DMU shake up

[willc789]

Id certainly agree in the need for an overall boost for capacity but the 159/8 are used on the fast route out of waterloo with up to 30 mins between each station so id say seating is more important than standing room. I commute each day from waterloo on this route and whilst it is full, there is little convenience in creating more standing space where seats will be prefered.

 

[IanXC]

I think we'll find the 185s stay in the North. They will still be required for South TPE, and could easily find a home on routes such as Leeds-Nottingham, Blackpool North-York and the Settle and Carlisle.

 

[tbtc]

I think we'll find the 185s stay in the North. They will still be required for South TPE, and could easily find a home on routes such as Leeds-Nottingham, Blackpool North-York and the Settle and Carlisle.

Plus the Buxton route (which needs good hill climbing DMUs, unlike Manchester to Blackpool!), the Calder Valley route.

They are too small a class to go splitting around the country, so unless ScotRail/ ATW are going to take the whole class, I think they'd be better sticking in one place.

 

[Goatboy]

I'd like to add thicker cushions to the 185s, a five-hour journey on those seats doesn't sound very comfortable.

Sadly I doubt that would be much of a consideration given the inappropriate use of DMU's on long distance journeys already. I'm particularly thinking of FGW here - I'm getting rather bored of spending 2+ hours on 150's on diagrams which used to be worked by 158's.

It seems passenger comfort is about bottom of any requirements list for a DMU which is why virtually everything - even stuff specified for longer distance - seems to have centre doors in the middle of the passenger cabin not a seperate vestibule area.

I honestly find it amazing that some 20 years after they were introduced a two car 158 offers near IC levels of comfort and refinement for longer trips.

 

[150001]

Really FGW could do with a 172 with end doors like the 156s with closed off vestibules. Although I think a CAF4000 quality interior might be much more suited to the 172 given the fact that it doesn't vibrate like Bombardier!

 

[pemma]

I think we'll find the 185s stay in the North. They will still be required for South TPE, and could easily find a home on routes such as Leeds-Nottingham, Blackpool North-York and the Settle and Carlisle.

Plus the Buxton route (which needs good hill climbing DMUs, unlike Manchester to Blackpool!), the Calder Valley route.

They are too small a class to go splitting around the country, so unless ScotRail/ ATW are going to take the whole class, I think they'd be better sticking in one place.

While the 185s are suited for hill climbing routes the internal layout is not well suited for all hill climbing services. If they were to go on the Buxton line they'd need to lose the First Class section and go for a higher density seating pattern. 6 carriage workings on peak services with only 300 seats is not what the Buxton line requires when 4 carriage workings with 300 seats can be rammed currently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sadly I doubt that would be much of a consideration given the inappropriate use of DMU's on long distance journeys already. I'm particularly thinking of FGW here - I'm getting rather bored of spending 2+ hours on 150's on diagrams which used to be worked by 158's.

Why not try 2+ hours on a Northern Rail service where 142s often turn up. Then if a 150 with 3+2 seating turns up you consider yourself lucky!

 

[ainsworth74]

6 carriage workings on peak services with only 300 seats is not what the Buxton line requires when 4 carriage workings with 300 seats can be rammed currently.

Though of course that six carriage train will offer far more standing room (two extra vehicles and big vestibule areas) than the four car equivalent so whilst it might not offer much more in the way of seats I'd gamble it would still feel like a big improvement in capacity.

 

[pemma]

Though of course that six carriage train will offer far more standing room (two extra vehicles and big vestibule areas) than the four car equivalent so whilst it might not offer much more in the way of seats I'd gamble it would still feel like a big improvement in capacity.

We are talking about where the 185s would go after North TPE electrification when the electrification project is set to start work in 2014, by then passenger numbers may have grown further.

Also, remember that the current 185 layout includes 2 toilets and separate bicycle and luggage racks opposed to one joint luggage/bike rack on the Northern units meaning that some of the extra space is not available for passengers to stand in.

 

[tbtc]

remember that the current 185 layout includes 2 toilets and separate bicycle and luggage racks opposed to one joint luggage/bike rack on the Northern units meaning that some of the extra space is not available for passengers to stand in.

But if the proposal was to swap 185s for 156s then there'd be complaints about fewer toilets (meaning disabled passengers couldn't use the facilities), less luggage space and no room for cyclists to take their bikes to the Peak District...

