• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 165s to LOROL.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChrisCooper

Established Member
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Messages
1,787
Location
Loughborough
Most 23m long vehicles are narrower, usually 2.71 or 2.72m wide, instead of the more common 2.82m, but the 165s were built almost maximum length and width to take advantage of the increased clearances on the GW lines (built for broad gauge) and the former GC lines (built to continental standards). It does somewhat restrict where they can run, but doesn't automatically rule out running off their current routes. The biggest problem can be kinematic envelope, which is the space around a vehicle that it can occupy whilst moving, taking into account things like suspension travel. That can lead to speed restrictions at certain points.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

313103

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2006
Messages
1,595
Well chaps, hopefully things have became or not became more clearer, on speaking to a driver Manager today (the one who is well versed on such things) he has shed (pardon the pun) some light on the 165.

The reason first of all in getting a 165 is because the GOBLIN service increases to every 15 mins which will require a minumum of 7 units (currently we have 6). The 172's are running late.

Right now to the nitty gritty, he told me that training of at least 5 drivers have started mostly the Driver Instructors......... so far so good, he then tells me that the Head of Conductors has cancelled all training for Conductors and that the Conductor Managers trip to Aylesbury ahs been caped! All this on the basis that the 165s will now not be coming.

So it would appear that no one seems to know what is really going to happen!

I think it is now a case of watch this space.
 

150219

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2009
Messages
471
I see what you meant but as 'thefab444' stated it would be called 165/0

The first number e.g 165 represents the Class of train.

The second number e.g /2 represents the sub class of the train. So the second subclass of that class of train to built.

Back On topic now

http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/news.htm according to this website its is only going to be one Chiltern Railways 165 and it will join in September this year.

Yes. Working with them, as I do, it saves time just writing 165/2, /3, /4, etc depending on the length of the train. Apologies for using something that you wern't familiar with!
 

thefab444

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Messages
3,688
Location
The New Forest
Maybe it differs for Chiltern, but most ex-NSE TOCs use the notation I suggested for their CWNs and other internal documents, e.g. 4 465/9, 2 466, 5 444, 8 450, 9 159 etc.
 

Voyager 2093

Member
Joined
20 Aug 2007
Messages
494
Location
London
Yes. Working with them, as I do, it saves time just writing 165/2, /3, /4, etc depending on the length of the train. Apologies for using something that you wern't familiar with!

Its ok thanks and now I understand you also 'thefab444' its doesn't differ for the Chiltern I just didn't understand what '150219' was saying but now I do.

So back on topic the 165s are not not coming then?
 

HITMAN

Member
Joined
18 May 2010
Messages
77
While we are on the Goblin, why is it so damned slow? Are the tracks just old or is it something to do with the signalling
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
While we are on the Goblin, why is it so damned slow? Are the tracks just old or is it something to do with the signalling
Well, the signals are being upgraded at the moment but really, it doesn't need to be fast. Stations are close together, and it's not a long line. It's perfectly adequate speed-wise for a line of it's type.
 

HITMAN

Member
Joined
18 May 2010
Messages
77
Well, the signals are being upgraded at the moment but really, it doesn't need to be fast. Stations are close together, and it's not a long line. It's perfectly adequate speed-wise for a line of it's type.

Not from my point of view it isn't, it can't be going much over 25mph for most of the journey which just adds minutes to ones journey and discourages usage, especially compared to the london underground. Surely the new 172's (are they supposed to have faster accelaration that 170's?) should be able to travel at more than a quarter of their top speed?
 

DjU

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
254
Location
Essex
Not from my point of view it isn't, it can't be going much over 25mph for most of the journey which just adds minutes to ones journey and discourages usage, especially compared to the london underground. Surely the new 172's (are they supposed to have faster accelaration that 170's?) should be able to travel at more than a quarter of their top speed?

I believe some of the bridges would have to be replaced and much track relaid to see a speed increase
 

anonymous0101

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Messages
192
I believe some of the bridges would have to be replaced and much track relaid to see a speed increase

I've just had a ride on that line. I think the main problems are west of Blackhorse Road - such as 20 mph over the River Lea and 20 mph/30 mph maximum between Gospel Oak and South Tottenham. Apparently if the track were relaid it could be raised. Signals are quite far apart. East of Blackhorse Road, the 45 mph line speed is more than adequate although it would be interesting to see what a 172 would do on the climb away from Walthamstow Queens Road.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
Not from my point of view it isn't, it can't be going much over 25mph for most of the journey which just adds minutes to ones journey and discourages usage, especially compared to the london underground. Surely the new 172's (are they supposed to have faster accelaration that 170's?) should be able to travel at more than a quarter of their top speed?

I must admit I normally only use it between Barking & Blackhorse Road, and find it perfectly fine. It would be nice if it ran a bit quicker, but I reckon it's OK.
 

