LM Class 153 units on the Chase Line

[I like Class 153]

What are the 153 hooked on the 170's diagrams on the Chase Line?

I went on that line on a saturday and all the services were 2 car 170 units, I got told by conductor that if I want go on a LM Class 153 on the Chase Line try and go in the week that what I was told or go on the Nuneaton to Coventry route which I was upset about,

What do the LM Class 153 single car units do at the weekends then

 

[bjm2000uk]

They tend to be hooked up more mon to fri to increase capacity on peak workings. The other place that a 153 can be found is one of the marston vale workings on a saturday

 

[I like Class 153]

But no diagrams though?

 

[BrummyBoy]

Theres often a 150+153 on the Snow Hill line. Unaware of what diagrams it works though.

 

[I like Class 153]

Oh right, I'm abit upset that the 153 don't operate on the Chase Line at the Weekends, I might try and go in the week

 

[Class172]

As part of major flett changes within London Midland and with other TOCs, the Chase Line seems to have suffered from capacity decreases.

 

[323235]

Isn't it also because Centro have decreased their funding for the additional carridges on services outside peak and weekdays due to financial cuts, at the same time as they cut funding for the 2nd Walsall - Rugeley service on weekdays?

 

[IanPooleTrains]

Oh right, I'm abit upset that the 153 don't operate on the Chase Line at the Weekends, I might try and go in the week

If you are leaving Rugeley TV, you want to be on either 0739, 0906, 0942, 1206, 1506 or 1813

Not sure of the times out of Birmingham New Street though

As part of major flett changes within London Midland and with other TOCs, the Chase Line seems to have suffered from capacity decreases.

Isn't it also because Centro have decreased their funding for the additional carridges on services outside peak and weekdays due to financial cuts, at the same time as they cut funding for the 2nd Walsall - Rugeley service on weekdays?

+1 172, The Chase Line has suffered since the end of last year because Centro cut the funding for the second train an hour and London Midland seemed fit, rather than cutting the service altogether, terminating the train at Walsall so that they keep their extra services while stations between Walsall and Rugeley TV suffer. This means that some services are only two car turbos while the three car turbo and the turbo-sprinter get only one run up and down while the rest of the time, they get put on the express Walsall run

A recent study though has condemed London Midland for this and demanded that they do increase capacity during peak hours and many complaints to London Midland, by other commuters and not just myself, have fallen on deaf ears, saying that they don't see the need to increase capacity.

It should also be noted that it only seems to be The Chase Line that does suffer as the other lines that work the turbos; The Snow Hill Lines (172s), the line to Shrewsbury and the line to Hereford, don't seem to have the same problems so maybe it is just this line that suffers

 

[Batman]

I thought the reductions in train lengths and the reductions in service frequencies were two different things.

I fully understand only running 1 tph in the off peak on weekdays, and reducing the frequency was a wise decision taken by centro because of how much it was consting for a service that only needs 1 tph.

The removal of two of the 153's from the line was to with the DfT re-allocating LM 153's to the South West and Manchester areas.

As a commuter on the line, there are peak time trains that are currently 2 car that deffinatly need to be 3 or 4 car, when patform extensions are built. But I can't see that happening before 2020 because the RUS business case for platform extensions did not look good.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And things will only get worse from December when the 0621 Rugeley to Birmigham and the 0739 Hednesford to Birmingham will both start from Walsall.

I dred to think how over-crowded the 0739 Rugeley to Birmingham will be. That arrives in Birmingham just 9 minutes after the 0739 departure from Hednesford. So there will bound to be an increase in the number of passengers boarding this train at Hednesford and Cannock.

That train is currently formed of a 170+153 combi and has passengers standing from Cannock. It could also be very tempting for the DfT to simply remove the 153.

What will happen then? Passengers standing from Rugeley Town? Pssengers being tunred away at the Bloxwich stations to wait for yet another 2 car service 25 minutes later that will be even more crowded because it will start from Rugeley instead of Hednesford?

They could also remove the 0842 and the 0942 departures form Rugeley Trent Valley, since there will no longer be any 90 minute gaps at Rugeley if they do.

And with only 1 train a day using the Hednesford cross-over, network rail could simply remove it at re-signalling and terminate the 23:18 from New Street at Walsall or extend it on to Rugeley.

In 2008, the Chase Line had a bright future ahead of it, now things aren't looking so good.

