Class 185 Fleet A Big Mistake?

[Bletchleyite]

Mireo is Siemens new Commuter Train platform designed to replace the Desiro ML

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-to-unveil-mireo-modular-emu-concept.html

http://www.siemens.com/customer-magazine/en/home/specials/innotrans/introducing-the-mireo-family.html

If you read it, though, they say it isn't for the UK - the UK offering is Desiro City.

 

[47802]

The 'existing designs' exemption from the current crashworthiness requirements expires in June 2017, so I don't think any of the older designs could be offered irrespective of price.

What relevance is this to 185's? added to which I was under the impression that stock for the current franchise period had already been ordered so anything that Siemens or any other manufacture recently or currently offer is of no relevance until about 2023

 

[Tetchytyke]

You shouldn't need hindsight to work out that a 169 (including first class) capacity DMU is unsuitable for Intercity operation. I stand by the fact that I would deem such an idea as incompetent.

I don't necessarily agree: Virgin's Manchester-Scotland trains were often half-full, certainly north of Preston, and the 220s weren't really much bigger, with 188 seats including first class. Before the 220s the Scotland-Manchester Airport trains were 2-car 158s.

TPE's increased frequency, and connections to the airport, really caused the service to take off. That shouldn't come as a surprise, I agree, but I can see why DafT only wanted to replace a 220 with a similar train.

 

[sprinterguy]

Once the wires are up, if they were to go for electric Desiros it'd probably be a new build of class 380s

Transpennine North services will have a fleet of 13 x 5-car loco-hauled sets which could be used on fully electrified services at up to 125mph if a suitable electric locomotive can be sourced (Class 88s are specified in the franchise agreement if the North Trans Pennine Upgrade occurs within the franchise term), and 19 x 5-car Bi-mode units which can be used on both fully or partially electrified services as built. There's no need to replace these fleets following electrification.

The only fleet likely to need replacement is the class 185s used on the Hull/Leeds - Manchester semi-fasts (assuming electrification to Hull is committed), and in this case it's worth noting that First TPE have an option to order up to 22 more class 397 units in 5, 6 or 8 car formations for delivery in 2022 which is at least partially dependent on the progress of the North Trans Pennine Upgrade.

 

[RobShipway]

Transpennine North services will have a fleet of 13 x 5-car loco-hauled sets which could be used on fully electrified services at up to 125mph if a suitable electric locomotive can be sourced, and 19 x 5-car Bi-mode units which can be used on both fully or partially electrified services as built. There's no need to replace these fleets following electrification.

The only fleet likely to need replacement is the class 185s used on the Hull/Leeds - Manchester semi-fasts (assuming electrification to Hull is committed), and in this case it's worth noting that First TPE have an option to order up to 22 more class 397 units in 5, 6 or 8 car formations for delivery in 2022.

If it was not for the fact that ideally you would have a 125mph locomotive, I would say that the class 88 would be a good choice to replace the class 68's.

The only other choice I see, would be to use a class 67. However, I don't believe that it has been approved for 125mph running on all parts of the network?

 

[sprinterguy]

If it was not for the fact that ideally you would have a 125mph locomotive, I would say that the class 88 would be a good choice to replace the class 68's.

Given that the loco-hauled sets are planned to transfer onto the Scarborough and Middlesbrough routes once the AT-300 units begin to arrive, with electrification of these branches an uncertainty I wonder whether First and the DfT expect the class 88s to be suitable for use on these routes, where operation wouldn't require them to exceed their 100mph maximum and they can use their bi-mode ability for the off wire sections? I personally wouldn't have thought that the 940hp power units would be up to the job, though.

Class 67s are a bit of a moot point as they are not stated in the franchise agreement, and would be a step down from the class 68s in most respects (age, weight, reliability, performance characteristics) while still incurring the same amount of under the wires running.

 

[physics34]

could they be suitable for Waterloo to Exeter.... with the 159s being avaliable for services elsewhere? Iam only saying this because of SWTs experience of Siemens units.

 

[sprinterguy]

could they be suitable for Waterloo to Exeter.... with the 159s being avaliable for services elsewhere? Iam only saying this because of SWTs experience of Siemens units.

It's been discussed many times before and one of the most glaring issues is one of capacity when a 3-car class 185 seats fewer than a 3-car class 159, and a class 185 formation would be limited to a maximum of 9 carriages when a maximum of 10 is currently possible with a mixed 158/159 formation.

