Class 185 Fleet A Big Mistake?

[Wolfie]

Whilst that would be an improvement for a passenger in terms of maybe able to get a seat that would mean two Class 185 units have a total of 4500hp for just six coaches! A 6 car Class 158 would only have 2100hp and would have more seats! I find it amazing that the DFT could allow such an overweight DMU type to be ordered and needing such a huge amount of power to pull a heavy frame around, not to mention the huge amount of fuel needed to pull that excess weight. Whilst First Group did require the unit to have good hill climbing capability Class 170 units managed the same timings on hilly sections of the same route whilst being significantly more fuel efficient. If First Group demanded good performance on hilly routes surely having a lightweight unit is the optimum starting point.

158s are far from up to current crashworthiness standards. Have any yet been fitted with accessible toilets? If so what was the impact on capacity?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

158s are far from up to current crashworthiness standards. Have any yet been fitted with accessible toilets? If so what was the impact on capacity?

158s were built with accessible toilets, though these aren't actually compliant with post-2019 regulations. Some have been brought up to standard but not all in the same way so there's no definite figure for capacity loss. Indeed Northern's refurbs (only one 3-car unit has been partially completed so far) will see an increase in seats. This is achieved by removing the small toilet from 2-car units (except 901-910 which were built without this toilet) and I think by reducing the number of table bays.

 

[gsnedders]

What's the seat-window alignment like on them? Any chance of them replacing the "scenic" 158s in ScotRail-land, given those are mostly being used on hilly lines? (I realise they're straight out of/still in refurbishment, but when that was agreed the 185s weren't expected to be available, IIRC.) I presume the weight would be an issue on the WHL, at least?

 

[J-2739]

Not half bad. Big windows and all...

 

[6Gman]

A DMU version of the 444 would have had the same problem if it was only 3-car. The primary issue was that they should have been 4-car from day one with an option for 5, not the location of the doors (though having a marooned bit of Standard and bog beyond First Class was stupidity of the highest order).

So a 33% or 66% increase in purchase cost ...

Which would have been funded by whom?

 

[Bevan Price]

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 ---

.

As built, Class 158 had 138 standard class seats (2 car) or 208 seats (3 car) - and the 2 cars were already inadequate for many services. When they decided to waste space on 1st class areas, the standard class seating was reduced to 118 (2 car), or 172 (3 car) - instantly making overcrowding much worse.

For comparison, standard class seating on other classes is:-
Class 185:- 154 seats (+ some tip-up seats ?? 12 ?? )
Class 175:- 118 seats (2 car) or 186 seats (3 car)
Class 170/3 (when with TP):- 108.
Class 180: 226 seats
Class 220 (4 car):- 174 seats
Class 221 (5 car):- 236 seats.

 

[tbtc]

So a 33% or 66% increase in purchase cost ...

Which would have been funded by whom?

This is the bit that we seem to keep stumbling on.

Three coach 185s were okay from day one - especially on TPE North, where four trains per hour replaced three (two coach 158s) per hour (no such frequency increase on TPE South).

The "additional" units became replaced by nine 170s instead - which is the kind of fudging of the numbers that BR used to do a lot - nothing unique to TPE here.

What was the alternative, for the loss making franchise, though? Build them as four or five from day one? Would that have meant frequency reductions? Which place would have lost its hourly Manchester service in that case - Hull/ Scarborough/ Middlesbrough/ Newcastle? Or did your magic money tree pay for 60x 5 coach trains, that are both "InterCity" and suitable for the large number of shorter journeys on TPE?

Bear in mind that this was at the time that Northern and ATW were let on the "no growth" franchises, to put the "only fifty one new trains plus nine cascaded ones" argument into a little context. I don't think that the deals signed in 2002/2003 were that bad at the time, in terms of carriage numbers.

Your problem is what happened once passenger numbers grew. Since 185s were DMUs, the emission standards etc changed (which limited the window for ordering more). And since 185s were bespoke DMUs, the chances of getting a production line opened for a relatively short order became harder to justify (just fifty one extra carriages... plus maybe another fifty one in another few years?).

I'm not a misty eyed nostalgist for the good old days of loco haulage, but at least if TPE had ordered unpowered carriages then there would have been more of a chance of ordering compatible unpowered carriages at a future date (even if made by a different manufacturer).

