Future for 165/166s?

[tbtc]

In all the talk of electrification, there's been many suggestions of wiring up parts of the Chiltern franchise and the "Thames Trains" parts of the FGW franchise.

Both of these would release a number of Clubman trains (165s at Chiltern, 165s and 166s at FGW).

But where can these units go?

Look at the maps at the end of this document
http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_appsB_G_final.pdf

...and there's not a lot of places outside the Thames Valley/Chiltern lines that they could work on.

A couple of examples are the Leeds - Harrogate - York line amd the Saltburn/ Middlesbrough/ Darlington/ Sunderland/ Newcastle area routes (though not the line from Newcastle to the Metro Centre/ Hexham).

Whilst routes can obviously be amended to allow 165/166 operation, how cost effective would it be? But then, it seems daft not to find a home for these units before we can get rid of Pacers etc.

**​

Note: For the route maps on the link the following colours apply:

• Blue - Route already cleared
• Green: Route could potentially be cleared - Normal or Reduced clearances exist
• Red - Route cannot currently be cleared - Special Reduced or Foul clearances exist

 

[swt_passenger]

Network Rail have the FGW units earmarked for Bristol area and the Cardiff - Portsmouth subject to gauge clearance. There is nothing to suggest that cannot be achieved - in fact if it was impossible why would NR be suggesting it?

Indeed those maps are not necessarily even up to date. 165/6 were gauge cleared Redhill-Selhurst and Guildford-Woking-Basingstoke as part of the preparations for last Christmas's Reading blockade -and I don't think anyone is aware of any major physical work being done, so it must have been little more than a paperwork exercise.

There is little point in worrying about where the units might be used by reference to existing route clearance - clearance is no longer routinely sought unless/until there are specific plans to use a class somewhere new...

As they say themselves in the introduction to the maps, even for red routes:

"The initial route maps produced following the structure clearance
analysis indicate that a large number of routes (shown as red)
indicate Special Reduced or Foul clearances. It may be possible
to clear these routes following some minor works (ie localised
track movements, structure remedial works), since it only takes
one substandard clearance upon a route to prevent gauge
clearance at this stage. "

 

[justinsteam]

I don't think Chiltern has any immediate plans for electricification.

 

[bluenoxid]

Evergreen 4 may see it start if they decide that it is the best way of increasing capacity. As a network, it is reasonably well self contained until Aylesbury/Oxford. Beyond there depends on whether Oxford to Brum can be justified post FGW electrification.

 

[OxtedL]

Electrification would be a bit of a faff on the shared London Underground stretches up to Aylesbury. I'm sure ways could be found to side-step this, but it is probably one of the biggest barriers, and could prevent a single unified fleet of one type or another, for example.

I think it's possible that Evergreen 4 will come up as suggested above, but I'm quite interested to see how DB react now they're in control of a load more...

 

[NIMBUS]

Electrification would be a bit of a faff on the shared London Underground stretches up to Aylesbury. I'm sure ways could be found to side-step this, but it is probably one of the biggest barriers, and could prevent a single unified fleet of one type or another, for example.

The best solution would be to kick LUL off the Harrow to Amersham section and just leave them with the Uxbridge and Watford branches running parallel. If the old Metropolitan main line were managed by Network Rail it could be improved to main line standards, reducing times on the Aylesbury route, eliminating the current painful stagger along the restricted speed LUL section.

 

[justinsteam]

The best solution would be to kick LUL off the Harrow to Amersham section and just leave them with the Uxbridge and Watford branches running parallel. If the old Metropolitan main line were managed by Network Rail it could be improved to main line standards, reducing times on the Aylesbury route, eliminating the current painful stagger along the restricted speed LUL section.

I think alot of people along this route agree with this point of view, but LUL do not want to give up any section of their lines.

 

[OxtedL]

I've had a quick hunt around, and I agree, this sounds like a really good idea. Chiltern are particularly trustworthy (or have that reputation at the moment!!) so I think everyone could be a winner here. Two network rail tracks would allow fast and slow services, and might even have a secret future involving East-West Rail to Milton Keynes.

