Future of SWR's class 158/159 fleet

[JonathanH]

Couldnt the operation be passed to GWR, routed from Paddington and run by 800’s ? Passengers change at Basingstoke for Waterloo, but otherwise could benefit a faster run to Paddington.

It would need a different fleet plan for those 80x units operated by GWR. How many do you think could be spared to operate the services currently operated by SWR?

 

[dciuk]

The SWR 159 replacement is covered in the latest edition of Rail magazine. SWR have put out a paper on achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2040, and they regard the 159s (and 158s) as being life expired by 2030. The talk is of battery/electric units to replace the fleet but for those to be feasible for the Exeter route there would have to be fast charging infrastructure beyond Basingstoke. I'm not sure if that solution really exists yet.

Is this the net zero document I linked to previously on this thread or is this something different?

Couldnt the operation be passed to GWR, routed from Paddington and run by 800’s ? Passengers change at Basingstoke for Waterloo, but otherwise could benefit a faster run to Paddington.

They would have to run on diesel between Reading (Southcote Junction) and Exeter unless that line was to be electrified and would require around 30 additional 5 car class 800's in service each day based on 2tph between Paddington and Salisbury with 1tph continuing to Exeter and some extras to Yeovil (with trains formed of 10 coaches east of Salisbury and 5 coaches west of Salisbury) and some maintenance spares.

 

[Sm5]

Is this the net zero document I linked to previously on this thread or is this something different?


They would have to run on diesel between Reading (Southcote Junction) and Exeter unless that line was to be electrified and would require around 30 additional 5 car class 800's in service each day based on 2tph between Paddington and Salisbury with 1tph continuing to Exeter and some extras to Yeovil (with trains formed of 10 coaches east of Salisbury and 5 coaches west of Salisbury) and some maintenance spares.

No they wouldnt.
The railways are over bloated with excess capacity and need to cut back.

The future isnt like for like.., not in any pipe dream.

i’m expecting a mini-beeching, or even at least withdrawal of subsidies and mothballing of a number of routes. We cant go on shovelling money to empty trains and branchline lines that only carry a few passengers, with government interest rates climbing towards 5%.

Railways have been gold plated the last 2 decades, and up until Covid everything was ok, we were heading the Swiss route. Post Brexit were following the path of failed empires as we contract.

imo were going to see less frequent long distance services, just look at Avanti for an idea of the future.. Despite all the furore.. theres no escaping reality, some servives even with -2/3 rds frequency are still just not full… Bringing them back in December is just shovelling more cash into the furnace that we dont have, and the DfT will be challenged for more cuts between now and then.

perhaps the Voyagers might take over the 159’s, and in turn replace the GWR HSTs and 150’s.

I cant forsee new rolling stock orders coming with a collapsed £, high interests rates and looming mass unemployment from huge economic contraction for the next 5 years, no matter how much public squealing goes on, we all need to re-adjust to the world thats been voted for, not the one theyve give up… if that means rolling stock gets used for its full design life plus a few years, its neither a bad thing nor is it something other countries dont do.

Battery power, I think thats for the birds right now, we cannot afford it and the technology isnt good enough, if anything we’ll probably just sell the IP cheap to the US who will harvest its commercial benefits, thats no different to what usually happens in other industries.

borrowing cheap money is over, anyone who has had longterm creditcard loans will know the pain that brings to get out of it, the government is now waking up to that reality to… borrowing money to run empty trains cant continue, even if means the service isnt as prestigous as it used to be.. think 70’s.

 

[JonathanH]

The railways are over bloated with excess capacity and need to cut back.

I was on some very lightly loaded trains in Cornwall last Thursday but at some point in the year those trains will be busy. Without total elasticity of price, the reality is that excess capacity will be needed at some point. What you suggest only really works if passengers can be priced off the most popular services, including at what are regarded as off-peak times.

For example, if fares were to be made expensive enough, GWR could operate all its services with 5-car IETs, or 9-car IETs with a reduced frequency, but that would be seen as pushing passengers to other forms of transport.

 

[Trainbike46]

No they wouldnt.
The railways are over bloated with excess capacity and need to cut back.