 

[physics34]

It's been discussed many times before and one of the most glaring issues is one of capacity when a 3-car class 185 seats fewer than a 3-car class 159, and a class 185 formation would be limited to a maximum of 9 carriages when a maximum of 10 is currently possible with a mixed 158/159 formation.

seating can be reconfigured

 

[43096]

If it was not for the fact that ideally you would have a 125mph locomotive, I would say that the class 88 would be a good choice to replace the class 68's.

Stadler quote 200km/h as an option on its Eurolight locos (i.e. Class 68), so presumably the same applies to the 88s as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

seating can be reconfigured

Door positions can't, and the positions at thirds does restrict what you can do with regard to squeezing extra rows in.

 

[sprinterguy]

seating can be reconfigured

If first class is to be retained then I can't see any great increases in seating capacity being possible within the existing door and equipment layout of the carriages, certainly not to the extent that a nine carriage 185 formation could match the capacity of a ten carriage 158/159 one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If first class is to be retained then I can't see any great increases in seating capacity being possible within the existing door and equipment layout of the carriages, certainly not to the extent that a nine carriage 185 formation could match the capacity of a ten carriage 158/159 one.

What is the equipment layout like on 185s? Could they be reformed into 2s and 4s, which would allow a 10-car formation?

 

[sprinterguy]

What is the equipment layout like on 185s? Could they be reformed into 2s and 4s, which would allow a 10-car formation?

I was thinking of the equipment that intrudes into the passenger saloon, such as the exhaust pipe and any electrical cabinets that there might be. With the big toilet at one end, I don't think that a two carriage 185 would be good for much other than strengthening, unlike a 2-car class 158 which offers enough capacity to go off and do its' own thing for the rest of the day.

 

[The Ham]

What is the equipment layout like on 185s? Could they be reformed into 2s and 4s, which would allow a 10-car formation?

A 2 car (standards class only) would have about 104 seats with a loo or 128 without, assuming that a 4 car unit would have all first class seats in the end car by the loo then it would have a capacity of 27 first class seats and 208 standard seats.

That would give a 10 car train capacity of 574 to 598, this would compare with 588 for a 9 car train formed of 3 x 159's.

Personally it would be better for SWT if they could be formed as 5 car units (27 first class seats and 280 standard seats) as that would give a capacity of 614 seats. That would result in 7 x 5 car units and 14 x 2 car units. The 2 car units would be useful to run as pairs on the Salisbury 6 services (Salisbury to Romsey via Romsey and Eastleigh) which would on the current timetable would require a minimum of 8 units, that leaves up to 6 units which could be used to run other services.

Of course, just having a mix of 4 and 2 (4 car used for mainline and 2 car used for Salisbury 6 services) could free up some 158's and/or 159's (to run more peak 10 car trains) whilst providing extra capacity on contra flow peak services which ma currently only be 3 or 6 coaches long

 

[DarloRich]

If it was not for the fact that ideally you would have a 125mph locomotive, I would say that the class 88 would be a good choice to replace the class 68's.

The only other choice I see, would be to use a class 67. However, I don't believe that it has been approved for 125mph running on all parts of the network?

the 88's will be no good on the sections to the two Boro's - surely the diesel engine wont be powerful enough to keep to time. At least it will be a proper train.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Given that the loco-hauled sets are planned to transfer onto the Scarborough and Middlesbrough routes once the AT-300 units begin to arrive, with electrification of these branches an uncertainty I wonder whether First and the DfT expect the class 88s to be suitable for use on these routes, where operation wouldn't require them to exceed their 100mph maximum and they can use their bi-mode ability for the off wire sections? I personally wouldn't have thought that the 940hp power units would be up to the job, though.

Class 67s are a bit of a moot point as they are not stated in the franchise agreement, and would be a step down from the class 68s in most respects (age, weight, reliability, performance characteristics) while still incurring the same amount of under the wires running.

I thought it was a last mile bi mode? Not capable of any major running such as the Middlesbrough and Scarborough branches. More of a last mile for yards and to rescue failures. Possibly the felixstowe branch?

Your previous comment regards potential to order further class 397s i had not heard and I am very pleased to see it in there. If we can get Hull confirmed then get them ordered! You never know because TRU is definitely progressing and i think it is unlikely we will see the same level of delay as with GWML electrification. I certainly think the industry is aware and very keen to see no repeats.

 

[DarloRich]

You seem to think it's the first time an order being cut has messed things up but it isn't.

No I don't. Although it is one that impacts on me more than others.

 

[sprinterguy]

I thought it was a last mile bi mode? Not capable of any major running such as the Middlesbrough and Scarborough branches. More of a last mile for yards and to rescue failures. Possibly the felixstowe branch?

