Class 185 future replacements

[ChrisCooper]

Its a tricky balance. Do you base the service provision for the sake of a handful of peak services? These services are important, but where do you draw the line?

I've had this argument about Lancashire electrification too, since there are some doubled up peak services that are longer than a single EMU.

The trouble is that on a lot of lines you'll never match the peak demand (especially in a big city like Birmingham/ Manchester), even with ten coach trains. Is it cost effective to have all these units spare for most of the day (only used on a couple of trips a day)?

Its probably a topic for another thread entirely, how you balance the peak/ off-peak demands... just my thoughts

Then again it's the same everywhere. The South East is getting loads of money to get 12 car trains to cover peak loadings, yet off peak these too either run around empty or sit spair in the depot.
When it comes to balancing demand, for leisure travel (and to an extent business) then price variation works (peak and off peak fares). For commuter travel though the only answer is to do away with 9-5 working, having either more flexable working or staggered hours.

 

[WatcherZero]

Met Councils can play a important role in it by encouraging variation in working hours to balance demand and even without that you see 7am, 4pm or even earlier services becoming a choice for commuters journeys capable of negotiating their own work hours but anywhere with a commuter rail service 10-4 trains will be a lot lighter loaded and stock inventory should provide for easily splittable or strengthened services. Manchester in particular I could see a problem if 4 car train sets ever became commonplace because it would radically restrict what they could be coupled with, therefore primarily three car sets offer the best flexibility as with primarily 4 car sets you would have to maintain significant numbers of two car sets for peaks and 3x2 would be a costly waste of space with unused cab sections.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As others suggest, Class 185 is likely to be with us for many years (2035 or later), being replaced only on lines which get electrified. As the North West electrification proceeds, 185s will probably displace all the TPE 170's.

In the long term, if there are any more 185's spare, I suspect their future will include replacement of their engines with lower-powered versions, possibly with the centre car unpowered. In current format, their running costs would be too high for most regional services on lines limited to 75 mph or less.

If major electrification of cross-Pennine TPE routes ever proceeds, I think that on most routes they would need an emu design with at least 4 to 5 standard class coaches, to cater for the likely traffic growth.

Bevan

You have put the case very well. Electrification of the cross-Pennine routes is a logical step forward as an aid to the future regeneration of the North of England and is the fulcrum on which local improvements on BOTH sides of the Pennines can be developed. There are infrastructure projects being considered which include extra cross-Pennine inter-urban services from Manchester to Leeds.

In the Northern Hub document proposals, there is mention of building new tracks as below:-
Leeds to Manchester
Sheffield to Manchester
These will aid cross-Pennine rail movements

However, the current lack of the electrified cross-Pennine route means that the total benefits of this critical link are being lost and take away much of the good contained in the recent proposals.

It was these very points that prompted me to make my decision to post the original thread of Class 185 replacements that we are currently on and it is this one that has brought much discussion by members of the forum, as the number of postings has shown it to be a topic worthy of discussion. I would like to thank everyone who has made a posting on this thread.