At least the evening services to Rugeley and the 2tph Saturday service has funding now till 2014. But if the eceonomy doesn't pick up by then, the funding from Cannock Chase council could easily go and we'd be back to the situation we were in in the late 90's.

 

[IanPooleTrains]

I thought the reductions in train lengths and the reductions in service frequencies were two different things.

I fully understand only running 1 tph in the off peak on weekdays, and reducing the frequency was a wise decision taken by centro because of how much it was consting for a service that only needs 1 tph.

The removal of two of the 153's from the line was to with the DfT re-allocating LM 153's to the South West and Manchester areas.

As a commuter on the line, there are peak time trains that are currently 2 car that deffinatly need to be 3 or 4 car, when patform extensions are built. But I can't see that happening before 2020 because the RUS business case for platform extensions did not look good.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And things will only get worse from December when the 0621 Rugeley to Birmigham and the 0739 Hednesford to Birmingham will both start from Walsall.

I dred to think how over-crowded the 0739 Rugeley to Birmingham will be. That arrives in Birmingham just 9 minutes after the 0739 departure from Hednesford. So there will bound to be an increase in the number of passengers boarding this train at Hednesford and Cannock.

That train is currently formed of a 170+153 combi and has passengers standing from Cannock. It could also be very tempting for the DfT to simply remove the 153.

What will happen then? Passengers standing from Rugeley Town? Pssengers being tunred away at the Bloxwich stations to wait for yet another 2 car service 25 minutes later that will be even more crowded because it will start from Rugeley instead of Hednesford?

They could also remove the 0842 and the 0942 departures form Rugeley Trent Valley, since there will no longer be any 90 minute gaps at Rugeley if they do.

And with only 1 train a day using the Hednesford cross-over, network rail could simply remove it at re-signalling and terminate the 23:18 from New Street at Walsall or extend it on to Rugeley.

In 2008, the Chase Line had a bright future ahead of it, now things aren't looking so good.

At least the evening services to Rugeley and the 2tph Saturday service has funding now till 2014. But if the eceonomy doesn't pick up by then, the funding from Cannock Chase council could easily go and we'd be back to the situation we were in in the late 90's.

You'd be surprised how easy it is for a train to get overcrowded, it only takes one cancellation on the train beforehand and you're in you know what street.

The worst trains for it, I find, are the 1010 and the 1110 out of Rugeley Town to Birmingham, both two car turbos and the 1609 and 1639 out of Birmingham to Rugeley TV, again, both two car turbos.

You say that a solution to the problem is to add more cars on but there is a couple of problems with that

First of all is platform space before at the present time, stations between Walsall and Rugeley TV, Walsall not included, are only just big enough for three cars so adding another two car on top isn't going to be beneficial I think

Secondly is, I don't think LM could have the facilities to do the above because they have a fleet of 23, seventeen 170/5 and 6 our of them, go down The Chase Line, three two cars (one with a 153) and a three car, four of them then go to Hereford/Great Malvern and three of them go to Shrewsbury. So that is eleven in use with twelve on standby but then you have to take into consideration that there could be technical issues, they could be faults on the train or other factors that prevent the trains from running but the biggest one, cost! It would probably cost more to have two of them bolted together rather than one so they are saving money at the expense of overcrowding IMO

 

[Batman]

Thinking about it, if they did remove the Hedesford cross-over, that would make the evening services to Rugeley perminant, and the same would apply to Sunday services if some selfish person ever thought about removing those. And preparitory work for re-sognalling has already started, so that's probably off the cards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You'd be surprised how easy it is for a train to get overcrowded, it only takes one cancellation on the train beforehand and you're in you know what street.

The worst trains for it, I find, are the 1010 and the 1110 out of Rugeley Town to Birmingham, both two car turbos and the 1609 and 1639 out of Birmingham to Rugeley TV, again, both two car turbos.

You say that a solution to the problem is to add more cars on but there is a couple of problems with that

First of all is platform space before at the present time, stations between Walsall and Rugeley TV, Walsall not included, are only just big enough for three cars so adding another two car on top isn't going to be beneficial I think

Secondly is, I don't think LM could have the facilities to do the above because they have a fleet of 23, seventeen 170/5 and 6 our of them, go down The Chase Line, three two cars (one with a 153) and a three car, four of them then go to Hereford/Great Malvern and three of them go to Shrewsbury. So that is eleven in use with twelve on standby but then you have to take into consideration that there could be technical issues, they could be faults on the train or other factors that prevent the trains from running but the biggest one, cost! It would probably cost more to have two of them bolted together rather than one so they are saving money at the expense of overcrowding IMO

I know, I was on the 1639 form New Street the other day. That train was bad whan it was a combi, now it's just a joke. Same for the 1607.

