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

[Bald Rick]

Uckfield/Ashford to Hastings can and is planned to be operated by bi-modes in future

Are they? There are suggestions of battery operation (for both) or electrification (for Uckfield), but nothing formally planned.

you could relatively easily add a pantograph and traction motors to any DMU with diesel electric transmission

So easily that it’s never been done!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Are they? There are suggestions of battery operation (for both) or electrification (for Uckfield), but nothing formally planned.



So easily that it’s never been done!

Where the will's there, it could be done. Diesel hydraulic/mechanical to bi mode is pretty much impossible from what I understand.
It has been discussed at the planning stage is a better way to put it perhaps.

 

[Ken H]

Where the will's there, it could be done. Diesel hydraulic/mechanical to bi mode is pretty much impossible from what I understand.
It has been discussed at the planning stage is a better way to put it perhaps.

'It has been discussed at the planning stage' = talked about by project managers and consultants. not by rolling stock engineers then!
if its anything like IT...

 

[JamesT]

Where the will's there, it could be done. Diesel hydraulic/mechanical to bi mode is pretty much impossible from what I understand.
It has been discussed at the planning stage is a better way to put it perhaps.

I think the Class 168 HybridFlex would like a word. There is a prototype unit that has done test runs so it’s more than theoretical. The question is whether it’s worth converting the rest of the DMU fleet or just replacing them with cleaner alternatives when their lifetimes is up.

There aren’t that many Diesel-Electrics around to convert, it’s either the HSTs (whose days are surely numbered), or the Voyager/Meridians. It’s been noted several times on this Forum the difficulties involved in trying to convert the Voyagers and as @Bald Rick has said it’s never been done.

 

[bramling]

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.

This has come up before, and the general feeling is it would be easier for the LU infrastructure to be modified. With the new signalling system coming (albeit belatedly!) this shouldn’t be too difficult.

But it does require a lot of parallel work streams, so I could see why this could get filed under “too awkward” in terms of the logistics.

 

[Ken H]

I think the Class 168 HybridFlex would like a word. There is a prototype unit that has done test runs so it’s more than theoretical. The question is whether it’s worth converting the rest of the DMU fleet or just replacing them with cleaner alternatives when their lifetimes is up.

There aren’t that many Diesel-Electrics around to convert, it’s either the HSTs (whose days are surely numbered), or the Voyager/Meridians. It’s been noted several times on this Forum the difficulties involved in trying to convert the Voyagers and as @Bald Rick has said it’s never been done.

Its ridiculous Northern was allowed to get all those CAF DMUs. The railway should have bought some 3/4 car diesel/electric bimodes and shuffled things so the bimodes went where the electric miles would be greatest.
I know the 319 conversions have been 'difficult' but a total power package designed from new should have been reliable, surely?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2021 ==

This has come up before, and the general feeling is it would be easier for the LU infrastructure to be modified. With the new signalling system coming (albeit belatedly!) this shouldn’t be too difficult.

But it does require a lot of parallel work streams, so I could see why this could get filed under “too awkward” in terms of the logistics.

Until it hits the press. can the railway withstand a 'dirty trains' in the CAZ story orchestrated in the press?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where the will's there, it could be done. Diesel hydraulic/mechanical to bi mode is pretty much impossible from what I understand.
It has been discussed at the planning stage is a better way to put it perhaps.

Conversion is fairly pointless as there is huge demand around the regional network for newer DMUs to replace older ones, so you could certainly find new homes for all of Chiltern's 16x with no great difficulty. You might as well order new, and it is worth considering if two separate fleets might make more sense than one, with something looking more like S stock (or Crossrail units) with batteries and a pantograph for Aylesbury services, and something more 350/1 like for the mainline side, but bi mode with a pantograph to take advantage of progressive electrification.

It might even be worth seeing if LU could take over the Aylesbury branch with an additional order of S stock with batteries.

