How long left for Sprinters

[AM9]

I actually quite like the 156s, I find them nice units to travel on. They sound good for a DMU in my opinion but that’s very much an enthusiast’s perspective I admit. They are undoubtedly noisy. Like a lot of older trains they’ve strayed onto services for which they weren’t really meant (certainly in the north west anyway).

I think I’ve only travelled on a 155 once, and that was quite recently between York and Leeds. It was ok actually, nothing about it jumped out at me as being bad by any means.

I’ve very rarely travelled on 150s, when I have they’ve seemed adequate for suburban routes if rather cramped. I imagine these will be the first to go (after at least some of the 153s) as they’re the oldest and are designed for the kind of routes most likely to be electrified. They could have another ten years in them yet though, possibly.

Hopefully the 158s (and 159s) have at least another ten years, if looked after they’re decent even by modern standards. They’re not particularly quick and again they’re a bit noisy, but other than that I’m not sure we’ve made a huge amount of progress when it comes to DMUs in the UK?

I travelled on the 155s in 1987 when they were deployed on the Portsmouth-Bristol services. Realistically, they were better for 'normal' passengers than the dilapidated 4 or 5 MkIs dragged along by class 33s on that route. With their narrow frames between the windows, the view from the class 155s was quite pleasant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I travelled on the 155s in 1987 when they were deployed on the Portsmouth-Bristol services. Realistically, they were better for 'normal' passengers than the dilapidated 4 or 5 MkIs dragged along by class 33s on that route. With their narrow frames between the windows, the view from the class 155s was quite pleasant.

Quite high up, though - unless you fit very high seats kids can't see out, which is a shame.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Quite high up, though - unless you fit very high seats kids can't see out, which is a shame.

Definitely. That was the very first thing that struck me when I made my first trip on a Class 155. There was a family at the opposite table.

"Why can't I see out of the window, Mummy?"

"Because when the people designed these trains they didn't think of three-year-old little girls."

The Class 156s were much better in that respect. Although I loved those units their biggest weakness was the heating (at least initially). I used to visit Corpach on a semi-regular basis and travelling back to the Central Belt on a dark and freezing night across Rannoch Moor in a virtually empty unit could be a bit miserable.

 

[AM9]

Quite high up, though - unless you fit very high seats kids can't see out, which is a shame.

I was far from a kid (or small), so I wouldn't notice that, but looking at them from the outside the lower edge of the windows seems to be about the same height between the solebar and cantrail on both 155s and 156s. Mybe the seats are different heights, e.g. the original Thameslink 319 seats were quite low, - were they fitted with those?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was far from a kid (or small), so I wouldn't notice that, but looking at them from the outside the lower edge of the windows seems to be about the same height between the solebar and cantrail on both 155s and 156s. Mybe the seats are different heights, e.g. the original Thameslink 319 seats were quite low, - were they fitted with those?

I wonder if the 156 has a thicker floor? I grew up on FNW Chapman seated versions of both, and the 153 definitely had a noticeably higher window line. As built they had the same seats, too.

That said, Wales and West (remember them?) made them considerably worse by fitting the very low ex-158 seats, which was beyond idiocy.

 

[AM9]

I wonder if the 156 has a thicker floor? I grew up on FNW Chapman seated versions of both, and the 153 definitely had a noticeably higher window line. As built they had the same seats, too.

That said, Wales and West (remember them?) made them considerably worse by fitting the very low ex-158 seats, which was beyond idiocy.

Treading carefully here: I somehow had the idea that the median height of adults in Wales was shorter than in England, so even more strange.

 

[DustyBin]

I wonder if the 156 has a thicker floor? I grew up on FNW Chapman seated versions of both, and the 153 definitely had a noticeably higher window line. As built they had the same seats, too.

That said, Wales and West (remember them?) made them considerably worse by fitting the very low ex-158 seats, which was beyond idiocy.

I can remember the 153s as-built (or as-converted) and you’re right actually they did have a high window line. As an adult I wouldn’t notice but thinking back as a child at the time I did struggle to see out of them.

 

[Philip]

Why did BR decide to replace Sprinters with class 37-hauled mk1 coaches for most of the North Wales services? On the face of it, it makes little sense since this this happened on the 90s after 158s had been built.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why did BR decide to replace Sprinters with class 37-hauled mk1 coaches for most of the North Wales services? On the face of it, it makes little sense since this this happened on the 90s after 158s had been built.

