22 class 185 units being released by TPE - Where could they go?

[northwichcat]

Most likely not, but the opposite of what you are proposing would work out better for both TOCs and would be the most probable out of the 2.

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if LM gain the LO 172s plus some 3 car 170s which are released, with Northern getting 2 car 170s from LM as well as 2 car 170s from other operators - possibly Anglia.

 

[Clansman]

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if LM gain the LO 172s plus some 3 car 170s which are released, with Northern getting 2 car 170s from LM as well as 2 car 170s from other operators - possibly Anglia.

Agree. Also, the original discussion on this issue (involving myself) was discussed on the Class 172 thread. A more financially beneficial idea would be for Chiltern to give London Midland all their 172s (along with London Overground's 172s when they go off-lease) and in return receive the 170s. Also, they are most likely due to be replaced when/if the fleet is established that will run on the newly electrified Chase Line. Northern's best bet for additional 170s in this case would be Anglia.

 

[The Ham]

185's WHERE ARE THEY GOING ????? Lets look at the various TOC's which might use them.
...
Chiltern, London Midland and XC could use Anglia 170's when released. XC will not want more diesel ONLY trains LONG TERM, as the more of the knitting that gets put up, diesel running under electric lines will be frowned on. BI MODE ????
Great Western just keep ordering more new build 803's and 387's.
This leaves Wales and East Midland. Both options mean the trains could still be based at Adwick in Manchester. My personal feeling is EMT for Liverpool to Norwich, as using them in Wales limits most services to 3 car trains without reforming them.
...

XC may not want 185's long term, but then if XC start looking at new build then the lease costs of the 22x's (with nowhere else for them to go) will start to fall until they are cheaper than a new build (even allowing for fuel costs), add into the mix that XC may not want new trains if they don't what a post HS2 will look like and the uncertainty of when electrification may happen. If there are limited other places for the 185's to go then they could (at least until the 222's are freed up by electrification) have a short lease on them.

GWR has quite a large area in Devon & Cornwall where 387's won't have power and 803's would be overkill, as such it could well be that 185's might (in the next franchise) have somewhere that they could be useful.

Liverpool to Norwich has been ruled out a number of times on this thread (and others) as the 185's would have to run more slowly over the soft ground over the Fenns than the current lighter stock. It is the same reason that HST's or loco's wouldn't be used on that service also.

 

[Mordac]

Been looking into this, apparently there's only one MU differential in the GWSL, a 9 chord long section of track near Hurlford, where the differential is 40/65. There's none on the Tyne Valley line either. For what this is worth.

EDIT: There's many more on the Stranraer line, so perhaps forget about that one.

 

[1179_Clee2]

Incorrect. Northern have to secure 18 x 170s or equivalent by 2022 in addition to the units they have secured. 185s could be classed as equivalent to 170s - they have already been for the purpose of the TPE franchise agreement having equivalents to 4 x 170s which left for Chiltern!

Also worth remembering Northern, Anglia and TPE have ordered new diesel powered trains, if the new trains are delayed they might need an interim solution.

I will hold my hands up and say sorry as I am not a expert on ITT's
Unlike some people on hear I don't have a Phd or have managed multi million pound projects, just a ordinary jo doing a ordinary job, but with 35 year's interest in railways.
The biggest possible problem with both the Northern AND Trans Pennine franchise is that they were let pre Brexit.
As nobody has any idea what will happen on railways post Brexit when we leave the EU, both franchise may need MORE OR LESS TRAINS or may have to terminate the franchise early.

 

[Clansman]

Been looking into this, apparently there's only one MU differential in the GWSL, a 9 chord long section of track near Hurlford, where the differential is 40/65. There's none on the Tyne Valley line either. For what this is worth.

EDIT: There's many more on the Stranraer line, so perhaps forget about that one.

Any chance you could elaborate on that? Apologies, I'm not the best with railway jargon :?

Taking a stab at it - are you on about different timings or the joint speed limits (ie x/y pending on which train you are operating - such as HSTs have different speeds on certain lines in Scotland compared to Scotrail DMUs)

 

[D365]

Unlike some people on hear I don't have a Phd or have managed multi million pound projects, just a ordinary jo doing a ordinary job, but with 35 year's interest in railways.

most of us don't, or won't - I'm only studying for a bachelors so far!

The biggest possible problem with both the Northern AND Trans Pennine franchise is that they were let pre Brexit.
As nobody has any idea what will happen on railways post Brexit when we leave the EU, both franchise may need MORE OR LESS TRAINS or may have to terminate the franchise early.

