• 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 mainline rolling stock and route

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,655
Location
Manchester
I have just been on a large segment of the Chiltern mainline and have noticed a strange mixture of rolling stock on the same services, varying from 3-coach Turbostars to long loco hauled trains. Why is there such a difference in the length and quality of the train on the same start-end journey, depending on the time?

Would you like to see the TPE loco hauled sets move to this route and enable LHCS on all of the Birmingham to London Marylebone services? And would the service be more useful if Chiltern served Oxford and Reading to Paddington, rather than Bicester to Marylebone?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

D2007wsm

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,311
I have just been on a large segment of the Chiltern mainline and have noticed a strange mixture of rolling stock on the same services, varying from 3-coach Turbostars to long loco hauled trains. Why is there such a difference in the length and quality of the train on the same start-end journey, depending on the time?

Would you like to see the TPE loco hauled sets move to this route and enable LHCS on all of the Birmingham to London Marylebone services? And would the service be more useful if Chiltern served Oxford and Reading to Paddington, rather than Bicester to Marylebone?
There wouldn’t be any point in Chiltern running from Oxford and Reading to Paddington, GWR already run that.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,149
I have just been on a large segment of the Chiltern mainline and have noticed a strange mixture of rolling stock on the same services, varying from 3-coach Turbostars to long loco hauled trains. Why is there such a difference in the length and quality of the train on the same start-end journey, depending on the time?

Would you like to see the TPE loco hauled sets move to this route and enable LHCS on all of the Birmingham to London Marylebone services? And would the service be more useful if Chiltern served Oxford and Reading to Paddington, rather than Bicester to Marylebone?
I am convinced you are just trolling. Why should Chiltern go to Paddington and completely ignore the market they serve?
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,655
Location
Manchester
I am convinced you are just trolling. Why should Chiltern go to Paddington and completely ignore the market they serve?

I am convinced you are just trolling. Why should Chiltern go to Paddington and completely ignore the market they serve?

If it is a faster route to London then why not? Chiltern could run local services between Banbury and Marylebone to cater for the places inbetween.

And this is the speculative ideas section, the place to discuss potential radical changes to the existing services.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,149
If it is a faster route to London then why not? Chiltern could run local services between Banbury and Marylebone to cater for the places inbetween.

And this is the speculative ideas section, the place to discuss potential radical changes to the existing services.
Is it quicker?
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Chiltern only operate loco hauled trains because of a shortage of DMUs. They don't want to operate them, and certainly won't take on any more.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,557
Location
Yorkshire
Why is it always about bloody speed on here. Whatever happened to connectivity and convenience.

This awful attitude of “you should lose your service to so-and-so because I want to get somewhere 20 minutes quicker’ is selfish, generally ill thought out and unhelpful.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,655
Location
Manchester
Chiltern only operate loco hauled trains because of a shortage of DMUs. They don't want to operate them, and certainly won't take on any more.

Why is it always about bloody speed on here. Whatever happened to connectivity and convenience.

This awful attitude of “you should lose your service to so-and-so because I want to get somewhere 20 minutes quicker’ is selfish, generally ill thought out and unhelpful.

Or it could be deemed helpful in other ways, for example providing Birmingham with a genuine alternative intercity service to London and so in turn helping to ease capacity on the WCML for other parts of that network.

What's more with my suggestion of a (extra?) Banbury to Marylebone shuttle, people on this part of the route won't lose out so much either.
 

CBlue

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2020
Messages
803
Location
East Angular
An alternative intercity service from Birmignham to London? That's why HS2 (you may have heard of it) is being built, rather than pratting about trying to bodge existing services up.

I am convinced you are just trolling. Why should Chiltern go to Paddington and completely ignore the market they serve?
Agreed, I didn't realise "speculative" meant "nonsensical" either.
Chiltern only operate loco hauled trains because of a shortage of DMUs. They don't want to operate them, and certainly won't take on any more.
Good luck convincing some on here that's the case. :lol:
 
Last edited:

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,557
Location
Yorkshire
Or it could be deemed helpful in other ways, for example providing Birmingham with a genuine alternative intercity service to London and so in turn helping to ease capacity on the WCML for other parts of that network.

What's more with my suggestion of a (extra?) Banbury to Marylebone shuttle, people on this part of the route won't lose out so much either.
Do you remember Chiltern main line pre-Evergreen? If not I suggest you read up on it.

