What will future Chiltern stock look like?

[adamskiodp]

TBH I'm increasingly of the view that extending the electrification of the Met Line out to Aylesbury would make sense, leaving the line via HW for Chiltern.

That sounds better. We could have the old bay platform back at Aylesbury for the LU terminators.

Adam

 

[NotATrainspott]

Okay it is probably the heat but I will make a suggestion only to be knocked down. Chiltern has no need to serve stations south of Amersham- LUL can do this with no problem. HS2 runs almost parallel to the Chiltern line until Aylesbury. If HS2 proves to be underused or if paths meant for freight on the relief lines could be made available what about an express service using 25AC from Euston to Great Missenden and on through Aylesbury to link with East- West ? HS2 and Chiltern are so close at Great Missenden that the additional track needed would be minimal. In the future it is likely that the Marylebone- Wycombe- Princes Risborough- Aylesbury- MK line is going to be electrified so the jigsaw clicks into place.

Not going to happen. Underuse of HS2 wouldn't probably mean very many paths being freed up anyway. All of the capacity between London and Birmingham Interchange is shared between all of the various destinations served by the line. Reducing a hypothetical 10tph service to 8tph just means going from a train every 6 minutes to one every 7.5 minutes - 90 seconds hardly being the end of the world. Reducing even the most frequent HS2 destinations means going from a train every 20 minutes to one every 30 minutes, and it's even worse for places with only 2tph or 1tph. Cutting frequency like that would make the situation even worse, with the lower passenger numbers after the cut meaning more losses or less profitability than before.

In any case, the bigger problem is that all HS2 trains will be blasting through the Chilterns at the same 320-360km/h speed. Slowing down a few of them to serve something like an EWR parkway, even if off on a branch, would mean a significant reduction in capacity. Delta Junction/Birmingham Interchange is designed to be so complicated just so that it's possible for the Crewe-bound trains to blast through at full speed while the Birmingham trains call at the Interchange and the East Midlands ones slow down to peel off and run up the eastern side of the Pennines.

 

[NSEFAN]

TBH I'm increasingly of the view that extending the electrification of the Met Line out to Aylesbury would make sense, leaving the line via HW for Chiltern.

I guess it would "force" LUL to bring back all-day fast services on the Metropolitan. It would still involve AC/DC complications at Aylesbury unless the lines via Amersham and Princes Risborough become completely electrically isolated.

Personally I don't see why changeover on the move cannot be done north of Amersham and south of Harrow-on-the-Hill and keep Chiltern services to Marylebone. Dual voltage stock is easy to do these days.

 

[MatthewRead]

I made a thread about this should the Chiltern line gets electrified and now I think Bi-mode 455's or 769's would be best certainly for Aylesbury vi Amersham!

 

[Driverme10]

I can hardly see them replacing stock with older stock. As I said the stadler flirts are looking like the most likely candidates. That plus the caf mk5s to replace the mk3s. Regards temp use of 180s I stand corrected that was hull not fgw, but all has gone quiet there so maybe has been ruled out.

 

[KingDaveRa]

Personally, I like the idea of LU extending out to Aylesbury, and returning the Metropolitan line to the outer reaches of metroland! The idea was talked about back in the BR days when Marylebone was on the cards to be closed; LU would extend to Aylesbury, and the then very underused Chiltern line would go into Paddington. I always rather liked the idea of a direct service from Aylesbury into the tube system.

Thinking about it logically, it's more viable with the much speedier S Stock, and it's a lot simpler from an infrastructure point of view. However that's 14.5 miles worth of track route to electrify (so probably more like three times as much distance), with all its associated kit, as well as extending LU's signalling, and then presumably some sort of stabling arrangement at the end of the line (probably using the existing Chiltern sidings).

Network Rail have been busying themselves removing every level crossing they can around Aylesbury, so electrifying the lines makes sense again, certainly. There was mutterings in the dim distant past about some of the bridges not being high enough for OHLE and difficult to rectify, so LU's four-rail makes sense too, were that the case.

