185s - Can they run the West Highland line?

[LE Greys]

Perhaps it has more to do with acceleration?

Which is not all that different in the 0-60 range because of a 156's effectively lower gear ratio and lighter weight. A motor scooter has the same 0-60 time as an Alfa Romeo GT V6.

 

[scotsman]

How much running is there at more than 75mph on the Far North Line?

A bit, actually. Enough for it to come in useful

 

[tbtc]

A bit, actually. Enough for it to come in useful

Where abouts do the Far North services ever get over 75mph?

I've never noticed it anyhow

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Reading a post on here a while back, it stated that the 158s weren't powerful enough to be used on the West Highland Line. When the sprinters become life expired, would the TPE 185s (freed up when the 319s head north) be able to run on the line?

If this were to be the case, where would the Class 185 fleet be based and serviced. This is only a hypothetical question, as I cannot see these units being cascaded onto the West Highland line.

 

[WatcherZero]

Why are they so heavy?

They came from a time when crashworthiness standards, passenger features, clean exhausts etc were at their pinnacle but before lighter materials and construction methods started coming in to force the weight back down again.

 

[Bittern]

The 156 was good in it's day, but the present Scotrail stock aren't much changed from BR days and compared to more modern/refurbed stock it does present them in a poor light.
Glasgow commuters have the "luxury" of 170s and newer Leckie powered stuff for short hop commutes, yet for a 3 and a bit hour journey you're stuck with a not particularly nice 156.
I've often wondered whether a buffet service could be viable in the Summer months, selling the usual hot/cold snacks but perhaps also local whiskies, beer (Colonsay IPA!), produce etc. possibly utilising the ex HT 170s (assuming they could be passed for the route).

I'm a regular user of the 156s (you could say I "use them day in day out"), as well as other units in the ScotRail fleet, and I can honestly say that the Sprinters do their job and do it well. Yes, they're noisy and a bit dirty but that's only to an extent and heavily outweighed by the constantly high level of performance and service they provide. They're reliable. Where a 334 might be delayed because it sucks in snow or a 170 because it got derailed by a leaf, the 156 shines through. They were built strong, and from what I've heard, that's a common theme in BR built units. The 156s are good trains.

If people don't like them, get out and walk. I'm not usually someone who resorts to that kind of conclusion, but when a unit is more than capable of doing it's job well and is getting heat for being a bit noisy and dirty TO AN EXTENT, then I have no problem in saying it. Walk.

 

[150222]

A 156 is doing the southbound sleeper tonight as far as edinburgh. Fancy that?

 

[MacCookie]

A bit, actually. Enough for it to come in useful

Where? My copy of the SA, albeit a couple of years old, doesn't show anywhere north of Inverness where the line speed is higher than 75mph.

And from what I remember, the 158s have poorer acceleration than 156s and I distinctly remember reading that the journey times on the Far North Line went up when the units were swapped over.

Ewan

 

[Bittern]

A 156 is doing the southbound sleeper tonight as far as edinburgh. Fancy that?

I wouldn't mind it. At least they have life about them, unlike the usual 90s.

Although which southbound sleeper are we talking about? From Glasgow, Inverness, Fort William or Aberdeen?

 

[150222]

It was the fort william one but only between fort william and edinburgh as a 67 failed.

 

[harz99]

The 158 seat design isn't as bad as the original, but then the 156s have had a massive downgrade from the original version (IC70, I think). It probably doesn't help that I've travelled on the NXEA units a lot more than the ScotRail ones in recent years.

Even if the air's not particularly fresh, then it's better than recycled A/C, and it's mobile.

The Scotrail fleet of 156s is the only one in the UK not to have had new seats fitted since the units were built in the late 80s. There have been many minor refurbs to the frames, repaints of the frames and new seat covers fitted, but in most cases the actual detachable squab and cushion (backrest and bit you sit on) are the originals, and are therefore totally life expired and very uncomfortable for anything but the shortest of journeys. Many have zero padding left.

Since delivery new 156s have never been fitted with IC70 seats!

I'm a regular user of the 156s (you could say I "use them day in day out"), as well as other units in the ScotRail fleet, and I can honestly say that the Sprinters do their job and do it well. Yes, they're noisy and a bit dirty but that's only to an extent and heavily outweighed by the constantly high level of performance and service they provide. They're reliable. Where a 334 might be delayed because it sucks in snow or a 170 because it got derailed by a leaf, the 156 shines through. They were built strong, and from what I've heard, that's a common theme in BR built units. The 156s are good trains.

