Class 172 Production Progress

[jon0844]

Less things to go wrong?

 

[CliveJones]

Anyone know why?

Problem with supplier.

These two units have been sent down to be trained on and tested whilst the next few sets are finished with seats.

Then these two will return to have seats installed.

 

[KiddyKid]

Unidentified Chiltern 172 seen at Small Heath last night at approx 18.55 heading south, couldnt see any seats fitted other than a row behind the cab at each end......

 

[oldgyt]

The photo is from about a month ago. The dated version is in the persons photostream.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hstconnor/5417365272/in/photostream/

Chiltern's 165 units are having GSM-R fitted to the them at Willesden

The entire Chiltern 165 fleet are also undergoing a refresh programme at Willesden by LOROL turning them around in 3 days! Not as large as FGW refurb programme but includes new seat covers, toilet lino, internal paint respray, anti graffiti coating to all panels....So far 22 2-car units have been completed...hope that sheds some light on the original query

 

[bengley]

The entire Chiltern 165 fleet are also undergoing a refresh programme at Willesden by LOROL turning them around in 3 days! Not as large as FGW refurb programme but includes new seat covers, toilet lino, internal paint respray, anti graffiti coating to all panels....So far 22 2-car units have been completed...hope that sheds some light on the original query

I thought I noticed something different last time I was on a 165. I think they've done something with the lighting too, it seems like a more natural light now.

 

[oldgyt]

I thought I noticed something different last time I was on a 165. I think they've done something with the lighting too, it seems like a more natural light now.

All they have done is replaced the lighting tubes with new. I think the better lighting affect comes from the glossy sheen to the panels from the anti graffiti coating. Much crisper lighting though...certainly makes a difference.

 

[jon0844]

There are lots of different colour temperatures, which make a BIG difference.

Wagn replaced all the warm lights with cool ones on the 317s before they lost the franchise, and the trains looked very bright (but, unsurprisingly, felt cold) much like the FGW HST lighting. FCC has now changed back to a warmer light, although it's a real mish mash and they don't seem to care - they're all mixed up.

 

[route101]

i went on a 172 between Blackhorse Rd and Barking last Saturday and it sounded like the train hhad a manual gearbox

 

[Kingfisher200262]

i went on a 172 between Blackhorse Rd and Barking last Saturday and it sounded like the train hhad a manual gearbox

The ZF 'box installed in 172s is much more like a manual gearbox than the Voith transmission installed in Class 170 / 171. It is like an automatic gearbox fitted in cars with a torque converter and is a derivative of a bus gearbox.

Unlike a Voith hydraulic transmission, I believe that the reversing gear is on the final drive at the bogie end of the cardan shaft, which effectively means that it's a two-part transmission.

 

[RPM]

172101 was back at Wembley tonight, apparently for compatibility tests with the 165 and 168 fleets. Still no seats fitted inside other than a few temporary ones at each end.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rpmarks/5515908229/

 

[asylumxl]

Any chance you know what route did this unit take down south?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

172101 was back at Wembley tonight, apparently for compatibility tests with the 165 and 168 fleets. Still no seats fitted inside other than a few temporary ones at each end.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rpmarks/5515908229/

If 172/1s have been designed to be compatible with 165s and 168s, that means that they won't be able to inter-work with 172/0 or 172/2, which must be a first in terms of unit numbering.

Unless I'm mistaken the reason the Southern Turbostars were designated 171 is because they couldn't work with 170s.

Perhaps the Chiltern 172s should have been given Class 173 designation?

 

[RPM]

Yes, I'm surprised they were not designated 173s. The reason 170s were so numbered is because they were not electrically compatible with the 168s and so a separate class number had to be issued. Maybe the rules have changed?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any chance you know what route did this unit take down south?

No sorry I don't know but I would guess Derby - Tamworth - Bordesley - Solihull - Leamington - Aynho - Wembley

 

[MCR247]

Yes, I'm surprised they were not designated 173s. The reason 170s were so numbered is because they were not electrically compatible with the 168s and so a separate class number had to be issued. Maybe the rules have changed?

