Which lines do you think would benefit from 3rd rail electrification?

[A0]

Turning over Amersham to Aylesbury to the Met is a much better plan because it would mean the Met could run many more semi fasts into the heart of Central London

Go on, humour me. Chiltern run 2tph through Amersham and the lines are shared between Amersham and Harrow.

How could the Met run "many more semi fasts" if Chiltern weren't there? Surely it would be 2 paths? And I'm not sure there is capacity beyond Baker Street to run into central London either.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Go on, humour me. Chiltern run 2tph through Amersham and the lines are shared between Amersham and Harrow.

How could the Met run "many more semi fasts" if Chiltern weren't there? Surely it would be 2 paths? And I'm not sure there is capacity beyond Baker Street to run into central London either.

OK, maybe only 4tph in each direction extra with faster acceleration and maybe some work done on the fast lines to raise the top speed. And skip shopping for the 2 extra trains.

 

[A0]

OK, maybe only 4tph in each direction extra with faster acceleration and maybe some work done on the fast lines to raise the top speed. And skip shopping for the 2 extra trains.

Raising the linespeed is pretty pointless if you remove Chiltern because the S8's have a top speed of 62mph - whereas the 165's are 75mph or 90mph depending on the variant.

And 4tph would simply be replacing the 2tph Chiltern with Met - as the Met already runs 2tph to Amersham.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Go on, humour me. Chiltern run 2tph through Amersham and the lines are shared between Amersham and Harrow.

How could the Met run "many more semi fasts" if Chiltern weren't there? Surely it would be 2 paths? And I'm not sure there is capacity beyond Baker Street to run into central London either.

If that's only 2tph extra to Baker St instead of through to Aldgate,then that's still an improvement on Marylebone with the bigger variety of tube connections and not to mention increased seats with the longer S Stock on the Tube compared to the 165's. It would also free up more capacity at Marylebone in conjunction with the High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross stoppers being mostly transferred to Crossrail and reinstatement of four tracks on the CML the whole way to Birmingham for more medium to long distance services to the West Mids(possibly more frequent service extensions to Kidderminster or maybe North Wales via Shrewsbury)and Oxford,as Marylebone should be a long distance terminal after all.All this would reduce pressure on the Bakerloo as well with all the High Wycombe/Aylesbury line commuters funneling directly onto the Met/Crossrail.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Raising the linespeed is pretty pointless if you remove Chiltern because the S8's have a top speed of 62mph - whereas the 165's are 75mph or 90mph depending on the variant.

And 4tph would simply be replacing the 2tph Chiltern with Met - as the Met already runs 2tph to Amersham.

I meant 6tph - 4 existing + 2 new. Split 2 semi-fast Aylesbury to Aldgate,2 all stops Aylesbury to Aldgate and 2 all stops Aylesbury to Baker Street.
All the Chiltern 165's are 75mph max and they have slow acceleration.As someone posted before in the thread, the Met is quicker between 2 stops on the Aylesbury line than Chiltern, probably because of the faster acceleration.

 

[A0]

If that's only 2tph extra to Baker St instead of through to Aldgate,then that's still an improvement on Marylebone with the bigger variety of tube connections and not to mention increased seats with the longer S Stock on the Tube compared to the 165's. It would also free up more capacity at Marylebone in conjunction with the High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross stoppers being mostly transferred to Crossrail and reinstatement of four tracks on the CML the whole way to Birmingham for more medium to long distance services to the West Mids(possibly more frequent service extensions to Kidderminster or maybe North Wales via Shrewsbury)and Oxford,as Marylebone should be a long distance terminal after all.All this would reduce pressure on the Bakerloo as well with all the High Wycombe/Aylesbury line commuters funneling directly onto the Met/Crossrail.

Extending the Underground to Aylesbury is ridiculous. Yes I know it was originally run by the Met, but that was a century ago. There's no justification for a TFL line nearly 40 miles out if London.

Not sure where you get the idea that the Chiltern Mainline was 4 track to Birmingham - that was never the case, even in GWR days. Yes it might have had 4 track sections but on the whole it was 2 track from Old Oak Common (start of the NNML) and Leamington. The GC bit from Ruislip to Marylebone was 2 track. This video shows

And do enlighten me how you propose to get trains from Snow Hill onto Shrewsbury and North Wales....... Can I suggest you consult a railway atlas?

