Where’s the best place for Class 185s?

[Whistler40145]

Is it possible to reconfigure 185s into longer sets, e.g. inserting carriages ?

 

[Hey 3]

Personally I think the 185's should go to EMR and a few to remain with TPE

 

[skyhigh]

Is it possible to reconfigure 185s into longer sets, e.g. inserting carriages ?

Yes with enough money, but you'd end up with a number of 2 car sets

 

[swt_passenger]

Will it not be that "HST" means a subset of trains, rather than just HSTs? In the same way that (as far as I know) "Sprinter" doesn't just mean Sprinters, and "Multiple Unit" doesn't mean all multiple units?

That’s right, there was a thread a few months ago that included a list of which stock counts as HST. It’s quite long:

What are HST speeds applicable to?

From Oxford Parkway to Bicester (and beyond to Bletchley) is 75/HST 100mph. It will see 10tph (both ways) when you add in 2tph to MK and 1tph to Bedford; 11tph with freight. Why are we creating HST speed boards for this route? The only section ever likely to have seen a HST will be Oxford to...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Watershed]

That is debatable given 185s can't use certain speed differentials on the Hope Valley.

Yet the timings across the Hope Valley are virtually identical for 185s and 158s. The acceleration of the 185s balances out the increased speed (on the flat and downhill sections!) of the 158s.

The 185s don't have an obvious place to be cascaded to, simply because they are highly specialised stock. I imagine most, if not all, will see out their careers on TPE. Though they might be in service for less than the typical 30 year design life.

 

[317 forever]

I wonder whether 185s could do some Northern routes in areas served by TPE?

So, for example

Carlisle - Newcastle - Middlesbrough. Maybe even Whitby as it's a similar seaside location to Scarborough even if a bit quieter.

Sheffield - Doncaster - Hull - Scarborough

 

[MattRat]

I doubt they are going anytime soon, they fit perfectly well with TPE, but, if I did have to move them, I'd move them to XC to replace 170s. Maybe bring the 175s with them if there aren't enough units to replace them.

 

[JonathanH]

I doubt they are going anytime soon, they fit perfectly well with TPE, but, if I did have to move them, I'd move them to XC to replace 170s. Maybe bring the 175s with them if there aren't enough units to replace them.

XC only have 7 2-car and 22 3-car 170s so no need for more than one fleet. Yes, they could displace the 170s but it would seem a bit pointless as they don't really offer more capacity.

 

[matacaster]

A 158 is a lightweight unit though. Anywhere that 185s replace 158s is going to see a significant increase in operating costs that will ultimately feed through to passenger fares.

Whilst the 185 is very heavy for a dmu, the Settle&Carlisle infrastructure was upgraded to handle extremely heavy and frequent coal trains. Whilst I'm sure the rules say 185's are charged more as they are heavier, I can't see that that should be the case at the moment on S&C owing to frequency and track in really good shape. The simple answer would be to simply alter the charging rules for 185's on that route.

 

[Watershed]

Whilst the 185 is very heavy for a dmu, the Settle&Carlisle infrastructure was upgraded to handle extremely heavy and frequent coal trains. Whilst I'm sure the rules say 185's are charged more as they are heavier, I can't see that that should be the case at the moment on S&C owing to frequency and track in really good shape. The simple answer would be to simply alter the charging rules for 185's on that route.

That wouldn't make any sense. The charging rules are in place to provide a (small) incentive to use trains that are easier on the track, and which cause wear and tear. The route may have been upgraded, but that doesn't mean you should just run heavy trains over it for its own sake.

Given that the ruling linespeed is 60mph most of the way, there is very little reason to consider using 185s on it. Sprinters can manage 60mph just fine on the route.

 

[paul1609]

Much as this would be good from a passenger perspective, could there be issues with the S&C being largely 60mph?

170s don’t seem to perform particularly happily at lower speeds, and the S&C is fairly heavily graded as well.

(That said, Southern’s 171s do a fair bit of frequent-stop work, and it doesn’t seem to have been an issue, though they probably get to top 60mph fairly often).

On the Marshlink service I doubt the 171s ever top 60 mph. It's the maximum line speed between Ashford and Ore, West of there to Eastbourne they stop at every station since the Dft / GTR were allowed to destroy the service.

 

[D365]

I doubt they are going anytime soon, they fit perfectly well with TPE, but, if I did have to move them, I'd move them to XC to replace 170s. Maybe bring the 175s with them if there aren't enough units to replace them.

As above - why? Class 170 is the best option for CrossCountry regional routes until electrification (one day).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I doubt they are going anytime soon, they fit perfectly well with TPE, but, if I did have to move them, I'd move them to XC to replace 170s. Maybe bring the 175s with them if there aren't enough units to replace them.

185s would suffer from not being able to use SP or DMU speeds on the route. They might be able to keep time due to their superior acceleration, but at the cost of higher fuel consumption and higher track access charges. Given that the two types are very similar from a passenger environment perspective, I'm not sure what such a change would gain.

 

[Energy]

As above - why? Class 170 is the best option for CrossCountry regional routes until electrification (one day).

I think they want the 170s somewhere else more than they want XC to have the 185s...

