Class 185 Fleet A Big Mistake?

[J-2739]

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

They are of an existing design.

 

[railfan100]

Considering how Desiro stock first had front gangways fitted around 2004 possibly 2003? and still meet regulation I see no reason why front gangways lower safety and cause 'issues' with driver grade staff.

Also the tooling for the Turbostar design is still available for use, if a large enough order was to come in I have no doubt that Bombardier would ensure any regulation. I also would be confident any revised Turbostar stock would not weigh 56 tons per car.

 

[D365]

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.

Trains with cab-end gangways are known to be far more cramped and are less appreciated by drivers. If a train cab is not ergonomically designed, it hinders their ability to conduct their role to the best of their ability.

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

Siemens also has no interest in reopening Class 350 production.

Considering how Desiro stock first had front gangways fitted around 2004 possibly 2003? and still meet regulation I see no reason why front gangways lower safety and cause 'issues' with driver grade staff.

Also the tooling for the Turbostar design is still available for use, if a large enough order was to come in I have no doubt that Bombardier would ensure any regulation. I also would be confident any revised Turbostar stock would not weigh 56 tons per car.

Neither meet current regulations. The most recent Class 350 batch was only allowed through because it was considered an add-on to previous orders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Siemens also has no interest in reopening Class 350 production.

But they will build you a Desiro City, and that (Class 380[1]) can have a gangway if specified.

[1] OK, the 380 technically isn't a Desiro City, but it does have the Desiro City body. It's a classic Desiro under the floor, though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are of an existing design.

No they are not (or not all). Class 380.

 

[D365]

But they will build you a Desiro City, and that (Class 380[1]) can have a gangway if specified.

Which is exactly the point I'm making; the Class 380 is not favoured by ScotRail drivers.

 

[J-2739]

No they are not (or not all). Class 380.

Um, they're not? (350s?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is exactly the point I'm making; the Class 380 is not favoured by ScotRail drivers.

But as someone else has stated, whether drivers like a particular unit or not has no bearing on whether it is legally permissible to build a gangwayed unit. It (and therefore the risk of damage to industrial relations, strikes etc) will be one consideration, but not the only one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Um, they're not? (350s?)

Class 380s are (a) gangwayed and (b) a recent build of Desiros, built after the regulations came into force.

The 350/3s and 350/4s are indeed not, but that's not the point. Class 380 is a compliant build of gangwayed units.

Gangways are not banned. Not any more than people seemed to think they were 20 years ago when idiotic designs like the Juniper came to the fore. (Amusingly, SWT have now fitted them with traditional Desiro-style gangways...)

 

[Domh245]

But as someone else has stated, whether drivers like a particular unit or not has no bearing on whether it is legally permissible to build a gangwayed unit. It (and therefore the risk of damage to industrial relations, strikes etc) will be one consideration, but not the only one.

Evidently it has no effect as gangwayed stock is still built, but I would be surprised if there weren't guidelines as to the minimum vision requirements (eg must be able to see a square of x dimension at a distance y in front of the driver's seat) if not a physical minimum space required for a driver to actually be able to move about.

 

[D365]

I've not said that cab-end gangways have been banned. What I'm saying is that it is now far more difficult to include them whilst designing an optimal working area for the driver. Obviously this won't matter one bit when trains are all fully driverless, but in the meantime...

 

[railfan100]

I've not said that cab-end gangways have been banned. What I'm saying is that it is now far more difficult to include them whilst designing an optimal working area for the driver. Obviously this won't matter one bit when trains are all fully driverless, but in the meantime...

Does not seem difficult at all front gangways are part of current designs from a variety of rolling stock vendors, they offer such flexibility. Until trains are driverless what should we do as an interim measure offer drivers a complete coach as a safe working area to ensure optimal conditions? Driver grade staff do not set the standards they follow the rule book and drive traction as specified in such material.

 

[D365]

Driver grade staff do not set the standards they follow the rule book and drive traction as specified in such material.

What you're suggesting is just ignoring driver input and working against them instead.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How much does the regs on gangways and driver visibility differ between DOO and trains with guards?

 

[D365]

How much does the regs on gangways and driver visibility differ between DOO and trains with guards?

Why would they differ? A driver's got to do the same job, guard or no guard.

 

[TC60054]

Why would they differ? A driver's got to do the same job, guard or no guard.

Plus extra...

But why is this relevant to a thread about 185s?

 

[D365]

But why is this relevant to a thread about 185s?

The discussion originated from whether the Class 185s should have been built with cab-end gangways.

 

[TC60054]

The discussion originated from whether the Class 185s should have been built with cab-end gangways.

But then the conversation has moved onto Turbostars, other types of Desiros, crashworthiness, and DOO, most of which have barely any relevance to whether a 185 should've been built with end gangways or not.

 

[D365]

Don't think that matters too much as this is a topic based around user discussions, rather than current events.

