Chiltern considers Turbo future

[Shaw S Hunter]

I've never thought Mk3s were much good. They have always seemed very primitive compared with the fairly ubiquitous Eurofima coaches all over Europe. Mk4s are a bit better but still built down to a price with a very poor ride. The Wessie was everything the Mk3 should have been, but still wasn't as good as people make out.

The International Coach was what BR should have built en masse.

The Chiltern ones of course don't have the original interior but a far lower density one so I can see why (skinny) people might like them, but they look incredibly dated, almost Soviet.

When new the Mk3 was generally considered to be at least as good as anything on offer on the continent with only the SNCF Corail able to match it for ride quality. Eurofimas by contrast have always been a touch agricultural over complex pointwork though given this is normally covered at low speed it doesn't matter too much. What let the Mk3 down was a failure to fit better seats than the IC70s when they were first due for refurbishment. Instead we just got ever higher density seating layouts. And yes the original armrests made the window seats decidedly awkward to access. It was always an historical accident that they found their way on to Chiltern: they really don't belong there!

As for Chiltern's future fleet it should be an absolute no-brainer that the whole route be electrified with a GA style fleet of role-specific types based on a common platform. All this talk of possible cascades betrays the usual British railway problem of doing so much on the cheap. New fleets really should be used on their original routes until eventual replacement rather than incurring the not inconsiderable costs of retraining staff when previously unknown stock appears but with less (sometimes a lot) than half their life expectancy remaining. The leasing system ushered in to make privatisation work has surely increased rolling stock costs beyond what was really necessary.

 

[JonathanH]

Straight to the scrapyard. They are only 5 years older than the youngest Pacers.

Yes, but there is no political reason (other than the diesel issue that also affects older rolling stock) for that to happen like there was with Pacers.

Is the diesel issue sufficiently prominent to see the Network Turbo fleet binned prematurely?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yes, but there is no political reason (other than the diesel issue that also affects older rolling stock) for that to happen like there was with Pacers.

Is the diesel issue sufficiently prominent to see the Network Turbo fleet binned prematurely?

If we are genuinely concerned about net-zero then the answer is probably yes. But with the current shower in charge the actual decisions to spend the necessary money will probably be kicked down the road a few times until another mandatory deadline is looming.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the diesel issue sufficiently prominent to see the Network Turbo fleet binned prematurely?

I wouldn’t say 35years old is premature for a DMU fleet (which is what they’ll be before they could be replaced).

 

[JonathanH]

I wouldn’t say 35years old is premature for a DMU fleet (which is what they’ll be before they could be replaced).

Maybe. As 'Bletchleyite' pointed out earlier today, the ideal fleet for the Chiltern route are the 37 spare 350s, there are even roughly the right number. There is just one small problem.

 

[Energy]

Maybe. As 'Bletchleyite' pointed out earlier today, the ideal fleet for the Chiltern route are the 37 spare 350s, there are even roughly the right number. There is just one small problem.

2 problems, the 730s aren't in service yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2 problems, the 730s aren't in service yet.

I rather doubt the Chilterns will be wired before they become available

 

[Energy]

I rather doubt the Chilterns will be wired before they become available

You have seen the 701s haven't you?

 

[Philip]

Or are you working backwards from “I want swanky modern trains on the Chiltern route, so I’ll come up with something to give me the answer I’ve already decided I want”?

It is not imperative for an intercity/long distance express service to have end-door stock; this is just a whim/whinge of rail enthusiasts, whilst the majority of passengers prefer ease of getting on and off, a comfy seat and a clean train over having exterior doors in the vestibules. Class 350s, 185s, 170s and 168s all perform their express/intercity duties well and so there's no reason why the LHCS on this route shouldn't be replaced with stock that has doors part way down the carriage.

 

[xotGD]

the ideal fleet for the Chiltern route are the 37

Now we're talking!

 

[Energy]

It is not imperative for an intercity/long distance express service to have end-door stock; this is just a whim/whinge of rail enthusiasts, whilst the majority of passengers prefer ease of getting on and off, a comfy seat and a clean train over having exterior doors in the vestibules. Class 350s, 185s, 170s and 168s all perform their express/intercity duties well and so there's no reason why the LHCS on this route shouldn't be replaced with stock that has doors part way down the carriage.

I'm confused, werent you trying to give them 802s a page ago? 175s wouldn't be terribly placed at Chiltern if new stock isn't an option. Much better than at Northern.

 

[Snow1964]

Is the diesel issue sufficiently prominent to see the Network Turbo fleet binned prematurely?

