Sprinter Extinction

[Chester1]

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.

The services in Greater Manchester certainly require replacement of 150s with units that also have wide doors. I hate to say it because of their unreliability but TfWs 8 x 769s could enable 16 x 150s to be scrapped.

Replacement of 155s and 156s with off lease 158s seems a good place to start with sprinter replacement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The services in Greater Manchester certainly require replacement of 150s with units that also have wide doors.

195s have wide doors and high acceleration and are ideal for urban services. Replacing them on long distance services with something else (which could have end doors) would release them for that purpose, which is what they should have been built for to start with - they are basically similar to 172s but with a nicer interior.

 

[Chester1]

195s have wide doors and high acceleration and are ideal for urban services. Replacing them on long distance services with something else (which could have end doors) would release them for that purpose, which is what they should have been built for to start with - they are basically similar to 172s but with a nicer interior.

I agree but it would take a considerable influx of new units to replace all 150s, 155s and 156s. There are 24 x 158s going off lease from TfW and if EMR continue to use 158s for Liverpool - Nottingham then they could probably release 12. Moving around new stock is more politically risking than replacing 155s and 156s with 158s. 36 x 158s would be sufficient to scrap all 155s and about half of Northern's 156s. Further cascades could get rid of the remaining 156s and then allow 195s to change routes. I agree that 158s would be fine for the likes of Leeds-Chester but I think DfT will avoid or delay making decisons like that when possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree but it would take a considerable influx of new units to replace all 150s, 155s and 156s. There are 24 x 158s going off lease from TfW and if EMR continue to use 158s for Liverpool - Nottingham then they could probably release 12. Moving around new stock is more politically risking than replacing 155s and 156s with 158s. 36 x 158s would be sufficient to scrap all 155s and about half of Northern's 156s. Further cascades could get rid of the remaining 156s and then allow 195s to change routes. I agree that 158s would be fine for the likes of Leeds-Chester but I think DfT will avoid or delay making decisons like that when possible.

The one issue that leaves of course is the WCML services, which need 100mph units. I do however wonder if a solution could take the form of the Barrow and Windermere reverting to TPE operation using 802s. They seem to have enough spare 185s to cover the small number of units this would require.

 

[JonathanH]

I do however wonder if a solution could take the form of the Barrow and Windermere reverting to TPE operation using 802s.

Which other bit of the TPE network would be cut back to provide the 802s for less lucrative services to Barrow and Windermere? The Newcastle to Edinburgh stopper perhaps but I'm not sure what else.

They seem to have enough spare 185s to cover the small number of units this would require.

I guess your argument is that Manchester to Lancaster / Oxenholme is more electric route mileage than Manchester to York even after partial electrification of that route.

I don't see the sums stacking up or the costs of crew training being welcome.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which other bit of the TPE network would be cut back to provide the 802s for less lucrative services to Barrow and Windermere? The Newcastle to Edinburgh stopper perhaps but I'm not sure what else.

TPE has more than enough stock having kept the entire 185 fleet, but if they really can't manage it reverting the stoppers it presently operates on behalf of Northern to them would free up some units.

 

[JonathanH]

TPE has more than enough stock having kept the entire 185 fleet, but if they really can't manage it reverting the stoppers it presently operates on behalf of Northern to them would free up some units.

Indeed, and they should be made to relinquish some of it, but I don't think 802s are going to Barrow or Windermere.

 

[43074]

Indeed, and they should be made to relinquish some of it, but I don't think 802s are going to Barrow or Windermere.

Why? The industry would only have to pay for it to deteriorate sitting in storage somewhere, 802s and 397s are perfectly well suited to what they do, as are the 185s. Half of the loco hauled fleet is stored anyway and the 68s see occasional use on DRS freight trains so I really don't see what it would achieve other than shuffling costs elsewhere.

