If Carlsberg made DMUs - the Class 175!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Masboroughlad

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
1,478
Location
Midlands
.....Probably the best DMUs in the UK! I think so anyway! It is a pity more of these never made it on to the network. Quiet, comfortable, plent of leg room, fast, stylish, working air-con. (Too many PAs though!)

Some 4(+) car versions on TPE would have been great....

Where else on the network would these units have been well placed?
 

Attachments

  • Llandudno June 2012 023.jpg
    Llandudno June 2012 023.jpg
    137.9 KB · Views: 244
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,833
Location
Redcar
If Alstom hadn't messed up so badly with the early reliability of the 180s and 175s then I think between them they could have sown up a lot of the inter-city and inter-regional DMU markets as apart from their appalling reliability (well to be fair the 175s are pretty good these days) they're very good units.
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
It could be argued that refurbished 158/159s (especially ATW/SWT/EMT examples) are as good/better, as they can take advantage of SP limits, have end gangways and can work in multiple with 142/143/144/150/153/155/156/170/172, but they do have a lower top speed and slightly worse acceleration (I think).

It also could be argued that 180s are better as they are longer and have a higher top speed and better acceleration but with the same interiors.

But yes, 175s are very good indeed. :)

Adam :D
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,202
Location
Reading
Having never ridden on 175s until this week, when we have been on three, I was very impressed with them.
I think that these are great units and had they worked out of the box from day one could well have become as numerous as the Cl170, particularly on flows such as Nottingham to Cardiff.
The body is not disimilar to a Mark3 coach (the best coaching stock ever built), and they ride smoothly and quietly. ATW also appears to keep good care of them which helps a great deal.

They are ideal for the routes they currently work, and indeed I think that they would be suited to all of the former Regional Railways middle distance network:
-Cardiff to Penzance, Portsmouth, Nottingham and Manchester
-Liverpool & Manchester to Newcastle, Hull and Norwich
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,280
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
I'll agree with the above, although ive always been a fan of the 180s anyway, i took my first trip on a 175 back in febuary and my only quam with it was that is was only a two car unit - but apart from that, the unit was perfectly fine and i enjoyed my run on it.

Had all Alstom products worked from the start, then i think it would be fairly likely that we would have had them down here on South West Trains, possibly with corridor connections, on the Waterloo to Salisbury / Bristol Temple Meads / Exeter services... As well as possibly on Scotrail for their longer distance fast services - Edinburgh to Aberdeen / Inverness?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,236
Problem is that Class 175s have some disadvantages in common with Class 185s, unable to use SP differentials, no gangways and not able to multiple work with common DMUs, but while they can use MU differentials they lack the admittedly rather impressive power to weight ratio that a Pennine Desiro can use to make up for its low speed limits. (Of-course a Class 172 has approached its power to weight ratio now so that is not true any longer).

They are also more expensive to run thanks to higher track access charges and the lack of gangway connections makes proper revenue protection impossible on trains formed of more than one unit without additional, expensive, train crew.

In short I think that purchasing them was a mistake but I understand they are comfortable.... I hope they don't share the Class 180s' issue with tables not being secured to the bodysides and shaking to pieces at the slightest provocation.

And I think the best coaching stock ever title should go to the Mark 4s.... just as comfy as Mark 3s (and I've been riding them since they were wearing InterCity swallow, so that includes pre refurb) and they don't have annoying draughts and noises from the vestibules because droplights aren't sealed very well.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Interesting that these aren't permitted to use SP speed limits; why is that?

I would agree that these are very stylish trains, in my view more so than a Turbostar and certainly more than a Desiro.The side profile of these units with their individual windows gives a real 'proper train' look lacking from some other multiple unit stock. The only obvious issue had they become more widespread is the doors being located at the ends of the coaches. While the debate over which is best seems set to continue forever, it does seem that most TOCs prefer the 1/3 and 2/3 layout, even if it is a little 'suburban', as it drastically improves station dwell times. Perhaps we'd have seen an appropriate variant of the 175?!
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
They do seem to be a curious combination of two different approaches when they were ordered; the desire to get something of high quality and inter-city standards, but also to save cost (presumably) as much as possible by making them as short as possible. And if they were going to have short trains, not having gangway connections was really just silly. I don't know if this was First North Wetsern or Alston's decision, maybe there was a good technical reaosn why gangways couldn't have been put in, but in that case why order two-coach units? A classic example of where the mindset of doings things cheaply leads you. Two-coach inter-city trains. :roll:
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
I agree. Lack of gangways on modern stock is plain silly, yet sadly it continues. It's surely time that there was a basic requirement for all new MU's to be fitted with end gangways, which helps no end when they are eventually cascaded. Come to that, why not have a requirement that everything be compatible? If a Turbostar can be built to work with 20-year old BR stock, then why cannot other builders do the same? One sensible to thing to come out of McNulty was his suggestion that there is simply too much variety of new-build stock, and he's quite right.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,280
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
They do seem to be a curious combination of two different approaches when they were ordered; the desire to get something of high quality and inter-city standards, but also to save cost (presumably) as much as possible by making them as short as possible. And if they were going to have short trains, not having gangway connections was really just silly. I don't know if this was First North Wetsern or Alston's decision, maybe there was a good technical reaosn why gangways couldn't have been put in, but in that case why order two-coach units? A classic example of where the mindset of doings things cheaply leads you. Two-coach inter-city trains. :roll:

