difference between 168/1 and 2s and 170s and 171s

[Helvellyn]

Bump to spread a rumour. There might be a few less 172s on Chiltern before much longer. There might be a few less 170/4s on Scotrail and a few 'new' 168/3s on Chiltern too.

So once some 170/4s are released by ScotRail due to electrification, Chiltern picks them, gives them a refurbishment and repaint, changes the coupling and reclassifies as 168/3?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Maybe.

Might the rumour say that the 172s will be fitted with gangway ends and get painted green?

No. The rumour could say that they might paint the doors orange and spend the rest of their days within the M25.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Maybe.



No. The rumour could say that they might paint the doors orange and spend the rest of their days within the M25.

What a waste 100mph units on a slow route with the loos presumably locked out of use.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Maybe.



No. The rumour could say that they might paint the doors orange and spend the rest of their days within the M25.

Its a shame the rumours dont say they could be adapted to be Class 171's and used to Uckfield.

 

[causton]

What a waste 100mph units on a slow route with the loos presumably locked out of use.

It's happened before temporarily...

 

[The Ham]

What a waste 100mph units on a slow route with the loos presumably locked out of use.

Would not LO want to reconfigure them so as to remove the loo altogether and have more space for passengers?

 

[HSTEd]

The 172s have worked in multiple with class 153s before, but the practice has not been perpetuated in passenger service as the corridor connection between the two units has to remain locked due to differences in floor height. There is still one ECS move that calls for a 153 to work in multiple with a 172, though.

Does this mean the Class 172s cannot have through gangways with any Sprinter type units at all? (Since I assume they are all compatible with each other?)

If so is this not a bit of a blunder.... I assume this is a result of them using the Electrostar cab off-the-shelf rather than a Sprinter compatible one?

 

[Metrailway]

Why do 170s have a higher track usage charge when compared to 168s and 171s?

 

[TDK]

Why do 170s have a higher track usage charge when compared to 168s and 171s?

Is the RA or Axle weight different?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Is the RA or Axle weight different?

They seem to be roughly the same weight.

 

[HSTEd]

I think it is to do with the differing speeds the classes are diagrammed for.

For instance I imagine 170s do more flat out 100mph running than Class 168s or 171s (certainly back in the day when Midland Mainline or Hull Trains used to use them)

 

[MCR247]

I wouldn't expect a 170 to be doing 100 on a Rugeley TV run...

 

[Rhydgaled]

Might the rumour say that the 172s will be fitted with gangway ends

That'd be good. If true, any chance they could do some/all class 170s while they are at it?

Is the floor-height of a class 170 such that gangways would be compatible with sprinters or 172s if fitted?

 

[TDK]

I think it is to do with the differing speeds the classes are diagrammed for.

For instance I imagine 170s do more flat out 100mph running than Class 168s or 171s (certainly back in the day when Midland Mainline or Hull Trains used to use them)

168's do a lot of 100mph running on the Chilterns, I would say a lot more than any 170

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Absolutely. With a few exceptions through stations and over junctions it's 95-100mph almost all of the way from Solihull to Wembley Stadium.

 

[asylumxl]

Absolutely. With a few exceptions through stations and over junctions it's 95-100mph almost all of the way from Solihull to Wembley Stadium.

I'd imagine it's could be down to some difference in the design of the bogies, suspension or transmission etc.

At the end of the day, the best bet is just to send Bombardier an e-mail and see if they can tell you...

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm beginning to sound like a sodding echo.

These units are, apart from detail differences with regard to equipment and trim, IDENTICAL. I suspect that track access charges are calculated on the basis of more than simply the physical and technical characteristics of the trains themselves.

If you're curious to know, why not ask the relevant body.

O L Leigh

 

[asylumxl]

If you're curious to know, why not ask the relevant body.

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

 

[LWB]

Looking at the differences between 59's and 66's (two very similar locos) I guess the radial bogies could be the type of factor in reducing track wear and hence track usage costs.:neutral:

 

[Class172]

There's much more difference between class 59s and 66s, than any of 168/170/171: apart from their couplers (and interior etc), you could call all of them just one class

 

[O L Leigh]

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

No it isn't. Bombardier do not set track access charges.

And, once again, there are no significant differences between the DMU classes under discussion. They can be considered identical in all important aspects.

O L Leigh

 

[asylumxl]

No it isn't. Bombardier do not set track access charges.

And, once again, there are no significant differences between the DMU classes under discussion. They can be considered identical in all important aspects.

O L Leigh

But they do build the trains and will be aware of what differences may lead to the different charges.

 

[O L Leigh]

*Sigh*

There ARE no differences. They are all variants of the same basic DMU and were all built side-by-side on the same assembly line.

And also, Bombardier do not build the trains to meet specific track access charges. They build them to meet the needs of the operators.

O L Leigh

 

[D365]

If there are no significant differences, which we have established true, then why are 170s more expensive?

 

[O L Leigh]

Why are you asking me? Ask the people who set the track access charges, just as I suggested hours ago.

**EDIT**

That damn list is riddled with inconsistencies. There are differences in track access charges between other similar trains. There are differences in the access charges for Cl313 and Cl314 EMUs. Does that mean that one class is heavier or harder on the track than any other? How can this be when these units are, like Cl170s and all their variants, identical to all intents and purposes? So perhaps there is something else in it after all, some other variable that is not generally known about that has nothing to do with the physical attributes of the trains under discussion.

O L Leigh

 

[D365]

I'm not actually asking you, nor am I particularly interested, I'm just trying to pull this discussion out of the loop it has been stuck in.

 

[O L Leigh]

As am I.

People are trying to prove some difference that I and others have been saying for some great time does not exist. Producing track access charge lists does not give evidence of difference.

O L Leigh

 

[Grumpy]

They seem to be roughly the same weight.

Cough. 170's are approx. 20% heavier

 

[D365]

Yes, there is no significant difference, but why is it that a 170 has a track access charge of around half a pound more, per vehicle mile...? Or is it such a mystery? Hmm, tempting curiosity.

Cough. 170's are approx. 20% heavier

I understand weight positively correlating access charges, but where does this difference stem from?

 

[O L Leigh]

Cough. 170's are approx. 20% heavier

*Cough* Source...? *Cough*

The Railway Centre has them just a tonne or two between variants. It also lists the same power units, transmissions and bogies for those who were wondering.

So can we now please let this drop...? It's all nonsense. These units are, near as dammit, IDENTICAL. If anyone wants to query the track access charges, please can they address their enquiry to the relevant authority rather than endlessly spinning this hogwash by speculating. Clearly, as I have said before, there is more to track access charges than weight.

Or is that not clear enough...?

O L Leigh