Diesel trains should be banned from terminating at trainshed/subsurface stations

[Domh245]

Plenty of spare suitable EMUs to work it too, or at least there were until the leasing companies decided to start scrapping stuff.

What makes you think that the Chilterns would have received 'cast-offs'* - seeing as the recently electrified areas in the North and GWR Thames Valley which were due to be operated with various 319s and 365s all just had relatively cheap new stock thrown at them. I struggle to imagine that any of the EMU going off lease would be acceptable when a large part of Chiltern's fleet is modern A/C fitted - your beloved 365s would be a hard sell I think

*350/2s and 379s excepted

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2021 ==

Or electrify the MML and transfer Grayling's bi-modes.

Would fixed 120/240m pointy nosed trains with enough power to match a meridian on diesel be necessary on the chiltern?

 

[mike57]

Do we really need a sleeper service?

I think the point is one train morning and one in the evening is a minor issue, as with a lot of things we are in danger of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', by all means set targets/limits, but ensure that one off cases that dont fit the pattern can continue. What is really needed on this is common sense, regular diesel hauled services in a badly ventilated space (e.g. Man Vic) need dealing with. Low frequency cases like the sleeper into Paddington, or the 6 or so Grand Central services into King X do not.

If the result of the changes is a more difficult/slower journey remember that people will consider the car as an alternative, and certainly in the SE the outlier diesel services, assuming Marylebone is addressed, are longer distance services which means EV vehicle use is less likely, and so the journey will still use diesel or petrol.

Of course you could always replace diesel with steam operation, no nasty diesel particulates to worry about.

While it isn't clear it will actually happen, the long term plan for the Mk5a was to use an electric locomotive.

Off Topic: To me issue now with the Mk5 sets isn't the class 68 its the rolling stock itself, its not relaible, last week Mr & Mrs Mike57 were visiting Manchester, booked train cancelled at Scarborough, reason Mk5 failure. (Guard was clear, issue was with carriages not locomotive, a door issue of some sort.) This is a regular occurance. I stongly suspect that 'long term' and 'Mk5' wont appear together very often. In terms of passenger experience, much better than 185s for trips like Scarborough - Manchester, but they are let down by reliability, which shows no signs of improving. What I find hard to believe is that these are effectivly hauled stock, no engines transmissions etc to worry about, how could it be got so wrong.

 

[yorksrob]

suspect that 'long term' and 'Mk5' wont appear together very often. In terms of passenger experience, much better than 185s for trips like Scarborough - Manchester, but they are let down by reliability, which shows no signs of improving. What I find hard to believe is that these are effectivly hauled stock, no engines transmissions etc to worry about, how could it be got so wrong.

Perhaps retrofitting slam doors would solve the issue !?

 

[mike57]

Perhaps retrofitting slam doors would solve the issue !?

If it meant the trains ran I would be prepared to travel without doors However I think 'ealth n safety' would blow a gasket (I grew up in London with buses with open platforms, never had a problem, because I didnt do anything stupid)

 

[yorksrob]

If it meant the trains ran I would be prepared to travel without doors However I think 'ealth n safety' would blow a gasket (I grew up in London with buses with open platforms, never had a problem, because I didnt do anything stupid)

Indeed yes those buses would give today's health and safety inspectors a seizure !

 

[zwk500]

Indeed yes those buses would give today's health and safety inspectors a seizure !

When they were replaced I seem to remember Fare control was a bigger issue than the open platform.

 

[yorksrob]

When they were replaced I seem to remember Fare control was a bigger issue than the open platform.

Wouldn't they have a clippy standing there anyway ?

 

[Irascible]

If it meant the trains ran I would be prepared to travel without doors However I think 'ealth n safety' would blow a gasket (I grew up in London with buses with open platforms, never had a problem, because I didnt do anything stupid)

I used to do plenty of stupid things on those buses & still never had a problem! I think H&S might be on to something when there were people crowded on the open platform though.

 

[AM9]

If it meant the trains ran I would be prepared to travel without doors However I think 'ealth n safety' would blow a gasket (I grew up in London with buses with open platforms, never had a problem, because I didnt do anything stupid)

Ah! the old "it was OK when I were a kid" justification for walking away from safety issues. I grew up in what is now London and there were accidents and even a few deaths arising from open platform buses not necessarily caused by the victim's stupidity, so other than a tourist novelty or an enthusiast's indulgence, there's no place for open platfiorms outside the static exhibits in a museum.

When they were replaced I seem to remember Fare control was a bigger issue than the open platform.

They were replaced so that the remaining crews of two could be disbanded a everything in London run by the driver only.

