Long term plan for Chiltern's Mk3 "Heritage" rake.

route:oxford · 18 Oct 2014

I travelled on the the "Banbury" rake from Marylebone to Haddenham last night. It is definitely good crowd-buster (although I would have preferred safer high back seating).

What's the long-term plan for this "heritage" rake? Is it likely to be Chilternised with power doors and perhaps upgraded with modern safer seating?

RailUK Forums

Yew · 18 Oct 2014

It's hardly heritage, there are still hundreds of slam door Mk3's, and a lot of them still have IC70s

Cherry_Picker · 18 Oct 2014

It is compared to the rest of the fleet and it's painted in "heritage" BR intercity livery, the refurbished Mk3 coaches really make the slam door set look old even if the interior is only a Virgin refurb from the 1990s.

route:oxford · 18 Oct 2014

Yew said:
It's hardly heritage, there are still hundreds of slam door Mk3's, and a lot of them still have IC70s

Up to 40 years old and two/three comprehensive refurbishments and rebuilds behind their peer stock on Chiltern.

That's heritage to me.

Ash Bridge · 18 Oct 2014

route:oxford said:
Up to 40 years old and two/three comprehensive refurbishments and rebuilds behind their peer stock on Chiltern.

That's heritage to me.

I still consider mk3s modern. But then again Iam probably heritage

47802 · 18 Oct 2014

Well if Chiltern can get hold of some of the Scotrail 170's in the next few years they might get rid of all the loco hauled stuff, or at least the non power door rake.

XCTurbostar · 18 Oct 2014

47802 said:
Well if Chiltern can get hold of some of the Scotrail 170's in the next few years they might get rid of all the loco hauled stuff, or at least the non power door rake.

Based on the money which Chiltern has spent on those Chilternised MK3s.. I'd be very surprised if what you say actually happens. Since the 67s are being replaced by 68s with a longer contract, this suggests that chiltern obviously favors the MK3s over the 168s.

Chiltern will keep their Mk3s until the end of their franchise quite comfortably. It is a selling point over Virgin which I think is a reason to retain them. I always choose Chiltern over Virgin just because of the comfort levels.

I've said this before but I wouldn't be surprised if Chiltern swap the Class 68s/DVTs in favor of HST power cars when they become available. It would be the obvious next step for Chiltern. This would help with timings and enable them to have better acceleration to keep with unit diagrams.

Thanks,
Ross

Suraggu · 18 Oct 2014

XCTurbostar said:
Based on the money which Chiltern has spent on those Chilternised MK3s.. I'd be very surprised if what you say actually happens. Since the 67s are being replaced by 68s with a longer contract, this suggests that chiltern obviously favors the MK3s over the 168s.

Chiltern will keep their Mk3s until the end of their franchise quite comfortably. It is a selling point over Virgin which I think is a reason to retain them. I always choose Chiltern over Virgin just because of the comfort levels.

I've said this before but I wouldn't be surprised if Chiltern swap the Class 68s/DVTs in favor of HST power cars when they become available. It would be the obvious next step for Chiltern. This would help with timings and enable them to have better acceleration to keep with unit diagrams.

Thanks,
Ross

Then they either spend a fortune rewiring their entire mk.3 fleet for Power Car use or spend a fortune re-engineering the power cars to supply the Chiltern Mk.3's, severely doubt that will happen.

59CosG95 · 18 Oct 2014

Suraggu said:
Then they either spend a fortune rewiring their entire mk.3 fleet for Power Car use or spend a fortune re-engineering the power cars to supply the Chiltern Mk.3's, severely doubt that will happen.

Since Boris' plan is to wire the Chiltern by 2024, I think the Mk3s will be around for a while yet, but the locos may change...
Hope we order Vectrons!!

DXMachina · 18 Oct 2014

XCTurbostar said:
I've said this before but I wouldn't be surprised if Chiltern swap the Class 68s/DVTs in favor of HST power cars when they become available.

Why would they swap locomotives which can haul their Mk3 carriages for power cars which cannot? Mk3 loco hauled and HST trailers are not interchangeable, they arent even electrically compatible. Even if they managed to refit TDM to some of the buffered HST PCs from which it was removed years ago, they'd still have no ETS

[Edit] MODS - please delete this post, Suraggu made the point first and its merely an unnecessary duplication

Suraggu · 18 Oct 2014

59CosG95 said:
Since Boris' plan is to wire the Chiltern by 2024, I think the Mk3s will be around for a while yet, but the locos may change...
Hope we order Vectrons!!

110mph EMU's, superior acceleration and cheaper to lease.

47802 · 18 Oct 2014

XCTurbostar said:
Based on the money which Chiltern has spent on those Chilternised MK3s.. I'd be very surprised if what you say actually happens. Since the 67s are being replaced by 68s with a longer contract, this suggests that chiltern obviously favors the MK3s over the 168s.

