Chiltern considers Turbo future

[Neptune]

End door stock is perfectly fine for many Northern services, particularly in the North East - if this wasn't the case then they wouldn't have so many 156s and 158s.

Regardless of what you think, a unit with doors at thirds (are you now against these? You seem to switch opinion very quickly) is far more efficient than end door stock, especially on Northern’s local and inter-regional services that run through busy stations with a high turnover such as Middlesbrough, Darlington, Sunderland, Newcastle and Metro Centre in the North East.

I can see the argument about end-door stock not being suitable on the Castelfield corridor,

You said they were suitable for Castlefield last week. So which is it?

There was a document released in July stipulating Northern's plans to get rid of Sprinters by the end of the decade; 175s are an obvious choice for replacing the 156s and/or 158s on non-electrified routes.

Are they an obvious choice? How do you know that Northern aren’t considering a large fleet of bi-mode trains to replace the 15x fleet. One whole fleet with doors at thirds would be ideal.

Sending 168s to Northern would mean additional and unnecessary cost and work for conversion back to 170s and more than likely crew training, plus there is no mention of any plans about Chiltern getting rid of their 168s.

Conversion lol. It’s the pins on the electrical box that need sorting. What other work is required apart from a refresh of the interior into Northern style.

Crew training wouldn’t be a problem as they would likely be used to eradicate 15x units on Hull based services such as the remaining Sheffield - Scarborough’s which use 158’s, Donny - Hull, Hull - Halifax and even Sheffield - Adwick and Donny - Scunthorpe. This would require no additional crew training unless 001-005 need a conversion course due to the different cab.

175’s would need all crews trained on them and maintenance staff.

Splitting the 175 fleet between TOCs would be no more inefficient than sending 168s to Northern for conversion to 170s -

Can you break down the relevant costs for us please for us to compare?

is the even smaller 180 fleet not already split between different operators?

180’s are also extremely unreliable. I wonder why?

 

[tbtc]

End door stock is perfectly fine for many Northern services, particularly in the North East - if this wasn't the case then they wouldn't have so many 156s and 158s

The North East did very well out of pacer withdrawal (in some peoples eyes), seeing 158s directly replace 142s

Heaton don’t really have the optimised fleet but I think it’s probably more about having just two types of DMU and keeping things simple (when something like a 150 might be better for the Saltburn services)

175s are an obvious choice for replacing the 156s and/or 158s on non-electrified routes

175s would be a drop in the ocean when it comes to replacing the 156s and 158s

You might as well argue that we could have replaced the entire HST fleet with fourteen 180s

But Northern have more than enough “fast”/ end doored DMUs, the need is for something that can replace the older 150s (mid doored, good acceleration, suited to unremarkable slow routes)

Sending 168s to Northern would mean additional and unnecessary cost and work for conversion back to 170s and more than likely crew training

So, let me get this right… 175s would be great for Northern but it’d be bad to give them more 170s (by converting 168s, or in some cases, re-converting them) because that’d require staff training?

Presumably you’re assuming that Northern staff wouldn’t need any training on 175s, since you’re only counting that cost when it comes to additional Turbostars?

plus there is no mention of any plans about Chiltern getting rid of their 168s

Similarly, there’s no mention of Northern wanting 175s, other than by those who wish it to be true

 

[Trainbike46]

End door stock is perfectly fine for many Northern services, particularly in the North East - if this wasn't the case then they wouldn't have so many 156s and 158s. I can see the argument about end-door stock not being suitable on the Castelfield corridor, but not elsewhere on Northern's network. There was a document released in July stipulating Northern's plans to get rid of Sprinters by the end of the decade; 175s are an obvious choice for replacing the 156s and/or 158s on non-electrified routes.

That's not at all obvious: they would only be able to replace a small number of sprinters, so would just increase the number of different types of stock on northern.

Sending 168s to Northern would mean additional and unnecessary cost and work for conversion back to 170s and more than likely crew training, plus there is no mention of any plans about Chiltern getting rid of their 168s. They're currently looking at 165s and whether to convert them to bi-mode or replace them with a new fleet, with a sub-note that 175s might be a suitable replacement for LHCS. Splitting the 175 fleet between TOCs would be no more inefficient than sending 168s to Northern for conversion to 170s - is the even smaller 180 fleet not already split between different operators?

