Great Western Coffee Shop

If FGW are allowed to obtain the 11 x 4 car 172s that they wish to run on the Cardiff to Portsmouth route and also retain their existing DMU fleet (as is their conditional desire), how will this affect fleet deployment in the South West?

TJ

Where are the 172's coming from?

Not a lot of info out there but there is a little bit about it on the West of England website (http://www.westofengland.org/transport/rail#Cardiff%20to%20Portsmouth%20new%20trains%20bid)

I should really have looked a bit further before I wrote the above, but came across a letter (http://www.southwest-ra.gov.uk/media/SWRA/Transport/080903_Rolling_stock_issues_SWRDA_letter_to_Ruth_Kelly_MP.pdf) from the SWRDA to Ruth Kelly specifically proposing brand new trains for the route, although it seems to imply they would come from the '1300' already proposed. (Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere).

Interesting on the WoEP site that FGW are putting forward a business case, whether along the same lines as proposed by the SWRDA I don't know.

A Class 172 Turbostar will have fewer seats than a Class 150 Sprinter it replaces[1] (e.g. a three-car 150/1 has 35 more seats than a three-car 172/3) but greater overall capacity due to the increased room for standing passengers as well as wider aisles intended to speed boarding and reduce time in stations.

The trains will be air conditioned and contain no openable windows, as opposed to the Class 150.
......

......so were just cattle now?

I do wonder however, if getting some 172 units would infact mean that a small number of the 158s which are being cascaded being transfered tp EMT, thus solving overall capacity problems for everyone??

Say FGW keep 6 of the cascaded 158s, and the other 5 go to EMT, everything is solved. 

This is going to be a problem on LM's Snow Hill Lines services. 30 fewer seats AND they are ordering fewer carriages! Commuters will be like sardines.

But it is good news about the windows / air con! ;D

I don't think FGW have actually mentioned what class of unit they intend to order for FGW's services, they are also planning to obtain new trains for LTV........ lets hope they go for 185's

WIll any ROSCO contemplate buying a large amount of stock for a route that is highly likely to be electrified in the next decade (LTV that is.)?

Could they not replace all stock in Bristol and Devon/Cornwall when no longer on Thames Valley?

The L&TV units will surely have to be compatible with the present 165/6 fleet for coupling purposes? I would suggest that they will be a Turbostar, probably a variant of the 172 with appropriate coupling modifications, or they will get cascaded 165's from Chiltern when they receive their on-order new vehicles in the next couple of years. Cascaded units probably make more sense than new builds as the present turbo fleet will lose around 50% of its current work when Crossrail opens.

They should just be allowed to order 172s to meet thier full requirements, then leave it there.  Nothing more.

I suspect however its unlikely this will ever be approved. 

There should be a continual building programme of 172s that needs to be running until all non plug door/ non air con units / buses have been sent to the scrap yard.

Then there would be a Universal UK wide DMU semi fast/local fleet.

But that is far too sensible, so lets keep the Sprinters and Pacers!

The problem with that is that they all reach life expiry at the same time.

Not quite, Northern Ireland would still have different units.

I don't think Chiltern will be too keen to cascade 165/0s to FGW. Their plan is to rengine all their 165s and 168 to the same as the 172 to match their performance this is to get a 90 minute timing to Moor Street. Also if teh Oxford service gets off the ground then they will need all teh units they've got.

As has been agreed elesewhere that it will be a long time before most of the FGW is electrified a fleet of 172s for the West of England to replace Buses and 150s and provide more capacity would be a sound idea. That's why it's not going to happen.

Fair comment, though it's fair to say that an awful lot of tweaks to the infrastructure here and there (which to be fair, Chiltern have proven they are pro-active enough to deliver on) will also be required for a 90 minute Marylebone to Birmingham timing and I didn't think there was much difference in terms of performance from a Class 165/0 and a 75mph Class 172, and a Class 168 and a 100mph Class 172?

To clarify the suggestion I was making, there's been no mention of electrifying the Chiltern Line, so it might be sensible for Chiltern to have additional new Class 172's built (over and above the current small order) to allow older 165/0's to be cascaded to LTV to live out the remainder of their days before the arrival of Crossrail/electrification of the GWML. The only potentially awkward thing is the 75mph limit, but Thames Trains did have a small fleet of 165/0's until around 2004 and it wouldn't cost the earth to re-gear them to 90mph.

I don't know how Chiltern will do it in 90 mins!

VT only stop a few times to get such a timing and that is at 125 mph.