If people don't like them, get out and walk. I'm not usually someone who resorts to that kind of conclusion, but when a unit is more than capable of doing it's job well and is getting heat for being a bit noisy and dirty TO AN EXTENT, then I have no problem in saying it. Walk.

I'll agree on the performance levels, and the design from BRB days. However times have moved on and the Scotrail 156s have not. Noisy - well that doesn't bother me; Scruffy/dirty - neither does that particularly bother me.

But your leaving aside the two issues which do bother many people - seating and ventilation.

Seating is covered above.

Ventilation is a major problem.

Summer sees the units get very hot inside, resulting in windows being opened everywhere - trouble is the big hopper units when opened create a significant draft for the people sitting on the opposite side two seat rows further back, and do little to cool the person who actually opens the window.

Then Winter comes along, and the antiquated heating system takes an age to warm up, is then left on all the time even if the wintry sun makes an appearance, leading to yet more open windows/draughts etc. Night falls and the heating can't cope with the low temperatures outside, then pax start to feel the draughts from poorly fitting or missing interior doors, corridor connection seals and so on.

Given that pax on routes operated by by Scotrail all pay roughly the same pence per km or mile cost of their journey (according to Transport Scotland), travelling in a Scotrail 156 as presently presented/operated is a pretty raw deal.

Having said that I have no beef against the class 156, the Scotrail units simply need bringing up to a better standard: A/C would be nice but is not a must, forced air ventilation ala 317/334 units would do the job, split hoppers would help reduce drafts togther with some additional electric heating to supplement in winter.

But more than anything either a complete reseat, or at the very least least renewal within the existing seat frames is urgently needed.

 

[LE Greys]

The Scotrail fleet of 156s is the only one in the UK not to have had new seats fitted since the units were built in the late 80s. There have been many minor refurbs to the frames, repaints of the frames and new seat covers fitted, but in most cases the actual detachable squab and cushion (backrest and bit you sit on) are the originals, and are therefore totally life expired and very uncomfortable for anything but the shortest of journeys. Many have zero padding left.

Since delivery new 156s have never been fitted with IC70 seats!

I'll agree on the performance levels, and the design from BRB days. However times have moved on and the Scotrail 156s have not. Noisy - well that doesn't bother me; Scruffy/dirty - neither does that particularly bother me.

But your leaving aside the two issues which do bother many people - seating and ventilation.

Seating is covered above.

Ventilation is a major problem.

Summer sees the units get very hot inside, resulting in windows being opened everywhere - trouble is the big hopper units when opened create a significant draft for the people sitting on the opposite side two seat rows further back, and do little to cool the person who actually opens the window.

Then Winter comes along, and the antiquated heating system takes an age to warm up, is then left on all the time even if the wintry sun makes an appearance, leading to yet more open windows/draughts etc. Night falls and the heating can't cope with the low temperatures outside, then pax start to feel the draughts from poorly fitting or missing interior doors, corridor connection seals and so on.

Given that pax on routes operated by by Scotrail all pay roughly the same pence per km or mile cost of their journey (according to Transport Scotland), travelling in a Scotrail 156 as presently presented/operated is a pretty raw deal.

Having said that I have no beef against the class 156, the Scotrail units simply need bringing up to a better standard: A/C would be nice but is not a must, forced air ventilation ala 317/334 units would do the job, split hoppers would help reduce drafts togther with some additional electric heating to supplement in winter.

But more than anything either a complete reseat, or at the very least least renewal within the existing seat frames is urgently needed.

Maybe we should move that discussion to this thread. I know it's old, but this discussion's gone way off topic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Meanwhile, I was on a 185 yesterday. It would need better and more comfortable seats, but could certainly do the Highland if necessary.

 

[northwichcat]

Meanwhile, I was on a 185 yesterday. It would need better and more comfortable seats, but could certainly do the Highland if necessary.

The Highland Line isn't any longer than the TPE routes they are used on currently. If they were to go the Highland Line (which at present is 98% unlikely) and get better seating then it would just prove that the seating they were built with wasn't good enough for the long services they are used on.

 

[harz99]

The Highland Line isn't any longer than the TPE routes they are used on currently. If they were to go the Highland Line (which at present is 98% unlikely) and get better seating then it would just prove that the seating they were built with wasn't good enough for the long services they are used on.

I frequently travel LOC to MAN on TPEX 185s and find the standard class seats infinitely preferable to either of Virgin's offerings on the WCML. Overcrowding though is another matter!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe we should move that discussion to this thread. I know it's old, but this discussion's gone way off topic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Meanwhile, I was on a 185 yesterday. It would need better and more comfortable seats, but could certainly do the Highland if necessary.

