• 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 commuting seat numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.

adamskiodp

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2011
Messages
207
Location
Buckinghamshire
Hi folks :D

Does anyone know how many seats there are on the Chiltern class 165 DMU’s (2 and 3 cars)?

With the perceived increase in in overcrowding on the Aylesbury (via Amersham) Line, I want to compare seating capacity. Previously the Class 115’s has 4 cars with a capacity of 30 (1st class) and 302 (2nd class) seats (Wikipedia may not be correct, I know). These were usually doubled up to 8 cars in peak times.

Often in the evening peak home the trains are 2 or 3 car 165’s. Is there actually a big:'( decrease in seating or does it just seem that way?

Maybe I’m mistaken but the Wycombe, Oxford, Birmingham Line seems to have had a lot of infrastructure investment and train stock, but us Aylesbury/Amersham are still stuck with the same as we had in 1992.

Also, is it just me that misses the comfort, sound and smell the of the old DMU’s? :'(

Many thanks,

Adam
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,751
Location
Epsom
From the combined volume:

2 car = 183 seats, including the tip ups.
3 car = 289 seats, including the tip ups.

Some have 5 seats fewer.
 

BucksBones

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2017
Messages
332
I have no issues at all with the quality and age of stock (I think the 165s are good units that have been very well looked after) but I completely agree that the Aylesbury - Marylebone via Amersham line been long overlooked by Chiltern in favour of the Main Line. The overcrowding has got so bad that I know many people who choose to drive to WCML stations instead, where the trains are far less crowded as well as being more modern and comfortable, the journey is far quicker and the fares are substantially lower.

Journey times are always going to be problematic due to the shared infrastructure with LUL and there is no easy answer to this but the allocation of stock does seem biased in favour of the main line.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
but the allocation of stock does seem biased in favour of the main line.

It is important to point out that any train that operates via the Amersham line needs to be fitted with tripcocks for use with LU's signals which are fitted with trainstops (instead of TPWS as you might find on other lines), and AIUI only a portion of the Chiltern fleet is fitted with them. I'm not sure if this is going to be fixed under the SSL resignalling program - they could in theory fit TPWS in place of trainstops at which point any and all stock could then use that line - but whether there is the money there or will to do so is another matter.
 

BucksBones

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2017
Messages
332
It is important to point out that any train that operates via the Amersham line needs to be fitted with tripcocks for use with LU's signals which are fitted with trainstops (instead of TPWS as you might find on other lines), and AIUI only a portion of the Chiltern fleet is fitted with them. I'm not sure if this is going to be fixed under the SSL resignalling program - they could in theory fit TPWS in place of trainstops at which point any and all stock could then use that line - but whether there is the money there or will to do so is another matter.

The vast majority of Chiltern’s units are equipped with tripcocks. I’m sure there’s scope for a little shuffling of unit allocations without causing huge problems on the mainline.
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
3,944
Location
London
It's also worth pointing out that the 168s and 172s have fewer seats than the 165s, namely 202 in the 3 car units and 275 in the 4 car ones, with the 172s having 145 seats.
 

100andthirty

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
542
Location
Milton Keynes
Trainstops will be retained on the LU line when resignalled. Also class 172 trains don't have tripcocks and can't be used on the leading end of trains on the Amersham line.
 

adamskiodp

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2011
Messages
207
Location
Buckinghamshire
Thanks to everyone who responded :D

Some interesting points to think about. It would appear that despite much increased passenger numbers we do have fewer seats on our branch. I gues this will never improve as long as we share metals (?) with the Metropolitan Line.

Regards,

Adam
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Thanks to everyone who responded :D

Some interesting points to think about. It would appear that despite much increased passenger numbers we do have fewer seats on our branch. I gues this will never improve as long as we share metals (?) with the Metropolitan Line.

Regards,

Adam
Well there's nothing to stop longer trains being provided (if the stock was available obviously!). Many of the 165s still operate stoppers on the mainline route.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
Thanks to everyone who responded :D

Some interesting points to think about. It would appear that despite much increased passenger numbers we do have fewer seats on our branch. I gues this will never improve as long as we share metals (?) with the Metropolitan Line.

