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

[swt_passenger]

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

Because their agreed future rolling stock plans for various LHCS, bi-modes and EMUs mean they won't be needed?

 

[edwin_m]

Because their agreed future rolling stock plans for various LHCS, bi-modes and EMUs mean they can't be afforded?

Put that right for you.

 

[notlob.divad]

I thought one the new rolling stock plan comes into play, what remains of the 185 diagrams are going to be run doubled up. Have I miss understood that. I thought we where discussing what will happen once these 22 units become available.

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.

9 Coach sets I feel would be excessive. However to answer your question I think every station on the TPE network would require some work or another if it where to take 9 coach sets. Bearing in mind some of the 'largest of stations' that you refer to Manchester Piccadilly & Oxford Road, Liverpool Lime Street for example are having work done anyway to allow the current plans to take shape, and some smaller stations will require platform extensions to hold 6 coach sets.

Finally may I add that the Ordsall Chord, the major infrastructure project that all of the current TPE plans hinge on, has only be designed six car passenger trains in mind. So any 9 carriage trains longer than that stopped at signals on the Ordsall Delta would be stranded over the rear junction. Therefore 6 coach EMUs or 5 carriage rakes behind a Loco, will for the foreseeable future be the maximum that can and will work across the Northern Corridors. Any plans to run units longer than that will surely bring forth unacceptable levels or risk to services sticking to their timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Finally may I add that the Ordsall Chord, the major infrastructure project that all of the current TPE plans hinge on, has only be designed six car passenger trains in mind. So any 9 carriage trains longer than that stopped at signals on the Ordsall Delta would be stranded over the rear junction. Therefore 6 coach EMUs or 5 carriage rakes behind a Loco, will for the foreseeable future be the maximum that can and will work across the Northern Corridors. Any plans to run units longer than that will surely bring forth unacceptable levels or risk to services sticking to their timetable.

That is incredibly short-sighted and quite appalling. We shouldn't be designing any long-term infrastructure like that for less than 12x20m/11x23m/10x26m.

 

[The Planner]

Slight problem of if there is room though surely, is it physically possible to fit a chord in to fit 12x20m with signals, stand back and overlaps?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If the engines, exhaust/emissions stuff and transmission were removed, could they ever have an electric traction package installed? There must be a reasonable chunk of the design that's common with the 350s/360s unless they're built different structually

 

[edwin_m]

Everything's possible given enough time and money, but I'm not sure why it would be worthwhile given that the result would be similar to new off-the-shelf EMU except that it would be incompatible with everything else, ten years into its life already and probably no cheaper.

 

[Domh245]

If the engines, exhaust/emissions stuff and transmission were removed, could they ever have an electric traction package installed? There must be a reasonable chunk of the design that's common with the 350s/360s unless they're built different structually

No. They are a different width, but it is possible that the underfloor rafts are commonly sized. I think that pulling out more or less everything under the floor apart from the CET tanks would be the most ambitious and wholesale stock conversion project ever undertaken.

Have you considered where you are going to put your power collection (I assume a pantograph)

 

[D365]

Pretty sure you've had answers to that question before, SpacePhoenix.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. They are a different width, but it is possible that the underfloor rafts are commonly sized. I think that pulling out more or less everything under the floor apart from the CET tanks would be the most ambitious and wholesale stock conversion project ever undertaken.

Have you considered where you are going to put your power collection (I assume a pantograph)

They are however the same width as 444s.

 

[D365]

They are however the same width as 444s.

But entirely different structurally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But entirely different structurally.

Really? Is the design not modular?

 

[notlob.divad]

That is incredibly short-sighted and quite appalling. We shouldn't be designing any long-term infrastructure like that for less than 12x20m/11x23m/10x26m.

More for the infrastructure thread I supposed, but as the planner says, there isn't room to get much else in. The forth coming upgrades in both Infrastructure and operation, seem very much to be focused on the more trains and faster elements of growth rather than longer trains. Arguably some diagrams are getting shorter as future stock will be 5 car Bi-modes and 5 carriage rakes, not doubled up 185s as it currently is.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

So its looking very much like there'll be no home for them, off to Booths to join the 442s?

