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

[DarloRich]

Why do these trains need a "diet"? What benefit are you trying to achieve? They are good quality, reliable trains that the experts here seem to despise.

 

[Bantamzen]

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)

Perhaps an extension to Glasgow for some services might be a possibility. Currently XC services via Edinburgh take 4+ hours, with services via Carlisle taking up to 4:40. But the latter has up to an almost 50 minute change at Carlisle, so properly timed a S&C extending to Glasgow might easily undercut an XC via Edinburgh using a 185. Of course you'll ask is there a market, but depending on timings, there might be for passengers from elsewhere in Yorkshire changing at Leeds as well as any local market. And during summer months there might be some additional flow from Scotland down into the Eden Valley & Dales too.

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

That's mainly west of Leeds towards Apperley Bridge. Currently the S&C services run some 6 minutes behind a Bradford FS stopper, so there's a good chance they would catch up before Shipley. But even the 158s do, but do have a generous timing buffer at Shipley to allow the Bradford to dive into P4. So some timings might need to be changed, but that could be achieved by dropping the S&Cs back a few minutes as they would be able to stay well in front of the Skipton EMUs even if departing 4-5 minutes in front.

Why do these trains need a "diet"? What benefit are you trying to achieve? They are good quality, reliable trains that the experts here seem to despise.

Indeed. These units were built to get across the Pennines reliably, and notwithstanding timetable issues they do. Many a time they've powered up the hill to Standedge in heavy snow, wind, rain without a whisper of complaint whereas 158 & others struggle. I've been very happy with their overall performance, if not capacity over the years and would like to see them hang around at least some of the Pennine routes to do what they do best (hence my liking of the idea of them working the S&C).

 

[sprinterguy]

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.

It was four coaches, and they were through wired for blue star multiple working so that both locos could work simultaneously. I don't recall any issues with timekeeping or acceleration.

 

[Spartacus]

If they were used their acceleration on the S&C stoppers would be very useful for bringing the journey times down a bit. Anything that could take a few cars off the road would be useful.

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed. These units were built to get across the Pennines reliably, and notwithstanding timetable issues they do. Many a time they've powered up the hill to Standedge in heavy snow, wind, rain without a whisper of complaint whereas 158 & others struggle. I've been very happy with their overall performance, if not capacity over the years and would like to see them hang around at least some of the Pennine routes to do what they do best (hence my liking of the idea of them working the S&C).

agreed!

I normally despair about the S&C obsession on this board but think these trains would be good on there. Decent internal layout, first class, nice big windows, trolley space, plugs and enough power to deal with the gradients.

 

[Bantamzen]

agreed!

I normally despair about the S&C obsession on this board but think these trains would be good on there. Decent internal layout, first class, nice big windows, trolley space, plugs and enough power to deal with the gradients.

And the Friends of the S&C would love the extra room for their catering, selling their merchandise etc! And as you say the big windows would be a huge tourist sell on that line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the Friends of the S&C would love the extra room for their catering, selling their merchandise etc! And as you say the big windows would be a huge tourist sell on that line.

And First Class could be money for old rope if sold as an on-board upgrade for say £5.

 

[mallard]

Why do these trains need a "diet"? What benefit are you trying to achieve?

Someone didn't read the thread title... "Could they be made light enough for sprinter speeds?"

 

[Bantamzen]

And First Class could be money for old rope if sold as an on-board upgrade for say £5.

That would be a simple, but effective marketing opportunity. I'd certainly give that a go, providing of course that the seats could be reserved as I'd normally be joining at Shipley*.

(* This of course is a purely selfish motive!! )

 

[DarloRich]

Someone didn't read the thread title... "Could they be made light enough for sprinter speeds?"

OK. why? What is the benefit?

As a passenger what does "sprinter speed" mean to me? What return does the TOC make on "sprinter speed"? What benefit does NR gain by "sprinter speed"? Does the cost of achieving "sprinter speed" make the changes worthwhile?

 

[mallard]

OK. why? What is the benefit?

Well, I'm not the OP, but presumably; with several 185s due to become surplus to requirements on their current routes and a shortage of modern DMUs elsewhere, it would seem wasteful for the 185s to go to the scrapyard. However, they may be unattractive to new operators if they can't operate the timetables of the units they replace (which would likely be Sprinters). Routes where the improved acceleration would sufficiently mitigate the issue are fairly rare; even then, it would mean that 185s and "Sprinter-class" units could not be used interchangeably. Thus, it would be nice (if, in my personal opinion, unrealistic) if they could be made to qualify for Sprinter differential speeds.

 

[TBSchenker]

185s were restricted to 60mph between Poulton and Kirkham, unable to run at MU 70mph. The differential was not great, admittedly, but are there any lineside where the disparity between permissable speeds and MU or SP speeds is significantly greater?

 

[Llama]

Biggest difference I have seen is a brief 25-over-45MU speed on the Up East Lancs line between Holme Tunnel and Townley Tunnel. Only four chains long. Not that 185s have ever been over Copy Pit.

 

[class 9]

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

Which is not suprising considering that Voyager engines were derated down to 700hp a few years ago.

 

[CHAPS2034]

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.

The Calder Valley is already cleared for 185s and has been for some while. I remember reading that one or two late night / early morning TPE diagrams still regularly go that way for route retention purposes.

Several years ago I was at Huddersfield coming back to Manchester and Standege became blocked by an incident. Luckily one of the westbound services had a driver and guard with Calder Valley on their cards, so the train reversed and went via Brighouse and Hebden Bridge. At least I got to Manchester, even though it was to Victoria rather than Picc (chord wasn't open in thse days).