 

[Bikeman78]

The services in Greater Manchester certainly require replacement of 150s with units that also have wide doors. I hate to say it because of their unreliability but TfWs 8 x 769s could enable 16 x 150s to be scrapped.

Replacement of 155s and 156s with off lease 158s seems a good place to start with sprinter replacement.

Why would they want to replace 150s with a train with a similar interior but five times less reliable? Doors on 769s are no wider than 150s.

 

[BayPaul]

I've been thinking about how I would do this. I think building new diesel trains is a mistake and whilst widespread electrification would be ideal, it is unrealistic in the timescale. I therefore (unsurprisingly) think that batteries are the way to go.

Since 158/9s clearly have plenty of life left, I'm going to ignore those, and concentrate on replacing the older sprinters and also the Castle class and Chiltern Mk3s. I'll also ignore Scotland, since they already have a plan, but otherwise take advantage of GBR which will presumably make it easier to move fleets around, or order similar trains for multiple TOCs.

Firstly, as others have suggested, I'd cascade 175s to Chiltern, to replace the mk3s, and also to free up around 50 carriages of 168s to become 170s. I'd also convert some electrostars to battery, in order to free up the 171s to become 170s.

Next, I'd order trains for short branch lines (up to 60 mins journey). 2x20m carriages, gangways, slow speed but good acceleration, basic design, able to charge on a vivarail type fast charge system, or using OHLE.
These would be used for branches in Thames Valley, Devon & Cornwall, Norfolk & Suffolk, Stourbridge, Coventry, Bedford - Bletchley, Salisbury 6, and quite possibly also in Northern and EMR.
That should replace all of GWRs 150s,whilst releasing enough 16x and 158s to also bin the Castles. Elsewhere, it would free up 755s for use on longer routes, and a few turbostars too.

Northern seem to have a lot of routes that spend a fair bit of time partly under the wires. Famously Windermere/Barrow - Manchester and ECML slows, but also things like Blackburn - Rochdale, Blackpool South, Rose Hill Marple, some services around Leeds and Newcastle, perhaps even Buxton, Southport-Manchester, and the CLC. For these routes, a new fleet of battery electric 331s would seem ideal, charging under the OHLE, as well as at some fast charging stations where needed.
These trains could also be used for short branches with fast charging similar to the above - places like Morecombe, Bishop's Auckland etc.
I'd also look at extending Merseyrail to Preston, Wigan and Helsby with a few more Battery 777s, to free a few more Northern Sprinters.
I haven't done the maths, but this feels like it could replace most of the Northern 150s and 155s either directly, or by replacing 195s to move to those routes. Any still left over would be replaced by 168s or 171s from Chiltern/Southern

The Northern 156s would be replaced by 158s from EMR and TfW. The EMR 158s would be released by TPE taking over Liverpool - Nottingham with their 185s, plus the remaining 168/171s.

By my reckoning, that should do the trick, without adding a single new diesel to the network, and minimising training and microfleets. Ramping up new electrification would be needed to phase out the 158/9s and 165/6s, but that's another story.

 

[py_megapixel]

Why would they want to replace 150s with a train with a similar interior but five times less reliable? Doors on 769s are no wider than 150s.

Greater fuel efficiency and less noise in the saloon (on account of the new engines)?

 

[Anonymous10]

Greater fuel efficiency and less noise in the saloon (on account of the new engines)?

they aren't that much quieter

 

[py_megapixel]

they aren't that much quieter

They are noticeably so - especially in the centre carriages, thanks to all the engines being under the driving ones.

(Note that I said quieter not quiet - they still make a racket compared to a modern MU)

 

[Snow1964]

Greater fuel efficiency and less noise in the saloon (on account of the new engines)?

So are we talking a 2car 20m DMU, or a bi-mode, effectively a modern equivalent of 2car class 456 with an underfloor diesel generator set under one car, and a battery pack under the other.

A modern local branch line train, that can put a pantograph up and recharge one end of the journey. Or if the mainline isn’t electrified an option to plug it in (like charging an electric bus). Or even the new pantograph style bus charger above the branch line bay platform.