Ideally, instead of faffing about with twenty seven 100mph 175s and fifty one 100mph 185s, First would have ordered the same 100mph Turbostars that were good enough for lots of other TOCs - meaning that we'd have had a TPE fleet that could have been added to at later dates (either through keeping a production line open later, sharing costs with other TOCs looking to top up or acquiring 170s from elsewhere - e.g. the Hull Trains ones became free once their 222s arrived).

That's the TPE problem - that they couldn't add DMUs easily - not the initial order of 51x3 (plus 9x2) carriages.

There are good things about the 185s (efficient) and bad things about the 185s (ride quality not great, as a passenger, awkwardly located First Class section), but the bigger picture for me is the problems caused by ordering a non-standard fleet of "specialist" DMUs - not the initial numbers and not the grumbles about seat quality.

 

[43096]

Three coach 185s were okay from day one - especially on TPE North, where four trains per hour replaced three (two coach 158s) per hour (no such frequency increase on TPE South).

As I recall it TPE had all 17 3-car 158s and had also gained some extra units to form up some hybrid 3-car sets as well. So the bulk of north TPE trains were 3-car, not the 2-cars as you state.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As I recall it TPE had all 17 3-car 158s and had also gained some extra units to form up some hybrid 3-car sets as well. So the bulk of north TPE trains were 3-car, not the 2-cars as you state.

Agreed. Additionally the 4tph frequency started before the 185s arrived, possibly even before First/Keolis won the first stand-alone franchise. The Hull services were advertised as standard class only to allow other units (mostly 158901-910 but on occasion other ATN units) to stand in.

Overcrowding was an issue long before 185s were ordered, even off-peak. Clearly the Blair/Brown administrations were too scared of being accused of profligacy to give their heartlands the public transport investment required.

 

[Alan2603]

On the subject of the 185's etc, I always think the length of them (carriages etc) suffered because Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Hull etc etc are nowhere near London!.

I remember going to look at the pre-production Class 185 'mock up' at the National Railway Museum in York (around Railfest 2004 time I think it was). There were First/Keolis TPE management on hand enthusing about the new 'inter city quality' trains and frequency of service etc etc that would come with the new trains. I specifically asked them then if 3 carriage trains would be long enough on the core route section (bearing in mind the Voyager overcrowding problems that were already well known and more pertinently the already overcrowded 3 car 158's then in use). The First TPE managers tried everything to deflect the question despite me labouring the point! Listening to others also trying to make the point about the length of the 185's I know I wasn't the only one who had real concerns about them back then (before the first one had even arrived!).

Fortunately, when they were eventually introduced I only had to suffer the 'sardine can' 185's for a few months before moving job/house etc to London/the South East. The difference between the then brand new 185's 'up north' and the trains 'down south' was like chalk and cheese. Newish 10 and 12 carriage trains, busy yes, but not in any way like the crush on the 185's on the York to Manchester leg in the peak.

From my experience at the 'mock up' First cannot say they were not aware that the trains were going to be overcrowded (the 158's already were for heavens sake).

I know there was 'dithering' and the 'no growth' saga at the Strategic Rail Authority etc about more coaches etc, but what was to stop First putting their hands in their pockets and getting the Rosco to order more carriages?. Other operators seemed to have done that.

On another note, I think the situation got even worse when First took on the Maanchester to Scotland leg and had to divert 185's onto that route. Couldn't First TPE have just said 'No' to taking over this extension and keeping their trains for the routes they were intended for (and on which the awarded franchise was based)?. Or was it that First saw more pounds coming their way from this route and thought 'sod' their actual transpennine customers, let them be crammed in? Whatever, it seemed a gain to Cross Country at the expense of TransPennine passengers!

My work now requires me to travel up from London to York/Leeds at least twice per week. At both York and Leeds I still see passengers crammed into 3 car 185's (and often being left behind as they cannot get on). This seems to be the 'norm' and not due to any disruption etc. When disruption does occur the situation seems even worse. Passengers in London and the south east would not stand for this I can tell you (look at the adverse publicity about Southern Thamselink or whatever they call it this week).

Sorry for rambling, but I do believe First knew at the time their trains were too short (and taking on Manchester to Scotland only compounded it). I now think that maybe the future 5 carriage trains could be too short (allowing for current passengers and future growth which will come with electrification of the line).

Alan

 

[J-2739]

I do dislike it when the blame for short formed stock is placed on First, Virgin etc. When it was the fault of the now dead SRA.

