Temporary transfer of Turbostars from Chiltern to West Midlands Trains

[ABB125]

If the 172/1's are not required by Chiltern, the DFT decides to play hardball with the owners of the 4 and says there is no where for them as WMT post covid does not need the capacity then how long could they be left in sidings idle. Could see the start of Rosco's off loading assets or leaving the game all together.

The lack of gangway will be a pain for WMT if they go longterm, it will mean 12 non-gangwayed with limited diagrams to place them on. Non gangwayed won't run post May TT on the North Warks Kidderminster - Stratfords; also Herefords once 196's start. They will also need DCO camera equipment installed to be compatible with the rest of the 172 fleet.

What routes could they be used on? I can't think of any other that perhaps Nuneaton-Leamington that don't require more than 2 coaches

 

[172007]

What routes could they be used on? I can't think of any other that perhaps Nuneaton-Leamington that don't require more than 2 coaches

Worcester Whitlocks / Dorridge and Stratford via Solihull.

 

[swt_passenger]

If the 172/1's are not required by Chiltern, the DFT decides to play hardball with the owners of the 4 and says there is no where for them as WMT post covid does not need the capacity then how long could they be left in sidings idle. Could see the start of Rosco's off loading assets or leaving the game all together.

The lack of gangway will be a pain for WMT if they go longterm, it will mean 12 non-gangwayed with limited diagrams to place them on. Non gangwayed won't run post May TT on the North Warks Kidderminster - Stratfords; also Herefords once 196's start. They will also need DCO camera equipment installed to be compatible with the rest of the 172 fleet.

Of course they had cameras when in service with LO, so hopefully that’s fairly straightforward to reinstate.

 

[ABB125]

Worcester Whitlocks / Dorridge and Stratford via Solihull.

Are those the least busy Snow Hill services then?

 

[Aictos]

One major factor that seems to have contributed to this is the fact that the APT tripcocks cannot be fitted to the bogie design used on the 172s. If I recall correctly this prohibited them from being the leading unit on the Amersham line services, which clearly reduces their operational flexibility.

To be precise, the Chiltern Class 172s can't be used as the rear unit either as well as the leading unit as you state but that doesn't mean they can't be used on the Amersham services because they can but they must be marshalled inbetween two units that are fitted with ATP equipment.

This as a result does restrict their operational flexibility as you have said.

 

[warwickshire]

Of course they had cameras when in service with LO, so hopefully that’s fairly straightforward to reinstate.

The chiltern 172/1 ones never did or did have them fitted . When upon arrival in 2010.
However though the lorol/mtr ones did. Ie class 172/0.

 

[Class172]

The lack of gangway will be a pain for WMT if they go longterm, it will mean 12 non-gangwayed with limited diagrams to place them on. Non gangwayed won't run post May TT on the North Warks Kidderminster - Stratfords; also Herefords once 196's start. They will also need DCO camera equipment installed to be compatible with the rest of the 172 fleet.

The lack of gangway is not exactly a deal-breaker though. For the majority of the last decade there have been diagrams with either 2x170s or 153+170 on the Snow Hill lines, and indeed now with the ex-LO 172/0s.

 

[trundlewagon]

Are those the least busy Snow Hill services then?

Might be more to do with the request stops along the North Warwick line - best to make sure everything going that way is gangwayed to make it easier for passengers to find the guard (and vice versa), particularly The Lakes where only the first coach fits on the platform (so needs the guard at the front of the train to do the doors).

 

[Ken Bromage]

Might be more to do with the request stops along the North Warwick line - best to make sure everything going that way is gangwayed to make it easier for passengers to find the guard (and vice versa), particularly The Lakes where only the first coach fits on the platform (so needs the guard at the front of the train to do the doors)

I believe they are to be restricted to the Hereford services from New Street.

 

[Kite159]

It might sound silly, but what sort of differences is there cab-wise between the former LO 172/0s and the Chiltern 172/1s?

(I bet there is some who hope the 172/1s stay with West Midlands and for them to replace the unreliable 230s on the Marston Vale line, with 3 units heading down to Bletchley on Sundays swapping over like they did in the days of sprinters, assuming a 2 coach 172 can call at some of those stations with short platforms)

 

[ABB125]

(I bet there is some who hope the 172/1s stay with West Midlands and for them to replace the unreliable 230s on the Marston Vale line, with 3 units heading down to Bletchley on Sundays swapping over like they did in the days of sprinters, assuming a 2 coach 172 can call at some of those stations with short platforms)

I think the problem is that they don't (fit). Hence the class 230s.

 

[Class172]

I think the problem is that they don't (fit). Hence the class 230s.

