Future Rolling Stock Plans: My Ideas

[HSTEd]

What with the vast improvements carried out by Chiltern, and the increase in passengers on that route - i would hardly call it an unimportant commuter route!

The improvements carried out by Chiltern seem to be primarily to support the end-to-end express trains they think they are going to become an InterCity operator by running.
The fact is HS2 will destroy any InterCity traffic they currently have, and I doubt they will be able to grab a significant amount of traffic from Oxford under the currently imagined upgrades to the Bicester-to-Oxford Line.
That takes up back to a 100mph commuter route, and there are far more promising lines to get electrified before it.

Dont forget too, that with further electrification happening across the Cross Country network - Electrification covering at least (Possibily Basingstoke) Reading to Oxford (Onwards to Banbury?), it would put the E Voyager plan into use. And having beein involved with a meeting rather reccently with a manager from Chiltern, i think there long term aspiration is Electrification - So if they want it, NR wants it, then who knows how long it'll be.

There will be no new electrification on the Manchester-Bournemouth XC route outside of Oxford-reading for the foreseeable future. The Reading-Bournemouth line especially is basically XC and one hourly stopper, hardly a good candidate.
The eVoyager project is just too expensive to be really practical, it is far better to focus what XC electrification resources they have on getting one route to full electric operation. And that route has to be NE-SW.

 

[tbtc]

I doubt that the Chiltern Line is going to be electrified within twenty years, there are so many routes ahead of it, the Midland Main Line, the other Cross Country route, the spurs from the ECML..... its an awful lot to get done before an unimportant commuter line gets done.
I doubt the Manchester-Bournemouth trains will convert to EMU operations any time soon, it will more likely be the place all the remaining Voyagers go to.

In rough terms, wiring the route from Marylebone to Worcester (plus branches to Stratford on Avon, Aylesbury, Oxford) is going to be around 150 miles of track which would free up around a hundred units (121, 165, 168, 172 etc).

This route is pretty self contained - unlike XC which has services running to Aberdeen, Newquay, Penzance, Paignton, Guildford (and several regular diversionary routes inc "freight" lines) - you'd have to wire up a thousand miles at least to resolve that!

Then again, the MML is fairly self contained and has a much better business case than the GWML did, so why am I trying to be logical? :/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Reading-Bournemouth line especially is basically XC and one hourly stopper, hardly a good candidate

You mean the half hourly self contained Reading - Basingstoke FGW shuttle? Plus three XC services every two hours on that section (now that half the Newcastle services are extended to Southampton)?

 

[sprinterguy]

I doubt that the Chiltern Line is going to be electrified within twenty years, there are so many routes ahead of it, the Midland Main Line, the other Cross Country route, the spurs from the ECML..... its an awful lot to get done before an unimportant commuter line gets done.
I doubt the Manchester-Bournemouth trains will convert to EMU operations any time soon, it will more likely be the place all the remaining Voyagers go to.

The Midland Mainline will undoubtedly be a higher priority than the Chiltern route for electrification, but I'm not at all convinced that Barnt Green/Bromsgrove - Cheltenham - Bristol would be electrified first: Many of the services that operate over that route continue onto what would remain unelectrified sections, such as Birmingham to Hereford and FGWs' Great Malvern - South Coast services. It's a largely provincial route that carries longer distance services rather than serving any dense, high frequency commuter corridors whose passengers are likely to influence voting preferences. The principal rolling stock that operates over the line, the Voyagers and Turbostars, wouldn't be up for renewal either.

Meanwhile the Chiltern line has high frequency commuter services at both ends of the route (The Chiltern 165s out of Marylebone and the Snow Hill lines at the Birmingham end), the 165s will be due for withdrawal and it would also serve as a short link to electrify between Oxford and Coventry to join up the WCML and GWML electrified routes for Crosscountry services: Every passenger service that runs over the route could operate off the OHLE.

Plus as fgwrich outlines electrification of the Chiltern route is an aspiration of both Network Rail and Chiltern, so I would suggest that it is a far more likely proposition than you think.

 

[HSTEd]

Plus as fgwrich outlines electrification of the Chiltern route is an aspiration of both Network Rail and Chiltern, so I would suggest that it is a far more likely proposition than you think.