Trust me, London trains can be as bad (I've experienced rush hour tube !) But the difference is TPE stays busy at the off peak also.

 

[sprinterguy]

Agreed. Additionally the 4tph frequency started before the 185s arrived, possibly even before First/Keolis won the first stand-alone franchise.

Yes, looking at a 2003 timetable there were already four Transpennine services an hour through the Leeds - Manchester core:

Newcastle - Liverpool/Manchester Airport (Destination alternated, most Liverpool trains started from Sunderland)
Middlesbrough - Manchester Airport/Scarborough - Liverpool (In alternate hours)
Hull - Manchester Airport
Leeds - Manchester Piccadily (Which is shown as conveying first class accommodation, so was presumably 158 worked)

Just before the class 185s were introduced (which were also ordered to cover North West Express services, which weren't served by TPE's 158 fleet), the Transpennine services were being covered by the following class 158 units:

17 x 3-car units
6 x 3-car "hybrid" units
23 x 2-car units

So exactly half the fleet of 46 trains were 3 carriages. At this stage, with the TPE franchise hived off from the local Northern services as a separate entity, the 158/9s which previously saw use on some Transpennine services were leased to Northern.

Although that doesn't detract from the fact that there are now five trains per hour through the North Transpennine core, and the frequency on the York - Manchester corridor is now much improved (doubled), with Middlesbrough and Scarborough both having hourly TPE services, as well as the hourly York - Manchester Airport.

As a rough rule of thumb, if it is assumed that all class 185s run as single units through the core (they don't, a few are 6-car), and that all 158s ran as single units through the core (they didn't, there were some 4, 5 and 6-car workings) with an equal mix of 2 and 3-car units, then based on the figures above then that's a total of 770 fixed standard class seats through the core per hour now compared to 580 standard seats then. A very definite increase.

 

[DarloRich]

On the subject of the 185's etc, I always think the length of them (carriages etc) suffered because Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Hull etc etc are nowhere near London!.

Mr Chip meet Mr Shoulder

I remember going to look at the pre-production Class 185 'mock up' at the National Railway Museum in York (around Railfest 2004 time I think it was). There were First/Keolis TPE management on hand enthusing about the new 'inter city quality' trains and frequency of service etc etc that would come with the new trains. I specifically asked them then if 3 carriage trains would be long enough on the core route section (bearing in mind the Voyager overcrowding problems that were already well known and more pertinently the already overcrowded 3 car 158's then in use). The First TPE managers tried everything to deflect the question despite me labouring the point! Listening to others also trying to make the point about the length of the 185's I know I wasn't the only one who had real concerns about them back then (before the first one had even arrived!).

Such prescience. However First were at the mercy of the SRA.

Fortunately, when they were eventually introduced I only had to suffer the 'sardine can' 185's for a few months before moving job/house etc to London/the South East. The difference between the then brand new 185's 'up north' and the trains 'down south' was like chalk and cheese. Newish 10 and 12 carriage trains, busy yes, but not in any way like the crush on the 185's on the York to Manchester leg in the peak.

From my experience at the 'mock up' First cannot say they were not aware that the trains were going to be overcrowded (the 158's already were for heavens sake).

They are perfectly fine trains and never once have i seen one as busy as a London train. I have never seen people left behind in York. The trains in the south tend to be 3 or 4 car trains in multiple. Many of those trains are almost identical internally to the 185's. The 350 i get to and from London is a very similar train.

I know there was 'dithering' and the 'no growth' saga at the Strategic Rail Authority etc about more coaches etc, but what was to stop First putting their hands in their pockets and getting the Rosco to order more carriages?. Other operators seemed to have done that.

That idea just shows commercial naivety. The TOC could invest but they wont unless made to or are able to make a return. No business will chuck away money when they don't have to. Which operators have invested their own money in new coaches?

On another note, I think the situation got even worse when First took on the Maanchester to Scotland leg and had to divert 185's onto that route. Couldn't First TPE have just said 'No' to taking over this extension and keeping their trains for the routes they were intended for (and on which the awarded franchise was based)?. Or was it that First saw more pounds coming their way from this route and thought 'sod' their actual transpennine customers, let them be crammed in? Whatever, it seemed a gain to Cross Country at the expense of TransPennine passengers!

yes I am sure it is a vast conspiracy :roll: I am not sure TPE get a choice in the matter

My work now requires me to travel up from London to York/Leeds at least twice per week. At both York and Leeds I still see passengers crammed into 3 car 185's (and often being left behind as they cannot get on). This seems to be the 'norm' and not due to any disruption etc. When disruption does occur the situation seems even worse. Passengers in London and the south east would not stand for this I can tell you (look at the adverse publicity about Southern Thamselink or whatever they call it this week).

