• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 175 future

Status
Not open for further replies.

jones_bangor

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2011
Messages
856
Would it be advantageous to reform the 175s into 2 coach and four coach trains and aim to double up on busier sections 2x2 carriage and have the potential of 2, 4 or 6 carriage trains splitting at cardiff, ie have a four coach train on manchester to milford made of 2x2 or even 4+2 splitting at Cardiff to reinforce the core of the route between Manchester and Cardiff. Also on Manchester to Llandudno you could then have a steady 4 coaches all day. With 158s moved from Scot Rail after electrification to cover the Holyhead to Cardiff route with joining and splitting as needed.

I don't think Llandudno - Manchester P requires 4 x coaches outside the Chester - Manchester section. 158s would therefore be better on this route, with 2 x 158s (4 coaches) operating to Chester, and the front two continuing to Llandudno.

175s generally provide adequate capacity on Cardiff - Holyhead services, I'm yet to see anyone standing outside of Cardiff - Newport on that run, I don't feel 158s are suitable for runs more than 3 hours (passenger comfort / ride quality).

But 4 coach 175s would be good on Swansea to Manchester.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
There may be - I don't know whether to go for a half hourly service (with "local" stations maybe getting a "skip stop" pattern), or what you suggested.

Getting into the realms of complete fantasy (even more so), what about (post TPE electrification) a through EMU from Newcastle - Leeds - Manchester - (Manchester Airport?) - Crewe - Shrewsbury - Hereford - Abergavenny - Cardiff/Bristol? No reason for every long distance service to go through Birmingham.
To be qiite honest, I think the whole thread has found itself into a world of fantasy now
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Birmingham will always be a big market, but there's surely scope for other TOCs to offer long distance services, rather than forcing them onto XC trains through New Street.

Agreed. I would like to see other services use the Marches

To be qiite honest, I think the whole thread has found itself into a world of fantasy now

The original suggestion was quite sensible, but we have spun off into a lot of 'what if' fantasy type scenarios!
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,616
Getting into the realms of complete fantasy (even more so), what about (post TPE electrification) a through EMU from Newcastle - Leeds - Manchester - (Manchester Airport?) - Crewe - Shrewsbury - Hereford - Abergavenny - Cardiff/Bristol? No reason for every long distance service to go through Birmingham.

Even without electrification of the Marches, this is the kind of route that, pending other electrification, eVoyagers could be cascaded onto in the future.

I don't think there is a need to electrify the Welsh Marches line anytime soon. But there is potential for the line to be viewed as a secondary cross country, rathern than a regional route.

Can't resist banging the drum for my plan to move Cardiff-Manchester services into the CrossCountry franchise!
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,874
Not necessarily. There are 9 x 3 car 158s that haven't been converted to 159s. There is also the option to reform 3 x 2 car 158s in to 2 x 3 car 158s with a surplus driving cab in the middle. FGW have done this with some of their 2 car 158s and TPE did it in the past.

9 3-car 158s is a start, but not enough to replace all the 3-car 175s. You'd need to un-convert the ones that became 159s (you wouldn't be needing to take any of the orriginal 159s, with their higher-powered engines, away from SWT though I suppose).

Note that I said I would happily have all ATW's 175s swapped for 158s, provided capacity and frequency of ATW services is not reduced. I'm not a huge fan of the artifical 3-car 158 tactic, it reduces the number of available units, which might limit service frequency. It is probablly a good idea that FGW have done it for Cardiff-Portsmouth though, although really it could probablly do with being 4-car (2x 2-car 158).

Also it is expected that Scotrail will release some 158s in the next few years as more electrification takes place. This leaves the option of having 3 car 175s replaced by pairs of 158s, as I suggested in the original post.
Would be nice, however that's 32 158s needed to replace all 3-car 175s with 4-car 158s, plus 11 2-car 158s to replace the 2-car 175s. Anyone have 43 class 158s but would rather have the 175 fleet? I doubt it, Scotrail wouldn't need to be given the 175s of course, since the 158s would be released by new EMUs (unless they send 170s to Northern and use 175s on routes like Edinbrough - Aberdeen), but how many 158s will Scotrail free?

