185s question

[TheGrew]

They also can't do SP (Sprinter) differential speeds because of their axle loading. From memory, this was of particular detriment on the Hull line where the 170's largely plied their trade. The acceleration of the 185 made up for the lower top speed on that line though

Yep, that is also correct based on other things I have read on this forum. Compared with the admittedly newer 195 the Axel load of a 185 is ~18t whereas a 195 is about ~10.5t using figures from Wikipedia (which appear to be correctly sourced). The 195/1 (3 car) has 1,570hp whereas the 185 has 2,257hp. The 195 is also capable of accelerating much faster at 0.83 m/s2 vs 0.49 m/s2 for the 185.

As someone who grew up with 450s/444s I have always liked the Desiro fleet which has often been reliable and well built but to their detriment they are quite heavy. I think I read on this forum that Siemens over-engineered the UK Desiros after some other competitor-built units were found to be unreliable (I seem to remember the classes 458/460 being especially bad).

Ultimately if the 185s were too thirsty you might wonder if Transpennine would ask CAF or someone else to build them a smaller (though longer than the 185!) Class 897 equivalent with a good amount of commonality with the 397s they already operate (and I believe have been pretty happy with?), this is all speculation though.

 

[craigybagel]

But 172s seem better than 196s at climbing banks, despite a slightly inferior power to weight ratio. From a standing start at Bromsgrove, pairs of 172/2s are the only dmus that I have had passing Barnt Green in less than 5 minutes.

WMR have locked the 196 transmissions in their most economical mode. If they were allowed to use "Super Power mode" like Northern and TfW can do with their CAF units, you'd probably notice a big difference climbing Lickey.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Love 185s but hate the amount of booked 3-car working there currently is with TPE.

6-car 185s are great. 9-car could be better on occasions but 6 is usually fine.

 

[driverd]

WMR have locked the 196 transmissions in their most economical mode. If they were allowed to use "Super Power mode" like Northern and TfW can do with their CAF units, you'd probably notice a big difference climbing Lickey.

Indeed - climbing out of Bradford Interchange you'd be looking at 10-15mph difference by the time you get up to Laisterdyke. As the 195s always default to eco mode when changing ends (and traction mode cannot be changed on the move), I would always be kicking myself if I forgot to put it in super power!

 

[ainsworth74]

Personally I always found the 170s a better unit from the passenger, staff and in service reliability perspective (things like air con, engines and toilets generally worked on 170s, less so the 185s) but the performance of the 185s remains impressive.

I am but a passenger so don't have the amount of exposure that a member of staff would but the aircon and engines on 185s have always seemed as reliable as any other train? Though I will happily concede the toilets seems to regularly go out of order!

From memory, this was of particular detriment on the Hull line where the 170's largely plied their trade. The acceleration of the 185 made up for the lower top speed on that line though

Yes I seem to recall a TPE guard who posted on here commented that the 185s had a lower top speed around Selby due to all the SP differentials but they got to that speed quicker than the 170s meaning that there was a negligible impact on journey times when a 185 deputised for a 170.

 

[skyhigh]

WMR have locked the 196 transmissions in their most economical mode. If they were allowed to use "Super Power mode" like Northern and TfW can do with their CAF units, you'd probably notice a big difference climbing Lickey.

That's interesting to hear as we got a notice telling us that the timetables were based on Super Power mode and we were to always run in that mode to not cause delays.

 

[driverd]

I am but a passenger so don't have the amount of exposure that a member of staff would but the aircon and engines on 185s have always seemed as reliable as any other train? Though I will happily concede the toilets seems to regularly go out of order!

I think things may have improved in the last few years, but in the 5 or so year period I worked the units, in the summer 185s were essentially mobile saunas. It'd be an almost daily occurance that you'd get horrific temperatures in atleast one vehicle. The huge underfloor engines did nothing to help dissipate heat and unlike the 170s, there was no way of resetting the aircon (which, on the turbostars, would fix the fault 9 times out of 10 - though not all staff necessarily know how to do this - whether training is given to crew seems to vary from TOC to TOC).

My other gripes with the 185s included the din the engines made, lovely for an hour or so if you enjoy such things, but highly unpleasant when you'd get into bed have ringing ears as you try to nod off after every shift.

I've also noted the all Siemens units manage to have the most unpleasant toilets (when they work) on the network. There's a unique, sweet and sickly Siemens toilet smell and they all seem to have what looks like browning paper maché (i dread to think) wedged into every crevice and cranny (especially at floor level. Truly vulgar and, amongst rail vehicles, a unique level to it.

