Class 185 refurbishment for TPE.

[Starmill]

I think most people travelling from Piccadilly to Leeds will continue to take the first departure, regardless of whether it is a "fast" via Oxford Road, the Ordsall Chord and Victoria, or a semi-fast via Guide Bridge. Likewise travellers from Leeds to Piccadilly.

Piccadilly, not Victoria, will still be Manchester's main hub and the fasts will not be able to overtake the semi-fasts. So I think the semi-fasts will carry a lot of end to end passengers. Travellers between Piccadilly and Selby/Hull will certainly not change at Leeds.

The TPE franchise agreement does not require the semi-fasts to stop at Guide Bridge.

That doesn't mean they cannot stop at Guide Bridge...

And how do you know that? Have you seen a draft timetable? It's perfectly possible that these services will be overtaken. It may even be desirable.

Admittedly only two of the fasts will use Piccadilly. But that still doesn't mean that they won't be overtaken by going via Victoria.

As for the Advance issue, TP advances are typically quite expensive, and they are far more likely to use their yield management to encourage people to use the 5 car non-stop services, rather than the potential 3 car stopping service.

 

[Starmill]

If people work in the area around Piccadilly (and a lot do) they are still going to catch the semi fasts from there rather than hike across to Victoria

It depends if they're overtaken or not.

 

[hibtastic]

It depends if they're overtaken or not.

I'm sorry but I don't think that will matter at all. It's going to be hard to get some people to switch from Piccadilly to Victoria unless of course they get the fasts via Victoria

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sorry but I don't think that will matter at all. It's going to be hard to get some people to switch from Piccadilly to Victoria unless of course they get the fasts via Victoria

I think it'll be made easier when the Ordsall Curve makes shuttling between the two a lot easier. I agree that at the moment it's a nuisance having to walk/use the tram.

 

[keith1879]

Then the design is absolute rubbish, frankly. The 350 manages to have it at the inner vehicle end.

The design is cobbled-together rubbish anyway - for example, I'm not sure that there are two windows the same size[1] in an entire unit. It's a 350 squashed and stretched in a totally bodge-job fashion - the "ballroom" is but one example of just how much of a bodge of a design it actually is. It's too heavy, it's overpowered for most of its work, it drinks fuel, it rides roughly, it has a hugely wasteful interior layout, it can't use SP differentials etc.

As one would expect from Siemens the build quality is high and the vertical sidewalls make it feel spacious, luggage racks are large, and I like the seats, but there's little else going for it.

[1] Exaggeration, but there are at least 5 different window sizes, which must be a nightmare for parts departments. A sensible design would have one, or at most two, sizes of window.



Eh? If you did what I propose you'd lose a vestibule for Standard standing. There is no reason for it to change the number of seats, you simply put the mid-coach partition in a location where it leaves the same number.

And yet the service has been a huge success in terms of passengers carried. Normally I agree with everything you say but I can't help thinking that you've gone over the edge a bit here.
These trains are optimized to perform an almost impossible mix of tasks and do all of them well enough to have grown the market substantially. Who cares about the number of different window sizes? How often do they need replacing anyway?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yet the service has been a huge success in terms of passengers carried.

With the cost of motoring and levels of traffic congestion as they are, the mainline railway would attract passengers if the seats had spikes sticking up out of them.

These trains are optimized to perform an almost impossible mix of tasks and do all of them well enough to have grown the market substantially.

I wouldn't say the trains have done that themselves. They aren't bad enough to put people off, but then neither are Pacers nor is the severe overcrowding at all times of day, nor typically outrageously high fares - that's because the alternative (the car) is getting steadily worse.

Who cares about the number of different window sizes? How often do they need replacing anyway?

Surprisingly often particularly around big cities where kids do rather like chucking bricks.

Not the passenger's concern, of course, but it does highlight the sloppiness of the design. It's quite notable that the Class 700 and derivatives appear to have reduced the number of window sizes (and the number of windows, going for a very large panoramic style with two massive windows per third rather than four small ones).

 

[keith1879]

I wouldn't say the trains have done that themselves. They aren't bad enough to put people off, but then neither are Pacers nor is the severe overcrowding at all times of day, nor typically outrageously high fares - that's because the alternative (the car) is getting steadily worse.

).

