Chiltern considers Turbo future

[Bletchleyite]

In 7 years time it won't be.

Though the 1990s built 175s probably have a lifespan commensurate with that, a bit like the way the 230s were only really for 10 years while East West Rail sorts itself out.

The real fix is to get the wires up and use suburban EMUs, of which there's no shortage. 350/2s for instance. Could do to Wycombe first, which would deal with the LHCS, then to Bicester/Oxford which would leave 168s doing the long distance stuff, then probably meet in the middle at Banbury from t'other side. Similarly wires down to Amersham and dual voltage EMUs.

 

[Trainbike46]

Chiltern has the additional complication (in terms of electrification) of sharing tracks with London Underground, and their third-fourth rail electrification system, from Amersham to Harrow-on-the-Hill, so if 25kV AC electrification is desired you would either need to stay with diesel over that section, have a dual-voltage unit or use some combination such as a dual-voltage EDMU (depending on the scheme).

Dual voltage units really aren't that hard to make or that expensive; If anything, you could argue its an advantage as the LU electrification reduces the number of track km that need to be electrified

The problem is it would require a redesign of LU’s electrification between Harrow and Amersham (and potentially implications for Chesham and Watford too). Who is going to pay for that?

Why not make the chiltern fleet capable of using the LU electrification as is?

from a technical point of view, dual voltage electrification of 25kV AC over 4th rail 750v DC is much, much easier than 25kV AC over 3rd rail 750vDC. Absolutely no reason they couldn’t work together.

or this solution makes a lot of sense too

I suspect the bigger problem is whether LUL want 25kv wires over their lines - my suspicion is they won't, especially as that particular bit of infrastructure would be owned by Network Rail.

I'm sure ownership questions can be resolved; Either LU can own the 25kv, or an agreement between LU and NR can be made; The mayor of london, and by extension TfL won't want diesel trains in london forever either.

Dual voltage units would make more sense and use the 4th rail between Harrow and Amersham, on the proviso the 4th rail can handle the additional traffic.

And if not, a power upgrade of the 4th rail can be done. The main advantage of using the existing 4th rail is that there isn't any clearance issues to worry about, I'd guess

The Wycombe line 25kv is the right answer, providing the clearances are sufficient through the approach tunnels to Marylebone.

agreed on this. If not, it may be worth considering using LU-style 4th rail in tunnels, and having all of Chiltern's fleet be dual-voltage. though it would probably be easier to just resolve clearance issues.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2022 ==

100mph bi-modes (or even tri-modes) with doors at thirds, excellent acceleration and a layout not dissimilar to the 331 (ie decent for longer distance passengers but with stand backs in the centre section doorways).

Sounds like they need a FLIRT!

 

[Energy]

Dual voltage units really aren't that hard to make or that expensive; If anything, you could argue its an advantage as the LU electrification reduces the number of track km that need to be electrified
Why not make the chiltern fleet capable of using the LU electrification as is?

The stretch of LU tracks isn't too long, when you already have the feeder station etc. the increase in cost won't be a lot.

Of course its possible to make trains which can use the 4th rail but it limits what stock can be used. I wouldn't be too suprised if it was cheaper to electrify with OHLE than order dual voltage stock.

agreed on this. If not, it may be worth considering using LU-style 4th rail in tunnels, and having all of Chiltern's fleet be dual-voltage. though it would probably be easier to just resolve clearance issues.

It wouldn't make sense, switching from a pantograph while on the move requires a long distance to switch over (look at GWR 80Xs). 4th rail is DC so you'd need the associated equipment to feed it and cabling for the 25kv the other end.

For more on discontinuous electrification (this is more specifically on coasting but much of it still applies). TLDR a bridge replacement is £1-5million, 4th rail or battery is going to be more.

 

[Trainbike46]

The stretch of LU tracks isn't too long, when you already have the feeder station etc. the increase in cost won't be a lot.

Of course its possible to make trains which can use the 4th rail but it limits what stock can be used. I wouldn't be too suprised if it was cheaper to electrify with OHLE than order dual voltage stock.

