Where’s the best place for Class 185s?

[pompeyfan]

The 458 thread is drifting off on a tangent, but somehow class 185s have come up in conversation.

If they are off as reported where would they suit? I’m thinking class 158 / HST 2+4 displacement on the Penzance Cardiff corridor. Even though they’re thirsty they can’t be as bad as a HST! The only thing going against them is their seating capacity.

 

[JonathanH]

The 458 thread is drifting off on a tangent, but somehow class 185s have come up in conversation.

If they are off as reported where would they suit? I’m thinking class 158 / HST 2+4 displacement on the Penzance Cardiff corridor. Even though they’re thirsty they can’t be as bad as a HST! The only thing going against them is their seating capacity.

It is quite difficult to see any sensible use for the 185s if they finish on TPE. They are built for hill climbing on the Manchester to Leeds route and overspecified for pretty much any other route. They are also heavy.

The near future on GWR should be making do with a cascade of the stock it already has, not introducing additional stock. Other routes need lightweight fuel-efficient stock if they are going to be run with diesel traction, not 185s.

Reforming 185s to 2 and 4 car formations with all standard class seating is needed if they are going anywhere else, with the 2 car units running as pairs where necessary.

 

[Neptune]

Reforming 185s to 2 and 4 car formations with all standard class seating is needed if they are going anywhere else, with the 2 car units running as pairs where necessary.

Im sure it’s been mentioned before that they can’t be reformed into 2 car units but don’t quote me on that.

A few years ago I’d have said 150 replacement. 3 cars, excellent acceleration, good capacity (you’d convert the first class saloon to standard), comfortable but they are heavy and thirsty (not sure how much fuel the eco mode saves) and the move is towards bi-mode/alternative fuels on local routes.

It’s also worth noting that unless they are released in bulk and not as a micro fleet then it’s unlikely anywhere else will want to take them on.

Thinking aloud I wonder if they would be a candidate for the hybrid treatment to make them more acceptable in today’s society.

 

[mike57]

Its difficult to see another use for them, they are heavy and thirsty, and cannot take advantage of 'sprinter' speed differentials. Doors at 1/3rds mean they are not comfortable for long distance routes (Always been a gripe of mine on the Scarborough Manchester route, thermal cycling at every stop in hot or cold weather). The places where they could be useful are already electrified, the places that need new stock dont need 185s. So I hate to say it but currently a potential white elephant. They may be forced on another operator. Could 2 x 3 car units be reformed into 1 x 6 car unit by removing the inner driving positions and providing a through gangway, if that were the case then I could see TPE wanting to retain them in preference to the 68 + mk5 which have been problematic. TPE need 5/6 cars minimum on the core routes and having 2 non gangwayed 3 car units introduces all sorts of problems.

One route which would benefit from their power is York - Leeds - Bradford - Burnley - Blackburn - Preston - Blackpool, but a microfleet just for that route isn't practical.

 

[Ashley Hill]

150 replacements in Devon & Cornwall?

 

[Neptune]

150 replacements in Devon & Cornwall?

Too long for some of the branchlines.

 

[Greybeard33]

Booths!

 

[Ashley Hill]

Too long for some of the branchlines.

Yes,you’re quite right. I wouldn’t send one to Gunnislake or Looe. Ideal for Cardiff-Taunton and westwards.

 

[Whistler40145]

Replacement for 156s on the West Highland Line?

 

[JonathanH]

Ideal for Cardiff-Taunton and westwards.

But they aren't ideal for Cardiff to Taunton. They are overpowered for that route and don't have the capacity or efficient operation of a Turbo.

 

[Philip]

Similar problem to the class 175s in finding a suitable new operator, so as in the case of 175s the most likely candidates include Northern, Chiltern, GWR and EMR to replace 156s.

Perhaps Cross Country to replace to 170s on Cardiff to Nottingham could be another option?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Replacement for 156s on the West Highland Line?