 

[BrianW]

Routemaster's Open Platform vs New Bus For London's Cramped And Cluttered Rear Exit - Boris Watch

Last week, a passenger on a New Bus For London vehicle on route 24 sustained a life-threatening head injury after falling out of the open rear door. Until the exact circumstances are known, it is pointless to surmise how and why this incident occurred. Another passenger on the New Bus For London...

www.boriswatch.co.uk

Rather OT for this thread maybe but, bearing in mind the 'progress' of one of the principal's back then to now ... rather relevant perhaps.
And the case of nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah regarding air quality. She had lived near the South Circular Road in Lewisham and died in 2013, following an asthma attack.
We have to learn from the past. The thread related to reducing life expectancy is also relevant.

 

[6Gman]

Ah! the old "it was OK when I were a kid" justification for walking away from safety issues. I grew up in what is now London and there were accidents and even a few deaths arising from open platform buses not necessarily caused by the victim's stupidity, so other than a tourist novelty or an enthusiast's indulgence, there's no place for open platfiorms outside the static exhibits in a museum.

They were replaced so that the remaining crews of two could be disbanded a everything in London run by the driver only.

There were also cases of people being pushed off platforms during robbery and suffering serious injury.

 

[The Ham]

In the case of these two, the talk I've heard is for Chiltern to install battery packs to rolling stock that allows them to operate as hybrids, which would solve the Marylebone issue, where one class 168 has already been converted. As for Waterloo, I doubt terminating at Basingstoke will be popular, the only options I can see are designing a sequel to the class 73, either as a multiple unit or a loco hauling coaches, or electrifying the West of England mainline entirely and having EMUs for it, most likely a dual voltage type as I doubt that line would get 3rd rail over that distance. At the moment neither option seems to be anywhere near happening.

The WofE line would only need to be electrified or have battery power to get EMU's/BEMU's to Yeovil to be able to reduce DMU use at Waterloo down to 0.5tph.

As you could have any trains which only go that far or less (1tph out of 2tph) being EmU/BEMU, then for the Exeter services have 1 train every 2 hours which runs a direct service and the other being run by DMU to Yeovil, cross platform change, EMU/BEMU to Waterloo (the delay taken to change trains would likely be offset for the majority of passengers by the faster journey time of the EMU/BEMU).

There would still be through services, so those unwilling to change could still use those, however it would significantly reduce the number of DMU's at Waterloo.

The other option would be to replace the 158's, 159's and 444's with a new bimodal (probably 5 coaches long) units. Which would enable more/longer services to Weymouth as required, whilst removing all DMU's from Waterloo.

 

[BrianW]

The WofE line would only need to be electrified or have battery power to get EMU's/BEMU's to Yeovil to be able to reduce DMU use at Waterloo down to 0.5tph.

As you could have any trains which only go that far or less (1tph out of 2tph) being EmU/BEMU, then for the Exeter services have 1 train every 2 hours which runs a direct service and the other being run by DMU to Yeovil, cross platform change, EMU/BEMU to Waterloo (the delay taken to change trains would likely be offset for the majority of passengers by the faster journey time of the EMU/BEMU).

There would still be through services, so those unwilling to change could still use those, however it would significantly reduce the number of DMU's at Waterloo.

The other option would be to replace the 158's, 159's and 444's with a new bimodal (probably 5 coaches long) units. Which would enable more/longer services to Weymouth as required, whilst removing all DMU's from Waterloo.

Prompted by this, I sought and found this: http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/class+73
I admit to finding it a surprise to find these 1960s built electro-diesels in use in this way.
Where there's a will, and a case made and accepted, much is possible.

 

[30907]

Prompted by this, I sought and found this: http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/class+73
I admit to finding it a surprise to find these 1960s built electro-diesels in use in this way.
Where there's a will, and a case made and accepted, much is possible.

They are, of course, now pure diesel owing to the lack of juice rail up there.

 

[AlastairFraser]

London terminals with scheduled diesel trains and the easiest way to eliminate them:

Euston - Introduce the Class 805 and 807s ASAP
Kings Cross - Impose a condition on Grand Central that they must replace their diesel stock, or face being required to terminate short of London
London Bridge - Withdraw the Uckfield service from London and reduce it to a diesel shuttle from Oxted/Hurst Green.
Marylebone - electrify the trainshed and replace all existing Chiltern stock with bi-modes (tri-mode with tripcock for Amersham line)
Paddington - I mean come on, no IET should be using diesel power there!
St Pancras - Introduce the class 810s ASAP
Waterloo - Terminate the Exeter services short at Basingstoke, or have them attach onto the back of a Class 444 so they are hauled under electric power (is this allowed).