The future isnt like for like.., not in any pipe dream.

i’m expecting a mini-beeching, or even at least withdrawal of subsidies and mothballing of a number of routes. We cant go on shovelling money to empty trains and branchline lines that only carry a few passengers, with government interest rates climbing towards 5%.

Railways have been gold plated the last 2 decades, and up until Covid everything was ok, we were heading the Swiss route. Post Brexit were following the path of failed empires as we contract.

imo were going to see less frequent long distance services, just look at Avanti for an idea of the future.. Despite all the furore.. theres no escaping reality, some servives even with -2/3 rds frequency are still just not full… Bringing them back in December is just shovelling more cash into the furnace that we dont have, and the DfT will be challenged for more cuts between now and then.

perhaps the Voyagers might take over the 159’s, and in turn replace the GWR HSTs and 150’s.

I cant forsee new rolling stock orders coming with a collapsed £, high interests rates and looming mass unemployment from huge economic contraction for the next 5 years, no matter how much public squealing goes on, we all need to re-adjust to the world thats been voted for, not the one theyve give up… if that means rolling stock gets used for its full design life plus a few years, its neither a bad thing nor is it something other countries dont do.

Battery power, I think thats for the birds right now, we cannot afford it and the technology isnt good enough, if anything we’ll probably just sell the IP cheap to the US who will harvest its commercial benefits, thats no different to what usually happens in other industries.

borrowing cheap money is over, anyone who has had longterm creditcard loans will know the pain that brings to get out of it, the government is now waking up to that reality to… borrowing money to run empty trains cant continue, even if means the service isnt as prestigous as it used to be.. think 70’s.

I don't think this is a realistic view of the future for the railways; it seems highly unlikely that LNER will be cut down to service levels similar to Avanti's, for example.

Some new trains will be coming: because of various cut-back electrification projects combined with a somewhat odd rolling stock procurement policy over the 5 years prior to covid, thereis an excess of EMUs and a shortage of DMUs, with a lot of DMUs nearing their end of life; something will have to replace those trains, even if not like-for-like, and the class 22x (the only diesel trains becoming available in the near term) are not suitable to replace the oldest/worst state sprinters.

There is a decent chance that for routes like those served by the SWR 158/159s, an EMU with batteries will be the cheapest option.

your strategy sounds like one of cutting costs without considering the revenue impact. That is a terrible idea, because without careful planning you won't just slash costs, but revenue as well.

For example, pre-covid avanti returned a premium to the government; despite long-distance (leisure) travel returning reasonably well, and their costs being much lower now (lower staffing numbers, fewer units leased, less distance driven by those units still on lease), right now they must be burning through government money. Clearly, cutting avanti-style is not good value for money, and is only a good idea if you want to destroy the railway outright

Now checked the data and indeed, Avanti/Virgin returned a premium to the government every year before covid:
(negative numbers are a premium to government, positive a subsidy from government)

Table 7226: Franchised passenger train operator finances since 2015-16 by franchise

Franchise

Income and expenditure categories

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

West Coast

Net franchise subsidy (d)

-172

-228

-260

-248

-285

725

 

[dciuk]

The railways are over bloated with excess capacity and need to cut back.

Although I have not travelled on this route in the last few years, I understood that many services west of Salisbury have been increased to 6 cars (even before the current temporary reduced timetable was running). Using class 80x which presumably would be 5 car units would be less flexible that a purpose built fleet of 2; 3 or 4 car units in that 5 car units could only be run as 5 or 10 car. The current mixed 2/3 car fleet allow any combination of between 2 and 10 (possibly even higher than 10 if platform length at Waterloo allows)

i’m expecting a mini-beeching, or even at least withdrawal of subsidies and mothballing of a number of routes. We cant go on shovelling money to empty trains and branchline lines that only carry a few passengers, with government interest rates climbing towards 5%.

This thread is not discussing branch line services (unless you consider Waterloo to Exeter to be a branch line)

perhaps the Voyagers might take over the 159’s, and in turn replace the GWR HSTs and 150’s.