I quite agree - the improvement is a combination of many things - the biggest of which is service frequency, and also increasing variety of destination. However the notion that the trains are "bad" is I think very subjective. Between Huddersfield and Leeds (and I speak as someone who has commuted Leeds to Manchester or Stalybridge on and off since the 1990s ) the current trains are a huge improvement over 158s because of the door and vestibule layout. Getting a crowd onto a 158 at leeds in the evening rush hour was an awful business.

You can go back to the 1960s and trans-pennine services have always had to be a compromise. Now I agree that "These trains are a decent compromise" doesn't exactly get the adrenaline rushing through the veins but actually - that's exactly what is needed. I'm very nervous about the forthcoming trains - they look really nice for long journeys but I do think the Huddersfield and Leeds dwell times may be extended with a lot of pushing and shoving as passengers board.

 

[IanXC]

Not the passenger's concern, of course, but it does highlight the sloppiness of the design.

Given the quality of design that Siemens are renowned for, I struggle to accept that there is not a reason for this choice of window specification. In any case your dismissive characterisation of professional designers work as 'slopy' does nothing to advance your argument in my view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given the quality of design that Siemens are renowned for, I struggle to accept that there is not a reason for this choice of window specification.

I'm sure there is a reason, but I suspect it relates to having designed it the wrong way, i.e. designed a structure which was a stretched and squashed Class 350, then fitted passenger comfort around it. Mind you that rot set in when they stopped producing coaches with different window spacing for 1st and Std to allow for full alignment.

Having said that, I personally wouldn't give Siemens Rail a particularly high accolade for good design[1], more for very high build quality and quality of materials. I think the Turbostar is a much better train (small luggage racks aside) in terms of the design, but the build quality is absolutely appalling, albeit improved since the Bombardier takeover.

[1] I have said I particularly like the Class 444, having said that, but it's hardly groundbreaking design, it's a traditional end-doored 23m coach. It's quite hard to get that really badly wrong.

In any case your dismissive characterisation of professional designers work as 'slopy' does nothing to advance your argument in my view.

Professional designers are capable of sloppy work, you know (have you seen the vast array of absolutely rubbish cars that were "professionally" designed in the 1980s?). Though it might be more that the designers were working down to a price. But that, as the customer, isn't really my problem, any more than it's my problem as to why a product I bought is faulty or not fit for purpose.

 

[CosherB]

Professional designers are capable of sloppy work, you know (have you seen the vast array of absolutely rubbish cars that were "professionally" designed in the 1980s?).

What on earth does that have to do with designing trains today?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What on earth does that have to do with designing trains today?

It proves that people who are paid to design stuff are capable of being bad at their jobs.

However, I suspect the main reason is it being designed down to a price, resulting in it being an adaptation of the Class 350 rather than a proper design in its own right. (The Turbostar, which doesn't have most of the odd design "features" of the 185, though to be fair does have some of its own, is a design in its own right that was from day one intended to be 23m long with doors at roughly thirds).

 

[IanXC]

I'm sure there is a reason, but I suspect it relates to having designed it the wrong way, i.e. designed a structure which was a stretched and squashed Class 350, then fitted passenger comfort around it. Mind you that rot set in when they stopped producing coaches with different window spacing for 1st and Std to allow for full alignment.

Having said that, I personally wouldn't give Siemens Rail a particularly high accolade for good design[1], more for very high build quality and quality of materials. I think the Turbostar is a much better train (small luggage racks aside) in terms of the design, but the build quality is absolutely appalling, albeit improved since the Bombardier takeover.

[1] I have said I particularly like the Class 444, having said that, but it's hardly groundbreaking design, it's a traditional end-doored 23m coach. It's quite hard to get that really badly wrong.



Professional designers are capable of sloppy work, you know (have you seen the vast array of absolutely rubbish cars that were "professionally" designed in the 1980s?). Though it might be more that the designers were working down to a price. But that, as the customer, isn't really my problem, any more than it's my problem as to why a product I bought is faulty or not fit for purpose.

Ah so we are getting somewhere. You're unhappy with the design because you think that they have made too many economies by reusing existing designs, and attempting to deliver the product at an acceptable price?

So had more been spent, no doubt the 185 order would have been further reduced in number. Perhaps you would like to confirm which of TPE service you would like to remove from the timetable to take account of having fewer units?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So had more been spent, no doubt the 185 order would have been further reduced in number. Perhaps you would like to confirm which of TPE service you would like to remove from the timetable to take account of having fewer units?