The Calder Valley has also been used during engineering blockades.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Which is not suprising considering that Voyager engines were derated down to 700hp a few years ago.

Were they, I didn't know that. Is that just to reduce wear?

 

[class 9]

Were they, I didn't know that. Is that just to reduce wear?

I believe so.

 

[HOOVER29]

Why don’t South Western Railway have the 185’s & send the 158/159’s to Trans Pennine?
I’m sure their 100mph top whack would be useful on the Waterloo-Exter route.
I suppose however there is probably some crazy reason why this can’t happen though.

 

[chorleyjeff]

It was four coaches, and they were through wired for blue star multiple working so that both locos could work simultaneously. I don't recall any issues with timekeeping or acceleration.

Thanks for info.
But they didn't "fly". And two large locos for four coaches really did look strange although I agree the extra capacity around Leeds would have been welcome.
Given the current lack of mineral or goods trains on this route compared to Thames Clyde and Waverley days there shouldn't be much hindrance to some fast timings especially with 185s.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Why don’t South Western Railway have the 185’s & send the 158/159’s to Trans Pennine?
I’m sure their 100mph top whack would be useful on the Waterloo-Exter route.
I suppose however there is probably some crazy reason why this can’t happen though.

That would be good it would be nice to have some different rolling stock on one of my local routes.

 

[sprinterguy]

Why don’t South Western Railway have the 185’s & send the 158/159’s to Trans Pennine?
I’m sure their 100mph top whack would be useful on the Waterloo-Exter route.
I suppose however there is probably some crazy reason why this can’t happen though.

Transpennine are only retaining 185s for the Transpennine North semi-fasts (assuming those are ultimately reinstated), for which they're better suited, and Transpennine South Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes.

185s would represent a significant decrease in capacity per unit compared to a 159, and more pertinently compared to the 9 and 10-car formations that operate out of Waterloo, especially given that the 185s could only work as maximum 9-car formations. They also lack corridor connections between units and wouldn't be able to take advantage of any Sprinter differential speed limits that might be in place on the Waterloo - Exeter route.

Track access charges and fuel costs, and possibly leasing charges, would also be higher - The cost per seat/passenger km would certainly go up.

 

[HOOVER29]

So no good for say East Midlands Trains on the Liverpool-Norwich Route?

Talking about the 158’s, what speed could they achieve if left to their own devices?
When I use the Liverpool to Norwich service between Grantham & Peterborough I get the feeling they are being held back when really they want to hit the magic ton. Looking at the speed on a GPS device the 158’s happily sit at 90mph & I get the impression that the driver is powering off & on all the time,ie the speed drops to about 87-88 then the power kicks in again until 90-91 then eases off again. It’s like this all the way into Peterborough.

 

[sprinterguy]

So no good for say East Midlands Trains on the Liverpool-Norwich Route?

Six car working of the units between Liverpool and Nottingham would be welcome.

If a split of the Liverpool - Norwich service ever occurs, on a joined up railway I'd like to think that with the 'spare' 185 units you could have a matrix of services centered on Sheffield that were 185 operated:

Leeds - Sheffield - Nottingham
Man Air - Sheffield - Cleethorpes
Liverpool - Sheffield - Nottingham

Though that's getting into deeply speculative territory and won't happen.

 

[VT 390]

Six car working of the units between Liverpool and Nottingham would be welcome.

If a split of the Liverpool - Norwich service ever occurs

That route is going to be split with one of the reasons being more capacity between Nottingham and Liverpool, but I would like to see the 185's come on to this route but keep running through to Norwich with 6 carriages to Nottingham and then 3 continuing to Norwich.

 

[sprinterguy]

That route is going to be split with one of the reasons being more capacity between Nottingham and Liverpool, but I would like to see the 185's come on to this route but keep running through to Norwich with 6 carriages to Nottingham and then 3 continuing to Norwich.

Yeah, were it not for what I believe to be quite drastic speed limitations across the fens then 185s wouldn't be a bad fit for the through service. Hence the original topic of this discussion, I suppose!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why don’t South Western Railway have the 185’s & send the 158/159’s to Trans Pennine?
I’m sure their 100mph top whack would be useful on the Waterloo-Exter route.
I suppose however there is probably some crazy reason why this can’t happen though.

Because the capacity is too low due to the poorly designed layout and they don't have gangways.

 

[VT 390]

Because the capacity is too low due to the poorly designed layout and they don't have gangways.

If you had all services as 9 or 12 carriages would the capacity be the same, also could some capacity be created in the 185s by changing the first class to 2+2 seating or moving it to the front of coach a or c and in standard reduce the number of table seats in order to fit more seats in?

 

[dk1]

Yeah, were it not for what I believe to be quite drastic speed limitations across the fens then 185s wouldn't be a bad fit for the through service. Hence the original topic of this discussion, I suppose!

There are rumours some of these restrictions (across the Fens at least) will be removed for the class 755s. Whether this also affects other heavyweight units remains to be seen.

 

[Chris125]

Being DEMUs they'd presumably be easier and cheaper to 'Hybrid' than the 168s/170s currently proposed - perhaps that could provide the business case for replacing the engines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being DEMUs they'd presumably be easier and cheaper to 'Hybrid' than the 168s/170s currently proposed - perhaps that could provide the business case for replacing the engines.

185s are not DEMUs, they have a hydraulic transmission very similar to the Sprinter family.

They are very much a heavyweight, low-tech, classic (but highly reliable as a result) DMU.