22 class 185 units being released by TPE - Where could they go?

[The Ham]

Now I know it would be costly for each end unit you apply it to, but the total number of end units that would require the modification would be relatively small. As such I'm starting to think that we could be surprised and see the number of units reduce to lengthen those that are remaining by conversion of the end units to central coaches.

For instance to lengthen the released fleet to 4 coaches would require 5 units (regardless as to if you have 2 units remaining as a 3 coach unit or if you end up with 2 spare end coaches), even lengthening the released fleet to 5 coaches would be 9 units (with one coach spare). Based on those numbers that would require the conversion of 10 end coaches to lengthen to 4 coaches (15*4 and 2*3 or 16*4) or 17 to lengthen to 5 coaches (13*5).

A 4 coach unit could have about 180 standard class seats and about 30 first class seats (with some variations depending on those numbers depending on how you set out the seats). Although that's not going to compare well against fully loaded 2*158's (4 coaches) it's still going to be more than a 3 coach 158 or 159 or a 4 coach 220.

Whilst a 5 coach would have about 70 extra standard class seats, putting it somewhere over a 221 in terms of seating, but again not as many as, say, a 444.

 

[D6975]

Given that the 185s are overpowered for most routes, adding a new trailer car must surely be a possibility providing a sensible price can be negotiated for what would be a relatively small build. The trailer wouldn't need first class, disabled facilities or a loo, so could boost the standard class seat count by nearly 50%.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Given that the 185s are overpowered for most routes, adding a new trailer car must surely be a possibility providing a sensible price can be negotiated for what would be a relatively small build. The trailer wouldn't need first class, disabled facilities or a loo, so could boost the standard class seat count by nearly 50%.

Doubtful that would happen, the Desiro Classic design it's based upon is no longer made by Siemens.

 

[The Ham]

Doubtful that would happen, the Desiro Classic design it's based upon is no longer made by Siemens.

What is to stop a Desire City coach being used? In fact, other than needing power and to transfer instructions between the two parts of the existing unit what is that the new coach would need from the existing unit?

 

[TheKnightWho]

What is to stop a Desire City coach being used? In fact, other than needing power and to transfer instructions between the two parts of the existing unit what is that the new coach would need from the existing unit?

I would be surprised if the internals all match up correctly. It's highly unlikely they use a modular connector for all train types.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would be surprised if the internals all match up correctly. It's highly unlikely they use a modular connector for all train types.

Given that trains are custom-built, it's hardly likely to be a huge cost to make it compatible but using the Desiro City shell. After all, the Class 380s for ScotRail are Desiro Cities in bodyshell terms, but are mechanically Desiro Classics. (Apparently Siemens weren't very happy with this but ScotRail insisted that was the only way they were getting the order).

However, it's probably easier and cheaper to build new units (as TPE are) and use the 185s on something they are suited to, either in their current 3-car formation or as 2- and 4-car units. A simple mod may be to remove the engines from the centre coaches and store them as spares. Though they do presently have a software mod which runs only 2 out of 3 engines at a time, rotating to equalise hours, which is probably easier still.

 

[edwin_m]

However, it's probably easier and cheaper to build new units (as TPE are) and use the 185s on something they are suited to, either in their current 3-car formation or as 2- and 4-car units.

The snag with that is that in umpteen pages on this topic we haven't identified any obvious routes they are suited to! Not TPE's problem, more that of the ROSCO.

 

[northwichcat]

The snag with that is that in umpteen pages on this topic we haven't identified any obvious routes they are suited to!

Imagine it was the 175s that were being freed up and some people suggested ATW routes - we would probably be seeing similar posts with people saying why they aren't suitable for those routes. Just because they aren't the dream train for any route doesn't mean the ROSCO will have any issue finding a new operator to take them on.

 

[tbtc]

No, you're still missing Okehampton...

Oh, and the new craze - finding a home for absolutely every single one of the 115 Class 321 and 322 units without exception just because they sound great and look nice.

