SkinnyDave
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 1,242
2017 is the pencilled in date
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Chiltern wanting to get hold of new stock
- Thread starter 168lover
- Start date
- Status
2017 is the pencilled in date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
anthony263
Established Member
I can see some people not being pleased if the class 143's return to the Severn Beach line. Off peak they may be fine by most certainly not during the peaks.
That said I prefer fgw's 143's compared to their class 150/1's with their 3 + 2 seating layout.
So what is going to replace the 143's down around Exeter?
CC 72100
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 3,777
SkinnyDave
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 1,242
That I don't know, they may get hold of 150s as we start to get turbos through
There are six if I remember correctly
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,376
I don't follow what's meant here. Are you suggesting here that Chiltern would be somehow better off with ex-HST coaches rather than their existing Mk3 coaches that have already been updated at significant expense?
Given that the major builds of Mk3s were practically simultaneous, what would be the advantage?
anthony263
Established Member
Well its unlikely to be a while before any turbos come west.
Already posted on wnxx that FGW have been looking at the use of the daytimne carriages of the sleeper to provide additional capacity during the day between Penzance & Plymouth. My personal opinion is that it is very unlikely however much I think the enthusiast would want it.
Better idea for FGW to get extra cpacity before the turbos come west if to go ahead with returning to loco hauled opertaions on the Cardiff - Taunton route releasing 150921/150927 to be used elsewhere. The main sticking point to this idea seems to be the DFT with them being unwilling to put some money into it although FGW have looekd at paying some costs themslves I have heard (not sure how true that is however)
Already posted on wnxx that FGW have been looking at the use of the daytimne carriages of the sleeper to provide additional capacity during the day between Penzance & Plymouth. My personal opinion is that it is very unlikely however much I think the enthusiast would want it.
Better idea for FGW to get extra cpacity before the turbos come west if to go ahead with returning to loco hauled opertaions on the Cardiff - Taunton route releasing 150921/150927 to be used elsewhere. The main sticking point to this idea seems to be the DFT with them being unwilling to put some money into it although FGW have looekd at paying some costs themslves I have heard (not sure how true that is however)
SkinnyDave
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 1,242
You will see a Turbo running between Cheltenham and Swindon from the Summer onwards unless they change their minds.. Traction training is scheduled for some of us in Spring
Not heard anymore about the loco hauled Cardiff to Taunton in a while
So much going on just now it's hard to keep up with FGW
Would Chiltern not be interested in running HST sets?
anthony263
Established Member
I certainly agree it is hard keeping up with everything going on at FGW.
Lasdt I heard with the loco hauled option with FGW is that FGW management are keen at the loco hauled idea as a mean to reduce overcrowding and ease the pressure on the dmu fleet which is being a bit stretched (made worse by the class 153's working the Westbury - Swindon shuttles and the extra's between Paignton & Newton abbott) but the stumbling block is that the DFT are not keen on putting in some money into the pot to do so.
That said Northern are supposed to be seriously looking at loco hauled option again now so perhaps the DFT will have to seriously consider putting in funding short term after all they have done it before.
ANyway back onto Chiltern's idea of looking for additional rolling stock. My personal belief is that the WG will pull the plug on Gerald so reduce costs and to try and keep their flights to north wales from Cardiff (since they want more people using Cardiff Airport) so Chiltern should be able to get at least 6-7 mark 3 carriages along with 2 dvt's and 3 class 67's
Lasdt I heard with the loco hauled option with FGW is that FGW management are keen at the loco hauled idea as a mean to reduce overcrowding and ease the pressure on the dmu fleet which is being a bit stretched (made worse by the class 153's working the Westbury - Swindon shuttles and the extra's between Paignton & Newton abbott) but the stumbling block is that the DFT are not keen on putting in some money into the pot to do so.
That said Northern are supposed to be seriously looking at loco hauled option again now so perhaps the DFT will have to seriously consider putting in funding short term after all they have done it before.
ANyway back onto Chiltern's idea of looking for additional rolling stock. My personal belief is that the WG will pull the plug on Gerald so reduce costs and to try and keep their flights to north wales from Cardiff (since they want more people using Cardiff Airport) so Chiltern should be able to get at least 6-7 mark 3 carriages along with 2 dvt's and 3 class 67's
No, I was referring to the HST sets, and whether the Chiltern mk3s could be easily put between the two HST power cars. Sorry if you misunderstood the post, I shall edit it to make it clearer.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Just a question but say Chiltern and Network Rail were to electrify the Chiltern routes, would not the former East Coast Mk4 sets be ideal for Marylebone to Birmingham/Oxford?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,376
Ok, thanks.
