Class 185s post-TRU

[Donny Dave]

Not to mention that Scunthorpe, Barnetby and Grimsby only fit 5 carriages on the platforms.

 

[Essex Express]

Just transfer the surplus class 185 to Northern Rail. As the class 185 will already be route cleared on a large part of the Network. Then various unit swaps to release the class 170 that would better suit East Midlands as class 158 replacements. One option that East Midlands could do is form some 4 car sets for the longer services.

 

[The exile]

If 165/0s are still capped at 75, then a possible problem with putting them on the Thames branches is the fact that they generally have to get to/from said branches from/to Reading, so those moves may have to be be considered so that they don't gum up the network.

Unlikely that many of those moves are scheduled to happen in the peak. Even if Henleys still run through to Reading at times, that’s only one station’s worth.

 

[Acathater]

Just transfer the surplus class 185 to Northern Rail. As the class 185 will already be route cleared on a large part of the Network. Then various unit swaps to release the class 170 that would better suit East Midlands as class 158 replacements. One option that East Midlands could do is form some 4 car sets for the longer services.

Better idea is transfer the surplus 185 to Northern, then ship any released 158 to Salisbury to strengthen the Waterloo-Exeter numbers, even if only by improving the spares pool

 

[bolt057068]

Would the Class 185 be suitable for ScotRail service between Carlisle and Glasgow Central via Dumfries and Kilmarnock or Northern service between Rochdale and Clitheroe via Bolton?

 

[stevieinselby]

Would the Class 185 be suitable for ScotRail service between Carlisle and Glasgow Central via Dumfries and Kilmarnock or Northern service between Rochdale and Clitheroe via Bolton?

It would be ridiculously overspecced for the Rochdale & Clitheroe service. Not sure about the Dumfries route, other than that ScotRail mostly run 4-car standard-only formations, so it would be a substantial drop in capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be ridiculously overspecced for the Rochdale & Clitheroe service. Not sure about the Dumfries route, other than that ScotRail mostly run 4-car standard-only formations, so it would be a substantial drop in capacity.

If you were going to use them on Northern it would make sense to unseat Class 195s from fast services to use their strengths on local services around Manchester, given the 195's fast acceleration and layout which works well with standees. Barrow/Windermere would be a good fit, though bi-modes look likely for these. The high power might also be useful on the Settle-Carlisle.

 

[A S Leib]

If using them for Settle – Carlisle services, would that mean using them between Leeds and Lancaster as well?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If using them for Settle – Carlisle services, would that mean using them between Leeds and Lancaster as well?

Well it would make sense to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If using them for Settle – Carlisle services, would that mean using them between Leeds and Lancaster as well?

Probably overkill for the Bentham, but if it's operationally expedient why not?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2026 ==

A thought - if the high power isn't needed, then would it make sense to remove the engines from the middle coaches to reduce fuel consumption and provide a pool of spares as the units get older? 2 x 750hp is still pretty hefty even given the units being quite heavy. There is the rotating engine out thing, but that doesn't give you the spares pool and reduced maintenance cost, even given that to avoid suspension modifications you'd probably have to put a concrete block in its place.

 

[Zomboid]

Was it not discussed earlier that because of the gear ratios they're not especially well suited to the lower line speed of the S&C/ Bentham routes? (Nothing above 60 between Skipton & Carlisle/ Carnforth).

Though on the plus side, those routes don't have differentials that they can't take advantage of, and their high power (even on 2 engines) would be useful over the hills.

 

[Donny Dave]

I don't think the gear ratios are that big of a problem, as on the South TPS route, it is surprisingly low speed East of Manchester. Through the Hope Valley, they are limited to 60-75mph, as they can't use the SP/MU differentials, with only (very) short bursts of higher speeds between Sheffield - Doncaster - Thorne Jn. From there all the way to Cleethorpes, it is 60 mph maximum (mostly 55mph from Thorne to Barnetby)

 

[43096]

Probably overkill for the Bentham, but if it's operationally expedient why not?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2026 ==

A thought - if the high power isn't needed, then would it make sense to remove the engines from the middle coaches to reduce fuel consumption and provide a pool of spares as the units get older? 2 x 750hp is still pretty hefty even given the units being quite heavy. There is the rotating engine out thing, but that doesn't give you the spares pool and reduced maintenance cost, even given that to avoid suspension modifications you'd probably have to put a concrete block in its place.

The current situation of the "eco mode" shutting down one engine does have a maintenance cost saving as engines are/can be maintained on engine hours - so if the engine isn't running it doesn't incur hours. The benefit of leaving it in place is resilience if one engine fails. That said, knowing the railway, they'd just leave the broken one unfixed if the train only ever needed to use two engines from three.

 

[brad465]

Was it not discussed earlier that because of the gear ratios they're not especially well suited to the lower line speed of the S&C/ Bentham routes? (Nothing above 60 between Skipton & Carlisle/ Carnforth).

Though on the plus side, those routes don't have differentials that they can't take advantage of, and their high power (even on 2 engines) would be useful over the hills.

Might be a good excuse to try and raise the base line speed along at least the S&C route. They definitely have the gradients they like on this route.

 

[The Planner]

Might be a good excuse to try and raise the base line speed along at least the S&C route. They definitely have the gradients they like on this route.

You wouldn't do that on the half chance of some cascaded stock.

 

[stevieinselby]

A thought - if the high power isn't needed, then would it make sense to remove the engines from the middle coaches to reduce fuel consumption and provide a pool of spares as the units get older? 2 x 750hp is still pretty hefty even given the units being quite heavy. There is the rotating engine out thing, but that doesn't give you the spares pool and reduced maintenance cost, even given that to avoid suspension modifications you'd probably have to put a concrete block in its place.

