Chiltern 68 Hauled Future

[Mzzzs]

electrification of chiltern mainline would be a challenge especially around London area. It looks like a lot of changes to bridges and tunnels would have to be done at a high cost doubt anyone wants to pay that cost anytime. Maybe hydrogen trains could be used as kind if trial to replace mk3 then if successful then all over chiltern mainline as replacement for class 165 and 168.

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe hydrogen trains could be used as kind if trial to replace mk3 then if successful then all over chiltern mainline as replacement for class 165 and 168.

I suspect that the 168s have a reasonably long life expectancy on the Chiltern route if the battery hybrid trial is successful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

electrification of chiltern mainline would be a challenge especially around London area. It looks like a lot of changes to bridges and tunnels would have to be done at a high cost doubt anyone wants to pay that cost anytime. Maybe hydrogen trains could be used as kind if trial to replace mk3 then if successful then all over chiltern mainline as replacement for class 165 and 168.

Hydrogen isn't a sustainable large scale option. It is probably the best option for "long, thin" branch lines like the Far North but not for a major London commuter line. Producing it requires far more electricity than the energy it provides.

If there's a bridge/tunnel issue, discontinuous electrification using batteries is a reasonable fix.

Aylesbury via Amersham is a more interesting one. As the Met isn't going to go OHLE any time soon, serious consideration should be given to a specific solution that can run on both fourth rail and battery, potentially with some sort of charging mechanism (e.g. a short length of switched fourth rail, shielded and only active when a train is over it) at Marylebone and Aylesbury/Vale Parkway. That, to be fair, would free up enough 16x to replace the Mk3s. If there was a failure they could always chuck a DMU out instead, so there's backup for what would be a microfleet.

But that aside, it is ridiculous to have a non-electrified mainline into one of Europe's largest and most important cities, connecting it to England's second city. It must be electrified.

 

[Trainbike46]

electrification of chiltern mainline would be a challenge especially around London area. It looks like a lot of changes to bridges and tunnels would have to be done at a high cost doubt anyone wants to pay that cost anytime. Maybe hydrogen trains could be used as kind if trial to replace mk3 then if successful then all over chiltern mainline as replacement for class 165 and 168.

For part of the route the chiltern trains run over Met line tracks electrified with 4th rail. An option might be using new, dual voltage stock that can run on both OHLE and the LU 4th rail, and then electrifying sections that are too hard for OHLE with 4th rail instead. Alternatively, discontinuous electrification with a BEMU would be an option, but you would probably still want dual-voltage units anyway.

Aylesbury via Amersham is a more interesting one. As the Met isn't going to go OHLE any time soon, serious consideration should be given to a specific solution that can run on both fourth rail and battery, potentially with some sort of charging mechanism (e.g. a short length of switched fourth rail, shielded and only active when a train is over it) at Marylebone and Aylesbury/Vale Parkway. That, to be fair, would free up enough 16x to replace the Mk3s. If there was a failure they could always chuck a DMU out instead, so there's backup for what would be a microfleet.

I would suggest ensuring the replacement can use both OHLE and 4th rail would be better,

But that aside, it is ridiculous to have a non-electrified mainline into one of Europe's largest and most important cities, connecting it to England's second city. It must be electrified.

Fully agreed on that! it is absurd that there don't yet seem to be any plans to electrify the chiltern route and the snow hill lines in Birmingham

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would suggest ensuring the replacement can use both OHLE and 4th rail would be better

Yes, might as well have at least passive provision for a pantograph, then the charging mechanism at Marylebone could be removed when the wires go up.

A follow-on order of battery fitted Class 777s (to use singly or in pairs - maybe five section instead of four) with fourth rail capability and toilets would seem to fit the bill very well indeed. Herr Stadler is good at that sort of thing.

