• 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!

Future of SWR's class 158/159 fleet

Status
Not open for further replies.

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,308
I agree. Between TfW and EMR there are about 36 x 158s coming off lease. If Northern want to use them to send 156s for scrap they will be available much sooner. 158s are only a couple of years younger but they are higher quality. There is a limit to how many 156s can be replaced by 158s because of dwell times. If Northern got TfW units its unlikely they could take SWR u units without running them on unsuitable services. Some Northern routes operated by 155s and 156s are not suitable for 158s. The other ToC interested in 158s would likely be GWR if they need to reverse the currents happening over the next year. I am not convinced that will happen.
All the evidence posted in these forums over the last couple of years has been that EMR were keeping all or most of their 158s for use on the now retained Liverpool - Nottingham service. Has that changed?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,442
All the evidence posted in these forums over the last couple of years has been that EMR were keeping all or most of their 158s for use on the now retained Liverpool - Nottingham service. Has that changed?

They are keeping most but they don't need all 26. They run the service doubled up with 12 units rostered. That means 10-12 units will be redundant. Combined with TfW fleet there will likely be 34-36 x 158s redundant.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,485
They are keeping most but they don't need all 26. They run the service doubled up with 12 units rostered. That means 10-12 units will be redundant. Combined with TfW fleet there will likely be 34-36 x 158s redundant.

Norwich to Liverpool including running double sets Nottingham to Liverpool needs more than 12 sets! You need 12 sets to run an hourly Norwich to Liverpool service as single sets. It’s 6 hours each way!
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,442
Norwich to Liverpool including running double sets Nottingham to Liverpool needs more than 12 sets! You need 12 sets to run an hourly Norwich to Liverpool service as single sets. It’s 6 hours each way!

I thought the intention was still to split the service in two at Nottingham? The original EMR rolling stock plan was to use use single Turbos between Nottingham and Norwich. Now Liverpool to Nottingham is staying, EMR only need enough 158s to run that section. If they keep sufficient 158s to run the whole route they would have 6 or so units more than they need. Has some sort of alternative arrangement been made?

Even if EMR keep all their 158s there is still 24 TfW 158s coming off lease before an SWR bi mode fleet could enter service. There aren't guaranteed takers so a cascade can't be used to justify replacing them.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,485
I thought the intention was still to split the service in two at Nottingham? The original EMR rolling stock plan was to use use single Turbos between Nottingham and Norwich. Now Liverpool to Nottingham is staying, EMR only need enough 158s to run that section. If they keep sufficient 158s to run the whole route they would have 6 or so units more than they need. Has some sort of alternative arrangement been made?

No, it’s been posted several times on this forum from an interview with the EMR MD the plan to split this service into separate sections has been abandoned. On top of this the number of 17x units EMR is receiving has changed (reduced slightly).

The original EMR plan is some years old.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,442
No, it’s been posted several times on this forum from an interview with the EMR MD the plan to split this service into separate sections has been abandoned. On top of this the number of 17x units EMR is receiving has changed (reduced slightly).

The original EMR plan is some years old.

That still leaves 24 x 158s going off lease before any from SWR can. I don't think homes can be found for them for a cascade to help justify new stock for SWR. The best scenario would be GWR and Northern both grab TfW units and Northern still have services suitable to swtich from 156s to 158s. I doubt that would cover anything approaching the whole SWR 158 and 159 fleet. A replacement fleet would need to be justified through increasing capacity and that doesn't appear to be necessary. My view is they will be run into the ground at SWR over many more years and eventually be replaced when the financial outlook is better.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,882
No, it’s been posted several times on this forum from an interview with the EMR MD the plan to split this service into separate sections has been abandoned. On top of this the number of 17x units EMR is receiving has changed (reduced slightly).
The number of 17x vehicles that EMR is getting has actually increased slightly from the original plans.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
8,928
EMR are retaining, apparently, 25 of their 26 158s, for the next 8 years. Nothing has been said formally about which is going, but the sensible money would appear to be on non standard 158889 to GWR to replace their crash victim with their impending HST withdrawal.

It needs to be remembered that the original franchises are dead. Anything that was said about plans for any of them is now effectively binned. They have some high level goals but everything else is reviewed and set with the DfT each year with an approved annual business plan.

