Class 185 future

[phil281]

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).

This is true, but because the 185's have a higher top speed, greatly increased acceleration and their dwell times are a lot less too, I would imagine this might free up another path between Basingstoke and Waterloo which would result in a significant increase in seats per hour between these locations.

 

[USRailFan]

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.

Sure your not getting your classes mixed up here? I have a bit of trouble imagining a Peak at 100 mph...

 

[Tobbes]

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.

Presumably because it would save the loco haulage of the Fort William sleeper section, which may well offer savings. If it were an option, then it opens the possibility sectionally working beds to Oban and Mallaig as well as Fort William if the generator vans (which would be based in Edinburgh) already exist. Can't see it happening, but it is an interesting idea.

 

[Rich_D3167]

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.

Which is interesting, considering a Class 40 has a maximum speed of 90mph... :-?

Multiple Units are not designed to haul regular dead weight around (apart from a failed Classmate), so it won't do their mechanical components any favours in the long run.

 

[Beveridges]

As stated before MUs do not have near the pulling power of a locomotive

 

[D6975]

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).

If you're going into the (fantasy?) world of DMU sleepers, then surely a pair of new build sleeper trailers in the middle of the unit would be a better option, the adjacent end coach converted to the lounge car for sleeper passengers, the other 2 containing standard class seating. A dedicated DMU fleet for the sleepers for the lower use non electrified routes, such as Fort Bill. The existing engines would be able to cope with that, especially as high speed running is not required. Handy for diversion too, S&C, no problem.

 

[Tobbes]

If you're going into the (fantasy?) world of DMU sleepers, then surely a pair of new build sleeper trailers in the middle of the unit would be a better option, the adjacent end coach converted to the lounge car for sleeper passengers, the other 2 containing standard class seating. A dedicated DMU fleet for the sleepers for the lower use non electrified routes, such as Fort Bill. The existing engines would be able to cope with that, especially as high speed running is not required. Handy for diversion too, S&C, no problem.

I'm not in that particular fantasy world, D6975, but it would be interesting to know if it were even possible - it's a bit of a step up from the odd van or milk tank behind a first gen DMU, I grant you.

 

[The Ham]

This is true, but because the 185's have a higher top speed, greatly increased acceleration and their dwell times are a lot less too, I would imagine this might free up another path between Basingstoke and Waterloo which would result in a significant increase in seats per hour between these locations.

Given the Salisbury trains only stop at Working and Clapham Junction between Basingstoke and Waterloo then better acceleration and dwell times aren't likely to have much of a difference. Even with the extra top speed I would be very surprised if an extra path in and out of Waterloo would be possible (given the low speed most trains move in and out of Waterloo).

If such a path were possible then it would make using 221's a viable option (only 7 seats less per train than the 185's) as they could run at even higher top speeds (if line speeds were updated for them).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One of the common suggestions for where the 185s go once the Standedge route is wired (on this forum at least) is for the highland routes in Scotland, and in terms of comfort levels and power this does seem a sensible idea. BUT I was under the impression that at least for the West Highland route even 158s aren't passed (though I don't know if they're actually forbidden or it's just a paperwork exercise that would be needed) so 185s with their extra weight and inability to use SP differentials might be a problem. They'd probably also want vestibule doors installed to cut draughts down at intermediate stops but that wouldn't be a major issue I'd have thought.

As for using them on the sleeper portions (and I appreciate that this was just a spot of 'blue-sky thinking'!) there's obviously the issues with compatibility which would require either mods to the 185s or to the sleeper cars themselves. There's also the problem of needing to run round (unless a DBSO type vehicle was also included) which removes one of the major advantages of using a unit rather than a locomotive. The lack of end gangways would also be a problem. Also given that the Sleeper will be a separate franchise in the future, shared use of rolling stock might create issues too.

In the longer term, daytime use on the Central Belt to Inverness and Aberdeen routes seems the most sensible to me, subject to whether they can use the higher linespeeds and a few other issues such as platform lengths if running in 6-car formations. I'm also unsure whether these services would require all 51 units, and if the fleet is split then there's the old 'micro-fleet' conundrum.

 

[northwichcat]

Regarding future electrification on routes currently operated by 185s the following was a recent question in parliament:

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost-benefit analysis his Department has made of (a) electrification and (b) line-speed improvements on the Lancaster to Barrow-in-Furness railway. [173924]

Stephen Hammond: The Department has made no such analysis. Following the Government's major investment in rail electrification as part of the Rail Investment Strategy (RIS) for 2014-19, Network Rail is working with train operators and other stakeholders to identify the best candidate schemes for future investment, as part of its Long Term Planning Process in advance of decisions on the following five year Network Rail Control Period. That review includes consideration of the Carnforth to Barrow-in-Furness line.

 

[Haydn1971]

Three ways forward on the Barrow line then..
1, DMU's ran by TPE from Lancaster only
2, DMU's ran by TPE from Manchester running under wires
3, DMU's ran by Northern only from any vague place they want

 

[David Barrett]

Three ways forward on the Barrow line then..
1, DMU's ran by TPE from Lancaster only
2, DMU's ran by TPE from Manchester running under wires
3, DMU's ran by Northern only from any vague place they want

In the absence of peripheral electrification it appears that the future for quite a few well established Trans Pennine served destinations could well end up in a similar situation; just substitute Darlington, York, Leeds or Doncaster as appropriate for Lancaster.