Class 175 future speculation

[Rhydgaled]

A 175 is heavier than a 158, has fewer seats, fewer toilets, worse acceleration, and can't interwork with 170 and 156s (whereas 158s can). Their reliability is also poorer.

A 175 has fewer seats than a 158 because a 175 has more legroom, quite a bit more legroom. In terms of toilets, I think it depends on the exact units you pick to compare:

• The 175/0s (2-car units) have the same number of toilets (2) as the vast majority of 2-car 158s
• Northern's 158/9s (2-car units) have fewer toilets (1) than a 175/0 (2)
• I think most 3-car 158s have 3 toilets, which is the same number of toilets as a 175/1 (3-car units)

Thus, the only 158s that have more toilets than a 175 are any 3-car 158s that have retained both toilets in the centre car, in which case the 3-car 158 would have 4 toilets compared to the 3 toilets on a 175/1.

Other than that, I think I agree - I don't have the reliability or acceleration figures to hand, so I'll take your word for it on those.

 

[507020]

A 175 has fewer seats than a 158 because a 175 has more legroom, quite a bit more legroom. In terms of toilets, I think it depends on the exact units you pick to compare:

• The 175/0s (2-car units) have the same number of toilets (2) as the vast majority of 2-car 158s
• Northern's 158/9s (2-car units) have fewer toilets (1) than a 175/0 (2)
• I think most 3-car 158s have 3 toilets, which is the same number of toilets as a 175/1 (3-car units)

Thus, the only 158s that have more toilets than a 175 are any 3-car 158s that have retained both toilets in the centre car, in which case the 3-car 158 would have 4 toilets compared to the 3 toilets on a 175/1.

Other than that, I think I agree - I don't have the reliability or acceleration figures to hand, so I'll take your word for it on those.

Why do they have such a huge amount of space taken up by superfluous toilets? A 319 for example only has a single toilet in a 4 car unit and this is more than sufficient. Think of how many seats or bike/luggage areas could be fitted instead.

 

[Anonymous10]

Why do they have such a huge amount of space taken up by superfluous toilets? A 319 for example only has a single toilet in a 4 car unit and this is more than sufficient. Think of how many seats or bike/luggage areas could be fitted instead.

each carriage has a toilet due to the length of the journeys undertaken by these units if im not mistaken to ensure if one is out of order there is always another

 

[Neptune]

Thus, the only 158s that have more toilets than a 175 are any 3-car 158s that have retained both toilets in the centre car, in which case the 3-car 158 would have 4 toilets compared to the 3 toilets on a 175/1.

The 3 car 158’s have 3 toilets. Since shortly after entering service the 4th toilet has been locked out.

I believe this area on 159’s has been removed but certainly on the Northern 3 cars it is simply a former locked out toilet.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Why do they have such a huge amount of space taken up by superfluous toilets? A 319 for example only has a single toilet in a 4 car unit and this is more than sufficient. Think of how many seats or bike/luggage areas could be fitted instead.

The requirement for toilets on a long-distance train is very different to a short distance one. You wouldn't say there should be no toilets on a London to Scotland service just because there are no toilets on the London Underground. When discussing toilet provision at meetings of the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth Rail Passengers Association (SARPA), somebody pointed out that one toilet per carriage for a 158, 175 or 800* is itself a reduction on the two toilets per carriage that used to be seen with loco-hauled stock (not sure if that applies to mark 2s or just mark 1s) which of course are also shorter vehicles so the proportion of floor area devoted to toilets was even greater back then. Have people evolved larger bladders and if not why is toilet provision progressively being reduced?

* I'm aware that some coaches don't have a toilet on the 800s, but other carriages have two toilets to make up for it.

each carriage has a toilet due to the length of the journeys undertaken by these units if im not mistaken to ensure if one is out of order there is always another

Exactly. Also, even when all the toilets are working, on a longer distance journey passengers are more likely to need to use the loo so there's more risk of a queue forming to use the toilets, which could be a problem for passengers with certain medical conditions.

The 3 car 158’s have 3 toilets. Since shortly after entering service the 4th toilet has been locked out.

I believe this area on 159’s has been removed but certainly on the Northern 3 cars it is simply a former locked out toilet.

Thanks; I knew it had been locked out or removed on at least part of the fleet but wasn't sure if it had been applied universally so made sure to allow for the possibility that some units still had all four toilets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The requirement for toilets on a long-distance train is very different to a short distance one.

Very true. On a journey up to an hour (as most Class 319 journeys are) almost nobody will use the loo. Between say 1 and 3 hours some people will. Above 3 almost everyone will.

