Should TfW retain some 175s? Where should they be used?

[Bletchleyite]

In response to the views expressed in the CAF thread that TfW will still lack capacity even after the whole set of new fleets are delivered, should they perhaps retain some Class 175s?

My thought would be to use them in 5-car formations on North Wales services that don't involve Manchester.

Any thoughts?

 

[Energy]

If there is a shortage of units order more 197s or flirts, it would make more sense than keeping the 175s in my opinion.

 

[anthony263]

Personally I think the 175s should be retained for awansea to Pembroke dock and Fishguard her services as well as the heart of wales and Conwy Valley routes with the 170s goig to emr

 

[craigybagel]

In response to the views expressed in the CAF thread that TfW will still lack capacity even after the whole set of new fleets are delivered, should they perhaps retain some Class 175s?

My thought would be to use them in 5-car formations on North Wales services that don't involve Manchester.

Any thoughts?

The problem with that is that by the looks of things all the North Wales services other then the Manchesters are likely to interwork, and/or feature portion working, and it seems highly likely that the 175s and 197s aren't going to be compatible with each other.

If there is a shortage of units order more 197s or flirts, it would make more sense than keeping the 175s in my opinion.

That would cost a lot, at what is already an extremely heavily subsidised TOC

Personally I think the 175s should be retained for awansea to Pembroke dock and Fishguard her services as well as the heart of wales and Conwy Valley routes with the 170s goig to emr

Whilst I do agree with you on this, I wonder if the problem is there are too many units. The 170 fleet is about half the size of the full 175 fleet - if TFW went with 175s instead they'd either have too many units, or leasing company would end up with half a fleet of 175s sitting spare that will be even more difficult to find a home for, units that are pretty unique and not really compatible with anything else on the network.

 

[Energy]

That would cost a lot, at what is already an extremely heavily subsidised TOC

CAFs are known to be cheap and there is cheap leasing at the moment, I don't think the price difference would be much between 197s and 175s.

 

[Llandudno]

From a passenger perspective I like the 175 units, large windows and plenty of legroom.

Could do with a refurb though!

 

[OrangeJuice]

The problem with that is that by the looks of things all the North Wales services other then the Manchesters are likely to interwork, and/or feature portion working, and it seems highly likely that the 175s and 197s aren't going to be compatible with each other.



That would cost a lot, at what is already an extremely heavily subsidised TOC



Whilst I do agree with you on this, I wonder if the problem is there are too many units. The 170 fleet is about half the size of the full 175 fleet - if TFW went with 175s instead they'd either have too many units, or leasing company would end up with half a fleet of 175s sitting spare that will be even more difficult to find a home for, units that are pretty unique and not really compatible with anything else on the network.

Wasn't one option being discussed about a TfW Open access bid for Swansea to Bristol, the 175s could be used on that as well as the other 170 services alongside adding capacity

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Would it not be better to take advantage of Voyager / Meridian stuff and have a fleet of them based at Crewe and do stuff including the Premier and do real Intercity-style stuff? Namely Manchester - Carmarthen and Milford Haven? That’s something like 12 diagrams upscaled to 4 car on the Manchester - South Wales; and a further 2 (?) or 3 for North - South Wales stuff. If needs be you can even use 5 car units. With a really good refurb it will definitely do the job with a full kitchen and trolley service.

It wouldn’t be the world’s ugliest micro fleet, and frees up 175s for more suitable work as a whole. I’d even go so far as to switch the 3-car units up to 8 4-car and, overall, 19 2-car. I’m sure they’d find a home.

 

[squizzler]

Whilst there is a bit of wobble about perceived unsuitability in the cl197 thread, I will reserve judgement till they start arriving. I think the 197 will prove a cracking unit whose end gangways will be most welcome, although I am not the only one who hopes that the Cambrian ones serving the Aberystwyth branch are lengthened to 3 cars.

My own take is that the 175s would no longer be a desirable addition to TfW's stable and would do better going to Northern Connect routes, allowing more of the 15x there to be eliminated or doubled up. Or anywhere else that was discussed on this thread really.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not sure that any TOC can say that they'll "lack capacity" in future, given how much demand has plummeted and unstable future travel patterns will be.

However, if you assume that there won't be sufficient DMUs to cover Wales/Borders over the medium term then binning the 170s and retaining the 175s seems a fairly sensible approach (given that the 170s will find homes at four or five other TOCs, whilst the 175s are a small non-standard fleet with known reliability issues)

I appreciate that they are generally better behaved nowadays, but it's still going to be a risk for another TOC to take them, when Northern/ EMR/ XC/ ScotRail could easily absorb some more 170s without a lot of fuss.

The other problem with another TOC taking 175s is that the market for "medium distance 110mph DMUs with end doors and no corridor connections" is fairly saturated, compared to the number of routes that such units are actually desirable for - given the way that TOCs keep trying to order "flagship" trains for "flagship" routes (which means dumping unsuitable 158/170s on local stoppers that they struggle with).