At the minute the timetable changes that necessitated the Liverpool/Norwich split are in limbo and there's no push for it to happen.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,395
GWR to replace their crash victim
GWR 'replaced' their crash victim by cutting the Brighton service. SWR likewise by no longer running to Bristol.

That isn't to say that GWR would have no use for another 158, but the immediate replacement would be for avoiding short forms due to maintenance issues rather than of necessity.
 
Last edited:

Anvil1984

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,514
EMR are retaining, apparently, 25 of their 26 158s, for the next 8 years. Nothing has been said formally about which is going, but the sensible money would appear to be on non standard 158889 to GWR to replace their crash victim with their impending HST withdrawal.

Going off topic but the outside bet (if 158889 does leave the fleet) could be Northern. I know at present we are scratching around for additional units for the Northumberland line which apparently is only going to have 158 usage
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,485
Going off topic but the outside bet (if 158889 does leave the fleet) could be Northern. I know at present we are scratching around for additional units for the Northumberland line which apparently is only going to have 158 usage

We’ve yet to see the outline plans for the service cuts for Northern for the 2023 ABP so it’s difficult to tell what stock might be freed up for internal cascade.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,129
Location
Liverpool
Is it really worth Northern taking on 158s? How many current class 150 diagrams would work better with a cascaded 156 or 158?
Well 156s would easily replace 150s, and the 158s could replace some 156 diagrams, or maybe even some 195s just to get rid of the 150s.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,395
Well 156s would easily replace 150s, and the 158s could replace some 156 diagrams, or maybe even some 195s just to get rid of the 150s.
I don't think Northern see it that way. 150s can deal better with some journeys than 156s.

We seem to have got a bit off-topic here though, as we are meant to be talking about SWR 158s and 159s.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,195
We seem to have got a bit off-topic here though, as we are meant to be talking about SWR 158s and 159s.
The suggestion seems to be, at least within Northern realms, 159 > 158 > 156 > 150. But I'd agree that more new self-powered units, in the vein of the 195s, are the only way to go.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,129
Location
Liverpool
The suggestion seems to be, at least within Northern realms, 159 > 158 > 156 > 150. But I'd agree that more new self-powered units, in the vein of the 195s, are the only way to go.
If we get new designs, it'll be for trains around London, which the SWR units are. While the DFT likes to bang on about cost cutting, for London, there isn't really any expense spared.

Of course a giant order of 19x Civities for all old units would be great (with variations like hybrid and bi mode), it simply won't happen outside of London, so cascades have to be considered.

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean Northern, it's just one of the more obvious ones with all the 150s they have. Another would be GWR and their 150s, but that's a little more complicated.
 

Versa274

On Moderation
Joined
21 Jul 2020
Messages
44
Location
Bingley
Why would anyone be seriously suggesting that the combined 450/444 fleet might be replaced 10 years early? IMHO what happens to them is completely unrelated to any proposals for the DMU fleet.
Why not order a fleet of bi mode express 730s x around 70-80 5 car sets to replace 158/9/444 stock so then exeter can interwork with Weymouth and Portsmouth diagrams and more flexible working?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,395
Why not order a fleet of bi mode express 730s x around 70-80 5 car sets to replace 158/9/444 stock so then exeter can interwork with Weymouth and Portsmouth diagrams and more flexible working?
The 444 fleet does not need replacement.

The SWR timetable is set up specifically to avoid interworking between routes to keep it robust.

Lugging bi-modes all the way to Weymouth and Portsmouth all day is not a good use of energy.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,308
Why not order a fleet of bi mode express 730s x around 70-80 5 car sets to replace 158/9/444 stock so then exeter can interwork with Weymouth and Portsmouth diagrams and more flexible working?
The Exeter service just doesn’t need to interwork with the Weymouth and Portsmouth routes, which can carry on using the existing stock for another 20 years.
 

150249

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2021
Messages
1,242
Location
The better Devon city
Why not order a fleet of bi mode express 730s x around 70-80 5 car sets to replace 158/9/444 stock so then exeter can interwork with Weymouth and Portsmouth diagrams and more flexible working?
The class 444 is superb. Doesn't need an upgrade any time soon. And a connection there is something that would be nice but it isn't necessary.
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
Why would anyone be seriously suggesting that the combined 450/444 fleet might be replaced 10 years early? IMHO what happens to them is completely unrelated to any proposals for the DMU fleet.
So it is okay to ditch 10 year old class 379's? Or class 332 Heathrow Express units also after 10 years, just because they apparently cannot be used anywhere else?

