Chiltern franchise replacement thoughts?

[train_lover]

As much as I'd love HSTs on my local line the 168s just don't have the power for the Scottish hills that the HSTs do.

That's definitely something I'd like to see but I find it highly unlikely I'd imagine. What I expect will happen is that the new operator will look at the costs of running the hauled sets and look to replace them with units, however appropriate, ASAP.

I just hope its not more Hitachi units!

 

[FQ]

I just hope its not more Hitachi units!

I'm definitely with you there.

 

[gallafent]

My own train from High Wycombe to Banbury just after Christmas was effectively 4 car. It was a refurbished 165 (328) paired up with another 165. Both units had been refurbished to Mainline standard.

I don't think 165328 exists, and I don't think any of Chiltern's class 165s have Mainline fit-out. I think you must mean 168328.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_165#Current_fleet_details
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_168#Variants

 

[BucksBones]

As much as I'd love HSTs on my local line the 168s just don't have the power for the Scottish hills that the HSTs do.

That's definitely something I'd like to see but I find it highly unlikely I'd imagine. What I expect will happen is that the new operator will look at the costs of running the hauled sets and look to replace them with units, however appropriate, ASAP.

I suppose that’s where I was coming from as well really. When I was comparing the WCML post HS2 with Chiltern services, what I was getting at (but possibly didn’t word very well) was that with the Virgins being slower and cheaper than currently, they’re moving right into Chiltern territory; leaving Chiltern with, at the very least, massively increased competition in their sector of the market.

I think they’ll end up competing mainly on price and, as you say, will probably be perfectly happy to run turbostar-like units that are designed to be commuter and long distance units at once. For what it’s worth I rather like the 168s (apart from the rattles!!); they’re comfortable units, certainly better than a 350/2. I really wouldn’t anticipate passenger numbers to be greatly affected solely by the loss of the mk3s if that’s what happens; there are more influential factors at play.

 

[bramling]

On the subject of electrification, I recall many (MANY) moons ago when the original Crossrail was being talked about, it was planned to extend to Aylesbury, via the Amersham line. The intention was to do OHLE, but I do recall lots of talk about it not being overly viable because there were too many low bridges, and there'd be a great deal needing rebuilding. Never say never - I know technology has moved on, and rigid OHLE is a possibility, but that's usually used in tunnels not under bridges as far as I know. Plus there's all the inevitable shenanigans it would cause from Amersham to Harrow. I think I've said this before, but a 'logical' solution may be to extend LU up to Aylesbury. It'd free capacity at Marylebone as the Aylesbury trains wouldn't be terminating there anymore. I'm sure the S stock would be able to match Chiltern's performance easily.

Thing to bear in mind is that Aylesbury has Garden Town status - the idea of building a town that is fairly self-sufficient. Rather than Aylesbury being yet another dormitory town for London, it should be providing a lot of its own employment and commuting internally. I get the feeling planners, government, et al would be more interested in supporting that by not making Aylesbury better connected to London.

In my opinion, not much has really changed since the line was upgraded in the early nineties. Train frequency has possibly increased a little, and Aylesbury Parkway was built, but that's about it. It's basically the same service, because I don't think there's much a ToC can do with the Amersham line. Chiltern Mainline, however, has changed massively, with Project Evergreen. Faster trains, better frequency, more stations and destinations - it's obvious where the investment lies.

So yeah; I reckon they'll drop the Amersham line out of the franchise, and pass it to LU. Or, it'll just stay exactly as is, albeit with newer, less polluting (hybrid?) rolling stock. The Chiltern Mainline would probably be heavily upgraded though, as it has such scope to do this.

If a proper job was going to be done with the Amersham route, a neater solution would be for Chiltern to take over the entire Amersham route, including the fast lines between Harrow and Rickmansworth, plus Chesham, and electrify the whole lot on AC. Then run the Met as two routes London to Uxbridge and Watford, perhaps with a separate pair of tracks from Moor Park as far as new terminal platforms at Rickmansworth.

