Future of Class 15x units

[Bletchleyite]

The Pacers are going but not because they're a cheap train. Other than their age and their notoriety as the "bus trains" you could have put them on numerous branch lines and nobody would have batted an eyelid. Here, they wouldn't have been terribly bad, wheel screech aside, on the Conwy Valley line.

They actually got stuck, the curves were too steep.

 

[A0]

Yes it is true that they were only breaking down while they were running.

"You have to wait til the second year to judge" is far too apologist. You really don't. There's no real excuse for a tiny, simple fleet to be so unreliable. I'm sure the low-tech simplicity of them was supposed to be a selling point. On-site maintenance without a costly depot, anyone?

It's not true that such unreliability is inevitable in a new fleet. I lived in the south east while all the mark 1 stock was replaced. Hundreds upon hundreds of basic, simple units replaced with modern electrostars and desiros without needing to shut the network down for days on end.

GA had to temporarily withdraw all of their Stadlers owing to problems.

Silverlink had to withdraw all the class 321s for checks - those were 'proven' and established EMUs.

HSTs had cooling problems for 2 or 3 years after their introduction, yet from a technical perspective they weren't that technologically "clever".

Class 313s had problems for the first 2 years after introduction - problems with doors, problem with tripcocks - yet after a couple of years as those things got addressed they went on to being among the most reliable units on the network.

 

[squizzler]

British Rail when developing the sprinter should have only designed one type instead of 5 and instead of 158s they should have designed stock like today's loco /mark 5/DVT

I agree except it was perhaps inevitable that the 158s would be DMUs. I seem to recall that there was a dogma in place that fewer new vehicles could be purchased than were withdrawn (2:3 ratio as I recall). This naturally tended towards shorter trains and sprinterisation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree except it was perhaps inevitable that the 158s would be DMUs. I seem to recall that there was a dogma in place that fewer new vehicles could be purchased than were withdrawn (2:3 ratio as I recall). This naturally tended towards shorter trains and sprinterisation.

The 158 is overall a very good "regional express" type unit (and has some nice features such as 100% window alignment as built). I think the only reason they drew complaints is that 2-for-3 policy. If they'd been running around everywhere as 5 and 6-car formations I doubt anyone would have really complained about very much, other than the need to fully replace the aircon system once CFCs were banned.

They are a bit noisy, but I'm not sure most people care about that (so, after all, are cars, buses and planes), and indeed it has upsides such as drowning out noise from other passengers, e.g. when kids play cartoons out loud.

 

[squizzler]

If they'd been running around everywhere as 5 and 6-car formations I doubt anyone would have really complained about very much

And when you get to that length would have been more economic to go with locos rather than DMUs, hence my comments that DMU's were partly a response to the 3 withdrawals for each 2 new vehicles dogma that prevailed at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And when you get to that length would have been more economic to go with locos rather than DMUs, hence my comments that DMU's were partly a response to the 3 withdrawals for each 2 new vehicles dogma that prevailed at the time.

Sort of. DMUs have other advantages, such as the ability to have those 6-car formations split and go to two different destinations.

 

[NoMorePacers]

I'd reckon that Sprinters have quite a while left to go. 158s will probably keep on going for 15-20 years, and 156s for 10-15 years. 150s, 153s and 155s have about 5 years left, possibly up to 10 at a push (given on the lines that 155s run on now that they are slower than what they replaced, it would be most appreciated if they were at the very least cascaded onto a line more suited for 75mph units).

 

[bramling]

The difference is that the elderly units in the north are 150s and (used to be) pacers which are much worse than London's older trains

Is there that much difference between a 150 and a 317?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is there that much difference between a 150 and a 317?

Yes one is diesel and one is electric. Sorry for being a smartarse I couldn’t resist.

 

[py_megapixel]

Is there that much difference between a 150 and a 317?

Yes one is diesel and one is electric. Sorry for being a smartarse I couldn’t resist.

Aside from that, one is a 4-car formation, and while all cars on a Sprinter are powered, most if not all Mk3-based EMUs have a single motor car, two driving trailers and a non-driving trailer.

As for passenger experience, I don't think there really is that much difference, though some of units in London have had a much better refurbishment than the Sprinters ever had

 

[Energy]

Is there that much difference between a 150 and a 317?

The 317 is 4 cars and regularly couples together for 8 car trains while a 150 is only 2 cars long and often isnt coupled to another unit. And the 317s are getting replaced while Northern and GWR's (especially the former) 150s currently don't have replacements.

 

[Meerkat]

150s should be replaced by 769s, and 195/6/7s displaced by electrification.
155/156 replaced by upgraded 158/9s, released by electrification or bi-modes (stop mucking about and stop running diesels out of Waterloo!)
That should get us through to the diesel ban.

 

[hst43102]

(stop mucking about and stop running diesels out of Waterloo!)

I don't think the electrical system into Waterloo can handle any more trains, it's at peak capacity I believe.

 

[Ted172]

150s should be replaced by 769s

Good luck with that on branch lines in the South West.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the electrical system into Waterloo can handle any more trains, it's at peak capacity I believe.

They'll need to upgrade it, then. At some point ICE-powered transport of all kinds will be banned in London - and I would bet it will be fairly soon - 10 years possibly, 20 years very likely, 30 years certainly.

 

[Anonymous10]

155s I see leaving soon 150s may still have a few years left as cheap to run ect 153s can attach to other units and tfw examples would be the easiest to retain 158 I'd definitely keep as they are still fine for less busy long distance routes

 

[Meerkat]

I don't think the electrical system into Waterloo can handle any more trains, it's at peak capacity I believe.

Well stop listening to Northerners and get some investment into successful Southern railways - having current trains not running at full potential due to power issues is scandalous.