 

[Mzzzs]

Much of the line has the infrastructure with the ability of adding overhead power on the line however the London area seems not to have this kind of thinking done.
But a lot of the line would be a relatively easy job to do there is few problems outside London the main concern outside the London area is do you just do the cml or do the lines to Stratford upon Avon and line to Coventry I think you have to do all them to plus lines to Hereford otherwise you done see the whole benefits of having overhead power.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Much of the line has the infrastructure with the ability of adding overhead power on the line however the London area seems not to have this kind of thinking done.
But a lot of the line would be a relatively easy job to do there is few problems outside London the main concern outside the London area is do you just do the cml or do the lines to Stratford upon Avon and line to Coventry I think you have to do all them to plus lines to Hereford otherwise you done see the whole benefits of having overhead power.

It needs to be a progressive project. I'd do Wycombe first (which would mean 25kV at Marylebone to charge battery units for Aylesbury/Vale Parkway and to use up to the point they swap to fourth rail), then Oxford*/Bicester North, then the rest. It's quite possible that due to the Snow Hill lines wanting to be done that it could then "meet in the middle" somewhere, e.g. Leamington.

Coventry would then probably be quite easy to do by just connecting to the mainline at each end.

Stratford could be batteries from where it leaves the mainline, though again it might be easy/cheap enough just to tag it on.

* Once that was done, then East West Rail. Utter madness that a new railway is opening in the 2020s with DMUs.

 

[warwickshire]

However I think again. Maybe we are running around in circles a bit, on discussion. Also has been mentioned on other threads. But still worthwhile discussion many interesting points.
However rolling stock replacement.
Ie class 68 future. Best option would have been some class 93 friendly locomotive like on Transpennie Express.
Most obvious solution a few years ago would have been to back order some Mk5 coaches of what probably would have been the best built. Fault wise especially as being built later on would have had the faults sorted.
However back to the future its quite possible 175 might not be cleared for Northalt Junction to London Marylebone as another op has pointed out on another thread earlier on this year.
However once again 175 to North West. Unit cascade to replace 155. Whilst 195 Northwest to East side to enable 170 to Chiltern. However unless the Emr meridians might actually come into play.
But are they cleared for the route.
However pity around 2016 to 2018 era though mk5 wasn't ordered and had class 93 locomotives around now or recently would have secured hauled trains for the foreseeable.

 

[Mzzzs]

Think that all the lines though snow hill should be electrified there is no point doing a bodge job leaving lines with bi mode trains it’s just is a inconvenience.
Should do the job once and right not have to come back to add overhead lines which should have been done earlier look at gwr mainline.
Getting rid of dmu’s should be the main focus of electrifying the chiltern mainline so all of the lines though snow hill and moor street should be done this has been the aspiration for network rail but they never seem to properly purpose this to get any funding or do any business case.

 

[The Planner]

Think that all the lines though snow hill should be electrified there is no point doing a bodge job leaving lines with bi mode trains it’s just is a inconvenience.
Should do the job once and right not have to come back to add overhead lines which should have been done earlier look at gwr mainline.
Getting rid of dmu’s should be the main focus of electrifying the chiltern mainline so all of the lines though snow hill and moor street should be done this has been the aspiration for network rail but they never seem to properly purpose this to get any funding or do any business case.

Plenty of work is being done on Snow Hill and wider West Mids electrifcation.

 

[Trainbike46]

Plenty of work is being done on Snow Hill and wider West Mids electrifcation.

Really? I must have missed all that. Is any of it in the public domain, or is it all behind closed doors for now?

 

[Mzzzs]

Plenty of work is being done on Snow Hill and wider West Mids electrifcation.

Can you clear what you mean are they starting any work or is it all planning part first?

 

[The Planner]

Can you clear what you mean are they starting any work or is it all planning part first?

Strategic planning.

 

[Mzzzs]

Strategic planning.

Ah yes makes sense now thanks for that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2022 ==


Found this though a simple search on the network rail website it seems that electrification is the agenda to replace mk3 and dmu units however it doesn't seem like its anytime soon which is a real shame.
By the fact it says longer trains I suspect any new trains for Chiltern will be 4 car.