Chiltern wanting to get hold of new stock

[RPM]

They're going to need to be converted to 168s if they're going to be any use to Chiltern. They'll need a refurb too. If Chiltern want them in just over a year there isn't a lot of time to get that done. How will that fit in with a leaseback to TPE I wonder?

 

[pemma]

They'll need a refurb too.

Why do you say that? Apart from having the First Group corporate colours they are in a decent condition. TPE did reduce the number of First Class seats (from the number SWT had fitted) and added a second toilet so there's one accessible and one standard so I'm not sure how that fits with Chiltern's requirements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Chiltern do need more stock, I was on 168110 into London on saturday into London coupled up with 172102, five car train absolutely rammed!

How many people who wanted to board were unable to do so? While crowded conditions need addressing there's so many overcrowded trains that priority for extra capacity really needs to go to lines where people are getting left behind and the next service is an hour later, opposed to lines where people can get a quieter service 10 minutes later.

 

[RobShipway]

Why do you say that? Apart from having the First Group corporate colours they are in a decent condition. TPE did reduce the number of First Class seats (from the number SWT had fitted) and added a second toilet so there's one accessible and one standard so I'm not sure how that fits with Chiltern's requirements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How many people who wanted to board were unable to do so? While crowded conditions need addressing there's so many overcrowded trains that priority for extra capacity really needs to go to lines where people are getting left behind and the next service is an hour later, opposed to lines where people can get a quieter service 10 minutes later.

But you also have lines like the Great Western route, that even though there is another trains within 15 - 20 minutes within the rush hour period, the next train is just a full as the last train. The situation is the same on the Reading - Waterloo route as well. On both routes, you have to wait to get a train at 10am - 10:30am if you are wanting to get a seat on the train.

As I was once reminded by a guard the one time when I complained about the lack of seats, the payment of any ticket is just to get you from point A to point B, having a seat is a bonus.

Anyway, back on subject. It will be interesting to see if Chiltern make any changes to the Class 170's, before they start on the Oxford route. I am surprised that they have not taken on buying anymore class 172's or extending the usage of the class 172's in some form to Oxford or is there something that would prevent that from happening?

 

[pemma]

The situation is the same on the Reading - Waterloo route as well. On both routes, you have to wait to get a train at 10am - 10:30am if you are wanting to get a seat on the train.

I was talking about people being unable to board because there are too many standing and they either physically can't get on or rail staff refuse to let them on for safety reasons opposed to passengers refusing to board because they think it's too busy.

On Saturday 30th November 2013 there were many examples of this on Northern Rail lines - 250+ cram on to a 2 car Pacer which shouldn't be holding more than around 160 and other people are left on the platform, with the next train not for an hour which was then just as crowded meaning some people had to wait over 2 hours before they could get on a train, even as a standing passenger!

Anyway, back on subject. It will be interesting to see if Chiltern make any changes to the Class 170's, before they start on the Oxford route. I am surprised that they have not taken on buying anymore class 172's or extending the usage of the class 172's in some form to Oxford or is there something that would prevent that from happening?

The 172s no longer meet the latest EU emission standards so a new order would need to be a revised design. Alternatively, the LO 172s will be available after electrification.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I think the refurb would just happen to bring uniformity to the fleet. I've not been on a TPE 170, but I presume Chiltern would want to make it indistinguishable from the 168s so the colour scheme would change and things like plug sockets at every seat and WiFi throughout would be added.

I'd imagine that is why 172s aren't going to Oxford either. They are 3+2 commuter stock and maybe the way to tempt people from Oxford is to offer an "intercity" type carriage.

 

[transmanche]

I'd imagine that is why 172s aren't going to Oxford either. They are 3+2 commuter stock and maybe the way to tempt people from Oxford is to offer an "intercity" type carriage.

Although they could be changed to 2+2 during a refurb...

 

[jopsuk]

The only issue with the TPE170s supplementing the 168s is that it would mean effectively they have a "common" fleet of 2, 3 & 4 car units. Could centre cars from 4-car 168s be used to lengthen 170s? There's 10 4-car units and 9 TPE units...