It wouldn't make sense, switching from a pantograph while on the move requires a long distance to switch over (look at GWR 80Xs). 4th rail is DC so you'd need the associated equipment to feed it and cabling for the 25kv the other end.

For more on discontinuous electrification (this is more specifically on coasting but much of it still applies). TLDR a bridge replacement is £1-5million, 4th rail or battery is going to be more.

For what it's worth, the main points I was trying to make were:
- The presence of LU-style 4th rail electrification is not a problem for electrifying the chiltern routes
- Changing the LU electrification to be 3rd rail compatible makes no sense. Either there should be 25kV OHLE throughout, or chiltern should use the 4th rail system as is.
- 25kV is probably best, but the only possible place where LU electrification could have an advantage if is there are a lot of bridges/tunnels that would be very hard to change to have enough clearance for electrification. But almost certainly it is easier/better/cheaper to just resolve the clearance issues and go for 25kV all the way

 

[Bletchleyite]

The stretch of LU tracks isn't too long, when you already have the feeder station etc. the increase in cost won't be a lot.

Of course its possible to make trains which can use the 4th rail but it limits what stock can be used. I wouldn't be too suprised if it was cheaper to electrify with OHLE than order dual voltage stock.

I'd be astonished were that the case. Almost all Electrostars are dual-voltage capable, for one (though some don't have pantographs and transformers) - were it expensive they wouldn't be.

4th rail is no great complexity, it's just an extra set of shoegear and the earthing put through that rather than the wheels. It might be faff to convert an existing EMU, but it'll almost certainly be new build anyway.

 

[Philip]

Yes I was always led to believe that Chiltern took on the LHCS because there were no Turbostars available at the time rather than the fact they actually wanted them.

The trouble is the presence of this stock leads some people to believe that it is suddenly an Intercity operation needing 125mph rolling stock when the reality is somewhat different.

Chiltern is a very unique operation but I don’t see why a one size fits all solution couldn’t be found.

100mph bi-modes (or even tri-modes) with doors at thirds, excellent acceleration and a layout not dissimilar to the 331 (ie decent for longer distance passengers but with stand backs in the centre section doorways).

Chiltern do not need Intercity stock.

The line speed doesn't have to be 125mph for it to be 'intercity'. I'm sure you would describe Manchester-Scotland as 'intercity', yet the maximum speed along the route is 110mph. HS2 may have other ideas but as it stands Chiltern is an intercity route and so 802s or similar new bi-mode units, or hybrid 168s are all suitable for mk3 replacement. Hybrid 175s would also be suitable but it remains to be seen whether conversion to hybrid operation is practical.

 

[Trainbike46]

The line speed doesn't have to be 125mph for it to be 'intercity'. I'm sure you would describe Manchester-Scotland as 'intercity', yet the maximum speed along the route is 110mph. HS2 may have other ideas but as it stands Chiltern is an intercity route and so 802s or similar new bi-mode units, or hybrid 168s are all suitable for mk3 replacement. Hybrid 175s would also be suitable but it remains to be seen whether conversion to hybrid operation is practical.

But the Chiltern route is clearly not the main intercity route between london, oxford and birmingham. For Oxford that's via GWML from Paddington, for Birmingham it's via the WCML (currently) or via HS2 (in the future) from Euston

 

[MarkyT]

Dual voltage units really aren't that hard to make or that expensive; If anything, you could argue its an advantage as the LU electrification reduces the number of track km that need to be electrified

Electric units are lower voltage natively, as motors typically work on voltages up to about 1000V; any more and insulation elements would make rotating parts too large or heavy to spin fast at top speed without damage or fit within the tight spaces available. While DC and AC types are used, the complex variable waveforms for the latter are typically derived by the traction control system from a smooth DC input obtained from whatever source on board is available. So a 25kV unit conceptually can usually have a DC capability provided fairly easily, especially when designed in from new. The main additional elements will be the pickup shoes and any intercar cabling required to allow multiple shoes to be distributed along the train to minimise gapping risk, although in LU territory, conductor gaps are small, as each car of their trains is electrically self-contained traditionally to avoid high current intercar cabling, at the cost of more pickup shoes on board clearly. With their DC powered territory clearly limited to LU infrastructure (and any small extensions also engineered to the same standards), perhaps a similar design philosophy might be employed for new multisystem Chiltern Railways trains.

