Chiltern wanting to get hold of new stock

[pemma]

thus the reason lm have just brought brand new diesel units for the line

New diesel trains for Snow Hill lines was a franchise commitment and predated all the plans for electrification.

The 172s were purchased by Porterbrook and LM have agreed to lease them from Porterbrook until 20/09/2015. After that date anything could happen with the 172s, as has been proven with the 170/3s that were expected to remain to with TPE until December 2018.

Wiring the Snow Hill lines would provide an excellent opportunity for more rural lines to get newer stock and to allow older DMUs like Pacers and 150s to be withdrawn. The rolling stock strategy for the next 10 years is to cascade down newer DMUs from lines which have a good business case for electrification to replace older DMUs on lines which have a poor business case for electrification. I think the Snow Hill lines have a better business case for electrification than lines such as Huddersfield to Sheffield which will need replacement trains in the next few years.

 

[transmanche]

the snow hill line wont be wired for along time

thus the reason lm have just brought brand new diesel units for the line

DMUs can be redeployed you know...

 

[edwin_m]

Terminating a southbound service at High Wycombe wouldn't make any operational sense: HWY-MYB is probably the biggest traffic flow on the line, and there's no north facing bay platform at the station. Assuming Chiltern do operate to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury they'll either run all the way to Marylebone or terminate at Princes Risborough. I can only see it "terminate" at High Wycombe if it's run as a split/join service from Marylebone to Oxford & Stratford-upon-Avon.

I'm sure you're right on this - one of those trains where nobody would want to use it end to end but both ends will get traffic from the stations in between.

 

[Class172]

New diesel trains for Snow Hill lines was a franchise commitment and predated all the plans for electrification.

The 172s were purchased by Porterbrook and LM have agreed to lease them from Porterbrook until 20/09/2015. After that date anything could happen with the 172s, as has been proven with the 170/3s that were expected to remain to with TPE until December 2018.

Wiring the Snow Hill lines would provide an excellent opportunity for more rural lines to get newer stock and to allow older DMUs like Pacers and 150s to be withdrawn. The rolling stock strategy for the next 10 years is to cascade down newer DMUs from lines which have a good business case for electrification to replace older DMUs on lines which have a poor business case for electrification. I think the Snow Hill lines have a better business case for electrification than lines such as Huddersfield to Sheffield which will need replacement trains in the next few years.

Exactly, though it still remains a mystery to me why exactly the BCR for the scheme is so low. It would be an excellent opportunity for new DMUs to be cascaded to other lines, but it leaves me thinking, if the Snow Hill lines were electrified, what stock would it get: hand-me-downs or new (since commuters are now used to the shiny new 172s).

 

[Nym]

I'm sure you're right on this - one of those trains where nobody would want to use it end to end but both ends will get traffic from the stations in between.

So why could one not run for example...

Watford Junction to Milton Keynes via Aylsbury (Post Croxley Link)

 

[43074]

Exactly, though it still remains a mystery to me why exactly the BCR for the scheme is so low. It would be an excellent opportunity for new DMUs to be cascaded to other lines, but it leaves me thinking, if the Snow Hill lines were electrified, what stock would it get: hand-me-downs or new (since commuters are now used to the shiny new 172s).

The BCR figure for the Snow Hill Lines is 1.0 (according to the Network Rail Electrification RUS): to put that into context, the BCR for the commited Manchester - Preston and Windermere - Oxenholme schemes is 0.7, so the possibility of electrification in CP6 is certainly there.

Furthermore, the RUS says this:

Option 17.1
Overhead AC electrification of Snow Hill lines (Hereford to
Worcester, Droitwich Spa to Small Heath, and Tyseley South
Junction to Stratford-Upon-Avon), following cross-country
electrification to Leamington.

Services assumed to convert to electric traction are Snow Hill
lines services between Stratford-Upon-Avon and Dorridge (with
Leamington extensions) to Stourbridge Junction, Kidderminster
and Worcester, plus Hereford to Birmingham New Street
services.

Note that it assumes the Cross-Country electrification to Leamington would be completed first, so with that in mind I would think it was a safe bet for CP6, as was Chiltern. Perhaps if Worcester to Hereford was worked by a diesel shuttle instead and not electrified, with connecting electric services at Shrub Hill & Foregate Street the BCR would be slightly higher, although it limits connectivity between Malvern - Bromsgrove - University, the benefits of electrification would be felt more for Worcester - Birmingham in any case as they are the larger population centres on the Hereford to Birmingham corridor.

 

[edwin_m]

So why could one not run for example...

