Future for 165/166s?

[LE Greys]

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.

IMGhttp://i.imgur.com/7Ji1X.jpg/IMG

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.

I believe they were thinking of pulling down the whole station at the time, diverting services into Paddington and Baker Street. Actually, any electrification of the Aylesbury line would make it easier to extend the Metropolitan Line's Amersham service, thus reducing demand on Marylebone, making the former GW route easier to operate.

 

[Greenback]

I believe they were thinking of pulling down the whole station at the time, diverting services into Paddington and Baker Street. Actually, any electrification of the Aylesbury line would make it easier to extend the Metropolitan Line's Amersham service, thus reducing demand on Marylebone, making the former GW route easier to operate.

BR proposed closing Marylebone in 1983. It was to be turned into a coach station instead. The proposal was withdrawn in 1986 IIRC.

 

[Metrailway]

I believe they were thinking of pulling down the whole station at the time, diverting services into Paddington and Baker Street. Actually, any electrification of the Aylesbury line would make it easier to extend the Metropolitan Line's Amersham service, thus reducing demand on Marylebone, making the former GW route easier to operate.

Yeah, they intended to turn Marylebone into a guided bus/coach station in the 80s. All Chiltern services to Aylesbury/Banbury would start from Paddington, leaving the Aylesbury - Amersham stretch to be electrified and given to LT. It was found that Baker Street wouldn't be able to handle the extra traffic so the idea was dropped.

If the war didn't happen, LT would've electrified the lines north of Rickmansworth all the way to Aylesbury, with loops at certain stations and building of the fast lines between Harrow and Rickmansworth. Alas, only the latter took place and electrification went up to Amersham/Chesham only.

 

[oversteer]

I suppose the only way to extend Marylebone is to tunnel under it .. unless Chiltern / NR can somehow buy up those flats to the west.

 

[Class172]

Just looking at the map in post #1, I have noticed that there is quite a large bunch south of Birmingham - some of these clearances are remiscient of NSE days when they ran London Paddington-Birmingham via Worcester. Also a few of these routes are operated by 170s, so here's what I have as an idea:

Because there's a limited supply of cleared routes for 165/66s, they should have priority over some units: ie they could be given to London Midland and this would mean:

• 165/166s are used on Birmingham-Hereford services where they are allowed, this will displace 170s which can be used in a more suitable place (eg NXEA; NXEA 156s > Northern > displace 150s > displace PACERS). This may even increase capacity (see note at bottom)?
• LM could introduce a stopping service from Birmingham-Evesham via Worcester (already being mooted) potentially using 166s.
• Or you could go the whole hog and reintroduce the B'ham-Paddington via worcester service (unlikely) - likely operated by FGW.

These are only suggestions and it would help with the pacer problem - 170s are allowed to work on a much greater number of lines than 165/166s.

Also out of interest, how do the capacities of a 165/166 and a 170 compare (both 2 and 3 car) - would it actually change capacity?

 

[LE Greys]

Just looking at the map in post #1, I have noticed that there is quite a large bunch south of Birmingham - some of these clearances are remiscient of NSE days when they ran London Paddington-Birmingham via Worcester. Also a few of these routes are operated by 170s, so here's what I have as an idea:

Because there's a limited supply of cleared routes for 165/66s, they should have priority over some units: ie they could be given to London Midland and this would mean:

• 165/166s are used on Birmingham-Hereford services where they are allowed, this will displace 170s which can be used in a more suitable place (eg NXEA; NXEA 156s > Northern > displace 150s > displace PACERS). This may even increase capacity (see note at bottom)?
• LM could introduce a stopping service from Birmingham-Evesham via Worcester (already being mooted) potentially using 166s.
• Or you could go the whole hog and reintroduce the B'ham-Paddington via worcester service (unlikely) - likely operated by FGW.

These are only suggestions and it would help with the pacer problem - 170s are allowed to work on a much greater number of lines than 165/166s.

Also out of interest, how do the capacities of a 165/166 and a 170 compare (both 2 and 3 car) - would it actually change capacity?