Because there weren't enough Sprinters, I suspect. 158s did operate on the North Wales Coast as well.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I reckon we've got another decade of them. One problem is what do you replace them with? Hydrogen? Batteries? Electrification? Surely not more new build DMUs.

A problem indeed. It's worrying that I am still read suggestions that X* needs new trains from time to time. Latest one was the Devon metro I think; and before that there were suggestions that Northern were looking at more 195s. CAF already has a big enough order book for Civity DMUs to scupper completion of the TDNS electrification by 2050 (161 DMUs in 2050 vs a TDNS requirement for around 100 self-powered units, most of which would spend a fair bit of time under wires so would benefit from being bi-mode making Civity DMUs useless). Placing orders for new DMUs should have been banned a year or two back.

* X being a route operated by DMUs that is unlikely to justify anything else just yet

 

[JonathanH]

Why did BR decide to replace Sprinters with class 37-hauled mk1 coaches for most of the North Wales services? On the face of it, it makes little sense since this this happened on the 90s after 158s had been built.

Because there weren't enough Sprinters, I suspect. 158s did operate on the North Wales Coast as well.

That isn't quite the answer though as it can't have been intended in 1990 for there to be ongoing use of 37 + Mk1 on the North Wales Coast in the latter part of the 1990s. I guess that the release of 158747-158751 to Intercity Cross Country must have been a factor, as will have been freeing up 158757-158759 to run services to Euston. Maybe also the expansion of TPE and NW express services to Manchester Airport. I guess the other point was whether single 158s could have provided the necessary capacity between Crewe and Holyhead.

The same applies to the ongoing use of 101s. In Scotland, that appears to have been the result of opening up additional services (ie Maryhill, Whifflet, Barrhead) and the 157 order falling through but it isn't so clear why 101s were needed in South Manchester, on the Borderlands line and Conwy Valley / North Wales locals.

Clearly it then took the delivery of 27 175s to remove the 37+Mk1s and 101s in the North West.

 

[Philip]

The 175s had been in service a good few years before the 101s left the scene though, I think the Northern franchise was close to starting by the time the last one was withdrawn. Did heritage have anything to do with their prolonged use in Manchester?

And with the 37-mk1 on the North Wales Coast line, why 37s and mk1 instead of a more modern and suitable loco/coaching stock combination?

 

[JonathanH]

The 175s had been in service a good few years before the 101s left the scene though, I think the Northern franchise was close to starting by the time the last one was withdrawn. Did heritage have anything to do with their prolonged use in Manchester?

That was mainly due to the problems of getting the 175s to work reliably. The 101s went on for longer on South Manchester services than anticipated. They had to bring in units displaced from Glasgow to keep things running.

And with the 37-mk1 on the North Wales Coast line, why 37s and mk1 instead of a more modern and suitable loco/coaching stock combination?

It wasn't all Mark 1. There were also some Mark 2a / Mark 2b coaches. 37s were the most appropriate available traction. I guess the point about the coaches is that they had been overhauled by Regional Railways and there wasn't much point bringing in rejected coaches from InterCity which at that time would have been the worst of the Mark 2d fleet. The more modern Mark 2e / 2f / 3 fleets were fully occupied on Cross Country / West Coast / Anglia.

 

[Bikeman78]

The 175s had been in service a good few years before the 101s left the scene though, I think the Northern franchise was close to starting by the time the last one was withdrawn. Did heritage have anything to do with their prolonged use in Manchester?

And with the 37-mk1 on the North Wales Coast line, why 37s and mk1 instead of a more modern and suitable loco/coaching stock combination?

Possibly a case of consolidating odd loco hauled workings into one area rather than having odd workings dotted about the country. That said there was the hauled set to Weymouth as well. Most of the carriages were mark 2 with the odd mark 1 thrown in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That was mainly due to the problems of getting the 175s to work reliably. The 101s went on for longer on South Manchester services than anticipated. They had to bring in units displaced from Glasgow to keep things running.

Not only that, but there was a load of "scratch set" mucking about, e.g. splitting units to add an additional (locked out) power car to the power-trailer sets so they weren't quite as sluggish and didn't overheat quite as much.

(You couldn't just bin the trailers off and make power-twins from the power cars as the guard's van and bog were in the trailer)

 

[Bikeman78]

That was mainly due to the problems of getting the 175s to work reliably. The 101s went on for longer on South Manchester services than anticipated. They had to bring in units displaced from Glasgow to keep things running.

