Future of SWR's class 158/159 fleet

[Energy]

It isn't exactly SWR's decision to make. The DfT decide which trains need replacement and which should be moved around.

Even if SWR did pull the strings, why would they want to replace them? The 158s and 159s aren't in bad condition and the line is only electrified as far as Basingstoke, while it would remove some diesel over 3rd rail running it wouldn't be a lot. For now I'd expect the 158s and 159s to operate as is, if someone else orders some bimode stock with gangways then SWR (well the DfT) can put a tag on order to replace them.

 

[LOL The Irony]

if someone else orders some bimode stock with gangways then SWR (well the DfT) can put a tag on order to replace them.

ScotRail are looking at replacing their entire fleet, bar the 380s & 385s, which is going to require bi-modes.

 

[JonathanH]

Even if SWR did pull the strings, why would they want to replace them? The 158s and 159s aren't in bad condition and the line is only electrified as far as Basingstoke, while it would remove some diesel over 3rd rail running it wouldn't be a lot. For now I'd expect the 158s and 159s to operate as is, if someone else orders some bimode stock with gangways then SWR (well the DfT) can put a tag on order to replace them.

Indeed, I agree with you. The point I was responding to was a suggestion that SWR would somehow be looking into options to change their fleet.

Substituting DfT for SWR above, it seems clear that this route isn't where DfT should be focusing their attention at present.

 

[Energy]

ScotRail are looking at replacing their entire fleet, bar the 380s & 385s, which is going to require bi-modes.

Maybe, I don't think we should be resorting to hydrogen for this line though.

 

[MattRat]

Indeed, I agree with you. The point I was responding to was a suggestion that SWR would somehow be looking into options to change their fleet.

Substituting DfT for SWR above, it seems clear that this route isn't where DfT should be focusing their attention at present.

They are going to have to order new trains somewhere, and better to do it with trains that can be cascaded.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Maybe, I don't think we should be resorting to hydrogen for this line though.

It doesn't have to be hydrogen, I just used that because it's my preferred choice. A bi-mode is a bi-mode whether you stick some hydrogen tanks and a fuel cell, a battery rack, or a diesel engine underneath the train. In fact, diesel bi-modes are built so the engines can be replaced by something else later.

 

[tomuk]

The Flirts have done well? A possibility?

Have they done well? The long ones seem to be a bit problematic, one particularly seems to not be able to get to Liverpool Street. There are a lot of the shorter ones out of service at one time too. They appear to be the rail equivalent of German Premium Cars.

 

[Energy]

There are a lot of the shorter ones out of service at one time too.

There are a lot of 755s for not a lot of diagrams.

Generally the Flirts seem to be pretty reliable and are doing a lot better than other new trains.

 

[Flinn Reed]

Rather than new trains, could newer casacded fleet be an option, such as 175s or 185s?

 

[D365]

Rather than new trains, could newer casacded fleet be an option, such as 175s or 185s?

Not enough of either available.

 

[Energy]

Rather than new trains, could newer casacded fleet be an option, such as 175s or 185s?

Not enough 175s, 185s look to be staying at TPE for now and the ones which originally would have left wouldn't have been enough. I doubt SWR would want 185s being fuel thirsty and no gangways though its the DfT who pull the strings now.

 

[MattRat]

Rather than new trains, could newer casacded fleet be an option, such as 175s or 185s?

Actually a step backwards for passengers, and for the operator considering costs.

Also I think people will only be happy if it's a bi-mode. If a hybrid 19x like Northern doesn't even cut it, I very much doubt older, smellier diesels will.

 

[Mikey C]

A bimode 158/159 replacement would be very useful across the network, i.e. something that replicates the current trains as regional express units, with gangways and end doors for services which don't stop every 5 minutes letting lots of passengers or off.

 

[LOL The Irony]

If a hybrid 19x like Northern doesn't even cut it, I very much doubt older, smellier diesels will.

The hybrid 195s don't cut it with us because it's a poor man's halfway house between a pure diesel and bi-mode. Hybridisation of already existing trains, such as the newer Sprinters and the Turbos is actually good and helps reduce their carbon footprint over the final years of their lives.

 

[NoOnesFool]

If they do get replaced, I would like to see some coaches converted to First Class carriages and passed to EMR to provide a First Class option on the Liverpool Lime Street - Norwich route.

 

[RailWonderer]

Why are so many here suggesting end gangways are still important? They were only needed back when SWT ran a trolley service on all WoE routes and since trolleys were axed long ago, hence why they got rid of 170s, added to lack of capacity on the 2 car ones. Gangways wouldn't be needed at all these days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A bimode 158/159 replacement would be very useful across the network, i.e. something that replicates the current trains as regional express units, with gangways and end doors for services which don't stop every 5 minutes letting lots of passengers or off.

If you look at what's replaced what, that unit exists in the form of the 80x. Yes, it has an unnecessary 140mph top speed, so a 110mph version might save a few quid and be able to have a less pointy nose so more seats (maybe even the gangway from the 385), but there's little case for not going up to 110 for new EMUs now.

Add some shoegear and away you go.

 

[zwk500]

If you look at what's replaced what, that unit exists in the form of the 80x. Yes, it has an unnecessary 140mph top speed, so a 110mph version might save a few quid and be able to have a less pointy nose so more seats (maybe even the gangway from the 385), but there's little case for not going up to 110 for new EMUs now.

Add some shoegear and away you go.

