Class 185s post-TRU

[Anvil1984]

Hasn't it already been solved, the "SP" differentials on the Hope Valley were changed to "MU" in the last couple of years presumably to allow 185s to run faster.

Sadly not, the sectional appendix says

National exceptions to MU trains


• Class 185 trains are not permitted to run at MU or DMU speeds

 

[Iskra]

I didn't see why not, it wouldn't be the first time a fleet were relocated away from their original depots. If they go off lease then they'll be moved to whoever ends up taking them on, which may or may not be in the north of England.

While it is technically possible and will remain so; as they age, moving them away from the people who know how to keep them working and in service isn’t the best idea, as we have seen with other fleets. Plus, there’s a lot of expense and paperwork involved. I just don’t see it happening. It’s much easier to keep them working on routes that are within a reasonable distance of their current depots. There are plenty of suitable routes in these areas, so why bother with the cost and upheaval of moving the fleet, to put them on routes they weren’t designed for?

 

[Zomboid]

While it is technically possible and will remain so; as they age, moving them away from the people who know how to keep them working and in service isn’t the best idea, as we have seen with other fleets. Plus, there’s a lot of expense and paperwork involved. I just don’t see it happening. It’s much easier to keep them working on routes that are within a reasonable distance of their current depots. There are plenty of suitable routes in these areas, so why bother with the cost and upheaval of moving the fleet, to put them on routes they weren’t designed for?

It might be better to keep them with the people who know them, but that won't be relevant if there's no work for them in the north of England, but they are needed in (for example) Devon.

As heavy, powerful (and presumably quite thirsty) units that can't use SP/ MU differentials there aren't that many places that they'll be able to operate at their best. And in a lot of those places there is already some form of plan coming together to replace the existing trains (GWR/ SWR/ Chiltern, Northern), and they might be getting pretty tired by the time they're displaced anyway, as TPE haven't actually ordered anything new yet.

 

[Nym]

So... residual non-electrified services around Manchester unlikely to have speed restrictions for higher mass and where hill climbing capabilities would be good.

Buxton to Manchester
Mid Cheshire Line
CLC Stoppers via Warrington Central (185s already have C-ASDO for shorter platforms).
South East Manchester commuter services towards Chinley?

Places where high performance means being able to interrun better with EMUs

Manchester - Blackburn?
Manchester - Barrow / Windermere (again)?

 

[Brewer66]

Not mentioned in this discussion, yet ticks most boxes, is The Welsh Marches (Manchester to South Wales) route. It releases Class 197s to bolster other TfW routes and pushing the speculation further, provides a link into Cardiff to Portsmouth and Penzance. And while I'm on a role and looking for a home for a fleet of 51, Cardiff to Nottingham, which neatly links back into Liverpool to Norwich.

 

[Zomboid]

Not mentioned in this discussion, yet ticks most boxes, is The Welsh Marches (Manchester to South Wales) route. It releases Class 197s to bolster other TfW routes and pushing the speculation further, provides a link into Cardiff to Portsmouth and Penzance. And while I'm on a role and looking for a home for a fleet of 51, Cardiff to Nottingham, which neatly links back into Liverpool to Norwich.

Allows them to continue to visit Ardwick, too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Use the 185s on Waterloo-Exeter, Bristol-Portsmouth, Exeter-Bristol routes. Base the whole lot at Salisbury and interwork the three routes.
That would release the 158+159 fleet to be sent north to join Northern's existing fleet so concentrating them in fewer locations - and also easing the spares supply issues as cannibalisation would be simpler and also you'd need fewer spares sites stocked

But are there enough units for all those combined routes, assuming SWR ran all their intended 9 car services, and would the Portsmouth to Cardiff have to become 6 car rather than the hoped for 5s, or would it reduce to 3s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

How much of a diet can the 185s go on though?

In a post I made about my travels last year, I did say that the Tyne Valley and S&C would be ideal homes for the 185s if/when TPE go fully bi-mode. I'll add to that. The Calderdale line as well. The reasoning for these suggestions is that the acceleration of them will deliver journey time improvements even before any infrastructure upgrades are made, plus the capacity increase over a 15x along the routes.

Probably not much of a diet. If you were to remove the engines and diesel tanks from the centre vehicle, you'd be changing the "dynamic envelope" (how it behaves through pointwork and around curves, or when buffeted by air circulation when passing other trains, going under bridges/through tunnels, subjected to crosswinds etc.) so you'd have to redo all the route clearance work. Or, you replace the engine and diesel tank with weights (as per those DC units that don't have dual-voltage capabilities so have a concrete block in place of the transformer) which defeats the purpose.

In any case, making one vehicle out of three light enough to use differential speeds is pointless when the other two vehicles still can't. If they're moved to a less challenging route you can make more liberal use of the "eco mode" which shuts down one engine when the full power output isn't needed.

Replacing all the interior fittings with lighter ones would have some impact, but probably barely enough to scratch the surface. I suppose you could in theory do something really radical and replace the bogies with inside-frame ones to save weight, but that wouldn't be worth the cost.

