Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[sprinterguy]

So your comparing moving stock with rebuilding stock and wondering why there a time difference? :roll:

I think that a good part of the point was that older stock wouldn't have needed to be rebuilt, before units became so electronically complex.

Although it's also worth noting that Wabtec's conversion of the class 159/1 units from 158s took far less time, which involved a similar programme of work to refurbish the trains albeit less in ensuring coupling compatibility. Though if Wabtec didn't have the capacity straight away and the platform lengthening isn't complete until July anyway, then I suppose it's a bit of a moot point.

 

[physics34]

I think that a good part of the point was that older stock wouldn't have needed to be rebuilt, before units became so electronically complex.

Although it's also worth noting that Wabtec's conversion of the class 159/1 units from 158s took far less time, which involved a similar programme of work to refurbish the trains albeit less in ensuring coupling compatibility. Though if Wabtec didn't have the capacity straight away and the platform lengthening isn't complete until July anyway, then I suppose it's a bit of a moot point.

This delay is pretty much down to more work being needed than expected..... and Wolverton already having a backlog of work.

 

[Chrisgr31]

This delay is pretty much down to more work being needed than expected..... and Wolverton already having a backlog of work.

Are we sure? I know they might have needed more work than expected but they spent months sitting at Stewarts Lane with nothing happening.

My own suspicion is that GTR have them on a deal where they dont pay for them until they enter service!

Whilst its true to say they would have been of limited use without longer platforms there have been numerous occasions where the existing units have failed so services have been short. Had the work been done on these quicker they could have been used to replace units that were out of service.

 

[physics34]

There's no doubt that there is a sense of "let's not rush" as they are not needed by July. That date is probably agreed with the DfT.

But when they came down for assessment they did think most of the work could be done at selhurst, but they've had to repanel the floor aswell as rewiring, mods to make them compatible with 171s, repainting and interior "southernisation".

Anyway, the return of the first complete unit is imminent!

 

[Class377/5]

Are we sure? I know they might have needed more work than expected but they spent months sitting at Stewarts Lane with nothing happening.

My own suspicion is that GTR have them on a deal where they dont pay for them until they enter service!

Whilst its true to say they would have been of limited use without longer platforms there have been numerous occasions where the existing units have failed so services have been short. Had the work been done on these quicker they could have been used to replace units that were out of service.

I'm not sure of the arrangements on hiring of the units but if you think it's been free for GTR so far think again. These units have suck up valuable depot space and a lot of man hours working on them to get them upto the right standards. And that's with some work gone to Wolverton.

If you honestly think the work could be done quicker, then you haven't a clue to be honest. This is a major project that basically is stripping the units back to bodyshell effectively and building them to 171 standards which are far more demanding that the spec they were built to.

 

[92002]

I'm not sure of the arrangements on hiring of the units but if you think it's been free for GTR so far think again. These units have suck up valuable depot space and a lot of man hours working on them to get them upto the right standards. And that's with some work gone to Wolverton.

If you honestly think the work could be done quicker, then you haven't a clue to be honest. This is a major project that basically is stripping the units back to bodyshell effectively and building them to 171 standards which are far more demanding that the spec they were built to.

These units that went there now more than a year ago, we're putting in more than 1000 a day. Similar units still are. You don't seriously think that Scot-rail spent lots of cash on units that they were about to lose.

 

[hapt1n]

This is a major project that basically is stripping the units back to bodyshell effectively and building them to 171 standards which are far more demanding that the spec they were built to.

The 170 and 171 were all built to the same design, the only mechanical difference is the dellner coupling.

 

[Starmill]

If you honestly think the work could be done quicker, then you haven't a clue to be honest. This is a major project that basically is stripping the units back to bodyshell effectively and building them to 171 standards which are far more demanding that the spec they were built to.

You seem to be very well-informed on the matter generally, based on your posts here and elsewhere. I wonder if you could be a little more specific on which components need to work to a "far more demanding [standard]", as you put it, on 171 stock than on Scotland's Turbostars?

 

[paul1609]

I understand that the door wiring and particularly the door deselect function is different on the later versions and that this needs modifying if they are to work in parallel with other 171s.
A while ago there was a Southern project to remove the forth car from some of the units and insert it in to the 2 car units to make 3 car units that could be used on the Ashford to Brighton line at weekends.
The wiring changes required were found to be so complex that the project was abandoned. Apparently the last tranches of 2 car 170s were built with the extra wiring installed but left redundant so conversion to 171 would be easy if it was ever required, the earlier models didn't. The issue is that at stations like Three Oaks where the platform is only 1 coach long if the guard operates the doors with 1 car deselect the doors will still be released in any non 171 unit coupled. there are loads of coastway stations that the 171s call at where the platforms are shorter than the units.

 

[Chrisgr31]

There has been a unit converted from Class 170 to Class 171 before, not sure how long it took but not as long as this lot have.

There is an irony in Southerns previous attempts to convert the units in to 3 car ones, bearing in mind they are now converting 3 car units in to 2 and 4 units.

If and when I have the time I might scroll back through this thread to see what the key dates in here are but I will be very surprised if the next batch to come south take anything like as long to convert as these ones have.

 

[MCR247]

There has been a unit converted from Class 170 to Class 171 before, not sure how long it took but not as long as this lot have.
.

That left Derby as a 171 though, then became 170 392 for SWT and was then turned back into a 171

EDIT: And even so, I imagine the later 170s (like 392) have more similarities with 171s than the earlier 170s like the exSR ones that southern got

 

[Peter Sarf]

Begs the question. Would it have been better for a three way swap to have happened. I mean Southern pass the Scotrail 170s to London Midland and then take some newer existing London Midland three car LM 170s instead ?.

