Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[12LDA28C]

I can't see anything better than just putting the wires up. This is a mainline at capacity, not a rural line with a train every 2 hours!


Won't electrification bring positive change to property prices? Electrification means cleaner air and quieter trains, which are definitely positives.

Ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you, I or anyone else thinks it should. NR can't even get the full electrification of the Western finished, let alone start a brand new scheme.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

The line speed of Chiltern doesn't need the big ugly masts and cantilever's, just simple poles. Modern standard electrification in Europe uses these for speeds upto 180km/h (112mph), Some countries eg Italy use factory made standard lattice poles which are much cheaper than multiple designs made in short production runs.

These are much higher speeds than Chiltern uses in the urban areas. Although some multi-track areas might need spans. The only fast bits which need heavyweight kit are within about 15 miles either side of Banbury which is very rural.

Not sure how you work that out. The Chiltern main line is 100mph just south of Wembley with only a few PSRs further north in the Heartlands due to the nature of the infrastructure (eg 60mph through High Wycombe).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

What other options are the? The cheapo innovative 165 attempt was a complete disaster. Has it actually been put back together yet? And the expensive 168 OEM supplier proper attempt has been deemed as too expensive despite actually working.

I'd be interested to see your evidence of the Class 168 hybrid 'actually working'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

168329 is, as I'm sure you know, being converted back to normal and I can see this returning to service, especially given Chiltern need every 168 they can use! The 165 I think is still at Doncaster. I believe it finished its conversion but unsure what is actually happening to it. But like you say if it returns to service I'll be pretty surprised! But another unit definitely isn't bad for Chiltern to have in their fleet, but Christmas tree unit wouldn't be useless either!

168329 is currently at Aylesbury for the time being, 165004 did not get fully converted to Hybrid operation before the plug was pulled.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, but in the last 5, 10 years Chiltern has had the least government funding, a Modern Railways magazine put Chiltern below c2c (whose route network is about the fith of. Chiltern's) for government funding, at around £150 million or so. Chiltern is definitely underfunded

Underfunded to deliver what? Other posters have noted why, its not going to continuously have money thrown at it after significant investment. It doesn't need resignaling for 25-30 years and you arent going to get it faster than 100mph. The only thing it could potentially see is wires and the connection to OOC and neither are likely in the short term.

 

[Elecman]

Are there any examples where opposition to overhead line (OLE) structures has actually delayed or prevented electrification? Concern was certainly raised over the Royal Border Bridge at Berwick, but the structures were erected, and the residents of Goring were most upset about the GWML OLE; NR promised to look at the issue but nothing was done (and nor should it be).

Windermere according to Failing Grayling due to ‘supposed’ objections from the national body which was later proved never to have said any such objection

 

[Wolfie]

Perhaps the way forward is for central Government to collect 100% of ULEZ and LTN fines in London and Oxfordshire? Then use the money to electrify rail services between the two cities?

That will be the ULEZ money that Shapps directed be spent on TfL l assume.....

 

[zwk500]

That will be the ULEZ money that Shapps directed be spent on TfL l assume.....

Given the ULEZ is a TfL thing anyway did Shapps get any say at all either way?

 

[Energy]

Yes, the amount of positives it brings isn't just because it would remove the diesel. It's around 2 hours from Birmingham to London but they did managed 1hr 30 under shooter days (when they clearly had some ambition!)

The slow down of services is because the Moor Street services stop more now.

As for ambition, previously Chiltern made a big deal of competing with then Virgin Trains for London to Birmingham traffic. Now the DfT sign the cheques for both sides it makes more sense for the WCML (and later HS2) to focus on end to end London to Birmingham traffic with its longer trains and better terminus (Marylebone is far worse connected than Euston) as well as just better journey times.

but perhaps the dft don't want that, as that could reduce potential hs2 users? Would be a very dft thing to do!

To be efficient? Passengers doing London to Birmingham on Chiltern rather than HS2 (in the future) are wasting seats which could be used for passengers in the Chilterns.

 

[Wolfie]

Given the ULEZ is a TfL thing anyway did Shapps get any say at all either way?