The 17s fleet is small; splitting it across multiple TOCs and depots would increase training and maintenance costs. If the 175 came to chiltern it might make sense to use them to replace something else as well, so that all 175 could stay together. Sending 168s to northern does not increase the fleet types northern has, as they already run 170s and have the required maintenance facilities, and trained crew so it wouldn't increase cost. Introducing a new fleet (the 175s) would

I don't think the 180s can be used as an example of good practice tbh.

But, the reason the 180s are split over 2 operators is simple: Grand Central doesn't need more of them than they have, and no-one else wanted them. The reason the hull trains ones ended up on EMR is simply so they could retire their (non-prm compliant) HSTs earlier, not because this was ever planned to be a long-term solution, that is until EMR realised the didn't order enough 810s apparently, but that would be best sorted with more 810s, not with a microfleet of four 180s

 

[Philip]

People have given reasons for 175s being a bad choice for Northern, but to turn it on its head; if they directly replace Chiltern LHCS, it would mean DMUs and more specifically DMUs with 3-6 separate engines running going into and out of the city of London - this is less efficient and more polluting than using a 68 with one big engine. What makes people think TfL or the DfT would consider this as an acceptable solution? It's well known that diesel trains aren't wanted in the London terminals.

How about putting 175s on the local Chiltern services and then using cascaded 168s to replace the LHCS so that the mainline has one fleet type?

 

[Trainbike46]

People have given reasons for 175s being a bad choice for Northern, but to turn it on its head; if they directly replace Chiltern LHCS, it would mean DMUs and more specifically DMUs with 3-6 separate engines running going into and out of the city of London - this is less efficient and more polluting than using a 68 with one big engine. What makes people think TfL or the DfT would consider this as an acceptable solution? It's well known that diesel trains aren't wanted in the London terminals.

There is some official documentation that 175s are an option for chiltern. Not a certainty, but an option.

Furthermore, westminster city council has, for some reason, got a grudge against the class 68s in particular. Personally, I think Westminster cc should be ignored on this matter but that may or may not happen. They certainly would be in favour of replacing the 68s with 175s

It is true that diesel trains are not wanted in many places, including london terminals, Birmingham new street, all of scotland, etc. However, the only solution for that is electrifying the Chiltern line. Arguing over 68s or 175s doesn't contribute anything.

How about putting 175s on the local Chiltern services and then using cascaded 168s to replace the LHCS so that the mainline has one fleet type?

I really think you're overthinking the allocation within Chiltern railways a bit here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's because they make such a racket and kick their exhaust out on the street that runs over the far end of MYB. However, isn't something obvious being missed here - reverse the formations so the loco is at the buffers? Sure, it'll stink for passengers, but the DMUs do anyway.

I think the *real* reason to want to get rid is cost.

 

[Neptune]

Furthermore, westminster city council has, for some reason, got a grudge against the class 68s in particular. Personally, I think Westminster cc should be ignored on this matter but that may or may not happen. They certainly would be in favour of replacing the 68s with 175s

I think the biggest issue is the noise pollution. They do have less polluting engines than 165/168/175’s etc….

I think the *real* reason to want to get rid is cost.

Absolutely. The railway needs to cut costs and here is the perfect place to start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely. The railway needs to cut costs and here is the perfect place to start.

Particularly as the Class 175 has a similar enough interior that many people won't even notice, and the many haters of IC70 seating will prefer them.

 

[Philip]

I think the biggest issue is the noise pollution. They do have less polluting engines than 165/168/175’s etc….

I beg to differ on noise - I've worked at a place where 175s, 185s and 68s have all been departing from and the 175s were the noisiest when opened at a heavy throttle. 185s and 68s sound more impressive but don't create as much of a racket.

 

[Mollman]

Really? I always thought they were late 90s when they were built, although I could of course have found that out easily enough.

In that case, then yes I can't see them doing much else except going to the scrapyard by the time the routes get electrified.

The original 168 'Clubmen' were build in the late 90s, the 165s & 166s in the early 90s - basically last DMUs build for BR and first DMUs build for a privatised operator.

 

[ashkeba]

XC's are doing regional services formerly operated by Central Trains, exactly the thing they are designed for. And the state of them is because XC don't look after their stock.