Charing Cross, Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street, Liverpool Street and Victoria have no scheduled diesel services AFAIK.

Euston and StP are already planned as you say. Paddington only gets a few diesels a day, not an issue. Uckfield/Ashford to Hastings can and is planned to be operated by bi-modes in future, sending the Class 171s back up north.

Waterloo can be done with bi modes too, you could relatively easily add a pantograph and traction motors to any DMU with diesel electric transmission - not a major priority again as the diesel service into London is a fraction of the electric.
Kings Cross is not an issue again as Grand Central only operate a few services a day - if required, they could add a traction battery for the short distance from Kings Cross to Finsbury Park like the current Class 168 scheme.

Marylebone is the biggest issue, in an ideal world, some of the XR trains turning back at Paddington would have been extended through to High Wycombe via some new stations on the New North Main Line, taking over the Gerrards Cross/High Wycombe terminators and the Met line would have been extended through to Aylesbury Vale Parkway.

Given this hasn't happened and isn't planned, I think the best short to medium term planning is to add traction batteries to all the Class 165/168 fleet (send most of the Class 165s towards Bham) , hire in some Class 88 and used MK4 to replace the Class 68 on fast/semi fast London to Bham and electrify Marylebone to South Ruislip with OHLE at 25kv AC, as the first phase of a longer Chiltern Main Line Electrification and 4 tracking project.

When/if Networkers are withdrawn, batteries could be fitted to some and conductor shoes modified for LU's 4th rail system to eliminate Class 165 use in London.

 

[bramling]

What makes you think that the Chilterns would have received 'cast-offs'* - seeing as the recently electrified areas in the North and GWR Thames Valley which were due to be operated with various 319s and 365s all just had relatively cheap new stock thrown at them. I struggle to imagine that any of the EMU going off lease would be acceptable when a large part of Chiltern's fleet is modern A/C fitted - your beloved 365s would be a hard sell I think

*350/2s and 379s excepted

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2021 ==



Would fixed 120/240m pointy nosed trains with enough power to match a meridian on diesel be necessary on the chiltern?

I didn’t necessarily say that *should* receive cast-offs, just that they could. As regards the 365s, they are newer than Chiltern’s current 165, and not massively older than the earliest Turbostars, so surely not that much of an issue even for the discerning Chiltern commuter? If that’s not to taste, then plenty of 350s or 379s, or for that matter 321s!

As a more general point, I wish the term “cast-off” would fall out of general use. The implication is that we should bin off any stock which for whatever reason falls unsuitable for its original work, which is plainly ridiculous. Many people are happy to buy second-hand cars, so why should trains be any different?

 

[PTR 444]

Waterloo can be done with bi modes too, you could relatively easily add a pantograph and traction motors to any DMU with diesel electric transmission - not a major priority again as the diesel service into London is a fraction of the electric.

Except that in the case of Waterloo, you would need to be adding a shoegear rather than a pantograph!

 

[Ken H]

The 165 fleet is getting old, so a good opportunity to get some new bimodes in and scrap the 165s. The 168/170s would be snapped up - every regional TOC wants them. Once the wires reach Brum, buy new EMUs and cascade the bimodes.

Aylesbury is a bit of a nuisance, but I can't see why it would be difficult to build a bimode that also had third and fourth rail shoes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2021 ==

Why would you need 4th rail shoes. LU and main line 3rd rail trains share tracks in many places. Watford DC lines and Pitney - Wimaldon spring to mind.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Except that in the case of Waterloo, you would need to be adding a shoegear rather than a pantograph!

Indeed!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would you need 4th rail shoes. LU and main line 3rd rail trains share tracks in many places. Watford DC lines and Pitney - Wimaldon spring to mind.

In places where this is done the track is set up at +750/0, whereas I doubt the Met is, so you would need to either do that or have fourth rail shoes.

 

[AlastairFraser]

In places where this is done the track is set up at +750/0, whereas I doubt the Met is, so you would need to either do that or have fourth rail shoes.

Fourth rail stock has been cheaply modified for the IoW before easily, so this shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fourth rail stock has been cheaply modified for the IoW before easily, so this shouldn't be an issue.

Depends if LU would agree to modify their track and rather large fleet rather than the railway just ordering a small number of units to suit what is there.

 

[Ken H]

In places where this is done the track is set up at +750/0, whereas I doubt the Met is, so you would need to either do that or have fourth rail shoes.

