Temporary transfer of Turbostars from Chiltern to West Midlands Trains

[Domh245]

An irritating microfleet perhaps, but I'm baffled how Chiltern can permanently do without the 172s, when the stock they would like - more Turbostars of the 168/170 variety - is like gold dust

Possibly there's been some sort of seismic change to how railways are used in the last year, and expectations are that passenger numbers will be suppressed, and rolling stock requirements reduced

 

[fgwrich]

All depends on passenger loadings as we emerge from Covid restrictions and also, what the DFT has in mind for the Franchise system.

More 158s (Wales / EMR?) to GW, release a few Turbos from there to Chiltern?

Or, was t there talk of, at some stage, returning the Stratford services back to GW? The Chiltern Stratford services seemed to make the most use of their 172 fleet.

 

[Mikey C]

Possibly there's been some sort of seismic change to how railways are used in the last year, and expectations are that passenger numbers will be suppressed, and rolling stock requirements reduced

But not forever though. Or certainly not something that can be predicted with complete accuracy

And Chiltern is in a growing part of the country, with lots of new housing being built, something which will be accelerated by EWR

 

[Domh245]

But not forever though. Or certainly not something that can be predicted with complete accuracy

And Chiltern is in a growing part of the country, with lots of new housing being built, something which will be accelerated by EWR

There's clearly some degree of certainty within the industry about future traffic levels though, they (including DfT as I'd be amazed if they didn't have input these days) wouldn't be sending stock away if they thought there was a chance of a 'bounceback' so to speak.

Chiltern is a growing part of the country, but by falling off the bottom of the list of ways to travel London-Birmingham with HS2 they should be able to free some capacity for more local services if needed. That and the sorely needed electrification.

Last point to note though is that (at this point) nothings lined up for them from December - Chiltern could take them back if they suddenly find they're needed!

 

[ABB125]

Personally I think that these four units will be staying with WMR for a while. We'll just have to wait and see!

 

[Mollman]

But not forever though. Or certainly not something that can be predicted with complete accuracy

And Chiltern is in a growing part of the country, with lots of new housing being built, something which will be accelerated by EWR

There are a couple of Mk3s spare for conversion for use with Chiltern - on the right diagram it would release a few 168s

 

[JonathanH]

There are a couple of Mk3s spare for conversion for use with Chiltern - on the right diagram it would release a few 168s

Conversion of further Mk3s for Chiltern is simply not going to happen.

 

[ABB125]

Conversion of further Mk3s for Chiltern is simply not going to happen.

Why not? (I assume the work needed on the doors.) Have they explicitly said so?

 

[jamie_]

Why not? (I assume the work needed on the doors.) Have they explicitly said so?

I would expect the DfT to say no, i mean Chiltern are not really using the 68's & Mk3's at the moment and unless the traffic bounces back to pre-pandemic levels they can make do with the 165/168's... Nice chunk of cash to save by ditching the Mk3's and handing the 68's back, not to mention track access charges.....

 

[fgwrich]

Conversion of further Mk3s for Chiltern is simply not going to happen.

Indeed, having just released a rake prepped for them, Chiltern aren’t going to go calling for more. Even the former Welsh vehicles once owned by DB are now with someone else (ROG). Plus, they aren’t going to go and convert more to a decade old design.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if they wanted LHCS they'd be better off grabbing some Mk4s before they get razor-bladed.

 

[ABB125]

Even if they wanted LHCS they'd be better off grabbing some Mk4s before they get razor-bladed.

I'd agree with that, but are Mk4s compatible with class 68s?

 

[Chiltern006]

no, but if db have some spare 67s, then...

 

[ABB125]

no, but if db have some spare 67s, then...

That would be... amusing!
And somewhat ironic.

 

[Mikey C]

There's clearly some degree of certainty within the industry about future traffic levels though, they (including DfT as I'd be amazed if they didn't have input these days) wouldn't be sending stock away if they thought there was a chance of a 'bounceback' so to speak.

Chiltern is a growing part of the country, but by falling off the bottom of the list of ways to travel London-Birmingham with HS2 they should be able to free some capacity for more local services if needed. That and the sorely needed electrification.

Last point to note though is that (at this point) nothings lined up for them from December - Chiltern could take them back if they suddenly find they're needed!

At the moment there's surely NO certainty about future traffic levels

Nobody knows if there will be future Covid waves or how much working from home will affect commuting numbers going forward. Or how quickly the UK and Global economy will recover.

HS2 and electrification are a long way off anyway. The opening of EWR from Bicester to MK will be far sooner

 

[Rhydgaled]

Chiltern 172's x 4 coming to WMR need coupler mod as electrical pins are different due to Network Southeast mod to stop other BR business sector from borrowing units.

