Until such time as the Waterloo - Exeter line is electrified then it is likely that the 159's will stay put. As it is unlikely that SWT's would go for getting rid of of their 3 coach sets which can seat 196 people in exchange for sets which can seat 169 people (i.e. 81 seats less per 9 coach train).
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Class 185 future
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
- Status
Until such time as the Waterloo - Exeter line is electrified then it is likely that the 159's will stay put. As it is unlikely that SWT's would go for getting rid of of their 3 coach sets which can seat 196 people in exchange for sets which can seat 169 people (i.e. 81 seats less per 9 coach train).
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tbtc
Veteran Member
I suspect that we'll see something like the current situation with the "Scottish" route, where DMUs and EMUs share duties for the duration of one six month timetable, thus allowing a gradual introduction for the new traction.
If this is the case, then many people in the North would be euphoric to receive those units to which you refer to above rather than to have the "Sword of Damocles" scenario of the elderly class 319 units where the more cynical of northern-based forum members do not expect the "fully refurbished treatment" and more of a "refresh-only treatment"...
...
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
With regards to the Manchester to Sheffield section of that particular line that I have highlighted/emboldened above, has there been any recent pronouncements made about any future line electrification ?
Another existing route served by the class 185 units is the First TPE services from Liverpool or Manchester to Middlesbrough. Even when electrification eventually is open from Liverpool to York, what is the latest news of electrification from the ECML to Middlesbrough ?
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Liverpool-Sheffield via Warrington is expected to go to 2tph once the Ordsall Chord opens and North TPE goes to 6tph between Manchester and Leeds.
I expect eventually (in CP6/7) we'll see an hourly Liverpool-Sheffield-Doncaster electric service interworked with an hourly Liverpool-Sheffield-Nottingham service and a diesel service from Manchester Airport to Norwich which won't do the Sheffield reversal.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,269
It's been regularly pointed out that even with all the 350/4s in service, one particular diagram is staying with 185s, beyond May 2014, this is to maintain the flexibility to double up certain services.
(I expect this might change in the future as they move to a mostly electric fleet with further wiring, but it is not the case in the short term.)
We still do not seem to have an answer to Paul's original question: "How many 185s will be needed for the new Liverpool-Newcastle via ManVic trains from May 2014?" If this number is NOT equal to the number of units displaced from Manchester-Scotland by the 350s then we have something to chew on re the redeployment of the surplus units.
Suppose 3 or 4 units are released after the new service is diagrammed do we assume that they have to stay with TPE? If so then they really should be used to make up a few 6-car trains to relieve overcrowding on the core Liverpool-York and Manchester-Sheffield routes. If however they could be loaned to Northern for the Blackpool-York route via East Lancs this could free up a couple of 158s to start the ManVic-Todmorden-Burnley-Blackburn service from MAY, or to relieve overcrowding on the Bolton route.
Suppose 3 or 4 units are released after the new service is diagrammed do we assume that they have to stay with TPE? If so then they really should be used to make up a few 6-car trains to relieve overcrowding on the core Liverpool-York and Manchester-Sheffield routes. If however they could be loaned to Northern for the Blackpool-York route via East Lancs this could free up a couple of 158s to start the ManVic-Todmorden-Burnley-Blackburn service from MAY, or to relieve overcrowding on the Bolton route.
Any units not used on the new Liverpool - Newcastle will be deployed for strengthening within the existing service structure.
Ok, that will be VERY welcome news for peak time regular passengers Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds, but at the expense, of course, of E.Lancs having to wait another 6 months for the new service to Manchester.
TPE publicity is claiming a huge increase in seating capacity, I think 30% or more, but they do not say how these extra seats will be distributed around their network.
I suppose the Tod curve route would be defined as OUTSIDE the existing service structure as it is an innovation.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Someone in the know has already hinted at diagrams post-May 2014 and there will apparently be 3 sets of 4 car 170 diagrams - one on Manchester to Hull and the other 2 on South TPE, with the quietest Manchester to Hull diagram remaining a 2 car 170. They'll also be a mixture of 3, 4, 6 and 8 car services on Scottish workings on Saturdays.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think they mean 30% more capacity on Scottish services and that's due to a combination of factors:
1. 350s having more seats than 185s.
