Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[Bletchleyite]

You wouldn't want a single unit having 6 cars, there's zero operational flexibility there. Better having a mix of 3- and 4-car units so that you can match capacity to demand and detach / attach as necessary.

Chiltern presently have a mix of 2-4 car units. For FLIRTs that is probably the equivalent of 3-5 - remember the passenger accommodation of each vehicle is only about 16m long if fully articulated (18m on an intermediate with a full bogie), so you're basically talking Pacer vehicles, not 24m ones.

 

[12LDA28C]

Chiltern presently have a mix of 2-4 car units. For FLIRTs that is probably the equivalent of 3-5 - remember the passenger accommodation of each vehicle is only about 16m long if fully articulated (18m on an intermediate with a full bogie), so you're basically talking Pacer vehicles, not 24m ones.

That's fine but Chiltern isn't set up for fixed 5-car units particularly for maintenance purposes. New depot buildings would have to be built with increased capacity at Wembley, Aylesbury and so on. Of course this thread is speculative but taking on a fleet of 5-car units would be impractical.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's fine but Chiltern isn't set up for fixed 5-car units particularly for maintenance purposes. New depot buildings would have to be built with increased capacity at Wembley, Aylesbury and so on. Of course this thread is speculative but taking on a fleet of 5-car units would be impractical.

Once again, 5.FLIRT is about the same length as 4.168 (a bit longer due to the power module and longer cabs). Chiltern does have some of the latter, I think, or absolutely has in the past (as they seem to re-form the 168s a fair bit).

 

[Trainbike46]

Personally I'd take Chorlton over that, as someone how is now long past being 22! But we have absolutely no plans to start a family, and so we are perhaps the outliers.

However I do agree that MK has quite a draw, in terms of the economic power of the place. It wouldn't be growing to 500k people if there wasn't something driving that.

But this is going off topic.

Re Chiltern and FLIRTS - could a diesel/battery FLIRT have more than 4 passenger cars? A 6-car unit, if you could put enough power in the power pack, could work well I think, although not all the bays and it would need SDO.

a 4-engined powerpack with 6 passenger cars would have the same engine to passenger car ratio as a 3-car 755, which have a 2-engined powerpack, so that's definitely possible and still very quick

 

[The Planner]

That's fine but Chiltern isn't set up for fixed 5-car units particularly for maintenance purposes. New depot buildings would have to be built with increased capacity at Wembley, Aylesbury and so on. Of course this thread is speculative but taking on a fleet of 5-car units would be impractical.

Is the plan still to make everything a multiple of 3? That was mooted a while back in terms of platform extensions etc.

 

[12LDA28C]

Is the plan still to make everything a multiple of 3? That was mooted a while back in terms of platform extensions etc.

I've not heard that, although that may become a reality dependent on what units replace the 165s. Chiltern still has a few 5-car platforms around the network and it shouldn't be too difficult to extend these to 6-car capacity if required. The only exception would probably be Rickmansworth which is on LU infrastructure and has its own constraints, as well as LU most likely not being interested in extending platforms for another operator's trains.

 

[JonathanH]

News from the Evening Standard today that Chiltern have scrapped its hybrid plans.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business...lways-scraps-hybrid-train-plans-b1105834.html

Disappointment as Chiltern Railways scraps hybrid train plans
By Simon Hunt 3 hours ago

Chiltern Railways has quietly scrapped its plans to introduce hybrid trains from services in London after reports of “unacceptably poor” air quality in the area surrounding its Marylebone terminus, the Standard can reveal.

The Arriva-owned operator last year introduced trial rolling stock which used batteries in combination with a diesel engine in a bid to reduce emissions in city centres. But it has since abandoned the project with the train no longer in service at present. The firm said increased costs meant the technology was no longer viable.

Liz Leffman, leader of Oxfordshire County Council, who had previously written to the Government citing health concerns over pollution caused by Chiltern’s diesel fleet, told the Standard she was “very disappointed” by the move.

“We want the line to be completely electrified and we believe it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure these lines are electrified,” she said.

“If we’re going to meet our climate targets we have to see the reduction in diesel emissions.”

Marylebone is the last terminus in London only used by diesel trains which contribute to high levels of sooty particulates and toxic NO2 fumes in an already notoriously badly polluted area close to the capital’s inner ring road.