Chiltern will keep their Mk3s until the end of their franchise quite comfortably. It is a selling point over Virgin which I think is a reason to retain them. I always choose Chiltern over Virgin just because of the comfort levels.

I've said this before but I wouldn't be surprised if Chiltern swap the Class 68s/DVTs in favor of HST power cars when they become available. It would be the obvious next step for Chiltern. This would help with timings and enable them to have better acceleration to keep with unit diagrams.

Thanks,
Ross

Chiltern is essentially a unit based railway and expect if they can get hold of more 170's at some point then I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they do, with the current Loco hauled stock other than building new there was little alternative at the time.

XCTurbostar · 18 Oct 2014

47802 said:
Chiltern is essentially a unit based railway and expect if they can get hold of more 170's at some point then I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they do, with the current Loco hauled stock other than building new there was little alternative at the time.

Ill agree with you on that point.

Thanks,
Ross

CyrusWuff · 18 Oct 2014

47802 said:
Chiltern is essentially a unit based railway and expect if they can get hold of more 170's at some point then I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they do, with the current Loco hauled stock other than building new there was little alternative at the time.

I stand for correction, but I believe DB own rather more DVTs and Mk3 coaches than are currently in service with ATW, Chiltern and making up the Schenker "Company Train", such that the entire Mainline service could potentially go over to loco-hauled operation in the future...

That could, of course, be a load of geriatric shoemenders, however!

47802 · 18 Oct 2014

CyrusWuff said:
I stand for correction, but I believe DB own rather more DVTs and Mk3 coaches than are currently in service with ATW, Chiltern and making up the Schenker "Company Train", such that the entire Mainline service could potentially go over to loco-hauled operation in the future...

That could, of course, be a load of geriatric shoemenders, however!

If they wanted to do that why get the TPX 170's in that case?

Monty · 18 Oct 2014

47802 said:
If they wanted to do that why get the TPX 170's in that case?

Extra services? Anyway hasn't that plan been out on hold for now?

47802 · 18 Oct 2014

Monty said:
Extra services? Anyway hasn't that plan been out on hold for now?

Well given they want them for Oxford services, the alternative would have been to get additional loco hauled stock to run either to Oxford or a Birmingham and run freed up 168's to Oxford, the fact they preferred the 170 says it all in my book.

DT611 · 19 Oct 2014

47802 said:
Chiltern is essentially a unit based railway and expect if they can get hold of more 170's at some point then I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they do, with the current Loco hauled stock other than building new there was little alternative at the time.

once the stock is life expired they will probably replace with units yes. doubt it before hand though

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

47802 said:
Well given they want them for Oxford services, the alternative would have been to get additional loco hauled stock to run either to Oxford or a Birmingham and run freed up 168's to Oxford, the fact they preferred the 170 says it all in my book.

in that case they were going to have to get extra stock for those services, and those units came off lease, so they could go over to units for those. in the case of the current loco hauled stock they have, they have spent a lot of money on them, so they will want to get a return and get the full worth out of that refurbishment.

47802 · 19 Oct 2014

DT611 said:
once the stock is life expired they will probably replace with units yes. doubt it before hand though

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

in that case they were going to have to get extra stock for those services, and those units came off lease, so they could go over to units for those. in the case of the current loco hauled stock they have, they have spent a lot of money on them, so they will want to get a return and get the full worth out of that refurbishment.

Or maybe not if there are significant saving to be made by using the 170's, in any case its likely to be at least a couple of years before the prospect of any more 170's being released,

HSTEd · 19 Oct 2014

Suraggu said:
Then they either spend a fortune rewiring their entire mk.3 fleet for Power Car use or spend a fortune re-engineering the power cars to supply the Chiltern Mk.3's, severely doubt that will happen.

Actually you wouldn't have to re-engineer the power cars.
You could just stuff (almost) off the shelf static converters into the redundant luggage compartments of the power cars. (If a true SMPS is too pricey then a more bulky but simpler installation out of a three phase transformer and a six pulse diode rectifier would easily suffice).
Very little work to the PCs - and a new set of jumper heads would allow the AAR cables to function as HST MU cables - while the HST connector has 36 lines to the AAR's 27 only 24 of the former are actually used.
So assuming its a compliant AAR installation (all wires must be through wired on all stock) it should be fine to fit.

This is not the 1970s when the only practical means to convert between loco hauled DC/AC single phase and the three phase used by COTS equipment (like air conditioning units) was a motor-generator.
This is not even the early 2000s when the SMPS had not yet come of age (and the loco hauled Mark 3s had to be fitted with MU cables regardless) - this is now.

XCTurbostar · 19 Oct 2014

I didn't think that it would involve that much work. Like I said before, it could still happen..

