Class 175 future speculation

[JonathanH]

The 13 mk5 sets would be enough for current Birmingham to London services though I'm not convinced that the 175s could cover the rest.

Can either Mk5 sets or 175s be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.

 

[Energy]

Can they be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.

Guards north of Banbury, and on all mk3 services. IIRC Chiltern DOO is platform based so I'd imagine guards on loco hauled were more to do with door control.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I said available, not that they were transferring. Clarence Yard has previously mentioned that GWR has its eyes on the TfW 158s, though this obviously isn't any confirmation of a transfer so wait until a formal announcement.

The 13 mk5 sets would be enough for current Birmingham to London services though I'm not convinced that the 175s could cover the rest.

One issue with the Mk5a sets as currently formed is that they're only five coach rakes, with around 100 fewer seats than the six coach Mk3 rakes. Sadly it can't be improved by swapping out the First Class coach with a Standard one, as that's the coach with the wheelchair area and accessible toilet.

 

[JonathanH]

Guards north of Banbury, and on all mk3 services.

Yes, very true, but guards based in Banbury can't run services leaving Marylebone before the first trains from Banbury arrive, and using trains with guards south of Banbury means more guards are needed.

 

[Energy]

One issue with the Mk5a sets as currently formed is that they're only five coach rakes, with around 100 fewer seats than the six coach Mk3 rakes. Sadly it can't be improved by swapping out the First Class coach with a Standard one, as that's the coach with the wheelchair area and accessible toilet.

Yeah, the capacity is approximately a 4 car 168 + 30 in first class so for many services, there would be a capacity decrease without an interior reconfig.

Yes, very true, but guards based in Banbury can't run services leaving Marylebone before the first trains from Banbury arrive, and using trains with guards south of Banbury means more guards are needed.

Yes more guards would be needed and trains changed to centre around Banbury (like LNWR and Northampton) or a guard depot opened in London.

68/Mk5s would be far from ideal for Chiltern, the best IMO would still be a fixed 120m FLIRT-style unit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can either Mk5 sets or 175s be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.

Chiltern DOO is mirror based and as built the cabs had door buttons (they were originally going to be driver release) so it seems easy to adapt.

One issue with the Mk5a sets as currently formed is that they're only five coach rakes, with around 100 fewer seats than the six coach Mk3 rakes. Sadly it can't be improved by swapping out the First Class coach with a Standard one, as that's the coach with the wheelchair area and accessible toilet.

The Sophia is still available, so it'd be easy to refit First to Standard without it looking odd.

 

[craigybagel]

Can either Mk5 sets or 175s be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.

Chiltern DOO is mirror based and as built the cabs had door buttons (they were originally going to be driver release) so it seems easy to adapt.

175s won't work with platform based equipment for DOO - the seat is too far forward to see out the window to the left for monitors, and the pillar on the left of the windscreen means the train would need to stop too far back for mirrors to be of much use either (except for at the few off side platforms). They would require CCTV cameras and in-cab monitors to work DOO.

 

[Philip]

The 175s have been ruled out for Chiltern this week by the MD, surely if they're looking for extra DMUs it'll be 170s (potentially from Cross Country)?

 

[Bikeman78]

They could replace the 156s which are literally falling to bits (the EMR ones particularly bad, I believe).

Are they really any worse than the 150s? What state are the 175 bodyshells in? What routes would they work, given that 156s currently couple to other units on a lot of routes? All these problems can be solved but is it worth it to replace a train that basically works with one that will cause problems for at least a year or two?

 

[skyhigh]

They could replace the 156s which are literally falling to bits (the EMR ones particularly bad, I believe).

Not sure there's much point replacing the 156s given that mega-bucks have just been spent on removing corrosion. (Plus the money spent on other bits like improved alternators, WSP and cooling systems over the last 18 months). Now they are in decent shape you might as well keep them until the new-build replacements are ready and save the cost of crew training for an interim fleet.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Not sure there's much point replacing the 156s given that mega-bucks have just been spent on removing corrosion. (Plus the money spent on other bits like improved alternators, WSP and cooling systems over the last 18 months). Now they are in decent shape you might as well keep them until the new-build replacements are ready and save the cost of crew training for an interim fleet.

Only some of the 156s have had the corrosion work done.