 

[pemma]

But if the proposal was to swap 185s for 156s then there'd be complaints about fewer toilets (meaning disabled passengers couldn't use the facilities), less luggage space and no room for cyclists to take their bikes to the Peak District...

As the 185s will be around 15 years old by the time North TPE is electrified they could be given a full refurbishment to best suit the new routes they will operate on. However, if they operate different types of services then there won't be a solution for all. It would be nice to have high density seating on peak time services on the Buxton and Calder Vale lines and layouts with more luggage and bike space on off-peak services but that's not going to work as Northern have proved by not managing to keep the 323s with extra luggage space on Airport services, which is much simpler.

I thought all the peak district stops had been removed from TPE now that there's an enhanced local service. If you're meaning cyclists use 185s to get to Sheffield/Manchester to connect on to the Hope Valley stopper then too many cyclists arriving at Sheffield/Manchester and not all being able to board the stopper has obvious disadvantages.

 

[tbtc]

I thought all the peak district stops had been removed from TPE now that there's an enhanced local service. If you're meaning cyclists use 185s to get to Sheffield/Manchester to connect on to the Hope Valley stopper then too many cyclists arriving at Sheffield/Manchester and not all being able to board the stopper has obvious disadvantages.

I was referring to your point about 185s being unsuitable for Buxton services, as they have space for disabled toilets/ luggage racks/ bikes (instead of the higher density 156s).

 

[pemma]

I was referring to your point about 185s being unsuitable for Buxton services, as they have space for disabled toilets/ luggage racks/ bikes (instead of the higher density 156s).

I did only say the current 185 layout wouldn't suit peak services on the Buxton line, but I've just had an idea.

3 car 185s on off-peak Buxton services that can maintain the current seating layout.

2/3 car 156, 158 or 172s on off-peak Mid-Cheshire line services.

Peak times they switch around and run doubled up where required.

 

[John55]

While the 185s are suited for hill climbing routes the internal layout is not well suited for all hill climbing services. If they were to go on the Buxton line they'd need to lose the First Class section and go for a higher density seating pattern. 6 carriage workings on peak services with only 300 seats is not what the Buxton line requires when 4 carriage workings with 300 seats can be rammed currently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why not try 2+ hours on a Northern Rail service where 142s often turn up. Then if a 150 with 3+2 seating turns up you consider yourself lucky!

I am not following the bit about the 185s internal layout is not suited for all hill climbing routes. Could you clarify please?

A quick count gives 179 seats plus 12 tip up seats on a 185 which is 358 seats on a 6 car according to TPEs seat plan on their website. A 20% increase over 300 sounds worth having to me.

However 6 car 185s on a busy service would be much better than 2 x 156s for example as the 156s are not at all suitable for suburban crush loads and the 185s have much more space for standing (or collapsing on the floor!).

Given the atrocious leg room on the Northern 150s with 3+2 seating I think the 142 is probably the better option as it is less uncomfortable to someone who is more than 5ft 6in tall.

Mind you considering how much the season tickets from the Buxton line cost I would have thought Northern ought to supply much better trains than they do.

 

[pemma]

I am not following the bit about the 185s internal layout is not suited for all hill climbing routes. Could you clarify please?

Basically a commuter service doesn't require the same facilities as a regional service. Do you really need 2 toilets and a first class section on a service that's an hour in length? Would the regular passengers not prefer more seats?

A quick count gives 179 seats plus 12 tip up seats on a 185 which is 358 seats on a 6 car according to TPEs seat plan on their website. A 20% increase over 300 sounds worth having to me.

I forgot to count the First Class seats. Any increase in seating is obviously good but a small increase when a big increase is needed isn't brilliant.

Mind you considering how much the season tickets from the Buxton line cost I would have thought Northern ought to supply much better trains than they do.

Buxton-Manchester is £64.60 for a weekly ticket, which is slightly less than Liverpool-Manchester at £67.20 so sounds reasonable to me.

Remember the Buxton line also allows off-peak tickets from 08:25 (unlike other lines where it's 09:30) so if you start work at 10 or work flexitime you can bring the £64.60 down to just £46.00 a week and automatically make a saving if you're off ill later in the week - brilliant value for money!

