Class 15X Future

[sprinterguy]

If ROSCOs can get pay back a return within 20 years at a sensible leasing cost for the TOC. Adding electric transmission would add an element of future proofing and some battery component would get round the 2040 issue.

Isn't the 2040 date merely an aspiration? The RSSB are spearheading a "Task Force" to encourage and develop alternatives to diesel traction before 2040, but as far as I'm aware there is no legislation in place or being developed to stop diesel trains operating in service after 2040.

 

[hooverboy]

I disagree, whatever you do to a 150, they will always seem old, the metal framed windows with ground in dirt, the opening hoppers that either don’t open at all, or open at random, the sliding doors that feel old and bang about in their pockets when a train goes past, no air con...

Even when the pacers go, the Northern franchise will still have a reputation for using ancient trains until such time as the 150s go. How many do they have about 100?

the sprinters were a massive improvement on 1st gen dmu's in most respects..granted the visual line-up was not as nice.old dmu's did have a much nicer vantage point,rather than having your shoulder up againt the bottom of the window, which was always a bit claustrophobic for shorties!.
Nothing that either lower windows or raised seats couldn't have cured!

we'll have this conversation again in 30 years!

 

[hooverboy]

Isn't the 2040 date merely an aspiration? The RSSB are spearheading a "Task Force" to encourage and develop alternatives to diesel traction before 2040, but as far as I'm aware there is no legislation in place or being developed to stop diesel trains operating in service after 2040.

oh,there will be some...just like uber draconian ULEZ charges!!! that's for sure.

not at all thought out, but it makes a nice soundbite for the politicians to look like they are fashionably green,hip and with it.
they will probably have some bull**** mantra on only vegan produce to be sold on buffet trolleys as well!

 

[js1000]

156s and particularly 158s will be around for a long time to come. Nothing inherently 'wrong' with 150s that a good refurb can't sort ..... which Northern haven't really achieved. I'd expect to see more 195s/196s in due course to begin replacing the worst of the 150s and 153s/155s unless there is a major change in Government policy regarding electrification very soon.

With all the new rolling stock entering service the 150s and 156s are going to stick out like a sore thumb. Northern are going to end up with the most in service but even they've explicitly said that once the 195s & 331s (along with TPEs new stock) the demand for replacing the 150s/156s is going to also increase.

There's no denying Northern's refurb of these units has been poor and patchy. Why no LED lighting and plug/USB sockets? Even then you'd still be polishing a turd as the noisy diesel engines booms through the carriage. 158 is incomparable. The 150s/156s don't feel 6 years older - more like 15.

The bid for the next Northern franchise post-2025 will pretty much resolve around how to replace the 100+ or so 150s/156s that will probably still be in service.

 

[ed1971]

Respectfully, it wasn't: The 150s on the Snow Hill lines were cramped, noisy, dated things with lousy seats and poor window layout. The 172s represented a hugely beneficial improvement in service quality and I was always grateful that I only started regularly commuting on the Snow Hill lines after they were introduced, and the 150s were ousted to Northernland where they continue to be cramped, noisy and dated but with a lick of white paint.

The Wales & Borders fleet demonstrated that it is possible to give a good refurbishment of a 150, but sadly Northern never latched onto that, which is a shame given that (Bringing myself on topic) they are likely to be the ones operating a large squadron fleet of the things the longest.

I agree with you regarding the 150s. I find that the claustrophobic interiors and noise levels when travelling on them only add to my stress and anxiety causing palpitations and profuse sweating. (The 150/1s seem to be the worst for some reason). On a warm day, I am most comfortable on a Pacer sat on the bench seats near the doors. Furthermore, my mother is 80 and still very active. She struggles to board these units at certain stations where there is a big gap. I too find it somewhat difficult at times, owing to a previous back injury. I have seen someone fall between the train and platform when boarding a 150/1 at Wigan Wallgate in 1992. A friend has seen a couple of similar incidents recently. Whilst Pacers have two steps, the first step is lower and there never is such a big platform gap.

I remember reading that when built the 150s had a design life of 30 years. I have previously read that the Cummins NTA855Rx engines fitted to most Class 15x. went out of production in 1997 and the spare engine pool is declining. Pacers have the more modern Cummins L10 series which lives on in updated form as the QSM11.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with you regarding the 150s. I find that the claustrophobic interiors and noise levels when travelling on them only add to my stress and anxiety causing palpitations and profuse sweating. (The 150/1s seem to be the worst for some reason).

Probably the fact that they (and all similar units like many Class 319s, 321s etc) appear to have been cleverly designed to ensure that no seat has a good window view at all.

That said, that can be fixed - the GWR refurbs seem the best as they avoid squashing in an extra row/side facing seat and go for 6 rows but with only one bay, which means excellent legroom and plenty of seats with a good view. Ideal for Westcountry branches.