Maybe partly but also because they are too small for intercity or regionalexpress duties now. Services like Cardiff-Gloucester-Birmingham-Nottingham and Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Cambridge-Stansted are not small regional routes and seem throttled by the 2/3 car 170s.

But whatever your reason for their state, 170s near Chiltern are not a good example for Chiltern.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

The 165s, subject to possible width issues, could replace 150s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe partly but also because they are too small for intercity or regionalexpress duties now. Services like Cardiff-Gloucester-Birmingham-Nottingham and Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Cambridge-Stansted are not small regional routes and seem throttled by the 2/3 car 170s.

They're too short, but double units would be fine. They're literally designed for that sort of route.

 

[tomuk]

I beg to differ on noise - I've worked at a place where 175s, 185s and 68s have all been departing from and the 175s were the noisiest when opened at a heavy throttle. 185s and 68s sound more impressive but don't create as much of a racket.

More impressive is the issue. The 'rumble' of a 68 travels further than the general 'rattle' of a 16x. The local residents don't appreciate the buttery biscuit bass.

As railways can't be prosecuted for noise the same residents have cottoned on to the 'pollution' problem of the 68s to try and advance their cause.

 

[Philip]

The 17s fleet is small; splitting it across multiple TOCs and depots would increase training and maintenance costs. If the 175 came to chiltern it might make sense to use them to replace something else as well, so that all 175 could stay together. Sending 168s to northern does not increase the fleet types northern has, as they already run 170s and have the required maintenance facilities, and trained crew so it wouldn't increase cost. Introducing a new fleet (the 175s) would

Crew training would be needed if Chiltern took them on too.

Some people won't like the idea but another solution could involve sending 175s to Northern and Northern's 170s to Chiltern for 168 and hybrid conversion. That way Northern won't end up increasing their fleet size and the 175s stay together - and with the whole fleet you could probably get rid of the 155s too. Yes I know their is a new depot dedicated to Northern 170 maintenance, but this is hardly the biggest obstacle to get round and could be converted for maintenance of other traction.

To the people who are suggesting 168s go to Northern as 170s, where do you think these units should be used? 170s are no good for stopping services because of the poor acceleration so other than the Barrow/Windermere service there aren't many other suitable routes - and no others within the North West region.

 

[Trainbike46]

Crew training would be needed if Chiltern took them on too.

Some people won't like the idea but another solution could involve sending 175s to Northern and Northern's 170s to Chiltern for 168 and hybrid conversion. That way Northern won't end up increasing their fleet size and the 175s stay together - and with the whole fleet you could probably get rid of the 155s too. Yes I know their is a new depot dedicated to Northern 170 maintenance, but this is hardly the biggest obstacle to get round and could be converted for maintenance of other traction.

having a small fleet over 2 operators will increase training costs relative to keeping them together at 1 operator. If all going to Chiltern, a whole fleet can be replaced (the 68s + mark IIIs). If all going to northern, there's not enough to fully replace any single fleet. So if they go to chiltern, the number of different fleets on chiltern will not increase. If they all go to northern, the number of different fleets on northern will increase. It really isn't that hard.

For northern, the 170s are more flexible and useful than the 175 ever could be; they can operate in multiple with the sprinters, and there's simply more of them. The reverse of what you suggest, sending 168s to northern therefore makes more sense

 

[Neptune]

Crew training would be needed if Chiltern took them on too.

Some people won't like the idea but another solution could involve sending 175s to Northern and Northern's 170s to Chiltern for 168 and hybrid conversion. That way Northern won't end up increasing their fleet size and the 175s stay together - and with the whole fleet you could probably get rid of the 155s too. Yes I know their is a new depot dedicated to Northern 170 maintenance, but this is hardly the biggest obstacle to get round and could be converted for maintenance of other traction.

170’s are better for the services they work on. 175’s would be a massive retrograde step on the Harrogate line where 170’s are more than happy these days despite what people say.

So we’ve gone from Cumbria to the North East and now to Hull for 175’s. Where next I wonder.

To the people who are suggesting 168s go to Northern as 170s, where do you think these units should be used? 170s are no good for stopping services because of the poor acceleration so other than the Barrow/Windermere service there aren't many other suitable routes - and no others within the North West region.

