GOBLIN 172's

[150222]

When is the goblin likely to be electrified? What is the feasability of sending the displaced 172's to northern? As we have not had any new trains for over 10 years. I don't think LM will want them as they have a differant type of 172 and chiltern may have too many if they got them as they cannot be used on the met line. As nowhere else signs them is there any reason why Northern can't have them?

 

[MCR247]

Calm it, you're talking about where they will go when there is no plan to displace them, as there is no plan to electrify it!

 

[150222]

But TFL DO WANT to electrify it and they are planning to send them back to the rosco when they do. Is that not the reason they have transverse seating and BSI couplers instead of Dellners?

 

[causton]

I thought that was a decision that TfL weren't able to make - I think they had to be transverse (said the ROSCO?) otherwise nobody would want them when the time came to sell them on. Which implies either forward thinking or the ROSCO really want them gone soon!

 

[MCR247]

I thought that was a decision that TfL weren't able to make - I think they had to be transverse (said the ROSCO?) otherwise nobody would want them when the time came to sell them on. Which implies either forward thinking or the ROSCO really want them gone soon!

You have both basically got the same reason, 378s will spend the rest of their lives their, 172s wont, although that doesn't mean that there are plans to electrify it soon

 

[313103]

When is the goblin likely to be electrified? What is the feasability of sending the displaced 172's to northern? As we have not had any new trains for over 10 years. I don't think LM will want them as they have a differant type of 172 and chiltern may have too many if they got them as they cannot be used on the met line. As nowhere else signs them is there any reason why Northern can't have them?

By the time the line is electrified the class 172s will not be new any more and will probably be well on their way to a midlife overhaul. So sending class 172s to a company that may not exist when the Goblin is electrified is hardly going to impress on the passengers of the ares where they will go in the North. It will be seen as a yet again second hand train. Saying that the class 172s are the very first brand new trains that have operated on the Gospel Oak to Barking line, and the class 378s are the first new trains on the North London Line since the 501s entered service in the 1950s. So it is not just Northern that have had years of second trains.

 

[WestCoast]

Did BR push for Pacers on the GOBLIN, which were rejected? I seem to remember reading something about this on District Dave.

I do also remember reading some ramblings in the Evening Standard about "the oldest trains on earth" on the GOBLIN line, which was referring to the 150s. Do these people not remember the slammers, or realise the fact that older stock (and low quality i.e. Pacers) are still very common in other areas of the country?

 

[notadriver]

I think its a shame there isn't a heritage DMU operating on the line. I like being able to see out the front.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Excuse my ignorance - what is the Goblin please?!

 

[WestCoast]

Excuse my ignorance - what is the Goblin please?!

The Gospel Oak and Barking LINe, a non-electrified inner London route, running as the name suggests from Gospel Oak to Barking! Services are operated by London Overground using 172s. Before that, Silverlink Metro with 150s.

 

[4SRKT]

Excuse my ignorance - what is the Goblin please?!

Gospel Oak > Barking line. It won't exactly release a flood of trains if/when it's electrified.

 

[Masbroughlad]

The Gospel Oak and Barking LINe, a non-electrified route, with services operated by London Overground using 172s. Before that, Silverlink Metro with 150s.

Thanks.

 

[313103]

Did BR push for Pacers on the GOBLIN, which were rejected? I seem to remember reading something about this on District Dave.

I do also remember reading some ramblings in the Evening Standard about "the oldest trains on earth" on the GOBLIN line, which was referring to the 150s. Do these people not remember the slammers, or realise the fact that older stock (and low quality i.e. Pacers) are still very common in other areas of the country?

No it wasnt BR, it was Silverlink who wanted Pacers. The ones they wanted where the units that were dumped at Doncaster (i think they eventually ended up in Iran)for about 3 years. When the reps were told by silverlink that they were planning to get pacers we said have have tried riding on one? In the end it was decided to get some 150s from erstwhile sister company Central trains.

