Class 175 future speculation

[43096]

Since the Chiltern replacement order is to be based in Sunderland as per https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W51/813170912 then why would they use the MK5 sets instead of the MK3's?

Nowhere in that link does it say the stock is to be based in Sunderland. You're totally mis-reading it - Chiltern's registered office address is in Sunderland (as an Arriva company), that's all.

 

[Energy]

I was under the impression the tender was for replacement of the 165s but looks like its for the 68s as well. It seems that the Mk5s would be a good replacement for 68s but then again looks like the 68s are on their way out.

Different tender, Chiltern have a few on. This one relates to sets suitable for Chiltern London - Birmingham services available very soon.

 

[TheWalrus]

The MK5’s would still be hauled by 68’s, but as I understand, it would be swapping the MK3 compatible 68’s for the MK5 compatible 68’s.

To replace old and outdated rolling stock. Maybe to also have more sets but that would depend.

That was my understanding also.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jan 2024 ==

Different tender, Chiltern have a few on. This one relates to sets suitable for Chiltern London - Birmingham services available very soon.

Is “the TPWS Mark 4 protection system” something completely different to the Tripcock? System required on the Aylesbury-Marylebone line?

Are links to these other tenders posted on here already or is someone able to post them?

 

[Nym]

Is “the TPWS Mark 4 protection system” something completely different to the Tripcock? System required on the Aylesbury-Marylebone line?

Yes.
Very.

"Enhanced TPWS" (Or as some brands call it, TPWSfour or TPWS Mk.4 or just plan old TPWS, none of them actually call it "TPWS Mark 4", see my previous post) is the "BR" protection system of choice to the latest spec. Trainstop and Tripcock is used for legacy LUL systems.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Are links to these other tenders posted on here already or is someone able to post them?

Chiltern MK3 replacement fleet possibilities?

Google is your friend. 165s are a 1992 build and 168 post-privatisation, whereas Mk3s date back over 45 years. As for the other question, my crystal ball is in for repair at present! The first Class 165/0 as used on Chiltern entered service in 1991 and I think were built in 1990. If Google...

www.railforums.co.uk

They’re in this thread

 

[Rhydgaled]

Since the Chiltern replacement order is to be based in Sunderland as per https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W51/813170912 then why would they use the MK5 sets instead of the MK3's?

The usage of the replacement is only for 12 years, why would that be either the MK5 sets or class 175 units?

Two of the requirements for the Chiltern stock given at the link you gave are a reduction in ambient noise compared to the 68s and mk3s and that any diesel stock must "be compatible with alternative fuels, such as HVO, from the service introduction date."

I'm not clear whether the noise requirement would be for passengers on-board, in the driver's cab or lineside. If lineside, that seems to rule out the mark 5 stock since the Chiltern mark 3s have a genset in the DVT to allow the loco to shut down when the train is stabled. Therefore, if the concern is lineside noise there is no point replacing mark 3s with mark 5s and that requirement would seem to work in favour of 175s replacing 68s. Similarly, a 175 replacing a class 68 might be a significant noise reduction in the cab (at least when the loco is leading) (I've not been in a modern loco cab in use - but I imagine if lineside neighbours have complained it must be quite noisy for the driver).

However, if by 'ambient noise' they mean the passenger environment within the carriages the 175s probably lose because of the underfloor engines. Similarly I'm not sure if the class 175s are capable of running using HVO - are they able to do so right now or would that require mods?

 

[TheWalrus]

Yes.
Very.

"Enhanced TPWS" (Or as some brands call it, TPWSfour or TPWS Mk.4 or just plan old TPWS, none of them actually call it "TPWS Mark 4", see my previous post) is the "BR" protection system of choice to the latest spec. Trainstop and Tripcock is used for legacy LUL systems.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Bikeman78]

Perhaps a trivial point, but the list shows all the 175s as 'correctly' formed (i.e. with the last digit of stock numbers matching the one of the units). I thought that a couple had been re-formed.

Several have been reformed, some have vehicles from three different units, e.g. 175101 and 175109. Either 004 or 005 has the two driving vehicles from 175109. One came back from Widnes with an incorrect vehicle number on the sides. They applied the original vehicle numbers for that set but it was misformed.

 

[RobShipway]

The MK5’s would still be hauled by 68’s, but as I understand, it would be swapping the MK3 compatible 68’s for the MK5 compatible 68’s.