This is an ambitious proposal though, although it seems entirely do-able. I can't imagine why anyone would use the tube to commute from Amersham?! That's like commuting from Oxted on an all sheds via everywhere to Victoria. :roll:

 

[jopsuk]

Electrification would be a bit of a faff on the shared London Underground stretches up to Aylesbury. I'm sure ways could be found to side-step this, but it is probably one of the biggest barriers, and could prevent a single unified fleet of one type or another, for example.

Dual voltage stock and bond the centre rail to the running rails like on the Watford DC and Richmond branches where LUL shares with LOROL. Technical solution: found.

 

[ushawk]

Tube is more expensive into Central London too, off-peak is £3.50 for a single to Z1, National Rail is £3.20 a single, although that would be to Marlybone only, whereas the tube could be to any Z1 station.

 

[Metrailway]

...Look at the maps at the end of this document
http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_appsB_G_final.pdf
...

• Blue - Route already cleared
• Green: Route could potentially be cleared - Normal or Reduced clearances exist
• Red - Route cannot currently be cleared - Special Reduced or Foul clearances exist

It's suprising that the Chiltern Main Line is in red on the platform clearances map despite 165s being the mainstay of the line!

.This is an ambitious proposal though, although it seems entirely do-able. I can't imagine why anyone would use the tube to commute from Amersham?! That's like commuting from Oxted on an all sheds via everywhere to Victoria. :roll:

You'll be suprised how many travel from the Wendover and Great Missenden by car to Amersham and take the tube. Reasons for this include:

• LUL fares are cheaper compared Chiltern fares
• Amersham has 6tph at peaks compared to just 3tph north of Amersham. Off peak 4tph to 2tph
• You can get a seat on the Met
• The Met is only 10 minutes slower to Baker St, than an all stations Chiltern to reach Marylebone
• Plus the Met goes into The City so no changing required plus you've got a seat on a underground - can't happen if you change at Marylebone.

 

[OxtedL]

This sounds fair enough, these are good reasons, and I understand why some would not want to see that change.

However, with careful management by a competent consultation, you could get around the operational disadvantage of dual voltage stock and switching power supply twice en route to Aylesbury by, as has been hinted above, giving two tracks north of Harrow to Network Rail, giving a clear run from Marylebone to Aylesbury on NR metals.

You could only get away with this on certain conditions, however. For instance:
* Make it clear that this allows a considerable increase in capacity for Chiltern. Perhaps you could have:
- 2tph to Chesham. Either shuttle from somewhere, or (pretty much) fast to Harrow from Marylebone and then stopping at all the stops on the south/west tracks
- 2tph to Amersham on the same principle as above, perhaps running further
- 2 or more tph to Aylesbury, calling at key Met stations like Amersham, Rickmansworth (maybe Harrow) etc.
* It allows trains on the Met to head into Watford on the (proposed) new link, or perhaps to the old station, either way freeing up some stock for Met services
* Electric trains on a line with better line speeds, reducing journey times
* Improvements on the line north of Amersham, perhaps enabling better railheading

Something like that anyway. I'm sure you could sell it, and there will likely be room for peak time additional services.

I admit this is well out of my area, and I cannot begin to comprehend whether there would be much resistance to such a proposal, and if so, how much, but this feels like something the nice people at Chiltern could get their teeth into.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I severely doubt Marylebone could handle all that extra traffic without new platforms.

 

[Metrailway]

This sounds fair enough, these are good reasons, and I understand why some would not want to see that change.

However, with careful management by a competent consultation, you could get around the operational disadvantage of dual voltage stock and switching power supply twice en route to Aylesbury by, as has been hinted above, giving two tracks north of Harrow to Network Rail, giving a clear run from Marylebone to Aylesbury on NR metals.

