Ideas/Predictions for 185s if Nothern Hub goes ahead

[judethegreat]

If operated as a joint service with ScotRail, as Northern do with the Newcastle-Glasgow via Carlisle service... then I don't see why not.

Well, TPE currently run Manchester-Glasgow, and from Leeds would *actually* be trans-pennine, as opposed to from Manc..

 

[Lampshade]

You can't put a 150 interior in one! Firstly it would be incredibly unpopular with the trains users. Secondly, It would make a DDA compliant train non-DDA compliant. Anyway as well as morally it's also physically impossible to put the interior from a 150 (or even a 450) as the bodyshell on a 185 isn't wide enough due to 23m length cars. All trains with 3x2 seating have 20m bodyshells (except 323). Including classes 150, 450 ETC.

Pacers are 15.5m

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Pointless as 185s will be restricted to 25mph over Copy Pit. Extend it to Scarborough by all means, but it needs to be kept 158 operated.

A good point made here about the Copy Pit line. If there is to be no electrification to Scarborough, these 185 units already have much service history on this line.

With regard to the Northern Hub, as mentioned in the title thread, a reading of some postings on other threads does seem to suggest that it will be about July 2012 when, after recentdiscussions, this document will see the current thinking regarding to amendments that well may be made, culminating in a totally new revised document, so I think we should all wait to see what July will bring.

 

[Waverley125]

A limited stop Nottingham-Glasgow service via the S&C would work, potential other routes would be doubling up on Cleethorpes-Manchester Airport, or extending the current North transpennine services into North Wales, e.g. Middlesbrough-Holyhead.

 

[IanXC]

The way York station is laid out in terms of track connections to the North, the least disruptive option is to change to shuttles brought into Platform 2 which can only access the Scarborough lines anyway.

Maybe the second hourly service could be a shuttle, but for Scarborough to loose its through service all together would be a mistake.

If you refurbished a 150 to the same style as a 185 how many seats would it have?

You can't put a 150 interior in one! Firstly it would be incredibly unpopular with the trains users. Secondly, It would make a DDA compliant train non-DDA compliant.

Erm... I'd read the idea again if I were you.

 

[Eagle]

If [Leeds to Glasgow] operated as a joint service with ScotRail, as Northern do with the Newcastle-Glasgow via Carlisle service... then I don't see why not.

That is exactly what happened in ATN/NXSR days (it ran via Kilmarnock, not Carstairs). But there was a reorganization and all the Scotrail/Northern through services ended up being to Newcastle instead.

(Also back then there were ATN/NXSR joint services from Newcastle to Stranraer.)

 

[northwichcat]

You can't put a 150 interior in one! Firstly it would be incredibly unpopular with the trains users. Secondly, It would make a DDA compliant train non-DDA compliant. Anyway as well as morally it's also physically impossible to put the interior from a 150 (or even a 450) as the bodyshell on a 185 isn't wide enough due to 23m length cars. All trains with 3x2 seating have 20m bodyshells (except 323). Including classes 150, 450 ETC.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. Not all 150s have 3+2 seating, not all 150s lack a DDA complaint toilet and wheelchair spaces and 185s may be moved to more commuter style services, after all this thread is about what routes 185s may be moved on after they aren't needed on some of their current services.

 

[Bellwater]

They'll be off to Scotrail to work Aberdeen/Inverness Services.

 

[northwichcat]

They'll be off to Scotrail to work Aberdeen/Inverness Services.

Didn't someone mention likely clearance problems with 185s on those routes the last time someone suggested them?

 

[whhistle]

I despise units which were not built to double up, being doubling up.
170's, 220's, 221's... ugh!

If they were going to break anything down or "double up" services, they should take the centre car(s) out and add them to existing units giving a pool of 2-car units. These then deployed in the same area that uses Sprinters, which can then be deployed to cover pacers.

If they can, get rid of the Turbostars and put them on Sprinter services.

They should keep them together in the north to make use of the depot there.

 

[northwichcat]

If they were going to break anything down or "double up" services, they should take the centre car(s) out and add them to existing units giving a pool of 2-car units. These then deployed in the same area that uses Sprinters, which can then be deployed to cover pacers.

It's been said before and will probably be said again that the 185 centre cars are not trailer vehicles, removing them would require completely re-engineering the units and even if that was done it would mean the 4 car units would have a ridiculous amount of power and the 2 car units would need to be completely refurbished or they'll have less seats than a Pacer.