That thread is all about 158s - yes? My post which admittedly is off topic but answer others, is about the 156.

 

[northwichcat]

I frequently travel LOC to MAN on TPEX 185s and find the standard class seats infinitely preferable to either of Virgin's offerings on the WCML. Overcrowding though is another matter!

So what journey do you do/have you done on Virgin's Pendolinos in comparison? I'd prefer to do 2 hours on a 156 over 5 hours on 175 but I prefer a 175 over a 156.

As an aside your journey is around 75 minutes shorter than the full Manchester Airport to Edinburgh journey.

 

[harz99]

So what journey do you do/have you done on Virgin's Pendolinos in comparison? I'd prefer to do 2 hours on a 156 over 5 hours on 175 but I prefer a 175 over a 156.

As an aside your journey is around 75 minutes shorter than the full Manchester Airport to Edinburgh journey.

CRE/BHM regularly and EUS half dozen times a year.

And as yet another aside I had the most comfortable trip in ages (from BMO to MYB) recently in an ex Wrexham and Shropshire refurbished mk3.

I'd almost forgotten what a pleasure Intercity train travel used to be before modern high backed thinly padded seats became the norm.

 

[tbtc]

The Highland Line isn't any longer than the TPE routes they are used on currently

From end to end, yes, but most passengers boarding TPE services are doing so for shorter journeys (Newcastle to Durham etc), whereas I'd imagine that a larger percentage of those boarding at Inverness are travelling long distance (not just to Aviemore etc).

Just my perception, but longer journey times don't always mean longer average journeys...

 

[LE Greys]

The Highland Line isn't any longer than the TPE routes they are used on currently. If they were to go the Highland Line (which at present is 98% unlikely) and get better seating then it would just prove that the seating they were built with wasn't good enough for the long services they are used on.

All of this is true, especially the bit about the seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I frequently travel LOC to MAN on TPEX 185s and find the standard class seats infinitely preferable to either of Virgin's offerings on the WCML. Overcrowding though is another matter!

Being a man of strange tastes, I'd much prefer a Voyager to anything produced by Siemens for the British market. Actual German ones (although I'm not sure if they were built by Siemens, but were owned by DB) seem much more comfortable.

That thread is all about 158s - yes? My post which admittedly is off topic but answer others, is about the 156.

It's my whinging about 158s that got us onto the subject, sorry everyone.

 

[northwichcat]

longer journey times don't always mean longer average journeys...

The train used should still be comfortable for doing end to end journeys. It's no use saying to 30 people doing Manchester Airport to Edinburgh that the trains are comfortable to use because the 50 people doing Manchester to Bolton said so.

 

[tbtc]

The train used should still be comfortable for doing end to end journeys. It's no use saying to 30 people doing Manchester Airport to Edinburgh that the trains are comfortable to use because the 50 people doing Manchester to Bolton said so.

I disagree - there are a lot of long journeys where the end-to-end passengers make up a small proportion.

For Intercity journeys (e.g. Manchester to London) then you expect a lot of people to use the service from end to end (even so, probably not the majority of passengers). However that needs to be balanced with the needs of those making shorter journeys when specifying the type of train.

I think the 185s are fine* internally for journeys of an hour or two, which is what the majority of passengers use them for.

(* - obviously they could do with more coaches, but I think we are in agreement here)

 

[northwichcat]

I think the 185s are fine* internally for journeys of an hour or two, which is what the majority of passengers use them for.

If that's how you feel where would you draw the line? If Aer Lingus offered a Dublin to Sydney flight with stops at London and Dubai, but a lot of people didn't use it all the way through with most Dublin passengers only going as far as London would you then say any plane would be suitable and ignore the fact that some people will use it for a 24 hour journey?

 

[starrymarkb]

then the 156s have had a massive downgrade from the original version (IC70, I think).

Those are original 156 seats - they were a plusher version of that in 150/2s

 

[tbtc]

If that's how you feel where would you draw the line? If Aer Lingus offered a Dublin to Sydney flight with stops at London and Dubai, but a lot of people didn't use it all the way through with most Dublin passengers only going as far as London would you then say any plane would be suitable and ignore the fact that some people will use it for a 24 hour journey?

In the real world, the 08.20 service from Aberdeen gets in to Penzance at 21.42, over thirteen hours later - how many passengers a week use it end to end I don't know but I'd be rather surprised.