I think the Aylesbury line has (in recent years) felt like the poor relation on Chiltern's network. It's just there, doing its thing - Mainline and the Oxford branch are their biggest focus. Given Aylesbury's new status as a Garden Town, I'd assume transit into London will grow over the coming years (even though Garden Towns are meant to be self-sustaining). Perhaps Chiltern would be willing to drop the Aylesbury mainline and focus their activities on the Chiltern mainline. They've already moved their offices out of the town - all that's left is the depot. Quite what would become of that is intriguing.

Whilst all conjecture and guesswork at this point, I think there's a lot of interesting possibilities!

 

[Chester1]

Chiltern could be given a direct award for 5 years until HS2 opens. The franchise will substantially change then and Arriva is doing a good job and investing money so it would be a good choice if a mutually beneficial deal can be agreed between Arriva and DfT. I would be gobsmacked if there are any electrification works before the end of the franchise. The electification programme has been hopeless and won't finish its current projects until 2022 at the earliest and there are higher priority linnes before Chiltern. There will be sufficient fast DMUs available to cascade to Chiltern and funding new DMUs is high risk for a Rosco.

 

[route:oxford]

The electification programme has been hopeless and won't finish its current projects until 2022 at the earliest and there are higher priority lines before Chiltern. There will be sufficient fast DMUs available to cascade to Chiltern and funding new DMUs is high risk for a Rosco.

There are higher priority lines before Chiltern, but priority and politics don't always play fair.

The Chilternland residents will need a reward to mitigate HS2 destroying their lives.

Likewise at the other end, thousands are dying in Oxford every year due to air pollution.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Likewise at the other end, thousands are dying in Oxford every year due to air pollution.

Please state your source to data of thousands of deaths due to pollution.

Oxford Mail story 12th November 2016

Latest figures from Public Health England estimate that 276 deaths in Oxfordshire could be attributed to long-term exposure to air pollution, including NO2, in 2014.

 

[takno]

There are higher priority lines before Chiltern, but priority and politics don't always play fair.

The Chilternland residents will need a reward to mitigate HS2 destroying their lives.

Likewise at the other end, thousands are dying in Oxford every year due to air pollution.

unless the traffic has got a lot better since I was last there diesel trains on the Chiltern route aren't going to be a significant factor in Oxford air pollution. Actually finishing the GW electrification would be a higher priority I'd have thought.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There are higher priority lines before Chiltern, but priority and politics don't always play fair.

The Chilternland residents will need a reward to mitigate HS2 destroying their lives.

Likewise at the other end, thousands are dying in Oxford every year due to air pollution.

Cynically , they did not seem to worry about the M40 all those years ago - let alone the M25 slicing across the area at high level - does help them get to John Lewis in their 4x4's though.

Good though Chiltern are - they do not make huge profits - and competition to Brum will be very much harder when / if HS2 comes in.

 

[Metroman62]

Personally, I like the idea of LU extending out to Aylesbury, and returning the Metropolitan line to the outer reaches of metroland! The idea was talked about back in the BR days when Marylebone was on the cards to be closed; LU would extend to Aylesbury, and the then very underused Chiltern line would go into Paddington.

I believe one of the reasons Marylebone stayed open after closure proposals in the early 1980s was because Baker Street and the Met route could not cope with the extra passengers / trains required to meet demand of passengers north of Amersham. That situation now won't have improved.

The Met speed limit then was 70 mph with LT & BR trains running at that speed. Now the Met line is max speed 60mph. This restricts the Chiltern trains and the S Stock can only just do over 60mph. So unless they re gear the S stock and increase the Met line max speed, then trundling to and from Aylesbury on sparsely seated S Stock won't be very appealing for many!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[philthetube]

I believe one of the reasons Marylebone stayed open after closure proposals in the early 1980s was because Baker Street and the Met route could not cope with the extra passengers / trains required to meet demand of passengers north of Amersham. That situation now won't have improved.

The Met speed limit then was 70 mph with LT & BR trains running at that speed. Now the Met line is max speed 60mph. This restricts the Chiltern trains and the S Stock can only just do over 60mph. So unless they re gear the S stock and increase the Met line max speed, then trundling to and from Aylesbury on sparsely seated S Stock won't be very appealing for many!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wasnt just the passengers north of Amersham which was the problem, it was also the passengers from Banbury and all stations up that side.

