Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[Chrisgr31]

as mentioned in an earlier post the other three units should really be overhauled quickly and bought back into passenger service until they get the full refurbishment, fitting dellners to them quickly (for rescue purposes and in multiple with themselves) would obviously be needed. 170422 got fitted quickly enough.

Not good seeing stock sitting around for months while they are so desperately needed.

I have asked Southern this question in an email, the email asked about the works at East Croydon, the late running of the 18.05 ex LBG and as a bonus why not use the Class 170s as a 6 car unit on some diagrams.

The first two have been answered, well in a fashion, but customer services are waiting for a response from fleet on the bonus question. Suspect I'll be waiting a long time!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have asked Southern this question in an email, the email asked about the works at East Croydon, the late running of the 18.05 ex LBG and as a bonus why not use the Class 170s as a 6 car unit on some diagrams.

The first two have been answered, well in a fashion, but customer services are waiting for a response from fleet on the bonus question. Suspect I'll be waiting a long time!

I thought the problem was that if they fail there's nothing compatible that can rescue them?

 

[Chrisgr31]

I thought the problem was that if they fail there's nothing compatible that can rescue them?

The question went with a rider that they could change the coupler for a Dellner first. In theory if it went out as a 6 it should be able to self rescue.

 

[Starmill]

Meanwhile, on the main line between Glasgow and Edinburgh...

The 1745 Edinbrugh > Glasgow Queen Street yesterday was formed of just 3 coaches... not a pleasant sight at all!

 

[physics34]

I believe there's a bit of work to do with them to make them compatible and up to standards with the SN 171 fleet.. even without a full refurb.

thats what i originally heard but according to scottish member on here the units performed within perimeters in their last days with scotrail. Barring a few bits of work they should be fit for service surely.....(i have heard about a corrosion rumour which might hold them back).

Unless of course the ROSCO has specified that they cannot run until overhauled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The question went with a rider that they could change the coupler for a Dellner first. In theory if it went out as a 6 it should be able to self rescue.

yep.... as long as they have a dellner they can be rescued by 171/377s.

 

[sgm]

The 1745 Edinbrugh > Glasgow Queen Street yesterday was formed of just 3 coaches... not a pleasant sight at all!

As was the 1715 Edinburgh>Queen Street, it's normally a job to get a seat at Haymarket when it's 6, thankfully i had ventured along Princes Street and got on at Waverley!

 

[grid56126]

170423 moving today at 11+35 from Stewarts Lane to Selhurst running via Longhedge / Balham.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Can we assume then that a certain stage in the work is iether done or about to be done?

 

[physics34]

170423 moving today at 11+35 from Stewarts Lane to Selhurst running via Longhedge / Balham.

just departed 28 late

 

[Fincra5]

170423 moving today at 11+35 from Stewarts Lane to Selhurst running via Longhedge / Balham.

Ahhhh.. thats the one that passed me in Selhurst Yard.

 

[Chrisgr31]

just departed 28 late

Suppose I shouldnt be cynical and say its not a surprise to find a Southern diesel running late but not quite late enough for delay repay?

 

[southern442]

I saw one of the Scotrail 170's on the Selhurst depot roads today, although I couldn't see the number.

I can't help thinking the Southern livery will look a bit weird on the 170 front ends with their different light clusters.

 

[scotraildriver]

I thought the problem was that if they fail there's nothing compatible that can rescue them?

To be fair these units have been working around Scotland for 15 years surrounded by HST's, voyagers, 334's, 380's , 66's etc and have never needed rescued. It is highly unusual for a 6 car 170 to need rescued, there is always a way round a fault unless serious physical damage has occurred.

 

[physics34]

I saw one of the Scotrail 170's on the Selhurst depot roads today, although I couldn't see the number.

I can't help thinking the Southern livery will look a bit weird on the 170 front ends with their different light clusters.

thats assuming it will be painted in southern livery

that was 170423

422 is in the repair shed all split up.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

To be fair these units have been working around Scotland for 15 years surrounded by HST's, voyagers, 334's, 380's , 66's etc and have never needed rescued. It is highly unusual for a 6 car 170 to need rescued, there is always a way round a fault unless serious physical damage has occurred.

You do at least have the advantage that if the worst comes to the worst there are a large number of other 170/4s in the vicinity that could couple up to them fully.

 

[scotraildriver]

You do at least have the advantage that if the worst comes to the worst there are a large number of other 170/4s in the vicinity that could couple up to them fully.

True but my point being if a fault occurs on a 6 car the failure is effectively "rescued" by the coupled unit. Chances of both units failing and being unable to move simultaneously are virtually nil.

 

[03_179]

170423 currently sitting on 19 road.

 

[Southern Dvr]

As an aside, I noticed 168329 the other day. 168329 being the former 170309 from SWT/TPEX. The units was in chiltern colours and seemed good to me. It seems Loughborough can do conversion works a lot quicker than SU!