 

[323 Class]

I suppose new or newer stock will have leasing costs far higher than the 25-35 year old examples. From a TOC's point of view, they must factor this in when balancing the books and the leasing company must get a good return on their investment.

As for the 153's, they need to make a decision on whether its worth reforming them into 155's and doing the PRM mods to allow one toilet otherwise there going to be surplus. Taking the tables out and adding more seats might make a single car more viable.

Last week I had the pleasure of riding 153361 which was attached to 142037 (leading unit). As you all know, Pacers don't have gangways so this was a situation where there was 1 driver and 2 guards due to the separation. As the OP referred to on page 1, that's 3x paid Northern staff on a 3 carriage train whereas if it was a 3 car 158 or 3 car pacer, only 2. I know this is off topic but what is the minimum staffing for length of passenger train?

 

[ed1971]

Probably the fact that they (and all similar units like many Class 319s, 321s etc) appear to have been cleverly designed to ensure that no seat has a good window view at all.

That said, that can be fixed - the GWR refurbs seem the best as they avoid squashing in an extra row/side facing seat and go for 6 rows but with only one bay, which means excellent legroom and plenty of seats with a good view. Ideal for Westcountry branches.

Aren't GWR only retaining Class 150/2s? I was once told that there are around 83 differences between a 150/1 and a 150/2. In fact a lot of the time they feel like different classes altogether.

 

[323 Class]

Aren't GWR only retaining Class 150/2s? I was once told that there are around 83 differences between a 150/1 and a 150/2. In fact a lot of the time they feel like different classes altogether.

I seem to remember one or 2 have gone from Northern to GWR.

150207 was definitely one of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Last week I had the pleasure of riding 153361 which was attached to 142037 (leading unit). As you all know, Pacers don't have gangways so this was a situation where there was 1 driver and 2 guards due to the separation. As the OP referred to on page 1, that's 3x paid Northern staff on a 3 carriage train whereas if it was a 3 car 158 or 3 car pacer, only 2. I know this is off topic but what is the minimum staffing for length of passenger train?

Depends on the TOC. Northern's rule is one member of staff in each unit, so driver in the front, guard in the rear. I don't think it matters whether it's gangwayed or not - I think their concern is units being separated. A second guard is needed if they don't want people who know this rule to be fare-dodging. GWR does not count a driver in the rule, so you need a second competent person in both units (though one can be a trained buffet steward). LNR and many other TOCs are quite happy with totally unstaffed, non-gangwayed units, of which there is now at least one in every 12-car Class 319 formation (all 319 workings other than Snorbens are now 12-car and these only carry a driver and a guard).

 

[Mikey C]

You’re an optimist if you think that 150s have another 20 years left in them!

Well the Class 230s are based on even older London Underground trains. I'm sure they're expected to last 15-20 years.

The 150s might be shagged out, but like the Networkers that's partially down to how they've been looked after. Reengine them, do something like the Renatus 321 upgrade, and they'll be much improved and possibly a better investment that new DMUs which could find themselves being banned after 20 years.

 

[sprinterguy]

oh,there will be some...just like uber draconian ULEZ charges!!! that's for sure.

I don't doubt that you're right: I wonder how they'd police such a regulation though?

A ban on the production of diesel only trains, akin to that of petrol and diesel cars, by 2040 would no doubt see a knee jerk reaction from the rail industry to order as many diesel trains as possible between 2037 and 2040, which should see them operating until perhaps 2075.

Penalties levied against TOCs (Or whatever structure is in place) post-2040 for operating diesel trains seems more likely to result in a piecemeal approach of modifying existing stock to bespoke specifications and delayed production schedules as per the current class 230s and 769s.

 

[ed1971]

The 150s might be shagged out, but like the Networkers that's partially down to how they've been looked after. Reengine them, do something like the Renatus 321 upgrade, and they'll be much improved and possibly a better investment that new DMUs which could find themselves being banned after 20 years.

I suppose it depends what condition they are in. The corrugated steel construction of the 150s had a design life of 30 years. I have read before that some units have severe corrosion issues and one Northern 150/1 was out of service for six months while repairs were carried out. Like cars there comes a time when it is better to replace rather then repair. Figuratively speaking you put it's arm back on then next it's leg falls off!.

 

[Plethora]

Agree on the 150s needing a *proper* overhaul, especially those with 3+2 seating and those where the seat density has been designed by a dwarf seeking revenge on normal sized humans. I've not kept tabs on which ones are the worst offenders in that respect, is it the 150/1s?

