Class 185 Fleet A Big Mistake?

[61653 HTAFC]

Blair and Brown were both very reluctant to invest in the railway at a time when the economy was apparently in rude health, in particular trimming the 185 order to the bare bones, then cancelling the planned extra vehicles for both TPE and Northern. This only changed when Lord Adonis took the Transport brief and pushed for the electrification programmes we see coming on stream (if rather slowly!). Perhaps Brown was keen to maintain his reputation for prudence, whereas Blair was frightened of turning the Murdoch press against him?

We're lucky that the Tories for all their many and varied flaws have continued these programmes which would have been easy to cut in 2010. Just a shame they're also waging a pointless ideological war on workers and trade unions... :roll:

 

[Mordac]

Neo Liberal politics and economics. Google it, the internet is you friend.

It was a rhetorical question, designed to illustrate the fact that the word means little more than people the left doesn't like. I've never encountered anyone who described themselves as a neo-liberal, because the word has very little content.

 

[railfan100]

This is the bit that we seem to keep stumbling on.

Three coach 185s were okay from day one - especially on TPE North, where four trains per hour replaced three (two coach 158s) per hour (no such frequency increase on TPE South).

The "additional" units became replaced by nine 170s instead - which is the kind of fudging of the numbers that BR used to do a lot - nothing unique to TPE here.

What was the alternative, for the loss making franchise, though? Build them as four or five from day one? Would that have meant frequency reductions? Which place would have lost its hourly Manchester service in that case - Hull/ Scarborough/ Middlesbrough/ Newcastle? Or did your magic money tree pay for 60x 5 coach trains, that are both "InterCity" and suitable for the large number of shorter journeys on TPE?

Bear in mind that this was at the time that Northern and ATW were let on the "no growth" franchises, to put the "only fifty one new trains plus nine cascaded ones" argument into a little context. I don't think that the deals signed in 2002/2003 were that bad at the time, in terms of carriage numbers.

Your problem is what happened once passenger numbers grew. Since 185s were DMUs, the emission standards etc changed (which limited the window for ordering more). And since 185s were bespoke DMUs, the chances of getting a production line opened for a relatively short order became harder to justify (just fifty one extra carriages... plus maybe another fifty one in another few years?).

I'm not a misty eyed nostalgist for the good old days of loco haulage, but at least if TPE had ordered unpowered carriages then there would have been more of a chance of ordering compatible unpowered carriages at a future date (even if made by a different manufacturer).

Ideally, instead of faffing about with twenty seven 100mph 175s and fifty one 100mph 185s, First would have ordered the same 100mph Turbostars that were good enough for lots of other TOCs - meaning that we'd have had a TPE fleet that could have been added to at later dates (either through keeping a production line open later, sharing costs with other TOCs looking to top up or acquiring 170s from elsewhere - e.g. the Hull Trains ones became free once their 222s arrived).

That's the TPE problem - that they couldn't add DMUs easily - not the initial order of 51x3 (plus 9x2) carriages.

There are good things about the 185s (efficient) and bad things about the 185s (ride quality not great, as a passenger, awkwardly located First Class section), but the bigger picture for me is the problems caused by ordering a non-standard fleet of "specialist" DMUs - not the initial numbers and not the grumbles about seat quality.

I would say this addresses the root cause, First Group having a non-standard fleet is the elephant in the room in my opinion. A Class 170 fleet type ideally with front gangways would have been totally flexible, multiple working types with all standard 15x units. First could have requested higher performing power units for the fleet but there is no way in my opinion 750hp is needed for a 100mph DMU unless the frame of that DMU is seriously heavy.

There should be a standard type of DMU for the network which would stop these 'special' orders. I have no doubt nothing has been learned with the Northern Class 195 order of which two car units will be supplied with no front gangways! Another non-standard fleet in the making.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

How are Blair or Brown at fault for either privatisation or the current situation?

zero growth franchises let under their premierships

micro management by the DfT / SRA on their watch

franchises too short for TOCs to be able to commit their own money to developing services without DfT underwriting ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who started all this? Blair and Brown? Who has been in charge of the country since 2010? Have they changed anything? You can keep telling yourself it is Blair and Browns fault but as long as you do that it won't change a thing.

have a look at the franchises re-let since 2010 , and the commitments made to infrastructure since 2010 ...

typical smugly ignorant leftie twaddle to say it's 2016 why haven;t you changed things ... but then again Blair and brown didn;t build any council houses or sink any pits did they ? and that wouldn;t have been hampered by all ready in place franchises ...

in 2010 ' the money had run out' don't forget ...

 

[F Great Eastern]

blaming the TOC suits the Party Political agenda of many of the anorak wearers rather than blaming the SRA and the Blair/Brown adminstrations in westminster ...