I have never seen anyone left behind. Passengers in the London and the South East would get one with it just like passengers on TPE. What choice is there. The TPE trains are not as full as London trains no matter what people think. In any event the journeys tend to be much shorter than in the SE.

Sorry for rambling, but I do believe First knew at the time their trains were too short (and taking on Manchester to Scotland only compounded it). I now think that maybe the future 5 carriage trains could be too short (allowing for current passengers and future growth which will come with electrification of the line).

Alan

Maybe they did - but what choice did they have? They wont spend their own money unless made to.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I have some sympathy with Alan's rant, naive though it may be. As for not seeing people left behind, I see it every day at Huddersfield... More and more Leeds pax are deciding to "downgrade" to the Northern stopper in the hope of getting a seat or at least room to breathe- unfortunately I've noticed that the famous Northern Random Unit Generator has been sending more 2-car Pacers down this way lately!

 

[Philip]

Was overcrowding a problem on the North West routes in 2006 when 175s still worked the services? Did 3-car 185s reduce overcrowding when replacing a mixed bag of 2 and 3-car 175s previously working the same services?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Was overcrowding a problem on the North West routes in 2006 when 175s still worked the services? Did 3-car 185s reduce overcrowding when replacing a mixed bag of 2 and 3-car 175s previously working the same services?

In terms of seating capacity alone, a 185 is a downgrade from a 3-car 175 but an increase on a 2-car unit. That said, 185s will gobble up standees far easier due to the door layout. Before the current set-up of separate TOCs for expresses and locals was set up, FNW had a peak only LHCS service using 31s and former FGW mk2s. With 3 TSOs and a BSO the Northbound evening run still left people behind at Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

 

[Philip]

In terms of seating capacity alone, a 185 is a downgrade from a 3-car 175 but an increase on a 2-car unit. That said, 185s will gobble up standees far easier due to the door layout. Before the current set-up of separate TOCs for expresses and locals was set up, FNW had a peak only LHCS service using 31s and former FGW mk2s. With 3 TSOs and a BSO the Northbound evening run still left people behind at Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

But the Barrow/Windermere services were essentially the same then as now, limited stop to Preston and worked by 175s, just not divided into a separate 'express' franchise. The Man Airport-Blackpool services used to be all stops, but I think Buxton-Blackpool was all stops too, so that eased the pressure.

Anyone know how many 3-car 175s were provided for TPE from Chester each day?

 

[keith1879]

As I recall it TPE had all 17 3-car 158s and had also gained some extra units to form up some hybrid 3-car sets as well. So the bulk of north TPE trains were 3-car, not the 2-cars as you state.

I'm sure that this is wrong - I was travelling daily across the core section. At best only half the trains were 3 car units. (There were some extra coaches in peaks just as there are now).

Another point was that the class 158s were starting to be rather unreliable whereas the 185s have been excellent on this score.

Finally with regard to seeing people left behind - this certainly happens at Huddersfield. It has never happened to me at Leeds since the 5 tph/class 185 service pattern started but it did happen previously on more than one occasion.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm sure that this is wrong - I was travelling daily across the core section. At best only half the trains were 3 car units. (There were some extra coaches in peaks just as there are now).

Yes, as I've noted on the previous page, at the end of their tenure with the franchise exactly half of the TPE class 158 fleet were 3-car units. At any earlier point post-privatisation the fleet had a majority of 2-car units.

Another point was that the class 158s were starting to be rather unreliable whereas the 185s have been excellent on this score.

Personally I think that had more to do with "new train syndrome" than a specific failing with the 158s themselves: First didn't seem to bother putting in the maintenance required to keep the 158s running reliably, knowing that new trains were on the horizon. Just look at how many spanner awards for reliability that South West Trains' class 158 and 159 fleets continue to accumulate to see how good the 158s can be, ten years down the line (and many of those trains are ex-TPE units).

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I do dislike it when the blame for short formed stock is placed on First, Virgin etc. When it was the fault of the now dead SRA.

