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

[Haydn1971]

Of what relevance are Chinley and Dore to a "fast service from Sheffield to Manchester" as the OP suggested?

City to city services are useless for commuters, it costs £15 to park at Sheffield, there's no trams or buses at get people from the outskirts of town to Sheffield in time for the pre 7am trains - i.e. The ones that get people to Manchester before 8:30am - The car park at Dore is full by the 7:15am train to Manchester, there's clearly demand for more early trains - the fast peak services generally call at some combination of Chinley and Dore, we can only dream of an intercity service city to city with no stops

An additional *semifast* may be justified, I suppose. But as for Chinley, if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere and commute to a city some way away, you choose an infrequent train service. If I was going to do something for Chinley it'd be to rebuild the station with a bay and extend the New Mills terminator.

I'm guessing you've never noticed the number of people that get on and off here. Chinley services a large portion of the peak national park, it's a popular commuter belt for the Manchester university staff.

Dore is a difficult one, it may be better served additionally by bus, as really it's a city station requiring of a frequent service not required by the rest of the line.

There is a predominant flow at Dore, and that's to Manchester, not Sheffield in my experience.

 

[Philip]

City to city services are useless for commuters, it costs £15 to park at Sheffield, there's no trams or buses at get people from the outskirts of town to Sheffield in time for the pre 7am trains - i.e. The ones that get people to Manchester before 8:30am - The car park at Dore is full by the 7:15am train to Manchester, there's clearly demand for more early trains - the fast peak services generally call at some combination of Chinley and Dore, we can only dream of an intercity service city to city with no stops





I'm guessing you've never noticed the number of people that get on and off here. Chinley services a large portion of the peak national park, it's a popular commuter belt for the Manchester university staff.






There is a predominant flow at Dore, and that's to Manchester, not Sheffield in my experience.

For the occasional Manchester trains that stop there in commuting hours maybe, but if you had a fast Manchester service calling at Dore regularly then I doubt you'd see many passengers going to Manchester during the day, certainly no where near the number of people who'd be making the short hop into Sheffield.

I think the rail service for Dore is fine as it is with the plan for an hourly stopping service between Manchester and Sheffield calling there, with peak time extras.

 

[Class 170101]

That plan has been put on hold now. There is a new plan for 11 x 2+8 HST sets to head to XC, in exchange for 11 x 220s or 221s to head to GWR, awaiting DfT approval, and maybe revealed in the AXC Direct Award as a quick win solution, especially as the Direct Award for XC is pretty much confirmed to be zero growth (no joke), so no additional stock will be brought in.

If the above goes ahead, the Voyagers will work Cardiff - Taunton and Plymouth - Penzance (alongside 150/2's), along with a few through services each day.

However, the plan has changed so many times, I will believe it when I see it

Voyagers maintenance is undertaken at their dedicated Depot at Central Rivers and all, both XC and VT West Coast diagrams cycle round so that they can visit overnight with fairly easy access, i.e. Birmingham New St. If any were to go to GWR they would be too remote and I'm sure it would hardly be cost effective to build another Depot somewhere on GWR Territory.

Perhaps there could be a shared fleet (with dual branding and livery ) so that the GWR units could return to Central Rivers in the evening.

I quite like the idea of XC having more HSTs, it might mean that they will be going in the right direction when I travel . However, I expect there would be pathing issues. Would the GWR units be 4 car ones?

I suggested this a while again and there wasn't much support however I consider this a viable use for HSTs in the short to medium term. Not sure how it would be seen as zero growth though. Does a 2+8 HST have fewer seats than 4 car Voyager?

As far as maintenance at Central Rivers is concerned I would have thought a shared fleet most likely. Swaps via Bristol Temple Meads most likely. How often would an individual Voyager need to go back to Central Rivers anyway?

 

[Haydn1971]

For the occasional Manchester trains that stop there in commuting hours maybe, but if you had a fast Manchester service calling at Dore regularly then I doubt you'd see many passengers going to Manchester during the day, certainly no where near the number of people who'd be making the short hop into Sheffield.

The peak hours service from Dore could be much better than it is, the first to leave there is the 6:27am semi-fast, which gets to Manchester Piccadilly for 7:34am, 67 minutes later. The 7:14am train stops at less stations and manages to get into Manchester for 8:02am (48 minutes), but is generally standing room only... The next fast will get you into Manchester for 8:36am (57 minutes). That gives just two "fast" trains to Manchester for a reasonable start time for work. Personally, arriving at my office at the First Street development before 7:45am is impossible, which to be frank, is pathetic for two cities so close. As I said above, the 6:11am from Sheffield would cost me £15 for parking, the same train from Meadowhall at 6:01am involves a drive in the opposite direction for me from Manchester and is a real pig to escape by car in the evening peak. I'm sure my trip isn't that unique, there's plenty of tired commuters sharing my trip daily, tired of inflated prices and standing room on certain trains.