From a passenger perspective, I find the fact that all but 8 or so of the airline seats are orientated to face the same direction very annoying. I don't like to take a table for 4 if travelling solo (which I often am), but I'm also not so keen on facing backwards. In one direction, the only forward facing airline seats are next to the small toilet (which comes furnished with Siemens toilet stench) and just 2 pairs just behind a cab. Poor, I think, from a passenger perspective.

Anyway, I shall stop moaning at the risk of hi-jacking the thread here.

Yes I seem to recall a TPE guard who posted on here commented that the 185s had a lower top speed around Selby due to all the SP differentials but they got to that speed quicker than the 170s meaning that there was a negligible impact on journey times when a 185 deputised for a 170.

That's not entirely true - though the 185s demonstrably do accelerate better, the 170s had slightly faster SRTs along the Hull and Hope Valley routes. Of course, it's quite immaterial as both routes had mixed traction and a clock face timetable, so 170 speed benefits were mitigated by longer dwells or pathing time. Against the public timetable, however, it would seem a 185 and 170 were quite interchangeable.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think things may have improved in the last few years, but in the 5 or so year period I worked the units, in the summer 185s were essentially mobile saunas. It'd be an almost daily occurance that you'd get horrific temperatures in atleast one vehicle. The huge underfloor engines did nothing to help dissipate heat and unlike the 170s, there was no way of resetting the aircon (which, on the turbostars, would fix the fault 9 times out of 10 - though not all staff necessarily know how to do this - whether training is given to crew seems to vary from TOC to TOC).

Interesting! As I say my experience doesn't match but having not worked them I of course only had a small sample size!!

I've also noted the all Siemens units manage to have the most unpleasant toilets (when they work) on the network. There's a unique, sweet and sickly Siemens toilet smell and they all seem to have what looks like browning paper maché (i dread to think) wedged into every crevice and cranny (especially at floor level. Truly vulgar and, amongst rail vehicles, a unique level to it.

Agreed, I actually really like the Desiro family in all its flavours but uniformly they seem to have terrible toilets (and unreliable ones on the 185s).

That's not entirely true - though the 185s demonstrably do accelerate better, the 170s had slightly faster SRTs along the Hull and Hope Valley routes. Of course, it's quite immaterial as both routes had mixed traction and a clock face timetable, so 170 speed benefits were mitigated by longer dwells or pathing time. Against the public timetable, however, it would seem a 185 and 170 were quite interchangeable.

Fair enough, it was a long time ago that that post was made (I think it was when 170s were still working for TPE) so my memory might be playing tricks on the exact content.

 

[thelongestroad]

What's with the intermittent revving at idle on 185s?

 

[skyhigh]

What's with the intermittent revving at idle on 185s?

It's a fuel saving thing.

 

[driverd]

Interesting! As I say my experience doesn't match but having not worked them I of course only had a small sample size!!

In fairness, it's not something I've noticed too often in the last few years myself, so it's quite possible they've got on top of it now (TPE is no longer my employer and hasn't been for some time).

Fair enough, it was a long time ago that that post was made (I think it was when 170s were still working for TPE) so my memory might be playing tricks on the exact content.

Quite honestly, I was just nit-picking. To most extents the two traction types were interchangable on those routes, I just thought it might be of interest - wasn't meaning to come across as a smart Alec.

What's with the intermittent revving at idle on 185s?

If you're referring to when they're stood in a station, that's the engines hunting. They're quite prone to it on the 185s, I'm not sure of the engineering reasons behind this.

 

[Spartacus]

I think things may have improved in the last few years, but in the 5 or so year period I worked the units, in the summer 185s were essentially mobile saunas.

I can't say it's something I've ever had a regular problem with, in fact if anything the air con's often a bit TOO keen in summer.

I've also noted the all Siemens units manage to have the most unpleasant toilets (when they work) on the network. There's a unique, sweet and sickly Siemens toilet smell and they all seem to have what looks like browning paper maché (i dread to think) wedged into every crevice and cranny (especially at floor level. Truly vulgar and, amongst rail vehicles, a unique level to it.

I can't help but wonder what you make of the Voyager family, the whole damn trains usually smell like a toilet!

 

[43096]

It's a fuel saving thing.