 

[The Ham]

So its looking very much like there'll be no home for them, off to Booths to join the 442s?

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 others need them
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

There are potential homes (see bold highlights above) it just depends on if the TOCs bidding have better options. I would have thought that, even the outside contender of Northern in 2025 could mean that the ROSCO could be willing to hold on to them with short term leases to cover their storage costs.

If the ROSCO gets desperate they could just lower their lease costs to the point that it could be cheaper to have the 185's over an EMU (especially as it is only a three coach unit rather than 4 or 5).

However, even if no extra work is found for them the ROSCO could just rotate with those that are in use with TPE so that the storage costs are offset by the lower maintenance costs (as the workload is spread over all the units).

 

[northwichcat]

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

The 185s aren't being released until both the CAF and Hitachi stock are in service so in total 44 x 5 car trains will replace 22 x 3 car trains and 10 x 4 car trains - so 12 extra sets and 104 extra carriages will be available once all the new trains are in service.

 

[CosherB]

So its looking very much like there'll be no home for them, off to Booths to join the 442s?

You're either being naive or ridiculous. A home will be found for the 185s in their current condition, without any need for some hair-brained electrification conversion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're either being naive or ridiculous. A home will be found for the 185s in their current condition, without any need for some hair-brained electrification conversion.

When Northern realise they haven't ordered enough DMUs, there would seem a good bet.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

There are potential homes (see bold highlights above) it just depends on if the TOCs bidding have better options. I would have thought that, even the outside contender of Northern in 2025 could mean that the ROSCO could be willing to hold on to them with short term leases to cover their storage costs.

If the ROSCO gets desperate they could just lower their lease costs to the point that it could be cheaper to have the 185's over an EMU (especially as it is only a three coach unit rather than 4 or 5).

However, even if no extra work is found for them the ROSCO could just rotate with those that are in use with TPE so that the storage costs are offset by the lower maintenance costs (as the workload is spread over all the units).

Apart from staying with TPE (unlikely given that they're bing released) or SWTs, whoever takes them on has got to factor in the cost of building a new depot or converting an existing depot and either TUPE'ing their fitters over to Siemens or Siemens staff take over a depot

 

[D365]

... whoever takes them on has got to factor in the cost of building a new depot or converting an existing depot and either TUPE'ing their fitters over to Siemens or Siemens staff take over a depot

... but that's no different to taking on any other new fleet.

And I don't know why you're still on about SWT having them, just because they operate electric Siemens trains. Might as well stick them at London Midland if there's some kind of link.

 

[edwin_m]

However, even if no extra work is found for them the ROSCO could just rotate with those that are in use with TPE so that the storage costs are offset by the lower maintenance costs (as the workload is spread over all the units).

I can't see that the maintenance costs would be any lower than if they scrapped or mothballed part of the fleet. If the same workings were shared over more units then the mileage-based and hours-in-service-based maintenance costs would be the same but the costs based on elapsed time would be higher. The only possible saving is if they could delay a major mileage-based overhaul by reducing the weekly mileage of each unit, and (unless they postpone it beyond the scrapping date, which is unlikely) that is only deferring cost rather than avoiding it.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

... but that's no different to taking on any other new fleet.

And I don't know why you're still on about SWT having them, just because they operate electric Siemens trains. Might as well stick them at London Midland if there's some kind of link.

I'm not, but Ham mentions it as a possibility

 

[swt_passenger]

They don't have to do any of the above regarding depots and Siemens. 707s will be maintained by SWT fitters at the existing Wimbledon depot. Maintenance by the OEM is not set in stone for the life of the units, just because it has been done so far.

 

[1179_Clee2]

Apart from staying with TPE (unlikely given that they're bing released) or SWTs, whoever takes them on has got to factor in the cost of building a new depot or converting an existing depot and either TUPE'ing their fitters over to Siemens or Siemens staff take over a depot

At present the 22 Class 185's released are going to be used at some other TOC but what happens to Siemens existing TPE depot's if the units move elsewhere.
Currently Siemens maintain ALL TPX units 51 Class 185 and 10 Class 350.
So Ardwick currently have 61 units but this will reduce to 29.
Does this mean Ardwick need to mothball 50% of the depot and York needs to close ????????

