Ideas/Predictions for 185s if Nothern Hub goes ahead

[tbtc]

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

On the stopper through Castleford, sometimes, but generally not the semi-fasts that the 158s run (they couldn't run to Nottingham anyway).

More likely to get a 144 on a Dearne Valley service between Sheffield and Leeds

 

[ainsworth74]

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

Seriously you didn't realise that the 185s are DMUs!?!? And yet you still felt informed enough to offer opinions on where they could find future employment (as if where they're being used currently wasn't clue enough!!)?

For the record 1xx units are DMUs, 2xx units are DEMUs, 3xx units are AC EMUs, 4xx units are DC EMUs (though the distinction between 3xx and 4xx is pretty much none existent any more) and 5xx are also DC EMUs (generally deployed in the North of the country around Liverpool these days and formally around Manchester).

 

[tbtc]

^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.

You've confused me here. Again.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

You've confused me here. Again.

Blackpool-York is a long journey. It needs amenities onboard for people to be able to have an enjoyable journey, or at least what's better than 158s. If it gets extended to Scarby, then it should need to have upgrades to enable better journeys, if this can be done of course.

And I always thought 170s and 185s were EMUs! So thanks for the facts, I'm getting there!

 

[Ivo]

And I always thought 170s and 185s were EMUs! So thanks for the facts, I'm getting there!

If a 170 was an EMU it would have been a 357. If a 185 was a DMU it would have been a 360.

(Well, probably - but there's a bit of a difference between 170s and 357s!)

 

[northwichcat]

Blackpool-York is a long journey. It needs amenities onboard for people to be able to have an enjoyable journey, or at least what's better than 158s. If it gets extended to Scarby, then it should need to have upgrades to enable better journeys, if this can be done of course.

158s can have catering facilities on board, like they do with East Midlands Trains. If Northern had 185s to run York to Blackpool it's unlikely they would provide catering.

And I always thought 170s and 185s were EMUs! So thanks for the facts, I'm getting there!

If an EMU makes as much engine noise as a 185 does then it's a very poor design or in need of immediate attention.

 

[tbtc]

Blackpool-York is a long journey. It needs amenities onboard for people to be able to have an enjoyable journey, or at least what's better than 158s. If it gets extended to Scarby, then it should need to have upgrades to enable better journeys, if this can be done of course.

And I always thought 170s and 185s were EMUs! So thanks for the facts, I'm getting there!

Ah, Scarborough, got ya

(I was thinking that Scarby must be some local station near Preston I'd not heard of...)

 

[Grimsby town]

I don't know if this would work but surely the 185's, if they could be cleared, could be sent to Wales in a direct swap for the 175's and 158's There's 51 175's and 158's according to wiki and 51 185's. I'd also send some 153s/155's there to boost capacity. The 175s and 158's can then go were ever they're needed.

 

[ukrob]

I don't know if this would work but surely the 185's, if they could be cleared, could be sent to Wales in a direct swap for the 175's and 158's There's 51 175's and 158's according to wiki and 51 185's. I'd also send some 153s/155's there to boost capacity. The 175s and 158's can then go were ever they're needed.

Just... why?

A few people have touched on the Liverpool to Norwich but have come to the barrier of weight and speed.

Simply split the route with Liverpool - Nottingham formed of six car 185's and Nottingham - Norwich with single 158s.

 

[Eagle]

Wait, the 185's a DMU?

Christ almighty...

Yes, like every train class starting with 1... it's not exactly like they don't pass through Preston enough for you not to notice they don't have a pantograph.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ah, Scarborough, got ya

(I was thinking that Scarby must be some local station near Preston I'd not heard of...)

Different lot of Vikings on the west coast to those on the east coast, but they all seem to use the same "-by" suffix. To name a few on the west coastal areas, you have Flimby, Crosby, Formby,etc.

 

[northwichcat]

On the stopper through Castleford, sometimes, but generally not the semi-fasts that the 158s run (they couldn't run to Nottingham anyway).