Why not make the chiltern fleet capable of using the LU electrification as is...

...if not, a power upgrade of the 4th rail can be done. The main advantage of using the existing 4th rail is that there isn't any clearance issues to worry about, I'd guess

Agreed. While AC overhead is certainly easier to colocate on the same tracks with 4 rail than 3 rail DC power, there would still be a lot of work required for clearance and equipment immunity, even if the centre rail return removes most of the risks of high DC stray currents. It would probably be cheaper and less disruptive to selectively reinforce the LU power supplies for the additional electric trains as required, even also perhaps extending the 4 rail south of Wembley towards Neasden, where the NR tracks run directly adjacent to LU's in the same fully segregated corridor.

Sounds like they need a FLIRT!

Could also provide level boarding, and be supplied in local/suburban and intercity configurations, like Anglia examples.

 

[tbtc]

as it stands Chiltern is an intercity route and so 802s or similar new bi-mode units, or hybrid 168s are all suitable for mk3 replacement

On what basis is Chiltern “InterCity”? Who’s agreed to this definition?

It was Network South East in BR days - it links more than one city but then so do Manchester Metrolink’s Salford services - are they InterCity too? Tyne&Wear Metro services from Newcastle to Sunderland?

Or are you working backwards from “I want swanky modern trains on the Chiltern route, so I’ll come up with something to give me the answer I’ve already decided I want”?

 

[MarkyT]

But the Chiltern route is clearly not the main intercity route between london, oxford and birmingham. For Oxford that's via GWML from Paddington, for Birmingham it's via the WCML (currently) or via HS2 (in the future) from Euston

For Banbury, Leamington and Warwick it is, and I expect it will remain convenient for London to many people in those areas even after HS2, especially if an element of price/journey time competition is retained, which is desirable in my opinion.

 

[skyhigh]

HS2 may have other ideas but as it stands Chiltern is an intercity route

In your opinion.

 

[Trainbike46]

For Banbury, Leamington and Warwick it is, and I expect it will remain convenient for London to many people in those areas even after HS2, especially if an element of price/journey time competition is retained, which is desirable in my opinion.

But at that point you're much more in commuter territory than IC territory; Given capacity and per pax cost HS2 will probably become the cheapest route for london-birmingham travel anyway, an dI'm not sure why you'd want to keep those passengers on Chiltern (or the south WCML), that space should be available for passengers from places not served by HS2, such as Warwick, Banbury and Leamington (among others).

For example, the Cambridge-London IC-like service is run with commuter trains, and given the short distance and that Cambridge really isn't that big that makes sense. Chiltern routes are in a similar situation

 

[MarkyT]

On what basis is Chiltern “InterCity”? Who’s agreed to this definition?

It was Network South East in BR days - it links more than one city but then so do Manchester Metrolink’s Salford services - are they InterCity too? Tyne&Wear Metro services from Newcastle to Sunderland?

Or are you working backwards from “I want swanky modern trains on the Chiltern route, so I’ll come up with something to give me the answer I’ve already decided I want”?

Norwich is similar, not really long distance enough for 'proper' intercity, but MUs were thought by many to be beneath its status. The new FLIRTs on Anglia are the ideal compromise, basically a pretty capable high-end MU extremely similar to the same companies' local units technically for ease of maintenance.

 

[Neptune]

The line speed doesn't have to be 125mph for it to be 'intercity'. I'm sure you would describe Manchester-Scotland as 'intercity', yet the maximum speed along the route is 110mph. HS2 may have other ideas but as it stands Chiltern is an intercity route and so 802s or similar new bi-mode units, or hybrid 168s are all suitable for mk3 replacement.

