If any 170s become available I would think that they are more likely to go to EMR. EMR already have a large number of 170s for their regional services and the 158s, mainly used the Liverpool to Norwich, although going through a bit of a refurbishment, won’t last forever. If EMR got some more 170s they would have a standardised fleet for their regional services albeit still now 25 plus years old.
Ageed.
My own experience is limited to a run from Waterloo to Yeovil Junction and back in about, maybe 2012 or 13. I had read a lot of bad stuff about SWT (or whatever TOC it was at the time) and the supposed poor state of 159s.
Your thoughts echo mine.
The 395s are 3rd rail compatible, so I don't think it would be a push to get a third rail compatible 800 derivative.
Their EMU fleet 'strategy' has been a bit bonkers for some years now. And the 159s may be less reliable than the electrics but I don't think there are any(?) DMUs with superior reliability that might be available. The best thing for the WoE line would be a healthy supply of spare parts at Salisbury.
It says in ( I think ) Rail 1055 that they'll now be replaced in the mid 2030s, so they've got to last another ten years now!
The Class 456s were admittedly 'binned off' a few years early, but the Class 455s (which were by far the largest 'metro' fleet) are/were by all accounts life expired.
The 707s were given back because SWT had taken them on on an expensive lease that SWR were not happy about.
A combination of botched electrification*, bionic duckweed thinking and implementing an arbitrary ban on DMUs' date without really thinking through how to achieve it, has led to a surplus of EMUs, while DMU supply is at a premium. It also spurred on projects like the 769 project and GWR's 230 battery trial (although at least battery has a future, if the DfT would get on with allowing widespread orders of them).
They are already 34-36 years old, so another decade would take them to 44-46 years old.
I'm not sure that is entire correct comparison. It isn't solely about lease cost, given staff training, potentially a depot rebuild. Also, other operations would appear to be ahead in the queue for the available financing.
One of the differences now is that each of those has essentially been superceded by something that had a distinctly cheaper staffing / operational cost (eg 50+Mk2b to 159, steam power to diesel power) or could be improved by cascade from elsewhere (eg 33 to 50, Mark 1 to Mark 2b). I appreciate that new trains should be cheaper to maintain, but the other operational cost benefits don't seem as significant as they were at other change points.
What it says to me is that the 158/159s are supremely well built if they are still providing sterling service and are seen to be good for another 10 years – a great testament to late BREL quality.
Given the lead time to fleet introduction for new stock, there seems little doubt that they can see out that post-C6 period somewhere , even if not on their current services.
Not to mention all of the engineering and business change consultants that will be bought in to facilitate the rolling stock procurement exercises...
That rather depends on the lease agreement. If it is a dry lease, then SWR are funding it and Porterbrook will simply have told them they must do the C6 regardless.
At some point in future a tri-mode battery unit might be viable for that route, if OHLE islands eventually exist. Salisbury and Exeter are likely to be well-used locations for such islands, then one more island around Yeovil-Axminster might be all that's needed, particularly if a Devon metro service to Axminster needs a charging area at that end. What Northern manage to order might provide good indication of how viable such a proposal is likely to be.
Would it need to be tri-mode? I would hope that a few years down the line, we should be able to get a battery/electric bi-mode that could work that line, but the question will be whether the fast-charge islands can deliver enough power quickly enough to get the train to the next island without it impacting on journey times or punctuality.
I think wrong terminology was used, not tri-mode as in 3 different power sources (battery, mains electricity and something else eg diesel), but dual voltage and battery.
Not particularly relevant since SWR (DfT) will likely prioritise maximising their investment return, which means delaying fleet replacement as long as possible.
DfT doesn't invest in rolling stock, it rents (leases) it from others.