To replace old and outdated rolling stock. Maybe to also have more sets but that would depend.

Two of the requirements for the Chiltern stock given at the link you gave are a reduction in ambient noise compared to the 68s and mk3s and that any diesel stock must "be compatible with alternative fuels, such as HVO, from the service introduction date."

I'm not clear whether the noise requirement would be for passengers on-board, in the driver's cab or lineside. If lineside, that seems to rule out the mark 5 stock since the Chiltern mark 3s have a genset in the DVT to allow the loco to shut down when the train is stabled. Therefore, if the concern is lineside noise there is no point replacing mark 3s with mark 5s and that requirement would seem to work in favour of 175s replacing 68s. Similarly, a 175 replacing a class 68 might be a significant noise reduction in the cab (at least when the loco is leading) (I've not been in a modern loco cab in use - but I imagine if lineside neighbours have complained it must be quite noisy for the driver).

However, if by 'ambient noise' they mean the passenger environment within the carriages the 175s probably lose because of the underfloor engines. Similarly I'm not sure if the class 175s are capable of running using HVO - are they able to do so right now or would that require mods?

But I believe that both the lineside noise of class 68 loco's whether hauling Mk3 or Mk5 is not the requirement of Chiltern. On a similar basis I would say the same for the class 175 units in current form, as I believe that there has also been complaints about lineside noise for class 165/168 units.

This is where if the class 175 units are to replace the class 68 MK3 sets, then the class 175 units I believe would need to be converted to bi-mode being diesel/battery hybrid. Now, I know from other threads many believe that it is not possible to convert the class 175 units to be bi-mode. This leaves us with looking at converting other existing stock.

I wonder if within the next year, some class 170 units will become available?

 

[Western 52]

The 175s themselves are rather noisy externally, especially when leaving stations. They are acceptable internally though.

 

[py_megapixel]

The 175s themselves are rather noisy externally, especially when leaving stations. They are acceptable internally though.

The engine noise doesn't seem too bad by DMU standards but they seem to have chosen the beeping sound when the doors are released to be as harsh and unpleasant as possible!

 

[Western 52]

The engine noise doesn't seem too bad by DMU standards but they seem to have chosen the beeping sound when the doors are released to be as harsh and unpleasant as possible!

The beeping is certainly loud. When they were calling at the station here, I could hear the beeps from my house about 400m away.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 175s themselves are rather noisy externally, especially when leaving stations. They are acceptable internally though.

They're also worse from an emissions perspective than the 68s, as are the 168s, but that didn't stop local politicians from trying to score points moaning about the filthy noisy 68s.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The engine noise doesn't seem too bad by DMU standards but they seem to have chosen the beeping sound when the doors are released to be as harsh and unpleasant as possible!

Requirements for door opening and closing tones are laid down in the "Persons with Disabilities and with Reduced Mobility" TSI.

This requires the door release sound to be a "slow pulse multi tone (up to two pulses per second) of two tones emitted sequentially." Tone 1 is defined as being 2200Hz (plus or minus 100Hz) and Tone 2 as 1760Hz (plus or minus 100Hz.) These are equivalent to C sharp (or D flat, depending on your point of view) three octaves above middle C and A two octaves above middle C, respectively.

The maximum volume is specified as 70dB (+6/-0) though the preferred volume is 5dB above ambient noise if the system can adapt.

 

[Bikeman78]

Requirements for door opening and closing tones are laid down in the "Persons with Disabilities and with Reduced Mobility" TSI.

This requires the door release sound to be a "slow pulse multi tone (up to two pulses per second) of two tones emitted sequentially." Tone 1 is defined as being 2200Hz (plus or minus 100Hz) and Tone 2 as 1760Hz (plus or minus 100Hz.) These are equivalent to C sharp (or D flat, depending on your point of view) three octaves above middle C and A two octaves above middle C, respectively.

The maximum volume is specified as 70dB (+6/-0) though the preferred volume is 5dB above ambient noise if the system can adapt.

The tone used by almost every other train in the country is less obtrusive. Clearly it doesn't have to be that loud. My mum is disabled and ironically that beeping sound would scare the crap out of her.

 

[Philip]

The horns used to be very loud too but I think these were changed to a different and quieter tone many years ago.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Have the door Sanders on 175 units being changed? Last time I got up close and personal with one they were still using the sounders installed as build which to me at least seemed blessedly inoffensive compared to some of the other sounders installed as retro fits to the likes of the sprinters, networkers etc

 

[py_megapixel]

Requirements for door opening and closing tones are laid down in the "Persons with Disabilities and with Reduced Mobility" TSI.

