Class 172 Production Progress

[tonytrainsfree]

yes you are right but they have found a supplier it is the same supplier which Chiltern Railways got they seats from

 

[Fincra5]

This thread might be a bit more relavent: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39510&page=2
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why? what's the point, can't they just electrify the line

Yeah thats more down to Network Rail/DfT than the TOC... I'm sure it would be better if Uckfield line and even the Marshlink lines were electrified.

 

[OxtedL]

Yeah thats more down to Network Rail/DfT than the TOC... I'm sure it would be better if Uckfield line and even the Marshlink lines were electrified.

Drifting even further off topic:

You would need to electrify both (or give southern North Downs - they already drive it don't they?) to feel a real benefit or Southern have an even smaller fleet of 171s.

Since Uckfield seems not to have a business case as it is...

 

[Class172]

Then if the lines were electrified, it would displace the 171s and they could be used somewhere else (may need converting back to 170s)

 

[Rhydgaled]

(* - also affects FGW and ATW, of course, with their Sprinters/ Pacers - I appreciate we aren't the only ones in this position)

Replacement of the Pacer and Sprinter fleets can only be done one step at a time due to the vast total number of trains, but it would help if all those steps in the process of fleet replacement were strategically linked into each other to avoid, as you rightly point out, micro fleets. Electrify the Cardiff Valleys (with either displaced 315s or new 378 type three car units), and move Networker Turbos onto the Cardiff to Pompey runs by displacing them through the GWML Oxford electrification (freeing up 150s to take over Pacer duties), and the Pacer replacement issue quickly becomes largely confined to Northern. It’s going to be a slow, laborious process, but it can be done.

There's are 2 MASSIVE problems with replacing Sprinters in my opinion:

1. All new DMUs built since then (17x and whatever it is TPE have, have been far heavier)
2. Most new DMUs (the exception being 175s) have 1/3 2/3 doors, making them inner or outer suburban stock, not suitable for long distance stuff like Cardiff - Portsmouth

Apparently Intercity 125s are good until at least 2035 (60 years old). I think that, because Sprinters are much lighter than new DMUs and introducing new DMUs delays electrification, Sprinters should also be life-extended to reach 60. This should include all the 158s and 159s at the very least (because, unlike the other Sprinter models, they still seem modern, even ATW's Wales & West blue & silver examples!). 172s are outer-suburban units, therefore I think they should be deployed on such routes, cascading 150s to replace Pacers (which hopefully are on inner suburban routes, because that's where 150s are more at home.)

As for ValleyLines, I disagree on both counts. If you have to go for cascaded stock, I'd suggest (assuming they would/could be made available) something like 317s (although you probably only want 3-car units), as they have through corridor connections (useful if you are lengthening trains at peak times). However, personally I think they should cancel the 16ish miles of extra lane for the Heads Of The Valleys road to pay for wiring the ValleyLines network. If they did that, they'd have enough left over after the electrification to buy a fleet of 3-car Electrostars as big as ATW's entire pacer and 150 fleet (61 units!). Again I'd suggest corridor fitted units, a 3-car 377 is what I'd pick I think.

 

[jopsuk]

As I’ve recently said in another thread, replacement of Northerns’ diesel fleet is a big problem caused by the complexity and diversity of the routes operated by the franchise that will require much more strategic consideration,

I reckon that pretty much all of Northern's fleet could be replaced by 172s- though possibly with some layout variations for different service groups. They could certainly replace all the Pacers, 150s and possibly 153s (very unlikely they'll get single-car replacements). Any idea what the ride of a 172 is like compared to a 170? The likes of Scotrail, XC use 170s on services that used to be 158 operated.

It would be a big order- on a close to like-for-like basis you're talking around 250 units- say 600 or so carriages. Wonder how quickly spotters would pine for Pacers if Northern had a uniform diesel fleet.

This does of course ignore electrification, franchise area changes etc.

 

[387star]

I don't think the rural lines up North warrant air conditioned stock so hopper windows will reduce costs.

We need them to be as cheap as possible and air con is surely added expense

 

[tbtc]

Apparently Intercity 125s are good until at least 2035 (60 years old). I think that, because Sprinters are much lighter than new DMUs and introducing new DMUs delays electrification, Sprinters should also be life-extended to reach 60

Stock isn't built to last sixty years. We can't just patch up trains and hope they survive for over twice as long as they were meant to...

As for ValleyLines, I disagree on both counts. If you have to go for cascaded stock, I'd suggest (assuming they would/could be made available) something like 317s

Well, yeah, ideally everything would be electrified and we could get EMUs on all routes. And, I agree that the Valley Lines are a much better candidate than most routes (better than the GWML for starters). But that's not going to happen any time soon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Drifting even further off topic:

You would need to electrify both (or give southern North Downs - they already drive it don't they?) to feel a real benefit or Southern have an even smaller fleet of 171s.