The oldest 165s are now 32 years old

The trains they replaced in 1990-92 (class 115) were 30-32 years old, so the 165s are now older than the trains that they replaced.

Not sure how that means they will be binned prematurely

 

[Philip]

I'm confused, werent you trying to give them 802s a page ago? 175s wouldn't be terribly placed at Chiltern if new stock isn't an option. Much better than at Northern.

In your opinion maybe. Others have different ideas and whether you like it or not Northern is also a potential option being considered for 175s after TfW, because of their commitment to replace Sprinters by the end of the decade.

The replacement for LHCS Chiltern needs to be hybrid/bi-mode (be it new units or existing ones having been converted). It needs to be of 'intercity' or 'long distance' quality (hence mentioning 802s), but having doors at the end of the carriage isn't important.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When new the Mk3 was generally considered to be at least as good as anything on offer on the continent with only the SNCF Corail able to match it for ride quality. Eurofimas by contrast have always been a touch agricultural over complex pointwork though given this is normally covered at low speed it doesn't matter too much.

Yet I've always considered the Mk3 to have a poor ride, with that characteristic and annoying side to side sway and more than a slight bit of bounciness. Probably better than a Mk1, Mk2 or Mk4 but really nothing to write home about.

I guess when I've experienced Eurofimas it's in countries like Switzerland and Germany, in which the smallest branch line has a higher track quality than we have on the WCML fasts, and in Germany there certainly used to be common use of moving frogs/swing noses (choose your preferred term) in pointwork which meant a totally smooth ride right across a station throat. The jerks and jolts across Ledburn are embarrassing in comparison.

What let the Mk3 down was a failure to fit better seats than the IC70s when they were first due for refurbishment. Instead we just got ever higher density seating layouts. And yes the original armrests made the window seats decidedly awkward to access. It was always an historical accident that they found their way on to Chiltern: they really don't belong there!

Indeed. FWIW there was one coach knocking around (I think in the Banbury set) that had come from one of the Welsh sets and had a modernised interior with Grammers etc, very much like their 158s. That one was OK

 

[Kite159]

If the 165s get replaced on Chiltern then I can see them ending up with GWR to allow some of the 150s to get replaced.

Although I can't see the Chiltern route getting wired up before 2030 at the earliest.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The oldest 165s are now 32 years old

The trains they replaced in 1990-92 (class 115) were 30-32 years old, so the 165s are now older than the trains that they replaced.

Not sure how that means they will be binned prematurely

I'd be slightly miffed seeing the superior (and younger) 165s being turned into razorblades whilst still having to put up with 150s on Huddersfield to Sheffield. Yes, I know the 165s are a bit on the chubby side, but that's nothing an angle-grinder can't fix!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2022 ==

In your opinion maybe. Others have different ideas and whether you like it or not Northern is also a potential option being considered for 175s after TfW, because of their commitment to replace Sprinters by the end of the decade.

The replacement for LHCS Chiltern needs to be hybrid/bi-mode (be it new units or existing ones having been converted). It needs to be of 'intercity' or 'long distance' quality (hence mentioning 802s), but having doors at the end of the carriage isn't important.

A "commitment" made by DOR Northern about replacing Sprinters probably isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Especially with so many infrastructure works using 20m vehicles as a basis.

The whole debacle on Chiltern is driven largely by idiot nimbys who think loud=dirty. The 68s are cleaner than Turbostars in terms of exhaust. I'm also not sure what point there is in using a bi-mode solution on a route (the Chiltern main line) that has zero electrification and no plans to get it.

 

[Mikey C]

If the 165s get replaced on Chiltern then I can see them ending up with GWR to allow some of the 150s to get replaced.

Although I can't see the Chiltern route getting wired up before 2030 at the earliest.

As the 165s are quite fat, will they fit elsewhere in the country, as the Chiltern 165s are a definite step up from the 150s and 156s

 

[JonathanH]

The whole debacle on Chiltern is driven largely by idiot nimbys who think loud=dirty. The 68s are cleaner than Turbostars in terms of exhaust. I'm also not sure what point there is in using a bi-mode solution on a route (the Chiltern main line) that has zero electrification and no plans to get it.

It is also the result of having a large number of route miles with a relatively sparse service at the outer end. If services only ran to Banbury electrification would be cheaper.

One point made further up notes that electrification to High Wycombe, then Oxford, then Banbury, then Birmingham would allow gradual replacement of 165s, then 168s by electric units. However, the line isn't on any urgency list for electrification as it comes well below other projects.