As well as avoiding issues with dual-voltage trains (it really isn’t a good idea to have a fleet of trains running around with negative shoegear that’s not always employed - especially if there was a common fleet with the Birmingham route), there would also have been a benefit that LU avoids the need for its new signalling to have to accommodate Chiltern, which is one of the less satisfactory aspects of the resignalling. Unfortunately too late for this one now.

Would cost a fortune though, so not a chance of happening.

 

[tomuk]

Hopefully not too crayony.

• Crossrail 6tph extended to Aylesbury (4tph) and Chesham (2tph) using part of Dudding Hill Line (new chord to GWML) and taking over 'fast' lines from Wembley to Aylesbury. Electrified at 25kv
• Crossrail 6tph extended to Watford (4tph) and St Albans Abbey(2 tph). Using same GMWL/Dudding Hill Chord. (There is already a proposed redevelopment at Watford which could be amended to iclude extra platforms and revised connection to St Albans)
• Metropolitan line is Uxbridge and Watford (Croxley Link) Only
• Remaining Chiltern services/East West Rail via Princes Risborough.

This would need major work at the west end of Old Oak Common/Acton Wells Jn /North Acton. An Old Oak West station could be built for Overground(Richmond), Central Line (replace/absorb North Acton) and new terminus for Chiltern using a reopened Acton Northolt Line.

 

[philthetube]

I hope that LU do not ever run services to Aylesbury ,the S stock whilst suited to Amersham M/ B its not to Aylesbury and Duchlands is not a small climb so any talk of this is a non starter.Our current service is excellent and fast with comfortable trains in an interior layout that works for our lines.All the talk of HS2 wiping out Chiltern is misjudged as the services provided by Chiltern are important to residents of the Chiltern hills and Oxfordshire providing frequent fast services to the capital and Birmingham from the locale unlike HS2 .When we reach Brum we have access the entire UK without heading into London without the current lines one hour to Brum becomes two hours to save fifteen minutes no way thank you.

S stock climb hills better than Chiltern's diesels.

Ideally it would be best to electrify the Chiltern Railways routes using third rail instead of overhead wires. They already travel over a long section of third rail tracks between Harrow On The Hill and Amersham so it would make much more sense to just electify the rest of the network using third rail as well.

Harrow to Amersham is a very small percentage of the Chiltern area.

Far easier to just convert the Met to AC OHLE northbound from Baker Street and have dual voltage S8s instead though isn't it?

Far easier to have dual new voltage Chiltern trains than try to retro fit S8's

 

[The Ham]

Far easier to have dual new voltage Chiltern trains than try to retro fit S8's

Quite, how about a duel voltage 444 (or a suitable modern version)?

A pair of them would be 10 coaches long, but they gave ASDO fitted, so as long as that's not causing problems with junctions and level crossings they should work at most stations. Even if the platforms could take 5 coaches or less as you can walk through between the units.

It means no trains shorter than 5 coaches, 2+2 seating, designed to be run from 3rd rail or OHLE, can have catering (pre SWR refer) or catering trolleys, are quite well liked (few bemoan that they replaced the 442's), etc.

One other thing to bear in mind is that they have been proved, in day to day service, for splitting/joining on route. As such there could be scope to do so and increase frequencies.

Possible examples could be Stratford and Aylesbury services joining/splitting at High Wycombe (so as to not split/join with Birmingham services). However if you were to split/join with Birmingham services, or even the Oxford services that would widen the number of services available to interact with and could alter where the split/join happened.

 

[FQ]

I suppose that’s where I was coming from as well really. When I was comparing the WCML post HS2 with Chiltern services, what I was getting at (but possibly didn’t word very well) was that with the Virgins being slower and cheaper than currently, they’re moving right into Chiltern territory; leaving Chiltern with, at the very least, massively increased competition in their sector of the market.

