• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,796
Location
Birmingham
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.


There are absolutely non electrified sections of track on LUL's turf at both ends of the Met. Dunno how easy it would be to get maintenance boundaries moved to enable OHLE to encroach right up to the DC tracks.

I'm sure people here can tell me what the compatibility issues are with DC electrification. London Underground use a 4th rail system, network rail tends to prefer 3rd rail. Will a NR train going onto that system need bespoke shoegear or can 3rd rail systems be adapted to work?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
As far as I'm aware, there is no special shoegear needed, and ordinary third rail units can work over fourth rail lines.

Many do all the time; as well as the obvious 378s on the Bakerloo and District lines, a number of SWT units of various classes travel over the Wimbledon branch for stock transfers and route retention every day.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
Will a NR train going onto that system need bespoke shoegear or can 3rd rail systems be adapted to work?
No, the centre (negative) rail can be electrically bonded to the running rails. This is what happens on the shared LU/LO routes already.
 

158722

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
831
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Chiltern appear to have received 2 extra refurbished coaches - 82309 (ex-82104) and 12620 (ex-12124). The DVT seems odd as they have slack in the current fleet (plus Arriva 82306 on loan still?), although no spare TSO/TSOL vehicles until now. 12124 was previously part of the blue & grey commuter set.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
The solution to every rolling stock issue is the IEP ;).

frabz-HITACHI-Super-express-trains-HITACHI-super-express-trains-everyw-4879da.jpg
 

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
As far as I'm aware, there is no special shoegear needed, and ordinary third rail units can work over fourth rail lines.

Many do all the time; as well as the obvious 378s on the Bakerloo and District lines, a number of SWT units of various classes travel over the Wimbledon branch for stock transfers and route retention every day.
Sadly not, as demonstrated a few years ago by 313 021 which came to grief after passing over the BR-LU substation gap behind Chiswick Park station.
3rd rail only units cannot operate on LUs 420v+/210v- 4-rail system.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Then how come 444s, 450s and 455s can and do?
Where the NR 3rd rail trains run on 4th rail (above ground so no cast iron tunnel corrosion issues) the centre rail is bonded to the running rails and the outer rail voltage is +630V.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Sadly not, as demonstrated a few years ago by 313 021 which came to grief after passing over the BR-LU substation gap behind Chiswick Park station.
3rd rail only units cannot operate on LUs 420v+/210v- 4-rail system.

What happened to it? Presumably got 'stuck' and created a large spark?

Closely followed by how did it get sent that way?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Does that mean we've moved on from AC 444's? :o

On these boards you'd be forgiven for thinking the problems of the rail network could be resolved by the widespread reintroduction of either LHCS or slam door stock........
 

WestCountry

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Messages
280
Location
Cambridge, UK
Does that mean we've moved on from AC 444's? :o
No original Desiros anymore, remember. End-door 115mph 380 variants are the new thing. ;)

And you still can't convince me that that category of unit wouldn't be perfect for the GEML, TPE North, MML and ECML semis, etc... :p
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
No original Desiros anymore, remember. End-door 115mph 380 variants are the new thing. ;)

And you still can't convince me that that category of unit wouldn't be perfect for the GEML, TPE North, MML and ECML semis, etc... :p

Actually it's a yes & no situation; while it's true that no more 1st Gen. Desiro UK units will be built, the SWML section from Basingstoke to Weymouth could be converted, as could the 444s which run on it, to AC.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
Not difficult to modify them so they are compatible though.

I was thinking that, quite a few LHCS Mk3s got converted into HST Mk3s (most of GCs fleet is made up of those I believe) so presumably going the other way would not be beyond the wit of man. Though I guess cost could be an issue?
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
Though it would be hugely expensive to convert, and the stock would all need modified, as I understand the need for the fourth rail system only applies in the deep tube tunnels- so the SSL could go 3rd rail at least- with the sections shared with Picadilly running the same system as the sections shared with Overground.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Chiltern appear to have received 2 extra refurbished coaches - 82309 (ex-82104) and 12620 (ex-12124). The DVT seems odd as they have slack in the current fleet (plus Arriva 82306 on loan still?), although no spare TSO/TSOL vehicles until now. 12124 was previously part of the blue & grey commuter set.

