Class 185 Fleet A Big Mistake?

[railfan100]

Am I the only person that feels this fleet was a large error and should not have been ordered? My opinion is they ride very poorly and are seriously overweight compared to other DMU offerings. Having a very thirsty 750hp per car just to drag the vastly overweight frame seems like a very poor business decision.

With the franchise changes we now have a non-standard DMU type with limited multiple working except within fleet type. If the original Transpennine Class 185 order would have been Turbostars it would have made it far easier and sensible to cascade the fleet down. It seems such a backward step to replace lightweight class 158 DMU's with overweight Class 185's that burn more fuel, weigh more and have less seats. New DMU's should be lightweight and fuel efficient and ideally have greater capacity than the units they replace.

 

[dgl]

The reason for the large engines is not sure to the weight but due to the fact that they were specified to have good hill climbing ability, this meant that they got built with bigger engines.

This partially resulted in the higher weight and the fuel consumption.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

 

[swt_passenger]

Welcome.

No you aren't the only one to think that, I believe it was suggested within the last few days in another thread, which I'm trying to find...

But this current view of their suitability uses maximum hindsight, they were ordered back when electrification of TPE routes hadn't even been mentioned, let alone approved. Trying to forecast a 'second user' for them probably wasn't thought about.

 

[railfan100]

The reason for the large engines is not sure to the weight but due to the fact that they were specified to have good hill climbing ability, this meant that they got built with bigger engines.

This partially resulted in the higher weight and the fuel consumption.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

When the Class 170 Turbostar units was operating the Hull service I seem to recall reading that they kept time with the Class 185 units between Manchester and Leeds. Also between Manchester and Sheffield the Class 185 units are speed restricted compared to Sprinter units due to weight and looking at the timetable Class 158 EMT services seem to be no slower. To me the Class 185 units offer no benefit except perhaps to Tata Steel for the increase in track wear.

 

[Clansman]

Only a mistake for those who were incompetent enough to think that the 185s were suitable for Intercity routes - both capacity and comfort wise. The plug should have been pulled for Intercity usage when they were abbreviated to 3 coaches. As for commuter routes they are perfectly suitable - at least for the terrain in which the routes they were designed for. On the capacity front more should have been done whilst the train was at the drawing board to ensure that there would be enough units to meet demand, but obviously there was some financial problems which lead to far fewer coaches being produced.

Had the 185s been built as 5 coach units then it would have been a different kettle of fish.

The mistake was the inability to finance more carriages, not the 185s themselves.

 

[D365]

Had the 185s been built as 5 coach units then it would have been a different kettle of fish.

Though hopefully once TPE's CAF and Hitachi rolling stock is in service, the remaining 185s will be formed up in what is essentially semi-permanent six-car formation. Better late than never eh.

 

[J-2739]

I still always wince with pain when one pulls up into an overcrowded platform at Leeds. Why may you ask? Well...

They're great little units that pack alot of horsepower and I like them personally for that. But the interior layout is not great. There's not enough seats for the routes they serve and standing on one is the worst. Most trains in the north are pretty bad for standing, but nowhere near the 185s with little bits of plastic sticking here and there. And as you say, they're too small but overweight because of their overpowered Cummins engine, which is great for the routes they serve, but not anywhere else.

That's why half of the fleet would be stuck in deep water after 2020 for now.

 

[Blindtraveler]

IMO they were and are the biggest mistake of the mid 2000s, second only to the disaster that was the voyagers. Sadly no lessons have been learned and we are at this moment building 5 car units to replace 7, 8 and 9 car HSTs

 

[railfan100]

Though hopefully once TPE's CAF and Hitachi rolling stock is in service, the remaining 185s will be formed up in what is essentially semi-permanent six-car formation. Better late than never eh.

Whilst that would be an improvement for a passenger in terms of maybe able to get a seat that would mean two Class 185 units have a total of 4500hp for just six coaches! A 6 car Class 158 would only have 2100hp and would have more seats! I find it amazing that the DFT could allow such an overweight DMU type to be ordered and needing such a huge amount of power to pull a heavy frame around, not to mention the huge amount of fuel needed to pull that excess weight. Whilst First Group did require the unit to have good hill climbing capability Class 170 units managed the same timings on hilly sections of the same route whilst being significantly more fuel efficient. If First Group demanded good performance on hilly routes surely having a lightweight unit is the optimum starting point.

 

[J-2739]

Erm, weren't the 170s powered by the engine of a truck?!

A single 170 is less powerful than a single car of a 185!

 

[Clansman]

Whilst First Group did require the unit to have good hill climbing capability Class 170

Erm...are you sure the 170s are good? Come up to Inverness one weekend and experience first hand a 170 on a truly "hilly" section for yourself, and I guarantee you will change your stance

As J-2739 said, a single 185 carriage is probably more powerful than an entire 170!