I think they’ll end up competing mainly on price and, as you say, will probably be perfectly happy to run turbostar-like units that are designed to be commuter and long distance units at once. For what it’s worth I rather like the 168s (apart from the rattles!!); they’re comfortable units, certainly better than a 350/2. I really wouldn’t anticipate passenger numbers to be greatly affected solely by the loss of the mk3s if that’s what happens; there are more influential factors at play.

Chiltern's main advantage over Virgin at present is more the speed of the service with Chiltern providing the cheaper and, with their hauled sets, more luxury service. The question is will Virgin be able to offer c. £5.50 advances on many trains between Birmingham and London without seriously impacting on their business and provide a service that can compete well? I imagine HS2 will slow the Virgin services enough to make the speed difference between Virgin and Chiltern negligible so if Chiltern can now get on top of that and provide trains that are far nicer to travel in than pendolinos yet still offer a good price then they may will become the leader of the Birmingham to London market (excluding HS2).

As DMUs go 168s aren't so bad but I've travelled on enough of them to get sick of them very quickly. If you sit over the engine the drone of it is incredibly noticeable all through the journey (this also applies to a certain extent over the bogies) and if you sit over the bogies then you're bounced around quite a lot and have some constant high pitched whistle on many of the units that I've never been able to work out (possibly the driver having his window open?). The rattles are (as you say) bad and the doors, particularly in winter, allow you to get a nice gust of cold wind into the train every time they open (something I have far too much experience of with Chiltern's 168s and 165s).

 

[Bletchleyite]

As DMUs go 168s aren't so bad but I've travelled on enough of them to get sick of them very quickly. If you sit over the engine the drone of it is incredibly noticeable all through the journey (this also applies to a certain extent over the bogies) and if you sit over the bogies then you're bounced around quite a lot and have some constant high pitched whistle on many of the units that I've never been able to work out (possibly the driver having his window open?). The rattles are (as you say) bad and the doors, particularly in winter, allow you to get a nice gust of cold wind into the train every time they open (something I have far too much experience of with Chiltern's 168s and 165s).

I don't mind 168s other than the ridiculously small luggage racks as found on all *Stars and the grey-based "Mainline" interior is classy and comfortable. 165s on the other hand have the most horribly Spartan interior you can imagine - a really nasty, brash colour scheme, though the 2+2 seats are nice.

 

[FQ]

I don't mind 168s other than the ridiculously small luggage racks as found on all *Stars and the grey-based "Mainline" interior is classy and comfortable. 165s on the other hand have the most horribly Spartan interior you can imagine - a really nasty, brash colour scheme, though the 2+2 seats are nice.

I've never really had to use the luggage racks on them believe it or not so can't comment there. I agree that the grey is a very relaxing and 'premium' colour that does suit them very well but they are starting to show their age and could do with a refresh (new seat covers etc.) One of my regular trains into Birmingham is a 165 and I can definitely agree there. I'm always in the 2+2 bit at the very front but they really aren't pleasant trains.

 

[gallafent]

I've never really had to use the luggage racks on them [class 168 mainline] believe it or not so can't comment there.

They're better (bigger) than Voyagers but not as good as IETs … they seem fine to me

 

[FQ]

They're better (bigger) than Voyagers but not as good as IETs … they seem fine to me

If they're larger than the ones in the voyagers then there's something seriously wrong with the voyager ones - Chiltern's Turbostars definitely shouldn't have more luggage space than an incredibly busy, long distance route but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[gallafent]

[class 168]If you sit over the engine the drone of it is incredibly noticeable all through the journey (this also applies to a certain extent over the bogies)

Yes, absolutely. Noise-cancelling headphones (or snug-fitting foam earbuds) are an important palliative for travelling on them!

 

[gallafent]

Hybrid technology at a guess

No need to guess

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chiltern-angel-trains-hybrid-class-165-trial.169977/ — “The first low emission hybrid-drive train is set to come into service on Chiltern Railways services next year in a bid to reduce pollution.” (full article quoted in that post!).