 

[Anonymous10]

They are noticeably so - especially in the centre carriages, thanks to all the engines being under the driving ones.

(Note that I said quieter not quiet - they still make a racket compared to a modern MU)

ive been in the 2nd carriage of a tfw 769 and personally didnt find them much quieter than a 150

 

[Chester1]

Why would they want to replace 150s with a train with a similar interior but five times less reliable? Doors on 769s are no wider than 150s.

Decarbonisation. A bimode is better than pure diesel. The reliability would need to be improved first.

I've been thinking about how I would do this. I think building new diesel trains is a mistake and whilst widespread electrification would be ideal, it is unrealistic in the timescale. I therefore (unsurprisingly) think that batteries are the way to go.

Since 158/9s clearly have plenty of life left, I'm going to ignore those, and concentrate on replacing the older sprinters and also the Castle class and Chiltern Mk3s. I'll also ignore Scotland, since they already have a plan, but otherwise take advantage of GBR which will presumably make it easier to move fleets around, or order similar trains for multiple TOCs.

Firstly, as others have suggested, I'd cascade 175s to Chiltern, to replace the mk3s, and also to free up around 50 carriages of 168s to become 170s. I'd also convert some electrostars to battery, in order to free up the 171s to become 170s.

Next, I'd order trains for short branch lines (up to 60 mins journey). 2x20m carriages, gangways, slow speed but good acceleration, basic design, able to charge on a vivarail type fast charge system, or using OHLE.
These would be used for branches in Thames Valley, Devon & Cornwall, Norfolk & Suffolk, Stourbridge, Coventry, Bedford - Bletchley, Salisbury 6, and quite possibly also in Northern and EMR.
That should replace all of GWRs 150s,whilst releasing enough 16x and 158s to also bin the Castles. Elsewhere, it would free up 755s for use on longer routes, and a few turbostars too.

Northern seem to have a lot of routes that spend a fair bit of time partly under the wires. Famously Windermere/Barrow - Manchester and ECML slows, but also things like Blackburn - Rochdale, Blackpool South, Rose Hill Marple, some services around Leeds and Newcastle, perhaps even Buxton, Southport-Manchester, and the CLC. For these routes, a new fleet of battery electric 331s would seem ideal, charging under the OHLE, as well as at some fast charging stations where needed.
These trains could also be used for short branches with fast charging similar to the above - places like Morecombe, Bishop's Auckland etc.
I'd also look at extending Merseyrail to Preston, Wigan and Helsby with a few more Battery 777s, to free a few more Northern Sprinters.
I haven't done the maths, but this feels like it could replace most of the Northern 150s and 155s either directly, or by replacing 195s to move to those routes. Any still left over would be replaced by 168s or 171s from Chiltern/Southern

The Northern 156s would be replaced by 158s from EMR and TfW. The EMR 158s would be released by TPE taking over Liverpool - Nottingham with their 185s, plus the remaining 168/171s.

By my reckoning, that should do the trick, without adding a single new diesel to the network, and minimising training and microfleets. Ramping up new electrification would be needed to phase out the 158/9s and 165/6s, but that's another story.

There seems to be reluctance to try anything new. It does look like sprinter replacement will just be cascaded units for a while.

 

[Bikeman78]

Decarbonisation. A bimode is better than pure diesel. The reliability would need to be improved first.

I think it's unlikely they'll get any better than now. Evidently TfW agrees with me as it has diverted the 231s to replace the 769s before the 170s. Passengers want a train that works. A train that breaks down five times as frequently will not be popular.

 

[Philip]

About ten drivers at TfW have all told me they’ve been told Heaton for the 175s, which could shift some 156s down south to replace 150s certainly.

