Chiltern Class 165's on Gospel oak to Barking services

[anthony263]

not sure if this has been reported but i have heard rumblings about London overground using some class 165's on the gospel oak to barking services when they are increased in frequency until the class 172 turbostars have arrived.

Has there been anything officail reported about this?

 

[MCR247]

They cant use that line. On here I think someone posted that NSE made them extra wide so the couldnt be used anywhere else? Or am I wrong? (wont be the first time?

 

[class 313]

They cant use that line. On here I think someone posted that NSE made them extra wide so the couldnt be used anywhere else? Or am I wrong? (wont be the first time?

Extra wide? Turbos are wide but not that wide surely?

 

[Turbostar]

Complete rubbish. Both 165's & 166's are 9ft 2½in (2.81m), irrespective that Chiltern 165's also have tripcock equipment.

 

[5872]

Complete rubbish. Both 165's & 166's are 9ft 2½in (2.81m), irrespective that Chiltern 165's also have tripcock equipment.

The Chiltern ones have always had tripock eqipment so they can't be much different as they were NSE up until 2005 or something and have to run with A stock.

 

[Turbostar]

Sorry, forgot to mention the Chiltern 165's have had tripcock equipment fitted from new... :roll:

 

[djw1981]

Chiltern were only NSE until privatisation when they became Chiltern surely....

 

[Turbostar]

It was known as the Chiltern line in NSE days. It came under the 'Thames & Chiltern' main route, 'Chiltern' to distinguish it for the London Marylebone to Aylesbury & Birmingham route.

 

[O L Leigh]

Turbo's are wider than most other 23m DMU's (Cl156's are 2.73m wide). In fact, they are as wide as a Cl150. This may not sound much, but the longer body means that there is a larger overhang which can strike a platform edge if it's on a bend.

The real problem with the Networker family is the width of the footsteps. There are a quite a few locations listed in the Anglia Sectional Appendix where units of this type are restricted. For example, they may be required to run at a reduced speed or with the footsteps removed or even with the secondary airbag suspension deflated.

O L Leigh

 

[class 313]

Also, Chiltern need all their stock?

 

[Pumbaa]

Also, Chiltern need all their stock?

Don't think so - they've got a plentiful fleet now the lengthening of the 168s is complete. This has in theory allowed them to lengthen many of the Aylesbury and such like trains to look good, but in many cases it's not actually needed.

I would imagine that Chiltern could afford to lease a few 165s across. But I don't think they'd want to particularly.

 

[Donny Dave]

it's not so much the width of the 165s that's a problem, it's the length. They are over 3 meters longer than a 150. Any tight bends or curved platforms, and you have a problem ....

 

[djw1981]

I think Chiltern do need their stock, given they are ordering more...cl172 to be precise.

 

[class 313]

I think Chiltern do need their stock, given they are ordering more...cl172 to be precise.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[djw1981]

although there are rumours that the cl172 would go to FGW and their networkers come across to Chiltern. But given that the latest Golden Spanners showed FGW cl165/1 with a higher reliability than the Chiltern 165/0 (or 168/1, 168/2 and 169/0) there may not be much validity, unless FGW are carrying empty capacity on those trains, which could be better deployed on Chiltern. Modern Railways also reported chilterns hostility to receiving more turbostars and cascading some of their networkers to FGW, so to avoid 2 mixed fleets......

After all, Chiltern could (within 18mths) by the Prime Ministers local TOC.

 

[MCR247]

although there are rumours that the cl172 would go to FGW and their networkers come across to Chiltern. But given that the latest Golden Spanners showed FGW cl165/1 with a higher reliability than the Chiltern 165/0 (or 168/1, 168/2 and 169/0) there may not be much validity, unless FGW are carrying empty capacity on those trains, which could be better deployed on Chiltern. Modern Railways also reported chilterns hostility to receiving more turbostars and cascading some of their networkers to FGW, so to avoid 2 mixed fleets......

After all, Chiltern could (within 18mths) by the Prime Ministers local TOC.

?? :???:

 

[Pumbaa]

I think Chiltern do need their stock, given they are ordering more...cl172 to be precise.

That was run more semi-fast services halfway up the line, strengthen existing all services in peaks so that they are all double, and cover for the Networker Turbos being in for refurbishment I think. The ultimate aim being to increase frequencey I think, with al the plans to double track and what have you. On the Aylesbury lines in particular, the turnaround times are incredibly lax, and there's usually 2 - 3 Turbos sitting in the platforms waiting next duties.
And like I said earlier, apart from a few key Peak services, the services at the moment are hardly bursting to the seams, and where some services are currently doubled, they would work well with only a single unit.

 

[90019]

?? :???:

I guess he means 168/0

 

[MCR247]

oh right

 

[O L Leigh]

it's not so much the width of the 165s that's a problem, it's the length. They are over 3 meters longer than a 150. Any tight bends or curved platforms, and you have a problem ....

No, it's the combination of the two.

The Networker profile is as wide as a 20m Cl150 where a 23m DMU like the Cl156 is narrower to allow for the additional swing and overhang of the longer bodyshell. It is a little bit "chicken and egg", but a 23m vehicle is not an issue provided it's not too wide. You could probably run Cl156's on the GOBLIN route without any concern whatsoever, but you can't just do that with a Cl165.

However, as I've stated before, the real problem with the Networker family is the footsteps. Units from this family are heavily restricted because of these. For example, FCC's Cl365's are no wider or longer than our Cl317's but they are heavily restricted (possibly even banned, I'd have to check) on our routes because they are at risk of striking platform edges.

O L Leigh

 

[Mojo]

That was run more semi-fast services halfway up the line, strengthen existing all services in peaks so that they are all double, and cover for the Networker Turbos being in for refurbishment I think.

The Turbo refresh was completed quite a while ago. I know 168s are being done up but don't know how far that's got yet.

As for why FGW 165s are better than Chiltern units, the talk when I spent a few weeks at the depot in 2004 was that it was the case because Reading depot staff tended to specialise on certain areas (eg: electrics), whereas at Aylesbury staff focussed on general maintenance.

 

[class 313]

IMO the Chiltern Turbo fleet is much better than fGWs fleet. Aircon and high backed seats give them more of an express feeling.

 

[nath9425]

The Turbo refresh was completed quite a while ago. I know 168s are being done up but don't know how far that's got yet.

All 168/0's completed, Most of the 168/1's completed, One or two of the 168/2's completed.