I am suprised that in the new timetable they've kept the 0842 and 0942 departures from Rugeley. I think these were kept last December so that the 3 car trains that opperate the 0704 and 0739 from Rugeley to Birmingham (the busiest trains in the morning peak) can also opperate the 1707 and 1742 Birmingha to Rugeley (the busiest trains in the evening peak). The 0942 should have gone last December when the funding dried up, and I see why they kept the 0842 so as to avoid creating a 90 minute gap at Rugeley.

Now that the 0817 Hednesford to Birmingham will start from Rugeley, there will be no 90 minute gaps to worry about, and with both trains going, the rollingstock used on the two buisiest morning trains will still be used on the two busiest evening trains.

Thats got me scratching my head. The only thing I can think of is that the 0842 may be in the minimum service specification as defined by the DfT, since it may technically be classed as a peak time train since it arrives at New Street before 10am. If that is the case, the 0942 will need to stay as well because of the reasons I stated above.

 

[sprinterguy]

So that is eleven in use with twelve on standby but then you have to take into consideration that there could be technical issues, they could be faults on the train or other factors that prevent the trains from running but the biggest one, cost!

Eleven units out of twenty three would be a pretty poor fleet availabilty though, when a typical DMU fleet can expect to acheive 80% utilisation or perhaps slightly more. It's worth bearing in mind as well that some of the diagrams on the Hereford and, I think, the Shrewsbury lines are formed of pairs of 170/5s and there's also bits of additional peak time strengthening goes on.

Nonetheless, your point still stands that London Midland seem to have quite a low utilisation of their 170s, and it seems strange that the DfT would assign stock away from LM, in the form of the three 153s that have gone to Northern and FGW (That is right isn't it? One at Northern and two at FGW, as the two that were at NXEA no longer are? I lose track) to the extent that it would impact on capacity as far as to cause overcrowding.

I had hoped that LMs' loss of some 153s would have seen some re-arrangement of 170 diagrams, so that pairs of 170/5s would have replaced three-car 170/6s on the Hereford/Shrewsbury services (where four car trains are most needed on busy services), allowing more 170/6s to operate the Chase line, making up for the lost 153s. Sadly, this has not proved to be the case. As you say, it probably boils down to that number one limiting factor: That of cost.

Although that said, if LM still have seven of their once ten-strong fleet of 153s, then to my knowledge there's only currently a requirement for four of them (One on each of the Chase, Snow Hill, Cov-Nuneaton and Bletchley lines: I think the Hereford diagram has stopped), then surely there's a little bit more availability to be squeezed out of the fleet to give the Chase line an additional 170/5+153 formation?

 

[Batman]

Eleven units out of twenty three would be a pretty poor fleet availabilty though, when a typical DMU fleet can expect to acheive 80% utilisation or perhaps slightly more. It's worth bearing in mind as well that some of the diagrams on the Hereford and, I think, the Shrewsbury lines are formed of pairs of 170/5s and there's also bits of additional peak time strengthening goes on.

Nonetheless, your point still stands that London Midland seem to have quite a low utilisation of their 170s, and it seems strange that the DfT would assign stock away from LM, in the form of the three 153s that have gone to Northern and FGW (That is right isn't it? One at Northern and two at FGW, as the two that were at NXEA no longer are? I lose track) to the extent that it would impact on capacity as far as to cause overcrowding.

I had hoped that LMs' loss of some 153s would have seen some re-arrangement of 170 diagrams, so that pairs of 170/5s would have replaced three-car 170/6s on the Hereford/Shrewsbury services (where four car trains are most needed on busy services), allowing more 170/6s to operate the Chase line, making up for the lost 153s. Sadly, this has not proved to be the case. As you say, it probably boils down to that number one limiting factor: That of cost.

Although that said, if LM still have seven of their once ten-strong fleet of 153s, then to my knowledge there's only currently a requirement for four of them (One on each of the Chase, Snow Hill, Cov-Nuneaton and Bletchley: I think the Hereford diagram has stopped), then surely there's a little bit more availability to be squeezed out of the fleet to give the Chase line an additional 170/5+153 formation?