 

[PHILIPE]

At present the 22 Class 185's released are going to be used at some other TOC but what happens to Siemens existing TPE depot's if the units move elsewhere.
Currently Siemens maintain ALL TPX units 51 Class 185 and 10 Class 350.
So Ardwick currently have 61 units but this will reduce to 29.
Does this mean Ardwick need to mothball 50% of the depot and York needs to close ????????

There has been a concensus of opinion on the Forum that if they were to transfer to ATW to work on Marches or North Wales routes, they could still be maintained at Manchester.

 

[northwichcat]

So Ardwick currently have 61 units but this will reduce to 29.

Ardwick can't hold all 61 units, TPE need to use York as well so that there is enough space for them all at Ardwick.

 

[The Ham]

I can't see that the maintenance costs would be any lower than if they scrapped or mothballed part of the fleet. If the same workings were shared over more units then the mileage-based and hours-in-service-based maintenance costs would be the same but the costs based on elapsed time would be higher. The only possible saving is if they could delay a major mileage-based overhaul by reducing the weekly mileage of each unit, and (unless they postpone it beyond the scrapping date, which is unlikely) that is only deferring cost rather than avoiding it.

The major mileage based overhaul doesn't need to be past the scrapping date, it could be past the start of the lease for the 22 spare units. If that were the case the extra cost would be at a time that the ROSCO had a higher level of income, although it would mean that more would need doing. However, an new lease could well require some works above what is currently being done, so the two could be linked together.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not, but Ham mentions it as a possibility

I only (recently) mentioned SWT as a possibility when listing all TOCs as how likely each would be to take them on, that was done on based on each having to take on a new maintenance depot.

I previously said that there could be cost savings on SWT having the 185s vs another TOC as by having a Siemens depot that there could shared parts, shared maintenance tasks, etc. that could bring some savings.

I had semi ruled out LM as it wouldn't give the bidders much time from the South Western franchise being announced to when the West Midlands one being announced to change their bid and then argue with the DfT that their new bid should be considered. That is unless neither the bidders for the South Western franchise are talking about leasing the 185s and the ROSCO are already talking to the bidders of the West Midlands franchise.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

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

Most certainly.

At this moment in time I have just left Manchester Piccadilly travelling on the 1457 towards Middlesbrough. It is full up with many passengers standing (including me). There is an obscene amount of luggage in every conceivable space.

 

[1179_Clee2]

Ardwick can't hold all 61 units, TPE need to use York as well so that there is enough space for them all at Ardwick.

Correct Ardwick can't hold ALL 61 units EVERY NIGHT and never will.
I said it looks after 61 units.
Lets look at the South Transpennine route as I live on it. This needs 7 units a day to operate, EVERY NIGHT 4 units are kept at Cleethorpes it has a fueling point, a carriage washing plant and is able to empty the toilet tanks, 1 unit is kept at Sheffield and ONLY 2 return to Ardwick. The North Transpennine and the Scotish services will be similar.
I may be wrong but as I understand the new franchise when ONLY 29 units are needed Class 185's will ONLY operate on 2 lines.
Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes 7 six car trains 14 units.
Hull to Manchester Piccadilly 6 six car trains 12 units.
26 units in service and 3 spare.
No Class 185 will go anywhere near York, Hull and Cleethorpes can hold more units than they do at present, so Ardwick at best will only get 10 units a night. WHY will TPX need a Siemens depot at York ???????

 

[theblackwatch]

Northern (Dec 2024) - at least 5 years of sitting idle is unlikely but could be a good home after East West is electrified

Remember that Northern is due to receive 18 units in 2022 which must have a performance and quality equivalent to a two-car Class 170". 22 three-car Class 185s would fit this brief, and provide some extra capacity for the inevitable passenger growth that will occur when new trains and services are introduced.