Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[Energy]

Rail Business UK - Chiltern Electrification Alternatives Studied​

UK: Chiltern Railways is working to present the Department for Transport with options for a fleet renewal programme, with London Marylebone being the only non-electrified London terminal and pressure for the withdrawal of diesel trains continuing to mount, particularly from local residents.

Industry insiders report that this could see at least the 39 two and three-car Class 165 diesel multiple-units replaced.

Built for Chiltern services in 1990-92 as part of the total route modernisation carried out by British Rail, the DMUs were refurbished and fitted with air conditioning in 2003-05.


However, maintenance is increasingly expensive, with the price for an engine overhaul understood to have almost tripled in recent years.

The government has confirmed that electrification of the Chiltern routes is currently not being planned, and the London Underground electrification system which extends as far as Amersham lacks the capacity which would be needed for future Chiltern electric services.

As such, it is envisaged that any new trains will require the use of an alternative form of traction.

So electrification is currently a no... hydrogen has been shown to be too expensive to operate abroad and batteries need somewhere to charge from. So how long till some electrification is finally accepted?

 

[Lucan]

pressure for the withdrawal of diesel trains continuing to mount, particularly from local residents.

Wait until they see the overhead wires.

 

[JonathanH]

batteries need somewhere to charge from

The solution would appear to have been the hybrid drive project, which would have allowed the units to run on electric within urban areas, and battery replenishment in the countryside from diesel generation. The apparent failure of that project has rather blown a hole in the strategy.

Batteries under the 37 strong 350/2 fleet seems like a possible outcome here if the range can support all day running without significant 'on-the-move' charging facilities. However, Porterbrook need to get on with 'proof of concept' work on this if it is going to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The solution is wires. It's ridiculous that a major commuter route into London in 2023 is not electrified.

Anything else is messing around the edges.

Batteries are for branch lines, diversions and to avoid strandings.

 

[JonathanH]

The solution is wires. It's ridiculous that a major commuter route into London in 2023 is not electrified.

As we have discussed before, the funding just isn't going to be made available for wires. The units on the Chiltern line are going to have to convey their own power source for the foreseeable future. It does seem that some sort of battery is needed.

 

[Trainbike46]

As we have discussed before, the funding just isn't going to be made available for wires. The units on the Chiltern line are going to have to convey their own power source for the foreseeable future. It does seem that some sort of battery is needed.

The current units, or cascaded diesel units from elsewhere should continue to be used until electrification is installed. Anything else is crazy

 

[Bletchleyite]

The current units, or cascaded diesel units from elsewhere should continue to be used until electrification is installed. Anything else is crazy

This.

It's near certain we are going to have a change of Government within two years. If we do, their policy on electrification could well be different, particularly if it's a hung Parliament and we end up with a Lib-Lab-Green Coalition.

 

[Energy]

It's near certain we are going to have a change of Government within two years. If we do, their policy on electrification could well be different, particularly if it's a hung Parliament and we end up with a Lib-Lab-Green Coalition.

Could be interesting. Both the Lib Dems and Greens strongly support electrification, Labour are pro but its mentioned less and both Lib Dems and Labour strongly support HS2. I suspect the next election will be less Labour dominated but more "anyone but conservative" as shown by local elections, as such we can expect much more electrification announced especially as MML seems to be progressing much better than the GWEP did.

As we have discussed before, the funding just isn't going to be made available for wires. The units on the Chiltern line are going to have to convey their own power source for the foreseeable future. It does seem that some sort of battery is needed.

I refuse to believe that they can't find money to electrify a busy mainline running through an area with the target voters.

 

[JonathanH]

I refuse to believe that they can't find money to electrify a busy mainline running through an area with the target voters.

Like it or not, electrification of the Chiltern Line is just not an electoral issue, unless the diesel units start to become really unreliable, and maybe not even then. As already mentioned in this thread, it isn't inconceivable that there are objections to overhead wires on some part of the route on aesthetic grounds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like it or not, electrification of the Chiltern Line is just not an electoral issue, unless the diesel units start to become really unreliable, and maybe not even then. As already mentioned in this thread, it isn't inconceivable that there are objections to overhead wires on some part of the route on aesthetic grounds.

As the railway doesn't require planning permission for the installation of overhead electricity supply, their answer to that ends in "off".

 

[Trainbike46]

Like it or not, electrification of the Chiltern Line is just not an electoral issue, unless the diesel units start to become really unreliable, and maybe not even then. As already mentioned in this thread, it isn't inconceivable that there are objections to overhead wires on some part of the route on aesthetic grounds.