Also it would appear that for the want of relieving WCML congestion (hint-HS2-hint) you wish to create congestion at Paddington with additional services from an established route with its own London terminus. Super.
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,503
Location
Reading
Based on few samples, Banbury to Marylebone via Chiltern is 1h02. Banbury to Paddington via Oxford is 1h12. Therefore the Chiltern route is faster, end of.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
19,029
Based on few samples, Banbury to Marylebone via Chiltern is 1h02. Banbury to Paddington via Oxford is 1h12. Therefore the Chiltern route is faster, end of.
1M92 1828 Paddington to Banbury is 1h5, one stop at Oxford.

1K54 1815 London Marylebone to Kidderminster is 0h52, non stop

As you say, there really is no case at all to run Paddington to Birmingham trains via Reading.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,655
Location
Manchester
If into Paddington is longer then fair enough, although this was the original route. People are constantly pointing to HS2 as the solution though, but that is still many years off; probably over a decade for the southern part and possibly two decades for the northern part. There should be greater focus on improving things for this decade, not relying on something 10-20 years down the line.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,557
Location
Yorkshire
If into Paddington is longer then fair enough, although this was the original route..
The original route of anything is irrelevant if the current route is better for time, connectivity and capacity which the CML to Marylebone clearly is.
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,503
Location
Reading
People are constantly pointing to HS2 as the solution though, but that is still many years off; probably over a decade for the southern part and possibly two decades for the northern part. There should be greater focus on improving things for this decade, not relying on something 10-20 years down the line.
Now that is a statement that, one would hope, we would all agree with. HS2 is the golden bullet to get to distant places a bit quicker, and will release capacity on classic lines, which will continue to do what they do now, to serve the places in between.

So, what is the current thing on the Chiltern line which needs improving? As @Neptune said earlier, the line was much different pre Evergreen.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,149
If into Paddington is longer then fair enough, although this was the original route. People are constantly pointing to HS2 as the solution though, but that is still many years off; probably over a decade for the southern part and possibly two decades for the northern part. There should be greater focus on improving things for this decade, not relying on something 10-20 years down the line.
The WCML south of Rugby will manage until HS2 opens. What needs improving prior to then?
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
The WCML south of Rugby will manage until HS2 opens. What needs improving prior to then?
Nothing. Just seems like a desperate attempt to justify more loco haulage, which Chiltern do because they have to, not because they want to.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,655
Location
Manchester
The WCML south of Rugby will manage until HS2 opens. What needs improving prior to then?
Now that is a statement that, one would hope, we would all agree with. HS2 is the golden bullet to get to distant places a bit quicker, and will release capacity on classic lines, which will continue to do what they do now, to serve the places in between.

So, what is the current thing on the Chiltern line which needs improving? As @Neptune said earlier, the line was much different pre Evergreen.

The fact that everything on the southern WCML is timed so tightly that there is very little room for error, this isn't helped by having so many services running on it. Birmingham has a second route to London via the Chiltern line and this should be put to greater use so to free up some track capacity on the WCML.

Clearly the current route through Bicester to Marylebone is a quicker route than to Paddington, but more should be done to bring this to a similar standard and speed as the WCML route. Replacing the 168s with LHCS and line speed improvements are two examples for improvement.

I don't know about Evergreen.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Replacing the 168s with LHCS and line speed improvements are two examples for improvement.
As already stated, Chiltern do not want to operate any LHCS at all, and will dump what remains at the earliest opportunity.

The 168s are absolutely fine for the services they operate.
I don't know about Evergreen.
It's extremely relevant to what's being discussed here, you should read up on it.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,486
Location
UK
As already stated, Chiltern do not want to operate any LHCS at all, and will dump what remains at the earliest opportunity.

The 168s are absolutely fine for the services they operate.

It's extremely relevant to what's being discussed here, you should read up on it.

The 168 are inadequate for the Birmingham routes, especially in terms of seating capacity
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
19,029
The fact that everything on the southern WCML is timed so tightly that there is very little room for error, this isn't helped by having so many services running on it. Birmingham has a second route to London via the Chiltern line and this should be put to greater use so to free up some track capacity on the WCML.
Everything is tightly timed on the Southern end of the Chiltern line as well. Services have to 'flighted' to fit in fast trains and stopping services. Some think that Chiltern don't provide a good enough service at its 'local' stations to concentrate on headline Oxford and Birmingham journey times.

Track capacity does not need to be freed up on the WCML until HS2 comes along.

