Class 185 refurbishment for TPE.

[Bletchleyite]

There are a couple of pictures a few pages back in this thread....

Unfortunately the train is configured the way it is due to weight distribution.

Interesting. What's different from the 350 that means you can't duplicate that layout, then, i.e. 1st in the middle coach? Two halves of Standard would be better than the marooned bit.

 

[BMIFlyer]

Interesting. What's different from the 350 that means you can't duplicate that layout, then, i.e. 1st in the middle coach? Two halves of Standard would be better than the marooned bit.

That big lump of horsepower underneath each vehicle, and the bogies are heavier as well on a 185.

 

[Nym]

That big lump of horsepower underneath each vehicle, and the bogies are heavier as well on a 185.

Seriously? The diesel powered bogies that logically hold a gearbox and torque converters are heavier than ones holding traction motors and gearboxes?

(Although moot point as the 1st class 'B' car on 350s doesn't have anything under it...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

That big lump of horsepower underneath each vehicle, and the bogies are heavier as well on a 185.

That "big lump" is on all three coaches. Why does it preclude moving 1st to the other end or centre?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That "big lump" is on all three coaches. Why does it preclude moving 1st to the other end or centre?

Moving it to the other end section would realistically limit capacity per unit to 9 seats in first class (not a bad thing, in my opinion) but would also mean a longish walk (equivalent to one coach length) to the nearest toilet, unless the small toilet is moved, assuming that would be possible.

 

[ainsworth74]

Modifications to the ballroom (wheelchair area) to improve passenger comfort

That is an excellent name for it I must admit!

 

[BMIFlyer]

That "big lump" is on all three coaches. Why does it preclude moving 1st to the other end or centre?

The question was asked when the 185 came into service about why the disabled toilet was behind the cab. The answer was weight distibution.

It's why the train is laid out as it is. Each carriage weights just over 50 tonnes, so with just over 150 tonnes of weight, that is heavy for a 3 car train.

Maybe someone from TPE can answer the question instead?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Moving it to the other end section would realistically limit capacity per unit to 9 seats in first class (not a bad thing, in my opinion) but would also mean a longish walk (equivalent to one coach length) to the nearest toilet, unless the small toilet is moved, assuming that would be possible.

I, for one, sees nothing amiss with keeping the first class section with the same number of seats, where it has always been in the Class 185 units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Moving it to the other end section would realistically limit capacity per unit to 9 seats in first class (not a bad thing, in my opinion) but would also mean a longish walk (equivalent to one coach length) to the nearest toilet, unless the small toilet is moved, assuming that would be possible.

I'd propose a Class 321-style layout with two small, private-feeling First Class compartments (I don't mean traditional ones, I mean standard 2+1) each containing about 6-9 seats, either side of a dedicated doorway.

 

[ainsworth74]

Or we could just leave it where it is now and where it works just fine? Is it neat? Probably not but it works.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or we could just leave it where it is now and where it works just fine? Is it neat? Probably not but it works.

It doesn't work at all. It leaves a section of Standard and a toilet isolated from the rest of Standard, and causes unnecessarily large numbers of people to need to pass through First.

It is the most stupid design of layout I have ever seen in any UK train.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I, for one, sees nothing amiss with keeping the first class section with the same number of seats, where it has always been in the Class 185 units.

Or we could just leave it where it is now and where it works just fine? Is it neat? Probably not but it works.

Where it is isn't perfect, but it's probably the least-worst option.

I'd propose a Class 321-style layout with two small, private-feeling First Class compartments (I don't mean traditional ones, I mean standard 2+1) each containing about 6-9 seats, either side of a dedicated doorway.

That would render the vestibule in the middle a de-facto first class area. At peak times all vestibule space is needed for standard class standees.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would render the vestibule in the middle a de-facto first class area. At peak times all vestibule space is needed for standard class standees.

That, of course, needs resolving in its own right.

 

[ainsworth74]

It doesn't work at all.

In your opinion.

I have used TPE standard class and first class on many occasions and it has never been issue having the first class compartment where it is. Is it optimal? No of course not. Is it a massive issue in need of fixing? No it isn't as it does work.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The question was asked when the 185 came into service about why the disabled toilet was behind the cab. The answer was weight distibution.

Maybe someone from TPE can answer the question instead?

A reasonable answer!

The only other explination that was made internally was by putting the disabled area next to first class was made to make those using the area feel more welcome than being in the standard class seating area (there was a way it was worded better than I have written)

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Complete list of modifications coming to the class 185 fleet....


New vanity units in the toilets (sinks and dryers replaced).
New flooring in oilets

t

Yet not a thing is being done to improve the flush mechanisms and therefore the reliability of the toilets themselves

BIG MISTAKE!

 

[Crossforth]

Yet not a thing is being done to improve the flush mechanisms and therefore the reliability of the toilets themselves

BIG MISTAKE!

I was under the impression that something is being done about that

 

[ash39]

I'm not suggesting anything here, as the situation with where the 'spare' 185's are going after TPE's new fleet is fully introduced is confusing enough as it is, but does anyone know if you could theoretically reform them into a mix of 2 and 4 car sets?

A 4-car set would give a lot more flexibility in terms of layout. 2-car set would probably do away with first class.

Also, on the subject of the first class/disabled toilet locations on the existing sets, does anyone know why first class couldn't have been positioned at the opposite end of the train to the toilet? Half a coach, which would then give a set of doors solely for first (if the drafts are really a problem for first class passengers, they could split it into two sections if necessary). This would then give a full 2 and a half coaches of uninterupted standard class seating.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm not suggesting anything here, as the situation with where the 'spare' 185's are going after TPE's new fleet is fully introduced is confusing enough as it is, but does anyone know if you could theoretically reform them into a mix of 2 and 4 car sets?

