• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 172 Production Progress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

saltley 1394

saltley 1394

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2008
Messages
43
Location
Birmingham
The last of the Chiltern units 172101 is being deliveried to Wembley Friday afternoon 1635 from Derby booked onto wembley 2036, all the Chiltern units will have been delivered and should enter serivce next week sometime.
 
R

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,856
Anvil1984 said:
To be honest as I dont know the answer I am going to sit on the fence and say I dont know, but to see other areas get units to replace the likes of the 150s (London Midland) whilst ourselves at Northern and looking at ATW coping day to day with 153s, 142s and 150s and not having any chance of replacement in near future starts to grate. I would rather a rolling electrification system for up here, could be done as part of two major schemed TPE and MML but that could be 20 years easily away
Click to expand...
Well, as I say keep the Sprinters in Wales. Pacers however is a different story, from what I've heard about them they are too poor at accessibility and are insufficently crash-worthy. ValleyLines electrfication should confine the things to Northern, but the shear number of them there means they probablly can't all be got rid of by 2020 by electrification alone, so Northen is probablly where I'd put any further 172s.

MCR247 said:
You'd want 11 car EMUs and why keep 91s and MK4s since this would be impractical due to the lack of run around at INV. Could you not just order some purpose built locos that can use push-pull with the EMUs. They would also be used as thunderbirds, and would be used in similar situations on other lines
Click to expand...
Assuming INV is Inverness, how do the sleepers manage? Anyway, I think why 91s and mark 4s is if you equip the diesel locos with the right sort of TDM you don't need to run-round, just swap 91 for deisel loco at the last wired station. Finally, why 11-car EMUs? I'd suggest 8-car electric IEPs for GWML and 9-car ones for ECML. This is the same number of coaches as the IC125 and IC225 on each route BUT IEP has longer coaches, so having the same number of coaches actually gives an increase in seats.

sprinterguy said:
There’s a heck of a lot of sense being spoken here. A more thorough programme of electrification projects is all that is needed to drastically reduce the complexity (and the cost) of the Intercity Express Project. Electrification to Swansea as part of the GWML and from Edinburgh to Aberdeen as part of Transport for Scotlands’ ongoing electrification plans would mean that two fleets of pure electric, ten carriage IEP trains would be all that was needed, with some of the 225s retained and split between both GWML and ECML to operate the few remaining services travelling beyond the limits of electrification, to Inverness or West Wales. And, as you say, the 180s would work the Cotswolds services to Worcester and Hereford.

Electrification of the Midland Main line through to Doncaster and Wakefield in around 2025 would then release the Meridians to replace the remaining South West HSTs, before electrification to Plymouth is undertaken when the Meridians become life expired at a future date.
Click to expand...

I have thought about splitting IC225s between East Coast and Great Western, but it's a bit of a small fleet, so I think I'd just have class 67s (using the locos from the sleepers in the case of at least some Aberdeen and Inverness services) drag the IEP electrics for East Coast. There's supposedly some 67s on Thunderbird standby which could be used for Hull and Harrogate's one train each (or you could transfer them, and the IC125s to run them, to Hull Trains and Grand Central respectivly). That would give East Coast a uniform fleet of electric IEPs (and 67s). The 225s would all go to Great Western, where they would run Paddington to Swansea and Cheltenham services, and with a loco-swap to a TDM fitted 47/57, Carmarthen and Pembroke (where I'm pretty sure you couldn't send an IEP, bi-mode or not, because of the long carriges).

I'd avoid DMUs on the PAD - Taunton and beyond services, keeping the IC125s and introducing new LHCS gradually to replace first those (from about 2025 to 2035) then the sleeper cars (2035 to 2040), then eventually the mark 4s (2040 - 2050). Cotswolds could be 180s, or bi-mode Voyagers suplemented by 125s later replaced by bi-mode 222s from electrfiying the MML. I could say alot more on IEP and electrfication, but I'll spare it this time as this isn't really the thread for it.
 
J

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,774
the sleepers at Inverness get pulled to the yard by the shunter based there I think- a rare occurence of an 08 still in day-to-day service shifting ECS.
 
I

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,609
Rhydgaled said:
There's supposedly some 67s on Thunderbird standby which could be used for Hull and Harrogate's one train each (or you could transfer them, and the IC125s to run them, to Hull Trains and Grand Central respectivly). That would give East Coast a uniform fleet of electric IEPs (and 67s).

Cotswolds could be 180s, or bi-mode Voyagers suplemented by 125s later replaced by bi-mode 222s from electrfiying the MML. I could say alot more on IEP and electrfication, but I'll spare it this time as this isn't really the thread for it.
Click to expand...

For some time I've been pondering whether Hull Trains could sweat their 180s harder and take on EC's Hull service. This actually prompted me to do the back of an envelope calculation, and no they cant! 7 return journeys seem to be based on 3 diagrams (with the shortest turnaround being 12 minutes), however its clear that a 4th diagram could do the EC services and an extra return to Hull inbetween. So given that, I'd propose placing a 5th 180 with HT rather than an IC125 with the 8th daily return making up for the reduction in seats (125vs180) if of course the paths exist.