By my rough maths, Scotrail will free up around fifty DMUs with their electrification (the 170s are the best units, and the 156s are needed on the GSW/WHL because 158s won't fit), so it's not a massive leap to imagine a decent number of 158s heading south, enough to share a few around the various TOCs who already have 158s.
50 158s coming south you say. Sounds good, except we can't really have them all can we? Personally, while 170s are the newest units, I'm not sure they are actually the best for Scotrail. That's because I feel they are more like outer-suburban units than regional express units (and a 158 is, in my opinion, the ultimate regional express unit at the moment) and there is talk on here that Scotrail want to electrify more of their suburban lines. 175s or 158s would I think be a better choice than 170s for Scotrail's long-distance runs. If it can be done I'd say give us Scotrail's 50 cascaded 158s and give them our 175s (perhaps with my suggestion of knocking off cabs on 2-cars so the 175 fleet is a mix of 3 and 4 car units) so that Scotrail can give the likes of Northern some 170s to keep their hands off the large number of ex-Scotrail 158s that we want in Wales.

This is what I think will happen, and should happen.

A bigger fleet of 158s would give ATW more flexibility, as would the ability to "drop" coaches (e.g. only two coaches west of Carmarthen, but four coaches on the busy Swansea/ Cardiff/ Newport section, or maybe splitting at Carmarthen to provide two coaches for Milford Haven and two coaches for Fishguard)
Exactly, the flexibility to split a 4-car train into a pair of 2-car trains (hence giving both destonations a direct service to the other end of the service) is why I'd happily see the back of 175s if (and it's a big if in my opinion) we can be given enough extra 158s to replace them.

Are ATW running 158s to Ebbw Vale at the moment, I'm sure one came in to Cardiff Central from there today. Anyway, ATW probably need more 158s irrespective of other stock in order to double Cambrian services.
I think ATW has a class 150 surplus of at least 1 unit (should be at least 2 surplus 150s once WAG 2 finally gives the 175 back). Hopefully the surplus is bigger than that so these can be used (mainly, hopefully exclusively, on the Maesteg line) to free 3 158s, for hourly Aberystwyth services and a single Swansea District Line diagram (Fishguard/Carmarthen to Cardiff in the morning, back to Fishguard on the current day boat train (releasing a 150 to plug some of the 2-hour gaps in Cheltenham services) and an evening service back to Fishguard) (2 extra 158s needed for Aberystwyth hourly I think, if you don't make any trips 4-car between Holyhead - Shrewsbury and west of Machynlleth).

Getting back on topic, but it could be worse for you if the class 165/166's where moved to ATW after the Great Western line has been electrified
Class 165/166 = outer suburban units. Hopefully all our routes which could perhaps be considered suburban (ValleyLines, including Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Vale Of Glamorgan, Swansea - Swanline - Cardiff - Cheltenham and Wrexham - Bidston) will also be electrified soon after, and hopefully given 377s to work them. Hence, we would have no need of 165/166 units unless they can be cleared for the Swansea (currently freight-only) ValleyLines I propose since you might not get them electrified from the outset if you opened them.

That's not a bad shout actually, its a shame more 175 carriages can't be ordered. Maybe 172's could be ordered for Arriva or even Voyagers
Nobody should ever be allowed to order any more diesel Voyager family carriges, ever. Far too fuel-thirsty. However, if somebody does the decent thing and electrifies all the current Voyager routes then re-gearing the things to 100mph to save some fuel accelerating to that speed might make a 5-car Voyager on Manchester - Swansea (with a major refurbishment to put in much more legroom, with seats made to line up with the windows and maybe with some more tables thrown in) not be that bad an idea.

Would there be any merit in having an hourly express service from Cardiff - Manchester, and local stopping services Cardiff - Shrewsbury and Shrewsbury - Manchester?

The fast traisn would call only at Abergavenny, Hereford, Ldlow OR Leominster, Shrewsbury, Crewe and Stockport.

It might be possible to fit a couple of through Holyhead trains into the timetable as well.

On electrification of the Marches line, how does this sound?:
  • Fast Hourly Swansea/Cardiff - Manchester electric service (similar to today's faster hour)
  • All stations hourly Cardiff - Shrewsbury EMU service
  • 2-hourly all stations Shrewsbury - Crewe EMU service
  • 2-hourly Shresbury - Crewe EMU service calling at Nantwich and Whitchurch (hence giving them a roughly 2-hourly service, instead of two trains in the same hour then none in the other in one direction at the moment)
  • Two or three (diesel unless Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester and the north Wales coast are also electrified) Holyhead - Cardiff express services each way per day.

One or both of the Shrewsbury - Crewe services could be extension of the Cardiff - Shrewsbury if it works out nicely, but the split might be useful to keep a fairly even spacing despite the difference in journey times with the fasts.

