Sprinter Extinction

[Philip]

No, the refurbishment was to TPE standards. It was simply new seat covers, carpets, wall coverings and better screens. Have you noticed for instance that GWR’s intercity and local fleet have the same style decor. It is possible.

Bit in bold. This does not make it true. Also ‘keep a few at Longsight’ would probably require 11 or so units with 16 to Heaton. Because that would make sense.

Right so by your reckoning any unit with first class is Intercity and it can’t ever be removed from 185’s whether there were plans to do so or not.

Everyone has differing opinions on which stock is suitable for the particular purpose. However my own opinion and point here is that the 185 is an intercity train and shouldn't be used for Sprinter replacement on stopping services - that is a job for 195s or whichever similar CAF bi-mode stock there might be in the future. The 185s should be deployed like the voyagers and 180s are, providing they're in 6-coach formation. The 175s will need a new place before long and Barrow/Windermere is a logical route for them, as are the interurban North East routes which are currently worked by 156s and 158s.

 

[Neptune]

Everyone has differing opinions on which stock is suitable for the particular purpose. However my own opinion and point here is that the 185 is an intercity train and shouldn't be used for Sprinter replacement on stopping services - that is a job for 195s or whichever similar CAF bi-mode stock there might be in the future.

Bit in bold:-

Yet again your downright refusal to acknowledge that most of what I have put forward is for them to work inter-regional fast/semi fast work up and down hills which they were designed for with a tiny bit of stopper work thrown in to balance the fleet is totally ignored by you because of your blind obsession with finding a home for the 175’s. The fact you want to split this 27 unit micro fleet into 2 smaller micro fleets says it all to me.

Also you go on about how 185’s are only suitable for fast long distance work then tell us that they aren’t suitable for the Cumbria services that fit that definition.

This thread is about how to replace the sprinter fleet and I’ve come up with one possible solution for Northern. You’ve just turned it into yet another ‘175’s to Northern’ fantasy just cos you heard some bloke at Chester mention it and they used to work one of the routes. You wouldn’t have even replied to my post if I hadn’t mentioned the Cumbria routes.

The 185s should be deployed like the voyagers and 180s are, providing they're in 6-coach formation.

Can I ask which routes you believe 185’s should be redeployed to and how it counts towards Sprinter extinction?

The 175s will need a new place before long and Barrow/Windermere is a logical route for them, as are the interurban North East routes which are currently worked by 156s and 158s.

Scrap is another option of course.

 

[MattRat]

This thread is about how to replace the sprinter fleet and I’ve come up with one possible solution for Northern. You’ve just turned it into yet another ‘175’s to Northern’ fantasy just cos you heard some bloke at Chester mention it and they used to work one of the routes. You wouldn’t have even replied to my post if I hadn’t mentioned the Cumbria routes.

Why not both? Obviously routes need to be worked out, but then everyone would be happy

 

[Energy]

However my own opinion and point here is that the 185 is an intercity train and shouldn't be used for Sprinter replacement on stopping services

While not stopping services the 185s did originally replace 158s.... the services Neptune has proposed are not stopping services either.

The 185s should be deployed like the voyagers and 180s are, providing they're in 6-coach formation

No they shouldn't. The 185s accelerate slower than the voyagers and don't go 125mph.

There also isn't a big market for intercity DMUs, its effectively just XC which would be better suited to the 222s.

Bit in bold. This does not make it true. Also ‘keep a few at Longsight’ would probably require 11 or so units with 16 to Heaton. Because that would make sense.

Its not like Northern are trying to streamline their fleet so having 2 microfleets (1 per depot) would be counterproductive.

No, the refurbishment was to TPE standards. It was simply new seat covers, carpets, wall coverings and better screens. Have you noticed for instance that GWR’s intercity and local fleet have the same style decor. It is possible.

Clearly the Chiltern 168s are suitable for Penzance to Aberdeen since they also have a nice interior similar to the 185s.

Alternatively if they are still too slow for Cross Country then you could put smaller engines in them, possibly with a bi-mode option, to reduce the weight and use them om the Chiltern mainline or SWR as mentioned or even to replace the GWR HSTs.

Its not just the engines which are heavy. Binode 185s aren't going to happen.

If they weren't intercity trains then TPE would have ordered 180s for the Scotland services rather than using the 185s which they did do.

