Westminster City Council demand immediate end to Class 68 operation into Marylebone due to pollution

[option]

Where are EWR going to have a depot?
If it's at the western end, then couldn't Chiltern also use space on the same site?


In terms of the shared tracks between Amersham & Harrow, why not battery?
It's ~15miles, & Vivarail state they have an 80mile range. (To Aylesbury is only 30miles)

Wire up the platforms & as far as the tunnels (if they're easily/cheaply done then do them as well) & that's the in-station & acceleration power supply sorted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where are EWR going to have a depot?
If it's at the western end, then couldn't Chiltern also use space on the same site?

I'm sure I recall there being suggestions that Bletchley TMD would be reinstated for it.

In terms of the shared tracks between Amersham & Harrow, why not battery?

Because if you accept that the only sensible option for the route via High Wycombe is 25kV, and I certainly believe it is, being very similar to the WCML local service if Avanti wasn't there, tagging on a few extra bits isn't going to be that expensive.

Might as well also tag on Bicester-Oxford-Didcot, too.

 

[YorksLad12]

I was on the Chiltern line recently and I always wondered why a busy London commuter route with a simple mainline and a couple of branches has still not been electrified yet the LTS out of Fenchurch St was one of the first. Sending all those 168s up to Northern to replace 156s and 150s should be on the agenda in the next decade surely.

Why does everyone want to dump old stock on Northern? Doesn't half give me the hump, that...

On topic: have to say I am a bit surprised that none of the various Project Evergreen projexts resulted in electrification along such a relatively self-contained route (unless it wasn't simple becase of problems with systems at the London end, of course).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does everyone want to dump old stock on Northern? Doesn't half give me the hump, that...

I thought 170s were popular? 168s are the same other than the coupler and a very few original units having a different cab end. Clearly we need to get the wires up around the northern cities too, be they tram or 25kV wires, but in the meantime you can do a lot worse. They're certainly very considerably nicer than 195s.

165s, being not much newer than 150s, should probably go for scrap.

 

[JonathanH]

165s, being not much newer than 150s, should probably go for scrap.

Or to the West Country to replace 150s and more importantly HSTs there. There is enough of a difference between 150s and 165s to see them switched (although I note that they might have a challenge doing so on the Looe and Gunnislake branches)

 

[YorksLad12]

I thought 170s were popular? 168s are the same other than the coupler and a very few original units having a different cab end. Clearly we need to get the wires up around the northern cities too, be they tram or 25kV wires, but in the meantime you can do a lot worse. They're certainly very considerably nicer than 195s.

165s, being not much newer than 150s, should probably go for scrap.

It's relative. My point was that Northern since always gets the hand-me-downs, until we got the 195s and 331s. I'd rather have an electric railway, obviously... but even then someone would suggest cast-offs from elsewhere.

 

[Neptune]

It's relative. My point was that Northern since always gets the hand-me-downs, until we got the 195s and 331s. I'd rather have an electric railway, obviously... but even then someone would suggest cast-offs from elsewhere.

They frequently do on here!

 

[Mikey C]

Well the argument could be made that doing that might be a better choice for passengers regardless - it essentially becomes Crossrail vs the Bakerloo line. And I'm not sure the Bakerloo wins that.

A large number of Chiltern commuters use Baker Street rather than Marylebone underground station to continue their journey, giving the option of the Jubilee Line and the Circle/H&C/Met

 

[yorksrob]

You could do it (indeed 4-rail could simplify the AC/DC interfaces), subject to the powers that be allowing an extension of the 4-rail system to Aylesbury.

None of this is desirable though. The optimal solution seems to be to convert the LU section to bonded 4th rail, and AC everywhere else.

The whole Chiltern setup will need a thorough think from top to bottom, including what happens regarding depot arrangements going forward. This in turn means thinking about where crews are based too. In a perfect world Aylesbury Depot would be ditched, it's simply too small. If Marylebone-Aylesbury is going to have its own dedicated EMU fleet, then perhaps Aylesbury could be retained for that.

Indeed.

Ultimately, if they can't electrify a short section of suburban passenger railway (that is already substantially electrified) there's little hope for the rest of the network.

 

[RailWonderer]

Why does everyone want to dump old stock on Northern? Doesn't half give me the hump, that...

On topic: have to say I am a bit surprised that none of the various Project Evergreen projexts resulted in electrification along such a relatively self-contained route (unless it wasn't simple becase of problems with systems at the London end, of course).

They are cosy, comfortable, ride well, are reliable when maintained properly but make some minor rattling and buzzing sounds when near an engine (like their successor the 170) but they are better built trains than the 195s. Forget the stigma of hand me downs, I think anyone would rather ride on a 168 than a 195 or Sprinter.