Did you not read my reply to you in post 120? I suggested they replace the remaining 15x diagrams in the Hull area with zero crew training requirements or does that answer not fit your requirements for 175’s to Northern so it shall be ignored.

 

[Philip]

having a small fleet over 2 operators will increase training costs relative to keeping them together at 1 operator. If all going to Chiltern, a whole fleet can be replaced (the 68s + mark IIIs). If all going to northern, there's not enough to fully replace any single fleet. So if they go to chiltern, the number of different fleets on chiltern will not increase. If they all go to northern, the number of different fleets on northern will increase. It really isn't that hard.

For northern, the 170s are more flexible and useful than the 175 ever could be; they can operate in multiple with the sprinters, and there's simply more of them. The reverse of what you suggest, sending 168s to northern therefore makes more sense

If all 175s went to Northern then all 155s and all 170s could be replaced, so the fleet size would actually reduce. Even sending the whole 175 fleet to Chiltern wouldn't be enough to replace the whole 168 fleet, so some 168s would have to remain thereby increasing the DMU fleet size at Chiltern.

 

[Trainbike46]

If all 175s went to Northern then all 155s and all 170s could be replaced, so the fleet size would actually reduce. Even sending the whole 175 fleet to Chiltern wouldn't be enough to replace the whole 168 fleet, so some 168s would have to remain thereby increasing the DMU fleet size at Chiltern.

I could cover how this is wrong, but I don't think there's much point as you'll ignore at least half of what I or anyone else writes.

To get back on topic; I think the best option for Chiltern replacing the turbos is to get on with electrification, and bring in existing EMUs or new bimodes. Now if only the DfT would get onboard...

 

[Philip]

I could cover how this is wrong, but I don't think there's much point as you'll ignore at least half of what I or anyone else writes.

I'm just pointing out that by sending all 175s to Northern then not just one but two whole Northern DMU fleets could be replaced (the 155s and 170s). Then those spare 170s could replace the LHCS on Chiltern (as 168s), meaning all Chiltern mainline services could be operated by 168s and 165s (or their bi-mode/hybrid replacement).

The 175s will probably end up at the most practical depot(s) for crew training efficiency and a good maintenance regime, rather than end door/commuter door questions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2022 ==

Did you not read my reply to you in post 120? I suggested they replace the remaining 15x diagrams in the Hull area with zero crew training requirements or does that answer not fit your requirements for 175’s to Northern so it shall be ignored.

Hull ex-15x diagrams is a job for the 195s once incoming DMUs allow them to be shuffled around.

 

[cle]

A combined knitting project from Didcot up to Oxford (inc Hanborough?) and around to Marylebone would cover off a good amount;
- extension of Didcot EMUs/shuttles
- the 2tph fasts now using AC
- 4tph Chiltern Oxford/High Wycombe to Marylebone immediately - with more in peaks (old peaks).
- plus it enables a stretch of EWR for the future too, or if bi-mode stock ever used it (5 car 80x for instance)

You could arguably leave Banbury alone until you decided what to do with the Snow Hill lines. Given Stratford too (as the Banbury TPH extensions occasionally) - those routes could share a more outer stock. Aylesbury (VP) probably worth wiring up too - in theory should be able to service 2tph, a fast might be a better way to Aylesbury than via Amersham.

Oxford - yes it's had some prestigious Chiltern longer distance stock and you're competing with a much renewed and faster GWML, but the journey time would be improved here too, and something in the 350/37x family could be suitable for stoppers and mid distance services - much as they do on the Southern network. Maybe some seat config variance.

 

[skyhigh]

I'm just pointing out that by sending all 175s to Northern then not just one but two whole Northern DMU fleets could be replaced (the 155s and 170s).

The 170s are compatible with the rest of the 15x and do work in multiple with them on a daily basis. That wouldn't work with the 175s. You'd also have to refurbish the whole 175 fleet into Northern livery, and carry out the digimods that 170s (and soon to be 155s) have to allow fleet standardisation. You'd then have to modify a brand new purpose built depot to work with another class of train. What is more of an issue - 170s and 155s that can interwork and have plenty of similarities with most of the Northern fleet, or a completely incompatible class of unit?

Then those spare 170s could replace the LHCS on Chiltern (as 168s), meaning all Chiltern mainline services could be operated by 168s and 165s (or their bi-mode/hybrid replacement).