Government wanted congestion charge to cover whole of inner London, letter reveals

Sadiq Khan rejected an expansion of the Congestion Charge Zone in 2021, saying the “blunt approach” would have a “catastrophic effect” on London’s economy.

www.londonworld.com

 

[cle]

Yes, the amount of positives it brings isn't just because it would remove the diesel. It's around 2 hours from Birmingham to London but they did managed 1hr 30 under shooter days (when they clearly had some ambition!), so I reckon you could significantly decrease journey times, but perhaps the dft don't want that, as that could reduce potential hs2 users? Would be a very dft thing to do!

I wasn’t so much thinking end to end London-Birmingham. As even Avanti would likely remain fastest. This is a two track railway and wouldn’t have the luxury of a true intercity pattern!

I was thinking more knocking 5-15 mins off journeys to Leamington, Warwick, Solihull (HS2 will gobble this), Banbury, Risborough, Bicester, all the main draws. Maybe Aylesbury could have a decent journey time. Or Stratford a respectable service again. Or more locals can be squeezed in.

A few mins off services to Wycombe, Beaconsfield and GC - which along with Bicester, carry this whole route.

It will regain a little competitiveness on Oxford, which was lost again, of course, due to wires/800s, this exact improvement!

And being a hilly 100mph route with fairly request stops makes it ripe.

But really the gains are perception, new stock, modern experience, a bit faster/more often - as the true competition is the car.

 

[12LDA28C]

It will regain a little competitiveness on Oxford, which was lost again, of course, due to wires/800s, this exact improvement!

Lack of competitiveness with GWR to Oxford is nothing to do with IETs, it's about Chiltern services to Oxford now having many more booked stops than when direct trains were first introduced, additional recovery time built into the timetable and more often than not timed for 75mph so a 165 can be substituted for a 168 if necessary.

 

[BrianW]

Lack of competitiveness with GWR to Oxford is nothing to do with IETs, it's about Chiltern services to Oxford now having many more booked stops than when direct trains were first introduced, additional recovery time built into the timetable and more often than not timed for 75mph so a 165 can be substituted for a 168 if necessary.

I would imagine that the choice of London terminus will be as likely strongly influenced by a range of factors, including such as: frequency, reliability, likelihood of a suitable seat, time from train to actual destination, whether Oxford Parkway might work better, etc, etc. Rather different perhaps but I recall transferring my 'allegiance' from Harrow Met to Harrow & Wealdstone on such considerations. It's the whole end-to-end that decides.

 

[Vanmanyo]

The slow down of services is because the Moor Street services stop more now.

I remember when there were direct non stop services from Leamington to London, now you've got at least banbury and bicester. 2 hours is still faster than lnwr but shame there's more stops now

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

Underfunded to deliver what? Other posters have noted why, its not going to continuously have money thrown at it after significant investment. It doesn't need resignaling for 25-30 years and you arent going to get it faster than 100mph. The only thing it could potentially see is wires and the connection to OOC and neither are likely in the short term.

Underfunded in the fact Chiltern have the oldest fleet in the UK, underfunded in the fact most Chiltern services are stupidly overcrowded and short formed. Underfunded in the fact that the trains are unreliable now and looking very tired. Underfunded in the fact services are slower and less frequent than ever. I could go on but it's been a gradual and unfortunate decline

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

was thinking more knocking 5-15 mins off journeys to Leamington, Warwick, Solihull (HS2 will gobble this), Banbury, Risborough, Bicester, all the main draws. Maybe Aylesbury could have a decent journey time. Or Stratford a respectable service again. Or more locals can be squeezed in.

Yes I forgot about all of that (and I live on the CML north of banbury!). And of course would hopefully mean a more frequent and less overcrowded service, hopefully retaining Chiltern's level of service and experience. The pros definitely outweigh the cons of what; cost, training and maybe effort to potentially redesign junctions and stations if needed.

 

[Energy]

I remember when there were direct non stop services from Leamington to London, now you've got at least banbury and bicester. 2 hours is still faster than lnwr but shame there's more stops now

And High Wycombe, they do take a while now...

Underfunded in the fact Chiltern have the oldest fleet in the UK,

There is a tender out for new stock

underfunded in the fact most Chiltern services are stupidly overcrowded and short formed

Are they? My experience is most are 4 or 5 cars, apart from the late night quiet services. The fleet is stretched but stupidly overcrowded is an exaggeration.