It isn’t. The fuel saving mode is when one car shuts an engine down. As stated by @driverd it is the engines hunting for some reason.

 

[Scotrail84]

I think 185s were at one time earmarked for ScotRail but they are seemingly too heavy for the gradients on the HML. That was a rumour years ago.

 

[craigybagel]

Indeed - climbing out of Bradford Interchange you'd be looking at 10-15mph difference by the time you get up to Laisterdyke. As the 195s always default to eco mode when changing ends (and traction mode cannot be changed on the move), I would always be kicking myself if I forgot to put it in super power!

The test for us is the climb out of Abergavenny up Llanviihangel. 66 at the top for eco mode, 76 for super power. It's also the rate it gets to those speeds that's impressive - it'll be doing 70 at a point where a Sprinter would have only been doing around 50. Those transmissions are great for hill climbing.

That's interesting to hear as we got a notice telling us that the timetables were based on Super Power mode and we were to always run in that mode to not cause delays.

We've just had a notice advising us to stick with eco mode for slippy season. Other than that we've not had any official line - I only use it when we're running late, you just end up waiting time at stations on our current timetable if you use it unnecessarily.

I think 185s were at one time earmarked for ScotRail but they are seemingly too heavy for the gradients on the HML. That was a rumour years ago.

There were similar rumours about ATW acquiring some, before the then TfW announced the 197 order instead. Mechanically I think they would have been great units for us - and we have very few MU/SP restrictions now to allow for the 67s to run faster so the weights shouldn't have been an issue - but the internal layout and lack of gangway doors might have been challenging.

 

[notadriver]

WMR have locked the 196 transmissions in their most economical mode. If they were allowed to use "Super Power mode" like Northern and TfW can do with their CAF units, you'd probably notice a big difference climbing Lickey.

Is that an absolute certainty ? A rail article from 2023 suggests drivers can choose between modes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2024 ==

Yep, that is also correct based on other things I have read on this forum. Compared with the admittedly newer 195 the Axel load of a 185 is ~18t whereas a 195 is about ~10.5t using figures from Wikipedia (which appear to be correctly sourced). The 195/1 (3 car) has 1,570hp whereas the 185 has 2,257hp. The 195 is also capable of accelerating much faster at 0.83 m/s2 vs 0.49 m/s2 for the 185.

The acceleration figures are incorrect. A class 195 is only marginally quicker than a 185 to 60 mph and then only in super power mode (it takes 67 seconds vs the 70 seconds for a class 185). I believe the 185 would be quicker to 60 mph if not restricted to 75% power to 20 mph. At higher speeds they have the edge on 195s - above 80 mph.

 

[Donny Dave]

The acceleration figures are incorrect. A class 195 is only marginally quicker than a 185 to 60 mph and then only in super power mode (it takes 67 seconds vs the 70 seconds for a class 185). I believe the 185 would be quicker to 60 mph if not restricted to 75% power to 20 mph. At higher speeds they have the edge on 195s - above 80 mph.

Thanks for clarifying those figures. I had a few runs between Sheffield and Meadowhall yesterday afternoon on 185s and 195s, with no noticeable difference in times. I did account for the 195s using P4 at Meadowhall, but the TPE drivers carry out a running brake test around Attercliffe, so I would say they are fair comparisons.

 

[craigybagel]

Is that an absolute certainty ? A rail article from 2023 suggests drivers can choose between modes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2024 ==

It's what I was told by a WMR driver a year ago. Might have changed since but if they're capable of keeping to the timetables there's no real need to use superpower mode. You change modes via the TCMS, so it would only take a software update to lock it out to drivers.

 

[RailWonderer]

It's what I was told by a WMR driver a year ago. Might have changed since but if they're capable of keeping to the timetables there's no real need to use superpower mode. You change modes via the TCMS, so it would only take a software update to lock it out to drivers.

Is super power mode where 3/3 engines run? The eco mode was where 2/3 run, is this now the default?

 

[craigybagel]

Is super power mode where 3/3 engines run? The eco mode was where 2/3 run, is this now the default?

This was in response to an earlier reference to CAF units, and how they compare to 185s. Eco & superpower modes are different settings on CAF units that effect their acceleration. The ability to switch engines off on 185s is a different system entirely.

 

[185]

My only dislike of the 185s is the lack of seating capacity. The third coach has a First Class & Universal area using 66% of a coach, leaving the remainder of the train with a standard class seating capacity not much more than many two car DMUs.

