Chiltern Class 165/168 compatibility

[nctd2306]

Apologies if it has been answered elsewhere (I know DMU compatibility has come up before in other threads) but I just noted this formation showing on Real Time Trains and simply cannot remember if such a pairing is possible in passenger service or if this can only be an error due to a set swap

 

[chungusgoat1]

it is possible and does happen a fair bit

Apologies if it has been answered elsewhere (I know DMU compatibility has come up before in other threads) but I just noted this formation showing on Real Time Trains and simply cannot remember if such a pairing is possible in passenger service or if this can only be an error due to a set swap

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes used to be common, i always used to sit in the 165 for the thrash!

 

[12LDA28C]

Apologies if it has been answered elsewhere (I know DMU compatibility has come up before in other threads) but I just noted this formation showing on Real Time Trains and simply cannot remember if such a pairing is possible in passenger service or if this can only be an error due to a set swap

Yes of course. Why wouldn't it be possible? It happens regularly. Of course if the 168 is leading the driver just needs to remember there's a 165 on the rear!

 

[Class172]

Yes of course. Why wouldn't it be possible?

I would say that it is a very reasonable question to ask, since 168s are very similar units to 170s (with some converted from these), but it is known that the latter cannot operate in multiple with the Networker Turbo 165/166s.

 

[12LDA28C]

I would say that it is a very reasonable question to ask, since 168s are very similar units to 170s (with some converted from these), but it is known that the latter cannot operate in multiple with the Networker Turbo 165/166s.

The Class 168/0s were the first new passenger trains ordered after privatisation and were delivered in 1998. Chiltern would've been pretty stupid to specify units that couldn't be coupled to the existing fleet.

 

[nctd2306]

Thanks all, I knew there was one Turbostar that couldn't couple to the 165s, just couldn't remember which one! If it happens regularly then fair enough, I don't live that far away from Chiltern land but haven't yet had the chance to explore their network, so I rarely check their allocations on RTT which is why this one took me by surprise a bit

 

[Nippy]

The Class 168/0s were the first new passenger trains ordered after privatisation and were delivered in 1998. Chiltern would've been pretty stupid to specify units that couldn't be coupled to the existing fleet.

I don’t know, I’m pretty sure there will be plenty of TOCs with new trains that aren’t compatible with existing fleets. I wouldn’t have thought the 730s and 350s with LNR are compatible.

 

[12LDA28C]

I don’t know, I’m pretty sure there will be plenty of TOCs with new trains that aren’t compatible with existing fleets. I wouldn’t have thought the 730s and 350s with LNR are compatible.

The point is that back in 1997-98 there were no other units being built and the likes of CAF, Stadler, Bombardier etc weren't supplying units to the UK market at that time. So there wasn't the wide variety of units with varying specs that we have now, over a quarter of a century later. Things were rather simpler then.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Again, apologies for ignorance, but aren't 168/0's beefed up 165s, whereas the 168/1 and above are Turbostars?

 

[150219]

Again, apologies for ignorance, but aren't 168/0's beefed up 165s, whereas the 168/1 and above are Turbostars?

The 0's (Clubmans) were designed to follow the Networker family, so an updated version of the engineering. By the time the main production line had started, the design had morphed into the Turbostars.

 

[hexagon789]

Again, apologies for ignorance, but aren't 168/0's beefed up 165s, whereas the 168/1 and above are Turbostars?

Mechanically they are all 'Turbostars' though those built as 168s were branded 'Clubmans'.

The originals have a Networker-style cab, but still have the MTU engines and 100mph-transmission of the later 168s and 170/171s.

I suppose it depends how how you choose which similarities are more significant. Personally I would say the original 168/0s are closer to Turbostars than Networker Turbos.

 

[12LDA28C]

I suppose it depends how how you choose which similarities are more significant. Personally I would say the original 168/0s are closer to Turbostars than Networker Turbos.

Agreed

 

[Neptune]

Mechanically they are all 'Turbostars' though those built as 168s were branded 'Clubmans'.

The originals have a Networker-style cab, but still have the MTU engines and 100mph-transmission of the later 168s and 170/171s.

I suppose it depends how how you choose which similarities are more significant. Personally I would say the original 168/0s are closer to Turbostars than Networker Turbos.

Absolutely. The only real difference with 168/0’s and Turbostars is the cab. The body is definitely the same as a 170.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Yes used to be common, i always used to sit in the 165 for the thrash!

Reminds me that when the 3-car 165s were first delivered, the centre cars had no speed limiters and so very high speeds were achieved.

