Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Zomboid]

Aylesbury doesn't have 68 competency) for a start.

A completely impossible to solve problem, that...
They're the obvious choice to replace the MK3 sets, and maybe to free up some more 168s so we don't have so much silliness like 2 car trains to Oxford, if there's enough.

 

[craigybagel]

Plan is not for 100% 68+Mk5A operation on the Birminghams, the two Aylesbury turns are to remain 168s (Aylesbury doesn't have 68 competency) for a start.

I haven't seen any mention of any Banbury, Kidderminster or Oxford runs as there were before with the Mk3s; not to say there wouldn't be of course.

Presumably any Banbury and Moor Street worked Birmingham services will also have the same issue?

That said, a problem I've raised earlier in thos thread that's not been answered is whether Chiltern have enough guards available to cover a major uplift in loco hauled services, given how high a percentage of services are currently able to run DOO south of Banbury.

 

[JonathanH]

That said, a problem I've raised earlier in thos thread that's not been answered is whether Chiltern have enough guards available to cover a major uplift in loco hauled services, given how high a percentage of services are currently able to run DOO south of Banbury.

Every time that has been mentioned, it has been suggested that fitting the stock for DOO is not a problem. The other point noted somewhere I think was that it would be four sets first, uplifted to nine later.

Could a conceivable approach be that the existing guard operated arrangements would be the first step on a small number of sets, then DOO fitment on the ones that don't immediately enter service, swaping as they become available, such that eventually the whole fleet is fitted?

That said, the whole thing still seems less than ideal.

 

[hexagon789]

A completely impossible to solve problem, that...
They're the obvious choice to replace the MK3 sets, and maybe to free up some more 168s so we don't have so much silliness like 2 car trains to Oxford, if there's enough.

It's also a useful way of retaining 168 competency at other depots though.

Presumably any Banbury and Moor Street worked Birmingham services will also have the same issue?

That said, a problem I've raised earlier in thos thread that's not been answered is whether Chiltern have enough guards available to cover a major uplift in loco hauled services, given how high a percentage of services are currently able to run DOO south of Banbury.

It will only about be 6/7 diagrams would be Mk5A (out of about 9/10 sets.)

4 initially to replace the Mk3s like-for-like, then expansion to 9 or 10 sets total to uplift capacity.

 

[craigybagel]

Every time that has been mentioned, it has been suggested that fitting the stock for DOO is not a problem. The other point noted somewhere I think was that it would be four sets first, uplifted to nine later

Where has it been said that it's not a problem, and by whom? DOO on loco hauled sets is unprecedented in the UK. It would almost certainly require bodyside cameras and internal monitors being fitted as the existing platform based equipment is almost certainly not visible from the drivers seat of a 68. Once fitted, you need the images from the MKVs to be shown in the cab of the 68, and given how much issues getting the two to talk to each other has caused already that probably won't be easy. And once you've done all that, you need to persuade both ASLEF and RMT that this is a good idea.

Doable? Probably - but definitely neither simple nor quick

It will only about be 6/7 diagrams would be Mk5A (out of about 9/10 sets.)

4 initially to replace the Mk3s like-for-like, then expansion to 9 or 10 sets total to uplift capacity.

Now this makes sense. Like for like wouldn't require any more crews - and it buys time to either recruit more guards (and maybe even open a depot in London) or take on the above challenges of DOO.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Every time that has been mentioned, it has been suggested that fitting the stock for DOO is not a problem. The other point noted somewhere I think was that it would be four sets first, uplifted to nine later.

Could a conceivable approach be that the existing guard operated arrangements would be the first step on a small number of sets, then DOO fitment on the ones that don't immediately enter service, swaping as they become available, such that eventually the whole fleet is fitted?

That said, the whole thing still seems less than ideal.

Fitting a fleet with DOO equipment doesn't mean they will operate DOO. There is the small matter of the unions accepting an extension of DOO working and the RMT's position is quite clear.