 

[MattRat]

I think they want the 170s somewhere else more than they want XC to have the 185s...

Nail on the head. My personal belief is putting as many of one unit in one place, as it creates standardization.

 

[Clansman]

Nail on the head. My personal belief is putting as many of one unit in one place, as it creates standardization.

Except when said standardisation would increase costs and decrease capacity, let alone there being no demand for it.

That's where the line needs to be drawn.

Standardisation works when scoping for the future when the needs of entire networks are taken into consideration (GA Flirts and Aventras for example), not squeezing every ounce out of the past for the sake of matching couplers or purely aesthetical similarities (the same principle that makes some users want 185s to SWR for the sake of them being Siemens).

 

[MattRat]

Standardisation works when scoping for the future when the needs of entire networks are taken into consideration (GA Flirts and Aventras for example), not squeezing every ounce out of the past for the sake of matching couplers or purely aesthetical similarities (the same principle that makes some users want 185s to SWR for the sake of them being Siemens).

Well, I'm guessing they also want the Super Sprinters elsewhere.

 

[Xavi]

Well, I'm guessing they also want the Super Sprinters elsewhere.

We'll keep the 159s thanks. 185s not suitable west of Salisbury - insufficient seating in 6 cars and no gangways for short platformed stations.

 

[HSTEd]

Well if we were talking long run - scrap em and buying some 755s instead.

They are nearly 20 years old already and are something of a fuel hog and a track smasher.

 

[jackot]

We'll keep the 159s thanks. 185s not suitable west of Salisbury - insufficient seating in 6 cars and no gangways for short platformed stations.

Yep, in the case of Waterloo to Salisbury they seem to be a solution looking for a problem. They are no better than the 159/158s in most aspects (if not worse for factors like door positioning, weight, fuel consumption and gangway doors). Sure they have a nicer interior and better build quality, but there is no point replacing trains that work well. I would just wait until more electrification, or for a bi-mode that can utilise the third rail.

 

[Ashley Hill]

How are they fuel consumption wise compared to a 2+4 HST?

 

[mmh]

185s would suffer from not being able to use SP or DMU speeds on the route. They might be able to keep time due to their superior acceleration, but at the cost of higher fuel consumption and higher track access charges. Given that the two types are very similar from a passenger environment perspective, I'm not sure what such a change would gain.

It is though very easy to imagine a future world where track access charges don't exist.

 

[MattRat]

How are they fuel consumption wise compared to a 2+4 HST?

I think maintenance is a bigger problem for HSTs than fuel costs. Plus I think the operators would want a train you could access the whole of to replace them, so you don't have to double crews.

 

[JonathanH]

It is though very easy to imagine a future world where track access charges don't exist.

Is it? There would still need to be internal accounting for which services are causing most wear and tear to the infrastructure. The overall economics of running trains still need to be managed as does access for freight trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think maintenance is a bigger problem for HSTs than fuel costs. Plus I think the operators would want a train you could access the whole of to replace them, so you don't have to double crews.

Double crewing is a TOC policy/Union agreement thing and not every TOC does it, and of those TOCs who do do it not all do it on all their trains, e.g. on GWR a double 16x on DOO is acceptable, but an 80x can't have an unstaffed portion.

 

[mmh]

Double crewing is a TOC policy/Union agreement thing and not every TOC does it, and of those TOCs who do do it not all do it on all their trains, e.g. on GWR a double 16x on DOO is acceptable, but an 80x can't have an unstaffed portion.

Which TOCs and which Unions have such agreements?

 

[Ashley Hill]

e.g. on GWR a double 16x on DOO is acceptable, but an 80x can't have an unstaffed portion.

On GWR a ten car only requires one Guard but needs a Lead Host or in the other portion. A multiple turbo only needs one guard (away from DOO) so perhaps a six car 185 could have only one guard too.

 

[QSK19]

Class 185s could take over the 180/222 work if running doubled up; it would provide more capacity than the current 5 coach trains and it would be a decent stop gap solution before electrification of the MML.

Not only would that be negated by the fact that 810s are replacing the 180s/222s, you’d effectively be taking away IC trains and replacing them with non-IC ones. EMR is getting hammered enough by receiving old, substandard* stock for its Regional and Connect services; so the triple whammy of doing the same thing for Intercity services would be like rubbing salt in the wound… like going back to the early 2000s when 170s ran mainline services.

Mind you, don’t give the DfT any ideas… I could imagine them assigning the 810s to elsewhere and pressing ahead with the “Intercity 185” idea!

*once fully refurbished, I think the 170s and 360s will be half decent trains; but IMO they’re substandard considering that they’re old & cascaded instead of brand new and still nothing has been done to improve the interiors.

 

[JonathanH]

“Intercity 185”

I was always a bit disappointed that Intercity didn't brand the class 90s as 'Intercity 175' when the East Coast 91s and coaches were 'Intercity 225s'.

I'm not sure 'Intercity 185' is going to work as branding for the class 185s.

 

[QSK19]

I'm not sure 'Intercity 185' is going to work as branding for the class 185s.

Well, if the 185s did ever actually see IC service somewhere and the relevant operator considered the “Intercity 185” marketing idea, at least we’ve helped the operator out by stating that it’s not a good one