Why don't Chiltern 172s have gangways?

none of their other stock does so why bother? chances if every diagram being only 172s is slim...

 

The LO 172s don't have gangway connections, but they *do* have conventional seating (unlike the LO seats on the 377/378s) because TfL expect the units to be cascaded somewhere else in the future (where the new operator would want "normal" seats).

Since there's a good chance that the new operator would want to be able to connect units too, I don't know why they haven't been built with corridor connections - same goes for the Chiltern 172s.

Ordering stock (with a lifespan of maybe 30 years) specifically to suit the line that they will work on in the first couple of years (with no consideration for future use) seems short-termist to me. Look at how the TPE 185s were built with no gangway connection, and now run doubled up services on the "West" side...

 

I don't fully understand why there ANY Suburban/regional units without gangways- i do understand that there are some issues with leaky doors and visibility, but then you've got the likes of 317, 318, 455 that were designed with gangways but in the same series, 319-322 without. With Electrostars, 3375/377/379 have gangways, 357/376/378 don't- only the final of those doesn't (and is unlikley ever to) run in multiple formation. No gangway should only be permitted (in my opinion) where either the streamlining is required or the unit will never run in service in multiple.

 

I dont think there's much chance of that happening at MYB in the peaks!

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

No other Chiltern unit has them, and they've got by ... so they are saving a few quid.

Shortsighted, in my view, but that's TOC attitudes all over.

 

Gangways only really serve a purpose for trolley services, where a buffet is provided in one unit, or for revenue protection staff, and perhaps in cases where trains split or use SDO. To be quite honest passengers are often reluctant enough to move to the next coach, yet alone to the next unit, and once the train is sufficiently packed it becomes difficult if not impossible anyway. The SR fitted gangways to their outer suburban units, right back to the CORs, because it enabled them to have some units with buffet facilities whilst others did not, e.g the BIGs, BEPs, REPs, 4RES etc. BR fitted them to most Sprinters to allow a trolley service, and for paytrain operation or ticket checking with units in multiple. I think 317s were fitted in relation to DOO (they were afterall the first DOO trains), and would probably have needed at least end doors to run to Moorgate anyway. 318s and 455s just carried on the same design, but from then on it reverted to normal. 375, 377, 458 and 450 were built to replace gangwayed CEPs, CIGs and VEPs and run on the same services. Whilst the buffets had long gone, many still ran with trollies. Also quite a few services split and join on route, and there is some SDO.
The irony really is that these days suburban units are often through gangwayed, wheras Intercity and Regional units rarely are, yet the former have far less use for gangways than the latter. If leaves situations where crews need doubling up, or half the train will be without buffet or trolley facilities, or won't see a guard for much of the journey.

 

I hadn't realised that LM 172s had gangways! I would have assumed such a large change would merit a different class number (but then I only have a passenger's interest in rolling stock!).

Implying that people would actually move along even if the train had gangways...

 

Not really, they are the same train.

 

Anyway don't the chiltern 172's run as DOO? Therefore eliminating the need for a gangway.

 

They may not be compatibe to couple with the exusting units if they had gangways, this is just a guess

 

The long term intention for the 172s is that they will work Gerrards Cross and High Wycombe stoppers. The additional acceleration and top speed will keep them clear of the Mainline services. At the moment they're only being 'run in' on the Bicester North turn.

 

I dont sign the units, but I have sat in the cab of both a Chiltern and a LM 172. The LM cab is a horrible place to drive a train from, its cramped and the visibility is very poor. The gangway comes so far into the cab that it practically a tunnel, you cant see out of the second man's window at all and on certain curves you would struggle to see the up road if you are on the down. This might be the reason why there are lower differential speeds for units with gangway doors on the Chiltern mainline (Aynho junction and High Wycombe station areas fwiw) and I am glad the Chiltern units arent fitted with them.
Yes, there are the issues that gangway fitted doors are more convenient for guards and trolley staff, but for a unit that should only ever run in DOO areas (no Chiltern guards sign them yet) then it is a trivial issue at best. And yes, there is the scenario where the rear two coaches might be full and the front two might be relatively empty but 15 years of railway experience has taught me that passengers tend not to move once they have picked a spot on the train and daily commuters are generally experienced and savvy enough to pick their coach carefully from the platform. The biggest issue I can think of is that two coaches might be without a toilet for a period of time if the toilet develops a fault, but on a unit and line where the average journey time is between 20 and 40 minutes it is quite a low priority. I'd rather have a proper cab and higher line speeds. To suggest that not having gangways is short sighted is ludicrous.

 

Recalling 309s which were, like 4CEPs, gangwayed to allow access to the buffet car. I often used to watch the speedo in the folded-off drivers compartments and I guess these lost their draft proofing pretty quickly being regularly folded back as the units were divided/joined for the Clacton/Walton option.
These were of course Modernisation Scheme trains aimed at pleasing the general public rather than minimising operating costs.
Years later Anglia introduced some 172s with buffet cars for Liverpool St - Bury/Lowestoft, etc, though curiously without gangways despite an intention to divide/join them on some diagrams.
Strangely the 172s displaced 156s and 158s which were gangwayed?

 

You mean 170s

 

I do but perhaps I should have said turbostar.

 

Fair enough if they are going to stay on the Marylebone services for the next thirty years, but a waste if they are ever cascaded elsewhere (since the LO ones have seats designed for future cascade)

 

But getting them right for what is needed now is more important than what might happen if somebody else takes over them in a decade if you are the guy tasked with buying the new trains. They won't be any less usable than the countless number of non gangway DMUs that have run in multiple on this railway for years. A gangway connection is not inherently better than a non gangway connection, there are pros and cons with both designs. I am happy with the non gangway stock.

 

Desiros aren't called 'washing machines' for nothing by the crews - driving one is akin to driving a washing machine apparently, you can see **** all!

The design of gangways has been improved by the 380. You still can't see out the secondman window (in fact I'm struggling to think of a gangwayed unit where that isn't the case) but the field of view is much better as the gangway is set back and reclined.

 

How do other countries cope with gangwayed units except for the IC3 approach...

 

The best solution is to bring back window-equipped gangway doors...

 

There's quite a few Japanese units have fully retractable gangways with "smoothed" outer doors, but they generally have, even on the "classic" network, a wider loading gauge than we do. In fact generally, that's how other countries cope if they have gangways- wider loading gauge.

 

That is debatable. Looking at them:

(some) 168 / 170 / 171 / (some) 172 and 357's to any reasonable punter look to be the same train, apart from the 357 being electric. Perhaps the 357 is just an electric version of the 170.

Yet a (London Midland) 172 looks like a diesel version of a 375 / 377 / 379. The 350 / 450 / 444 are the same again, one is 3rd rail, the other is OHL.

The 378 is a developed version of the 375/7/9 "Electrostar" family. Yet, the 380 looks more like a developed version of the 350 / 450 / 444 family of trains. The other arm of development is the Class 360.

I was always under the impression the majority of stock in the UK had a diesel and electric version. 150's aren't far off the 455's for example. 321/322 = 456 and so on. There's loads. Of course, not every train has an electric or diesel counterpart, 175's, 180's, 185's all don't. But then there is no diesel partner for the Desiro family either.

I wish classes would be more linked to the design of the train rather than what type of engine and components it has, much like motor vehicles. Any small changes would warrant a sub class (170101 or 170401), but the main classification of the train would stay the same. Surely this would half the fast running out of classification numbers?

 

150/1 and 150/2 springs to mind in reference to both of these points