More likely to get a 144 on a Dearne Valley service between Sheffield and Leeds

I thought they were some 3 car 144s booked on the fasts which don't continue to Nottingham.

It seems the Sheffield-Leeds services are referred to by a lot of terms for just 2 routes - via Barnsley, via Rotherham, via Castleford, via Chapeltown, semi-fast, Hallam Line and Dearne Valley Line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Different lot of Vikings on the west coast to those on the east coast, but they all seem to use the same "-by" suffix. To name a few on the west coastal areas, you have Flimby, Crosby, Formby,etc.

The west side also has an silent -ugh suffix as in Burscough and Myerscough, although most people outside Lancashire pronounce the -ugh bit, while I've seen quite a few people in Yorkshire try to add an extra l in to it and it in to Bursclough and Myersclough, despite the fact they aren't that different to how Scarborough and Middlesbrough are pronounced.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Pacers occasionaly appear on the sheffield - leeds fasts cos i know too well the feeling of dispair when they arrive.
150s now more soo too. Even saw a 150 on settle to carlisle other day.

I would keep the 185s in the areas they are now to help maintenance. They could transfer to settle carlisle (im going to presume seen as it takes heavy freight it can take a 185) and various other express routes out of leeds. Could operate a york/middlsborough shuttle with them. ( dont think middlsborough will get electrified but presuming hull wil)
6 car South TPE. Blackpool-scarbrough ? (preusming issues around copy pit are solved etc) and maybe even then run a york scarbrough shuttle in alternate half hour.

 

[tbtc]

Different lot of Vikings on the west coast to those on the east coast, but they all seem to use the same "-by" suffix. To name a few on the west coastal areas, you have Flimby, Crosby, Formby,etc.

Funnily enough it was Flimby which I was thinking of when I saw reference to "Scarby" (being familiar with the New Balance shop there)

I thought they were some 3 car 144s booked on the fasts which don't continue to Nottingham

I've not had the privelage myself, though I don't doubt you (given the hodge podge of allocations that can happen - IIRC I had a doubled up 153 a while ago on the "semi fast").

My understanding was that most of the diagrams involved a Nottingham - Leeds and a return to Sheffield, then a Sheffield - Leeds and return to Nottingham, and since Pacers aren't cleared beyond Chesterfield this meant that they weren't allocated to any Sheffield - Leeds "semi fast". But with interworking and variable diagrams I wouldn't be surprised if it had happened.

It seems the Sheffield-Leeds services are referred to by a lot of terms for just 2 routes - via Barnsley, via Rotherham, via Castleford, via Chapeltown, semi-fast, Hallam Line and Dearne Valley Line

True - the four Northern services an hour (between the two cities) do tend to get different names depending on whether you are in West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire (here "Hallamshire" tends to relate to the moors west of Sheffield, and the hospital of that name in Sheffield, and "Hallam" is the local radio for Sheffield, but its the name that WY Metro give to the line through Barnsley...)

 

[mildertduck]

Why not use them to replace the pacers on the "Northern" Northern routes, e.g. Saltburn branch, Tyne Valley, Durham Coast Line...or, in fact, run trains to Whitby from Darlington?!

 

[northwichcat]

Why not use them to replace the pacers on the "Northern" Northern routes, e.g. Saltburn branch, Tyne Valley, Durham Coast Line...or, in fact, run trains to Whitby from Darlington?!

The Network Rail plan for TPE electrification assumes that the cascade down of 185s will indirectly replace some of the Pacers. However, it doesn't say directly replace Pacers nor does it say which Sprinter (or other DMU) routes would be best suited to 185s, hence all the speculation and ideas.

 

[Lampshade]

185s on the Atherton line anyone?

They could work on Southport - Manchester Airport runs.

 

[northwichcat]

185s on the Atherton line anyone?

Are you proposing maintaining First Class? I can see them selling a lot of FC tickets for Atherton to Salford Central. :roll:

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Are you proposing maintaining First Class? I can see them selling a lot of FC tickets for Atherton to Salford Central. :roll:

Well, if it was scrapped, it would create a much welcome capacity increase! Even on Saturday off-peaks the Atherton loop can fill out a 150 or Pacer.