You are both, of course, right - my apologies - I should have looked further down my Bingo card

Is there capacity at New Street to introduce a 3rd service between Manchester and Birmingham (perhaps carrying onto Cheltenham)? If there is then how about 9 doubled up 185s (so 18 out of the 22 in service per day) running an additional hourly fast shuttle between Manchester-Birmingham-Cheltenham?

I know that bits of the WCML obviously permit 125mph running (and that the Voyagers had tilt taken out, so they can't reach 125mph), but I honestly don't know if 100mph units could cope with current XC timings.

Though talking of Cheltenham - if 185s are built to tackle hills then how about Birmingham - Worcester - Hereford and Birmingham - Cheltenham - Cardiff, so that they get Lickey Incline to test them?

(once the Chase line becomes EMU operated, how many 170s will LM require?)

I know it's been mentioned already, and there is another route from Yorkshire but would there be any merit in extending the bi-hour S&Cs to Glasgow, and perhaps run some additional Leeds-Carlisle around the peaks? Then extra space available on 185s might prove useful for walkers, cyclists, tourists etc so there might be some extra demand there, and the S&C with additional capacity would be welcome up in the Pennines as well as in the Aire Valley

If there's extra capacity required in the Aire Valley then I'm all for more six coach 331s (especially instead of a Morecambe-bound Pacer).

However, a Glasgow extension does feel like making up routes for the sake of justifying something suitable for 185s.

I think that part of the problem with suggestions for Northern is the daft idea of spreading the 195s thinly between lots of different routes (so that each major town/city gets A New Train, rather than the normal practice of keeping a type of stock in a particular area - so a lot of potential "185-suitable" routes are already earmarked for 195s - whereas if 195s were going to be focussed on "Manchester" routes then you could find some "Yorkshire" services for 185 like the "new" Nottingham - Bradford service - or vice versa if the 195s were based at Neville Hill so you could put 185s on routes like Manchester Airport - Barrow)

The Pennine Way, as the late, great A A Wainwright pointed out, is an artificial construct, which omits some southern parts, then bolts the Cheviots onto the north end.

Above the Cowburn Tunnel is Brown Knoll, which is very Pennine-like, and above the Totley Tunnel, so is Dore Moor.

(However, this really is a bit like 'how long is a piece of string?', trying to decide where the Pennines start and finish; sorry for going off-topic).

Interesting.

I genuinely don't know where to draw the line - but your mention of "watersheds" made me wonder about the Hope Valley (i.e. it drains into the Derwent towards Derby, so is it "Pennine").

As you rightly say, we are going off topic - just something I'm curious about.

The snag with that is that in umpteen pages on this topic we haven't identified any obvious routes they are suited to! Not TPE's problem, more that of the ROSCO.

^^ This ^^

Short of inventing new services like S&C to Glasgow (or building new lines like Skipton to Colne), we'll have to either accept spreading 185s very thinly (a handful here, a handful there - a few from Manchester to Cardiff, a couple from Leeds to Carlisle) or accept them running on some sub-optimal routes that don't require heavy thirsty 100mph diesel trains which don't have a lot of standard class seats in their three coaches and do come with relatively high fuel bills.

 

[northwichcat]

which don't have a lot of standard class seats in their three coaches and do come with relatively high fuel bills.

There's no reason why a 185 can't be refurbished to have all standard class seats. They could also do a EMT 158 refurb whereby they increase the number of seats by getting rid of most of the table bays.

 

[tbtc]

Imagine it was the 175s that were being freed up and some people suggested ATW routes - we would probably be seeing similar posts with people saying why they aren't suitable for those routes. Just because they aren't the dream train for any route doesn't mean the ROSCO will have any issue finding a new operator to take them on.

True, but in recent months we've seemingly moved to a world of "it's cheaper and more efficient to buy a whole new fleet than to make-do-and-mend with older trains". Dump your unwanted old stock (whether that's GA's 321s or Northern's 153s) and leave it for someone else to clear up.

We are also at a stage where TOCs are buying DMUs (whether bi-mode in East Anglia or pure DMUs at Northern).

I'm exaggerating slightly, of course, things don't change overnight, but the 185s will be coming off lease at a particularly bad time - given the other DMUs that could be similarly redundant - five years ago someone would have snapped them up straight away, but now we are moving towards a buyer's market (as far as second hand DMUs go).