Much as I think there is a bit of a build quality issue at times, Turbostars are quite a bit cheaper, would have been more useful for cascading to other TOCs, have a better interior layout with excellent window alignment, are more fuel efficient and can use SP differentials. I would suggest they should actually have ordered (at least some) 4-car Turbostars instead of 3-car 185s.

Siemens no doubt cut costs to get in on the bid (hence the design issues), but I personally think they made the wrong economies in doing so.

 

[Mordac]

Much as I think there is a bit of a build quality issue at times, Turbostars are quite a bit cheaper, would have been more useful for cascading to other TOCs, have a better interior layout with excellent window alignment, are more fuel efficient and can use SP differentials. I would suggest they should actually have ordered (at least some) 4-car Turbostars instead of 3-car 185s.

Siemens no doubt cut costs to get in on the bid (hence the design issues), but I personally think they made the wrong economies in doing so.

Wouldn't have coped with the hills nearly as well though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't have coped with the hills nearly as well though.

Not really any worse than the previous Class 158s did. Apart from the door layout causing delays and growth meaning there weren't enough of them, the 158s were pretty good for the route, and the wood-effect and dark blue interior (that I had a hand in suggesting via an on board survey in about 1998, you can still experience it in the Northern centre cars) was seriously classy.

 

[BMIFlyer]

Unit 101 entry to traffic is delayed.

Couple of issues to be ironed out with the newly installed tech.

Don't forget this is the test unit and is being used to do a full refurb and kit install to see what needs to be done to ensure all the stuff works on the other sets when they are stripped down.

Shouldn't take too long to resolve and of course the current rolling stock allocation for the summer timetable takes such an eventuality into account, so unless we have 2-3 failures we aren't short in the peaks yet.

 

[CosherB]

Unit 101 entry to traffic is delayed.

Couple of issues to be ironed out with the newly installed tech.

Don't forget this is the test unit and is being used to do a full refurb and kit install to see what needs to be done to ensure all the stuff works on the other sets when they are stripped down.

Shouldn't take too long to resolve and of course the current rolling stock allocation for the summer timetable takes such an eventuality into account, so unless we have 2-3 failures we aren't short in the peaks yet.

How do you respond to our design guru Bletchleyite , who claims that the 185s are not Siemens' finest hour for a DMU?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Unit 101 entry to traffic is delayed.

Couple of issues to be ironed out with the newly installed tech.

Don't forget this is the test unit and is being used to do a full refurb and kit install to see what needs to be done to ensure all the stuff works on the other sets when they are stripped down.

Shouldn't take too long to resolve and of course the current rolling stock allocation for the summer timetable takes such an eventuality into account, so unless we have 2-3 failures we aren't short in the peaks yet.

Weve been very short in the peaks recently with the 16:41 regularly downgraded to 3 car. Which with the victoria-stalybridge blockade is causing it to be very tight!

 

[hibtastic]

Weve been very short in the peaks recently with the 16:41 regularly downgraded to 3 car. Which with the victoria-stalybridge blockade is causing it to be very tight!

The 08:50 from Staly to Picc this morning was 6 cars - absolute luxury.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The 08:50 from Staly to Picc this morning was 6 cars - absolute luxury.

They have doubled up all the Liverpool-Scarborough trains due to the blockade which is good i admit.

 

[Greybeard33]

That doesn't mean they cannot stop at Guide Bridge...

And how do you know that? Have you seen a draft timetable? It's perfectly possible that these services will be overtaken. It may even be desirable.

Admittedly only two of the fasts will use Piccadilly. But that still doesn't mean that they won't be overtaken by going via Victoria.

As for the Advance issue, TP advances are typically quite expensive, and they are far more likely to use their yield management to encourage people to use the 5 car non-stop services, rather than the potential 3 car stopping service.

The "fast" Airport services may well be faster overall between Piccadilly and Leeds than the semi-fasts. But they will surely be slower between Piccadilly and Stalybridge, by the time they have crawled round the Ordsall Chord with stops at Oxford Road and Victoria (maybe also at Salford Central in future).

The rationale for the forthcoming change to the service pattern (six TPE trains per hour, four fast via Ashton and two semi-fast via Guide Bridge, in place of the current five TPE fast trains, one via Ashton and four via Guide Bridge, plus one Northern stopper via Ashton) was originally set out in the Stakeholder Briefing Document that accompanied the TPE and Northern ITTs.

