Will we ever see DB 67s + LHCS on XC?

route:oxford · 4 Jan 2011

As the title says...

With DB/Chiltern/W&S investing in 67+LHCS+DVT for routes into Marylebone, what are the chances that we will see a set being pressed into action on an XC route?

A 67+DVT Combination costs 54.32 pence per mile in track access charges whereas 43+43 costs 56.36 pence per mile - the cost of the mark 3 is 6.53pence per mile no matter the derivative. It would also keep the hiring "in-house" rather than external.

(I also quite like the idea of the W&S style of full restaurant service on XC...)

RailUK Forums

MCR247 · 4 Jan 2011

Why would MK3s being used mean there would be a full restaurant? I wouldn't bet on them doing that. HSTs are faster anyway.

tbtc · 4 Jan 2011

I thought the Chiltern 67s were only hauling four coaches? It'd be a bit annoying if that turned up in place of a seven coach HST...

NXEA! · 4 Jan 2011

tbtc said:
I thought the Chiltern 67s were only hauling four coaches? It'd be a bit annoying if that turned up in place of a seven coach HST...

Yeah, four coaches. Perfect to replace a 220.

MCR247 · 4 Jan 2011

Erm No, not really

route:oxford · 4 Jan 2011

NXEA! said:
Yeah, four coaches. Perfect to replace a 220.

Is that all a 67 is capable of hauling?

43034 The Black Horse · 4 Jan 2011

route:oxford said:
Is that all a 67 is capable of hauling?

Nope.

Can do load 12 no problem (suppose they could do more, no idea about maximum load).

jonhewes · 4 Jan 2011

I was actually wondering about this myself.

There aren't many spare MKIIIs at the moment, other than a few buffets and sleepers.

However, it will be interesting to see what happens when the Norwich - Liverpool St services go over to full EMU operation, displacing several lengthy rakes of serviceable MKIIIs, and going further forward in time, when the MKIV sets get displaced off the ECML.

I do wonder whether or not DBS will order some more ETS equipped locos in the near future. I think there is a diesel variant of the Vectron equipped with ETS. Unfortunately it would require re-modelling to fit the restrictive loading gauge over here.

An ETS equipped 66, geared to run at 100 MPH could be very useful - not geared too high, thus retaining low end grunt for heavy freight, while at the same time being a 100 MPH CO-CO, and therefor being kinder to track.

I'm quite a fan of the 67s, having travelled behind them on a number of charters. They seem quite quick off the mark, even when providing ETS and hauling a lengthy rake of MKIIs

Out of interest, are there any significant stretches of line where the XC voyagers actually run at 125 MPH?

TheWalrus · 4 Jan 2011

I thought 67s could do 125?

mumrar · 4 Jan 2011

TheWalrus said:
I thought 67s could do 125?

Oh dear God no, surely no-one can be alive that hasn't read all of those threads. I can't even be bothered to find the links

Geezertronic · 5 Jan 2011

jonhewes said:
Out of interest, are there any significant stretches of line where the XC voyagers actually run at 125 MPH?

I don't believe there are any sections that allow the XC Voyagers (whether they are 220 or 221) to do 125mph although I stand to be corrected. I believe the VT 221s can do 125mph with tilt enabled on the same sections of the WCML that the 390s are allowed (the XC 221s have tilt disabled/removed)

TheWalrus said:
I thought 67s could do 125?

Doesn't matter if the 67s could do 125mph (although with a lot of coaches behind it, I assume the acceleration would suffer thus impacting on timing/pathing), the line speed dictates how fast a train can go - tilt or non tilt

ainsworth74 · 5 Jan 2011

Geezertronic said:
I don't believe there are any sections that allow the XC Voyagers (whether they are 220 or 221) to do 125mph although I stand to be corrected.

