Class 185 Fleet A Big Mistake?

[Iskra]

185's are okay units. They aren't long enough or numerous enough.

Despite what some posters are saying there are routes they can be cascaded onto: Scotland, Wales, Northern England (Arriva Northern Routes) and the South West would all seem like reasonable contenders for 100mph capable units with good hill-climbing abilities.

Not sure what all the fuss is about.

 

[J-2739]

And yet the same design will carry many, many more people this very evening out of London than will ever travel out of Leeds. We seem to manage...

Yeah, but they make London trains more optimised for standing passengers with grab rails. I think that a standing experience should be as luxurious as a seating experience.

The 185s are thin compared to the 450s (2.67 to 2.80, which may not seem that much, but...)

 

[47802]

Yeah, but they make London trains more optimised for standing passengers with grab rails. I think that a standing experience should be as luxurious as a seating experience.

The 185s are thin compared to the 450s (2.67 to 2.80, which may not seem that much, but...)

Which is likely due to the fact that 185's are 23m in length compared to 20m for 450's.

I don't see how they can be regarded as a mistake, they are built for a specific task which they are very good at, over half the fleet will be staying at least until the end of the new franchise, and I'm sure other work will be found for the rest.

Personally I would have kept all the 185's until electrification and ditched the Loco Hauled Trains, the reliability of which remains to be seen in my book, I'm more likely to go with TPE Loco Hauled fleet big mistake?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The ironic thing was that rail privatisation was supposed to allow private operators to take risk (with their own money) and do things like ordering more trains if they felt they could make them pay. However the micro-management at the SRA/DfT etc combined with short franchises means that the TOCs are both unwilling and unable to do so. Pretty much the only time one did (First buying surplus HST equipment) they got a lot of grief from the DfT (the same DfT that is quite happy for them to use them to augment their meagre allocation

just demonstrating that the authoritarian and interventionalist attitude of Labour pervades even with the 'red tory' era of blair and brown ....

 

[DarloRich]

Yeah, but they make London trains more optimised for standing passengers with grab rails. I think that a standing experience should be as luxurious as a seating experience.

The 185s are thin compared to the 450s (2.67 to 2.80, which may not seem that much, but...)

The 185 is almost identical to the 350 internally. It is, to all intents and purposes, the same standing experience

 

[507021]

Apart from the inability to get up the hills in the same manner as the 185 or keep to times on the ECML/WCML?

My issue with the 185s isn't that they're too powerful, it's that they are too small and there aren't enough of them. They should have been at least four car (or three car with interconnecting gangways) and there should have been at least 70 units rather than the 51 that were built. At least then if further units or carriages were needed, then if extra carriages or units were ordered, they would have been a compatible design. I'm sure if a fleet of 170s (or a bespoke Turbostar family unit) was ordered instead of the 185s, then they would have been fitted with engines which would have provided sufficient power and acceleration for routes over the Pennines and along the East and West Coast Main Lines.

 

[DarloRich]

My issue with the 185s isn't that they're too powerful, it's that they are too small and there aren't enough of them. They should have been at least four car (or three car with interconnecting gangways) and there should have been at least 70 units rather than the 51 that were built. At least then if further units or carriages were needed, then if extra carriages or units were ordered, they would have been a compatible design.

Agreed - there should have been more and longer trains

I'm sure if a fleet of 170s (or a bespoke Turbostar family unit) was ordered instead of the 185s, then they would have been fitted with engines which would have provided sufficient power and acceleration for routes over the Pennines and along the East and West Coast Main Lines.

these special engines weren't fitted for the Inverness trains........

 

[F Great Eastern]

Agreed - there should have been more and longer trains

Everyone agrees that. But ultimately that blame lies with the DFT.

There would have been over 200 carriages if First got their way instead of the 153 they got,

The original proposal was 56x3 car units (168) with a later option that they approached the SRA with in relation to a further 56 which would have took them up to 224.

You seem to think it's the first time an order being cut has messed things up but it isn't.

Similar happened with the FGE Desiros, where they ordered 100 carriages to have it cut to 84, which necessitated the 322s spending part of 2004 with NXEA before going back up to Scotland following a timetable change when the last class 312 was withdrawn because they were several trains short and were struggling with capacity at peak times.

 

[507021]

these special engines weren't fitted for the Inverness trains........

No they weren't, but I really can't see how or why any Turbostar family units specifically designed and built for routes over the Pennines and along the ECML/WCML would have been fitted with underpowered engines.

 

[fowler9]

If everyone had that attitude, we'd still be using the same trains that we did 40 years ago, although I guess that would appease the loco hauled fans on here!

First actually were the first operator to introduce Desiros full stop on FGE, and that didn't turn out too bad for the industry did it?



I remain extremely skeptical how that will turn out, but we will see.