The Aylesbury stock would stay there for its whole life. When the Chiltern electrification was fully complete, the bi modes would move to other partly electrified TOCs such as Northern and allow the scrapping of some of the 16x/17x.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Conversion is fairly pointless as there is huge demand around the regional network for newer DMUs to replace older ones, so you could certainly find new homes for all of Chiltern's 16x with no great difficulty. You might as well order new, and it is worth considering if two separate fleets might make more sense than one, with something looking more like S stock (or Crossrail units) with batteries and a pantograph for Aylesbury services, and something more 350/1 like for the mainline side, but bi mode with a pantograph to take advantage of progressive electrification.

It might even be worth seeing if LU could take over the Aylesbury branch with an additional order of S stock with batteries.

The Aylesbury stock would stay there for its whole life. When the Chiltern electrification was fully complete, the bi modes would move to other partly electrified TOCs such as Northern and allow the scrapping of some of the 16x/17x.

I don't think Chiltern will get new stock for a while, hence the suggested conversion of the Networkers to displace the Turbos. Handing LU the Aylesbury branch would make sense, but you have to keep in mind that you want to keep access to Aylesbury station for EWR diesel services and London Marylebone to Aylesbury Vale Parkway via the Princes Ris branch.
Split platforms maybe to avoid the trip cock issue?! If LU took the Aylesbury branch and you converted the Networkers to battery and pantograph to save money and displace the 165s, the 168s and loco hauled stock could continue to operate Mainline services with small traction batteries to get them out to the city.
The 16x/17x have a lot of life left in them, we shouldn't even be thinking about scrapping them yet. Unless you're talking about the 15x. My preference would be for the 165s at Chiltern to go to GWR to get rid of the remaining 15x there.

 

[leytongabriel]

The main thing is them not sitting there idling, for which other countries' railways use shore supplies. Starting up a minute or so before departure isn't a great issue.

Well said. If only .....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2021 ==

I don't think Chiltern will get new stock for a while, hence the suggested conversion of the Networkers to displace the Turbos. Handing LU the Aylesbury branch would make sense, but you have to keep in mind that you want to keep access to Aylesbury station for EWR diesel services and London Marylebone to Aylesbury Vale Parkway via the Princes Ris branch.
Split platforms maybe to avoid the trip cock issue?! If LU took the Aylesbury branch and you converted the Networkers to battery and pantograph to save money and displace the 165s, the 168s and loco hauled stock could continue to operate Mainline services with small traction batteries to get them out to the city.
The 16x/17x have a lot of life left in them, we shouldn't even be thinking about scrapping them yet. Unless you're talking about the 15x. My preference would be for the 165s at Chiltern to go to GWR to get rid of the remaining 15x there.

There'd have a to be a rethink about Met line 'fasts' then.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Well said. If only .....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2021 ==


There'd have a to be a rethink about Met line 'fasts' then.

Met line fasts would be much easier to run, is that what you mean? Plus it would bring more of Bucks into LU's cheaper fare zone and speed up short hops between Aylesbury/Ricky with the electrification or battery performance being much better than a sluggish 165.

 

[mike57]

We can blame the Americans. Yerkes brought the 4 rail DC system from Chicago I think.

I understood the 4th rail came about because of the requirement under the then regulations to limit volt drop to earth with running rail return to 7v, and by going 4 four rail where both current rails are isolated this requirement no longer applied. So although the 4 rail approach may have been used in Chicago, it was seen as a solution to stray current and leakage problems here on the deep level tubes. There is a good explanation here http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/tractioncurr.htm

 

[AM9]

Met line fasts would be much easier to run, is that what you mean? Plus it would bring more of Bucks into LU's cheaper fare zone and speed up short hops between Aylesbury/Ricky with the electrification or battery performance being much better than a sluggish 165.

I think that TfL would baulk at funding extensions to LU services well outside GLA land just to bring wealthy areas like Buckinghamshire into a cheap fares zone. It being an operational convenience for NR wouldn't have the same sway as Crossrail to Reading does.

 

[Falcon1200]

Would the simplest, albeit possibly not the cheapest, solution to Marylebone, for the Aylesbury line at least, be to electrify at 25kV OLE the Chiltern-only sections and run dual voltage EMUs ? Which would also facilitate, at some time in the distant future, wiring to Claydon to link up with the also-hopefully electrified East/West Rail ?

