Class 172/1 - 2 - 3 different designs

[FrozenPoints]

This may sound moronic, but why is the Class 172 across the board not a uniformed fleet for the benefit of flexiblity and future cascading.

Although to be fair I have seen the new LM 172/3 and I would prefer that design over the current London Overground 172/1 so if attachments ever need to be made, more likely on LM, passengers can flow freely on the train.

But why such a stark change in design for LM? surely it is not technically the same Class 172.

Are there any other trains out there with different front ends?

 

[sprinterguy]

Class 150s: The only difference between a 150/1 and a 150/2 is the prescence or lack of a corridor connection.

Class 175s and class 180s use the same bodyshell with different bolt-on front ends.

The same manufacturers 458 and 460 EMUs use similar bodyshells with different front ends.

The front ends are only a bolt-on addition to a basic bodyshell. The Turbostar (and Electrostar) famiy has always been intended to have modular elements to it's design, which means that different designs of cab can be specified, with or without corridors, depending on requirement, as has been seen on the Electrostar family.

The LM 172s are very similar to the Chiltern and LO units, except for being geared for the higher speed of 100mph. They only stand out because it's the first time the corridor type cab has been fitted to the diesel Turbostar.

The different cabs sported by the different operators' 172s are down to the individual operators preferences in the design: Presumably Chiltern and LO wanted greater driver comfort in their design, with a full width cab, whilst London Midland preferred increased connectivity for passengers when trains are working in multiple. Although it does surprise me that LM have been the first to order the corridor cab design, as although their two carriage 150s are currently regularly seen working in mutiple to form four carriage trains, it is only on rare diagrams during the peak that a three carriage unit is coupled to anything else (A 153 or two carriage 150).

Oh, and it's worth mentioning that the class 126 DMUs had different designs of cabs at either end of each unit! (I suppose the 153s do to a certain extent as well)

 

[Scud]

LM currently has something like 11 Class 150 diagrams which operate coupled all day (averaging around 400 miles each) yet only has two spinters (excluding 153s) which have corridor connections (150214 & 150216.)
The 172s will allow revenue collecting staff to visit the whole train, customers to even out through the train and alleviate the problem of traincrew being asked to change ends where no official walking route exists - often resulting in refusal.
I'm not sure about the Selective Door Release on 172s, but that would allow longer trains to operate and reduce over-crowding.
They'll be a breath of fresh of air but if only the reliability is very good - a luxury not usually afforded by new trains.

 

[sprinterguy]

Unless London Midland retains any 150s following the cascade, which does admittedly seem likely, there won't be any train lengthening possible above the current provision as there are the pretty much same number of two and three carriage 172s being delivered as there are two and three carriage 150s.

You could very easily be much more knowledgable than me on this particular point, but ELEVEN diagrams for 150s working in mutiple throughout the day? That seems a high figure compare to my experience of the services, especially given that there are only 12 two carriage 150s in total, and I have seen very few doubled up working involving the three carriage 150s (Barring a 150+153 diagram I'm aware of).

 

[route:oxford]

This may sound moronic, but why is the Class 172 across the board not a uniformed fleet for the benefit of flexiblity and future cascading.

Although to be fair I have seen the new LM 172/3 and I would prefer that design over the current London Overground 172/1 so if attachments ever need to be made, more likely on LM, passengers can flow freely on the train.

But why such a stark change in design for LM? surely it is not technically the same Class 172.

Are there any other trains out there with different front ends?

Isn't this a really sensible policy?

The 172 offers a basic unit then you can add the bits you want from a standard catalogue - but they are all essentially 172s.

It helps save number ranges for a start!

Look at the 15X series - really there were only 3 kinds of units - 150,156&158 - but whole series of numbers were used when a sub-code 15X/X would have been adequate.

Wonder how far you could go with it and still keep it a "172"?

7 Car?
End doors?
100mph Unit?
First Class?
Shop?
DEMU?
Hybrid DEMU?

All quite possible with "off-the-shelf" components at Bombardier.

 

[starrymarkb]

4 kinds to be pedantic - the 153/5...

I believe 159 was down to couplers like the 171 (BR politics meant an as built 159 couldn't couple to a Regional Railways Unit as they had an extra wire in the autocoupler)

 

[tbtc]

Same deal with the 170s. There's only 122 (?) built, and they are pretty similar inside (apart from the ex-Anglia ones with mini-buffets), yet we have 170/1, 170/2, 170/3, 170/4, 170/5, 170/6 and 170/7 and 170/8 (the final two became 171s).

Every TOC wants *their* fresh batch of numbers (why have 172 123 - 172 150 when you could order 172 901 - 172 928, say?)

 

[starrymarkb]

And you have SWT who renumbered their 158s into the 88x range

 

[Hydro]

Not to mention the 66's, which seem to go sub class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 depending on who ordered or recieved them, rather than any substantial technical differences - with the possible exception of the /6's and /9's - even though the /9's low emissions engine is now standard on new or recent 66's.

