Should 185s be permitted to use MU speed limits and possible future use

[Philip]

Do you think the class 185s should be signed off to run at MU speeds and potentially increase their geographical operating range for the future? Currently they are heavily compromised by speed restrictions; this doesn't help on some of the routes they currently run along and also means the scope for future use away from the TPE network is limited. Should they be permitted to run at MU speeds to help with this? I seem to remember reading that the class 175s initially weren't permitted to run at MU speeds, but they were since approved for MU running.

Also, if the above did happen, and once TPE receive their extra new stock, would they be a good long term shout for the Manchester-South Wales services which are currently (or soon to be) loco hauled? They would probably have to run in multiple formation, but this would at least provide good capacity, with a built-in first class section.

 

[The Planner]

Depends on the impact to the track as they are heavy buggers.

 

[D6130]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they were permitted to run at MU speeds, but not SP speeds?

 

[hexagon789]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they were permitted to run at MU speeds, but not SP speeds?

They are not allowed to use ANY differentials.

 

[D6130]

They are not allowed to use ANY differentials.

My memory is obviously lacking. Thanks for the correction.

 

[D365]

Do you think the class 185s should be signed off to run at MU speeds

This question is not one that is going to be answered by a simple forum discussion. That's the quick answer.

 

[Philip]

This question is not one that is going to be answered by a simple forum discussion. That's the quick answer.

Voyagers are heavy trains with big engines but they're not restricted by MU speeds and the fact that 175s were cleared after initially being restricted means you can ask whether 185s could also be cleared. It isn't ideal on the Hope Valley line when you have 158s which can run at 90mph but 185s limited to 50 or 60.

 

[The Planner]

Voyagers are heavy trains with big engines but they're not restricted by MU speeds and the fact that 175s were cleared after initially being restricted means you can ask whether 185s could also be cleared. It isn't ideal on the Hope Valley line when you have 158s which can run at 90mph but 185s limited to 50 or 60.

You can ask anything, but if it suddenly needs the track catergory, maintenenance or structure works to change its a different story. The axle load of the 185s is going to be higher than a voyager as well I suspect.

 

[hexagon789]

You can ask anything, but if it suddenly needs the track catergory, maintenenance or structure works to change its a different story. The axle load of the 185s is going to be higher than a voyager as well I suspect.

220 - RA2
221 - RA4
185 - RA5

 

[The Planner]

220 - RA2
221 - RA4
185 - RA5

Enough said!

 

[Philip]

220 - RA2
221 - RA4
185 - RA5

What do these figures mean?

 

[HSTEd]

What do these figures mean?

These are "Route Availability" codes, they are used to determine whether or not structures on a given route are sufficiently strong for a given set of rolling stock.

A higher number is more punishing to infrastructure, with codes normally running from RA1 (very light rolling stock) to RA10 (very heavy rolling stock)

EDIT: The first set of numbers are Class numbers with Class 220 being Voyagers, Class 221 being Super Voyagers and Class 185 being the subject of this thread.

 

[Philip]

These are "Route Availability" codes, they are used to determine whether or not structures on a given route are sufficiently strong for a given set of rolling stock.

A higher number is more punishing to infrastructure, with codes normally running from RA1 (very light rolling stock) to RA10 (very heavy rolling stock)

EDIT: The first set of numbers are Class numbers with Class 220 being Voyagers, Class 221 being Super Voyagers and Class 185 being the subject of this thread.

Ok thanks, makes sense.

 

[dosxuk]

It isn't ideal on the Hope Valley line when you have 158s which can run at 90mph but 185s limited to 50 or 60.

Looking at the sectional appendix, Hope Valley is just SP differentials, not MU differentials, so even if the 185's were cleared for MU it wouldn't make any difference on that route.

 

[hexagon789]

Enough said!

I think so!

What do these figures mean?

As stated, they are 'Route Availability' (RA) ratings. Each route is assigned an RA category which determines the heaviest axle loadings it can accept. Sometimes higher ratings can be allowed in limited/controlled circumstances.

An RA of 5 means an axle loading of 19 tonnes or less for example. RA3 is 16.5 tonnes or less.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The short answer is "no". The differential speeds (or rather the lower speeds for heavier stock) exist for a reason. The only way to allow 185s to use the higher speeds on the Hope Valley would be to re-engineer the entire route to allow it.

While we're at it, why not allow 800-series sets to go through Morpeth at 125? Or raise the linespeed over the Ribblehead viaduct? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[hexagon789]

The short answer is "no". The differential speeds (or rather the lower speeds for heavier stock) exist for a reason. The only way to allow 185s to use the higher speeds on the Hope Valley would be to re-engineer the entire route to allow it.

While we're at it, why not allow 800-series sets to go through Morpeth at 125? Or raise the linespeed over the Ribblehead viaduct? What could possibly go wrong?

Ribblehead is certainly mainly structural loading; Morpeth is track geometry though surely?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ribblehead is certainly mainly structural loading; Morpeth is track geometry though surely?

My point was that you can't just remove restrictions because you don't like them or they're inconvenient.

 

[hexagon789]

you can't just remove restrictions because you don't like them or they're inconvenient.

That's very true.

 

[alf]

My point was that you can't just remove restrictions because you don't like them or they're inconvenient.

Surely TOCs CAN get restrictions removed in many cases.
They just pay Network Rail for the extra Maintenance/faster wear rate via a raised mileage charge for the 185s.