This is one of the reasons I've been speculating on Northern getting 175s and to work in the North East, along with Northern's recently announced intention to get rid of their Sprinters (in a different thread). Perhaps a handful could be loaned to Chiltern until their class 165 hybrid project/replacement is finished and then the remainder given to Northern for the North East.

If the above was to happen and 175s end up at Heaton depot, which Northern NE routes would they be most appropriate for? Newcastle-Carlisle?

 

[tbtc]

This is one of the reasons I've been speculating on Northern getting 175s and to work in the North East, along with Northern's recently announced intention to get rid of their Sprinters (in a different thread). Perhaps a handful could be loaned to Chiltern until their class 165 hybrid project/replacement is finished and then the remainder given to Northern for the North East.

If the above was to happen and 175s end up at Heaton depot, which Northern NE routes would they be most appropriate for? Newcastle-Carlisle?

1. I’m guessing that, given your repeated suggestion of “175s to Heaton” , you’ve done the maths about how many units Heaton needs? If the answer is twenty seven bang on then that’s great (albeit you’d be needing extra siding space given that you’re replacing some two coach 156/158s with the coach 175s, I.e. if you are replacing one Sprinter with one 175 then that’s 54 coaches of Sprinter replaced by 70 coaches of 175 - which takes up more space) or have you worked out that twenty seven 175s can replace thirty-ishSprinters due to the diagrams where you plan for a three coach 175 to replace a four coach Sprinter? Or is it just guesswork, and dumping them at Heaton feels like a “solution”, regardless of the “problem”?

2. Is it the 165s that are going hybrid or the 168s? I’m sure this thread has referred to both? Regardless, the lack of “good news” updates suggests that it’s maybe not worth banking on this being an unqualified success any time soon..,

 

[Chester1]

1. I’m guessing that, given your repeated suggestion of “175s to Heaton” , you’ve done the maths about how many units Heaton needs? If the answer is twenty seven bang on then that’s great (albeit you’d be needing extra siding space given that you’re replacing some two coach 156/158s with the coach 175s, I.e. if you are replacing one Sprinter with one 175 then that’s 54 coaches of Sprinter replaced by 70 coaches of 175 - which takes up more space) or have you worked out that twenty seven 175s can replace thirty-ishSprinters due to the diagrams where you plan for a three coach 175 to replace a four coach Sprinter? Or is it just guesswork, and dumping them at Heaton feels like a “solution”, regardless of the “problem”?

If a large number of TfW drivers have been told that 175s will be going to Heaton there is likely some truth to it. Maybe all will go to Northern but not all to Heaton.

Personally I although I live in the North and like 175s I think Chiltern is the better fit. They could replace the costly loco hauled sets and enable a decent number of 165s to be cascaded to allow 150s to go for scrap.

There are 136 x 150s in service. 36 will be scrapped when TfW finishes their fleet upgrade and Valley Lines conversion to tram trains. If Chiltern used 3 coach 175s to replace the loco hauled sets and 2 coach units to free up turbos then with enabling works about 20 could be cascaded to GWR or Northern to free up about 20 x 150s to be scrapped. 136 down to about 80 would be a very good start.

 

[XAM2175]

Or is it just guesswork, and dumping them at Heaton feels like a “solution”, regardless of the “problem”?

That particular poster is absolutely set on giving the 175s to Northern, come hell or high water. The rationalisations - and concurrent attempts to discredit any other proposals - have become almost comical.

 

[43096]

If a large number of TfW drivers have been told that 175s will be going to Heaton there is likely some truth to it.

But could well just be spreading a rumour. The thing is, no-one applies a BS filter to these things: why would drivers at TOC A be in the know that trains are going to TOC B: they’re not part of the management team and the management at TOC A likely only know they’re going off lease. It’s the owner, TOC B management and DfT who know where they’re going (if anywhere). If I had a pound for every time these “a driver/guard/platform staff told me…” stories came up…

I’d wait for a more believable source to say what’s happening.

