Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[zwk500]

Really? And then what do you do with the section in between the two tunnels where the Chiltern line passes over the WCML?

We're not talking about major changes, just enough to be able to squeeze and OLE contact wire/bar in. Do you happen to know what the current clearances in the Tunnels are?

 

[paok]

Found this hidden on the Chiltern Railways website with a rare YouTube video with more (limited) info: https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/capacity-challenges-2023

Capacity challenges on Chiltern Railways services​

Dear Customers,
We are aware of numerous customer complaints surrounding capacity on our services and the short formation of trains over the past few months. We’d like to apologise if your journey was not as reliable or comfortable as you have come to expect from us.
We know it’s frustrating when your train arrives and it’s shorter than normal. In the efforts of transparency, we would like to explain the issues we have faced around capacity this year, and what we are doing to alleviate this problem.
The average age of our fleet of trains is over twenty years old and is one of the oldest in the country. This means that the need for maintenance and repair of our trains is higher than we would like. The age of our units brings obsolescence issues with it. This means that spare parts are more difficult to find, and that supply chain issues can delay a train being repaired, meaning it is out of passenger service for longer.
The knock-on impact of industrial action has also caused delays in maintenance of our trains. We do all of our maintenance and repairs in house, meaning that prolonged strike action can cause significant delays to repairs and set us back from delivering the correct amount of carriages on your service.
Infrastructure issues have also played a role in our capacity challenges this year:

• A damaged culvert in the Aylesbury area has regularly closed the railway at short notice and has also significantly restricted access to our largest train depot. When this part of the railway is closed, it means that maintenance and repairs of trains are delayed, and those units might not be available for service the next day. Network Rail is planning to permanently repair the culvert in August.
  
• The closure of the Nuneham Viaduct has meant that we are currently the only direct operator between Oxford and London. Whilst we have added thousands of extra seats along this route, services are still incredibly busy. We understand your frustration at the crowding, particularly during peak-times. This will likely continue until the viaduct is repaired with Network Rail estimating June 10 for reopening, but in the meantime, we are doing all we can to deliver for our customers.

We want to reassure you that we endeavour to use all of our available rolling stock in passenger service each day. Any units not available have been earmarked for engineering and critical maintenance.
We would also like to reassure you that we are being proactive in tackling our capacity challenges:

• Our May 2023 timetable update aims to ensure that seats and carriages are where they’re needed most. This data-driven approach means that some capacity issues will be relieved, as we can tailor the use of our rolling stock based on the customer demand we are seeing each and every day.
  
• In the long-term, we are working closely with the Department for Transport (DfT) and actively exploring options to add newer units to our fleet, meaning that the need for repairs and maintenance will be less frequent and we can deliver the capacity that we know you deserve when travelling with us. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, we have not been self-reliant in terms of funding and investment, meaning that enhancements to our fleet must be approved and supported by the DfT.

We would once again like to apologise if you have travelled on a short formed train in recent months and thank you for your patience. Our engineering and maintenance teams are working around the clock to bring carriages and trains back into passenger service. We are committed to restoring capacity to our network with urgency and will continue to keep you updated on the situation as we work to resolve it.

 

[mr_jrt]

I wouldn't have thought the Lords tunnels would be much of a problem, they're big tunnels.

 

[12LDA28C]

I wouldn't have thought the Lords tunnels would be much of a problem, they're big tunnels.

Is that St John's Wood Tunnel or Hampstead Tunnel?

 

[mr_jrt]

Is that St John's Wood Tunnel or Hampstead Tunnel?

Lords, I believe. Article it was from was about the cricket ground redeveloping the spare tunnels.

 

[12LDA28C]

Lords, I believe. Article it was from was about the cricket ground redeveloping the spare tunnels.

There is no such tunnel as 'Lords' - I assume you mean St John's Wood tunnel if it's the one under the cricket ground.

 

[zwk500]

Lords, I believe. Article it was from was about the cricket ground redeveloping the spare tunnels.

An interesting factoid that popped up when trying to find a better quality or larger image is that the two empty tunnels were sold on 999-year leases to Charles Rifkind. Certainly not impossible to get them back off him, but I would imagine that Railtrack did not include a 'must revert to railway use for free' clause.
Regarding gauge, if they were built for double track then the arch may well have 5m clearance at the centre, as GCR gauge was a little bit bigger than most railways at the time but by no means massive. So a track in each tunnel is probably realtively straightforward.

 

[12LDA28C]

An interesting factoid that popped up when trying to find a better quality or larger image is that the two empty tunnels were sold on 999-year leases to Malcolm Rifkind. Certainly not impossible to get them back off him, but I would imagine that Railtrack did not include a 'must revert to railway use for free' clause.
Regarding gauge, if they were built for double track then the arch may well have 5m clearance at the centre, as GCR gauge was a little bit bigger than most railways at the time but by no means massive. So a track in each tunnel is probably realtively straightforward.