I think Scotland is a possibility, yes. They are overpowered, but the engines could be swapped, perhaps to a hybridised drivetrain as per that Chiltern unit. They are heavy, though as a result likely very crashworthy which could be a good thing on Scottish rural routes where landslips might be more likely than elsewhere.

TBH for a bit of thread crossover double sets would make a decent direct swap for the HSTs. The large engines would power up the hills (that's why they are overpowered - TPE is rather hilly) and the interiors are of very high quality indeed so people wouldn't see much of a downgrade, except those hung up on door positions and engines underneath. Nice big windows, seats mostly aligned...what's not to like on routes not getting the wires for a while?

 

[Whistler40145]

I think Scotland is a possibility, yes. They are overpowered, but the engines could be swapped, perhaps to a hybridised drivetrain as per that Chiltern unit. They are heavy, though as a result likely very crashworthy which could be a good thing on Scottish rural routes where landslips might be more likely than elsewhere.

Unlike other units, the 185s have engines on each carriage, these can be shut down when not required

Maybe more suitable for Carlisle to Glasgow Central via Kilmarnock or Glasgow Central to Stranraer services

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unlike other units, the 185s have engines on each carriage, these can be shut down when not required

Yes, they do already have an "economy mode" for less hilly routes where they rotate 2 out of 3 to keep the engine hours even.

Maybe more suitable for Carlisle to Glasgow Central via Kilmarnock or Glasgow Central to Stranraer services

I'd go with somewhere where the premium interior would be appreciated - the rural lines would really benefit from this, and the high power could allow for timetable improvements as these lines are very hilly. Reasonably sized van area for bikes at one end, too - it's not the 153s but it's very usable if you did a bit of work to relocate the wheelchair facility elsewhere, remove the tip-ups and put some racks in. And First Class for say a tenner upgrade, money for old rope and actual 1st rather than the Class 153 downgrade.

 

[Neptune]

Yes, they do already have an "economy mode" for less hilly routes where they rotate 2 out of 3 to keep the engine hours even.

They shut them down on the downhill sections too so it’s a reasonable compromise in Scotland although a hybrid engine replacement would be better and more acceptable.

I'd go with somewhere where the premium interior would be appreciated - the rural lines would really benefit from this, and the high power could allow for timetable improvements as these lines are very hilly. Reasonably sized van area for bikes at one end, too - it's not the 153s but it's very usable if you did a bit of work to relocate the wheelchair facility elsewhere, remove the tip-ups and put some racks in. And First Class for say a tenner upgrade, money for old rope and actual 1st rather than the Class 153 downgrade.

I’d leave the wheelchair area where it is by the disabled loo. Moving the disabled area would also mean moving the PRM toilet which would be a waste of money in my view. Leave them where they are and modify the opposite end behind the cab for cycles. If they’re working doubled up it’s still a decent capacity.

They are by far the best of the regional express units, comfortable and good for a mixture of services as TPE are proving now with them on express services and the stoppers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They shut them down on the downhill sections too so it’s a reasonable compromise in Scotland although a hybrid engine replacement would be better and more acceptable.

I’d leave the wheelchair area where it is by the disabled loo. Moving the disabled area would also mean moving the PRM toilet which would be a waste of money in my view. Leave them where they are and modify the opposite end behind the cab for cycles. If they’re working doubled up it’s still a decent capacity.

Ideally I'd probably rejig slightly anyway, as it is better in a non-gangwayed unit having 1st by the cab end to reduce through traffic and avoid one of the two toilets being "hidden" behing 1st. But yes, you could provide a separate cycle area of similar size. Though I think just moving 1st to the other end and a partition would be a fairly easy job given how modular that sort of thing tends to be these days, compared with moving the bog which would be difficult - basically unbolt, rebolt and replace the carpet so there aren't holes in it (which they'd probably do anyway so there was a more "tartan" look). That would also mean the wheelchair space being adjacent to Standard rather than First Class seating, which I think would be preferred overall. At the moment it feels a bit like the "old order" of hiding wheelchair users in the guard's van. And people probably prefer the cycles to be in view, so perhaps an inner end of the middle vehicle would be a good place.