That's if we leave the EU

 

[northwichcat]

I will hold my hands up and say sorry as I am not a expert on ITT's
Unlike some people on hear I don't have a Phd or have managed multi million pound projects, just a ordinary jo doing a ordinary job, but with 35 year's interest in railways.
The biggest possible problem with both the Northern AND Trans Pennine franchise is that they were let pre Brexit.
As nobody has any idea what will happen on railways post Brexit when we leave the EU, both franchise may need MORE OR LESS TRAINS or may have to terminate the franchise early.

The TPE franchise includes various options for additional stock and the option of handing back more 185s so I doubt they'll be any need for revisions or a termination of the TPE agreement.

 

[Haydn1971]

How many times does it have to be said that the 185s are too heavy and would lose time east of Peterborough!

Which is why the wise money is on splitting the service at Nottingham - keep the Sprinters for east of Nottingham. Although, I've noticed that the 158s seem to run faster on the Hope Valley than the 185s - is that my imagination or a potential issue ?

 

[Kendalian]

Use them on lines where they can best do what they were designed for...climbing hills.

If it were down to me they would be going to the ultimate hill climb route - Glasgow/Edinburgh-Inverness.

Shame Scotrail prefer to go with stock that will be almost 45 years old by the time it gets there! Wait for the laughing stock story in the Daily Wail (probably at Sturgeon's expense )

 

[43074]

I think I've posted on this thread already but I think the picture will clear in forthcoming franchise awards:
- XC will likely use the Anglia 170s if they choose to run any additional services/provide extra capacity on their current 170 routes
- They may not necessarily be used by the EM franchisee but it could well depend on the future of the Norwich to Liverpool service
- ATW are certainly an option given the purpose built depot in Manchester and the fact that two of their inter-regional routes are based on the city
- They were explicitly mentioned in the SW franchise ITT but there are benefits and drawbacks associated with a move to Salisbury.
- A new GWR franchise starts in 2019, but the current Direct Award may be extended, although 185s would be well suited to the Devon banks on services on the Cardiff - Penzance corridor.
- The West Midlands can probably be ruled out as electrification will release more DMUs in the West Mids in the coming years.

In short - there are a number of options but we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[D365]

Which is why the wise money is on splitting the service at Nottingham - keep the Sprinters for east of Nottingham. Although, I've noticed that the 158s seem to run faster on the Hope Valley than the 185s - is that my imagination or a potential issue ?

I'd rather that not happen as that's my direct train to/from home! And yes there are more Sprinter diffs on the Hope Valley Line - hence the 170s being more commonplace until Chiltern nicked them.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd rather that not happen as that's my direct train to/from home! And yeah it's been said that there are Sprinter diffs on the Hope Valley Line - hence the 170s being more common on TPE until Chiltern nicked them.

Quite, it's currently my route home too, I like the comfort of the EMT Sprinters, now if they could just get the air con working Seriously though, the current four carriage setup is starting to be pushed to the limits at busy times, I'm ever hopeful of a better solution on the EMT service than retaining the 158s or replacing them with 185s - Maybe CAF or Stadler can generate a bi-mode unit of at least the capacity of a six car 158, with selective door operation for the "all stops" diagrams, high comfort, high capacity end doors, decent heating and cooling, power at seats and 4G repeaters - I'd be a very happy man

 

[Mordac]

Any chance you could elaborate on that? Apologies, I'm not the best with railway jargon :?

Taking a stab at it - are you on about different timings or the joint speed limits (ie x/y pending on which train you are operating - such as HSTs have different speeds on certain lines in Scotland compared to Scotrail DMUs)

The MU differentials are the whole problem with this class. In some lines, Multiple Units (MUs) are allowed to go at faster speeds than loco-hauled trains. This is called an MU differential; 185s, however, are so heavy they are not allowed to do this, and whenever such differentials are present must go at the lower speed. This is why there's so many places they're not suitable for. However, the Glasgow South Western line only has a very short such section, so it would be a suitable place for them, as discussed above. The line to Stranraer, however, has quite a few, so not so good.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is there anything that can be (financially viable) done to make the 185s lighter?

 

[northwichcat]

Is there anything that can be (financially viable) done to make the 185s lighter?

Remove the seats, luggage racks and toilets and don't allow any passengers on board

 

[Clansman]

Is there anything that can be (financially viable) done to make the 185s lighter?

Don't know any "financially viable" ideas but I imagine replacing the Cummins Engine and replacing the firm suspensions could do a trick.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would it be cost effective to re-engine and install a tilting mechanism on the Class 185s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Would it be cost effective to re-engine and install a tilting mechanism on the Class 185s?