Owing to their 3+2 seating, 165s have more seats per vehicle (82/106/98) than 170s (55/76/67). However, they are a lot less comfortable. 165s are also slightly slower, have 72 fewer horsepower per vehicle and don't accelerate quite as well. Ride is about the same, but I reckon that 170s are usually better inside. Chiltern have done quite a good job with their 165s, and I hope that the rest of the Turbos get similar treatment.

What about having the 170s head down into Devon and Cornwall for semi-fast duties such as Cardiff-Plymouth? This would free up a combination of 158s and 150s, hopefully putting 158s on the Heart of Wessex and freeing steadily more 150s to replace Pacers elsewhere.

 

[tbtc]

Just looking at the map in post #1, I have noticed that there is quite a large bunch south of Birmingham - some of these clearances are remiscient of NSE days when they ran London Paddington-Birmingham via Worcester. Also a few of these routes are operated by 170s, so here's what I have as an idea:

Because there's a limited supply of cleared routes for 165/66s, they should have priority over some units: ie they could be given to London Midland and this would mean:

• 165/166s are used on Birmingham-Hereford services where they are allowed, this will displace 170s which can be used in a more suitable place (eg NXEA; NXEA 156s > Northern > displace 150s > displace PACERS). This may even increase capacity (see note at bottom)?
• LM could introduce a stopping service from Birmingham-Evesham via Worcester (already being mooted) potentially using 166s.
• Or you could go the whole hog and reintroduce the B'ham-Paddington via worcester service (unlikely) - likely operated by FGW.

These are only suggestions and it would help with the pacer problem - 170s are allowed to work on a much greater number of lines than 165/166s.

Also out of interest, how do the capacities of a 165/166 and a 170 compare (both 2 and 3 car) - would it actually change capacity?

Good point about Hereford, if it wasn't for the Birmingham tunnels (which are the reason 180s can't run on XC services IIRC) then I think that the Hereford - Birmingham service would be a great place for 166s (plus lots of other places for 170s to roam to).

 

[Class172]

Good point about Hereford, if it wasn't for the Birmingham tunnels (which are the reason 180s can't run on XC services IIRC) then I think that the Hereford - Birmingham service would be a great place for 166s (plus lots of other places for 170s to roam to).

Are you sure?

The network rail documents say that 165/166s can operate but not 180s:
Gauge Capability - Diesel Multiple Units - London North Western (South). For those who can't access it here is a shot of it - I have highlighted the relevant bit:

 

[tbtc]

Are you sure?

The network rail documents say that 165/166s can operate but not 180s:
Gauge Capability - Diesel Multiple Units - London North Western (South). For those who can't access it here is a shot of it - I have highlighted the relevant bit:

Fair enough, I'm always happy to be proved wrong.

Bit confused why 168/175/180s can't fit through (given that 165/166s are as wide/long as they can be), also why 170s can fit through but 171s can't though

 

[jopsuk]

Because the paperwork hasn't been done?

 

[Class172]

Yeah, I doubt it's a technical issue that's preventing them - they've never needed to be cleared if they've never had any reason to use the line.

Also although 165/166s have less comfortable seats than a 170, they have 3+2 seating which would add capacity - they could easily be refurbed

 

[northwichcat]

Bit confused why 168/175/180s can't fit through (given that 165/166s are as wide/long as they can be), also why 170s can fit through but 171s can't though

Because the paperwork hasn't been done?

I've seen the list of cleared DMUs for some lines in the Northern Rail West area. Here's two lines I remember:

Manchester to Chester via Altrincham: 142, 144, 150, 153, 155, 156, 158, 175
Manchester to Buxton: 150, 156, 158

Now the 155s is one point of note. I imagine 155s haven't actually been on either line but they've found that a pair of 153s is OK for Manchester-Chester, so cleared a 155 automatically but as 153s aren't cleared for the Buxton line (not powerful enough) so they would need to actually send a 155 to the Buxton line to get clearance.

