London Overground Class 172

[pemma]

on a source, the LM layout has 67 seats in the A coach and 54 in the C coach for a total of 121

LO's 172s have 120 seats, but they have extensive standing areas near the doors.

So at present the total capacity (seated plus standing) will be quite a bit higher on the LO 172s but presumably if the LO 172s had toilets fitted the total capacity would be very similar. Maybe you could get in a couple of extra seats on the 172s if it doesn't have as many luggage racks as the 170s?

 

[t_star2001uk]

The Chiltern and London Overground Class 172 units aren't fitted with tripcocks - they've no mounting bracket available on the B5005 bogies. They can only be used on LUL track when sandwiched by a pair of units fitted with tripcocks.

Iknow of only one occasion that a 172 has been used in the middle of a formation over the MET.

 

[Clansman]

A 2 car 172 with a commuter interior has less capacity than a 2 car 170 with a regional interior? Are you sure about that?

Well, seating wise I mean. I'm not sure about how many you could cram into a 170 compared to a 172 but I imagine the figures between seattand would cancel out near enough, thus swapping a 172 for a 170 wouldn't benefit passengers in any way other than a newer unit which can be easily maintained alongside London Midland's fleet of class 172 units.

As said, I think the micro fleet of LO 172s would make good replacement for the Pacers on the Riviera capacity wise and for the short term at least - that's if 8 Turbos aren't going to be shifted onto the Riviera once the 387s come knocking?

 

[pemma]

It's already been posted further up that the LM 170s have ONE seat more than the 172s and I seem to recall the LM 170s do have a single seat crammed in where you wouldn't expect to find a seat.

As for cascades benefitting passengers remind me how Northern passengers benefitted when they got tatty 150s from LM to replace 180s and 156s? Yes some other services got extra capacity but the ones which lost the 180s and the 156s just got a downgrade

 

[FordFocus]

Did the LO 172s get the in cab CCTV fitted? Never seen a cab picture since the guards got removed from the Gospel Oak line.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

thus swapping a 172 for a 170 wouldn't benefit passengers in any way other than a newer unit which can be easily maintained alongside London Midland's fleet of class 172 units.

Maintenance is massively important in passenger terms - if you send the Class 172 stock to a depot unused to dealing with the class, and which only ever has 8 units to maintain, you're more likely to have units out of service awaiting spare parts and having difficulty in diagnosing problems as they arise, if you try and get all the units into one TOC and based at one depot, the chances are they'll have more spares on the shelves, more engineers aware of more foibles and if the worst happens, more chance of re-forming units to keep at least some units in service.

I'd go as far as to suggest London Midland should also collect up the 4 Chiltern examples and in turn release 4 Class 170 units to them, centralising all Class 172s at Tyseley.

 

[Clansman]

I'd go as far as to suggest London Midland should also collect up the 4 Chiltern examples and in turn release 4 Class 170 units to them, centralising all Class 172s at Tyseley.

Another advantage in your point also: Chiltern could release their 172s (along with LO's 172s) to London Midland and in turn, they receiving 170s would be a win win for both London Midland and them because the 170s share near enough the same parts as their 168s - same case for both 172/0 and 172/2+3 units for London Midland.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Another advantage in your point also: Chiltern could release their 172s (along with LO's 172s) to London Midland and in turn, Chiltern receiving 170s would be a win win for both London Midland and Chiltern because the 170s share near enough the same parts as Chiltern's 168s - same case for both 172/0 and 172/2+3 units for London Midland.

That was the rationale, it also allows the Class 170 units they would receive to be fitted with tripcocks if required/desired.

 

[Kite159]

Another advantage in your point also: Chiltern could release their 172s (along with LO's 172s) to London Midland and in turn, Chiltern receiving 170s would be a win win for both London Midland and Chiltern because the 170s share near enough the same parts as Chiltern's 168s - same case for both 172/0 and 172/2+3 units for London Midland.

Agreed there, would keep all the 172s with LM for maintenance wise, and Chiltern get 4 additional 170s which could be converted to 168/4s (for example) without the issue of Tripcocks over the Met lines.

But who knows where the LO 172s will end up, other than the owners

 

[CyrusWuff]

One drawback of transferring the LO (and Chiltern) 172s to London Midland is that the LM examples have end gangways, but the LO and CH ones don't...There's also the small matter of the LM 170s being owned by Porterbrook, whereas the LO and CH 172s are owned by Angel Trains.

 

[Clansman]

One drawback of transferring the LO (and Chiltern) 172s to London Midland is that the LM examples have end gangways, but the LO and CH ones don't.

The fact you are transferring them in place of 170s cancels the need for the 172/0s to have end gangways for London Midland.

 

[Fincra5]

Did the LO 172s get the in cab CCTV fitted? Never seen a cab picture since the guards got removed from the Gospel Oak line.

I've not seen inside the cab but they now have External CCTV for DOO. So i'd assume so.

 

[IanXC]

I wonder if there's any chance to move these to Chiltern, with the released 165s going directly to the Bristol area, potentially ahead of the released Thames Valley turbos?

 

[D365]

I wonder if there's any chance to move these to Chiltern, with the released 165s going directly to the Bristol area, potentially ahead of the released Thames Valley turbos?