 

[David Goddard]

I had previously thought of the 185s as being good replacements on the Waterloo-Exeter line, but recent trips on them up North and a look at thie year's platform 5 book shows the capacity to be somewhat lower:

159 - 23 1st and 170 Standard = 193 + 6 tipup = 199
185 - 15 1st and 154 Standard = 169 + 8 tipup = 177

Therefore I no longer follow this line of thought.

Given the provision of dedicated depots in the area, I would expect the 185s to move to regional routes on displacement from the core Transpennine services. York-Blackpool springs to mind, along with the diagrams presently covered by their 170/3s, along with (as others have mentioned) Settle-Carlisle or even Leeds-Nottingham

 

[Bevan Price]

Class 185s really guzzle fuel like tomorrow, and are there any MU or SP differentials on the Salisbury/Exeter route?

Would it be feasible to re-equip the 185's with lower-powered engines (say 350 to 450 hp) to make them less fuel hungry and more suitable for "secondary" services if/when they become surplus from "express" duties? A lower weight might also enable them to run at normal "sprinter" speed limits in some areas.

 

[tbtc]

One point about 185 capacity is that they are already DDA compliant. By the end of this decade 156/158/159s (etc) are going to need to converted, which will require seats to be taken out for wheelchair space and DDA toilets.

So whilst a Sprinter currently has more seats per coach than a 185, it won't retain this advantage in a few years.

And taking the "small" toilet out of a 185 is only going to free up about four seats - to put things in context.

 

[John55]

Basically a commuter service doesn't require the same facilities as a regional service. Do you really need 2 toilets and a first class section on a service that's an hour in length? Would the regular passengers not prefer more seats?

I forgot to count the First Class seats. Any increase in seating is obviously good but a small increase when a big increase is needed isn't brilliant.

Buxton-Manchester is £64.60 for a weekly ticket, which is slightly less than Liverpool-Manchester at £67.20 so sounds reasonable to me.

Remember the Buxton line also allows off-peak tickets from 08:25 (unlike other lines where it's 09:30) so if you start work at 10 or work flexitime you can bring the £64.60 down to just £46.00 a week and automatically make a saving if you're off ill later in the week - brilliant value for money!

Apologies as pointed out I cannot add three numbers it is 169 plus tip up seats on a 185. So it a 10% plus increase in seating.

Do you need 2 toilets? Yes, only having 1 per 170 seats is too few.

A 7 day season from Blackburn is £40 and Mytholmroyd £45 both the same distance as Buxton is from Manchester. I don't know why but Derbyshire to Manchester is expensive unless you use the Glossop line.

 

[Goatboy]

I had previously thought of the 185s as being good replacements on the Waterloo-Exeter line, but recent trips on them up North and a look at thie year's platform 5 book shows the capacity to be somewhat lower:

159 - 23 1st and 170 Standard = 193 + 6 tipup = 199
185 - 15 1st and 154 Standard = 169 + 8 tipup = 177

Having travelled on both the 159's are more comfortable trains, too. Mostly this is down to the choice of seating but the fact the doors are seperate from the passenger cabin is also a good thing and it suprises me that they seem to be doing away with that.

 

[tom1649]

Personally, I think there will end up being exceptions granted to this DDA rule. If not enough units are converted in time, the Government will have little choice. Either that or just rip the toilets out and confine such units to short workings.

 

[HSTEd]

Would it be feasible to re-equip the 185's with lower-powered engines (say 350 to 450 hp) to make them less fuel hungry and more suitable for "secondary" services if/when they become surplus from "express" duties? A lower weight might also enable them to run at normal "sprinter" speed limits in some areas.

The QSK-19 only weighs in at about 1900kg, compared to about 8/900kg (I forget how much exactly) for the 485hp MTU powerplant used in the Class 172.

You would not save significant amounts of weight, not enough to even get MU differentials, let alone SP ones.

They are just absurdly overbuilt and overweight.

 

[pemma]

Given the atrocious leg room on the Northern 150s with 3+2 seating I think the 142 is probably the better option as it is less uncomfortable to someone who is more than 5ft 6in tall.

Depends on which 142, which 150 and how full it is. If you have a 150 with facing seats and no-one sat opposite then you're much better off than on a Merseytravel 142.

So whilst a Sprinter currently has more seats per coach than a 185, it won't retain this advantage in a few years.

I'm sure it will. I can't see the Sprinters being refitted with 2 double sets of door per carriage like the 185s have.

Do you need 2 toilets? Yes, only having 1 per 170 seats is too few.