The Pacers are another point of note. Why would 144s have clearance for the Manchester to Chester line but 143s not? The answer is probably because Northern Rail don't have 143s so there's no paperwork been done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah, I doubt it's a technical issue that's preventing them - they've never needed to be cleared if they've never had any reason to use the line.

Also although 165/166s have less comfortable seats than a 170, they have 3+2 seating which would add capacity - they could easily be refurbed

While I don't agree with 3+2 seating on 90 minute journeys - it's worth pointing out that many journeys similar to Hereford-Birmingham in the Northern Rail area are operated by 150s with 3+2 seating.

 

[Class172]

Do the majority of people actually go HFD-BHM? The buisiest stretch is between BHM-Worcester

 

[Boothby97]

What reason is it that Cleethorpes isn't cleared for 165s?

Thanks, Sam.

 

[Nym]

Paperwork...

Railtrack lost all of the old guaging plans that NR need to build up again IIRC.

 

[northwichcat]

Do the majority of people actually go HFD-BHM? The buisiest stretch is between BHM-Worcester

Well it was you that pointed out that the 165s would be inferior to the 170s for comfort, so if most people don't travel the full distance it's less of an issue. I'd be surprised if no-one travelled between Hereford and Birmingham. However, as pointed out the West Midlands are lucky to have 170s for routes like that while other areas have 150s.

 

[Class172]

170s are better suited to other services

Just refurb the 165s and the problem is sorted!

 

[tbtc]

Paperwork...

Railtrack lost all of the old guaging plans that NR need to build up again IIRC.

I'd have thought it would be pretty simple/quick to put 171s down as having the same "availability" as a 170 though?

 

[Nym]

Yeah, but thats mainly because the 170s run inside the 158 envelope.

If a type can run within another type's envelope it doesn't need fastidious checking IIRC.

"C1" Being an example

 

[tbtc]

Yeah, but thats mainly because the 170s run inside the 158 envelope.

If a type can run within another type's envelope it doesn't need fastidious checking IIRC.

"C1" Being an example

In the example of post 38, the line from New Street to Blackwell was cleared for 170s but not 171s...

 

[Nym]

Thats proberbly a matter of paperwork, I'd bet the 159s aren't cleared for half the routes the 158s are. (Since this is a similar 'class issue' with the south east)

Oooo, Toffery in the TOPS system, NSE always needed to be one better

 

[Class172]

Thats proberbly a matter of paperwork, I'd bet the 159s aren't cleared for half the routes the 158s are. (Since this is a similar 'class issue' with the south east)

Oooo, Toffery in the TOPS system, NSE always needed to be one better

159s are cleared for most of the 158 cleared lines - 158 and 159s are cleared for routes in Worcs

 

[OxtedL]

I would imagine that there is very little point in clearing the 171s for anything other than Southern routes, and routes for them to travel to places like Derby, Doncaster, ...

I would have hoped that if 171s were to come off Southern at some point, they would be modified to be interoperable with 170s and renumbered into the 170 range. This would, however, make sound logical sense, so who knows.

 

[tbtc]

I would imagine that there is very little point in clearing the 171s for anything other than Southern routes, and routes for them to travel to places like Derby, Doncaster, ...

I would have hoped that if 171s were to come off Southern at some point, they would be modified to be interoperable with 170s and renumbered into the 170 range. This would, however, make sound logical sense, so who knows.

True, I guess they'd just go back to their old numbers. Roll on the day this happens (and they move north)

Just seemed odd though, since nothing is longer or wider than a 165/166 (until we get 26m IEP coaches), so if they can clear lines then surely anything can?

 

[lm321412]

I would be all for 165s/166s being used on Birmingham regional services. Birmingham - Hereford/Shrewsbury is only similar to London - Oxford/Reading which they are already used to doing and they are not as uncomfortable as is being made out (they are hardly 142s).

