Class 185 future

[Grecian 1998]

Point taken on track access etc., but what are the extra staff costs?

No end gangways so on every train composed of more than one unit, you'd need one member of staff in each unit to carry out ticket checks. As Salisbury is the only barriered station between Basingstoke and Exeter Central, ticket checks are pretty essential on that section of route, given that 'pay when a member of staff comes round but not otherwise' still seems to be a default position of many passengers.

You could have one staff member hopping between two units if there isn't required to be anyone in the rear unit for safety reasons (and that's another big if), but not exactly convenient, particularly if a problem of any kind (human or technical) develops in the other unit.

Also makes catering more challenging if they ever bring it back (a big 'if' admittedly).

Also makes it more challenging to ensure passengers are in the right unit to get off at Whimple, Feniton and Tisbury which have short platforms - if you aren't in the right unit when you leave the previous station, you won't be getting off. A particular pain for eastbound services at Exeter Central (where some people are usually going to one of the two Devon villages) as due to the layout, most people will get in the rear 3 coaches, and not all of them will be savvy to the situation.

 

[Philip]

There's no chance of 185s ending up replacing 158s and 159s on the West of England route - they'd significantly increase costs (extra staffing required for units with no end gangways, higher track access charges / extra track wear and tear due to weight) for no real benefit. West of Basingstoke, only Salisbury and the Exeter stations have ticket barriers so guards still need to do ticket checks.

Still, more realistic than the other popular suggestion of putting Voyagers on the route I suppose.

The benefit is an upgrade in the quality of the rolling stock, which includes better reliability in 185s compared with 158s and 159s

 

[LOL The Irony]

If we are talking certain routes up north, then we have to talk about a route they might have ended up on, that being the Liverpool to Nottingham route that stayed with EMR. That brings up the interesting possibility of replacing EMR 158s with 185s so those 158s can go elsewhere.

The expense of transferring 185s to EMR would be better spent on training TPE crews on Sheffield - Nottingham and would probably give you spare change.

In fact, the effort of training loads of EMR crews would be better placed with training a few TPE crews on Nottingham.

 

[Purple Orange]

How many more years should* the 185s have left in service before being scrapped? Is it not better to leave them with TPE until that point?

*by ’should’, I mean the optimal point at which to replace them, rather than running them for decades with various engine replacements and refurbs like the HSTs.

 

[LowLevel]

The expense of transferring 185s to EMR would be better spent on training TPE crews on Sheffield - Nottingham and would probably give you spare change.

In fact, the effort of training loads of EMR crews would be better placed with training a few TPE crews on Nottingham.

Except TPE couldn't run a bath so we are all delighted they're being kept well away from it! 8 year contract signed for the 158 fleet.

Get TPE out of the south route and transfer the lot including crew depots to EMR, job's a guddun

 

[mike57]

8 year contract signed for the 158 fleet.

Which also makes sense as the 158s can take advantage of the SP differentials. The problem with the 185s is they were designed for one particular route, York - Leeds - Manchester. They cannot take advantage of the SP differentials towards Hull and Scarborough. The old chestnut 'but they have better acceleration' doesnt apply here, fairly flat, long distance between stops. An SP compliant unit is allowed 85-90mph on a lot of the York-Scarborough route, 185s are limited to 70-75mph, its about 40 miles from York to Seamer (just outside Scarborough) with one stop at Malton about half way and the Hull route has similar a similar profile.

I agree TPE are a disaster, anything upto 40 'day before' cancellations each day, as well as more on the day, day on day, week on week, month on month. Apart from a period when the Covid lockdown was most rigid they have been in the same state since May 2018, but have discovered the 'before 10pm the previous day' loophole and have been exploiting that for the last 12 months. You do not want them operating your local rail service.

Because of the original design requirements of the 185s they are not a good fit elsewhere, and any future deployment is going to be a compromise. Couple that with a hopefully shrinking DMU requirement as electrification advances and you can see a situation where they will always be 'last choice' for a given route.

 

[43096]

The benefit is an upgrade in the quality of the rolling stock, which includes better reliability in 185s compared with 158s and 159s

You might like to check the actual reliability data, rather than making it up.

SWR Class 159/0 34,307 MTIN
SWR Class 159/1 33,500 MTIN
SWR Class 158 31,142 MTIN
TPE Class 185 21,638 MTIN

MTIN = Miles per Technical Incident

 

[Philip]

You might like to check the actual reliability data, rather than making it up.