A veteran railwayman once said to me once that the whole franchise system was gamed in order to keep the heat off Whitehall and Westminster and that the government had it planned to a T to aid politicians.

Every time there was some big investment or some step change in quality or his company won an award the politicians were running to the press informing them of the fact the company won an award before even the company could contact them in hope of claiming a win for their local MP.

However when there was bad news or something the company was not happy with he noticed that the same politicians didn't want to be anywhere near the news and as it broke they would run to the press and state that the company was letting it's residents down and they would then very vocally call on the company to improve.

There are also stories from the early 00s where politicians were stating one viewpoint to the TOC in private whilst airing a totally different on in public, all stage managed to ensure that they would get no blame attached whilst ensuring whilst making demands of the TOC in public that they knew they were impossible and were actually preventing privately.

There was one TOC which I am not going to name during the 2000s (not who you might think) who was determined to call out the SRA for some of the decisions that they made that led to them copping a lot of the blame but they essentially decided against it because they were worried that it would lead to them having their future chances in the industry being reduced in addition to the FGE legal challenge which they backed out of for similar reasons.

The rolling stock and overcrowding situation is used as a political football, there have been countless occasions where an operator has asked for rolling stock to be ordered, the SRA prevented it privately, then turned around a short time later and told the TOC that it had to do something about overcrowding, the TOC asked for more trains again, the SRA denied it privately again and then the SRA turned around and issued an even stronger statement of blame on the TOC.

As one staff member put it, "At times we felt like firemen going out on a shout with the government covering our hoses at the other end with their fingers at the same time as blaming us for not putting out the fires."

 

[Bevan Price]

Ideally, instead of faffing about with twenty seven 100mph 175s and fifty one 100mph 185s, First would have ordered the same 100mph Turbostars that were good enough for lots of other TOCs - meaning that we'd have had a TPE fleet that could have been added to at later dates (either through keeping a production line open later, sharing costs with other TOCs looking to top up or acquiring 170s from elsewhere - e.g. the Hull Trains ones became free once their 222s arrived).

That's the TPE problem - that they couldn't add DMUs easily - not the initial order of 51x3 (plus 9x2) carriages.

.

I seem to recall that First had little choice in the matter. The Treasury (via DfT & SRA) controlled the purse strings, and would not allow TPE to have the number / size of trains it wanted. After Ardwick (& York) depots had been built to service 3 car units (2 x 185 just fit onto each service road), any possible use of 4 car 185s was ruled out (as I was told on a visit to Ardwick depot many years ago.)

Also, due to EU rules, any purchases involving some public money had to be put out to open tender, and unless there were very special circumstances, the lowest tender (meeting the specification) had normally to be accepted.

 

[railfan100]

I seem to recall that First had little choice in the matter. The Treasury (via DfT & SRA) controlled the purse strings, and would not allow TPE to have the number / size of trains it wanted. After Ardwick (& York) depots had been built to service 3 car units (2 x 185 just fit onto each service road), any possible use of 4 car 185s was ruled out (as I was told on a visit to Ardwick depot many years ago.)

Also, due to EU rules, any purchases involving some public money had to be put out to open tender, and unless there were very special circumstances, the lowest tender (meeting the specification) had normally to be accepted.

First seem to have a very troubled history with selecting DMU stock. Certainly when the Class 175 units were ordered First picked a DMU that was more expensive than the Turbostar offerings of the day, I recall at the time it was openly discussed that the Class 175 was a 'premium' DMU. So First paid more for a non-standard DMU that was built from steel instead of the more expensive alloy used on the Turbostar body structure.

Even if First was selecting the Class 185 units based on them being the cheapest option (which I believe is not the case) why not have gangways fitted at the front? Why not insist on a smaller less expensive power unit of say 450hp, having extra power to drag around the excess weight of a non-optimised Siemens chassis seems like poor business.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if First was selecting the Class 185 units based on them being the cheapest option (which I believe is not the case) why not have gangways fitted at the front? Why not insist on a smaller less expensive power unit of say 450hp, having extra power to drag around the excess weight of a non-optimised Siemens chassis seems like poor business.

At the time the trend on DMUs was to no gangways - the first 23m gangwayed DMU since the Class 158 was the much later LM Class 172.

Are the 185s substantially heavier than the EMU Desiros, about which you rarely hear comments about weight? Weren't the larger engines a combination of wanting to climb the Pennines more quickly and have EMU-like acceleration elsewhere?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First seem to have a very troubled history with selecting DMU stock. Certainly when the Class 175 units were ordered First picked a DMU that was more expensive than the Turbostar offerings of the day, I recall at the time it was openly discussed that the Class 175 was a 'premium' DMU. So First paid more for a non-standard DMU that was built from steel instead of the more expensive alloy used on the Turbostar body structure.