A 156 has one toilet for approx 150 seats, so where would you draw the line between a train requiring 1 toilet and 2 toilets? Intercity carriages tend to have more than one toilet for every 2 carriages while local carriages tend to have 1 toilet for every 2-3 carriages (a 323 has one toilet for up to around 280 seats!)

On a 185 all standard class passengers are directed to the toilet in the middle carriage by signs on the train, so the accessible toilet only really provides for First Class and the wheelchair/luggage area. I personally think that's a poor layout.

 

[sprinterguy]

I forgot to count the First Class seats. Any increase in seating is obviously good but a small increase when a big increase is needed isn't brilliant.

If you were to remove first class from the 185s, then including tip-up seats you could have getting on for 200 seats per 3-car unit, retaining the present arrangement for toilets and bike/luggage spaces.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it be feasible to re-equip the 185's with lower-powered engines (say 350 to 450 hp) to make them less fuel hungry and more suitable for "secondary" services if/when they become surplus from "express" duties? A lower weight might also enable them to run at normal "sprinter" speed limits in some areas.

As HSTEd says above (I didn't read that far down the thread at first) the power unit itself does not add a great deal to the weight of a class 185, with a Cummins QSK19 weighing just shy of two tonnes. So if you were to fit a lower rated power unit to the 185s, then you would probably wind up with a unit with comparable or potentially poorer acceleration than that of a 170, although I suspect that the transmission set up of the 170s has at least as much to do with their rate of acceleration as the power unit does.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One point about 185 capacity is that they are already DDA compliant. By the end of this decade 156/158/159s (etc) are going to need to converted, which will require seats to be taken out for wheelchair space and DDA toilets.

So whilst a Sprinter currently has more seats per coach than a 185, it won't retain this advantage in a few years.

And taking the "small" toilet out of a 185 is only going to free up about four seats - to put things in context.

I don’t think that fitting DDA compliant toilets and wheelchair spaces is going to make a great deal of difference to the capacities of classes 156, 158 and 159. The 156s already have a large area to accommodate the existing toilet, which on the former Northern Spirit and FNW sets at least must be at least partially DDA compliant, and the toilets on the 158/159s were designed from the beginning to be wheelchair accessible, if not fully compliant to 2020 standards. The impact of DDA compliance regulations would be felt to a greater extent on the “lesser” Sprinter classes, the 150s and 153s.

 

[LE Greys]

They don't have gangways though...

How can my memory be this bad at 28?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As HSTEd says above (I didn't read that far down the thread at first) the power unit itself does not add a great deal to the weight of a class 185, with a Cummins QSK19 weighing just shy of two tonnes. So if you were to fit a lower rated power unit to the 185s, then you would probably wind up with a unit with comparable or potentially poorer acceleration than that of a 170, although I suspect that the transmission set up of the 170s has at least as much to do with their rate of acceleration as the power unit does.

It's all about different designers trying to do different things with the same general idea. With 170s, they had a strict weight limit and could not go over it. 185s just ignored that and went for power-to-weight ratio above all. Probably, replacing the entire power train would be necessary, and even then the weight would be more like a 175 than a 170. I'm sure there are routes all over the country that suit 185s. Anywhere that is mostly based on main lines would, including South Devon and the Highland.

 

[tbtc]

I'm sure there are routes all over the country that suit 185s. Anywhere that is mostly based on main lines would, including South Devon and the Highland

There are certainly some lines suitable (hence me suggesting the Buxton line and the Calder Valley) where the weight of the 185s can be a strength rather than a weakness.

Same goes for your suggestions. However the relatively small class size may mean that its not practical to split the 185 fleet up. You could probably find enough work to occupy the fleet on

• Middlesbrough - York - Leeds - Bradford - Halifax - Rochdale - Manchester (hourly)
• Scarborough - York - Leeds - Bradford - Halifax - Rochdale - Manchester (hourly)
• Buxton - Stockport - Manchester (hourly, with peak extras)
• Cleethorpes - Doncaster - Sheffield - Stockport - Manchester (hourly)
• York - Leeds - Bradford - Halifax - Burnley - Preston - Blackpool (hourly)
• Carlisle - Settle - Leeds (bi-hourly)

(all routes that have some hills, require DMUs suited to middle distance operating and have little hope of electrification any time soon - if there are any spare then I'd suggest routes like Carlisle - Hexham - Newcastle too)