Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by CR165022, 12 Nov 2019.
165002 is currently formed with 004
58835(002) and 58804(004)
168004 is currently at Aylesbury awaiting repair after it crashed into buffers
Anyone else using the Chiltern 165’s semi-frequently and end up with a pretty bad shudder when it sounds like the engine is at a lower power state: surely this can’t be right? Any sort of maintenance that could help resolve it?
Chiltern are reporting that with regard to 168004 -
“An operational incident which resulted in some significant damage to one of our 4 car trains. This train will need to be sent away for structural repairs early in the new year and it is likely that it will be out of service for 5-6 months.”
Not having much luck at all recently in regards to the fleet really....driving vehicle 58154 currently in 168002.
Any truth at all in the suggestion that TfW Mk3s could be transferred in? The PRM compliance report regarding the slam door set seems to mention alternative rolling stock in Q2 2020 on page 9 but the TfW sets are not any more PRM compliant I would have thought other than seating?
Chiltern mk3s now have info screens and power operated doors.
Not the Banbury set. This is the one likely to replaced by "more compliant" Mk3s from Anglia after Mk4 plan fell down AIUI.
Also strong murmurings of further 168 reformations into an all 3-car fleet.
What was the Mk.4 plan and what went wrong? high cost of rewiring?
and a carriage from 168324 and one from 168323 are currently together, also a while back, a carriage from 165002 & 165004 were together
Interesting. Are Home Counties commuters somehow less likely to knock their heads off than West country ones?
If that was to happen, would the spare cars from the 4 car sets go into the 168/3s as they are 2 car
Wondered when this would leak out, you can bet substantial amounts of cash on it apparently.
I wonder why? Chiltern do seem to be masters of diagramming in terms of getting the exact length of train needed, with what they have they can do it near enough to single-coach level. Why switch to a granularity of 3 when what they are doing seems to work?
That said, if there are no 2s that means they can't be sent out alone...
Heard the same regarding 168 reformation; think Chiltern have hinted on their website too
Are the centre cars of the 168/2s capable of being used on the older 168 versions due to the Mitrac and various other minor differences?
Would hope a proportion stay as four car because the Birmingham end peak trains in an evening in particular tend to rely on 4 cars...will not go down well reducing it to 3. However, sure some clever diagramming can maybe secure six cars on the busiest couple of services?
I take it there is no intention of slivering the 172s?
Not at the moment but they will most likely be put in the revised livery like the 165s
A train has struck a tree between Solihull and Olton, it was a BMO to LMS Service so it is most likely a 165
Was a 165, had to be taken out of service at Solihull but managed an ECS move to Dorridge platform 3. By chance was on a WMR couple of trains back which picked up some of the people onboard it at Solihull. Overheard someone saying it hit the driving cab but think everyone was okay which is the main thing.
It must make things operationally difficult having so many different types of train and/or length.
Just off the top of my head there’s:
Reducing this list by one or even two would surely make things a bit easier?
Depends on context...Having a mix of 75 and 100mph units and some stock without tripcocks limits what you can plan for.
Having a mix of two, three and four car units gives the flexibility of having trains formed of any combination between two and nine vehicles (that being the longest formation used in passenger service).
Making all of the 168s three cars loses that flexibility, unless you throw a 2 car 165 into the formation...but that limits the maximum speed to 75mph.
You could throw in a 2 car 172 instead to solve the 100mph issue, but then that brings its own difficulties as not all driver depots sign them...
There are only 4 of them.
Masters of diagramming the absolute minimum to ensure a train runs I think you mean. They should never have been allowed to do the Oxford thing without sufficient additional rolling stock (and the handful of 2 car units they did get don't cut it) I'm afraid they're a franchise in terminal decline and are clearly focused on not spending any money on their existing stock
Is there still such a thing as the 'Banbury set'? I remember a few years ago (before they did the re-signalling) that there used to be a rake of Mk3 stabled at Banbury, but I haven't seen this for a while.
There is, yes.
5x 4-car Class 168/0s, 2x 4-car Class 168/1s, and 3x Class 168/2s.
If all the 2-car 168/3s were lengthened to 3-cars, there'd be 1 centre coach left over.
Indeed, and it's a good day if all 4 are available for service at the same time
Thanks for the summary. Makes me think they might keep a small proportion 4 car (perhaps the three 168/2s which do have the different slightly technical differences?) to prevent a daft arrangement of one centre car being left.
Shame there was never a move to swap those with 4 170s from West Mids, at least would have concentrated the 172s there and simplified the Chiltern fleet slightly more.
Blimey - thanks, I'm behind the times.
Has the Banbury set been re-painted into Chiltern colours now?
Yes it has been, painted up in full Chiltern silver livery. Operates the 0622 from Bicester North to Marylebone and 1721 from Marylebone to Bicester North (extends to Banbury on Fridays only) during the weekdays so not the most taxing of diagrams for it!