 

[ABB125]

How about extending ATWs Maesteg-Cheltenham trains to Worcester and/or Birmingham, calling at Ashchurch, Worcester, Droitwich, then via either Stourbridge or Bromsgrove to New Street? And maybe even extending to Manchester occasionally so units can get to Ardwick depot? This could use 185s, if they also operated Manchester-Cardiff then ATW could take all of them.

 

[Harbornite]

How about extending ATWs Maesteg-Cheltenham trains to Worcester and/or Birmingham, calling at Ashchurch, Worcester, Droitwich, then via either Stourbridge or Bromsgrove to New Street? And maybe even extending to Manchester occasionally so units can get to Ardwick depot? This could use 185s, if they also operated Manchester-Cardiff then ATW could take all of them.

I'm not sure if there's enough demand for another cheltenham- Birmingham service. You'd have issues with capacity as well but extending it ti Worcester is a nice idea.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We are also at a stage where TOCs are buying DMUs (whether bi-mode in East Anglia or pure DMUs at Northern).

It does not seem all that long ago when respected members of this website gave reasons why no more brand-new DMU units would be ordered.

 

[northwichcat]

It does not seem all that long ago when respected members of this website gave reasons why no more brand-new DMU units would be ordered.

I don't claim to be an expert in the industry but when I saw the industry report saying no new DMUs needed to be ordered in CP5 I didn't believe it because it seemed to rely on not only electrification projects completed on time, but more electrification turned around in a very short time frame as well as no to low passenger growth. If I was a bookie I'd have given very high odds on all three of those outcomes being true.

 

[ABB125]

I'm not sure if there's enough demand for another cheltenham- Birmingham service. You'd have issues with capacity as well but extending it ti Worcester is a nice idea.

I don't really mind what might happen to be honest, so long as we get a better service at Ashchurch

 

[Mordac]

I know that bits of the WCML obviously permit 125mph running (and that the Voyagers had tilt taken out, so they can't reach 125mph), but I honestly don't know if 100mph units could cope with current XC timings.

It's not as simple as that. VTWC's 221s still have tilt operational. It's only XC's 221s that had it disabled (220s of course never had any to begin with). However, the only part of the WCML where XC runs them is the Birmingham loop, which allows 125mph with MU differentials, sans tilt. So they do still reach it (and of course reach it in other lines as well).

 

[Haydn1971]

It does not seem all that long ago when respected members of this website gave reasons why no more brand-new DMU units would be ordered.

Indeed, a claim that I challenged regularly... How times change

 

[D365]

Even if CP5 electrification had gone fully to plan, the general lack of large-scale infrastructure investment since the ECML electrification/WCML modernisation meant we were going to need new-build diesels in any case. Aborting the planned cross-TOC DMU order in 2010 was stupid.

 

[swt_passenger]

Even if CP5 electrification had gone fully to plan, the general lack of large-scale infrastructure investment since the ECML electrification/WCML modernisation meant we were going to need new-build diesels in any case. Aborting the planned cross-TOC DMU order in 2010 was stupid.

It was pulled slightly earlier, in 2009, simultaneously with the sudden electrification U-turn.

 

[D365]

It was pulled slightly earlier, in 2009, simultaneously with the sudden electrification U-turn.

My apologies. But it still shouldn't have been pulled. Hindsight wasn't even needed to see that.

 

[edwin_m]

My apologies. But it still shouldn't have been pulled. Hindsight wasn't even needed to see that.

I'm not so sure, given that even though that order didn't go ahead, this thread is discussing an apparent surplus of DMUs...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, a claim that I challenged regularly... How times change

The railway is full of "can't"s at times.

First of all, the Turbostars came along and it was going to be impossible to have sensibly-sized luggage racks. Then the Pendolino and Desiro came along with large racks and proved that to simply be terrible design by Adtranz/Bombardier - terrible design that they still have not been bothered to fix.

Then they said "no more proper gangways" when designing the Juniper EMUs, then along came the Desiro, Class 172, AT200 etc.