At least with 170s going to XC/EMR etc, they could just allow existing services to be doubled up, provide a few more seats, a bit more resilience etc.

Keep things simple, no need to introduce some convoluted new services to justify keeping mid-life stock (or re-jig existing diagrams to create a solution in need of a problem).

 

[Eccles1983]

You'd need an alstom depot in the south of Wales for it to make any sense taking them from Chester. Otherwise you'd need to retain traction knowledge for at least 4 depots alone for them alone.

 

[craigybagel]

CAFs are known to be cheap and there is cheap leasing at the moment, I don't think the price difference would be much between 197s and 175s.

True, although you are still comparing brand new trains with ones that are 20 years old! Plus I doubt there are a load of TOCs clamouring for the 175s whereas CAF units seem to be selling pretty well, so surely it's in the leading companies best interests to do a good deal on the 175s?

In any case, I was thinking more that the money surely isn't there for ANY extra stock, but if that's the case it would render this thread redundant and where's the fun in that?

From a passenger perspective I like the 175 units, large windows and plenty of legroom.

Could do with a refurb though!

Refurb is ongoing. All 2 cars are now complete and the first 3 cars are getting done right now.

Wasn't one option being discussed about a TfW Open access bid for Swansea to Bristol, the 175s could be used on that as well as the other 170 services alongside adding capacity

Indeed. I seem to recall the consensus was there's no capacity for that service yet however.

Would it not be better to take advantage of Voyager / Meridian stuff and have a fleet of them based at Crewe and do stuff including the Premier and do real Intercity-style stuff? Namely Manchester - Carmarthen and Milford Haven? That’s something like 12 diagrams upscaled to 4 car on the Manchester - South Wales; and a further 2 (?) or 3 for North - South Wales stuff. If needs be you can even use 5 car units. With a really good refurb it will definitely do the job with a full kitchen and trolley service.

It wouldn’t be the world’s ugliest micro fleet, and frees up 175s for more suitable work as a whole. I’d even go so far as to switch the 3-car units up to 8 4-car and, overall, 19 2-car. I’m sure they’d find a home.

Again, would be very expensive. Also the dwell times would be horrendous.

 

[Energy]

The other problem with another TOC taking 175s is that the market for "medium distance 110mph DMUs with end doors and no corridor connections" is fairly saturated, compared to the number of routes that such units are actually desirable for - given the way that TOCs keep trying to order "flagship" trains for "flagship" routes (which means dumping unsuitable 158/170s on local stoppers that they struggle with).

The market is very small for them anyway, 3 or 4 car units could find a home but the 2 car ones are too small for the routes end door trains would work on. Scotrail is always a possibility with the West Highland line, Kyle of Lochalsh line and Far North line but I can't think of any other operators who would want them, Chiltern gets occasionally suggested but they are too short for Chiltern's mainline routes and the end doors make them unsuitable for the stopping routes. If TfW don't want them (I doubt they will keep them as they plan to replace them) then they will probably not get another operator due to the limited market.

True, although you are still comparing brand new trains with ones that are 20 years old! Plus I doubt there are a load of TOCs clamouring for the 175s whereas CAF units seem to be selling pretty well, so surely it's in the leading companies breast interests to do a good deal on the 175s?

In any case, I was thinking more that the money surely isn't there for ANY extra stock, but if that's the case it would render this thread redundant and where's the fun in that?

They may be able to get the 175s fairly cheaply but it seems like the last point is the most accurate. TfW seems to have gone for the most rolling stock it can get new, although South Wales also got a balance of nice units, so the chances of any extra stock unless more passengers come once the new trains come in service is low as I doubt TfW will be able to afford much more.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

True, although you are still comparing brand new trains with ones that are 20 years old! Plus I doubt there are a load of TOCs clamouring for the 175s whereas CAF units seem to be selling pretty well, so surely it's in the leading companies best interests to do a good deal on the 175s?

In any case, I was thinking more that the money surely isn't there for ANY extra stock, but if that's the case it would render this thread redundant and where's the fun in that?



Refurb is ongoing. All 2 cars are now complete and the first 3 cars are getting done right now.



Indeed. I seem to recall the consensus was there's no capacity for that service yet however.


Again, would be very expensive. Also the dwell times would be horrendous.

You say that, but they will be little worse than the existing dwell times and on some sections the higher line speeds will compensate.

I always love seeing people cite dwell times and door arrangements as a ‘blocker’ when it’s almost always not in real terms. It’s just what people need to say to try and justify their argument over another.

The South Wales - Manchester services will arguably be accelerated a touch soon anyway as the Cardiff - Liverpool services drop in. That will cover smaller stations like Craven Arms and Pontypool, so a Voyager / Meridian will be able to make progress cutting the journey times down.

 

[craigybagel]

You say that, but they will be little worse than the existing dwell times and on some sections the higher line speeds will compensate.

