Class 15X Future

[anamyd]

175, which is the one under discussion.

It's a Class 15x thread, but yes the 175s are in the least refurbished state and I've seen the tattiness of the interior panels

 

[PHILIPE]

I still don't get why there would be any need to rewire them. Just couple back to back, fit a disabled bog in one, remove the bog entirely from the other, and lock the cabs OOU.

I would prefer to take the advice of Engineers. They would still be 153s if this was done.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

Off the top of my head the only rewiring required would be to disable the uncoupling buttons. When they formed pairs of 2HAPs into 4CAPs they just took the buckeye chains off.

 

[whhistle]

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.

But that's what a 155 is... essentially two class 153s coupled together, permanently, isn't it?

Surely in simple terms, cut the wires at either end of the small cab and join them together.

Whether it's worth that faff, I'm not sure.

Northern should just order more 195s. The class is already at risk of being a medium sized micro fleet as it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a Class 15x thread, but yes the 175s are in the least refurbished state and I've seen the tattiness of the interior panels

The subthread was about the idea of moving 175s to Northern to create a cascade to replace 15x.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would prefer to take the advice of Engineers. They would still be 153s if this was done.

Who cares if they are technically 153s? The point was of forming 2-car permanently coupled sets, not being particularly bothered if they were the original 155s reinstated.

 

[CosherB]

I would prefer to take the advice of Engineers. They would still be 153s if this was done.

That's right, let's worry about a few vinyl numbers rather than the passengers that a 155 would help.

 

[43096]

But that's what a 155 is... essentially two class 153s coupled together, permanently, isn't it?

Surely in simple terms, cut the wires at either end of the small cab and join them together.

Whether it's worth that faff, I'm not sure.

Northern should just order more 195s. The class is already at risk of being a medium sized micro fleet as it is.

Other way round, really. Two 153s are a 155 split in half.

 

[krus_aragon]

There are some other considerations, like the number of control cabs that are permitted when operating Pacers and Sprinters in multiple. And there's also talk of sagging bodyshells, too.

They could be joined up. But the issue remains whether the ROSCO feels it's worthwhile doing so. A year or two ago, it seemed that EMU conversions were far more appealing. I'm not sure that's still the case, though.

 

[Mikey C]

Will the Azumas last for over 40 years? - any opinions?

But they wouldn't be banned.
The government wants to ban the sale of diesels after 2040.
Any purchased before then are fine to operate after.

Politically things have turned very rapidly against diesel and associated air quality problems in the last 5 years, so it's not impossible a that future government will be even stricter on diesels.

If I was a leasing company I'd be very wary about financing a pure DMU in the future, expecting it to still be operating as built in 2045.

 

[hexagon789]

But that's what a 155 is... essentially two class 153s coupled together, permanently, isn't it?

Except the 155 cane first and has only one cab on each car.

It's been discussed for a while reforming 153s into 155s again but nothing seems to come of it.

 

[hwl]

Politically things have turned very rapidly against diesel and associated air quality problems in the last 5 years, so it's not impossible a that future government will be even stricter on diesels.

If I was a leasing company I'd be very wary about financing a pure DMU in the future, expecting it to still be operating as built in 2045.

Especially as the ban use of diesel only in rail starts in 2040.

The current view and draft recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change is that total land transport decarbonisation is needed by 2050 which gives new bi-modes a max 30 year shelf life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Especially as the ban use of diesel only in rail starts in 2040.

The current view and draft recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change is that total land transport decarbonisation is needed by 2050 which gives new bi-modes a max 30 year shelf life.

Bi-modes could of course simply be used as EMUs after the deadline with no work done at all other than cleaning the fuel out.

 

[hwl]

Bi-modes could of course simply be used as EMUs after the deadline with no work done at all other than cleaning the fuel out.

Without further modification either removing engine or adding fuel cells etc.

 

[modernrail]

On the basis the combination of 15x I am currently sat on at Meols Cop is currently stuck because the guard doesn't seem to be able to close the bloody doors maybe they could be thrown in the bin as soon as possible?

Where does the class currently stand in terms of reliability compared to other classes I wonder. That is clearly a material fact and my impression is that reliability is declining.

 

[Mordac]

Especially as the ban use of diesel only in rail starts in 2040.

The current view and draft recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change is that total land transport decarbonisation is needed by 2050 which gives new bi-modes a max 30 year shelf life.

Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.

 

[Cambrian359]

Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.

