Would ex TPE Class 185s be suitable for Chiltern?

[TWBG]

Moderator note - split from:

Chiltern 165/0 refresh

Does anyone know when the Chiltern 165 refresh is expected to start? Or have I missed something!

www.railforums.co.uk

I’m going to be honest, Instead of putting a tender out for new diesel trains, why don’t they buy newer diesels such as TPX’s 51x 185s, those are better for commuter lines out of London Marylebone to Aylesbury and beyond via Harrow or Wembley. TPX can order 35-50 6-car bimode Verve units

 

[MerlinRail 804]

I’m going to be honest, Instead of putting a tender out for new diesel trains, why don’t they buy newer diesels such as TPX’s 51x 185s, those are better for commuter lines out of London Marylebone to Aylesbury and beyond via Harrow or Wembley. TPX can order 35-50 6-car bimode Verve units

I’m not sure 185s would be the best fit for those routes though. I don’t know what their performance is like but I can imagine them struggling with some of the hills. I know the 165s have better acceleration than 168s, so they’re already decent for the commuter operations, especially considering the Aylesbury line is max 75mph once out of LUL area. It new trains combined with electrification of some kind that they really need.

 

[Mordac]

I’m not sure 185s would be the best fit for those routes though. I don’t know what their performance is like but I can imagine them struggling with some of the hills. I know the 165s have better acceleration than 168s, so they’re already decent for the commuter operations, especially considering the Aylesbury line is max 75mph once out of LUL area. It new trains combined with electrification of some kind that they really need.

The 185s were specced for the Pennines, they'd absolutely be able to handle the Chilterns.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

The 185s were specced for the Pennines, they'd absolutely be able to handle the Chilterns.

Ah yes of course. I think I was thinking of their weight or something like that meaning they needed lower speed limits in some places.
Or am I bugging?

 

[sad1e]

Moderator note - split from:

Chiltern 165/0 refresh

Does anyone know when the Chiltern 165 refresh is expected to start? Or have I missed something!

www.railforums.co.uk

I’m going to be honest, Instead of putting a tender out for new diesel trains, why don’t they buy newer diesels such as TPX’s 51x 185s, those are better for commuter lines out of London Marylebone to Aylesbury and beyond via Harrow or Wembley. TPX can order 35-50 6-car bimode Verve units

The main thing is if the 185s would be able to be fitted with Tripcocks for the signalling over LUL metals.

If they can't they're wholly unsuited for Chiltern as they won't be able to do the Aylesbury via Met services.

 

[172007]

Class 185's came with a maintenence contract so unless it can be bought out at a reasonable price then Chiltern would probably have to send the 185's to York and Manchester for all maintenence and i guess Aylesbury would close except for fueling, toileting and stabling.

Ain't going to happen.

Got to love the DaFT's rolling stock procurement ideas.

 

[RailWonderer]

Class 185's came with a maintenence contract so unless it can be bought out at a reasonable price then Chiltern would probably have to send the 185's to York and Manchester for all maintenence and i guess Aylesbury would close except for fueling, toileting and stabling.

Ain't going to happen.

Got to love the DaFT's rolling stock procurement ideas.

That's why I think it's more likely that after the TRU the spare 185s will replace 158s on SWR since they already have the 450s and 444s which Siemens would be able to maintain in the same places like Northam. I also think the North Downs should be handed over the SWR at the same time.

 

[43096]

Class 185's came with a maintenence contract so unless it can be bought out at a reasonable price then Chiltern would probably have to send the 185's to York and Manchester for all maintenence and i guess Aylesbury would close except for fueling, toileting and stabling.

That contract will have an end date and is likely coterminous with the lease. In that regard very similar to the Class 175s at Chester depot - it hasn’t stopped their redeployment.

 

[stevieinselby]

Ah yes of course. I think I was thinking of their weight or something like that meaning they needed lower speed limits in some places.
Or am I bugging?

That's right, 185s are lardy beasts and so are not allowed to use MU speed limits. So while the hills wouldn't faze them, there is a lot of the Chiltern route where they would be limited to substantially lower speeds than the 168s ... but the same is true for the 68+Mk5As, so it can't be a deal breaker for them, and I would expect that the 185s would have better acceleration and braking.

 

[Russel]

That's right, 185s are lardy beasts and so are not allowed to use MU speed limits. So while the hills wouldn't faze them, there is a lot of the Chiltern route where they would be limited to substantially lower speeds than the 168s ... but the same is true for the 68+Mk5As, so it can't be a deal breaker for them, and I would expect that the 185s would have better acceleration and braking.

Apologies in advance because I know very little about engine management etc, so what I'm about to ask may be nonsense!

Can the 185's engines/gear setup be downrated to lower their power output and fuel consumption if the higher power isn't needed if moved away from the Pennines? I know it wouldn't do anything about them being somewhat overweight, but may save a few quid on fuel...

