Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
There's been a lot of debate about whether or not Chiltern Railways will continue with the 68/CS sets and which trains they will use if they choose to replace them. However, in this present age of rail cuts & savings, should the 'extras' even continue at all in their current form or should a more efficient use of stock be looked at?
How about getting rid of the loco diagrams completely and instead have two extra peak diagrams (one in the morning and another in the evening) for the northern section and likewise for the southern half? The Birmingham peak extra could run to Leamington Spa using DMUs and the London one to Banbury using hybrid units. Does this seem a better use of resources?
They need a lot of work and maintenance and what would be the point if it's only 7 or 8 units? Not suggesting Northern is a much better option either but the Chilterns seems like a case of trying to find a place for them regardless of the logic. The Chiltern London extras are a luxury and near the top of the list for service cuts. I think this idea of replacing the LHCS with shorter distance peak extras using makes more sense and would probably be possible using the existing 168 fleet, without need for any extra units.
They need a lot of work and maintenance and what would be the point if it's only 7 or 8 units? Not suggesting Northern is a much better option either but the Chilterns seems like a case of trying to find a place for them regardless of the logic. The Chiltern London extras are a luxury and near the top of the list for service cuts. I think this idea of replacing the LHCS short distance peak extras using existing 168s makes more sense.
Scrap all the LHCS diagrams and instead run a couple of extra peak time services at either end of the route, but not as a through service.
I'd also be tempted to reduce the half hourly Birmingham-Marylebone frequency to hourly and in its place run an hourly shuttle between Birmingham-Leamington.
Scrap all the LHCS diagrams and instead run a couple of extra peak time services at either end of the route, but not as a through service.
I'd also be tempted to reduce the half hourly Birmingham-Marylebone frequency to hourly and in its place run an hourly shuttle between Birmingham-Leamington.
Using what? The DMU fleet is basically fully utilised. If you would have to shorten something else to do it there is no point, just keep the longer train.
That's not relevant to this thread. A lot of lines are facing fairly substantial service cuts or possibly not getting their promised additional services (London-Liverpool could be one). I don't see why Chiltern Railways should be exempt in this aspect, particularly when the through service (Birmingham-London) is already well served by Avanti and WMT.
That's not relevant to this thread. A lot of lines are facing fairly substantial service cuts or possibly not getting their promised additional services (London-Liverpool could be one). I don't see why Chiltern Railways should be exempt in this aspect, particularly when the through service (Birmingham-London) is already well served by Avanti and WMT.
You cut things to save money, not for a laugh. I venture as the other poster did that you have no understanding whatsoever of Chiltern's usage patterns?
Using what? The DMU fleet is basically fully utilised. If you would have to shorten something else to do it there is no point, just keep the longer train.
If, as I suggest, you cut back one of the half-hourly Birmingham-London services to Leamington, or even split it so that one half does Birmingham-Leamington, the other London-Bicester/Banbury, it should free up enough DMUs to run a couple of peak diagrams and strengthen a couple of existing services.
If, as I suggest, you cut back one of the half-hourly Birmingham-London services to Leamington, or even split it so that one half does Birmingham-Leamington, the other London-Bicester/Banbury, it should free up enough DMUs to run a couple of peak diagrams and strengthen a couple of existing services.
No, it won't. That pattern would save nothing at all - think about turnarounds.
Post HS2 I think the Chiltern service will slow down a bit because local markets become a priority. But going to London is its main purpose, and there isn't even an operational benefit of lopping it in half unlike lopping LNR services at Northampton where the depot is.
You cut things to save money, not for a laugh. I venture as the other poster did that you have no understanding whatsoever of Chiltern's usage patterns?
Well I did travel all the way on a weekday mid-afternoon service out of Birmingham late last year (before omicron) and I'd say the train was at best half full. Not exactly a sign of a route at full stretch.
Well I did travel all the way on a weekday mid-afternoon service out of Birmingham late last year (before omicron) and I'd say the train was at best half full. Not exactly a sign of a route at full stretch.
So a sample of one train on one occasion at one of the quietest times of day? I would suggest you have insufficient experience of the route to have a clue on loadings.
So a sample of one train on one occasion at one of the quietest times of day? I would suggest you have insufficient experience of the route to have a clue on loadings.
I said mid-afternoon (around 2-3pm) which is one of the busiest times nowadays. I don't disagree that Birmingham-Leamington and London-Banbury should continue to be well served, but if, nationally, some savings need to be made through service cuts then the LHCS Chiltern extras will be near the top of the list, hence these suggestions for making better use of the resources.
If there aren't enough 168s to operate the short peak extras I've suggested then it will have to be, at best, a simple half hourly frequency without any additional services.
I don't disagree that Birmingham-Leamington and London-Banbury should continue to be well served, but if, nationally, some savings need to be made through service cuts then the LHCS Chiltern extras will be near the top of the list, hence these suggestions for making better use of the resources.
As I have pointed out your proposal does not make better use of the resources. The way to do that on Chiltern is to slow the Birmingham trains down south of Banbury and remove stopping services.
If there aren't enough 168s to operate the short peak extras I've suggested then it will have to be, at best, a simple half hourly frequency without any additional services.
As Chiltern have stock allowing formation of near enough any length, a clockface timetable but with short trains at quiet times and longer trains at busy times is probably the way.
I said mid-afternoon (around 2-3pm) which is one of the busiest times nowadays. I don't disagree that Birmingham-Leamington and London-Banbury should continue to be well served, but if, nationally, some savings need to be made through service cuts then the LHCS Chiltern extras will be near the top of the list, hence these suggestions for making better use of the resources.