 

[Emblematic]

Begs the question. Would it have been better for a three way swap to have happened. I mean Southern pass the Scotrail 170s to London Midland and then take some newer existing London Midland three car LM 170s instead ?.

In a world where all the stock was owned and operated by one organisation, then quite possibly yes. With three TOCs and two ROSCOs involved, and all the attendant paperwork, not a hope. And nothing in it for LM thät I can see, units are all much the same age and they would need to refurbish much like Southern are doing.

 

[physics34]

Begs the question. Would it have been better for a three way swap to have happened. I mean Southern pass the Scotrail 170s to London Midland and then take some newer existing London Midland three car LM 170s instead ?.

Southern shouldve got the 172s and LM shouldve got the 171s in return.

The corridor connection on the cabs fronts wouldve been ideal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 170 and 171 were all built to the same design, the only mechanical difference is the dellner coupling.

there are a number of other things "under the bonnet" that are different....

the cab layouts are different. The fault diagnosis interface is different in both classes and some minor things like the headlight clusters.

 

[MCR247]

Begs the question. Would it have been better for a three way swap to have happened. I mean Southern pass the Scotrail 170s to London Midland and then take some newer existing London Midland three car LM 170s instead ?.

The /5s and /6s are the same ages as the /4s that Scotrail have (in fact possibly slightly older, I'm not sure of the exact build order)

 

[Class377/5]

The 170 and 171 were all built to the same design, the only mechanical difference is the dellner coupling.

They are not.

You seem to be very well-informed on the matter generally, based on your posts here and elsewhere. I wonder if you could be a little more specific on which components need to work to a "far more demanding [standard]", as you put it, on 171 stock than on Scotland's Turbostars?

I had a brief about the units while they are undergoing the rebuild while stood next to one getting rewired. I don't have the full technical details I believe the units were not up to the same standard.

 

[southern442]

They are not.

What other differences are there?

 

[hello]

thought the 171's were originally 170's with bsi couplers, then became 171's when couplers were changed

 

[cj_1985]

thought the 171's were originally 170's with bsi couplers, then became 171's when couplers were changed

That would only be the first batch of 171/7 (170/7) units... the /8s and later /7s were delivered with dellner couplers as 171/8s and 171/7s

 

[Class172]

The /5s and /6s are the same ages as the /4s that Scotrail have (in fact possibly slightly older, I'm not sure of the exact build order)

I always thought that the 170/5 and 170/6s were amongst the older of the class, given that they have the older headlight cluster also found on /1 and /2s.

 

[FordFocus]

What other differences are there?

The Turbostar family were built to different specs over the years with various modifications depending on the batch and TOC. There are various differences in builds in particular with engine, WSP, PIS, HVAC software and wiring. Some trains have different door wiring systems to allow for complete DOO, others don't. The newer build units have additional wiring for MITRAC which is the fault diagnosis system which is only really good for telling you which passcom alarm has been pulled or which door is faulty. Couldn't remotely control anything unlike the Electostar version. The majority of these MITRAC screen were removed any replaced with 4 fault lights. Newer units can crossfeed their electrical power encase of engine failure, older batches of units can't.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

As all Turbostars come up to their half-life major overhaul, will the opportunity be taken to rewire them so that they all have the same wiring?

 

[Southern Dvr]

Newer units can crossfeed their electrical power encase of engine failure, older batches of units can't.

There is the major problem with the Tartan Turbos vs GTR Class 171s. Ours Cross-Feed and their's (ours now i suppose) do not.

 

[MrB]

There is the major problem with the Tartan Turbos vs GTR Class 171s. Ours Cross-Feed and their's (ours now i suppose) do not.

I'm presuming that the units will be able to cross-feed once they've been converted into class 171s?

 

[jopsuk]

with this heavy rebuild, are they now back to the re-form as 2 & 4 car units plan or sticking with the 3-car plan that was supposedly happening due to technical issues?

 

[hwl]

with this heavy rebuild, are they now back to the re-form as 2 & 4 car units plan or sticking with the 3-car plan that was supposedly happening due to technical issues?

TSGN's 4 weekly newsletter sent out this week says reformed to 2 & 4 car:

"Two of the four 3-carriage units are now at ‘Wolverton Works’ for corrosion repair and external painting following a major overhaul by our engineers at Selhurst depot in south London. This included work on the engines, the wheelsets, modifications to the driver’s cab system, a full internal refurbishment of the carriages, and new electronics to allow the additional units to 'communicate' with our current trains.
On their return from Wolverton, a final phase of engineering work is required at our depot to overhaul the doors, fit new couplers and reconfigure them into 4- and 2-carriage units."

 

[physics34]

TSGN's 4 weekly newsletter sent out this week says reformed to 2 & 4 car:

"Two of the four 3-carriage units are now at ‘Wolverton Works’ for corrosion repair and external painting following a major overhaul by our engineers at Selhurst depot in south London. This included work on the engines, the wheelsets, modifications to the driver’s cab system, a full internal refurbishment of the carriages, and new electronics to allow the additional units to 'communicate' with our current trains.
On their return from Wolverton, a final phase of engineering work is required at our depot to overhaul the doors, fit new couplers and reconfigure them into 4- and 2-carriage units."

they are wrong about the couplers. DOne already

 

[SpacePhoenix]

they are wrong about the couplers. DOne already

Are the electrical connector blocks on the same "side" as Southern's existing Turbostars (either above or below the coupler)?

 

[physics34]

Are the electrical connector blocks on the same "side" as Southern's existing Turbostars (either above or below the coupler)?

below.. the same as southerns

 

[Cletus]

170421 was at Wembley today. Not sure if that is anything out of the ordinary, but can't see it mentioned on this thread.