Putting the 185s on a diet: Could they be made light enough for sprinter speeds?

[Mogster]

The 170s and 185s seem to be unsuited for stopping services but it seems there’s going to be an excess of them.

Would it be prohibitively expensive to fit shorter ratio gearboxes to these long distance trains?

 

[adamedwards]

Prompted by the discussions about the 185s being too heavy to run at enhanced sprinter speeds. What is possible to slim them down?

For example, if their bogies were replaced?

Engineering crayons please!

 

[mallard]

Probably not, but they could probably haul an unpowered trailer on less-demanding routes...

They're not just too heavy for sprinter speeds; they don't qualify for "HST", "DMU" or "MU" speed either. As far as timetabling goes, they're basically loco-and-stock; which makes the replacement of some of them by said loco-and-stock formations rather easier... I remember being ridiculed for suggesting that on this forum some years ago!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't it the case that "HST" speeds relate to improved braking performance rather than weight (i.e. the ability to brake from 125mph in the same distance conventional LHCS can brake from 100, and the reason for that being that the brake pipe is exhausted from both ends rather than just one end)? Surprised that doesn't apply.

 

[Mogster]

As with the 170s would a change of gearbox help?

It seems tragic that quite recent DMU units are practically useless while the class 15x units are still set to be knocking about till the mid 2020s.

 

[Ih8earlies]

A diet?

Correct me If I'm wrong anyone, but didn't they get even heavier after being refurbed?

 

[matacaster]

Perhaps the simplest solution to the 185 problem would be to take another look at whether the (possibly excessive to well cover someones back) engineering standards that apply on the railway are really necessary and might be relaxed. There is no doubt that the 185's are quite heavy, but they have a pretty low centre of gravity, which might suggest the perceived problem is track wear or forcing track out of gauge round curves. It must be said that 185's ride extremely well at the speeds allowed on winding transpennine routes and I have never experienced any suggestion of bad riding. Are there other issues with 185's?

 

[Jozhua]

The 170s and 185s seem to be unsuited for stopping services but it seems there’s going to be an excess of them.

Would it be prohibitively expensive to fit shorter ratio gearboxes to these long distance trains?

The 185's however have commuter style doors, making boarding quicker. I think they'd find themselves very useful on semi-fast branch lines or on long distance routes still covered by Sprinters. Saw a 156 doing the Norwich-Liverpool run today!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 185's however have commuter style doors, making boarding quicker. I think they'd find themselves very useful on semi-fast branch lines or on long distance routes still covered by Sprinters. Saw a 156 doing the Norwich-Liverpool run today!

Given that they have a useful body layout, it may well be worth repowering them with smaller (lighter) engines for local stopping use.

 

[Jozhua]

Given that they have a useful body layout, it may well be worth repowering them with smaller (lighter) engines for local stopping use.

Yeah, maybe even on the local stopping services on the Hope Valley Line? Help with Northerns Pacer replacement and are already used on the route? Doubt it'll happen but would be easy to implement...

 

[hooverboy]

As with the 170s would a change of gearbox help?

It seems tragic that quite recent DMU units are practically useless while the class 15x units are still set to be knocking about till the mid 2020s.

I'm sure ROSCO's and TOC's are mulling this one over anyway. track access charges for the modern DMU's are pretty horiffic compared to sprinters.

I think turbostar is about 8p per carriage per mile versus sprinters which are about 5.5p.
on rural routes where you're probably only getting 15-20% capacity that is going to add up over the course of a year.

the turbostars could fairly easliy get the flex lightweight bogies(as per 172) which would help.

as for 185's, they do seem a bit overpowered with 750bhp per car-that's the same as a 22x!
maybe removal of the centre car engine/fuel tank would be an option...or build up an extra unpowered trailer car if they need the capacity.

the old transpennine sets(class 124) were 6 cars(about 240 tonnes) and had 920bhp under the bonnet...max 70/75mph.
assuming you'd need about 50% extra BHP going from 70mph up to 100mph that would imply something like 1500bhp would be enough for a 240 tonne train..should be easy for 185 to keep to that sort of timing...or at least 90mph.

in the olden days even a class 31 +6 mk1's could handle that over settle+carlisle at 90!, a 37 would fly over it!

(185's are 3 car sets at say 55 tonnes per car =165 tonnes/2250bhp)

 

[Bletchleyite]

as for 185's, they do seem a bit overpowered with 750bhp per car-that's the same as a 22x!
maybe removal of the centre car engine/fuel tank would be an option...or build up an extra unpowered trailer car if they need the capacity.

Or re-engine with a smaller engine and a mechanical transmission, reflecting that they would actually be more useful on local stopping services (i.e. directly replacing 150s) due to their layout?

 

[Spartacus]

maybe removal of the centre car engine/fuel tank would be an option...or build up an extra unpowered trailer car if they need the capacity.