Having passed through the tunnels today, there appears to be reasonable clearance in the centre at the top of the arch but very little at the sides with the 'shoulder' of the arch being very close to the train profile.

 

[Jonny]

The solution would appear to have been the hybrid drive project, which would have allowed the units to run on electric within urban areas, and battery replenishment in the countryside from diesel generation. The apparent failure of that project has rather blown a hole in the strategy.

Batteries under the 37 strong 350/2 fleet seems like a possible outcome here if the range can support all day running without significant 'on-the-move' charging facilities. However, Porterbrook need to get on with 'proof of concept' work on this if it is going to happen.

The 350/1s could be used with their third rail shoes, then they could change over with OLE provided outside the LUL area. It would mean altering the power supply to a similar configuration to that already used on the Watford DC/Bakerloo and District Richmond/Wimbledon lines where LUL stock shares a power supply with 3rd rail-powered heavy rail units.

 

[JonathanH]

The 350/1s could be used with their third rail shoes, then they could change over with OLE provided outside the LUL area. It would mean altering the power supply to a similar configuration to that already used on the Watford DC/Bakerloo and District Richmond/Wimbledon lines where LUL stock shares a power supply with 3rd rail-powered heavy rail units.

Yes, but the 350/1s aren't on the market to be transferred, as they have a future with LNR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but the 350/1s aren't on the market to be transferred, as they have a future with LNR.

And if the /1s were to go anywhere, South Western Railway would make most sense, for use on the Pompey Direct, before they come up with yet another hair brained scheme for refurbishing knackered tat.

 

[mr_jrt]

There is no such tunnel as 'Lords' - I assume you mean St John's Wood tunnel if it's the one under the cricket ground.

As built they were separate distinct tunnels. They have merged due to the gaps having been rafted over over the years and are now known singularlly as the St Johns tunnels, but I figured stating these were at Lords where they were built slightly different was a useful enough distinction to make.

 

[alf]

An interesting factoid that popped up when trying to find a better quality or larger image is that the two empty tunnels were sold on 999-year leases to Malcolm Rifkind.

I have just mentioned this to a friend of Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
The message came back that the only tunnel Sir Malcolm was involved with was the opening of the Channel Tunnel when he was Transport Secretary.
A property developer Charles Rifkind owns the tunnels which he bought from Rail track for 3 million pounds.
He is not related to Sir Malcolm! So zwk500 fictionoid!

Charles Rifkind has not been able to develop the tunnels or the land above, so a compulsory purchase order by Network Rail might value them as of no cost....my speculation.

 

[zwk500]

He is not related to Sir Malcolm! So zwk500 fictionoid!

A simple mistake, not fictionoid. I will edit the post.
Now edited. But nice to see you're so desperate to get one over me

Charles Rifkind has not been able to develop the tunnels or the land above, so a compulsory purchase order by Network Rail might value them as of no cost....my speculation.

NR don't get to set the value, of course. If it went to a CPO the court gets to decide what it's worth, otherwise its a negotiation between both parties to arrive at a mutually agreed value.

 

[mr_jrt]

For those wishing to see the exact alignment of the tunnels and the tracks, you can do so here:

Georeferenced Maps - Map images - National Library of Scotland

 

[A0]

The 350/1s could be used with their third rail shoes, then they could change over with OLE provided outside the LUL area. It would mean altering the power supply to a similar configuration to that already used on the Watford DC/Bakerloo and District Richmond/Wimbledon lines where LUL stock shares a power supply with 3rd rail-powered heavy rail units.

Even if they were available - which they aren't - you can't just run 3rd rail units on 4th rail electrification. Where LUL and National Rail share tracks there are other changes needed around the earthing as National Rail units aren't designed to earth through a 4th rail.

You can also add in that Desiros are pretty heavy in terms of current draw - it was discussed in the past about the 450s (which are basically 3rd rail only 350s) and the draw that put on the infrastructure. I suspect the LUL infrastructure may not have the capacity to start handling Desiros.

 

[12LDA28C]

Chiltern have now been authorised by the DfT to engage with train manufacturers to investigate replacement units for the ageing 165s. I'm assuming this will be either pure diesel or diesel-battery hybrid units which seems to indicate that the Chiltern route will certainly not be electrified in the timeframe of the procurement process and construction/lifespan of the trains so most likely the next 30-plus years.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Chiltern have now been authorised by the DfT to engage with train manufacturers to investigate replacement units for the ageing 165s. I'm assuming this will be either pure diesel or diesel-battery hybrid units which seems to indicate that the Chiltern route will certainly not be electrified in the timeframe of the procurement process and construction/lifespan of the trains so most likely the next 30-years plus.