(To some extent, the lull in passenger growth should mean that electrification is the only infrastructure work that should be proceeding, but money still needs to be obtained to do it.)

 

[ashkeba]

Class 350s, 185s, 170s and 168s all perform their express/intercity duties well and so there's no reason why the LHCS on this route shouldn't be replaced with stock that has doors part way down the carriage.

I think anyone including 170s as an example of doing intercity well hasn't seen the terrible state of XC's recently. They are as trashed as you would expect for a small regional unit pressed into intercity service solo. Not an experiment that sword be repeated.

 

[Techniquest]

Straight to the scrapyard. They are only 5 years older than the youngest Pacers.

Really? I always thought they were late 90s when they were built, although I could of course have found that out easily enough.

In that case, then yes I can't see them doing much else except going to the scrapyard by the time the routes get electrified.

 

[Neptune]

It is not imperative for an intercity/long distance express service to have end-door stock; this is just a whim/whinge of rail enthusiasts, whilst the majority of passengers prefer ease of getting on and off, a comfy seat and a clean train over having exterior doors in the vestibules.

According to you in the Sprinter Extinction thread it doesn’t matter where the doors are because on long enough trains (4 to 6 coaches I believe you quoted) it is quick enough with end doors such as P13/14 at Piccadilly. Now you‘re saying doors at thirds are preferable as the majority of passengers prefer ease of getting on and off which completely goes against your argument on the other thread. So which is it? (rhetorical question btw as it’s pretty obvious which is the best for loading/unloading crowds).

The whim/whinge of rail enthusiasts will never go away when it comes to door wibble but most people on here are looking at this with a sense of realism from what I can see. Threads like this sadly seem to deteriorate into enthusiast whims/whinges about where their favourite stock is going to go once it is off lease, this one is no different.

Class 350s, 185s, 170s and 168s all perform their express/intercity duties well and so there's no reason why the LHCS on this route shouldn't be replaced with stock that has doors part way down the carriage.

Not many people have suggested anything other than stock with doors at thirds. The only stock mentioned with end doors for Chiltern replacement are 175’s and 802’s, both of which you have suggested.

 

[Snow1964]

According to you in the Sprinter Extinction thread it doesn’t matter where the doors are because on long enough trains (4 to 6 coaches I believe you quoted) it is quick enough with end doors such as P13/14 at Piccadilly. Now you‘re saying doors at thirds are preferable as the majority of passengers prefer ease of getting on and off which completely goes against your argument on the other thread.

Not many people have suggested anything other than stock with doors at thirds. The only stock mentioned with end doors for Chiltern replacement are 175’s and 802’s, both of which you have suggested.

Doors located third of way on each carriage is not optimum, for two doors want them at the Quarters. Otherwise those on platform at carriage ends have to walk third of carriage, but those in middle of a carriage only sixth of a carriage from doors.

However I believe structurally it is not a great idea to have a door opening immediately above the bogie airbag as that means all loadings have to be transmitted indirectly around the opening to contrail and roof.

 

[Neptune]

Doors located third of way on each carriage is not optimum, for two doors want them at the Quarters. Otherwise those on platform at carriage ends have to walk third of carriage, but those in middle of a carriage only sixth of a carriage from doors.

However I believe structurally it is not a great idea to have a door opening immediately above the bogie airbag as that means all loadings have to be transmitted indirectly around the opening to contrail and roof.

Have you actually been on stock with doors at thirds such as Turbostars? It’s hardly a hike to the doors from the carriage end. A third of 23m is 7.66m but accounting for the width of the door dictates it will be even nearer.

Yes doors at quarters knocks the distance down in real terms by a metre or so at the ends but extends it likewise in the centre so it’s hardly an argument against doors at thirds.

 

[43096]

As the 165s are quite fat, will they fit elsewhere in the country, as the Chiltern 165s are a definite step up from the 150s and 156s

They’re not that wide: essentially they are C1 gauge width and C3 gauge length.

 

[Domh245]

Doors located third of way on each carriage is not optimum, for two doors want them at the Quarters. Otherwise those on platform at carriage ends have to walk third of carriage, but those in middle of a carriage only sixth of a carriage from doors.

I think "doors at thirds" is being taken a bit too literally there - certainly on older stock the doors would be positioned at roughly exactly thirds, but on more recent stock it would seem that doors are positioned more to give a consistent spacing between them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think anyone including 170s as an example of doing intercity well hasn't seen the terrible state of XC's recently. They are as trashed as you would expect for a small regional unit pressed into intercity service solo. Not an experiment that sword be repeated.