 

[HSTEd]

That's right, 185s are lardy beasts and so are not allowed to use MU speed limits. So while the hills wouldn't faze them, there is a lot of the Chiltern route where they would be limited to substantially lower speeds than the 168s ... but the same is true for the 68+Mk5As, so it can't be a deal breaker for them, and I would expect that the 185s would have better acceleration and braking.

As far as I can tell from the Electronic Sectional Appendix there are no 'MU' limits on the route between Marylebone and Snow Hill. There are some 'HST' posted limits and a negative 'SP' differential (which has to be rare!).

I don't know if Class 185 qualifies for 'HST'.

EDIT: It apparently does not, so there would be sections of 70HST90 and 75HST100 where they would have to run slower than something like a 168. Plus a little 90HST95 which probably doesn't matter very much.

 

[The Planner]

That's right, 185s are lardy beasts and so are not allowed to use MU speed limits. So while the hills wouldn't faze them, there is a lot of the Chiltern route where they would be limited to substantially lower speeds than the 168s ... but the same is true for the 68+Mk5As, so it can't be a deal breaker for them, and I would expect that the 185s would have better acceleration and braking.

The 68s and Mk3s could use the line speed. I'd be amazed if the Mk5s weren't given the same.

 

[stevieinselby]

Can the 185's engines/gear setup be downrated to lower their power output and fuel consumption if the higher power isn't needed if moved away from the Pennines? I know it wouldn't do anything about them being somewhat overweight, but may save a few quid on fuel...

When built, the 185s were fitted with some wizardry that would shut one of the three engines down when they were running on flatter sections of the route like Hull, Liverpool, North Lincs, and were they could play on easy mode and keep to time running on two engines, to save on fuel and wear-and-tear, but would then power up the third engine when they came to the hilly bits and needed to be able to give it the beans. Unfortunately this system turned out to be unreliable and caused more problems than it solved, so it was deactivated and the trains have all three engines running.

If they were moved to a route where they weren't going to need anything near the full 2250bhp per train then I don't know how easy it would be to permanently downrate the engine and whether that would save a lot of fuel compared to just running it with a light throttle – or whether it would be better long-term to just decommission one of the engines in each set.

As far as I can tell from the Electronic Sectional Appendix there are no 'MU' limits on the route between Marylebone and Snow Hill. There are some 'HST' posted limits and a negative 'SP' differential (which has to be rare!).

Ah, my mistake, I was thinking the unlabelled differential speed limits were for MU/loco, not passenger/freight. In that case, the 185s should be at least as quick as anything else Chiltern have or have had.

 

[Russel]

When built, the 185s were fitted with some wizardry that would shut one of the three engines down when they were running on flatter sections of the route like Hull, Liverpool, North Lincs, and were they could play on easy mode and keep to time running on two engines, to save on fuel and wear-and-tear, but would then power up the third engine when they came to the hilly bits and needed to be able to give it the beans. Unfortunately this system turned out to be unreliable and caused more problems than it solved, so it was deactivated and the trains have all three engines running.

Crosscountry have recently added this feature to their 5 car Voyagers which I believe have the same engines as the 185 so maybe the technology has moved on since TPE's early attempt and could be worth looking at again?

 

[Bletchleyite]

When built, the 185s were fitted with some wizardry that would shut one of the three engines down when they were running on flatter sections of the route like Hull, Liverpool, North Lincs, and were they could play on easy mode and keep to time running on two engines, to save on fuel and wear-and-tear, but would then power up the third engine when they came to the hilly bits and needed to be able to give it the beans. Unfortunately this system turned out to be unreliable and caused more problems than it solved, so it was deactivated and the trains have all three engines running.

When was this disabled? I have experienced it in use quite recently, certainly in the last five years. I thought it was a retrofit, not as built.

It was set up to rotate which engines were used so the engine hours for each would be the same, rather than just always being one e.g. the middle vehicle. It often started and stopped different engines while in service so was quite noticeable.

 

[dodecahedron67]

Eco Mode is very much still a thing on 185s, whether or not most drivers override it is another…

 

[Bletchleyite]

One does wonder if, were the 185s to be redeployed to somewhere that never needed the extra power (unlike TPE, where it is useful for keeping time on the hilly bits), it would make sense to actually remove the engines from the middle coaches entirely and keep them for spares. Fit a concrete block in their place if it caused suspension issues to do so.

As to whether 185s would be suitable for Chiltern, I don't see why they'd be unsuitable, though they would probably want to convert first class to Standard as there'd otherwise be rather too much of it - same as if they were to go to Northern. Aside from being overpowered and a bit heavy, they're just another variant on the "3 car third generation DMU" theme, not wildly different from a 168. They'd also be fine for the West of England. As to tripcocks, if they can be fitted then fine, if not then you'd just not use them on the Aylesbury branch (just as they aren't using Mk3s or Mk5as on there) and make that all 168, as presumably if they came in they'd be to replace 165s. If you need to get stock on and off Aylesbury you can always send it via Princes Risborough.