What are the chances the rolling stock will be Bi-Mode? Would allow for OHLE use once the wires go up (and diesel as a stop-gap until then)

 

[12LDA28C]

What are the chances the rolling stock will be Bi-Mode? Would allow for OHLE use once the wires go up (and diesel as a stop-gap until then)

It would depend entirely on the spec Chiltern provide to manufacturers but I suspect not. There is no electrification on the horizon as far as I am aware. Why would you spend the extra money for bi-mode and then run the trains around on diesel for 25 years?

 

[zwk500]

It would depend entirely on the spec Chiltern provide to manufacturers but I suspect not. There is no electrification on the horizon as far as I am aware. Why would you spend the extra money for bi-mode and then run the trains around on diesel for 25 years?

Could they go for a FLIRT-style solution where the diesel power pack could be swapped out for electrical equipment should it happen at some point?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could they go for a FLIRT-style solution where the diesel power pack could be swapped out for electrical equipment should it happen at some point?

Problem with FLIRTs is that they waste platform length, upside is (particularly on a DOO railway) level boarding. Will be interesting to see.

 

[12LDA28C]

Could they go for a FLIRT-style solution where the diesel power pack could be swapped out for electrical equipment should it happen at some point?

Again, that would surely incur extra cost with zero guarantee of electrification. I don't foresee the Chilterns being electrified in my lifetime which would be around the lifespan of a newbuild DMU. No doubt the DfT will mandate some kind of specification based on any future electrification or otherwise and it should be remembered that even a newbuild DMU will be quieter, more economical and less polluting than a 32-year-old Class 165.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, that would surely incur extra cost with zero guarantee of electrification. I don't foresee the Chilterns being electrified in my lifetime which would be around the lifespan of a newbuild DMU. No doubt the DfT will mandate some kind of specification based on any future electrification or otherwise and it should be remembered that even a newbuild DMU will be quieter, more economical and less polluting than a 32-year-old Class 165.

I guess the cheap option would just be a load of Civities with ironing board seating as per Northern. The 195 would do the job perfectly if you weren't interested in future proofing, though you might want to go for a higher density seating layout. Or pay a little more and go for 196s.

 

[eldomtom2]

It would depend entirely on the spec Chiltern provide to manufacturers but I suspect not. There is no electrification on the horizon as far as I am aware. Why would you spend the extra money for bi-mode and then run the trains around on diesel for 25 years?

To avoid the "no point electrifying, there's still life in the DMUs yet" argument...

Remember Grant Shapps' official policy was that all diesel-only trains should (obviously he did not committed himself) be withdrawn by 2040, and it's official policy that the railways should be net zero by 2050. Signing off on diesel-only trains at this point would be idiotic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To avoid the "no point electrifying, there's still life in the DMUs yet" argument...

Remember Grant Shapps' official policy was that all diesel-only trains should (obviously he did not committed himself) be withdrawn by 2040, and it's official policy that the railways should be net zero by 2050. Signing off on diesel-only trains at this point would be idiotic.

Like with cars, a mild hybrid (i.e. one with a smallish battery that uses braking energy to boost acceleration using an electric motor) isn't a "diesel only train".

Yes, it's a bit of a workaround...

 

[eldomtom2]

Like with cars, a mild hybrid (i.e. one with a smallish battery that uses braking energy to boost acceleration using an electric motor) isn't a "diesel only train".

I think you'll find that official policy is to ban new mild hybrids by 2035...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you'll find that official policy is to ban new mild hybrids by 2035...

2030 for pure petrol/diesel cars. Which proves my point entirely. A mild hybrid is not a "diesel train".

 

[eldomtom2]

2030 for pure petrol/diesel cars. Which proves my point entirely. A mild hybrid is not a "diesel train".

Mild hybrids are ICE cars enough to get banned...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mild hybrids are ICE cars enough to get banned...

But they aren't just ICE cars.

Do you expect the Government to act in the interests of society, or to do the minimum they can get away with, when they're paying?

The commitment is for all diesel-only trains to be withdrawn by 2040. A mild hybrid DEMU isn't a diesel-only train. It's that simple. They may make a later date for all trains that burn diesel in any form to be banned, but that'll be a long, long way off.

 

[eldomtom2]

Do you expect the Government to act in the interests of society, or to do the minimum they can get away with, when they're paying?

Depends on who the government is and what their priorities are. I would be surprised if either Labour or the Tories would outright commit to keeping diesels running after 2050...