 

[WatcherZero]

Idea of using them on Scottish Services would be highly dependent on whether SNP via Transport Scotland push through their nationalist policy of only Scottish franchises and Scottish owned rolling stock can cross the border. From what ive heard MAG Airport Group is being dissuaded from purchasing Edinburgh Airport because their afraid in the result of a Scottish independence vote the Scottish Government would nationalise the 'foreign owned' airports.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I could see London Midland taking a few and reinstating the 1653 Preston-Birmingham, probably with extensions to Coventry or wherever, as the stock will be free.
Also they could take over the Carlisle-Newcastle but I'm not sure about how the infastructure would affect the trains up there.
South West Trains may be able to use them as well, so Platforms 1 and 2 could be saved/reinstated at Waterloo as they may be able to hold 185s for a shuttle to South London or a service of the sort.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I could see London Midland taking a few and reinstating the 1653 Preston-Birmingham, probably with extensions to Coventry or wherever, as the stock will be free.
Also they could take over the Carlisle-Newcastle but I'm not sure about how the infastructure would affect the trains up there.
South West Trains may be able to use them as well, so Platforms 1 and 2 could be saved/reinstated at Waterloo as they may be able to hold 185s for a shuttle to South London or a service of the sort.

AFAIK LM only ever ran passenger trains into Preston, never from. I fail to see how 185s would be an effective use of stock when used entirely under OHLE (PRE-COV), or entirely on third rail (around South London).

 

[David]

Why would LM want to take on a few 185s for an fully under the wire service that runs just once a day? Especially seeing as they are getting a few more 350s! :?

Some of the stuff you come out with at times is utterly stupid!

Once the NW, Newcastle and Scotland routes are wired and fully EMU operated, the 170s will be free, with the rest of the non wired services can all be 185 operated, with quite a few doubled up. There's also the possibilty of other Trans Pennine routes being able to switch to 185 operation.

PS> I think LM are after re-jigging services anyway, with 1 Birmingham - Liverpool service going to Preston instead, and the Euston - Crewe service being extended to Liverpool.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

AFAIK LM only ever ran passenger trains into Preston, never from. I fail to see how 185s would be an effective use of stock when used entirely under OHLE (PRE-COV), or entirely on third rail (around South London).

Other way around, 1653 from Preston, calling at Wigan, Warrington, Crewe, Stafford, Wolves, Sandwell and Dudley, and New Street.
It's a definite use, how many 185s are there exactly? They could be distributed like the 170s and 158s so a number of companies boast them.

 

[WatcherZero]

When TPE do get more electrics the 350's will go back to London Midland anyway and they would be more suited to Birmingham-Preston.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's a definite use, how many 185s are there exactly? They could be distributed like the 170s and 158s so a number of companies boast them.

There are 51.

Also the 185s should be split up as little as possible and if at all possible remain somewhere so that the whole fleet can be maintained in the purpose built facilities in York and Manchester. There are advantages to keeping a fleet together under one operator or within the same depots.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

When TPE do get more electrics the 350's will go back to London Midland anyway and they would be more suited to Birmingham-Preston.

TPE only run 170s and 185s AFAIK.

@ainsworth74 ah right. Maybe a Sunderland service, sprung to mind?

 

[ainsworth74]

TPE only run 170s and 185s AFAIK.

@ainsworth74 ah right. Maybe a Sunderland service, sprung to mind?

Currently they only run those however in the next few years they will receive 350s to run Manchester - Scotland (sub-leased from LM) and those will eventually be replaced by purpose built EMUs.

A Sunderland service from/to?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Other way around, 1653 from Preston, calling at Wigan, Warrington, Crewe, Stafford, Wolves, Sandwell and Dudley, and New Street.

Using 185s would be a complete and utter waste. Anyway, I can definetely remember LM serving Crewe-Preston northbound only, however I am fairly sure there was no return working.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

Currently they only run those however in the next few years they will receive 350s to run Manchester - Scotland (sub-leased from LM) and those will eventually be replaced by purpose built EMUs.

A Sunderland service from/to?

Oh right, sounds interesting. Going to get looking up 350's

Both, Sunderland holds potential, and maybe a TPX orbital from Manchester-Carlisle-Newcastle-Sunderland-York-Leeds-Manchester as another possibility.

 

[northwichcat]

South West Trains may be able to use them as well, so Platforms 1 and 2 could be saved/reinstated at Waterloo as they may be able to hold 185s for a shuttle to South London or a service of the sort.

I fail to see how 185s would be an effective use of stock when used entirely under OHLE (PRE-COV), or entirely on third rail (around South London).

The advantages and disadvantages of 185s going to SWT have already been discussed.

158/9s do go in to Waterloo but not on any shuttle service. SWT do, however, use 158s on fully electrified lines.

