What Class 170's are compatible with?

[edwin_m]

Good point! Must have been just from Derby if the story is even true. I've heard it mentioned a few times though on various forums.

If just from Derby the driver should have been aware as they would have driven in the other cab from Nottingham. Or if they'd taken over there the incoming formation would have passed them on arrival or they would have walked past it, unless it was already waiting at the B end. Whereas at Nottingham there are several ways someone could take over a cab without having sight of the whole train.

To me this means the damage must have occured between Long Eaton and Derby, as the 80mph maximum between Nottingham and Long Eaton is unlikely to be far enough above the 75mph train maximum to cause a problem.

 

[Kneedown]

The 170/1s did have door deselect from new, but as you correctly state it wasn't the guard form that you describe, instead it was driver operated and as such a driver was required to go to a stop board located beyond the platform, deselect and release the doors, this left the doors on the leading carriage locked and all others in the formation released.

Notts Drivers have never had anything to do with opening the doors themselves.
That'll be the reason I suppose for the location of the "S" board, a long long way off the down platform at Long Eaton. What was the reasoning for putting the leading coach off, as opposed to ensuring folks were in the front four?

 

[edwin_m]

Notts Drivers have never had anything to do with opening the doors themselves.
That'll be the reason I suppose for the location of the "S" board, a long long way off the down platform at Long Eaton. What was the reasoning for putting the leading coach off, as opposed to ensuring folks were in the front four?

Maybe because if anyone managed to get out on the non-platformed doors they would land on the ballast instead of on or over the bridge parapet?

 

[Intercity Exec]

Notts Drivers have never had anything to do with opening the doors themselves.
That'll be the reason I suppose for the location of the "S" board, a long long way off the down platform at Long Eaton. What was the reasoning for putting the leading coach off, as opposed to ensuring folks were in the front four?

Exactly that, due to the fact that during operation with Midland Mainline the Driver performed the door release it was their carriage which remained locked as it was a simpler system to employ than the train looking back and only sending the signal to 4 carriages. In the modern era of integrated TMS that idea seems antiquated but was safest at the time.

 

[Kneedown]

Makes sense thinking about it. Cheers guys!

 

[James James]

Someone mentioned that 172's are also sprinter compatible... AFAICR, that's not always the case - the Chiltern 172's were apparently modified or built to be turbo compatible. I.e. there are the "sprinter" series couplings: 14X, 15X, all 170, most 172s. Then there's the turbo series couplings: 16X, and some 172s. (Class 168s are apparently also classified as Turbostar, but still are only turbo compatible - some of the 168s are actually former 170s that were converted to 168.)

Now if we want to be pedantic: anything is compatible with anything, it's all a question of how many mechanical adapters you're willing to use (those are generally available), on top of electrical adapters (don't think anyone's built those yet...). No reason you couldn't couple a 143 to a Eurostar if you were willing to invest enough...

 

[3141]

For several years South West Trains operated class 170 in combination with class 159.

 

[satisnek]

15X units will happily cruise along at 87-89mph in their own company let alone when attached to 170s. Damn these OTMR days.

They certainly did when new. We'll draw a veil over the speeds attained between Kidderminster and Droitwich Spa 30 years ago... However, last time I had a 150 between Crewe and Stafford, which was just before the 350s were introduced, I timed the poor old thing at no higher than 79, running flat out.

 

[Scotrail84]

Emergency recovery procedures apply when a 170 is required to couple to 14X unit, at least thats my recollection, theres a notice in the cabs IIRC

 

[Strathclyder]

For several years South West Trains operated class 170 in combination with class 159.

Indeed; the last SWT Class 170 passenger working was with one paired with a 159 (Waterloo - Yeovil Junction; the 170 coming off at Salisbury):

 

[JohnMcL7]

It's odd seeing the three car 159 and two car Turbostar rather than a two car 158 and three car 170 which is the norm up here.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Emergency recovery procedures apply when a 170 is required to couple to 14X unit, at least thats my recollection, theres a notice in the cabs IIRC

I have a vague (and possibly false!) memory of seeing a TPE 170 at Huddersfield being used to shunt a failed pacer from platform 4 to the sidings. Does anyone recall such a move ever happening?

