Class 175 future speculation

[Trainbike46]

No. Can use MU and HST, which is all they needed at TfW, but not SP.

175 then definitely shouldn't be coming to East Anglia, as they are unsuitable for the routes there

 

[Inthewest]

So we're speculating that Chiltern is their new home?

 

[RobShipway]

So we're speculating that Chiltern is their new home?

It maybe me, but I cannot see Chiltern taking the class 175 units due to the noise that they would be making in London Marylebone. Admittedly though, they would be quieter than class 68 hauled coaches.

 

[The Planner]

It maybe me, but I cannot see Chiltern taking the class 175 units due to the noise that they would be making in London Marylebone. Admittedly though, they would be quieter than class 68 hauled coaches.

Are they any noisier than a 168? Its the 68s that are the issue.

 

[Philip]

Are they any noisier than a 168? Its the 68s that are the issue.

I'd say they're second only to 185s in terms of DMU noise level, and the idle noise when stationary also carries a long way.

 

[liamf656]

"While it is thought a move to Chiltern Railways is currently the favoured option, replacing the Mk 3 loco-hauled coaches there, it is understood CrossCountry is considering taking on the fleet, which could be deployed on Nottingham to Cardiff services to provide an enhanced intercity-style offering on this important route"

(Photo of extract attached)

If this has any strength in it then Chiltern should either get mk5 sets or 170s from Crosscountry. But whatever happens it seems to be early stages at the moment

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they any noisier than a 168? Its the 68s that are the issue.

I don't recall them being any noisier other than maybe the brakes which do squeal a bit.

 

[Philip]

Assuming a successful adaptation to fit the different gauge, could they be a good fit for Irish Rail to replace the 2900s/any remaining diesel loco operations and run the long distance services alongside the similar Rotem 2200s?

Alternatively, how about ScotRail to replace some of the HSTs?

 

[dk1]

175 then definitely shouldn't be coming to East Anglia, as they are unsuitable for the routes there

Yes GA would object to their operation same as happened with using 222s on a regular basis and the opposite way round why the short hauled sets (37s & 68s) were never used in the Norwich-Cambridge route which would have suited them better than Yarmouth/Lowestoft.

 

[JonathanH]

Assuming a successful adaptation to fit the different gauge, could they be a good fit for Irish Rail to replace the 2900s/any remaining diesel loco operations and run the long distance services alongside the similar Rotem 2200s?

No. Irish Rail are in the process of extending some of their Rotem units, so don't need 175s.

 

[RobShipway]

Alternatively, how about ScotRail to replace some of the HSTs?

From other threads, I believe that the Scotrail HST units are using the 125mph capability of the power car units, so if that is the case then the 175 units which only have 100mph max speed would not be able to keep to the times of the HST sets. There is also not enough class 175 units to replace the 25 HST sets with Scotrail.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't recall them being any noisier other than maybe the brakes which do squeal a bit.

When both Turbostars and 175s operated from Manchester Piccadilly the 175s were noticably noiser while stopped with their engines running. They actually go a bit quieter when they start moving off. Perhaps not noiser than Voyagers though.

 

[JonathanH]

From other threads, I believe that the Scotrail HST units are using the 125mph capability of the power car units

Informed sources have confirmed that they aren't using the 125mph capability in this thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-175-future-speculation.218095/page-45#post-6408626

That however does not make 175s suitable for Scotrail.

This thread does seem rather repetitive at times. No one is going to be able to come up with a credible possible use that hasn't already been speculated on, been discussed, and in most cases dismissed, in this thread.

 

[craigybagel]

From other threads, I believe that the Scotrail HST units are using the 125mph capability of the power car units, so if that is the case then the 175 units which only have 100mph max speed would not be able to keep to the times of the HST sets. There is also not enough class 175 units to replace the 25 HST sets with Scotrail.

There is literally nowhere on the ScotRail network where HSTs run in service that has a linespeed higher than 100mph.

 

[simonmpoulton]

Do the HST's have better acceleration maybe?

I can't help but think that the best solution is that they stay with TFW for increased capacity and withdraw all the 150's, 153's, 158's and 170's leaving TFW with a fleet of 175's, 197's, 231's, 230's, 398's and 756's. Who knows maybe that is even the plan? Hand them all back to Angel trains then negotiate a better leasing deal on them? I can certainly believe that if Angel trains are given the choice between accepting less money or no money then they'd be more inclined to do a better value deal - they certainly by this point will have made there initial investment back several times over i'm sure!

 

[RobShipway]

Informed sources have confirmed that they aren't using the 125mph capability in this thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-175-future-speculation.218095/page-45#post-6408626

That however does not make 175s suitable for Scotrail.

This thread does seem rather repetitive at times. No one is going to be able to come up with a credible possible use that hasn't already been speculated on, been discussed, and in most cases dismissed, in this thread.

