AngusDe Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Over the last 10 years I've been a regular ScotRail commuter, at various times, doing daily Fife-Aberdeen, weekly Fife-Elgin, daily Fife-Edinburgh, and occasional Fife-Glasgow. A particular bain of my life was on long trips finding myself in the wrong unit (either 2x 170, or a158/170 combo) from the buffet trolley, or on short trips being in a crowded unit and with no access to the less crowded unit etc.... And on a couple of occasions I've felt the guard/ticket inspector was on the wrong unit to deal with a anti social passenger... ....which brings me to my daft question! Would it be possible to mix up the 158 and 170 carriages into 2 and 3 car units that would all have a corridor connection at one end so that multiple units could always have a through corridor connection? This thought was prompted by memories of the old class 126 Inter-City DMUs, nominal 6 car sets but technically 3 car sets with driving trailers in the middle with corridor connections and half cabs, but full width cabs on the outer ends. It would take a bit of work to timetable my fantasy fleet of hybrid 170/158 units to always be the right way round but with triangles a plenty at Edinburgh, Glasgow and *cough* Inverness it could be done. So, what other technical issues would there be for my hybrid fleet? Cheers, Angus post title edited Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
10800 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 You may like to edit your topic title to make it a bit more specific? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catkins Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I would guess that you would have issues on passenger loading times, the 170 bodies have the doors at 1/3 and 2/3 spacing, and the 158's have the doors at the ends. IIRC the 170's accelerate quicker than the 158's and have a higher top speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 As well as different mechanical bits. Also how would you ensure the units were diagrammed so they always coupled up with the gangways at the inner ends, units do not stay coupled all day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusDe Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 You may like to edit your topic title to make it a bit more specific? Sorry, done! I would guess that you would have issues on passenger loading times, the 170 bodies have the doors at 1/3 and 2/3 spacing, and the 158's have the doors at the ends. IIRC the 170's accelerate quicker than the 158's and have a higher top speed. Possibly, but 170 and 158 mixed trains are common in Scotland. Getting onto a heavily loaded 158 is always a pain, they should never be used on commuter runs in my opinion, right enough I also tend to think 170s shouldn't be used on inter city services either. As well as different mechanical bits. Also how would you ensure the units were diagrammed so they always coupled up with the gangways at the inner ends, units do not stay coupled all day. The outer couplings match and they do run in multiple all the time, so not that difficult to surmount, but the clever timetabling might be insurmountable, lol! The 126s always seemed to end up the wrong way round, but that was a long time ago. With the triangles at the key ends of the journeys, the odd out of sequence train could be turned..... Surprised so many of you have as much idle time as myself today. Cheers, Angus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D6975 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Quote: This thought was prompted by memories of the old class 126 Inter-City DMUs, nominal 6 car sets but technically 3 car sets with driving trailers in the middle with corridor connections and half cabs, but full width cabs on the outer ends. This arrangement didn't last for long. It soon became the norm for these to be formed as 4 car sets with a gangwayed driving motor at each end. A non gangwayed driving motor was then added at each end to make the 6 car set. Why? - simple, it made it much easier to reform a set when one vehicle failed. Removing one driving vehicle became a doddle compared to the shunting/turning required to make 2x3 into a workable 5 car set. (ED-GL sets only) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catkins Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Getting onto a heavily loaded 158 is always a pain, they should never be used on commuter runs. Angus The 158's were never designed for commuter work, if you compare the 150/x, and 170 door positions (1/3 & 2/3 on the body) and 156/158's (doors at the ends) and consider the similarities to other sorts of rail vehicles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusDe Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 While I'm whinging.... Another pet complaint of mine is the use of 170s on long Intercity journeys, whilst the elbow and legroom is better than a 158, the open plan is a disaster in winter, going to/from Aberdeen with near freezing fog swirling into the cabin at every stop makes for a miserable and uncomfortable journey. On Scotrail there are also at least 4 different internal fits on the 170s, and as my Edinburgh commute involved me and my cycle, it was complete hit and miss as to how many bike spaces there were on my regular trains and which end they might be. Angus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chameleon Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Well, having worked said trains for several years, I can wholeheartedly agree that split sets (3+2 or 3+3) are a complete PITA to work as you are always set hopping from one end to the other at a stop. Passengers have an uncanny ability to get on the set I'm not... As for mix n matching sets, it is a non starter as you would need sets a certain way round to work and as they get turned as they go round, say, the Fife circle, you can guarantee, as often as not, it would be a complete waste of time. Also, they are too different. While they will couple up as sets, I doubt they would work within a set, besides they are different power/top speed and no doubt there are all sorts of technical reasons why they can't do it. so they wouldn't like it. There was a sort of precident. When the disabled toilets were getting refurbished, they had hybrid 158/156 sets running around for a time but these are more suitable to do this with than with 170s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium richierich Posted November 8, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 8, 2011 I've doubt it. Class 158 / 159 I believe are the last DMUs to have electro-pneumatic controls. Whereas the Turbostars are all electronic. Its a reason why SWT rid themselves of there small 170 fleet for 158s, the latter at the time could be made to have a much high MPC value. I'd guess they are more closely related to Network Turbos like the 165/166 in terms of systems. I never understood why Turbostars wern't through gangwayed like all Classes of Sprinters (except 150/0 and 150/1s). It such a loss of flexibility on the Multiple Unit railway of today. Anyway the Class 172 with LM are through gangwayed, which proves its possible. Its a shame they could be the last DMUs built in the UK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.