 

[Philip]

That particular poster is absolutely set on giving the 175s to Northern, come hell or high water. The rationalisations - and concurrent attempts to discredit any other proposals - have become almost comical.

Not so much, there are plenty of suitable routes of which Northern could use them on (the fact Northern have so many 158s suggests this, because they are a similar type of train). It irritates me a bit as I get the feeling one or two posters, like the one above, actually don't want Northern to get 175s because they see Northern as a lesser TOC than the likes of Chiltern and not befitting of attaining high quality regional express stock. So as someone who works for Northern I'm more keen to promote the idea as a result. I think you can list pros and cons for both Northern and Chiltern using 175s, but if 10 drivers have been saying the same thing as reported then there's a chance there's some substance to it - and they'd be a good and more modern replacement for some 156s and 158s.

To add some balance, if some or all of the 175s went to Chiltern, which depot would they be stored and maintained at?

 

[Chester1]

But could well just be spreading a rumour. The thing is, no-one applies a BS filter to these things: why would drivers at TOC A be in the know that trains are going to TOC B: they’re not part of the management team and the management at TOC A likely only know they’re going off lease. It’s the owner, TOC B management and DfT who know where they’re going (if anywhere). If I had a pound for every time these “a driver/guard/platform staff told me…” stories came up…

I’d wait for a more believable source to say what’s happening.

I guess that makes sense. I like 175s but I am not sure Northern are the best fit. They need fewer unit types not an additonal one. The TfW units that I definitely would like to see go to Northern are their 24 x 158s. They could be a direct replacement for 24 x 155s and 156s. They are better units, Northern already have lots of 158s and they should last another five years or more longer, providing more time for battery power and charging to improve.

Not so much, there are plenty of suitable routes of which Northern could use them on (the fact Northern have so many 158s suggests this as they are a similar type of train). It irritates me a bit as I get the feeling one or two posters, like the one above, actually don't want Northern to get 175s because they see Northern as a lesser TOC than the likes of Chiltern and not befitting of attaining high quality regional express stock. So as someone who works for Northern I'm more keen to promote the idea as a result. I think you can lost pros and cons for both Northern and Chiltern using 175s as it happens but if you have 10 drivers saying the same thing as reported then there's a chance there's some substance to it.

Northern has enough 100mph DMUs to run the services where the higher top speed is necessary. For other routes TfW 158s are just as suitable and they would not be adding another train type to burden maintenance and training resources.

 

[Philip]

I guess that makes sense. I like 175s but I am not sure Northern are the best fit. They need fewer unit types not an additonal one. The TfW units that I definitely would like to see go to Northern are their 24 x 158s. They could be a direct replacement for 24 x 155s and 156s. They are better units, Northern already have lots of 158s and they should last another five years or more longer, providing more time for battery power and charging to improve.



Northern has enough 100mph DMUs to run the services where the higher top speed is necessary. For other routes TfW 158s are just as suitable and they would not be adding another train type to burden maintenance and training resources.

As I say though, the full fleet of 175s could indirectly get rid of a unit type for Northern (the 155s) and if some/all of the 158s from TfW also joined Northern then it might be enough to get rid of the 156s which is what Northern want. So Northern wouldn't have more unit types and at the same time you replace 1980s DMUs with a cleaner and more modern type.

Neither Chiltern or Northern would be adding to their number of unit types by acquiring these - for Chiltern they'd replace LHCS and possibly 165s, for Northern 155s and possibly 156s.

 

[XAM2175]

It irritates me a bit as I get the feeling one or two posters, like the one above, actually don't want Northern to get 175s because they see Northern as a lesser TOC than the likes of Chiltern and not befitting of attaining high quality regional express stock. So as someone who works for Northern I'm more keen to promote the idea as a result.

The impression I get, having read all of the recent threads, is that most people favour the 175s going to an operator other than Northern because they're of the opinion that they'd be a poor fit for Northern. They may also think that Northern is a lesser TOC, but that's incidental to the discussion. Meanwhile your keenness to promote the idea is, in all honesty, just making you look a bit silly.