 

[WideRanger]

Could you sandwich a class 68 in the middle of 2 Mark 5 sets (at the point where there is currently no corridor connection) - both in terms of power and control systems?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fitting a fleet with DOO equipment doesn't mean they will operate DOO. There is the small matter of the unions accepting an extension of DOO working and the RMT's position is quite clear.

DOO south of Banbury on the Birminghams wouldn't be an extension of DOO. The DMU services on that route are already DOO.

 

[Eurostarosaur]

Well it's glad to see something happening with this. Recently, Wembley Stadium obtained permission to increase events to 54 days a year, affecting most weekends and even weekdays from May to September. Chiltern submitted written evidence saying they didn't support this increase as every time there's an event they have to withdraw capacity from across other parts of their network to cater to the events, not out of choice, but just to avoid horrendous congestion, and that they didn't have spare capacity. So the sooner Chiltern can increase capacity the better, the Wembley events increase has already started this year. I personally haven't been affected by withdrawal of other services, but I presume this could be particularly damaging for other communities outside London.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

Could you sandwich a class 68 in the middle of 2 Mark 5 sets (at the point where there is currently no corridor connection) - both in terms of power and control systems?

Now that i would like to see. Only problem is the loco is under the roof in Marylebone, probably restricted to the far platforms

 

[craigybagel]

DOO south of Banbury on the Birminghams wouldn't be an extension of DOO. The DMU services on that route are already DOO.

But not on loco hauled services. I know we're getting into semantics here, especially as the existing Chiltern DOO fleet lacks gangways, but it's still an extension for which no precedence exists in the UK. I'd be amazed if either the RMT or ASLEF simply rolled over and accepted it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Could you sandwich a class 68 in the middle of 2 Mark 5 sets (at the point where there is currently no corridor connection) - both in terms of power and control systems?

Would be pointless. Anyway the power required might mean two 68s required so ideally one at each end, otherwise one at one end.

 

[Bertie the bus]

But not on loco hauled services. I know we're getting into semantics here, especially as the existing Chiltern DOO fleet lacks gangways, but it's still an extension for which no precedence exists in the UK. I'd be amazed if either the RMT or ASLEF simply rolled over and accepted it.

Precisely. It all depends on what is contained in the agreement. If LHCS isn't explicitly covered then anybody who thinks the RMT will just say "OK, then" is naïve at best. Their policy isn't just no more DOO but rolling back services already DOO. Whilst the latter is difficult for them to do anything about, it is potential changes like this that give them the opportunity.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

Would be pointless. Anyway the power required might mean two 68s required so ideally one at each end, otherwise one at one end.

68 has plenty of power to haul rake 10 mk5 and enough electrical supply for carriages. You would probably have 3 coaches eitherside of the sandwiched loco, 4 either side would be max for the 9 coach platforms. I know Solihull cant take 9, not sure about Moor Street terminating platforms either

 

[BlueLeanie]

Just recruit the guards and get them trained, those coaches will be in use for at least a decade with diesel locos, a quarter century if electrified.

Maybe even order some additional Mk5 high density coaches to strengthen the sets to 7-car? I'm tired of standing on the 08:03.

 

[Peter Sarf]

68 has plenty of power to haul rake 10 mk5 and enough electrical supply for carriages. You would probably have 3 coaches eitherside of the sandwiched loco, 4 either side would be max for the 9 coach platforms. I know Solihull cant take 9, not sure about Moor Street terminating platforms either

It would be easier to have the 68 at one end as they did on TPE. Why split a train in half so people and staff cannot walk through. I cannot see the benefit of having the locomotive in the middle so why make a sacrifice.

 

[BlueLeanie]

It would be easier to have the 68 at one end as they did on TPE. Why split a train in half so people and staff cannot walk through. I cannot see the benefit of having the locomotive in the middle so why make a sacrifice.

The engine end of the Mk5 set has a blank plate doesn't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The engine end of the Mk5 set has a blank plate doesn't it?

