Should 185s be permitted to use MU speed limits and possible future use

[D6130]

Could they be used on Morecambe-Leeds or is the track too knackered?

According to the Sectional Appendix, class 185 units - along with 170s, 175s, 220s and 221s - are not permitted between Settle Junction and Carnforth Station Junction.

 

[randyrippley]

According to the Sectional Appendix, class 185 units - along with 170s, 175s, 220s and 221s - are not permitted between Settle Junction and Carnforth Station Junction.

Yet steam locos are OK
Funny old world sometimes

 

[Neptune]

but it's a perfect route..........lots of hills and long gaps between stations

Haha I get you. I suspect the track is too far gone

 

[Nick Ashwell]

TfW won't want to continue running LHCS if there is a suitable DMU available; within the next few years at least some of the 185 fleet will likely go off lease, so here you have a potentially excellent replacement.

They specifically went for LHCS, it was a decision made to improve the onboard environment.

I'd like to know why they'd go for 185s when they could have just ordered addition 197s which they have a maintenance setup for and wouldn't require the building of an entirely new depot?

 

[D6130]

Yet steam locos are OK

Yes, so are class 47s/57s. It's all down to the axle loading. I can't quote the exact figures off hand, but I suspect that the weight per axle of a 'Duchess' Pacific is less than that of a class 185 vehicle.

 

[43096]

Yes, so are class 47s/57s. It's all down to the axle loading. I can't quote the exact figures off hand, but I suspect that the weight per axle of a 'Duchess' Pacific is less than that of a class 185 vehicle.

Class 47/57 have a higher RA than a 185. It's more likely that there's never been a need to clear those classes for the route. It doesn't mean they can't be cleared at some point in the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd like to know why they'd go for 185s when they could have just ordered addition 197s which they have a maintenance setup for and wouldn't require the building of an entirely new depot?

Or if they wanted LHCS style ambiance then I'm sure CAF would do a 5-car end doored Civity. The platform seems quite flexible, with WMT having been able to move the doors and window sizes/positions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2023 ==

Overkill for that route. The 2/3 car 158’s are more than fine interworking with the S&C services.

158s are getting old and something will need to replace them, though in Northern's case it could well be cascaded Civities if they do a bi-mode order?

185s would actually work quite well on scenic lines. Big windows aligned to seats, and the ability to flog first class upgrades to tourists.

 

[778]

Or if they wanted LHCS style ambiance then I'm sure CAF would do a 5-car end doored Civity. The platform seems quite flexible, with WMT having been able to move the doors and window sizes/positions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2023 ==



158s are getting old and something will need to replace them, though in Northern's case it could well be cascaded Civities if they do a bi-mode order?

185s would actually work quite well on scenic lines. Big windows aligned to seats, and the ability to flog first class upgrades to tourists.

I know it wont happpen, but I think they would be very good for the West of England line.

 

[Neptune]

Or if they wanted LHCS style ambiance then I'm sure CAF would do a 5-car end doored Civity. The platform seems quite flexible, with WMT having been able to move the doors and window sizes/positions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2023 ==

It’s extremely flexible as a platform from what I understand. 397 body with a 197 cab in bi-mode form anyone?

158s are getting old and something will need to replace them, though in Northern's case it could well be cascaded Civities if they do a bi-mode order?

Around 2030 at the latest for the 158’s to be gone from Northern. The consultation on sprinter replacement is still ongoing but hopefully we’ll hear what’s happening before long.

185s would actually work quite well on scenic lines. Big windows aligned to seats, and the ability to flog first class upgrades to tourists.

The friends of the S&C said a few years ago that they would like to see 170’s or 185’s cascaded to the route. Cue the massive ‘door prejudice’ outrage which normally accompanies such a suggestion!

 

[ChrisC]

Would they be good as a replacement for the HSTs in Scotland especially for Glasgow/Edinburgh to Inverness. Good distances between stops and certainly some good gradients. Quite suitable for journeys of that length.

 

[Philip]

They specifically went for LHCS, it was a decision made to improve the onboard environment.

I'd like to know why they'd go for 185s when they could have just ordered addition 197s which they have a maintenance setup for and wouldn't require the building of an entirely new depot?

185s could still be maintained at Ardwick as it's at one end of the route. Surely leasing some 185s (if they go off lease) would be cheaper than ordering more new DMU trains?