I always love seeing people cite dwell times and door arrangements as a ‘blocker’ when it’s almost always not in real terms. It’s just what people need to say to try and justify their argument over another.

The South Wales - Manchester services will arguably be accelerated a touch soon anyway as the Cardiff - Liverpool services drop in. That will cover smaller stations like Craven Arms and Pontypool, so a Voyager / Meridian will be able to make progress cutting the journey times down.

My argument was based on 7 years of experience as a guard and driver working on the lines in question, and 15 months working as platform staff at a busy West Midlands station dispatching Voyagers, amongst other stock. I always love people trying to question my opinions when they're based on first hand professional experience and observation. It’s just what people need to say to try and justify their argument over another.

With regards to the higher line speeds you mention, Crewe to Wilmslow is the only part of the Manchester - South Wales route with a linespeed greater then 100mph (it's 110mph in this section). There are no parts of the Holyhead - Cardiff route with a line speed any higher then 95mph.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

My argument was based on 7 years of experience as a guard and driver working on the lines in question, and 15 months working as platform staff at a busy West Midlands station dispatching Voyagers, amongst other stock. I always love people trying to question my opinions when they're based on first hand professional experience and observation. It’s just what people need to say to try and justify their argument over another.

With regards to the higher line speeds you mention, Crewe to Wilmslow is the only part of the Manchester - South Wales route with a linespeed greater then 100mph (it's 110mph in this section). There are no parts of the Holyhead - Cardiff route with a line speed any higher then 95mph.

Very amusing use of sarcasm.

However, your experience clearly does not tally with the reality of a less busy North Wales Coast service for which the door arrangement is the same as a 158/175; nor the Marches where more capacity would lead to better load spread and less congestion around said end doors.

Indeed, your comment regarding higher line speeds matters little when serious credence must be given to the available free rolling stock, maintenance sensibilities and how best to deal with problems at hand in such a way as to take a ‘problem child’ fleet like the 175s away rather than split it in half (same for 185s where a split wouldn’t help).

But obviously dispatch experience is the key factor here.

 

[craigybagel]

Very amusing use of sarcasm.

However, your experience clearly does not tally with the reality of a less busy North Wales Coast service for which the door arrangement is the same as a 158/175; nor the Marches where more capacity would lead to better load spread and less congestion around said end doors.

Indeed, your comment regarding higher line speeds matters little when serious credence must be given to the available free rolling stock, maintenance sensibilities and how best to deal with problems at hand in such a way as to take a ‘problem child’ fleet like the 175s away rather than split it in half (same for 185s where a split wouldn’t help).

But obviously dispatch experience is the key factor here.

Given the sneering and condescending tone of your comments I didn't think it worthy of too much respect in my reply.

My comment on speeds was in response to your suggestion that a Voyagers ability to avail of higher linespeeds would compensate for any increase in dwell time - the fact is that other then one relatively short section there aren't any higher linespeeds they can avail of.

I don't doubt that they'd be able to keep to the current timetable just about, but the CAFs should hopefully be able to improve on it, and will have a layout designed to suit the vast majority of passengers on these routes who aren't making long journeys.

Your comment on increasing capacity also ignores the fact that when the CAFs arrive the Manchester - South Wales services are supposed to become 5 cars as far as Swansea, so 4 or even 5 car Voyagers would actually be a reduction in capacity.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Given the sneering and condescending tone of your comments I didn't think it worthy of too much respect in my reply.

My comment on speeds was in response to your suggestion that a Voyagers ability to avail of higher linespeeds would compensate for any increase in dwell time - the fact is that other then one relatively short section there aren't any higher linespeeds they can avail of.

I don't doubt that they'd be able to keep to the current timetable just about, but the CAFs should hopefully be able to improve on it, and will have a layout designed to suit the vast majority of passengers on these routes who aren't making long journeys.

Your comment on increasing capacity also ignores the fact that when the CAFs arrive the Manchester - South Wales services are supposed to become 5 cars as far as Swansea, so 4 or even 5 car Voyagers would actually be a reduction in capacity.

Please quote the aspect of my post suggesting higher line speed or shorter journey times. Re-assessment confirms a poor supposition on your part. Apology will be accepted.

 

[craigybagel]

Please quote the aspect of my post suggesting higher line speed or shorter journey times. Re-assessment confirms a poor supposition on your part. Apology will be accepted.

Certainly

You say that, but they will be little worse than the existing dwell times and on some sections the higher line speeds will compensate.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Certainly

So aggregated dwell times over a section (e.g. Manchester to Shrewsbury) will mean no net increase in journey time. As I understand Wilmslow to Crewe would also be 90 seconds faster at 125mph.

Realistically there would be no degradation, and if Liverpool - Cardiff Civity stuff is doing the two-hourly stopping stuff they will only be stopping at bigger stations that already have longer dwells included e.g. Crewe (4 mins), Shrewsbury (3 mins).