Can either Mk5 sets or 175s be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.The 13 mk5 sets would be enough for current Birmingham to London services though I'm not convinced that the 175s could cover the rest.
Can either Mk5 sets or 175s be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.The 13 mk5 sets would be enough for current Birmingham to London services though I'm not convinced that the 175s could cover the rest.
Guards north of Banbury, and on all mk3 services. IIRC Chiltern DOO is platform based so I'd imagine guards on loco hauled were more to do with door control.Can they be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.
One issue with the Mk5a sets as currently formed is that they're only five coach rakes, with around 100 fewer seats than the six coach Mk3 rakes. Sadly it can't be improved by swapping out the First Class coach with a Standard one, as that's the coach with the wheelchair area and accessible toilet.I said available, not that they were transferring. Clarence Yard has previously mentioned that GWR has its eyes on the TfW 158s, though this obviously isn't any confirmation of a transfer so wait until a formal announcement.
The 13 mk5 sets would be enough for current Birmingham to London services though I'm not convinced that the 175s could cover the rest.
Yes, very true, but guards based in Banbury can't run services leaving Marylebone before the first trains from Banbury arrive, and using trains with guards south of Banbury means more guards are needed.Guards north of Banbury, and on all mk3 services.
Yeah, the capacity is approximately a 4 car 168 + 30 in first class so for many services, there would be a capacity decrease without an interior reconfig.One issue with the Mk5a sets as currently formed is that they're only five coach rakes, with around 100 fewer seats than the six coach Mk3 rakes. Sadly it can't be improved by swapping out the First Class coach with a Standard one, as that's the coach with the wheelchair area and accessible toilet.
Yes more guards would be needed and trains changed to centre around Banbury (like LNWR and Northampton) or a guard depot opened in London.Yes, very true, but guards based in Banbury can't run services leaving Marylebone before the first trains from Banbury arrive, and using trains with guards south of Banbury means more guards are needed.
Can either Mk5 sets or 175s be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.
One issue with the Mk5a sets as currently formed is that they're only five coach rakes, with around 100 fewer seats than the six coach Mk3 rakes. Sadly it can't be improved by swapping out the First Class coach with a Standard one, as that's the coach with the wheelchair area and accessible toilet.
Can either Mk5 sets or 175s be made suitable for DOO operation? Chiltern don't have guards based in London.
175s won't work with platform based equipment for DOO - the seat is too far forward to see out the window to the left for monitors, and the pillar on the left of the windscreen means the train would need to stop too far back for mirrors to be of much use either (except for at the few off side platforms). They would require CCTV cameras and in-cab monitors to work DOO.Chiltern DOO is mirror based and as built the cabs had door buttons (they were originally going to be driver release) so it seems easy to adapt.
Are they really any worse than the 150s? What state are the 175 bodyshells in? What routes would they work, given that 156s currently couple to other units on a lot of routes? All these problems can be solved but is it worth it to replace a train that basically works with one that will cause problems for at least a year or two?They could replace the 156s which are literally falling to bits (the EMR ones particularly bad, I believe).
Not sure there's much point replacing the 156s given that mega-bucks have just been spent on removing corrosion. (Plus the money spent on other bits like improved alternators, WSP and cooling systems over the last 18 months). Now they are in decent shape you might as well keep them until the new-build replacements are ready and save the cost of crew training for an interim fleet.They could replace the 156s which are literally falling to bits (the EMR ones particularly bad, I believe).
Not sure there's much point replacing the 156s given that mega-bucks have just been spent on removing corrosion. (Plus the money spent on other bits like improved alternators, WSP and cooling systems over the last 18 months). Now they are in decent shape you might as well keep them until the new-build replacements are ready and save the cost of crew training for an interim fleet.
In this round - I'm fairly sure the Northern lot had a similar level of work when the PRM mods were done?Only some of the 156s have had the corrosion work done.
I don't know if it's just me, but orders for new trains does seem to me rather weird when there is a not insignificant amount of stored stock that could be used, and the DfT seem to have a habit of forcing TOCs to use the cheaper version of a sneeze, let alone cheaper rolling stock strategy.
Although, of course, buying new units may well be better than leasing a bunch of mobile bonfires.
Which is why I suggested using the 175s to replace the 68/mk3s and some of the 165s, so that the remaining ones can be kept to the services via Amersham.
That way Chiltern won't need any new stock for say 10 years, by which time the future electrification plans should be more defined.