They are by far the best of the regional express units, comfortable and good for a mixture of services as TPE are proving now with them on express services and the stoppers.

They are certainly pleasant and reliable, and would be great for use on routes that won't be electrified for the medium term, particularly hilly ones. And as they're simple diesel hydraulics - basically a high-powered Sprinter - if you can hybridise a 168 you can do it to a 185.

 

[pompeyfan]

Taking out capacity and over powered engines etc, could you run them as double sets on Portsmouth - Cardiff? Would there be enough to run every service required as a 6 car? The units have Unit De-Select do they not? And I’m sure it’s not beyond the will of man to fit a SWT style ASDO using track beacons? Is there anywhere that a 6 car would foul junctions? First class would need removing which would be expensive though.

Would they get better MPG or unit range than Turbos?

I suppose we’re getting to the point of what is the least worse place to shoehorn them in?

I certainly can’t see them on Waterloo - Exeter because of the lack of gangways and the sheer volume of portion working.

 

[Neptune]

Ideally I'd probably rejig slightly anyway, as it is better in a non-gangwayed unit having 1st by the cab end to reduce through traffic and avoid one of the two toilets being "hidden" behing 1st. But yes, you could provide a separate cycle area of similar size. Though I think just moving 1st to the other end and a partition would be a fairly easy job given how modular that sort of thing tends to be these days, compared with moving the bog which would be difficult - basically unbolt, rebolt and replace the carpet so there aren't holes in it (which they'd probably do anyway so there was a more "tartan" look). That would also mean the wheelchair space being adjacent to Standard rather than First Class seating, which I think would be preferred overall. At the moment it feels a bit like the "old order" of hiding wheelchair users in the guard's van. And people probably prefer the cycles to be in view, so perhaps an inner end of the middle vehicle would be a good place.

Yes I never really understood the reason for the PRM area being shoved at one end behind a cab when on the 350/360/450 it’s in a much more sensible place. However it does allow for a very pleasant 1st class area in the middle of the coach (even better since the refurbishment) but the issue of people frogging through to the toilet is annoying. Siemens are certainly the benchmark for quality modular products though and it probably wouldn’t take too much effort to move the disabled area to the centre of the train.

They are certainly pleasant and reliable, and would be great for use on routes that won't be electrified for the medium term, particularly hilly ones. And as they're simple diesel hydraulics - basically a high-powered Sprinter - if you can hybridise a 168 you can do it to a 185.

I think that 170’s have a slightly better ambience but despite the niggles of having the disabled area in the wrong place and the in-saloon casing for the exhaust pipes the 185’s are a pleasure to ride on with phenomenal build quality. The soundproofing is certainly excellent, they have a noisy engine yet inside it’s not at all invasive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I never really understood the reason for the PRM area being shoved at one end behind a cab when on the 350/360/450 it’s in a much more sensible place. However it does allow for a very pleasant 1st class area in the middle of the coach (even better since the refurbishment) but the issue of people frogging through to the toilet is annoying. Siemens are certainly the benchmark for quality modular products though and it probably wouldn’t take too much effort to move the disabled area to the centre of the train.

I suspect two reasons - one being that they wanted a single 1st area (though personally I think having two smaller areas with a door in between like the 321 has a lot going for it, particularly as one would be an almost European style 6 seat compartment albeit with a central rather than side aisle) and the other being that they needed the vestibule in Standard for standing purposes (which ScotRail don't as much as WHL and Far North services aren't known for being full and standing, and if they were used on the Highland Mainline etc it'd be as double sets).

That said, if they did need to have it in a middle section, I'd have done it more like the 350/4 and put it in the middle section of the middle coach, which wouldn't have "marooned" a toilet in the same way.

