Where’s the best place for Class 185s?

[Bevan Price]

It is not only the engines that make 185s heavy. They were designed with beefy underframes, bogies and suspension to carry the weight of the engines.

No way could new engines get them down to anywhere near the weight or axle load of a Sprinter.

OK about the weight, but fitting lower power engines should at least reduce fuel consumption and make them more economic as a possible 15x replacement ??

 

[JonathanH]

OK about the weight, but fitting lower power engines should at least reduce fuel consumption and make them more economic as a possible 15x replacement ??

But because they are heavy lower powered engines won't move them very well.

 

[liamf656]

This might be a bit of a novice question but what is the difference between differentials? Are the timetables/paths generated differently based on booked traction? And what would be needed for the timetable if a 185 were to run a 158-booked service (theoretically, money no object)?

 

[Philip]

I think long distance SWR services out of London Waterloo is another reasonable option; an upgrade over 159s which in turn could go to either GWR or ScotRail to help replace HST sets.

Having to run at lower speeds because of the weight isn't so much of a problem because they can make up minutes over other DMUs through their fast acceleration. They can run on 2 engines and still keep good performance on the flat - I bet even one engine would be enough power on flat stretches.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This might be a bit of a novice question but what is the difference between differentials? Are the timetables/paths generated differently based on booked traction? And what would be needed for the timetable if a 185 were to run a 158-booked service (theoretically, money no object)?

Dead simple - they are just different speed limits. For instance, on the WCML you will often see "110, EPS 125" that is Pendolinos can do 125 (Enhanced Permissible Speed due to tilt) and everything else 110. Or SP means Sprinter. Some pictures of the signage can be found here:

Do trains have speed limits in the UK?

Answer (1 of 3): Trains have speed limits in the UK. The speed limit of a train is determined by track condition, signalling, special temporary speed restrictions, special rules and authorised speed for a specific section of track. The train driver will be informed of the speed with a combinatio...

www.quora.com

It is sort of analogous to the way different road vehicles are subject to different national speed limits based on various factors.

 

[liamf656]

Dead simple - they are just different speed limits. For instance, on the WCML you will often see "110, EPS 125" that is Pendolinos can do 125 (Enhanced Permissible Speed due to tilt) and everything else 110. Or SP means Sprinter.

Thank you, that’s answered my question perfectly. It makes the 185 fleet very awkward indeed

 

[Xavi]

I think long distance SWR services out of London Waterloo is another reasonable option; an upgrade over 159s which in turn could go to either GWR or ScotRail to help replace HST sets.

Having to run at lower speeds because of the weight isn't so much of a problem because they can make up minutes over other DMUs through their fast acceleration. They can run on 2 engines and still keep good performance on the flat - I bet even one engine would be enough power on flat stretches.

Not sure passengers would consider 185s an upgrade - 159s are perfect for the route.

 

[JonathanH]

I think long distance SWR services out of London Waterloo is another reasonable option; an upgrade over 159s which in turn could go to either GWR or ScotRail to help replace HST sets.

There are 30 159s (now 29 with the loss of 159102) and 10 158s at Salisbury compared to 51 185s. I guess Salisbury would need to become a Siemens depot. The spare 185s would need to be used somewhere as well. Whether it is feasible to transfer a Bristol to Southampton service to SWR and leave Portsmouth and Cardiff extensions to a different operation is a consideration. Portsmouth to Southampton could be run with electric traction and Bristol to Cardiff using IETs.

 

[Philip]

Not sure passengers would consider 185s an upgrade - 159s are perfect for the route.

They might seem good for the route, but the 185 is a superior train and so it would further improve the ambience on these routes, as well as reducing dwell times at stations because of the better door arrangement and increased standing space. We're talking a small modern intercity train vs a tarted up smokey 1980s regional unit.

There are 30 159s (now 29 with the loss of 159102) and 10 158s at Salisbury compared to 51 185s. I guess Salisbury would need to become a Siemens depot. The spare 185s would need to be used somewhere as well. Whether it is feasible to transfer a Bristol to Southampton service to SWR and leave Portsmouth and Cardiff extensions to a different operation is a consideration. Portsmouth to Southampton could be run with electric traction and Bristol to Cardiff using IETs.

Some 185s could work inter-regional services in the West Country, along with long distance services to Waterloo. Also some 185s could run doubled up so that the whole fleet is utilised.

 

[JonathanH]

Some 185s could work inter-regional services in the West Country, along with long distance services to Waterloo. Also some 185s could run doubled up so that the whole fleet is utilised.