Chiltern’s Birmingham - London services are not Intercity. As has been mentioned many times (which you seem to be ignoring) they only operate mk3 rakes as that’s all that was available at the time. They wanted more Turbostars but none were available until the 170/3’s came from TPE for the Oxford line (also not Intercity).

Hybrid 175s would also be suitable but it remains to be seen whether conversion to hybrid operation is practical.

Hmm, on another thread you said that 185’s shouldn’t be on the Manchester - Cumbria services as they’re intercity units so inter-regional 175’s should be used instead.

Now you’re saying that 175’s should be used on Chiltern‘s Birmingham services because, by your reckoning, these are Intercity services but evidently 175’s aren’t Intercity units.

I’m seriously confused now.

I’m guessing you also think the stopping services on GWR that use HST’s are Intercity services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The word "intercity" probably isn't that helpful. By Dutch standards the fast LNRs are. By German standards of the 1990s nothing in the UK is other than the tiny number of GWs with a traditional restaurant car.

Chiltern, well, if it was electrified 350s or Electrostars would be in use and nobody would be complaining about it.

 

[43096]

Or are you working backwards from “I want swanky modern trains on the Chiltern route, so I’ll come up with something to give me the answer I’ve already decided I want”?

He’s working backwards from the “175s to Northern” obsession, so any proposed used of 175s anywhere else is a threat to that plan. Ironically, the 175s are rather more IC-like than the current Turbostars on Chiltern: end doors for a start.

 

[MarkyT]

But at that point you're much more in commuter territory than IC territory; Given capacity and per pax cost HS2 will probably become the cheapest route for london-birmingham travel anyway, an dI'm not sure why you'd want to keep those passengers on Chiltern (or the south WCML), that space should be available for passengers from places not served by HS2, such as Warwick, Banbury and Leamington (among others).

For example, the Cambridge-London IC-like service is run with commuter trains, and given the short distance and that Cambridge really isn't that big that makes sense

The only thing that really matters to normals I believe is the standard of interior fit-out. Turbostars, as an example, can be high specced with saloon/vestibule doors and 2+2 seating as with the Chiltern 168s, or higher density without internal door and even (god forbid) 2+3 seating. Otherwise they can be exactly the same unit technically and can be capable of 100mph. More modern general purpose MUs like the FLIRT can be specced for up to 125mph of course like the Anglia longer distance examples.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2022 ==

The word "intercity" probably isn't that helpful. By Dutch standards the fast LNRs are. By German standards of the 1990s nothing in the UK is other than the tiny number of GWs with a traditional restaurant car.

Chiltern, well, if it was electrified 350s or Electrostars would be in use and nobody would be complaining about it.

Fully agree!

 

[cle]

"InterCity" doesn't really exist. It's archaic to how the railways have evolved:
- Project 110 enables 350s via the Trent Valley to hit MKC and Rugby quicker than the 80s used to!
- OA has led to "non-BR" operators like Grand Central
- The Cambridge Cruiser isn't that different to Gatwick Express - which was once "IC".
- Norwich is now run by EMUs. Corby came and went EMU too.

It's full of contradictions - and upsettingly for some rose-tints on this forum - the railway and its nomenclature evolve!

And the service to Norwich is now similar to the service to Southampton and Weymouth - arguably more deserving of an 'intercity' service than the Norwich route.

And as for primary routes - will the WCML not be "IC" once HS2 opens? Even though it will still have Pendos and 80x? Is it about stock? Stopping patterns? City status? Catering? All nonsense.

Suffice to say that Chiltern will still need an outer-surburban/regional/mid-distance set up for its London-Birmingham services, and to compete on Oxford. As mentioned, it is and will remain the primary route to London for Banbury, Leamington, Warwick, Solihull (for now) and of course Bicester which is a huge draw and has a ton of house-building. EWR should see this building activity increase, same with Oxford Parkway.

 

[bramling]

I'd be astonished were that the case. Almost all Electrostars are dual-voltage capable, for one (though some don't have pantographs and transformers) - were it expensive they wouldn't be.

4th rail is no great complexity, it's just an extra set of shoegear and the earthing put through that rather than the wheels. It might be faff to convert an existing EMU, but it'll almost certainly be new build anyway.