Since Uckfield seems not to have a business case as it is...

Both Southern lines need electrifying, there are 44 coaches which could go elsewhere, badly needed.

I wonder whether the Third Rail is one reason its not happened (e.g. would the extension be okay as Third Rail or would it need overhead wiring?)

 

[Blindtraveler]

ok, Re my idea for 172s, wasnt thinking, yeh it all makes a lotta sense. think lm would appreciate the extra 150s etc. What condition are they in internally?

 

[daccer]

There is a crunch coming in rolling stock procurement and the Govt or Daft or whoever is driving the process is tinkering whilst the railways head down the swanny.

You cannot rely on life extension to get the capacity increases needed. There are major issues coming up with disability regs and also just public expectation which simply wont allow the continual refurbing of knackered old stock.

The Govt seems to put great store in the cascades that electrification will provide and then cuts back on said electrification!

The salient facts are these. The rolling stock fleet is getting progressively older (basically by a year every year as old stock is not scrapped). The re-deployment of 25 and 30 yr old stock (i.e 313's and 319's) is only a short term solution as they are facing life expiry before too long. There are literally hundreds of Pacers due to be gone by 2019. And on top of that we are seeing year on year growth on many rural lines.

Is electrification going to keep pace with the need to replace Pacers and even some of the early Sprinter classes. What about the PEP based fleets which are coming to their end. If the Dft follow form and cut back on Thameslink and Crossrail orders then we do face the prospect of 40-50 year old trains becoming prevalent in many areas. There is a reckoning coming - tinkering is not the answer.

 

[swt_passenger]

I wonder whether the Third Rail is one reason its not happened (e.g. would the extension be okay as Third Rail or would it need overhead wiring?)

On lines fully within the existing DC area, NR's published electrification plans are for third rail extensions - that covers all the SN routes, and the Reigate - Reading via Guildford (North Downs?) line.

It is only when you get out of area with routes such as Basingstoke to Reading, and Basingstoke to Salisbury and Exeter that the preference switches to OHLE.

 

[xc170]

ok, Re my idea for 172s, wasnt thinking, yeh it all makes a lotta sense. think lm would appreciate the extra 150s etc. What condition are they in internally?

The LM 150's?

There in a very good condition internally, for there age and use...

LM have looked after them quite well.

 

[387star]

They were in a dreadful state under Central Trains although I think they were refurbished when painted in that garish green
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a crunch coming in rolling stock procurement and the Govt or Daft or whoever is driving the process is tinkering whilst the railways head down the swanny.

You cannot rely on life extension to get the capacity increases needed. There are major issues coming up with disability regs and also just public expectation which simply wont allow the continual refurbing of knackered old stock.

The Govt seems to put great store in the cascades that electrification will provide and then cuts back on said electrification!

The salient facts are these. The rolling stock fleet is getting progressively older (basically by a year every year as old stock is not scrapped). The re-deployment of 25 and 30 yr old stock (i.e 313's and 319's) is only a short term solution as they are facing life expiry before too long. There are literally hundreds of Pacers due to be gone by 2019. And on top of that we are seeing year on year growth on many rural lines.

Is electrification going to keep pace with the need to replace Pacers and even some of the early Sprinter classes. What about the PEP based fleets which are coming to their end. If the Dft follow form and cut back on Thameslink and Crossrail orders then we do face the prospect of 40-50 year old trains becoming prevalent in many areas. There is a reckoning coming - tinkering is not the answer.

I agree. How long are they expecting 319s to last? I hear they will recieve air con

 

[Fincra5]

They were in a dreadful state under Central Trains although I think they were refurbished when painted in that garish green
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I agree. How long are they expecting 319s to last? I hear they will recieve air con

I dunno, 319s have so many door problems. Both passenger and driver doors seem to break a fair amount. At Brighton you will quite commonly see a driver struggling to shut his/her door

Anyway back to 172s...

 

[xc170]

There was only 1 172 on Tyseley today, I passed there about 1pm...

 

[tbtc]

On lines fully within the existing DC area, NR's published electrification plans are for third rail extensions - that covers all the SN routes, and the Reigate - Reading via Guildford (North Downs?) line.

It is only when you get out of area with routes such as Basingstoke to Reading, and Basingstoke to Salisbury and Exeter that the preference switches to OHLE.

Cheers
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a crunch coming in rolling stock procurement and the Govt or Daft or whoever is driving the process is tinkering whilst the railways head down the swanny.