 

[AirRail]

My only dislike of the 185s is the lack of seating capacity. The third coach has a First Class & Universal area using 66% of a coach, leaving the remainder of the train with a standard class seating capacity not much more than many two car DMUs.

I agree. When they had their last refurb (current interior), it would have been good to increase the seating capacity. I saw a model where an increase of 26-30 additional seats could be added per each 3 car unit. I think it was with the removal of a couple of tables per carriage and possibly slight reduction in seat pitch (which is already generous on these units).

That said, this time last year, there was a thread talking about another refresh of these units, both externally and internally.

It was mentioned that the exterior would include the replacement of the external vinyl bodyside wraps. Interior to include the replacement of seat covers and carpets, and a comprehensive interior deep clean. Possibly to replace seat coverings to moquette.

Has any of this mentioned refresh commenced at all? Or with Labour in the government, has it all now been suspended if this has any impact to such plans and costs?

 

[ScottGallagher]

From memory didn't Connex win the franchise or at least were preferred bidder and then politics got involved due to their awful reputation, remember the Arriva voyager esque proposal.had they won.

 

[AirRail]

From memory didn't Connex win the franchise or at least were preferred bidder and then politics got involved due to their awful reputation, remember the Arriva voyager esque proposal.had they won.

Siemens completed the refurb work last time, so i'd presume they'd complete any "refresh" work this time also.

 

[Mollman]

My only dislike of the 185s is the lack of seating capacity. The third coach has a First Class & Universal area using 66% of a coach, leaving the remainder of the train with a standard class seating capacity not much more than many two car DMUs.

Isn't there some issue about the weight meaning that the universal toilet is offset by reducing the seating in that coach?

 

[driverd]

Isn't there some issue about the weight meaning that the universal toilet is offset by reducing the seating in that coach?

No, universal toilets don't add much weight at all - a common misconception was that the 144e pacer added weight with a universal access toilet - the module actually weighed less than the previously installed toilet when both had full water tanks (or so told by a senior fleet manager at the time, when the "it's not entered service yet because the bog is too heavy" rumours were doing the rounds).

It's just for provision of first class and the wheelchair space. It was a design choice to add a large first class cabin and large wheelchair space - a bit like the 350 vehicle that had both the disabled access toilet and small toilet (which resulted in a low seating capacity).

 

[Mollman]

No, universal toilets don't add much weight at all - a common misconception was that the 144e pacer added weight with a universal access toilet - the module actually weighed less than the previously installed toilet when both had full water tanks (or so told by a senior fleet manager at the time, when the "it's not entered service yet because the bog is too heavy" rumours were doing the rounds).

It's just for provision of first class and the wheelchair space. It was a design choice to add a large first class cabin and large wheelchair space - a bit like the 350 vehicle that had both the disabled access toilet and small toilet (which resulted in a low seating capacity).

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying

 

[thenorthern]

It's important to remember as well that when the Class 185s were built it was a different time to now in regards to trains. Back then running diesel trains "under the wires" for long parts or even all of the journey was seen as acceptable.

 

[Killingworth]

It's important to remember as well that when the Class 185s were built it was a different time to now in regards to trains. Back then running diesel trains "under the wires" for long parts or even all of the journey was seen as acceptable.

Although they were designed primarily for cross Pennine routes that weren't electrified and probably won't be until the units are over 25 years old - on South Pennine that could be over 35.

 

[computerSaysNo]

This was in response to an earlier reference to CAF units, and how they compare to 185s. Eco & superpower modes are different settings on CAF units that effect their acceleration. The ability to switch engines off on 185s is a different system entirely.

If the transmission settings on the CAF units are the same as they are on buses, then ECO will use the gears to keep the engine RPM as low as possible, which means that each shift up may occur before the engine has reached the RPM at which it develops its peak torque (read: sacrifices acceleration to enhance fuel economy and engine longevity).

The other transmission mode, sometimes called Normal, Balanced, Automatic, or Power, changes the shift positions depending on the power demand the driver asks for. If the driver is only using low power then the gearbox will likely shift up at a similar RPM as it does in ECO mode because a high acceleration is not required. If the driver is using a lot or full power (i.e. asking for maximum acceleration) then the gearbox will attempt to keep the engine RPM within the engines' peak torque range, resulting in a higher overall RPM. On buses and coaches, the engine's peak torque range is shown by the green band on the tachometer.