GOBLIN 172s

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fred26

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,027
Why did TfL order 172s with a 'standard' (for want of a better term) train seating layout, when the 'tube' layout that comes with the 378s (the other LO trains) would be so much more accommodating?
Given how packed the GOBLIN is during the peaks, and how much/difficult it would be to increase platform lengths, wouldn't tube seating have made more sense?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

313103

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2006
Messages
1,595
The reason being is that the class 378s are owned by Transport for London and the class 172s are leased by TFL. Its so that should electrification of the that line and the 172s are disposed of, the trains wouldn't need extensive and expensive conversions.
 

Fred26

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,027
Ah. I see. So in the short term, it looks daft (to me at least), but in the long term it could be for the best.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,473
Location
UK
It might make sense to think ahead, but isn't it also quite silly to have a train that will not work to its 'full potential' until it's cascaded in the years to come?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,998
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
should electrification of the that line and the 172s are disposed of, the trains wouldn't need extensive and expensive conversions
Good thinking, and something I hope happens.

Firstly because a self-contined line surrounded by electrified lines is an ideal candidate for electrification (not only are all DMUs on GOBLIN "freed", but there is scope for new EMU routes serving part of GOBLIN)

Secondly, because trains are built to last for 20/30 years, so need to be built with an eye on the future (in the way that your baby will grow up, so calling her something "childish" may be okay in the short term, but won't suit a teenager)

Thirdly because I'm all for "standard" units, and not having "micro fleets" which become complicated to use elsewhere
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
5,841
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Have to say, after 1 return trip on LOROLS 172s...That in my opinion, they are the worst unit ever built...Everything feels cheap about them, they slip and slide in and out of stations, the voyager bogies do nothing for ride quality, and Why?, After so long, did Bombardier ever conceive the idea of bringing back Mechanical Transmission?

The ZF Transmission seems the cause the unit to change into at least 3 gears just to leave any station, then takes a fair amount of time to build up to the next, before 'jerking' into the final gear (Unit in question, 172004)...

From speaking to several of the drivers of the 172s on the GOBLIN, they’re not the most well built of units, and not particularly as good at braking as the 150s either...

And one thing i find rather bizarre about LOROLs 172s - They’ve built them with a view to offloading the fleet with ease if and when electrification of the GOBLIN takes place, but why do LOROL's 172s not actually contain any toilets? When say, the exiled 150s did...

Resulting in the question, who exactly is going to want a toilet-less 172?

Unless they’ve built the units with modification in mind, but as my guess is they’ve been built with a future use with Chiltern in mind – Toilet-less trains from Gerrards Cross / High Wycombe anyone?
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
Have to say, after 1 return trip on LOROLS 172s...That in my opinion, they are the worst unit ever built...Everything feels cheap about them, they slip and slide in and out of stations, the voyager bogies do nothing for ride quality, and Why?, After so long, did Bombardier ever conceive the idea of bringing back Mechanical Transmission?

The ZF Transmission seems the cause the unit to change into at least 3 gears just to leave any station, then takes a fair amount of time to build up to the next, before 'jerking' into the final gear (Unit in question, 172004)...

From speaking to several of the drivers of the 172s on the GOBLIN, they’re not the most well built of units, and not particularly as good at braking as the 150s either...

And one thing i find rather bizarre about LOROLs 172s - They’ve built them with a view to offloading the fleet with ease if and when electrification of the GOBLIN takes place, but why do LOROL's 172s not actually contain any toilets? When say, the exiled 150s did...

Resulting in the question, who exactly is going to want a toilet-less 172?

Unless they’ve built the units with modification in mind, but as my guess is they’ve been built with a future use with Chiltern in mind – Toilet-less trains from Gerrards Cross / High Wycombe anyone?
I belive that the Class 172's for LM and Chiltern are three coaches rather than two, so is the toilet perhaps in the missing third coach which whne the trains move on to another operator might get built by Bombardier?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,534
Location
Macclesfield
I belive that the Class 172's for LM and Chiltern are three coaches rather than two, so is the toilet perhaps in the missing third coach which whne the trains move on to another operator might get built by Bombardier?
Chilterns' 172/1s and LMs' 172/2s are two carriage units, and they will have toilets.
 

WillPS

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2008
Messages
2,372
Location
Sheffield
It might make sense to think ahead, but isn't it also quite silly to have a train that will not work to its 'full potential' until it's cascaded in the years to come?
Most operators changed the seating in their Pacers and Sprinters in the late-90s/early-00s. It's not particularly difficult! Seems daft these units have been built to a spec on the grounds that in 10 years time they MIGHT go somewhere else!!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,769
The reason being is that the class 378s are owned by Transport for London and the class 172s are leased by TFL.
Didn't happen that way, despite all the spin from TfL when it was first announced. The 378s ended up on a normal lease from a Rosco, QW Rail Leasing. Turned out it was better for TfL's finances than purchase after all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QW_Rail_Leasing
Your other reason for the different layout, passing them to another regional operator if electrification occurs, remains perfectly valid though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top