Chiltern considers Turbo future

[norbitonflyer]

Very different to 4 rail LU and 25kV overhead power.

That's been done though - AC reached Euston in 1966, and the Wat-Eus line was not converted from 4-rail DC to 3-rail until c1971. If anything it shpould be simpler as you are not having to deal with both ac and dc current return through the running rails.

 

[Elecman]

That's been done though - AC reached Euston in 1966, and the Wat-Eus line was not converted from 4-rail DC to 3-rail until c1971. If anything it shpould be simpler as you are not having to deal with both ac and dc current return through the running rails.

Correct as there is no running rail return current in 4th rail dc electrification so the running rails can be earthed for the ac return current. This is much more difficult to achieve in 3rd Rail dc areas

 

[Bald Rick]

Those armrests in the MK3s are a part of the past, and the MK3 seats weren't as good as my rose-tinted glasses were telling me they were. Add in some gymnastics to get to/from the window seat at a table seat, and I was re-writing my memory of the MK3s simply as 'time to retire these things'.

That was exactly my thought when I went on one a few weeks back. Looked forward to it, but when I alighted knew that it was time for them to go.

 

[Philip]

(Would be happy if Chiltern got the 175s, at least it’ll stop people wasting crayons coming up with reasons why Northern “need” these 100mph end door DMUs)

Northern may still receive some 175s even if the loco-hauled sets are replaced by them. Would probably only need 8-10 175s to fully replace the Chiltern LHCS. The fleet would be split between different operators.

 

[Wolfie]

Northern may still receive some 175s even if the loco-hauled sets are replaced by them. Would probably only need 8-10 175s to fully replace the Chiltern LHCS. The fleet would be split between different operators.

That would be hopelessly inefficient.

 

[Philip]

That would be hopelessly inefficient.

I agree, hence why the whole fleet to Northern makes more sense. If all went to Chiltern then nearly 2/3 of the fleet would be surplus to duties with the current rolling stock there.

170s to Chiltern for conversion to hybrid 168s would be a more efficient solution for LHCS replacement.

 

[tbtc]

Northern may still receive some 175s even if the loco-hauled sets are replaced by them. Would probably only need 8-10 175s to fully replace the Chiltern LHCS. The fleet would be split between different operators.

IF Chiltern take any of the small fleet of 175s, they should take all of them

If you need to give Northern something then send some displaced 168s (easily converted to 170s to work alongside the 170s we already have here, especially given that some of the Chiltern 168s used to be 170s in the north of England)

But, without trying to derail this thread, Northern have enough “fast” trains with end doors - we currently have 158s stuck on stopping services because we have more than enough to run the “fast” routes that Northern run - what we need are trains with “mid” doors better suited to shorter station dwells, not 100mph end doored 175s!

 

[Philip]

IF Chiltern take any of the small fleet of 175s, they should take all of them

If you need to give Northern something then send some displaced 168s (easily converted to 170s to work alongside the 170s we already have here, especially given that some of the Chiltern 168s used to be 170s in the north of England)

But, without trying to derail this thread, Northern have enough “fast” trains with end doors - we currently have 158s stuck on stopping services because we have more than enough to run the “fast” routes that Northern run - what we need are trains with “mid” doors better suited to shorter station dwells, not 100mph end doored 175s!

It would be more complicated to convert 175s to hybrid operation than it would 168s and 170s and this is an important consideration the Chiltern London services.

 

[JonathanH]

It would be more complicated to convert 175s to hybrid operation than it would 168s and 170s and this is an important consideration the Chiltern London services.

How do you figure that?

 

[Philip]

How do you figure that?

It has already been done with a 168 so knowledge is already there for converting more.

168s/170s to Northern has drawbacks too because of the poor acceleration compared with most other DMUs.

 

[Bald Rick]

It has already been done with a 168 so knowledge is already there for converting more.

And how did that go? Not been many press releases…

 

[Philip]

And how did that go? Not been many press releases…

It was the pilot unit, the point is the knowledge is there and where to correct things that may have gone wrong with the pilot unit.

Besides it was stated on here some months ago that the 175 would be more complex t9 convert, because of the type of engine used I seem to remember.