My plan does actually have a plan for what happens if Chiltern electrification actually happens....... Class 379s for all.... but yeah.

When is the Chiltern franchise up anyway?

 

[sprinterguy]

The eVoyager project is just too expensive to be really practical,

The rail industry would beg to differ. It is a very real and reasonably practical proposition that serves to both lengthen some of the most woefully under-specified long distance trains in the UK and allow them to make use of the overhead supply where it is available, making huge savings in fuel use and making better use of the existing electrified infrastructure.

it is far better to focus what XC electrification resources they have on getting one route to full electric operation. And that route has to be NE-SW.

Why does it have to be NE-SW? There are many, often lengthy, unelectrified gaps in that route that fall within the jurisdiction of different TOCs: Leeds/Doncaster - Sheffield - Derby - Birmingham (Midland Mainline plus "extra bits"), Barnt Green - Gloucester (once GWML electrification is in place) and Bristol Temple Meads - Penzance. Even once GWML electrification is in place, that's still nearly a huge uninterrupted unelectrified stretch from Barnt Green to Penzance, excepting a short stretch between Gloucester and Bristol. And it is blindingly obvious at the present time that electrification from Bristol to the South West is not on the cards any time soon.

Meanwhile, as far as 25kV overhead is concerned, the only section of the Manchester - Bournemouth XC route that will require doing to allow uninterrupted electric operation all the way from Manchester to Reading, with diesel power continuing as at present into third rail land if the gaps south of Reading are not filled in, is the Chiltern route from Small Heath/Coventry - Oxford. If MML electrification is also carried out, then the Newcastle to Reading XC service could also be operated entirely with electric traction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When is the Chiltern franchise up anyway?

2021. Nice and convenient to write electrification into the early days of the next franchise

 

[Aictos]

I didn't realise that there were any problems with the MTU 6H 1800 R83 engines fitted to the 172s in meeting emissions regulations? I thought it was just the larger 750hp engines under other units that failed to meet the most recent qualifications.


It must be more cost effective for Chiltern to have procured mark 3s and to lease 67s from DB Schenker instead of purchasing new stock, or they wouldn't have done it, surely. Once again, your desperation to see class 172 world domination seems to fly in the face of economic sense when they are not required in the first place.

Plus, why on earth would a six carriage DMU on the Chiltern route need corridor connections? There would virtually never be a situation where passenger numbers would demand that they would need to work in multiple, and a train length of more than six carriages would be pushing the limits of some of the platform lengths on the route, starting with the bay platforms at Moor Street.

Indeed, I read up in a recent copy of RAIL which quoted Chiltern saying that it was more economic to use LHCS when operating formations of 6 or more vehicles then it was to use DMUs - think it was basically cheaper to use one engine of the Class 67 then the multiple engines of the DMUs.

Indeed the whole article can be found in RAIL 699 on sale 27/06/12

On the idea of wiring up the Chiltern route, it's a self contained network and both Chiltern and Network Rail have strong reasons to do the work so why not?

I can easily see the EMU chosen to be the backbone of the route to be a 4 car Electric version of the Class 172, why I hear you all ask?

Because the Chiltern and C2C routes are very similar in that they are both self contained routes to and from London and I think such a design would be good.

 

[HSTEd]

The rail industry would beg to differ. It is a very real and reasonably practical proposition that serves to both lengthen some of the most woefully under-specified long distance trains in the UK and allow them to make use of the overhead supply where it is available, making huge savings in fuel use and making better use of the existing electrified infrastructure.


Why does it have to be NE-SW? There are many, often lengthy, unelectrified gaps in that route that fall within the jurisdiction of different TOCs: Leeds/Doncaster - Sheffield - Derby - Birmingham (Midland Mainline plus "extra bits"), Barnt Green - Gloucester (once GWML electrification is in place) and Bristol Temple Meads - Penzance. Even once GWML electrification is in place, that's still nearly a huge uninterrupted unelectrified stretch from Barnt Green to Penzance, excepting a short stretch between Gloucester and Bristol. And it is blindingly obvious at the present time that electrification from Bristol to the South West is not on the cards any time soon.

