Class 185 Fleet A Big Mistake?

[railfan100]

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.

Do not hate the 185 units although it is clear to see though that First Group ordered units that to me do not match the franchise or their ambition to make money. I am sure First Group shareholders would not be happy at the decision to order units that burn more fuel in the name of needing high power for hilly routes and yet offer no or little timing benefits compared to Class 170 units with a mere 420hp.

Someone at First Group messed up commercially, financially and strategically and now someone will have to use these non-standard units with no multiple working options, no front gangways and huge thirsty engines as well as super low gearing. Maybe a feasible option is to remove the power unit from the centre car permanently and operate a three car unit with 1500hp. Whilst still seriously overweight it will at least be cheaper to operate and reduce the environmental impact of these heavy and thirsty units.

 

[Emblematic]

Remember that when these units were ordered in 2003, oil was under $30 a barrel and had been stable in price for decades. There were no emissions regulations covering trains at the time either - none at all. How times change! Very easy to criticize in hindsight what would, at the time, have been prudent design choices.

 

[F Great Eastern]

First never wanted the fleet to be made up the way they were. They were told 51x3 cars is all that is needed so that is all they were getting no matter how much fuss they made. So the length and number of the units provided was entirely decided upon by the DFT.

First always felt that there was going to be some issue with overcrowding sooner or later, but DFT told them that their numbers were far too ambitious and they would not allow them to order unnecessary rolling stock which will run around empty.

 

[387star]

Isn't work starting on their refurbishment? not sure this includes the whole fleet as a number come off lease

 

[fgwrich]

Do not hate the 185 units although it is clear to see though that First Group ordered units that to me do not match the franchise or their ambition to make money. I am sure First Group shareholders would not be happy at the decision to order units that burn more fuel in the name of needing high power for hilly routes and yet offer no or little timing benefits compared to Class 170 units with a mere 420hp.

Someone at First Group messed up commercially, financially and strategically and now someone will have to use these non-standard units with no multiple working options, no front gangways and huge thirsty engines as well as super low gearing. Maybe a feasible option is to remove the power unit from the centre car permanently and operate a three car unit with 1500hp. Whilst still seriously overweight it will at least be cheaper to operate and reduce the environmental impact of these heavy and thirsty units.

I'm afraid I don't get the obsession on here with 170s - Yes they can work Sprinter Differentials and work with Sprinters, but they are sluggish and slower than 185s, less well constructed and less reliable (185s are Golden Spanner Winners, I can't recall the 170s winning it as many times) than a turbo charged 185. Yes, the 185 may be in part the cause of it's own downfall in being built with the TPE area in mind but, they were hardly expecting to end up being cascaded this soon - nor were they expected to be the 'jack of all trades' unit for TPE - Commuter and Intercity. I'm sure they'll still find a use somewhere, more than likely downrated and possibly re-bogied.

And having experienced 170s up similar gradients - The Highland Mainline for example with Drumochter and Slochd (from Inverness), I'd rather take a 185.

In answer to the question on why couldn't they order a DEMU version of the 444s - First TPE & Siemens chose the 1/3,2/3 Door layouts in a bid to reduce the dwell times over the 'core' part of the TPE route. While it unfortunately reduces the intercity feel of the units, it does allow faster alighting and boarding than the end door layout as offered previously by the 158s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A DMU version of the 444 would have had the same problem if it was only 3-car. The primary issue was that they should have been 4-car from day one with an option for 5, not the location of the doors (though having a marooned bit of Standard and bog beyond First Class was stupidity of the highest order).

 

[fergusjbend]

I remember the BR Class 124 Trans-Pennine units which ran between 1960 and 1984. They seemed very chic and sophisticated at the time. Sadly, none survived into preservation. Perhaps the 185s will suffer the same fate.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not a massive fan of the units, but interesting to compare enthusiast reaction to the 185s (shortish trains running on an increased frequency through the "core") to enthusiast reaction to Voyagers (shortish trains running on an increased frequency through the "core") - 185s are just as busy as Voyagers but because 185s generally replaced DMUs (158s) they don't get the flack that Voyagers (which generally replaced loco hauled stock) get.

Not the 185s fault that the fleet was stretched further to allow the big increase in Cheshire - London capacity (since the Voyagers freed up north of Manchester were needed on the Chester services).