I think that 170’s have a slightly better ambience but despite the niggles of having the disabled area in the wrong place and the in-saloon casing for the exhaust pipes the 185’s are a pleasure to ride on with phenomenal build quality. The soundproofing is certainly excellent, they have a noisy engine yet inside it’s not at all invasive.

I like 170s, the main problem with them being that there weren't enough built, but I find 185s have an edge. 170s are sluggish and have small overhead luggage racks, for two, and the build quality is very poor with lots of rattles (though somehow they don't fall apart despite the oldest being close to 25 years old now). 185s as you say have superb build quality - like 350s you'd never guess their age - and the overheads are huge, plus the big engines make them quick off the mark. They aren't perfect (not least because of the lack of a pantograph and being very heavy) but they are a good, solid piece of traditional German heavy engineering, exactly what Germany is good at. They might not live out their full life due to the deprecation of diesel, but I certainly expect the similar 350s to last 50+ years without issues.

 

[Neptune]

I suspect two reasons - one being that they wanted a single 1st area (though personally I think having two smaller areas with a door in between like the 321 has a lot going for it, particularly as one would be an almost European style 6 seat compartment albeit with a central rather than side aisle) and the other being that they needed the vestibule in Standard for standing purposes (which ScotRail don't as much as WHL and Far North services aren't known for being full and standing, and if they were used on the Highland Mainline etc it'd be as double sets).

That said, if they did need to have it in a middle section, I'd have done it more like the 350/4 and put it in the middle section of the middle coach, which wouldn't have "marooned" a toilet in the same way.

I guess if the 4th car had been funded and built then it could have been coupled to the composite vehicle and had a toilet at the driving vehicle end through the gangway with it signposted from the SC area of the composite vehicle thus eliminating the need to walk through FC to the nearest toilet. However they weren’t funded sadly so it’s irrelevant.

I like 170s, the main problem with them being that there weren't enough built, but I find 185s have an edge. 170s are sluggish and have small overhead luggage racks, for two, and the build quality is very poor with lots of rattles (though somehow they don't fall apart despite the oldest being close to 25 years old now). 185s as you say have superb build quality - like 350s you'd never guess their age - and the overheads are huge, plus the big engines make them quick off the mark. They aren't perfect (not least because of the lack of a pantograph and being very heavy) but they are a good, solid piece of traditional German heavy engineering, exactly what Germany is good at. They might not live out their full life due to the deprecation of diesel, but I certainly expect the similar 350s to last 50+ years without issues.

Yes the 170’s have a few flaws compared to the 185’s especially build quality and tiny overheads but I just feel a slightly better ambiance about the 170’s. They were fine for the Hull - Piccadilly service which only stopped at Huddersfield on the core meaning the lack of oomph off the mark wasn’t a huge hindrance. The first class area was well thought out with the loss of 1 seat replaced by a luggage rack with the food cupboard on one side of it. As they were generally run as 4 cars or even 6 in the peak they had excellent capacity too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes the 170’s have a few flaws compared to the 185’s especially build quality and tiny overheads but I just feel a slightly better ambiance about the 170’s. They were fine for the Hull - Piccadilly service which only stopped at Huddersfield on the core meaning the lack of oomph off the mark wasn’t a huge hindrance. The first class area was well thought out with the loss of 1 seat replaced by a luggage rack with the food cupboard on one side of it. As they were generally run as 4 cars or even 6 in the peak they had excellent capacity too.

170s are also - and this is important - quite a lot cheaper, so if TPE had gone for those they could probably have afforded the fourth coach at the start, which would have meant the TOC not being utter purgatory to use for the best part of 15 years. So it's not all clear cut, I guess. Siemens certanly offered a premium product, but AIUI it came at a very premium price.

 

[Neptune]

I wonder if the turbostar order book was a bit full at the time of tender. They were building the last units for Scotrail and the Southern units around that time from what I remember.

