Possible new 377 order

[Voyager 2093]

The 170 was a technical improvement on the 168- which basically a pre-privatisation design. The 171 merely differs in coupler- the 170s have a coupler compatible with Sprinters, whilst the 171s are compatible with 377s. 172s are technical development further of the 170- lower speed, and one batch will have a corridor connector.

The 221 IS the tilting version of the 220.

Some of the class numbering as to whether different versions of trains count as sub-classes or "full" classes can be somewhat arbitrary.

Depends on which sub class of 168 your talking about. Correct me If I'm wrong but 168/1 and 168/2 are much better accelerators than 170s on a whole and they are faster than 170s, well 6mph faster.

 

[sprinterguy]

Depends on which sub class of 168 your talking about. Correct me If I'm wrong but 168/1 and 168/2 are much better accelerators than 170s on a whole and they are faster than 170s, well 6mph faster.

Eh? I was under the impression that the 168s were identical to 170s: They have the same engine with the same power output, same transmission and everything else, so their performance should be identical. Then again, I travel on them as opposed to work with them so I could be wrong.

The 170 Turbostars are a direct development of the 168/0s, which of course have an interim type of cab, whilst I thought the 168/1s and 168/2s were 170 clones straight from the standard Turbostar production line.

 

[MCR247]

I always thought, that 168/0 Clubman was part of a NSE project that never happened due to Privatisation, but happened as 168/0s. A development of that was the 170s, which were almost the same apart from the cab. And from the 170 production line came the /1s and /2s. Thats what I thought anyway, so similar to you sprinterguy

 

[tbtc]

On the subject of 168s, are these "normal" width?

I only ask as the 165/166s are built wider for Great Western loading gauge (so would have to stay in that corner of the UK if the GWML is electrified), but I don't know whether 168s could move north? There are a few routes where a four-car 170 equivalent would be *very* useful!

 

[Crossforth]

The only way the 168s would move is if the FGW 165/166s transferred to Chiltern on completion of the electrification allowing the 168s to move north.

 

[jopsuk]

Yup, exactly the same dimensions as 170s/171s- if Southern's diesel routes ever get electrified, the 171s would surely be easily (re)fitted with BSI couplers- the 6 171/8 are four cars long. The 170/7 two car units were originally 170s anyway, and were fitted with Delners later.

There's certainly no technical reason why 170s can't be 4 car- the lengths they exist in are more due to operational and/or platform length requirments.

 

[tbtc]

Yup, exactly the same dimensions as 170s/171s- if Southern's diesel routes ever get electrified, the 171s would surely be easily (re)fitted with BSI couplers- the 6 171/8 are four cars long. The 170/7 two car units were originally 170s anyway, and were fitted with Delners later.

There's certainly no technical reason why 170s can't be 4 car- the lengths they exist in are more due to operational and/or platform length requirments.

Cheers for confirming.

I'd rather electrification was concentrated on "missing links" like the Ore line (Reading to Gatwick, East Anglian branches etc), to get rid of diesel operation 100% in certain areas.

A "logical" railway would look at routes desperately needing longer DMUs, look at a few "spare" EMUs sitting around, look at these long DMUs which could easily be replaced with a few miles of electrification and join the dots...

 

[jopsuk]

Southern's diesel routes, for which a few more 377s would be needed (certainly no spares!) are prime example of "missing links"- the 171s are needed for the services to Uckfield (they spend most of the journey on lines with 3rd rail, only leaving it at Oxted) and for the "Marshlink" between Hastings and Ashford- these are the only passenger lines south and east of the mainline to Southampton without electrification.

 

[tbtc]

Southern's diesel routes, for which a few more 377s would be needed (certainly no spares!) are prime example of "missing links"- the 171s are needed for the services to Uckfield (they spend most of the journey on lines with 3rd rail, only leaving it at Oxted) and for the "Marshlink" between Hastings and Ashford- these are the only passenger lines south and east of the mainline to Southampton without electrification.

Yup - both would be in my "top five" electrifications (along with Nuneaton - Coventry, the gaps between Reading and Gatwick and Walsall - Rugeley)

By "spare" EMUs I appreciate there are no 377s going spare at the moment, but there are 508s etc plus the 460s are soon to be "spare" (319s going spare in a few years). I'm not saying these are ideal for Uckfield/ Ore, but there are a lot more EMUs spare than DMUs (the only DMUs I can think of are two unreliable 180s), so why not electrify these short stretches to release badly needed DMUs elsewhere?

 

[Voyager 2093]

The only way the 168s would move is if the FGW 165/166s transferred to Chiltern on completion of the electrification allowing the 168s to move north.

168s moving north, no chance, I don't think Chiltern Railways would even consider replacing them with underpowered 165s and 166s.

 

[tbtc]

168s moving north, no chance, I don't think Chiltern Railways would even consider replacing them with underpowered 165s and 166s.

Might not be there choice though, given how the DFT like to tell TOCs what they are getting

 

[jopsuk]

Aye, the only way Chiltern would ever let the 168s go would be if someone came along with a whole load of masts and wires. This won't happen, which is a pity, as they'd make for a fantastic fleet for Cross Country.

 

[tbtc]

Aye, the only way Chiltern would ever let the 168s go would be if someone came along with a whole load of masts and wires. This won't happen, which is a pity, as they'd make for a fantastic fleet for Cross Country.

Chiltern would be a relatively simple line to electrify, fairly self contained. Operationally it makes more sense to wire than GWML etc. Plus it'd release a decent number of modern EMUs.

The 168s would be ideal for XC too.