The 175 should have been a very, very good DMU, being basically an evolution of the excellent Class 156. But it turned out to have serious build quality issues and a number of very silly design flaws. Whereas the Turbostar is a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none, but is at least vaguely bolted together properly (even if it does suffer from apparent body flex on poor track and a lot of rattles, not to mention non-functioning interior doors).

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I really don't understand the love-in on this thread for Turbostars. They're under-powered and cheaply built. On a busy and crowded railway such as ours we need trains with decent acceleration to make the best of the available track capacity. A number of people have pointed out how incredibly sluggish they are on long uphill stretches as well as taking ages to actually reach top speed. As for wishing they had somehow been chosen by some presumably central body to be a standard design for use on all TOCs requiring new DMUs that's just imposing the lowest common denominator; no thanks!

And remember the bodies are constructed from welded aluminium, a construction method which has shown itself to be much less crash-resistant in high energy collisions than welded steel monocoques. I do wonder whether the support being shown for them is about trying to support British assembled trains, regardless of quality or utility, though the engines are of course German made and ISTR the aluminium came from Switzerland.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Allowing for remaining in normal service patterns, what life expectancy is there still left in the Class 185 units which will match the still non-electrified routes of their existing area coverage in future years?

 

[47802]

I really don't understand the love-in on this thread for Turbostars. They're under-powered and cheaply built. On a busy and crowded railway such as ours we need trains with decent acceleration to make the best of the available track capacity. A number of people have pointed out how incredibly sluggish they are on long uphill stretches as well as taking ages to actually reach top speed. As for wishing they had somehow been chosen by some presumably central body to be a standard design for use on all TOCs requiring new DMUs that's just imposing the lowest common denominator; no thanks!

And remember the bodies are constructed from welded aluminium, a construction method which has shown itself to be much less crash-resistant in high energy collisions than welded steel monocoques. I do wonder whether the support being shown for them is about trying to support British assembled trains, regardless of quality or utility, though the engines are of course German made and ISTR the aluminium came from Switzerland.

All the manufacturers are trying to produce lighter more fuel efficient designs. the Hitachi 800's are Aluminium, as are believe the Siemens Desiro City 700's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And remember the bodies are constructed from welded aluminium, a construction method which has shown itself to be much less crash-resistant in high energy collisions than welded steel monocoques. I do wonder whether the support being shown for them is about trying to support British assembled trains, regardless of quality or utility, though the engines are of course German made and ISTR the aluminium came from Switzerland.

Desiros are aluminium as well.

 

[Domh245]

Desiros are aluminium as well.

Quite. IIRC, the last (majority) steel bodied vehicles were the Voyagers/Meridians, and Alstom's post privatisation stuff that weren't Pendolinos. Everything since has been Aluminium

 

[railfan100]

There are a few different variations on the web in terms of the exact figures but it seems that the Class 185 is around 56 tons per car, a Class 220 coach with what is essentially the same power unit fitted weighs around 10 tons less. Even if we consider the fairly heavy power unit the chassis is far too heavy than what it needs to be in my opinion. The unit weight per seat figures will be awful compared to other DMU types. This is reflected by the speed restrictions and higher track access charges compared to 'Sprinter' types.

When these units were at the drawing board I had communication with Vernon Barker the then MD of Transpennine Express and stated the lack of front gangways was less than ideal and multiple working with existing BSI coupler Class 15x stock again was a drawback, clearly this communication had no impact.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I really don't understand the love-in on this thread for Turbostars. They're under-powered and cheaply built. <snip>

but but but they can use sprinter differential speeds ... however there has been no work done on soem of the stretches in question to see if a 'heavy MU' differential speed could be offered vs the speed limit for hauled stock ( often goods or the remaining 'summer saturdays' workings)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

End gangways would be useful on 185s, but one of the reasons they're becoming less common on new stock is the difficulty of adding it whilst still meeting the current crash regulations- one only needs to look at the 380s and 385s to see the result. Additionally end gangways restrict the view of the driver, and as units get older can become very draughty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

End gangways would be useful on 185s, but one of the reasons they're becoming less common on new stock

Are they? They appear to me to be becoming more common, not less common.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Are they? They appear to me to be becoming more common, not less common.

As far as I know, the only stock on order with end gangways are the 387s (which are the last hurrah of an old design) and the 385s. All other stock on order (195s, 331s, 397s, 345s, 700s, 707s...) has full-width cabs. In the case of 345s and 700s these are full-length sets so won't need to work in multiple in normal service but this isn't the case for the others.

