and a 10 year electrification plan. What they'll get, though, is more DMUs.

The 13 mk5 sets would be enough for current Birmingham to London services though I'm not convinced that the 175s could cover the rest.

Fixed formation ~120m bimode (ideally electrification done in time for their delivery though that's unlikely) sets would be best for Chiltern IMO.

Which is why I suggested using the 175s to replace the 68/mk3s and some of the 165s, so that the remaining ones can be kept to the services via Amersham.

That way Chiltern won't need any new stock for say 10 years, by which time the future electrification plans should be more defined.

They'd have to fund 175 training and still be left with 165s, though with a better source of spares.

I don't want a decision on Chiltern's future being continually pushed back, Chiltern can cope for a few years longer now to give time to seriously investigate batteries and electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 13 mk5 sets would be enough for current Birmingham to London services though I'm not convinced that the 175s could cover the rest.

With an electrification plan only replacing some of the 165s, with the spare ones cut up for spares, should keep them going for another few years. The electrification plan would concentrate on the short distance stuff first, thus removing the remainder of them, with a view to completion and a new EMU fleet within 10 years - maybe even 350/2s to start with, but as Chiltern is basically the same as LNR but without Avanti any similar EMU would do e.g. 730s. I'd agree that 5.730 sets (120m) with gangways would work well, with 10.730 used on the busiest mainline services.

If electrification first concentrated on the Marylebone-Wycombe/Risborough/Amersham-Aylesbury Vale Parkway triangle first, then that should allow all 165s to be removed within 5 years or so, then do the Snow Hill Lines, then fill in the middle and move the whole thing over to EMU operation, all within 10 years which would be a reasonable remaining life for the 175s.