Thats a good idea for 170/5's to be transferred from the Chase to Hereford and Shrewsury lines to form 4 car 170's whilst the Chase gets four 170/6's in return.

But aren't there problems with four car trains on the Shewsbury and Hereford lines caused by short platforms at Bromsgrove, Colwall, Ledbury and Billbrook? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[tbtc]

LM really only need a dozen 170s from twenty three to meet their off-peak demands?

 

[sprinterguy]

But aren't there problems with four car trains on the Shewsbury and Hereford lines caused by short platforms at Bromsgrove, Colwall, Ledbury and Billbrook? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that you are probably right; my knowledge of the area doesn't stretch as far as platform lengths. A quick browse of Google maps suggests that certainly the Birmingham bound platform at Bromsgrove appears too short for a four carriage formation, and I know from having alighted at Colwall that the platforms aren't much longer than a three car 170/6. It has certainly is/recently has been the case that some Hereford services have been formed of pairs of 170/5s, so presumably these issues are not insurmountable. Helpfully, the Google Maps satellite view of Ledbury station shows one 170/6 and one 170/5 passing each other in the station, and it would seem that the platforms themselves are probably just long enough for a pair of 170/5s, though I don't know what other limitations there might be there.

 

[Batman]

So let me get this right, from December the allocation of LM 170's and 153's will be:

Snow Hill lines: 2x170/6's, 2x153's.

Chase Line: 2x170/5+153, 2x170/5's

Shrewsbury Line: 2x170/6's 1x170/5 and 3x170/5's used only in the peaks. Not sure how the problem of the short platform at Billbrook is dealt with.

Hereford Line: 2x170/5=153's, 2x170/6's and 4x170/5's used only in the peaks. Some 170/5's being attached/dettached from Herford trains at Worcester or Malvern.

Coventry-Nuneaton Line: 1x153

Marston Vale Line: 2x153's

 

[sprinterguy]

LM really only need a dozen 170s from twenty three to meet their off-peak demands?

As single units, then yes that does sound right. However twelve units would fall well short of the peak time requirement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
:?

So let me get this right, from December the allocation of LM 170's and 153's will be:

Snow Hill lines: 2x170/6's, 2x153's.

Chase Line: 2x170/5+153, 2x170/5's

Shrewsbury Line: 2x170/6's 1x170/5 and 3x170/5's used only in the peaks. Not sure how the problem of the short platform at Billbrook is dealt with.

Hereford Line: 2x170/5=153's, 2x170/6's and 4x170/5's used only in the peaks. Some 170/5's being attached/dettached from Herford trains at Worcester or Malvern.

Coventry-Nuneaton Line: 1x153

Marston Vale Line: 2x153's

So that'd be all of LMs' (six) 170/6s out in service each day? Hmmmm :? That's also more 153s than LM have that you've counted there, unless they are getting back the three currently on loan at some point.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

So let me get this right, from December the allocation of LM 170's and 153's will be:

Snow Hill lines: 2x170/6's, 2x153's.

Chase Line: 2x170/5+153, 2x170/5's

Shrewsbury Line: 2x170/6's 1x170/5 and 3x170/5's used only in the peaks. Not sure how the problem of the short platform at Billbrook is dealt with.

Hereford Line: 2x170/5=153's, 2x170/6's and 4x170/5's used only in the peaks. Some 170/5's being attached/dettached from Herford trains at Worcester or Malvern.

Coventry-Nuneaton Line: 1x153

Marston Vale Line: 2x153's

So everything is in service everyday with nothing being maintained and attaching/detaching at Worcester FS plus Marston Vale with no two car unit on the one diagram, I dont think so!!

 

[Class172]

Solution: electrify the Chase Line — gives added benefits to Chase, Hereford and Shrewsbury lines.

 

[sprinterguy]

Solution: electrify the Chase Line — gives added benefits to Chase, Hereford and Shrewsbury lines.

Exactly: All that is needed is to find a handful of additional EMUs: Be they 323s if moving Northerns' units to LM ever become palatable (You could potentially combine the Chase line services with the existing half hourly Walsall electric services), or a few extra 350s.

 

[IanPooleTrains]

Solution: electrify the Chase Line — gives added benefits to Chase, Hereford and Shrewsbury lines.

Great idea but three problems:

Enviormental issues
Cost
What stock do you use?