 

[SynthD]

Yes in that you are using common solutions. But no in that you have the different electrification and signalling very close by.

 

[Ken H]

Yes in that you are using common solutions. But no in that you have the different electrification and signalling very close by.

25Kv AC and 750v DC really dont mix. Not least with corrosion of metal parts caused by electrolysis. and of course signalling is complicated.

 

[AM9]

25Kv AC and 750v DC really dont mix. Not least with corrosion of metal parts caused by electrolysis. and of course signalling is complicated.

That is where the insulated return (4th) rail is a benefit. Surely, if the Met has been resignalled it would have been high or multi-frequency based system, which can have both ac and DC immunity?

 

[Bald Rick]

25Kv AC and 750v DC really dont mix. Not least with corrosion of metal parts caused by electrolysis. and of course signalling is complicated.

A fully insulated return path for the DC makes things much more straight forward.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think that TfL would baulk at funding extensions to LU services well outside GLA land just to bring wealthy areas like Buckinghamshire into a cheap fares zone. It being an operational convenience for NR wouldn't have the same sway as Crossrail to Reading does.

Reading fares didn't get cheaper when Crossrail came, and most of the section served excluding Slough is a very rich section of the Thames Valley.
TfL wouldn't necessarily have to fund the extension and the extra fare revenue for all Aylesbury line trains would blow any extra stock cost out the water.

 

[AM9]

Reading fares didn't get cheaper when Crossrail came, and most of the section served excluding Slough is a very rich section of the Thames Valley.
TfL wouldn't necessarily have to fund the extension and the extra fare revenue for all Aylesbury line trains would blow any extra stock cost out the water.

I was referring to your comment in post #102:
"Plus it would bring more of Bucks into LU's cheaper fare zone ...". and TfL would incur expenditure if such an extension was to occur to which it would certainly object.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I was referring to your comment in post #102:
"Plus it would bring more of Bucks into LU's cheaper fare zone ...". and TfL would incur expenditure if such an extension was to occur to which it would certainly object.

I meant that it would increase uptake on that section of the line with cheaper TfL fares as it would make sense to put it a London fare zone while TfL (well, LU) is the main operator.
TfL would still gain a lot of fare revenue, massively performing on their investment in 10 or so S Stocks with batteries.
The current ORCATS allocation (presumably ORCATS, unless they allocate revenue outside of the main system) must disadvantage TfL considerably Amersham/Chesham to Baker St.
Reading to London still has fast and semi-fast GWR services, which is why I suspect it was not put into TfL fare zones.

 

[swt_passenger]

I meant that it would increase uptake on that section of the line with cheaper TfL fares as it would make sense to put it a London fare zone while TfL (well, LU) is the main operator.
TfL would still gain a lot of fare revenue, massively performing on their investment in 10 or so S Stocks with batteries.
The current ORCATS allocation (presumably ORCATS, unless they allocate revenue outside of the main system) must disadvantage TfL considerably Amersham/Chesham to Baker St.
Reading to London still has fast and semi-fast GWR services, which is why I suspect it was not put into TfL fare zones.

Reading to London isn’t in TfL fare zones for Oyster because there were no more zones available to the existing system, the maximum of 16 zones were already used up to deal with earlier extensions.

 

[Bald Rick]

TfL wouldn't necessarily have to fund the extension and the extra fare revenue for all Aylesbury line trains would blow any extra stock cost out the water.

How would it do that? It’s all industry revenue, and it would be robbing Peter to pay, err, Andy.

 

[Mikey C]

The Chiltern 165s have an effective air cooling system fitted, so from a passenger point of view any Networker (whether 465 or 365) would be a step backwards unless similarly converted.