SWR Class 159/0 34,307 MTIN
SWR Class 159/1 33,500 MTIN
SWR Class 158 31,142 MTIN
TPE Class 185 21,638 MTIN

MTIN = Miles per Technical Incident

Class 185s have come out top of the list for most reliable DMU awards numerous times.

 

[43096]

Class 185s have come out top of the list for most reliable DMU awards numerous times.

I’ve just given you the data. The awards are split into categories with 158/159 in BR DMU and 185s in new generation DMU. But the SWR 158/159 fleet is more reliable.

 

[YorksLad12]

Which also makes sense as the 158s can take advantage of the SP differentials. The problem with the 185s is they were designed for one particular route, York - Leeds - Manchester. They cannot take advantage of the SP differentials towards Hull and Scarborough. The old chestnut 'but they have better acceleration' doesnt apply here, fairly flat, long distance between stops. An SP compliant unit is allowed 85-90mph on a lot of the York-Scarborough route, 185s are limited to 70-75mph, its about 40 miles from York to Seamer (just outside Scarborough) with one stop at Malton about half way and the Hull route has similar a similar profile. [...]

Because of the original design requirements of the 185s they are not a good fit elsewhere, and any future deployment is going to be a compromise. Couple that with a hopefully shrinking DMU requirement as electrification advances and you can see a situation where they will always be 'last choice' for a given route.

If there really no way they could be made a bit lighter and run on two engines permanently? If they stayed close to the TPE routes they would be good (enough) for York-Scarborough shuttles, Hull-Halifax, even York-Blackpool as well as the Leeds-Huddersfield and Manchester-Huddersfield (-Castleford-York) stoppers, until such time ther could be replaced (preferably with bi-modes).

 

[Neptune]

If there really no way they could be made a bit lighter and run on two engines permanently? If they stayed close to the TPE routes they would be good (enough) for York-Scarborough shuttles, Hull-Halifax, even York-Blackpool as well as the Leeds-Huddersfield and Manchester-Huddersfield (-Castleford-York) stoppers, until such time ther could be replaced (preferably with bi-modes).

We’ll I did suggest a while back that one potential use for 185’s would be on routes they’re already cleared for such as Calder Valley, Hull - Halifax and Man Airport - Cumbria, converting the 1st class area to standard class and allowing their continued maintenance at Ardwick and probably York, only to be shot down by a particular poster who claimed that these units are ‘too Inter-city’ for Northern operated routes. However I’m sure if the suggestion was for the fellow inter-regional DMU such as 175’s which would also need a whole new maintenance base on those routes it would be an instant hit with them!

 

[MattRat]

We’ll I did suggest a while back that one potential use for 185’s would be on routes they’re already cleared for such as Calder Valley, Hull - Halifax and Man Airport - Cumbria, converting the 1st class area to standard class and allowing their continued maintenance at Ardwick and probably York, only to be shot down by a particular poster who claimed that these units are ‘too Inter-city’ for Northern operated routes. However I’m sure if the suggestion was for the fellow inter-regional DMU such as 175’s which would also need a whole new maintenance base on those routes it would be an instant hit with them!

Or it could be they think the Government will finally electrify lines. Except they won't because they 'don't have the money'. Which is also the case for new stock. So, expect the oldest DMUs to fall apart and then the realization by the Government they either have to pay up or explain the situation about why they have to use 185s in not ideal circumstances.

 

[YorksLad12]

We’ll I did suggest a while back that one potential use for 185’s would be on routes they’re already cleared for such as Calder Valley, Hull - Halifax and Man Airport - Cumbria, converting the 1st class area to standard class and allowing their continued maintenance at Ardwick and probably York, only to be shot down by a particular poster who claimed that these units are ‘too Inter-city’ for Northern operated routes. However I’m sure if the suggestion was for the fellow inter-regional DMU such as 175’s which would also need a whole new maintenance base on those routes it would be an instant hit with them!

You and I, at least, seem to agree on where they should go (if anywhere). I'd probably also leave them with TPE, and either transfer the services over or just have them crewed by TPE drivers; keeps their competency up on common parts of routes and probably easier than training a pool of Northern drivers on a new class.

Not sure how anyone could call them "too Inter-city" for Northern, when they already run two former Northern stopping services!

 

[Philip]

You and I, at least, seem to agree on where they should go (if anywhere). I'd probably also leave them with TPE, and either transfer the services over or just have them crewed by TPE drivers; keeps their compemcy up on common parts of routes and probably easier than training a pool of Northern drivers on a new class.