Westminster council estimates that trains account for 14 per cent of N02 emissions and four per cent of particulates in the area around the station, compared with two per cent of N02 and one per cent of particulates across the borough as a whole.

Chiltern said: “While an increase in the cost of this technology since the project began has meant that it will not roll out to the wider fleet, we’d like to commend the skill and dedication of colleagues throughout this innovative trial.

"We will all continue to collaborate on innovations to help Chiltern Railways make their journeys easier, greener and better for customers, and in turn, ensuring the industry meets the UK’s net zero targets."

In July, Chiltern’s Class 68 locomotives powered by vegetable oil began running in and out of Marylebone.

The fuel is a direct replacement for diesel – meaning there is no need to adapt the internal engines of the locomotives that Chiltern uses to pull the train carriages on its long-distance services between Marylebone and Stourbridge Junction via Birmingham.

 

[miklcct]

I can't see anything better than just putting the wires up. This is a mainline at capacity, not a rural line with a train every 2 hours!

Any electrification project through an area with even modest property prices for the current times will see completely spurious objections that are cover for protecting property values given time in court that costs the electrification project additional budget for legal fees.

Won't electrification bring positive change to property prices? Electrification means cleaner air and quieter trains, which are definitely positives.

 

[zwk500]

Won't electrification bring positive change to property prices? Electrification means cleaner air and quieter trains, which are definitely positives.

By itself, no - Electrification kit is quite ugly to look at and the noise from trains doesn't really factor into property value unless it's right on the lineside (certain individuals may be put off by distant train noise but another buyer will not care). What electrification does do for house prices is allow either more services or faster services, and good connections are good for property prices. However the opportunities for service improvement through electrification alone are somewhat limited on the Chiltern since, as you point out, it's quite full.

Electrification of this line definitely makes sense, but it is important to be realistic about the size of the obstacles to be scaled, and the one-time cost of resolving those issues.

 

[3RDGEN]

News from the Evening Standard today that Chiltern have scrapped its hybrid plans.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business...lways-scraps-hybrid-train-plans-b1105834.html

This only refers to the 165 and 168 hybrid trials, both units will be converted back to standard, other hybrid/battery options are still open as per the recent tender. Electrification is the obvious answer it's just going to take time to get there.

 

[Snow1964]

By itself, no - Electrification kit is quite ugly to look at and the noise from trains doesn't really factor into property value unless it's right on the lineside

Electrification of this line definitely makes sense, but it is important to be realistic about the size of the obstacles to be scaled, and the one-time cost of resolving those issues.

The line speed of Chiltern doesn't need the big ugly masts and cantilever's, just simple poles. Modern standard electrification in Europe uses these for speeds upto 180km/h (112mph), Some countries eg Italy use factory made standard lattice poles which are much cheaper than multiple designs made in short production runs.

These are much higher speeds than Chiltern uses in the urban areas. Although some multi-track areas might need spans. The only fast bits which need heavyweight kit are within about 15 miles either side of Banbury which is very rural.

 

[zwk500]

The line speed of Chiltern doesn't need the big ugly masts and cantilever's, just simple poles. Modern standard electrification in Europe uses these for speeds upto 180km/h (112mph), Some countries eg Italy use factory made standard lattice poles which are much cheaper than multiple designs made in short production runs.

These are much higher speeds than Chiltern uses in the urban areas. Although some multi-track areas might need spans. The only fast bits which need heavyweight kit are within about 15 miles either side of Banbury which is very rural.

1. What will actually go up is less relevant to opposition than what people fear might go up (essentially everybody thinks they're going to get the GWML stuff)
2. The opposition will be strongest in rural areas, as they stand to lose the most from visual impact.

 

[BrianW]

By itself, no - Electrification kit is quite ugly to look at and the

1. What will actually go up is less relevant to opposition than what people fear might go up (essentially everybody thinks they're going to get the GWML stuff)
2. The opposition will be strongest in rural areas, as they stand to lose the most from visual impact.

from trains doesn't really factor into property value unless it's right on the lineside (certain individuals may be put off by distant train noise but another buyer will not care). What electrification does do for house prices is allow either more services or faster services, and good connections are good for property prices. However the opportunities for service improvement through electrification alone are somewhat limited on the Chiltern since, as you point out, it's quite full.