 

[A0]

I meant 6tph - 4 existing + 2 new. Split 2 semi-fast Aylesbury to Aldgate,2 all stops Aylesbury to Aldgate and 2 all stops Aylesbury to Baker Street.
All the Chiltern 165's are 75mph max and they have slow acceleration.As someone posted before in the thread, the Met is quicker between 2 stops on the Aylesbury line than Chiltern, probably because of the faster acceleration.

You'll never create 4 paths where there are 2 at present.

And whilst the better acceleration of the S8 may mean a slightly shorter journey between Amersham and Chalfont or Chalfont and Rickmansworth that benefit only applies with closely spaced stations - that wouldn't apply from Amersham to Aylesbury which is 15 miles with 3 intermediate stops.

 

[si404]

And 4tph would simply be replacing the 2tph Chiltern with Met - as the Met already runs 2tph to Amersham.

And those figures are doubled in the peak (2 semi-fast Met, 2 fast Met, 2 Chiltern regular, 2 Chiltern non-stop).

But while the signalling can deal with the extra 4tph (post-upgrade we're talking 28tph going to 32 if Aylesbury services are added in as-is), Finchley Road is going to struggle due to high levels of passengers changing trains meaning relatively long dwell times.

All this would reduce pressure on the Bakerloo

Ah yes, the emptiest line that isn't an SSL - especially once Lizzy removes a lot of the Paddington passengers. Totally worth all that massive master plan you've concocted.

And, of course that diverted ex-Chiltern suburban traffic now on the Met either gets on the Bakerloo at the next stop (Baker Street) anyway, negating the benefit, or takes the overloaded Jubilee line instead.

Extending the Underground to Aylesbury is ridiculous. Yes I know it was originally run by the Met, but that was a century ago.

90 years. But it's not that absurd. Seoul has its metro going a really long out, and TfL already has a line nearly 40 miles out of London...

There's no justification for a TFL line nearly 40 miles out if London.

You sound like Sadiq Khan's press officer on Croxley Link cancellation - effectively saying that the tube is a local railway for local people and that's the nothing for outsiders here. Now, sure it's not good for Aylesbury to have to rely on it if that was the case, but it wasn't the case under Ken London-ends-at-zone-3 Livingstone, nor is it the case under the current Mayor.

 

[JonathanH]

There's no justification for a TFL line nearly 40 miles out if London.

Reading is 36 miles out of London and has a TfL Rail line.

 

[A0]

Reading is 36 miles out of London and has a TfL Rail line.

An unhelpful precedent. It really ought to have been curtailed at Slough or not been a TFL line as Thameslink.

I posted elsewhere, I don't get this love for TFL - it's a financial basket case and by its very structure will always be focused on what's best for London passengers, no doubt to the detriment of those who live beyond London and can't kick out the Mayor to whom TFL are accountable.

 

[corfield]

I meant 6tph - 4 existing + 2 new. Split 2 semi-fast Aylesbury to Aldgate,2 all stops Aylesbury to Aldgate and 2 all stops Aylesbury to Baker Street.
All the Chiltern 165's are 75mph max and they have slow acceleration.As someone posted before in the thread, the Met is quicker between 2 stops on the Aylesbury line than Chiltern, probably because of the faster acceleration.

Can that actually handle all the pax loading on this line? AIUI this is why the line wasn’t handed to LU in the past because Baker St couldn’t take it. Given the growth since then how has changed? Chiltern 165s are slower between stops but on the outer sections that top speed difference vs S stock must count for something?

I’d look to leave the service provision as is but add extra tracks to segregate the two, give the fasts to Chiltern plus MYB capacity which is needed anyway if a metro service is to appear on the Main Line side. Granted that isn’t simple Rickmansworth to Amersham, but it separates the two, gives LU the all stops service it wants to run (including ideally reinstating the Croxley plns) and allows Chiltern to focus on developing it’s service on that line. Longer trains are also needed but agreed that requires platform work.

Really this needs splitting off the thread though!