I think that, to echo the Voyager comparison, the biggest problem with the 185s wasn't the initial set up, it was the fact that there was no simple option for obtaining more stock - compared to if they had ordered something common-or-garden like Turbostars (when there was a chance of the production line being opened in future or First Keolis acquiring some existing compatible DMUs from another TOC).

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

I appreciate the need for hill climbing powers, but I don't recall that the 185s meant any significant speed increases on the core Leeds - Manchester section, despite this prowess over the Pennines? Were the 100mph 185s any faster than the 90mph 158s that they replaced on this section?

Am I the only person that feels this fleet was a large error and should not have been ordered?

Welcome to the Forum

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

I'm not sure that you can use "incompetent", given the situation at the time - easy with hindsight to predict what would happen, but "incompetent" seems a bit strong...

Did TPE need something "Intercity"? It was a Provincial/ Regional Railways route under BR, and I don't think that the 185s were a downgrade on what went before?

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

Are you talking about the 800/801s?

We are replacing seven/ eight/ nine coach HSTs/ Mk4s with nine coach IEP (9x26m) or two five coach IEP. That will allow the TOCs to portion work some services but its disingenuous to suggest that they are directly replacing seven/ eight/ nine coach trains with five coach ones - as they are ordering enough IEP so that there will be two five coach units to replace each seven/ eight/ nine coach train.

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

Well, 170s run pretty regularly over Lickey - with no suggestion that they be replaced?

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.

Agreed - 170s would have allowed TPE to fight for more Turbostars (rather than lose theirs to Chiltern).

They'd be a lot easier to find new homes for too (given the number of TOCs that will operate 168/ 170/ 171s).

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)

First really aren't great at ordering trains, are they?

They can't just go for something reliable that works for other TOCs, they have to do something quirky and different...

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

 

[Clansman]

Well, 170s run pretty regularly over Lickey - with no suggestion that they be replaced?

Just the luck of the draw at the end of the day

 

[swt class 450]

No i dont think it was a mistake. In my opinion the 185s are the best DMUs in the UK (with the 168/170/171/172 in second place). They always seem very nice and comfortable whenever i go on them. They are very well designed. They have a very good layout with wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions. Yes they can get very overcrowded but that is just because FTPE don't have enough units to run longer trains. Personally i think that they should have all been ordered as four coach units which would have helped with overcrowding (perhaps there is still an option to extend them at some point?).

 

[Spartacus]

Don't forget that most of the 185s running around now SHOULD be 4 cars, but the DfT cancelled the order, promised 172s, then cancelled the order for those, all while diverting 185s onto Anglo-Scottish services. I'd certainly prefer them to the 2 and 3 car sweatboxes that went before them, even with the reduced luggage space, the only bad thing I can say about them internally.

Let's not forget what loadings were like in those days with 158s: off peak services were decidedly quiet compared to now, with no trouble getting a seat even on a 2 car 158.

I'd certainly rather have the big engines with performance only suffering minimally when there's an engine out rather than losing loads of time or possibly having to be cancelled over the hills.

The weight is obviously something of an issue regarding speeds off main lines, though much of that is down to the big engines and metal fixtures and fittings inside, and I bet the extra weight comes in handy with collisions with tunnel glaciers!

 

[The Ham]

The problem with threads like this is we don't know what units would have been used if 185's (or Voyagers, or whatever unit it is people are complaining about). It could well have been that if 170's were ordered that they would have been just as limited in numbers ordered and could have lose more of them due to not being able to sign the next lease before others.

Alternatively it could have been that the 158's we're retained, meaning that others couldn't have then used those units and leaving the franchises with less resources (I.e. Northern) more reliant on pacers with little ability to replace them.

One big change now with rolling stock orders us that there is almost always options for more coaches at a later date. Just that alone could have enabled some 185's to have been extended to run as 6 coach units. With hindsight the DfT should have taken that approach (likewise with the 22x's), in doing so limiting the initial order but sorting the franchise holder to expand the fleet if that passenger growth meets certain targets so as to be self funding over the course of the franchise.