It has been said many times before that Voyagers would not be suitable for this route and as they run on diesel how will that help with the net zero target that SWR have published?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is this the net zero document I linked to previously on this thread or is this something different?

I expect Rail‘s previous issue‘s deadline just missed the announcement, as we started discussing it on 2 Oct, so this article isn’t telling us anything new?

 

[fandroid]

Given railways are not going to be immune to further government cuts, and railways have been bloated with investment for some time..

Couldnt the operation be passed to GWR, routed from Paddington and run by 800’s ? Passengers change at Basingstoke for Waterloo, but otherwise could benefit a faster run to Paddington.

The Salisbury/Exeter diesel services provided vital capacity between Basingstoke and Waterloo pre-Covid and not replacing that would leave empty paths in the 4-track part of the SWR mainline while extra services are being crammed into the Reading-Paddington route. The Waterloo -Exeter route makes sense, as it serves a lot more communities than the GW route to the SW, and it was BR Western Region neglect that made it the Cinderella it is regarded as now

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The Waterloo -Exeter route makes sense, as it serves a lot more communities than the GW route to the SW, and it was BR Western Region neglect that made it the Cinderella it is regarded as now

It may run through lots of communities but in SR days the local service was pretty shocking the focus on the line being expresses to the West of England serving very few of the intermediates.

It was a pity the route was rationalised but the change in service pattern when the route transferred to the Western and subsequent changes provided a focus on serving those communities has provided a huge upturn in terms of passenger numbers.

 

[Versa274]

A think a few questions need to be asked here.

1) Has the DFT given approval for SWR to look at replacing the class 159/158 fleets?
2) What type of train do you go for in replacing the class 159/158 fleets? Do you go for something like the class 755/756, but being able to operate either on third rail or AC Overhead? Or do you got for something the Hitachi AT300/AT200 tri-mode?
3) Or optionally, do you modify the class 159/158 for future use for another 30 plus years? This question is based on the fact that you can have rolling stock that is being used for over 30 to 40 years with class 73 lovomotives as an example which where originally built in 1962 for the first batch and the second batch between 1965 - 1967.

5 car class 730 express version would be good so can work as 10 car to Salisbury then divide and more capacity created

 

[JonathanH]

5 car class 730 express version would be good so can work as 10 car to Salisbury then divide and more capacity created

Less capacity West of Salisbury though?

Also the issue with platform 6 at Waterloo only being good for 9 23m coaches, which is why the Exeter trains depart from 6 and 7.

 

[MattRat]

Less capacity West of Salisbury though?

Also the issue with platform 6 at Waterloo only being good for 9 23m coaches, which is why the Exeter trains depart from 6 and 7.

I think the bigger problem would be the line isn't fully electrified, unless someone can point to bi-mode versions being available of course.

 

[Xavi]

I expect First Group (GWR) ‘Operation Churchward’ to consider the possibility of 158/159 replacement on SWR and the benefits of a homogeneous fleet.

Doesn’t mean anything will materialise but we’ll have a sensible report led by Mark Hopwood.

 

[RobShipway]

I expect First Group (GWR) ‘Operation Churchward’ to consider the possibility of 158/159 replacement on SWR and the benefits of a homogeneous fleet.

Doesn’t mean anything will materialise but we’ll have a sensible report led by Mark Hopwood.

I suspect that it will be a hybrid fleet like the class 755/756 that is chosen, accept that it will be DC/diesel hybrid with the option to add a pantograph if required at a later date and change the diesel engine for batteries.

I also believe that it will be a smaller fleet as well, with the trains being longer in size. These would I suspect be within the Aventra family from Alstom, initially replacing the class 158/9 with the possibility of ordering further units to replace class 444/450 units by which time will be 30 years old come 2034/2033.

Now if Wikipedia is correct there is 10 SWR class 158 and 29 class 159. Other than the Romsey - Salisbury via Southampton route which uses 2 car class 158 units, any of the other SWR routes where class 158 is used, is done so with Class 159 units I believe to make 5 or 8 car trains. Instead you would have 3, 5 or 10 car Aventra which either has diesel engines under the driving cabs and in 5 car spec under the middle car, in 10 car spec under the driving cars, coach 3 and coach 8. Alternatively there would be a power unit(s) in the middle of the train aka Class 755/756 style.