3rd rail is 100mph max in service. A Diesel version of the 385 (which is AT200 family rather than the AT300 80Xs) would seem to fit the bill perfectly for a regional service like this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

3rd rail is 100mph max in service. A Diesel version of the 385 (which is AT200 family rather than the AT300 80Xs) would seem to fit the bill perfectly for a regional service like this.

Bimode would be better, but yes. Doors at thirds may be better for this sort of regional service.

If going DMU then CAFs would be fine too. If you really wanted end doors I'm sure they could do a DMU with the 397 bodyshell.

 

[zwk500]

Bimode would be better, but yes. Doors at thirds may be better for this sort of regional service.

If going DMU then CAFs would be fine too. If you really wanted end doors I'm sure they could do a DMU with the 397 bodyshell.

Agree bi-mode would be better. Salisbury-Exeter-Salisbury is probably not yet in battery range, neither do the Romsey Rockets really spend enough time on the juice.

 

[JonathanH]

Why are so many here suggesting end gangways are still important? They were only needed back when SWT ran a trolley service on all WoE routes and since trolleys were axed long ago, hence why they got rid of 170s, added to lack of capacity on the 2 car ones. Gangways wouldn't be needed at all these days.

It remains important to have through gangways for short platforms, conductor access and better passenger experience.

 

[zwk500]

It remains important to have through gangways for short platforms, conductor access and better passenger experience.

If you're using 3 or more units yes, although I'd argue if you used slightly longer units so they just ran as 2 sets coupled then lack of gangways wouldn't be overly problematic. After all, TPE, Avanti, XC, GWR and LNER all run non-gangways double sets.

 

[NoOnesFool]

Why are so many here suggesting end gangways are still important? They were only needed back when SWT ran a trolley service on all WoE routes and since trolleys were axed long ago, hence why they got rid of 170s, added to lack of capacity on the 2 car ones. Gangways wouldn't be needed at all these days.

Gangways are useful from a Revenue Protection perspective. It also means only one Train Manager and one driver is required per working, as the Train Manager can access all of the train from the inside.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Gangways are useful from a Revenue Protection perspective. It also means only one Train Manager and one driver is required per working, as the Train Manager can access all of the train from the inside.

There is no requirement for that policy; only some TOCs have it.

 

[zwk500]

Gangways are useful from a Revenue Protection perspective. It also means only one Train Manager and one driver is required per working, as the Train Manager can access all of the train from the inside.

On the runs the Waterloo-Exeters do, there's plenty of time for the TM to walk down one unit then swap over at a station call to check the other for a revenue point of view. Or just have RPIs do spot checks on services.

 

[Energy]

3rd rail is 100mph max in service. A Diesel version of the 385 (which is AT200 family rather than the AT300 80Xs) would seem to fit the bill perfectly for a regional service like this.

A bimode 385 would be great but for the 158/159s to be replaced they either need to be falling apart or have a fairly standard replacement.

For cascades the 158/159s aren't that useful aside for Northern 156 replacement. Scotrail aren't that interested in them (they let some go when Abellio came in) and they'd be no good at replacing the class 150s. I believe the 387s to Cardiff plan is freeing up 80Xs for GWR HST replacement. As for GWR 150s, when a 158 runs those services there are often problems with boarding times and I think there is some problem with non 20m stock on some routes.

 

[NoOnesFool]

On the runs the Waterloo-Exeters do, there's plenty of time for the TM to walk down one unit then swap over at a station call to check the other for a revenue point of view. Or just have RPIs do spot checks on services.

That's not a always possible as the TM has to be in different positions to dispatch at different stations. If they swap to the front and then approach a station where they have to dispatch to the rear, they would have to move back to the rear unit anyway.

 

[RobShipway]

On the runs the Waterloo-Exeters do, there's plenty of time for the TM to walk down one unit then swap over at a station call to check the other for a revenue point of view. Or just have RPIs do spot checks on services.

What about disabled people, if a unit has to be detached?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why are so many here suggesting end gangways are still important? They were only needed back when SWT ran a trolley service on all WoE routes and since trolleys were axed long ago, hence why they got rid of 170s, added to lack of capacity on the 2 car ones. Gangways wouldn't be needed at all these days.

Conversely, why are some so opposed to continuing with the flexibility that gangways provide? Sure, there's some added complexity at the design stage but that aside the main concerns seem to be aesthetic ones.

In any case, in my opinion units with gangways actually often look better than without. Compared to their gangwayed brethren, 150/1s, 360s and 195s all look as if there's a bit missing to me.

 

[Snow1964]

3rd rail is 100mph max in service. A Diesel version of the 385 (which is AT200 family rather than the AT300 80Xs) would seem to fit the bill perfectly for a regional service like this.

Not so much a diesel version, but a bi-mode (with dual voltage capability. And if going for 3car or 4car keeping the gangways makes sense.

Probably best to design them for 110mph (or 175km/h) max, although 100mph on third rail, and 95mph on diesel is probably ok for current limits. I wouldn’t rule out 105mph on SWML in future as 5% improvement with modern technology seems reasonable future proofing.

I am with others that although the 159 fleet could continue for few more years, there is logic in replacing them (and Cardiff-Portsmouth fleet) so existing trains can take over from aging 150s and 155s around the network, until some areas get pure electric units.

I think the era of allowing diesel trains to do long mileages over electric lines into polluted cities is ending, and it is basically a 100 mile trip Worting Junction - Waterloo - Worting Junction. (For same reasons I think the 220s on cross country will not stay on current routes for many more years)