Is there a known problem with the doors on the 185s. Yesterday I caught a 185 in Leeds and attempted to alight at Batley. The doors only opened a couple of inches and had to be forced open by a boarding passenger. Admittedly I don't travel often on this type but recall last year when I was travelling on a Hull bound 185, a passenger wished to alight at an intermediate station and was literally taken to the following station because the doors failed to open.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
TPE Class 185 doors
- Thread starter John B
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, this does seem to be a Desiro thing, though it seems to happen more on TPE than on LNR where I don't think I've seen it even at the steeply canted fast line at Berko.
daveshah
Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 115
Definitely one of the Desiro's few weaknesses; I've noticed the doors on the 444s struggling at Brockenhurst which also has a bit of a cant.
MalaiseForever
Member
Yeah it happens on 185s. Nothing a firm shove and some elbow grease can’t sort in experience.
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
A steel toe to the bottom runners usually works! XD
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
xc170
Member
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 815
Strange considering the rather brutal noise the doors on a desiro make as they close...
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It seems to relate to how they operate, being fairly "brute force" air powered, the piston actually has to do a lot of work to pull them outwards (most force will be back towards the bodyside but the pull needed is outwards), but then they slide easily after that.
On closing they are moving quickly enough by that point that they slam heavily (which seems classically to be favoured by German rolling stock builders, hence why it sometimes gets called the "Teutonic slam" on here
).They're a bit like the Class 153/155 door in concept, relying more on brute force than on a clever mechanism. They do seem generally reliable, though, you rarely see one out of use on a 350.
Killingworth
Established Member
Reported that eastbound 20:28 TPE from Stockport on Sunday was 6 cars, 3 locked out and held for 20 minutes with door problem.
Doesn't look like a door problem on 185 on fire on ECML today! https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/train-fire-transpennine-express-durham-17057448
Doesn't look like a door problem on 185 on fire on ECML today! https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/train-fire-transpennine-express-durham-17057448
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
185108 blew an engine on 1P17. Being discussed on another thread. There's also a fatality at Newark and trespassers at Hatfield. The ECML is totally shafted today
I think the fault being reported by the OP is more commonly found on 450s, I’ve never seen the same fault on a 444.
it’ll open slightly then the air will stop building but will slide on the runner with not a huge amount of effort, if it’s being used as a local door the guard might lose their head!
the 444s struggle with cambers, Witley, Rowlands and Ashurst are particularly bad.
The common ones tend to be...
Upper swing arms (door drive - top of the leafs) have bearings that are open to the weather and overtime can corrode and cause the doors to 'stall' when unplugging (only movement in said bearings).
Lower swing arms (lower section of leaf - the guide rail is visible from within the car) have nylon rollers attached to bearings which become loose / adrift. This often causes the doors to struggle to close.
Door control units are behind the panel containing the open / close push buttons - if left open during a down pour can suffer from water ingress and damage the control unit.
Microswitches can develop faults from time to time. Door close detection microswitches can cause brake applications, egress/access device microswitches can fail to reset etc etc.
When you deal with broken trains every working day it can be difficult to gauge their reliability but I think considering how intensively they used and the quantity of them they don't do too badly. Double leaf plug doors by nature aren't going to be the simplest type around either but the winner characteristic is the reduced dwell time at stations.
Upper swing arms (door drive - top of the leafs) have bearings that are open to the weather and overtime can corrode and cause the doors to 'stall' when unplugging (only movement in said bearings).
Lower swing arms (lower section of leaf - the guide rail is visible from within the car) have nylon rollers attached to bearings which become loose / adrift. This often causes the doors to struggle to close.
Door control units are behind the panel containing the open / close push buttons - if left open during a down pour can suffer from water ingress and damage the control unit.
Microswitches can develop faults from time to time. Door close detection microswitches can cause brake applications, egress/access device microswitches can fail to reset etc etc.
When you deal with broken trains every working day it can be difficult to gauge their reliability but I think considering how intensively they used and the quantity of them they don't do too badly. Double leaf plug doors by nature aren't going to be the simplest type around either but the winner characteristic is the reduced dwell time at stations.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Could the typically worse weather across the Pennines compared to the south WCML be a contributing factor to TPE suffering that specific problem more often, perhaps?
The Class 444 issue may be that the doors are larger and therefore heavier due to being a single leaf almost as wide as the double leaves on other Desiros?
The 350/4s tend to be less prone to these issues but that could be because they're only a few years old and the duty cycle is probably not as intensive on the Scottish routes.
I can't comment about the characteristics of other fleets but it's always a possibility that some depots are better (or not) at keeping 'on top' of various issues on fleet wide scales. There are many factors, priorities etc after all. TOC - Maintainer relationships all differ too.