 

[dgl]

chuck some 373's in there for even more capacity and you might have a viable solution

 

[J-2739]

chuck some 373's in there for even more capacity and you might have a viable solution

Nice idea, you must find me the recipe!!

 

[Ayman Ilham]

Just give most of the 185s to Wales when TPE are done with them! They really need more rolling stock over there! And possibly send some of them to the Scottish highlands!

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Once TPE have done with the 185's, they could be transfered over to GWR for their rather packed Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour / Brighton via Sailsbury service.

Not only it would free up some 158's but also it would allow the (non standard?) 51 units worth of 185 to be kept on a semi-fixed diagram (taking in consideration over the Brighton extentions) and hey presto you've got at least a spare nine or ten units as spares or as extra seating capacity in the peaks.

Just a thought, but you may never know that I could be on to something.

 

[markindurham]

But then the conversation has moved onto Turbostars, other types of Desiros, crashworthiness, and DOO, most of which have barely any relevance to whether a 185 should've been built with end gangways or not.

Indeed, because thread drift is a rarity...

 

[bramling]

Once TPE have done with the 185's, they could be transfered over to GWR for their rather packed Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour / Brighton via Sailsbury service.

Not only it would free up some 158's but also it would allow the (non standard?) 51 units worth of 185 to be kept on a semi-fixed diagram (taking in consideration over the Brighton extentions) and hey presto you've got at least a spare nine or ten units as spares or as extra seating capacity in the peaks.

Just a thought, but you may never know that I could be on to something.

If so, they would either need to be operated in pairs, or given a complete internal rebuild to increase the seating capacity. Basically it would be the same situation where they replaced 3-car 158s on TransPennine Express - a like-for-like replacement delivering a substantial reduction in seat availability. They would also be rather over-specified for the route in terms of power, but that will probably be the case wherever they go.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Perhaps the answer lies in reforming these as 5 car units with 2 unpowered trailers. Plenty power in them to run in that formation. Would need an upgrade of electrical power to allow a shared crossfeed or perhaps an electrical bus of some sort to distibute electrical power generation and use.



Disclaimer:- I know, it aint gonna happen!

 

[NorthernSpirit]

If so, they would either need to be operated in pairs, or given a complete internal rebuild to increase the seating capacity. Basically it would be the same situation where they replaced 3-car 158s on TransPennine Express - a like-for-like replacement delivering a substantial reduction in seat availability. They would also be rather over-specified for the route in terms of power, but that will probably be the case wherever they go.

I were thinking the power would be good in terms of the third railed section between Southampton and Brighton, where the units would need to be able to keep to time on par with the 377's.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Oh theres plenty of power. With good grip a 185 will leave a voyager behind! Trouble is the power makes the trains suprisingly light on their feet.

 

[railfan100]

Oh theres plenty of power. With good grip a 185 will leave a voyager behind! Trouble is the power makes the trains suprisingly light on their feet.

There is too much power for a 100mph DMU and also too much weight at 56 tons per car. The Voyager actually has the same 750hp power unit and weighs 10 tons less per car but has significantly higher gearing. 750hp and very low gearing = quick starts despite the overweight chassis.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The voyager will eventually win on acccount of its higher top speed. Interesting tho when a voyager and a 185 leave york at the same time they are virtually neck-and-neck until the second gear drops in on the 185. At that point the 185 takes off and the voyager only catches up at colton junction by which point the voyagers top end speed gives it the edge. You will probably also find the voyagers acceleration profile is smoother whereas the 185 has 3 distinct peaks which tie in with the engines torque.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The voyager will eventually win on acccount of its higher top speed. Interesting tho when a voyager and a 185 leave york at the same time they are virtually neck-and-neck until the second gear drops in on the 185. At that point the 185 takes off and the voyager only catches up at colton junction by which point the voyagers top end speed gives it the edge. You will probably also find the voyagers acceleration profile is smoother whereas the 185 has 3 distinct peaks which tie in with the engines torque.

While I don't think I ever had chapter and verse, the Voyagers seem to be software limited and could actually put more down if they were allowed to do so. In the early days I recall that they took off almost like aircraft, with you being pushed back in your seat. I even recall on one of the early trial runs the power management system switching some of the lights and the reservations off when starting out, these turning back on when the driver backed off.

 

[The Ham]

Perhaps the answer lies in reforming these as 5 car units with 2 unpowered trailers. Plenty power in them to run in that formation. Would need an upgrade of electrical power to allow a shared crossfeed or perhaps an electrical bus of some sort to distibute electrical power generation and use.



Disclaimer:- I know, it aint gonna happen!

Presumably using Desiro City coaches, which are much lighter.

Even just one extra coach would add something like 70 seats to each unit, making them a much better capacity, whilst making it easier to overcome the issues with adding coaches.

It would also mean that with 226 standard class seats it would be comparable to a pair of 158's which have first class seats (which have 236). As such they would be less of a problem in terms of capacity, especially if they are used to replace 3 coach units.

The problem is, it is unlikely to happen as the cost per coach would be so high that it could be cheaper to just get new units.