Or the TOC can appeal to (is it) ORR & argue the case for higher speeds at certain locations. The threat of an appeal & the staff cost involved might make NR back down.

The right to appeal was built into the privatised railway for just these circumstances.

 

[HSTEd]

The Class 185s will have to stay on TPE and then go for razorblades in all likelihood.

They are of little value on much of the network given their enormous axle-loading.

 

[Snow1964]

Surely TOCs CAN get restrictions removed in many cases.
They just pay Network Rail for the extra Maintenance/faster wear rate via a raised mileage charge for the 185s.

Or the TOC can appeal to (is it) ORR & argue the case for higher speeds at certain locations. The threat of an appeal & the staff cost involved might make NR back down.

The right to appeal was built into the privatised railway for just these circumstances.

Yes in theory, and there is a cost vs time saving. But sometimes one short severe restriction on a fast stretch is justified, but saving few seconds isn't

Somewhere like Hope Valley line is an odd one, as it see aggregates trains that are lot heavier than RA5 (route availability) so speed limits are based on higher axle loadings. So the idea that class 185s couldn't have a differential speed for lighter RA5 is one that could be looked at, not as high as SP limits, but third limit between the two.

There are a number of locations with triple speed limits, and thread on it recently

Speed restriction sign query

I have noticed that southbound just before Dundas Aquaduct (south of Bath on Westbury route) there is a double speed limit sign. Top one has 40 and horizontal bar with 60, and below it is one with SP 70 (on two lines). So effectively 3 speed limits on same piece of plain (no junctions) track...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surely TOCs CAN get restrictions removed in many cases.
They just pay Network Rail for the extra Maintenance/faster wear rate via a raised mileage charge for the 185s.

Or the TOC can appeal to (is it) ORR & argue the case for higher speeds at certain locations. The threat of an appeal & the staff cost involved might make NR back down.

The right to appeal was built into the privatised railway for just these circumstances.

The right to appeal only goes so far though- it doesn't extend to wilfully denying the laws of physics. Even if a restriction can be eased or lifted, those additional charges to mitigate increased maintenance have to be paid by the operator, which means higher fares and/or subsidy from the Department for Transport.

 

[Brubulus]

Yes in theory, and there is a cost vs time saving. But sometimes one short severe restriction on a fast stretch is justified, but saving few seconds isn't

Somewhere like Hope Valley line is an odd one, as it see aggregates trains that are lot heavier than RA5 (route availability) so speed limits are based on higher axle loadings. So the idea that class 185s couldn't have a differential speed for lighter RA5 is one that could be looked at, not as high as SP limits, but third limit between the two.

Aren't they HST speeds?

 

[Philip]

The class 175 example stems from Crewe-Shrewsbury. I seem to remember reading that initially they weren't allowed to run at the MU 90mph along this line, but once TPE finished using them and they became the mainstay units for Manchester-South Wales, ATW successfully got them cleared for MU speeds...perhaps I've got this wrong but I thought I remember reading about this. If it's true, which RA rating do 175s come under?

 

[Snow1964]

The class 175 example stems from Crewe-Shrewsbury. I seem to remember reading that initially they weren't allowed to run at the MU 90mph along this line, but once TPE finished using them and they became the mainstay units for Manchester-South Wales, ATW successfully got them cleared for MU speeds...perhaps I've got this wrong but I thought I remember reading about this. If it's true, which RA rating do 175s come under?

Class 175 (along with 158, 159, 168, 170, 171, 172, 180, 220, 221, 222, 253, 254, 373) can use HST speeds where indicated

The MU (multiple unit) DMU and EMU limits specifically excludes 185s and 390s and HSTs with less than 3 coaches. (175s are within MU and DMU, but not SP (sprinters)

 

[ScottGallagher]

If my memory serves me well , Connex was rumoured to be the preferred bidder for TPE in 2004 and had apparently proposed 170s , much easier to cascade!! Politics got in the way of that though and the rest is history.

Another bidder apparently proposed meridians/voyager but can't remember who!!

Why exactly are 185s so over engineered?

 

[dk1]

Class 755s only managed to escape the 185 style restrictions by having smaller fuel tanks in the power pack. Otherwise we’d be dawdling along as low as 45mph across the Fens & the reason 222s couldn’t find any regular operation out East.

 

[mike57]

To me the issue is that 185s were engineered with one specific route in mind, Leeds - Manchester. A different solution, ie. lower overall weight but with a similar power/weight ratio could no doubt have been engineered that would have met route requirements, but with more possible future uses, but this would have cost more. In todays disjointed rail undertakings no consideration is given to future cascades, hence the proliferation of 'micro-fleets'. You save money at the point of purchase/first lease, but then waste it later when no use can be found, or a redeployment results in other disadvantages.

There are also significant differentials between York and Seamer, and the old 'but they accelerate faster' comment has been made multiple times, but with one stop (Malton) in ~40 miles the 158s were quicker, and still hold the York - Seamer fastest journey time.

 

[Neptune]

A

If my memory serves me well , Connex was rumoured to be the preferred bidder for TPE in 2004 and had apparently proposed 170s , much easier to cascade!! Politics got in the way of that though and the rest is history.

Another bidder apparently proposed meridians/voyager but can't remember who!!

Arriva’s bid proposed 4 car 180’s.