I think the Scottish 101s were more recently overhauled. Plus bringing them in got rid of the power+trailer sets which were very slow. The power twins could keep time on Sprinter schedules so they were much more useful.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The 175s had been in service a good few years before the 101s left the scene though, I think the Northern franchise was close to starting by the time the last one was withdrawn. Did heritage have anything to do with their prolonged use in Manchester?

And with the 37-mk1 on the North Wales Coast line, why 37s and mk1 instead of a more modern and suitable loco/coaching stock combination?

(What follows is a broad-brush simplification.)

The financial difficulties and reduced growth of the early 1990s triggered a complete re-appraisal of the BR sectors' financial prospects. Many rolling stock orders and plans were cancelled and never got beyond the 'artists impression' stage. There were also service cuts (e.g. InterCity retrenchment), shorter trains (e.g. 10-car down to 8-car or 6-car on some NSE routes) and non-passenger sector cutbacks too (parcels and Speedlink). There were above-inflation fares increases to bring in better yield and help price off some traffic that was expensive to resource.

Cost escapement needs made replacement of locomotive haulage on Waterloo-Exeter even more urgent so some of an existing Regional Railways order for Class 158 was adapted and re-directed to Network South East (as Class 159). That left Regional Railways short of stock. Some routes that were least-unsuitable for locomotive haulage (reasonable distance between stops, long platforms still in situ, run-round facilities still available, etc.) were identified and Crewe/Chester-Holyhead fitted the bill. Some Class 37s had been displaced from parcels and freight cuts. Mark I coaches were sitting around spare.

This sort of thing demonstrates the key strengths of a nationalised system with strong centralised control but at arm's length from government. It is possible to cut services across the piece quickly to save money, increase fares, dispose of assets and so on without a huge amount of contractual and legal 'treacle'.

 

[Bikeman78]

(What follows is a broad-brush simplification.)

The financial difficulties and reduced growth of the early 1990s triggered a complete re-appraisal of the BR sectors' financial prospects. Many rolling stock orders and plans were cancelled and never got beyond the 'artists impression' stage. There were also service cuts (e.g. InterCity retrenchment), shorter trains (e.g. 10-car down to 8-car or 6-car on some NSE routes) and non-passenger sector cutbacks too (parcels and Speedlink). There were above-inflation fares increases to bring in better yield and help price off some traffic that was expensive to resource.

Cost escapement needs made replacement of locomotive haulage on Waterloo-Exeter even more urgent so some of an existing Regional Railways order for Class 158 was adapted and re-directed to Network South East (as Class 159). That left Regional Railways short of stock. Some routes that were least-unsuitable for locomotive haulage (reasonable distance between stops, long platforms still in situ, run-round facilities still available, etc.) were identified and Crewe/Chester-Holyhead fitted the bill. Some Class 37s had been displaced from parcels and freight cuts. Mark I coaches were sitting around spare.

This sort of thing demonstrates the key strengths of a nationalised system with strong centralised control but at arm's length from government. It is possible to cut services across the piece quickly to save money, increase fares, dispose of assets and so on without a huge amount of contractual and legal 'treacle'.

Thanks for the summary.

 

[Bevan Price]

In addition to Dr Hoo's comments, since the 1960s. many North Wales services had been operated by 1st generation dmus with 3+2 seating (Classes 100, 101, 108, etc.). Apart from being rather unsuitable for many services, the ageing units had problems, with asbestos and/or corrosion, and were probably considered not worth refurbishing, nor worth spending money to remove asbestos. Some Class 37 (& 31) and hauled stock were available, and it was presumbly considered more economical to use them rather than to spend a small fortune on units with limited future lifetimes.

It needs also to be remembered that in the Peter Parker era in the 1980s, a start was made on replacement of dmus with 3+2 seating by better quality, loco-hauled stock on services such as Birmingham to East Anglia & Liverpool / Manchester to Sheffield / Cleethorpes / Hull. Some of this stock became spare after arrival of Class 158s.

 

[Jozhua]

I was just nattering about Amtrak's plans to replace much of their fleet and thought about the 15X units. You expect about 30 years out of a DMU, 150's are about 33/34 years old, and 156/8 around 30-ish.

Any contracts signed today will result in new trains in service around 2025, so it would make logical sense to get the ball rolling now on replacing those. The large numbers means it will likely take a while to produce all the sets needed!