 

[Neptune]

185s could still be maintained at Ardwick as its at one end of the route. Surely leasing some 185s (if they go off lease) would be cheaper than ordering more new DMU trains?

Are you also replacing the loco hauled services on the North Wales coast too? I mean you were concerned about the costs of clearance on tiny bits of route linked to the Calder Valley.

Can you show us the costings comparing leasing and all the associated start up costs of a small pool of 185’s including the huge amount of clearance costs involved, paying Siemens to maintain the small fleet at Ardwick and crew and fitter training across the TfW network compared to an add on order for 197’s which need none of the above amd have a longer end life date.

 

[dosxuk]

Surely leasing some 185s (if they go off lease) would be cheaper than ordering more new DMU trains?

No, it likely isn't. If they order new trains, they will still be leasing them - those costs will be based on what the leasing company thinks they're worth over the term of any lease - so a new train with guaranteed work for the foreseeable future, is quite likely to be cheaper to lease than an older train with a shorter potential use. Then you have the difference in specification, a new sprinter replacement is going to be cheaper to build and maintain than the 185's cost to build and maintain. Finally you also have the running costs - 185s are expensive to run. 195's are significantly cheaper - something that will also factor in to the return-on-investment time for the leaser of the 185's - would Northern drop the 185's as soon as something cheaper to operate becomes available?

While it may seem wasteful to throw away something halfway through it's life over something built new, that's not the way that leasing works. Leasing is all about turning capital expenditure - where you would want to eek out the maximum value for something you bought - into operation expenditure - where you only care about what it's costing you to use today. It's not Northern, Transpennine Express or any other TOC that the 185's don't have alternative uses - it's the leasing companies who actually own the stock - and if they've earnt enough money to pay for the initial outlay, then off to the scrapyard if they can't find anyone else willing to pay - they're not out of pocket.

Of course, there is also an argument that the leasing companies should do more to make their stock appealing to alternative operators, but from their point of view, if it's paid for itself, nobody wants it in it's current state, what is the point in doing so? There's a good chance they would also be better off buying new stock and leasing it for a longer period.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s extremely flexible as a platform from what I understand. 397 body with a 197 cab in bi-mode form anyone?

<pokes Northern, quietly whispering "oi, Barrow, Windermere, DMUs under wires, you know" >

The friends of the S&C said a few years ago that they would like to see 170’s or 185’s cascaded to the route. Cue the massive ‘door prejudice’ outrage which normally accompanies such a suggestion!

The 170 is probably the best "scenic lines" unit the UK has. It's not quite shaped like one of those Swiss units with the roofline windows, but the "tilt profile"* and very large windows mean an unrivalled view, probably better than the boxy Swiss ones! Plus unless you have the misfortune to come across one of the ex-MML units with an extra row squashed in* the seats and windows are almost fully aligned.

The Civity and 185 are very close behind to be fair, though if you built a scenic lines Civity you'd want to fix the window alignment (which to be fair the 197 does better than the 195 even if it is a bit of a compromise).

* I know it isn't really, but even by normal UK standards the sidewalls are very steeply raked.
** Or did they take a row out and rejig? I think XC have them, I can't recall when I last came across one.

 

[sprinterguy]

Yes, so are class 47s/57s. It's all down to the axle loading. I can't quote the exact figures off hand, but I suspect that the weight per axle of a 'Duchess' Pacific is less than that of a class 185 vehicle.

In this case, not really, more down to the fact, as 43096 mentions above, that there's never been a need to clear units like the 185s or Voyagers over the route. A 'Duchess' has a maximum axle loading of over 22 tonnes, a class 185 has a maximum of 18.5 tonnes.

 

[adamedwards]

Since the 185s were built, has there been any change to enable a lighter but as powerful diesel engine for each car? Would this make enough of a difference? Or does it need something more expensive like new inside frame bogies, in which case probably not worth it?

 

[Nick Ashwell]

185s could still be maintained at Ardwick as it's at one end of the route. Surely leasing some 185s (if they go off lease) would be cheaper than ordering more new DMU trains?

I may not like the Welsh government myself, but them having yet another depot in England would be political suicide and they just aren't that stupid.