Electrification of this line definitely makes sense, but it is important to be realistic about the size of the obstacles to be scaled, and the one-time cost of resolving those issues.

Beauty (and ugliness) in the eye of the beholder. Electricity pylons- who would give up electricity supply to their own properties? Wind turbines? How many find their predecessing Dutch windmills ugly? The M40- how many objectors don't use it now 'on principle'? The panorama at Christmas Common is beautiful. HS2 tunneling is excessive- trains in the landscape are quiet. The 'Chiltern Corridor' is one of largely well-off residents and railway travelers who will appreciate the benefits of electrification.

 

[The Planner]

The line speed of Chiltern doesn't need the big ugly masts and cantilever's, just simple poles. Modern standard electrification in Europe uses these for speeds upto 180km/h (112mph), Some countries eg Italy use factory made standard lattice poles which are much cheaper than multiple designs made in short production runs.

These are much higher speeds than Chiltern uses in the urban areas. Although some multi-track areas might need spans. The only fast bits which need heavyweight kit are within about 15 miles either side of Banbury which is very rural.

Chiltern is 100mph from before Wembley Stadium and rarely goes lower than 90 all the way to Solihull.

 

[zwk500]

Beauty (and ugliness) in the eye of the beholder. Electricity pylons- who would give up electricity supply to their own properties? Wind turbines? How many find their predecessing Dutch windmills ugly? The M40- how many objectors don't use it now 'on principle'? The panorama at Christmas Common is beautiful. HS2 tunneling is excessive- trains in the landscape are quiet.

I'm not sure what any of your point here is.

The 'Chiltern Corridor' is one of largely well-off residents and railway travelers who will appreciate the benefits of electrification.

Well-off residents who have land rovers to drive to their local station are some of the worst for throwing up as many objections as they can think of, to prevent anything changing in their little patch. Whether or not they 'appreciate' the benefits of electrification, they don't want the actual works to take place near them.

 

[BrianW]

I'm not sure what any of your point here is.

Well-off residents who have land rovers to drive to their local station are some of the worst for throwing up as many objections as they can think of, to prevent anything changing in their little patch. Whether or not they 'appreciate' the benefits of electrification, they don't want the actual works to take place near them.

Sorry, I have 'fat fingers' and had a stroke recently, so typing lots of words takes me a lot of time- hence my brevity. I knew the point I was trying to make!
I'm on the same page as you except I don't see OHE paraphenalia, nor electricity pylons, nor wind turbines as 'ugly', nor trains as noisy. Some people appreciate Picasso, or London's listed South Bank architecture- for others they are ugly; 'pop' music, etc- the list is endless. However OHE, Pylons, turbines etc are Useful, and economically necessary. The people of Marylebone are entitled to clean air too. Brits love to complain, and politicos feel obliged to kowtow, bow to 'public opinion' as it is represented; and it's costing time and money that we don't have. We are selfishly stealing from future generations. End of rant, for now ... I'm with you on this.

 

[Energy]

The people of Marylebone are entitled to clean air too. Brits love to complain, and politicos feel obliged to kowtow, bow to 'public opinion' as it is represented; and it's costing time and money that we don't have. We are selfishly stealing from future generations. End of rant, for now ... I'm with you on this.

Painting the OHLE supports green so they don't stand out so much would probably be enough. I doubt the nearby residents particularly enjoy the diesel fumes.

 

[tomuk]

This only refers to the 165 and 168 hybrid trials, both units will be converted back to standard, other hybrid/battery options are still open as per the recent tender. Electrification is the obvious answer it's just going to take time to get there.

What other options are the? The cheapo innovative 165 attempt was a complete disaster. Has it actually been put back together yet? And the expensive 168 OEM supplier proper attempt has been deemed as too expensive despite actually working.

 

[Vanmanyo]

I can't see anything better than just putting the wires up. This is a mainline at capacity, not a rural line with a train every 2 hours!

Completely agree with you here! It's shroud the dft have spent sooooo much on hs2 and can't put a tiny bit of cash on the CML. Living on the CML we've been underfunded for years, but with class 168 refreshments currently under (8003 currently being refreshed), this certainty suggests that 168s will be used for the next 10-15 years, so we should definitely start looking for something to replace the HybridFLEX scheme, such as HVO fuels potentially? It's ridiculous we don't have wires up yet, Marylebone residents will just have to "suffer" a bit more (One day they'll learn that you shouldn't buy a house by a diesel mainline if you don't like noise!)