It’s undesirable to have trains carrying around negative shoes if at all avoidable. One might get round this by having a dedicated fleet for the Amersham route, albeit at a cost to flexibility. It wouldn’t be ideal by any means to have for the majority of the fleet the main depot reached via a single-track branch, but then really a new depot on a better site would be preferable anyway. Question is - where?

Chiltern still seems likely to be affected by planning blight for some time to come, and the unpredictability of commuter numbers thanks to Covid won’t have helped. It really *should* be electrified, but unfortunately it isn’t that simple.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And as for primary routes - will the WCML not be "IC" once HS2 opens? Even though it will still have Pendos and 80x? Is it about stock? Stopping patterns? City status? Catering?

If one was in Germany, then the WCML would remain IC, but HS2 services ICE. But yes, it's all a bit moot.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2022 ==

It’s undesirable to have trains carrying around negative shoes if at all avoidable. One might get round this by having a dedicated fleet for the Amersham route, albeit at a cost to flexibility. It wouldn’t be ideal by any means to have for the majority of the fleet the main depot reached via a single-track branch, but then really a new depot on a better site would be preferable anyway. Question is - where?

I'm sure somewhere could be found at the Brum end for the long distance units. I don't see a problem with Aylesbury for the rest of it, it works fine now. It being single track doesn't matter once the last train of the day to Risborough (2300 off AYS) has operated and the stock is only operating in one direction - towards the depot.

 

[MattRat]

Aren't Porterbrook looking at making the 350/2s have battery packs? Could that work for Chiltern?

 

[MarkyT]

It’s undesirable to have trains carrying around negative shoes if at all avoidable.

Wasn't aware of that. I wonder if any risks associated might be mitigated by making centre shoes retractable when not in 4-rail mode. Clearly more complexity though, with actuators and sensors proving they're retracted in traction interlock etc, which could have an effect on overall reliability if not well designed or maintained.

One might get round this by having a dedicated fleet for the Amersham route, albeit at a cost to flexibility. It wouldn’t be ideal by any means to have for the majority of the fleet the main depot reached via a single-track branch, but then really a new depot on a better site would be preferable anyway. Question is - where?

Banbury for the second 'longer distance' depot surely. Already partly developed for stabling and light servicing, with plans for further expansion I understand. Potentially good for the Birminghams, Banbury starters certainly, and only a quick ECS trip away from Oxford.

 

[Techniquest]

That was exactly my thought when I went on one a few weeks back. Looked forward to it, but when I alighted knew that it was time for them to go.

We may be the only people who feel that way about them! At least the 68s are still fun to watch, even if the coaching stock is poor.

As for wiring up the Chiltern route, not only is it long overdue but definitely feel starting at both ends and working towards the middle is the way to do it. The positive spin for the London papers would surely make it worth prioritising Marylebone to Wycombe, indeed the same PR spin for the Midlands would surely be a huge gain. Promoting the new and cleaner trains would certainly help make it more appealing, in an age where environmental concerns have never been stronger.

I guess now the question becomes 'where will the 165/0s go?' when they are finished on Chiltern? Do they have potential to go somewhere and cascade something else, even if only for a handful of years? I know they're starting to age, but there must be a home somewhere for them.

Of course, I guess that also relies on knowing an approximate timescale for the 165s' replacements. Doing a GA and ordering a load of Flirts would be a winning idea here, but I'm also wondering how much that might impact platform workings with pairs of Flirts, assuming such a thing was required. I would imagine a pair of 755s would be longer than a pair of 165s, but I could be wrong. This is outside of my knowledge base, I have to confess.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We may be the only people who feel that way about them! At least the 68s are still fun to watch, even if the coaching stock is poor.

I've never thought Mk3s were much good. They have always seemed very primitive compared with the fairly ubiquitous Eurofima coaches all over Europe. Mk4s are a bit better but still built down to a price with a very poor ride. The Wessie was everything the Mk3 should have been, but still wasn't as good as people make out.

The International Coach was what BR should have built en masse.