This requires the door release sound to be a "slow pulse multi tone (up to two pulses per second) of two tones emitted sequentially." Tone 1 is defined as being 2200Hz (plus or minus 100Hz) and Tone 2 as 1760Hz (plus or minus 100Hz.) These are equivalent to C sharp (or D flat, depending on your point of view) three octaves above middle C and A two octaves above middle C, respectively.

The maximum volume is specified as 70dB (+6/-0) though the preferred volume is 5dB above ambient noise if the system can adapt.

I recall reading that document before. As it turns out, the 175s don't actually follow it (they sound at only one pitch).

(The sounders that were retro-fitted to Sprinters etc also don't follow that specification, which is even stranger as they were installed specifically for compliance with PRM TSI and yet don't technically comply with it! I assume they have a derogation of some kind)

 

[Bikeman78]

I recall reading that document before. As it turns out, the 175s don't actually follow it (they sound at only one pitch).

(The sounders that were retro-fitted to Sprinters etc also don't follow that specification, which is even stranger as they were installed specifically for compliance with PRM TSI and yet don't technically comply with it! I assume they have a derogation of some kind)

I can think of numerous trains that have a single tone door release. As you say, most odd, given the specification. The 317s had a one tone continuous beep. Why not fit them with the same system as the similar 318s?

 

[Bob Price]

Ok throwing a wildcard in the ring. Southern have to hand over some of their 17x units to EMR. Could we see five car 175's heading to Uckfield? Unlikely but I think we've exhausted all the other possibilities

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Ok throwing a wildcard in the ring. Southern have to hand over some of their 17x units to EMR. Could we see five car 175's heading to Uckfield? Unlikely but I think we've exhausted all the other possibilities

Southern are not due to hand over any more 17x units. EMR now have their full allocation of 17x units.

 

[CR165022]

Southern are not due to hand over any more 17x units. EMR now have their full allocation of 17x units.

But what about 170421 (171201)? I thought that one was coming to EMR as well.

 

[GWVillager]

Yesterday, I overheard a TfW driver say that the 175s are due for Chiltern, but only the 3 car sets. Of course, take this with a pinch of salt, but it’s another suggestion at Chiltern.

 

[LowLevel]

But what about 170421 (171201)? I thought that one was coming to EMR as well.

It is on paper still coming to EMR, but is currently subject to some tustling between GTR and the DfT as they reckon (I imagine justifiably) that they can't run their service commitments without it. Having one single 3 car train from a different ROSCO is a bit of a messy situation though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yesterday, I overheard a TfW driver say that the 175s are due for Chiltern, but only the 3 car sets. Of course, take this with a pinch of salt, but it’s another suggestion at Chiltern.

The LHCS replacement tender for Chiltern does look like 175s or Mk5s could meet it. Most seem to think Mk5s more likely but we could be surprised.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Ok throwing a wildcard in the ring. Southern have to hand over some of their 17x units to EMR. Could we see five car 175's heading to Uckfield? Unlikely but I think we've exhausted all the other possibilities

Southern are not due to hand over any more 17x units. EMR now have their full allocation of 17x units.

Aren't the 175s built to the C3 profile anyway, therefore they wouldn't fit on the Uckfield branch?

 

[Philip]

The LHCS replacement tender for Chiltern does look like 175s or Mk5s could meet it. Most seem to think Mk5s more likely but we could be surprised.

I thought the requirement for HVO fuels and TPWS protection system means 175s couldn't meet the criteria as it stands now?

 

[Lurcheroo]

I thought the requirement for HVO fuels and TPWS protection system means 175s couldn't meet the criteria as it stands now?

The TPWS on 175’s certainly doesn’t meet the TPWS4 standard that is required. For chiltern.

 

[D365]

Class 175 - I take it that it’s not as ‘easy’ as copying over the installation design for Class 180 enhanced TPWS (and ETCS)…

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Aren't the 175s built to the C3 profile anyway, therefore they wouldn't fit on the Uckfield branch?

Are they any wider than the 171s which are also 23m?

Thought the restriction on Uckfields was specifically the 20m mk3s, so no 319s if the juice rail had been fitted, and no 769s when that concept was first proposed.