XC's are doing regional services formerly operated by Central Trains, exactly the thing they are designed for. And the state of them is because XC don't look after their stock.

 

[Neptune]

XC's are doing regional services formerly operated by Central Trains, exactly the thing they are designed for. And the state of them is because XC don't look after their stock.

Yes this came up on a previous thread. For some reason some people seem to think that XC’s ex CT inter-regional services operated by class 170’s qualify as Intercity. If they’d passed to EMT or LM instead of XC and run in the same format as they are now nobody would think for one second that they were IC services.

 

[Energy]

Doors located third of way on each carriage is not optimum, for two doors want them at the Quarters. Otherwise those on platform at carriage ends have to walk third of carriage, but those in middle of a carriage only sixth of a carriage from doors.

However I believe structurally it is not a great idea to have a door opening immediately above the bogie airbag as that means all loadings have to be transmitted indirectly around the opening to contrail and roof.

I think most here say doors at 3rd to mean not at ends. The class 170s would be considered doors at thirds despite them more being at quarters.

It is also the result of having a large number of route miles with a relatively sparse service at the outer end. If services only ran to Banbury electrification would be cheaper.

One point made further up notes that electrification to High Wycombe, then Oxford, then Banbury, then Birmingham would allow gradual replacement of 165s, then 168s by electric units. However, the line isn't on any urgency list for electrification as it comes well below other projects.

If we wanted to only do partial Chiltern electrification (with the remaining bit done under West Midlands local services) then Leamington Spa would be a better place to stop than Banbury, which isn't served by WMR.

In your opinion maybe. Others have different ideas and whether you like it or not Northern is also a potential option being considered for 175s after TfW, because of their commitment to replace Sprinters by the end of the decade.

Where is this commitment? The 175s wouldn't be that useful to Northern, end doors wouldn't be ideal and there aren't enough 175s so Northern would end up with a microfleet.

The best solution is Chiltern + WMR electrification with the 168s turned back into 170s and sent to Northern for the fast services and 172s either swapped with EMR 170s (and they are sent to Northern). Or sent to Northern themselves.

 

[Neptune]

In your opinion maybe. Others have different ideas and whether you like it or not Northern is also a potential option being considered for 175s after TfW, because of their commitment to replace Sprinters by the end of the decade.

Again, as I said in the other thread, this is all heresay with absolutely zero foundation for it. What you want to happen to the 175’s (which seems to be more or less 1 unit per TOC at the last count) isn‘t suddenly some sort of reality and isn’t necessarily the right solution. Surely you can see that?

Where is this commitment? The 175s wouldn't be that useful to Northern, end doors wouldn't be ideal and there aren't enough 175s so Northern would end up with a microfleet.

It has been mentioned in recent times that Northern are looking at replacing their entire 15x fleet in the future but can’t recall which magazine it was in or which thread it is in. There may be some substance in at as I’m certain it wasn’t in RAIL as it would have quite rightly been dismissed as tabloid journalism.

The best solution is Chiltern + WMR electrification with the 168s turned back into 170s and sent to Northern for the fast services and 172s either swapped with EMR 170s (and they are sent to Northern). Or sent to Northern themselves.

End door stock really isn’t required on Northern so this would be a substantially decent solution.

 

[Philip]

Where is this commitment? The 175s wouldn't be that useful to Northern, end doors wouldn't be ideal and there aren't enough 175s so Northern would end up with a microfleet.

The best solution is Chiltern + WMR electrification with the 168s turned back into 170s and sent to Northern for the fast services and 172s either swapped with EMR 170s (and they are sent to Northern). Or sent to Northern themselves.

End door stock is perfectly fine for many Northern services, particularly in the North East - if this wasn't the case then they wouldn't have so many 156s and 158s. I can see the argument about end-door stock not being suitable on the Castelfield corridor, but not elsewhere on Northern's network. There was a document released in July stipulating Northern's plans to get rid of Sprinters by the end of the decade; 175s are an obvious choice for replacing the 156s and/or 158s on non-electrified routes.

Sending 168s to Northern would mean additional and unnecessary cost and work for conversion back to 170s and more than likely crew training, plus there is no mention of any plans about Chiltern getting rid of their 168s. They're currently looking at 165s and whether to convert them to bi-mode or replace them with a new fleet, with a sub-note that 175s might be a suitable replacement for LHCS. Splitting the 175 fleet between TOCs would be no more inefficient than sending 168s to Northern for conversion to 170s - is the even smaller 180 fleet not already split between different operators?