TPE weren't given a lot of notice for the route transfer. If new stock was an option later on then it would have made more sense to throw in a few more 390s in the 11 car order and give the routes back to Virgin.

 

[skyhigh]

Aside from cab-end corridors. What is the reason for scrapping 150/1s?

If it's a choice of having enough units to only replace some of either the /1s or /2s, the /1s have:
Slam crew doors which are more of a risk than power doors
No end gangway
Only got 1 alternator per vehicle
Only got emergency door releases at half the doors
Some slight wiring differences that make the /2s more flexible in some fault conditions

So it would make sense if possible to retain the /2s as a preference. But in reality, I suspect it would depend on which units are in the worst condition.

 

[Philip]

Bit in bold:-

Yet again your downright refusal to acknowledge that most of what I have put forward is for them to work inter-regional fast/semi fast work up and down hills which they were designed for with a tiny bit of stopper work thrown in to balance the fleet is totally ignored by you because of your blind obsession with finding a home for the 175’s. The fact you want to split this 27 unit micro fleet into 2 smaller micro fleets says it all to me.

Also you go on about how 185’s are only suitable for fast long distance work then tell us that they aren’t suitable for the Cumbria services that fit that definition.

This thread is about how to replace the sprinter fleet and I’ve come up with one possible solution for Northern. You’ve just turned it into yet another ‘175’s to Northern’ fantasy just cos you heard some bloke at Chester mention it and they used to work one of the routes. You wouldn’t have even replied to my post if I hadn’t mentioned the Cumbria routes.

Can I ask which routes you believe 185’s should be redeployed to and how it counts towards Sprinter extinction?

Scrap is another option of course.

Merely suggesting options which ensure solid usable units don't go to scrap and are deployed on appropriate routes. The hill-climbing abilities of 185s isn't particularly essential anymore as 195s can do it just as well. The Calder Valley might not be a 'stopping service', but it's not far off and not really an express route because there are quite a lot of stops - hence it would be more appropriate to keep 195s on the route rather than using 185s.

My original suggestion was to send 185s to SWR intercity routes to replace much older 158s and 159s. This was rejected point blank but why? If weight is an issue then there is an option to put smaller engines in to reduce the weight. Again other options include using them on services currently operated by HSTs, or to replace Cross Country 170s on Nottingham to Cardiff. In my opinion all of these options would be better than Northern Hope Valley or Calder Valley - the 195 is ideal for these routes.

The 175s are ideal 156 and 158 replacements; Northern have many of both type and are looking to replace the 156s, hence why it'd be logical to send them to Northern, even if all 27 go to the North East. I suggested keeping some for Cumbria services because they're an ideal regional express unit which fits the Cumbria route criteria.

Also may well be the case that Northern wouldn't be able to afford the leasing costs of 185s combined with the running costs - because of the weight and the amount of fuel they use.

 

[Jonny]

If it's a choice of having enough units to only replace some of either the /1s or /2s, the /1s have:
Slam crew doors which are more of a risk than power doors
No end gangway
Only got 1 alternator per vehicle
Only got emergency door releases at half the doors
Some slight wiring differences that make the /2s more flexible in some fault conditions

So it would make sense if possible to retain the /2s as a preference. But in reality, I suspect it would depend on which units are in the worst condition.

It would also be helpful if they could ensure that re-usable parts are recovered, especially if they were fitted at a refurb. Also, some parts could be used for ^post-mortem^ analysis, to see if there are any potential issues on the survivors or other classes and to take pre-emptive action.

 

[D365]

It would also be helpful if they could ensure that re-usable parts are recovered, especially if they were fitted at a refurb. Also, some parts could be used for ^post-mortem^ analysis, to see if there are any potential issues on the survivors or other classes and to take pre-emptive action.

I'm sure my friends at Angel will very much have these considerations in mind.

 

[Philip]

While not stopping services the 185s did originally replace 158s.... the services Neptune has proposed are not stopping services either.

No they shouldn't. The 185s accelerate slower than the voyagers and don't go 125mph.

They don't go to 125mph at the moment (although the engine is capable of it) but I'm sure I've heard before that they can out-accelerate a Voyager.

There also isn't a big market for intercity DMUs, its effectively just XC which would be better suited to the 222s.