 

[philthetube]

The problem with slow journey times to Aylesbury is that the line is not aligned for speed - it's too curvy. North of Amersham is only 70mph (instead of the 75mph the trains can do). Rickmansworth - Amersham is 60mph and trains rarely seem to even get up to that. A Met from Amersham to Rickmansworth is 10-11 minutes (38.5mph average), and a Chiltern Turbo is 12 minutes (32mph average). Now, OK there's 2 intermediate stops, plus the standing start/stop, within that 6.4 miles - but the line speed is 60 and, IME, they don't tend to reach that. Perhaps it's a timetabling issue created due to the merges heading towards London? But the other way, where that's not an issue, it's still 11 and 13 (slower because of the big uphill out of Rickmansworth) - still those terrible average speeds. Having electric trains for Chiltern would trim some time off (make them equal to the S Stock), but that doesn't need to mean getting rid of the currently faster S-stock from the route to get them out of the way - not least because they aren't in the way!

I'd imagine some of the slow running is because of signalling/track - certainly it's an issue on the Harrow-Moor Park fasts (which have been lowered from 70 to 50 for LU and 75 to 60 for NR), but an issue which TfL are working on with their modernisation programme.

The slow diesel times between Rickmansworth and Amersham are because of the hill, none of the stock operating the route uphill can reach 60 mph, Sthe S8's reach around 53 and the diesels are slower, (I admit I do not know how they perform if running non stop). Returning down the hill, if they reached 75 then they really would be running non stop.

Harrow to Moor Park is now 60, it was 50 because of the age and condition of the Astock.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Extending the Underground to Aylesbury is ridiculous. Yes I know it was originally run by the Met, but that was a century ago. There's no justification for a TFL line nearly 40 miles out if London.

Not sure where you get the idea that the Chiltern Mainline was 4 track to Birmingham - that was never the case, even in GWR days. Yes it might have had 4 track sections but on the whole it was 2 track from Old Oak Common (start of the NNML) and Leamington. The GC bit from Ruislip to Marylebone was 2 track. This video shows

And do enlighten me how you propose to get trains from Snow Hill onto Shrewsbury and North Wales....... Can I suggest you consult a railway atlas?

No justification? It's only a 10 mile or so stub that is solely operated by Chiltern Railways of the Aylesbury line. It would operationally much simpler to hand it over to one operator. I meant the 4 track sections that had previously existed on the route being reinstated to allow intercity and commuter services to be separated. The services from Marylebone to Shrewsbury and North Wales could use the curve off the CML just after Small Heath station then onto the WCML there(providing paths could be found through New Street).

 

[AlastairFraser]

You'll never create 4 paths where there are 2 at present.

And whilst the better acceleration of the S8 may mean a slightly shorter journey between Amersham and Chalfont or Chalfont and Rickmansworth that benefit only applies with closely spaced stations - that wouldn't apply from Amersham to Aylesbury which is 15 miles with 3 intermediate stops.

Why not? With CBTC(which I understand is in operation on other Underground lines),trains could be flighted much closer and new paths could be created. Not possible with the Class 165's of course. And,although there are only 3 intermediate stops between Aylesbury and Amersham,Aylesbury to Stoke Mandeville is a similar distance to Amersham to Chalfont at roughly 2.5 miles and Stoke Mandeville to Wendover at 3 miles.

 

[AlastairFraser]

And those figures are doubled in the peak (2 semi-fast Met, 2 fast Met, 2 Chiltern regular, 2 Chiltern non-stop).

But while the signalling can deal with the extra 4tph (post-upgrade we're talking 28tph going to 32 if Aylesbury services are added in as-is), Finchley Road is going to struggle due to high levels of passengers changing trains meaning relatively long dwell times.
Ah yes, the emptiest line that isn't an SSL - especially once Lizzy removes a lot of the Paddington passengers. Totally worth all that massive master plan you've concocted.

And, of course that diverted ex-Chiltern suburban traffic now on the Met either gets on the Bakerloo at the next stop (Baker Street) anyway, negating the benefit, or takes the overloaded Jubilee line instead.
90 years. But it's not that absurd. Seoul has its metro going a really long out, and TfL already has a line nearly 40 miles out of London...
You sound like Sadiq Khan's press officer on Croxley Link cancellation - effectively saying that the tube is a local railway for local people and that's the nothing for outsiders here. Now, sure it's not good for Aylesbury to have to rely on it if that was the case, but it wasn't the case under Ken London-ends-at-zone-3 Livingstone, nor is it the case under the current Mayor.

Point was it is one of many different benefits of the scheme. Not the only one.

 

[AlastairFraser]

An unhelpful precedent. It really ought to have been curtailed at Slough or not been a TFL line as Thameslink.