Not sure that would be a great idea given how it's not unusual for them to be running on two engines, and not just because they're in eco-mode.

Additionally I think there's a few 'solutions' here that would cost more than the problem they're trying to solve.

 

[matacaster]

As the Settle Carlisle is in very good condition track-wise and equipped for very heavy forces from freight trains, surely, a simple derogation to allow their use on S&C would be in everyones interest, particularly as their power - weight ration is ideal for the long drag and they have aircon that actually works!

 

[Bevan Price]

I'm sure ROSCO's and TOC's are mulling this one over anyway. track access charges for the modern DMU's are pretty horiffic compared to sprinters.

I think turbostar is about 8p per carriage per mile versus sprinters which are about 5.5p.
on rural routes where you're probably only getting 15-20% capacity that is going to add up over the course of a year.

the turbostars could fairly easliy get the flex lightweight bogies(as per 172) which would help.

as for 185's, they do seem a bit overpowered with 750bhp per car-that's the same as a 22x!
maybe removal of the centre car engine/fuel tank would be an option...or build up an extra unpowered trailer car if they need the capacity.

the old transpennine sets(class 124) were 6 cars(about 240 tonnes) and had 920bhp under the bonnet...max 70/75mph.
assuming you'd need about 50% extra BHP going from 70mph up to 100mph that would imply something like 1500bhp would be enough for a 240 tonne train..should be easy for 185 to keep to that sort of timing...or at least 90mph.

in the olden days even a class 31 +6 mk1's could handle that over settle+carlisle at 90!
(185's are 3 car sets at say 55 tonnes per car =165 tonnes/2250bhp)

The 70 mph was an artificial limit applied to all "1st generation" dmus. Had it been allowed, the Class 124s could probably have reached 80 - 90 mph on level track (albeit with slower acceleration than 185s or even 158s...).
But I would agree that 185s are over-powered - and would be expensive to run - if they were ever relegated to secondary / stopping services.

 

[hooverboy]

The 70 mph was an artificial limit applied to all "1st generation" dmus. Had it been allowed, the Class 124s could probably have reached 80 - 90 mph on level track (albeit with slower acceleration than 185s or even 158s...).
But I would agree that 185s are over-powered - and would be expensive to run - if they were ever relegated to secondary / stopping services.

down here in bedpan land it was not uncommon for the 127's to be speeding!
sprinters also gained a reputation for being quite quick off the mark too...even a 150 has been known to be not far off 90mph doing leicester-nottingham with a fair wind behind it!
158's are certainly good for a tonne! especially the uprated ones!

..caveat emptor....on level/decline with a tail wind!

I guess it boils down to a capacity issue then.
if the units are frequently at 70%+ loaded at off peak,and crush loaded at rush hour, then the addition of an extra unpowered trailer would make sense.

otherwise it's a running costs issue, where either removal of centre car power plant,or conversion to euro 3b lower spec/higher efficiency power plant (like MTU 523BHP) ,could be a viable option.

the acid test would be can it accelerate fully loaded up lickey?.

 

[adamedwards]

I love the idea of a Top Gear type drag race up the Lickey! Can we get an engineering posession for a day? Huge income from the fans paying for lineside seats. But would the 185 win?

 

[Bungle965]

But I would agree that 185s are over-powered - and would be expensive to run - if they were ever relegated to secondary / stopping services.

They already have been. Manchester-Huddersfield & Huddersfield-Leeds stopping services are now in the hands of the 185s.
Sam

 

[darylyates17]

I love the idea of a Top Gear type drag race up the Lickey! Can we get an engineering posession for a day? Huge income from the fans paying for lineside seats. But would the 185 win?

I’m pretty sure the 185s are the fastest accelerating DMUs I’ve timed them to 60mph at around 70 seconds with my phones GPS

 

[tbtc]

It seems tragic that quite recent DMU units are practically useless while the class 15x units are still set to be knocking about till the mid 2020s.

True, but the 150s (and 156s) were built to simple standards to do simple routes - nothing flash - plenty of routes out there where trains don't get anywhere near 75mph - decent basic layouts with reasonable acceleration is all that matters - which is why I think there's a market for 230s (if Viva get them right).

Meanwhile the railway is too often fascinated with buying flagship trains for flagship routes, which is why we end up with trains that have little/no future once they move away from the route they were designed to operate - e.g. 460s (but also, historically, Deltics etc)

Hence why I'm sticking with my bet that 150s will still be running when the first Voyagers/ 180s etc are being chopped up.

As the Settle Carlisle is in very good condition track-wise and equipped for very heavy forces from freight trains, surely, a simple derogation to allow their use on S&C would be in everyones interest, particularly as their power - weight ration is ideal for the long drag and they have aircon that actually works!