The stock is going to be the biggest issues because most of the 323s that LM have wor the Cross City Line, Wolves-Walsall and one works the Brum International local service

The only solution to that is if LM cascade the 321s up if their plan to 'tram' the Abbey Line goes through

 

[Class172]

Great idea but three problems:

Enviormental issues
Cost
What stock do you use?

The stock is going to be the biggest issues because most of the 323s that LM have wor the Cross City Line, Wolves-Walsall and one works the Brum International local service

The only solution to that is if LM cascade the 321s up if their plan to 'tram' the Abbey Line goes through

What environmental issues?

Surely the benefits would make it viable. It would also provide diversionary WCML and freight route.

Rolling Stock: the supposed extra orders of 350s.

 

[Simon Poole]

Rolling Stock: the supposed extra orders of 350s.

Read in a Magzine that if London Midland/First Trans Pennie Express get their New Class 350's, London Midland has plans for them to be added to extra Trains out of London and the Class 321s will be cascaded! the pefect sense would be do electicfly the Chase Line and have the Class 321 running from Rugeley Treny Valley to Birmingham New Street

Seating (roughly)
Class 153: 73
170/5: 122
170/6: 196
170/5+153: 195
172/2: 121
172/3: 193
321: 271
323: 284
350/1: 209
350/2: 252

Or instead of using Class 170's couple two class 153 together to work the Chase Line, since 2 units have roughly about 143 seats couple together, in fact i would like to see London Midland work an 2 car Class 153 out of Birmingham New Street at 1639 and see if no one stands...be intresting

 

[Batman]

Ok, maybe I got my calculations wrong on LM DMU stock allocations.

Does anyone have any more acurate detail of how may units are used on each line, including peak extras?

 

[tbtc]

Exactly: All that is needed is to find a handful of additional EMUs: Be they 323s if moving Northerns' units to LM ever become palatable (You could potentially combine the Chase line services with the existing half hourly Walsall electric services), or a few extra 350s.

Agreed, its a daft little "diesel island" (electrified at both ends), not sure why its not been done.

Plus, as you say, you'd get the benefit of being able to interwork with existing LM services at New Street which would be operationally more efficient use of stock.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Ok, maybe I got my calculations wrong on LM DMU stock allocations.

Does anyone have any more acurate detail of how may units are used on each line, including peak extras?

No problem Batman, many have fallen in to the trap of missing out the maintenance cycles and the down time involved.
It's also more complex than that, for instance an early morning unit from Shrewsbury gets to Birmingham then goes on to the Chase line. I'm sure there are other cross workings with 323s between cross city and wolves in the morning.
I've tried to work it all out myself and failed!!!

 

[Batman]

No problem Batman, many have fallen in to the trap of missing out the maintenance cycles and the down time involved.
It's also more complex than that, for instance an early morning unit from Shrewsbury gets to Birmingham then goes on to the Chase line. I'm sure there are other cross workings with 323s between cross city and wolves in the morning.
I've tried to work it all out myself and failed!!!

There certainly is. Theres the 0815 Four Oaks to Wolverhampton for a start.

And I think the 2217 Birmingham International to Birmingham New Street goes on to form the 2253 Birmingham New Street to Longbridge.

The 0842 Rugeley Trent Valley to Birmingham New Street use to go on to form the 0949 Birmingham New Street to Hereford service, back in the days when all Chase Line trains were 3 cars, and this was a 2 car unit that was only used on the Chase in the morning peak so that a 3 car unit could be used on the Hereford line.

 

[150222]

Read in a Magzine that if London Midland/First Trans Pennie Express get their New Class 350's, London Midland has plans for them to be added to extra Trains out of London and the Class 321s will be cascaded! the pefect sense would be do electicfly the Chase Line and have the Class 321 running from Rugeley Treny Valley to Birmingham New Street

Seating (roughly)
Class 153: 73
170/5: 122
170/6: 196
170/5+153: 195
172/2: 121
172/3: 193
321: 271
323: 284
350/1: 209
350/2: 252

Or instead of using Class 170's couple two class 153 together to work the Chase Line, since 2 units have roughly about 143 seats couple together, in fact i would like to see London Midland work an 2 car Class 153 out of Birmingham New Street at 1639 and see if no one stands...be intresting

So a 3 car323 has 13 more seats than a 4 car 321? How does that work?

 

[Old Hill Bank]

So a 3 car323 has 13 more seats than a 4 car 321? How does that work?

Longer coaches and smaller seats!

 

[Simon Poole]

Longer coaches and smaller seats!

and the 321s have a 1st class section, 323 don't