From what I find, on the Chiltern Birmingham route, Banbury, Leamington, Warwick Parkway and Solihull tend to be the busiest stops for people going to / from London. There are also a lot of short distance trips from Leamington, Warwick and Solihull to Birmingham using the Chiltern service, however there do not seem to be to many through trips from London to Birmingham.
Based on this, I think it would make most sense to continue two trains an hour between London and Birmingham, but perhaps have more stops on the northern end of the route to serve these local trips into Birmingham.
If Chiltern wanted to save money, scrapping the Leamington to Birmingham Moor Street shuttle and having one of the London to Birmingham trains stop at Hatton and Lapworth would make more sense.
Yes. For weekdays, I would say the couple of hours preceding 4pm is the 3rd busiest time of the day on the trains (after the typical morning and evening peak times). I also used the train between Leamington and Banbury on Thursday afternoon just gone and again it wasn't especially busy.
Based on people's observations in this thread, I would retain the half hourly London frequency with additional stops at the northern end and scrap the diagrams currently utilised by the LHCS.
Yes. For weekdays, I would say the couple of hours preceding 4pm is the 3rd busiest time of the day on the trains (after the typical morning and evening peak times).
Yes. For weekdays, I would say the couple of hours preceding 4pm is the 3rd busiest time of the day on the trains (after the typical morning and evening peak times).
Regional and local services around Manchester, TPE to Scotland, Manchester to North and South Wales, Avanti between Manchester and London, Cross Country Manchester to Birmingham. I don't see why the Chiltern line would be much different.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Regional and local services around Manchester, TPE to Scotland, Manchester to North and South Wales, Avanti between Manchester and London, Cross Country Manchester to Birmingham. I don't see why the Chiltern line would be much different.
Because London commuter TOCs are totally different in usage patterns to the others?
With London commuter TOCs it's also necessary to separate how busy it is from how many people are travelling, because traditionally you had the majority of capacity into London for 9am and out of it from about 5:30-6:30pm, with contra-peak services often being busiest because they were short trains, 4 car in LNR's case, 2 in Chiltern's, because the stock was being kept for the peak users. LNR have just changed this, however, with almost everything a standard 8 car all day.
But as for London commuter TOC numbers travelling I'd go with something like...
Most passengers
Morning peak (because almost everyone wants to be in London/Birmingham for 9am)
Evening peak (a bit more spread out as people finish at different times - clocking off at bang on 5pm is not really a thing as much as it was, though most commuters will still have a usual train)
Saturday afternoon "shopping time" services (i.e. departing London around 4-6pm - no equivalent inbound peak as it's a bit dribs and drabs, though maybe busier around 1pm southbound)
Saturday evening "vomit comets" from about 9-11pm (the last one off Euston at 0010 is usually a bit quieter, suspect similar for Chiltern, I have used a Chiltern last train to Gerrards X and it wasn't heaving)
Friday evening "vomit comets" (this is more people who have stayed on after work for a pint or 5 rather than people travelling down)
Sunday evening shopping home time (around 4-6pm)
Weekday evening post peak
Mid afternoon
Sunday late afternoon
Sunday late evening
Saturday and Sunday early morning Least passengers
Obviously some times have been missed from that, people can guess away at where they'd sit.
One massive notable difference between London commuter TOCs and IC TOCs is that the former don't have the secondary peaks northbound on Fridays from about 1900 and on Sundays southbound from about 2-5pm. IC TOCs do. There is a bit of usage of Chiltern/LNR for long distance trips by these "weekly commuters" but it's nowhere near as pronounced as it is on the likes of Avanti, LNER, GWR etc.
They could handily replace the LCHS trains, along with being rolling stock for EWR. They could also get some 165s off longer distance services, which would help with pathing.
They could handily replace the LCHS trains, along with being rolling stock for EWR. They could also get some 165s off longer distance services, which would help with pathing.
If Chiltern wanted to save money, scrapping the Leamington to Birmingham Moor Street shuttle and having one of the London to Birmingham trains stop at Hatton and Lapworth would make more sense.
You've obviously never traveled on any of the monring services into MYB, or the evening services out of MYB which are formed of the LCHS or travelled on any of the LHCS on the Saturday and Sunday turns which are always F&S.
You've obviously never traveled on any of the monring services into MYB, or the evening services out of MYB which are formed of the LCHS or travelled on any of the LHCS on the Saturday and Sunday turns which are always F&S.
The majority of lines are facing service reductions over the next couple of years - some of which are busier than the Chiltern line. Removal of the LHCS diagrams with perhaps some peak strengthening on other services, if the existing stock can be diagrammed for it, seems a reasonable option. Sending 175s there would make more sense if there's a plan to replace the 165s and use 175s on EWR, but there isn't currently.
The majority of lines are facing service reductions over the next couple of years - some of which are busier than the Chiltern line. Removal of the LHCS diagrams with perhaps some peak strengthening on other services, if the existing stock can be diagrammed for it, seems a reasonable option. Sending 175s there would make more sense if there's a plan to replace the 165s and use 175s on EWR, but there isn't currently.
I cannot see the class 175 units replacing the class 165 units at Chiltern, unless the Chiltern class 165 units move to GWR to replace their class 150 units.
The class 175 units are not commuter units, they are more of diesel inter-city diesel multiple units so it would be more suitable for them to replace the LHCS trains.
You've obviously never traveled on any of the monring services into MYB, or the evening services out of MYB which are formed of the LCHS or travelled on any of the LHCS on the Saturday and Sunday turns which are always F&S.
Every Chiltern train I have been on during the weekend in the past year has been full and standing, regardless of whether it is LHCS or not. This I suspect is a combination of Avanti’s woes and the London to Birmingham service frequency being lower than before Covid.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