2. A full hourly service instead of a 2 hourly service with some extra services.
3. More doubled up formations on Scottish services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think they mean 30% more capacity on Scottish services and that's due to a combination of factors:
1. 350s having more seats than 185s.
2. A full hourly service instead of a 2 hourly service with some extra services.
3. More doubled up formations on Scottish services.
Last edited by a moderator:
That seems to imply that resources will still be stretched. If so many units are needed for Manchester-Scotland on Saturdays then the Trans-Pennine trains will STILL be overcrowded as Saturday is a very busy day! However, if large numbers of passengers paying TPEs exorbitant walk on fares are having to stand I suppose it is more reasonable to ask them to do so for an hour Manchester to Leeds than for 3 hours or more to Scotland! This just seems to reinforce the point made many times on here that TPE should not be responsible for the Manchester-Scotland route.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Don't forget Huddersfield-Leeds will get 5tph. I think we'll have to wait and see how many of the existing Manchester to West Yorkshire passengers transfer off existing services to the new Victoria service. For me that won't be any use as my connecting train will still go to Piccadilly.
Nym
Established Member
If I'm thinking right TPE South will also benifit with longer trains on their servces with some 170s being displaced by the displaced 185s.
The additional stock for the:
Curtailment of current Newcastle - Manchester Airport service to York
and
New; Newcastle to Liverpool Lime Street via Manchester Victoria (An additional fast Liverpool - Manchester train btw)
Isn't going to be that much if I'm thinking correctly, an extra one/two unit(s) for running to LPL rather than MIA and five units for MIA to YRK.
The additional stock for the:
Curtailment of current Newcastle - Manchester Airport service to York
and
New; Newcastle to Liverpool Lime Street via Manchester Victoria (An additional fast Liverpool - Manchester train btw)
Isn't going to be that much if I'm thinking correctly, an extra one/two unit(s) for running to LPL rather than MIA and five units for MIA to YRK.
Yes ok, I take your point...it will be a different service pattern and it will be interesting to see how the public respond. The new ManVic route should be a bit quicker too, and for anyone wanting Central Manchester in general no less convenient than Piccadilly. The choice of route is of course constrained for people making a regular commute to work or making connections at Piccadilly but they benefit if some traffic is abstracted by the other route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It is also going to be interesting to see how robust and reliable the new timetable proves to be. The LPL-ManVic-Newcastle trains SHOULD have a clearer run through Manchester by avoiding the MSJ line and weaving across the entire throat of Piccadilly. Against this there will be slightly more conflicting movements at Ordsall and Stalybridge, and more pressure on the already very restricted capacity between Stalybridge and Leeds.
Nym
Established Member
It also puts more units at the Liverpool end so recovery should be easyer.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Has anyone any updated electrification news on the Middlesbrough query shown above ?
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
With a suitable physical connection.
Would a 185 have the oomph to haul 2 Mk3 sleeper coaches to Fort Bill?
Would a 185 have the oomph to haul 2 Mk3 sleeper coaches to Fort Bill?
Boothby97
Established Member
Currently two diagrams on South TPE are operated by single Class 170s (Monday to Thursday). A Class 185 displaced from the Scottish services will then be put on one of the Class 170 diagrams on South TPE, in turn freeing up that 170 to the other diagram. This allows that diagram to be 4 car.
Last edited:
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,328
An hourly service between Liverpool & Newcastle will need at least 7 units.
(Journey time around 3 hours, plus turnround time at each end.)
tbtc
Veteran Member
Its really only a net increase of a Liverpool - York service (if we are trying to work out the net increase in 185s on the Huddersfield corridor)
Philip
On Moderation
The strengthening from the release of Scotland 185s should also include Blackpool. The 17:29 MIA-BPN has already been doubled up into a portion train with the rear working to Barrow. The 16:29 and 18:29 departures really should follow suit in May. The new 17:13 Oxford Road-Windermere service (from February) would compliment things nicely.