There is literally nowhere on the ScotRail network where HSTs run in service that has a linespeed higher than 100mph.

Thanks Guys, I thought that it might be the case that the 125mph but was not sure. But even so, despite there not being enough class 175 units to replace the 25 HST sets, each of which is 4 to 5 coaches, I don't believe that the class 175 units could keep to the Scotrail HST times. To replace the Scotrail HST's you really need Hitachi AT300/AT200 Bi-mode or something similar. The only other option as has been discussed before, is the class 222 fleet with East Midlands after they are replaced by class 810 units.

Do the HST's have better acceleration maybe?

I believe that the HST do have better acceleration.

I can't help but think that the best solution is that they stay with TFW for increased capacity and withdraw all the 150's, 153's, 158's and 170's leaving TFW with a fleet of 175's, 197's, 231's, 230's, 398's and 756's. Who knows maybe that is even the plan? Hand them all back to Angel trains then negotiate a better leasing deal on them? I can certainly believe that if Angel trains are given the choice between accepting less money or no money then they'd be more inclined to do a better value deal - they certainly by this point will have made there initial investment back several times over i'm sure!

I think it would be better idea that they replace the 150's, 153's, 158's with TFW. However, there would only be enough class 175 units to replace the TFW class 158 units. I thought the idea of having 51 2-car and 26 3-car is that they would replace class 150, 153, 170 & 175 units? If that is the case, then surely the class 175 units would replace the class 158 units?

 

[Lurcheroo]

I think it would be better idea that they replace the 150's, 153's, 158's with TFW. However, there would only be enough class 175 units to replace the TFW class 158 units. I thought the idea of having 51 2-car and 26 3-car is that they would replace class 150, 153, 170 & 175 units? If that is the case, then surely the class 175 units would replace the class 158 units?

Don’t forget that TFW are keeping some 153’s for HOW and they have 230’s for the Bidston line. Further to that the tram trains and FLIRTS will also be coming in which will take over some of the 150’s 170’s and 153’s work in the south.

158’s have always planned to be replaced by 197’s.
Even if not, to keep the 175’s in place of 158’s would mean (a very costly) retro-fitting of ETCS equipment as 158’s are the only units that can work the Cambrian.
Which is just almost certainly not going to happen.

I keep hearing about TFW keeping 158’s for just the Cambrian instead of 197’s but millions and millions of pounds have been and continue to be spent in preparation for their arrival.
I just don’t see TFW or NR being willing to ‘throw’ that money away.

Some examples are:
1) extension of the maintenance shed at Mach to fit 197’s
2) upgrade ETCS system for comparability with 197’s
3) alterations of platforms to accommodate 197’s. (They’re even thinking about closing 1 station all together because of them).

 

[craigybagel]

, I don't believe that the class 175 units could keep to the Scotrail HST times. To

Can 170s keep to those times when they (frequently) deputise for HSTs? If so, 175s would do as well. They have better acceleration than 170s

I can't help but think that the best solution is that they stay with TFW for increased capacity and withdraw all the 150's, 153's, 158's and 170's leaving TFW with a fleet of 175's, 197's, 231's, 230's, 398's and 756's. Who knows maybe that is even the plan? Hand them all back to Angel trains then negotiate a better leasing deal on them? I can certainly believe that if Angel trains are given the choice between accepting less money or no money then they'd be more inclined to do a better value deal - they certainly by this point will have made there initial investment back several times over i'm sure!

I think it would be better idea that they replace the 150's, 153's, 158's with TFW. However, there would only be enough class 175 units to replace the TFW class 158 units. I thought the idea of having 51 2-car and 26 3-car is that they would replace class 150, 153, 170 & 175 units? If that is the case, then surely the class 175 units would replace the class 158 units?

There's already going to be a massive increase of capacity at TfW even without the expense and hassle of keeping the 175s.

 

[Anonymous10]

Don’t forget that TFW are keeping some 153’s for HOW and they have 230’s for the Bidston line. Further to that the tram trains and FLIRTS will also be coming in which will take over some of the 150’s 170’s and 153’s work in the south.

158’s have always planned to be replaced by 197’s.
Even if not, to keep the 175’s in place of 158’s would mean (a very costly) retro-fitting of ETCS equipment as 158’s are the only units that can work the Cambrian.
Which is just almost certainly not going to happen.

I keep hearing about TFW keeping 158’s for just the Cambrian instead of 197’s but millions and millions of pounds have been and continue to be spent in preparation for their arrival.
I just don’t see TFW or NR being willing to ‘throw’ that money away.

Some examples are:
1) extension of the maintenance shed at Mach to fit 197’s
2) upgrade ETCS system for comparability with 197’s
3) alterations of platforms to accommodate 197’s. (They’re even thinking about closing 1 station all together because of them).

What station is that?

 

[Lurcheroo]

What station is that?