Meanwhile, as far as 25kV overhead is concerned, the only section of the Manchester - Bournemouth XC route that will require doing to allow uninterrupted electric operation all the way from Manchester to Reading, with diesel power continuing as at present into third rail land if the gaps south of Reading are not filled in, is the Chiltern route from Small Heath/Coventry - Oxford. If MML electrification is also carried out, then the Newcastle to Reading XC service could also be operated entirely with electric traction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

2021. Nice and convenient to write electrification into the early days of the next franchise

I am just going off the NR RUS which rates the Plymouth/Paignton - Scotland as having a far higher BCR than Chiltern, the Snow Hill Lines or the Manchester-Bournemouth route.

And as far as I can tell the Project Thor conversion is dead in the water.

 

[sprinterguy]

And as far as I can tell the Project Thor conversion is dead in the water.

Out of curiosity, what gives you that idea? It wasn't that long ago since it was last reported that costings for an initial build to lengthen the 220s to five carriages were being explored.

 

[HSTEd]

Out of curiosity, what gives you that idea? It wasn't that long ago since it was last reported that costings for an initial build to lengthen the 220s to five carriages were being explored.

Didn't that come out at ridiculously expensive for only 30-odd new carriages?

If I knew that it was practical to reopen the Voyager bodyshell production line I would add Class 180 scrappage to the plan for standardisation purposes..... and kill the IEP.

 

[LE Greys]

While I don't particularly want to get into the Chiltern/HS2 argument again (in my case, I'm more worried about the ECML, because I happen to live near by) the thing that I've never quite got is what to do with the Metropolitan Line. There would seem to be several options.

• Dual-voltage stock on the Met, with the d.c. rails pulled up from Harrow-on-the-Hill northwards, meaning changes to LUL safety rules to permit bus lines, a lot of expensive work, but eventually a.c. OHL services to Watford and Aylesbury (extended from Amersham) sharing tracks with Chiltern (extended beyond Aylesbury to wherever)
• Dual-voltage stock on the Met, with the d.c. rails pulled up from Harrow-on-the-Hill northwards on the fast lines only, meaning that Watford keeps its d.c. services and a.c.-only services extend to Aylesbury
• Pull up the d.c. rails on the fast lines and abandon the Met's Amersham service, with Chiltern increasing the Aylesbury service to replace it
• Dual-voltage stock on Chiltern using the Met's four-rail system from Amersham to Harrow
• Dual-voltage stock on Chiltern with the Met's four-rail system extended to Aylesbury, allowing the Met to extend out there but Chiltern services still use it
• Extend the four-rail d.c. system to Aylesbury with all Chiltern trains going via High Wycombe

It all depends on a combination of LUL safety rules and what the most suitable system is for the line. My preferred option is the first, running two systems in parallel seems a bit pointless, and OHL should cope with the power demands of an Electrostar better than four-rail.

 

[Class377/5]

While I don't particularly want to get into the Chiltern/HS2 argument again (in my case, I'm more worried about the ECML, because I happen to live near by) the thing that I've never quite got is what to do with the Metropolitan Line. There would seem to be several options.

• Dual-voltage stock on the Met, with the d.c. rails pulled up from Harrow-on-the-Hill northwards, meaning changes to LUL safety rules to permit bus lines, a lot of expensive work, but eventually a.c. OHL services to Watford and Aylesbury (extended from Amersham) sharing tracks with Chiltern (extended beyond Aylesbury to wherever)
• Dual-voltage stock on the Met, with the d.c. rails pulled up from Harrow-on-the-Hill northwards on the fast lines only, meaning that Watford keeps its d.c. services and a.c.-only services extend to Aylesbury
• Pull up the d.c. rails on the fast lines and abandon the Met's Amersham service, with Chiltern increasing the Aylesbury service to replace it
• Dual-voltage stock on Chiltern using the Met's four-rail system from Amersham to Harrow
• Dual-voltage stock on Chiltern with the Met's four-rail system extended to Aylesbury, allowing the Met to extend out there but Chiltern services still use it
• Extend the four-rail d.c. system to Aylesbury with all Chiltern trains going via High Wycombe

It all depends on a combination of LUL safety rules and what the most suitable system is for the line. My preferred option is the first, running two systems in parallel seems a bit pointless, and OHL should cope with the power demands of an Electrostar better than four-rail.