I posted elsewhere, I don't get this love for TFL - it's a financial basket case and by its very structure will always be focused on what's best for London passengers, no doubt to the detriment of those who live beyond London and can't kick out the Mayor to whom TFL are accountable.

What, so you don't understand the benefits of an integrated fares schemes for London and its dormitory towns in the Home Counties? Or a transport system in the same region under single public control?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Can that actually handle all the pax loading on this line? AIUI this is why the line wasn’t handed to LU in the past because Baker St couldn’t take it. Given the growth since then how has changed? Chiltern 165s are slower between stops but on the outer sections that top speed difference vs S stock must count for something?

I’d look to leave the service provision as is but add extra tracks to segregate the two, give the fasts to Chiltern plus MYB capacity which is needed anyway if a metro service is to appear on the Main Line side. Granted that isn’t simple Rickmansworth to Amersham, but it separates the two, gives LU the all stops service it wants to run (including ideally reinstating the Croxley plns) and allows Chiltern to focus on developing it’s service on that line. Longer trains are also needed but agreed that requires platform work.

Really this needs splitting off the thread though!

It would better handle the passenger load that converting it to Chiltern with the short Class 165's compared to the relatively long S8 Stock trains. A metro service to stations between Marylebone and South Ruislip on the CML isn't economically viable or practical and the metro service to stations beyond South Ruislip can be provided by an extension of Crossrail up the NNML as I suggested. DMU's are in short supply anyway, meaning for longer units, new tri mode units would have to be built new or converted at great expense and creating a microfleet as well.

 

[AM9]

It would better handle the passenger load that converting it to Chiltern with the short Class 165's compared to the relatively long S8 Stock trains. A metro service to stations between Marylebone and South Ruislip on the CML isn't economically viable or practical and the metro service to stations beyond South Ruislip can be provided by an extension of Crossrail up the NNML as I suggested. DMU's are in short supply anyway, meaning for longer units, new tri mode units would have to be built new or converted at great expense and creating a microfleet as well.

"CML"? "NNML"? Please explain abbreviations.

 

[A0]

What, so you don't understand the benefits of an integrated fares schemes for London and its dormitory towns in the Home Counties? Or a transport system in the same region under single public control?

Integrated ticketing in the true sense arrived in the early 80s with the Capitalcard now Travelcard. That didn't need TFL and didn't need to stretch outside of London.

The "pay as you go" Oyster ticketing came about in 2003 - it couldn't have practically happened before then because the technology to support e ticketing didn't exist.

The "public control" element in this form is the real problem because TFL is accountable to the Mayor of London. The non London areas have no influence, accountability or control over it. It's the same issue as in the early 80s when the GLC under the slogan "Fares Fair" introduced a subsidy for LT paid for by a 5% increase in rates. It was challenged at the High Court, successfully, by councils such as Bromley who's contention was its rate payers were being expected to subsidise the tube network which didn't serve them.

So, no, the way it's being implemented and the power it gives to TFL and the Mayor of London to set policies over people who can't vote for them or remove them means I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[A0]

"CML"? "NNML"? Please explain abbreviations.

CML - not a common one, but Chiltern Mainline.

NNML - one for the pub quizzers! New North Mainline, basically the bit of line built by the GWR from Old Oak Common to South Ruislip where it connected with the Great Central / GW joint line up to Ashendon Junction where the GC headed off towards Quainton and it's route to Rugby and beyond and the GW continued to Banbury and Birmingham.

The NNML allowed the GWR to run from Paddington to the West Midlands via the Chilterns. Use declined massively from the late 1960s when the Euston Birmingham route was wired and became the prime London to Birmingham route. It's now coming back into play as a way of linking the Chiltern line to Old Oak Common, providing an alternative southern terminus and a link to Crossrail, HS2 and the Great Western mainline.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What, so you don't understand the benefits of an integrated fares schemes for London and its dormitory towns in the Home Counties? Or a transport system in the same region under single public control?

People who live in Bucks or Herts do not have a say in London politics, and when service changes are proposed this is often noticed. You no longer get off-peak semi-fasts to/from Amersham, and you no longer get as many peak fasts to/from Amersham, because it was better for London ratepayers in places like Pinner to have everything run all stops. Obviously the cancellation of the Croxley link is the biggest example of how handing control to TfL really doesn't benefit people who live outside the London boundary. Put simply, Bucks and Herts residents don't pay so don't get a say.