 

[Bletchleyite]

IF Chiltern take any of the small fleet of 175s, they should take all of them

Probably so. After all, Chiltern's Birmingham service is not dissimilar to other services using end doored units like 444s and such, and with the mixed formations there is flexibility of train length. The 168s could then do the innersuburbans and the likes.

It would be more complicated to convert 175s to hybrid operation than it would 168s and 170s and this is an important consideration the Chiltern London services.

They're just Sprinters - uprated 156s if you like - so not massively so.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'm somewhat surprised at the level of enthusiasm for finding any use for the 175s when TfW is done with them whether with Chiltern or anyone else regardless of their relatively pleasant interiors. Both Alstom Coradia platforms in use in this country (175, 180) have had periods of horrible unreliability including a propensity for engine fires. If the government makes a genuine push for decarbonisation of the railways I can see the 175s next re-allocation being to the scrappers.

 

[Mikey C]

Well it depends on how often the top speed is actually achieved, compared to the better acceleration a low geared unit has. If the 75mph units have better acceleration away from stations that can offset a lower top speed.

The 165s are of a different generation to the 168s though, and less powerful, so I don't think they're particularly rapid off the line?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They're just Sprinters - uprated 156s if you like - so not massively so.

Are they though? This keeps being said, but other than fuel, door position and the factory they were built in are they actually much like each other?

That's a bit like saying a Ford Focus is "basically an uprated Model T".

 

[tomuk]

Are they though? This keeps being said, but other than fuel, door position and the factory they were built in are they actually much like each other?

Well they weren't actually built in the same factory. They were all fitted out at Metro Cammell Washwood Heath but the bodyshells were built by various sub contractors. Procor, WH Davis, BREL, Breda, Ganz among others.

The lineage is 156 - Mk4 - Nightstar - Coradia 175/180/334/458/460

That's a bit like saying a Ford Focus is "basically an uprated Model T".

No but if you look under a Fiat Brava, Multipla, Stilo, Alfa 156, Alfa Guilletta and a Jeep Cherokee you might be surprised.

 

[RobShipway]

Getting back to the question in hand, I suspect that Chiltern would possibly be looking for something similar to the Stadler class 755 flirt trains, where it can be used initially with diesel and AC overhead, but later converted to from diesel power to battery. The new trains would not only be replacing the MK3 plus 68, but also replacing the class 168 units.

Of Course this would be on the basis that AC overhead is put in place at some point in time on the Chiltern lines. AC overhead above LU 4th rail I am pretty sure has been done successfully before somewhere.............

 

[Bald Rick]

It was the pilot unit, the point is the knowledge is there and where to correct things that may have gone wrong with the pilot unit.

And what if the pilot just proved there was no point doing it? Because if it had been a success, then I would have expected somebody to say so?

 

[Philip]

And what if the pilot just proved there was no point doing it? Because if it had been a success, then I would have expected somebody to say so?

Well even if converting 168s to bi-mode operation isn't a good solution, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be with 175s. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to replace the 165s with newly-built bi-mode units as this article alludes to and add a follow-on order for some 'intercity-spec' bi-mode trains to replace the LHCS...or a small order of 802s.

 

[JonathanH]

add a follow-on order for some 'intercity-spec' bi-mode trains to replace the LHCS...or a small order of 802s.

Totally unnecessary to have 'intercity-spec' rolling stock on the Chiltern line. The 68+Mk3s are only there because they were available, and something more appropriate wasn't.

 

[Neptune]

Totally unnecessary to have 'intercity-spec' rolling stock on the Chiltern line. The 68+Mk3s are only there because they were available, and something more appropriate wasn't.

Yes I was always led to believe that Chiltern took on the LHCS because there were no Turbostars available at the time rather than the fact they actually wanted them.

The trouble is the presence of this stock leads some people to believe that it is suddenly an Intercity operation needing 125mph rolling stock when the reality is somewhat different.

Chiltern is a very unique operation but I don’t see why a one size fits all solution couldn’t be found.

100mph bi-modes (or even tri-modes) with doors at thirds, excellent acceleration and a layout not dissimilar to the 331 (ie decent for longer distance passengers but with stand backs in the centre section doorways).

