Class 185 future

[Bletchleyite]

AIUI there are no plans for the Sheffield bay to be extended beyond what it got a couple of years ago. This is of course moot, as even if Northern got 185s that route would not be first in the pecking order to use them.

There's been a lot of posts lately about Sprinter (especially 150) replacement, but many of them neglect the fact that there isn't really an obvious replacement for some of the niche jobs that 150s do.

195s are the ideal 150 replacement, just like 172s did this around Brum. Will need a few platform extensions, but as there won't be any new 2x20m DMUs ever that will just need doing.

 

[SuperNova]

AIUI there are no plans for the Sheffield bay to be extended beyond what it got a couple of years ago. This is of course moot, as even if Northern got 185s that route would not be first in the pecking order to use them.

There's been a lot of posts lately about Sprinter (especially 150) replacement, but many of them neglect the fact that there isn't really an obvious replacement for some of the niche jobs that 150s do.

It's available on the NR site. Platform 2 becomes platform 1 with the remodel and extends towards the current main entrance.

185s won't ever be used on the Penistone Line though. Northern were interested when the initial ones were coming off lease and it makes sense given Ardwick and they are cleared on lines like the Calder Valley.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

195s are the ideal 150 replacement, just like 172s did this around Brum. Will need a few platform extensions, but as there won't be any new 2x20m DMUs ever that will just need doing.

I've bolded the bit that's significant- length. You only have to look at Marston Vale to see how there are a few niche cases where moving away from 20m cars is a bit troublesome. With Marston Vale it seemed that a short-term solution had been found, but then VivaRail collapsed! Huddersfield to Sheffield was also tipped as a possible D-train destination by VivaRail themselves at the start of the project, and that doesn't have the level crossing complication that Marston Vale does. Adding another 10m of platform will be fine at the intermediate stations, but might not be so easy at Huddersfield without eating into what will be the main platform for fast trains to Manchester. EDIT- this point is also moot, based on the above post by @SuperNova .

I realise we're getting away from future 185 usage, so apologies to the mods! Basically the issue with 185s is that they were specced for a particular job which they do very well. Moving them elsewhere will inevitably mean a compromise somewhere unless you can find a route which matches the demand patterns and gradient profile of the TP mainline, and doesn't have much in the way of differential speeds.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Someone above said they are good InterCity units: they aren't, they are good commuter units.
(the 158s were better for InterCity)
Someone else above said popular with pax: only when paired. You can always hear the groan on the platform when a 3er comes into view.

 

[YorksLad12]

The issue of lines with platforms designed for 20m DMUs will need to be resolved (through extensions) as 150s (and the odd 769) are the only 20m vehicle DMUs left, and there won't be any more built, they'll all either be 24m or Stadler odd-lengths. So this will need doing anyway.

I could see a sense in 185s to Northern for use on the originally proposed Northern Connect services, e.g. the WCML routes, or just putting those routes back with TPE as they were a while back. 195s with their high acceleration are proving very useful for Manchester area DMU locals, and it'd be great to be able to release enough of them that ALL their urban/suburban DMU local services used them, allowing some timetable improvements or improved resilience. For instance absent any wires it would be good to bin the 769s off and use 3-car 195s on the Southports and Kirkbys (particularly Kirkby as the acceleration would be a great benefit on the Athertons - they do occasionally show up on the Atherton that terminates at Wigan though). They were ordered for expresses, but in reality their gearbox arrangement renders them superb local units (and they can deal with standing loads well due to the standbacks) - in essence they're more upspecced 172s than long distance units, and would work better on Manchester's equivalents of the Snow Hill lines. Another useful place 195s could be cascaded to by this is the CLC stoppers.

With regard to them being overpowered there is the engine rotation feature, or they could look at removing the engines from the middle coach entirely (there is already electrical crossfeed else the engine rotation wouldn't work) and keeping as spares, though you'd not be able to reduce the weight substantially as the suspension etc will be set up for it, so you may well end up having to put a concrete block in its place.

It's probably easier to work out which routes they couldn't be used on!

I've grown to like them, and would miss them; but post-TRU you'd imagine they won't have a use on either of the Huddersfield stoppers. But how about (Hell-)Hull to Halifax? They're already cleared for Hull to Leeds, and I assume Leeds to Halifax as thats a diversionary route. They'd be quite popular on the Leeds-Sheffield(-Lincoln/Nottingham) route, but P17 at Leeds would extending for starters (as well as the route clearances).

 

[MattRat]

The issue isn't that they're overpowered, it's that they're overweight. Eco-mode would reduce fuel consumption but wouldn't reduce track access charges or allow them to use MU or SP differential speeds- which is precisely the reason they're unsuitable for large parts of Northern’s network.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me for some clueless pen-pusher at the DfT to decide that Northern is getting them whether they like it or not, and then scratches their head when the subsidy needs to go up!

What about at XC to replace 170s (which actually can go places like Northern)? Since they are a regional DMU.