I can't see anything better than just putting the wires up. This is a mainline at capacity, not a rural line with a train every 2 hours!

Completely agree with you here! It's shroud the dft have spent sooooo much on hs2 and can't put a tiny bit of cash on the CML. Living on the CML we've been underfunded for years, but with class 168 refreshments currently under (8003 currently being refreshed), this certainty suggests that 168s will be used for the next 10-15 years, so we should definitely start looking for something to replace the HybridFLEX scheme, such as HVO fuels potentially? It's ridiculous we don't have wires up yet, Marylebone residents will just have to "suffer" a bit more (One day they'll learn that you shouldn't buy a house by a diesel mainline if you don't like noise!)

Edit: sorry for sending it twice, rail forums is being weird, probably the poor signal I'm getting on a 168!

 

[fgwrich]

What other options are the? The cheapo innovative 165 attempt was a complete disaster. Has it actually been put back together yet? And the expensive 168 OEM supplier proper attempt has been deemed as too expensive despite actually working.

Well, you say working but the 168 seemed to spend the majority of its time OOU and broken. The 165 is hardly a surprise though - I don’t think it was ever completed and I’d be surprised if it doesn’t make its way back to Chiltern as a Christmas Tree for the fleet.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Well, you say working but the 168 seemed to spend the majority of its time OOU and broken. The 165 is hardly a surprise though - I don’t think it was ever completed and I’d be surprised if it doesn’t make its way back to Chiltern as a Christmas Tree for the fleet.

168329 is, as I'm sure you know, being converted back to normal and I can see this returning to service, especially given Chiltern need every 168 they can use! The 165 I think is still at Doncaster. I believe it finished its conversion but unsure what is actually happening to it. But like you say if it returns to service I'll be pretty surprised! But another unit definitely isn't bad for Chiltern to have in their fleet, but Christmas tree unit wouldn't be useless either!

 

[zwk500]

Painting the OHLE supports green so they don't stand out so much would probably be enough. I doubt the nearby residents particularly enjoy the diesel fumes.

You seriously underestimate just how visceral the opposition in wealthy semi-rural areas can get. It's an emotional response, not a logical or reasonable one. Painting the OLE supports green would be meaningless as that only softens the impact if they're against a green background, i.e. a cutting side, in which position they'd not be as prominent anyway. Nearby residents may not enjoy the diesel fumes but they're less than half a mile from Euston Road so they're hardly going to kick off a fuss about it. Diesel particulate objections were a cover for the noise from Class 68s when recent complaints were made, as diesel fumes were in the news then.
The opposition is far from impossible to overcome, but it will add to the project costs as all these challenges need to be anticipated and responded to. If we had a proper strategic vision from the government, the Evergreen programme would have had firm stepping-up times for a proper electrification strategy. But it didn't and now here we are.

 

[cle]

The other irony is that they have no idea how much better it would make their train service. Cleaner air of course, but much quicker, quieter journeys. It's a hilly route with a lot of skip-stop and random stopping patterns - perfect for electrification. I'd think there would some pretty decent journey time savings all round.

And maybe if station to station times went down enough, there might be additional calls which could be fit into services. Or indeed, additional tph/flighting, given it's mainly 2 track.

 

[CR165022]

The 165 I think is still at Doncaster. I believe it finished its conversion but unsure what is actually happening to it.

165004 had the hybrid engines fitted on both carriages but has since had them removed on 1 carriage, its sitting outside the front of Doncaster works at the moment.

 

[The Planner]

Completely agree with you here! It's shroud the dft have spent sooooo much on hs2 and can't put a tiny bit of cash on the CML. Living on the CML we've been underfunded for years, but with class 168 refreshments currently under (8003 currently being refreshed), this certainty suggests that 168s will be used for the next 10-15 years, so we should definitely start looking for something to replace the HybridFLEX scheme, such as HVO fuels potentially? It's ridiculous we don't have wires up yet, Marylebone residents will just have to "suffer" a bit more (One day they'll learn that you shouldn't buy a house by a diesel mainline if you don't like noise!)