I could see London Midland taking a few and reinstating the 1653 Preston-Birmingham, probably with extensions to Coventry or wherever, as the stock will be free.

I have the December 07 timetable to hand and the service was a 16:51 Birmingham TO Preston service. That was a left over from when CT tried to introduce a regular Birmingham-Preston service but couldn't get enough paths out of New Street so they introduced a token service to see whether it would work.

However, like other people have said there seems to be no logic in using a 185 on that service. Hopefully by the time North TPE gets electrified, new stock is ordered to replace the 350s that will be put on Scottish services, allowing more 350s for LM.

PS> I think LM are after re-jigging services anyway, with 1 Birmingham - Liverpool service going to Preston instead, and the Euston - Crewe service being extended to Liverpool.

Yes they have applied to the ORR to make those changes but were told they couldn't until the details of the next WCML franchise were known. Network Rail are keen to work on their proposals.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

Well everything that's been said seems right.
So on the topic of LM, any Euston-Preston?
And on TPX, is the orbital I posted above viable?

 

[northwichcat]

And on TPX, is the orbital I posted above viable?

I'm sure you'll get some negative responses on that. A lot of people on here don't like DMUs on services that are at least 75% under the wires.

 

[Ivo]

As much as I would like to see them down here I can't see the point. 172s would be a much better option. Could there be any potential for CrossCountry to take a few on instead of the 170s currently used, and run double formations wherever possible/necessary? Otherwise, the de facto cross-country (note the lack of capital letters) run between Liverpool and Norwich is a good bet, but again their speed would be wasted east of Peterborough (or possibly Ely?).

Would there be any potential for them to run some of the local services on the northern end of the MML (and surrounding lines)? Nottingham to Glasgow has been mentioned, but what about routes like Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley? Running 185s on these routes would allow the 158s currently in use to double up for Scarborough to eliminate any capacity issues the (potential) 185 withdrawal would create there.

I despise units which were not built to double up, being doubling up.
170's, 220's, 221's... ugh!

Don't ever go to Southend/Chelmsford/Colchester with that attitude. Trains in those areas were designed to double up, which matches what you say - but also lack end corridors, which doesn't. Would you say the same about the Javelins?

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I'm sure you'll get some negative responses on that. A lot of people on here don't like DMUs on services that are at least 75% under the wires.

Wait, the 185's a DMU? That's actually explained quite a lot.
I've actually taken a liking to Ivo's idea. 185s have a lot of potential, notably in the north.

 

[tbtc]

I love the way that in a thread about "where units could go" it always tends to be on poster's local lines - that said the idea of running 185s on Coventry Preston??? No chance...

The reason for not mentioning the Carlisle - Newcastle - Sunderland - Middlesbrough services (currently run by Northern) is that its been discussed in the past that displaced 166s may be suitable for these (given that their "cleared" routes appear to already include most of the Heaton ones). But who knows...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wait, the 185's a DMU? That's actually explained quite a lot

You've been suggesting suitable lines for them to run on without understanding what type of train they are?

 

[northwichcat]

Could there be any potential for CrossCountry to take a few on instead of the 170s currently used, and run double formations wherever possible/necessary?

Really that depends on what routes finish up in which franchises. The McNulty review recommended the TPE franchise being split up in to other franchises with different options mentioned, so having 185s on both Manchester to Barrow and Manchester to Cleethorpes in the future may only be possible if 185s are split between operators.

Otherwise, the de facto cross-country (note the lack of capital letters) run between Liverpool and Norwich is a good bet, but again their speed would be wasted east of Peterborough (or possibly Ely?).

There's also possible issues with the units being too heavy for sections of the line between Peterborough and Norwich.


Just reading the above two points together and thinking about the the Scotrail idea again, with them having 59 x 3 car 170s and being expected to release some 158s after further electrification, why not have all the 170s in England and all the 185s in Scotland? I appreciate that not all Scotrail 170 routes would be suitable for 185s but they'll also have Sprinters.

Nottingham to Glasgow has been mentioned, but what about routes like Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley? Running 185s on these routes would allow the 158s currently in use to double up for Scarborough to eliminate any capacity issues the (potential) 185 withdrawal would create there.

144s are also used on Sheffield-Leeds via Barnsley.

The 3 car 158s at Northern were supposed to be for the Blackpool to York services (and have more capacity than a 3 car 185) but because of Metro interference some of the Blackpool-York services are overcrowded 2 car 158s.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

^To be fair I'd rather 185s. Less capacity, but without a doubt a better ride, with better amenities onboard, suited for a journey around the same length as Wigan-Euston, and would be even more important if it extends to Scarby.