northwichcat
Veteran Member
This is a claim we keep seeing posted on here. Where it has this claim originated from?
We know replacing HSTs with 170s on MML routes didn't improve journey times (despite loco-hauled needing longer dwell times and generally being seen as slower off the mark) and that replacing 158s with 170s on CT routes didn't improve journey times (despite 158s being 90mph and 170s being 100mph.)
However, a joint TfGM report looking at the possibility of tram-trains on the Mid-Cheshire line (which pre-dated 172s being introduced) stated that a 170 running between Altrincham and Greenbank calling at all stations could get to Greenbank 26.9 minutes after leaving Altrincham (TfGM used figures provided by Network Rail.) Currently the service is timed for a 142/150 arriving at Greenbank 32 minutes after leaving Altrincham. Some of that extra journey time would be down to longer dwell times required for Pacer with only 3 sets of doors instead of 4. However, it seems the Pacer's acceleration is seen as inferior to that of a 170 on sections of line with frequent stops and there could be some significant journey time savings by using 170s instead of 142s on longer routes.
I also understand Network Rail looked at how 170s would perform on Hope Valley stoppers and came up with similar results but I've not seen the actual timings for that.
We know replacing HSTs with 170s on MML routes didn't improve journey times (despite loco-hauled needing longer dwell times and generally being seen as slower off the mark) and that replacing 158s with 170s on CT routes didn't improve journey times (despite 158s being 90mph and 170s being 100mph.)
However, a joint TfGM report looking at the possibility of tram-trains on the Mid-Cheshire line (which pre-dated 172s being introduced) stated that a 170 running between Altrincham and Greenbank calling at all stations could get to Greenbank 26.9 minutes after leaving Altrincham (TfGM used figures provided by Network Rail.) Currently the service is timed for a 142/150 arriving at Greenbank 32 minutes after leaving Altrincham. Some of that extra journey time would be down to longer dwell times required for Pacer with only 3 sets of doors instead of 4. However, it seems the Pacer's acceleration is seen as inferior to that of a 170 on sections of line with frequent stops and there could be some significant journey time savings by using 170s instead of 142s on longer routes.
I also understand Network Rail looked at how 170s would perform on Hope Valley stoppers and came up with similar results but I've not seen the actual timings for that.