The London standard covers just that 'London' and to a certain degree areas around London. So news about 30 year old pacer trains running between Leeds and York via Knaresborough would not get a mention. When the article in the standard was written i do belive they were talking about the class 117s which at the time were the oldest trains running, but i do not remember the article itself so correct me if i am wrong.

 

[WestCoast]

No it wasnt BR, it was Silverlink who wanted Pacers. The ones they wanted where the units that were dumped at Doncaster (i think they eventually ended up in Iran)for about 3 years. When the reps were told by silverlink that they were planning to get pacers we said have have tried riding on one? In the end it was decided to get some 150s from erstwhile sister company Central trains.

Ah, the 141s. Yes, most did end up in Iran. Here they are.

If the Pacers had gone on the GOBLIN would they have made the national news? To be honest, I think so! Not that I'd wish the 141s on any operator, MetroTrains they were called in West Yorkshire.

The London standard covers just that 'London' and to a certain degree areas around London. So news about 30 year old pacer trains running between Leeds and York via Knaresborough would not get a mention. When the article in the standard was written i do belive they were talking about the class 117s which at the time were the oldest trains running, but i do not remember the article itself so correct me if i am wrong.

I am fully aware that the Standard is London-centric, why would it not be? However, it might help to consider the bigger picture when complaining, that's all I am saying. This was just a letter I believe (it was about 150s), which are considered quite adequate in other areas. There must have been many articles before that, such as the one you mention. Diesel must have an image problem in London anyway, with anything that is non-electrified considered old-fashioned!

With regards to the 172s, do you like working on them 313103? I have yet to sample them...

 

[313103]

)With regards to the 172s, do you like working on them 313103? I have yet to sample them...

They are ok, but a nightmare to keep time with. You can more or less run them on time if you work from the rear cab, but if you work from within the train, you will lose time quickly. Due to the doors being slow once you have pressed the close door button to the slow accelaration the trains have. The one thing that hasnt been addressed yet is awfully loud announcements. It seems the volume is set to its highest and when you dont expect it can often make you jump. Ive been told it is because the train is a diesel train that the setting is high! This would explain if your on the platform outside the train listening to the diesel engine (calm down i know some of you do ) but when you are on inside a 172 it is often quieter then a 378 especially if your in the ptos (Pantograph Trailer Open Standard) of a class 378 coach.

I also dont like the seating arrangement, most people do not know how to travel on a train these days, most think the seat next to them is for their bags and the opposite is for their shoes etc. Mind you i still have to tell people off on 378s about shoes etc on the seats htf can they be comfartable sitting in that configuration.

 

[WestCoast]

I also dont like the seating arrangement, most people do not know how to travel on a train these days, most think the seat next to them is for their bags and the opposite is for their shoes etc. Mind you i still have to tell people off on 378s about shoes etc on the seats htf can they be comfartable sitting in that configuration.

The seating arrangement is 2-2 bays isn't it? Similar to what they have on Merseyrail refurbed
507s/508s. Merseyrail issue fines to those with feet on seats, although the guards don't have to do that.

There has been a lot of debate about the longitudinal seating on the 378s, I am not sure about it. I think they will have to fit transverse seating, if/when they pass to another operator.

 

[swt_passenger]

There has been a lot of debate about the longitudinal seating on the 378s, I am not sure about it. I think they will have to fit transverse seating, if/when they pass to another operator.

Why would they ever pass to another operator though? It is highly unlikely they could be reverted to normal anyway, because all the ancillary equipment you'd normally find in those cupboards next to the narrow gangways on normal electrostars is under the seats and distributed about the whole train on a 378.

Also, there are a number of publications around that strongly suggest that TfL's 'tube style' layout will be used on any new trains for the London TOCs' inner suburban services. For instance it is definitely proposed for the Chingford branch replacements.

 

[tbtc]

It won't exactly release a flood of trains if/when it's electrified

...but you'd have to electrify more than double that distance elsewhere in the country to release as many DMUs...