Now if they could just add some 3rd and 4th rail collector shoes too, then they could charge up the battery en route on the bits of track shared with the Metropolitan Line!

 

[jimm]

Best solution is to replace all 168s on the Chiltern main line with ex GWR HST sets and send the 168s up to Scotland.

But more realistically I'd like to see Chiltern taking on some of these mk3 coaches that are now in storage and creating extra 68 sets. These could then replace some 168s that could be doubled up.

Yes, let's waste even more already-scarce platform space at Marylebone with HST power cars or more locos and replace fast loading and unloading units with trains with narrow doors at the coach ends.

One other thing to bear in mind is that they have been proved, in day to day service, for splitting/joining on route. As such there could be scope to do so and increase frequencies.

Possible examples could be Stratford and Aylesbury services joining/splitting at High Wycombe (so as to not split/join with Birmingham services). However if you were to split/join with Birmingham services, or even the Oxford services that would widen the number of services available to interact with and could alter where the split/join happened.

The headways on the route are such that trying to split and join trains at High Wycombe would probably be a recipe for unreliability, never mind that Chiltern has no interest whatever in serving Stratford-upon-Avon. It cut the number of through trains recently and would probably happily pull out if GWR was allowed to run Paddington-Oxford-Stratford again in future, with WMR taking over remaining Leamington-Stratford shuttle duties.

Chiltern's main advantage over Virgin at present is more the speed of the service with Chiltern providing the cheaper and, with their hauled sets, more luxury service. The question is will Virgin be able to offer c. £5.50 advances on many trains between Birmingham and London without seriously impacting on their business and provide a service that can compete well? I imagine HS2 will slow the Virgin services enough to make the speed difference between Virgin and Chiltern negligible so if Chiltern can now get on top of that and provide trains that are far nicer to travel in than pendolinos yet still offer a good price then they may will become the leader of the Birmingham to London market (excluding HS2).

Chiltern's current key markets on the West Midlands route are not Birmingham or beyond, they are the likes of Solihull, Warwick and Leamington. If enough of the people who currently fill the car parks at Warwick Parkway point their cars towards Birmingham Interchange for a 40-odd minutes sprint to London instead, then that blows a big hole in the finances of Chiltern - and insanely low-priced advance fares will never make up for the loss of lots of weekday peak revenue.

The DfT will be determined to make HS2 a success, so it can rig the market in whatever way it likes and tell the TOCs to do whatever it wants them to, in order to achieve that end.

 

[coppercapped]

Big SNIP!
Class 165s and Class 166s will only end up at either Chiltern or Great Western due to the loading gauge of said units.

Hmm! Don't think so. The 165s and 166s now reach Portsmouth which was never built to the GWR's structure gauge and there was a photograph in Modern Railways in 1991 (I can't give the month as the old issues are in the attic - and its COLD up there today!) of one of the early 165s in Darlington while it was being sent on a tour of the PTEs by its manufacturer BREL.
So they can get to most places.

 

[VT 390]

There's few reasons why you couldn't just scrap some end coaches from the 22x fleet to form longer sets.

I am not saying to scrap anything just remove a coach from some of the 5 car sets and place it in the 7 car sets to form 8 coaches then some 5 cars would be 4 cars which could also form 8 coach sets and the remaining 5 coach sets could work quieter services.

 

[FQ]

Chiltern's current key markets on the West Midlands route are not Birmingham or beyond, they are the likes of Solihull, Warwick and Leamington. If enough of the people who currently fill the car parks at Warwick Parkway point their cars towards Birmingham Interchange for a 40-odd minutes sprint to London instead, then that blows a big hole in the finances of Chiltern - and insanely low-priced advance fares will never make up for the loss of lots of weekday peak revenue.

The DfT will be determined to make HS2 a success, so it can rig the market in whatever way it likes and tell the TOCs to do whatever it wants them to, in order to achieve that end.

