Potential reconfiguration of Class 185s for other operators?

[Bletchleyite]

I couldn’t see the ballroom space being used unless you move the toilet as well with first class converted to standard and bike space created somehow. Alternatively Northern could strictly impose the 2 bikes per train policy which wouldn’t be popular.

Not totally against 185s, more realistic suggestion than 802s but as I say Northern / whichever entity by post TRU will probably have different new stock

Surely having the wheelchair area close to the accessible toilet is a good idea?

It is, the post was in response to this comment



If you move the bikes into the ballroom area then you’d have to move the wheelchair spaces and then the wheelchair accessible toilet

When I first suggested I had it in my mind that the wheelchair spaces and the toilet were the other way round. Now I've looked at a seating plan that wouldn't make much sense, it would be easier to provide 2 more bike spaces in the present first class catering store.

Every few years there's a madcap plan on here about reconfiguring the 185s layout. It isn't going to happen anytime soon.

(We're going a bit off-topic I know, but...)
Does putting potential new bikes at the current First Class end mean we'd have two separate bike storage areas? Would it be better to have just the one? Do we need the large luggage racks as well?

In your opinion. It's certainly not perfect, but it's probably the simplest compromise to meet all the requirements of PRM rules. If it was that unpopular don't you think TPE would have reconfigured them during the refurbishment?

I don't think TPE reconfigured them due to the cost of moving the accessible toilet. I don't agree it is a simple compromise to meet anything, though, it's cack handed and maroons a toilet and a section of Standard the wrong side of First Class. Simply reversing the layout of that vehicle with the first class in two compartments either side of the end door and the wheelchair facilities at the inner end would have by far been better, which is how most 2 and 3-car DMUs apart from those ones do it. It's a unique layout, which says a lot to me, namely that one specific designer got it wrong (see also the Class 777 ).

With regard to sending them to Northern services without first class, though, just converting that to Standard undoes the issue as nothing is then marooned the wrong side of a first class that doesn't exist.

Another thing they might want to consider is removing the engine from the middle vehicle, the excess power wouldn't be needed if used on Northern routes, and maintenance costs would be reduced. The units already have crossfeed for the "2 out of 3" software driven engine use reduction.

 

[Farigiraf]

Of the major DMU operators:
- Scotrail have their eyes set on battery trains, and the highland routes are more likely to get cascaded 170s instead
- TFW have plenty of 197s
- EMR have plenty of 170s
- Northern have their big order coming up
- GWR have Project Churchward coming up
- WMT have the 196s and 172s
So most of them have DMUs with plenty of life left in them.

If TPE do replace the 185s (makes perfect sense as they're mostly an intercity operator now, instead of the semi-fast/regional operator they acted as when they got the 185s) then I think the only credible options are either sending them to Chiltern to replace 165/168s, or to SWR to replace 158/159s. With either, it'd just be a stop-gap until battery units are acquired. Personally I think the SWR option makes more sense as a commuter-interior train to replace 165s and an intercity-interior train to replace 168s would be more suitable for Chiltern. In reality what's more likely to happen is that they soldier on for another decade or so with TPE then get scrapped as pure diesel units go out of fashion.

 

[stadler]

Of the major DMU operators:
- Scotrail have their eyes set on battery trains, and the highland routes are more likely to get cascaded 170s instead
- TFW have plenty of 197s
- EMR have plenty of 170s
- Northern have their big order coming up
- GWR have Project Churchward coming up
- WMT have the 196s and 172s
So most of them have DMUs with plenty of life left in them.

If TPE do replace the 185s (makes perfect sense as they're mostly an intercity operator now, instead of the semi-fast/regional operator they acted as when they got the 185s) then I think the only credible options are either sending them to Chiltern to replace 165/168s, or to SWR to replace 158/159s. With either, it'd just be a stop-gap until battery units are acquired. Personally I think the SWR option makes more sense as a commuter-interior train to replace 165s and an intercity-interior train to replace 168s would be more suitable for Chiltern. In reality what's more likely to happen is that they soldier on for another decade or so with TPE then get scrapped as pure diesel units go out of fashion.

SWR would be the best place in my view. The current unsuitable 158/159 stock desperately needs replacing and SWR already have similar electric 450 stock. SWR currently 40x 158/159 units so the 51x 185 units would be the perfect amount to replace them and add some extra units for increased capacity. Plus we would finally get a suitable design for regional services rather than the cramped horrible 158/159 interior.

I doubt there would be much need to do any reconfiguration. The only thing i can think of is scrapping first class and replacing it with extra standard class seating. Most other operators have done that recently so that would give some extra capacity.