If the people at SWR are not looking at the complete fleet, rather than just the DMU fleet then I suspect that SWR need to then be firing their fleet managers. The future whether it is replacing the SWR DMU or EMU fleets, is in Hybrid or alternative power to Diesel power by 2050. Within that time the class 444/450 fleet will also need replacing, so whatever replaces the class 158/159 fleet, should also be looked at to replace class 444/450 fleet in the future.

Now, I am not saying that the DMU fleet and EMU fleet is replaced at the same time, but certainly thought should be given to doing so in by the late 2040's as by this time the majority of the EMU fleet would be 40 plus years old.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,485
So it is okay to ditch 10 year old class 379's? Or class 332 Heathrow Express units also after 10 years, just because they apparently cannot be used anywhere else?

If the people at SWR are not looking at the complete fleet, rather than just the DMU fleet then I suspect that SWR need to then be firing their fleet managers. The future whether it is replacing the SWR DMU or EMU fleets, is in Hybrid or alternative power to Diesel power by 2050. Within that time the class 444/450 fleet will also need replacing, so whatever replaces the class 158/159 fleet, should also be looked at to replace class 444/450 fleet in the future.

Now, I am not saying that the DMU fleet and EMU fleet is replaced at the same time, but certainly thought should be given to doing so in by the late 2040's as by this time the majority of the EMU fleet would be 40 plus years old.

With technology advancing at the speed it does I suspect if you put out for a tender to replace the 15x in the next couple of years and then an option to replace the 444/450s ten years later you will get no bidders.

A manufacturer will not want to build the same train with a gap of say 10 years in-between.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,485
Both Electrostars and Desiro UK has a gap of about 10 years between the first and last build.

But neither of those use battery/hybrid technology which this post is on about. That technology will not sit still for 10 years as it is still quite at its infancy.
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
Both Electrostars and Desiro UK has a gap of about 10 years between the first and last build.
Thank you. The introduction time is less, but from the time the orders where placed for say the C2C class 357 to the time of the orders for class 387's was about 10 years. Introduction time goes from 1999 - 2014. If you just take the class 377 on it's own, it was built in variations from 2001 - 2014.
But neither of those use battery/hybrid technology which this post is on about. That technology will not sit still for 10 years as it is still quite at its infancy.
The technology as far as I am aware in the class 377/1 is not the same as in the class 377/7's, but both are electrostars. So, the changing of technology does make it such as to how the units are classified. It is whether the manufacturer is still building a version of the train in ten years say from today, which given the lifespan of train manufacturing would be, yes you could buy an Aventra hybrid train today and you would probably be buying a more advanced version of that in 10 years time, but could be classified as the same type of unit.
 

QSK19

Member
Joined
29 Dec 2020
Messages
1,149
Location
Leicestershire
So it is okay to ditch 10 year old class 379's? Or class 332 Heathrow Express units also after 10 years, just because they apparently cannot be used anywhere else?
As far as I understood it, the 332s were owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings and were completely knackered by the time they were withdrawn. Therefore, not within the financial remit of the DfT; so HAH could do what they wanted with them. It is the same scenario when it came to the “uproar” about the 360/2s being scrapped and how they could have apparently been utilised for service elsewhere on the network (eg to supplement EMR’s Connect operation).

Nevertheless, even if the 332s were under the DfT’s remit, if the trains really were that knackered, they couldn’t have gone anywhere else (apart from the East Midlands, seemingly the perennial dumping ground for knackered stock :lol:).

Fundamentally, though, there is a looming headache about replacing the 15x fleets across the rail network as a whole, SWR’s 158/159s included. The 15x as a whole probably have got another 10-15 years left in them; so something needs to be decided relatively soon (but no doubt it’ll be left until the last minute!).
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
5,135
As far as I understood it, the 332s were owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings and were completely knackered by the time they were withdrawn. Therefore, not within the financial remit of the DfT; so HAH could do what they wanted with them. It is the same scenario when it came to the “uproar” about the 360/2s being scrapped and how they could have apparently been utilised for service elsewhere on the network (eg to supplement EMR’s Connect operation).
The 332s also lacked TPWS so couldn't run on the rest of the network without significant modification.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
18,951
Location
Devon
This is a speculative thread so a bit of drifting is fair enough, maybe it could be nudged back towards the SWR 158/159 subject now though if possible? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top