Not sure how anyone could call them "too Inter-city" for Northern, when they already run two former Northern stopping services!

They are as 'intercity' standard as Voyagers if running in multiple. They were used for many years on Manchester-Scotland services, and Newcastle. These are intercity routes and, apart from overcrowding on single unit workings, they more than held their own and kept to the same timings as Voyagers on the Scotland services - in fact they were probably better than Voyagers because of their better leg room and seat to window arrangement.

 

[RobShipway]

We’ll I did suggest a while back that one potential use for 185’s would be on routes they’re already cleared for such as Calder Valley, Hull - Halifax and Man Airport - Cumbria, converting the 1st class area to standard class and allowing their continued maintenance at Ardwick and probably York, only to be shot down by a particular poster who claimed that these units are ‘too Inter-city’ for Northern operated routes. However I’m sure if the suggestion was for the fellow inter-regional DMU such as 175’s which would also need a whole new maintenance base on those routes it would be an instant hit with them!

They are as 'intercity' standard as Voyagers if running in multiple. They were used for many years on Manchester-Scotland services, and Newcastle. These are intercity routes and, apart from overcrowding on single unit workings, they more than held their own and kept to the same timings as Voyagers on the Scotland services - in fact they were probably better than Voyagers because of their better leg room and seat to window arrangement.

So just a question, was the class 350/4 inter-city or commuter units that served with TPE before the class 397/802 units joined?

As Neptune has previously suggested and as was done with the class 350/4 units, you can soon take out the 1st class area and possibly the standard seating area seats to be having seats that are more commuter based seats with the class 185's. Yes, doing this may destroy the better leg room and seat to window arrangement, but that would be a choice between who runs the trains and the owners of the class 185 units.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If there really no way they could be made a bit lighter and run on two engines permanently? If they stayed close to the TPE routes they would be good (enough) for York-Scarborough shuttles, Hull-Halifax, even York-Blackpool as well as the Leeds-Huddersfield and Manchester-Huddersfield (-Castleford-York) stoppers, until such time ther could be replaced (preferably with bi-modes).

Why would the Huddersfield to Leeds stoppers need to be bi-modes? The usual route will be fully electrified eventually, so using bi-modes for the sake of it just adds inherent inefficiency. Fully electrified routes should be run with straight EMUs.

We need to get away from this idea that a common fleet is more desirable in all cases. No doubt if the Leeds branch of the ECML was being wired now, the Leeds to Doncaster stoppers would continue to be run with DMUs like the Chathill/Morpeth services are. The three 321s which were ordered specifically for that route would be considered a "micro-fleet" nowadays, and any suggestion that EMUs be used would be laughed out of town by the "experts".

 

[Chester1]

I think we'd be more likely to see the 68+Mk5 sets off to Scotland than the 185s (because they could keep them long term post electrification with bimode or electric locos), but overall I think that is even more likely to be the 222s once EMR are finished with them. I'm aware there are fewer 68+Mk5 than HSTs but the HSTs aren't used intensively, and they could also hoover up a few TfW 158s to make up the gap.

That would see 185s remain with TPE replacing the LHCS.

Assuming the 185s leave TPE if the EOI into bi-mode rolling stock is approved, by that time Huddersfield will be a station with 4 through platforms and two longer bay platforms.



185s are vital to the flexibility of diversionary routes. Realistically, no rolling stock will leave TPE until those key blockades are complete and there's a timeline of new bi-mode rolling stock to enter service.

If TPE have to reduce its fleet size then the Mark V sets are the obvious fleet to get rid of or reduce. 185s are needed for diversions and ditching 397s would mean DMUs doing whole routes under the wires. 802s are much more reliable than Mark Vs. In the long term I think some 185s should do the non express services across the pennines. If changed to all standard class they could run the limited stop Calder Valley services and 3rd Hope Valley express service (if it happens). Until Northern eventually gets bi modes they could do Manchester Airport to Windermere and Barrow services. That would free up 195s to replace sprinters.

 

[The Ham]

There's no chance of 185s ending up replacing 158s and 159s on the West of England route - they'd significantly increase costs (extra staffing required for units with no end gangways, higher track access charges / extra track wear and tear due to weight) for no real benefit. West of Basingstoke, only Salisbury and the Exeter stations have ticket barriers so guards still need to do ticket checks.

Still, more realistic than the other popular suggestion of putting Voyagers on the route I suppose.

One way that 185's could join SWR would be to make the fleet a mix of 4 and 2 coach units (switching one middle coach from one unit to the other).