As an example, 51*3 car 185's with an option for up to 21 extra cars depending on passenger growth over the first 3 years (say 12 extra if 11% 18 extra if 14% or 21 extra if over 17%). Based on that example that could be 4, 6 or 7 units formed of 6 cars (which would have more capacity than a pair of units) or could allow some units to be extended to 4 cars (higher capacity for single units, or run in pairs with a 3 car units to run 7 car trains), or even more 3 car units. All of which would have solved some of the problems we now have (although less so if more 3 car units were what were ordered).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The problem with threads like this is we don't know what units would have been used if 185's (or Voyagers, or whatever unit it is people are complaining about). It could well have been that if 170's were ordered that they would have been just as limited in numbers ordered and could have lose more of them due to not being able to sign the next lease before others.

Alternatively it could have been that the 158's we're retained, meaning that others couldn't have then used those units and leaving the franchises with less resources (I.e. Northern) more reliant on pacers with little ability to replace them.

One big change now with rolling stock orders us that there is almost always options for more coaches at a later date. Just that alone could have enabled some 185's to have been extended to run as 6 coach units. With hindsight the DfT should have taken that approach (likewise with the 22x's), in doing so limiting the initial order but sorting the franchise holder to expand the fleet if that passenger growth meets certain targets so as to be self funding over the course of the franchise.

As an example, 51*3 car 185's with an option for up to 21 extra cars depending on passenger growth over the first 3 years (say 12 extra if 11% 18 extra if 14% or 21 extra if over 17%). Based on that example that could be 4, 6 or 7 units formed of 6 cars (which would have more capacity than a pair of units) or could allow some units to be extended to 4 cars (higher capacity for single units, or run in pairs with a 3 car units to run 7 car trains), or even more 3 car units. All of which would have solved some of the problems we now have (although less so if more 3 car units were what were ordered).

Would all of them extra cars needed to have been powered (if they had been built) to keep up with booked times?

 

[markindurham]

Given the hassle with the 158s on the Borders Line, I wonder how the 185s would cope? My guess is that they would go "Hill? What hill?"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I remember the BR Class 124 Trans-Pennine units which ran between 1960 and 1984. They seemed very chic and sophisticated at the time. Sadly, none survived into preservation. Perhaps the 185s will suffer the same fate.

Agreed - it's a tragedy that no 124s were preserved. They revolutionised the Liverpool-Hull services when they were introduced and were surely deserving of a place in the preserved lists.

 

[RobShipway]

Since Scotrail already have experience with using Desiro products, I think that the class 185 when they have finished on the TPE routes, would be ideal on the Borders line and other no electrified routes within Scotland.

However, if Scotrail do not take up the option on the class 185's, then I suspect that they may order either just a diesel version or a hybrid version of the AT200 train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or, being Abellio, FLIRTs?

 

[F Great Eastern]

First really aren't great at ordering trains, are they? They can't just go for something reliable that works for other TOCs, they have to do something quirky and different...

If everyone had that attitude, we'd still be using the same trains that we did 40 years ago, although I guess that would appease the loco hauled fans on here!

First actually were the first operator to introduce Desiros full stop on FGE, and that didn't turn out too bad for the industry did it?

Or, being Abellio, FLIRTs?

I remain extremely skeptical how that will turn out, but we will see.

Hopefully as well as the Desiro did for FGE.

 

[coppercapped]

The problem with threads like this is we don't know what units would have been used if 185's (or Voyagers, or whatever unit it is people are complaining about). It could well have been that if 170's were ordered that they would have been just as limited in numbers ordered and could have lose more of them due to not being able to sign the next lease before others.

Alternatively it could have been that the 158's we're retained, meaning that others couldn't have then used those units and leaving the franchises with less resources (I.e. Northern) more reliant on pacers with little ability to replace them.

One big change now with rolling stock orders us that there is almost always options for more coaches at a later date. Just that alone could have enabled some 185's to have been extended to run as 6 coach units. With hindsight the DfT should have taken that approach (likewise with the 22x's), in doing so limiting the initial order but sorting the franchise holder to expand the fleet if that passenger growth meets certain targets so as to be self funding over the course of the franchise.

As an example, 51*3 car 185's with an option for up to 21 extra cars depending on passenger growth over the first 3 years (say 12 extra if 11% 18 extra if 14% or 21 extra if over 17%). Based on that example that could be 4, 6 or 7 units formed of 6 cars (which would have more capacity than a pair of units) or could allow some units to be extended to 4 cars (higher capacity for single units, or run in pairs with a 3 car units to run 7 car trains), or even more 3 car units. All of which would have solved some of the problems we now have (although less so if more 3 car units were what were ordered).