Aesthetic objections are only relevant when the minister already wanted to cancel a project and needs an excuse (e.g. Winderemere). In the real world it is a nonsense objection

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aesthetic objections are only relevant when the minister already wanted to cancel a project and needs an excuse (e.g. Winderemere). In the real world it is a nonsense objection

It was a nonsense objection there too, because it's hardly as if the Windermere branch doesn't follow the route of a massive dual carriageway running through what is hardly the most beautiful part of the Lakes. It's just average countryside, like that the south WCML runs through.

 

[Trainbike46]

It was a nonsense objection there too, because it's hardly as if the Windermere branch doesn't follow the route of a massive dual carriageway running through what is hardly the most beautiful part of the Lakes. It's just average countryside, like that the south WCML runs through.

That was my point; it was a nonsense objection, that only ever saw the light of day because the minister / sos wanted to cancel the project and was grasping at straws for a justification

 

[hooverboy]

The current units, or cascaded diesel units from elsewhere should continue to be used until electrification is installed. Anything else is crazy

You want crazy then lets go nuclear!!!!
Well,maybe not quite as crazy as it sounds, as some freight marine vessel companies are starting to take a look at the concept.

If a less "reactive",lower yield,and less polluting source of fission can be conjoured up,then coupled to a battery for storage/load balancing,it might be worth a look.
Perhaps this would also have some merit in other fields,like central heating boiler replacements too.

 

[Snow1964]

Chilterns oldest trains are :
mk3 carriages, some are over 40 years old,
the 165s are 31-33 years old,
the 168s are 19-25 years old

Logically the 165s should be second in queue for replacement if based it on age. But this makes fleet replacement messy as trying to find both long distance trains and short distance local trains, possibly with one design does both, so need to look at cascading some of the mid distance trains (the 168s) into one end or other

Cannot really split a cascade strategy and electrification strategy, because they are going to overlap.

They could find spare outer suburban electric units to start a cascade tomorrow, but of course don't have the electrified lines to use them on.

Next option, cascade in some newer diesel trains, but that won't work either, because there aren't really any sitting around waiting for Operators to use them.

Third option, build some new trains, but question is do really want to build a pure diesel train, this isn't some minor rural line with a short train every hour or two. So possibly need a bi-mode, and let's be honest battery or hydrogen isn't going to work economically on that length of line.

Then an electrification question, do you start at Marylebone, or Birmingham or even Oxford, or do you start from both ends and gradually work towards the middle. I am not upto speed (post pandemic) if the South Birmingham commuter network is busier than line into Marylebone.

Does the fact that the Leamington Spa - Banbury line also carry XC services to South Coast and lots of freight (ignoring temporary closure of Nuneham viaduct), mean they should all contribute. Perhaps this part should be seen as strategic national importance otherwise they will all wait for each other to justify the electrification of middle bit.

Overall I think Chiltern have the same problem as some of GWRs Cardiff-Portsmouth and Cardiff - Cornwall, or SWRs Exeter route, and XCs Cardiff-Midlands route, really need a 100mph (perhaps 110mph on electric, but not diesel) outer suburban to secondary route bi-mode with seating suitable for 3+ hour journeys, that has doors suitable for churn, and some busier peak workings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For electrification I'd start from both ends. Wire to Wycombe and Banbury and the two ends can convert to EMUs, the DMUs freed up (172 and 168) can then do the end to end services with the 165s scrapped while new EMUs (or something like 350/2s) do the local services. Then do the middle bit and the 168s and 172s get redeployed somewhere else (probably 168 to Northern converted to 170s and 172s to strengthen Snow Hill Lines services pending wiring those) and EMUs take over the lot.

The Aylesbury bit is more complex if the LU power supply couldn't cope with Chiltern on the 4-rail as well; that would probably need beefing up first, then wire with OHLE to Amersham and change over there. Or alternatively you could do something specifically for that route, with tri-mode (OHLE, 4-rail and battery), with the battery kicking in if the 4th rail voltage drops a bit.

And do East West Rail at the same time.

 

[anthony263]

I'm sure i read somewhere that GWR did say if Patchway- Bristol TM- Bathampton/ Chippenham was wired they could run a battery/electric unit on the Cardiff to Portsmouth hbr service.

Depending how the trial with 230001 goes could battery units be ordered with fast charging facilities at Marylebone and Aylesbury be possible?

 

[12LDA28C]

So how long till some electrification is finally accepted?

Not in my lifetime I'll wager.

The current units, or cascaded diesel units from elsewhere should continue to be used until electrification is installed. Anything else is crazy

It was made quite clear in the OP that continuing with 165s is increasingly not an option. Even more modern DMUs cascaded from elsewhere would no doubt be more efficient, quieter and easier to obtain parts for than the 165s.

As the railway doesn't require planning permission for the installation of overhead electricity supply, their answer to that ends in "off".