Thanks for that, never knew that was the reason, so even a 168/2 isn't compatible with a 170/3 say, which were built on the same production line at the same time?

 

[tbtc]

Yes, I'm surprised they were not designated 173s. The reason 170s were so numbered is because they were not electrically compatible with the 168s and so a separate class number had to be issued. Maybe the rules have changed?

Maybe the new Chiltern units should be 169s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks for that, never knew that was the reason, so even a 168/2 isn't compatible with a 170/3 say, which were built on the same production line at the same time?

I am tearing my hair out at this nonsense. Why do enthusiasts get so precious about things like seats lining up with windows yet few seem angry about the nonsense of having so many different "compatibilities" so that even "sister units" can't work together?

 

[Safety365]

Unless I'm mistaken the reason the Southern Turbostars were designated 171 is because they couldn't work with 170s

Southern Turbostars were designated 171 as they were fitted with a different coupler (dellner) to 170s, to enable them to be coupled to 377s in case of a failed unit.

Cab lay-out is also slightly different from 170

 

[Old Hill Bank]

If 172/1s have been designed to be compatible with 165s and 168s, that means that they won't be able to inter-work with 172/0 or 172/2, which must be a first in terms of unit numbering.

Unless I'm mistaken the reason the Southern Turbostars were designated 171 is because they couldn't work with 170s.

Perhaps the Chiltern 172s should have been given Class 173 designation?

The plan for the 172's was to be compatible with either by the use of a switch in the cab to alter the electrical connections on that coupling.
Don't know if that is still the case.

 

[Wyvern]

How do 168s compare with Sprinters as regards coupling?

Wasnt part of the spec for the 170 that they should couple with Sprinters?

 

[Pumbaa]

The plan for the 172's was to be compatible with either by the use of a switch in the cab to alter the electrical connections on that coupling.
Don't know if that is still the case.

You have got to be kidding - the railways don't do sensible thinking, especially not Bombardier!

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Southern Turbostars were designated 171 as they were fitted with a different coupler (dellner) to 170s, to enable them to be coupled to 377s in case of a failed unit.

Cab lay-out is also slightly different from 170

My point exactly. They can't couple to a 170, hence they can't be a 170/x.

So, if a 172/1 can't couple to a 172/0 or a 172/2, it shouldn't be a 172/x.

 

[RPM]

How do 168s compare with Sprinters as regards coupling?

Wasnt part of the spec for the 170 that they should couple with Sprinters?

168s (and 165s, 166s) have the same BSI coupler as Sprinters but are not electrically compatible. They can be coupled together mechanically in an emergency but you have to retract the electrical boxes on the couplers first. This means you can only drag the other unit "dead", you can't work them in multiple.

170s are compatible with sprinters but not with 168s et al.

It all boils down to NSE wanting their units to be different from Regional Railways ones. The rumour is they didn't want them capable of being borrowed by RR, although I don't know how true that is.

 

[TurboStar_2533]

If 172/1s have been designed to be compatible with 165s and 168s, that means that they won't be able to inter-work with 172/0 or 172/2, which must be a first in terms of unit numbering.

Unless I'm mistaken the reason the Southern Turbostars were designated 171 is because they couldn't work with 170s.

Perhaps the Chiltern 172s should have been given Class 173 designation?

The two Angel subfleets (172/0 & 172/1' s) have been designed to be compatible with one another but not with the Porterbrook owned 172/2's contrary to the quoted statement. In the early test days of 172/0's compatibility tests were conducted 172/0, 168 & 165 at Aylesbury which is referenced on the current certification and a requirement of the specification. It follows that if a 172/0 and 172/1 are seperately backward compatible with 168 & 165, then the 172/0 & 172/1 should also be compatible with each other.