To me that makes more sense that ordering a 165 replacement now.
If electrification first concentrated on the Marylebone-Wycombe/Risborough/Amersham-Aylesbury Vale Parkway triangle first, then that should allow all 165s to be removed within 5 years or so, then do the Snow Hill Lines, then fill in the middle and move the whole thing over to EMU operation, all within 10 years which would be a reasonable remaining life for the 175s.
Options, and a preferred one, exist and have been discussed within the industry for electrification. It will drive the choice of new units for Chiltern. Suggest you ask within Chiltern, plenty are aware.More electrification nonsense which is pure fantasy and totally irrelevant to this particular thread.
Not unless, they do recruit more for Banbury, possibly having night turns, to solve that issue, Banbury depot will have surplus drivers also, from the switch to Bletchley from Banbury for the east and west route change of recruitment plan.Yes, very true, but guards based in Banbury can't run services leaving Marylebone before the first trains from Banbury arrive, and using trains with guards south of Banbury means more guards are needed.
It sounds rather like Northern who have decided that new build is 'the way to go' and they don't want Class 175s.Options, and a preferred one, exist and have been discussed within the industry for electrification. It will drive the choice of new units for Chiltern. Suggest you ask within Chiltern, plenty are aware.
What refurbishment were they in the midst of?Cross Country ditched their HSTs in the midst of refurbishment
What about First Class and restaurant cars?Put 5 cars on Manchester-Swansea and ditch the unreliable and expensive MK4 sets.
I'd be surprised if all the 165s (Chiltern and GWR) are scrapped within 10 years, considering all the older DMUs to be replaced first. And the tighter purse strings preventing the massive orders that the likes of Greater Anglia enjoyed.Chiltern's 165s are increasingly difficult to maintain and are approaching the end of their working life - they won't last another ten years, that's why they are being replaced by new units.
The 197/1Bs have a first class section with similar seats to that you’ll find on a 397 or MK5 in first class. I’m sure they could fit something like that in a 175. As for restaurant cars, they’re certainly not needed. A nice thing to have, but if GWR IC can do without then the Marches definitely can. A trolley is more than sufficient. As it stands, the buffet is hardly ever open anyway.What about First Class and restaurant cars?
These are nice to have, but as things are, there is a high chance of turning up with your first class ticket and expectation of a three course meal, but in reality you end up wedged in the doorway of a 2 car 150.What about First Class and restaurant cars?
I'd be surprised if all the 165s (Chiltern and GWR) are scrapped within 10 years, considering all the older DMUs to be replaced first. And the tighter purse strings preventing the massive orders that the likes of Greater Anglia enjoyed.
Possible Chiltern, hence other post about md and rail express, from op ref 1487, mentioned way back, on here about a tender proposal in writing for them, it's possible due to the Mk5 now available from transpennie express, they might well get them, noise issues permitting as, traction conversion and traction refreshers will be easier than, new training for 175.
My last update on this unit was it entering Ilford in early Sept - anyone know when it came out of there please?009 is on the move today from Chester to Landore, just passed Crewe on 3Z98. They do seem to be shuffling these units around.
Chiltern's tender predicts their 165 fleet replacement within ~5 years I believe. What plans GWR have I couldn't say.
Standards have changed. What was acceptable in the past isn't now.Why do we have the issue about noise levels with class 68s? In the 60s, 70s & 80s people used to put up with much noisier locos much more frequently. The class 68 noise isn't even particularly intrusive and it must be easier on the ears than the more typical noise pollution from the city centres of London & Birmingham?
You obviously haven’t been stood under the roof at Leeds station with one idling. The noise is far more intrusive than any diesel engine I have heard under there before. It isn’t just the volume, it’s the bassy resonance. It’s absolutely horrendous.Why do we have the issue about noise levels with class 68s? In the 60s, 70s & 80s people used to put up with much noisier locos much more frequently. The class 68 noise isn't even particularly intrusive and it must be easier on the ears than the more typical noise pollution from the city centres of London & Birmingham?
Seems like much ado about nothing, particularly with these engines being quite clean for combustion pollution.
Why do we have the issue about noise levels with class 68s? In the 60s, 70s & 80s people used to put up with much noisier locos much more frequently. The class 68 noise isn't even particularly intrusive and it must be easier on the ears than the more typical noise pollution from the city centres of London & Birmingham?