The Chiltern ones of course don't have the original interior but a far lower density one so I can see why (skinny) people might like them, but they look incredibly dated, almost Soviet.

 

[Techniquest]

I grew up with HST MK3s, so they have a special place in my heart. I still prefer those to a MK4, and indeed a MK2. Those coaches you refer to in Europe, I am not terribly well versed in Euro stuff so I'll have to take your word for it.

Chiltern's MK3s *should* be fine for me as I'm not the biggest bloke, but they still require some gymnastics worth of competing at the Olympics to get to/from the window seats!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I grew up with HST MK3s, so they have a special place in my heart. I still prefer those to a MK4, and indeed a MK2. Those coaches you refer to in Europe, I am not terribly well versed in Euro stuff so I'll have to take your word for it.

Eurofima coaches are just the bog-standard RIC aircon, power door hauled coaches you get throughout Europe, e.g. those DB use for IC services. They're so named because of the finance company that funded their construction en-masse.

 

[A0]

We may be the only people who feel that way about them! At least the 68s are still fun to watch, even if the coaching stock is poor.

As for wiring up the Chiltern route, not only is it long overdue but definitely feel starting at both ends and working towards the middle is the way to do it. The positive spin for the London papers would surely make it worth prioritising Marylebone to Wycombe, indeed the same PR spin for the Midlands would surely be a huge gain. Promoting the new and cleaner trains would certainly help make it more appealing, in an age where environmental concerns have never been stronger.

I guess now the question becomes 'where will the 165/0s go?' when they are finished on Chiltern? Do they have potential to go somewhere and cascade something else, even if only for a handful of years? I know they're starting to age, but there must be a home somewhere for them.

Of course, I guess that also relies on knowing an approximate timescale for the 165s' replacements. Doing a GA and ordering a load of Flirts would be a winning idea here, but I'm also wondering how much that might impact platform workings with pairs of Flirts, assuming such a thing was required. I would imagine a pair of 755s would be longer than a pair of 165s, but I could be wrong. This is outside of my knowledge base, I have to confess.

BIB - on this, I agree. Birmingham has the old GW corridor from Leamington through the city and out the other side running DMUs. Services would be much improved by being run with modern EMUs and from an emissions point of view, that's probably where the bulk of the benefit is.

 

[Trainbike46]

As for wiring up the Chiltern route, not only is it long overdue but definitely feel starting at both ends and working towards the middle is the way to do it. The positive spin for the London papers would surely make it worth prioritising Marylebone to Wycombe, indeed the same PR spin for the Midlands would surely be a huge gain. Promoting the new and cleaner trains would certainly help make it more appealing, in an age where environmental concerns have never been stronger.

I guess now the question becomes 'where will the 165/0s go?' when they are finished on Chiltern? Do they have potential to go somewhere and cascade something else, even if only for a handful of years? I know they're starting to age, but there must be a home somewhere for them.

I could see them going to GWR; but to be honest if Chiltern gets electrified, I suspect they will stick around for long enough to make it a trip to sims instead

 

[Neptune]

I've never thought Mk3s were much good. They have always seemed very primitive compared with the fairly ubiquitous Eurofima coaches all over Europe. Mk4s are a bit better but still built down to a price with a very poor ride. The Wessie was everything the Mk3 should have been, but still wasn't as good as people make out.

They were ok for the 1970’s but expectations moved on. The 442’s had the power operated doors but more importantly higher quality seats with movable armrests.

The International Coach was what BR should have built en masse.

The only production build that came from it was the mk 3B DVT hence the different bodyside profile.

The Chiltern ones of course don't have the original interior but a far lower density one so I can see why (skinny) people might like them, but they look incredibly dated, almost Soviet.

Having grown up with the IC70 seat I concour how awkward access is and how uncomfortable it is and I’m average height/build. The only people who seem to like them are those who believe everything was better in the past.

 

[Bald Rick]

I guess now the question becomes 'where will the 165/0s go?' when they are finished on Chiltern?

Straight to the scrapyard. They are only 5 years older than the youngest Pacers.