It's a nice theory, but as Chiltern have found out, that answer isn't an option when powerful people who live close to the railway aren't happy. Hence the pressure to remove the 68s from service due to local Marylebone residents lobbying for exactly that.

For electrification I'd start from both ends. Wire to Wycombe and Banbury and the two ends can convert to EMUs, the DMUs freed up (172 and 168) can then do the end to end services with the 165s scrapped while new EMUs (or something like 350/2s) do the local services. Then do the middle bit and the 168s and 172s get redeployed somewhere else (probably 168 to Northern converted to 170s and 172s to strengthen Snow Hill Lines services pending wiring those) and EMUs take over the lot.

Chiltern hasn't run Class 172s for several years now.

Depending how the trial with 230001 goes could battery units be ordered with fast charging facilities at Marylebone and Aylesbury be possible?

Using a fast charge unit on a 2.5 mile long branch line is rather different to running a similar unit on a 40-mile main line journey. I'm pretty sure even if 230001 is a success on the Greenford branch, that technology would not be suitable for trains running over much longer distances without considerable development.

 

[Pete_uk]

Diesel Flirts.

Good quality and suitable for the route.

 

[Kingston Dan]

A new government is surely going to take decarbonisation seriously and just put the bloody wires up!

 

[Irascible]

A new government is surely going to take decarbonisation seriously and just put the bloody wires up!

Given the mess we're in, only if they also put taxes up I'd think.

I'm fine with it, doubt everyone is.

 

[JonathanH]

A new government is surely going to take decarbonisation seriously and just put the bloody wires up!

A new government is going to have to pay for a lot of things. There will be a lead time on developing and setting up electrification on this route, and an analysis of what the priorities are.

 

[Class 317]

Diesel Flirts.

Good quality and suitable for the route.

Or a UK version of their battery electric Flirts.
Range is 100-150 km, top speed 160kph, rechargeable off AC overheads in 15mins.

Currently being deployed on secondary routes in Germany. The concept their is that some stations are wired but not whole routes.

Would seem very suitable for Chiltern with suitable small scale electrification.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Given the mess we're in, only if they also put taxes up I'd think.

I'm fine with it, doubt everyone is.

There's a difference between capital and current spending. Investment in infrastructure is not the same as funding things like the NHS.

 

[tomuk]

There's a difference between capital and current spending. Investment in infrastructure is not the same as funding things like the NHS.

Not really all government spending is on an annual basis despite what they might suggest.

 

[zwk500]

I refuse to believe that they can't find money to electrify a busy mainline running through an area with the target voters.

Given the attitude of the locals, electrification could actually lose votes.

As the railway doesn't require planning permission for the installation of overhead electricity supply, their answer to that ends in "off".

No it doesn't, because the objector's answer will involve a Judicial Review. Unless there's a major overhaul of the planning process and judicial review (the former is possible under the next government if it's not Tory, the latter is unlikely under any government in the near future), 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.

 

[tomuk]

Given the attitude of the locals, electrification could actually lose votes.

No it doesn't, because the objector's answer will involve a Judicial Review. Unless there's a major overhaul of the planning process and judicial review (the former is possible under the next government if it's not Tory, the latter is unlikely under any government in the near future), 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.

Have there been any judicial reviews made against NR for electrification schemes? Whether there have been any or not what steps do NR have to take so not to fall foul of one?

 

[zwk500]

Have there been any judicial reviews made against NR for electrification schemes? Whether there have been any or not what steps do NR have to take so not to fall foul of one?

There have been plenty of legal challenges to them, maybe not full judicial reviews. But they're a big reason why planning permission submissions are getting longer and longer - to try and anticipate every potential challenge. And even then, objections and so forth are raised that then require responses.

 

[tomuk]

There have been plenty of legal challenges to them, maybe not full judicial reviews. But they're a big reason why planning permission submissions are getting longer and longer - to try and anticipate every potential challenge. And even then, objections and so forth are raised that then require responses.

I may be paraphrasing but was it not one outcomes of the review into the Great Western electrification that NR would have been better off to have taken out a TWAO (Transport and Works Act order) for the scheme rather than myriad of individual planning apps. Is this not the approach being taken with the TransPennine route upgrade?

 

[A0wen]

Or a UK version of their battery electric Flirts.
Range is 100-150 km, top speed 160kph, rechargeable off AC overheads in 15mins.

Currently being deployed on secondary routes in Germany. The concept their is that some stations are wired but not whole routes.

Would seem very suitable for Chiltern with suitable small scale electrification.

Certainly for the Aylesbury - Amersham - Marylebone services, this would seem to be a very sensible option as it would remove the questions around wiring on the LUL network.