All HST replacements along with some 158s and 170s require intercity DMUs as replacements. You could argue 180 replacement as well considering their problems. 185s are top of the list for this kind of specification.

Its not like Northern are trying to streamline their fleet so having 2 microfleets (1 per depot) would be counterproductive.

Clearly the Chiltern 168s are suitable for Penzance to Aberdeen since they also have a nice interior similar to the 185s.

Its not just the engines which are heavy. Binode 185s aren't going to happen.

TPE weren't given a lot of notice for the route transfer. If new stock was an option later on then it would have made more sense to throw in a few more 390s in the 11 car order and give the routes back to Virgin.

I can definitely remember not long after the announcement about TPE taking over Scotland services that they were considering leasing 180s but decided against it and opted to stretch their 185 fleet, presumably because they thought they were superior units, albeit I guess at the time they were hoping for the 4th coach to be added.

 

[skyhigh]

All HST replacements along with some 158s and 170s require intercity DMUs as replacements.

All HST replacements? Really?

 

[Energy]

They don't go to 125mph at the moment (although the engine is capable of it) but I'm sure I've heard before that they can out-accelerate a Voyager.

The engine might be, the front of the train isn't very aerodynamic and I suspect a lot of the rest of the train won't be capable of 125mph without being upgraded to be stronger.

All HST replacements along with some 158s and 170s require intercity DMUs as replacements.

HSTs - slight chance with GWR, Scotrail is unlikely given that they already have a replacement plan for their fleet. XC HSTs zero chance.

Not sure why you'd do 170 replacement, at Chiltern they'd be overpowered... at XC they'd be overpowered... meanwhile the 170s you get would be underpowered on the routes Neptune has proposed for the 185s.

Meanwhile putting the 185s where Neptune proposed would give you 195s which are far more useful at replacing 150s.

185s are top of the list for this kind of specification.

They aren't, the top for IC DMUs are the 222s, which aren't wanted.

 

[Jonny]

There are two issues that do not bode well for the 185s. One is the high RA (RA 5) which means that they are treated the same as coaching stock for differential speeds, or even may be precluded. Most alternatives have a lower RA, improved differential speeds, etc.

Another is that there are going to be a lot of carriages coming available, I find it hard to believe that XC would keep any let alone all, of their Turbostars if they got the whole of the 22x-s . Once Eco mode is on with a 185, the acceleration advantage is going to be much reduced relative to a Turbostar (given that 185s are rather heavy).

The 185s might be useful on some longer regional routes, though, like Settle-Carlisle, where a hard climb is followed by a long descent.

 

[Trainbike46]

They don't go to 125mph at the moment (although the engine is capable of it) but I'm sure I've heard before that they can out-accelerate a Voyager.


All HST replacements along with some 158s and 170s require intercity DMUs as replacements. You could argue 180 replacement as well considering their problems. 185s are top of the list for this kind of specification.

Except, for:
- The 170s aren't being replaced anytime soon
- HST replacements in Scotland will be electric
- XC HSTs will most likely be class 221 or 222s that are also going spare in the near future, or in fact are already spare. If new stock was considered, it would definitely have to be bimode
- As part of network decarbonisation strategy, building any new diesel only units is very risky, as they will likely have to be retired early. Bimodes make much more sense.

So, using the 185 on services where the current units will need to be replaced in the near future makes more sense, for example through a cascade as proposed by Neptune

 

[Philip]

What about South Western Railway, replacing 158s?

And why couldn't you convert them to bi-mode operation?

 

[Trainbike46]

What about South Western Railway, replacing 158s?

And why couldn't you convert them to bi-mode operation?

Because turning an Diesel mechanical MU into a bimode is really really hard? there's a reason all retrofit bimodes have used EMUs as a base

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2022 ==

Also, 185 can't use sprinter differentials, so any route where those exist they'd be slower

 

[Energy]

And why couldn't you convert them to bi-mode operation?

Theoretically you could but it would be very expensive, realistically you'd start with the MTU hybrid power pack and use its DC capability (batteries) to feed off 3rd rail (different voltage of course). OHLE is never going to happen.

Still this option would be very expensive and I'm not really sure what you get out of it, the 185s still lack gangways so aren't that well suited for SWR while the 159s have still got some time left in them.

 

[skyhigh]

And why couldn't you convert them to bi-mode operation?