Now, for a service lasting thirteen hours you'd want something like an Orient Express level of service/ comfort. But is that really practical on a journey when most people are doing trips of an hour or two?

 

[northwichcat]

In the real world, the 08.20 service from Aberdeen gets in to Penzance at 21.42, over thirteen hours later - how many passengers a week use it end to end I don't know but I'd be rather surprised.

Now, for a service lasting thirteen hours you'd want something like an Orient Express level of service/ comfort. But is that really practical on a journey when most people are doing trips of an hour or two?

So now you're saying that journeys most people do on TPE are similar in length to those on XC. On that basis and your previous reasoning for TPE not having more comfortable seating, should there be Voyager quality on TPE or Desiro quality on XC?

When TPE had 158s I did both Manchester-Newcastle and Manchester-Middlesbrough and found the seating reasonable for that length of time. Since 185s have come on the longest journeys I done on them are Manchester-Leeds, Stockport-Doncaster and Manchester-Blackpool and on those journeys I've found the seating not of the standard I would have expected.

 

[LE Greys]

So now you're saying that journeys most people do on TPE are similar in length to those on XC. On that basis and your previous reasoning for TPE not having more comfortable seating, should there be Voyager quality on TPE or Desiro quality on XC?

When TPE had 158s I did both Manchester-Newcastle and Manchester-Middlesbrough and found the seating reasonable for that length of time. Since 185s have come on the longest journeys I done on them are Manchester-Leeds, Stockport-Doncaster and Manchester-Blackpool and on those journeys I've found the seating not of the standard I would have expected.

Well, I might say they should be MkI quality on both, but that would be a bit impractical. My perspective is that Bombardier-product seats are superior to the equivalent Siemens product, but that's just an opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Those are original 156 seats - they were a plusher version of that in 150/2s

Something about that picture made them look rather different. Probably just the angle.

In terms of seats, the best standard seats I've ever sat in in Britain belonged to an LMS SK; followed by a MkI SK, various GWR and LNER stock and a MkIId; IC70s in a MkIII and elsewhere; 365s and 156s about the same, plus updated EC stock; Pendys, Voyagers and Turbo/Electrostars; original MkIVs, 150s, 158s, 313s, 319s (etc) and some better Underground stock; with Desiros, original Pacers and worse Underground stock at the bottom; refurbished Pacers and the broad-gauge open coach last of all. Notice how most of the better seats were in older stock. I'm thinking of starting a spin-off thread on that "Why is older stock more comfortable?".

 

[harz99]

Notice how most of the better seats were in older stock. I'm thinking of starting a spin-off thread on that "Why is older stock more comfortable?".

Certainly for long distance and/or InterCity type journeys the answer is pretty simple - they were built in the days when comfort mattered and the journey was supposed to be a pleasurable experience.

For me the rot set in when some of the HST mark 111s were "experimentally" converted to "high capacity" by doing away with tables and cramming more seats in airline fashion, 78 I seem to remember - can't remember exactly when it happened, but I do remember not being able to get my legs in a comfortable position the first time I encountered one of these. Fortunately commensense prevailed and until FGW refurbished their HST sets such high capacity ideas died a death.

One of the biggest problems nowadays is that modern seats are filled with foam which degrades over a relatively short period of time, and not sprung with a layer of wadding ala olden times.

Couple that with a skimped maintainence regime on non safety critical items and you have where we are now - shiny looking trains that are all style above substance.

 

[Bon Accord]

I'm sure it's been said more than once, but the most comfortable seats I've ever encountered were to be found on a commonwealth bogied Mk 1 FK.
The modern foam filled stuff can't even touch it.

 

[northwichcat]

Well, I might say they should be MkI quality on both, but that would be a bit impractical. My perspective is that Bombardier-product seats are superior to the equivalent Siemens product, but that's just an opinion.

The 170 seating is far superior to the Desiro seating in my opinion. I would say the 170 seating is a modern equivalent for the 158 seating, while the Desiro seating it a slightly improved version of DB Regio seating.

Not sure what the 172 seating is like. From pictures I've seen it seems to be more Desiro like than 170 like.

 

[paul1609]

Has the situation where 185s cant run at sprinter speeds been resolved yet? If not I dont think theyd be suitable for the west highland line.
The rail services isnt competitive with citylink for a lot of journey times adding half an hour to the journey time wouldnt be wise.

 

[Chris125]

Its not a situation you can solve without upgrading the lines - DMU's often benefit from a higher linespeed due to their lower axle loading, but the 185 doesnt have that.

Chris