Thanks,
Ross

Sunbird24 · 19 Oct 2014

A pair of HST power cars would drink far more fuel than than a 68/DVT combination for only a marginal increase in power (3800 HP against 4500 HP) and they can easily be uprated to 200kmh (120 mph) as per their Spanish cousins (Eurolight and class 334).
Old diesel stock of any sort is very thirsty and expensive to maintain when compared to modern products, especially when they come with lengthy maintenance contracts.

capital12 · 20 Oct 2014

route:oxford said:
I travelled on the the "Banbury" rake from Marylebone to Haddenham last night. It is definitely good crowd-buster (although I would have preferred safer high back seating).

What's the long-term plan for this "heritage" rake? Is it likely to be Chilternised with power doors and perhaps upgraded with modern safer seating?

I don't want to seem rude but if your first concern is how safe the seating is then to me that implies every time time you board a train you think you're going to crash?! Maybe train travel isn't for you?!

I'd prefer a comfy seat over a supposedly safer, but much more uncomfortable seat, any day as I don't expect to crash whenever I travel by train!

Reminds me when I worked at sea and there was a very slight swell causing a little movement of the ship - but there was one old lady sat in the restaurant with her life jacket on! If she was that worried about sinking I don't think cruising was really for her!

swt_passenger · 20 Oct 2014

47802 said:
Well given they want them for Oxford services, the alternative would have been to get additional loco hauled stock to run either to Oxford or a Birmingham and run freed up 168's to Oxford, the fact they preferred the 170 says it all in my book.

They aren't just for Oxford services though. There is a simultaneous project going on to increase the length of existing services between Banbury and Marylebone up to 9 car.

47802 · 20 Oct 2014

swt_passenger said:
They aren't just for Oxford services though. There is a simultaneous project going on to increase the length of existing services between Banbury and Marylebone up to 9 car.

Yes and doesn't that add up to more units for a unit based commuter railway which is the most suitable rolling stock for the line.

Ideally you would think this line ought to be a high priority for electrification which would be the most suitable option.

DT611 · 20 Oct 2014

47802 said:
Or maybe not if there are significant saving to be made by using the 170's, in any case its likely to be at least a couple of years before the prospect of any more 170's being released,

those loco hauled carriges won't be going anywhere until they get a return on the investment they put into them at least. they may even keep them as a USP. we'l just have to wait and see.

apk55 · 20 Oct 2014

Sunbird24 said:
A pair of HST power cars would drink far more fuel than than a 68/DVT combination for only a marginal increase in power (3800 HP against 4500 HP) and they can easily be uprated to 200kmh (120 mph) as per their Spanish cousins (Eurolight and class 334).
Old diesel stock of any sort is very thirsty and expensive to maintain when compared to modern products, especially when they come with lengthy maintenance contracts.

A class 68 has about twice the tractive effort of two HST power cars so it would be much quicker starting from a stop. This would be a usefull atribute when compeeting for space on congested urban networks.

What state the HST power cars are in I do not know, but many could many could be in need of extensive refurbishment. I could well see a controled rundown of the fleet with the worst examples being scrapped.

47802 · 20 Oct 2014

DT611 said:
those loco hauled carriges won't be going anywhere until they get a return on the investment they put into them at least. they may even keep them as a USP. we'l just have to wait and see.

I expect the investment they put into then was peanut's in the grand railway scheme of things, so if other costs override them it wont matter a bean.

Apart from the power doors a lot of the refurb for these trains was done under Wrexham and Shropshire anyway.

route:oxford · 20 Oct 2014

capital12 said:
I don't want to seem rude but if your first concern is how safe the seating is then to me that implies every time time you board a train you think you're going to crash?! Maybe train travel isn't for you?!

I'd prefer a comfy seat over a supposedly safer, but much more uncomfortable seat, any day as I don't expect to crash whenever I travel by train!

How can you possibly have comfort if there is nowhere to rest your head? IC70 seating is only suitable for people of limited stature.

The safety is limiting the movement of the head in rapid deceleration or acceleration. You don't have to crash to be injured.

Sunbird24 · 21 Oct 2014

route:oxford said:
How can you possibly have comfort if there is nowhere to rest your head? IC70 seating is only suitable for people of limited stature.

The safety is limiting the movement of the head in rapid deceleration or acceleration. You don't have to crash to be injured.

The linear (fore and aft) acceleration forces which a normal human can withstand safely are +17 to -7 acceleration units. Accelerating and braking trains get absolutely nowhere near these figures. Lateral (sideways) figures are much lower but a high seat back will have no effect on that.
Millions of people travel daily in light weight metros and trams which have sideways mounted seating only and start and stop with considerably more force than most heavyweight trains which have controlled acceleration and braking, of the order of 2m/s squared, which is absolutely harmless.
To put this into context, 1 acceleration unit is very roughly 0-100 MPH in 5 seconds, the average healthy human should be able to withstand an acceleration of 0-300mph in 1 second when facing forward.

Long term plan for Chiltern's Mk3 "Heritage" rake.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member