It does yes. It appears to be heavily reinforced compared to an intermediate end vehicle, presumably so it's still safe with a screw coupling being used.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The engine end of the Mk5 set has a blank plate doesn't it?

I can see that if Chiltern were to run ten coaches with a loco then the blank ended fifth coaches would mean the locomotive could go in the middle as well as at either end. However I think the loco will always be at the North end so as to keep the noise and fumes out of the station's covered area at Marylebone.

Given I doubt we will any time soon see more than eight coaches with a 68 I suspect that blank end coaches in the middle of a rake will not occur.

Obviously there is the possibility of there being a shortage of intermediate coaches if as many as possible 6car rakes are being formed. That would lead to the one rake having to be 5cars or an altered end coach.

 

[Trainbike46]

The way I read the suggestion for locos in the middle was:

5-car rake as used on TPE-loco-another 5-car rake as used on TPE

That would make a 10-car set, and the loco would be in the exact same place as where it would in a 5-car rake with a loco at the northern end.

 

[150219]

Purely on a practical level, the prospect of having anything longer than a 8-car (or 9-car in some cases) set is a problem for logistics at stations and at depots.

 

[WideRanger]

I have to admit that I thought of the sandwich idea because of the blanked off end - and the realisation that, unless a corridor connection were to be put into the blanked end then the loco could just as well be in the middle as at one end. The advantage I can see would be the ability to run sometimes as a 5-car set, and sometimes as a 10-car set, with slightly less complicated shunting (according to my untrained logic), and with dedicated cabs at both ends when running as 10+1.

But some of the replies above got me thinking. If indeed, 9 cars is the effective maximum because of platform length, then could a centre car be taken from each set, so that you could form 4-car set:loco:4-car set (so a total of 8 cars + loco), with the removed cars being added to other sets to make a longer 7-car set + loco?

 

[150219]

I have to admit that I thought of the sandwich idea because of the blanked off end - and the realisation that, unless a corridor connection were to be put into the blanked end then the loco could just as well be in the middle as at one end. The advantage I can see would be the ability to run sometimes as a 5-car set, and sometimes as a 10-car set, with slightly less complicated shunting (according to my untrained logic), and with dedicated cabs at both ends when running as 10+1.

But some of the replies above got me thinking. If indeed, 9 cars is the effective maximum because of platform length, then could a centre car be taken from each set, so that you could form 4-car set:loco:4-car set (so a total of 8 cars + loco), with the removed cars being added to other sets to make a longer 7-car set + loco?

That might cause some problems with the positioning when fuelling and when swapping a loco off for any reason. It prevents you from doing what would be a reasonably easy to achieve uncouple and shunt to being less so. Personally, I'd be happy with the current arrangement of loco at one end and 'x' amount of carriages attached at one end.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

I have to admit that I thought of the sandwich idea because of the blanked off end - and the realisation that, unless a corridor connection were to be put into the blanked end then the loco could just as well be in the middle as at one end. The advantage I can see would be the ability to run sometimes as a 5-car set, and sometimes as a 10-car set, with slightly less complicated shunting (according to my untrained logic), and with dedicated cabs at both ends when running as 10+1.

But some of the replies above got me thinking. If indeed, 9 cars is the effective maximum because of platform length, then could a centre car be taken from each set, so that you could form 4-car set:loco:4-car set (so a total of 8 cars + loco), with the removed cars being added to other sets to make a longer 7-car set + loco?

9 cars isnt the limiting length, its more likely 7 considering the calling points for multiple Birmingham services they would be diagrammed on.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I have to admit that I thought of the sandwich idea because of the blanked off end - and the realisation that, unless a corridor connection were to be put into the blanked end then the loco could just as well be in the middle as at one end. The advantage I can see would be the ability to run sometimes as a 5-car set, and sometimes as a 10-car set, with slightly less complicated shunting (according to my untrained logic), and with dedicated cabs at both ends when running as 10+1.