You could argue that the 66's are more or less a 59/3, with slightly different bogies and a new engine. Numbering seems to be a bit random, even under BR some new engined classes received a sub class (37/9, 47/9,), slight technical differences (33's) and others that were slightly different got a whole new class (30's into 31's, the Peaks)

 

[Aictos]

Class 150s: The only difference between a 150/1 and a 150/2 is the prescence or lack of a corridor connection.

Aren't you forgetting that the other difference between the 150/1 and 150/2 was the 150/1 has a cross-vehicle corridor behind the cab with manually operated inward-opening slam doors and the 150/2 has a cross-vehicle corridor behind the cab with air-operated sliding exterior doors,

Isn't this a really sensible policy?

The 172 offers a basic unit then you can add the bits you want from a standard catalogue - but they are all essentially 172s.

It helps save number ranges for a start!

Look at the 15X series - really there were only 3 kinds of units - 150,156&158 - but whole series of numbers were used when a sub-code 15X/X would have been adequate.

I disagree, you had the 150s for local services, the 155s/156s for regional workings and the 158s/159s for longer express workings, the 153s came when some of the 155s were split up and are ideal along with the 150s for local services.

 

[Failed Unit]

It is a surprise more turbos were not build with corridor connectors. I bet Scotrail regret it now as passengers now head for the set the gaurd is not in.

Scotrail had a strange policy. Corridor connections bad let's remove them from the 318s. The they are good let's have them on the 380s. Maybe they know not having them stops revenue protection. I digress.

 

[sprinterguy]

Aren't you forgetting that the other difference between the 150/1 and 150/2 was the 150/1 has a cross-vehicle corridor behind the cab with manually operated inward-opening slam doors and the 150/2 has a cross-vehicle corridor behind the cab with air-operated sliding exterior doors,

Hopefully I can be excused for this oversight, the cab is foreign territory to me, being as I am but a passenger who's biggest involvement with the 150s is their passenger loading data on the Snow Hill lines, as well as travelling on them on those routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is a surprise more turbos were not build with corridor connectors. I bet Scotrail regret it now as passengers now head for the set the gaurd is not in.

Scotrail had a strange policy. Corridor connections bad let's remove them from the 318s. The they are good let's have them on the 380s. Maybe they know not having them stops revenue protection. I digress.

I think that Scotrail would be the biggest benefactors of corridor fitted 170s, given that their Turbos regulalrly work in multiple with 158s and other 170s. I'm wondering if at the time Scotrail took delivery of it's first 170s, 170401-422, in 1999, the corridor cab design hadn't been fully developed, as the first Electrostars, the 357s, delivered to LTS shortly before Scotrails' 170 order was delivered, also featured the full width cab. It may then have been easier in terms of interchangability and spare parts for Scotrail to order it's later batches of 170s with the same design of cab.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Historically there's never been rhyme nor reason to the numbering and renumbering of UK loco and unit classes, and as tbtc and Hydro have commented, privatisation has meant that each operator now wants it's new trains to be numbered in it's own range starting with "01", which means that the available sub-classes are very quickly exhausted after relatively few trains. It's quite inefficient use of the TOPS numbering scheme.

There are definitely three separate "grades" of Sprinter classes featuring trains with very different design features and specifications:
150: Commuter and suburban work
155/156: Regional
158/159: Long distance provincial.

The 153s would probably suit a fourth category mid-way between 150 and 155.

 

[asylumxl]

I read that people reckon that the corridor connections will allow people to evenly spread out through the train.

One minor issue with that. If your train came in 172+153, honestly, would you get in the worn out old train or the shiney new one?

 

[sprinterguy]

I read that people reckon that the corridor connections will allow people to evenly spread out through the train.

One minor issue with that. If your train came in 172+153, honestly, would you get in the worn out old train or the shiney new one?

If it's peak hour and the train is absolutely rammed, then if people wish to board that service they will use whichever portion of the train has space. Corridor connections between trains certainly do allow improved passenger circulation throughout the entire length of the train formation when it's busy.

And personally, I always pick the 153 out of the 170+153 formations on the Chase line and Hereford services for nostalgic reasons, but then again I'm not an average passenger!

 

[Failed Unit]

I read that people reckon that the corridor connections will allow people to evenly spread out through the train.

One minor issue with that. If your train came in 172+153, honestly, would you get in the worn out old train or the shiney new one?

Depends on the comfort of the 172. If passengers like the 153 better the will walk into it. Likewise when 170s multiple work with 156s / 158s some people go for the older trains. The may like it better or the unit may stop closer to the platform exit.

New trains don't always mean better or more comfortable trains. Look at the pendo to prove that. They do a job but that is all you can say.

 

[bnsf734]

Unless London Midland retains any 150s following the cascade, which does admittedly seem likely, there won't be any train lengthening possible above the current provision as there are the pretty much same number of two and three carriage 172s being delivered as there are two and three carriage 150s.