IMO they were and are the biggest mistake of the mid 2000s, second only to the disaster that was the voyagers. Sadly no lessons have been learned and we are at this moment building 5 car units to replace 7, 8 and 9 car HSTs

Agreed

 

[railfan100]

Class 170 is around 420hp per car whilst the 185 carrying all that excess weight are 750hp. On most routes they seem capable of comparable timings. The 170 has many failings but in this age of economy not sure how the Class 185 units got signed off? How would a car buyer feel if Ford said we have this new model to replace the existing one it weighs significantly more, will burn more fuel and in terms of overall performance there is little benefit although due to the excess weight it will cause more overall wear and tear to the infrastructure, and in addition to all this the new model has less seats.

From a commercial perspective the Class 185 units seem a real disaster in all honesty.

 

[RobShipway]

IMO they were and are the biggest mistake of the mid 2000s, second only to the disaster that was the voyagers. Sadly no lessons have been learned and we are at this moment building 5 car units to replace 7, 8 and 9 car HSTs

If you are referring to the 5 Car class 800, then with 26 meter car lengths to the class 185 23 meter car lengths, then in this respect lessons have been learned. The Class 800 coaches are also longer than the MK3 coaches as well, which are also only 23 meters in length. Also, on some routes not all 7,8 or 9 coaches on an HST train are used or can fit in some stations on some routes. On some services where a 8 car HST is used, there is only about 3 - 4 coaches worth of people within the an 8 coach HST train.

It is the class 397 and local hauled coaches which will only be 5 car that I would be concerned about, if I lived in the area.

That having been said the class 185 should have been 6 car trains when they were delivered I believe, but it was possibly not obvious about the demand would be there when the class 185's where ordered.

 

[43074]

IMO they were and are the biggest mistake of the mid 2000s, second only to the disaster that was the voyagers. Sadly no lessons have been learned and we are at this moment building 5 car units to replace 7, 8 and 9 car HSTs

The 185s were not replacing longer trains though, rather 2- and 3-car 158s... now there's nothing wrong with a 158, and 185s are fine trains, the problem is that there aren't, and never have been, enough of them to provide anything like the amount of capacity that is required, partly because passenger numbers have increased significantly since 2004 when they were ordered... much of this growth is almost certainly due in part to the trains themselves.

 

[J-2739]

He meant the 800s to replace the HSTs on the GWML, but it wouldn't be that bad, since at peak times, a HST probably doesn't fill in peaks and thus 5 cars is the optimal point.

More on topic, a 5 car 802 is definitely better than a 185 in capacity.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I recently travelled from Manchester Victoria to Edinburgh on what was 2x185s - a trip of well over four hours. Despite being 6 cars, it was nevertheless almost full (but not over-) loaded.

I found the journey quite comfortable and (stressing, just a personal view) far superior to any Voyager trip I have had.

As to the high power - as has already been noted; this was to give them hill-climbing performance over the Pennines. The closest thing one might consider to be dedicated predecessors were the (Class 124) units which had four powered cars per six (later five) car set - 460hp per powered car; 1840 total ; a top speed of 70mph and a lively ride due to "ordinary" dmu bogies.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The 185s were specified with big engines because of the hills, and the difference in acceleration between the 185s and the 158s they replaced is remarkable. The big engines have a weight penalty, about 10t per carriage compared to a 170, but then they are better at accelerating than a 170 is.

The only mistake with the 185s is that there weren't enough of them, but First wanted more and they were told no by the government. This was even before the ridiculous decision to give Manchester-Scotland to TPE.

 

[507021]

Personally, I do think that as good as they are for short distance commuter journeys, the Class 185s weren't the right solution for the TransPennine franchise. My main issue with them is I think they're too small for the services they operate and the lack of gangways was a mistake. I don't think they're too powerful though, it's definitely needed considering the routes they're operated on.

I think a better solution instead of the Class 185s would have been either 3-car Class 170s with gangways or 4-car Class 170s (without gangways), and definitely more than 51 of them as well.

 

[railfan100]

I think a key concern is how much of that 750hp is wasted pulling a non-optimised chassis around. The increase in weight is not all subject to the power unit but a unit core that is far heavier than it should or needs to be. It would be very interesting to get hold of the true cost per seat figures per mile between a 350hp Class 158 and a 750hp Class 185 unit. I have tried to obtain the figures from First Group but they refused to provide them. I feel this would represent a very interesting comparison to say the least.

 

[F Great Eastern]

The mistake was the inability to finance more carriages, not the 185s themselves.

The mistake was by the DFT who cut the order then made it very hard to add more coaches later on, much to the frustration of First and Keolis who were blamed for overcrowding whilst being put in a straightjacket by the government.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The mistake was by the DFT who cut the order then made it very hard to add more coaches later on, much to the frustration of First and Keolis who were blamed for overcrowding whilst being put in a straightjacket by the government.

TPE began as a heavy loss-maker (like XC).
The DfT (SRA) was keen to invent a new inter-city franchise but the funds for new trains were limited.
At the time Desiros were the flavour of the month for reliability out of the box, while Bombardier was out of favour with 17x and Alstom positively hated after the 175/180 build issues (which First Group had ordered for FNW/FGW).
The 185 engines are the same as 180/22x (Cummins QSK19).