I agree with you there but they still get a not insignificant number of people doing Birmingham to London. I was on the 15:55 from Moor Street to Marylebone a few days ago and it was very busy even in the front coach on departure from Moor Street, with all seats in the front coach taken by Leam (I didn't see the ones further back). I imagine the Warwick Parkway catchment area is along the A46 towards Coventry and Stratford where people find it easier to drive to Warwick Parkway and get the train from there instead of going into Coventry or Birmingham International. For many of those people Warwick Parkway would still be closer than Birmingham Interchange and with the roads during morning peak time into Birmingham being so busy I'm sure most wouldn't want to contend with that.

 

[VT 390]

This isn't a forgone conclusion. Politically a suggestion of that has proven quite difficult - especially with respect to Coventry.

Why shouldn't the Birmingham to Euston Virgin services drop to 2tph after HS2, as even though Coventry will have fewer services most passengers from Birmingham International and New Street will switch to HS2 which will mean more space for Coventry passengers. Also some Coventry passengers who use the station but drive to it may switch to driving to the HS2 Birmingham Interchange station.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Why shouldn't the Birmingham to Euston Virgin services drop to 2tph after HS2, as even though Coventry will have fewer services most passengers from Birmingham International and New Street will switch to HS2 which will mean more space for Coventry passengers. Also some Coventry passengers who use the station but drive to it may switch to driving to the HS2 Birmingham Interchange station.

It is primarily the passengers coming from Coventry itself that stand to lose under the mooted reduction. At the moment they have a 3tph fast service to London, taking an hour (plus or minus a few minutes), calling at one intermediate station most of the time. That is a very good service. Under the reduced service, they would see a reduction to 2tph fast, and an addition in calling points. That's not really on, is it - and equally, for people who actually come from near Coventry station (as opposed to driving from further afield), taking the train the wrong direction to Birmingham International and then making their way over to Birmingham Interchange is, at best, going to produce journey times that are the same time as now.

Coventry stands to gain very little from HS2, but to lose quite a lot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Coventry is basically the only big loser from phase 1 of HS2 - pretty much everywhere else either gains or is neutral. But realistically, it only has the high level of service it has because it's convenient to offer it as part of the Birmingham service, so that's life, as it were. There are plenty of other such stations - most of the quieter ones on Merseyrail, for instance. Or consider that Norton Bridge was closed entirely due to it no longer being expedient to serve it due to the slow lines moving a couple of miles west of the village.

There's nothing "not on" about this. If it becomes the case that serving Coventry just means running trains that are primarily to serve Coventry, it should get a level of service it justifies on its own.

Coventry realistically only justifies 1-2tph of reasonably fast services to London, plus say 2-3tph of long local services, which I'm sure it will have.

 

[Meerkat]

Chiltern's current key markets on the West Midlands route are not Birmingham or beyond, they are the likes of Solihull, Warwick and Leamington. If enough of the people who currently fill the car parks at Warwick Parkway point their cars towards Birmingham Interchange for a 40-odd minutes sprint to London instead

And that’s one reason I don’t like HS2 - I think the modal shift will be longer car journeys as passengers swap stations rather than modal shift from those who would drive to London.

What is the Stratford market like, I assumed there was lots of full price tourist trade to be had?
Don’t Chiltern want a go at that - they have the attention of the tourists they already take to Bicester Village?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And that’s one reason I don’t like HS2 - I think the modal shift will be longer car journeys as passengers swap stations rather than modal shift from those who would drive to London.

What is the Stratford market like, I assumed there was lots of full price tourist trade to be had?
Don’t Chiltern want a go at that - they have the attention of the tourists they already take to Bicester Village?

Chiltern operate to Stratford already?

 

[gallafent]

Coventry realistically only justifies 1-2tph of reasonably fast services to London, plus say 2-3tph of long local services, which I'm sure it will have.