You could only get away with this on certain conditions, however. For instance:
* Make it clear that this allows a considerable increase in capacity for Chiltern. Perhaps you could have:
- 2tph to Chesham. Either shuttle from somewhere, or (pretty much) fast to Harrow from Marylebone and then stopping at all the stops on the south/west tracks
- 2tph to Amersham on the same principle as above, perhaps running further
- 2 or more tph to Aylesbury, calling at key Met stations like Amersham, Rickmansworth (maybe Harrow) etc.
* It allows trains on the Met to head into Watford on the (proposed) new link, or perhaps to the old station, either way freeing up some stock for Met services
* Electric trains on a line with better line speeds, reducing journey times
* Improvements on the line north of Amersham, perhaps enabling better railheading

Something like that anyway. I'm sure you could sell it, and there will likely be room for peak time additional services.

I admit this is well out of my area, and I cannot begin to comprehend whether there would be much resistance to such a proposal, and if so, how much, but this feels like something the nice people at Chiltern could get their teeth into.

I'd agree with you - I'd just extend the current Amershams to Aylesbury so 4tph Aylesbury - Marylebone, using current Chiltern all staions stopping pattern. Signalling north of Amersham would have to be improved to get any more trains on the lines at peak. BUT Marylebone won't be able to deal with the extra trains, just like it was concluded in the 80s that Baker St can't handle extra trains from Aylesbury when Marylebone was considered for closure.

In the next Met timetable, it is proposed that all off peak Mets to Amersham/Chesham will be slow leaving the fasts for Chiltern use only. Reason: Reduction of Watford services from 6tph to 4tph as passenger useage means Watford doesn't deserve a better service than Chesham, so Amersham/Cheshams needed for 6tph on locals.

On the speed point - The speed limit now on the fast lines is 60mph, went down from 70mph around the early 2000s due to cracked bogies on the A stock becoming a regular occurance so were limited to 50mph. It is very likely that once the A stock is gone the speed will return back to 70mph - pretty much max speed for the 165 (always been 60mph between Amersham and Ricky due to curves and gradients).

 

[OxtedL]

I'd agree with you - I'd just extend the current Amershams to Aylesbury so 4tph Aylesbury - Marylebone, using current Chiltern all staions stopping pattern. Signalling north of Amersham would have to be improved to get any more trains on the lines at peak. BUT Marylebone won't be able to deal with the extra trains, just like it was concluded in the 80s that Baker St can't handle extra trains from Aylesbury when Marylebone was considered for closure.

In the next Met timetable, it is proposed that all off peak Mets to Amersham/Chesham will be slow leaving the fasts for Chiltern use only. Reason: Reduction of Watford services from 6tph to 4tph as passenger useage means Watford doesn't deserve a better service than Chesham, so Amersham/Cheshams needed for 6tph on locals.

On the speed point - The speed limit now on the fast lines is 60mph, went down from 70mph around the early 2000s due to cracked bogies on the A stock becoming a regular occurance so were limited to 50mph. It is very likely that once the A stock is gone the speed will return back to 70mph - pretty much max speed for the 165 (always been 60mph between Amersham and Ricky due to curves and gradients).

Thanks, it's great to hear things like this.

Marylebone is a problem I had overlooked entirely. Something about it came up recently elsewhere, and I think it was concluded that the approaches to Marylebone probably had room for expansion, but the station itself might not.

Marylebone used to be quite a lot bigger, I believe (?). Given as I have never actually used it and am walking blind here, can anyone advise on how stupidly difficult it would be to expand it? Thanks.

Regarding speeds, that sounds like good news for the current service in the near future, and very sensible too. Your statement regarding 165s has, however, made me realise that we have drifted quite a way off topic now, as I was envisaging the idea above to be coupled with the introduction of 377 or 350 type trains! Serious acceleration and a nice high top speed...

 

[Metrailway]

Thanks, it's great to hear things like this.

Marylebone is a problem I had overlooked entirely. Something about it came up recently elsewhere, and I think it was concluded that the approaches to Marylebone probably had room for expansion, but the station itself might not.