No it hasn’t ,you are right in saying it was simply an ambition of jo Johnson’s that everyone has taken as the new law! But given so many people have misunderstood it, it seems pointless correcting everyone.

 

[hwl]

No it hasn’t ,you are right in saying it was simply an ambition of jo Johnson’s that everyone has taken as the new law! But given so many people have misunderstood it, it seems pointless correcting everyone.

Unfortunately lots of us are having to take it seriously and start planning until we hear otherwise as no one from DfT has said anything different since.

 

[Chester1]

Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.

It was just a few words for the Rail Minister but it seems to have caught on. It is in keeping with the direction of government policy. The legislation for a target of an 80% cut by 2050 should become law next week. There is already an argument within the Tories about whether the target should be changed to zero net emissions by 2050. The other parties will no doubt be in favour of that. In this political environment funding new DMUs has huge risk. Bi modes are a better long term bet. Hopefully 769s enter service and more are ordered, easing the DMU shortage.

 

[hooverboy]

But that's what a 155 is... essentially two class 153s coupled together, permanently, isn't it?

Surely in simple terms, cut the wires at either end of the small cab and join them together.

Whether it's worth that faff, I'm not sure.

Northern should just order more 195s. The class is already at risk of being a medium sized micro fleet as it is.

we seem to be diverting away from what the real purpose of 14x/153 was in the first place.

that is, to provide a service at minimal cost to communities that would otherwise have had their lines withdrawn due to the expense.
NONE of the recent rolling stock orders is covering that base.

on these lines, it is not about profit,it is about minimising your losses.
now 153 is basically withdrawn,and the pacers are shagged out,there is a need for a direct replacement.(and as I've said before,a lot of these routes include a run up small stretches of mainline too,which rules out 230)

230 is ideal for places like island line,which won't interfere with any mainline ops, but you put it on something like leicester-lincoln, it's going to screw up potentially 2 sets of relatively high speed diagrams.

 

[CosherB]

we seem to be diverting away from what the real purpose of 14x/153 was in the first place.

that is, to provide a service at minimal cost to communities that would otherwise have had their lines withdrawn due to the expense.
NONE of the recent rolling stock orders is covering that base.

on these lines, it is not about profit,it is about minimising your losses.
now 153 is basically withdrawn,and the pacers are shagged out,there is a need for a direct replacement.(and as I've said before,a lot of these routes include a run up small stretches of mainline too,which rules out 230)

I suppose CAF will build you a single car 196 if you give them enough money. Can’t see it myself.

 

[hooverboy]

Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.

doesn't really matter,because the actions of DaFT over the last few years will make ALL transport operators belive it is gospel...and will be planning their fleet replacements accordingly......
...see surplus EMU stock/lack of dmu stock due to goalpost movement

as as ROSCO, you would need to be reasonably confident your investment is going to be making revenue for 30+ years,to be paid off in 15-20 years.
this is not happening under the present cluster ****

truth is,big business is not that nimble, to change plans at the drop of a hat, they need to know 10 years in advance what the plan is for the next 20 years.
not a completely unreasonable deadline seeings as it takes about 4 years from planning new rolling stock to actually seeing it in service.

hence also why ULEZ is a disaster....most companies will be planning for a 5 year or so fleet replacement of commercial vehicles.
even company cars is 3+ years,( I ordered my new company car in march,and it is not compliant by 1g/km of co2!!!!...that is a ridiculous state of affairs!)
for private users you are looking at 8-10 year replacement cycle.

2021 for euro 6 compliance would have been ok, but to bring that forward by 2 years is frankly bonkers. If I was RHA i would be directing my members to not be shipping to areas within ULEZ.
the situation will soon get resolved when shops don't get filled, bars not open, etc etc.

 

[hwl]

It was just a few words for the Rail Minister but it seems to have caught on. It is in keeping with the direction of government policy. The legislation for a target of an 80% cut by 2050 should become law next week. There is already an argument within the Tories about whether the target should be changed to zero net emissions by 2050. The other parties will no doubt be in favour of that. In this political environment funding new DMUs has huge risk. Bi modes are a better long term bet. Hopefully 769s enter service and more are ordered, easing the DMU shortage.

It hasn't been denied since...
The detail of the 2050 CCC proposal is also that land transport is effectively (some limited offsetting to be allowed) totally decarbonised to allow aviation not to be.

 

[hooverboy]

I suppose CAF will build you a single car 196 if you give them enough money. Can’t see it myself.

they have a 15m bodyshell they use in spain somewhere.2 of those back to back would work.
the super-pacer I envisaged is not that much of a pipe-dream.

if they see a niche and nobody else wants to touch it,then there's a market for about 200-300 of those.