I would like to see this happen:

21x Class 166 GW - LM upon electrification
05x Class 165 GW - LM upon electrification

Then:

09x Class 170/5 LM - EA
09x Class 156 EA - Northern
09x Class 142 Northern - Withdrawn

08x Class 170/5 LM - GW
06x Class 170/6 LM - GW
08x Class 143 GW - Withdrawn or Northern?
06x Class 150 GW - Northern
06x Class 142 Northern - Withdrawn

I would propose at looking at the centre coaches of the 170/6s being added into 170518 - 170523 of Cross Country (removed from 170630 - 170635) as then you are helping BHM - SSDs out.

I have also accounted for 26x Turbos to go to LM to account for growth and to prevent overcrowding and I think I may have overaccounted for them (annoyingly their are 21x 166s whilst LM have 23x 170s)

Of course, the Turbos would have to be able to be cleared for all these services:

Birmingham New Street - Hereford
Birmingham New Street - Rugeley Trent Valley
Birmingham New Street - Shrewsbury


Opinions on this of course welcome.

 

[LE Greys]

Nothing really wrong with 156s in East Anglia. More 170s would be welcome for Cambridge-Ipswich, but the Norfolk/Suffolk branches are perfect 156 territory. Perhaps a compromise would be to displace the seven 153s, with those heading to GW to reinforce local services in Devon. This ends single-car working in East Anglia, concentrates 156s on the Norfolk/Suffolk branches, adds seven vehicles to the fleet and brings in 170s on all Cambridge-Ipswich services. This coincides with the Ely route going double-track, and hopefully the reopening of Soham.

 

[tbtc]

Nothing really wrong with 156s in East Anglia. More 170s would be welcome for Cambridge-Ipswich, but the Norfolk/Suffolk branches are perfect 156 territory. Perhaps a compromise would be to displace the seven 153s, with those heading to GW to reinforce local services in Devon. This ends single-car working in East Anglia, concentrates 156s on the Norfolk/Suffolk branches, adds seven vehicles to the fleet and brings in 170s on all Cambridge-Ipswich services. This coincides with the Ely route going double-track, and hopefully the reopening of Soham.

Most of my "cascade" ideas involve NXEA getting 170s to allow their 156s to head North (often the nine 170s from TPE), partly to simplify stock (whilst Northern need more/newer trains a small fleet of 170s may complicate things, maybe better to give them some cascaded 156s?

Are the 156s and 170s used on (totally) different routes, or is there some mixing? Same with the 153s?

 

[LE Greys]

Most of my "cascade" ideas involve NXEA getting 170s to allow their 156s to head North (often the nine 170s from TPE), partly to simplify stock (whilst Northern need more/newer trains a small fleet of 170s may complicate things, maybe better to give them some cascaded 156s?

Are the 156s and 170s used on (totally) different routes, or is there some mixing? Same with the 153s?

Roughly:
LivSt-Lowestoft, always a 170
LivSt-Ipswich-Peterborough, always a 170
LivSt-Norwich-Yarmouth/Sheringham, usually a 170, but sometimes loco-hauled
Cambridge-Norwich, usually a 170
Cambridge-Ipswich, 156 or 153
Ipswich-Felixstowe shuttle, usually a156
Ipswich-Saxmundham, usually a 156
Bittern Line local, usually a 156 (occasional 153)
Wherry Lines local, usually a 156 (occasional 153)
Marks Tay-Sudbury, usually a 156

Sometimes 153s reinforce 156s, but they usually keep separate from the 170s. Anything that goes to Liverpool Street guarantees a 170, the same for anything which has to mix with EMT services. 156s stick to local work. Essentially, they are doing things properly, main line units on the main lines, branch line units on the branches. Cambridge-Ipswich could do with being promoted to a main line, but the Norfolk/Suffolk branches only got 156s comparatively recently (less suitable 150s before), and they suit fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Class172]

At least I'm talking some sense for once about 165/166s going to the mids

About the problem of being short of 2 16xs to 170s - nick a couple of chilterns 165s and in return they get a new order of 172s

 

[lm321412]

Roughly:
LivSt-Lowestoft, always a 170
LivSt-Ipswich-Peterborough, always a 170
LivSt-Norwich-Yarmouth/Sheringham, usually a 170

I might be wrong but, I thought 170s didn't run into Liverpool Street anymore?