Yes that was my thoughts as well, which is why I am wondering what the plan for the loco-hauled sets is with 88s post North TPE electrification, as a single 940hp engine doesn't seem sufficient for such extended periods of diesel running at speed. More sensible to swap them back onto Edinburgh/Newcastle - Liverpool/Manchester Airport services perhaps post-electrifcation, despite the AT-300s being ordered specifically for these services initially and being able to achieve up to 125mph where possible on the ECML. This is all seriously distant speculation, though, and wandering seriously off topic (sorry!).

 

[DimTim]

Overpowered, over crowded, seems ripe for addition of a trailer or perhaps 2. Though wired so powered cars not affected?

I'm sure it's come up before.

 

[keith1879]

It beats me how people can think that a train that has enabled it's operator to provide a historically high capacity on a line linking most of the major northern cities - a capacity that has been taken up to the extent that most of the trains are full - is a commercial failure. It is a commercial success.

 

[J-2739]

It beats me how people can think that a train that has enabled it's operator to provide a historically high capacity on a line linking most of the major northern cities - a capacity that has been taken up to the extent that most of the trains are full - is a commercial failure. It is a commercial success.

Any train could have done that...

 

[Clansman]

It beats me how people can think that a train that has enabled it's operator to provide a historically high capacity on a line linking most of the major northern cities - a capacity that has been taken up to the extent that most of the trains are full - is a commercial failure. It is a commercial success.

So the same applies to the Pacer's then does it?

 

[najaB]

So the same applies to the Pacer's then does it?

If you had enough of them, and they were comfortable enough to attract new passengers then yes.

 

[Mordac]

I never realized before joining these forums how polarizing these units were.

I don't share the obsession some people here have with end-doors, and I like how quick boarding is on them. I also think that the sound insulation in the saloon is amazing, I've been in EMUs that were much noisier (PEP units for one). This is especially amazing given how noisy they are when you stand outside them at a station.

I also don't share the complaints about ride quality, and think comfort is actually pretty good, second only to 175s DMU-wise (never been in a 180 though). It's true that they could do with being larger, and have the first class at one of the coach rather than the middle of it, but for the most part that's down to the DfT being stupid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It beats me how people can think that a train that has enabled it's operator to provide a historically high capacity on a line linking most of the major northern cities - a capacity that has been taken up to the extent that most of the trains are full - is a commercial failure. It is a commercial success.

Is it a historically high capacity on all the routes? A 3-car 158 can take more people, and many of the routes were previously those.

 

[FordFocus]

The 185s did the job they were designed to do when ordered. Times have changed now and the passenger figures grew so now it's in the market for it's own InterCity style rolling stock with more longer distance journeys. The IEP and Mk5s fit the bill for that. The 185s still have a job on the Pennines for people commuting on the core corridor for towns like Dewsbury and Huddersfield and their layout, acceleration and speed are still very suitable for it. The longer distance journeys to cities like Newcastle and York can be handled with the newer rolling stock.

From what I hear from TPE drivers, they like them. Many prefer them over 156/8s. Yes they do have disadvantages with fuel and linespeed because of their weight but I can't think of many trains that don't have any disadvantages for the work they do.

 

[keith1879]

Is it a historically high capacity on all the routes? A 3-car 158 can take more people, and many of the routes were previously those.

There are 5 trains per hour at 3 cars per train - that is 15 coaches per hour with extras in the peaks. 158s COULD have done that but didn't. Most were two car. In terms of seats I'm not too sure of the TP class 158 capacity - but 5 185s give you 790 standard class seats every hour and the usual off-peak 158 service I think amounted to 9 coaches (1 3 and 3 2s) so about 550 standard class seats.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any train could have done that...

No it couldn't .....but in any case this is not about what might have/could have/should have happened. It is about the 185 which did happen. It is a measure of their own success that they are now to be replaced by longer trains to better cater for the demand that the service has generated. And more than half of these so-called failures will be kept in 6 coach formation for the south TP routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Probably worth adding prior to sprinterisation there was an hourly service of 6 Mk 1 TSOs (384 standard class seats) plus a first class vehicle. Back in the days of the original trans-pennine units a 5 or 6 car set had less than 200 second class seats I think although total capacity was complicated by three or four Newcastle trains in the day that ran instead of the trans-Pennine units at certain times.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What was the seating capacity of the Class 124 units when they ran as the 6-car sets version?.

 

[keith1879]

What was the seating capacity of the Class 124 units when they ran as the 6-car sets version?.

232 second (I was wrong when I said less than 200) and 60 in first. The buffet car was fairly irrelevant to seats - it just had 18 first.