 

[wobman]

Why do they have such a huge amount of space taken up by superfluous toilets? A 319 for example only has a single toilet in a 4 car unit and this is more than sufficient. Think of how many seats or bike/luggage areas could be fitted instead.

I think your opinion goes against the general consensus of passengers though, I toilet per carriage is the ideal set up. One of them being disabled access, then if it's a busy train or 2 toilet is out of service you have redundancy built in.

The 197's have less of toilet provision than the present long distance TFW fleet, that's caused annoyance with rail user groups.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

When discussing toilet provision at meetings of the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth Rail Passengers Association (SARPA), somebody pointed out that one toilet per carriage for a 158, 175 or 800* is itself a reduction on the two toilets per carriage that used to be seen with loco-hauled stock (not sure if that applies to mark 2s or just mark 1s)

Sorry for the off-topic, but this is a fallacious argument from the person referred to. You could have a train with 20 toilets but it wouldn't matter a jot if all of them are little broom-cupboard toilets like found on mk1s/mk2s/mk3s; or if they dump their contents onto the track. You can't moan about how much better things were "in the old days" one minute, and in the next use "people with certain medical conditions" as a sacred cow. You can have lots of cruddy old toilets that don't meet standards, OR a smaller number that do, because that's how space works.

Very true. On a journey up to an hour (as most Class 319 journeys are) almost nobody will use the loo. Between say 1 and 3 hours some people will. Above 3 almost everyone will.

Citation needed for that last sentence. I can't remember the last time I used a toilet on a train, even a long distance one. Toilets absolutely are important especially on long-distance services- and enough should be provided for the likely loading of the train... even on a three+ hour journey I doubt "almost everyone" will need to use it- if they did, the size of the waste tanks on 800-series units would be out of gauge!

Maybe on Sleepers the usage will be at that sort of level, what with people performing their ablutions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Citation needed for that last sentence. I can't remember the last time I used a toilet on a train, even a long distance one. Toilets absolutely are important especially on long-distance services- and enough should be provided for the likely loading of the train... even on a three+ hour journey I doubt "almost everyone" will need to use it- if they did, the size of the waste tanks on 800-series units would be out of gauge!

Your bladder is clearly stronger than mine - but as a minimum I doubt any child on the train will be able to "hold it" for over three hours.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Your bladder is clearly stronger than mine - but as a minimum I doubt any child on the train will be able to "hold it" for over three hours.

You said "Almost everyone" though... if that was the case, most of us would spend half the journey waiting for the toilet to become free. I suspect that figure was plucked out of thin air to make your point, and now you've moved the goalposts and mentioned children.

It would be nice to have unlimited toilets on trains, but we need to be realistic about what we can reasonably do without causing problems elsewhere such as a reduction in overall capacity. As long as the tank is large enough to last a day before filling up, one toilet per two carriages should be enough for a medium-distance service. Hopefully not everyone will feel the urge at the same time!

 

[Bletchleyite]

You said "Almost everyone" though... if that was the case, most of us would spend half the journey waiting for the toilet to become free. I suspect that figure was plucked out of thin air to make your point, and now you've moved the goalposts and mentioned children.

It would be nice to have unlimited toilets on trains, but we need to be realistic about what we can reasonably do without causing problems elsewhere such as a reduction in overall capacity. As long as the tank is large enough to last a day before filling up, one toilet per two carriages should be enough for a medium-distance service. Hopefully not everyone will feel the urge at the same time!

One in two may indeed suffice if reliability is high. I'd go for two in three myself. However, one in four is not enough, and that was what I was originally replying to - mostly because if it's out of order that's zero in four, and that is not OK for anything other than short urban journeys.

 

[Neptune]

On my many regular long distance trips working the 195’s with their single toilet I’ve found that it is rare for it to be out of use (no doubt somebody will recount trips where it was OOU but conveniently forget about the dozens of other journeys that they have made on them where there were no issues). Having said that 2 toilets for 3 car units should be a minimum for me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On my many regular long distance trips working the 195’s with their single toilet I’ve found that it is rare for it to be out of use (no doubt somebody will recount trips where it was OOU but conveniently forget about the dozens of other journeys that they have made on them where there were no issues). Having said that 2 toilets for 3 car units should be a minimum for me.

2 in any length is sensible, and really we need to move on from single and 2-car units entirely unless used solely for strengthening. As there aren't any 2-car 25kV EMUs in the UK anyway (nor are there likely to be due to space needed for the electrical kit) that will happen naturally over time.