A tilt system would be pointless as the bodyshells are built to a full GB profile rather than being tapered to allow tilting. Therefore they wouldn't be able to tilt in most locations as they'd go out of gauge.

 

[Clansman]

The unique design of the single purposed 185 has made it nearly impossible for it to be flexible route wise. Surely someone must have realised the 185s limitations before it even went onto the production line? Come to think of it, long term wise FTPE should have just ordered their own version 170s when they were being built en mass between 1999-2005 - probably would've had larger capacity out with the 18 first class seats. Bearing in mind that the 170s were (mis?)conceived as Express trains after they were built would have been at least an incentive to order a larger batch of them. Although obviously I doubt FTPE foresaw a radical fleet overhaul 10 years into the future.

Would it be cost effective to re-engine and install a tilting mechanism on the Class 185s?

Would be cheaper to make all the Pigs in the UK fly than to add tilt operation to the 185s. Replacing the engine could work out to be cost effective in the long term - it could decrease the weight and ensure that the 185s have a long term home.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The unique design of the single purposed 185 has made it nearly impossible for it to be flexible route wise. Surely someone must have realised the 185s limitations before it even went onto the production line? Come to think of it, long term wise FTPE should have just ordered their own version 170s when they were being built en mass between 1999-2005 - probably would've had larger capacity out with the 18 first class seats. Bearing in mind that the 170s were (mis?)conceived as Express trains after they were built would have been at least an incentive to order a larger batch of them. Although obviously I doubt FTPE foresaw a radical fleet overhaul 10 years into the future.



Would be cheaper to make all the Pigs in the UK fly than to add tilt operation to the 185s. Replacing the engine could work out to be cost effective in the long term - it could decrease the weight and ensure that the 185s have a long term home.

We've pretty much ruled out replacing the cabs with gangwayed cabs, but (and bear with me on this, it's just a thought exercise!) how about re-engineering one driving car from each set by removing the cab completely and adding a gangway, creating a permanent 6-car set? A fleet of 10 or 11 would be ideal for the the busiest Manchester to Wales services I'd have thought. Probably overkill west of Swansea though!

I'd agree that much like 442s, Deltics, A4s and 91s they were built for a specific purpose and aren't ideal for much else. In the case of Deltics and A4s this meant they didn't last as long as more flexible designs and it seems likely the same will happen with 442s and 91s... Could the 185s go the same way?

 

[Clansman]

We've pretty much ruled out replacing the cabs with gangwayed cabs, but (and bear with me on this, it's just a thought exercise!) how about re-engineering one driving car from each set by removing the cab completely and adding a gangway, creating a permanent 6-car set? A fleet of 10 or 11 would be ideal for the the busiest Manchester to Wales services I'd have thought. Probably overkill west of Swansea though!
Could the 185s go the same way?

You'd save hassle and flexibility by just keeping the 3 car trains exactly how they are, albeit with a few minor changes.

Although it's an idea, it's pretty much set in stone that it will probably definitely not happen. The astronomically ridiculous cost would by no way shape or form constitute any benefits. To remove the cab and replace with a gangway one would mean you'd had to strip the train entirely until the shell remains, and begin removing the fixed cab which would have an adverse affect on the whole body shell, which would need to be re-wired, re-tested and basically re-built from scratch. Doing this with any train would be really expensive, and I would say the 185s are probably one of the most complicated to undertake such project.

It's an idea, but spending millions of pounds just to rebuild and form 6 car units from the 22 sets, decreasing the number of full sets to 11, would not only reduce flexibility, but would be a complete waste of money that would be better spent on other areas of infrastructure - or even new fleets of trains.

With the cost of such project, you'd be as well hit Viva Rail up with a phone call and get some 7 car D-Trains on the go! You're talking millions to overkill much more than just West of Swansea...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You'd save hassle and flexibility by just keeping the 3 car trains exactly how they are, albeit with a few minor changes.

Although it's an idea, it's pretty much set in stone that it will probably definitely not happen. The astronomically ridiculous cost would by no way shape or form constitute any benefits. To remove the cab and replace with a gangway one would mean you'd had to strip the train entirely until the shell remains, and begin removing the fixed cab which would have an adverse affect on the whole body shell, which would need to be re-wired, re-tested and basically re-built from scratch. Doing this with any train would be really expensive, and I would say the 185s are probably one of the most complicated to undertake such project.

It's an idea, but spending millions of pounds just to rebuild and form 6 car units from the 22 sets, decreasing the number of full sets to 11, would not only reduce flexibility, but would be a complete waste of money that would be better spent on other areas of infrastructure - or even new fleets of trains.