The problem being that it would reduce the number of Chiltern units fitted with tripcocks.

 

[FordFocus]

165s were built for the Metropolitan Line work with better capacity and are far more suited to the timetable than slower accelerating 168s. There is also a lack of paths for an increased peak time service.

If anything, 172s going to Chiltern would release more 165s to strengthen the Aylesbury via Amersham services, so I can't see any 165s been released. There are rumours a foot that Chiltern are having a look at some MK3 coaches on a certain ex MOD site in Warwickshire because they want extra trains but the lack of stabling space is an issue.

 

[43096]

There are rumours a foot that Chiltern are having a look at some MK3 coaches on a certain ex MOD site in Warwickshire because they want extra trains but the lack of stabling space is an issue.

They should know them already as they're Arriva/DB Regio owned.

 

[Nym]

The problem being that it would reduce the number of Chiltern units fitted with tripcocks.

I very much doubt it's impossible to fit tripcocks to Class 172s

 

[D365]

I very much doubt it's impossible to fit tripcocks to Class 172s

They use inside-frame bogies, a development of the type used on the Class 220/222 and the same as will feature on the Crossrai/LO Aventras. Nowhere to mount them apparently.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

They use inside-frame bogies, a development of the type used on the Class 220/222 and the same as will feature on the Crossrai/LO Aventras. Nowhere to mount them apparently.

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to find a mounting bracket for a tripcock.

http://www.bogieoperatorforum.com/f...asheets/M_MXXXX_B5000_Virgin_03-11_EN_web.pdf

 

[route:oxford]

They should know them already as they're Arriva/DB Regio owned.

They'll have two bays at Oxford soon won't they?

 

[D365]

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to find a mounting bracket for a tripcock.

http://www.bogieoperatorforum.com/f...asheets/M_MXXXX_B5000_Virgin_03-11_EN_web.pdf

It's a gorgeous-looking thing, isn't it.

(The only kind of bogie that I like to admire )

Quick question though: Why does the leaflet you linked claim a maximum speed of only 120km/h??

 

[Nym]

They use inside-frame bogies, a development of the type used on the Class 220/222 and the same as will feature on the Crossrai/LO Aventras. Nowhere to mount them apparently.

Having looked at it, I can think of a couple of ways to do it, isn't that hard really...

 

[swt_passenger]

They use inside-frame bogies, a development of the type used on the Class 220/222 and the same as will feature on the Crossrai/LO Aventras. Nowhere to mount them apparently.

A few years ago I remember people were posting that you couldn't fit third rail pickup gear to an inside frame bogie, because there was nowhere to mount it, but they've done it on the 700s.

Just because they can't fit it the same way as on existing stock shouldn't really be taken as an indication that it is impossible.

 

[D365]

A few years ago I remember people were posting that you couldn't fit third rail pickup gear to an inside frame bogie, because there was nowhere to mount it, but they've done it on the 700s.

Some of the LO Class 710s will come fitted with it [for the Watford DC line], and the Crossrail Class 345 fleet can be retrofitted.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

A few years ago I remember people were posting that you couldn't fit third rail pickup gear to an inside frame bogie, because there was nowhere to mount it, but they've done it on the 700s.

Just because they can't fit it the same way as on existing stock shouldn't really be taken as an indication that it is impossible.

It was Bombardier who initially claimed the Flexx Eco couldn't accommodate shoe gear, which was strange given it was designed as the Advanced Suburban Bogie, specifically the type of usage which would need third rail collection.

As it stands, however, the bogies in service today cannot accept either shoe gear or tripcocks. The bogies going onto the Class 345 stock are modified and can accommodate third rail collection shoes, and possibly even tripcocks, but unless you want to go to the trouble of fitting the Class 172s with new bogies, there's no where to fit tripcock gear.

 

[HWLad]

I remember reading somewhere on these forums that a large capacity constraint for Chiltern is running 75mph units on a 100mph two track mainline. Obviously 8 Class 172 will not completely replace 39 Class 165 but it could mitigate this capacity problem somewhat. It also seems like a more simple solution than converting London Midland Class 170s (although I have no idea how easy or not it is to do).

I feel my username does give away a bit of my bias though and I am happy to admit London Midland do have Class 153 operating with Class 172 which is just as imperfect as on the Southern Chiltern Mainline, if not more so. But I want some shiny, nearly new trains so what happens up there doesn't matter to me!

 

[Mordac]

Didn't think it was worth creating a new thread for this, does anyone know what's the story behind this photo:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22077...gk-8zMqKC-abZpit-pAdrjz-ocBCHR-eorTaM-wjq5My/

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Didn't think it was worth creating a new thread for this, does anyone know what's the story behind this photo:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22077...gk-8zMqKC-abZpit-pAdrjz-ocBCHR-eorTaM-wjq5My/

It's the acceptance testing work. They're beanbags designed to replicate the weight of passengers.

 

[Mordac]

It's the acceptance testing work. They're beanbags designed to replicate the weight of passengers.

Cheers, I was wondering if they were the pillows from inside the seats but that makes sense! Never knew that was done!

 

[cactustwirly]

They could go to Reading to release a few more 165s to Bristol. They are ideal for the Greenford & Marlow branches