Watford Junction to Milton Keynes via Aylsbury (Post Croxley Link)

One probably could, assuming the LUL-only section between High Street and the triangle could be cleared for Chiltern stock and there were no capacity or bureacracy issues with running extra trains over the Metropolitan thence to Amersham.

However looking at the principal places served by Watford to MK compared to Marylebone to MK via Wycombe, High Wycombe has 120,000 people, six times more than the total of Amersham and Rickmansworth, and a MK to Marylebone serves more catchment at other stops too. Aylesbury to MK would be served equally by either service.

 

[59CosG95]

The BCR figure for the Snow Hill Lines is 1.0 (according to the Network Rail Electrification RUS): to put that into context, the BCR for the commited Manchester - Preston and Windermere - Oxenholme schemes is 0.7, so the possibility of electrification in CP6 is certainly there.

Which RUS is this? Is it the '09 one, or has a new one reared its head?

 

[47802]

Exactly, though it still remains a mystery to me why exactly the BCR for the scheme is so low. It would be an excellent opportunity for new DMUs to be cascaded to other lines, but it leaves me thinking, if the Snow Hill lines were electrified, what stock would it get: hand-me-downs or new (since commuters are now used to the shiny new 172s).

Hand me downs wouldn't be a problem if they got a 321 style demonstrator refurb, its only a problem if they got a northern style refurb ie a lick of paint and a seat retrim if you are lucky.

 

[43074]

Which RUS is this? Is it the '09 one, or has a new one reared its head?

Yep, it's the 09 one.

 

[pemma]

hand-me-downs or new (since commuters are now used to the shiny new 172s).

By coincidence LM have 27 x 172s, Northern have 17 x 323s and TPE have 10 x 350s. Possible replacement stock allowing for extra capacity?

Even if LM got brand new EMUs the new ones could finish up replacing the 323s with the 323s moving to the Snow Hill Lines, depending on the size of the new trains and which routes need the most capacity.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Note that it assumes the Cross-Country electrification to Leamington would be completed first, so with that in mind I would think it was a safe bet for CP6, as was Chiltern.

But XC electrification via Solihull to Leamington is not approved in CP5.
Nuneaton-Coventry-Leamington-Oxford is also still a vague electric spine project and would still leave Solihull unwired (with a BCR hit for local services to be wired).

And if the West Midlands gets more wires I would have thought Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury would be a better-value first bet than the full cost of the Snow Hill network.

We badly need the updated RUS!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well no WE don't. Network Rail do though, and i imagine they already know what most of it says and it will have influenced the final determination for CP5.

 

[fishquinn]

Sorry if it has been mentioned before but Chiltern should just make the track all 110-125 miles per hour and refurbish a load of class 43s to make them as the new silver set.
Because the 43s have definitely proven themselves on every route they travel on and they would have 2 engines on 1 set instead of 1 on a set so it is less likely to fail. Think of this.
What would you prefer to travel on from Birmingham-London. A 3 coach cart or a six coach HST? You can paint a 168 silver but it would still be the same rubbishy unit inside. Also a lot of class 43s would make engines at the front of the train instead of it shaking your insides out beneath you. Chiltern should use them for all the Kidderminster-Londons and all the Birmingham to Londons so it would mean Virgin would
have much more competition and more people would travel with Chiltern. Because all the trains would be faster and defiantly rival virgin.

 

[transmanche]

Sorry if it has been mentioned before but Chiltern should just make the track all 110-125 miles per hour and refurbish a load of class 43s to make them as the new silver set.

Powered by flying pigs?

 

[The Planner]

Which would highly likely require substantial amounts of re-signalling, track, structures and other works for little overall benefit and would probably require loss of intermediate services south of High Wycombe as they won't fit and to an extent between Tyseley and Leamington. I will bring out my stock answer of higher speed limits bring out only small incremental journey time improvements, 110 vs 100 mph is 3 seconds a mile, 125 is 7 seconds a mile. Sorry but this is just the rose tinted HST solves every problem thing.

 

[47802]

Sorry if it has been mentioned before but Chiltern should just make the track all 110-125 miles per hour and refurbish a load of class 43s to make them as the new silver set.
Because the 43s have definitely proven themselves on every route they travel on and they would have 2 engines on 1 set instead of 1 on a set so it is less likely to fail. Think of this.
What would you prefer to travel on from Birmingham-London. A 3 coach cart or a six coach HST? You can paint a 168 silver but it would still be the same rubbishy unit inside. Also a lot of class 43s would make engines at the front of the train instead of it shaking your insides out beneath you. Chiltern should use them for all the Kidderminster-Londons and all the Birmingham to Londons so it would mean Virgin would
have much more competition and more people would travel with Chiltern. Because all the trains would be faster and defiantly rival virgin.