Edit: sorry for sending it twice, rail forums is being weird, probably the poor signal I'm getting on a 168!

Under funded? The Chiltern line has been transformed over the last few decades.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Under funded? The Chiltern line has been transformed over the last few decades.

Yes, but in the last 5, 10 years Chiltern has had the least government funding, a Modern Railways magazine put Chiltern below c2c (whose route network is about the fith of. Chiltern's) for government funding, at around £150 million or so. Chiltern is definitely underfunded

The other irony is that they have no idea how much better it would make their train service. Cleaner air of course, but much quicker, quieter journeys. It's a hilly route with a lot of skip-stop and random stopping patterns - perfect for electrification. I'd think there would some pretty decent journey time savings all round.

Yes, the amount of positives it brings isn't just because it would remove the diesel. It's around 2 hours from Birmingham to London but they did managed 1hr 30 under shooter days (when they clearly had some ambition!), so I reckon you could significantly decrease journey times, but perhaps the dft don't want that, as that could reduce potential hs2 users? Would be a very dft thing to do!

165004 had the hybrid engines fitted on both carriages but has since had them removed on 1 carriage, its sitting outside the front of Doncaster works at the moment.

Ah thanks, I can't see that coming back then sadly

 

[Falcon1200]

You seriously underestimate just how visceral the opposition in wealthy semi-rural areas can get.

Are there any examples where opposition to overhead line (OLE) structures has actually delayed or prevented electrification? Concern was certainly raised over the Royal Border Bridge at Berwick, but the structures were erected, and the residents of Goring were most upset about the GWML OLE; NR promised to look at the issue but nothing was done (and nor should it be).

Yes, but in the last 5, 10 years Chiltern has had the least government funding,

Is it not actually quite reasonable that, having seen massive investment in the recent past (eg redoubling Princes Risborough/Aynho Jc, new link at Bicester, entirely new service to Oxford on an also-redoubled line) money would now be focussed elsewhere?

 

[JamesT]

Are there any examples where opposition to overhead line (OLE) structures has actually delayed or prevented electrification? Concern was certainly raised over the Royal Border Bridge at Berwick, but the structures were erected, and the residents of Goring were most upset about the GWML OLE; NR promised to look at the issue but nothing was done (and nor should it be).

Overtaken by the overall curtailment, but Bath? As I understand it, the listed nature of Sydney Gardens means NR have to respect the council’s views.

Yes, the amount of positives it brings isn't just because it would remove the diesel. It's around 2 hours from Birmingham to London but they did managed 1hr 30 under shooter days (when they clearly had some ambition!), so I reckon you could significantly decrease journey times, but perhaps the dft don't want that, as that could reduce potential hs2 users? Would be a very dft thing to do!

How often did that 90 minute service stop between London and Birmingham?
A train that goes rocketing past my local station is entirely useless, worse than that it’s eating paths stopping trains could be using. If a fast end to end journey is required, Avanti already provides that service. What would be the point of duplication?

 

[BlueLeanie]

Perhaps the way forward is for central Government to collect 100% of ULEZ and LTN fines in London and Oxfordshire? Then use the money to electrify rail services between the two cities?

 

[zwk500]

Yes, but in the last 5, 10 years Chiltern has had the least government funding, a Modern Railways magazine put Chiltern below c2c (whose route network is about the fith of. Chiltern's) for government funding, at around £150 million or so. Chiltern is definitely underfunded

It has the least because it's just had a major investment. If you've just upgraded a railway it should be able to last 20 years without needing serious work.

Yes, the amount of positives it brings isn't just because it would remove the diesel. It's around 2 hours from Birmingham to London but they did managed 1hr 30 under shooter days (when they clearly had some ambition!), so I reckon you could significantly decrease journey times, but perhaps the dft don't want that, as that could reduce potential hs2 users? Would be a very dft thing to do!

Journey times to Birmingham are more about capacity than train capability.

Are there any examples where opposition to overhead line (OLE) structures has actually delayed or prevented electrification? Concern was certainly raised over the Royal Border Bridge at Berwick, but the structures were erected, and the residents of Goring were most upset about the GWML OLE; NR promised to look at the issue but nothing was done (and nor should it be).

Prevented outright no, because if the government want to they can override the objections. But certainly delayed/increased costs at Maidenhead, Goring, Bath, and so forth.