 

[LowLevel]

Keeping them with TPE to run in pairs on the non electrified routes such as Cleethorpes and Liverpool to Nottingham when that eventually happens. Strangely, I think the next best place for them would be XC to replace the Turbostars whilst boosting capacity at the same time. A split fleet perhaps?

EMR have signed an 8 year lease until 2030 for the 158s for Liverpool - Norwich. That would be a very long speculative hold!

 

[RailWonderer]

The capacity issue is mostly two things. One is that they have a very low density interior which could be tightened up to squeeze in more seats (reduce 1st to a small 2+2 section at one end, plus change the all-tables bits to mostly airlines and you'd get another row in like 350s do). Another is that they have wider doors than 158s/159s, but that allows for standees - indeed you could argue in favour of fitting standbacks so they can carry more standees if being used on SWR services.

I thought we both hated 2+2 first?! Either way they have just been refurbed the DfT won't fund yet another. The 185s if I remember have more bay tables and fewer airline seats than the 350s owing to the more Intercity routes they used to operate. The 158/s and 9s do not run commuter services, they are on WoE regionals where people would rather have a seat than have to stand like on a 701 so it would be sacrilegious to remove seats. That might be the only blessing that comes with DfT cuts, less replacement of seats with harder seats and standing room.

 

[DanNCL]

They certainly wouldn't be pre-COVID due to the drop in capacity compared to the 159s, but with demand down on SWR that might be less of a problem. I'm not overly convinced about the commonality with electric Desiros though, there'll certainly be a small number of shared components, but whether there's enough to create much of a benefit is another matter. The lack of gangways is more of an issue, but not insurmountable.

One of the bigger bonuses for SWR would be the 185s having a virtually identical body profile to what the 444s have, so should, in theory, be easier to gauge clear on the electrified parts of the SWR network.

TPE is not releasing any 185s, this has been confirmed. My bet for the 158/9 replacement would be a bi-mode Aventra.

I really don't see SWR ordering bi-mode Aventras. You've only got to take one look at the 701 saga to work out that another Aventra order for the South Western network is unlikely!

If the 158/159 routes get new build stock it'll almost certainly come from Hitachi or Stadler.

The 158/s and 9s do not run commuter services, they are on WoE regionals where people would rather have a seat than have to stand like on a 701 so it would be sacrilegious to remove seats.

The 159s yes. The 158s run commuter services too.

 

[SuperNova]

It's probably easier to work out which routes they couldn't be used on!

I've grown to like them, and would miss them; but post-TRU you'd imagine they won't have a use on either of the Huddersfield stoppers. But how about (Hell-)Hull to Halifax? They're already cleared for Hull to Leeds, and I assume Leeds to Halifax as thats a diversionary route. They'd be quite popular on the Leeds-Sheffield(-Lincoln/Nottingham) route, but P17 at Leeds would extending for starters (as well as the route clearances).

Unless bi-modes are used on the MAN - YRK via WKK service, I'd imagine some would still stay.

ETCS is another consideration that needs to be taken into account.

 

[D365]

ETCS is another consideration that needs to be taken into account.

What do you mean? As far as I’m aware, installation of onboard ETCS onto the ’classic’ Desiros is slowly being progressed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would the Class 185 units be a useful mode of traction on the Settle to Carlisle line?

 

[JonathanH]

Would the Class 185 units be a useful mode of traction on the Settle to Carlisle line?

When it was previously suggested, it was pointed out that they are somewhat overspecified for a line where the predominant speed limit is 60mph.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ace-for-class-185s.229307/page-4#post-5583114
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...the-settle-carlisle-line.209985/#post-4812273

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When it was previously suggested, it was pointed out that they are somewhat overspecified for a line where the predominant speed limit is 60mph.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/where’s-the-best-place-for-class-185s.229307/page-4#post-5583114
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...the-settle-carlisle-line.209985/#post-4812273

I was thinking more in terms of the type of terrain on the Settle to Carlisle route.

 

[JonathanH]

I was thinking more in terms of the type of terrain on the Settle to Carlisle route.

Indeed, but that terrain only needs to be covered at 60mph, which can be done with less power than that installed on class 185s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What about at XC to replace 170s (which actually can go places like Northern)? Since they are a regional DMU.

They'd have the same issues as Nottingham to Norwich: inability to use differential speeds over the Fens. They also wouldn't provide any real benefit over the 170s but would use more fuel and incur higher track access charges.

 

[YorksLad12]

Unless bi-modes are used on the MAN - YRK via WKK service, I'd imagine some would still stay.

ETCS is another consideration that needs to be taken into account.

I was assuming that the 185s would be needed for the new service, but TPE might also run bi-modes as the route is the diversionary one, drivers will need to keep their competence up, and the extended services helps TPE gain some revenue while doing something they'd have to do anyway. Once TRU is done, there might be new 'local' bimodes to run that service, or it and the Leeds-Huddersfield stopper might revert to Northern (who currently have no bi-modes).