But...TPE did try to get the 185s lengthened to 4 coaches. The proposal went to the DfT which dithered for such a long time that the emissions regulations changed in the meantime and it was no longer possible to build coaches with the original power packs. Any new coaches would have to have met the Euro IIIB levels which would have meant that each train would have had two different types of power unit.

So that killed it.

And I don't understand why all the enthusiasts go on about high fuel consumption. This shows a lack of understanding of basic physics. Energy 'consumed' (or, rather, converted from one form to another) is proportional to the area under the power-time curve. In this case 'energy' is a proxy for fuel consumption and the power-time curve is a plot of power being developed at a particular point in time. Power is plotted vertically and time horizontally - the area under this curve gives the total energy 'consumed'.

This means that if the higher powered train uses its power for a shorter length of time the fuel consumption can be the same as that for a lower powered train running for longer. In other words fuel consumption is the same for a vehicle generating twice the power, but taking half as long for its journey, as for one with half the power taking twice as long. So a 185 climbing a hill in less time than a 170, all other things being equal, may well use about the same amount of fuel. In any event the 185s are fitted with a device which closes down an engine when it is not required.

If there is an issue with fuel consumption it will be because of the mass of the train, not its power.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hopefully as well as the Desiro did for FGE.

I see no reason why not - the things are all over Europe, they are a very well-proven design. And Stadler are well used to building for custom loading gauges - be that big ones for Russia and Scandinavia, or little ones for Swiss narrow gauge lines.

 

[tbtc]

(this thread has made me realise that we all talk about “Voyagers”, many people use “Adelante”, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone refer to 185s as “Pennines”…)

The problem with threads like this is we don't know what units would have been used if 185's (or Voyagers, or whatever unit it is people are complaining about). It could well have been that if 170's were ordered that they would have been just as limited in numbers ordered and could have lose more of them due to not being able to sign the next lease before others

Yes please - 51x 3 coach 170s instead of 51x 3 coach 185s. And maybe even an equivalent number of 170 coaches for XC instead of the number of Voyager coaches that they ended up with.

It wouldn’t have been a magic bullet, but it would have meant that the TOCs had more of a chance of ordering more stock in future (since having your own bespoke build means nobody else is ordering more of the same stock, so no chance of tagging on extra units).

170s were still being built as recently as 2005 so surely feasible for TPE?

It would have also given XC/ TPE the chance to play for Turbostars at other TOCs (e.g. Hull Trains gave up their 170s, Midland Mainline gave up their 170s, SWT gave some 170s to Southern which became 171s... these could have been bid for).

Even after the 170 production line was closed, and 172s being offered, they could have arranged a deal whereby Chiltern got a larger number of 172s to allow them to replace their entire fleet of 168s, with the 168s moving to XC/ TPE (a 168 is essentially just a 170, albeit some look like 165/166s externally). Or extra 172s for LM (to replace some of their 170s)? Maybe even something crazy like getting a new fleet of 172s for Southern to replace their entire 171 fleet (with the 171s converted into 170s and sent to XC/ TPE).

Or XC/ TPE could have bid for the 170s freed up by Scottish electrification (and future electrification like the Chase route which will free up some LM units).

If everyone had that attitude, we'd still be using the same trains that we did 40 years ago, although I guess that would appease the loco hauled fans on here!

I'm all for new stock - I'm not a nostalgist - but First seem to order trains that nobody subsequently places orders for, which has created some "microfleets".

Since we had lots of 100mph 168/170/171s (which are all essentially the same train), we didn't need 100mph 175s or 100mph 185s - we could have continued building Turbostars. But we are now lumbered with two awkwardly sized fleets (175s and 185s) because First ordered something "different".

Thankfully the Government were in charge for IEP - give me nice big standard fleets! Boring for some spotters, but much better for the overall railway.

 

[Mikey C]

I'm all for new stock - I'm not a nostalgist - but First seem to order trains that nobody subsequently places orders for, which has created some "microfleets".

Since we had lots of 100mph 168/170/171s (which are all essentially the same train), we didn't need 100mph 175s or 100mph 185s - we could have continued building Turbostars. But we are now lumbered with two awkwardly sized fleets (175s and 185s) because First ordered something "different".