If these issues were fixed there would be less resistance to their continued service. Alternatively I'd like to see the more objectionable members of the class to be phased out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree on the 150s needing a *proper* overhaul, especially those with 3+2 seating and those where the seat density has been designed by a dwarf seeking revenge on normal sized humans. I've not kept tabs on which ones are the worst offenders in that respect, is it the 150/1s?

/1s are mostly facing layout, it's /2s that have the layout suitable only for dwarves. Unfortunately equipment above the floor level means it's not easy to swap one layout for the other without major work.

 

[PHILIPE]

I suppose new or newer stock will have leasing costs far higher than the 25-35 year old examples. From a TOC's point of view, they must factor this in when balancing the books and the leasing company must get a good return on their investment.

As for the 153's, they need to make a decision on whether its worth reforming them into 155's and doing the PRM mods to allow one toilet otherwise there going to be surplus. Taking the tables out and adding more seats might make a single car more viable.

Last week I had the pleasure of riding 153361 which was attached to 142037 (leading unit). As you all know, Pacers don't have gangways so this was a situation where there was 1 driver and 2 guards due to the separation. As the OP referred to on page 1, that's 3x paid Northern staff on a 3 carriage train whereas if it was a 3 car 158 or 3 car pacer, only 2. I know this is off topic but what is the minimum staffing for length of passenger train?

The argument of returning Class 153s to 155s has been done to death. It will not be done, mainly for the high cost involved. The people in the Engineering world know say it is not just a matter of coupling two 153s together as there would be re-wiring required for one thing. Pacers and 153s have worked attached in the Exeter area for years until recently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The argument of returning Class 153s to 155s has been done to death. It will not be done, mainly for the high cost involved. The people in the Engineering world know say it is not just a matter of coupling two 153s together as there would be re-wiring required for one thing. Pacers and 153s have worked attached in the Exeter area for years until recently.

Why could you not simply couple small cab to small cab permanently?

 

[Mikey C]

I don't doubt that you're right: I wonder how they'd police such a regulation though?

A ban on the production of diesel only trains, akin to that of petrol and diesel cars, by 2040 would no doubt see a knee jerk reaction from the rail industry to order as many diesel trains as possible between 2037 and 2040, which should see them operating until perhaps 2075.

Penalties levied against TOCs (Or whatever structure is in place) post-2040 for operating diesel trains seems more likely to result in a piecemeal approach of modifying existing stock to bespoke specifications and delayed production schedules as per the current class 230s and 769s.

Presumably governments or cities would just set a date after which diesel vehicles of any kind wouldn't be allowed in the city centre. If say Manchester banned all diesel road vehicles from the city centre after say 2030 (buses, cars, lorries) it would look bizarre if DMUs continued into Piccadilly and Victoria for another 10 or 20 years.

 

[PHILIPE]

Why could you not simply couple small cab to small cab permanently?

It would still be a pair of 153s and the flexibility of using 1 or 2 cars would then be lost if they were to be permanently coupled.

 

[323 Class]

Something else to consider.
As the requirement for diesel fuel diminishes, would that push the price up to carry on producing it in smaller quantities.
That could make for pretty expensive miles per gallon for a DMU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Something else to consider.
As the requirement for diesel fuel diminishes, would that push the price up to carry on producing it in smaller quantities.
That could make for pretty expensive miles per gallon for a DMU.

TBH it would probably make more sense to build more 769 a likes than keep 150s. There's increasingly little need for 2-car units, while if you base it on an EMU you can later on swap the genset raft for something else, or just shove the pantograph up and use it as an EMU. And other than the way it's powered, a 319 is pretty much just a 4-car electric Class 150 - all the Mk3-derived DMUs and EMUs are very similar.

 

[Killingworth]

In 12 months time a large number of new build trains will be in service for all TOCs. Refurbs should also be well advanced, although there's obvious doubt that all programmes will be on schedule - like it's almost certain they won't be. Platform extending should also be well advanced.

Together that should allow more strengthened trains and the introduction of more services requiring more units. By then we'll have more passenger numbers data to see if use is going up or down, and where. Speaking from a formerly Pacer dominated line we've had issues with trains not turning up, so a 150 turning up on time would be brilliant. A 4 car formation would be very welcome on some departures, particularly at weekends. The same applies to many other services.

In the short term it must be cheaper patching up old trains than buying new, except when engines become unreliable, specialised parts aren't available and when corrosion causes damage to vital areas. In 10 years time I predict these units will be being cannibalised to keep the best running. (My experience suggests that many of the inwardly cascaded units have better maintained interiors than those previously operating in the Northern area.)

However, in 5-10 years time all our recently established train building capacity will be needing more work. At this point any government will face a quandary. How can it support the UK rolling stock construction industry? HS2 orders and a few others, but replacing a lot of almost 40 year old electric and diesel units for Northern must be a political gift, justifying having to spend taxes on projects to protect jobs and help the north. It all fits.

