Class 185s off lease

[Bletchleyite]

I'm surprised that isn't how it's done to be honest, plenty of other examples of operators sharing resources but for some reason the long dead runs persist here.

Logic doesn't always get followed in this sort of case. For example, the X5 coach while it was Oxford-Cambridge was operated from Bedford depot, whereas it would have made more sense in terms of the timetable to operate it from both ends. And that's Stagecoach, not two different TOCs!

 

[Watershed]

Logic doesn't always get followed in this sort of case. For example, the X5 coach while it was Oxford-Cambridge was operated from Bedford depot, whereas it would have made more sense in terms of the timetable to operate it from both ends. And that's Stagecoach, not two different TOCs!

Maybe different for buses but the cheapest way of operating a longer service won't always be by staffing it from both ends. For example if EWR eventually comes to fruition it might cost less crew to run Oxford-Cambridge out of a Bedford depot, as the Bedford-Oxford-Bedford journey time wouldn't require crew to have a break in Oxford. Whereas Cambridge-Oxford-Cambridge (or vice versa) might, depending on the turnaround time. It is entirely dependent on journey times, turnaround times and the allowances/maximum limits agreed in the T&Cs.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Whenever that may be...... This year will be 3 years since the first Mk5s arrived, about a year since the last set, even pre-Covid only 4 were in use. No doubt the slowest introduction of any new train. A complete waste of money.

397s were Mk5s in reverse - all into service pre-COVID but still many faults. TPE will be wishing that 185s could still cover. 3-car and a delay (maybe even an omission of one stop to help reduce this) is better than a cancellation.

On a side note could a 185 keep up with current timings, in other words has the Anglo-Scottish TPE now been revised to 397 timings?

 

[Liverpool 507]

397s were Mk5s in reverse - all into service pre-COVID but still many faults. TPE will be wishing that 185s could still cover. 3-car and a delay (maybe even an omission of one stop to help reduce this) is better than a cancellation.

On a side note could a 185 keep up with current timings, in other words has the Anglo-Scottish TPE now been revised to 397 timings?

They’re still based on 350 timings.

 

[Watershed]

397s were Mk5s in reverse - all into service pre-COVID but still many faults. TPE will be wishing that 185s could still cover. 3-car and a delay (maybe even an omission of one stop to help reduce this) is better than a cancellation.

On a side note could a 185 keep up with current timings, in other words has the Anglo-Scottish TPE now been revised to 397 timings?

The service is sufficiently reduced for other reasons that 397 issues have not caused too many cancellations, but the 350s were certainly a lot more reliable even with the tight availability requirement.

The Anglo Scottish timings have been based on 350 timings for several years now. A 185 would lose about 7 or 8 minutes on a full like for like run.

A 397 timing load is now used, but this has simply copied over 350 timings for now, as they are quite similar. Until permissible speeds increase it seems unlikely there will be any change.

 

[Philip]

Could 185s be converted to electric or bi-mode running? If it's possible then it would broaden their appeal considerably; they wouldn't be anywhere near as heavy so may be ok to take advantage of MU or SP speeds. I know it would be a costly project but in the long run it would surely be cheaper than continuing to run the thirsty diesel engines. The whole fleet could be done and then sent to the South East to replace older EMUs there, or run alongside 350s on the south WCML; replacing 350/2s.

This would leave TPE short of course but there is the option of more 802s for TPE and possibly cascaded 158s from TfW.

 

[Domh245]

Could 185s be converted to electric or bi-mode running? If it's possible then it would broaden their appeal considerably; they wouldn't be anywhere near as heavy so may be ok to take advantage of MU or SP speeds. I know it would be a costly project but in the long run it would surely be cheaper than continuing to run the thirsty diesel engines. The whole fleet could be done and then sent to the South East to replace older EMUs there, or run alongside 350s on the south WCML; replacing 350/2s.

No, not in any practical way. I also don't think that the engines themselves are what tip them over the limit for the speed differentials, but conversion to bimode definitely wouldn't help

 

[Wyrleybart]

Could 185s be converted to electric or bi-mode running? If it's possible then it would broaden their appeal considerably; they wouldn't be anywhere near as heavy so may be ok to take advantage of MU or SP speeds. I know it would be a costly project but in the long run it would surely be cheaper than continuing to run the thirsty diesel engines. The whole fleet could be done and then sent to the South East to replace older EMUs there, or run alongside 350s on the south WCML; replacing 350/2s.

This would leave TPE short of course but there is the option of more 802s for TPE and possibly cascaded 158s from TfW.

As said above no. Class 185s are very heavy diesel hydraulic units. So heavy that they are not allowed to use some MU speed differentials. Their transmission is traditional, but perhaps could be reworked like the proposal for one of the Turbos where the diesel engine is replaced by an electric motor. The downside would be that a pantograph and transformer would need to be installed if OLE was planned to be used

 

[CAF397]

The service is sufficiently reduced for other reasons that 397 issues have not caused too many cancellations, but the 350s were certainly a lot more reliable even with the tight availability requirement.

