Atomic Systems

johncard wrote:?

185s are operated by TPE...

Sorry, misread your post, I assumed you were referring to the 142s

AlistairW wrote:Out of interest do you know if it's because they are approaching a 10 year re-frubishment, a lack of maintenance or just poor build quality?

The units, basically IMO, are poorly built!! (The 'next gen' 170's are alot better we are told)

Lack of maintenance is definately a non issue, the units are always at Crofton (coz they always break down!).

Last week 2 of them failed together at Selby, and ended up going the 30 or so miles to Crofton at 20mph, on 2 engines, and with no electrics!

I believe TPE management are a bit "annoyed" at the mess the 170s have put them in.......

ArrivaTrains wrote:I believe TPE management are a bit "annoyed" at the mess the 170s have put them in.......

Should have kept the 3-car 158s...

That may explain why EMT didn't want any 170s.

What may nark TPE more is that the 159/1s are performing extremely well at SWT

jokes on TPE then......

Pompeyfan wrote:jokes on TPE then......

That it is,

Also with the high fuel charges and the engine consumption on those 185s. Of which there doesnt need to be an engine like that on them....

apart from on the scotland runs?

as said before it goes to show. england are once again better than the germans, the 170, the scond most popular dmu after the 158. lighter, more economical etc and still does the same max speed.....

....and breaks down every 5 minutes. I'd rather have 185, but if the SRA allow TPE to order any more they really need alot more luggage space. That's poor specification by TPE rather than a fault of the builders.

spartacus wrote:....and breaks down every 5 minutes.

only if they run in multiple with other classes AFAIK

Pompeyfan wrote:apart from on the scotland runs?

IIRC, the stock was ordered before the Scotland runs were even being thought of. Also explain how the 170 has a more economical engine than the 185 and still does 100mph. I know that the bigger engine in the 185 provides better acceleration because its like a jet engine in a car. But the question I ask is why?

And Scotland runs could be done by 170 units, as they provide the 100mph needed...

Pompeyfan wrote:

spartacus wrote:....and breaks down every 5 minutes.

only if they run in multiple with other classes AFAIK

No, they break down all the time when they run on their own!

MoonKid47 wrote:

Pompeyfan wrote:apart from on the scotland runs?

IIRC, the stock was ordered before the Scotland runs were even being thought of. Also explain how the 170 has a more economical engine than the 185 and still does 100mph. I know that the bigger engine in the 185 provides better acceleration because its like a jet engine in a car. But the question I ask is why?

And Scotland runs could be done by 170 units, as they provide the 100mph needed...

170's are more economical because the engine's use less fuel. Much like a 1litre car would use less fuel than a 2litre car, not to mention the weight difference.

Cheers,
Ali

Does anybody here know of when a pacer has crashed, not because of Driver error, but because of poor building and maintenance, except for the time when the body fell off the engine somewhere in the North. And now how many times have other trains crashed. It's not often that Pacers are unreliable. I was Manchester Victoria a few weeks ago. A class 156 pulled in, the one I was supposed to get on. We had to go to another platform and wait for 45 minutes for another train because the 156 had broken down. Not many times do pacers brake down. They are delayed, most of the time by signal or point failure, but they are very reliable

This is getting boring but, pacers are notorious for their miles per casualty figures.

allypally wrote:Don't think the SWT units have ever been much cop!

Not the Desiros!! I personally can't stand the things. They're not long-distance trains!! They're cattle trucks and they could have at least put soft seats in them like the ones they have in the 159s (The ONLY good type of train SWT runs)

Glenn