 

[skyhigh]

Only some of the 156s have had the corrosion work done.

In this round - I'm fairly sure the Northern lot had a similar level of work when the PRM mods were done?

 

[12LDA28C]

I don't know if it's just me, but orders for new trains does seem to me rather weird when there is a not insignificant amount of stored stock that could be used, and the DfT seem to have a habit of forcing TOCs to use the cheaper version of a sneeze, let alone cheaper rolling stock strategy.

Although, of course, buying new units may well be better than leasing a bunch of mobile bonfires.

Bearing in mind that Chiltern operate the oldest average age of fleet in the country and the DfT have finally approved the tender for brand new trains then taking on slightly younger DMUs which would themselves have to be replaced within a few years doesn't make much sense to me.

Which is why I suggested using the 175s to replace the 68/mk3s and some of the 165s, so that the remaining ones can be kept to the services via Amersham.

That way Chiltern won't need any new stock for say 10 years, by which time the future electrification plans should be more defined.

To me that makes more sense that ordering a 165 replacement now.

Chiltern's 165s are increasingly difficult to maintain and are approaching the end of their working life - they won't last another ten years, that's why they are being replaced by new units.

If electrification first concentrated on the Marylebone-Wycombe/Risborough/Amersham-Aylesbury Vale Parkway triangle first, then that should allow all 165s to be removed within 5 years or so, then do the Snow Hill Lines, then fill in the middle and move the whole thing over to EMU operation, all within 10 years which would be a reasonable remaining life for the 175s.

More electrification nonsense which is pure fantasy and totally irrelevant to this particular thread.

 

[The Planner]

More electrification nonsense which is pure fantasy and totally irrelevant to this particular thread.

Options, and a preferred one, exist and have been discussed within the industry for electrification. It will drive the choice of new units for Chiltern. Suggest you ask within Chiltern, plenty are aware.

 

[warwickshire]

Yes, very true, but guards based in Banbury can't run services leaving Marylebone before the first trains from Banbury arrive, and using trains with guards south of Banbury means more guards are needed.

Not unless, they do recruit more for Banbury, possibly having night turns, to solve that issue, Banbury depot will have surplus drivers also, from the switch to Bletchley from Banbury for the east and west route change of recruitment plan.
Maybe even use ie due to this Banbury depot for storage, stabling and maybe even on the Oxford to London Marylebone services as the drivers already sign the route, Plus the Banbury based guards will need to relearn the routes from Banbury/Oxford to London Marylebone if guards are uses from Banbury depot. For any Mk5 service change.

 

[jayah]

Options, and a preferred one, exist and have been discussed within the industry for electrification. It will drive the choice of new units for Chiltern. Suggest you ask within Chiltern, plenty are aware.

It sounds rather like Northern who have decided that new build is 'the way to go' and they don't want Class 175s.

Great, but the people saying this aren't the ones with the thick end of £500m under the mattress to pay for it.

Either Class 150s or 165s are likely to be around in 10 years and Class 175s would be a big improvement on those.

Don't underestimate what the Dft can impose. Cross Country ditched their HSTs in the midst of refurbishment and now have 4 car Voyagers running every day between Scotland and Plymouth, while their customers think the people running the railway have lost their minds.

 

[skyhigh]

Cross Country ditched their HSTs in the midst of refurbishment

What refurbishment were they in the midst of?

 

[SWML9102]

Maybe since nobody else seems to be interested in the 175s, tfw could take them back on a bargain basement lease! No issues with staff training there. Put 5 cars on Manchester-Swansea and ditch the unreliable and expensive MK4 sets. Then move 197s to Wrexham-Bidston to see the other unreliable tfw fleet, the 230s to be binned. Plenty of spare 197s to scrap the dogboxes on the Heart of Wales too.
No I don't really want to see the MK4s go, but from an operational point of view would help with some of tfw's poor reliability. Got to be tempting from cost perspective too. Someone would need to swallow their pride at tfw first though!

 

[Dai Corner]

Put 5 cars on Manchester-Swansea and ditch the unreliable and expensive MK4 sets.

What about First Class and restaurant cars?

 

[Mikey C]

Chiltern's 165s are increasingly difficult to maintain and are approaching the end of their working life - they won't last another ten years, that's why they are being replaced by new units.