 

[railfan100]

Operationally the front gangways are very useful, they provide so much flexibility and considering the amount of cascading within the network of stock since the comical short-term farce that is the UK privatised railway model they are useful for sure.

Yes the cab might not have the same feel with the front gangways but they are still perfectly safe and offer 'good enough' visibility, anyone that has seen the drivers view in the Class 40 and 55 locos will know a front gangway DMU\EMU is far superior in overall visibility.

For me the big issue with DMU's is not just the front gangways but that multiple working compatibility with BSI equipped 'Sprinter' stock is so important and useful. Sadly the Class 195 from Northern looks like another limited non compatible fleet in the making. Hopefully though they will not weigh 56 tons per car like the Class 185!

 

[D365]

Yes the cab might not have the same feel with the front gangways but they are still perfectly safe and offer 'good enough' visibility, anyone that has seen the drivers view in the Class 40 and 55 locos will know a front gangway DMU\EMU is far superior in overall visibility.

That's because the cabs are pretty much roof-mounted. The problem now (as Classes 380 and 385 have demonstrated) is having to design a cab that meets all the crashworthiness specifications whilst still being fitted with gangways and providing sufficient visibility.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

That's because the cabs are pretty much roof-mounted. The problem now (as Classes 380 and 385 have demonstrated) is having to design a cab that meets all the crashworthiness specifications whilst still being fitted with gangways and providing sufficient visibility.

comparing the Peaks or Deltics with their full width high datum cabs to the low level half cab that a front gang way produces is pointless ...

 

[railfan100]

comparing the Peaks or Deltics with their full width high datum cabs to the low level half cab that a front gang way produces is pointless ...

Maybe pointless to some but both still have reduced visibility somewhat compared to a DMU such as 185, 175 or even 150\1 for that matter. I still standby the opinion that front gangways offer more benefits than drawbacks and it was even at the time back in 2003\2004 a 'no brainer' to have ordered these units with gangways.

 

[D365]

I still standby the opinion that front gangways offer more benefits than drawbacks and it was even at the time back in 2003\2004 a 'no brainer' to have ordered these units with gangways.

However I don't think that the provision of a cab-end gangway should automatically override driver opinions/demand.

 

[railfan100]

However I don't think that the provision of a cab-end gangway should automatically override driver opinions/demand.

Since when did the driver grade dictate the commercial and operational strategy of a national rail network? If drivers do not like the visibility they are free to find alternative employment there is not shortage of people willing to take up the role.

Front gangway fitted units are totally safe and 'good enough'. Many of the Class 158/0 units have been driven for in excess of 4 million miles. With front gangways!

 

[cjmillsnun]

Since when did the driver grade dictate the commercial and operational strategy of a national rail network? If drivers do not like the visibility they are free to find alternative employment there is not shortage of people willing to take up the role.

Front gangway fitted units are totally safe and 'good enough'. Many of the Class 158/0 units have been driven for in excess of 4 million miles. With front gangways!

The safety regulations have changed meaning thicker pillars around the cab structure.

A 158/0 would not be even close to complying and the modifications would reduce visibility thus making it less safe than currently.

 

[railfan100]

The safety regulations have changed meaning thicker pillars around the cab structure.

A 158/0 would not be even close to complying and the modifications would reduce visibility thus making it less safe than currently.

The Class 158 is a design dating from the late 1980's it would be no way compliant. Although look at images of 158's with frontal impact they are still solid units. It is a bit like a 1980's Ford Fiesta aiming for 4 stars on the Euro NCAP testing. Technology moves on gangways though can still meet regulation. The Class 172 units must meet this regulation for sure?!

 

[D365]

Since when did the driver grade dictate the commercial and operational strategy of a national rail network?

Err, seeing as the driver is in control of the train, I'd say that his opinion is quite important.

The Class 172 units must meet this regulation for sure?!

I believe that the regulations have changed again since the design was signed off.

 

[Domh245]

I believe that the regulations have changed again since the design was signed off.

The Crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies (BS EN15227) were last updated January 2011

 

[D365]

The Crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies (BS EN15227) were last updated January 2011

That's definitely after the Class 172 design was finalised. However Bombardier are not interested in producing any more Turbostars so I don't think this needs further discussion.

 

[railfan100]

Err, seeing as the driver is in control of the train, I'd say that his opinion is quite important.

Not discounting the importance of the role but they do not dictate on if front gangways are acceptable or not acceptable, legislation does that. The driver is tasked with conducting the role as per the documented rule book. I see no way in which front gangways are lowering safety or causing issues to driver grade staff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's definitely after the Class 172 design was finalised. However Bombardier are not interested in producing any more Turbostars so I don't think this needs further discussion.

If we do not discuss the Class 172 proven design, what about front gangway Desiro stock built in 2014?