 

[YorksLad12]

Probably not much of a diet. If you were to remove the engines and diesel tanks from the centre vehicle, you'd be changing the "dynamic envelope" (how it behaves through pointwork and around curves, or when buffeted by air circulation when passing other trains, going under bridges/through tunnels, subjected to crosswinds etc.) so you'd have to redo all the route clearance work. Or, you replace the engine and diesel tank with weights (as per those DC units that don't have dual-voltage capabilities so have a concrete block in place of the transformer) which defeats the purpose.

In any case, making one vehicle out of three light enough to use differential speeds is pointless when the other two vehicles still can't. If they're moved to a less challenging route you can make more liberal use of the "eco mode" which shuts down one engine when the full power output isn't needed.

Replacing all the interior fittings with lighter ones would have some impact, but probably barely enough to scratch the surface. I suppose you could in theory do something really radical and replace the bogies with inside-frame ones to save weight, but that wouldn't be worth the cost.

Stupid questions: could you (a) replace the engines with lighter, more fuel-efficient ones which (b) means smaller diesel tanks? How much lighter does a 185 have to be to travel faster and retain crash-worthiness, I wonder...?

 

[gingertom]

Stupid questions: could you (a) replace the engines with lighter, more fuel-efficient ones which (b) means smaller diesel tanks? How much lighter does a 185 have to be to travel faster and retain crash-worthiness, I wonder...?

took a bit of finding but the difference in weight between the 750BHP Cummins and the 422BHP MTU is about 900kg. That would help with the axle loading but I doubt it would be enough to enable MU speeds.

 

[Acathater]

took a bit of finding but the difference in weight between the 750BHP Cummins and the 422BHP MTU is about 900kg. That would help with the axle loading but I doubt it would be enough to enable MU speeds.

its the difference between the sets that counts........according to wiki:
3 car class 185 = 168.5t
class 159 averages 38.5t / car - or 115.5t for a 3 car set
you're not going to cut 53t off the 185 weight by swapping seats and engines

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Stupid questions: could you (a) replace the engines with lighter, more fuel-efficient ones which (b) means smaller diesel tanks? How much lighter does a 185 have to be to travel faster and retain crash-worthiness, I wonder...?

Not a stupid question. I suspect that the engines and fuel tanks are only a relatively small part of the overall weight. These units weren't built with weight-saving in mind because the core section of the route they were designed for doesn't have any differential speeds. At the time of ordering there was no realistic prospect of electrification, so the assumption would have been that they'd spend their entire working lives on that route.

Lighter, more fuel-efficient engines could in theory be fitted, but I'd be surprised if that would reduce the weight sufficiently on its own. I mentioned it because it would be the least difficult way of reducing the weight. Realistically it makes more sense to identify a route that's suitable for the units, rather than modifying the units to fit somewhere they aren't really suitable for. As others have suggested in this thread the most suitable role would seem to be secondary main line services in the South West, particularly over the Devon banks.

 

[gingertom]

its the difference between the sets that counts........according to wiki:
3 car class 185 = 168.5t
class 159 averages 38.5t / car - or 115.5t for a 3 car set
you're not going to cut 53t off the 185 weight by swapping seats and engines

agreed. Best you're going to get is about 2.7t across the set and lose the ability to sensibly climb hills in the process. Not going to happen.

 

[Zomboid]

Whilst you're not going to get 53t per set off by making any reasonable changes, it may not be necessary to - what would they actually need to hit to use the differentials?

It's probably not the 158/9 weight, but it's also probably not achievable on the simple basis that if it were possible to make a few minor changes and meet the criteria, then Siemens would probably have done that at the design stage.

 

[317 forever]

The spare 185s could be cascaded to Chiltern for London Marylebone - Birmingham/Oxford services not using ex TPE loco stock. Any spare 168s could enable the early 165s to be replaced, or cascaded to GWR to replace Sprinters still in service even after the 175s are all in use.

 

[YorksLad12]

Not a stupid question. I suspect that the engines and fuel tanks are only a relatively small part of the overall weight. These units weren't built with weight-saving in mind because the core section of the route they were designed for doesn't have any differential speeds. At the time of ordering there was no realistic prospect of electrification, so the assumption would have been that they'd spend their entire working lives on that route.

Lighter, more fuel-efficient engines could in theory be fitted, but I'd be surprised if that would reduce the weight sufficiently on its own. I mentioned it because it would be the least difficult way of reducing the weight. Realistically it makes more sense to identify a route that's suitable for the units, rather than modifying the units to fit somewhere they aren't really suitable for. As others have suggested in this thread the most suitable role would seem to be secondary main line services in the South West, particularly over the Devon banks.

They've served their purpose here (or will have, post-TRU), but there's part of me that would like to keep them somewhere local rather than send them to another deserving cause

Not to the extent of turning them into longitudinal seating with no tables for commuter services, of course!

 

[D365]

... or cascaded to GWR to replace Sprinters still in service even after the 175s are all in use.