Regards,

Adam
One thing to compare would be the peak frequencies when 115s were in service and the service today. The Banbury route almost certainly has a much better service, but I'm not sure about that on the Amersham route. My guess would be 115s were on hourly off peak workings with peak extras, whereas Chiltern currently have half-hourly off-peak with peak extras. (I would check an old public timetable but I don't have one to hand!)
 

adamskiodp

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2011
Messages
207
Location
Buckinghamshire
MikeyC,

As I understand it, even if Chiltern had the will to increase the number of DMU’s, they can’t just go and order them. For some reason the DfT don’t seem to like TOC’s doing anything to improve the customer experience without their say so. As discussed numerous times in other forums, increasing rolling stock and handing the Amersham/Chesham Met branch over to Chiltern might change things but I don’t see that happening.
 

t_star2001uk

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2011
Messages
723
Well there's nothing to stop longer trains being provided (if the stock was available obviously!).

Even if the stock were available we are restricted to 5 car sets if stopping at Rickmansworth and 6 car for all other Met line stations.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
MikeyC,

For some reason the DfT don’t seem to like TOC’s doing anything to improve the customer experience without their say so.

That statement is just so naïve. Firstly, do you really think TOCs are going to order additional stock at additional cost just so peak passengers can get a seat unless the DfT renegotiates their premium payments? Secondly, as TOCs are here today, gone tomorrow entities it is entirely reasonable that the DfT doesn’t allow them to go on random spending splurges that the rest of us will be paying for for years to come.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
12,980
Thanks to everyone who responded :D

Some interesting points to think about. It would appear that despite much increased passenger numbers we do have fewer seats on our branch. I gues this will never improve as long as we share metals (?) with the Metropolitan Line.

Regards,

Adam

Fewer seats so that more people can stand appears to be the way things are these days.
 

adamskiodp

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2011
Messages
207
Location
Buckinghamshire
That statement is just so naïve. Firstly, do you really think TOCs are going to order additional stock at additional cost just so peak passengers can get a seat unless the DfT renegotiates their premium payments? Secondly, as TOCs are here today, gone tomorrow entities it is entirely reasonable that the DfT doesn’t allow them to go on random spending splurges that the rest of us will be paying for for years to come.

It may be naive, but it is often said by many other members in these and other forums when anyone asks why the TOC’s don’t just buy more stock.
 

Muzer

Established Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
2,773
Even if the stock were available we are restricted to 5 car sets if stopping at Rickmansworth and 6 car for all other Met line stations.
Even with SDO? Not ideal, I know... what scope would there be for getting LUL to lengthen the platforms? Even six coaches for a London commuter route is woefully short. I feel like, besides Chiltern, the Great Western route is the last one to have trains this short, and that's actively being worked on. How long until Chiltern get the same treatment?

Enthusiasts like me always wibble on about how great Chiltern is, but really, for the average short-distance commuter, they have to be seen as pretty shoddy. Whether that's the TOC's fault or the DfT's I don't know, but I'm always struck by how little capacity there is.
 

t_star2001uk

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2011
Messages
723
Even with SDO? Not ideal, I know... what scope would there be for getting LUL to lengthen the platforms? Even six coaches for a London commuter route is woefully short.

Unfortunately the SDO thing would be a problem. Modifying all of the Chiltern units for SDO would not be financially viable. Id love to see more platform extensions but i'm afraid that there would be no business case for it at the moment. Even if Aylesbury to Great Missenden were extended it would then be up to the complexities of Transport For London to do similar work on their infrastructure, and i very much doubt TFL will extend platforms with the associated signalling works just for Chiltern to run with more vehicles.
 

Muzer

Established Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
2,773
Unfortunately the SDO thing would be a problem. Modifying all of the Chiltern units for SDO would not be financially viable. Id love to see more platform extensions but i'm afraid that there would be no business case for it at the moment. Even if Aylesbury to Great Missenden were extended it would then be up to the complexities of Transport For London to do similar work on their infrastructure, and i very much doubt TFL will extend platforms with the associated signalling works just for Chiltern to run with more vehicles.
Oh, I agree; I'm fully aware of the lack of SDO capability on the current stock (having watched with interest the discussion on the Southeastern route study). But if there's really that much in the way of capacity problems and resulting suppressed demand (and having seen some of these trains in the evening peaks, I'd be inclined to believe that's the case), then I'd expect even an expensive solution (whether that be completely new stock, expensive modifications, or platform extensions) to be worthwhile. I wouldn't expect Chiltern themselves (or LUL for that matter) to pay for it though... It'd have to be a DfT job.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Well there's nothing to stop longer trains being provided (if the stock was available obviously!). Many of the 165s still operate stoppers on the mainline route.