Why not just have both 4th rail and OHLE? LUL already has a station with 3rd rail and OHLE working so they won't have any issue with it as long as the S Stock can run below it.

 

[LE Greys]

Why not just have both 4th rail and OHLE? LUL already has a station with 3rd rail and OHLE working so they won't have any issue with it as long as the S Stock can run below it.

It seems a bit pointless to have miles of doubly-electrified line. I could add it as a seventh option, though.

 

[HSTEd]

It all depends on a combination of LUL safety rules and what the most suitable system is for the line. My preferred option is the first, running two systems in parallel seems a bit pointless, and OHL should cope with the power demands of an Electrostar better than four-rail.

Conversion of S-stock is impractical (LUL regulations prohibit a 750V bus line the length of the train, with all motor bogies having separate pick-up shoes) and thus we are left with the option that I believe is best.

Convert from four rail to three with the fourth rail bonded to ground, similarly to the Bakerloo line on track shared with the Watford DC... I assume S-stock can handle this too?
It is far more likely that the third rail will be extended to Aylesbury and if 25kV ends up on the Chiltern Main line the switchover will occur on the move between the junction and the first station.

 

[Erniescooper]

Didn't that come out at ridiculously expensive for only 30-odd new carriages?

If I knew that it was practical to reopen the Voyager bodyshell production line I would add Class 180 scrappage to the plan for standardisation purposes..... and kill the IEP.

I would'nt go building any more when all the west coast units will be up for grabs in 2016.

 

[fgwrich]

I'd also avoid the idea of scrapping the 180s already!

As for High Speed 2, You say that it will kill All fast / Intercity type services on mostly the Chiltern Route but also including the west coast, Chiltern management are actually very supportive of High Speed 2, as they actually see it complementing both routes to london already, hence the continued investment along the route.

 

[HSTEd]

I would'nt go building any more when all the west coast units will be up for grabs in 2016.

Why? I haven't heard of any North West electrification relevant to ICWC being on the cards... apart from maybe Blackpool North?

 

[sprinterguy]

Why? I haven't heard of any North West electrification relevant to ICWC being on the cards... apart from maybe Blackpool North?

They're no longer contractually tied into the West Coast franchise from 2016, but yeah the new franchise holder would have to provide suitable alternative rolling stock of course if the 221s were actually going to become available.

 

[Erniescooper]

Why? I haven't heard of any North West electrification relevant to ICWC being on the cards... apart from maybe Blackpool North?

The lease for west coast Voyagers is up in 2016 and Alstom are offering a 6 car Pendolino which can operate in multiple as well as couple to an Alstom supplied diesel locomotive which can push pull operate the unit.

 

[tbtc]

Why? I haven't heard of any North West electrification relevant to ICWC being on the cards... apart from maybe Blackpool North?

No need for any electrification to allow the diesel Voyagers on Birmingham - Central Belt to be replaced by EMUs.

 

[HSTEd]

No need for any electrification to allow the diesel Voyagers on Birmingham - Central Belt to be replaced by EMUs.

Being as this could have happened when the Pendolinos were first ordered... I am not holding my breath.

 

[sprinterguy]

Being as this could have happened when the Pendolinos were first ordered... I am not holding my breath.

No it couldn't: At the time the Pendolinos were ordered, Birmingham to Scotland was part of the Virgin Crosscountry network that was part of a longer route from the South Coast.

 

[tbtc]

Being as this could have happened when the Pendolinos were first ordered... I am not holding my breath.

As the Pendolini production line is still open (due to the current extension programme) it's not impossible that the new ICWC franchise holder would move towards a uniform fleet by getting some more 390s (to replace Voyagers)

 

[HSTEd]

As the Pendolini production line is still open (due to the current extension programme) it's not impossible that the new ICWC franchise holder would move towards a uniform fleet by getting some more 390s (to replace Voyagers)

Do we have any information with regards to the cost of new Pendolino carriages in the present order? Is it similar to the £1.5m of Turbostar-type DMUs or is it around the £2m mark?

And do we have a breakdown of VT 221s by duty? Since we probably would not be replacing the entire fleet if we exclude the possibility of locomotive hauls.