Marylebone used to be quite a lot bigger, I believe (?). Given as I have never actually used it and am walking blind here, can anyone advise on how stupidly difficult it would be to expand it? Thanks.

Regarding speeds, that sounds like good news for the current service in the near future, and very sensible too. Your statement regarding 165s has, however, made me realise that we have drifted quite a way off topic now, as I was envisaging the idea above to be coupled with the introduction of 377 or 350 type trains! Serious acceleration and a nice high top speed...

Sorry everyone for the thread drift

Although the station was 4 platforms when built and despite the recent expansion to 6 in the noughties, you are right to say it was a lot bigger in the past. When the Chiltern lines were modernised in the late 80s/early 90s, Marylebone was altered significantly. The old carriage road at the centre of the terminus was removed and now the current platforms 2 and 3 take it's place. This allowed the demolition of half the station on the west side . All this land was sold off and now built on making future expansion very difficult. When Marylebone was built it was 'future proofed' so it could be expanded to 10 platforms, hence the long concorse.

If electrification does happen on the Chiltern lines, it would be very unlikely that speeds would be raised significantly on the Aylesbury line. 75mph is a good speed for what is pretty much a commuter line.

Back on topic, it would be a shame if 165/166s can't find a home if electrification occurs - they are good units, arn't that old and would be a travesty if they are scrapped before the pacers.

 

[northwichcat]

Network Rail have the FGW units earmarked for Bristol area and the Cardiff - Portsmouth subject to gauge clearance. There is nothing to suggest that cannot be achieved - in fact if it was impossible why would NR be suggesting it?

Can someone point me to the document where Network Rail have stated this. A lot of people from the South West are claiming that Network Rail have Portsmouth-Cardiff plans but the electrification RUS does not state this and trying to find results via Google only point to a few forums. Even the Wikipedia references on the topic are forums posts not proper documents.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It would be very difficult to expand Marylebone in my opinion, both on the approaches to the station (Kilburn to West Hampstead especially) and the station itself. You would have to knock down houses and widen viaducts which pass over busy roads in order to make more space for extra lines into the station. There does appear to be an extra bore in Hampstead Tunnel, and you would still have to go through peoples gardens in order to be able to use that, but the bridge over the WCML immediately outside of Marylebone and St Johns Wood Tunnel can only accommodate two tracks. There is a street immediately to the sidings east of platform 1, so I dont know if there is room for an extra platform there, even if you lose the sidings and the global headquarters of BNP Paribas (the largest bank and one of the ten richest companies in the entire world) shares a wall with Marylebone on the west side of the station. There might be room for an extra platform on that side of the station but again there is residential property immediately beyond the station and as property in NW1 doesnt come cheaply, I doubt any will be purchased in order to be knocked down to make room for more platforms.

You can see that BNP Paribas kills any room for expansion, selling the land to them to build their head office was probably a mistake, but it made somebody a hell of a lot of money at the time.

 

[Lad Brookes]

This is an ambitious proposal though, although it seems entirely do-able. I can't imagine why anyone would use the tube to commute from Amersham?! That's like commuting from Oxted on an all sheds via everywhere to Victoria. :roll:

I get Chiltern from Chorleywood, while my partner usually gets the Met direct to Liverpool Street- though sometimes gets the Chiltern and changes due to the better reliability and speed.

If you're going to the City, then the Met can be a viable option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You'll be suprised how many travel from the Wendover and Great Missenden by car to Amersham and take the tube. Reasons for this include:

• LUL fares are cheaper compared Chiltern fares
• Amersham has 6tph at peaks compared to just 3tph north of Amersham. Off peak 4tph to 2tph
• You can get a seat on the Met
• The Met is only 10 minutes slower to Baker St, than an all stations Chiltern to reach Marylebone
• Plus the Met goes into The City so no changing required plus you've got a seat on a underground - can't happen if you change at Marylebone.

Great Missenden is now only £16 extra for an annual compared to Amersham.
The Met is only 10 minutes slower to Baker Street in the timetable. In reality it's more like 20.

