Turbostars and coridoor connections

[SpacePhoenix]

Can any Turbostars (classes 170-172) be retrofitted with corridor connections if the TOCs ever wanted? Presumably the whole of the cab would need replacing?

 

[edwin_m]

Anything's possible in theory (the 172 with similar dimensions was available with a gangwayed cab) but in practice it would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[pemma]

Well Porterbrook looked at the option of giving 319s new fronts with gangways and advertised it to TOCs and franchise bidders so if it's possible for a 319 I think it's possible for a 170. Whether any TOC would be willing to pay higher leasing costs for 170s with gangways is a different question.

 

[A0wen]

Well Porterbrook looked at the option of giving 319s new fronts with gangways and advertised it to TOCs and franchise bidders so if it's possible for a 319 I think it's possible for a 170. Whether any TOC would be willing to pay higher leasing costs for 170s with gangways is a different question.

Probably easier with a 319 because there's already a door on the front which was needed for emergency exit purposes when running on the old Farringdon - Moorgate section.

Whereas for a Turbostar it would necessitate a whole new cab moulding.

 

[pemma]

Probably easier with a 319 because there's already a door on the front which was needed for emergency exit purposes when running on the old Farringdon - Moorgate section.

Whereas for a Turbostar it would necessitate a whole new cab moulding.

Porterbrook did propose a new redesigned front for the 319s with a gangway option and a non-gangway option to make the trains look modern. They've removed those concepts from their website now but I've found the non-gangway one via Google: http://dg8design.com/images/portfolio/319/main01.jpg

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably easier with a 319 because there's already a door on the front which was needed for emergency exit purposes when running on the old Farringdon - Moorgate section.

Whereas for a Turbostar it would necessitate a whole new cab moulding.

Albeit one whose design already exists - on the Class 172.

The naysayers said, in the early 2000s, that it wasn't possible, just like sensibly sized luggage racks. Funny how they have all been proven wrong.

 

[edwin_m]

Retrofit is an entirely different kettle of fish from a new unit. There is probably a heavy structural member inside the central window pillar, and all the safety-critical wiring under the cab desk would have to move. Even the equipment on the back wall might be affected if the cab access had to be widened to serve as a route for passengers and to provide a folding partition to block off both sides of the cab.

Like I said, it would be possible but prohibitively costly. Slightly less unlikely on a 172 since that already has a design in existence, but I think the above comments on structure and wiring would still apply to the non-gangwayed 172s. Because the 319 already has an emergency door there is no structure or wiring in the way of fitting a proper gangway - unless the way through needs to be enlarged.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I would have thought that a design of gangwayed cab already exists for the early Turbostar classes 170 & 171 since the Electrostar classes 375 and 377 already have them. I assume the vehicle bodies are very similar ?. But to convert might be involved.

The 172 already have a gangwayed cab in the case of London Midland - which makes them look remarkably like 377s as they approach.

 

[physics34]

I would have thought that a design of gangwayed cab already exists for the early Turbostar classes 170 & 171 since the Electrostar classes 375 and 377 already have them. I assume the vehicle bodies are very similar ?. But to convert might be involved.

The 172 already have a gangwayed cab in the case of London Midland - which makes them look remarkably like 377s as they approach.

someone mentioned in the past that turbostars are slightly wider than electrostars but only by a couple of inches i think.

But like someone said abouve, the 170s have a central pillar and the 377s dont, it wouldnt just be a simple case of swapping fibreglass cab fronts.

 

[swt_passenger]

someone mentioned in the past that turbostars are slightly wider than electrostars but only by a couple of inches i think.

Would more likely have been 'slightly narrower' that was mentioned before I think, because "Turbostars" are 23m vehicles, and "Electrostars" are 20m vehicles.

 

[TH172341]

Interesting question; it wouldn't be impossible. The only way would be to swap the entire cab end for a new one with an end gangway. You couldn't modify the old front, as evidenced below, due to the central pillar. However it would be expensive given the only advantage is for guard and passengers to pass through, not ever worth it.

Page 2 of this topic gives a good idea of what lies under the cab ends

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=123990&page=2

Vaguely related question; would a 172 fitted with a Dellner coupling, be able to attach to an Electrostar? (I.e with gangway and everything?) I rather hoped the last batches of Electrostars would have the 172 front considering it looks far smarter I find than the 37X fronts.

 

[phoenixcronin]

Interesting question; it wouldn't be impossible. The only way would be to swap the entire cab end for a new one with an end gangway. You couldn't modify the old front, as evidenced below, due to the central pillar. However it would be expensive given the only advantage is for guard and passengers to pass through, not ever worth it.

Page 2 of this topic gives a good idea of what lies under the cab ends

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=123990&page=2

Vaguely related question; would a 172 fitted with a Dellner coupling, be able to attach to an Electrostar? (I.e with gangway and everything?) I rather hoped the last batches of Electrostars would have the 172 front considering it looks far smarter I find than the 37X fronts.

Indeed, I think primarily because the gangwayed 172s use the same style of headlights as LOROL 378s, instead of the usual electrostar headlights

 

[MrPIC]

slightly off topic, but why do 376's have that design cab windows? Surely the 375 style cab would have done?

 

[acmw421]

slightly off topic, but why do 376's have that design cab windows? Surely the 375 style cab would have done?

I believe it was to prevent train-surfing on the front ends, much like the modifications to Networker bufferbeams at about the same time. The 375 and 170 series cabs have steps above the kind-of bufferbeam, which I suppose would rule them out.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Porterbrook did propose a new redesigned front for the 319s with a gangway option and a non-gangway option to make the trains look modern. They've removed those concepts from their website now but I've found the non-gangway one via Google: http://dg8design.com/images/portfolio/319/main01.jpg

That has to be one of the worst looking concepts I have ever seen; it looks like Darth Vader with a severe case of jaundice.

 

[jopsuk]

For the 319s Porterbrook actually proposed three different cab replacements- gangway, emergency door and no door at all (the one drivers would no doubt vote for, who wants a potentially draughty door after all!)

 

[Mikey C]

That has to be one of the worst looking concepts I have ever seen; it looks like Darth Vader with a severe case of jaundice.

I rather like that myself! Quite a rebuild too, seeing that it seems to have Networker style plug doors