I think the rail service for Dore is fine as it is with the plan for an hourly stopping service between Manchester and Sheffield calling there, with peak time extras.

Daytime, totally agree - it's a bit of a pig doing a early finish when your car is at Dore, with a train every two hours. Peak time, as noted above, needs some work

 

[LowLevel]

Dore certainly has a strong enough Manchester flow at peak hours to warrant more calls and I hope when it's redoubled it gets them.

 

[Rich McLean]

I suggested this a while again and there wasn't much support however I consider this a viable use for HSTs in the short to medium term. Not sure how it would be seen as zero growth though. Does a 2+8 HST have fewer seats than 4 car Voyager?

As far as maintenance at Central Rivers is concerned I would have thought a shared fleet most likely. Swaps via Bristol Temple Meads most likely. How often would an individual Voyager need to go back to Central Rivers anyway?

Presumably, GWR will sub lease from XC, and XC will sublease from GWR, so all track access and lease costs don't change between the two, and no additional stock (as in extra sets) is being added to AXC, so it will still be no growth in franchise terms

 

[The Ham]

Presumably, GWR will sub lease from XC, and XC will sublease from GWR, so all track access and lease costs don't change between the two, and no additional stock (as in extra sets) is being added to AXC, so it will still be no growth in franchise terms

However, and this is where XC will benefit the most, as even if it is 5+2 HST (which are being developed for GWR, rather than the reported 8+2 HSTs) each will have a lot more seats than a 220 or 221. By my reckoning about 300 standard seats in 4 coaches and about 45 first class seats in one coach. This compares with 174 or 224 standard and 26 first. Even between a 221 and a 5+2 HST that would be an increase of about 1/3 in standard class seating.

Even if a 5+2 were used to replace a pair of 220's it would only see a relatively small drop in standard class capacity from 348 to 308 (89% of the pair of 220s) with first class dropping from 52 to 45 (87% of the pair of 220s), with the advantage of it all being in one unit.

It would also mean that it would have broadly the same number of standard seats as a pair of 185s (keeping at least this post vaguely linked to the thread) which would have 308 standard seats.

 

[Rich McLean]

However, and this is where XC will benefit the most, as even if it is 5+2 HST (which are being developed for GWR, rather than the reported 8+2 HSTs) each will have a lot more seats than a 220 or 221. By my reckoning about 300 standard seats in 4 coaches and about 45 first class seats in one coach. This compares with 174 or 224 standard and 26 first. Even between a 221 and a 5+2 HST that would be an increase of about 1/3 in standard class seating.

Even if a 5+2 were used to replace a pair of 220's it would only see a relatively small drop in standard class capacity from 348 to 308 (89% of the pair of 220s) with first class dropping from 52 to 45 (87% of the pair of 220s), with the advantage of it all being in one unit.

It would also mean that it would have broadly the same number of standard seats as a pair of 185s (keeping at least this post vaguely linked to the thread) which would have 308 standard seats.

Yes indeed. Anyway, to put this to bed, 185s at this point in time, will not be going to GWR or AXC. That's those two franchises out of the running

 

[The Ham]

Yes indeed. Anyway, to put this to bed, 185s at this point in time, will not be going to GWR or AXC. That's those two franchises out of the running

Yes and possibly not.

Yes, they are out of the running of being locations for the 185's whilst they are extensions.

Possibly not, however, for when the franchise is renewed - which is after the 185's get released - so I would argue it makes little difference.

I will however look forward to the formal announcement on XC doing a unit swap with GWR.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Going through the Franchises my idae on the likelihood of 185's ending up there are:

East Anglia (announced) - Not going to happen as all new units
South Western (Feb 2017) - Only if they are only used to free up 158s/159s to increase capacity on peak services
West Midlands (June 2017) - Not sure what the ITT says, but given that SW's talks about them it would be quite a tight turn around to get an agreement on using them after their use has been ruled out by the announcement on who is running the SW franchise with what.
West Coast (Nov 2017) - Very highly unlikely
South Eastern (Feb 2018) - a totally EMU railway so very unlikely
East Midlands (March 2018) - slim chance, but only if it has limited impact on the timetable of some of the more local services
Wales and Borders (June 2018) - a fair contender
Great Western (October 2018) - a possible contender, as it could well require quite a few DMU's going forward given the amount of growth that it has seen
Cross Country (June 2019) - possible but unlikely, but it depends on what happens with the 22x's at East Midlands
TSGN (May 2021) - Fairly unlikely given the number of DMU's that they require
Chiltern (Aug 2021) - possible
East West (Unknown) - possible but probably only a short term solution but could tie them up until
East Coast (Nov 2021) - Very highly unlikely
TPE (Nov 2022) - is where they are leaving from and so would be sat idle for some time if they were to go back there as part of the next franchise
Northern (Dec 2024) - at least 5 years of sitting idle is unlikely but could be a good home after East West is electrified

 

[hwl]

Yes and possibly not.