Thankfully the Government were in charge for IEP - give me nice big standard fleets! Boring for some spotters, but much better for the overall railway.

When you add in the 180s, that's a lot of oddball DMUs First have ordered! I assume if Alstom hadn't mucked up the 180s so badly, they would have ordered some sort of Coradia derivative?

 

[fgwrich]

The problem with threads like this is we don't know what units would have been used if 185's (or Voyagers, or whatever unit it is people are complaining about). It could well have been that if 170's were ordered that they would have been just as limited in numbers ordered and could have lose more of them due to not being able to sign the next lease before...

The frankly bonkers Arriva bid - in which they said they would have re-opened the Woodhead Route within the next 10 years saw Arriva also planning to acquire a fleet of trains from the Bombardier 22X family - I believe with some of the 158s retained.

 

[ainsworth74]

When you add in the 180s, that's a lot of oddball DMUs First have ordered! I assume if Alstom hadn't mucked up the 180s so badly, they would have ordered some sort of Coradia derivative?

I would expect that they may well have ordered 180s if Alstom had been able to get them to work as advertised.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A slight correction to an above post, the SWT 170s didn't go to Southern, they did eventually find their way to TPE (along with the Porterbrook Demonstators) when the 185 order was cut back to 51. For the first few weeks they still had the SWT interiors meaning a declassified first class section at one end.

 

[talltim]

The ironic thing was that rail privatisation was supposed to allow private operators to take risk (with their own money) and do things like ordering more trains if they felt they could make them pay. However the micro-management at the SRA/DfT etc combined with short franchises means that the TOCs are both unwilling and unable to do so. Pretty much the only time one did (First buying surplus HST equipment) they got a lot of grief from the DfT (the same DfT that is quite happy for them to use them to augment their meagre allocation

 

[F Great Eastern]

Thankfully the Government were in charge for IEP - give me nice big standard fleets! Boring for some spotters, but much better for the overall railway.

If the government were in charge fully for First Orders they'd have arrived several years late causing even vaster overcrowding, just look at how many years behind Thameslink and IEP is because of their incapability to close a rolling stock deal in an appropriate timescale.

Also the Alstom stock of that era was ordered by many other operators not just in the UK and suffered from extremely poor build quality, despite the fact Alstom had a previously good record at building other similar stock.

I'm all for new stock - I'm not a nostalgist - but First seem to order trains that nobody subsequently places orders for, which has created some "microfleets".

I think that Bombardier having competition is to be most welcomed, one manufacturer controlling too much of the market distorts price and decreases quality, competition is required to stop costs from escalating and to improve on quality and drive innovation.

In my belief the 185s are superior to 170s, whilst there may be a microfleet, it was that way because of the fact that there was no ability to order extra trains or carriages because the DFT caused it. You should put your blame with them and also the other operators which are operating microfleets, of which there are quite a few other examples.

Any number of the bids with stock on order could turn out to be Microfleets as well and with that kind of attitude, then the FLIRTS must go along with a much more strange decision than the Desiros, since this is a new train, from a new manufacturer to GB with several elements not seen before in the UK which was picked over a bid which would have had more in common with other UK stock.

 

[Clansman]

Since Scotrail already have experience with using Desiro products, I think that the class 185 when they have finished on the TPE routes, would be ideal on the Borders line and other no electrified routes within Scotland.

However, if Scotrail do not take up the option on the class 185's, then I suspect that they may order either just a diesel version or a hybrid version of the AT200 train.

I've long thought that the 185s would be perfect for Glasgow/Stranraer/Carlisle/Newcastle services.

As for the borders, Scotrail will probably hold onto the remaining 170s and 158s until electrification is completed (whatever CP that is in). There'd be no benefit in replacing 170s and 158s for a lesser capacity and lower efficient 185 which would definitely not contribute to any fall in overcrowding what so ever, but rather enhance it, as such on their current lines. It's astonishing that the Border's weren't electrified at the get-go, that way more 385s could've been ordered.

Baring in mind that half of Scotrail's 170s are around 10 years old, it's not like they're life expired. In fact they are quite suitable for operations around the Fife Circle and the Borders in my opinion, and as long as both lines are diesel, there isn't really a need to replace them. Hopefully by the time they're life expired we can expect to see an electrified Borders (not the Brexit kind) and Fife Circle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure that you can use "incompetent", given the situation at the time - easy with hindsight to predict what would happen, but "incompetent" seems a bit strong...