If you don't know what's involved in converting them to bi-modes, you really shouldn't suggest it should be done. It would take a lot of work.

What about South Western Railway, replacing 158s?

Why? Heavy, fuel thirsty units putting up costs where there's no requirements for their capability.

 

[43096]

Theoretically you could but it would be very expensive, realistically you'd start with the MTU hybrid power pack and use its DC capability (batteries) to feed off 3rd rail (different voltage of course). OHLE is never going to happen.

Still this option would be very expensive and I'm not really sure what you get out of it, the 185s still lack gangways so aren't that well suited for SWR while the 159s have still got some time left in them.

SWR had a franchise commitment to investigate the feasibility of converting the 158/159 fleet to electro-diesel operation. Unsurprisingly it concluded that it was not realistically feasible. No doubt the same applies to the 185s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If you don't know what's involved in converting them to bi-modes, you really shouldn't suggest it should be done. It would take a lot of work.


Why? Heavy, fuel thirsty units putting up costs where there's no requirements for their capability.

You'd basically have to replace the entire drivetrain, which would be costly on units which are approaching mid-life.

One place 185s could in theory have a role is with GWR on Devon & Cornwall mainline services currently in the hands of mini HSTs and 158s. Their hill-climbing abilities would be useful on the Devon banks, and presumably there aren't too many issues with differentials on the mainline given how relatively recently loco-hauled was the norm there. That would free up a few extra 158s for use elsewhere.

 

[tomuk]

Because turning an Diesel mechanical MU into a bimode is really really hard? there's a reason all retrofit bimodes have used EMUs as a base

Leaving aside the issue of a pantograph well there is nothing stopping the replacement of the diesel engine on a DMU with a motor. Voyagers and Pendolinos have their traction motors mounted under the body with drive to the bogies by Carden shaft just like a DMU.

 

[Trainbike46]

Leaving aside the issue of a pantograph well there is nothing stopping the replacement of the diesel engine on a DMU with a motor. Voyagers and Pendolinos have their traction motors mounted under the body with drive to the bogies by Carden shaft just like a DMU.

I mean, sure you could replace the existing diesel engines with electric motors, and then fit diesel generators somewhere, and add a pantograph when no pantograph well exists, and find somewhere to put the transformer. It would be really expensive though.

But if what you want is a retrofit bimode, it would be a lot easier and cheaper to take some of the many EMUs (eg class 379, class 350, etc.) going spare, and add a diesel generator somewhere, as well as possibly some batteries. Which is why that is how all existing units turned into bimodes where made.

It would make more sense to just move the 185s to a route with significant hills to climb that isn't currently being electrified though. As some other posters here have suggested. And then order new bimodes (or retrofit spare EMUs, if desparate) for those routes where they make sense.

 

[Ken H]

@trainbikesuggest moving them to a hilly route.
Well the classic hilly route is Leeds - Carlisle. So not exactly profitable.
Dont 185's have high track access charges. That wont help the finances.
And does the S&C really need more grunt seeing its 60mph?

 

[Neptune]

Merely suggesting options which ensure solid usable units don't go to scrap and are deployed on appropriate routes.

I’m sure there is a role somewhere for a company that requires a micro fleet of 11 2 car units and 16 3 car units. It could even be abroad. You just seem obsessed with them, firstly on the Cumbria services they used to work across a corridor that end door stock is troublesome despite what you say and then in the North East due to some tittle tattle you say you heard that nobody else was party to.

The hill-climbing abilities of 185s isn't particularly essential anymore as 195s can do it just as well. The Calder Valley might not be a 'stopping service', but it's not far off and not really an express route because there are quite a lot of stops - hence it would be more appropriate to keep 195s on the route rather than using 185s.

Yes the 195’s are excellent units but the thread if you haven’t noticed is about how to make sprinters extinct. My suggestion is a way to re-employ 51 units on routes that they mostly cleared for which they are also ideally suited due to their combination of doors at thirds with an inter-regional interior (altering FC to SC) thereby cascading 195’s to other routes which they are already or easily cleared for to allow for 150 replacement.

This plan would most likely see off the 150/1’s and possibly some 150/2’s also. I’ll add to that that a substantial order for bi-mode Civity’s can then see off the rest of the 15x fleet.

Of course you also dismissed the semi-fast nature of the Calder Valley services too. I shouldn’t be surprised.