When the S stock was being built is struck me as short sighted that is was not designed to allow a Pantograph to be fit and run on 25.000v

I think that the underground will never reach Aylesbury primarily because third/fourth rail will not be allowed for safety reasons.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

One of the constraints of the Chiltern routes is the mandatory use of ATP on its DMUs.
That system is already obsolete and any future solution would require ETCS to be fitted.
You'd replace it all on electrification, as on GW with its flavour of ATP, but we all know that is not going to happen for at least 7-10 years.
I don't think much will happen on the rolling stock front in the short term, unless Chiltern can get a few more of the same types it already has.

 

[Driverme10]

One of the constraints of the Chiltern routes is the mandatory use of ATP on its DMUs.
That system is already obsolete and any future solution would require ETCS to be fitted.
You'd replace it all on electrification, as on GW with its flavour of ATP, but we all know that is not going to happen for at least 7-10 years.
I don't think much will happen on the rolling stock front in the short term, unless Chiltern can get a few more of the same types it already has.

ATP is not needed to run as long as aws tpws is working. The 170s + loco sets do not have it.

 

[AventraFlex]

If Chiltern were to introduce EMUs for the Marylebone - Aylesbury / Milton Keynes Central services, or even the regular Chiltern ones, what does anyone reckon they'd be?

There's also the East - West Rail Link that may be electrified. Maybe 365s would be good for it?

I'd personally go for those rejected 707s or some variant of electrostar / aventra. Personally I think if Met Line trains were to get re-extended back to Aylesbury, then surely LU would have no choice but re-introduce their fast services?
I recall seeing this video on YouTube of a fast Met Line train passing through Harrow in the early '90s (I think only the Chesham trains did). Maybe this would happen again if Met Lines were to travel to Aylesbury?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEYtyeLTG6E

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Chiltern were to introduce EMUs for the Marylebone - Aylesbury / Milton Keynes Central services, or even the regular Chiltern ones, what does anyone reckon they'd be?

Fairly bog standard 100/110mph EMU with aircon, plug doors at thirds and 2+2 seating with armrests. Same as the 170s but EMU basically. Probably 23m because all other Chiltern stock is so platform lengths will be optimised for that. Probably no 1st but if there is most probably just the same seats with antimacassars and a partition.

 

[AventraFlex]

Don't forget ironing board seats. They seem to be a trend nowadays...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't forget ironing board seats. They seem to be a trend nowadays...

Yes, most probably. Or maybe the new Fainsa type being proposed for the FLIRTs.

Seating formation probably mixed airline and table with somewhere between 4 and 8 tables per coach.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

One of the constraints of the Chiltern routes is the mandatory use of ATP on its DMUs.
That system is already obsolete and any future solution would require ETCS to be fitted.
You'd replace it all on electrification, as on GW with its flavour of ATP, but we all know that is not going to happen for at least 7-10 years.
I don't think much will happen on the rolling stock front in the short term, unless Chiltern can get a few more of the same types it already has.

ATP is not needed to run as long as aws tpws is working. The 170s + loco sets do not have it.

It has to be TPWS 4.0 I think. That's what the loco sets and the former 170 sets (now rebadged as 168/3s) are fitted with and they don't need ATP. The ATP system is past it's sell by date, it's just about holding together but fleet perform minor miracles with it at times to keep it going considering the lack of spare parts you'd expect considering it's from a system which was only fitted to 80 odd miles of track a quarter of a century ago.

Probably rehashing things which have already been said in here too, but the business case for electrification out of Marylebone has to be strong once the current schemes have been completed, right? The passenger numbers are there right now and there is still room for growth as far as I can see but it's difficult to do more with the current fleet of DMUs. A fleet of 100/110 mph EMUs could probably work wonders, faster acceleration would mean that a proper suburban service between Marylebone and Denham could happen without killing the longer distance trains and upping the number of carriages in the fleet is desirable too, seeing two car units pootle in and out of a station as well used as Marylebone is weird in this day and age.