Paras. 4.20 to 4.22 of this document make clear that this 6tph service pattern was seen only as an interim, compromise, stepping stone towards the ultimate Rail North/DfT objective of 7tph, six fast TPE plus a reintroduced Northern stopper. However, 7tph capacity will only be available after linespeed improvements and electrification (to speed up the stopper).

If the fast services were to overtake the semi-fasts, the TPE intercity service between Manchester and Leeds would effectively be reduced to 4tph from the current 5tph, rather than increased to 6tph per the Rail North objective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the fast services were to overtake the semi-fasts, the TPE intercity service between Manchester and Leeds would effectively be reduced to 4tph from the current 5tph, rather than increased to 6tph per the Rail North objective.

I must admit I don't support this objective - moving to much longer trains would be a far more efficient way to deliver that capacity increase with a much more reliable service. I know frequencies have to be packed in down South as the trains just can't get any longer, but until you get to the usual practical maximum of 11x23m/12x20m there's really no need for that kind of frequency.

 

[BMIFlyer]

How do you respond to our design guru Bletchleyite , who claims that the 185s are not Siemens' finest hour for a DMU?

I would respond with the following.

"You can't please everyone".

As mentioned the units cater for a mixture of clientele - commuters, holiday makers and students plus the ad hoc traveller.

More luggage space means less seats so we have to manage as best we can.

Most commuters who stand on journeys average only a 9-20 minute standing time (Leeds to Hudds, Hudds to Dews, etc).

Many commuters CHOOSE to stand even when seats are empty and this doesn't help matters either. If every commuter wanted a seat we would have 10 car trains running and that's not possible so for now we cope however best we can.

New trains combined with a new timetable will hopefully achieve a switch in commuter habits. Many don't realise that if they travel 6 mins earlier say from Huddersfield to Leeds in the AM they may be rewarded with a seat as opposed to standing on the normal train they catch every day.

We can't force anyone to swap habits but many commuters do understand our constraints.

Partly to blame for the 185 design is the SRA / DFT and it's rules about what can and can't be spent on rolling stock.

I can almost guarantee that if we had been allowed to have free reign on spending and had ordered up to 55-60 units and made half of them 4 cars we wouldn't have so much crowding on certain services.

Let's see how things go for the future....

 

[jonesy3001]

Back on topic,
how many 185s are there left to be revinyled from barbie.

 

[keith1879]

I must admit I don't support this objective - moving to much longer trains would be a far more efficient way to deliver that capacity increase with a much more reliable service. I know frequencies have to be packed in down South as the trains just can't get any longer, but until you get to the usual practical maximum of 11x23m/12x20m there's really no need for that kind of frequency.

Done to death over and over again so no point in responding.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm sure there is a reason

So that the seats line up with the windows? It is noticeable that those windows that were 'sloppily' designed end up ensuring that basically every seat in a 185 has a view out of a window (or at worst only a slightly restricted view). It is very noticeable in some parts of a 185 that if Siemens had gone for the uniform approach that there would have been seats next to window pillars. Instead the seat is next to a window.

 

[CosherB]

So that the seats line up with the windows? It is noticeable that those windows that were 'sloppily' designed end up ensuring that basically every seat in a 185 has a view out of a window (or at worst only a slightly restricted view). It is very noticeable in some parts of a 185 that if Siemens had gone for the uniform approach that there would have been seats next to window pillars. Instead the seat is next to a window.

You can't please everyone all of the time!

 

[ash39]

Back on topic,
how many 185s are there left to be revinyled from barbie.

That version of First livery is known as Dynamic Lines not Barbie.

I'm in Manchester today and have seen around half a dozen 185’s. Three were still in old livery (110, 121 and 141). I think that's more a coincidence than a true representation of the fleet but it shows there's still definitely a few out there.

 

[Jamesrob637]

That version of First livery is known as Dynamic Lines not Barbie.

I'm in Manchester today and have seen around half a dozen 185’s. Three were still in old livery (110, 121 and 141). I think that's more a coincidence than a true representation of the fleet but it shows there's still definitely a few out there.

Six weeks of school holidays now... I reckon they'll all be done by early-mid September when or just after the kids go back

 

[ValleyLines142]

Back on topic,
how many 185s are there left to be revinyled from barbie.

185132 has been done, so we are now looking at this:

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, 185126, 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.

185145 is definitely in the old livery as it was working a Liverpool to Scarborough service yesterday with 185109 (which is a repainted unit).