Doncaster to Newcastle springs to mind as an area where there are 125mph sections

AeroSpace · 5 Jan 2011

Geezertronic said:
I don't believe there are any sections that allow the XC Voyagers (whether they are 220 or 221) to do 125mph

Most of the line between Doncaster and Darlington.

thewolf · 5 Jan 2011

Geezertronic said:
I don't believe there are any sections that allow the XC Voyagers (whether they are 220 or 221) to do 125mph although I stand to be corrected. I believe the VT 221s can do 125mph with tilt enabled on the same sections of the WCML that the 390s are allowed (the XC 221s have tilt disabled/removed)

I believe its 125 from north of Wolverhampton to Stafford and I think there's some 125 between Birmingham and Derby, up through Tamworth and so on.

I expect there are probably some parts along the ECML where they can do 125?

Geezertronic · 5 Jan 2011

I can't comment on the ECML sections

but I was under the impression that the WCML sections only allow 125mph for tilt enabled 221s (VT sets only) and 390s?

mumrar · 5 Jan 2011

Although it will start the inevitable why's and where fors, 67s aren't permitted to do 125mph anyway. With the exception of some routes, they're limited to 100mph, and 110 on these other routes.

Lampshade · 5 Jan 2011

TheWalrus said:
I thought 67s could do 125?

They can but their Route Availability is so pathetic they're unlikely ever to in frontline service.

Aictos · 5 Jan 2011

Geezertronic said:
I can't comment on the ECML sections but I was under the impression that the WCML sections only allow 125mph for tilt enabled 221s (VT sets only) and 390s?

I'm sure you right there, it's been stated here time and time again that non tilt trains are subjected to a 110mph restriction on the WCML as only tilt trains ie the Virgin 221s and the 390s are cleared to run at 125mph.

BlueGrey · 5 Jan 2011

I thought I had seen something recently stating that EWS were running trials with a view to their 67s being allowed to run at 125mph. Apologies if this is wrong.

route:oxford · 5 Jan 2011

ajax103 said:
I'm sure you right there, it's been stated here time and time again that non tilt trains are subjected to a 110mph restriction on the WCML as only tilt trains ie the Virgin 221s and the 390s are cleared to run at 125mph.

Taking the "core" XC network... Bristol/Reading & Manchester/Newcastle, there isn't really much WCML running is there?

There is a bit of GWML running - and there were reports of tests of 67s at 125mph on it on here fairly recently.

tbtc · 5 Jan 2011

NXEA! said:
Yeah, four coaches. Perfect to replace a 220.

Does that four coaches include a restaurant coach?

Because if so you're talking something six coaches in length (67 + four coaches + DVT) with seating for only three coaches worth of passengers...

Given the weight and space of a separate engine/ DVT, I'd concentrate any loco-hauled ideas on eight/nine coach services (which is why I'm surprised at Chiltern's short rake)

thewolf · 5 Jan 2011

Geezertronic said:
I can't comment on the ECML sections but I was under the impression that the WCML sections only allow 125mph for tilt enabled 221s (VT sets only) and 390s?

Most of it is just for EPS, however between Wolves and Stafford its EPS and MUs that can do 125.

jopsuk · 5 Jan 2011

EPS and MU or EPS and HST? HST is a seperate category to MU (though as I understand it everything covered by the MU category can use HST limits subject to their own max speed limitiations). 180/22x are not covered by MU designation, and I belive 185 can't even use HST limits?

The Planner · 5 Jan 2011

Wolves Stafford is 90/MU125/EPS125. Class 185s aren't classed as HST in the rule book and can't use MU or DMU speed limits. The rule book is fuzzy over what is covered by MU in that it doesnt specify any units, but 22x must be covered by MU as they use the full 125mph speed along there. The rule book is specific over HST (class 91 locomotive with mark 4 vehicles and DVT,168/170/171/175/180/220/221/222/253/254/373/390).

jopsuk · 5 Jan 2011

Ah, a bit of searching suggests it is "SP" that is more tightly defined than MU- for "Sprinter" (but also covers Pacers, Clubman Turbos and Turbostars?)

