Chiltern considers Turbo future

[Recessio]

I'm completely unfamiliar with Chiltern, never used it. And I think I've been north of Baker Street twice. So please forgive me if these are stupid questions!

My understanding is that LUL has 4 tracks: up/down slow, used exclusively by the Metropolitan all stations, and up/down Fast, used by Metropolitan semi-fasts, fasts, and Chiltern trains - is this correct?

If so, is there any way Chiltern trains could get exclusive use of the Fast lines, transfer those from LU to NR control, and equip with 25kV OHLE? Could the Met survive without Fast trains? (or, could Met Fast services be replaced by having more Chiltern EMUs, covering the stretch from Amersham to whatever station is just before Marylebone? Maybe Chesham would have to be a shuttle again.)

Alternatively, is there any room to build a new set of tracks for Chiltern? Even if a double-decker solution like the Jubilee/DLR solution at Canning Town?

Then there'd be no need for dual-voltage tracks or trains.

Otherwise, I guess OHLE from Amersham onwards seems the sensible option, especially if its electrically fine over 4th rail systems.

 

[JonathanH]

My understanding is that LUL has 4 tracks: up/down slow, used exclusively by the Metropolitan all stations, and up/down Fast, used by Metropolitan semi-fasts, fasts, and Chiltern trains - is this correct?

Only four track between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Moor Park. Two tracks north from there to Amersham.

Could the Met survive without Fast trains?

The Metropolitan Line already survives without fast trains for the most part, but it doesn't change the issue of how to run fourth rail and OHLE.

 

[Recessio]

Only four track between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Moor Park. Two tracks north from there to Amersham.


The Metropolitan Line already survives without fast trains for the most part, but it doesn't change the issue of how to run fourth rail and OHLE.

I more meant could the Met survive without the Fast Tracks, but I didn't realise it was 2 track up to Amersham. No chance of them 4-tracking it?

 

[Energy]

If so, is there any way Chiltern trains could get exclusive use of the Fast lines, transfer those from LU to NR control, and equip with 25kV OHLE? Could the Met survive without Fast trains? (or, could Met Fast services be replaced by having more Chiltern EMUs, covering the stretch from Amersham to whatever station is just before Marylebone? Maybe Chesham would have to be a shuttle again.)

Alternatively, is there any room to build a new set of tracks for Chiltern? Even if a double-decker solution like the Jubilee/DLR solution at Canning Town?

Then there'd be no need for dual-voltage tracks or trains.

The 4th rails existence isn't a problem. 3rd rail and OHLE since they both use the normal 2 rails for the return and it isn't easy to have them share the rails. 4th rail uses another rail for the return so it can coexist with OHLE without too many problems.

Bridges and tunnels are more of a problem, I'm aware of the Snow Hill tunnel being too low but not sure about the rest of the route.

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.

Indeed, the 165/166s were wired slightly differently by NSE so regional railways couldn't take them. The 168s coupler is wired for 165/166s and 170s is wired for sprinters. Its not much work to change it.

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.

Didn't many 158s come from TPE when it got the class 185s, as such their original operator was using them on regional expresses? The sprinter shuffle to replace pacers had some pacers being replaced by 158s more because they are existing DMUs than because of their door position.

 

[Mikey C]

I more meant could the Met survive without the Fast Tracks, but I didn't realise it was 2 track up to Amersham. No chance of them 4-tracking it?

Anything is possible, but there's no need to 4 track the route, and as it would be very expensive and locally damaging, there's no chance of it happening!

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

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.

The GWR/Thames 165s are geared for 90mph whereas the Chiltern ones are geared for 75mph.

Both have air cooling retrofitted, but the Chiltern ones have been reglazed to remove the hoppers. They are also 2+2 seating at the ends of the carriages.

 

[tomuk]

I more meant could the Met survive without the Fast Tracks, but I didn't realise it was 2 track up to Amersham. No chance of them 4-tracking it?