Yes, the current infrastructure prohibits the use of anything longer than a class 150 (ie 2x20m). If there was no such limitation the service would most likely already be operated with 172s.

It’s not short platforms per se that are the issue in some cases, but rather the track infrastructure, such as the placement of signals and proximity of platforms to level crossings.

 

[TrainTrackJack]

Surely... there isn't much difference between the 172/0s and 172/1s, it would enable all 172s to be with one operator permanently and if I'm not wrong Porterbrook has taken over the maintenance of the WMR 172 fleet, so it would make life easier? madness!

 

[centraltrains]

Surely... there isn't much difference between the 172/0s and 172/1s, it would enable all 172s to be with one operator permanently and if I'm not wrong Porterbrook has taken over the maintenance of the WMR 172 fleet, so it would make life easier? madness!

Did Chiltern end up implementing the transmission modifications?

Chiltern class 172 - Change to hydraulics transmission?

Apparently according to rail (issue 869). Chiltern's 172 have proved not to be as reliable as the 168's and there are talks of their being converted to hydraulics transmission. Would that be a right move from CR?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[172007]

Did Chiltern end up implementing the transmission modifications?

Chiltern class 172 - Change to hydraulics transmission?

Apparently according to rail (issue 869). Chiltern's 172 have proved not to be as reliable as the 168's and there are talks of their being converted to hydraulics transmission. Would that be a right move from CR?

www.railforums.co.uk

Would never happen, micro fleet and completely non standard.

Are 172/1's owned by Angel and the rest Porterbrook btw.

172's at WMR are maintained by WMR.

 

[bnsf734]

172/0 and 172/1 are indeed owned by Angel.

172/2 and 172/3 are Porterbrook.

 

[Energy]

Are 172/1's owned by Angel and the rest Porterbrook btw.

172/0s are also Angel owned.

The 172/0s were originally ordered for London Overground by Angel Trains, Chiltern did a tag on order with Angel for the /1s with the idea of using them on the Chiltern metro services to support the 165 fleet due to the better acceleration however they appear to mostly be on the Stratford runs.

172's at WMR are maintained by WMR.

I'm not 100% certain but supposedly Porterbrook is providing some maintenance.

Surely... there isn't much difference between the 172/0s and 172/1s

There is none, the /1s were a tag on order to the /0s.

 

[Domh245]

There is none, the /1s were a tag on order to the /0s.

As delivered, no difference (bar the toilet, subsequently fitted to the /0s), but I believe the /0s had door camera equipment that the /1s don't, and in the other direction the /1s have ATP which is obviously not fitted to the /0s (though this is apparently being ripped out)

 

[Pokelet]

It will eventually comedown to cost. The Rosco won't want 4 units that are of limited use. storing an asset will cost money not make money.

Is there any option with the 172/0 and 172/1 units to split them and insert a 172/2 or/3 in the middle to give a 4 or 5 car non gangway hybrid unit as Central used to do with a 150/2 carriage sandwiched in a 150/1? I appreciate the 172's are lightyears ahead of 150's mechanically and electronically.

They might not need the additional units for diagrams but extra capacity and social distancing space could be useful.

 

[ABB125]

It will eventually comedown to cost. The Rosco won't want 4 units that are of limited use. storing an asset will cost money not make money.

Is there any option with the 172/0 and 172/1 units to split them and insert a 172/2 or/3 in the middle to give a 4 or 5 car non gangway hybrid unit as Central used to do with a 150/2 carriage sandwiched in a 150/1? I appreciate the 172's are lightyears ahead of 150's mechanically and electronically.

They might not need the additional units for diagrams but extra capacity and social distancing space could be useful.

That sounds too sensible/logical to be possible on the railway...

 

[Wyrleybart]

It’s to do with the Yaw Dampers (there’s a familiar tale on this forum at the moment), as they are required for any unit running north of 75MPH. The Chiltern units were always considered as suburban and therefore came without them / with 75MPH gearboxes. The Chiltern units were always a pain when they found employment on the Thames Valley out of Reading, as it meant you had a 75MPH unit coupled to a native Reading based 90MPH unit on a 125 / 100 MPH railway. Fitting Yaw Dampers and upgrading the gearbox shouldn’t be a problem as such (the LTV fleet are of course fitted with them and the bogie / damper set up are essentially the same as the 168s) but it would come back to who pays for it and at what cost?

Maybe the experiment with the 168329 repower might see a good number of the Turbos refitted and gearboxes replaced.

 

[greatvoyager]

It will eventually comedown to cost. The Rosco won't want 4 units that are of limited use. storing an asset will cost money not make money.