You cannot rely on life extension to get the capacity increases needed. There are major issues coming up with disability regs and also just public expectation which simply wont allow the continual refurbing of knackered old stock.

The Govt seems to put great store in the cascades that electrification will provide and then cuts back on said electrification!

The salient facts are these. The rolling stock fleet is getting progressively older (basically by a year every year as old stock is not scrapped). The re-deployment of 25 and 30 yr old stock (i.e 313's and 319's) is only a short term solution as they are facing life expiry before too long. There are literally hundreds of Pacers due to be gone by 2019. And on top of that we are seeing year on year growth on many rural lines.

Is electrification going to keep pace with the need to replace Pacers and even some of the early Sprinter classes. What about the PEP based fleets which are coming to their end. If the Dft follow form and cut back on Thameslink and Crossrail orders then we do face the prospect of 40-50 year old trains becoming prevalent in many areas. There is a reckoning coming - tinkering is not the answer.

I agree with all of that

 

[TomJ93]

The solution is that TOCs and ROSOCs are given more freedom as well as longer franchises.

 

[87015]

The solution is that TOCs and ROSOCs are given more freedom as well as longer franchises.

But they tried that first tome round and we are still mopping up many of the problems it caused.

 

[trains2064]

172331 is in the factory at tyseley having a couple of things changed.
172332 is basking in the sun at 08.30 waiting for more drivers to arrive for training.

 

[sprinterguy]

The LM 150's?

There in a very good condition internally, for there age and use...

LM have looked after them quite well.

I think they're looking fairly ragged these days personally, but the refurb/refresh helped a lot and they're still in better condition than some of the Northern 150s I've travelled on. I'd hope that as soon as the cascade takes place then this will give Northern the impetus to undertake a fleet wide refurb of all it's 150s to bring them up to the same spec.

 

[Class172]

I think they're looking fairly ragged these days personally, but the refurb/refresh helped a lot and they're still in better condition than some of the Northern 150s I've travelled on. I'd hope that as soon as the cascade takes place then this will give Northern the impetus to undertake a fleet wide refurb of all it's 150s to bring them up to the same spec.

I thought Northern weren't allowed to do any major refurbs as part of their contract.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

172331 is in the factory at tyseley having a couple of things changed.
172332 is basking in the sun at 08.30 waiting for more drivers to arrive for training.

I'll go do some training age is no barrier

 

[northwichcat]

I thought Northern weren't allowed to do any major refurbs as part of their contract.

Northern don't get funding for major refurbs as part of their franchise agreement but they can fund them themselves and I heard that they make a few million pounds profit every year.

 

[sprinterguy]

There's are 2 MASSIVE problems with replacing Sprinters in my opinion:

1. All new DMUs built since then (17x and whatever it is TPE have, have been far heavier)
2. Most new DMUs (the exception being 175s) have 1/3 2/3 doors, making them inner or outer suburban stock, not suitable for long distance stuff like Cardiff - Portsmouth

This should include all the 158s and 159s at the very least (because, unlike the other Sprinter models, they still seem modern, even ATW's Wales & West blue & silver examples!). 172s are outer-suburban units, therefore I think they should be deployed on such routes, cascading 150s to replace Pacers (which hopefully are on inner suburban routes, because that's where 150s are more at home.)

I agree with these parts: The need to replace Sprinters isn’t as great as the requirement to replace the Pacers, and the Turbostars that are currently much favoured for new train orders aren’t as well suited to long distance services as the 158s, which still have plenty of life in them. So yes, I also see a new build of 172s as a replacement for 156s, 153s and 150s on outer suburban and intra-regional workings, allowing these Sprinter classes to filter down to other workings, with 150s replacing Pacers.

A refurbished three carriage 315 would still be a big step up from Pacers for the Valley Lines: For a start, a three carriage 315 is twice the length of a two carriage Pacer, and has bogies! Ideally a new build of Suburban Electrostars would be ideal, but if funding for the Valley Lines electrification were forthcoming (I’m with you on diverting funding from widening the Heads of the Valleys road for this purpose), I foresee that it would be a few years before the cost of new rolling stock could be justified.

If some of the Pacers were replaced by electrification projects such as Valley lines and the upcoming north west electrification, a like for like replacement of the remaining Pacers by 150s on the diesel routes would require less than the entire number of 150s (There are a very similar number of 150s compared to the total number of Pacers) and would give the opportunity for, dare I say it, doubling up of units on some workings that had previously been single Pacers. What a luxury that would be!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a crunch coming in rolling stock procurement and the Govt or Daft or whoever is driving the process is tinkering whilst the railways head down the swanny.