 

[matchmaker]

Going OT (sorry!) and back to 1st gen DMUs, there were problems on the St Pancras-Bedford trains when a hydraulic transmission unit was coupled to a mechanical transmission unit. If the driver of the hydraulic unit forgot about this, it did the mechanical transmission no good at all! Cured by changing the coupling codes.

 

[RichJF]

Indeed; the last SWT Class 170 passenger working was with one paired with a 159 (Waterloo - Yeovil Junction; the 170 coming off at Salisbury):

That unit often down my way in Wealden land...as a Southern 171

 

[edwin_m]

Going OT (sorry!) and back to 1st gen DMUs, there were problems on the St Pancras-Bedford trains when a hydraulic transmission unit was coupled to a mechanical transmission unit. If the driver of the hydraulic unit forgot about this, it did the mechanical transmission no good at all! Cured by changing the coupling codes.

Yes, basically because the hydraulic didn't have gears but the driver had to remember to work the gear changing control for the benefit of the mechanical unit.

 

[geoffk]

What's the difference between 170/5 and 170/6 units, other than one is two-car and one three-car?

I understand that Cross Country is to receive six centre cars from WMT class 170/6 units, which will transfer to EMR as two-car sets. Six of the XC class 170/5 units will receive these centre cars, a welcome increase in capacity.

However, rather than split up and reform 12 units, why not just transfer them complete, so that XC receives six class 170/6 and EMR six 170/5s?

 

[D365]

However, rather than split up and reform 12 units, why not just transfer them complete, so that XC receives six class 170/6 and EMR six 170/5s?

Saves on having to redecorate twelve carriages and/or reprogram PIS on the XC units?

 

[Neptune]

There was a diagram on the Harrogate line when the 170’s were first introduced on the there which involved one dragging a 144 from Leeds to be dumped at York. The rearmost unit was locked out of use due to platform lengths.

Also the 0623 Leeds - Harrogate is booked 150+170 with them splitting at Harrogate. The 170 returns with the 0655 to Leeds and the 150 returns with the 0713 to Leeds although it is more common for the 150 to be stabled at Harrogate overnight now.

 

[geoffk]

Saves on having to redecorate twelve carriages and/or reprogram PIS on the XC units?

OK yes if reforming the units is more cost effective. Won't the PIS have to be reprogrammed anyway?

 

[D365]

OK yes if reforming the units is more cost effective. Won't the PIS have to be reprogrammed anyway?

If it’s controlled from the driving cab (I’m not familiar with the Turbostar system) then the centre cars would probably not have any specific route data stored on them.

 

[O L Leigh]

Saves on having to redecorate twelve carriages and/or reprogram PIS on the XC units?

What it saves on is having to reconfigure the interior seating arrangement on the end coaches, including installing first class. It also prevents there being some non-standard units going to EMR, as transfer of entire 3 car units would necessitate XC giving up the equivalent number of 2 cars which, as hinted, don't have the same internal layout as the WMR units.

 

[David Goddard]

Accept that it means that only the centre cars will need to be refitted for XC (and the driving cars of 518-523 for EM), but some of these are probably due a retrim again soon anyway, so transfer of 630-635 to XC and 518-523 to EM and a refit for their new operator wouldn't be such a bad idea in the long term.
Additionally this could cause sets with an imbalance of heavy maintenance and engine hours for the centre cars against the driving vehicles that they are being paired with. Better all round to keep the units together as they are and refurb.

 

[Domh245]

Fitting new seat covers =/= reconfiguring the seating. It's also fairly easy to address that last point by carrying out any relevant exams, etc, during the reformation so that they all effectively start from 0mi

 

[D365]

Additionally this could cause sets with an imbalance of heavy maintenance and engine hours for the centre cars against the driving vehicles that they are being paired with. Better all round to keep the units together as they are and refurb.

So the fleet engineers at Porterbrook, XC and EMR have made the wrong choice?

 

[O L Leigh]

Well I’m not sure how new seat covers and livery for 6 cars and equalising the maintenance regime is the wrong choice compared to new seat covers and livery for 18 cars, 6 of which will require their interiors to be reconfigured to provide 1st class accommodation and possibly another 6 may require reconfiguring so that the seating layout matches the seat reservation system. On balance, I would have to say that the fleet engineers have got it about right.