The Anglo Scottish timings have been based on 350 timings for several years now. A 185 would lose about 7 or 8 minutes on a full like for like run.

A 397 timing load is now used, but this has simply copied over 350 timings for now, as they are quite similar. Until permissible speeds increase it seems unlikely there will be any change.

185s can no longer cover for WCML services because they have been fitted with a coach based ASDO system that Glasgow and Preston drivers haven't been trained on. We would all need training, and then we would need regular drives on them to keep on our traction cards. That won't happen. It's 397s only, and with the current timetable that's enough.

 

[D365]

Could 185s be converted to electric or bi-mode running? If it's possible then it would broaden their appeal considerably; they wouldn't be anywhere near as heavy so may be ok to take advantage of MU or SP speeds. I know it would be a costly project but in the long run it would surely be cheaper than continuing to run the thirsty diesel engines. The whole fleet could be done and then sent to the South East to replace older EMUs there, or run alongside 350s on the south WCML; replacing 350/2s.

This would leave TPE short of course but there is the option of more 802s for TPE and possibly cascaded 158s from TfW.

Far easier to convert a 350/2 to bi-mode, but this is all very speculative of course.

 

[Jamesrob637]

185s can no longer cover for WCML services because they have been fitted with a coach based ASDO system that Glasgow and Preston drivers haven't been trained on. We would all need training, and then we would need regular drives on them to keep on our traction cards. That won't happen. It's 397s only, and with the current timetable that's enough.

Mods please feel free to move this and some other posts to the dedicated 397 thread but Journey Check is coming up with yet another cancelled Edinburgh to Manchester "due to a fault"

I swear the 185s are actually pretty reliable - mind you allocating doubles to 90% of services means that you have a much higher chance of continuing with a short-form, than cancelling services altogether!

 

[bengley]

That 185s can't stick to the current WCML timetable is a myth. They can.

I've driven 185s to and from both Scottish cities and have kept to time throughout. It's tight, granted, but not difficult.

 

[dosxuk]

I'm surprised that isn't how it's done to be honest, plenty of other examples of operators sharing resources but for some reason the long dead runs persist here.

It's been pointed out several times when this comes up that the early/late long runs are used for a lot of route learning runs that would otherwise need to be slotted into the timetable and mean inconsistent calling patterns, or (worse?) giving up entirely if the normal route is unavailable for any reason.

The argument for earlier starts / later finishes at the Liverpool end is a separate argument which probably should be looked at, but there are options which don't involve using other TOCs staff for those runs.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's been pointed out several times when this comes up that the early/late long runs are used for a lot of route learning runs that would otherwise need to be slotted into the timetable and mean inconsistent calling patterns, or (worse?) giving up entirely if the normal route is unavailable for any reason.

The argument for earlier starts / later finishes at the Liverpool end is a separate argument which probably should be looked at, but there are options which don't involve using other TOCs staff for those runs.

It's also been pointed out many times that just because things are done one way now, doesn't mean they are set in stone. This approach might well be the best method for this route as it is somewhat out on a limb, but other operators manage to maintain diversionary route knowledge without massive dead runs. LNER and TPE use late night services to do this, and EMR or whoever could do the same if they no longer had the dead runs due to having a crew depot in the north west. The predecessor to this service was something like Blackpool to Harwich wasn't it? IIRC that was resourced from both ends under BR. The use of other TOC's staff as you say can be awkward, and wouldn't allow the upkeep of the diversionary knowledge- but it is a method used in other areas, and was only mentioned here as a suggestion specifically because it is ideal for some situations.

 

[LowLevel]

It's also been pointed out many times that just because things are done one way now, doesn't mean they are set in stone. This approach might well be the best method for this route as it is somewhat out on a limb, but other operators manage to maintain diversionary route knowledge without massive dead runs. LNER and TPE use late night services to do this, and EMR or whoever could do the same if they no longer had the dead runs due to having a crew depot in the north west. The predecessor to this service was something like Blackpool to Harwich wasn't it? IIRC that was resourced from both ends under BR.

It came about in 1992 or 1993 as part of a BR reorganisation to allow the route to be resourced wholly by Regional Railways Central. Until then Nottingham had been a mostly freight depot with the main passenger depot in the area being Derby. RR moved their Derby based train crew to Nottingham and stopped using crew from Liverpool, Sheffield, March and Manchester as it would have had to pay to use them and maintain their route knowledge.

 

[Killingworth]

More 185s are likely to be needed from May 2022 if TPE operate the extended Liverpool-Cleethorpes route as set out in options B and C of the Manchester Recovery Task Force Public Consultation, see attached.