Unlike the class 701 units, I would personally suggest certainly if any 3 or 5 car units are ordered, that they are done so with gangway doors at each end of the train units, such that if needed they could work together if required.

 

[WarrenTManager]

This would seriously impact unit maintenance as things stand. Salisbury depot (maint) shed consists of four roads, each with a capacity of three cars, within the shed. Most other stabling roads can accommodate 9 cars. The depot was designed around 159 operation, so any increase in fixed unit length would have major knock on effects!

Also the weight of the trains would be a factor. When there were rumours of a number of 185 units supposedly going off lease a few people got excited that they might come south. They would be too heavy for the shed roads in its current state. The lift road (road 6) only fits one car in, so if a 58 car needs lifting, thats a bit of a pain. A complete length lift road would be lovely.

Salisbury would definitely need a rebuild or other options, the old shed site or Andover yard maybe other options.

 

[RailWonderer]

Also the weight of the trains would be a factor. When there were rumours of a number of 185 units supposedly going off lease a few people got excited that they might come south. They would be too heavy for the shed roads in its current state. The lift road (road 6) only fits one car in, so if a 58 car needs lifting, thats a bit of a pain. A complete length lift road would be lovely.

Salisbury would definitely need a rebuild or other options, the old shed site or Andover yard maybe other options.

Posts on this forum have extensively discussed the weight of the 185s but they aren't heavier than Voyagers or Meridians which use much of the same track.

I also believe that it will be a smaller fleet as well, with the trains being longer in size. These would I suspect be within the Aventra family from Alstom, initially replacing the class 158/9 with the possibility of ordering further units to replace class 444/450 units by which time will be 30 years old come 2034/2033.

Now if Wikipedia is correct there is 10 SWR class 158 and 29 class 159. Other than the Romsey - Salisbury via Southampton route which uses 2 car class 158 units, any of the other SWR routes where class 158 is used, is done so with Class 159 units I believe to make 5 or 8 car trains. Instead you would have 3, 5 or 10 car Aventra which either has diesel engines under the driving cabs and in 5 car spec under the middle car, in 10 car spec under the driving cars, coach 3 and coach 8. Alternatively there would be a power unit(s) in the middle of the train aka Class 755/756 style.

A bi-mode class 730 would be the best replacement for the 158/9s as they would be maintained alongside the 701s which are also Aventras and Bombardier (then and still) offers a bi-mode product, albeit at 125mph but could easily be geared to 100mph instead. I would say 3 cars would have 2 engines under the centre car and the 5 cars would have 2 engines each under the 2nd and 4th car.
3 cars would obviously go on the Salisbury Romsey and 5 cars for everything else, so 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 formations could work together (though 10 24m coaches would be maybe too long).

 

[JonathanH]

A bi-mode class 730 would be the best replacement for the 158/9s as they would be maintained alongside the 701s which are also Aventras

It would involve a fairly substantial change to workings to move maintenance of the Exeter line fleet to Wimbledon, so I suspect that maintenance alongside 701s isn't a consideration.

Not to say that bi-mode 730s couldn't be considered, but I don't think the 701 fleet drives the choice.

 

[WarrenTManager]

Posts on this forum have extensively discussed the weight of the 185s but they aren't heavier than Voyagers or Meridians which use much of the same track.

But way heavier than the current stock for which the depot was purpose built for. This isn't the mainline, I'm referring to but specifically to the shed roads.

23 metre coaches are quite restricted at Waterloo not sure if going even longer will help.

 

[Chester1]

I am not sure why this thread has been revived. The financial outlook is worse than in August and the plan is likely to run the 158s and 159s until they are unserviceable. I would quite like to see them cascaded to Northern but I can't see them going anywhere for the next few years.