Tygwyn.

 

[Cambrian359]

Because of the level crossing ?

 

[InkyScrolls]

If that's true it seems rather an indictment against the 197s. Trains should be built to suit the routes they're used on, not the other way around!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that's true it seems rather an indictment against the 197s. Trains should be built to suit the routes they're used on, not the other way around!

Though the station is beyond useless, it basically serves nothing. BR proposed to close it and probably should have gone through with it.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Though the station is beyond useless, it basically serves nothing. BR proposed to close it and probably should have gone through with it.

I'm not against closure of stations which really should be (not 'rail for rail's sake'), but the type of unit used should not factor.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'm not against closure of stations which really should be (not 'rail for rail's sake'), but the type of unit used should not factor.

The type of train selected to operate throughout much of Wales should be dictated by the needs of the couple of hundred passengers a year who used a station which should probably have been closed years ago?

 

[Lurcheroo]

I'm not against closure of stations which really should be (not 'rail for rail's sake'), but the type of unit used should not factor.

I can tell you don’t know the station, and that’s ok as it’s quite unique. But any new rolling stock with and end gangway would be an issue as it’s due to sighting.

Because of the level crossing ?

Ultimately, yes.
But the reduced visibility from a 197 cab and the door layout have made the problem worse.
I think it’s because the level crossing is ‘locally monitored’ (the driver has to check it’s clear) and the new rule says the driver must be able to see the entire level crossing or something like that. Someone else might know more.

But the train can’t stop further back as it’s a short platform and even in the 158’s we use only the front door at that station and with the door being further back on the 197, it wouldn’t be on the platform.

Unfortunately the station was rebuilt in the last few years. It’s a shame they hadn’t moved it a bit further when they did it then.

I have heard they were considering only using it one direction or doing set down or pick up only (I can’t remember which way round).
So we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If that's true it seems rather an indictment against the 197s. Trains should be built to suit the routes they're used on, not the other way around!

Tygwyn or no Tygwyn, both 197s and 175s are less-suited to the Camrbian than the 158s currently used, for different reasons. The ideal units would probably be a lighter-weight bi-mode version of the 175s with end-gangways.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tygwyn or no Tygwyn, both 197s and 175s are less-suited to the Camrbian than the 158s currently used, for different reasons. The ideal units would probably be a lighter-weight bi-mode version of the 175s with end-gangways.

For the Cambrian, and indeed almost everything else operated by TfW, doors at quarters/thirds are more suitable. 170s would be perfect, and had the route stayed with Central Trains I suspect we would have seen them there in time.

To be honest, having just fought my way off a crowded Pendolino, I'm starting to think doors at quarters/thirds would be better for ALL UK stock. The majority of what we call InterCity is just fast regional stuff with significant short distance traffic and passenger turnover.

 

[Rhydgaled]

For the Cambrian, and indeed almost everything else operated by TfW, doors at quarters/thirds are more suitable. 170s would be perfect

I completely disagree - 170s would be far from perfect. The lack of end gangways for starters - the working of through services between Pwllheli/Aberystwyth and Birmingham as portions of the same train is a major plus point of the current timetable and would be rather less seamless if guards didn't have the ability to simply tell passengers who happen to be in the wrong portion to walk through to the correct part of the train.

To be honest, having just fought my way off a crowded Pendolino, I'm starting to think doors at quarters/thirds would be better for ALL UK stock. The majority of what we call InterCity is just fast regional stuff with significant short distance traffic and passenger turnover.

Fast regional stuff it may be, but it still shouldn't be seen as a suburban metro style service with passengers being expected to stand. The doors on a class 170 are not just at thirds/quarters - they are significantly wider than those on 158s/175s. That means more standing room at the expense of space for anything else. If you ask me, it is the narrower doors found on the likes of 175s and 397s that should be standard for ALL UK stock outside suburban/metro type services where passengers standing for up to 5 minutes at peak-times is pretty much unavoidable.

 

[LowLevel]

For the Cambrian, and indeed almost everything else operated by TfW, doors at quarters/thirds are more suitable. 170s would be perfect, and had the route stayed with Central Trains I suspect we would have seen them there in time.

To be honest, having just fought my way off a crowded Pendolino, I'm starting to think doors at quarters/thirds would be better for ALL UK stock. The majority of what we call InterCity is just fast regional stuff with significant short distance traffic and passenger turnover.

Central Trains tried the 170s on the Cambrian and swiftly got rid of them again. They've always been somewhat prone to overheating in the summer in general and the long climbs on the mainline part between Shrewsbury and Mach coupled with all the rural detritus getting into the radiators killed them off far too regularly. The 158s are a bit more robust in that regard.

They don't suit portion working either, and the guard really does benefit from being able to move around freely on that kind of service. I work 170s in multiple on that kind of service in the summer and it's a massive pain.