The standard class seats could probably be kept and just have new moquette put on them. It should be very simple to transfer these 185 units to another operator if TPE end up no longer needing them. They are already suitable units for a wide variety of work.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think TPE reconfigured them due to the cost of moving the accessible toilet. I don't agree it is a simple compromise to meet anything, though, it's cack handed and maroons a toilet and a section of Standard the wrong side of First Class. Simply reversing the layout of that vehicle with the first class in two compartments either side of the end door and the wheelchair facilities at the inner end would have by far been better, which is how most 2 and 3-car DMUs apart from those ones do it.

My main criticism of the current layout is that it banishes wheelchair users to the "ballroom" area at one end, which has echoes of the dark days when people in wheelchairs were parked up in the guards' van. The advantage is that first class is mostly self-contained. If the layout of that vehicle was reversed as you suggest, the complaints would instead be that "there's a blast of cold air in first class at every stop". Long story short, you can't please everyone!

Another thing they might want to consider is removing the engine from the middle vehicle, the excess power wouldn't be needed if used on Northern routes, and maintenance costs would be reduced. The units already have crossfeed for the "2 out of 3" software driven engine use reduction.

I doubt the weight reduction you'd get from that would make much of a difference, certainly not enough to be able to use SP speeds- not least because the two driving cars would still carry their full weight. It would make more sense to just increase use of "eco mode" if they're on less demanding work. That alone would increase the time needed between engine overhauls and would still reduce fuel consumption. Removing the engine and fuel tanks would also affect the kinematics of that vehicle, so you'd need to modify the suspension and possibly redo all the route clearance stuff.

 

[43096]

SWR would be the best place in my view. The current unsuitable 158/159 stock desperately needs replacing and SWR already have similar electric 450 stock.

The 158/159 is not unsuitable at all for SWR. Quite the opposite - they are really good trains. At least until SWR got hold of them they were very comfortable, highly reliable and an efficient provider of capacity for that service.

 

[QSK19]

Of the major DMU operators:
- Scotrail have their eyes set on battery trains, and the highland routes are more likely to get cascaded 170s instead
- TFW have plenty of 197s
- EMR have plenty of 170s
- Northern have their big order coming up
- GWR have Project Churchward coming up
- WMT have the 196s and 172s
So most of them have DMUs with plenty of life left in them.

If TPE do replace the 185s (makes perfect sense as they're mostly an intercity operator now, instead of the semi-fast/regional operator they acted as when they got the 185s) then I think the only credible options are either sending them to Chiltern to replace 165/168s, or to SWR to replace 158/159s. With either, it'd just be a stop-gap until battery units are acquired. Personally I think the SWR option makes more sense as a commuter-interior train to replace 165s and an intercity-interior train to replace 168s would be more suitable for Chiltern. In reality what's more likely to happen is that they soldier on for another decade or so with TPE then get scrapped as pure diesel units go out of fashion.

But EMR also have 26 158s which can’t be a million years away from replacement.

Not saying that you’d split the 185s fleet specifically to replace those, but maybe if another TOC requires part of the fleet, the ones left over could see off EMR’s 158s?

Mind you, those 185s are thirsty things!

 

[WAB]

SWR would be the best place in my view. The current unsuitable 158/159 stock desperately needs replacing and SWR already have similar electric 450 stock. SWR currently 40x 158/159 units so the 51x 185 units would be the perfect amount to replace them and add some extra units for increased capacity. Plus we would finally get a suitable design for regional services rather than the cramped horrible 158/159 interior.

The lack of through corridors on trains with portion working might be a challenge, though. Would the unions accept triple formations with no gangway?

 

[stadler]

The lack of through corridors on trains with portion working might be a challenge, though. Would the unions accept triple formations with no gangway?

Southern have been running 171+171+171 formations daily on the London Bridge to Uckfield service for over fifteen years. No issues here. The guard is allowed to be in whatever portion they chose and it has worked fine with no issues. So if it is fine for Southern then i see no reason why SWR could not do the same. Also remember that SWT used to have 170s and they would occasionally run as 170+170+170 formations on London Waterloo to Salisbury back then. Portion working would be fine as long as you gave passengers time to switch at Salisbury where it divided.

 

[RailWonderer]

The lack of through corridors on trains with portion working might be a challenge, though. Would the unions accept triple formations with no gangway?

The 170s SWT ran worked in two car pairs with no issues, apparently it was the need to have a trolley run through the train that necessitated a swap with First TPE (or FNW) with their 158s. Then they axed the trolley so it was neither here nor there. The 185s would be perfect to replace 158s on SWR and the remaining 158s on EMR. 158s could then see off 156s as they have a similar door width.