I'm not aware that there is an intention to withdraw any Class 15x vehicles from service once the Class 175s are fully introduced. Whether the Class 185s would be suitable to replace two car Class 150s or Class 158s is a fair question, through.

 

[317 forever]

I'm not aware that there is an intention to withdraw any Class 15x vehicles from service once the Class 175s are fully introduced. Whether the Class 185s would be suitable to replace two car Class 150s or Class 158s is a fair question, through.

Sure, but I was also considering 165s displaced from Chiltern to GWR if replaced by 185s.

 

[brad465]

The spare 185s could be cascaded to Chiltern for London Marylebone - Birmingham/Oxford services not using ex TPE loco stock. Any spare 168s could enable the early 165s to be replaced, or cascaded to GWR to replace Sprinters still in service even after the 175s are all in use.

I could see multiple barriers to 185s at Chiltern, including the engine noise and pollution, plus I wouldn't be surprised if they had to have certain speed restrictions applied on this route, given they are unable to use any speed differentials in their current operating turf.

 

[stevieinselby]

I could see multiple barriers to 185s at Chiltern, including the engine noise and pollution, plus I wouldn't be surprised if they had to have certain speed restrictions applied on this route, given they are unable to use any speed differentials in their current operating turf.

I can't imagine they would have a lower speed restriction than the 68+Mk5As.
The Sectional Appendix lists a few differential speed limits, but I don't think any of them would have an impact here:

• A lot of the route has "Locomotive-hauled passenger trains except Class 67, Class 68 + day coaches, Class 43" have a lower limit
• There are some sections where SP has a lower limit than other passenger trains (which I don't think I've seen before) but that restriction doesn't apply to "Sprinter class trains without a central gangway" which sounds quite bizarre and I have definitely not encountered that one before!

 

[Bevan Price]

There are several problems about using Class 185 to replace other dmus.

1. A 3 coach 185 has about the same number of standard class seats as a 2 coach 158. So you would need 6 coach 185 formations to match the current 4 coach EMR formations between Liverpool & Nottingham.

2. The 185s "eat" fuel.- that makes them expensive to run when people are trying to reduce costs.

3. The 185s will be approaching 30 years old by the time TRU & electrification are completed.

So, I suspect they may have a problem in finding "new homes" if they re declared "surplus".

One move might be to remove first class and reorganise the seat layout. That would increase standard class capacity, but not enough to match 4 coach 158 formations.

 

[TastyMaltesers]

There are also problems with the idea of cascading Chiltern 165s to GWR - primarily that (I am led to believe that) the Chiltern ones have a lower top speed than the GWR ones.

 

[stevieinselby]

There are also problems with the idea of cascading Chiltern 165s to GWR - primarily that (I am led to believe that) the Chiltern ones have a lower top speed than the GWR ones.

I'm sure GWR have plenty of routes where the trains never exceed 75mph that they could deploy them to.

 

[Zomboid]

I'm sure GWR have plenty of routes where the trains never exceed 75mph that they could deploy them to.

I'm not sure that's the case any longer anyway? I had the impression that the Chiltern units were all good for 90 now.

 

[TastyMaltesers]

I'm not sure that's the case any longer anyway? I had the impression that the Chiltern units were all good for 90 now.

If that's the case then that's not so much of a problem. Are there any significant differences between the 165/0s (Chiltern) and 165/1s (GWR) nowadays?

 

[Zomboid]

If that's the case then that's not so much of a problem. Are there any significant differences between the 165/0s (Chiltern) and 165/1s (GWR) nowadays?

To be honest I haven't found any such evidence, so it could be that I'm just wrong.

 

[brad465]

If Chiltern's 165s ever ended up at GWR, they could do the Thames Branches and the North Downs' line no problem on a 75mph top speed , then send the 165/1s still based at Reading to Bristol and Exeter. However, GWR will want this as part of a new fleet, and if Chiltern's 165s are knackered, probably won't find work anywhere else. 185s at Chiltern would be wasted on 165 routes, so you'd probably be putting 168s on 165 work and 185s on 168 work, and possibly also bolstering EWR.

 

[TastyMaltesers]

If 165/0s are still capped at 75, then a possible problem with putting them on the Thames branches is the fact that they generally have to get to/from said branches from/to Reading, so those moves may have to be be considered so that they don't gum up the network.

 

[Halifaxlad]

As much as I would love to see them on the Calder Valley line and through Halifax.

Platforms on the Calder Valley line are only long enough for 5 car trains without SDO.

So unless you're going to reduce capacity on every service you will have to lengthen platforms too!

 

[Iskra]

As much as I would love to see them on the Calder Valley line and through Halifax.

Platforms on the Calder Valley line are only long enough for 5 car trains without SDO.

So unless you're going to reduce capacity on every service you will have to lengthen platforms too!

They manage at short platforms absolutely fine on Transpennine South, at Meadowhall and Habrough for example- both 4 carriage platforms for 6 carriage trains. What would be different about the Calder Valley?