Going by the coach letters on the 2 car 175s, i wonder if they were ordered with with an extra car in mind, but only if they met certain criteria?

Aas it does seem rather odd - and its the same with the Voyagers too, as to why they are designated Coach A, Coach C.
 

Pen Mill

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2010
Messages
337
Location
Yeovil Somerset
It could be argued that refurbished 158/159s (especially ATW/SWT/EMT examples)


Adam :D
As a regular user of SWT 159s ,I have to disagree.
I'm 6ft 1 inch tall , not unusual these days, and the airline seats don't have enough leg room. the table seats are just plain uncomfortable unless you don't have anyone opposite.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Going by the coach letters on the 2 car 175s, i wonder if they were ordered with with an extra car in mind, but only if they met certain criteria?

Aas it does seem rather odd - and its the same with the Voyagers too, as to why they are designated Coach A, Coach C.

Makes it easier for seat reservations.

If you're given a seat reservation for carriage C and a 2 car 175 works what should be a 3 car 175 service then you can still find exactly the same seat.

Remember originally some routes were designated 175 routes under FNW so under normal circumstances you wouldn't get one service worked by a 158 and then the next by a 175 on those designated routes. The routes that saw occasional 175 operated services and might see a Sprinter on the next service like Manchester-Chester via Altrincham didn't have seat reservations at all.
 

CC 72100

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
3,635
I must try a 175 one day. And a 180 for that matter. I only ever seem to hear postive things about them, yet I'm still yet to experience one. Out of what I've experienced DMU-wise, 158/159s are the best in my book :)
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
5,694
Location
South Wales
I certainly reconmend a ride on a class 175. Thanks to starting my new job on Monday I will be commuting to/from work on them once again.

Hopefully when I do my ALR later in the year I can do a long trip on a class 180 from Paddington to Worcester that way I can make a better judgement since I have only ever had a brief trip on a class 180 a few years ago before FGW withdrew them.
 
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
696
As a regular user of SWT 159s ,I have to disagree.
I'm 6ft 1 inch tall , not unusual these days, and the airline seats don't have enough leg room. the table seats are just plain uncomfortable unless you don't have anyone opposite.

You beat me to it. I'm 6' 3" and it's even worse - on the airline type seats I just can't get in. It's not good enough on a Clapham Junction - Yeovil journey. I've been on a few trips with the 175s, they really are the dog's danglies.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,236
You beat me to it. I'm 6' 3" and it's even worse - on the airline type seats I just can't get in. It's not good enough on a Clapham Junction - Yeovil journey. I've been on a few trips with the 175s, they really are the dog's danglies.

It is a pity they are so expensive to run compared to SP derived stock..... and are so slow on many secondary lines compared to them.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Makes it easier for seat reservations.

If you're given a seat reservation for carriage C and a 2 car 175 works what should be a 3 car 175 service then you can still find exactly the same seat.

Remember originally some routes were designated 175 routes under FNW so under normal circumstances you wouldn't get one service worked by a 158 and then the next by a 175 on those designated routes. The routes that saw occasional 175 operated services and might see a Sprinter on the next service like Manchester-Chester via Altrincham didn't have seat reservations at all.

That's an interesting theory; surely it's simpler just to offer reservations in coaches A and B and have C as the unreserved accommodation?! That's how we do it, then you're still covered if a two car turns up.
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
You beat me to it. I'm 6' 3" and it's even worse - on the airline type seats I just can't get in. It's not good enough on a Clapham Junction - Yeovil journey. I've been on a few trips with the 175s, they really are the dog's danglies.

I am about 6' 2'' or 6' 3'' and ATW's 158s are pretty good for leg room, but EMT's aren't as good despite having the same seats. I think they are further apart on ATW, but I might be wrong :P
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,888
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Problem is that Class 175s have some disadvantages in common with Class 185s, unable to use SP differentials, no gangways and not able to multiple work with common DMUs,

I hope they don't share the Class 180s' issue with tables not being secured to the bodysides and shaking to pieces at the slightest provocation.

On their current routes all the differentials are MU anyway.
The tables do indeed wobble sideways sometimes.
They are very rarely worked in multiple by ATW.