Yes, they are out of the running of being locations for the 185's whilst they are extensions.

Possibly not, however, for when the franchise is renewed - which is after the 185's get released - so I would argue it makes little difference.

I will however look forward to the formal announcement on XC doing a unit swap with GWR.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Going through the Franchises my idae on the likelihood of 185's ending up there are:

East Anglia (announced) - Not going to happen as all new units
South Western (Feb 2017) - Only if they are only used to free up 158s/159s to increase capacity on peak services
West Midlands (June 2017) - Not sure what the ITT says, but given that SW's talks about them it would be quite a tight turn around to get an agreement on using them after their use has been ruled out by the announcement on who is running the SW franchise with what.
West Coast (Nov 2017) - Very highly unlikely
South Eastern (Feb 2018) - a totally EMU railway so very unlikely
East Midlands (March 2018) - slim chance, but only if it has limited impact on the timetable of some of the more local services
Wales and Borders (June 2018) - a fair contender
Great Western (October 2018) - a possible contender, as it could well require quite a few DMU's going forward given the amount of growth that it has seen
Cross Country (June 2019) - possible but unlikely, but it depends on what happens with the 22x's at East Midlands
TSGN (May 2021) - Fairly unlikely given the number of DMU's that they require
Chiltern (Aug 2021) - possible
East West (Unknown) - possible but probably only a short term solution but could tie them up until
East Coast (Nov 2021) - Very highly unlikely
TPE (Nov 2022) - is where they are leaving from and so would be sat idle for some time if they were to go back there as part of the next franchise
Northern (Dec 2024) - at least 5 years of sitting idle is unlikely but could be a good home after East West is electrified

Given East Wests possible start dates would initially making it part of GW (and needed a reasonable amount of extra stock) make sense? At least till it is full electrified...
The Chiltern re-franchising date is probably a bit too late even with the current infrastructure delays to have EW with it initially.

 

[The Ham]

Given East Wests possible start dates would initially making it part of GW (and needed a reasonable amount of extra stock) make sense? At least till it is full electrified...
The Chiltern re-franchising date is probably a bit too late even with the current infrastructure delays to have EW with it initially.

That is unless East West is a standalone franchise which could then join with another (if required) or could gain routes from another franchise/other franchises at a later date to make it large enough to stand on its own.

 

[edwin_m]

That is unless East West is a standalone franchise which could then join with another (if required) or could gain routes from another franchise/other franchises at a later date to make it large enough to stand on its own.

The logical thing would surely be to make East West part of Chiltern?

 

[Clarence Yard]

That plan has been put on hold now. There is a new plan for 11 x 2+8 HST sets to head to XC, in exchange for 11 x 220s or 221s to head to GWR, awaiting DfT approval, and maybe revealed in the AXC Direct Award as a quick win solution, especially as the Direct Award for XC is pretty much confirmed to be zero growth (no joke), so no additional stock will be brought in.

If the above goes ahead, the Voyagers will work Cardiff - Taunton and Plymouth - Penzance (alongside 150/2's), along with a few through services each day.

However, the plan has changed so many times, I will believe it when I see it

As someone very close to the DfT on GWR rolling stock matters, this is the first I've heard of this and it sounds pure wibble to me. As only the 5 XC HST sets are in the PRM programme together with the 26 (yes, I did say 26) Scottish sets and the base 11 GWR sets, I'd say the swap is as likely as seeing 442's as West LHCS!

The 185 sets have been looked at for GWR but they don't become available until after the DA finishes and there are potentially better uses for them in the north, closer to their maintenance base. I think that is where the DfT are looking to get them placed.

 

[The Ham]

The logical thing would surely be to make East West part of Chiltern?

In short, yes but possibly not yet.

Yes it would, however there "could" be the issue that as it is not part of the current Chiltern franchise that it could be costly to add it in during the franchise as such the DfT could well be preparing an option to use DOR or could enter negotiations with either GWR or LM to run it until such time as the Chiltern franchise is renewed.

It very much depends on how difficult any of those TOCs are when it comes to agreeing terms, as you don't really want the only possible TOC saying "we know you have no other options so we want you to pay all the extra costs and we'll pay you back 50% of the income".

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the EWR operations will be split, with only the Marylebone to Milton Keynes bit going to Chiltern, (as its an extension of an existing service); and the rest going somewhere else, either LM or GW, or both.

I also think that a dedicated small franchise is highly improbable, it is just a DfT discussion point.

 

[The Planner]

As someone very close to the DfT on GWR rolling stock matters, this is the first I've heard of this and it sounds pure wibble to me.

Glad it isn't only me that raised their eyebrows at this.

