Class 172 Refurbishment/Snow Hill Capacity

[Old Hill Bank]

My understanding is that they were due to be in use from the December 2018 timetable on Coventry services. However of course recently the December timetable change was postponed so it's possible that they won't actually be needed as originally intended, although they won't go amiss in terms of releasing other units for refurb.

Two for Leamington-Coventry-Nuneaton and the rest for Snow Hill Line.

 

[Chris172]

Could some 172s help out the 170s on the Birmingham to Hereford service? 172s are cleared for use on that service.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Could some 172s help out the 170s on the Birmingham to Hereford service? 172s are cleared for use on that service.

There should have been 170s released from Chase Line for that, what a mess!

 

[HLE]

My understanding is that they were due to be in use from the December 2018 timetable on Coventry services. However of course recently the December timetable change was postponed so it's possible that they won't actually be needed as originally intended, although they won't go amiss in terms of releasing other units for refurb.

They most certainly are needed on that route, and as soon as possible. Even though the through service won’t happen in December now, they will still need two units to do the Nuneaton and Leamington shuttles. The 153’s are transferring to EMT in Dec/Jan if I remember rightly.

Once the schools & universities are back from summer we will again be cramming a dozen people into no.2 end vestibule on the peak services! Be nice to see the 172’s in service from Christmas

 

[physics34]

Unfortunately releasing units becomes a contractual obligation once the dates have been agreed, and you can't back out, even if their replacements have failed to appear. It's been a real problem for ScotRail, who have had to release 170s long before the 385s were ready. We've had short formations on Edinburgh - Glasgow trains for months.

And this is another flaw in the current privatised system. Everything should favour the customer/passenger. This clearly doesnt.

 

[HLE]

True, but fair play to Scotrail for getting those 365’s in service so quick.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the Coventry drivers needing trained on the 172s, could they not simply travel to Birmingham Snow Hill or Moor Street and have a driver who already signs 172s supervise them on the Stourbridge Junction/Whitlocks End/Dorridge terminators?

Or would they have to learn the route as a prerequisite?

 

[HLE]

The 172/0 haven’t got gangway cabs so the cab layout differs from the WMT 172’s.

Only a small point but an important one.
To be fair when learning new traction the company in the past have provided a spare unit and set up some ECS diagrams on routes already signed. I reckon they’ll do this once that unit has been refurbed.

 

[47421]

One of the deferred Dec 18 TT changes is the addition of an hourly BhamNS-Shrewsbury WMT stopper (planned to run South out of NS n via Bescot). That will reduce WMT unit requirement by 3 til May 19 at least

 

[dmncf]

The issue that LO have that Scotrail didn't is DOO - any stand in train that they operate would need to be capable of DOO, but more importantly DOO self sufficiency - ie no platform mounted equipment. 319s and 315s don't have in cab monitors and would need monitors/mirrors putting up on platforms to enable them to run. Scotrail could just put a guard on board (once they'd agreed how they would operate the train) and away they went.

If LO had a class 378 available for the AM peak extra working, could that run on the Gospel Oak to Barkling line? Are the line's drivers trained to drive a class 378?

 

[Old Hill Bank]

172002 last reported at Tyseley, any updates?

 

[causton]

If LO had a class 378 available for the AM peak extra working

They don't, 378 availability is tight too.

could that run on the Gospel Oak to Barkling line?

I believe a testing run was done using a 378, so maybe?

Are the line's drivers trained to drive a class 378?

Yes, drivers work on both the 378s and Goblin. However things like stopping markers, sighting distances etc may mean a passenger service may be unworkable.

 

[craigybagel]

Apart from the London Overground Class 172s not having end gangways, what else is different to the WMT Class 172s?

I believe the couplers are slightly different. The LO and Chiltern 172s were set up to couple to 165s and 168s, whereas the WMT 172s will couple to all 15x and 170s.

If LO had a class 378 available for the AM peak extra working, could that run on the Gospel Oak to Barkling line? Are the line's drivers trained to drive a class 378?

5 car units won't fit in the bay at Gospel Oak

 

[Aictos]

I believe the couplers are slightly different. The LO and Chiltern 172s were set up to couple to 165s and 168s, whereas the WMT 172s will couple to all 15x and 170s.

Actually the entire Class 172 fleets all share the same BSI coupler design so to be pedantic there's no reason why a Chiltern Class 172 can't work in multi with a London Overground Class 172 or a West Midlands Trains Class 172 with a London Overground Class 172 apart from the fact that obviously you can't walk between a Chiltern/London Overground Class 172 which don't have end gangways and a West Midlands Trains Class 172 which does have them.

That's from the relevant ROSCOs too

This shouldn't be a issue because the UK has operated Class 150s with Class 14Xs before in multi.

 

[MCR247]

Class 168s have slightly different BSIs to Class 170s I believe, maybe the pins are in a different place?