 

[hooverboy]

I suppose CAF will build you a single car 196 if you give them enough money. Can’t see it myself.

CAF...cheap as .......?
anyway.I don't see a single car being viable these days.short body 2 car/3 car sets would be preferable

1)153 only has one engine,so if it breaks down it's catastrophic.
the extra power plant will come in handy...even if one fails you get "limp home" mode at reduced speed on the other.

2)153 is only about 70 seats capacity, with prm mods that's probably closer to 60,and on some lines(peterborough-lincoln or crewe-derby), that set is already utterly rammed, even with high density seating.
..a 2 car pacer-esque set would give capacity of about 90-95 seats,with accessible bog...which would help immensely..enough wiggle room should some stag do or rambling trip decide they want a dirty weekend away all at once.

 

[Bletchleyite]

if they see a niche and nobody else wants to touch it,then there's a market for about 200-300 of those.

Stadler would I'm sure do a downrated FLIRT based on the WINK. That's exactly what you're talking about.

The 230 is similar in concept though obviously not new.

Having said that, other than the Marston Vale is there even a case for short vehicles? A 2-car Class 195 (very similar to a 172) is basically the ideal branch line unit now, isn't it? You could fit a more eco-friendly method of propulsion, but 2x23m is basically the sweet spot for branch lines once you have the space taken by a disabled bog etc, no?

Indeed, it seems to me ironic that Northern are ordering perfect local-stopping-service units (2-car, fast acceleration via mechanical transmission, ironing board seating) and running them on regional expresses, while at the same time putting classes 170 and 158 (neither of which are in any way suitable for branch lines/local stopping services) on precisely those services.

 

[diffident]

CAF...cheap as .......?

Fritas?

 

[hooverboy]

Stadler would I'm sure do a downrated FLIRT based on the WINK. That's exactly what you're talking about.

The 230 is similar in concept though obviously not new.

Having said that, other than the Marston Vale is there even a case for short vehicles? A 2-car Class 195 (very similar to a 172) is basically the ideal branch line unit now, isn't it? You could fit a more eco-friendly method of propulsion, but 2x23m is basically the sweet spot for branch lines once you have the space taken by a disabled bog etc, no?

Indeed, it seems to me ironic that Northern are ordering perfect local-stopping-service units (2-car, fast acceleration via mechanical transmission, ironing board seating) and running them on regional expresses, while at the same time putting classes 170 and 158 (neither of which are in any way suitable for branch lines/local stopping services) on precisely those services.

I think oop north there is still a need for shorter wheelbase vehicles to negotiate some very tough curves.

you could say the same freight wise too....why are class 20's still in service?
we now have a class 88,which is, on diesel, basically comparable in pulling power.

fact is it just can't cope with some really serious wheel-squealing curves.The best the freight guys can do in that department now is the 73's once the 20's are retired.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think oop north there is still a need for shorter wheelbase vehicles to negotiate some very tough curves.

Is there? On what lines can Classes 156 and 158 not operate "up north"? Must be very few. There are plenty of lines where you don't see them, but they can still go there.

Tight curves are no great issue for bogied units (and provided the stations aren't on the curves you can have as much overthrow as you like as there's nowt for it to whack). And I doubt anyone is suggesting building 4-wheeled cattle wagons new!

Isn't it the Sarfeast that is the land of the 20m vehicle, anyway?

 

[hooverboy]

Is there? On what lines can Classes 156 and 158 not operate "up north"? Must be very few.

Tight curves are no great issue for bogied units (and provided the stations aren't on the curves you can have as much overthrow as you like as there's nowt for it to whack). And I doubt anyone is suggesting building 4-wheeled cattle wagons new!

Isn't it the Sarfeast that is the land of the 20m vehicle, anyway?

swing is, not necessarily the bogies themselves, but the clearing distance from the car centre between two bogies, to the adjacent rails/platforms.

marston vale is not particularly harsh on curves either....I can only think of the curve by bedford st johns being in any way tricky...and that's either 15mph/20mph limit, so certainly not the toughest on the network.

230 is pretty good for that because it doesn't directly run up any mainline either,it's pretty much segregated from other rail traffic, there's lots of other routes that need to able to cope with faster stuff too.
(FWIW Vivarail did a decent job on thhere, I'm quite pleased with them as unit's go, but they lack the versatility of something a bit more robust)