If Carlsberg made DMUs - the Class 175!

[pemma]

Maybe the practice of overcrowding is one that is more important to reduce, especially on lines that are 90mph max (or less) anyway? ATW don't have any 156s so they're not likely to end up coupled to 175s.

LMs coupling of 153s to 170s on the Rugeley TV line just suggests that 170s are overspecced for this run. How much 75+mph actually goes on on this line?

An ideal scenario would see LM getting more 172s and losing the rest of their Sprinters and some of their 170s.

 

[tbtc]

Exactly. Why introduce more of this when we need to reduce this sort of practice?

I agree

These examples show the madness of stock allocations. 100mph 175s on 90mph max lines. 170s to Rugeley. FGW using 150s on the West of England main line on runs as long as Cardiff > Penzance while ScotRail squander 158s on empty trains to Anniesland or Whifflet. A complete mash-up of mostly unsuitable stock on the Calder Valley (Northern 150s or ex-Merseyrail 142s being the grimmest). 'Hopelessly inefficient' BR would just swap the sets over. In fact it wouldn't because it would never have allowed such bonkerorisity to occur in the first place. Having recently sat in a 150/2 all the way from Cardiff to Fishguard and back my mind did wander to all those empty 158 seats trundling around Glasgow. The same thing happened a few weeks ago when the 20:21 Manchester Victoria > Leeds produced a 2-car 144.

The whole thing is a nonsense - like the 90mph 158s on the Far North or 100mph 172s on GOBLIN.

Really we have more than enough 90/100mph trains - the deficit is with the 75mph units - if we had more 75mph trains then we could allow the 158/170/175s off "stoppers" and onto lines that would stretch their legs properly.

Sadly the fixation with top speeds (at the cost of acceleration) means we get more and more "fast" units when what we need are workhorse 75mph trains.

LMs coupling of 153s to 170s on the Rugeley TV line just suggests that 170s are overspecced for this run. How much 75+mph actually goes on on this line?

An ideal scenario would see LM getting more 172s and losing the rest of their Sprinters and some of their 170s.

Do LM need *any* 100mph DMUs?

AIUI all of their DMU lines (Chase, Shrewsbury, Hereford etc) can see 150/153s (sometimes coupled to 170s), so are there any scheduled to run at over 75mph?

 

[RobShipway]

I agree



The whole thing is a nonsense - like the 90mph 158s on the Far North or 100mph 172s on GOBLIN.

Really we have more than enough 90/100mph trains - the deficit is with the 75mph units - if we had more 75mph trains then we could allow the 158/170/175s off "stoppers" and onto lines that would stretch their legs properly.

Sadly the fixation with top speeds (at the cost of acceleration) means we get more and more "fast" units when what we need are workhorse 75mph trains.





Do LM need *any* 100mph DMUs?

AIUI all of their DMU lines (Chase, Shrewsbury, Hereford etc) can see 150/153s (sometimes coupled to 170s), so are there any scheduled to run at over 75mph?

Some of the 172's which I believe the ones with London Overground are only rated to 75mph anyway. The 172/1's I believe with LM are rated at 100mph. Since London Overground are going to be getting new 3 or 4 coach 172's would the 2 car 172/0's not be better off doing the routes for LM where a maximum speed of 75mph is all that is required?

 

[ainsworth74]

Some ofr the 172's which I believe the ones with London Overground are only rated to 75mph anyway.

Whilst that might have been the original plan 172s of all flavours are cleared to 100mph.

Since London Overground are going to be getting new 3 or 4 coach 172's would the 2 car 172/0's not be better off doing the routes for LM where a maximum speed of 75mph is all that is required?

That's quite a reach from what's be published so far. We know that TfL are interested in hearing bids for 3/4 car DMUs but we do not know for sure if they're actually going to acquire any and we do not know what type of DMU they're going to acquire should they decide to go ahead with the buy.

 

[pemma]

Whilst that might have been the original plan 172s of all flavours are cleared to 100mph.

Do the 100mph 172s perform any differently to the 75mph 172s in terms of acceleration or performance at speeds like 60-75mph? If not why not order the 100mph all around then in the long term it may help with bottle necks on faster track, even if the routes the 172s are used on only have short sections that have line speeds of over 75mph?

 

[RobShipway]

Whilst that might have been the original plan 172s of all flavours are cleared to 100mph.



That's quite a reach from what's be published so far. We know that TfL are interested in hearing bids for 3/4 car DMUs but we do not know for sure if they're actually going to acquire any and we do not know what type of DMU they're going to acquire should they decide to go ahead with the buy.

It is quite a reach, but for me it would make sense as it would be less expensive in having the drivers retrained to operate a new train, having only just really learned the 2 car Class 172's.

Do the 100mph 172s perform any differently to the 75mph 172s in terms of acceleration or performance at speeds like 60-75mph? If not why not order the 100mph all around then in the long term it may help with bottle necks on faster track, even if the routes the 172s are used on only have short sections that have line speeds of over 75mph?

That is the thing, lines like the Gospel Oak to Barking the line speed is not more than 40mph I believe, so having a 100mph train is pretty much a waste if it is no t limited. Other routes like Leamington Spa to Birmingham Snow Hill I believe only have a top speed over 75mph in a couple of places if at all?

 

[pemma]

It is quite a reach, but for me it would make sense as it would be less expensive in having the drivers retrained to operate a new train, having only just really learned the 2 car Class 172's.

I'm sure Bombardier will submit a tender for 4 car 172s fitted with longitudinal seating and will probably win the bid.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is quite a reach, but for me it would make sense as it would be less expensive in having the drivers retrained to operate a new train, having only just really learned the 2 car Class 172's.