Chiltern 172's are cover for 170's transferring to East Midlands Raiway due to the 196's being delayed. Hence why the mention is in this thread.

Chiltern 172's will go back to Angel in December once finished with WMT and they will then be off-lease with Chiltern. That may well become a subject to a new thread, what happens to a 4 train microfleet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Chiltern have now lost the bubble car, the slam door LHCS (Banbury) set and now the four 172s without any replacement. I know they took on 9x 2-car class 170s (now 168/3s) but wasn't that to allow the Oxford services rather than replacing the withdrawn stock? I know there is the impact of COVID but, in the short term at least, there is social distancing which requires far more capacity to be provided than the numbers travelling would suggest; and in the medium term passenger demand might pick up (and how many Chiltern diagrams are/were worked by single units anyway meaning they can't just make the trains shorter to compensate for the loss of stock)?

How are they going to cope with this reduction in stock?

More 158s (Wales / EMR?) to GW, release a few Turbos from there to Chiltern?

Hands off our 158s... As for EMR, they don't look like getting the 171s anytime soon and now are keeping the Liverpool services so they could need the 158s for a long time yet.

 

[chiltern trev]

You could also create more class 769 for GWR (more of the same already bring created) to release class 165.

Or electrify to Oxford (which will take a bit longer) to release class 165 from Didcot - Oxford shuttles.

 

[JonathanH]

You could also create more class 769 for GWR (more of the same already bring created) to release class 165.

I think that is somewhat unlikely. The candidate units (GWR might have taken 23 instead of 19 to allow Oxford locals to switch) may be some of those now being scrapped.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If they’re permanently finished with Chiltern, why would WMR even hand them back in December? They might as well use them so that 196s can be permanently concentrated on solely Hereford and Shrewsbury services. It was said that a couple of 196s would also appear on Snow Hill services, just as 170+153 formations used to.

 

[Neptune]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Chiltern have now lost the bubble car, the slam door LHCS (Banbury) set and now the four 172s without any replacement. I know they took on 9x 2-car class 170s (now 168/3s) but wasn't that to allow the Oxford services rather than replacing the withdrawn stock? I know there is the impact of COVID but, in the short term at least, there is social distancing which requires far more capacity to be provided than the numbers travelling would suggest; and in the medium term passenger demand might pick up (and how many Chiltern diagrams are/were worked by single units anyway meaning they can't just make the trains shorter to compensate for the loss of stock)?

The bubble car was to release 165’s for refurbishment.

 

[swt_passenger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Chiltern have now lost the bubble car, the slam door LHCS (Banbury) set and now the four 172s without any replacement. I know they took on 9x 2-car class 170s (now 168/3s) but wasn't that to allow the Oxford services rather than replacing the withdrawn stock?...

The 9 x 170s (that became 168/3), were for general capacity increases across the franchise, Chiltern were quite emphatic in the Evergreen 3 TWA application that they already had enough stock in hand within the franchise to run to Oxford, basically by retimetabling and diversion of some existing services such as those terminating at Bicester North.

I think because it all happened at almost the same time people put two and two together…

 

[JonathanH]

The other point about Chiltern is that the fleet of 165s and 168s is quite flexible - both fleets can form trains of any length between 2 and 9 cars (with an obvious restriction due to platform lengths) - by shuffling 2-car and 3-car 165s they can change services booked for 6-car operation to 5-car operation.

Chiltern keep this regularly under review and it always seems that they tweak the unit allocations between trains at each timetable change.

Removing the 172s which seem to have never been used to their full potential and locomotive hauled services simplify the operation somewhat.

 

[Class172]

Removing the 172s which seem to have never been used to their full potential and locomotive hauled services simplify the operation somewhat.

One major factor that seems to have contributed to this is the fact that the APT tripcocks cannot be fitted to the bogie design used on the 172s. If I recall correctly this prohibited them from being the leading unit on the Amersham line services, which clearly reduces their operational flexibility.

It would make sense to me for their long term home to be with WMR, locating all of the class with a single operator where maintenance knowledge (Tyseley) is most developed. Anywhere else and they quickly become a non-standard microfleet.

 

[fgwrich]

One major factor that seems to have contributed to this is the fact that the APT tripcocks cannot be fitted to the bogie design used on the 172s. If I recall correctly this prohibited them from being the leading unit on the Amersham line services, which clearly reduces their operational flexibility.

It would make sense to me for their long term home to be with WMR, locating all of the class with a single operator where maintenance knowledge (Tyseley) is most developed. Anywhere else and they quickly become a non-standard microfleet.