 

[PHILIPE]

Actually the entire Class 172 fleets all share the same BSI coupler design so to be pedantic there's no reason why a Chiltern Class 172 can't work in multi with a London Overground Class 172 or a West Midlands Trains Class 172 with a London Overground Class 172 apart from the fact that obviously you can't walk between a Chiltern/London Overground Class 172 which don't have end gangways and a West Midlands Trains Class 172 which does have them.

That's from the relevant ROSCOs too

This shouldn't be a issue because the UK has operated Class 150s with Class 14Xs before in multi.

150s and 142s are still operating in multiple all day. The lack of a corridor connection would be no different so far as access is concerned is that 170s operate in pairs and run attached to 153s on the Chase and Hereford routes.

 

[craigybagel]

Actually the entire Class 172 fleets all share the same BSI coupler design so to be pedantic there's no reason why a Chiltern Class 172 can't work in multi with a London Overground Class 172 or a West Midlands Trains Class 172 with a London Overground Class 172 apart from the fact that obviously you can't walk between a Chiltern/London Overground Class 172 which don't have end gangways and a West Midlands Trains Class 172 which does have them.

That's from the relevant ROSCOs too

This shouldn't be a issue because the UK has operated Class 150s with Class 14Xs before in multi.

Class 168s have slightly different BSIs to Class 170s I believe, maybe the pins are in a different place?

Exactly - you can't couple 16x to 14x, 15x or 17x because of some either very childish or very shrewd (delete as appropriate) decisions made back when the Turbos were first introduced to make sure they were kept in NSE territory. Although the basic coupler design is the same, their are differences with the pins making them incompatible.

The original WMT 172 fleet was designed to be compatible with the rest of their fleet, so the couplers are set up for 15x and 17x. The Chiltern 172 fleet needed to be compatible with their existing fleets of 16x, so their couplers are slightly different. My understanding, although I'm happy to be proven wrong, is that London Overground also went for the 16x pin arrangement for their 172s, so they will need modifying if you want them to work with any thing else at WMT.

 

[dmncf]

5 car units won't fit in the bay at Gospel Oak

Does the 'PIXC buster' train use the bay at Gospel Oak? I thought it went from Upper Holloway to Willesden Junction, skipping Gospel Oak.

 

[su31]

Does the 'PIXC buster' train use the bay at Gospel Oak? I thought it went from Upper Holloway to Willesden Junction, skipping Gospel Oak.

Yes, it did skip Gospel Oak, but was withdrawn when 172002 went. Good thought though.

 

[su31]

Just a thought, although it would only work off-peak - why can't LO borrow a couple of 4 car 357's from c2c? They stable the 172s alongside at East Ham, and they'd work on the overheads!

 

[Aictos]

Just a thought, although it would only work off-peak - why can't LO borrow a couple of 4 car 357's from c2c? They stable the 172s alongside at East Ham, and they'd work on the overheads!

There's three reasons why it wouldn't work:

1. C2C Drivers don't sign Barking to Gospel Oak so would need London Overground drivers to route conduct them.

2. London Overground staff don't sign Class 357s so as it's a different train type would need the above to happen, staff do need to be trained up on the traction that they drive.

3. Do C2C actually have Class 357s spare that they can hire out to London Overground?

 

[craigybagel]

Does the 'PIXC buster' train use the bay at Gospel Oak? I thought it went from Upper Holloway to Willesden Junction, skipping Gospel Oak.

Fair point - I was thinking about all day use but I suppose you could use it for that one service - if there were any spare (and apparently there aren't).

There's three reasons why it wouldn't work:

1. C2C Drivers don't sign Barking to Gospel Oak so would need London Overground drivers to route conduct them.

2. London Overground staff don't sign Class 357s so as it's a different train type would need the above to happen, staff do need to be trained up on the traction that they drive.

3. Do C2C actually have Class 357s spare that they can hire out to London Overground?

Reason number 4 - like a lot of the other spare (or not spare) stock suggested, 357s require mirrors or CCTV screens on the platform to run DOO. These aren't fitted on GOBLIN, you have to use with either stock with built in cameras, or use a guard.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

This might be of interest, a 172 move perhaps.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K91813/2018/12/22/advanced

 

[HLE]

I'd say so

 

[E_Reeves]

I assume it'd be under its own power?

 

[HLE]

I'd think so, yes. Be a test for it after the C6. Assuming it is the 172/0

 

[XCTurbostar]

 

[craigybagel]

I wonder when the last time it got over 50mph was....

 

[HLE]

Won't do that during the day on the Nuneaton branch that's for sure!

 

[craigybagel]

Won't do that during the day on the Nuneaton branch that's for sure!

Fair point! It'll do better on the Leamington run though, and I'm hoping it got above that speed as it came up the WCML.....