Hopefully as well as the Desiro did for FGE.

Appeasing the loco hauled fans may have resulted in a couple of fleets that actually could work together.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 185 is almost identical to the 350 internally. It is, to all intents and purposes, the same standing experience

As I get older I feel those 13 centimetres!

 

[swt_passenger]

Similar happened with the FGE Desiros, where they ordered 100 carriages to have it cut to 84...

...and the SWT Desiro 450s, with the 560 vehicles asked for reduced to 440.

(At least the carriages were all built in that particular SRA inspired saga, with the 120 'not allowed yet' being diverted to Central/Silverlink as 350s.)

 

[F Great Eastern]

Appeasing the loco hauled fans may have resulted in a couple of fleets that actually could work together.

Apart from the places that have short platforms that can't afford to have two carriages that don't carry passengers.

 

[fowler9]

Apart from the places that have short platforms that can't afford to have two carriages that don't carry passengers.

Length of platforms has nothing to do with different types of units not being able to work together.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Length of platforms has nothing to do with different types of units not being able to work together.

It does restrict where some stock can work though.

 

[The Ham]

But...TPE did try to get the 185s lengthened to 4 coaches. The proposal went to the DfT which dithered for such a long time that the emissions regulations changed in the meantime and it was no longer possible to build coaches with the original power packs. Any new coaches would have to have met the Euro IIIB levels which would have meant that each train would have had two different types of power unit.

So that killed it.

And I don't understand why all the enthusiasts go on about high fuel consumption. This shows a lack of understanding of basic physics. Energy 'consumed' (or, rather, converted from one form to another) is proportional to the area under the power-time curve. In this case 'energy' is a proxy for fuel consumption and the power-time curve is a plot of power being developed at a particular point in time. Power is plotted vertically and time horizontally - the area under this curve gives the total energy 'consumed'.

This means that if the higher powered train uses its power for a shorter length of time the fuel consumption can be the same as that for a lower powered train running for longer. In other words fuel consumption is the same for a vehicle generating twice the power, but taking half as long for its journey, as for one with half the power taking twice as long. So a 185 climbing a hill in less time than a 170, all other things being equal, may well use about the same amount of fuel. In any event the 185s are fitted with a device which closes down an engine when it is not required.

If there is an issue with fuel consumption it will be because of the mass of the train, not its power.

Which is why it should have been linked to increases in passenger numbers so that the DfT couldn't have retrospectively blocked it.

Effectively have it written into the franchise that the operator can order up to x, y or z extra cars if passenger growth reaches at least a, b or c values by a set time. On the understanding that:
- there's no government support
- that the agreed payments still need to be met
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You shouldn't need hindsight to work out that a 169 (including first class) capacity DMU is unsuitable for Intercity operation. I stand by the fact that I would deem such an idea as incompetent.

Quite, a four car version could have had as many seats as 240.

 

[fowler9]

It does restrict where some stock can work though.

Yeah, but stock just not being able to work together is a totally different matter. 14 carriages won't fit in West Allerton station if they are Mk1's and Mk2's mixed together. A 185 and a 156 wouldn't even move to get to West Allerton.

 

[156443]

And they are always busy with a lot of passengers having to stand, don't know why First can't use 350's on the Transpennine Express from Newcastle to Liverpool/Manchester like they do on the west coast for the TPE there as they have more seating. Every time I get on one I usually have to stand.

Edit: see most recent post

Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[AnonymousUser1]

And they are always busy with a lot of passengers having to stand, don't know why First can't use 350's on the Transpennine Express from Newcastle to Liverpool/Manchester like they do on the west coast for the TPE there as they have more seating. Every time I get on one I usually have to stand.


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

not sure if poster is serious ?

maybe the poster needs stringing up on the none existant string

 

[Iskra]

And they are always busy with a lot of passengers having to stand, don't know why First can't use 350's on the Transpennine Express from Newcastle to Liverpool/Manchester like they do on the west coast for the TPE there as they have more seating. Every time I get on one I usually have to stand.


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

There is the small matter of the track from York-Liverpool not being electrified apart from small sections in Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. Thus 350's would not be much use.

 

[507021]

And they are always busy with a lot of passengers having to stand, don't know why First can't use 350's on the Transpennine Express from Newcastle to Liverpool/Manchester like they do on the west coast for the TPE there as they have more seating. Every time I get on one I usually have to stand.


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

They can't be used on those routes because the majority of the Liverpool-Newcastle route hasn't been electrified.

 

[Clansman]

don't know why First can't use 350's on the Transpennine Express from Newcastle to Liverpool/Manchester like they do on the west coast for the TPE there as they have more seating

No wires on the York to Leeds stretch nor between Leeds and Manchester Victoria. Fortunately the Mk5s are due in the next few years so not long to wait now

 

[156443]

They can't be used on those routes because the majority of the Liverpool-Newcastle route hasn't been electrified.