Agreed. I never really understood why Chiltern took this micro-fleet of 4 units. From memory, they were supposed to be used on the "inner urban" type services in the London area (Northolt Park, Sudbury Hill, Sudbury Harrow & Wembley Stadium) due to their Gearbox, but never seemed to end up actually working those and instead pushed out to the Marleybone to Stratford Upon Avons.

 

[Mikey C]

The other point about Chiltern is that the fleet of 165s and 168s is quite flexible - both fleets can form trains of any length between 2 and 9 cars (with an obvious restriction due to platform lengths) - by shuffling 2-car and 3-car 165s they can change services booked for 6-car operation to 5-car operation.

Chiltern keep this regularly under review and it always seems that they tweak the unit allocations between trains at each timetable change.

Removing the 172s which seem to have never been used to their full potential and locomotive hauled services simplify the operation somewhat.

The 75mph 165s are a nuisance though, as many of them operate stopping services on the mainline, fouling up what would otherwise be a 100mph railway (e.g. when they operate to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough)

 

[JonathanH]

The 75mph 165s are a nuisance though, as many of them operate stopping services on the mainline, fouling up what would otherwise be a 100mph railway (e.g. when they operate to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough)

If 75mph 165s are such a nuisance, why have Chiltern never made them 90mph units like the GWR 165s? They have had ample opportunity. Does the 75mph gearing give them better acceleration? I doubt they would reach 100mph between stops in any case.

 

[Wyrleybart]

An irritating microfleet perhaps, but I'm baffled how Chiltern can permanently do without the 172s, when the stock they would like - more Turbostars of the 168/170 variety - is like gold dust

If DfT are now in total charge of franchised railway in the UK mainland then they will be deciding (in conjunction with the roscos) how the fleet is best utilised. If those 172s are more suited to being maintained with their siblings, and will carry as many pax based at Tyseley as from Aylesbury, hen it makes sense.

How do passenger loadings compare at Chiltern ? I am hearing traffic on the route to Snow Hill is pretty sparse at the moment.

 

[Chiltern006]

If 75mph 165s are such a nuisance, why have Chiltern never made them 90mph units like the GWR 165s? They have had ample opportunity. Does the 75mph gearing give them better acceleration? I doubt they would reach 100mph between stops in any case.

if they were 90, they wouldn't be able to run on Met Line, the tripcock was fitted, and took the place of the part that made the units go 90. GW units don't have tripcocks, so can go 90. hope that makes some sort of sense lol

If DfT are now in total charge of franchised railway in the UK mainland then they will be deciding (in conjunction with the roscos) how the fleet is best utilised. If those 172s are more suited to being maintained with their siblings, and will carry as many pax based at Tyseley as from Aylesbury, hen it makes sense.

How do passenger loadings compare at Chiltern ? I am hearing traffic on the route to Snow Hill is pretty sparse at the moment.

my train from Leamington Spa to Marylebone yesterday was full and standing, although that was mainly due to west coast being shut

in pre-covid times, you'd be lucky to get a seat on a London to brum run if it wasn't a loco. usually all seats are full as its much cheaper than the WCML options. oxford runs pre covid

don't get me started on that

also the 68s and Mk3s are likely to go in December due to the lease with DRS being up, the Mk3s in a unfit condition and the franchise ending, so how Chiltern will cope into 2022 no one knows. 222s are likely, but unconfirmed. getting off topic, apologies

 

[fgwrich]

if they were 90, they wouldn't be able to run on Met Line, the tripcock was fitted, and took the place of the part that made the units go 90. GW units don't have tripcocks, so can go 90. hope that makes some sort of sense lol

It’s to do with the Yaw Dampers (there’s a familiar tale on this forum at the moment), as they are required for any unit running north of 75MPH. The Chiltern units were always considered as suburban and therefore came without them / with 75MPH gearboxes. The Chiltern units were always a pain when they found employment on the Thames Valley out of Reading, as it meant you had a 75MPH unit coupled to a native Reading based 90MPH unit on a 125 / 100 MPH railway. Fitting Yaw Dampers and upgrading the gearbox shouldn’t be a problem as such (the LTV fleet are of course fitted with them and the bogie / damper set up are essentially the same as the 168s) but it would come back to who pays for it and at what cost?

 

[172007]

If the 172/1's are not required by Chiltern, the DFT decides to play hardball with the owners of the 4 and says there is no where for them as WMT post covid does not need the capacity then how long could they be left in sidings idle. Could see the start of Rosco's off loading assets or leaving the game all together.

The lack of gangway will be a pain for WMT if they go longterm, it will mean 12 non-gangwayed with limited diagrams to place them on. Non gangwayed won't run post May TT on the North Warks Kidderminster - Stratfords; also Herefords once 196's start. They will also need DCO camera equipment installed to be compatible with the rest of the 172 fleet.