 

[dciuk]

any of the other SWR routes where class 158 is used, is done so with Class 159 units I believe to make 5 or 8 car trains

In the days of SWT I remember 3x158 to make a 6 car between Exeter and Waterloo (I think it may have dropped 1 unit at Salisbury to run as a 4 car into Waterloo) instead of running as the normal 2x159 to for the 6 car (possibly dropping to 3 car between Salisbury and Waterloo). It was a Saturday late afternoon/early evening service which was the reason for the shorter train at the Waterloo end. There also used to be a regular 10 car service made up of 2x159 and 2x158

 

[swt_passenger]

…I also believe that it will be a smaller fleet as well, with the trains being longer in size. These would I suspect be within the Aventra family from Alstom, initially replacing the class 158/9 with the possibility of ordering further units to replace class 444/450 units by which time will be 30 years old come 2034/2033.

Why would anyone be seriously suggesting that the combined 450/444 fleet might be replaced 10 years early? IMHO what happens to them is completely unrelated to any proposals for the DMU fleet.

 

[Mikey C]

Any potential bi-mode 159 replacement design would be in pole position to replace all the 158s across the country, which could give economies of scale for the manufacturer.

 

[JonathanH]

Why would anyone be seriously suggesting that the combined 450/444 fleet might be replaced 10 years early?

There seems to be no acceptance on this forum that rolling stock can stay constant in operation and that replacements must be discussed even if there is a good 20 years before it is likely to actually be replaced.

 

[D365]

There seems to be no acceptance on this forum that rolling stock can stay constant in operation and that replacements must be discussed even if there is a good 20 years before it is likely to actually be replaced.

And somehow this is the same subforum that suggests Classes 442, 373, 365, 332, 379 as the panaceas to all perceived rolling stock problems!

 

[LOL The Irony]

Any potential bi-mode 159 replacement design would be in pole position to replace all the 158s across the country, which could give economies of scale for the manufacturer.

Not necessarily as Northern will almost certainly go with 195s or bi-mode 331s (as flawed as they and said idea are).

 

[MattRat]

I am not sure why this thread has been revived. The financial outlook is worse than in August and the plan is likely to run the 158s and 159s until they are unserviceable. I would quite like to see them cascaded to Northern but I can't see them going anywhere for the next few years.

Because when cascades are considered, they can see off even older units. Plus not all options need be expensive. The 19x Civities certainly aren't.

 

[hooverboy]

Any potential bi-mode 159 replacement design would be in pole position to replace all the 158s across the country, which could give economies of scale for the manufacturer.

I think it would be different strokes for different folks.
I think some kind of Bi or tri-mode 3rd rail+deisel multiple unit is definitely required.Not just by SWR but southern as well ,for the uckfield+oxted lines.It would be best for a collaboration between the TOC's to discuss and finalise specs and put out an invitation to tender..

That would be a cheaper solution than extending the 3rd rail in both areas.It would still require a fairly substantial fleet of about 50 units too( 150 vehicles),so a nice number to keep the build costs down.

 

[Energy]

Because when cascades are considered, they can see off even older units. Plus not all options need be expensive. The 19x Civities certainly aren't.

Like what? 158/159s are much better than 156s but are only a couple years younger. Scotrail have already announced their plan for retiring 156s and Northern seem more interested in new Civitys than anything else.

158/159s aren't a suitable replacement for 150s.

 

[Chester1]

Like what? 158/159s are much better than 156s but are only a couple years younger. Scotrail have already announced their plan for retiring 156s and Northern seem more interested in new Civitys than anything else.

158/159s aren't a suitable replacement for 150s.

I agree. Between TfW and EMR there are about 36 x 158s coming off lease. If Northern want to use them to send 156s for scrap they will be available much sooner. 158s are only a couple of years younger but they are higher quality. There is a limit to how many 156s can be replaced by 158s because of dwell times. If Northern got TfW units its unlikely they could take SWR u units without running them on unsuitable services. Some Northern routes operated by 155s and 156s are not suitable for 158s. The other ToC interested in 158s would likely be GWR if they need to reverse the currents happening over the next year. I am not convinced that will happen.

 

[MattRat]

Like what? 158/159s are much better than 156s but are only a couple years younger. Scotrail have already announced their plan for retiring 156s and Northern seem more interested in new Civitys than anything else.

158/159s aren't a suitable replacement for 150s.

But they can be for some 156s, which can then replace 150s.