Northern 150's

[150249]

Didn't they swap it for 209, the hybrid unit with no toilet, which they've now used to convert two 150/1s to three-car units?

Yes. Tbh I'd prefer it if gwr kept 150209!

 

[MattRat]

Aren't they getting rid of all 150s anyway? They are around 40 years old. Better to replace them than yet another refurb that won't last that long anyway.

 

[skyhigh]

Aren't they getting rid of all 150s anyway?

Not any time soon.

 

[py_megapixel]

I think they could have done with a better passenger information system.

In terms of the automated announcements, the voice itself is fine and I have grown to like it somewhat, but the announcements don't flow properly, and if there is only short time between stations, they cut each other off. "Thisisthenorthern service to.... Manchester Piccadilly... the next stop is.... we will shortly be arriving at... HEATON CHAPEL!" Also, single-line LED matrix displays belong in designs from the early 2000s. In fact, the ones from the early 2000s are better, as they generally don't flicker and contain well-phrased and suitably concise text.

Other than that, I do think ironing-board-ing seats would have been a good idea, as the current seats are awful, especially the more square ones (Ashbourne I believe) which are a stupid shape and far too low to the ground.

 

[diligentdave]

The passenger information systems fitted to the Northern fleets are specified, bought and paid for by the vehicle owners, i.e. Angel & Porterbrook. They then get fitted at an appropriate time, i.e. when the units went through PRM modifications.

 

[py_megapixel]

They're still poor, regardless of who specified them!

 

[507 001]

They have the TrainFX system fitted, which by all accounts is absolute rubbish.

 

[Mollman]

Aren't they getting rid of all 150s anyway? They are around 40 years old. Better to replace them than yet another refurb that won't last that long anyway.

It is likely that as more lines in the North (and elsewhere) are electrified over the next 10 years the 150s will be steadily withdrawn. It is hard to see at the moment the Treasury backing a full replacement (which would probably cover the 155s at least as well) or allowing a large enough fleet replacement elsewhere to cascade newer DMUs to fully replace the sprinters in one go.

 

[507020]

It is likely that as more lines in the North (and elsewhere) are electrified over the next 10 years the 150s will be steadily withdrawn. It is hard to see at the moment the Treasury backing a full replacement (which would probably cover the 155s at least as well) or allowing a large enough fleet replacement elsewhere to cascade newer DMUs to fully replace the sprinters in one go.

The 155s should go now, with the 153s, but I think you are right about the 150s. Replacing them with more DMUs is unacceptable and electrification in the North, South West and Wales is absolutely essential. The 150s will likely be forced to last over 40 years until they can be replaced by EMUs. The 156s and 158s are a bit newer and shouldn’t be replaced at the same time as the 150s. Network Rail have started the early design process for Rochdale and CLC electrification so this should help towards that quite a bit.

 

[45076]

Wasn't there a story somewhere that the GWR 150's were going to Northern?

 

[skyhigh]

The 155s should go now, with the 153s

Why? What would replace them right now?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Wasn't there a story somewhere that the GWR 150's were going to Northern?

I think it was only the /1s, followed by the /0s, followed by the four non-standard layout /2s, but now the latter are staying and are being standardised at Wolverton. 202 is there now (and better return soon, as the only GWR train I haven’t been on)

 

[Neptune]

The 155s should go now, with the 153s, but I think you are right about the 150s. Replacing them with more DMUs is unacceptable and electrification in the North, South West and Wales is absolutely essential. The 150s will likely be forced to last over 40 years until they can be replaced by EMUs. The 156s and 158s are a bit newer and shouldn’t be replaced at the same time as the 150s. Network Rail have started the early design process for Rochdale and CLC electrification so this should help towards that quite a bit.

And replaced with what?

They are absolutely fine on the routes they work out of Hull and will soon have a dedicated maintenance facility at BG alongside the 170’s.

 

[507020]

Why? What would replace them right now?

And replaced with what?

They are absolutely fine on the routes they work out of Hull and will soon have a dedicated maintenance facility at BG alongside the 170’s.

Not necessarily this instant but there will be a few options quite soon. 150/158/175s freed up from TfW for example. With 153s withdrawn the bodyshell becomes a non-standard design and the build quality is worse than that of 150/156/158s, so however long they last, they should go before 150s.

 

[Neptune]

Not necessarily this instant but there will be a few options quite soon. 150/158/175s freed up from TfW for example. With 153s withdrawn the bodyshell becomes a non-standard design and the build quality is worse than that of 150/156/158s, so however long they last, they should go before 150s.

Is the build quality that bad? I worked them for over 20 years and they are no worse than other sprinters. They’re actually quite solid. 153 withdrawal from Northern is irrelevant. They share their mechanicals (the important bits) with 150’s and 156’s.

 

[507020]

Is the build quality that bad? I worked them for over 20 years and they are no worse than other sprinters. They’re actually quite solid. 153 withdrawal from Northern is irrelevant. They share their mechanicals (the important bits) with 150’s and 156’s.