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
I know the DCUs well! They are in the roof above the doors on a 185 and I have had 2 different DCU burnouts during very wet weather despite the short timeframes the doors were open. Once causing a fire alarm in York station during the evening peak, the other bringing my train to a stand across the station throat at Manchester Piccadilly. Both causing a job stop in the process although fortunately for just a few minutes!
PG
Established Member
I believe the door closing force on 185's is quite high, the RAIB found this while investigating a 'trap and drag' a few years ago, although I don't think they referred to it as a teutonic slam!
Contrary to some replies in this thread, please can I stress the correct way to open a “stuck” door on a Desiro unit.
As has already been pointed out, the doors are failing to open due to the doors not “popping” out from the body enough to enable them to slide open. Customers naturally presume that pulling the doors open (I.e. pulling to the side) will open the doors, however, often this doesn’t work as they are actually pulling them back into the body shell, as well as sideways. Sometimes customers manage to open the doors by following this method, but they exert so much force that they risk the door bouncing back and hitting them once they are properly opened. There was even an incident last year where a Hull service had a door that came off it’s runner, due to a customer kicking the door.
The correct technique is simple and fool-proof:
When alighting, push outwards on the surface to the right of the window on the left hand door.
This works every time and is less likely to damage a customer or the train.
As has already been pointed out, the doors are failing to open due to the doors not “popping” out from the body enough to enable them to slide open. Customers naturally presume that pulling the doors open (I.e. pulling to the side) will open the doors, however, often this doesn’t work as they are actually pulling them back into the body shell, as well as sideways. Sometimes customers manage to open the doors by following this method, but they exert so much force that they risk the door bouncing back and hitting them once they are properly opened. There was even an incident last year where a Hull service had a door that came off it’s runner, due to a customer kicking the door.
The correct technique is simple and fool-proof:
When alighting, push outwards on the surface to the right of the window on the left hand door.
This works every time and is less likely to damage a customer or the train.
Randomer
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 317
Had an interesting one yesterday when the conductor on a TPE service announced that they would be unable to pass through the train due to the cab door lock failing*. I can appreciate this in not wanting to leave the back cab insecure but using the words "stuck in the rear cab currently so can't pass through the train" caused much amusement amongst passengers.
* I always thought they were a simple carriage key lock but appreciate people will not want to comment either way here for obvious reasons.
* I always thought they were a simple carriage key lock but appreciate people will not want to comment either way here for obvious reasons.
PG
Established Member
Not that I think it'll happen but this reads like it could be added as an official notice onto the doors!
as I mentioned earlier, there appears to be two separate issues.
1st issue is that the door doesn’t push out far enough due to combination of weight and track camber, this seems to be more common on 444s in my experience
2nd issue is the door will open to about half a meter wide and then all air will drain off the door, if you push the door along the runner there is very little resistance. If this door is used as a local door, when all the other doors are closed, and you flick the key, the door shuts with lots of ferocity (similar to a cab door) rather than the gradual manner it should do. I’m hoping some Desiro guards that frequent this forum can either back me up or expand on what I’m saying.
The 444 door is wider and heavier so that makes sense...
185
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 4,987
Some seem to have a mind of their own, when you key off to shut them as a local door, 95% are painfully slow, the other 5% are like Arkwright's till & SLAM! - does keep you on your toes somewhat.
notlob.divad
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,609
Quite, A very smple, "Push here if door is stuck" written on a big hand, would surely help everyone. That is if customers manually interveneing in the operation of the train has now become the official TOC policy.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Indeed it's something I noticed at Batley (like the OP) last summer when 185s first became the regular traction calling here.
The cant of the track has the train leaning away from the platform, so the mechanism has to work harder. Doesn't seem to happen as much as it used to, but the loaned 170s never had this problem at all.
Batley, Slaithwaite, Mossley and Garforth are just some of the difficult locations.
When the Cl 185 started getting used on these routes, we saw the issues more frequently. I've been told since that the hydraulics have been give a bit more oomph so it, thankfully, now happens less.
I doubt there will ever be a sticker on the door as if someone had an accident pushing the door outwards, i.e. following an instructional label, the TOC would be liable, as even if they didn't follow the instruction, it could always be argued that the instruction was unclear, etc.
When the Cl 185 started getting used on these routes, we saw the issues more frequently. I've been told since that the hydraulics have been give a bit more oomph so it, thankfully, now happens less.
I doubt there will ever be a sticker on the door as if someone had an accident pushing the door outwards, i.e. following an instructional label, the TOC would be liable, as even if they didn't follow the instruction, it could always be argued that the instruction was unclear, etc.
PG
Established Member
It was more that the language used sounded official.
I can't ever see a TOC admitting to the existence of a fault via a notice... unlike a staff toilet (non railway) I came across with a proper printed notice on the cistern lid
- Status