I can think of many reasons to replace them:

• 150's are relatively reliable, however, 158's in perticular are pretty problematic, 156's aren't perfect either! Obviously the more they age, the more likely they will need to be rebuilt/refurbed, at a cost that is likely uneconomic.
• Crashworthiness - not really an issue if/when the few seconds where it definately is! Newer units will be a lot more crashworthy, which is worth considering.
• Noise - 150's, 153's and 156's are really noisy, especially when windows are opened during warmer weather. Units like 319's have similar levels of noise insulation, but the lack of noisy diesel engines makes the experience a lot more pleasent!
• Passenger Comfort - Air Conditioning is available in even cheap second hand cars these days - something you can't say for 15X, apart from the 158 (still unreliable on those units). Noise is obviously still a factor, as well as dated interiors and a lack of some acessibility features we might come to expect in newer units.
• Pollution - Obviously new units would probably still run on diesel, but the engines would probably be a tad more efficient and much cleaner.
• Acceleration/Top Speed - Obviously likely to be better on newer units, with all of the service improvement that entails!

Unfortunately, I think like others have pointed out, there are likely to be issues in regards to electrification. Wanting to phase out diesel propulsion by 2040 is a reasonable and achiveable goal, however the government doesn't seem to be interested in addressing it. I guess this is where a strategy combining electrification and rolling stock comes into place. Indeed, electrification opens up a lot of possibilities for routes, as there is generally a fairly steady supply of solid 2nd hand EMUs, which tend to last a little longer than their DMU counterparts. The electrification of routes, especially ones feeding into electrified mainlines *cough*Windemere*cough*, also allows for newer DMUs to be cascaded onto some of the more rural lines.

Most manufacturers will admit technologies like Hydrogen and especially batteries, aren't really the most economic method of providing a good level of service on a lot of routes. They have their place, make no doubt about it, but there is no magic bullet.

So really you have two options:
1 - electrify and cascade newer DMUs to some of the rural routes that can eventually use hydrogen/battery technology.
2 - admit you probably won't do a rolling programme of electrification and build DMUs/Bi-Modes with the intention of running them past 2040.

I don't think this awkard position of limbo - where we make promises with no concrete plan on how to achieve them - is viable, esepcially for the services millions of people rely on each day.

 

[AGH]

From a commuter perspective the 150s do a job but they are old, noisy and cramped. The drive towards a green economy will surely see an early end especially if they run under wires for a significant portion of the journey e.g Manchester urban services.

An order for bi mode is surely only waiting post Covid numbers to increase and money to flow again. You can't ban ICE cars by 2030 and just ignore train's. Longer routes will be more difficult and that probably means a stay for the 156/8 until they either expire or the green economy accelerates in which case a variety of options are available be it more electrification so bi mode is viable, alternative fuels and batteries.

 

[172007]

From a commuter perspective the 150s do a job but they are old, noisy and cramped. The drive towards a green economy will surely see an early end especially if they run under wires for a significant portion of the journey e.g Manchester urban services.

An order for bi mode is surely only waiting post Covid numbers to increase and money to flow again. You can't ban ICE cars by 2030 and just ignore train's. Longer routes will be more difficult and that probably means a stay for the 156/8 until they either expire or the green economy accelerates in which case a variety of options are available be it more electrification so bi mode is viable, alternative fuels and batteries.

Of course you can ban ICE cars in 2030 and still make and use Diesel Trains. You argument falls down. As there is no ban on ICE motorbikes from 2030 (as of yet) and Electric bikes are being made, even Harley Davidson.

 

[quantinghome]

You can't ban ICE cars by 2030 and just ignore train's.

Only new non-hybrid ICE cars will be banned in 2030. All new ICEs will be banned in 2035, so there will still be plenty of ICE cars running well into the 2040s.

 

[HSTEd]

We can keep diesel trains indefinitely, the question is whether it is a good idea to do so is rather different.

Ultimately the railway needs to present an image of comfort and convenience.

A class 150 that rattles like crazy, has no air con and makes it difficult to hear yourself think does not give this impression.

 

[Mikey C]

They’re not particularly quick and again they’re a bit noisy, but other than that I’m not sure we’ve made a huge amount of progress when it comes to DMUs in the UK?