 

[anthony263]

I think Chiltern would be more than likley to use some of their class 168's on the proposed East-West rail routes

 

[Aictos]

Chiltern would be a relatively simple line to electrify, fairly self contained. Operationally it makes more sense to wire than GWML etc. Plus it'd release a decent number of modern EMUs.

The 168s would be ideal for XC too.

Pardon me for asking but what would stop a third party from funding and employing contractors to wire up a self contained route like that as long as it's to the required standards required?

For example if DB wanted to as part of Evergreen 4 wanted to wired up their routes and would fund the majority of the work themselves with little to no cost to the taxpayer, would the DfT and Network Rail refuse the works to go ahead?

 

[jopsuk]

I think if they also stumped up the funding (not quite the same things as cash) for the rolling stock to go with it, the DfT and Network Rail would be more than happy to give the OK.

 

[tbtc]

Pardon me for asking but what would stop a third party from funding and employing contractors to wire up a self contained route like that as long as it's to the required standards required?

For example if DB wanted to as part of Evergreen 4 wanted to wired up their routes and would fund the majority of the work themselves with little to no cost to the taxpayer, would the DfT and Network Rail refuse the works to go ahead?

That's exactly the kind of proactive risk taking that we were promised. Give the TOC long enough and they could invest in new trains/ infrastructure improvements like this.

Chiltern is a relatively "stand alone" operation, add in the Worcester to Stratford lines (which are a pretty frequent diesel service, so would release a decent number of DMUs).

I'm not sure what would stop DB wiring up the line (to a sufficiently high standard); presumably DFT wouldn't want anyone to be innovative and take risks like this (since it wouldn't be *their* idea)

 

[Aictos]

That's exactly the kind of proactive risk taking that we were promised. Give the TOC long enough and they could invest in new trains/ infrastructure improvements like this.

Chiltern is a relatively "stand alone" operation, add in the Worcester to Stratford lines (which are a pretty frequent diesel service, so would release a decent number of DMUs).

I'm not sure what would stop DB wiring up the line (to a sufficiently high standard); presumably DFT wouldn't want anyone to be innovative and take risks like this (since it wouldn't be *their* idea)

How long should a franchise be let for though, 20 years, 25 years, 30 years?

However if DB were going to wire up the Chilterns, it would serve as a starting point for other routes to be done as well for example if Marylebone to Oxford was done first then it makes it more attractive to the DfT to wire up Paddington to Oxford plus the Thames Valleys as the first stage of the GWML being wired up then Didcot to Bristol Temple Meads via Bath and Bristol Parkway then Bristol Temple Meads to Plymouth via Exeter St Davids plus branches and Bristol Parkway to Swansea which would lead to the SWML from Exeter St Davids to Waterloo being electrified.

All this in term would lead to many infill schemes being completed, it just needs someone with the balls to get the the ball rolling.

 

[WatcherZero]

The EU limit for franchise length is 21 years (though can be extended slightly for a good reason)

 

[tbtc]

How long should a franchise be let for though, 20 years, 25 years, 30 years?

However if DB were going to wire up the Chilterns, it would serve as a starting point for other routes to be done as well for example if Marylebone to Oxford was done first then it makes it more attractive to the DfT to wire up Paddington to Oxford plus the Thames Valleys as the first stage of the GWML being wired up then Didcot to Bristol Temple Meads via Bath and Bristol Parkway then Bristol Temple Meads to Plymouth via Exeter St Davids plus branches and Bristol Parkway to Swansea which would lead to the SWML from Exeter St Davids to Waterloo being electrified.

All this in term would lead to many infill schemes being completed, it just needs someone with the balls to get the the ball rolling.

I'd love this to happen, the danger is that you'd end up with an "MTL" kind of operator unable to invest or do anything, then you are stuck for a generation with a rubbish operator.

But if Chiltern was wired then the Banbury - Birmingham stretch would encourage Banbury - Oxford - Reading, so that half the XC services can move over to Electric. And then, if you've done that then its only a short stretch to wire the gap between Crossrail at Maidenhead and Reading... and then...

 

[jon0844]

Why can't a company simply invest in something and get a return even after they've lost a franchise?

Say they pay for wiring up a line, or introducing new trains.. they simply get a percentage of any future profit/rental revenue. In effect, they're investing not as a specific TOC for a specific franchise, but for a longer term.

At least there's some genuine incentive for investment from the private sector then.

 

[WatcherZero]

National lottery franchise had the condition that every time its awarded the operator has to replace all the existing lottery terminals with new ones. While its good for investment and levels the playing field so that the incumbent doesnt have an unfair advantage you could argue it pushes up costs.

There has been talk in the rail franchise reform of allowing tocs to create a regulated private asset base seperate to the franchises government owned assets, there would be tight controls over what could be put in and independent valuation. At the end of the franchise a new operator would be forced to pay the previous to acquire this asset base. It would cause a whole host of headaches and potential legal squabbles however so government may deem it more trouble than its worth to implement.

 

[Minstral25]

More 377's - yes please but keep them in the south east

These units are almost perfect - except for the 3+2 seats in the centre cars - comfortable, smooth and perfect for commuter routes.

Yes I think FCC had trouble to start with but they are working well now.

An order to extend the current trains wouldn't b bad to make the southern 4 car units to 5 or preferably 6 car. This would mean Southern would effectively have more units as only need 2 sets to make a 12 coach train and allow some of the overcrowded routes to get extended trains.

Some could be kept as 4 car for the lines that can't take six car units - Tonbridge for example and some south coast routes. The majority of the routes are already six coach cleared and in London and the main lines for 12 - the few stations that aren't are due to be extended shortly.