 

[507020]

On my many regular long distance trips working the 195’s with their single toilet I’ve found that it is rare for it to be out of use (no doubt somebody will recount trips where it was OOU but conveniently forget about the dozens of other journeys that they have made on them where there were no issues). Having said that 2 toilets for 3 car units should be a minimum for me.

This is why I question the need to have any toilet provision at all. When a long journey on a 195 with a single toilet can take longer than a shorter journey on an 11 car Pendolino, then why does the Pendolino need more than 1 toilet, if that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is why I question the need to have any toilet provision at all. When a long journey on a 195 with a single toilet can take longer than a shorter journey on an 11 car Pendolino, then why does the Pendolino need more than 1 toilet, if that?

Not providing adequate toilet facilities is discrimination on the following grounds:
- Age (because older people need to use the toilet more often, typically)
- Disability (because the likes of Crohn's is a disability)
- Gender (because women can't as easily go behind a bush or the waiting shelter)

I really think there need to be some decent test cases and for the situation with poor provision in all areas of life to be sorted out. I can't think of a single thing that discriminates against more protected characteristics in one go than poor toilet provision.

Only where toilets are provided at the majority of stations involved in most journeys and the service is frequent enough to stop off to use them, and where they are open for the full period of service (e.g. Merseyrail) should non provision be acceptable.

 

[Neptune]

This is why I question the need to have any toilet provision at all. When a long journey on a 195 with a single toilet can take longer than a shorter journey on an 11 car Pendolino, then why does the Pendolino need more than 1 toilet, if that?

In additional to what @Bletchleyite has said above, an 11 car Pendolino can carry considerably more passengers than a 3 car 195 and by nature they are spread far and wide across those 11 coaches. Also an 11 car Pendolino may operate shortish journeys such as London - Birmingham but they also work London - Glasgow as the fleet must be flexible enough to cover all service types.

I can’t believe someone has questioned why a Pendolino needs a toilet.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You can have lots of cruddy old toilets that don't meet standards, OR a smaller number that do, because that's how space works.
[snip]
Toilets absolutely are important especially on long-distance services- and enough should be provided for the likely loading of the train...

Agreed; and there is a definition of 'enough' in the Rail Delivery Group's Key Train Requirements (KTR) document (or was, can't remember if it's in the latest update) which is different for local suburban services and long-distance inter-urban services. Steering back towards the topic, I believe the class 175's toilets meet standards and the provision of one toilet per carriage on them comfortably meets the KTR definition of 'enough toilets' for long-distance services. The class 197s do not meet the KTR definition of 'enough toilets' for inter-urban services, with the 2-car units barely meeting the KTR for local suburban services, which is one of the many reasons I believe the class 175s should stay with TfW.

On my many regular long distance trips working the 195’s with their single toilet I’ve found that it is rare for it to be out of use (no doubt somebody will recount trips where it was OOU but conveniently forget about the dozens of other journeys that they have made on them where there were no issues).

Fair point, but if somebody wets/soils themselves because the toilet was out of order, even if they had previously made many successful journeys previously, who could blame them if they decide they cannot risk travelling by train (at least on that route) again? Admittedly most passengers are unlikely to wet/soil themeselves*, but some with disabilities might be at risk and should we be making long-distance trains off-limits to passengers with disabilities?

* Then again, even if you hold on to the next stop and alight to make use of station facilities, if you are unfamiliar with the route you may find yourself at a station with no facilities and be stuck for an hour until the next train.

really we need to move on from single and 2-car units entirely unless used solely for strengthening. As there aren't any 2-car 25kV EMUs in the UK anyway (nor are there likely to be due to space needed for the electrical kit) that will happen naturally over time.

This is something that needs looking at - the Cambrian Coast, Heart Of Wales and Conwy Valley in winter are unlikely to need more than 2 coaches but will presumably need battery or hydrogen stock at some point in the future. Are there no 25kv 2-car EMUs because there is no space for the necessary kit or is it only because you wouldn't electrify a route that only needs 2-car units with OHLE and until recently bi-mode hasn't been a thing?

 

[507020]

This is something that needs looking at - the Cambrian Coast, Heart Of Wales and Conwy Valley in winter are unlikely to need more than 2 coaches but will presumably need battery or hydrogen stock at some point in the future. Are there no 25kv 2-car EMUs because there is no space for the necessary kit or is it only because you wouldn't electrify a route that only needs 2-car units with OHLE and until recently bi-mode hasn't been a thing?