Clearly the current route through Bicester to Marylebone is a quicker route than to Paddington, but more should be done to bring this to a similar standard and speed as the WCML route. Replacing the 168s with LHCS and line speed improvements are two examples for improvement
That can't be done. As pointed out twice by 'Journeyman' Chiltern would happily remove the LHCS if they could.
The line is not going to be rebuilt for 125mph. It would make timetabling even more difficult.

HS2 is being built to remove the fast services from both the WCML and the Chiltern line.
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,061
Location
Dyfneint
The GWR built the New North Line for a reason, why would you go the old way through Oxford(? ( yes I know OOC work has currently cut the NNL off ) isn't Padd effectively full now amyway? that's what I took away from the last Chiltern-to-Paddington thread.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
As already stated, Chiltern do not want to operate any LHCS at all, and will dump what remains at the earliest opportunity.

The 168s are absolutely fine for the services they operate.

It's extremely relevant to what's being discussed here, you should read up on it.

If they're so desperate to get rid of them, why've they spent so long not doing so? At the same time another DB / Arriva TOC was ordering new DMUs.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
If they're so desperate to get rid of them, why've they spent so long not doing so? At the same time another DB / Arriva TOC was ordering new DMUs.
Because there isn't much point in replacing one non-standard micro-fleet with another.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,149
The fact that everything on the southern WCML is timed so tightly that there is very little room for error, this isn't helped by having so many services running on it. Birmingham has a second route to London via the Chiltern line and this should be put to greater use so to free up some track capacity on the WCML.

Clearly the current route through Bicester to Marylebone is a quicker route than to Paddington, but more should be done to bring this to a similar standard and speed as the WCML route. Replacing the 168s with LHCS and line speed improvements are two examples for improvement.

I don't know about Evergreen.

Everything is tightly timed on the Southern end of the Chiltern line as well. Services have to 'flighted' to fit in fast trains and stopping services. Some think that Chiltern don't provide a good enough service at its 'local' stations to concentrate on headline Oxford and Birmingham journey times.

Track capacity does not need to be freed up on the WCML until HS2 comes along.


That can't be done. As pointed out twice by 'Journeyman' Chiltern would happily remove the LHCS if they could.
The line is not going to be rebuilt for 125mph. It would make timetabling even more difficult.

HS2 is being built to remove the fast services from both the WCML and the Chiltern line.
The fact that the WCML timetable has had only relatively minor tweaks since its introduction in Dec 2008 speaks volumes about it. It works. If it didn't do you think it would have stayed as it is? It will be recast to an extent for Dec 22 but that is mainly to accommodate the 800s. What are you filling up the released capacity with on the WCML that you have moved to the Chilterns anyway?

As @JonathanH has noted, you won't do much with the Chilterns, certainly not 125mph when its already 100mph with the stopping patterns it has. It is just as jam packed at the south end as the WCML is and that is on a two track railway to Marylebone.

I have no issue with people suggesting things on a speculative thread, but just 10-15 minutes Googling, checking the sectional appendix or looking on RealTimeTrains etc would stop a lot of things being shot down in flames as people wouldn't necessarily post it as they have gained an improvement on understanding it.
If they're so desperate to get rid of them, why've they spent so long not doing so? At the same time another DB / Arriva TOC was ordering new DMUs.
Their franchise comes to end shortly, they are not going to do much without any certainty on how the future looks.
 

CBlue

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2020
Messages
803
Location
East Angular
If they're so desperate to get rid of them, why've they spent so long not doing so? At the same time another DB / Arriva TOC was ordering new DMUs.
LHCS in this country is seen as an absolute last resort to operate services with for a variety of reasons.

TPE only ordered Mk5s to try and speed up new stock delivery times, Chiltern only operate theirs as they wouldn't have enough stock otherwise.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Replacing the 168s with LHCS and line speed improvements are two examples for improvement

How is getting rid of 100mph DMUs on a line with max speed of 100mph an improvement?

What do you think loco hauled trains will be able to do that DMUs can't? Other than make a nice "chugga chugga" sound?

Given all of the unused freight locos and all of the Mk3/ Mk4 carriages being scrapped, does it not tell you something that Chiltern grabbed the TPE 170s when they got the chance, rather than trying to create more loco hauled rakes?
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,896
There's nothing wrong with the 168s for the route, other than their length

And what the line needs is electrification anyway, so modern EMUs can operate it (2 + 2 Aventras or similar)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top