185s would be way more expensive than more Civitys, they need a whole new maintenance contract, alongside training costs. To replace a few Mk4 sets it seems ridiculous, and that's ignoring the lack of catering facilities etc which is why the WAG special runs, to cater for MSs who are up north, especially with the withdrawal of the WAG subsidised flight!

 

[skyhigh]

Since the 185s were built, has there been any change to enable a lighter but as powerful diesel engine for each car? Would this make enough of a difference?

If you put new engines in, them you'd have to meet the current emissions regs which means more kit. So even if you could find a lighter engine (which only makes up a relatively small amount of the overall unit weight) you'd probably lose that advantage on the extra kit needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2023 ==

What if one engine was removed from the 185s?

Good luck with that. Having one lighter vehicle can cause other issues - hence why the trailer vehicle that was added into 333s had large weights installed underneath after they'd been in service because it wasn't working as intended. Braking was a particular issue.

 

[Meerkat]

Good luck with that. Having one lighter vehicle can cause other issues - hence why the trailer vehicle that was added into 333s had large weights installed underneath after they'd been in service because it wasn't working as intended. Braking was a particular issue.

Replace an engine with a battery, that would reduce running costs and win green points - is there a power bus along the unit?

 

[dosxuk]

Replace an engine with a battery, that would reduce running costs and win green points - is there a power bus along the unit?

The 185's have mechanical transmission, so would need completely retractioning to allow for battery powering.

 

[Meerkat]

The 185's have mechanical transmission, so would need completely retractioning to allow for battery powering.

There's always someone with facts spoiling the crayoning fun!

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's always someone with facts spoiling the crayoning fun!

To be fair the Chiltern hybrid project does add electric motors and batteries to a mechanical transmission DMU so if* it is a success could presumably be adapted to the more powerful engines. It's not the proverbial rocket science, most "mild hybrid" cars work that way rather than electric transmission. (A "mild hybrid" has a small battery and uses a beefed up starter motor to provide electrical assist and regenerative braking, adding a bit of performance to a small ICE engine and typically saving 5-10% on fuel).

If you want a full Desiro BMU then you want to start with a 350/2, not a 185.

* I don't think "bodge an existing unit" has always been universally so

 

[RailWonderer]

A nice experiment would be to take a single 185, replace the engines with lighter, modern more efficient engines and lighter bogie frames and see how much weight would be lost and fuel economy to be gained and call it the class 186. If that would make it more attractive to lease the ROSCO would consider something like that.

If they did the 769 conversions I’m sure if the 185s were that heavy and inefficient and that turned off TOCs and the economics added up the owner would consider a refit.

 

[zwk500]

Yet steam locos are OK
Funny old world sometimes

Has anybody asked to run a Class 185 over that route? And Steam is only cleared for 12 months at a time, their paperwork needs regular review.

 

[skyhigh]

A nice experiment would be to take a single 185, replace the engines with lighter, modern more efficient engines and lighter bogie frames and see how much weight would be lost and fuel economy to be gained and call it the class 186. If that would make it more attractive to lease the ROSCO would consider something like that.

Why would you ruin a perfectly good unit by doing that? You could simply model it and come up with a fairly accurate picture of how the results would compare.

 

[XAM2175]

The 185's have mechanical transmission, so would need completely retractioning to allow for battery powering.

Hydrokinetic, actually, but the point remains the same.

 

[D365]

A nice experiment would be to take a single 185, replace the engines with lighter, modern more efficient engines and lighter bogie frames and see how much weight would be lost and fuel economy to be gained and call it the class 186. If that would make it more attractive to lease the ROSCO would consider something like that.

Some people seem keen to assign TOPS numbers before anything else!

 

[MattRat]

Some people seem keen to assign TOPS numbers before anything else!

Well it would need a class or subclass regardless, although the hydrive 168 didn't become a 169, so it's more likely this new 185 would be a subclass.

 

[Neptune]

Some people seem keen to assign TOPS numbers before anything else!

Strange isn’t it. I just don’t get it. Whenever a new build train is announced the first thing that happens on here is “I bet it’ll be class xxx” and generally they’re totally wrong.

 

[D365]

Well it would need a class or subclass regardless, although the hydrive 168 didn't become a 169, so it's more likely this new 185 would be a subclass.

What I mean is that people get excited about assigning vehicle numbers to new/converted vehicles before even thinking about whether their proposals make engineering sense.