That is too ambitious if they are to be primarily based at Salisbury. Concentrating them on Waterloo to Exeter and Southampton to Bristol would mean they get back to Salisbury on a more regular basis than if they go further afield. Some services into Waterloo and to Exeter would need to be six coaches.

 

[krus_aragon]

Anything run by 158s for the majority of the period since the early 90s would suit them I think, in some cases as an addition to rather than as a replacement for 158s. They seem to suit that kind of 'regional express' route.

So Portsmouth-Cardiff? Manchester-Cardiff?

The latter (in the form of Manchester-Cardiff-Swansea) has new 197s being delivered, along with rakes of refurbished MkIV stock. Other ex-158 routes may be more likely destinations.

 

[patrick.hearn3]

It is not only the engines that make 185s heavy. They were designed with beefy underframes, bogies and suspension to carry the weight of the engines.

No way could new engines get them down to anywhere near the weight or axle load of a Sprinter.

I'm finding difficulty in getting comparable wet and dry weights but the Cummins 19L 560kW comes in around 2t and the RR/MTU 13L 390kW (used in the Class 195 etc.) comes in around 1t - so absolutely correct.

Into crayon land, but if transferred from the Pennines then retractioning the Cummins with a RR/MTU would make them less thirsty, and you might get a ~200kwh battery without too much of a weight penalty. But no-one would pay for it

That raises a point equally true of 185s/HST/22x. The total cost of use per seat includes seating capacity, fuel, maintenance and lease. If something's thirsty, expensive to maintain or low seat capacity (22x!) then will pressure come on the lease charge to compensate, particularly once 20 or so franchises consolidate to GBR?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

What about TfW to replace the 153's? I understand that the 153's being retained hasn't got the best reaction.

 

[patrick.hearn3]

As a P.S. to the retractioning speculation, refitting the 185s with the RR/MTU 13L 390kW (used in the Class 195 etc.) would give around 7.3kW/t which for comparison is similar to a 170 (7kW/t). So similar power to weight and 100mph max speed, but 185s with the disadvantages of route availability and differential speeds.

 

[Greybeard33]

That raises a point equally true of 185s/HST/22x. The total cost of use per seat includes seating capacity, fuel, maintenance and lease. If something's thirsty, expensive to maintain or low seat capacity (22x!) then will pressure come on the lease charge to compensate, particularly once 20 or so franchises consolidate to GBR?

The rolling stock leasing market is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If a lessor is faced with storing or scrapping stock that has come off lease, a prospective customer may be able to negotiate advantageous lease rates. As you say, the demise of franchising might reduce the market power of the ROSCOs versus the TOCs.

However, in some circumstances it may be in the commercial interests of the ROSCO to scrap surplus units rather than offer them at "fire sale" rates, in order to reduce supply and so protect the market for the rest of its fleet.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What about TfW to replace the 153's? I understand that the 153's being retained hasn't got the best reaction.

Square pegs into round holes there. The 185s are expensive to run, and would barely be able to stretch their legs running from Shrewsbury to Swansea via Llandrindod. They'd be nice to travel on there but the route is a financial basket case even with 153s.

Clearly there is no "right answer" to where they should go. It may be a case of "where is least of a compromise?". If something can be done about the weight, or hybridisation of the drivetrain, that may change... but they'll always be a slightly awkward solution to whatever problem they're used to solve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly there is no "right answer" to where they should go. It may be a case of "where is least of a compromise?". If something can be done about the weight, or hybridisation of the drivetrain, that may change... but they'll always be a slightly awkward solution to whatever problem they're used to solve.

I think that's probably true. However I can't see them being scrapped, as they're too recent for that, given that they are still useful.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They won't go to E-W unless the HST differential is overcome. They are getting 19x last I heard.

Genuine question (and apologies for being a bit off-topic) but why on earth is an effectively new railway being built with a requirement for differential speeds that refer to a 40-year-old design?

 

[mmh]

Genuine question (and apologies for being a bit off-topic) but why on earth is an effectively new railway being built with a requirement for differential speeds that refer to a 40-year-old design?

Will it not be that "HST" means a subset of trains, rather than just HSTs? In the same way that (as far as I know) "Sprinter" doesn't just mean Sprinters, and "Multiple Unit" doesn't mean all multiple units?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Will it not be that "HST" means a subset of trains, rather than just HSTs? In the same way that (as far as I know) "Sprinter" doesn't just mean Sprinters, and "Multiple Unit" doesn't mean all multiple units?