 

[Topological]

TfW would need 10 units in service to replace the Mk4s
EMR have their 26 158s
Northern have services from Leeds to Nottingham
CrossCountry have their Nottingham 170s (including the Leicester service here)

As an outsider, I do not know the precise numbers. However, can a combination of this be covered with a fleet essentially based at Nottingham Eastcroft and with outsourced servicing at Canton? Maybe still a small presence in Ardwick?

I am assuming that these will all operate as GBR so interworking at Cardiff between Manchester and Nottingham trains would be possible.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The lack of through corridors on trains with portion working might be a challenge, though. Would the unions accept triple formations with no gangway?

The bigger problem with SWR (now there's no trolley to consider) is the lower capacity of 185s compared to 158s/159s. Converting the first class to 2+2 as per the rest of SWR's long distance fleet would make a small difference to the deficit, but probably not enough to make it work.

 

[Brubulus]

The bigger problem with SWR (now there's no trolley to consider) is the lower capacity of 185s compared to 158s/159s. Converting the first class to 2+2 as per the rest of SWR's long distance fleet would make a small difference to the deficit, but probably not enough to make it work.

Given the track quality and ground conditions on the West of England, I'm not sure NR would be particularly happy with 185s, even though there are currently no differentials. There's additional standing space which somewhat ameliorates the seat deficit, but 45 mins is slightly too long for consistent standing.

EMR is a total nonstarter, as they won't be able to get anywhere near Anglia without being able to use MU or SP differentials.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Given the track quality and ground conditions on the West of England, I'm not sure NR would be particularly happy with 185s, even though there are currently no differentials. There's additional standing space which somewhat ameliorates the seat deficit, but 45 mins is slightly too long for consistent standing.

EMR is a total nonstarter, as they won't be able to get anywhere near Anglia without being able to use MU or SP differentials.

Certainly they'd be no good on the EMR routes into Anglia, but could they be of use to Skegness? It's not a part of the world I'm familiar with, my gut feeling is that the ground conditions there will be similar to the Fens, but there has been HST Summer specials in the past so maybe the route would cope fine with the additional weight?

 

[brad465]

If Project Churchward was going to be very drawn out, GWR could use them as a stop-gap: put them on Cardiff-Exeter/Penzance/Portsmouth services, if clearance can be obtained, then 175s do the Cornish branches and bin off the 150s, while 158s and Turbos focus on the Bristol regional services and Devon branches with increased lengths and the new Portishead and Henbury services.

185s would work very well over the Devon Banks, Cornish gradients and other banks like Whiteball in the same way they were designed for the trans-Pennine gradients, and utilise 90-100mph running from Cardiff-Patchway and Bristol-Newton Abbot.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If Project Churchward was going to be very drawn out, GWR could use them as a stop-gap: put them on Cardiff-Exeter/Penzance/Portsmouth services, if clearance can be obtained, then 175s do the Cornish branches and bin off the 150s, while 158s and Turbos focus on the Bristol regional services and Devon branches with increased lengths and the new Portishead and Henbury services.

185s would work very well over the Devon Banks, Cornish gradients and other banks like Whiteball in the same way they were designed for the trans-Pennine gradients, and utilise 90-100mph running from Cardiff-Patchway and Bristol-Newton Abbot.

Many years ago there was a thread (started by yours truly) discussing where the (as was expected at the time) 22 Class 185 units that were set to leave TPE could go.
IIRC Devon & Cornwall was one of the popular suggestions, particularly the mainline work now set to be served by 175s.

 

[station_road]

Give some to Cross Country to replace the 170s on Nottingham - Cardiff (as 6 coach trains), give the 170s that frees up to EMR who could do with extra trains to strengthen existing routes and also let EMR take over Birmingham - Leicester - Stansted so that Cross Country don't operate 170s anymore

 

[stadler]

The bigger problem with SWR (now there's no trolley to consider) is the lower capacity of 185s compared to 158s/159s. Converting the first class to 2+2 as per the rest of SWR's long distance fleet would make a small difference to the deficit, but probably not enough to make it work.

However it would be 51x 185 replacing 40x 158/159 (or maybe even 38x 158/159 as i recall two are out of use) so there would be lots of extra units to extend more trains. As a result they would be able to run more double units and triple units to increase capacity than they do now. So i doubt it would make things worse overall. Also for busy peak hour trains the 185 would handle the crowds far better with the more spacious and less cramped interior and better door widths and door positions.