The integrated fares scheme came in a long time ago, with Travelcard and Capitalcard, as @A0wen also says. My season ticket from Hemel Hempstead- not as far out as Aylesbury- included all-zones London travel. Sure, it was on a piece of orange cardboard and not a piece of blue plastic, but that's about medium not utility.

As a relatively regular user of the trains out to Amersham (t'missus worked there at the hospital, and the restaurants were better in Amersham than Hemel for after-work dining!) the main thing that needs sorting is the under-capacity of the Chiltern trains. Even the ones that were first stop Amersham were rammed, possibly because they were first stop Amersham and so much quicker. But I don't think switching the Chiltern trrains to Met trains is the solution, the solution is to get some bigger trains for Chiltern and move the 2-car and 3-car 165/166s to the provinces where their size is better suited.

 

[AM9]

CML - not a common one, but Chiltern Mainline.

NNML - one for the pub quizzers! New North Mainline, basically the bit of line built by the GWR from Old Oak Common to South Ruislip where it connected with the Great Central / GW joint line up to Ashendon Junction where the GC headed off towards Quainton and it's route to Rugby and beyond and the GW continued to Banbury and Birmingham.

The NNML allowed the GWR to run from Paddington to the West Midlands via the Chilterns. Use declined massively from the late 1960s when the Euston Birmingham route was wired and became the prime London to Birmingham route. It's now coming back into play as a way of linking the Chiltern line to Old Oak Common, providing an alternative southern terminus and a link to Crossrail, HS2 and the Great Western mainline.

Thanks for that, - it would have been helpful if Alastair Fraser had actually avoided using abbreviations that weren't in common use, (even on RUK).

 

[A0]

the solution is to get some bigger trains for Chiltern and move the 2-car and 3-car 165/166s to the provinces where their size is better suited.

Spot on - and the issue is platform lengths.

Worth remembering whilst the S8s are 8 car, the car length is only 17.5m.

Compare that to a Class 165 - just under 23m or 172 (also used by Chiltern) at 23.5m and you can see the problem - if you tried to reform Chiltern's current stock the best you could expect would be to 4 car - anything more an you're longer than an S8.

For another comparison whilst a full length S8 is about 140m an 8 car equivalent EMU on the mainline - let's use the 350's over on the WCML as a comparison is about 165m. No doubt the problem is short stock, it's ridiculous that a commuter route into London is running with 2 car units, but there are some tricky problems which would need to be resolved to get the line to parity with it's neighbour to the east for example. The closest you could reasonably get would be something like the 6 car 717s which have been introduced on the GN at 121m which would provide pretty much double the seating capacity of a single 165s and a lot more standing space.

Alternatively we're back in the 'what should the Met north of Moor Park' look like debate again. And originally it was meant to be 4 tracked all the way to Amersham - I'm not sure that's viable now, but doing something to Rickmansworth and killing the Met there and handing over the fasts to NR may be viable. And as you've pointed out, the 'semi fast' Met trains have been reduced in favour of an 'all stops' pattern, which means the fasts aren't needed by the Met to pass slower trains.

 

[AM9]

... the solution is to get some bigger trains for Chiltern and move the 2-car and 3-car 165/166s to the provinces where their size is better suited.

Whilst I'd agree with that, maybe their larger loading gauge might limit the locations that they can be run on.

 

[AlastairFraser]

"CML"? "NNML"? Please explain abbreviations.

Apologies- CML is Chiltern Main Line i.e Marylebone to Birmingham via Wembley and Northolt.
NNML is New North Main Line I.e Old Oak Common on the Great Western Main Line to South Ruislip,where it forms a junction with the Chiltern Main Line.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Integrated ticketing in the true sense arrived in the early 80s with the Capitalcard now Travelcard. That didn't need TFL and didn't need to stretch outside of London.

The "pay as you go" Oyster ticketing came about in 2003 - it couldn't have practically happened before then because the technology to support e ticketing didn't exist.

The "public control" element in this form is the real problem because TFL is accountable to the Mayor of London. The non London areas have no influence, accountability or control over it. It's the same issue as in the early 80s when the GLC under the slogan "Fares Fair" introduced a subsidy for LT paid for by a 5% increase in rates. It was challenged at the High Court, successfully, by councils such as Bromley who's contention was its rate payers were being expected to subsidise the tube network which didn't serve them.

So, no, the way it's being implemented and the power it gives to TFL and the Mayor of London to set policies over people who can't vote for them or remove them means I don't think it's a good idea.