So the 170s will then have to be converted to 168s and standardised with their existing units. So that's 2 full fleet refurbs required for this plan.

 

[Philip]

So the 170s will then have to be converted to 168s and standardised with their existing units. So that's 2 full fleet refurbs required for this plan.

According to another poster in this thread the conversion process between 168/170 is very simple. No 175s will be available before the end of the year and then you're probably looking at another year or more before crew training, new hybrid engines for London work, route clearance and refurbishment is finished. Do Chiltern plan to keep the LHCS for another couple of years?

All train fleets will probably end up having a refurb into the GBR livery and style within the next few years.

170s being able to work with Sprinters is negated by the fact that Northern plan to replace all Sprinters by the end of the decade.

 

[ashkeba]

They're too short, but double units would be fine. They're literally designed for that sort of route.

Fine except for the lack of luggage space and wasteful yet cramped layout. The first operator binned them off intercity routes as soon as they had enough other DMU.

It seems generous to call 170 designed for any route type. It seems more like designed as a quick to market evolution of 165/166. It feels like they would be better on 165/166-type routes, not long distance, but I understand their acceleration is poor for lots of stops.

I hope Chilterns do better. As others suggest, electrification all or part would be good, especially if trains will be replaced for other reasons.

 

[Neptune]

I'm just pointing out that by sending all 175s to Northern then not just one but two whole Northern DMU fleets could be replaced (the 155s and 170s).

So you think the 175’s should be based at Hull.

Hull ex-15x diagrams is a job for the 195s once incoming DMUs allow them to be shuffled around.

So you don’t think the 175’s should be based at Hull.

You’ve excelled this time by changing your mind in the same post!

 

[skyhigh]

According to another poster in this thread the conversion process between 168/170 is very simple. No 175s will be available before the end of the year and then you're probably looking at another year or more before crew training, new hybrid engines for London work, route clearance and refurbishment is finished. Do Chiltern plan to keep the LHCS for another couple of years?

And the digimods for Northern? The whole fleet is being modified to essentially match the 195s. CCTV with remote view, passenger counters, OTDR that can be remotely downloaded, remote monitoring etc. They are literally finishing off the 170s now. You expect them to go through all of the expense and design work for a different class of train?

And if, as you suggest, 175s go to Northern and 170s go to Chiltern. Will that be any faster than sending 175s to Chiltern? I very much doubt it.

All train fleets will probably end up having a refurb into the GBR livery and style within the next few years.

Will they?

170s being able to work with Sprinters is negated by the fact that Northern plan to replace all Sprinters by the end of the decade.

Where is that stated? You keep saying it, but where is it actually written down?

 

[Trainbike46]

Where is that stated? You keep saying it, but where is it actually written down?

I suspect this user is taking the speculative thread on sprinter extinction as something that is actual policy from Northern

 

[Chester1]

The 165s, subject to possible width issues, could replace 150s.

As much as I would like Northern to start sending 150s for scrap, the obvious place to send Chiltern 165s would be GWR. 20 units could replace the whole GWR 150 fleet (all in Devon and Cornwall). It would require training and infrastructure changes but only in one region. I know 165s are old enough to scrap but 150s are 5 years older and are worse trains. Replacing 150s with 165s would be seen as an upgrade by passengers.

Chiltern will have to go for the cheapest option. That may or may not be 175s. Who owns the 165s, 175s and Mark III sets?

 

[MarkyT]

As much as I would like Northern to start sending 150s for scrap, the obvious place to send Chiltern 165s would be GWR. 20 units could replace the whole GWR 150 fleet (all in Devon and Cornwall). It would require training and infrastructure changes but only in one region. I know 165s are old enough to scrap but 150s are 5 years older and are worse trains. Replacing 150s with 165s would be seen as an upgrade by passengers.

There are already a number of ex-Thames Trains 165s and 166s in the west, and working out of Bristol on the Cardiff-Portsmouth axis for GWR and more will likely come if electrification to Oxford and Basingstoke is ever completed and a new solution found for the Thames Valley branches. I believe there are some detail differences between ex-Thames units and those on Chiltern, but they must be very similar.

 

[tomuk]

new hybrid engines for London work

This isn't a requirement. If DfT deem the 168 Hybrid a success and there is budget they may allow the conversion of the remainder before moving onto to the 175s