The ATW 158 refurb is quite nice but I still much prefer a 175 for its generous seat pitch and good views out.
158s are thrummy, narrow little beasts in comparison.
They still haven't sorted the 175 PA out though (too many pointless announcements, and at the wrong places).
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,236
That's an interesting theory; surely it's simpler just to offer reservations in coaches A and B and have C as the unreserved accommodation?! That's how we do it, then you're still covered if a two car turns up.

If you did that you have to account for the middle coach not having an identical seating layout to the end coaches.
This way the reserved seating is always identically laid out.
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
1,782
Location
Manchester
They're reasonably comfortable although there's a fair bit of vibration. Class 185s, mechanically speaking, have been and still are better units than 175s though. In terms of comfort, well I've found it easiest getting to sleep on a Voyager! Some of the toilets on 175s are pretty rancid really.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,236
I am afraid the future has to be mechanical standardisation, gangways and interoperability if we want to get costs under control.
This effectively means the Turbostar wins by default... it is the only SP qualified DMU that can also operate with the huge legacy Sprinter/Pacer fleet.

And Class 185s are stupidly fuel hungry
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
I am afraid the future has to be mechanical standardisation, gangways and interoperability if we want to get costs under control.
This effectively means the Turbostar wins by default... it is the only SP qualified DMU that can also operate with the huge legacy Sprinter/Pacer fleet.

And Class 185s are stupidly fuel hungry

Aside from top speed, how is a 170 superior to a 158? :P
Just wondering ;)
Adam :D
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,236
Aside from top speed, how is a 170 superior to a 158? :P
Just wondering ;)
Adam :D

By not being 20+ years old.... and a higher power to weight ratio in the case of the latest generation Turbostar....
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
By not being 20+ years old.... and a higher power to weight ratio in the case of the latest generation Turbostar....

I suppose....:P
A 172 with end doors and a less-rattly 170 interior would be quite a thing. That is what is needed tbh. Good acceleration, SP speeds, full compatibility with legact fleet, end gangways, nice interior, end doors... A man can dream

Adam :D
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,593
Location
Macclesfield
I am afraid the future has to be mechanical standardisation, gangways and interoperability if we want to get costs under control.
This effectively means the Turbostar wins by default... it is the only SP qualified DMU that can also operate with the huge legacy Sprinter/Pacer fleet.
Can you not leave the poor 175s alone for just a minute? ;):lol:

The 175s are cracking trains. They're a perfect example of how a regional DMU should be designed, and the 180s do the same for long distance DMUs (If we have to have such things in the first place!) barring their reliability, which is a pretty huge sticking point.

I have no quibbles with travelling on Turbostars for relatively long journeys of around 2 hours and I think that they are a good train, but it's a shame that their design does not seem to have been "optimised" for longer distance travel, seeing as they work routes comparable in length and nature to those worked by 158s and 175s.

Given the large amount of splitting and joining of services that ATW do on the likes of the Cambrian line then at some point it would make sense in the future for ATW to procure new gangway fitted DMUs when the 158s become due for withdrawal, but it will be slightly disappointing if the new trains take the form of a bog standard Turbostar rather than something a bit more "long distance".
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
I am afraid the future has to be mechanical standardisation, gangways and interoperability if we want to get costs under control.
This effectively means the Turbostar wins by default... it is the only SP qualified DMU that can also operate with the huge legacy Sprinter/Pacer fleet.

And Class 185s are stupidly fuel hungry

For regional services, where operators also have fleets of Sprinters and Turbostars, then that's obivously sensible, but it shouldn't be the dogma that imposes rolling stock that's less suitable on long distance inter-city routes; in fact, there might be very much an argument for stock better suited for the purpose to replace Turbnostars on routes that they are currently used on.
The future should be rolling stock that's designed to be the best for the purpose for which it's intended, and that surely needn't preclude compatibility with existing stock and fuel efficiency. In short, something like well proven and reliable mechnical components (e.g., perhaps, the Voyager driveline) with something like the class 175/180 body. It might cost more initially and of course to develop, but we really, really ought to be getting out of this mindset of going for what's cheap and convenient in the short term, we really must.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
* In fact, I think that would be the ideal DMU for inter-city use (if not necessarily the ideal inter-city train, but for those applications where DMUs are suitable or preferable); a 180 with Voyager electric transmission. Don't you think? :p I wonder if it would infringe Almost or Bombardier's patents if someone was to devise a way of transplanting Voyager electrical transmission and all the other electronic gubbins that are necessary into a 180?
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
4,734
Location
Nottingham
I suppose....:P
A 172 with end doors and a less-rattly 170 interior would be quite a thing. That is what is needed tbh. Good acceleration, SP speeds, full compatibility with legact fleet, end gangways, nice interior, end doors... A man can dream

Adam :D

So essensially a new 100mph 158 based on a turbostar chassis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top