Trust me, London trains can be as bad (I've experienced rush hour tube !) But the difference is TPE stays busy at the off peak also.

blaming the TOC suits the Party Political agenda of many of the anorak wearers rather than blaming the SRA and the Blair/Brown adminstrations in westminster ...

Don't forget many of the anorak wearer drink weak lemon drink from their flask becasue Proper Tea is Theft ....

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sure that this is wrong - I was travelling daily across the core section. At best only half the trains were 3 car units. (There were some extra coaches in peaks just as there are now).

The hybrids only really came about very late in the life of the 158s, after the TPE franchise had been created and running for some time. I don't really remember them, but I remember a lot of the 2-car 158s and sitting in plenty of luggage racks between York and Huddersfield.

I think people forget the Random Unit Generator being a huge problem on TPE services too. I used to regularly travel Leeds-Durham on TPE and I've seen everything run on that line, including a hilarious 156+144 combo at 8.10am out of Leeds.

The main problem was that the 185 fleet became overstretched when they added Manchester-Scotland to the franchise. The 170s were OK but didn't really cut the mustard. I can understand why DfT decided to put that route in with TPE- it probably made sense- but the decision to scrimp on the 185 order really hit home then.

 

[fowler9]

blaming the TOC suits the Party Political agenda of many of the anorak wearers rather than blaming the SRA and the Blair/Brown adminstrations in westminster ...

Don't forget many of the anorak wearer drink weak lemon drink from their flask becasue Proper Tea is Theft ....

How are Blair or Brown at fault for either privatisation or the current situation?

 

[Mordac]

How are Blair or Brown at fault for either privatisation or the current situation?

By letting the franchises on the basis they did, as has been said many times already.

 

[fowler9]

By letting the franchises on the basis they did, as has been said many times already.

Who started all this? Blair and Brown? Who has been in charge of the country since 2010? Have they changed anything? You can keep telling yourself it is Blair and Browns fault but as long as you do that it won't change a thing.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think people forget the Random Unit Generator being a huge problem on TPE services too.

I never witnessed this at the North East end of the spectrum, and I saw a lot of TPE services: If a TPE service was booked to be a 2, 3, 4 or 6-car class 158 formation then it invariably was. That's not to say that I don't remember some crowded 2-car services as well, though.

The impression I've gotten retrospectively from this forum and from watching Look North at the time was that the Northern Spirit and early days of the ATN franchises represented total carnage for the people of Leeds, which entirely passed us by in the North East. Heaton depot just kept getting on with what it always had done with a minimum of fuss!

 

[Mordac]

Who started all this? Blair and Brown? Who has been in charge of the country since 2010? Have they changed anything? You can keep telling yourself it is Blair and Browns fault but as long as you do that it won't change a thing.

Just compare the franchise awards since 2010 with the previous ones. That should speak for itself.

 

[fowler9]

Just compare the franchise awards since 2010 with the previous ones. That should speak for itself.

Just tell me, what have the Tories done better with the franchise agreements than Blair and Brown did and then remind me who put this whole structure in place. I can't be arsed having an stupid argument which will result in us agreeing that Neo Liberal Tories privatised the railways in a stupid way, Neo Liberal Labour carried on doing it, and then Neo Liberal Tories carried on again.

 

[Mordac]

Just tell me, what have the Tories done better with the franchise agreements than Blair and Brown did and then remind me who put this whole structure in place.

Not let them on a non-growth basis, maybe? As has been discussed to death on this thread already.

I can't be arsed having an stupid argument which will result in us agreeing that Neo Liberal Tories privatised the railways in a stupid way, Neo Liberal Labour carried on doing it, and then Neo Liberal Tories carried on again.

What's a neo liberal?

 

[fowler9]

Not let them on a non-growth basis, maybe? As has been discussed to death on this thread already.


What's a neo liberal?

Neo Liberal politics and economics. Google it, the internet is you friend.

 

[railfan100]

158s are far from up to current crashworthiness standards. Have any yet been fitted with accessible toilets? If so what was the impact on capacity?

I would be surprised if they were meeting current crash standards, the first Class 158\0 units were running around the network in 1989. Considering the age of the units in general the design is holding up very well in my opinion. Look at the standard of South West Trains 158\159 fleet they still in many respects look like new units to me. Then look at the Northern fleet! No matter if it is a train or even a car the maintenance is key to so many things.

Many of the 158 units must have covered in excess of 4 million miles since new?