 

[TEW]

I was talking about people being unable to board because there are too many standing and they either physically can't get on or rail staff refuse to let them on for safety reasons opposed to passengers refusing to board because they think it's too busy.

I suggest taking a trip to Clapham Junction in the evening peak. You won't be able to get on many Reading/Windsor bound trains there, they're simply too full. Not that this is relevant to this thread really.

Although they could be changed to 2+2 during a refurb...

The Chiltern 172s do have 2+2 seating but it's a pretty basic interior generally, it's nowhere near the standards of the 168s.

 

[pemma]

I'd imagine that is why 172s aren't going to Oxford either. They are 3+2 commuter stock and maybe the way to tempt people from Oxford is to offer an "intercity" type carriage.

All 172s have 2+2 seating even the LO ones. I think all recent train orders have been for interiors with 2+2 seating.

I suggest taking a trip to Clapham Junction in the evening peak. You won't be able to get on many Reading/Windsor bound trains there, they're simply too full. Not that this is relevant to this thread really.

If Chiltern get the TPE 170s before December 2018 it'll be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul so I was saying the priority for additional carriages should be where people are unable to board and have to wait a long time for the next service that they can board. In response to that Robbies started talking about a lack of seats on FGW peak time services which is why I went in to more detail as he seemed to completely misunderstand what I was getting at.

 

[RPM]

The only issue with the TPE170s supplementing the 168s is that it would mean effectively they have a "common" fleet of 2, 3 & 4 car units. Could centre cars from 4-car 168s be used to lengthen 170s? There's 10 4-car units and 9 TPE units...

That may be possible, but some 2 car 168s could actually be useful. A number of Birmingham services are currently strengthened with 2 car 172s, particularly at weekends. Operationally this is fine but the interior spec of the 172s is not ideal for Birmingham - London. 2 car 168s would solve this. They would also provide the option of running 5 car 168 formations; there are currently several 4 car 168 workings that get crowded but nevertheless don't justify a 6 car formation.
And finally, running as pairs, the 2 car sets could cover present 4 car 168 workings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All 172s have 2+2 seating even the LO ones. I think all recent train orders have been for interiors with 2+2 seating.

They have to be 2+2 because you can't get 2+3 seating into the Turbostar bodyshell with an acceptable seat/gangway width. It has only been achieved in the Electrostars by shortening the body and making it slightly wider.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I genuinely thought ours were 3+2!

 

[RPM]

I genuinely thought ours were 3+2!

Tut tut! And you sign them don't you?

 

[aylesbury]

Perhaps Chiltern will aim for loco hauled stock eventually ,now that would be a step forward .

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I am not a clever man.

 

[Qwerty133]

The only issue with the TPE170s supplementing the 168s is that it would mean effectively they have a "common" fleet of 2, 3 & 4 car units. Could centre cars from 4-car 168s be used to lengthen 170s? There's 10 4-car units and 9 TPE units...

1 4 car unit would be no good, so the spare centre car could go to XC(both DB companys) to lengthen 170111.

 

[158722]

The only issue with the TPE170s supplementing the 168s is that it would mean effectively they have a "common" fleet of 2, 3 & 4 car units. Could centre cars from 4-car 168s be used to lengthen 170s? There's 10 4-car units and 9 TPE units...

As I mentioned on the electrification and cascade thread, the suggestion from informed sources (not mine) is that the 9 170s will receive a centre car from the 10 4-car 168s, leaving Chiltern with 28 3-car sets plus one spare centre trailer.

 

[3141]

As I mentioned on the electrification and cascade thread, the suggestion from informed sources (not mine) is that the 9 170s will receive a centre car from the 10 4-car 168s, leaving Chiltern with 28 3-car sets plus one spare centre trailer.

About ten years ago Chiltern's 168s were formed into 3-car sets, by taking one car out of the original 4-car sets and adding it to new 2-car units. Then later on they restored the originals and some later ones to four cars.

A 3-car 168 has fewer seats than a 3-car 165. As RPM has said, if you have units of different lengths and you need to increase capacity on a particular working you can form it of a 4-car unit instead of a 3-car. If all the 168s are 3 cars the only possible increase is to 6. Having units of different lengths provides useful flexibility. i

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I'm not sure what the incentive make everything a three car is. When you have a mixture of 2, 3 & 4 you have so much more flexibility. You can run 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 car trains with a mixture in the fleet. You can only run 3, 6 & 9 if they are uniformly three car sets.