So, the 1Jxx services have an average of around 10-12 minutes between station stops. Hardly close to being a stopper.

The 1D/1Exx around 8-10 minutes across the core and substantially longer west of Manchester. Hardly close to being a stopper.

The 2I/2Rxx have more stops but I would still say an average of around 6-8 minutes between stops, some parts up to 12 minutes. Hardly close to being a stopper.

The 1Bxx services across Copy Pit have substantially more between stops sometimes 15-20 minutes. Hardly close to being a stopper.

The 2Kxx services are stoppers from Micklefield to Cross Gates (between 2&5 minutes for these 4 stops). Other parts of the route it’s anywhere from 5 minutes up to 12-15 minutes between stops. Hardly close to being a stopper.

These are not the 2-5 minutes between stops which I agree the 195’s are more suited to but I’m sure you won’t let facts get in the way eh?

My original suggestion was to send 185s to SWR intercity routes to replace much older 158s and 159s. This was rejected point blank but why?

Why 185’s to SWR won’t work has been explained by those in the area that use/work them so many times. Why won’t you just accept that?

If weight is an issue then there is an option to put smaller engines in to reduce the weight.

Can you give us the ease of this and the costings for this please? You love your ‘easy/cheap’ options.

Again other options include using them on services currently operated by HSTs, or to replace Cross Country 170s on Nottingham to Cardiff. In my opinion all of these options would be better than Northern Hope Valley or Calder Valley - the 195 is ideal for these routes.

Avanti 221’s would be the best option for XC to replace HST’s. See the many threads. 185’s aren’t even in the equation.

Nottingham- Cardiff? Now I’m (even more) confused by you. These are Cross Country’s inter-regional services taken over from Central Trains in 2007. I thought you said 185’s were unsuitable for this sort of work or are you predictably going to go with the ‘cross country is solely an Intercity operator’ line despite the fact the ex CT routes are purely Inter-regional hence the use of inter-regional 170’s.

The 175s are ideal 156 and 158 replacements; Northern have many of both type and are looking to replace the 156s, hence why it'd be logical to send them to Northern, even if all 27 go to the North East. I suggested keeping some for Cumbria services because they're an ideal regional express unit which fits the Cumbria route criteria.

Not getting rid of many of the 15x is it. It seems you’re only in this thread to regurgitate your obsession of reuse for the 175’s with Northern. Not of how to get rid of the 15x fleet which is the threads intention.

Also may well be the case that Northern wouldn't be able to afford the leasing costs of 185s combined with the running costs - because of the weight and the amount of fuel they use.

Fuel and weight do cost I agree, but what about maintenance costs compared to 30-40 year old units.

Also by taking on 51 x 185’s as part of 15x replacement you’re saving money on 51 new builds.

Unless of course you have access to Northern’s accounts and can tell us otherwise.

 

[skyhigh]

My original suggestion was to send 185s to SWR intercity routes to replace much older 158s and 159s. This was rejected point blank but why? If weight is an issue then there is an option to put smaller engines in to reduce the weight.

The weight of the engine is a relatively tiny percentage of the overall weight of the vehicle. Putting in a smaller engine would reduce the weight of the engine by a relatively tiny amount. A tiny amount of a tiny amount means a smaller engine would cost millions but have almost no effect. The bodies are not built to be lightweight. You cannot make a 185 into a lightweight train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2022 ==

As some numbers, a 185 vehicle weighs around 55 tonnes. The engine weighs 1.9 tonness. That means the engine is 3% of the total weight.

 

[Chester1]

How many Scottish 156s will be displaced when East Kilbride & related electrification is completed?

I doubt they will go anywhere other than the scrap yard with 158s going off lease

The Pacers are gone so 150/1s are the natural "next on the chopping block".

I personally think 156s will be the first Sprinters (153/155s notwithstanding) to see mass withdrawals, simply because they fall between two stools: being lower density but not having the higher top speed of 158s. 150s for all their faults are more useful due to the wider doors and 20m carriages.

TfW seems to be happy with double up 153s as an interim measure and other operators may follow Scot Rail with converting them into bike carriages. The converted units could plausibly still be in use in 10 years time.