This would limit the number of units which make up a train.

A 4 coach unit would have 241 seats, so an 8 coach unit would be 482, this isn't that far behind a 9 coach which would be 507 seats, but gives the option of a 10 coach train, if that was ever needed.

You would be limited to 20 * 4 coach units (short of the 30 159's), however for off peak services 4 or 4+2 would probably be fine and the peak services would be 4+4 or 4+4+2 (rather than 3+3+3 or 3+3+2+2), as such there's a good chance that would be enough as you'd need fewer units to run the same services.

Yes you'd still have the issue of them not having gangways, however this would be reduced. Although one way to reduce the risk of non ticket travel would be to use the 2 coach unit for advanced tickets only, especially if you could use those for longer distances travel and so anyone joining the unit at the wrong point would raise suspension.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If TPE have to reduce its fleet size then the Mark V sets are the obvious fleet to get rid of or reduce. 185s are needed for diversions and ditching 397s would mean DMUs doing whole routes under the wires. 802s are much more reliable than Mark Vs. In the long term I think some 185s should do the non express services across the pennines. If changed to all standard class they could run the limited stop Calder Valley services and 3rd Hope Valley express service (if it happens). Until Northern eventually gets bi modes they could do Manchester Airport to Windermere and Barrow services. That would free up 195s to replace sprinters.

Are you referring to the Huddersfield stoppers they currently run here? Because hopefully "in the long term" those services will be run by EMUs. On the Calder Valley point I could see that happening- they're already route-cleared and could potentially continue to be maintained at Ardwick and York Leeman Road, subject to an agreement between TPE and Northern (or whatever those TOCs end up turning into).

One way that 185's could join SWR would be to make the fleet a mix of 4 and 2 coach units (switching one middle coach from one unit to the other).

This would limit the number of units which make up a train.

A 4 coach unit would have 241 seats, so an 8 coach unit would be 482, this isn't that far behind a 9 coach which would be 507 seats, but gives the option of a 10 coach train, if that was ever needed.

You would be limited to 20 * 4 coach units (short of the 30 159's), however for off peak services 4 or 4+2 would probably be fine and the peak services would be 4+4 or 4+4+2 (rather than 3+3+3 or 3+3+2+2), as such there's a good chance that would be enough as you'd need fewer units to run the same services.

Yes you'd still have the issue of them not having gangways, however this would be reduced. Although one way to reduce the risk of non ticket travel would be to use the 2 coach unit for advanced tickets only, especially if you could use those for longer distances travel and so anyone joining the unit at the wrong point would raise suspension.

The idea of reshuffling the units into 2 and 4-car has been suggested before, and IIRC someone "in the know" seemed to think it wasn't as simple as it might seem due to the on-board software- though it's been a while so take that with a generous amount of salt.

Without removing the first class section from the 2-car sets, the capacity of those sets would be pretty low, and there's always the risk of sending one out on its own which wouldn't be ideal. Using them for advance bookings only would be awkward (AIUI nowhere on the network currently does anything along those lines, and I'm not sure how easily the booking engines could handle it), and not easy to police without gangways.

 

[YorksLad12]

Why would the Huddersfield to Leeds stoppers need to be bi-modes? The usual route will be fully electrified eventually, so using bi-modes for the sake of it just adds inherent inefficiency. Fully electrified routes should be run with straight EMUs.

Okay, I'll give you that one. Electric units on wired routes. I just lumped the routes together for simplicity (or carelessness).

The idea of reshuffling the units into 2 and 4-car has been suggested before, and IIRC someone "in the know" seemed to think it wasn't as simple as it might seem due to the on-board software- though it's been a while so take that with a generous amount of salt.

And the additional weight - four engines, or two engine and two blocks for balance - will make them prohibitive, even though we can thik of lots of routes that would benefit from 4 cars.

 

[Chester1]

Are you referring to the Huddersfield stoppers they currently run here? Because hopefully "in the long term" those services will be run by EMUs. On the Calder Valley point I could see that happening- they're already route-cleared and could potentially continue to be maintained at Ardwick and York Leeman Road, subject to an agreement between TPE and Northern (or whatever those TOCs end up turning into).

I didn't mean the Huddersfield stoppers. I meant the faster Calder Valley services. If you then add Manchester Airport to Barrow and Windermere, collectively that would require nearly half the 185 fleet transfering to Northern. TPE could still use their 185s on the routes that don't require 110mph or 125mph running and that are not electrified.