Underfunded in the fact that the trains are unreliable now and looking very tired. Underfunded in the fact services are slower and less frequent than ever. I could go on but it's been a gradual and unfortunate decline

I agree with this, the 168s are getting rattling far more inside now. Chiltern certainly isn't what it was.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I agree with this, the 168s are getting rattling far more inside now. Chiltern certainly isn't what it was.

Essentially the funding tap was all but turned off after the opening through to Oxford in 2016, after 20 years of upgrades.

Going from 100mph to nearly a full stop in one hit like that has had a massive impact, which has been compounded by the service reductions post-Covid.

 

[12LDA28C]

I agree with this, the 168s are getting rattling far more inside now. Chiltern certainly isn't what it was.

A program of interior refresh on the 168s is underway which should see them in service for another ~10 years.

 

[Energy]

A program of interior refresh on the 168s is underway which should see them in service for another ~10 years.

Good, the seats are OK but they need a good clean and some of rattley panels sorting out.

 

[Wolfie]

Good, the seats are OK but they need a good clean and some of rattley panels sorting out.

All of the "Star" family seem pretty rattlely. The diesels are worse, presumably because of the vibrations inherent.

 

[cle]

Lack of competitiveness with GWR to Oxford is nothing to do with IETs, it's about Chiltern services to Oxford now having many more booked stops than when direct trains were first introduced, additional recovery time built into the timetable and more often than not timed for 75mph so a 165 can be substituted for a 168 if necessary.

Of course it did. IETs took Paddington down to about 50-52 mins. And gave a new, more 'inter city' experience - new stock is a big draw.
Yes Chiltern's stopping patterns have changed (and I'd prefer a return to 2tph fast, and maybe a third semi for Bucks connectivity) - but that is all journey times and ride experience. Sides of the same coin - one line got better overall, one line fell behind (for Oxford-London users). I don't think Chiltern ever got under an hour though.

Crossrail opening won't have helped Chiltern either. Paddington and Marylebone were much of a muchness before.

 

[12LDA28C]

Of course it did. IETs took Paddington down to about 50-52 mins. And gave a new, more 'inter city' experience - new stock is a big draw.
Yes Chiltern's stopping patterns have changed (and I'd prefer a return to 2tph fast, and maybe a third semi for Bucks connectivity) - but that is all journey times and ride experience. Sides of the same coin - one line got better overall, one line fell behind (for Oxford-London users). I don't think Chiltern ever got under an hour though.

Crossrail opening won't have helped Chiltern either. Paddington and Marylebone were much of a muchness before.

When services commenced, Marylebone - Oxford Parkway was 58 minutes with Oxford being timed for 1 hour 5 minutes so they were pretty competitive on time and offered some cheap fares. Those days are long gone.

 

[RailWonderer]

Did Chiltern need to increase frequency without the rolling stock and infrastructure? Otherwise I can't see why they would add more stops and become less competitive with GWR who is now getting some of that revenue. I know other operators needlessly add more stops onto faster services (e.g. SWR with Longcross, Godalming) but does Chiltern really need Oxford 'fasts' calling at Gerrard's Cross, Saunderton and Princes Risborough?

 

[Energy]

and become less competitive with GWR who is now getting some of that revenue

There isn't competition now, both are paid a management fee and the DfT take the losses/profits.

It makes more sense for the fast services to go on the faster route. If Chiltern get additional services I'd rather they focus their resources on a proper Stratford-Upon-Avon to London service instead of the current Leamington to Stratford service.

 

[12LDA28C]

There isn't competition now, both are paid a management fee and the DfT take the losses/profits.

It makes more sense for the fast services to go on the faster route. If Chiltern get additional services I'd rather they focus their resources on a proper Stratford-Upon-Avon to London service instead of the current Leamington to Stratford service.

So you're saying that Chiltern shouldn't attempt to make any improvements to services on the Oxford route to attempt to win back some passengers from GWR as the current system discourages competition? This is exactly the malaise that has infected the whole UK rail industry since the DfT effectively took control, and it's not a good look.

 

[cle]

When services commenced, Marylebone - Oxford Parkway was 58 minutes with Oxford being timed for 1 hour 5 minutes so they were pretty competitive on time and offered some cheap fares. Those days are long gone.