 

[chiltern trev]

165s, being not much newer than 150s, should probably go for scrap.

165s are much nicer than 150s so if one class is scrapped then scrap 150s.

 

[HSTEd]

It's not going to be politically acceptable to keep operating 30+ year old diesel engines for very much longer.

The railway can either accept this or sign its own death warrant.

 

[Bald Rick]

The railway can either accept this or sign its own death warrant.

It’s not the railway that needs to accept it.

 

[Wolfie]

Why does everyone want to dump old stock on Northern? Doesn't half give me the hump, that...

On topic: have to say I am a bit surprised that none of the various Project Evergreen projexts resulted in electrification along such a relatively self-contained route (unless it wasn't simple becase of problems with systems at the London end, of course).

I think that it had relatively modern stock, had recently been upgraded and there just wasn't the eco pressure then.

Re your first sentence probably something to do with the bloody great subsidies it consumes.

 

[JKF]

It's relative. My point was that Northern since always gets the hand-me-downs, until we got the 195s and 331s. I'd rather have an electric railway, obviously... but even then someone would suggest cast-offs from elsewhere.

Leeds NW electrification of course did originally have hand-me-downs before the smart 331s came into service.

 

[Wolfie]

165s are much nicer than 150s so if one class is scrapped then scrap 150s.

More specifically Chiltern 165s are much nicer than 150s, as indeed they are compared to their neglected GWR equivalents.

 

[HSTEd]

On topic: have to say I am a bit surprised that none of the various Project Evergreen projexts resulted in electrification along such a relatively self-contained route (unless it wasn't simple becase of problems with systems at the London end, of course).

Project Evergreen was happening back when the head of the Cross Country franchise was demanding the de-electrification of Newcastle to Edinburgh.

Electrification had been abandoned in favour of bionic duckweed.

I don't think people really realise just how different things were then.

 

[Neptune]

Leeds NW electrification of course did originally have hand-me-downs before the smart 331s came into service.

No it didn’t. 333’s we’re built in 2000 for Leeds NW.

The 308’s before them were a 5 year stop gap.

 

[Wolfie]

No it didn’t. 333’s we’re built in 2000 for Leeds NW.

The 308’s before them were a 5 year stop gap.

Were the 333s not augmented by random 321s and 322s though?

 

[Watershed]

Project Evergreen was happening back when the head of the Cross Country franchise was demanding the de-electrification of Newcastle to Edinburgh.

Electrification had been abandoned in favour of bionic duckweed.

I don't think people really realise just how different things were then.

Evergreen was a project of three phases, and certainly by the time the third phase (Marylebone to Oxford) was being proposed and then built, I don't think there was any suggestion of de-electrifying Newcastle to Edinburgh.

 

[Falcon1200]

head of the Cross Country franchise was demanding the de-electrification of Newcastle to Edinburgh

I don't recall ever having heard that suggestion, and what would it have to do with Cross Country anyway; They were not then, and are not now, the primary operator over that route ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Project Evergreen was happening back when the head of the Cross Country franchise was demanding the de-electrification of Newcastle to Edinburgh.

It was the head of GNER, but yes, unthinkably, it is true.

 

[172007]

And frankly, if there isn't, reviewing fare levels ought to suffice. How many people are on it just wanting a cheaper off-peak ride to Birmingham? For which LNWR still exist.

It's not all about cheap fares. Gosh, there are staff who often travel on Chiltern rather than WCML for convenience as outlined below.

An awefull of people travel on Chiltern from the West Midlands to, connect with XC at Leamington or Banbury, it is more convenient to travel on a direct train from many of the Snow Hill line stations. For People who live in Hall Green, Solihull and the surrounding area it is just as quick and cheaper to travel to park at Solihull than get to Birmingham New St for a WCML train. Chiltern also mop up plenty of passengers from around Kinilworth, Warwick and also the area to the west of Coventry as again with Warwick Parkway and to a slightly lesser degree Leamington the parking is cheaper,easier and less prone to traffic and slow journey than going to Coventry.

And frankly, if there isn't, reviewing fare levels ought to suffice. How many people are on it just wanting a cheaper off-peak ride to Birmingham? For which LNWR still exist.

It's not all about cheap fares. Gosh, there are staff who often travel on Chiltern rather than WCML for convenience as outlined below.

An awefull of people travel on Chiltern from the West Midlands to, connect with XC at Leamington or Banbury, it is more convenient to travel on a direct train from many of the Snow Hill line stations. For People who live in Hall Green, Solihull and the surrounding area it is just as quick and cheaper to travel to park at Solihull than get to Birmingham New St for a WCML train. Chiltern also mop up plenty of passengers from around Kinilworth, Warwick and also the area to the west of Coventry as again with Warwick Parkway and to a slightly lesser degree Leamington the parking is cheaper,easier and less prone to traffic and slow journey than going to Coventry.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't recall ever having heard that suggestion, and what would it have to do with Cross Country anyway; They were not then, and are not now, the primary operator over that route ?