I'd be surprised if all the 165s (Chiltern and GWR) are scrapped within 10 years, considering all the older DMUs to be replaced first. And the tighter purse strings preventing the massive orders that the likes of Greater Anglia enjoyed.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What about First Class and restaurant cars?

The 197/1Bs have a first class section with similar seats to that you’ll find on a 397 or MK5 in first class. I’m sure they could fit something like that in a 175. As for restaurant cars, they’re certainly not needed. A nice thing to have, but if GWR IC can do without then the Marches definitely can. A trolley is more than sufficient. As it stands, the buffet is hardly ever open anyway.

 

[SWML9102]

What about First Class and restaurant cars?

These are nice to have, but as things are, there is a high chance of turning up with your first class ticket and expectation of a three course meal, but in reality you end up wedged in the doorway of a 2 car 150.
As TT-ONR-NRN says, it shouldn't be too difficult to fit out a 175 with half a coach of first class and in a 5 car formation and still provide many more seats than a MK4 set.
What the majority of passengers want is a service that is reliable, on time and ideally a seat or at least some personal space. A 3 course meal is much lower priority.
Don't get me wrong, what I would love to see is MK4 sets running every Manchester service but they need to be dependable.

 

[12LDA28C]

I'd be surprised if all the 165s (Chiltern and GWR) are scrapped within 10 years, considering all the older DMUs to be replaced first. And the tighter purse strings preventing the massive orders that the likes of Greater Anglia enjoyed.

Chiltern's tender predicts their 165 fleet replacement within ~5 years I believe. What plans GWR have I couldn't say.

 

[Bob Price]

009 is on the move today from Chester to Landore, just passed Crewe on 3Z98. They do seem to be shuffling these units around.

 

[Philip]

Possible Chiltern, hence other post about md and rail express, from op ref 1487, mentioned way back, on here about a tender proposal in writing for them, it's possible due to the Mk5 now available from transpennie express, they might well get them, noise issues permitting as, traction conversion and traction refreshers will be easier than, new training for 175.

Why do we have the issue about noise levels with class 68s? In the 60s, 70s & 80s people used to put up with much noisier locos much more frequently. The class 68 noise isn't even particularly intrusive and it must be easier on the ears than the more typical noise pollution from the city centres of London & Birmingham?

Seems like much ado about nothing, particularly with these engines being quite clean for combustion pollution.

 

[The_Train]

009 is on the move today from Chester to Landore, just passed Crewe on 3Z98. They do seem to be shuffling these units around.

My last update on this unit was it entering Ilford in early Sept - anyone know when it came out of there please?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern's tender predicts their 165 fleet replacement within ~5 years I believe. What plans GWR have I couldn't say.

That seems optimistic unless it's just an order of an existing design, e.g. Class 19x.

 

[JonathanH]

Why do we have the issue about noise levels with class 68s? In the 60s, 70s & 80s people used to put up with much noisier locos much more frequently. The class 68 noise isn't even particularly intrusive and it must be easier on the ears than the more typical noise pollution from the city centres of London & Birmingham?

Standards have changed. What was acceptable in the past isn't now.

 

[Neptune]

Why do we have the issue about noise levels with class 68s? In the 60s, 70s & 80s people used to put up with much noisier locos much more frequently. The class 68 noise isn't even particularly intrusive and it must be easier on the ears than the more typical noise pollution from the city centres of London & Birmingham?

Seems like much ado about nothing, particularly with these engines being quite clean for combustion pollution.

You obviously haven’t been stood under the roof at Leeds station with one idling. The noise is far more intrusive than any diesel engine I have heard under there before. It isn’t just the volume, it’s the bassy resonance. It’s absolutely horrendous.

Put it this way, I can clearly hear them departing north from York from the office which is air conditioned (ie closed windows) and has many other things between me and them including York City walls, York station and York city centre. That is simply too loud.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do we have the issue about noise levels with class 68s? In the 60s, 70s & 80s people used to put up with much noisier locos much more frequently. The class 68 noise isn't even particularly intrusive and it must be easier on the ears than the more typical noise pollution from the city centres of London & Birmingham?

It is INCREDIBLY noisy. The last locomotive I recall being like that was the HST power cars before they were re-engined. It's lovely to hear as an enthusiast, but not permanently next to your house.

It's absolutely worse than standard urban background noise.