Would it be advantageous to reform the 175s into 2 coach and four coach trains and aim to double up on busier sections 2x2 carriage and have the potential of 2, 4 or 6 carriage trains splitting at cardiff, ie have a four coach train on manchester to milford made of 2x2 or even 4+2 splitting at Cardiff to reinforce the core of the route between Manchester and Cardiff. Also on Manchester to Llandudno you could then have a steady 4 coaches all day. With 158s moved from Scot Rail after electrification to cover the Holyhead to Cardiff route with joining and splitting as needed.
175s are not a flexible enough design to enable joining and spitting services. In my opinion corridor connections between units are vital to services using multiple units that join and split. If passengers get on the wrong unit then they can walk through into the right one if the units have corridor connections between them. A pair of 175s doesn't have corridor connections between the two units, so joining and splitting services wouldn't work well. That is why I think Wales would be better off with 158s if we can get enough rather than 175s, 158s are so much more flexible.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
What are the chances of First/Keolis TPE taking back some or all of the fleet? Come 2015 when the Scotland services are made electric and via Chat Moss, then perhaps a good idea would be to take a mixture of 175/0 and 175/1 to work a reinstated Man Airport - Barrow/Windermere bi-hourly service, as it was until December 2007. These could also be diagrammed to inter-work with the Blackpool service, again as it was up to December 2008, until Castlefield to Blackpool is electrified. This would free up most or all of the 185s currently working on TP North West (15 or 16 diagrams on this route at the moment I think).
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
Fantasy lives on. Many of the suggestions on the thread are impracticable and unrealistic. I would prefer definite information re any Cascade of 158s rather than keep on going round and round in circles.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,874
Fantasy lives on. Many of the suggestions on the thread are impracticable and unrealistic. I would prefer definite information re any Cascade of 158s rather than keep on going round and round in circles.

I think some might just be suggesting ideas that might work but might be utter nonsense out of interest to see if they are actually plauseable. It is possible (though unlikely) that somebody with some influence in WAG, DfT or ATW might read our suggestions (that's what I think of them as, rather than speculation) and, if they are plausible, investigate implementing them. For example, I am interested to know whether my suggestion of making 4-car 175s by converting driving coaches to centre cars (removing the cabs and fitting through gangways) falls into the impracticable and unrealistic catagory.


Also, I think somebody posted earlier indicating that they knew which type of unit is booked for each service. It may help to keep suggestions slightly towards the realistic end of the spectrum if this person(s) could reveal the number of each type of unit (I am particularly interested in 158s) diagramed on each route. Alternativly, if a complete list was available that interested members could use to count up the different types of unit used on each service themselves, that would do the trick.
 

Pacerpilot

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2010
Messages
347
For example, I am interested to know whether my suggestion of making 4-car 175s by converting driving coaches to centre cars (removing the cabs and fitting through gangways) falls into the impracticable and unrealistic catagory.

Class 458 Cab perhaps?

This

458_cab


Converted from

175_cab


But that would cause much falling out between me and yourself, Sir. Im quite partial to my 175 cab...I have enough cramped cabs to deal with ( ie the 153 small end Ive just been crammed into for the last few hours) ;)
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,874
No Pacerpilot, that's not what I meant.

Installing cabs with corridor connections to the 2-car fleet would be very useful (probably more so than my suggestion) of course, but I didn't suggest that since I expect it would require a brand new build of cabs of the new design, and mean replacing 22 cabs. If it's practical to do that though it would make the 2-car 175s much more flexible, and you'd still have the same cabs on the 3-car sets.


What I am suggesting is replacing some cabs with exactly the same carriage end that is at the cab-less inner-ends of the coaches, to make additional cab-less centre cars.

That would involve replacing the cabs of half the 2-car units, plus one since there's an odd number (11) of 2-car 175s. So that is 12 cabs to replace rather than 22, and it may be possible to get spare inner-ends of the same design made, less work, less cost.

That then gives you 12 additional centre cars, two of which would be inserted into 3-car units to make two 4-car units. Two of the remaining ten would then be put into each of the remaining five 2-car units (which are otherwise unmodified) to make 5 more 4-car units. That should leave you with 7x 4-car 175 and 14x 3-car 175, leaving a shortfall of 6 units to be replaced by 6 LHCS trains (since it'd be difficult to find 6 additional 158s)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,065
Location
Reston City Centre
I am interested to know whether my suggestion of making 4-car 175s by converting driving coaches to centre cars (removing the cabs and fitting through gangways) falls into the impracticable and unrealistic catagory

IIRC there are Scottish EMUs which had their corridor conneced ends replaced with "whole cab" ends (318s?). It may be possible to do it the other way round, but I can't think of it having been done (IIRC the 150s were all built one way or the other, but can't remember any being converted from "whole cab" to "corridor connection").