IIRC he was upset that his diesel trains were being delayed by wires down incidents north of Newcastle.

Although it may have been LNER.....

 

[option]

I'm sure I recall there being suggestions that Bletchley TMD would be reinstated for it.



Because if you accept that the only sensible option for the route via High Wycombe is 25kV, and I certainly believe it is, being very similar to the WCML local service if Avanti wasn't there, tagging on a few extra bits isn't going to be that expensive.

Might as well also tag on Bicester-Oxford-Didcot, too.

I meant more specifically the actual shared section, where it's claimed there's an issue.
Amersham-Aylesbury, or the route from Marylebone as far as the shared section, would still be electrified, & so would the main Chiltern route.


Batteries, as long as proven to be reliable, do change the economics of electrification, as they could enable difficult/expensive sections to be done later.
eg. if a tunnel/bridge/other would cost £2m/mile, but plain line/stations cost £1m, then you could either have a scheme come in cheaper, or extend the distance covered.
You could even not put up the OLE on lightly used sections, so as to enable spending on busier sections within a fixed budget/resources.
eg. you might not do Bearley-Hatton(5miles) to leave the resources for Bearley-Stratford, which is the busier section.

 

[Neptune]

Were the 333s not augmented by random 321s and 322s though?

The inference was that until the 331’s came along we never had new electric units which is plainly untrue.

However, there have never been enough 333’s for the full peak NW triangle service. When the units were augmented to 4 cars they were offered 5 additional 4 car units to replace the 321/9’s and enable eradication of the morning diesel diagram but the order was never taken up.

The 322’s came later to bolster the electric fleet until the 32x were fully replaced by 331’s last year.

 

[SynthD]

On topic: have to say I am a bit surprised that none of the various Project Evergreen projexts resulted in electrification along such a relatively self-contained route (unless it wasn't simple becase of problems with systems at the London end, of course).

It sounds like it would cost 10-20x all three Evergreen projects to finish the electrification. They were chosen for paying their way within the franchise term.

 

[Wolfie]

The inference was that until the 331’s came along we never had new electric units which is plainly untrue.

However, there have never been enough 333’s for the full peak NW triangle service. When the units were augmented to 4 cars they were offered 5 additional 4 car units to replace the 321/9’s and enable eradication of the morning diesel diagram but the order was never taken up.

The 322’s came later to bolster the electric fleet until the 32x were fully replaced by 331’s last year.

Not sure that l took that inference but your comment is obviously accurate.

 

[185]

Was at Birmingham New Street, upstairs in the GC shopping centre not so long ago, and the air was thick with fumes from a Voyager - which was had been idling down below on plat 1 for some time. New St should have a ten-minute rule for standing diesel trains or shut them down.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I travelled to Preston on (and listened to the 68 in the platforms) while I was waiting for my onwards connection on a few occasions, when it was top & tailing the LHCS trains from Carlisle a few years ago, when the DVT was unavailable.

I watched the driver swapping ends and it still made quite a din until one 68 was no longer powering the carriage heating etc. But it was noticeably quieter in the station once the loco which wasn't under the roof (the North end) took over the heating / lighting supply etc.

The train usually sat for 20 minutes or so and it didn't turn the station into a noxious gaseous exhaust pit while the 68 at the tail end was idling.

Are the residents or the Westminster Council more bothered about the noise or the exhaust or is it just an easy target in comparison to the vehicles in the surrounding streets?

Probably both, and rightfully so, but given the number of complaints specifically about the noise a Class 68 makes then I dare say one of these things is causing more direct annoyance than the other. Enforcement of engine shutdown is pretty strict at Marylebone, I've heard complaints being made because locomotives were fired up 20 minutes before departure rather than 17, so people are definitely watching carefully.

It may have been mentioned before in the thread but it's also worth highlighting that Marylebone station is very much in a residential area. There is high density housing built right up to the station boundary on both the up and down sides of the line and the noise definitely affects these people. Electrification is the obvious solution, Marylebone was seeing 16 million+ journeys a year pre Covid which puts it on par with places like Reading and Brighton, and that was with a pretty sparse suburban service as slow accelerating DMUs cripple what you can do with stopping trains at places between Wembley and Ruislip/High Wycombe. There's demand for a higher frequency service at plenty of those intermediate stations both with locals and people who'd use them as a park and ride. The only problem is finding the money in the current economic climate. Like a lot of people have said, it's probably going to end up being a sticking plaster of some hybrid conversions in the short to medium term but I'd bet a lot of these complains wouldn't happen if the 68s weren't as noisy.