 

[D365]

As an aside, I noticed 168329 the other day. 168329 being the former 170309 from SWT/TPEX.

I'm fairly sure that what is now 168329 started out in life as 170399, the former Porterbrook 'spot-hire' unit which was initially leased to Central Trains before passing through TPE.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm fairly sure that what is now 168329 started out in life as 170399, the former Porterbrook 'spot-hire' unit which was initially leased to Central Trains before passing through TPE.

It worked for Anglia as well when they ran their Crosslink service to Basingstoke.

It had a South West Trains-spec interior like 170301-170308 bit never operated with them. South West Trains had 170392 with a Southern-spec interior that became 171730.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Why did Swt Get rid of there 170s again? Not saying I personally blame them!

 

[JonathanH]

Why did Swt Get rid of there 170s again? Not saying I personally blame them!

Increased capacity of 3-car 159s, interconnecting gangways between units and commonality of fleet are often quoted reasons - the 158s came slightly later.

Getting back on topic, I think I'm right in recalling that Southern's initial 171s (721-726, 801-806) were also technically part of Porterbrook's speculative order of 170s. 171727-171729 were ordered later.

 

[Townsend Hook]

Increased capacity of 3-car 159s, interconnecting gangways between units and commonality of fleet are often quoted reasons - the 158s came slightly later.

IIRC the 158s and 170s were a direct swap between TPE and SWT. Certainly the 170s on the Brighton-Reading service were directly replaced by 158s.

 

[MCR247]

Not the 158/8s, SWT got the 159/1s (i.e. ex 158s) in return for 170s

 

[Townsend Hook]

Not the 158/8s, SWT got the 159/1s (i.e. ex 158s) in return for 170s

So where did the SWT 158/8s come from?

 

[swt_passenger]

All the 158/8s and 159/1s came from TPE, but I don't think it was really as black and white as above, they certainly didn't come in nice neat batches.

The 158/8s and 159/1s arrivals at SWT overlapped, it took about a year for them all to arrive, the first 6 x 170s were released as & when replaced by some of the 159/1s (by about Feb 2007), but the other 3 carried on in use until replaced by 158/8s about 6 months later.

The 8 x 159/1 and 11 x 158/8s received altogether strengthened the DMU fleet and also replaced 9 x 170 and 2 x 158, as the deal also effectively included a 'unit swap' to get rid of the two odd ones that belonged to a different Rosco.

As it turned out of course, a number of the extra DMUs were effectively used to release 450s for use in the suburban area.

 

[Chrisgr31]

It is suggested in a report to Crowborough Town Council that it is possible that the reconfiguration of the Scotrail units in to 2 and 4 car units is not going to happen and they will be kept as 3 car units.

As a passenger this seems like a much better idea anyway if they can get them to talk to the 171s which has to be possible as a handful have already been converted.

The option to run as 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 car trains must be better than only being an even number.

 

[jopsuk]

why "must" it be better? for diagramming it would be easier if there were only two unit lengths (obviously, easier if just one length!). It's not as if it's going to be a case of "ooh, it's a bit busier this week, lets up this 6 to a 7". Having 10 4-car and 15 2-car (with one spare intermediate? once all nine move) is much simpler than 6 4-car, 9 3-car and 10 2-car

 

[Chrisgr31]

why "must" it be better? for diagramming it would be easier if there were only two unit lengths (obviously, easier if just one length!). It's not as if it's going to be a case of "ooh, it's a bit busier this week, lets up this 6 to a 7". Having 10 4-car and 15 2-car (with one spare intermediate? once all nine move) is much simpler than 6 4-car, 9 3-car and 10 2-car

I did say as a passenger. The issue is that on the Uckfield line the 2 cars are a bit of a pain, you dont know what order they are going to be in, where first class will be (I want to avoid it) they are short and in a multi unit train give less option for finding a seat as there are short.

There are a number of services where it appears a 3 car train would be better than a 2 car and indeed a 5 better than a 4. Also when a 4 car unit fails replacing it with a 3 car unit would be better than a 2.

I couldn't particularly care about diagramming, I pay for my ticket its up to Southern to sort that out

 

[Townsend Hook]

I did say as a passenger. The issue is that on the Uckfield line the 2 cars are a bit of a pain, you dont know what order they are going to be in, where first class will be (I want to avoid it) they are short and in a multi unit train give less option for finding a seat as there are short.

There are a number of services where it appears a 3 car train would be better than a 2 car and indeed a 5 better than a 4. Also when a 4 car unit fails replacing it with a 3 car unit would be better than a 2.

I couldn't particularly care about diagramming, I pay for my ticket its up to Southern to sort that out

Does it really matter that much though? As long as you get the same number of extra carriages out there the other 'issues' seem pretty trivial and petty. If nothing else, take comfort in the fact that there will (likely) be more four-car units out there, and plenty more extra seats.