I know. And then GWR relaunched services comfortably under an hour from Oxford on new trains, electric for 75% or so of the way. So they fought back.

Chiltern with wires and new trains (and reinstated faster stopping patterns - these are still pandemic-type skeleton timetables we have, remember - and they've consolidated/slowed down services) - could well be competitive again. And I wish they would be. I don't think we're disagreeing with one another.

I said this just before, but personally think there is a role for Oxford-Chiltern fasts and also a semi-fast service. Eventually EWR will connect Oxford, Oxford Parkway and Bicester Village four times an hour - possibly not every service on Chiltern would need to serve both, especially if there were 3+. North still has a non-stop.

 

[JamesT]

I’m fairly sure my colleague who commutes to Oxford from Haddenham would be much more interested in something more frequent than the current hourly service than fast services that go whipping by the stations where people live.

 

[12LDA28C]

I’m fairly sure my colleague who commutes to Oxford from Haddenham would be much more interested in something more frequent than the current hourly service than fast services that go whipping by the stations where people live.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't run a fast service to Oxford to cater for the thousands of people who travel between Oxford and London and also a stopping service to cater for passengers at all the intermediate stations, on a two-track railway with an ageing fleet.

 

[Mgameing123]

Certainly for the Aylesbury - Amersham - Marylebone services, this would seem to be a very sensible option as it would remove the questions around wiring on the LUL network.

They could run on battery into Marylebone. Fourth rail between Harrow & Amersham then third rail to Aylesbury. This would be the best and cheapest option for wiring as Harrow On The Hill has some low bridges that make electrification a challenge.

 

[A0]

Reminder..... Surely Battery Electric hybrids would be a good solution for Chiltern ? Wiring 25kv from West Ruislip to the West Midlands and Amersham to Aylesbury ? West Ruislip to Marylebone is 15 miles, so a 30 mile round trip and Amersham is 23 so a 46 mile round trip on batteries ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2023 ==

They could run on battery into Marylebone. Fourth rail between Harrow & Amersham then third rail to Aylesbury. This would be the best and cheapest option for wiring as Harrow On The Hill has some low bridges that make electrification a challenge.

Third rail to Aylesbury won't happen - there's no way that'll get sanctioned.

As I've suggested - Battery Hybrids with 25kv to the edge of London then run on battery into Marylebone could be achieved now with current technology.

 

[Energy]

So you're saying that Chiltern shouldn't attempt to make any improvements to services on the Oxford route to attempt to win back some passengers from GWR as the current system discourages competition?

Yes, Chiltern should focus on stopper services serving the inbetween stations.

This is exactly the malaise that has infected the whole UK rail industry since the DfT effectively took control, and it's not a good look.

Or is it identifying that passengers are going Oxford to London, they don't care what way the train goes. Most would rather go to the much better connected Paddington than Marylebone.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't run a fast service to Oxford to cater for the thousands of people who travel between Oxford and London and also a stopping service to cater for passengers at all the intermediate stations, on a two-track railway with an ageing fleet.

That's why you run the fasts on GWR...

 

[12LDA28C]

Yes, Chiltern should focus on stopper services serving the inbetween stations.

The 'inbetween stations' can be well served by stopping trains to/from Banbury, Aylesbury (via High Wycombe), High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross, as they were when Chiltern ran 'fast' trains to Oxford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2023 ==

That's why you run the fasts on GWR...

So you're condemning Chiltern to be purely a short-distance commuter railway - back to the 1980s then yes? I assume you would remove their Birmingham trains as well, as passengers can use Avanti or LNR...

 

[HSTEd]

So you're condemning Chiltern to be purely a short-distance commuter railway - back to the 1980s then yes? I assume you would remove their Birmingham trains as well, as passengers can use Avanti or LNR...

Massive duplication is good for one thing - burning money.

Once HS2 is open there will be two lines far faster than the Chiltern for London Birmingham traffic, and seats on HS2 will be cheaper for the industry/government to provide than via Chiltern.

 

[12LDA28C]

Massive duplication is good for one thing - burning money.

Once HS2 is open there will be two lines far faster than the Chiltern for London Birmingham traffic, and seats on HS2 will be cheaper for the industry/government to provide than via Chiltern.

And there's me thinking competition and giving passengers choice was a good thing. Bring on Beeching round 2, is that what we want?