I can see that being a better idea... I think then that the main issues will be the differing electrical supplies on HST and Mk 3 - but in the overall scheme of things I'd expect it is a mismatch that can be overcome - there have been some conversions one way or the other already, I'm confident someone will know exactly what/why/when...
anthony263
Established Member
Chiltern did say that if the Chiltern route was electrified then they would replace the diesel loco with an electric one keeping the exisiting mark 3's andDVT's.
That said there could be a case in the future for using the mark 4 carriages on the Chiltern route providing they can be cleared
That said there could be a case in the future for using the mark 4 carriages on the Chiltern route providing they can be cleared
Eagle
Established Member
Other than the fact they're way too long, of course.
Not a snowball's chance in hell.
They didn't really want to go down the road of 67s and Mk3s either but no-one was going to fund another dmu order for them, so it was the only way they were going to free the sets they will need for the Oxford route from Birmingham services.
HST mk 3 coaches are not compatible with the Chiltern ones so the Chiltern ones would not operate with HST's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hence the demise of WSMR, shame Chiltern didn't get their funding
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Well there is that, but they could shorten the sets maybe?
People keep saying this about W&S but it had just as much to do with the long journey times due to the pathing issues through the Birmingham-Wolverhampton area putting off passengers - round the houses on just about every possible route you can think of except the most direct one - the protection Virgin had from competition from other operators and trying to build a business in the teeth of a severe recession.
Problem is that either that results in quite short sets with one class 43 (4 or 5 coaches) or you end up running with two locos which can pull more than the 6 or 7 coaches in the rake.
Also, unless you are going to spend a lot on the Mark 3's, there is only a short time frame until the DDR kick in.
I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing a DMU order in CP5, even though one isn't planned, just because passenger demand from growth requires it and we can't electrify fast enough. Although such an order may mean that the planned order for CP6 is skipped or at the very least is later on rather than the first units arriving on day one of CP6 so the politicians can claim that they kept to the timetable and didn't order any in CP5.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
If they can make the doors easier to open (an internal handle would do the job) then the manual doors are OK for accessibility regs. They would need an accessible toilet, some lighting changes, call for aid points and PIS and they're mostly there. If they could retrofit TDM to the power cars (we know that is possible as it was done by BR to allow the class 91s to be tested and run in service before the Mk4s arrived) to allow a class 43, 5 coaches and a DVT then you could get most of the sets done easily enough.
I just don't see the government wanting any kind of DMU order.
Chester025
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,045
Kingsbury Jn.
Member
Is that the "bustitution" for Denham Golf Club?
Although each one doesn't add much capacity!
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
Nothing is impossible.
There's plenty of space in the luggage area of an HST to accommodate either a generator or similar.
Only question about Uckfield is what system of electrification is used. Logically you'd say 3rd rail, but given the longer term NR strategy seems to be to move away from 3rd rail to 25kv it becomes less clear. Given most new units are dual-voltage, I'd go for 25kv for Uckfield.
Has a strategy for electrifying Chiltern been declared yet? The issue I can see is how do you electrify to Aylesbury, given Harrow - Amersham is on LUL metals. You could just electrify the Birmingham route, but that leaves Chiltern with DMUs to sustain the Amersham - Aylesbury services.
Eagle
Established Member
Another option is that you could make MaryleboneAmershamAylesbury a third-rail route, running off the LU third rail for the sections where it shares tracks.
(Bearing in mind that MaryleboneWycombeAylesbury, which is to be extended to MKC, will be fine for OHL electrification.)
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,076
Indeed, and with dual voltage units the unelectrified sections can be wired in the normal fashion.
Chris
Cherry_Picker
Established Member
Only route cleared as far as St John's Wood station (aka Marylebone platforms 5 & 6) sadly.
Could be interesting, given the LU/NR maintenance boundaries are currently between Amersham and Great Missenden (I believe it's marked by a foot crossing in the vicinity of Weedonhill Wood, rather than the oft-quoted Mantles Wood) and just South of Harrow-on-the-Hill, though rules boundaries are Amersham and Harrow-on-the-Hill stations.
causton
Established Member
- Status