I would say that (reliability issues apart) the 175 was a definite improvement over the 156s and 158s, while still continuing the same general end door layout more suitable for longer distance services

100mph and aircon, reasonable seats AND alignment for a decent view out (good window size too)

 

[class26]

I was just nattering about Amtrak's plans to replace much of their fleet and thought about the 15X units. You expect about 30 years out of a DMU, 150's are about 33/34 years old, and 156/8 around 30-ish.

Any contracts signed today will result in new trains in service around 2025, so it would make logical sense to get the ball rolling now on replacing those. The large numbers means it will likely take a while to produce all the sets needed!

I can think of many reasons to replace them:

• 150's are relatively reliable, however, 158's in perticular are pretty problematic, 156's aren't perfect either! Obviously the more they age, the more likely they will need to be rebuilt/refurbed, at a cost that is likely uneconomic.
• Crashworthiness - not really an issue if/when the few seconds where it definately is! Newer units will be a lot more crashworthy, which is worth considering.
• Noise - 150's, 153's and 156's are really noisy, especially when windows are opened during warmer weather. Units like 319's have similar levels of noise insulation, but the lack of noisy diesel engines makes the experience a lot more pleasent!
• Passenger Comfort - Air Conditioning is available in even cheap second hand cars these days - something you can't say for 15X, apart from the 158 (still unreliable on those units). Noise is obviously still a factor, as well as dated interiors and a lack of some acessibility features we might come to expect in newer units.
• Pollution - Obviously new units would probably still run on diesel, but the engines would probably be a tad more efficient and much cleaner.
• Acceleration/Top Speed - Obviously likely to be better on newer units, with all of the service improvement that entails!

Unfortunately, I think like others have pointed out, there are likely to be issues in regards to electrification. Wanting to phase out diesel propulsion by 2040 is a reasonable and achiveable goal, however the government doesn't seem to be interested in addressing it. I guess this is where a strategy combining electrification and rolling stock comes into place. Indeed, electrification opens up a lot of possibilities for routes, as there is generally a fairly steady supply of solid 2nd hand EMUs, which tend to last a little longer than their DMU counterparts. The electrification of routes, especially ones feeding into electrified mainlines *cough*Windemere*cough*, also allows for newer DMUs to be cascaded onto some of the more rural lines.

Most manufacturers will admit technologies like Hydrogen and especially batteries, aren't really the most economic method of providing a good level of service on a lot of routes. They have their place, make no doubt about it, but there is no magic bullet.

So really you have two options:
1 - electrify and cascade newer DMUs to some of the rural routes that can eventually use hydrogen/battery technology.
2 - admit you probably won't do a rolling programme of electrification and build DMUs/Bi-Modes with the intention of running them past 2040.

I don't think this awkard position of limbo - where we make promises with no concrete plan on how to achieve them - is viable, esepcially for the services millions of people rely on each day.

Surprised that it has taken until post 50 to mention the dreadful racket that a 150 / 53/ 56 makes. It hardly gives an impression of modern transport, especially if you have to sit on a 156 doing a lengthy journey in the summer with several stops after which the noise of acceleration is deafening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surprised that it has taken until post 50 to mention the dreadful racket that a 150 / 53/ 56 makes. It hardly gives an impression of modern transport, especially if you have to sit on a 156 doing a lengthy journey in the summer with several stops after which the noise of acceleration is deafening.

158s are as bad, that horrid whine hurts my ears after a few hours.

Even the "cut and shut" of a 230 manages to keep the engine noise almost unnoticeably quiet - being on a 230 is just like being on a D78 on the Tube in terms of sound, give or take a bit of whine from the new AC motors.

 

[Grecian 1998]

The engine noise from 150s / 153s / 156s does at least drown out any invariably abysmal music fellow passengers are playing without headphones / loud and inane mobile phone conversations / insert own pet hates here. Particularly satisfying if you go through a long tunnel where the engine noise along with the air movements render all such irritants redundant for a few minutes. Although admittedly it can sound like you're on a journey to the centre of the earth.

 

[Bigman]

And don't forget all the lovely diesel fumes coming in through the hopper windows when you are climbing up through the likes of Totley, Disley, Summit, Bramhope Tunnels etc.

 

[172007]

In a nut shell, this thread comes down to 15X except for 158's are:

On paper in a DFT meeting room in Whitehall have another 10 years of life.

In reality, are now so poor for customer experience that they should be replaced immediately. How many people who would travel by train look, hear and smell them and just jump in their air-conditioned, comfortable and quiet car to go to town; preperared to spend more in parking too.