 

[Philip]

The more I think about sending them to Wales and Borders and specifically running on the Marches line, the less logical it seems. A 3-car 185 would be less standard class capacity compared to a 3-car 175, even if you take out first class. However running them doubled up wouldn't make much sense either unless you make it a proper fast intercity service, missing out the intermediate stops. I dare say a fair few platforms on the current stopping list won't take 6-cars.

Perhaps TPE will keep the whole fleet and utilise them all immediately, perhaps by running the busiest West Coast and North East diagrams with 3 sets of 185s (ie. 9 cars) - would also slacken the duties of the CAF and bi-mode fleets (which do seem like they'll be a bit stretched as it stands), or allow further doubling up (10 cars).

 

[Chris125]

The logical thing would surely be to make East West part of Chiltern?

I don't know if it's since been confirmed, but back in May's Franchise Schedule it was seen as a possible standalone franchise - presumably it's small size might encourage new entrants.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The more I think about sending them to Wales and Borders and specifically running on the Marches line, the less logical it seems. A 3-car 185 would be less standard class capacity compared to a 3-car 175, even if you take out first class. However running them doubled up wouldn't make much sense either unless you make it a proper fast intercity service, missing out the intermediate stops. I dare say a fair few platforms on the current stopping list won't take 6-cars.

Perhaps TPE will keep the whole fleet and utilise them all immediately, perhaps by running the busiest West Coast and North East diagrams with 3 sets of 185s (ie. 9 cars) - would also slacken the duties of the CAF and bi-mode fleets (which do seem like they'll be a bit stretched as it stands), or allow further doubling up (10 cars).

I get your point re: Marches, so maybe if they were to go to Wales dedicating them to the North Wales Coast services would be better. Most platforms long enough for 6-car, wide doorways for luggage ideal with holiday/ferry traffic... The 175s could then be dedicated to Marches services, allowing more doubling up there.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Engimeering staff are suggesting all 51 are getting refurbed to TPE spec even tho only 29 are being kept. I would expect this is so the interior is brand new and ready to go for whoever uses them.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Engimeering staff are suggesting all 51 are getting refurbed to TPE spec even tho only 29 are being kept. I would expect this is so the interior is brand new and ready to go for whoever uses them.

Are they normally run as single units outside of peak times?

 

[Iskra]

Are they normally run as single units outside of peak times?

They run as single units inside the peak. Doubled up units are few and far between, only a handful of services are strengthened

 

[SpacePhoenix]

They run as single units inside the peak. Doubled up units are few and far between, only a handful of services are strengthened

Do they get enough passenger traffic to justify more services being doubled up?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Do they get enough passenger traffic to justify more services being doubled up?

In terms of loadings through the TP Core (Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds), definitely. In terms of finance I haven't a clue. On the current service pattern through the core all platforms are suitable for 6 car 185s but this will change when TPE take over local calls between Leeds and Manchester. Several stations would need extensions (a couple of very significant ones!) for regular 6-car operation on the Piccadilly to Hull/Leeds semi-fasts.

 

[northwichcat]

Do they get enough passenger traffic to justify more services being doubled up?

Yes but there are not currently enough units to run more doubled up, especially with a proper solution to replacing the 170s which went to Chiltern not being found. (I don't call 4 car 156s replacing 6 car 185s and 3 car 185s replacing 4 car 170s a proper solution.)

 

[D365]

Do they get enough passenger traffic to justify more services being doubled up?

Yes! Good heavens yes! The only reason any services are strengthened at all is because the 350s were introduced.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps TPE will keep the whole fleet and utilise them all immediately, perhaps by running the busiest West Coast and North East diagrams with 3 sets of 185s (ie. 9 cars) - would also slacken the duties of the CAF and bi-mode fleets (which do seem like they'll be a bit stretched as it stands), or allow further doubling up (10 cars).

Besides the largest of stations served by the Class 185 units, will there be many stations currently served by Class 185 units where a 9-coach (3 sets) formation would experience platform length difficulties?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Besides the largest of stations served by the Class 185 units, will there be many stations currently served by Class 185 units where a 9-coach (3 sets) formation would experience platform length difficulties?

Hell yes! Most non-terminal stations would struggle, I can only think of Leeds and Liverpool Lime Street as having plenty of platforms that could comfortably hold a 9x23m formation without serious impact on other services. Not sure about Piccadilly - through platforms may be long enough, most bays in the main shed would be, but there's a lot of multiple occupancy which wouldn't be as easy with triple 185s in the mix.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Yes! Good heavens yes! The only reason any services are strengthened at all is because the 350s were introduced.

If it's that bad why aren't TPE using the 22 units to permanently double some services up?

 

[D365]

If it's that bad why aren't TPE using the 22 units to permanently double some services up?

The 29 units will supposedly cover that, but obviously the CAF rolling stock is not available yet to free these units up.