It was the SRA which refused the expansion order, much like they did with XC.
No more money ("no growth"), and the franchise was still losing cash.
Both franchises took a long time to turn the corner, and are now just about breaking even.

If the Coradias had worked properly, I think TPE would have gone for more of them (180-like), which would have improved the overall fleet usability across TPE and ATW and maybe other franchises.
But the Coradia reliability issues forced First Group to buy another fleet of limited size from Siemens, which proved to be a dead end (like the Coradias and Voyagers).
Nevertheless, they worked, they climb well over the Pennines and they are very reliable.
Not a bad record, but time will tell if they have a long term home.

 

[43096]

TPE began as a heavy loss-maker (like XC).
The DfT (SRA) was keen to invent a new inter-city franchise but the funds for new trains were limited.
At the time Desiros were the flavour of the month for reliability out of the box, while Bombardier was out of favour with 17x and Alstom positively hated after the 175/180 build issues (which First Group had ordered for FNW/FGW).
The 185 engines are the same as 180/22x (Cummins QSK19).

It was the SRA which refused the expansion order, much like they did with XC.
No more money ("no growth"), and the franchise was still losing cash.
Both franchises took a long time to turn the corner, and are now just about breaking even.

The franchise was not losing cash for First, though - in fact it was very profitable.

It was subsidy heavy due to the deal negotiated by First with the SRA/DfT. Legend has it that First's bid team knew it was between them and Connex as the final two, and the SRA/DfT team were trying to get the subsidy down. Dean Finch, who was leading the First team, reputedly told them "So which of you is going to tell the minister you're awarding it to Connex, then?" and the SRA negotiating position collapsed.

 

[Philip]

When I can get a seat I find the journey very pleasant, I like a good engine noise too, which they certainly have! Even when having to stand I find them more comfortable to stand in than 142s, 156s, 158s, 175s, 220s and 390s.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The 185s were not replacing longer trains though, rather 2- and 3-car 158s... now there's nothing wrong with a 158, and 185s are fine trains, the problem is that there aren't, and never have been, enough of them to provide anything like the amount of capacity that is required, partly because passenger numbers have increased significantly since 2004 when they were ordered... much of this growth is almost certainly due in part to the trains themselves.

But but But, the gricers and bashers will be along to tell you they replaced 6 / 8 /11 coach rakes conveniently forgetting that the seats per hour is actually far greater with the DMU timetables whether 158 / turbostar/ 185

 

[railfan100]

I think we all agree that at the time replacing 15 year old Class 158's was a good decision. Although under TPE Class 158 failure rates went up at the start of the franchise I would attribute was due to maintenance issues. Although for First Group when they look at their fuel bill surely any financial director must question why has it gone up so much since the Class 185 units arrived! First Group are out to make money and in the current TOC model that is the name of the game. It seems incoherent though to order a DMU that has greater track access charges, burns more fuel and has less seats, plus has a harsh ride and is actually very noisy for the public and in further addition has seating that I would suggest is totally not suitable for trips of more than one hour.

It will be interesting to see who takes on these units that are essentially non-standard, I am sure Northern would accept them considering they have in the bulk third-world rolling stock that is perhaps the worst maintained fleet in the country although that is just my opinion.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Should they really have gone for a DEMU variant of class 444s?

 

[F Great Eastern]

Should they really have gone for a DEMU variant of class 444s?

Would never have got that past the DFT, bearing in mind that the DFT already substantially cut the order back significantly to 153 cars from the almost 200 First were proposing.

First had a lot of problems with DFT and rolling stock orders around that time, they also had the 360 order for FGE cut from 100 vehicles to 84.

 

[Helvellyn]

We get it cs233, you hate the 185s.

DfT cut the original order; they refused to allow strengthening to four car units; they had TPE take on the routes from Manchester to Barrow, Windermere and Scotland.

Yes the 185s are over-engineered (like the original Desiros) but Siemens saw the issues Bombardier and Alstom were having so wanted to ensure they delivered reliability straight out of the box, which they did.

It was mooted for the last 18-24 months that Siemens/SWT were looking at replacing the bogies on the 444s/450s with lighter ones as used on the 700s to reduce weight and track wear. This was seemingly killed off when SWT failed to get a franchise extension with DfT, but will be interesting to see if it comes back in the new franchise (whoever gets it).

As others have said, when they were ordered it wasn't expected they would leave the franchise but now electrification is potentially going to change that. As to the unit design, the 1/3 and 2/3 door layout assists with faster loading/unloading. As much as I like the 444s on SWT they do struggle with dwell times due to the singe doors at carriage ends.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It was mooted for the last 18-24 months that Siemens/SWT were looking at replacing the bogies on the 444s/450s with lighter ones as used on the 700s to reduce weight and track wear. This was seemingly killed off when SWT failed to get a franchise extension with DfT, but will be interesting to see if it comes back in the new franchise (whoever gets it).

The new franchise could get together with the TOCs running 350s and 360s to replace the bogies on them as well with the lighter ones

 

[fowler9]

They are pleasant enough trains to travel on when they aren't rammed to high heaven, that isn't a design fault though.