There aren't that many Met fasts anyway so I don't believe the sky would fall in if you segregated the line and gave the fast line and the Aylesbury branch north of Moor Park to NR\Chiltern.

 

[Wolfie]

There aren't that many Met fasts anyway so I don't believe the sky would fall in if you segregated the line and gave the fast line and the Aylesbury branch north of Moor Park to NR\Chiltern.

Why exactly should TfL do that? It disadvantages it's own customers.

 

[tomuk]

Why exactly should TfL do that? It disadvantages it's own customers.

It would free up some S-stock for use elsewhere.

 

[Wolfie]

It would free up some S-stock for use elsewhere.

For a start you are assuming that there is sufficient capacity to cover on the other "slow" services which is far from a given. Secondly where is additional S stock currently required?

 

[tomuk]

For a start you are assuming that there is sufficient capacity to cover on the other "slow" services which is far from a given. Secondly where is additional S stock currently required?

We are talking about segregating the fast and slow lines to allow 25kv OHL electrification of the fasts for use by Chiltern/NR services. There would be a commensurate increase in non LUL capacity to serve Aylesbury, Amersham, Chesham etc.

Regards the spare S-stock, Croxley, District to Uxbridge, save on New Tube purchases?

 

[Energy]

save on New Tube purchases?

Won't fit.

 

[tomuk]

Won't fit.

On the Uxbridge branch?

 

[RobShipway]

The class 165 units with Chiltern should go to GWR to replace the class 150 units.

Apologies, as I have said this before in the thread earlier, but I do think that the Chiltern LHCS should be replaced by Stadler flirt (231/755)/Alstom Aventra units and with enough of the Flirt/Aventra units being ordered that they can also replace class 168 units. The units would be built such that they initially work on diesel and battery power, but later could be converted to be used on OHLE when or if installed along the route.

The battery power would be used with the diesel engine stopped, just before coming into a station and would be charged up by the diesel when running on stretches between stations. For those that say that this would not work, I suggest that you look at the stop/start mechanisms of most van nowadays whereby, when stationery for long enough the engine switches off automatically. The same could be done, with switching over to battery power from diesel.

 

[Techniquest]

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.

Thanks, maybe that's what I was originally thinking of and got them all mixed up in memory. Apologies for the slow reply, I was out adventuring all day yesterday.

 

[Bald Rick]

as said above, putting 25kV AC over the Met Fast lines, with their 4R DC really isn’t a problem technically. Any commercial matters with LU would be much more easily resolved than building extra tracks!

 

[Wolfie]

We are talking about segregating the fast and slow lines to allow 25kv OHL electrification of the fasts for use by Chiltern/NR services. There would be a commensurate increase in non LUL capacity to serve Aylesbury, Amersham, Chesham etc.

Regards the spare S-stock, Croxley, District to Uxbridge, save on New Tube purchases?

I trust that TfL will receive suitably hefty compensation for handing over its assets? National Rail wouldn't take on the East London line so why should TfL oblige here?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

As the 165s are quite fat, will they fit elsewhere in the country, as the Chiltern 165s are a definite step up from the 150s and 156s

They'd be useful for cascade to GWR branch line services that don't require more than 75mph speeds (the Chiltern 165's are 75mph)!

 

[bramling]

I trust that TfL will receive suitably hefty compensation for handing over its assets? National Rail wouldn't take on the East London line so why should TfL oblige here?

If we were talking about handing over the entire main lines from Harrow to Amersham and Chesham, it would probably be a good thing for TFL, especially as much of this area is outside London. I wouldn’t envisage much opposition from the current mayor.

There might be more opposition from users though. Whilst the Met has become increasingly irrelevant beyond Rickmansworth off-peak, at peak times it is still important, for a number of reasons;
* fast trains still run
* it serves the city, which Chiltern doesn’t, and to which Marylebone offers a poor connection
* those from Amersham in particular get to board an empty train
* it provides more capacity

There’s also the consideration of how Chesham might be served.