And finally, does anyone have an estimate of the cost of "Operation Thor" for the first 35 sets and the cost of any additional Voyager carriages produced at the same time?

 

[LE Greys]

As the Pendolini production line is still open (due to the current extension programme) it's not impossible that the new ICWC franchise holder would move towards a uniform fleet by getting some more 390s (to replace Voyagers)

Well, let's hope so. I think the 6-car idea has merit, especially for Birmingham-Scotland and potentially Manchester-Scotland, as these might well not fill an entire 9-car formation (let alone 11-car).

Also, whatver the reliability problems of the 180s, they have been useful little units on some routes, slotting neatly between HSTs and DMUs on FGW, and working fine with open-access on EC.

 

[ffm]

...or simply adopt the e-voyager, with the government likely to pay for the production of these soon

 

[sprinterguy]

And do we have a breakdown of VT 221s by duty? Since we probably would not be replacing the entire fleet if we exclude the possibility of locomotive hauls.

Off the top of my head, the twenty Virgin 221s should be split essentially half and half between the North Wales and Birmingham - Scotland services, around ten units each including a maintenance spare or two.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...or simply adopt the e-voyager, with the government likely to pay for the production of these soon

As I mentioned in another thread, why only add a pantograph car to what will remain essentially a diesel unit, lugging around the additional weight of unused diesel engines and transmission, when the service is completely under the wires and hence a true EMU would be more suitable? Crosscountry could make much better use of VTs' Voyagers as DEMUs.

 

[Erniescooper]

Do we have any information with regards to the cost of new Pendolino carriages in the present order? Is it similar to the £1.5m of Turbostar-type DMUs or is it around the £2m mark?

And do we have a breakdown of VT 221s by duty? Since we probably would not be replacing the entire fleet if we exclude the possibility of locomotive hauls.

And finally, does anyone have an estimate of the cost of "Operation Thor" for the first 35 sets and the cost of any additional Voyager carriages produced at the same time?

Why do you exclude loco haulage, Tony Miles at Modern railways reckons Alstom have got the coupling of a suitably equiped diesel loco down to 30 seconds, as far as I can see it's a no brainer you would save a fortune on fuel and be able to operate a standard fleet on the west coast. If a Eurolight could be fitted with a auto coupler the locos required for the North Wales coast could be maintained by DRS at Crewe and Alstom could just concentrate on Pendolino maintenance.

 

[HSTEd]

Why do you exclude loco haulage, Tony Miles at Modern railways reckons Alstom have got the coupling of a suitably equiped diesel loco down to 30 seconds, as far as I can see it's a no brainer you would save a fortune on fuel and be able to operate a standard fleet on the west coast. If a Eurolight could be fitted with a auto coupler the locos required for the North Wales coast could be maintained by DRS at Crewe and Alstom could just concentrate on Pendolino maintenance.

Sure it can be, but then we are back to loco hauled formations but with unusually heavy coaching stock.
This causes issues with the timetabling on the diesel operated sections of the route since they would have drastically inferior performance to the trains they would be replacing.

 

[Aictos]

The lease for west coast Voyagers is up in 2016 and Alstom are offering a 6 car Pendolino which can operate in multiple as well as couple to an Alstom supplied diesel locomotive which can push pull operate the unit.

Why not a 9 car though, surely that will be ideal for Chester, Blackpool North and for the Birmingham/Manchester to Scotland services?

That is of course providing the wires reach Chester from Crewe which could mean the 220/221 fleet moving across to Cross Country and ICWC having just 390s and a small fleet of Alstom supplied diesel locomotives for drags away from the wires.

 

[Erniescooper]

Sure it can be, but then we are back to loco hauled formations but with unusually heavy coaching stock.
This causes issues with the timetabling on the diesel operated sections of the route since they would have drastically inferior performance to the trains they would be replacing.

As far as I know only single Voyagers go west of Chester at the moment and I don't think a 3750 hp state of the art loco would have much trouble with a 6 car Pendolino. There would be no running around at Holyhead as the autocoupler would allow through train wiring and push pull operation. If Chester was to be electrified Chester and Holyhead portions could be joined easily at Chester and run 190 odd miles on electric power, would you rather 7500hp of QSK ran the 158 miles from Crewe to London under 25kv wires.