 

[trainplan1]

Continuing the off topic thread...

As a former daily commuter from Amersham/Chesham to the city for a couple of years I'll say from my perspective that the reason people use the Met all the way from there to the city is the lack of a need to change trains en route. When I worked in Euston and now sometimes Liverpool Street it's very convenient to get on at one end and not get off until the heart of the city.
Same applies for the journey home!

As mentioned previously not only does Marylebone have capacity issues but also quite poor connections for a London Terminus. I feel really bad for the people piling on the Bakerloo line heading southbound in the peak...me heading towards Paddington felt like an Sunday morning compared to heading that way!

Anyway back on topic, I do hope that the 165/166 family does find a home when the time comes. If the MK3's are able carry on for another "x" many years then I see no reason why a similar refresh to fairly modern DMU's couldn't do the same.

 

[OxtedL]

OK, I'm getting a sense of why this hasn't been suggested in any big way before.

I suppose that I live in an area with very good links to a very large sweep of London, and therefore had not really thought about Marylebone as an interchange. It often surprises me how North London sometimes seems to be worse off than South London, despite all its tube lines... I guess it is simply a case that the rail network in South London had that little bit less purpose in being on the route to anywhere particularly important, whereas North and West London have the misfortune of being between Central London and somewhere else...

--------------
I too believe that the turbos shouldn't have too much trouble finding a new home. The consensus so far seems to be that they could well end up in the North East (and that Cardiff Portsmouth is a bit of a myth)?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Marylebone is no further from Baker Street than Euston is from Euston Square really. A lot of people arriving in Marylebone just walk the 400 yards or so to Baker Street Station if they have underground connections that arent on the Bakerloo line from Marylebone tube.

 

[swt_passenger]

Can someone point me to the document where Network Rail have stated this. A lot of people from the South West are claiming that Network Rail have Portsmouth-Cardiff plans but the electrification RUS does not state this and trying to find results via Google only point to a few forums. Even the Wikipedia references on the topic are forums posts not proper documents.

Here's some examples:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/search_g.aspx?q=Gauge clearance for Class 165/166 units

I don't think you'd expect to see it mentioned in the electrifcation RUS though. DfT also included the possibility of their use in the 'Bristol and SW area', in the initial electrifcation announcement.

Notwithstanding the point that it has been regularly mentioned for a good few years, I don't think it is the preferred solution - with 2 and 3 car non-gangwayed units the class will be hardly any more use on the Portsmouth Cardiff route than 158s.

What might work better is returning all the FGW 158s to two car and running them paired up, with the Turbos replacing other diagrams within the Bristol area.

 

[tbtc]

Your statement regarding 165s has, however, made me realise that we have drifted quite a way off topic now

As the OP, I think its brought about an interesting drift into a subject I'm surprised we've not discussed more on here (the future of "local" services to Marylebone - all Marylebone threads seem to be about longer distance services e.g. Oxford, Birmingham, Wrexham)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Back on topic, it would be a shame if 165/166s can't find a home if electrification occurs - they are good units, arn't that old and would be a travesty if they are scrapped before the pacers.

I agree, they seem decent machines (though I've used the Thames Trains/FGW examples more than the Chiltern ones).

As a parallel, there are a few articulated buses ("bendy-buses", in media terms) sitting around in storage, because they were bought for a particular purpose, are no longer used for that (mainly because the "core" routes they were purchased for now have newer buses, and there's not a lot of other routes you can "cascade" an articulated bus onto, without getting the authorities to improve the infrastructure - e.g. too awkward to fit into bus stations)...

...yet there are a lot of "step entrance" buses still running around in 2011 (even with First/ Stagecoach/ Arriva). Its frustrating that there are some five/ten year old low floor buses sitting idle (or being shipped off to Malta because there's no perceived use for them here) whilst we still have ancient buses (unsuitable for prams/ disabled/ elderley) in every day service.