The speed of electrification and the development of other propulsion options will keep this subject alive for at least 10 years, and some.

 

[Parallel]

Most of the refurbished GWR 150s offer a better passenger experience than Turbos in my opinion. 2 + 2 seating using Chapman seats with armrests and decent back support. Better ventilation in summer than broken air conditioning and to my knowledge, they have all been treated for corrosion when they were refurbished. I hope they stick around in the GWR area for a while yet, there are no plans to replace them in the current franchise as far as I know, but who knows what the next successful franchise bidder will propose.

I don’t want them to become a political minefield over the next 10 years, like the pacers did!

 

[dubscottie]

Something else to consider.
As the requirement for diesel fuel diminishes, would that push the price up to carry on producing it in smaller quantities.
That could make for pretty expensive miles per gallon for a DMU.

You will always get diesel as part of the refining process. You cant just stop making it.

If nobody wants it, it will become a "waste" product and will be very cheap (before taxation). Petrol was a "waste" product until the invention of the petrol engine.

I think the 150, 156 & late build 158/159 will be around for many years yet. Especially the 156.

The 153, 155 & early built 158s will be gone in a few years I think. Too many structural issues.

 

[JModulo]

You will always get diesel as part of the refining process. You cant just stop making it.

If nobody wants it, it will become a "waste" product and will be very cheap (before taxation). Petrol was a "waste" product until the invention of the petrol engine.

I think the 150, 156 & late build 158/159 will be around for many years yet. Especially the 156.

The 153, 155 & early built 158s will be gone in a few years I think. Too many structural issues.

Whats the difference (structurally) with the early and late 158s?

 

[bramling]

Depends on the TOC. Northern's rule is one member of staff in each unit, so driver in the front, guard in the rear. I don't think it matters whether it's gangwayed or not - I think their concern is units being separated. A second guard is needed if they don't want people who know this rule to be fare-dodging. GWR does not count a driver in the rule, so you need a second competent person in both units (though one can be a trained buffet steward). LNR and many other TOCs are quite happy with totally unstaffed, non-gangwayed units, of which there is now at least one in every 12-car Class 319 formation (all 319 workings other than Snorbens are now 12-car and these only carry a driver and a guard).

Having lived all my life on the GN route, I can’t help but smile at all this. Non-gangwayed 365s in everyday use, in some cases three of them together, all DOO. So the only member of staff is nearly 250m away from those at the rear of the train.

I can understand it might be *desirable* to have the guard in a rear set simply to spread the staff out and avoid having all eggs in one basket, but to me it seems overkill to make it mandatory.

 

[Jozhua]

I'd argue refurbed 158's, like the ones running with EMT feel newer and in better condition than 170's!

Refurbed 158's are more comfortable, not any louder and the toilets are virtually the same, if not slightly better on 158. So in that respect, I don't see any reason why the 158 fleet won't run till at least 2030, especially been as other operators such as Northern are planning refurbs. I'd argue that they feel so modern for early 90's trains, most passengers probably wouldn't bat an eyelid in 2040!

 

[anamyd]

really?

i see 3 bogies(2 powered,1 unpowered artic on a 2 car set), as a 3-4 tonne saving.

as for axle load.
153=41 tonnes /4 axles = about 10 tonnes per axle
2 car super pacer = 55 tonnes/6 axles = just over 9 tonnes per axle.

we know the bombardier flexx eco bogies are up to the job...about 1T lighter a set and 100mph capable.
pacers are not under-powered, they are under transmitted( only 1 powered axle per car).
theoretically they should be good for 90-100mph if you use power-weight ratio!
by doubling the powered axles you should get a quality unit with good top speed and good acceleration,
if you want future proof for the drop-in trailer as well then a 300BHP block should suffice in place of the LTA10

what's a "Super Pacer"...? and LTA10 sounds like a Pacer Cummins engine, the 150 uses the NT855 14 litre

 

[anamyd]

I disagree, whatever you do to a 150, they will always seem old, the metal framed windows with ground in dirt, the opening hoppers that either don’t open at all, or open at random, the sliding doors that feel old and bang about in their pockets when a train goes past, no air con...

Even when the pacers go, the Northern franchise will still have a reputation for using ancient trains until such time as the 150s go. How many do they have about 100?

Northern have 78 150s (all 50 /1s and 28 of the /2s). It's Pacers they have 102 of (79 142s, 13 2-car 144s and 10 3-car 144s)

 

[anamyd]

I have previously read that the Cummins NTA855Rx engines fitted to most Class 15x. went out of production in 1997 and the spare engine pool is declining. Pacers have the more modern Cummins L10 series which lives on in updated form as the QSM11.

interesting info!