HITMAN

Member
Joined
18 May 2010
Messages
77
I've just had a ride on that line. I think the main problems are west of Blackhorse Road - such as 20 mph over the River Lea and 20 mph/30 mph maximum between Gospel Oak and South Tottenham. Apparently if the track were relaid it could be raised. Signals are quite far apart. East of Blackhorse Road, the 45 mph line speed is more than adequate although it would be interesting to see what a 172 would do on the climb away from Walthamstow Queens Road.

I have only travelled west from Blackhorse road, it just took absolutely ages to do a journey which really wasn't that far. I'm guessing though if they close it to redo the track they'd want to combine electrification, and there just aren't the resources for that yet.
 

A60K

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2008
Messages
1,030
Location
Kilburn
Pretty much, yes - TfL and the DfT have been batting this around for a few years. No one has come up with the money yet. The route has got a lot of potential, both for passenger and for freight diversions from the NLL.

Ideally we would have full track renewal, embankment and viaduct strengthening where necessary, new platforms at Gospel Oak, platforms renewed or lengthened to four cars, improved signalling, overhead electrification and a four tph through service from Clapham Junction to Barking - possibly extending to Dagenham Dock when the housing development there gets going.
 

HITMAN

Member
Joined
18 May 2010
Messages
77
As a layman I couldn't see anything to justify the low speed limit, the line isn't excessively curved and the track wasn't particularly rought, it didn't seem like the train would have derailed or rolled over if they had it going down at 40
 

anonymous0101

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Messages
192
As a layman I couldn't see anything to justify the low speed limit, the line isn't excessively curved and the track wasn't particularly rought, it didn't seem like the train would have derailed or rolled over if they had it going down at 40

Yes it is quite straight and on long stretches such as between Harringay and South Tottenham 30 mph is frustratingly slow but still much quicker than it would be by car during the day time between those two points.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,803
Location
Epsom
I think you will find that the 165 is a contingency plan; the main plan is 150 126 being loaned from LM for a while so that they have 7 units to cover the 6 diagrams.

The 165 would require narrower step boards to work on the route, which does imply that it would be a dedicated unit if it is required.
 

150219

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2009
Messages
471
The 165 would require narrower step boards to work on the route, which does imply that it would be a dedicated unit if it is required.

Not neccessarily, but only because steps boards are relatively easy to remove and replace. This could allow a unit to return for a B Exam or any other repairs and been substituted for another.

For moves to/from Ilford all of the step boards have to be removed and they have sometimes been left inside the vestibules until they reach a home depot.

Whilst there was a route that 165 units can take to/from Ilford that didn't involve the requirement to have the stepboards removed, it is now done as a matter of course which (of course) allows greater flexibility for running the ECS moves via different lines.
 

SouthEastern-465

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
1,660
Location
Greater London
The 465s were the first trains equipped with a full set of modern power electronics (someone will fill you in with the full technical details) and as a result could potentially cause electrical interference.

This meant that the routes that they were due to run on required the signalling to be immunised (shielded) from any possible electrical noise. The 465s were restricted to running on certain routes as a result, and you would see signs (for example at Victoria) showing where 465s were not permitted to go beyond.

It's a bit like how in the old days some domestic electrical equipment caused interference to TVs and radios, and how mobile phones can interfere with them these days.

I think you can find an exsample of this at London Charing Cross, where on some platforms there is a sign with 'Networker' and an X probally indicating there not allowed on this paltform due to that reason.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,329
If the "X" is partway down the platform then that will be as far as they are allowed down, it does not necessarily mean they are barred completely.
 

A60K

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2008
Messages
1,030
Location
Kilburn
Just wondering actually if Networkers are now allowed over more routes than they were originally cleared for, as since they were introduced in the early 90s the entire SR has gone over to modern trains and presumably a certain amount of signalling work will have been needed on the Central and South Western sections?

Or was the original Networker electrical equipment relatively noisy compared to 377 equipment meaning that Networkers are still only allowed on the South Eastern section? And if that was the case does the new Hitachi equipment solve the problem and allow them to go elsewhere (in theory) if the need arose?
 
Joined
26 Sep 2009
Messages
556
Location
Bishops Stortford
Can anybody ever remember getting on or off a train by using the stepboards? For my part, I have average sized feet (size 9) but always feel that if I did use the stepboard, there would be a risk of slipping.

If the stepboards on Class 165 were to be made narrower, would this not simply increase this risk?

As I understand it, stepboards are required because there is a mandatory maximum stepping distance between the door opening, which is generally (on an EMU or DMU) at about 1160 mm above the rail, and the platform, which is nominally 915 mm above the rail (but of course can be higher or on occasion lower).

If stepboards are never used (maybe I'm alone on this, which is why I'm seeking others' views), wouldn't it be better to remove them altogether, save money on messing around with platforms and invest some of this in more station staff and disabled ramps?
 

ChrisCooper

Established Member
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Messages
1,787
Location
Loughborough
Just wondering actually if Networkers are now allowed over more routes than they were originally cleared for, as since they were introduced in the early 90s the entire SR has gone over to modern trains and presumably a certain amount of signalling work will have been needed on the Central and South Western sections?