NXEA! · 5 Jan 2011

tbtc said:
Does that four coaches include a restaurant coach?

Because if so you're talking something six coaches in length (67 + four coaches + DVT) with seating for only three coaches worth of passengers...

Given the weight and space of a separate engine/ DVT, I'd concentrate any loco-hauled ideas on eight/nine coach services (which is why I'm surprised at Chiltern's short rake)

I was only joking anyways. :lol:

Yeah, it includes a Buffet/Restaurant car. But saying that, looking at my Platform 5 book a 220's standard class seats which is spread over 3 coaches comes to 160 seats, whereas three Mark 3 TSO's with original seating configuration comes to 228 and even a refurbished TSO still manages 70 each which comes to 210, so you'd be getting a an increase of seats of around 50-68 seats. The First Class on a Voyager seats 26 seats, and the refurbished NXEA Buffets seat 24, so only a loss of 2 seats there, presuming it would be refurbished to a similar specification. So theoretically you wouldn't need 5 or 6 coaches to replace the accomodation of a 220, and with 4 coaches you'd at least get an increase of 50 odd seats. Plus DVT luggage space, it would work capacity wise, but speed and clearance wise, there's probably something to stop 67's being used properly. And I've just checked against a 221 configuration, and an original configuration Mark 3 TSO at 228 still provides an extra 8 seats, and a different configuration Mark 3 TSO at 210 seats only loses out on 10 seats... First class seating is still the same on a 221 so a four coach Mark 3 set could pretty much match its seating capacity with 4 coaches which includes a Buffet/Restaurant car...

Pumbaa · 5 Jan 2011

route:oxford said:
Taking the "core" XC network... Bristol/Reading & Manchester/Newcastle, there isn't really much WCML running is there?

There is a bit of GWML running - and there were reports of tests of 67s at 125mph on it on here fairly recently.

Yes. Not for your benefit, but for everyone else, 125 running on XC network as it stands at the moment is...

- Edinburgh to Doncaster (bits thereof)
- Derby to Tamworth (bits thereof)
- Wolves to Stafford
- South of Chelt Spa to Bristol Pkway (bits)
- GWML to Reading

110 capable;

- Leeds to Derby
- Stafford to Norton Bridge
- Stoke to Macclesfield tunnel
- South from Leam Spa to Didcot (bits thereof)

I'm sure there are other little sections too.

asylumxl · 5 Jan 2011

NXEA!, for the seating,what about the wheelchair spaces? Or the accesible toilets?

And what about the dwell times and lower acceleratioN compared to 22x series trains? What about joining and splitting units for each service? I read about alot of people saying LHCS is better because they're easily reconfigurable. Uncoupling and shunting locomotives/dvts/carriages is easy?! It's far easier for two MU to join and split for different services.

It's all well and good to say some MK3s have more seating, but it's not all about seating. The extensive use of MU stock came about for sensible reasons

The Planner · 5 Jan 2011

Pumbaa said:
- South of Chelt Spa to Bristol Pkway (bits)

Only when you get to Westerleigh Jn on the GWML, nothing south of Cheltenham is 125mph. Most of it is 90. There is a scheme to get chunks of it up to 100mph.

South from Leam Spa to Didcot (bits thereof)

Nothing more than 95 HST south of Leamington to Heyford, and a paltry 4 miles of 110 HST between Tackley and Wolvercot.

150219 · 5 Jan 2011

tbtc said:
Given the weight and space of a separate engine/ DVT, I'd concentrate any loco-hauled ideas on eight/nine coach services (which is why I'm surprised at Chiltern's short rake)

Any longer than 8 vehicles (in total) cause problems with flexibility with platform lengths on the Chiltern patch. The new platforms at Birmingham Moor Street and Marylebone are only planned to have an eight vehicle length capacity.

Will we ever see DB 67s + LHCS on XC?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member