A 4-car set would give a lot more flexibility in terms of layout. 2-car set would probably do away with first class.

Also, on the subject of the first class/disabled toilet locations on the existing sets, does anyone know why first class couldn't have been positioned at the opposite end of the train to the toilet? Half a coach, which would then give a set of doors solely for first (if the drafts are really a problem for first class passengers, they could split it into two sections if necessary). This would then give a full 2 and a half coaches of uninterupted standard class seating.

There's a thread somewhere (started by Yours Truly) discussing potential homes for the orphaned 185s. The idea of reforming them into 2 and 4 car sets came up often on there particularly linked to the idea of sending them to SWT for the WofE. I personally can't imagine that a mixed fleet would be any easier to make work than a uniform fleet of 3-car units. The WofE as a whole seems a round hole for the square pegs to me.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Think SWT would want corridoor connections fitted to the trains to make best use of them. Unless seeing use on sailsbury/yeovil-bristol to free up 159s for SWML duties is on the cards. Internal rumours have suggested this but they are mere rumours

 

[Solent&Wessex]

A reasonable answer!

The only other explination that was made internally was by putting the disabled area next to first class was made to make those using the area feel more welcome than being in the standard class seating area (there was a way it was worded better than I have written)

Or, quite simply, by having the First Class next to the universal toilet means only 1 universal toilet needs to be provided. The current configuration would allow it to be used by First and standard class disabled passengers. Moving the First Class elsewhere would mean that First Class passengers would not have easy access.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are no First Class wheelchair passengers on a 185. There is only Standard wheelchair space.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There are no First Class wheelchair passengers on a 185. There is only Standard wheelchair space.

Not all disabilities require a wheelchair, yet some of those conditions are helped by the extra space in the large toilet. Those passengers have as much right to first class seats should they choose to pay the premium.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That clearly doesn't bother LM. Nor the TPE 350s.

 

[43096]

It is the most stupid design of layout I have ever seen in any UK train.

That's a brave statement!

So, more stupid than:
- FC layout in the GN 387s;
- Pendolino interior where luggage stacks get a window view but passengers don't;
- the over provision of disabled toilets in Voyagers and their generally poor use of space that restricts seating capacity.

 

[ValleyLines142]

So is this the latest as of today (18th March)?

185101, 185102, 185103, 185104, 185105, 185106, 185107, 185108, 185109, 185110, 185111, 185112, 185113, 185114, 185115, 185116, 185117, 185118, 185119, 185120, 185121, 185122, 185123, 185124, 185125, 125126, 185127, 185128, 185129, 185130, 185131, 185132, 185133, 185134, 185135, 185136, 185137, 185138, 185139, 185140, 185141, 185142, 185143, 185144, 185145, 185146, 185147, 185148, 185149, 185150, 185151.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I'm not suggesting anything here, as the situation with where the 'spare' 185's are going after TPE's new fleet is fully introduced is confusing enough as it is, but does anyone know if you could theoretically reform them into a mix of 2 and 4 car sets?

A 4-car set would give a lot more flexibility in terms of layout. 2-car set would probably do away with first class.

I'd keep them as three car and send the redundant ones to GWR for the Cardiff - Pompey service, which would free up the often rammed 158's that are used currently. OK, they'd be over powered for the route but at least hearing the roar of them coming out of the Severn Tunnel would be magic.

At least the South West would see new trains after err... 30 years.

 

[Jamesrob637]

So is this the latest as of today (18th March)?

185101, 185102, 185103, 185104, 185105, 185106, 185107, 185108, 185109, 185110, 185111, 185112, 185113, 185114, 185115, 185116, 185117, 185118, 185119, 185120, 185121, 185122, 185123, 185124, 185125, 125126, 185127, 185128, 185129, 185130, 185131, 185132, 185133, 185134, 185135, 185136, 185137, 185138, 185139, 185140, 185141, 185142, 185143, 185144, 185145, 185146, 185147, 185148, 185149, 185150, 185151.

185112 is in the new livery as of 28/03

 

[ValleyLines142]

185112 is in the new livery as of 28/03

Thanks.

So we're at this stage now as of 28th March:

185101, 185102, 185103, 185104, 185105, 185106, 185107, 185108, 185109, 185110, 185111, 185112, 185113, 185114, 185115, 185116, 185117, 185118, 185119, 185120, 185121, 185122, 185123, 185124, 185125, 125126, 185127, 185128, 185129, 185130, 185131, 185132, 185133, 185134, 185135, 185136, 185137, 185138, 185139, 185140, 185141, 185142, 185143, 185144, 185145, 185146, 185147, 185148, 185149, 185150, 185151.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Thanks.

So we're at this stage now as of 28th March:

185101, 185102, 185103, 185104, 185105, 185106, 185107, 185108, 185109, 185110, 185111, 185112, 185113, 185114, 185115, 185116, 185117, 185118, 185119, 185120, 185121, 185122, 185123, 185124, 185125, 125126, 185127, 185128, 185129, 185130, 185131, 185132, 185133, 185134, 185135, 185136, 185137, 185138, 185139, 185140, 185141, 185142, 185143, 185144, 185145, 185146, 185147, 185148, 185149, 185150, 185151.

That equates to 2 repaints per month which sounds about right. Say one more may be in the new livery which nobody has reported on here and that makes 24 units.
On this basis, it'll be one more year before all units are repainted