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!
67s that are far worse for the environment (in terms of pollutants) and are far older, will cost more to maintain and re train drivers and probably have worse acceleration?
Remember the 68s are running on HVO fuel which should reduce pollutants and DRS are currently in the process of designing a noise reduction part for the 68s, so I'd everyone could stop complaining until this noise reducer is tested I think that would make sense!
67s that are far worse for the environment (in terms of pollutants) and are far older, will cost more to maintain and re train drivers and probably have worse acceleration?
Remember the 68s are running on HVO fuel which should reduce pollutants and DRS are currently in the process of designing a noise reduction part for the 68s, so I'd everyone could stop complaining until this noise reducer is tested I think that would make sense!
These locomotives have been around in the UK for some 10 years now, the issue of their idling racket at Marylebone has been going on with adjacent residents for years, ever since they turned up, and yet the operators are still only at the stage of thinking how the noise might be reduced ...?
'Available for purchase' indeed. But having sat in open storage for many years in some cases, hardly available for an instant return to passenger work.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If we're going to use "prioritising capacity" as a justification to sacrifice the wellbeing of people living near Marylebone, we can also use it to make the loco hauled sets unnecessary by replacing the interior of the DMUs with a tube train style interior.
The fact is the railway survives because the general population consents to providing billions a year in subsidies to the industry.
Anything, like this debacle, that undermines the positive image of the railway is a serious danger to it's survival in the long term.
The class 68s should never have been built and should be sent for conversion into razorblades. DRS should stop playing at being a ROSCO and begin winding down it's establishment to something that actually matches it's primary purpose
Quite an anti-railway rant there. I assume you believe the railway should be run as purely a commercial enterprise to make money and any services which do not turn a profit should be axed, irrespective of any benefit to the communities they serve and the wider economy.
As for the 68s being 'sent for conversion into razorblades' clearly that's utterly absurd and not going to happen. Again, armchair experts on here spouting opinions without being party to the various considerations pertaining to the 68's procurement at the time. I'm sure the many passengers who actually travel on the LHCS and appreciate the current Mark 3 stock would be surprised to hear their use described as a 'debacle' but what do they know? They're only the ones actually using the trains after all.
I'm sure the many passengers who actually travel on the LHCS and appreciate the current Mark 3 stock would be surprised to hear their use described as a 'debacle' but what do they know? They're only the ones actually using the trains after all.
Yes the passengers on chiltern for the mk3s absolutely love them. I got talking to these two businessmen who said they usually get the nice 'silver trains' and know the diagrams of them. It was quite funny being a train enthusiast and already knowing all this that normal commuters know it all too! The 68 and mk3s are definitely a credit to Chiltern and definitely their best stock for passengers.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Quite an anti-railway rant there. I assume you believe the railway should be run as purely a commercial enterprise to make money and any services which do not turn a profit should be axed, irrespective of any benefit to the communities they serve and the wider economy.
Yeah, that rant is by far one of the most depressin I've seen. I didn't know people could have such an agenda against a bloody train of all things! Chiltern, the pinnacle of UK train travel once upon a time, using their initiative by swooping up available stock (the Mk3s and 67s) and then developing their services by upgrading to the 68s but no this is all of a 'debacle' is it? Making passengers' journeys better is bad is it? I don't understand it at all!
Yeah, that rant is by far one of the most depressin I've seen. I didn't know people could have such an agenda against a bloody train of all things! Chiltern, the pinnacle of UK train travel once upon a time, using their initiative by swooping up available stock (the Mk3s and 67s) and then developing their services by upgrading to the 68s but no this is all of a 'debacle' is it? Making passengers' journeys better is bad is it? I don't understand it at all!
There is actually a reasonable argument for implementing standee interiors (maybe not Tube style, but perhaps more like the WMT 730 or the 700, i.e. narrow 2+2 with a wide aisle and standbacks) on Chiltern stock, at least the 165s (where the third seat is falling off a few rows anyway, there are now several units where they have obviously dropped to an angle!). While they like to lust after being an InterCity operator they are really primarily a commuter and short distance one and should act accordingly.
With the 165s it'd only take an afternoon with a spanner to sort that for the 3+2 middle sections.
As for an agenda, yes, I have one against the railway (or any other business) implementing a poor design that causes severe noise and vibration pollution when no other previous or newer design does that to that extent. The railway is often not a good neighbour and should be legally required to act reasonably, which means the 68 should be banned unless the silencing project is successful.
Sometimes in society we need to prioritise the greater good (capacity, public transport) over people who chose to live next to a central London terminus (or airport, for a more noisy comparison) long after it started being operational. Given the current status quo and state of the DfT, my sympathies lie with the passengers. Would it be nice if we had the staff to drive and funds to buy lots of new shiny stock so that I never had to board a rammed 3 carriage 168 again? Absolutely, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.
Planning authorities have their bit to do, too. There's no reason that stands up to any scrutiny to prevent freeholders or leaseholders from installing double glazing when we have a serious global problem with emissions.
The railway chooses to buy a poor design, probably to save money, and you tell people to accept it. Like hell they will, more likely they would litigate and the railway will have to replace it's cheap junk!
Oh, the railway caused the problem so it can pay for any fixes too!
Yes, the support is under the second seat, but there is also floor mounted equipment that extends out to the edge of the third seat that would become a trip hazard if it didn't have back to back seats covering it.
That is precisely why the third seats are still fitted.
Like overcrowding? Or passengers being left behind because they physically can't board or aren't willing to put up with the conditions on-board? Yeah, those things do tarnish the image of the railway a bit really, don't they.