Wasn't there a question about whether removing an engine would change the weight distribution and potentially affect the kinematic envelope?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't there a question about whether removing an engine would change the weight distribution and potentially affect the kinematic envelope?

Hence the need to replace it with a concrete block.

Similarly, some EMUs that are designed to be fitted with pantograph/transformer but are only used on third rail have a concrete block where the transformer would go.

 

[ChrisC]

You wouldn't do that on the half chance of some cascaded stock.

No you wouldn’t, and probably not likely to happen, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea for even the current 158s to be able to run at a faster speed.

 

[dodecahedron67]

You would want to keep all 3 engines regardless of where they are cascaded to (if they even do), as a 2 engined 185 is woefully slow at accelerating from a stand

 

[Bletchleyite]

You would want to keep all 3 engines regardless of where they are cascaded to (if they even do), as a 2 engined 185 is woefully slow at accelerating from a stand

With 2x750hp? Not in my experience, they accelerate fine on two when one is in rotating shutdown mode.

 

[dodecahedron67]

As someone who works them, they are slow to pull away on 2 and it's hard to keep to time on 2 engines on certain services. You have to be really pushing a 2 engined unit to keep time on York - Middlesbrough or the Huddersfield - Piccadilly local for example

 

[Bevan Price]

If you were going to use them on Northern it would make sense to unseat Class 195s from fast services to use their strengths on local services around Manchester, given the 195's fast acceleration and layout which works well with standees. Barrow/Windermere would be a good fit, though bi-modes look likely for these. The high power might also be useful on the Settle-Carlisle.

You get the same problem as in my post #51 - some of the Settle & Carlisle trains are 4 coach 158 formations; you would need 6 coach 158s to match the seating capacity. Also you don't really need high power when the line limit is 60mph north of Skipton or Hellifield.

 

[Iskra]

You get the same problem as in my post #51 - some of the Settle & Carlisle trains are 4 coach 158 formations; you would need 6 coach 158s to match the seating capacity. Also you don't really need high power when the line limit is 60mph north of Skipton or Hellifield.

The power and higher top speeds could be useful on the Aire Valley section though.

In terms of the passenger experience, they would be the upgrade that the S & C needs - a small first class compartment is perfect for the wealthy tourists (and no doubt some of the locals too) who may wish to travel the line. For everyone else: they are a step up from 158’s in that they are a little more solid and the AC/heating works plus there’s a bit more space for the onboard trolley to operate and they have nice, big windows. They are the ideal unit for tapping into West Yorkshire-Scotland flows to generate more revenue by out-competing XC on comfort (not a new idea for the S&C). Personally, I think 3 carriage 185’s would be about right for the Settle-Carlisle in terms of capacity; although yes you may need 6 carriages if coach parties are still going to be catered for and on peak weekend services.

It would also be easier to justify a through service to Glasgow with 185's, than 158's and the power would once again prove useful over Beattock, although this is somewhat more speculative.

 

[Halifaxlad]

They manage at short platforms absolutely fine on Transpennine South, at Meadowhall and Habrough for example- both 4 carriage platforms for 6 carriage trains. What would be different about the Calder Valley?

Sorry I didn't realise the 185s had SDO

 

[Zomboid]

It would also be easier to justify a through service to Glasgow with 185's, than 158's and the power would once again prove useful over Beattock, although this is somewhat more speculative

Are they fast enough for such a long WCML run with a 100mph top speed (which they they'd maybe struggle to sustain on the way up Beattock anyway)? Might be space for that if the freight was electric at 90.

 

[Iskra]

Are they fast enough for such a long WCML run with a 100mph top speed (which they they'd maybe struggle to sustain on the way up Beattock anyway)? Might be space for that if the freight was electric at 90.

They used to run that route regularly, spending a lot longer on the WCML and they are specifically designed for climbing hills.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A thought - -------- and provide a pool of spares as the units get older?

I had not thought of it from that point of view. Certainly should not be dismissed imho.

 

[notspy]

Sorry I didn't realise the 185s had SDO

They use Coach-based Automatic Selective Door Opening (C-ASDO), which requires beacons to be fitted to all stations that they call at.

 

[Class83]

You get the same problem as in my post #51 - some of the Settle & Carlisle trains are 4 coach 158 formations; you would need 6 coach 158s to match the seating capacity. Also you don't really need high power when the line limit is 60mph north of Skipton or Hellifield.

Removing the first class section and replacing with standard class would add ~32 seats seats (comparing with other end coach) so 186 seats per unit, but they'd be much more usefully deployed on Liverpool to Nottingham as the mid carriage doors would speed up things at Oxford Road and Piccadilly, there is more standing space at peak time, and provide a consistent 6 car, 30 minute service on the South Transpennine route from Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Sheffield. If there are any left over after that then Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds could be a good candidate, if the is pretty close to a 30 min service on the Nottingham-Sheffield section of that route as well, again it has a bit more suburban/commuter demand so the door layout is probably useful.

 

[brad465]

What about send all the 185s to XC, with XC sending the 170s to other operators currently using 170s that can strengthen their fleets and/or allow the oldest Sprinters to be binned off? 51x 185s would be a huge uplift from 29x 170s, allowing every 3-4 car service to become 6-car, also relieving pressure on the Voyager services through this corridor (which might then be able to run non-stop from Birmingham-Derby). Their love of gradients would also be put to good use on the Lickey. One drawback is they won't be using HST speeds through the Tamworth corridor, although they'd still do 90mph and have a relatively frequent calling pattern anyway.