Good point on ETCS - they have to be compatible with the signalling system for the whichever route they end up on, which is why I was thinking they could be used on routes they already partly cover in some way.

They'd have the same issues as Nottingham to Norwich: inability to use differential speeds over the Fens. They also wouldn't provide any real benefit over the 170s but would use more fuel and incur higher track access charges.

Therein lies the problem with the 185s. Even if you took all of the seats out they'd probably still be overweight compared to other three-car units (so higher track charges) and you need the engines to push the extra weight around (so more fuel needed).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Therein lies the problem with the 185s. Even if you took all of the seats out they'd probably still be overweight compared to other three-car units (so higher track charges) and you need the engines to push the extra weight around (so more fuel needed).

Most of the time they run on two, there's software that rotates them so the hours stay the same.

 

[RailWonderer]

If the 158/159 routes get new build stock it'll almost certainly come from Hitachi or Stadler.

Or CAF, since Northern put out a tender in the January for hybrid 195s but presumably the DfT declined it. CAF must also be able to offer something like that, and will probably be cheaper than Stadler.

 

[YorksLad12]

Most of the time they run on two, there's software that rotates them so the hours stay the same.

Yes - so you're still carrying around the weight. As stated upthread, if you removed one of the engines you'd still need to add some weight for the suspension, so you're back to where you were.

Also, we'd need to give them the occasional bed for the night so there's depot/s to consider. That's why I don't see them moving too far off the routes they're on now, so they can reach Ardwick and York - unless someone really wants a micro-microfleet elsewhere.

 

[Energy]

Or CAF, since Northern put out a tender in the January for hybrid 195s but presumably the DfT declined it.

The hybrid 195s would have been like the hybrid 168s with a diesel engine and batteries for regenerative braking. Not bimode. I believe it was found that the hybrid units would be quite expensive.

 

[matacaster]

I was assuming that the 185s would be needed for the new service, but TPE might also run bi-modes as the route is the diversionary one, drivers will need to keep their competence up, and the extended services helps TPE gain some revenue while doing something they'd have to do anyway. Once TRU is done, there might be new 'local' bimodes to run that service, or it and the Leeds-Huddersfield stopper might revert to Northern (who currently have no bi-modes).

Good point on ETCS - they have to be compatible with the signalling system for the whichever route they end up on, which is why I was thinking they could be used on routes they already partly cover in some way.


Therein lies the problem with the 185s. Even if you took all of the seats out they'd probably still be overweight compared to other three-car units (so higher track charges) and you need the engines to push the extra weight around (so more fuel needed).

Whilst dispensation might be required, the S&C track was upgraded to handle frequent 2000 ton freight trains, so I doubt that a pocksy DMU is going to cause much wear.

 

[hooverboy]

I was assuming that the 185s would be needed for the new service, but TPE might also run bi-modes as the route is the diversionary one, drivers will need to keep their competence up, and the extended services helps TPE gain some revenue while doing something they'd have to do anyway. Once TRU is done, there might be new 'local' bimodes to run that service, or it and the Leeds-Huddersfield stopper might revert to Northern (who currently have no bi-modes).

Good point on ETCS - they have to be compatible with the signalling system for the whichever route they end up on, which is why I was thinking they could be used on routes they already partly cover in some way.


Therein lies the problem with the 185s. Even if you took all of the seats out they'd probably still be overweight compared to other three-car units (so higher track charges) and you need the engines to push the extra weight around (so more fuel needed).

So if SWR ,for instance, wanted the 185's as 158/9 replacements, what would stop them from ordering several unpowered trailer carriages to work as intermediate coaches in such a consist?

5 car formations with the power output they presently have would work.The only let-down is the absence of end gangways.

 

[JonathanH]

So if SWR ,for instance, wanted the 185's as 158/9 replacements, what would stop them from ordering several unpowered trailer carriages to work as intermediate coaches in such a consist?

Cost. Buying new coaches for 15 year old trains that only have a 20 year life as a result is unlikely to be a good investment.

 

[SuperNova]

What do you mean? As far as I’m aware, installation of onboard ETCS onto the ’classic’ Desiros is slowly being progressed.

It means they are more likely to remain up north than go elsewhere. Would fit in with staying with TPE on certain routes and Northern on other where ETCS is being deployed

 

[MattRat]

It means they are more likely to remain up north than go elsewhere. Would fit in with staying with TPE on certain routes and Northern on other where ETCS is being deployed

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.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Indeed, but that terrain only needs to be covered at 60mph, which can be done with less power than that installed on class 185s.

If we are going to be pedantic about only using units with just enough power I think me might as well scrap the 185s.

5 car formations with the power output they presently have would work.The only let-down is the absence of end gangways.

What do you want end gangways for, it means more work for guards

 

[Grecian 1998]

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.

 

[D365]

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.

If I had a nickel for every time the Liverpool routes get mentioned...

 

[43096]

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.

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