Sorry, Wasn't aware that stretch of line wasn't electrified (have only ever travelled on the 185's as far as York)


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[61653 HTAFC]

not sure if poster is serious ?

maybe the poster needs stringing up on the none existant string

There is the small matter of the track from York-Liverpool not being electrified apart from small sections in Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. Thus 350's would not be much use.

They can't be used on those routes because the majority of the Liverpool-Newcastle route hasn't been electrified.

No wires on the York to Leeds stretch nor between Leeds and Manchester Victoria. Fortunately the Mk5s are due in the next few years so not long to wait now

I'm assuming that the poster meant "Why can't 350s be ordered for TPE once the wires are up, rather than ignoring the fact that those wires aren't yet in situ...

To which the answer is that by then (indeed by tomorrow!) the 350s will be old technology. Siemens would not want to resume production of an old model, and may not be able to do so easily or cheaply. There's also the argument that 350s, like the 185s, are not ideal for longer distance passengers. The stock that HAS been ordered will strike more of a compromise between the needs of short-distance commuters (Huddersfield to Leeds/Manchester, Preston/Liverpool to Manchester) and the needs of longer-distance travellers (Newcastle to Leeds, Scotland to Manchester).

The main criticism of 185s is the lack of capacity, and mistakes by the DfT under Labour are largely responsible for that. The transitional period between now and electrification completion will see 185s continue to run between Hull and Leeds and Manchester, and picking up intermediate calls between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester. It is this which causes me most anxiety, as peak stoppers are crowded on these routes as are the current TPE services which serve Dewsbury and Stalybridge. Squeezing pax from these two services onto a single 185 (planned extensions to intermediate stops won't allow 2x185) won't be easy or pleasant even if unit deselect is used!

What will happen once the Manchester to York wires are live is not certain. Hull wires are uncertain, as is Middlesbrough. Scarborough hasn't even been subject to a wibbly thread on here as far as I can remember. Bi-mode sets could be used, though continuing with 185s may be the least-worst option even though diesels under wires makes my blood boil. There are many "If onlys" with regard to 185s - If only they were longer/more plentiful, if only they had end gangways, if only they'd ordered more once the growth became apparent... (for the record, overcrowding seemed an issue to me even off-peak long before the 185s came on the scene). With wires now coming eventually, another one is "if only they'd been supplied with electric transmission for possible conversion to bi-mode!".

 

[SpacePhoenix]

ITo which the answer is that by then (indeed by tomorrow!) the 350s will be old technology. Siemens would not want to resume production of an old model, and may not be able to do so easily or cheaply. There's also the argument that 350s, like the 185s, are not ideal for longer distance passengers. The stock that HAS been ordered will strike more of a compromise between the needs of short-distance commuters (Huddersfield to Leeds/Manchester, Preston/Liverpool to Manchester) and the needs of longer-distance travellers (Newcastle to Leeds, Scotland to Manchester).

Once the wires are up, if they were to go for electric Desiros it'd probably be a new build of class 380s

 

[J-2739]

Once the wires are up, if they were to go for electric Desiros it'd probably be a new build of class 380s

Or inter-city Desito Cities...

 

[507021]

Once the wires are up, if they were to go for electric Desiros it'd probably be a new build of class 380s

I'd have thought if more EMUs are ordered for TPE once the wires are up it'd be more 397s.

 

[F Great Eastern]

The Siemens Range for UK now is

Desiro City
Mireo
Velaro
Inspiro (subway/metro)

Desiro itself is no longer being offered unless they get a very very good offer.

 

[D365]

Once the wires are up, if they were to go for electric Desiros it'd probably be a new build of class 380s

Eh? I thought that's what the Class 802s have been ordered for.

The Siemens Range for UK now is

Desiro City
Mireo
Velaro
Inspiro (subway/metro)

Desiro itself is no longer being offered unless they get a very very good offer.

Not heard of the Mireo before, unless that's a different name for the Verve concept.

 

[jayiscupid]

Eh? I thought that's what the Class 802s have been ordered for.




Not heard of the Mireo before, unless that's a different name for the Verve concept.

Mireo is Siemens new Commuter Train platform designed to replace the Desiro ML

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-to-unveil-mireo-modular-emu-concept.html

http://www.siemens.com/customer-magazine/en/home/specials/innotrans/introducing-the-mireo-family.html

 

[Emblematic]

The Siemens Range for UK now is

Desiro City
Mireo
Velaro
Inspiro (subway/metro)

Desiro itself is no longer being offered unless they get a very very good offer.

The 'existing designs' exemption from the current crashworthiness requirements expires in June 2017, so I don't think any of the older designs could be offered irrespective of price.