Is there any option with the 172/0 and 172/1 units to split them and insert a 172/2 or/3 in the middle to give a 4 or 5 car non gangway hybrid unit as Central used to do with a 150/2 carriage sandwiched in a 150/1? I appreciate the 172's are lightyears ahead of 150's mechanically and electronically.

They might not need the additional units for diagrams but extra capacity and social distancing space could be useful.

It would be interesting to see.

 

[Neptune]

It will eventually comedown to cost. The Rosco won't want 4 units that are of limited use. storing an asset will cost money not make money.

Is there any option with the 172/0 and 172/1 units to split them and insert a 172/2 or/3 in the middle to give a 4 or 5 car non gangway hybrid unit as Central used to do with a 150/2 carriage sandwiched in a 150/1? I appreciate the 172's are lightyears ahead of 150's mechanically and electronically.

They might not need the additional units for diagrams but extra capacity and social distancing space could be useful.

That sounds rather inflexible.

Surely if the whole 172 fleet was to be with WMT permanently it would make more sense to remove the centre cars from 12 of the /3’s and insert them in the non gangwayed /0 and /1 fleet. You’d still retain 3 x 3 car /3 units (how many 3’s?) but retain the flexibility.

 

[43096]

That sounds rather inflexible.

Surely if the whole 172 fleet was to be with WMT permanently it would make more sense to remove the centre cars from 12 of the /3’s and insert them in the non gangwayed /0 and /1 fleet. You’d still retain 3 x 3 car /3 units (how many 3’s?) but retain the flexibility.

Different owners of the centre cars to the /0/1 fleets, though, which would complicate things.

 

[Class172]

In the end, the lack of gangways on a small subset of 172s is unlikely to be significant enough to cause problems. Careful planning and diagramming can be used to keep them away from problem areas (ie short platforms/request stops) when running in multiple.

Slightly off topic but I don't think it's been fully established (or at least I'm unaware of) how the Camp Hill line services are going to be operated when the services start (in 2023?). If it's not an extension of the Shrewsbury runs I can foresee a single 172 being used between New St and Kings Norton, which would suit the non-gangwayed units.

 

[172007]

In the end, the lack of gangways on a small subset of 172s is unlikely to be significant enough to cause problems. Careful planning and diagramming can be used to keep them away from problem areas (ie short platforms/request stops) when running in multiple.

Slightly off topic but I don't think it's been fully established (or at least I'm unaware of) how the Camp Hill line services are going to be operated when the services start (in 2023?). If it's not an extension of the Shrewsbury runs I can foresee a single 172 being used between New St and Kings Norton, which would suit the non-gangwayed units.

Camphill services are expected to be Shrewsbury's extended with 196's.

 

[fgwrich]

Camphill services are expected to be Shrewsbury's extended with 196's.

Will they be diverted via the Camp Hill Route or a hook shaped extension with the service running via University, New Street and out to Kings Norton? Effectively almost a Salisbury Six?

 

[172007]

Will they be diverted via the Camp Hill Route or a hook shaped extension with the service running via University, New Street and out to Kings Norton? Effectively almost a Salisbury Six?

Pass. Don't know that much detail.

 

[Class172]

Camphill services are expected to be Shrewsbury's extended with 196's.

Will they be diverted via the Camp Hill Route or a hook shaped extension with the service running via University, New Street and out to Kings Norton? Effectively almost a Salisbury Six?

If it is an extension of the Shrewsbury services then there will be no diversions required - the service will head from New St out to Proof House Jct then down the Camp Hill before reversing at Kings Norton. I think you may be getting confused with the Hereford services, which do run via the West Suburban line through University. At one point it was suggested to divert these to the Camp Hill stations however that plan was not at all popular for Hereford line users and may have been abandoned due to local pressure (as mentioned before, I'm not entirely clued up on the development of the Camp Hill services), perhaps @The Planner or @Sprinter107 may know more.

 

[ABB125]

If it is an extension of the Shrewsbury services then there will be no diversions required - the service will head from New St out to Proof House Jct then down the Camp Hill before reversing at Kings Norton. I think you may be getting confused with the Hereford services, which do run via the West Suburban line through University. At one point it was suggested to divert these to the Camp Hill stations however that plan was not at all popular for Hereford line users and may have been abandoned due to local pressure (as mentioned before, I'm not entirely clued up on the development of the Camp Hill services), perhaps @The Planner or @Sprinter107 may know more.

I thought the plan was to extend the Hereford services to King's Norton ( ie: Bromsgrove-King's Norton-University-New Street-Camp Hill-King's Norton-reverse), given that they have something like a 50-minute turnaround at New Street?