To keep up the uniform fleets I'd then suggest that 3x 180s are allocated to Lincoln and Harrogate services, meaning the remaining 125s are kept together on the Greater Western franchise where their diminishing numbers could be more appropriately managed down and into retirement. Of course that does leave a single 180 left over. Hmm

Edit: I've just posted this and realised quite how spectacularly off topic I've gone... sorry all!!
 
Last edited:
Skimble19

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,508
Location
London
Actually.. in theory allowing FHT to run the EC service + an extra return in between would be a very good idea.. and for that reason alone I doubt it'd ever happen.
 
3

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,665
Some good clips on youtube of the Chiltern 172 at Didcot last weekend... interior wise it's exactly like the 168s but looking more like an updated 165 from the exterior
 
Skimble19

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,508
Location
London
Well, apart from the cabs and doors, I'd have to agree it looks more like an updated 165 than 168/2.
 
anthony263

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,891
Location
South Wales
Just had this emailed to me concerning the chiltern class 172's which may interest a few members here:

3xClass 172 are diagrammed to enter service tomorrow on a LIMITED weekday diagram (Until more drivers are cleared to drive them).
Diagram as follows:-
5W08 0718 Wembley depot v High Wycombe(0740)
2H10 0750 High Wycombe v Marylebone(0833)
5S10 0844 Marylebone v Marylebone Wall Siding(0907)

5S53 1741 Marylebone Wall Siding v Marylebone(1759)
1N53 1809 Marylebone v Bicester North(1915)
1H62 1925 Bicester North v Marylebone(2029)
5E62 2044 Marylebone v Wembley LMD.(2054).

NB: Units during the day will/may be used for driver training trips on the line.
The 172 units are NOT permitted to travel on the "MET" line.
The 172 units are NOT permitted to travel North of Banbury in public use.
If three units are NOT available balance can be made up of Class165/168 units.
 
Cherry_Picker

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,825
Location
Birmingham
Can anybody shed any reason on why the units are not allowed north of Banbury? I appreciate it might just be company policy, but I cant think of any operational reasons unless they aren't fitted with a bell/buzzer or something.
 
O

oversteer

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2011
Messages
742
Thanks for the tip, am aboard ! The commuters don't seem to have noticed anything different :)

Oh, edit to add: it's 172101, 102 and 103 as a 6-car. 104 is still at Wembley
 
Last edited:
T

trains2064

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
188
Cherry_Picker said:
Can anybody shed any reason on why the units are not allowed north of Banbury? I appreciate it might just be company policy, but I cant think of any operational reasons unless they aren't fitted with a bell/buzzer or something.
Click to expand...

The is a requirement for a Guard on the train North Of Banbury so with no guards trained up for the traction then DOO trips only.

Thinks could change with so training but with only 4 and more Class 67 it is unlikely.
 
I

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,609
I'm sure its been mentioned that the Chiltern 172s are for some specific diagrams, making use of their performance abilities to "accelerate/keep out of the way" of other services when the full Evergreen 3 timetable kicks in.
 
Last edited:
tbtc

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
IanXC said:
I'm sure its been mentioned that the Chiltern 172s are for some specific diagrams, making use of their performance abilities to "accelerate keep out of the way" of other services when the full Evergreen 3 timetable kicks in.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, its a half hourly stopper from Marylebone to Gerrards Cross (or Wycombe?), allowing other trains to run faster/non-stop on that section. However, given the increase in services to places north of Wycombe (e.g. Oxford services) the 172s will need to slot in very carefully, hence their lower "top" speed to ensure better acceleration.

In my eyes, acceleration is often more useful than a theoretical top speed that the unit never gets to reach.
 
Cherry_Picker

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,825
Location
Birmingham
Chiltern 172s are now geared for 100mph as far as I am aware. The better acceleration should still be there from a lighter bogie weight and a mechanical gearbox.
 
Cherry_Picker

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,825
Location
Birmingham
According to every driver I know who signs them, they are 100mph. I was very surprised when I heard it and I'm still not 100% it's true as I havent been on one myself, but its what I heard.
 
saltley 1394

saltley 1394

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2008
Messages
43
Location
Birmingham
Cherry_Picker said:
According to every driver I know who signs them, they are 100mph. I was very surprised when I heard it and I'm still not 100% it's true as I havent been on one myself, but its what I heard.
Click to expand...

Being the chiltern driver invoved in the commissioning tests between Derby and London for the last few week i can confirm that the chiltern 172/1 are 100 mph max speed.:D
 
anthony263

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,891
Location
South Wales
maybe chiltern had them re-geared for 100mph top speed as i do remember reading when the order was first annouced that they would only have a top speed of 75mph
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top