My point being not that I expect Chiltern to rush out and order some more DMUs, but rather that there is still scope to run longer trains out of Marylebone. It's not like some of the other London terminals where rush hour trains are already at maximum length.

Chiltern have prioritised longer distance commuting on the Mainline. An entirely sensible commercial decision, but it can be argued that the Aylesbury routes have been left as the poor relations as a result.
 

BucksBones

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2017
Messages
332
The peaks are extremely busy, but stock allocation off-peak isn’t ideal either; many weekend late services are clearly far too short. I remain convinced that Chiltern could use their stock more efficiently. If they can’t, I’m sure their former Grand Fromage might have an idea as to where they might be able to free up an extra unit or 2......!
 

NickBucks

Member
Joined
17 May 2013
Messages
183
A senior Chiltern manager at a passenger forum, albeit some years ago, told me that they lost money on the Aylesbury via Amersham line and hence their investment was directed towards the London to Birmingham line and subsequently to Oxford. I doubt this has changed much. Aside from the peaks a two car 165 is rarely half full especially between Amersham and Aylesbury VP apart from pre Christmas.
I doubt that anything will happen until after the franchise is renewed and I suspect that the DfT are doing a lot of hard thinking about that. I still suspect that an LUL takeover of the line to Aylesbury is a strong possibility. only problem is Mayor Khan does not want to contribute ( see the difficulties with the Met's Croxley Link ) despite commuters contributing in no small way towards the economy of the City. Marylebone cannot take many more trains. I wonder if , with a short piece of infrastructure work, LUL Met line trains terminating at Baker Street could switch to Marylebone freeing up space at Baker Street. Chilterns Birmingham / Oxford services could switch to Paddington when Crossrail frees up space. I know that Chiltern are looking at serving Old Oak Common in the future.
Speculation on my part but I can envisage Chiltern giving up the Aylesbury via Amersham service when applying for a new franchise especially if they get a sniff of winning the East-West franchise, at least as far as MK. Chiltern already have plans to extend the Marylebone- Wycombe- Aylesbury service to MK. Chiltern need to concentrate on the Oxford services to see a return on their investment. And after all Arriva, Chilterns immediate parent,have washed their hands of the Wales and West franchise having withdrawn from the bidding for the new franchise so nothing is set in stone.
 

BucksBones

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2017
Messages
332
their investment was directed towards the London to Birmingham line and subsequently to Oxford

Wow. Can’t believe they admitted that so readily.

Aside from the peaks a two car 165 is rarely half full especially between Amersham and Aylesbury VP apart from pre Christmas.

I’m not sure that’s always the case; weekdays between the peaks maybe but evening and weekend trains can be uncomfortable in the extreme.
 

67018

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2012
Messages
449
Location
Oxfordshire
The peaks are extremely busy, but stock allocation off-peak isn’t ideal either; many weekend late services are clearly far too short. I remain convinced that Chiltern could use their stock more efficiently. If they can’t, I’m sure their former Grand Fromage might have an idea as to where they might be able to free up an extra unit or 2......!
I’d say that Chiltern use their stock extremely efficiently, as evidenced by the frequent short formations whenever ‘more trains than usual need repairs’. There’s clearly no slack in the fleet.

It’s also worth pointing out that the mainline has capacity challenges as well - trains are regularly full and standing in evening peaks to Haddenham or Bicester, and are regularly rammed on Saturdays.
 

MarlowDonkey

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
1,094
Even if the stock were available we are restricted to 5 car sets if stopping at Rickmansworth and 6 car for all other Met line stations.

How did they manage in the days of the 115s? The choice then was 4 cars or 8. Admittedly the carriages were a bit shorter.
 

150219

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2009
Messages
310
How did they manage in the days of the 115s? The choice then was 4 cars or 8. Admittedly the carriages were a bit shorter.

Arrangements were different in the "old-days". Trains used to be able to stop all over the country that were longer than the platform. There were 4 and 8 car 115 services that ran via Amersham, but the introduction of DOO and non-SDO fitted stock dictates a change in operating practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top