This is a discussion for another thread really, but,with Tfl now partially dependent on central government funding, you could say they are partly accountable to the national government now.

 

[A0]

Whilst I'd agree with that, maybe their larger loading gauge might limit the locations that they can be run on.

I think there's something of an urban myth on that one.

Dimensions of a Class 150 (per car) : Length 20m, width 2.8m, height 3.7m

Dimensions of a Class 158/9 (per car): Length 23m, width 2.8m, height 3.8m

Dimensions of a Class 165 (per car) : Length 23m, width 2.8m, height 3.8m

So basically they're no less flexible than a Class 158/9 is.

The bigger issue is Chiltern have a relatively small fleet of these - 28 x 2 car 11 x 3 car and they aren't a type which has been seen away from Chiltern or Great Western, so the only likely taker for them would be GW.

Northern and GA and WMR - the most likely alternatives - have just taken on a load of new DMUs, so unless GWR could make use of them, they really haven't got another home to go to. That said until Chiltern is electrified in some capacity, they aren't going anywhere any time soon.

 

[A0]

This is a discussion for another thread really, but,with Tfl now partially dependent on central government funding, you could say they are partly accountable to the national government now.

That they are getting central government funding is irrelevant - the fact remains they are accountable to the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority.

Which means that in its current structure, TFL has no accountability to anyone outside of those areas - so the likes of Herts County Council, Bucks County Council etc have no influence or control over it.

 

[AlastairFraser]

People who live in Bucks or Herts do not have a say in London politics, and when service changes are proposed this is often noticed. You no longer get off-peak semi-fasts to/from Amersham, and you no longer get as many peak fasts to/from Amersham, because it was better for London ratepayers in places like Pinner to have everything run all stops. Obviously the cancellation of the Croxley link is the biggest example of how handing control to TfL really doesn't benefit people who live outside the London boundary. Put simply, Bucks and Herts residents don't pay so don't get a say.

The integrated fares scheme came in a long time ago, with Travelcard and Capitalcard, as @A0wen also says. My season ticket from Hemel Hempstead- not as far out as Aylesbury- included all-zones London travel. Sure, it was on a piece of orange cardboard and not a piece of blue plastic, but that's about medium not utility.

As a relatively regular user of the trains out to Amersham (t'missus worked there at the hospital, and the restaurants were better in Amersham than Hemel for after-work dining!) the main thing that needs sorting is the under-capacity of the Chiltern trains. Even the ones that were first stop Amersham were rammed, possibly because they were first stop Amersham and so much quicker. But I don't think switching the Chiltern trrains to Met trains is the solution, the solution is to get some bigger trains for Chiltern and move the 2-car and 3-car 165/166s to the provinces where their size is better suited.

OK,saying you want a new commuter fleet for the Aylesbury line,who's going to supply a small fleet of bespoke 5 car bi mode units (4th rail and diesel) to Chiltern?
Unless you propose to electrify the isolated section of Amersham to Aylesbury and Marylebone to Harrow with 25kv OHLE,which would make the fleet slightly easier to procure,but would make them useless for longer journeys out to Milton Keynes for example if EWR isn't electrified.
And I think it's going to be prohibited or heavily limited soon enough for purely diesel units to be used out of terminals in London or other large cities, to cut down pollution levels in the city centres.
So why would they want to buy stock which has a limited life on Chiltern?

 

[AM9]

I think there's something of an urban myth on that one.

Dimensions of a Class 150 (per car) : Length 20m, width 2.8m, height 3.7m

Dimensions of a Class 158/9 (per car): Length 23m, width 2.8m, height 3.8m

Dimensions of a Class 165 (per car) : Length 23m, width 2.8m, height 3.8m

So basically they're no less flexible than a Class 158/9 is.

The bigger issue is Chiltern have a relatively small fleet of these - 28 x 2 car 11 x 3 car and they aren't a type which has been seen away from Chiltern or Great Western, so the only likely taker for them would be GW.

Northern and GA and WMR - the most likely alternatives - have just taken on a load of new DMUs, so unless GWR could make use of them, they really haven't got another home to go to. That said until Chiltern is electrified in some capacity, they aren't going anywhere any time soon.

OK, I was under the impression that the 165/166 turbos were built to the limit of the GWR loading gauge, (which is similar in width to the GCR) which that might limit their route availablilty.