Or was the original Networker electrical equipment relatively noisy compared to 377 equipment meaning that Networkers are still only allowed on the South Eastern section? And if that was the case does the new Hitachi equipment solve the problem and allow them to go elsewhere (in theory) if the need arose?

Each type still has to be tested on the routes it runs though, so neither the original or Hitcahi equipment on the Networkers will have been tested in the South Central and South Western areas. In the same respect, Electrostars will not have been tested in the South West area (other than where there is overlap) or Desiros and Junipers in the South Central and South Eastern areas. Testing could be done, but it's expensive and time consuming, so not worth while simply incase "the need arose". If there was ever a desire to move the Networkers from South Eastern then oviously testing would be done, and most likely little if any work would be required. Same thing often applies with gauging, a particular type of stock might be banned from a route not because it's out of gauge, just because it's never been checked to be in gauge.

The simple technical reason for the need to immunise signals is that on DC lines, track circuits use AC to seperate them from the return current. The problem is the modern trains have AC motors so generate AC return current and that can interfear with the signalling. The basic solution is to make sure that the track circuits use a frequency that the trains are unlikely to produce and to stop the trains producing that frequency (at least at a high enough current to be detected by the track circuits). It's also a problem in the winter as under abnormal conditions, such as conductor rail icing, the trains can start producing dangerous frequencies, so the control systems shut them down.
 

anonymous0101

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Messages
192
Each type still has to be tested on the routes it runs though, so neither the original or Hitcahi equipment on the Networkers will have been tested in the South Central and South Western areas. In the same respect, Electrostars will not have been tested in the South West area (other than where there is overlap) or Desiros and Junipers in the South Central and South Eastern areas. Testing could be done, but it's expensive and time consuming, so not worth while simply incase "the need arose". If there was ever a desire to move the Networkers from South Eastern then oviously testing would be done, and most likely little if any work would be required. Same thing often applies with gauging, a particular type of stock might be banned from a route not because it's out of gauge, just because it's never been checked to be in gauge.

The simple technical reason for the need to immunise signals is that on DC lines, track circuits use AC to seperate them from the return current. The problem is the modern trains have AC motors so generate AC return current and that can interfear with the signalling. The basic solution is to make sure that the track circuits use a frequency that the trains are unlikely to produce and to stop the trains producing that frequency (at least at a high enough current to be detected by the track circuits). It's also a problem in the winter as under abnormal conditions, such as conductor rail icing, the trains can start producing dangerous frequencies, so the control systems shut them down.

Very well explained. The Ice Mode helps alleviate the system shutdown.

 

Snapper

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2006
Messages
2,460
Location
All over the place
Can anybody ever remember getting on or off a train by using the stepboards? For my part, I have average sized feet (size 9) but always feel that if I did use the stepboard, there would be a risk of slipping.

Consider yourself lucky that you're of an age and a standard of mobility that means you don't need them. Not everyone else is....
 

ert47

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2010
Messages
688
Just wondering actually if Networkers are now allowed over more routes than they were originally cleared for, as since they were introduced in the early 90s the entire SR has gone over to modern trains and presumably a certain amount of signalling work will have been needed on the Central and South Western sections?

Or was the original Networker electrical equipment relatively noisy compared to 377 equipment meaning that Networkers are still only allowed on the South Eastern section? And if that was the case does the new Hitachi equipment solve the problem and allow them to go elsewhere (in theory) if the need arose?

I remember a few months ago, there was a 466/465 stabled @ Selhurst Depot for clearance testing - I do remember there being some X Networker signs around bermondsey (where the SouthEastern and Southern Lines split). This had something to do with some of the 377 dual voltage trains going on FCC/SET servicing.
From what i know, the clearance testing went well, the only problem was that the closest maintenance depot for those trains was in Grove Park which made things a tad awkward when it came to logistics.

Saying that, whenever there are major railworks somewhere and SET services have to be diverted through Croydon, I only see 375s :s [/ramble]
 

ailsa

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
100
Location
The land of crop circles and white horses
Can anybody ever remember getting on or off a train by using the stepboards?

If stepboards are never used (maybe I'm alone on this, which is why I'm seeking others' views), wouldn't it be better to remove them altogether, save money on messing around with platforms and invest some of this in more station staff and disabled ramps?

I usually use the stepboards and sometimes the handrails when boarding or alighting as the step down would be risky for me otherwise. This particularly at stations like Bath Spa where the platforms are low. I would have thought that with modern technology, carriages could be built with a lower floor to provide a more level step to the platform. Maybe there wouldn't be enough space for underfloor equipment though.
 

313103

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2006
Messages
1,595
The class 165 unit will not be coming after all that! Instead Lonfon Overground have hired London Midland class 150 no 150132 which seeing it today has an all over advert for the West Midlands, a touch of irony that it is operating mostly in east london would be lost on those using the unit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top