 

[Wath Yard]

Why not use them to replace the pacers on the "Northern" Northern routes, e.g. Saltburn branch, Tyne Valley, Durham Coast Line...or, in fact, run trains to Whitby from Darlington?!

Because 185s are 100 mph, inter-regional spec trains, and Pacers are buses that run on the railway that trundle around God forsaken branch lines and shortish distance urban services. There will, probably and hopefully, be a top down cascade which should result in some Pacers being withdrawn but not a direct replacement.

 

[northwichcat]

and Pacers are buses that run on the railway that trundle around God forsaken branch lines and shortish distance urban services.

Maybe in FGW's area but in the Northern area they are used on longer services and local/regional services on the WCML and ECML where they eat up valuable paths with their pathetic* acceleration and puny* top speed.

* I've just seen Futurama featuring Morbo, hence those words in the description.

 

[Wath Yard]

I know I had one from Crewe - Preston on a class 1 service about 20 years ago. I don't know their full usage on the east of the Pennines but on the west side the only main line running they do, under normal circumstances, is Preston - Euxton Jnc on Preston - Hazel Grove services, Winwick - Warrington on Liverpool - Warrington services and probably Wigan - Bamfurlong Jnc on Liverpool services. Balckpool - Liverpool is rarely a Pacer. They're not ideal for that work but then neither is a 185.

 

[Waverley125]

best options I think at the minute are probably

Leeds-Glasgow via S&C. Have the engines to do the climbing & the top speed to do it quickly if linespeed could be improved (it's only 110 miles Leeds-Carlisle, if you could average 60 you could raise Glasgow in under 3.5)

Capacity increase on STPE, either as 6-coaching the Cleethorpes trains, or potentially adding a second South TPE service through to Lincoln via Worksop, Retford & Gainsborough. Half-hourly Sheffield-Manchester would certainly be a bonus.

Nottingham-Liverpool, replacing the 158s there, allowing the 158s to be used in East Anglia. (I'm against single 158s Nottingham-Norwich for the simple reason that they can get extremely busy east of Peterborough. Personally I think a minimum half-hourly service is required Peterborough-Norwich, Peterborough-Cambridge and Norwich-Cambridge.

 

[sprinterguy]

Because 185s are 100 mph, inter-regional spec trains, and Pacers are buses that run on the railway that trundle around God forsaken branch lines and shortish distance urban services. There will, probably and hopefully, be a top down cascade which should result in some Pacers being withdrawn but not a direct replacement.

The Durham Coast and Tyne Valley lines are not "God forsaken branch lines" nor are they "shortish distance urban services": They are medium distance regional routes that serve several important commuter markets en route. As jcollins says, there are also many other areas of the Northern network where Pacers are employed on similar regional duties that they are not really suited to.

With that said though, I think that 185s would be a massive over-provision of rolling stock on the services operated out of Heaton depot. I would be happy with a mix of refurbished 150s and 156s for a few years yet on those routes, preferably with some doubled up services at busy times. Tbh some regular, doubled up 142 workings would be a good start, given that Newcastle appears to have only benefitted from one of the additional units recently allocated to the local depot from FGW.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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).

...And also class 165s and and class 333s. Although at least the Network Turbos take advantage of the more accomodating Western loading gauge and have wider bodies.

 

[northwichcat]

but on the west side the only main line running they do, under normal circumstances, is Preston - Euxton Jnc on Preston - Hazel Grove services

They run peak time Crewe to Manchester and Macclesfield to Manchester services. They also run around half of the services between Chester and Manchester via Stockport, which shares tracks with London-Chester services one end and London-Manchester services the other end.

Many Northern services which used to see Sprinters all day, now see 2x142s or 142+150 combinations at peak times. It's not a case of 142s being on the lowest usage lines any more.

On the ECML they seem to run the majority of Adwick-Lincoln services.