The eventual solution will surely be for Chiltern to have a standard set of 100mph EMUs with good acceleration so that stoppers and express trains can run together more efficiently on the 2 track mainline. As electrification will be a long term project, the question is whether to adopt a big bang approach of only introducing new EMUs when a current service can be fully converted (e.g. when the wires reach High Wycombe, a stopping service terminating there would use the new EMUs with the longer distance services continuing with the 168s) or to buy Bimodes to allow full use of the wires as they are put up.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Reading to London isn’t in TfL fare zones for Oyster because there were no more zones available to the existing system, the maximum of 16 zones were already used up to deal with earlier extensions.

It is integrated in the TfL contactless zones, so I don't think that was the primary issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2021 ==

How would it do that? It’s all industry revenue, and it would be robbing Peter to pay, err, Andy.

Removing Chiltern from the Aylesbury line and taking all of the revenue, unless Chiltern decided to run 2tph through to London via the Princes Ris branch to claw back some of the revenue and sold specific Route: Via Wycombe advances. In that case, most of the revenue would still go to TfL, Chiltern would save a lot of money not having to lease the Class 165 and staff the services.

Capacity would be released at Marylebone for more very profitable long distance services to Oxford and the West Mids, they could expand their use of cheap Advances to take in more of that market off the WCML and GWML operators, plus there would be additional revenue from services to MKC via Aylesbury when EWR Phase 2 opens. They could even be given the EWR concession as compensation for loss of revenue.

In the end, both LUL and Chiltern are commercial concerns, they should do what's best for them commercially and that would be the transfer of the Aylesbury via Harrow line to LUL and the operation of EWR by Chiltern.
The remainder of staff not TUPEd to LUL could be used to plug staff shortages elsewhere on the Chiltern network, even a handful of trained drivers and revenue staff would defo be useful to Chiltern without the bane of the Aylesbury line operation. The decline in season ticket purchase and commuting patterns does not make this as good as it was for Chiltern anyway.

 

[The Planner]

Capacity would be released at Marylebone for more very profitable long distance services to Oxford and the West Mids, they could expand their use of cheap Advances to take in more of that market off the WCML and GWML operators, plus there would be additional revenue from services to MKC via Aylesbury when EWR Phase 2 opens. They could even be given the EWR concession as compensation for loss of revenue.

Releasing capacity between Neasden and Marylebone doesn't equal capacity for long distance paths.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Releasing capacity between Neasden and Marylebone doesn't equal capacity for long distance paths.

Separating the flows makes it much easier to progressively electrify the CML and increase capacity that way.

 

[zwk500]

plus there would be additional revenue from services to MKC via Aylesbury when EWR Phase 2 opens. They could even be given the EWR concession as compensation for loss of revenue.

We've got quite far from the point, but isn't Aylesbury-EWR section very much 'IF' at this point? And even if it did happen, was there ever any (serious) plan for Marylebone-MKC services, my understanding was that EWR would always be starting at Aylesbury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We've got quite far from the point, but isn't Aylesbury-EWR section very much 'IF' at this point? And even if it did happen, was there ever any (serious) plan for Marylebone-MKC services, my understanding was that EWR would always be starting at Aylesbury.

There have been plans for MKC-Marylebone, yes, though it was dropped later. Who knows if it'll come back if the line does get built.

One problem with that idea would be that if there was WCML disruption several Pendolinos and 12-car 350s' worth of people would try to cram onto a 3-car DMU once an hour, which wouldn't be pretty. It's the same reason why in disruption they never shout about the Marston Vale being an option.

 

[AlastairFraser]

We've got quite far from the point, but isn't Aylesbury-EWR section very much 'IF' at this point? And even if it did happen, was there ever any (serious) plan for Marylebone-MKC services, my understanding was that EWR would always be starting at Aylesbury.

Why else would you consider improving the Princes Risborough branch? Aylesbury to EWR services are still possible without improvement of that section, there is a suitable junction at Calvert.

 

[The Planner]

Why else would you consider improving the Princes Risborough branch? Aylesbury to EWR services are still possible without improvement of that section, there is a suitable junction at Calvert.

Nothing is happening to the Risborough branch. You won't be running EWR on what is north of Aylesbury Vale Pwy either without a lot of work.