 

[mike57]

could run the limited stop Calder Valley services and 3rd Hope Valley express service

You still have the weight issue though, they cannot take advantage of SP differentials, and both Calder Valley and Hope Valley have them.

 

[Chester1]

You still have the weight issue though, they cannot take advantage of SP differentials, and both Calder Valley and Hope Valley have them.

I know its not a perfect fit but in current financial environment we can't start replacing sprinters while scrapping newer DMUs. The sprinter differential isn’t big and the weight is an issue on a huge number of regional routes. 185-195-150 would be a decent cascade.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I know its not a perfect fit but in current financial environment we can't start replacing sprinters while scrapping newer DMUs. The sprinter differential isn’t big and the weight is an issue on a huge number of regional routes. 185-195-150 would be a decent cascade.

On the other hand, in the current financial environment we can't start running heavily subsidised services with inefficient units that cost more to operate. All depends how you slice the cake I suppose.

 

[mike57]

I know its not a perfect fit

Its probably about finding a 'least worst' option. Unfortunately the increased weight means increased fuel consumption, I assume it also means increased track access charges, so if we go back to any sort of commercially driven railway no one will want them unless the leasing costs are lower to reflect increased running cost. They really are a one route unit, and once that work has moved on to bi-modes or is fully electrified then they become a bit of a white elephant. This is where the whole concept of MU v hauled stock starts to unravel. With hauled stock you can change the traction and make up to suit the route and changing requirements, however the Mk 5s appear to have their own problems, and they seem more like an unpowered MU with little or no flexibility, but thats a different topic.

 

[RailWonderer]

Eventually when Northern are forced by maintenance costs and shortage of parts to replace their last 80s Sprinters the 150s and 156s will have to go and the 185s are primed to replace 158s and 195s which can replace those Sprinters. Any route they work will be a compromise but the 170s on Northern are a compromise. The cost of running 185s will be compared to the cost of ordering new, which will most certainly be cheaper (I doubt we will have a repeat of ultra low interest rates circa 2016-20 again). The first routes that will be looked at will be the Calder Valley for 185s and all 158 operated routes so 158s can move to Newcastle to fully replace 156s (use of will is the speculative will).

As for this Sprinter differential - where there is a will there is a way. Network Rail can increase that speed limit for non SP compliant stock if higher track access and servicing costs are agreed on, again as an alternative to ordering new. Unless something technical like track geology or something fundamental prevents a heavier type of train going over a section of line at a higher speed, I see no reason Network Rail would deny access to a certain train type on a section of line as long as it has clearance and guards and drivers are trained on it.

 

[Philip]

So just a question, was the class 350/4 inter-city or commuter units that served with TPE before the class 397/802 units joined?

As Neptune has previously suggested and as was done with the class 350/4 units, you can soon take out the 1st class area and possibly the standard seating area seats to be having seats that are more commuter based seats with the class 185's. Yes, doing this may destroy the better leg room and seat to window arrangement, but that would be a choice between who runs the trains and the owners of the class 185 units.

The class 350/4s were inter-city trains when TPE used them. I feel the 185s are of sufficiently quality to transfer to other inter-city, or at least long distance, routes when/if TPE hand them back; 195s and any subsequent bi-mode or hybrid version yet to be built are the long term replacement for Northern's 150s.

Which long distance routes? I've already mentioned SWR and Chiltern; other possibilities could be ScotRail and GWR to replace HSTs, EMR for Liverpool to Nottingham/Norwich, Cross Country to replace 170s or to supplement the Voyager routes.

 

[Brubulus]

Potentially TPE could give up their 802s and mk5s for Avanti 221s. Possibly even enable tilting during the TRU, which would be a comparatively (comapred to NPR) cheap and easy way to reduce the headline Leeds-Manchester journey time. XC could then get some 802s that they can use, which would also allow those Newcastle-Edinburgh shuttles to stop. XC or GWR could use the MK5s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The class 350/4s were inter-city trains when TPE used them.

More regional express, which is what TPE really is. Though I declined a pair of /2s from Crewe today in favour of Avanti.

 

[SuperNova]

Potentially TPE could give up their 802s and mk5s for Avanti 221s. Possibly even enable tilting during the TRU, which would be a comparatively (comapred to NPR) cheap and easy way to reduce the headline Leeds-Manchester journey time. XC could then get some 802s that they can use, which would also allow those Newcastle-Edinburgh shuttles to stop. XC or GWR could use the MK5s.

No. Just no. Why would you run diesel trains under newly electrified infrastructure and then create more issues around driver training?!