Then they said "no more DMUs", and along came Northern's and Abellio's orders.

Then they said "no more LHCS", then TPE ordered a load.

If there's a will to deliver something, there will be a way.

 

[D365]

If there's a will to deliver something, there will be a way.

The mainline conversion of LU rolling stock?

Or *Insert RailUK fantasy froth here*

 

[Bantamzen]

If there's extra capacity required in the Aire Valley then I'm all for more six coach 331s (especially instead of a Morecambe-bound Pacer).

I'd agree that more 331s running down from Skipton would be the best capacity raising option, but as things stand the main use of 2x3 331s will be in the peaks. There are still plenty of other times when extra capacity is going to be needed. So nobody on this route would turn their noses up at a few more S&C based services operated by 185s

However, a Glasgow extension does feel like making up routes for the sake of justifying something suitable for 185s.

But isn't this what is happening on some of the Connect routes, making up new routes? I'd say from personal and business experience that there is far more demand for a regular direct Leeds-Glasgow service than say Leeds-Chester. Indeed a quick glance at NR's planner shows the S&C as an option to get up there, obviously changing at Carlisle (and of course Appleby at the moment). As things stand the S&C isn't going to be operated by any 195s, so upgrade it to a Connect route and operate 185s, some of which could run through to Glasgow isn't as daft an idea as it may seem. It might even give some competition and help focus prices as getting up there at the moment is expensive and usually takes a lot of time unless you manage to get one of the few XCs going direct.

And using some of the released 185s on the S&C (as well as the other suggested routes) will help free up some 158s to operate elsewhere, perhaps displacing 150s or possibly strengthening other 158 services. Yes they are more expensive to run, but given their ability to deal with the climbs into the hills and the massive investment Arriva are already making to improve the whole operation, it would surely only be a drop in the ocean for quite a bit of gain for the routes involved?

 

[swt_passenger]

My apologies. But it still shouldn't have been pulled. Hindsight wasn't even needed to see that.

No problem. I thought I'd point it out because with the change of government in 2010 it would possibly be assumed to have been a party political change,

I just found the archived DfT electrification announcement, and at that time they said the DMU plan was 'superseded' and forecast an update to the rolling stock plan later that year. I can't find that so far, but IIRC it is the one that suggests no new DMUs would be needed for a while, around 10 years or more?

 

[158756]

I'm not so sure, given that even though that order didn't go ahead, this thread is discussing an apparent surplus of DMUs...

This thread is discussing 22 DMUs with an uncertain future when there are still 30 pacers and 34(?) 153s with no replacement plans, and demand for diesel worked services is still increasing. Hardly much of a surplus - unlike the EMU situation with the 321s, which are newer than hundreds of DMUs we aren't even thinking about replacing.

On where the 185s will go, the relevant franchises up in the next few years I think are Wales, West and East Midlands, South Western. I don't see West Midlands having a use for them, likewise East Midlands if they can't split Liverpool-Norwich. They would be useful on South Western, but might be a pain to diagram because of the capacity problem, plus if any franchise can afford new trains it would be South Western. So maybe long distance Wales & Borders routes? I may of course be completely wrong on this.

There might also be a bit of work going filling gaps when new trains have teething problems and electrification is further delayed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure a place will be found for them, which will then start a cascade. I do like the idea of using them for improving the quality of Welsh express services, allowing a cascade which would kick out Class 150s to be used for other purposes or even scrapped - the quality is certainly up to it. With 2 x 3-car you could even do something radical like increasing services by way of portion working - for instance something like hourly Manchester Airport to Llandudno *and* Holyhead, and the same to/from Cardiff, or even reinstating through working to Birmingham via the WCML.

Their being overpowered is not a major issue which has already been solved in software. If two engines are too much, just modify the software to turn off two at a time in rotation instead of one.

 

[Whistler40145]

If 185s worked over the S&C to Glasgow, could they be suitable for Leeds to Lancaster services?

 

[Mordac]

If 185s worked over the S&C to Glasgow, could they be suitable for Leeds to Lancaster services?

There aren't any MU differentials there either, so probably, assuming the paperwork to clear them was done.