 

[Energy]

It irritates me a bit as I get the feeling one or two posters, like the one above, actually don't want Northern to get 175s because they see Northern as a lesser TOC than the likes of Chiltern and not befitting of attaining high quality regional express stock.

They can have high quality regional express stock, but they have too much already. Most of the posters who don't want Northern to have 175s do want it to have turbostars or more electrification or battery.

I think you can list pros and cons for both Northern and Chiltern using 175s, but if 10 drivers have been saying the same thing as reported then there's a chance there's some substance to it - and they'd be a good and more modern replacement for some 156s and 158s.

Or its 10 drivers who've all been repeating what 1 has heard...

could indirectly get rid of a unit type for Northern (the 155s)

There are very few 155s, Northern are already receiving some 156s from EMR, if they got all from EMR then the 155s could be replaced. This would still leave the 156 problem but it would be 1 less stock type.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There are very few 155s, Northern are already receiving some 156s from EMR, if they got all from EMR then the 155s could be replaced. This would still leave the 156 problem but it would be 1 less stock type.

Everyone seems very keen to get rid of the 155s, and on paper I can see the argument. With only 7 units (14 vehicles) they're seen as that cardinal sin of modern railways, the dreaded microfleet... particularly now there aren't any 153s with Northern. However under the skin they're quite similar to 156s, they're dedicated to a limited group of routes and crews, and the upgraded facilities at Hull Botanic Gardens have been specified with 155s and 170s in mind. That suggests they're unlikely to be retired in the medium-term at least.

There may be an element of sunk cost at play here, but if you're forced by circumstances to have a microfleet (as Arriva were back when the contracts were signed), that's probably the best way to handle it.

The contract itself may be null and void with OLR taking over, but the decisions made at that time aren't so easy to go back on.

 

[skyhigh]

So as someone who works for Northern I'm more keen to promote the idea as a result.

You realise that your posts have literally zero impact on the decision making, right? You say you work for Northern, have you heard anything at all about 175s internally, or the date you have picked up on for Sprinter replacement from a second hand forum post from a notoriously unreliable magazine? There hasn't been a single brief that even hints at 175s. Ask on the next Director Q&A or on the Employee group and see what answer you get. I doubt it'll be a confirmation of either.

but if 10 drivers have been saying the same thing as reported then there's a chance there's some substance to it

Chinese whispers. You'd have someone say in the likes of a safety brief "oh these 175s might be going to Northern soon", everyone else picks that up and tells others in the messroom and the next thing you know all the drivers think they're confirmed off to Northern.

Neither Chiltern or Northern would be adding to their number of unit types by acquiring these - for Chiltern they'd replace LHCS and possibly 165s, for Northern 155s and possibly 156s.

Right so we're replacing 155s that interwork with compatible 15x/170s with completely different units. If we're replacing 155s and only 'possibly' 156s, surely there's still the microfleet issue but this time it's worse?

 

[RobShipway]

The idea that class 156 units can replace class 150 units is a bit optimistic. The reason that I say this, is because Northern have about 78 Class 150 units whereas Northern has 51 class 156 units. Even with the 20 units from EMR once those are replaced by Turbostar units, you are still missing 7 units. So I would suspect that the 7 class 155 units would be kept.

It is then a case of what replaces the 58 units in total for the routes that the class 155 & 156 units where doing. If the class 175 units are taken, you still going to have to have a microfleet as there is only 27 class 175 units. Admittedly, some of those units are three carriage. But you got to as, how many of the timetabled train services are the 156 units working with either other 156 units or class 150 units? If it is a majority of services, then you are better off with replacing the class 155/156 units with three or four car units which could bring you down to needing just 29 units. But there is no three or four car unit trains existing today in the number required to replace them, so I suspect it would have to be an order for more class 195 units from CAF or a hybrid version of it.