What do you actually think you mean by "the railway"?
Let's be clear, this is all up the government; HMT in particular. The residents of the constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster voted for the current governing party.
The stock is what Chiltern have, and passengers appreciate them when they actually run. I can't see the available stock changing in the immediate term, so yes - I'd always argue for pragmatism over NIMBYism. Other posters have already outlined noise reduction plans from DRS.
Let's not pretend the 68s are some unique thing that the people of Marylebone take issue with, whereas everything else is perfect. If you search local newspapers you can find a long list of complaints about the vibrations caused by the Tube, the prospect of a Night Tube service, the announcements at the National Rail station, the diesel particulates in the area from the 168s. Perhaps we should just scrap all of those things? Put the Bakerloo line in the bin? Definitely a proportionate thing to do. Or .. just maybe, we acknowledge that you can't please every stakeholder and sometimes need to prioritise societal good.
Yeah, that rant is by far one of the most depressin I've seen. I didn't know people could have such an agenda against a bloody train of all things! Chiltern, the pinnacle of UK train travel once upon a time, using their initiative by swooping up available stock (the Mk3s and 67s) and then developing their services by upgrading to the 68s but no this is all of a 'debacle' is it? Making passengers' journeys better is bad is it? I don't understand it at all!
I can certainly understand how people would have a vendetta against a train if the noise/vibration is causing them stress and discomfort.
I'm normally very much of the opinion that why move close to a railway if you don't like noise, same goes with the idiots that move close to established pubs/clubs then start complaining. But surely the fundamental difference in this case is that it's the railway that has made the big change by bringing in a loco that is by all accounts considerably louder than the ones that have come before. That area around Marylebone is densely packed with residential and office space, that really should have been taken into account when introducing a noisier loco.
As for the improvements in passenger experience, surely that's more down to the carriages themselves than the loco on the front
Quite an anti-railway rant there. I assume you believe the railway should be run as purely a commercial enterprise to make money and any services which do not turn a profit should be axed, irrespective of any benefit to the communities they serve and the wider economy.
No?
Given that if I did that there would pretty much not be a rail industry in existance?
Maybe London Underground would survive but virtually everything else would be axed, I clearly don't want that.
The reality is that the railway has had 30 years of unprecedented political support, but that era is now ending. Even before corona it was crumbling and it has now utterly collapsed.
The railway needs to deal with this new reality and do nothing that will generate bad PR.
The railway will have to change or it will die, and pointing this out does not mean I am trying to destroy the railway!
As for the 68s being 'sent for conversion into razorblades' clearly that's utterly absurd and not going to happen. Again, armchair experts on here spouting opinions without being party to the various considerations pertaining to the 68's procurement at the time.
The 68 procurement for Direct Rail Services was such a success that the majority of the fleet has been palmed off on passenger operators by command of the state.
A large part of the fleet is going to be surplus to requirement when the Mark 5s go
I'm sure the many passengers who actually travel on the LHCS and appreciate the current Mark 3 stock would be surprised to hear their use described as a 'debacle' but what do they know? They're only the ones actually using the trains after all.
Like overcrowding? Or passengers being left behind because they physically can't board or aren't willing to put up with the conditions on-board? Yeah, those things do tarnish the image of the railway a bit really, don't they.
The Mark 3s represent a small fraction of Chiltern's total fleet.
The impact they can have on total crowding will be strongly limited by their small numbers.
No?
Given that if I did that there would pretty much not be a rail industry in existance?
Maybe London Underground would survive but virtually everything else would be axed, I clearly don't want that.
The reality is that the railway has had 30 years of unprecedented political support, but that era is now ending. Even before corona it was crumbling and it has now utterly collapsed.
The railway needs to deal with this new reality and do nothing that will generate bad PR.
The railway will have to change or it will die, and pointing this out does not mean I am trying to destroy the railway!
I actually agree with the above sentiment, however the irony is that most of the damage has been done by politicians. Ironically the TOC arrangements seen immediately post privatisation seemed to work fairly well, give or take some early issues like the Stagecoach driver fiasco, Connex, etc. Obviously Railtrack was a different story.
Chiltern, the pinnacle of UK train travel once upon a time, using their initiative by swooping up available stock (the Mk3s and 67s) and then developing their services by upgrading to the 68s
I hate to break it to you, but if Chiltern had been able to get their hands on any more Turbostars around 2010, they would never have gone anywhere near Mk3s with locos.
When they were looking for extra rolling stock ahead of the Oxford route opening in 2015, did they take on more Mk3s? No, because the TransPennine Class170s were available, so were snapped up and turned into 168/3s.
Could they use class 67s and increase the length of the coaching stock ?
So quieter loco and more capacity with more seats for Birmingham and Oxford.
Or are the platforms not long enough?
I'm wondering at what point and why did the railway start prioritising the views and opinions of people that don't use the railway over those that do? Passengers should come first.
I'm wondering at what point and why did the railway start prioritising the views and opinions of people that don't use the railway over those that do? Passengers should come first.
When the majority of the money for running the railway comes from people who are not passengers?
You might believe that people who aren't passengers can be ignored without consequence, but public goodwill is essential to the railway's survival in the present environment.
When the majority of the money for running the railway comes from people who are not passengers?
You might believe that people who aren't passengers can be ignored without consequence, but public goodwill is essential to the railway's survival in the present environment.
So you keep saying. Most people would surely agree that the railway and similar transport and infrastructure systems are an essential part of a developed society and are here to stay for the benefit of everyone. The railway is not going to shut down, as its continued operation throughout Covid lockdowns proved.
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.