 

[warwickshire]

Happens all the time, 165 is far better for a ride, especially for Nostalgia, only drawback if 165 is attached to a 168 on any of the services on the mainline, particularly on the Birmingham/Oxford to London Marylebones, the services are limited to 75 Mph due to the 165 only capable of achieving this speed. Resulting in a few minutes late on some of these services when it happens as a result.
What a Pity at the time, when the 165s on Chiltern was made at York, maybe at least they should have been allowed and designed to go faster.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Surprisingly, we had a 165 on my morning journey to Birmingham Snow Hill the other day, instead of the usual 168. I was expecting to be late, but actually arrived into Snow Hill more or less on time.

 

[AJDesiro]

Surprisingly, we had a 165 on my morning journey to Birmingham Snow Hill the other day, instead of the usual 168. I was expecting to be late, but actually arrived into Snow Hill more or less on time.

It's helpful that Chiltern services tend to have have very generous allowances, and that the 165s have superior acceleration to the 168s.

Realtime Trains | 1H48 1340 Birmingham Moor Street to London Marylebone | 03/03/2024

Real-time train running information for 1H48 1340 departure from Birmingham Moor Street to London Marylebone on 03/03/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

(Image shows 13:40 Birmingham Moor Street to London Marylebone on Real Time Trains, departing on 3rd March 2024.)

 

[12LDA28C]

Reminds me that when the 3-car 165s were first delivered, the centre cars had no speed limiters and so very high speeds were achieved.

How would that possibly work, given that the Chiltern 165s were max speed 75mph? The driving vehicles would have been limited to 75mph which would have prevented the middle cars exceeding that.

Happens all the time, 165 is far better for a ride, especially for Nostalgia, only drawback if 165 is attached to a 168 on any of the services on the mainline, particularly on the Birmingham/Oxford to London Marylebones, the services are limited to 75 Mph due to the 165 only capable of achieving this speed. Resulting in a few minutes late on some of these services when it happens as a result.

Most Oxford services now have sufficient recovery time built into the schedule so if a 165 is substituted for a 168 or coupled to one, the train can still run with no loss of time.

 

[LowLevel]

Happens all the time, 165 is far better for a ride, especially for Nostalgia, only drawback if 165 is attached to a 168 on any of the services on the mainline, particularly on the Birmingham/Oxford to London Marylebones, the services are limited to 75 Mph due to the 165 only capable of achieving this speed. Resulting in a few minutes late on some of these services when it happens as a result.
What a Pity at the time, when the 165s on Chiltern was made at York, maybe at least they should have been allowed and designed to go faster.

The Great Western 165/1s have yaw dampers on the bogies which is why they can do 90 and the Chiltern ones are only 75 - whether this was cost saving or simply the tripcock gear for running on the Met making it impossible to also fit yaw dampers to that bogie design I don't know.

 

[12LDA28C]

The Great Western 165/1s have yaw dampers on the bogies which is why they can do 90 and the Chiltern ones are only 75 - whether this was cost saving or simply the tripcock gear for running on the Met making it impossible to also fit yaw dampers to that bogie design I don't know.

This is quite possible although when the Chiltern 168s were introduced they were fitted with yaw dampers and tripcocks so that issue has been overcome.

 

[RPM]

The Great Western 165/1s have yaw dampers on the bogies which is why they can do 90 and the Chiltern ones are only 75 - whether this was cost saving or simply the tripcock gear for running on the Met making it impossible to also fit yaw dampers to that bogie design I don't know.

The Chiltern 165s have the requisite brackets on both the bogies and the bodies for yaw damper fitment. However, as I understand it, they would need to have their final drives changed if they were to be modified to run at 90. I don't think the tripcocks played any part in the original 75mph specification. There just wasn't any requirement at the time for faster units on the newly modernised Chiltern Lines.

 

[hexagon789]

The Chiltern 165s have the requisite brackets on both the bogies and the bodies for yaw damper fitment. However, as I understand it, they would need to have their final drives changed if they were to be modified to run at 90. I don't think the tripcocks played any part in the original 75mph specification. There just wasn't any requirement at the time for faster units on the newly modernised Chiltern Lines.

Wasn't the Chiltern Line 75 max south of Banbury when the 165s were introduced anyway?

 

[RPM]

Wasn't the Chiltern Line 75 max south of Banbury when the 165s were introduced anyway?

Yes. The NSE Total Route Modernisation was based on a 75mph railway. It wasn't until the Shooter era that linespeeds started to increase.