With the cost of such project, you'd be as well hit Viva Rail up with a phone call and get some 7 car D-Trains on the go! You're talking millions to overkill much more than just West of Swansea...

Well, that's pretty decisive! Thanks

 

[glbotu]

Basically, this thread is about 22 pages of "why Class 185s are not very useful outside of the TP North Mainline".

I'd throw my hat into the ring for the North-East "sub-franchise". It would allow 100mph ECML trains instead of Sprinters which currently eat up capacity between Morpeth and Newcastle by running low-acceleration 75mph trains on a 115 mph main line. Alternatively, the Northern Connect service from Middlesbrough - Carlisle, again, not eating up paths by getting a 90 mph Class 158, which doesn't accelerate anywhere near as well as a Class 185, which are already used on the line. Not too many Sprinter differentials around, so pretty useful all around.

 

[Rick1984]

Would new boggies help reduce weight or is that too expensive?

Also a rethink on Northern being able to acquire them seems to make sense as it sounds like they'd be ideal for that franchise

 

[Whistler40145]

Indeed, if they fit in with Northern's requirements, then they should be able to keep some.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[CosherB]

I do admire the blue sky engineering proposals on this thread, all of which will never happen!

 

[tbtc]

Twenty eight 168s versus twenty two 185s? Shame we can't do a swap with Chiltern...

Also a rethink on Northern being able to acquire them seems to make sense as it sounds like they'd be ideal for that franchise

Indeed, if they fit in with Northern's requirements, then they should be able to keep some

I don't like TOCs having multiple versions of the same type of unit - there seems no point in Northern having 100mph 170s (with commuter doors), 100mph 185s (with commuter doors) and 100mph 195s (with commuter doors)...

...but if you could jiggle the numbers around so that Northern ended up with 185s and 195s (so that the ex-ScotRail 170s went to TOCs that already operated them) then I'd be in favour.

Little point in having just a few of a type of unit, so either give Northern twenty-plus 185s (instead of their 170s) or find another solution though.

Use them on lines where they can best do what they were designed for...climbing hills.

If it were down to me they would be going to the ultimate hill climb route - Glasgow/Edinburgh-Inverness

How many 170s are ScotRail keeping?

Ideally, if the numbers roughly match up (with maybe a few 156s to balance if required) then the 185s could move to ScotRail with the 170s being easier to distribute south of the border amongst the several fleets that already run them (as 168/171s too).

Knowing the DaFT, the bean counters may decide they should be put into store as they (and SRA) have done in the past and let the people stand

Hey, people standing on trains could be trendy, now Corbyn has started this "sitting on the floor despite dozens of empty seats" thing.

You just wait...

The unique design of the single purposed 185 has made it nearly impossible for it to be flexible route wise. Surely someone must have realised the 185s limitations before it even went onto the production line? Come to think of it, long term wise FTPE should have just ordered their own version 170s when they were being built en mass between 1999-2005 - probably would've had larger capacity out with the 18 first class seats. Bearing in mind that the 170s were (mis?)conceived as Express trains after they were built would have been at least an incentive to order a larger batch of them. Although obviously I doubt FTPE foresaw a radical fleet overhaul 10 years into the future

The unique design of this non-standard stock that may end up unwanted because there's nowhere that suits it long term...

...was ordered by the people who gave us the 175s and the 180s.

If things had been different and First Group hadn't wanted their hipster microfleets of non-standard stock because they had to be different... then we could have dozens more 170s and 222s which would have made these "stock cascade" threads significantly easier!

 

[lejog]

I'd agree that much like 442s, Deltics, A4s and 91s they were built for a specific purpose and aren't ideal for much else. In the case of Deltics and A4s this meant they didn't last as long as more flexible designs and it seems likely the same will happen with 442s and 91s... Could the 185s go the same way?

I bet the relevant Rosco Salesmen/Account Managers are scratching their heads at the moment, trying to work out which TOCs they can sell the 185s to.

I don't think they'll head for storage, because there will be a demand for DMUs at the time they become free. However it is likely (probably inevitable) that the ROSCO may have to cut their lease prices to mitigate against higher track charges / fuel charges arising from their weight. Its better for them to be getting some revenue, rather than none.

 

[D365]

The unique design of this non-standard stock that may end up unwanted because there's nowhere that suits it long term...

...was ordered by the people who gave us the 175s and the 180s.

To be fair, if Washwood Heath had actually gotten a grip on their QA, it's likely that there would have been more of their 'Coradia' units instead of the Siemens and Hitachi products we have today.