Is 12620 refurbished with power doors?
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
As far as I'm aware, there is no special shoegear needed, and ordinary third rail units can work over fourth rail lines.

Many do all the time; as well as the obvious 378s on the Bakerloo and District lines, a number of SWT units of various classes travel over the Wimbledon branch for stock transfers and route retention every day.

Yup, pretty much. What needs to happen is that the fourth rail needs bonding to the running rails so that 3rd rail units have a return path.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
I was thinking that, quite a few LHCS Mk3s got converted into HST Mk3s (most of GCs fleet is made up of those I believe) so presumably going the other way would not be beyond the wit of man. Though I guess cost could be an issue?

Quite a few HST coaches were converted into 10xxx series buffet coaches for the WCML back in the 90s so they can be converted the other way.
 

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
Then how come 444s, 450s and 455s can and do?
NR (Raynes Park) provide the power supply from Putney Bridge-Wimbledon and Chiswick Park-Richmond at 750v+.
The Wimbledon branch infrastructure has been owned by LU since 1994 but the signalling & power are still supplied by NR, with LU responsible for maintenance.
So 3rd-rail units do not and have never, operated on LT/LU power supplies.

What happened to it? Presumably got 'stuck' and created a large spark?
Wrong signal lowered and accepted at Gunnersbury, just slowly died and coasted to a stop after crossing the section gap.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
(Obviously not straight away as they're still needed on EC) how likely would it be that Chiltern would use mark 4's rather than mark 3's? As the mark 4's could require less work for them to enter passenger service.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
Another option is that you could make Marylebone–Amersham–Aylesbury a third-rail route, running off the LU third rail for the sections where it shares tracks.

(Bearing in mind that Marylebone–Wycombe–Aylesbury, which is to be extended to MKC, will be fine for OHL electrification.)

Another option is you hand over the fast lines north of HotH to NR, and leave the Met to operate to Uxbridge and Watford. NR then has a segregated route from Aylesbury to Neasden junction suitable for OHLE. Problem is that Marylebone can't handle the extra trains (6tph, if you include Amersham and Chesham as through services). If you could move some services away from Marylebone though...<cue my frequently repeated spiel about diverting the High Wycombe services onto Crossrail via OOC to free up platform capacity at Marylebone>
 

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,796
Location
Birmingham
Highly unlikely there is the will to make that happen. Chiltern to give up a massive cash cow in order to accommodate more passengers who are travelling on tickets issued by TFL? I don't think the people who have the power to make this happen will be busting a gut.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Another option is you hand over the fast lines north of HotH to NR, and leave the Met to operate to Uxbridge and Watford. NR then has a segregated route from Aylesbury to Neasden junction suitable for OHLE. Problem is that Marylebone can't handle the extra trains (6tph, if you include Amersham and Chesham as through services). If you could move some services away from Marylebone though...<cue my frequently repeated spiel about diverting the High Wycombe services onto Crossrail via OOC to free up platform capacity at Marylebone>

Will there not be spare capacity at Paddington post-Crossrail? Some Chiltern services could be divided that way possibly, though Chiltern might not be too keen on having to serve 2 terminal stations* (though Southern and SouthEastern seem to manage okay with multiple London terminals). As long as the services moved to Paddington were grouped together (say all the Oxfords, Stratfords and MKs run from Paddington maybe), I don't think it'd be a major problem.

*disregarding the few that currently run to Paddington for route-knowledge.
 
Last edited:

aylesbury2

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2014
Messages
120
I emailed Chiltern on the subject and they replied:
With regards to our fleet, we are currently unable to invest in any newer trains as manufacturers have currently stopped making Diesel trains with the knowledge that the railway will be electrified in the future. In addition, there are currently no Diesel trains which have already been manufactured which are readily available as they are all in use with train operators around the country.
 

NickBucks

Member
Joined
17 May 2013
Messages
183
Poor excuse from Chiltern. I suspect that if you went to Bombardier with a view to ordering say 50 sets of Turbostars to cover most of the lines which will not be wired for some years they would be happy to do a deal. With the exception of the new Oxford line I just get the impression that Chiltern are happy to sit back and allow the franchise to run its course while basking in their good ratings. ( And how they get these I don't know. I travel Chiltern everyday and have done for years and have never been asked for my views !)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top