You cannot rely on life extension to get the capacity increases needed. There are major issues coming up with disability regs and also just public expectation which simply wont allow the continual refurbing of knackered old stock.

The Govt seems to put great store in the cascades that electrification will provide and then cuts back on said electrification!

The salient facts are these. The rolling stock fleet is getting progressively older (basically by a year every year as old stock is not scrapped). The re-deployment of 25 and 30 yr old stock (i.e 313's and 319's) is only a short term solution as they are facing life expiry before too long. There are literally hundreds of Pacers due to be gone by 2019. And on top of that we are seeing year on year growth on many rural lines.

Is electrification going to keep pace with the need to replace Pacers and even some of the early Sprinter classes. What about the PEP based fleets which are coming to their end. If the Dft follow form and cut back on Thameslink and Crossrail orders then we do face the prospect of 40-50 year old trains becoming prevalent in many areas. There is a reckoning coming - tinkering is not the answer.

+1. I couldn't agree more.

 

[DavidBusDriver]

Bear in mind however when it comes to refurbishments, that an EMU will last a serious amount of time longer than a similarly aged DMU - just look at all the slammers still running up into 2005, 45 years old at least, and who wanted rid of them?

319's are a good solid reliable unit, as seem to be the 313's when I use them to get into work, and don't underestimate what a real, strip-down high quality refurbishment can do to a train - SWT's 455's were greeted by the passengers as brand new trains after the refurbishment, and is easy to see why, travelled on one a few weeks ago, and really are impressive inside hard to think you are on an 80's unit!

Also - why assume a 172 is 'too much' train to replace a Pacer, surely we should be trying to increase standards and quality wherever we can, even basic cars aren't getting less comfortable so don't think we should be being less competitive on the railways, need to provide good levels of comfort to maintain current passengers and hopefully draw more people onto the country's best mode of transportation!

 

[Class172]

How about a 1 car 23m or a 2 car 20m turbostar to replace the pacers, 150s and 153s

 

[sprinterguy]

How about a 1 car 23m or a 2 car 20m turbostar to replace the pacers, 150s and 153s

Some 20 metre carriage length Turbostars might be a good idea, but a single carriage unit would be useless due to the increased amount of space required for larger disabled friendly toilets and other design advances in modern trains which would leave woefully little seating. If a two carriage Turbostar provides more capacity than a two carriage 150 (Not necessarily the case even with longer carriages due to the issues of modern train design I mentioned above) then that should be seen as an added bonus and left at that.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

But they tried that first tome round and we are still mopping up many of the problems it caused.

If, by "first time around" you mean the era of Virgin West Coast, Chiltern and C2C franchising, then PLEEEAAASE roll back the clock and give us some more of those problems!

 

[Rhydgaled]

If, by "first time around" you mean the era of Virgin West Coast, Chiltern and C2C franchising, then PLEEEAAASE roll back the clock and give us some more of those problems!

Please roll back the clock further, and bring back british rail. The subsidy they got was tiny compared to what the railways get now (5 times less (ish)). Throw in the huge fare rises, and it would almost be profitable by now. :-x We would then be able to afford much greater investment, it's time the government realised what a mistake privatisation was and reversed it.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Please roll back the clock further, and bring back british rail. The subsidy they got was tiny compared to what the railways get now (5 times less (ish)). Throw in the huge fare rises, and it would almost be profitable by now. :-x We would then be able to afford much greater investment, it's time the government realised what a mistake privatisation was and reversed it.

Much as I agree with some of your facts, it's an over-simplification of the reality. With or without one state operator, the Government would be obliged to allow open access due to EU rules on competition, so we would gradually creep back towards privatisation. Spending money now on re-nationalisation would be a waste of resources, that should now be spent on knitting and replacing worn out rolling stock.

We are where we are, and must look forwards, not back.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Much as I agree with some of your facts, it's an over-simplification of the reality. With or without one state operator, the Government would be obliged to allow open access due to EU rules on competition, so we would gradually creep back towards privatisation. Spending money now on re-nationalisation would be a waste of resources, that should now be spent on knitting and replacing worn out rolling stock.

We are where we are, and must look forwards, not back.

Spending what money now on re-nationalisation? as I see it all that would be needed is to remain leasing any stock the ROSCOs haven't yet made a return on until they do, then take charge of that stock too. My post was over-simplification, yes, but privatisation has failed. We would be obliged to allow open access, but it wouldn't make much difference, look how many applications for open access services get turned down. Since the ROSCOs would be forced to hand all their stock over, open access operators would have to own their own stock or lease from the nationalised operator.