 

[notadriver]

Havent they removed tripcocks from tne metropolitan lul line now the S stock is here?

 

[CarrotPie]

Havent they removed tripcocks from tne metropolitan lul line now the S stock is here?

No. There were/are plans to expand CBTC (in-cab) signalling for at least S Stock trains out to the far reaches of the Met, but I don't know if that's still a thing or not. Either way, LUL and Chiltern still only use tripcocks at the moment.

 

[The Foghorn]

I see little point in removing engines when they are being shut down on a rotating basis by a system that seems to work. I concede that weight and maintenance costs can be reduced, but only at the expense of thrashing the remaining two engines perpetually. Furthermore, you are effectively carrying round a spare engine should one fail in service, so that unit will be able to continue in service and complete it's diagram.

 

[Wokingham]

if the dates were better would be great if the 185s could go to swr and replace the current diesel fleet and also allow them to takeover the north downs, i also think the 180s would also be a great fit for gwr again but i think the dates for any of these ideas wont line up well to make it worthwhile, especially as we still have no idea what will happen to the former tocs once gbr takes over.

 

[3RDGEN]

Class 185's came with a maintenence contract so unless it can be bought out at a reasonable price then Chiltern would probably have to send the 185's to York and Manchester for all maintenence and i guess Aylesbury would close except for fueling, toileting and stabling.

Ain't going to happen.

Got to love the DaFT's rolling stock procurement ideas.

Siemens announced a new maintenance contract back in May 2023 for eight years to 2031 which matches with their current planned replacement from existing North TPE services;

"https://press.siemens.com/global/en...tract-rail-vehicles-north-england-worth-eu530" -

Siemens Mobility secures service contract for rail vehicles in North of England worth €530 million -​

Contract to maintain 51-strong Class 185 train fleet gets extension for 8 years, until 2031. Siemens Mobility has been awarded a contract extension for the maintenance of the Class 185 fleet serving TransPennine Express routes operating between Manchester, Sheffield and Cleethorpes and Manchester to Hull from northwest of England depots. The majority of maintenance work will take place at Ardwick Depot, Manchester and subsidiary depots at York and Cleethorpes.

The number of 185 units TPE would likely release is similar to the number of EMR 158's, for which there are no replacement plans yet, they could also continue being maintained at Ardwick.

 

[Russel]

The number of 185 units TPE would likely release is similar to the number of EMR 158's, for which there are no replacement plans yet, they could also continue being maintained at Ardwick.

That's not a bad option really.

 

[brad465]

Reading the Project Churchward thread got me thinking, if TPE get their 185s replaced before any prospect of a wider GWR DMU replacement is achieved, I can see 185s finding a home with GWR for a few years at least: the South Devon Banks and other steep gradients in Devon and Cornwall would be in their element, and there's enough of them to replace 150s and 158s with some leftover (there's not enough to also replace all the Turbos as well). If they took over these routes, they could cascade 175s to the branch lines, though this isn't their most ideal use.

 

[VT 390]

Reading the Project Churchward thread got me thinking, if TPE get their 185s replaced before any prospect of a wider GWR DMU replacement is achieved, I can see 185s finding a home with GWR for a few years at least: the South Devon Banks and other steep gradients in Devon and Cornwall would be in their element, and there's enough of them to replace 150s and 158s with some leftover (there's not enough to also replace all the Turbos as well). If they took over these routes, they could cascade 175s to the branch lines, though this isn't their most ideal use.

Wouldn't some class 150 need to remain with GWR for the Gunnislake and (I think) Looe branch lines as I believe these lines are can only accommodate 20 metre long carriage multiple units.

 

[stevieinselby]

Reading the Project Churchward thread got me thinking, if TPE get their 185s replaced before any prospect of a wider GWR DMU replacement is achieved, I can see 185s finding a home with GWR for a few years at least: the South Devon Banks and other steep gradients in Devon and Cornwall would be in their element, and there's enough of them to replace 150s and 158s with some leftover (there's not enough to also replace all the Turbos as well). If they took over these routes, they could cascade 175s to the branch lines, though this isn't their most ideal use.

I don't know how busy the services along the main line between Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance are, but they predominantly use 5-car sets (although it was mostly 4-car sets when the Castles were still running the mainstay) – would 3-car class 185s have enough capacity for those services?

 

[brad465]

I don't know how busy the services along the main line between Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance are, but they predominantly use 5-car sets (although it was mostly 4-car sets when the Castles were still running the mainstay) – would 3-car class 185s have enough capacity for those services?

If you could run some of them in 6-car formation that would cover it. 3-car would be enough outside of tourist season.