I think 185s would be fine on the S&C - the only problem is that the line is relatively infrequent - only a train every couple of hours - so you'd not need many (from a fleet of fifty one).

It's a five hour round trip, so only three trains required for a bi-hourly frequency - plus the whole thing of using 100mph trains on a service that is limited to 75mph top speed seems a little waste (but I appreciate that we'll have a surfeit of 100mph DMUs with all of the 168/170/171/172/175s, so they will end up being used on slower services)

 

[Noddy]

I think 185s would be fine on the S&C - the only problem is that the line is relatively infrequent - only a train every couple of hours - so you'd not need many (from a fleet of fifty one).

It's a five hour round trip, so only three trains required for a bi-hourly frequency - plus the whole thing of using 100mph trains on a service that is limited to 75mph top speed seems a little waste (but I appreciate that we'll have a surfeit of 100mph DMUs with all of the 168/170/171/172/175s, so they will end up being used on slower services)

Pretty sure there are sections in West Yorks that are close to 100mph. But then they’d be banging against the local stoppers...

 

[chorleyjeff]

I'm sure ROSCO's and TOC's are mulling this one over anyway. track access charges for the modern DMU's are pretty horiffic compared to sprinters.

I think turbostar is about 8p per carriage per mile versus sprinters which are about 5.5p.
on rural routes where you're probably only getting 15-20% capacity that is going to add up over the course of a year.

the turbostars could fairly easliy get the flex lightweight bogies(as per 172) which would help.

as for 185's, they do seem a bit overpowered with 750bhp per car-that's the same as a 22x!
maybe removal of the centre car engine/fuel tank would be an option...or build up an extra unpowered trailer car if they need the capacity.

the old transpennine sets(class 124) were 6 cars(about 240 tonnes) and had 920bhp under the bonnet...max 70/75mph.
assuming you'd need about 50% extra BHP going from 70mph up to 100mph that would imply something like 1500bhp would be enough for a 240 tonne train..should be easy for 185 to keep to that sort of timing...or at least 90mph.

in the olden days even a class 31 +6 mk1's could handle that over settle+carlisle at 90!, a 37 would fly over it!

(185's are 3 car sets at say 55 tonnes per car =165 tonnes/2250bhp)

Runaway coaches may well reach 90mph down the 1:100 S&C and with a little push probably would !
To get from 70 to 100mph balancing speed on level track I think rather more than 50% extra HP would be needed.
Did the 2 x 37s fly over the S&C for that brief period when they dragged four, or was it three coaches, over the hill? Or was only one of them providing power. Both had engines running but not sure both were notched up. When I saw them they looked ridiculously lumberingly clumsy. But I digress.

 

[Mogster]

Bolton to Salford Crescent is 100mph now I think. Someone mentioned it in another thread.

 

[CAF397]

Whilst the 185s top speed is indeed 100mph, they're also pretty quick at accelerating . They aren't half bad at stopping services too, so the negative at not running at SP or MU speeds is that they can accelerate quicker so the time penalty would be negligible.

If they do find further employment on lines with 60 or 75mph lineside then it shouldn't be seen as a waste. They're a perfectly reasonable unit, good at climbing hills and good at start/stop .

 

[Bungle965]

Whilst the 185s top speed is indeed 100mph, they're also pretty quick at accelerating . They aren't half bad at stopping services too, so the negative at not running at SP or MU speeds is that they can accelerate quicker so the time penalty would be negligible.

If they do find further employment on lines with 60 or 75mph lineside then it shouldn't be seen as a waste. They're a perfectly reasonable unit, good at climbing hills and good at start/stop .

They might be pretty good at accelerating but at what cost in terms of fuel economy?
Sam

 

[Bungle965]

Saw a 156 doing the Norwich-Liverpool run today!

That's relatively common now, they cover for unavailable 158s which are away from PPM work (usually).
Class 153s also appear.
Sam

 

[Greybeard33]

Bolton to Salford Crescent is 100mph now I think. Someone mentioned it in another thread.

185s will remain restricted to 75/80mph between Salford Crescent and Euxton. 95/100mph are MU differentials.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

A 185 will out-accelerate a voyager and leave it for dust. Only the voyagers top end speed gives it the edge.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The 185s were built for Transpennine work and the hills on the north south trips on the WCML.

The similar trips are (apologies for the lack of proper names) (Glasgow) - Carlisle - Newcastle, Preston - Leeds, Manchester -Leeds via Rochdale, Settle and Carlisle. I think from the rail press (can't find it, don't ask) the Calder Valley is being cleared for new stock, so the 185s shouldn't be impractical. Most of those routes are used by freight, so heavier DMUs shouldn't be out of the question.

The real point about this debate is that small fleets are real bind and we continue to repeat the folly time after time.

 

[dk1]

They sound perfect for Iarnród Éireann