Chiltern 165 on WMR services

CR165022 · 15 Aug 2026

So, I've noticed that 165020 is allocated and appears to be running a few WMR services today between Dorridge and Snow Hill.

Are the services meant to be under Chiltern and we're put under WMR as a mistake?
Because they appear to be regular WMR services short term altered to be Dorridge/Snow Hill only.

RailUK Forums

WestCountry · 15 Aug 2026

Line closed between Stourbridge and Kidderminster due to a large fire which will have messed up the Snow Hill diagrams, so I presume it's covering for some of the fallout from that.

cactustwirly · 15 Aug 2026

I don't understand why this has happened, 172s are based in Tyseley which is the other side of Birmingham, there should be plenty of 172s if there are less services running.

Assuming worked by Chiltern crews as WMR wouldn't sign the 165s

43102EMR · 15 Aug 2026

cactustwirly said:
I don't understand why this has happened, 172s are based in Tyseley which is the other side of Birmingham, there should be plenty of 172s if there are less services running.

Assuming worked by Chiltern crews as WMR wouldn't sign the 165s

Some 172s can be stabled elsewhere overnight (i.e. Worcester) and some are needed to cover Birmingham-Hereford work due to 196 shortages, which probably explains why this has happened.

TT-ONR-NRN · 15 Aug 2026

cactustwirly said:
I don't understand why this has happened, 172s are based in Tyseley which is the other side of Birmingham, there should be plenty of 172s if there are less services running.

Assuming worked by Chiltern crews as WMR wouldn't sign the 165s

And 172s can get back from Worcester via Bromsgrove anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2026 ==

43102EMR said:
Some 172s can be stabled elsewhere overnight (i.e. Worcester) and some are needed to cover Birmingham-Hereford work due to 196 shortages, which probably explains why this has happened.

Too many times I’m sat on a 172 on Worcester Birmingham while empty longer-distance 196s trundle the Camp Hill shuttles, it’s maddening.

43102EMR · 15 Aug 2026

TT-ONR-NRN said:
And 172s can get back from Worcester via Bromsgrove anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2026 ==

Too many times I’m sat on a 172 on Worcester Birmingham while empty longer-distance 196s trundle the Camp Hill shuttles, it’s maddening.

Never understood why the Camp Hill Line services can’t continue on to Bromsgrove/Worcester as a minimum, would make more sense than a shuttle to Kings Norton

TT-ONR-NRN · 15 Aug 2026

43102EMR said:
Never understood why the Camp Hill Line services can’t continue on to Bromsgrove/Worcester as a minimum, would make more sense than a shuttle to Kings Norton

Regardless, it should not be run with 196s when there are 172s on Hereford.

D365 · 15 Aug 2026

43102EMR said:
Never understood why the Camp Hill Line services can’t continue on to Bromsgrove/Worcester as a minimum, would make more sense than a shuttle to Kings Norton

As I understand it, Kings Norton is, and will remain, a constraint on both the Cross-City and Camp Hill services until the disused centre platform is bought back into use.

TT-ONR-NRN said:
Regardless, it should not be run with 196s when there are 172s on Hereford.

Once the Class 196 GOPs (guard operation panels) are commissioned this will allow the two and four car 196s to be better deployed.

jimjim · 15 Aug 2026

TT-ONR-NRN said:
And 172s can get back from Worcester via Bromsgrove anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2026 ==

Too many times I’m sat on a 172 on Worcester Birmingham while empty longer-distance 196s trundle the Camp Hill shuttles, it’s maddening.

The camp hill services are covered by mostly New St crew with a little bit of Worcester thrown into the mix.
New St crew don't sign 172s (I almost certain they have never signed them ) and I guess the route will be passed for 172s but nothing has been done for stopping at the stations as due to the lack of traction knowledge it isnt worth it.

sammyg901 · 15 Aug 2026

It's the hourly VST that is run by Chiltern and showing on their journeycheck as an additional service. Yesterday many Marylebone-Birmingham services were making additional calls

jimjim · 15 Aug 2026

It

cactustwirly said:
I don't understand why this has happened, 172s are based in Tyseley which is the other side of Birmingham, there should be plenty of 172s if there are less services running.

Assuming worked by Chiltern crews as WMR wouldn't sign the 165s

There are probably enough units at tyseley but all the traincrew are messed up. So you have to peace together all of the diagrams because your Worcester crew won't be in place at Snow hill to work south. Plus you have a Worcester to Kidderminster service to crew with Worcester crew. WMT are running a shuttle from snow hill to Dorridge but that needs to be hidden at snow hill so that includes extra doagrams. All of your diagrams are suddenly much more inefficient.
Chiltern were asked for stop orders and were doing that but managed to rustle up a unit and crew to run the shuttle in the other half hour slot.

Liam L · 15 Aug 2026

TT-ONR-NRN said:
Too many times I’m sat on a 172 on Worcester Birmingham while empty longer-distance 196s trundle the Camp Hill shuttles, it’s maddening.

Because new street dont sign 172s....

Chiltern 165 on WMR services

CR165022

Established Member

RailUK Forums

WestCountry

Member

cactustwirly

Established Member

43102EMR

Established Member

TT-ONR-NRN

Veteran Member

43102EMR

Established Member

TT-ONR-NRN

Veteran Member

D365

Veteran Member

jimjim

Member

sammyg901

Member

jimjim

Member

Liam L

Established Member