Maybe the coaches converted into "push pull" by having a cab built into the ends is an example of what has been done before?

I appreciate that you are talking slightly differently, but getting rid of the cabs completely, but wanted to give an example from history.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,775
In the 460 to 458 programme, at least two driving carriages will become intermediate carriages.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
9,849
Location
Croydon
Re your idea Rhydgaled and fishing arround for a precedent.

I am wholly in favour of longer units. Converting the two car 175s to four car units by removing the two cabs must be feasible. After all BR previously removed a plain gangway connection and replaced it with a brand new cab - as was done to convert many 155s to single car 153s. That was the opposite of what you are proposing and should be simpler :D.

However the problem I see is replacing the missing 12 coaches (6 2-car 175s) in your plan with LHCS (loco hauled coaching stock). This might not work because we would be creating 7, longer, 4-car units. I believe that LHCS trains are really only useful in longer formations and I suspect that 7 4-car units might cover that requirement. We would then really need 6 2-car units !!. However if enough LHCS could be found to replace 3 day long 4-car 158 formations (6 2-car units) with say 3 sets of 5 or 6 coach rakes elsewhere in the UK then you have a winner.

The trouble with LHCS, from what I have read, is the higher track access charges which seem to undo the benefit of the lower leasing charges. Another problem is the resulting length of train in my opinion. Remember you are adding two locomotives to the length of the train (or one DVT and one Loco). I wonder how many routes are there that can handle 4+ coaches and a loco or two ?.

An alternative way of generating spare 158s is to electrify some routes covered by 158s and give those routes second hand EMUs. Then make more profitable routes buy new EMUs. But I would say that wouln't I !. Now this is already beginning to happen (NW, Transpennine and perhaps Scotland) but unfortunately there are rather a lot of pacers to get rid of first ! :-x.

Just to be pessimistic. In this country we seem to be obsessed with making shorter units. So its more likely someone would consider converting the two car 175s into single car units !. After all they did it to 153s (ne 155s) did they not ! :oops:.
 

DjU

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
254
Location
Essex
In the 460 to 458 programme, at least two driving carriages will become intermediate carriages.

No they won't.

All 8 DMSO and 4 DMLFO will be used to make the 12 driving cars for 6 five car sets (the other 4 DMLFO being used for spares, but the shells not used)
 
Last edited:

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,874
Converting the two car 175s to four car units by removing the two cabs must be feasible. After all BR previously removed a plain gangway connection and replaced it with a brand new cab - as was done to convert many 155s to single car 153s. That was the opposite of what you are proposing
Yep, my idea is very close to being the opposite of the convertion from 155 to 153.


As to the rest of your post, I would have suggested 6x (prefrablly more, to introduce additional services) 2-car 158s to replace the 6x lost 175 units. However, until ScotRail electrification in 2016 we are unlikely to get any. So to allow the operation to happen sooner I am instead suggestion replacing those 6x 2-car 175s with 6 rakes of locomotive + *mrk2 BSO* + 3x mrk2 TSO + mrk2 DBSO (or DVT if it turns out the DBSOs are too tired to be safe anymore, but the DBSO would save the wasted length and weight with the DVT). You'd need to adapt the locomotives to have TDM of course.

*The BSO is optional, just trying to make use of what ATW have stored.

An alternative of course is not to make 4-car 175s and just to replace 6x 3-car 175 with my loco-hauled rakes (perhaps with one more carrige each) and have those 3-car 175s replace 6x 2-car 175s which would run my suggested additional services (actually, only need 4 units for my additional services I think). However, to improve the finantial case of operating my additional services and the lines it would travel over a lighter, cheaper, 158 would be more appropriate.
 

Pacerpilot

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2010
Messages
347
The LHCS is not too much of an issue out here in West Wales. All the termini that passenger services work to have run-round loops and the Carmarthen crews have previous experience of LHCS operation from the Fishguard 50's. The guards did the coupling/uncoupling and operated the groundframes.

Id certainly be all for it anyway :D
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Yep, my idea is very close to being the opposite of the convertion from 155 to 153.

And what reason would be used to justify that cost when it's much cheaper to cascade them on to other lines? The 155s had technical issues so needed extensive work being done anyway and the Cornish branch lines needed something cheaper to run than a 2 car Sprinter but not a Pacer, otherwise they would have possibly closed.