Did TPE need something "Intercity"? It was a Provincial/ Regional Railways route under BR, and I don't think that the 185s were a downgrade on what went before?.

You shouldn't need hindsight to work out that a 169 (including first class) capacity DMU is unsuitable for Intercity operation. I stand by the fact that I would deem such an idea as incompetent.

Considering that operations of Scottish services were transferred from Virgin Trains at the time the 185s started appearing, I think it's fair to say that TPE definitely needed Intercity trains. It shouldn't of taken until now for an order to be finally put in. If the adequate work was undertaken then, there would probably be a little less pressure on TPE for capacity, and there wouldn't be a mass order of fleets exported from abroad.

On the upside at least there's now an order for more suitable units...about time too!

 

[43096]

Thankfully the Government were in charge for IEP - give me nice big standard fleets! Boring for some spotters, but much better for the overall railway.

Except that IEP and AT300 are not the same, and lots of them have been ordered off the drawing board before one has even entered service. So we don't know whether it is a good or bad design.

Worse, the Government procured trains are phenomenally expensive. Quite why you are "thankful" for Government procurement is beyond me: DfT minions should never, ever get involved with train specification, design and procurement.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

They are a great unit, reliable, comfortable and based on a tried and tested Desiro design. I think they are really good. The big issues are that there are not enough of them and/or they should have been 4/5/6 cars from day one.

They go up and down Shap and Beatock and over the Pennines with ease (so the delivered unit seems to meet the design critieria), they seem to be canny fast on the flat and quick of the mark for a diesel

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.

And yet the same design will carry many, many more people this very evening out of London than will ever travel out of Leeds. We seem to manage.........

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.

How many 170's run/ran over Shap and Beatock? How many ran/run to Newcastle or Middlesbrough over the fast section of the ECML?

(Try a 170 over the route to Inverness............)

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

Yes a massive disaster what with carrying all those extra passengers and serving more routes than they were designed for and running for longer between servicing and reducing the access fees for the TOC.

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.

Apart from the inability to get up the hills in the same manner as the 185 or keep to times on the ECML/WCML?

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.

Do not hate the 185 units although it is clear to see though that First Group ordered units that to me do not match the franchise or their ambition to make money. I am sure First Group shareholders would not be happy at the decision to order units that burn more fuel in the name of needing high power for hilly routes and yet offer no or little timing benefits compared to Class 170 units with a mere 420hp.

Someone at First Group messed up commercially, financially and strategically and now someone will have to use these non-standard units with no multiple working options, no front gangways and huge thirsty engines as well as super low gearing. Maybe a feasible option is to remove the power unit from the centre car permanently and operate a three car unit with 1500hp. Whilst still seriously overweight it will at least be cheaper to operate and reduce the environmental impact of these heavy and thirsty units.

But what will that show you? Will that include lease fees, fuel, consumables, servicing, access charges, maintenance, staffing, reliability etc or are you just interested in the fuel costs?

 

[Bantamzen]

The 185s do seem to polarise opinion don't they. From a personal view in terms of reliability, performance and comfort when not rammed I find them one of the better units on the network. Yes they should have been ordered as 4, 5, or even 6 car units rather than 3. But nonetheless they do their job well. They can often make time up when running late, even without some of the generous timings some services have. They happily run up and down the Pennines in all weather, often when other units are no longer capable, and they are far from the worst units comfort wise, especially in 1st.

TPEs biggest problem with their Pennine routes is that unlike some other areas, the peak flows are in both directions. Elsewhere on the network some services could be doubled up to support peak flows, but with the minimal order that First were allowed they simply did not have the capacity. Hence the situation today. In particular the North TP is a combination of InterCity and commuter route, with the infrastructure of a commuter route and the passenger numbers of an InterCity. The route ought to be doubled in each direction, or at least for significant sections where possible, but the money and will is not there. So operators compete for paths and have to ram in as many punters as they can. And until someone in DfT and government finds a way to increase capacity across the moors, even with 60% more unit capacity it is only a matter of time before we have this same discussion again.

"The TP CAF/Hitachi fleet - Big mistake?"......