You could very easily be much more knowledgable than me on this particular point, but ELEVEN diagrams for 150s working in mutiple throughout the day? That seems a high figure compare to my experience of the services, especially given that there are only 12 two carriage 150s in total, and I have seen very few doubled up working involving the three carriage 150s (Barring a 150+153 diagram I'm aware of).

I was over at Birmingham Moor Street area on New Years eve when a Mon-Fri service was running. The services which terminated at Whitlocks End on the Stratford line seemed to be 4 car sets (2x 2 car) whilst the services on the main line to Dorridge were all 3 car sets. These 4 car services could easily use 11 diagrams daily, given a half hourly service and journey times of 1.5 hours or more.

Calv

 

[sprinterguy]

I was over at Birmingham Moor Street area on New Years eve when a Mon-Fri service was running. The services which terminated at Whitlocks End on the Stratford line seemed to be 4 car sets (2x 2 car) whilst the services on the main line to Dorridge were all 3 car sets. These 4 car services could easily use 11 diagrams daily, given a half hourly service and journey times of 1.5 hours or more.

Calv

I assume that, hopefully, this is the diagrams for 11 individual 150s being referred to here, working services as doubled up pairs? In that case, five pairs of two carriage 150s sounds reasonable. I originally presumed that 11 pairs of 150s was being referred to, silly me, which seemed like far too high a number. So my original point still stands: Very few of the three carriage 172s will have a need to make use of their corridor connections with any regularity, this feature being of more benefit to the two carriage trains.

I'll see if I can dig out the passenger loading figures at work on Monday to have a look at what service is formed of which formation. Your analogy of three carriage trains to Dorridge (and to Stratford) and pairs of two carriage trains on Whitlocks End services sounds accurate to me.

 

[tbtc]

Very few of the three carriage 172s will have a need to make use of their corridor connections with any regularity, this feature being of more benefit to the two carriage trains

One good thing is that they are being built with growth/ use elsewhere in mind.

Look at the 460s which are only going to be of use on that one particular route (without modification).

The LM 172/3s are going to be 100mph capable three coach trains with almost 200 seats- the kind of units which could be used on dozens of lines in the UK. Whilst they might not need to be run as anything longer than three coaches in the short term, the fact they *could* work in multiple with corridor connections should make them a lot more useful than some of the three car 170s out there which are coupled to other units for much of the day.

I am liking these new trains.

 

[Scud]

It's something like 3 pairs of 2cars run coupled all day, one 2car coupled to a 3car all day then 2 or 3 diagrams which run coupled for only a few trips. There's an all day 150/3+153 combo in there too. I could get the info out & break it down, but it's a bit off topic so I won't bore anyone

 

[sprinterguy]

It's something like 3 pairs of 2cars run coupled all day, one 2car coupled to a 3car all day then 2 or 3 diagrams which run coupled for only a few trips. There's an all day 150/3+153 combo in there too. I could get the info out & break it down, but it's a bit off topic so I won't bore anyone

Don't worry I believe you Thanks for the information!

 

[Old Hill Bank]

I will Scud
3 x 2 two car jobs
1 x 3 car + 153 job
1 x 3 car + 2 car job all day
1 x 3 car + 2 car job, 2 car detached after the morning peak
all others 3 car.

Anyone know better?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Whoever came up with ELEVEN multiple jobs ran out of units well before the timetable requirements were met

 

[Scud]

I will Scud
3 x 2 two car jobs
1 x 3 car + 153 job
1 x 3 car + 2 car job all day
1 x 3 car + 2 car job, 2 car detached after the morning peak
all others 3 car.

That's pretty much spot on - I just rechecked

 

[Rhydgaled]

Since you say the cab ends are bolt-on, could you replace the ends of 170s and the other 172s with the corridor fitted version if required, or is only possible to make that desion before the unit is built?

Wonder how far you could go with it and still keep it a "172"?
100mph Unit?

Aren't the 172s with cab-end corridor conections 100mph units anyway?

End doors?

Do you mean like on 158s, or more like mrk4s or 175s? Also, are there any members of the electrostar/turbostar family with end doors at present? Some of the long-distance routes 170s operate would be better off with units with end doors.

 

[sprinterguy]

Also, are there any members of the electrostar/turbostar family with end doors at present?

No, there aren't: All the Turbostar and Electrostars use the same bodyshell* (Adapted for 23m or 20m length) with one third and two third position doors.

*There are now two variants: Older units with ribbon glazing and the newer trains with individual windows.

 

[MCR247]

Do you mean like on 158s, or more like mrk4s or 175s? A

They all have end doors. :?

 

[RobShipway]

Could you use the class 172/3 coupled to a Class 377/375 unit?

I am thinking that they would not be able to couple up to the LM class 350's?

 

[WillPS]

They use Dellner couplings don't they? In which case no.

 

[sprinterguy]

They use Dellner couplings don't they? In which case no.

Yeah the Electrostars and 350s have Dellner couplings, whilst the 172s have BSI couplers the same as the Sprinter classes. Out of the Turbostar fleet, only Southern's 171s can be coupled to Electrostars.