I imagine removing both cabs from a 153 and putting the carriage in to the middle of a 156 would be cheaper than removing a single 175 cab and adding a corridor connection to link in to the next carriage.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
And what reason would be used to justify that cost when it's much cheaper to cascade them on to other lines? The 155s had technical issues so needed extensive work being done anyway and the Cornish branch lines needed something cheaper to run than a 2 car Sprinter but not a Pacer, otherwise they would have possibly closed.

I imagine removing both cabs from a 153 and putting the carriage in to the middle of a 156 would be cheaper than removing a single 175 cab and adding a corridor connection to link in to the next carriage.

Apart from the expense, you would also have to take two units out of service at a time so that they can be joined.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Apart from the expense, you would also have to take two units out of service at a time so that they can be joined.

Yes and with the 175s already receiving a refresh and many units needing to be taken out-of-service over the next few years for disability compliance work, we could do with all the 175s staying available for use.
 

ValleyLines142

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2011
Messages
7,041
Location
Gloucester
Maybe we can have all of the 460's that Gatwick Express have given up for 442's on the electrified Welsh Marches Line. :)

Why on earth would FGW use 90 MPH class 165's on Paddington to Swansea services? I think they are unsuitible for Oxford fasts. Never mind Swansea's.

Indeed, and they would take a VERY long time!! Plus it's being electrified anyway.
 
Last edited:

ValleyLines142

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2011
Messages
7,041
Location
Gloucester
There won't even be a 460 fleet by the time the Welsh Marches could be electrified, they'll have become 458s and will be in use at SWT.

Shame :P I still think 175s could be extended longer though. Have to say I am very much against the idea of having 158s replacing 175s on the Cardiff-Manchester routes.
 

LSSCleaner

New Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
1
Damn. I'm not sure what we would do. Unless we had new stock.

I had the nifty idea when I worked at SHR that maybe DB buy a few old 180s, shorten them to 4 car then increase some 175/1s to 4 also...
Nobody listened...:cry:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
HOW is only cleared for Sprinters. 175s are more difficult to clear than 158s as FNW found out when they originally received them.

HOW is cleared for 175s they often run down there...
 

ValleyLines142

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2011
Messages
7,041
Location
Gloucester
I had the nifty idea when I worked at SHR that maybe DB buy a few old 180s, shorten them to 4 car then increase some 175/1s to 4 also...
Nobody listened...:cry:

I think that's a good idea, it could work.

HOW is cleared for 175s they often run down there...

I've yet to see or even go on a 175 on the Heart of Wales Line. As lovely as it would be I think it's fine with what it's got. If all four diagrams were booked for a 175 then the likely scenario is that a 150 will end up on a Cardiff-Manchester or even a Cardiff-Holyhead diagram, which has happened a lot and isn't great.
 
Last edited:

Pacerpilot

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2010
Messages
347
LSSCleaner said:
HOW is cleared for 175s they often run down there...

I think someone needs a new sectional appendix. They are prohibited from the Down platform at Llandovery, and the power operated points system requires to be operated in degraded mode to access the Up. I've only known them operate over the Central Wales line once, when the mainline was shut and that was a few years ago and way before POPS was installed at the passing loops.

LSSCleaner said:
I had the nifty idea when I worked at SHR that maybe DB buy a few old 180s, shorten them to 4 car then increase some 175/1s to 4 also...
Nobody listened...:cry:

Again, as stated elsewhere in the this thread, they are different vehicles. Different engines, and different transmissions.
 
Last edited:

ValleyLines142

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2011
Messages
7,041
Location
Gloucester
I have to ask, what exactly is the issue with 175s not having corridor connectors? Its not a huge problem and there are loads of trains that run in multiple and don't have these. It still works so isn't absolutely essential in my eyes.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,874
I have to ask, what exactly is the issue with 175s not having corridor connectors? Its not a huge problem and there are loads of trains that run in multiple and don't have these. It still works so isn't absolutely essential in my eyes.

While other trains run in multiple without corridor connectors, I don't think this should be done unless the units are coupled for the full length of the service (ie. no splitting to serve different destonations or leaving some coaches behind with the others continuing over less-busy sections of the route). That avoids problems with passengers accedentally (or because the train is about to leave) boarding the wrong unit, since both units go to all the same places. There will also have to be duplicated revenue protection (although if all the stations on the route are gated you don't need this) and catering staff.

Corridor connectors enable you to split the train, and cut staffing costs. These reasons are why I think all MUs should have end corridor connectors, unless they are so long you won't ever be joining two of them together (since services that exceed 110mph need streamlined fronts that means such services should always be formed of trains long enough that you won't be needing to couple them to anything else).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top