The number of different stakeholders and issues associated with all these means “do nothing” is likely to be what happens. As an aside, I suspect the existing electrification would require reinforcement if it was required to power Chiltern trains on top of the Met.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

* it serves the city, which Chiltern doesn’t, and to which Marylebone offers a poor connection

Baker St is a 3 minute walk at most, for connections to Met, H&C, C etc.

Bakerloo offers alternative options

 

[bramling]

Baker St is a 3 minute walk at most, for connections to Met, H&C, C etc.

Bakerloo offers alternative options

At peak time, remember. None of this compares well with a direct train, guaranteed seat, direct to the city of London.

 

[Recessio]

So sounds like the easiest option is to throw 25kV OHLE over the Met Fasts then? Or equip new Chiltern stock with 4th rail shoegears and have a changeover around Amersham?

 

[Trainbike46]

So sounds like the easiest option is to throw 25kV OHLE over the Met Fasts then? Or equip new Chiltern stock with 4th rail shoegears and have a changeover around Amersham?

yes. The main question as to which is better will depend on how easily OHLE will fit in the tunnels or under the overbridges

 

[MattRat]

So sounds like the easiest option is to throw 25kV OHLE over the Met Fasts then? Or equip new Chiltern stock with 4th rail shoegears and have a changeover around Amersham?

Or equip the new units with batteries if the unelectrified section is short enough. Of course it seems a bit silly with the 4th rail there, but it's possible it's the cheapest option.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

At peak time, remember. None of this compares well with a direct train, guaranteed seat, direct to the city of London.

That is fine but slightly different to saying that Mayb is not well connected.

Personally I always use Chiltern for visiting Wembley even getting off the Wembley Park bound met at Baker Street to use Wembley Stadium station.

An hour in the Sports Bar and Grill, lovely stuff!!

 

[MarkyT]

yes. The main question as to which is better will depend on how easily OHLE will fit in the tunnels or under the overbridges

While the most worrying concern mixing HV AC overhead with DC power on the same tracks is avoided with a four rail DC system, namely the stray current problem, there would still be a large amount of work, including structural clearance but also signalling and pretty much everything electrical in the vicinity of the new wires would need to be assessed and possibly modified or renewed. The new LUL SelTrac signallling on the SSL might well be inherently immune as it doesn't use conventional track circuits, but I'm not sure of the likely extent of this in the future in the context of possible electrification timescales. Any areas retaining track circuits would need extensive impedance bond provision to segregate traction return current from (double rail?) track circuits, which I think are audio frequency types on the Met now. Of course, the major dual electrification project mooted in this thread might be instrumental in getting the new signalling completed throughout the affected areas.

 

[Mollman]

They'd be useful for cascade to GWR branch line services that don't require more than 75mph speeds (the Chiltern 165's are 75mph)!

They should be able to be converted to 90mph. Only reason Chiltern's are 75mph is that the Yaw Damper couldn't be fitted as the LU trip-cock took up the room.

 

[MarkyT]

They should be able to be converted to 90mph. Only reason Chiltern's are 75mph is that the Yaw Damper couldn't be fitted as the LU trip-cock took up the room.

If it was a cheap and simple conversion as you suggest on otherwise identical bogies, then why not do it, as a uniform 90mph capable regional fleet would be most flexible clearly. They wouldn't need to be higher speed than 75mph in most of Devon and Cornwall for local service, on branches or mainline, however, although for any diagrams passing over on the mainline east of Exeter a higher speed capability would be useful.

 

[Rick1984]

Could you not have a solution like the Watford DC lines allowing Chiltern trains to run as 3rd rail?

 

[Trainbike46]

Could you not have a solution like the Watford DC lines allowing Chiltern trains to run as 3rd rail?

why would chiltern want 3rd rail trains?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2022 ==

If installing new, OHLE makes more sense, if using the existing, why go through the effort of modifying the current system?

 

[Jamiescott1]

Baker St is a 3 minute walk at most, for connections to Met, H&C, C etc.

Bakerloo offers alternative options

Arriving at Marylebone platform 6 and getting on a met line train from Baker Street? Alright Linford