I think the difference in build quality is enough to make them less likely to see 40 years service than the 150/156/158s, which isn’t that much.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not necessarily this instant but there will be a few options quite soon. 150/158/175s freed up from TfW for example. With 153s withdrawn the bodyshell becomes a non-standard design and the build quality is worse than that of 150/156/158s, so however long they last, they should go before 150s.

On the one hand, at only seven units they are a "microfleet", although the disadvantages of microfleets are often overstated. There isn't anything particular about 155s that makes their retention a requirement however- unlike 150s whose 40m length means they're the only option for certain routes. Although one of those is Huddersfield to Castleford which is currently bustituted anyway.

Trying to use 155s as a reason to crowbar a cascade of 175s to Northern is a poor argument though. If 155s really are a problem to be solved, the solution is obviously 156s soon to be released from EMR.

 

[skyhigh]

If 155s really are a problem to be solved, the solution is obviously 156s soon to be released from EMR.

Although Hull, Doncaster and most of Leeds depots won't sign 156s so would need quite a significant crew training program. Not to mention the costs of bringing incoming units up to Northern standard.

150/158/175s freed up from TfW for example. With 153s withdrawn the bodyshell becomes a non-standard design

Yes 155s look a bit different to other 15x but mechanically many of the important bits are shared - not to mention a plentiful supply of spares from 153s. Bringing in 175s to replace 155s doesn't reduce the number of types in the fleet though!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Although Hull, Doncaster and most of Leeds depots won't sign 156s so would need quite a significant crew training program. Not to mention the costs of bringing incoming units up to Northern standard.

Yes 155s look a bit different to other 15x but mechanically many of the important bits are shared - not to mention a plentiful supply of spares from 153s. Bringing in 175s to replace 155s doesn't reduce the number of types in the fleet though!

AIUI for crews that already sign other 15x, the conversion course to 156s is fairly simple... which would make sense if they are indeed so mechanically similar beneath the surface. You appear to be arguing the two points above from opposite sides, so which one is the correct side?

 

[skyhigh]

AIUI for crews that already sign other 15x, the conversion course to 156s is fairly simple... which would make sense if they are indeed so mechanically similar beneath the surface. You appear to be arguing the two points above from opposite sides, so which one is the correct side?

I meant significant more in terms of numbers of crew that would need training - drivers would have to be taken off service work to sign new traction, even though it's a fairly simple conversion course.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I meant significant more in terms of numbers of crew that would need training - drivers would have to be taken off service work to sign new traction, even though it's a fairly simple conversion course.

I agree that any fleet changes would require additional training for crews, and as such needs to be considered in any decisions.

This thread was originally about Northern's 150s, and has developed into a discussion more broadly about the future of the 15x fleet. Obviously these units won't last forever, and with the 150s now the oldest and most dated DMU fleet in use, replacing them is something that will need to be dealt with in the coming years.

There are a few factors which play into the possibility that 150s will outlast their 23m cousins, partly the length issue (although as I stated upthread, one of those is currently bustituted; and the problem platform at Huddersfield is set for removal as part of the upgrade), but also the door positions. The 155s on the other hand number only 7 units, and have no unique feature that requires their use- such as a route only they can be cleared for. So on the bigger picture it would make sense to replace them with redundant 156s from EMR. As you point out, there's no current overlap between crews signing 155s and 156s, so such a change would require some training, though relatively simple compared to an entirely unrelated fleet.

Northern's current use of the 155s is probably the best way of accommodating a small fleet, bar unique cases such as the 139s at Stourbridge. However I assume that those crews that currently work 155s will also regularly work 158s, so if the Leyland units were to be withdrawn for 156s, some shuffling with the West side could possibly be arranged. Or indeed direct replacement with 158s from EMR or TfW rather than 156s.

 

[IanXC]

They have the TrainFX system fitted, which by all accounts is absolute rubbish.

Oh? Is there another system active on a UK fleet with direct connection to Darwin (as used by CIS etc)?

Certainly is leagues ahead of Hitachi's system in any case.

 

[py_megapixel]

Oh? Is there another system active on a UK fleet with direct connection to Darwin (as used by CIS etc)?

Doesn't matter how good or "smart" the backend system is, if the information it puts out to passengers is still rubbish (and also given plenty of staff find it irritating).

The Darwin connection doesn't seem to really do anything particularly useful from a passenger perspective anyway. You now get arrival times in the list of calling points, which is a nice touch, but not really essential.

 

[507 001]

Oh? Is there another system active on a UK fleet with direct connection to Darwin (as used by CIS etc)?

Certainly is leagues ahead of Hitachi's system in any case.

Call me old fashioned, but I’d rather have a system that was audible, had legible external displays and was reliable over a connection to Darwin.