Going the other way the 08:58 arrival into Piccadilly has been a doubled up service since 175 days and remains so now. I'd like to see the 07:58 arrival increased to a 6-car working. Southbound has also been boosted by a new Barrow-Oxford Road service which arrives into Oxford Road around 08:15. This should make things somewhat acceptable in the peak and would only need an extra 2 units over what TPE already have on Blackpool duties. With some clever diagramming perhaps the same unit used for strengthening a North West service in the morning could then strengthen a Manc-York service in the evening (and vice versa).
Going the other way the 08:58 arrival into Piccadilly has been a doubled up service since 175 days and remains so now. I'd like to see the 07:58 arrival increased to a 6-car working. Southbound has also been boosted by a new Barrow-Oxford Road service which arrives into Oxford Road around 08:15. This should make things somewhat acceptable in the peak and would only need an extra 2 units over what TPE already have on Blackpool duties. With some clever diagramming perhaps the same unit used for strengthening a North West service in the morning could then strengthen a Manc-York service in the evening (and vice versa).
Last edited:
I've not seen any mention of Middlesbrough whatsoever. There is some official documentation around which suggests that York-Scarborough could be added to York-Blackpool North but nothing regarding Middlesbrough as far as I know.
<this is from memory as I can't find the right sources>
The draft determination seems to be that the TP electrification scheme is Leeds to Selby, Leeds to York and Leeds to Stalybridge (west of there being delivered in the North West scheme). Laid out subsequently is a service pattern of 2tph to Newcastle, 2tph to York, 1tph to Selby and 1tph to Hull (only the Hull being diesel - pending Hull Trains' electrification scheme). Now that the ORR have given their final determination, Network Rail's plans should be confirmed in the new year.
</end>
<quote of RailUK speculation>
The best solution I have seen posted on the Forum is for CrossCountry's Newcastle terminators to be diverted to Middlesbrough, meaning that York to Newcastle would keep the same number of services (which are arguably too frequent- generally each hour theres currently 2 ECs, an XC to Scotland, an XC terminator and currently one TP, although the 6th North TP service will move this to 2).
</end>
Nym
Established Member
I've seen the XC solution in a NR RUS at some point.
It would mean that we could move to a more standard pattern between the two, assuming that XC would also take over the Thirsk calls from TPE.
It would mean that we could move to a more standard pattern between the two, assuming that XC would also take over the Thirsk calls from TPE.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Would there be any problems of any connectional type in the scenario that you envisage ?
tbtc
Veteran Member
<more speculation> Bi-mode IEP allows extension of some London - York EC services to Teesside </more speculation>
Different couplings (Dellner vs buckeye) and the 185s are not configured to give the Mk3s the electric train supply that they'd need. The first is not insurmountable, the second would require either a generator car in the formation or some serous modifications to the 185s (read would be very expensive).
ETHEL strikes back! More seriously, do the Nightstar Mark 3 generator cars still exist?
Theres a couple knocking about, theres one at Wabtec Doncaster for instance. However I seem to recall that they are hideous in terms of weight, a 185 might be powerful, but 2 Mk3 sleepers and a generator car? Even if a 185 on all 3 engines could do it, would it be wise?!
A 185 with 3 engines is more powerful than a class 40 - which can haul 10 mk3s at 100mph. So, undoubtedly yes it can do it. Easily.
Beveridges
Established Member
But MUs do not have as much tractive effort as locomotives so are far more likely to encounter wheelslip when hauling a train.
For example a 142 slips, slides and struggles like mad at times hauling a pair of dead 156s across Newton Heath depot at 5mph, yet it has more horsepower than an 08 which can haul 1500 tons with ease!!
So I doubt a 185 has the same haulage capacity as a class 40.
For example a 142 slips, slides and struggles like mad at times hauling a pair of dead 156s across Newton Heath depot at 5mph, yet it has more horsepower than an 08 which can haul 1500 tons with ease!!
So I doubt a 185 has the same haulage capacity as a class 40.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I feel that, after reading the last few explanations that were expressed in postings, why anyone might have made the suggestion of the use of a DMU, albeit powerful, as a method of sleeper coaches haulage.
- Status