I have a similar problem with the idea of these 165/166s not having a home after some of the Thames Valley routes are electrified. Sure, they can be used to strengthen existing services, but only up to a point - we really need to find a new home for these trains because it'd be daft if they weren't being used whilst Pacers continue in service for the rest of the decade (hence the "step entrance" analogy).

Since a lot of Pacer routes (outside of South Wales) are fairly rural/ infrequent, they aren't great candidates for electrification (e.g. Penistone/ Whitby), but the Thames Valley/Chiltern lines *are*. So, one way of getting rid of (some) Pacers would be to electrify the 165/166 lines, thus freeing up these trains to cascade other units (e.g. a three coach 166 would be ideal to replace two coach 158s on a lot of lines, if it had sufficient clearance).

 

[Metrailway]

As the OP, I think its brought about an interesting drift into a subject I'm surprised we've not discussed more on here (the future of "local" services to Marylebone - all Marylebone threads seem to be about longer distance services e.g. Oxford, Birmingham, Wrexham)

If there is an Evergreen 4, I would like to see the loops back at the Sudbury stations so more local stoppers can serve them. They get such a raw deal with only only a handful of trains calling at these stations. I think they are the worst served stations in London.

 

[tbtc]

If there is an Evergreen 4, I would like to see the loops back at the Sudbury stations so more local stoppers can serve them. They get such a raw deal with only only a handful of trains calling at these stations. I think they are the worst served stations in London.

Good point. Whilst the new service with 172s will help in some areas(Marylebone - Gerrards Cross/ Wycombe?), the service to National Rail stations in North West London has been pretty poor for some time - no doubt because there are London Underground lines too, but the Tube doesn't serve everywhere

 

[northwichcat]

Here's some examples:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/search_g.aspx?q=Gauge clearance for Class 165/166 units

So as of 2008 it was seen as a scheme that was seen as a 'be a nice to have' if NR have enough discretionary funds.

In the complete 2010 RUS for the Wessex area the only recommendation related to cascading stock on to Portsmouth-Cardiff is:

"five additional vehicles to enhance two morning peak services and three evening peak service"

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...trategies/great western/great western rus.pdf
page 204

 

[Metrailway]

Good point. Whilst the new service with 172s will help in some areas(Marylebone - Gerrards Cross/ Wycombe?), the service to National Rail stations in North West London has been pretty poor for some time - no doubt because there are London Underground lines too, but the Tube doesn't serve everywhere

BR and then later on Chiltern say that because both stations are very close to the stations on the Piccadilly Line, that there is no demand for extra services. I would disagree with this point, as the Pic goes via Acton then into Central London. A reasonably frequent Chiltern service would produce demand as it would be significantly quicker route into London than the Pic.

The GWML is getting electrified and according to this report by the Dft in 2010 (before the election): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf

Existing modern diesel trains that operate the suburban services into London Paddington can then be transferred to provide additional capacity on services in the Bristol area and the South West as well as releasing vehicles that can then be deployed to deliver additional capacity in key Northern cities.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

BR and then later on Chiltern say that because both stations are very close to the stations on the Piccadilly Line, that there is no demand for extra services. I would disagree with this point, as the Pic goes via Acton then into Central London. A reasonably frequent Chiltern service would produce demand as it would be significantly quicker route into London than the Pic.

To the point where the signs at Sudbury Harrow Road were changed to tell people to alight at Sudbury for the Piccadilly line!

 

[swt_passenger]

So as of 2008 it was seen as a scheme that was seen as a 'be a nice to have' if NR have enough discretionary funds.

NRDF covers small scale projects up to £5m (and more with specific DfT approval). The list of recently completed projects, [shown in the CP4 enhancements update] and those under consideration for the future, covers quite a number of fairly high profile jobs, so I wouldn't necessarily see inclusion under that heading as a negative aspect.

Obviously it isn't in the latest list - but I still suggest it isn't the practical impossibility some people think, due to the recent clearance from Guildford to Basingstoke via Woking...