For those who have already commented on this subject who will most likely challenge this statement, I know that in the not to distant future, there will be a 12 car test that will employ all four 172/1's with the remaining two units made up with 172/0's. This test will be conducted at Euston or Willesden dependent upon whether Willesden can accomodate the rake. I will advise when I know when this test is likely to take place.

 

[Vectorspace]

Went past Tyseley this morning, and London Midland's two 172's were coupled together. There was also a 170 parked very close, but I couldn't tell if it was coupled to the 172 or not.

 

[cj_1985]

168s (and 165s, 166s) have the same BSI coupler as Sprinters but are not electrically compatible. They can be coupled together mechanically in an emergency but you have to retract the electrical boxes on the couplers first. This means you can only drag the other unit "dead", you can't work them in multiple.

170s are compatible with sprinters but not with 168s et al.

It all boils down to NSE wanting their units to be different from Regional Railways ones. The rumour is they didn't want them capable of being borrowed by RR, although I don't know how true that is.

iirc from reading a magazine article years back...
the 170s ...and by extension the 168s... could couple with 15x or 16x units... however it required about a days work to convert the coupler to switch between 15x compatability or 16x compatability... meaning that in theory you could have a 170 working with a 150 one day and with a 165 another day

 

[Peter Sarf]

You have got to be kidding - the railways don't do sensible thinking, especially not Bombardier!

Nothing to do with Bombardier. Connex (South Central and South Eastern) insisted on having a different connector to the rest of Bonbardiers products for the 375s and 377s. When Southern took over and ordered the 170s they had to be different to the other 170s by having a connector that worked with the 375 and 377s so they were re-classified as 1771s.

There is nothing like standards but sadly, in many cases, there is nothing like standards .

 

[jon0844]

Standards are such a good thing, I can see why there might be so many of them.

 

[MCR247]

Nothing to do with Bombardier. Connex (South Central and South Eastern) insisted on having a different connector to the rest of Bonbardiers products for the 375s and 377s. When Southern took over and ordered the 170s they had to be different to the other 170s by having a connector that worked with the 375 and 377s so they were re-classified as 1771s.

There is nothing like standards but sadly, in many cases, there is nothing like standards .

What are you on about? Bombardier didn't already do a corridor cab for turbos or electrostars? So please tell me how the insisted on being different?

And does it not make sense having trains that can couple to the rest of the fleet? :roll:

 

[Peter Sarf]

Standards are such a good thing, I can see why there might be so many of them.

Yes. What we need is a standard set of standards .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What are you on about? Bombardier didn't already do a corridor cab for turbos or electrostars? So please tell me how the insisted on being different?

And does it not make sense having trains that can couple to the rest of the fleet? :roll:

Well when I said connector I was talking about the unit coupling not the inter-unit gangway connector. I hope that was what others were talking about !. My point was that I believe Connex insisted on a different unit COUPLING to the standard Bombardier product. I only wish I could remember but I think this was because they had to match 465s and 466s as opposed to older Sourhern (region) electric units. I stand to be corrected. I also vaguuely recall reading somewhere that at some point South eastern and South central had different inter-unit connectors hence the two classifications of 375 and 377 - can someone shed any light on that ?.

Anyway IIRC the inter-unit gangway connection first appeared on the Electrostar/Turbostar family with the 375s and 377s. The 357s did not have one and strangely no Turbostars untill some of the 172s. IIRC the only Juniper family unit to get a gangway was almost the 458s (designed but not fitted).

And, yes, standards do make sense. But even more if they apply to the whole of the UK.

 

[MCR247]

Oh ok then.

458s do have gangways btw

 

[Peter Sarf]

Oh ok then.

458s do have gangways btw

You're right - the gangway connector must be hiding behind those front doors !. Apparently not used much and can only be connected/dis-connected at depots. Apparently when runnig in pairs they stay permanently connected for longer than a day. Source SEG site - http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/swt458f01.html.
Looks like the inter-unit connections have/had RVAR issues preventing them from actually being walked through. 458s suffered likewise re the loos and the pis (not disabled persons friendly).