metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 23, 2011 19:46:15 GMT
Chiltern really shot themselves in the foot ordering class 172 because the bogies are unable to take trip cocks. Chiltern should have ordered more Clubman units.
The old class 115s were made up of 4 cars, but it was busy back in the early 60s. It's getting/got back to those days....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2011 20:19:52 GMT
I heard Bombardier have vowed not to make the 375 and 170 type trains anymore, and instead are making trains like the 379's and 172's now
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 23, 2011 20:25:02 GMT
Then Chiltern are going to end up in the same boat as the district line, with only certain trains being able to run some routes.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Oct 23, 2011 21:00:30 GMT
Chiltern really shot themselves in the foot ordering class 172 because the bogies are unable to take trip cocks. Chiltern should have ordered more Clubman units. The Class 168/170 design is no longer available, so would it be worth the expense of modifying the design to take trip cocks for only 4 units. Remember that trip-cocks will not be around for much longer, once the Met line is resignaled. And Chiltern already run 5 car trains, with longer vehicles, during peaks. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Oct 23, 2011 21:06:46 GMT
Then Chiltern are going to end up in the same boat as the district line, with only certain trains being able to run some routes. They already do, with their loco hauled services. The lack of trip cocks on the four class 172s won't be a problem, as they are such a small part of the fleet. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 23, 2011 21:09:15 GMT
I wonder how Chiltern trains will be able to operate under Met ATO conditions?
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 23, 2011 21:17:46 GMT
I wonder how Chiltern trains will be able to operate under Met ATO conditions? The relevant parts of the Met line will also be fitted with Chiltern type ATP linked to the new system. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 23, 2011 22:43:06 GMT
I heard Bombardier have vowed not to make the 375 and 170 type trains anymore, and instead are making trains like the 379's and 172's now I'm not sure "vowed" is the right word. To whom did they give this vow and what would be the consequences of breaking it? Did Ford "vow" to stop making the Escort and Cortina? The 378/379 and the 172 are new, updated, versions of the 375/6/7, and 168/170/171 families respectively. Why keep the tooling for the old version? Though for the sake of uniformity it might have made more sense for Chiltern's 172s to go to LM in exchange for some of its 170s, which are very similar to the 168s. Come to think of it, are the 168s fitted with tripcocks? they normally work the Birmingham route, not the Aylesbury. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 24, 2011 7:34:26 GMT
The 168s are fitted with tripcocks. The problem with using the 170s is that I think the couplers are different, so they may need to be modified if that is possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by knap on Oct 24, 2011 8:08:02 GMT
Chiltern are saying the 172s have very good acceleration which is what they wanted for the metro services on the Wycombe line so as not to delay other non stopping services. So no point getting 170s or similar if the acceleration is not good on those.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on Oct 24, 2011 9:59:48 GMT
there used to be lettering on the aylesbury service that the train was able to be used on london underground track.
the striking point is that the s stock is nothing like the a stock for seating and that chiltern's trains now look more appealing with the perception of how a train should be laid out.with the comments of uncomfortable seats' on the s stock again this appears odd for long journey times.
i hope the disruption on the chesham branch doesn't become a regular problem my five o clock connection to aylesbury could be missed.as mentioned ten minutes each way doesn't give much room for error considering the waiting time at chesham.the lines run parallel for some considerable distance perhaps a set of points much further up would then create a passing loop.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Oct 24, 2011 10:31:18 GMT
i hope the disruption on the chesham branch doesn't become a regular problem my five o clock connection to aylesbury could be missed.as mentioned ten minutes each way doesn't give much room for error considering the waiting time at chesham.the lines run parallel for some considerable distance perhaps a set of points much further up would then create a passing loop. ...as mentioned elsewhere on here, I believe the plan is to move the points closer to the branch....but then rip up the 3rd line.  ...which somewhat destroys the cost argument that moving the points westwards and sticking in a cheap platform extension was too expensive. Hmm. Is maintaining a few metres of plain track that's only traversed at slow speed REALLY that expensive? REALLY? |
|