Now hypothetically if FTPE had gone for 170’s (extended to 4 cars) instead of 185’s we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation in this thread right now. TPE could well have still gone for the new builds they have now but there would be no shortage of takers for 170’s.

 

[XAM2175]

I think Scotland is a possibility, yes. They are overpowered, but the engines could be swapped, perhaps to a hybridised drivetrain as per that Chiltern unit. They are heavy, though as a result likely very crashworthy which could be a good thing on Scottish rural routes where landslips might be more likely than elsewhere.

TBH for a bit of thread crossover double sets would make a decent direct swap for the HSTs. The large engines would power up the hills (that's why they are overpowered - TPE is rather hilly) and the interiors are of very high quality indeed so people wouldn't see much of a downgrade, except those hung up on door positions and engines underneath. Nice big windows, seats mostly aligned...what's not to like on routes not getting the wires for a while?

I'd certainly prefer the HSTs were kept until they could be properly replaced as intended (ideally with some version of FLIRT), but I can very easily picture 185s as quick-and-mostly-easy stopgap if HST withdrawal has to be accelerated.

That said, I understand that door-position concerns are mostly wibble but in the Highlands they're perhaps rather more valid. It can always be mitigated by installing vestibule doors, though.

 

[RailWonderer]

I certainly can’t see them on Waterloo - Exeter because of the lack of gangways and the sheer volume of portion working.

That was always cited as the reason SWT replaced their 170s with 158s but with trolley services being axed long ago, the only reason to still insist on gangwayed stock would be for guards convenience.

A while back I said 185s would be perfect on Scotrail then it was dismissed for all the same reasons, too heavy, too thirsty, door widths etc. I think EWR would be better and Siemens have depots in Northampton and Bedford maintains the 360s near that route so it would be better for reliability. The spec seating and doors is perfect as well though the South East is not exactly a hilly place.

 

[Whistler40145]

I could see 185s working EMR service's e.g. Doncaster to Peterborough via Lincoln and possibly Nottingham to Skegness services, thus moving 170s onto other services

 

[JonathanH]

I could see 185s working EMR service's e.g. Doncaster to Peterborough via Lincoln and possibly Nottingham to Skegness services, thus moving 170s onto other services

No chance as they would simply be too expensive for that operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That was always cited as the reason SWT replaced their 170s with 158s but with trolley services being axed long ago, the only reason to still insist on gangwayed stock would be for guards convenience.

A while back I said 185s would be perfect on Scotrail then it was dismissed for all the same reasons, too heavy, too thirsty, door widths etc. I think EWR would be better and Siemens have depots in Northampton and Bedford maintains the 360s near that route so it would be better for reliability. The spec seating and doors is perfect as well though the South East is not exactly a hilly place.

Are they actually thirstier than HSTs? I'd be surprised.

They can't use Sprinter differentials due to their weight, but nor can HSTs.

 

[mike57]

Are they actually thirstier than HSTs? I'd be surprised.

Weight wise 2 x 3 car 185s come out at 326t v ~345t for an HST + 6 Mk3s + HST, so any significant differences are going to be down to the efficency of the traction package. 6 engines v 2, diesel electric versus mechanical and torque converter, too many variables but at a guess I would say per seat/mile, which is probably the best metric, not a lot to choose, I dont doubt there is some information out there somewhere. Weight wise 6 x 158's come out at ~228t and 6 x 170's come out at ~270t so both will be kinder to the track, and probably use less fuel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Mar 2022 ==

They can't use Sprinter differentials due to their weight, but nor can HSTs

No, but there are HST differentials in parts of Scotland

 

[Cheshire Scot]

No, but there are HST differentials in parts of Scotland

Which class 185s cannot use!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which class 185s cannot use!

Why not? I thought HST differentials were because the HST has superior braking compared to LHCS because the brakes are applied from both power cars and so kick in quicker, and a 185 will have superior braking to an HST.