What are the implications of +750/0 to LU trains. Or is it just a matter of some rejigging of the feeds?
I imagine you would need a train length gap between the 2 systems...

 

[Bletchleyite]

What are the implications of +750/0 to LU trains. Or is it just a matter of some rejigging of the feeds?
I imagine you would need a train length gap between the 2 systems...

It requires insulation upgrades on the track and potentially trains (is S stock already set up for it?)

There is also a safety aspect - the split feed means if you are unfortunate enough to touch one of the rails you are not as badly hurt.

 

[Ken H]

It requires insulation upgrades on the track and potentially trains (is S stock already set up for it?)

There is also a safety aspect - the split feed means if you are unfortunate enough to touch one of the rails you are not as badly hurt.

We can blame the Americans. Yerkes brought the 4 rail DC system from Chicago I think.
As an aside, the Metropolitan Railway wanted an overhead electrification but had to go for 4th rail for compatibility with the District on the Circle. Yerkes owned the tubes & district. I think the central was a late aquisition.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Depends if LU would agree to modify their track and rather large fleet rather than the railway just ordering a small number of units to suit what is there.

I imagine LU would say you pay for the modifications to the track and our brand new S stock. Better to modify and heavily refurbish some Networkers with new interiors, chargers and WiFi for 4th rail with a traction battery for Marylebone to Harrow and Amersham to Aylesbury. Cheap to lease and you can kick most of the 165s out of Marylebone, maybe some can head to GWR.

 

[Ken H]

I imagine LU would say you pay for the modifications to the track and our brand new S stock. Better to modify and heavily refurbish some Networkers with new interiors, chargers and WiFi for 4th rail with a traction battery for Marylebone to Harrow and Amersham to Aylesbury. Cheap to lease and you can kick most of the 165s out of Marylebone, maybe some can head to GWR.

Or buy some new dc, ac + battery trains to replace the 165's. Wire the inner surburban bit. IEP for the brum services.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Or buy some new dc, ac + battery trains to replace the 165's. Wire the inner surburban bit. IEP for the brum services.

Too expensive in the medium term. There are other lines that need wiring first

 

[Domh245]

I didn’t necessarily say that *should* receive cast-offs, just that they could. As regards the 365s, they are newer than Chiltern’s current 165, and not massively older than the earliest Turbostars, so surely not that much of an issue even for the discerning Chiltern commuter? If that’s not to taste, then plenty of 350s or 379s, or for that matter 321s!

As a more general point, I wish the term “cast-off” would fall out of general use. The implication is that we should bin off any stock which for whatever reason falls unsuitable for its original work, which is plainly ridiculous. Many people are happy to buy second-hand cars, so why should trains be any different?

365s could replace the 165s, but I was thinking more about the 168s and Mk3s - where they'd be a notable downgrade feature-wise. As we both note though, there are other, modern fleets due to be off lease that they could utilise instead.

Re-use of rolling stock is a complicated matter - we shouldn't send stock to the scrapyard as soon as it leaves it's original stomping grounds but equally we shouldn't try and shoehorn them onto other services where they don't fit (or made to fit with minor modification). The railway moved on rapidly in terms of offering in the early/mid 2000s and most of the stock coming off lease recently does not meet the expectations of a modern railway service.

Buying second hand cars is not a straightforward analogy. I've no issue with reusing stock but choosing between a new fleet and 365s would be like having to choose between a modern fiesta with modern infotainment, A/C and a whole host of technological improvements to make it safer and more efficient and a model from 1995 with optional 8-track and ABS. Nobody in their right mind would plump for the older car as their daily driver

It requires insulation upgrades on the track and potentially trains (is S stock already set up for it?)

No effect on the train - the systems still see 750v between centre and outside shoes - whether that's as +750/0 or +430/-320 (or however it is split) is irrelevant. Indeed, the fact that S7 units on the district line quite happily spend all day going from 750/0 to the split voltage arrangements proves this!

I'd also be surprised if there was much if any modification needed to the insulator pots - I can't imagine that the existing pots are anywhere near the limit in terms of electrical insulation, nor would they be anywhere near the limit at 750v.

 

[swt_passenger]

It requires insulation upgrades on the track and potentially trains (is S stock already set up for it?)

There is also a safety aspect - the split feed means if you are unfortunate enough to touch one of the rails you are not as badly hurt.

Yes, S stock is already designed to run at 750V and may already do so on the third rail to Wimbledon. It was in an NR enhancement plan, increase to 750V was planned for when A or D stocks were withdrawn, because one or more of those classes wasn’t adequately insulated for 750V.