 

[plastictaffy]

Tomorrow I am going to London for leisure and for the first time, I am going from Tring. It takes less than half the time from Aylesbury (30 mins instead of 1 hour and 5), and I was suprised to find out that the tickets were £15 cheaper than Chiltern, and the parking at the station was half the price! For an extra 5 minutes drive from my house to the WCML, and the nicer station and trains, I would not hesitate to go from Tring permanently now. Thanks for stealing my money, Chiltern!

Because a poxy little commuter town of about what, 12,000 people in Hertfordshire needs 3 trains an hour each way, doesn't it.........?? Yet half an hour up the line, you have Northampton, a town of 220,000 people, that only has three an hour each way.

I digress.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Because a poxy little commuter town of about what, 12,000 people in Hertfordshire needs 3 trains an hour each way, doesn't it.........?? Yet half an hour up the line, you have Northampton, a town of 220,000 people, that only has three an hour each way.

I digress.

Tring is just the terminus of a busy suburban route. The trains between Tring and Euston do stop at other places en route.

 

[plastictaffy]

Tring is just the terminus of a busy suburban route. The trains between Tring and Euston do stop at other places en route.

Usually all shacks, sheds and stations. And if you get on the right one, it's nailed on to be a 321. I suppose the point I was making, is why terminate at Tring, of all places. Hemel would have been better, there's already a turnback siding there. Or even better, scrap them and free up the paths for other services. The Southern service does all the same stops anyway, so it would make more sense to use that and change at Watford, I reckon. Whenever there's disruption (and sometimes even when there's not!!) the Tring International Terminators are the first services to get knocked on the head.

 

[Nym]

Because if you got rid of the Trings you'd need to put the extra stops on the MKCs and lengthen them to 24 cars long?

Then you have WFJ dropping to 3tph to Euston? I'd love to see that... NOT!

 

[Class172]

Because if you got rid of the Trings you'd need to put the extra stops on the MKCs and lengthen them to 24 cars long?

Then you have WFJ dropping to 3tph to Euston? I'd love to see that... NOT!

As you say you'd have busier stations such as Berkhampsted and Hemel Hempstead being lugged onto the MKC services, which would not be a pleasant ride...

 

[Nym]

As you say you'd have busier stations such as Berkhampsted and Hemel Hempstead being lugged onto the MKC services, which would not be a pleasant ride...

They are already on the xx:24 services off Euston to Milton Keynes and the xx:54 services to Northampton.

The additional stations on the Trings are Apsley and Kings Langley, with the xx:24 picking up Tring and Cheddington that the xx:54 misses.

 

[oversteer]

Hopefully Tring will get Crossrail-WCML terminators too

It was a bit of a shock moving from a Chiltern area getting a 2-car 165 every day onto a 12 car LM service - Tring isn't a great station but it does benefit from having that 5th platform which means there's a perfect place to finish a stopping service. Even if it is a 321

 

[Class172]

Somehow, when I was down in Berkhampsted during the half term, despite going on numerous Tring terminators, I managed to avoid all the 321s. :?

 

[pemma]

Stephen Hammond has said this morning in Westminister Hall DfT knew about Chiltern wanting the 170s last October and has said an agreement is in place for TPE to keep all the 170s until May 2015 and talks about Chiltern only taking some of the 170s in May 2015 are taking place and says he hopes a few will remain with TPE until May 2016.

 

[shaun]

Are they sourcing 170s instead of extra loco-hauled services, or are they still going down the avenue of running more loco-hauled sets for Marylebone - Birmingham? They are much loved up here in Brum, even though Chiltern naughtily use them for most of the advertising when you have a slim chance of actually catching one off-peak.

 

[The Planner]

They need the 170s (or 168/3 as they may end up) to run the Oxford service.

 

[edwin_m]

It was certainly mentioned in one of the mags when they launched the Oxford idea that loco-hauled would free 168s off the Birmingham services to run to Oxford instead.