 

[anthony263]

I think they would also have to fit a toilet to the London Overground class 172's if they are displacesd from the GOBLIN, if its wired.

Bes idea i had is to install a 3rd cariage into the sets, complete with toilet then send them to Northern or Chiltern

 

[MCR247]

Why Chiltern?

 

[BlythPower]

Why Chiltern?

They operate 4 non-gangwayed 172s.

 

[anthony263]

The class 172's can go to Chiltern to provide extra capacity and displace some class 165's which can be used to provide extra carriages on services to Alyesbury or got to FGW to provide capacity around Reading or perhaps down to Bristol.

 

[Pumbaa]

TfL's HLOS2 response recommends lengthening all the 378s to 5-cars, and electrifying the GOBLIN, ordering additional 378s if necessary to run a 4tph electric service along it, fully integrating it into the NLL.

 

[MCR247]

Maybe Richmond - Stratford & Watford - Barking? Would be helpful to have a platform free during the period while HS2 is being built?

 

[Bald Rick]

...but you'd have to electrify more than double that distance elsewhere in the country to release as many DMUs...

And you will struggle to find any route with a more expensive cost per track mile of electrification.

 

[317 forever]

I think any route operating at least 2 trains an hour in its entirety should be electrified, including Goblin. Plenty of routes heading outside London operating half-hourly or less are already electrified, such as to King's Lynn, Eastbourne and Weymouth.

 

[ChrisCooper]

They are ok, but a nightmare to keep time with. You can more or less run them on time if you work from the rear cab, but if you work from within the train, you will lose time quickly. Due to the doors being slow once you have pressed the close door button to the slow accelaration the trains have.

I thought they were supposed to have good acceleration? Are you saying they are worse than the 150s? I have to admit the one run I've done on one I wasn't impressed with the performance, infact I wasn't impressed full stop. Main problem is the large standing areas, but far too few things to hold onto. I actually ended up practically holding onto the person next to me. Add to that the occasional jerk when power was shut off (accompanied by a screech from the drive-train, very refined!). The door cycle times are a problem on all modern units, I really don't see why they have to go through the whole hustle alarm sequence when closing a local door. It's made worse on any Turbostar by the slow door operation and poor acceleration. Not something Electrostars are great with either. Hardly a good advert for Bombardier when it came to Thameslink.

 

[anthony263]

I thought they were supposed to have good acceleration? Are you saying they are worse than the 150s? I have to admit the one run I've done on one I wasn't impressed with the performance, infact I wasn't impressed full stop. Main problem is the large standing areas, but far too few things to hold onto. I actually ended up practically holding onto the person next to me. Add to that the occasional jerk when power was shut off (accompanied by a screech from the drive-train, very refined!). The door cycle times are a problem on all modern units, I really don't see why they have to go through the whole hustle alarm sequence when closing a local door. It's made worse on any Turbostar by the slow door operation and poor acceleration. Not something Electrostars are great with either. Hardly a good advert for Bombardier when it came to Thameslink.

Chiltern lass 172's do seem to acelerate pretty fast but yes i have noticed with the london overground class 172's that they can be sluggish when pulling away.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Chiltern lass 172's do seem to acelerate pretty fast but yes i have noticed with the london overground class 172's that they can be sluggish when pulling away.

The LO and Chiltern ones should be identical other than cosmetics though, so that's odd. Are they differently geared? Odd since I thought the LO and Chilterns were both 75mph maximum but the LMs were 100mph.

Do you find them more sluggish than the 150s?

 

[anthony263]

The chiltern 172's are now geared to 100mph for some reason.

I do admit that they can be more sluggish than the class 150's although they do brake a lot faster. That said i cant really see much difference between the acceleration on a class 170 to a class 172. Chiltern 172's do accelerate quicker than the class 165's & 168's

I would be interested in seing how london midlands clas 172's perform compared to their class 170's. I do think London overgrounds class 172's were rushed into service a bit too quickly, i suspect to allow the class 150's to go to FGW