155s and 156s must be first on the list. There are enough 158s and other cheap DMUs coming off lease to replace them. 150s will be tricky to replace because any of the routes they run are not suitable for end door DMUs coming off lease. @Bletchleyite suggestion of transfering 185s to Northern for Calder Valley services and using 195s freed up for commuter lines is probably a decent option. There will need to be orders of bi mode trains to get rid of all 150s. Its not worth speculating on what will replace 158s. It will likely take several years to get rid of 150s, non cycle 153s, 155s and 156s. I think only once 155s and 156s have gone will there be serious work on replacing 158s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I doubt they will go anywhere other than the scrap yard with 158s going off lease



TfW seems to be happy with double up 153s as an interim measure and other operators may follow Scot Rail with converting them into bike carriages. The converted units could plausibly still be in use in 10 years time.

155s and 156s must be first on the list. There are enough 158s and other cheap DMUs coming off lease to replace them. 150s will be tricky to replace because any of the routes they run are not suitable for end door DMUs coming off lease. @Bletchleyite suggestion of transfering 185s to Northern for Calder Valley services and using 195s freed up for commuter lines is probably a decent option. There will need to be orders of bi mode trains to get rid of all 150s. Its not worth speculating on what will replace 158s. It will likely take several years to get rid of 150s, non cycle 153s, 155s and 156s. I think only once 155s and 156s have gone will there be serious work on replacing 158s.

You'd think 155s would go first, being a microfleet of seven units. However Northern seem to have committed to them for the foreseeable with the investment in dedicated depot facilities at Hull Botanic. I guess if you're going to have a microfleet that's the best way to go about it, though with large numbers of 156s and 158s becoming available in the near future there's an element of sunk cost fallacy at play.

 

[Anonymous10]

You'd think 155s would go first, being a microfleet of seven units. However Northern seem to have committed to them for the foreseeable with the investment in dedicated depot facilities at Hull Botanic. I guess if you're going to have a microfleet that's the best way to go about it, though with large numbers of 156s and 158s becoming available in the near future there's an element of sunk cost fallacy at play.

worth remembering until recently they also had 153s and they share commonality with other 15x stock

 

[61653 HTAFC]

worth remembering until recently they also had 153s and they share commonality with other 15x stock

They did- and at that time the 155s were based predominantly in West Yorkshire where they'd been since new. As they were working alongside the 153s they weren't really a microfleet as such, or at least not as much as it appears if you just look at the fleet by class.
The last "proper" Northern franchise (Arriva) was a bit of an weird one, with the unexpected commitment to new stock on the one hand, retention of 155s on another, and the presumed withdrawal of 323s on yet another- that last one in particular was a classic example of Porterbrook shooting themselves in the foot, something they've continued to do since then.

This thread is about the end of Sprinters, so let's look at the various fleets and what their futures might be:

Firstly the 150s. Being the oldest DMUs on the network you'd expect them to be next to go, but they do have a few things in their favour, namely the wide doors and 20m vehicles which gives a bit more flexibility. I'd expect that some will die off in the next few years but some might hang on for a good while yet.
With the 153s, those that are still in use will probably stick around for a while, as a few niche use cases have been identified for them and a fair bit of money spent. The Scottish bike carrying ones will go when the 156s they work with retire, unless Scotrail still plans to clear 158s for the West Highland. Even if they turn out to not be worthwhile, I can easily see Wee Jimmy Krankie not wanting to admit defeat...
155s as stated previously seem safe for a few years despite being (on paper) a bit of an oddball microfleet.
156s are a much larger fleet, but some operators already have plans to replace them and I'm not sure there's any other work for those ones. If they're in better shape than some of the Northern units they could replace those, but some will almost certainly get the gas-axe or put through the shredder.
158s and 159s depends on the operator, the SWR ones can't go on forever, but might have to soldier on a bit given the chaos at that particular operator. I'd expect at least some to still be working by 2030... probably with Northern of course!

 

[skyhigh]

Firstly the 150s. All with Northern now

Pedantic, but they're not all with Northern.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2022 ==

150s will be tricky to replace because any of the routes they run are not suitable for end door DMUs coming off lease.

Careful with the sweeping statements. 150s are interworked with 155s and 158s on routes such as Leeds-Sheffield via Moorthorpe, Knottingley etc with no particular ill effect.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Pedantic, but they're not all with Northern.

Quite right. I'd originally split the gangwayed and ungangwayed units into separate groups, changed my approach part way through, but not corrected that bit!

Now amended.