 

[Geeves]

A few months ago, I travelled from Penzance to Exeter on 150207 + 150249. Initially, I got on 150207 but I couldn't stand the train. The seats were dreadful, the layout was terrible and the train felt like it was falling apart. I moved onto 150249 about half an hour into the journey and it was generally more comfortable, smelt better and was quieter (part of the reason that it is my favourite train). What did Northern do with 150207?

To try and balance things out from yet another Northern bashing thread, 150207 has been with GWR for near on 4 years so what ever state its in is down to GWR now not Northern.

 

[150249]

To try and balance things out from yet another Northern bashing thread, 150207 has been with GWR for near on 4 years so what ever state its in is down to GWR now not Northern.

It was noticeably better than it was 4 years ago but it was still worse than 150249. Could be that 150249 is just a better train?

 

[IanXC]

Doesn't matter how good or "smart" the backend system is, if the information it puts out to passengers is still rubbish (and also given plenty of staff find it irritating).

The Darwin connection doesn't seem to really do anything particularly useful from a passenger perspective anyway. You now get arrival times in the list of calling points, which is a nice touch, but not really essential.

Call me old fashioned, but I’d rather have a system that was audible, had legible external displays and was reliable over a connection to Darwin.

The information is as good as the industry is providing... single version of the truth and all that. If that needs to be kept more accurate then that is a different issue.

As a result of accessing the Darwin feed and knowing whether the train is on time it will, for instance, apologise when the train is being delayed and advise of delay repay. Presumably it will eventually update for cancelled and extra calling points, early terminations etc.

"Reliability" doesn't seem to be a problem as far as I can see, its been working correctly on every train I've been on in the last 6 months or so...

 

[fgwrich]

Wasn't there a story somewhere that the GWR 150's were going to Northern?

I think it was only the /1s, followed by the /0s, followed by the four non-standard layout /2s, but now the latter are staying and are being standardised at Wolverton. 202 is there now (and better return soon, as the only GWR train I haven’t been on)

Pretty much - the Angel 6 (001/002, 202 / 207 / 216 + 57209/12). Of course, only 001/002 + the two homeless 57 cars (reformed as 209) headed up to Northern, with GWR badgering out a deal with the DfT to allow them to stay in the West. I can but hope they are being standardised! Though the ex West Midlands pair were refurbished into FGW then GWR colours, they retain their original Ashbourne seats. 207 however... as below.

It was noticeably better than it was 4 years ago but it was still worse than 150249. Could be that 150249 is just a better train?

It doesn't help that 207 is a rather poor hotch potch of a unit, with a mismatch of FNW, Northern, FGW and GWR interiors. I believe it now has GWR seat covers since donated from the 143s (with one 143 leaving Exeter last year with a Northern interior as a result!) but it has, for some time, needed a good interior overhaul. Thankfully this now looks set to happen when it heads for Wolverton.

 

[py_megapixel]

The information is as good as the industry is providing... single version of the truth and all that. If that needs to be kept more accurate then that is a different issue.

I don't mean the accuracy, I mean the quality of how it is presented to the passengers.

The 150s, 156s and 319s have dot-matrix displays. A sane system would use these displays for concisely worded running information, in the knowledge that they have to scroll, so the more text there is, the less time each will be visible for.
Instead, we get text which seems to have been chosen to be as long as possible, including all kinds of information (such as text 61016, mind the gap etc..) which could just as well be presented on posters and has nothing to do with the running of the service. And they throw in some spurious ">" characters and some bad grammar, just for fun.

Meanwhile, the 158s and 323s with the colour LCD displays, rather than using their ability to display larger text and graphics (as seen on e.g. the Aventras), we get the same rubbish text, split over two lines and presented like a PowerPoint slide show with no regard for where it ought to be split.

As a result of accessing the Darwin feed and knowing whether the train is on time it will, for instance, apologise when the train is being delayed and advise of delay repay. Presumably it will eventually update for cancelled and extra calling points, early terminations etc.

Sounds good in principle, but I'll believe it when I see it. I've been on plenty of late Northern trains and never had an automated apology out of it.

"Reliability" doesn't seem to be a problem as far as I can see, its been working correctly on every train I've been on in the last 6 months or so...

It's admittedly less common now than when the system was introduced, but sometimes the displays are just showing "Northern" outside and "Welcome aboard this Northern service" inside. Also on the 323s I've seen many times a single display which is either several seconds out of sync with the others, or "stuck" on information from a previous journey (I found one showing "This is Guide Bridge" on a Stoke-on-Trent service for example).

Plus the displays have visible flicker on them, which is honestly ridiculous in the modern day.

 

[ricoblade]

The ex FNW ones have Chapman seats but in a high density style without tables
The ex ATN and transferred London Midland examples plus 001/002 were never refurbished with new seating and retain the awful as built interiors

Yep - I was on one of the high density without tables 150s last week on the Gainsborough Central to Sheffield service, awful set-up and quite laughable high density seating on that service!