Chiltern do not need Intercity stock.

 

[jackot]

I'm somewhat surprised at the level of enthusiasm for finding any use for the 175s when TfW is done with them whether with Chiltern or anyone else regardless of their relatively pleasant interiors. Both Alstom Coradia platforms in use in this country (175, 180) have had periods of horrible unreliability including a propensity for engine fires. If the government makes a genuine push for decarbonisation of the railways I can see the 175s next re-allocation being to the scrappers.

They have been rather reliable for TfW and the former welsh operators for at least the last decade. It just seems logical: there is a DMU shortage, and here is a fleet of 27 2-3 car DMUs, just over 20 year old. Without going of topic, they would be more than suitable for Chiltern or GWR, as well as many other operators, so it makes sense to at least look for some use for them. It's not a good image for the railway scrapping almost 30 trains that aren't particularly old, whilst there are many services that could greatly use new stock just like these ones.

 

[43074]

Totally unnecessary to have 'intercity-spec' rolling stock on the Chiltern line. The 68+Mk3s are only there because they were available, and something more appropriate wasn't.

Totally unnecessary to have intercity spec rolling stock between London, Oxford and Birmingham?? Sure these days they aren't competing so hard for the end to end market but that's certainly what they were aiming for by developing the Oxford and Birmingham services in the way they did at the time.

 

[Philip]

Totally unnecessary to have 'intercity-spec' rolling stock on the Chiltern line. The 68+Mk3s are only there because they were available, and something more appropriate wasn't.

It is an intercity route - Snow Hill to Marylebone is a 2 hour journey with only about 4-5 stops on the faster services and connects the two largest cities in the country. It clearly meets 'intercity' status.

 

[JonathanH]

Totally unnecessary to have intercity spec rolling stock between London, Oxford and Birmingham?? Sure these days they aren't competing so hard for the end to end market but that's certainly what they were aiming for by developing the Oxford and Birmingham services in the way they did at the time.

The primary route from London to Oxford is from Paddington. Lots of people have written in the past that this route should be run using 387s on both the fast and slower services that don't go onto the Cotswold line.

68+Mk3s run one service from Oxford in the peak.

168s were used to develop the markets on both routes. The 68+Mk3 do limited workings where their capacity used to be needed.

 

[JohnRegular]

Yes I was always led to believe that Chiltern took on the LHCS because there were no Turbostars available at the time rather than the fact they actually wanted them.

The trouble is the presence of this stock leads some people to believe that it is suddenly an Intercity operation needing 125mph rolling stock when the reality is somewhat different.

Chiltern is a very unique operation but I don’t see why a one size fits all solution couldn’t be found.

100mph bi-modes (or even tri-modes) with doors at thirds, excellent acceleration and a layout not dissimilar to the 331 (ie decent for longer distance passengers but with stand backs in the centre section doorways).

Chiltern do not need Intercity stock.

Chiltern could probably do with the same sort of thing that's needed for other 'regional express' routes e.g. Portsmouth-Cardiff, Norwich-Liverpool, 'XC lite' etc., which is approximately what you describe.

 

[skyhigh]

Are they though? This keeps being said, but other than fuel, door position and the factory they were built in are they actually much like each other?

That's a bit like saying a Ford Focus is "basically an uprated Model T".

Compared to 156s - different engines, air con, hydrodynamic brake (albeit disabled), disc vs tread brake, different top speed, TMS, Combined power/brake controller vs separate handles... they're not really very similar at all.

 

[Neptune]

Are they though? This keeps being said, but other than fuel, door position and the factory they were built in are they actually much like each other?

That's a bit like saying a Ford Focus is "basically an uprated Model T".

Compared to 156s - different engines, air con, hydrodynamic brake (albeit disabled), disc vs tread brake, different top speed, TMS, Combined power/brake controller vs separate handles... they're not really very similar at all.

Sadly some posters will ignore the technical facts and will continue this line forever about them ‘just being upgraded 156’s’.

 

[The Planner]

It is an intercity route - Snow Hill to Marylebone is a 2 hour journey with only about 4-5 stops on the faster services and connects the two largest cities in the country. It clearly meets 'intercity' status.

In 7 years time it won't be.