Maybe- but surely if you're building a new railway, you build it to accommodate the heaviest trains at the ideal speeds, rather than "baking-in" restrictions for anything other than abnormal loads? You wouldn't put in a bridge with a severe weight restriction from new.

 

[PTR 444]

There are 30 159s (now 29 with the loss of 159102) and 10 158s at Salisbury compared to 51 185s. I guess Salisbury would need to become a Siemens depot. The spare 185s would need to be used somewhere as well. Whether it is feasible to transfer a Bristol to Southampton service to SWR and leave Portsmouth and Cardiff extensions to a different operation is a consideration. Portsmouth to Southampton could be run with electric traction and Bristol to Cardiff using IETs.

Or use the spares to operate the Romsey Rounder. It would be better suited to rolling stock with doors at thirds which the 185s have and 158s don’t.

 

[skyhigh]

Maybe- but surely if you're building a new railway, you build it to accommodate the heaviest trains at the ideal speeds, rather than "baking-in" restrictions for anything other than abnormal loads? You wouldn't put in a bridge with a severe weight restriction from new.

Not really much point spending x amount extra to allow unusual workings to run slightly faster. Generally (from memory) HST is related to braking performance and SP is related to weight - you get HST, SP and 'standard' speed differentials all over the network.

It's not like putting in a bridge with weight restrictions based on normal traffic that can't be exceeded.

 

[JonathanH]

Or use the spares to operate the Romsey Rounder. It would be better suited to rolling stock with doors at thirds which the 185s have and 158s don’t.

I'd already accounted for that. It wouldn't really make sense to run the Romsey Rounder with different stock from Waterloo to Exeter given it is only three units.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

What about sending them all to EMR? For these reasons (that I can think of)...

1. EMR now operate Siemens Class 360's.
2. Same engines as the 180's and 222's.
3. Same gearboxes as the 180's.
4. All are 3 coaches but could be refurbished to provide around say 195 seats maybe?

Some EMR routes (for example - the Sheffield to Liverpool corridor) are ideal for trains like 185's.

Then cascade 170's to replace Class 150's.

I know EMR are getting 170's at the moment but it might make a lot of sense. Plus 185's can do local services better than 170's I'd have thought.

 

[JonathanH]

2. Same engines as the 180's and 222's.

I'm not sure that helps given the 180s and 222s are leaving EMR.

Then cascade 170's to replace Class 150's.

170s aren't great for the sort of work 150s do.

Some EMR routes (for example - the Sheffield to Liverpool corridor) are ideal for trains like 185's.

That is debatable given 185s can't use certain speed differentials on the Hope Valley.

 

[Philip]

I remember they were first delivered to and stored at Wembley depot after transportation from Germany. Does Wembley still have the facilities to store and maintain the fleet as the home depot?

I'm not sure that helps given the 180s and 222s are leaving EMR.

Class 185s could take over the 180/222 work if running doubled up; it would provide more capacity than the current 5 coach trains and it would be a decent stop gap solution before electrification of the MML.

 

[Greybeard33]

Not really much point spending x amount extra to allow unusual workings to run slightly faster. Generally (from memory) HST is related to braking performance and SP is related to weight - you get HST, SP and 'standard' speed differentials all over the network.

It's not like putting in a bridge with weight restrictions based on normal traffic that can't be exceeded.

According to the SA, 185s and 390s are the only multiple units that are not permitted to take advantage of MU/DMU/EMU differential speeds. Nor can they use HST differentials, which are available to (among others) 91/Mk4s, 17x, 180 and 22x.

This is a significant restriction on some routes.

 

[JonathanH]

Class 185s could take over the 180/222 work if running doubled up; it would provide more capacity than the current 5 coach trains and it would be a decent stop gap solution before electrification of the MML.

They are getting brand new 810s to do the work of the 180s and 222s.

 

[Halish Railway]

Class 185s could take over the 180/222 work if running doubled up; it would provide more capacity than the current 5 coach trains and it would be a decent stop gap solution before electrification of the MML.

The Class 802s that would replace the 185s will be next in the production line after EMR’s 810s are finished.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Class 185s could take over the 180/222 work if running doubled up; it would provide more capacity than the current 5 coach trains and it would be a decent stop gap solution before electrification of the MML.

I know there's not a huge amount of >100mph on the MML compared to the East Coast, but I'd be shocked if there was so little of it that units with a max speed of 100 could still keep time.