I'm not saying 185s are the solution for Pacer replacement, just disagreeing with the argument they are only used on short journeys and on lines in the middle of no-where. 172s are a better solution for 142/150 replacement but as line speeds are increasing and slow paths are more limited I think the replacements need to be at least 90mph capable.

 

[sprinterguy]

172s are a better solution for 142/150 replacement but as line speeds are increasing and slow paths are more limited I think the replacements need to be at least 90mph capable.

I agree that 172s are the best currently available option for Pacer replacement (Unless they are suffering from some excessive corrosion that I'm unaware of then I don't see why 150s need to be withdrawn any sooner than Sprinter classes in the 153-156 bracket: They all just need a good DDA compliant refurbishment): What is needed is an "injection" of trains optimised for commuter operation, such as 172s, to both replace Pacers directly and to push 150s downwards in the hierarchy of services to also replace Pacers, on more lightly used lines, while 155s and 156s remain on the regional duties that they are best suited to. There's only so long that increasingly higher-spec Sprinter units can be pushed downwards onto increasingly commuter orientated, regular stop services as is currently being witnessed with 158s in some areas by adding new units into the "top end" long distance regional services before it becomes massively impractical.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not saying 185s are the solution for Pacer replacement, just disagreeing with the argument they are only used on short journeys and on lines in the middle of no-where.

Well said....I could not have phrased this better.

 

[northwichcat]

I agree that 172s are the best currently available option for Pacer replacement (Unless they are suffering from some excessive corrosion that I'm unaware of then I don't see why 150s need to be withdrawn any sooner than Sprinter classes in the 153-156 bracket:

The 150s are older and have shorter carriages than the 153s, 155s and 156s. The Northern 142s and 150s seem to fail or develop faults a lot more frequently than the Northern 156s.

In my opinion it would seem logical to withdraw the worst of the 150s soon after Pacers are withdrawn, with the withdrawn units being used for spare parts.

What is needed is an "injection" of trains optimised for commuter operation, such as 172s, to both replace Pacers directly and to push 150s downwards in the hierarchy of services to also replace Pacers while 155s and 156s remain on the regional duties that they are best suited to.

The problem with Northern's stock is that there isn't really suitable stock for a longer distance service with numerous stops en route. The 172s with 2+2 seating would seem to fit the bill for the routes where it's a bit long with 3+2 seating but at the same time a shorter route than what the 156s and 158s were intended for.

 

[sprinterguy]

The 150s are older and have shorter carriages than the 153s, 155s and 156s.

The carriages are the same length as the vast majority of rolling stock, particularly commuter or suburban stock, in the UK. Which is better for faster loadings and unloadings (coupled with the one third and two third door positions which the rest of the Sprinter classes lack) and makes them better suited to commuter and suburban work. Plus twenty metre carriages are ample for more lightly used branch lines, and you can always run them in pairs if needed.

I agree it would make sense to withdraw a few units though to provide spares for the remaining examples if new stock was forthcoming.

 

[northwichcat]

The carriages are the same length as the vast majority of rolling stock, particularly commuter or suburban stock, in the UK. Which is better for faster loadings and unloadings (coupled with the one third and two third door positions which the rest of the Sprinter classes lack) and makes them better suited to commuter and suburban work.

Door position doesn't depend on carriage length. The 185s and 323s have the same door positions as the 150s but have 23m carriages.

Plus twenty metre carriages are ample for more lightly used branch lines, and you can always run them in pairs if needed.

On the basis that many Pacers already run in multiple at peak times I was envisaging 2x150s replacing 2x142s from your previous post.

If the 153s are reformed as 2/3 car trains as has been suggested from Poterbrook's conclusion that a 1 car DDA complaint vehicle is not economically viable, then I'd suggest if 172s were ordered to directly/indirectly replace 142s that they should be 3 car units. The reason being 4 carriages is a lot more capacity than 2 carriages, so something is needed for the services that get 200 passengers, which isn't 2 car or 4 car. While the Sprinters could be reformed in to 3 carriages the surplus driving cabs loses some of the extra capacity benefit.