But some of the replies above got me thinking. If indeed, 9 cars is the effective maximum because of platform length, then could a centre car be taken from each set, so that you could form 4-car set:loco:4-car set (so a total of 8 cars + loco), with the removed cars being added to other sets to make a longer 7-car set + loco?

Arithmetic slightly out.
There are 13 5car sets and one spare driving trailer.

So if you dropped one trailer out of each of the twelve sets to make pairs of 4car sets you would have enough trailers to convert the 13th set into a 17car set !.

More likely would be to make six 8car sets by dropping a driving trailer and a blunt coach (and using two 5car sets). Thus having the 68 at one end and a fully walk through train.
This would leave the 13th set as 5cars.
There would be six driving trailers spare (plus the original spare) and six blunt coaches spare.

Making 7car sets we could get seven 7car sets.
This would enable the 13th set to be 6cars.
There would be five driving trailers spare (plus the original spare) and five blunt coaches spare.

Making 6car sets we could get nine 6car sets.
This would leave the 13th set as 5cars.
There would be three driving trailers spare (plus the original spare) and three blunt coaches spare.

So
5car x 13 or
6car x 9 + 5car x 1 or
7car x 7 + 6car x 1 or
8car x 6 + 5car x 1.

The good reason I can see for using the blunt and coaches and driving trailers is it allows more coaches to be used.
This would be at the expense of walk through ability and the loco in the middle. But does not work if you are limited to 8car + loco.

So
(4car + loco + 4car) x 6 + 17car x 1
That is a waste of intermediate coaches !.
You can achieve slightly more capacity with 8car x 6.
And gain convenience.

 

[Zomboid]

Chilterns LHCS trains have 6 passenger cars for a total train length of 8 cars, so something of equivalent capacity, at least for that application, would seem sensible.

Whilst the bay platforms at Oxford are good for 6 cars, so if they're going to use them that way then the as-built configuration would be most sensible.

Are the 3 middle cars identical, or do some have the accessible toilet or some other distinguishing feature?

 

[JonathanH]

Are the 3 middle cars identical, or do some have the accessible toilet or some other distinguishing feature?

Universal toilet in one of the 3 coaches, and fewer seats as a result.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Chilterns LHCS trains have 6 passenger cars for a total train length of 8 cars, so something of equivalent capacity, at least for that application, would seem sensible.

Whilst the bay platforms at Oxford are good for 6 cars, so if they're going to use them that way then the as-built configuration would be most sensible.

I would suggest the most likely use will be on as many Birmingham services as possible, to free up 168s for use on Oxford services.

If that happens and Chiltern retains First Class, careful diagramming will be needed to ensure a DMU doesn't end up on a service booked for LHCS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reseating 1st to Standard and making the layout a bit higher density rather than almost all facing (which commuters don't want anyway) could give you most of the seats lost by dropping to 5 car...

 

[Energy]

I would suggest the most likely use will be on as many Birmingham services as possible, to free up 168s for use on Oxford services.

If that happens and Chiltern retains First Class, careful diagramming will be needed to ensure a DMU doesn't end up on a service booked for LHCS.

There is no first class or 'business zone'. Its been declassified for many years.

Reseating 1st to Standard and making the layout a bit higher density rather than almost all facing (which commuters don't want anyway) could give you most of the seats lost by dropping to 5 car...

Indeed. People seem to be forgetting that Chiltern is closer to LNWR than it is to Avanti.

Chiltern would be taking the mk5As because it desperately needs more stock, and its preferred partial electrification is years off. I wouldn't assume that the mk5As will live out the rest of their life at Chiltern.

Purely on a practical level, the prospect of having anything longer than a 8-car (or 9-car in some cases) set is a problem for logistics at stations and at depots.

Indeed, Chiltern is rarely more than 7/8 cars.

The mk5A sets also need to meet 168 timings, which isn't happening with 8+ cars.