Whilst that is true we have no confirmation that 172s will be ordered (assuming that TfL even order anything). I think it's important when posting to be clear when people are posting details about something that is confirmed or official and when people are posting things that they think/would like to happen.

 

[Michael.Y]

Saturday's Fishguard Flyer was a 150/2... Connected to a 142. I did my level best to persuade people to choose the Sprinter (not least because that's where my trolley was and I wanted the trade!) but also because 2.5 hours in a Pacer sounded.... interesting.

 

[4SRKT]

I did the Fishguard in a 143 once, but only from Carmarthen to Cardiff. It was fantastic, but then I'm West Yorkshire's premier pacer veg

 

[tbtc]

Whilst that is true we have no confirmation that 172s will be ordered (assuming that TfL even order anything). I think it's important when posting to be clear when people are posting details about something that is confirmed or official and when people are posting things that they think/would like to happen.

Yes, this is the problem with threads where a suggestion/ wishlist becomes picked up as "fact" which leads to confusion over what has actually been confirmed and what is just speculation (e.g. how far the TPE electrification will definitely cover).

 

[sprinterguy]

Whilst that might have been the original plan 172s of all flavours are cleared to 100mph.

I recall that this has been thoroughly discussed on this forum in the past, but you wouldn't happen to be able to provide a link of any sort to where it was confirmed that they are 100mph capable? It's no doubt correct, but the Platform 5 pocket book (usually a fairly reliable source) still reports the LO 172/0s as being limited to 75mph, and it would be good to be able to put it to bed as an inaccuracy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's quite a reach from what's be published so far. We know that TfL are interested in hearing bids for 3/4 car DMUs but we do not know for sure if they're actually going to acquire any and we do not know what type of DMU they're going to acquire should they decide to go ahead with the buy.

Indeed: I thought it was perfectly possible that the chosen solution could simply be an offer from Bombardier to provide intermediate carriages to lengthen the existing 172s? If I recall how the tender was worded, it didn't seem to rule it out, and would certainly be far cheaper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 172/1's I believe with LM are rated at 100mph.

Just to be pedantic, the London Midland class 172s are class 172/2 and 172/3, Chiltern have the four 172/1s. Not that it really matters mind.

 

[387star]

Didn't know there still was a Cardiff-Penzance class 150 service.

There was a plan for LM to do away with the remainder of their class 153s

The first time I travelled in a 175 was in 2005 between Preston and Manchester and I can't say I was impressed.... very overcrowded and stuffy. It was a TransPennine Express worked by a Northern guard or something funny

 

[Michael.Y]

Didn't know there still was a Cardiff-Penzance class 150 service.

The 1054, calling at Llanelli, Whitland, Clarbeston Road (x) and Goodwick on the way. Calls at Carmarthen on the return and forms the Cheltenham Spa service from Cardiff at 1610ish.

The first time I travelled in a 175 was in 2005 between Preston and Manchester and I can't say I was impressed.... very overcrowded and stuffy. It was a TransPennine Express worked by a Northern guard or something funny

The aircon can be a bit hit and miss sometimes - some carriages stuffy, some Icelandic.

 

[fgwrich]

I believe the gearing is different on the 172/0s, hence the 75 MPH max speed limit, whereas the Chiltern & LM ones are fitted with the higher rated ZF EcomatZF Rail 6 speed Reversing final drive transmissions - fitted for 100 MPH running. Thats from memory, but i think it's been covered in Modern Railways several months / years back.

It'll also be interesting to see when (Insert Lessor Here) starts this trial with the ZF Mechanical Transmissions on the SWT 158/159s.

 

[BestWestern]

It'll also be interesting to see when (Insert Lessor Here) starts this trial with the ZF Mechanical Transmissions on the SWT 158/159s.

I hadn't heard about that, what's the story there? Does sound interesting, what is it hoped to achieve?

 

[fgwrich]

I hadn't heard about that, what's the story there? Does sound interesting, what is it hoped to achieve?

http://de.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416190781&o=int&prev=sub&p=37

In short, by using the ZF Transmission under the 158s / 159s, it is hoped to save fuel and maintenance bills in the long term as the Voith T211 gearboxes are apparently reaching the end of their usefull overhaul life. The above link should work to a page covering it in Modern Railways - page 37 of last octobers Modern Railways (although the links a little slow).

 

[BestWestern]

http://de.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416190781&o=int&prev=sub&p=37

In short, by using the ZF Transmission under the 158s / 159s, it is hoped to save fuel and maintenance bills in the long term as the Voith T211 gearboxes are apparently reaching the end of their usefull overhaul life. The above link should work to a page covering it in Modern Railways - page 37 of last octobers Modern Railways (although the links a little slow).

Cheers, very interesting read. So if they go over to a 6 speed mechanical set up, presumably the sound effects will change drastically?!

 

[RobShipway]

I recall that this has been thoroughly discussed on this forum in the past, but you wouldn't happen to be able to provide a link of any sort to where it was confirmed that they are 100mph capable? It's no doubt correct, but the Platform 5 pocket book (usually a fairly reliable source) still reports the LO 172/0s as being limited to 75mph, and it would be good to be able to put it to bed as an inaccuracy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed: I thought it was perfectly possible that the chosen solution could simply be an offer from Bombardier to provide intermediate carriages to lengthen the existing 172s? If I recall how the tender was worded, it didn't seem to rule it out, and would certainly be far cheaper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to be pedantic, the London Midland class 172s are class 172/2 and 172/3, Chiltern have the four 172/1s. Not that it really matters mind.

Thank you for correcting me....