Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[03_179]

Not yet ......

16:07 off Wolverton

 

[class387]

Any more pictures of the new 171 conversions？

 

[D6975]

171402 = vehicles: 50424, 56424, 56523, 79424

171202 = vehicles: 50423, 79423.

is that a typo or are they doing a bit of renumbering? (apart from set nos that is)

 

[Techniquest]

171402 = vehicles: 50424, 56424, 56523, 79424

171202 = vehicles: 50423, 79423.

Interesting, I shall be updating my notes then soon, once they enter service

 

[Chrisgr31]

Interesting, I shall be updating my notes then soon, once they enter service

If you are waiting for them to enter service before updating your notes you may not be doing the update soon!

Well depending on definition of soon of course!

 

[Techniquest]

A full list of what is now what and in what formation is required!

 

[physics34]

Ex-170423 was outside the selhurst shed this morning still with no numbers on the front.

 

[43096]

Given that nine 3-car sets are transferring, and that GTR are reforming them into 2-car and 4-car sets, there is clearly going to be either a centre car left over or a single 3-car set. Or are the final 5 sets going to be left as 3-car?

 

[D365]

Given that nine 3-car sets are transferring, and that GTR are reforming them into 2-car and 4-car sets, there is clearly going to be either a centre car left over or a single 3-car set. Or are the final 5 sets going to be left as 3-car?

A surplus intermediate carriage was always part of the plan. I seem to recall another spare 170 car coming from somewhere else (mentioned on these forums a while back), but for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

 

[158722]

A surplus intermediate carriage was always part of the plan. I seem to recall another spare 170 car coming from somewhere else (mentioned on these forums a while back), but for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

There was talk of the Chiltern 168s and ex-TPE 170s all being reformed into 3-car sets, which would have left one centre spare. As we know, the 168/3s have remained 2-car, so far....

 

[D365]

There was talk of the Chiltern 168s and ex-TPE 170s all being reformed into 3-car sets, which would have left one centre spare. As we know, the 168/3s have remained 2-car, so far....

Thanks for the memory jog. I knew it had to be from the Chiltern lot, but I didn't want to get it wrong.

 

[MCR247]

A surplus intermediate carriage was always part of the plan. I seem to recall another spare 170 car coming from somewhere else (mentioned on these forums a while back), but for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

Its quite annoying that there will be a spare middle carriage sat at Selhurst when it could go to somewhere else with 2 car 170s :roll:

 

[D365]

Its quite annoying that there will be a spare middle carriage sat at Selhurst when it could go to somewhere else with 2 car 170s :roll:

I can't imagine that Eversholt won't want to make use of that spare carriage.

 

[cj_1985]

So long as someone is paying a leasing charge for it, I doubt they'll care if it gets used or not

 

[physics34]

The centre car has now been removed from 171202 (ex-170423)

 

[Chrisgr31]

It appears the intention s to introduce the 10 car trains on 25th July, and the first converted 170's might be in public service on 3rd July, There's also a suggestion that Southern may pass on the rest of the fleet they are due to receive because of the amount of work required to this lot.

Info from the Uckfield Railway Line Parishes committee as reported to Crowborough Town Council http://www.crowboroughtowncouncil.g...2016-2/1680-environment-minutes-24-05-16/file

 

[physics34]

Not sure if converting 171s to 170s would've been easier but we really should've given this stock and our 171s to London Midland in exchange for 172s.

 

[Wolfie]

Not sure if converting 171s to 170s would've been easier but we really should've given this stock and our 171s to London Midland in exchange for 172s.

I can see the attraction for Southern but, except perhaps for the microfleet argument, what exactly was in it for LM? Trading new stock for 10+ year old stock for no obvious reason (even if the various ROSCOs would agree) doesn't make a whole deal of sense, and why should LM take on the risk associated with stock conversion (in this case 171s to 170s) as they wouldn't want a non-standard fleet either...

 

[Sparks807Evo]

Not sure if converting 171s to 170s would've been easier but we really should've given this stock and our 171s to London Midland in exchange for 172s.

That would've made no sense - aside from the fact LM would lose pretty new vehicles for older ones, the 170 interior would not be suitable for the Snow Hill lines commuter line operation. Out of all the options Southern chose the best one (although perhaps the newer style 170s would've been more suitable in terms of electrics?).

 

[JamesRowden]

It appears the intention s to introduce the 10 car trains on 25th July, and the first converted 170's might be in public service on 3rd July, There's also a suggestion that Southern may pass on the rest of the fleet they are due to receive because of the amount of work required to this lot.

Info from the Uckfield Railway Line Parishes committee as reported to Crowborough Town Council http://www.crowboroughtowncouncil.g...2016-2/1680-environment-minutes-24-05-16/file

Five 3-car 170s would be ideal for Brighton-Ashford services (except for the fact that a breakdown would be a bigger issue compared to using 171s) which would allow five 2-car 171s to be transfered from the Coastway to the Uckfield line.

 

[physics34]

That would've made no sense - aside from the fact LM would lose pretty new vehicles for older ones, the 170 interior would not be suitable for the Snow Hill lines commuter line operation. Out of all the options Southern chose the best one (although perhaps the newer style 170s would've been more suitable in terms of electrics?).

In theory because of the corridor connections you could have run longer trains down the uckfield line without the need for extending the platforms.

 

[MCR247]

In theory because of the corridor connections you could have run longer trains down the uckfield line without the need for extending the platforms.

So everyone should bend over backwards so Southern can get a better deal? 171s are of no use to LM

 

[jopsuk]

So everyone should bend over backwards so Southern can get a better deal? 171s are of no use to LM

Well quite. The LM fleet have corridor connectors because LM specced them to have them presumably as an operational requirement. CHiltern and Overground's 172 fleets don't have connectors on the cab ends as they don't operate in the same way (and there's a high chance the LO ones go to CHiltern I guess?)

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is the metal casting of the class 172 cabs (Chiltern and LO ones) a separate casting from the body welded into place or one casting with the body?

 

[hwl]

Is the metal casting of the class 172 cabs (Chiltern and LO ones) a separate casting from the body welded into place or one casting with the body?

No casting involved
The cab (and other) ends are fibre glass on top of welded tubular frame
The bodies are welded Aluminium extrusions

See the images from this thread on damaged 168s:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2430119&postcount=28

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2470070&postcount=47

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Can the Chiltern and LO 172s in theory have the cab ends replaced with coridorr conections (like the LM 172s)?

 

[cj_1985]

No doubt, in theory.... yes
But the cost would probably render it a non starter

 

[D365]

If somebody pays up then it will happen. At least it'd be easier than the Class 458/5 conversion.

 

[physics34]

Had my conversion course on them the other day.

The 2x 2cars (171201, 202) are 1st class one end only like the 171/7s, but they have left the seating in so you have a disclassified section with first class seating at one end. If i was a punter id aim for these seats

THere are other difference in the cab and different procedures if an engine fails.

first run VERY close.

 

[class387]

Had my conversion course on them the other day.

The 2x 2cars (171201, 202) are 1st class one end only like the 171/7s, but they have left the seating in so you have a disclassified section with first class seating at one end. If i was a punter id aim for these seats

THere are other difference in the cab and different procedures if an engine fails.

first run VERY close.

So are the converted units identical to the originals?

If not, any pictures?