I was going to say aren’t there Class 456 and 466 2 car EMUs, but these are 3rd rail. Either these could be converted to battery/hydrogen operation, or you could take the trailer out of a longer EMU.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I was going to say aren’t there Class 456 and 466 2 car EMUs, but these are 3rd rail. Either these could be converted to battery/hydrogen operation, or you could take the trailer out of a longer EMU.

Are there any 25kv 3-car EMUs where one coach is a trailer with no essential equipment (such as a transformer or the only pantograph on the train) on-board? If there are, it suggests a 2-car 25kv EMU would be possible. However, with a 2-car unit both vehicles need a pantograph (many 3/4-car EMUs only have one pantograph I think) if you are going to run them in multiple as raising the pantograph on two adjacent vehicles would impose a punitive speed restriction due to the pantographs being too close together for faster running (I think the suituation is as-below - P = vehicle with raised pantograph and D = vehicle with pantograph lowered):

• PDPD - OK
• DPPD - Not OK
• DPDP - OK
• PDDP - OK

I don't know for sure though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are there any 25kv 3-car EMUs where one coach is a trailer with no essential equipment (such as a transformer or the only pantograph on the train) on-board?

319s and 320/321s are very close to being push pull LHCS - there is one power car which contains almost all the gubbins and there's next to nowt under the other vehicles.

 

[MattRat]

I was going to say aren’t there Class 456 and 466 2 car EMUs, but these are 3rd rail. Either these could be converted to battery/hydrogen operation, or you could take the trailer out of a longer EMU.

Aren't we still talking about Wales though? Third rail would be fine becuase no tracks in Wales (as far as I'm aware) have a line speed of over 100mph, which third rail is capable of.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that if anyone wishes to discuss anything other than Class 175 future speculation it would be better to create a new thread, thanks

 

[Wolfie]

This is why I question the need to have any toilet provision at all. When a long journey on a 195 with a single toilet can take longer than a shorter journey on an 11 car Pendolino, then why does the Pendolino need more than 1 toilet, if that?

Mods pse delete. I saw yorkie's red post after l'd posted here.

 

[krus_aragon]

Mods pse delete. I saw yorkie's red post after l'd posted here.

You'll get a quicker response if you report your own thread, rather than wait for one of them to happen to read your post.

 

[Wolfie]

You'll get a quicker response if you report your own thread, rather than wait for one of them to happen to read your post.

Ok, TY

 

[Inthewest]

Where the doors are is almost completely irrelevant, but the width of them is very relevant (and the reduction in toilets, seats, tables and legroom in favour of standing room that results).

And yet Greater Anglia don't seem to have a problem with the one door vs two (although I am aware the doors on their trains are wider).
Unless some actual research has been done into this, it's all just guess work.

The 175s need a home that already has older diesels running on it. Nottingham - Liverpool could be a contender but the problem is those silly 2-car variants. The same mistake has happened again with the new stock... ordering 2-car units.

One in two may indeed suffice if reliability is high. I'd go for two in three myself. However, one in four is not enough, and that was what I was originally replying to - mostly because if it's out of order that's zero in four, and that is not OK for anything other than short urban journeys.

Do the 175s do any 3 hour + journeys that are utilised for that whole 3 hours plus?

It sounds silly but if there's no home for them, it will have to be the scrap heap.
Without straying too far, Voyagers are slowly heading that road.

 

[Chiltern006]

chiltern?

 

[MattRat]

It sounds silly but if there's no home for them, it will have to be the scrap heap.
Without straying too far, Voyagers are slowly heading that road.

All the Voyagers/Merdians will hopefully end up at XC. They need the extra capacity. In fact, the 175s could also help them out.....

 

[warwickshire]

chiltern?

Yes . Quite possibly are cleared for route after all they did their trails and testing between princess risbourgh and kidderminster back in early 2000 to 2001.
With a standby class 33 locomotive at banbury.
Or in hindsight maybe to northern to cascade some 170s over.
Either way in next few years mk3 need replacement.
Very costly to run during the day time. And including loco lease costs.
Plus parts are coming harder to get.
Plus the fact when the remaining few mk3 coaches are done at long marston including the ex db 821 series dvt still there ie in which parts are nearly fully stripped off that will be it.
So factoring all above in 175 would be ideal opportunity
Or by the back door to northern to resale some 170 to chiltern.
Good strong possibility here.

 

[krus_aragon]

The 175s need a home that already has older diesels running on it. Nottingham - Liverpool could be a contender but the problem is those silly 2-car variants.

Hey, it could be worse: they had considered ordering some 1-car 175s!