Meanwhile in the real world the Chiltern line is really a commuter railway suited to the type of units they have now, and no doubt they will get hold of more 165/170/172's as and when they become available to get rid of the loco hauled stock and increase capacity

 

[Class172]

By coincidence LM have 27 x 172s, Northern have 17 x 323s and TPE have 10 x 350s. Possible replacement stock allowing for extra capacity?

Even if LM got brand new EMUs the new ones could finish up replacing the 323s with the 323s moving to the Snow Hill Lines, depending on the size of the new trains and which routes need the most capacity.

Moving the 323s might be a viable solution, as many platforms are 6x23m in length. Also I note LM currently have 26 323s, almost identical to the two sets of figures you have mentioned.

 

[trainplan1]

Which would highly likely require substantial amounts of re-signalling, track, structures and other works for little overall benefit and would probably require loss of intermediate services south of High Wycombe as they won't fit and to an extent between Tyseley and Leamington. I will bring out my stock answer of higher speed limits bring out only small incremental journey time improvements, 110 vs 100 mph is 3 seconds a mile, 125 is 7 seconds a mile. Sorry but this is just the rose tinted HST solves every problem thing.

Don't worry when the route is electrified everyone will want an AC class 444 because that solves everything...

 

[transmanche]

Don't worry when the route is electrified everyone will want an AC class 444 because that solves everything...

think that's a little unfair. Some people (including me) have suggested that 444-like AC units would be suitable for routes with up to 110mph running (e.g. GEML, slower MML trains). Routes that require an 'InterCity' type internal layout, but not the top speed offered by Hitachi's SET.

 

[The Ham]

Which would highly likely require substantial amounts of re-signalling, track, structures and other works for little overall benefit and would probably require loss of intermediate services south of High Wycombe as they won't fit and to an extent between Tyseley and Leamington. I will bring out my stock answer of higher speed limits bring out only small incremental journey time improvements, 110 vs 100 mph is 3 seconds a mile, 125 is 7 seconds a mile. Sorry but this is just the rose tinted HST solves every problem thing.

...there maybe some limited use for HST's for a short time post IEP on some routes, as there would appear to be quite a lot of units which need modifications before 2020.

 

[jimm]

Sorry if it has been mentioned before but Chiltern should just make the track all 110-125 miles per hour and refurbish a load of class 43s to make them as the new silver set.
Because the 43s have definitely proven themselves on every route they travel on and they would have 2 engines on 1 set instead of 1 on a set so it is less likely to fail. Think of this.
What would you prefer to travel on from Birmingham-London. A 3 coach cart or a six coach HST? You can paint a 168 silver but it would still be the same rubbishy unit inside. Also a lot of class 43s would make engines at the front of the train instead of it shaking your insides out beneath you. Chiltern should use them for all the Kidderminster-Londons and all the Birmingham to Londons so it would mean Virgin would
have much more competition and more people would travel with Chiltern. Because all the trains would be faster and defiantly rival virgin.

1. Chiltern would rather have had a lot more 168s, if they could have got their hands on some, not expensive Mk3s and 67s, never mind HSTs.

2. Just getting the embankments between Aynho and Princes Risborough fit for 100mph cost a packet - going beyond that would cost yet more - if it was even possible.

3. With all the freight and stopping trains that are sharing the route all the way between Banbury and Birmingham you would need to reinstate every loop and all the quadruple track you possibly could to accommodate faster trains. Again, another massive infrastructure outlay.

Or you carry on as you are, adding the 170s and perhaps another Mk3 set or two, until Banbury-West Midlands and East-West are wired, at which point wiring south of Aynho and via Aylesbury is a sensible add-on and you get some nice new electric trains.

 

[nigelsporne]

I heard that Chiltern were going to get the 170/3s from TP following the full introduction of the 350/4s. TP apparently are not happy.
Regards
Nigel

 

[YorkshireBear]

I heard that Chiltern were going to get the 170/3s from TP following the full introduction of the 350/4s. TP apparently are not happy.
Regards
Nigel

Welcome to the forum, or more your first post, there are extensive threads regarding this matter some of which are near the top of this sub forum. I can not link them from my phone.

 

[Class172]

I heard that Chiltern were going to get the 170/3s from TP following the full introduction of the 350/4s. TP apparently are not happy.
Regards
Nigel

Welcome to the forum, or more your first post, there are extensive threads regarding this matter some of which are near the top of this sub forum. I can not link them from my phone.

Here are the main threads that I assume Yorkshire Bear is referring to: Construction progress: TPE 350/4 / Expected changes to Northern & TPE with stock changes