Class 185 "Excess Weight"

[WatcherZero]

Bogies mainly. Think the body is heavier than an equivalent Turbostar product?

I believe they were engineered to a very high degree of crash worthiness for mainline running coming after Potters Bar and Ladbroke Grove before they started relaxing the rules a little through crumple zones. The 450 escaped this by being ordered in 2001 and not expecting to be mixing with such heavy traffic.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

3) Corridor connections! NO! gangways may appeal to the pen pushers that specify trains, fare dodgers and the odd passenger who wishes to walk the length of the train, but from a driver safety point they are awful.

The amount of equipment in a modern driving cab means that units with gangways such as 380 etc have everything crammed in. This results in an unfriendly driving environment with a narrow forward view and almost no view to the right hand side. The 380 being particularly bad for all of the above.

The 185 has a great cab layout with BIG wide windscreen. Compare the 380 cab to the 700 and you will see what I mean (the 700 cab is the original 380 cab before transport Scotland demanded gangways)

Fair point. I suppose in my list 1 and 3 are an either/or, as mentioned by another poster.

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is the railway has been rebuilt since the 70s, and perhaps even earlier, to be used by fleets of lightweight multiple units that could get away with fewer track maintainenance resources [due to lower track damage] and that could brake rapidly thanks to a combination of good brakes and light weight. [Friction brake performance being normally thermally limited more than anything]

Heavy units just don't fit.

 

[route:oxford]

185s would suit Chiltern

They might suit the East-West micro franchise.

I think I've just thought of a good use for the non-driving trailers of the 442s...

If they are the right height - rebuild as trailers within the 185s.

 

[Greybeard33]

Sound-proofing in the saloons is the best I've encountered on any DMU. I've been on EMUs that were noisier.

This is especially amazing giving the racket they make when departing a station, which you can clearly hear from the platform.

And how much does the sound insulation weigh? :roll:

 

[Harbornite]

I think I've just thought of a good use for the non-driving trailers of the 442s...

If they are the right height - rebuild as trailers within the 185s.

Surely not a serious suggestion?

 

[J-2739]

They might suit the East-West micro franchise.

I think I've just thought of a good use for the non-driving trailers of the 442s...

If they are the right height - rebuild as trailers within the 185s.

As I repeated, 'Dusty Bins' are the new chapter and shall not be replaced for eternal life!!!

But seriously, the 442s only see a certain bin as their future.

I don't predict the future, but I feel the East-West rail usage will go sky-high, and the 185s already have overcrowding issues on their current routes. Only another type of temporary DMU should be secured but the question is, where?

Back to topic we need to go!

 

[noddingdonkey]

3) Corridor connections! NO! gangways may appeal to the pen pushers that specify trains, fare dodgers and the odd passenger who wishes to walk the length of the train, but from a driver safety point they are awful.

I would have thought fare dodgers would prefer units with no corridor connection so they have the opportunity to travel in the other unit to the guard.

 

[QueensCurve]

I love the 185s. They're a little tired now but they have a great sound and they feel solid.

From my point of view they are nice to ride in. Good ride quality and not too noisy.

 

[J-2739]

From my point of view they are nice to ride in. Good ride quality and not too noisy.

The only thing I'd say is that they feel quite narrow compared to other regional units (158) and fill up quite quickly. But they are lovely DMUs otherwise.

 

[CosherB]

I think I've just thought of a good use for the non-driving trailers of the 442s...

There is no such thing, but thanks for making me laugh with this suggestion!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only thing I'd say is that they feel quite narrow compared to other regional units

That's because they are - at 2.68m they are the narrowest passenger stock in current UK service, in common with the Class 444 on SWT.

 

[paul1609]

True, but I'd rather have an overpowered DMU like thee QSK19 lump under the 185s than the underpowered and sluggish ex lorry engine under the 170s.

Rich, We run the MTU 6R engine in the Royal Navy at a very similar spec 250KW 1800rpm and they are more or less unbreakable. I think the only problem Ive had with the engine has been with wiring looms and electric governors.
They must have been specced down to a price in the Rail Industry or for fuel consumption reasons coz theres an 8 Cylinder version thats not that much bigger that goes up to about 450 KW same exhaust emission specs. Obviously by the time the 185s came around they were last years model we now use a Volvo Penta engine.

 

[Crossover]

That's because they are - at 2.68m they are the narrowest passenger stock in current UK service, in common with the Class 444 on SWT.

That being as a result of having 23m coaches and needing to stay in gauge

 

[Bletchleyite]

That being as a result of having 23m coaches and needing to stay in gauge

Not really. 2.76m (Class 156) to 2.80m (Class 323) are go-almost-anywhere (-there-are-wires, in the latter case) 23m vehicles.

It is probably because to have a relatively square cross-section rather than a tapered one it has to be narrow.