It also gets a useful amount of Cross Country services at the moment (I don't know whether or not it justifies them — I've tended to change from XC (Northbound) to LNR or Virgin (Southbound) there in the past. Of course that exact flow for me disappears once East West Rail opens …

 

[jimm]

I agree with you there but they still get a not insignificant number of people doing Birmingham to London. I was on the 15:55 from Moor Street to Marylebone a few days ago and it was very busy even in the front coach on departure from Moor Street, with all seats in the front coach taken by Leam (I didn't see the ones further back). I imagine the Warwick Parkway catchment area is along the A46 towards Coventry and Stratford where people find it easier to drive to Warwick Parkway and get the train from there instead of going into Coventry or Birmingham International. For many of those people Warwick Parkway would still be closer than Birmingham Interchange and with the roads during morning peak time into Birmingham being so busy I'm sure most wouldn't want to contend with that.

Many people already drive crazy distances to get to Warwick Parkway - e.g. from Worcester. For them staying on the M42 instead of turning on to the M40 is probably neither here nor there, especially if you can get to London in the sort of times being claimed for HS2, as opposed to the typical 90-minute run from Warwick to Marylebone.

And that’s one reason I don’t like HS2 - I think the modal shift will be longer car journeys as passengers swap stations rather than modal shift from those who would drive to London.

People will do whatever they think gets them some sort of advantage. The supposed advantages of driving from Worcester to Warwick, just to avoid using GWR, beat me, as it is certainly no faster or cheaper than the Cotswold Line overall, but people do it.

What is the Stratford market like, I assumed there was lots of full price tourist trade to be had?
Don’t Chiltern want a go at that - they have the attention of the tourists they already take to Bicester Village?

The Stratford tourist trade is 'difficult', with lots of coach-sized parties to shift, but Network South East and Thames Trains always seemed happy that they had got a competitive product by running Paddington-Oxford-Stratford, especially with all the visitors to Oxford in the mix as well.

The DfT decided it wanted to tidy up the franchise map, so lopped off GW operations north of Banbury when it re-let the franchise and dropped the London-Stratford service in Chiltern's lap.

It was never part of Chiltern's grand plan and has been treated accordingly ever since. Bicester Village opening was a happy coincidence in terms of timing when Chiltern was being split out of British Rail - and the sort of overseas passengers going there don't seem to have a lot in common with those visiting Stratford. Consumerism v culture...

 

[FQ]

Many people already drive crazy distances to get to Warwick Parkway - e.g. from Worcester. For them staying on the M42 instead of turning on to the M40 is probably neither here nor there, especially if you can get to London in the sort of times being claimed for HS2, as opposed to the typical 90-minute run from Warwick to Marylebone.

I guess for some people it may be the price too. IIRC Birmingham Interchange is going to be next to Birmingham International, in which case passengers are already choosing Warwick Parkway over Birmingham International despite the latter offering a faster journey opportunity. If you're paying for your own season ticket, as most people do, then Chiltern is still likely to be cheaper from Warwick Parkway than HS2 will be from Birmingham Interchange. Whether the perceived increase in journey times coming with HS2 will be enough to get people to use that instead of Chiltern remains to be seen and can't really be calculated until HS2 actually comes into operation I'd imagine.

 

[Class 170101]

Which infrastructure?

Wasn't Aylesbury to Claydon LNE Jn due to be dualled and now dropped so making the two bits of single line between Princes Risborough and Claydon LNE Jn (except Aylesbury) work in timetabling terms doesn't.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Ideally it would be best to electrify the Chiltern Railways routes using third rail instead of overhead wires. They already travel over a long section of third rail tracks between Harrow On The Hill and Amersham so it would make much more sense to just electify the rest of the network using third rail as well.

I’m going to pretend I didn’t see this because it’s quite awful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m going to pretend I didn’t see this because it’s quite awful.

It also wouldn't be legal.

What probably would make sense would be to extend third rail to Aylesbury (Vale Parkway?) and hand that branch over to the Metropolitan Line entirely, with 2tph of additional trains running Aylesbury, all stops to Amersham then fast to Baker St. That would take some trains out of Marylebone, freeing up much needed capacity.