 

[philthetube]

Personally I don't see why changeover on the move cannot be done north of Amersham and south of Harrow-on-the-Hill and keep Chiltern services to Marylebone. Dual voltage stock is easy to do these days.

There would be no need for changeovers on the move, all services stop at Harrow on the Hill and Amersham anyway.

 

[t_star2001uk]

There would be no need for changeovers on the move, all services stop at Harrow on the Hill and Amersham anyway.

Only off peak. There are some peak hour services that dont stop at Harrow or Amersham..

 

[mattdickinson]

Only off peak. There are some peak hour services that dont stop at Harrow or Amersham..

I presume LUL would want to keep overhead electrification away from their tracks so Mantles Wood and somewhere between Neasden and Harrow South Junction would be better as changeover points.

 

[adamskiodp]

I presume LUL would want to keep overhead electrification away from their tracks so Mantles Wood and somewhere between Neasden and Harrow South Junction would be better as changeover points.

I guess they won't be able to keep them away as it's only 2 track from Amersham til just after Rickmansworth.

Regards,

Adam

 

[CyrusWuff]

Probably rehashing things which have already been said in here too, but the business case for electrification out of Marylebone has to be strong once the current schemes have been completed, right?

At a guess, the BCR for Chiltern electrification as a standalone project is "okay", but it'd be higher if Didcot - Oxford was wired as part of GWEP, followed by Oxford - Leamington - Coventry/Bordesley as part of the CrossCountry core, and Oxford - Gavray Junction for EWR.

Well...It's nice to dream isn't it?

 

[Mikey C]

At a guess, the BCR for Chiltern electrification as a standalone project is "okay", but it'd be higher if Didcot - Oxford was wired as part of GWEP, followed by Oxford - Leamington - Coventry/Bordesley as part of the CrossCountry core, and Oxford - Gavray Junction for EWR.

Well...It's nice to dream isn't it?

With the strong growth in traffic into Marylebone, with various housing schemes being developed along the route and East West rail linking in, I'd be surprised if the BCR wasn't very positive, especially with the need for more stock

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I presume LUL would want to keep overhead electrification away from their tracks so Mantles Wood and somewhere between Neasden and Harrow South Junction would be better as changeover points.

Trust me , Crossrail 1 might have wired to AYB via Neasden South - but the clearances on the Met extesnion section were tight - not just height - but width.

Walked Ricky to Harrow one fine Sunday in 1992 - during a block , taking measurements and photos to investigate with the LU guys.

Challenging is the word.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

At a guess, the BCR for Chiltern electrification as a standalone project is "okay", but it'd be higher if Didcot - Oxford was wired as part of GWEP, followed by Oxford - Leamington - Coventry/Bordesley as part of the CrossCountry core, and Oxford - Gavray Junction for EWR.

Well...It's nice to dream isn't it?

Yep. It's easy to fall into electrification creep too, everyone thinks their doorstep is the most important and I mean if you did Marylebone to Snow Hill then you might as well continue to Worcester considering how frequent the service on the Snow Hill lines is, 6-8 tph in each direction pretty much all day...

I do wonder about external factors at the southern end of the Chilterns though. I'm sure TFL can't be happy about the level of suburban service out of Marylebone, and I know Westminster council really don't like the noise or pollution created by diesel units idling at Marylebone station either, and that's probably buoyed by the sheer amount of residential property within earshot of London Marylebone. I'm sure there are other stations with a larger population living within a couple of hundred yards of the platforms but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[NSEFAN]

There would be no need for changeovers on the move, all services stop at Harrow on the Hill and Amersham anyway.

Given the electrical isolation requirements, it may be easier to have them at a simpler location where there's neither lots of platforms nor pointwork (i.e. just outside the station). This may not be such an issue at Amersham or Harrow-on-the-Hill in any case.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yep. It's easy to fall into electrification creep too, everyone thinks their doorstep is the most important and I mean if you did Marylebone to Snow Hill then you might as well continue to Worcester considering how frequent the service on the Snow Hill lines is, 6-8 tph in each direction pretty much all day...

Well if you get that far might as well continue to Hereford...