Good luck with that on branch lines in the South West.

You obviously missed “and 195/6/7s displaced by electrification.”
Surely the only reason to order 2 car 195s was so they could cascade to the rural branches?

 

[Energy]

150s should be replaced by 769s, and 195/6/7s displaced by electrification.
155/156 replaced by upgraded 158/9s, released by electrification or bi-modes (stop mucking about and stop running diesels out of Waterloo!)
That should get us through to the diesel ban.

There are lots of turbostars which would be preferable to 769s.

 

[Neptune]

Maybe a cross franchise co-ordinated approach is required such as with the IEP (although done with a bit more thought than bottom line accounting). 2 types of train (one for commuter, one for longer distance) of 3 cars minimum built as bi-modes for future proofing purposes. CAF & Bombardier offer them on their Civity & Aventra platforms respectively. Can Hitachi also offer it with their AT200 platform?

This could wipe out all the 15x/16x fleets in a reasonably quick timeframe. Certainly quicker than IEP as the train designs exist and can be offered now.

Don’t get all dewy eyed about the 158/159 fleets. I think they have been excellent over the years but after 30 years it’s time to consider replacing them with something fit for the long term future and without all the emissions problems that come with them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I can certainly see benefits in a standard regional bi-mode. You wouldn't even need 2 bodies, just lay the seats out differently (and use different seats) based on application, e.g. the 350s.

 

[Neptune]

Yes, I can certainly see benefits in a standard regional bi-mode. You wouldn't even need 2 bodies, just lay the seats out differently (and use different seats) based on application, e.g. the 350s.

Absolutely, that’s my thinking. CAF have done it on their 3 different DMU’s which are essentially the same body.

The trouble is this is the UK where nothing seems to be done sensibly.

 

[Energy]

Maybe a cross franchise co-ordinated approach is required such as with the IEP (although done with a bit more thought than bottom line accounting). 2 types of train (one for commuter, one for longer distance) of 3 cars minimum built as bi-modes for future proofing purposes. CAF & Bombardier offer them on their Civity & Aventra platforms respectively. Can Hitachi also offer it with their AT200 platform?

This could wipe out all the 15x/16x fleets in a reasonably quick timeframe. Certainly quicker than IEP as the train designs exist and can be offered now.

Don’t get all dewy eyed about the 158/159 fleets. I think they have been excellent over the years but after 30 years it’s time to consider replacing them with something fit for the long term future and without all the emissions problems that come with them.

Id rather we electrify than bimodes, there are loads of civitys and turbostars already existing.

 

[Neptune]

Id rather we electrify than bimodes, there are loads of civitys and turbostars already existing.

Me too but I think we need to be more realistic about this (call me a pessimist or whatever). The 15x fleet is in need of replacement now and no matter how much new paint and moquette you slap on them it doesn’t stop them being tired and high on emissions. The majority of routes they operate are not electrified and most are unlikely to be in the near future if at all. Ordering bi-modes now or in the very near future allows this transition to happen earlier without the need to retain the long-in-the-tooth BR sprinter fleets.

 

[DB]

Me too but I think we need to be more realistic about this (call me a pessimist or whatever). The 15x fleet is in need of replacement now and no matter how much new paint and moquette you slap on them it doesn’t stop them being tired and high on emissions. The majority of routes they operate are not electrified and most are unlikely to be in the near future if at all. Ordering bi-modes now or in the very near future allows this transition to happen earlier without the need to retain the long-in-the-tooth BR sprinter fleets.

Yes, but the trouble is that bi-modes then reduce the pressure to eletrify! They also don't have the advantages of pure electric trains in terms of longer maintenance intervals, lighter weight, etc.

 

[Neptune]

Yes, but the trouble is that bi-modes then reduce the pressure to eletrify! They also don't have the advantages of pure electric trains in terms of longer maintenance intervals, lighter weight, etc.

Again I 100% agree with this but again (realistic head on), the 15x/16x fleet needs replacing quicker than the electrification can/will happen. Would you rather see these anachronisms last longer? If you provide a bi-mode it creates a lower emissions train and when electrification is considered, the additional cost of a train is lower as the trains already exist.

Nothing is win win and I know bi-modes aren’t popular but surely it is seen that they are preferable to old 25 - 35 year old trains which were built when emissions were not important.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The trouble is this is the UK where nothing seems to be done sensibly.

Well, apart from 80x, so if it can be done for an InterCity train it can surely be done for a regional one.

 

[Domh245]

There are lots of turbostars which would be preferable to 769s.

Which turbostars would those be?

 

[Wolfie]

I can see that diesel will, but I doubt 150s in and of themselves, being "proper" bogied trains with proper seats. The window view isn't great, but other than that they're pretty solid if basic.

I think that you are spot on.

The "short-term bus conversion on a freight chassis" jibes won't fly with Sprinters. You could easily see 155s and 153s going and being harvested for as many spares/components as usefully usable to keep 150s and 156s going (the one fly in that ointment is which ROSCOS own the varying assets).

You wouldn't immediately think that Northern would have an issue with 155s being replaced with 156s (possibly, if the costs work out, with some net unit gains) although l get that there are training and maintenance implications.

 

[Energy]

Which turbostars would those be?

168s, 170s, 171s and 172s. All the turbostars are preferable to the 769s, there are about 60 turbostars at Chiltern and on the WMR snow hill lines and that is not including the Chiltern 165s.

 

[Domh245]

168s, 170s, 171s and 172s. All the turbostars are preferable to the 769s, there are about 60 turbostars at Chiltern and on the WMR snow hill lines and that is not including the Chiltern 165s.

But those are all in use for the forseeable with their respective TOCs...