Chiltern will be stopping about 10 times and have 100 mph stock.

Ok, the route is 2 miles shorter, but I want to know how!

I've long thought that it could only be done with 125mph stock. And even then only at a push. Not much of that around unless the West Coast Voyagers get replaced by Pendolinos (which by any sense they would, so no chance of that then).

And I'm not sure why the need to have two fast routes into Birmingham. At the moment there is a choice of a fast expensive route, or a slower, (but still good quality) cheaper route. If they invest millions to speed it up, will that mean fares rise to recoup the investment? I'm not sure that would be welcomed by those price sensitive customers choosing Chiltern from Brum.

Er. yes there has. I put the following right at the start of the Sparks Effect thread back in June. Long-term obviously, because of the reasonable life-expectancy of Chiltern's fleet, but if you've got wires all the way from Banbury to Birmingham from an XC wiring scheme, then it makes sense once you start to need to replace 165s and early 168s.

"Suggested possible long-term spin-offs, as a result of some of the above work making them more cost-effective, are Bristol-Westbury-Salisbury and Swindon-Gloucester-Chepstow-Newport, also the Chiltern Line."


But as several of us have tried to tell you before, no-one is going to pay for loads of brand-new diesels, with a 30-year life, so long as the government is conducting an electrification review which would put many of them out of work within a decade.

And if Chiltern want to get a headline 90-minute journey time it can probably be done with 100mph stock. Does anyone remember the old BR InterCity 90-minute (or was it 92 minutes?) sign on the mail depot at Curzon Street which was promoting the time of a handful of trains on the Birmingham-Euston route, which were limited to 100mph.

You just ditch several intermediate stops and provide some loops to allow overtaking of slower services along the way. There's room for that between Leamington and Birmingham where quad track was removed and at several stations further south. Whether it's worth the expenditure is another matter.

Fair enough - I did miss/forget your post back in June, but I was speaking more from the routes that have made up the recent talk from Network Rail and rumours coming from the Government. A 'suggested possible long-term spin-off' quoted back in in June is not really what I would call on the agenda, especially given the alleged priority for the MML and GWML. Still, I guess we should wait until Lord Adonis delivers his initial plans next May, as all could change based on that.

As Will has said, that would only be a headline timing. I can't see 90 minutes being possible either though (without trains and infrastructure of more than 100mph). I think 100 minutes would be a more realistic timing. It would only be one train a day, non-stop from Moor Street to Marylebone? The current fastest time is 116 minutes with five intermediate stops, so knock out those and you find yourself needing to find another 8-10 minutes or so en-route with infrastructure improvements. The route from Marylebone to High Wycombe is 75mph max, so if that was 100mph wherever possible and Aynho Junction was remodelled from 40mph to 70mph, and the speeds through Leamington Spa (currently 35mph) increased then 100 minutes would be achievable.

Chiltern have said that they want this 90 min time with stops. I don't think it is a headline timing either. They want to get the time down to 90 mins.

Also, Chiltern make their money from stopping. I expect relatively few people use it between the cities, a lot use parkway or get on in the B'ham suburbs.

And don't forget, there will be only ^1 difference soon between Chiltern and VT's cheapest fares. So Chiltern will need to slash journey times to keep passengers.

---------------

I really don't think the Devon and Cornwall branch lines are going to be electrified for a while...... nor many of the Wessex routes. We will be lucky if the "core" GWML is done. So these units would still be needed (and could always be displaced elsewhere to lengthen other services, or on new lines reopened).

Its likely that there will be one fast service that will hit 90 minutes and the other are therefore obviously "all 90 mins" through clever marketing

Well, I'll believe it when I see it. If you split the route up into two sections, even with enhancements, there's no way you'd be able to get the Marylebone to Banbury timing down to any less than 50 minutes (it's currently 62 mins non-stop). That means a timing of just 40 minutes maximum from Banbury though to Birmingham.

The post from June was drawing on Modern Railways' analysis of the various studies doing the rounds at the time, including Network Rail's initial work, so I'd say it's a valid proposition, but as I said, some way down the track and only once you've wired south from Birmingham for XC, which would deal with most of the expensive locations on the route, except Marylebone itself.

As I understand it from a very reliable source, Chiltern have to propose mid life franchise enhancements to get their 20 years.

Their proposals seem to be the Bicester curve and Oxford Marylebone service.

Plus as I said above the re-engining and gearboxes of the 165 and 168 (psuedo 170s) to be similar to the 172s giving the wh0le fleet 100 mph capability. What I forgot to mention which willc picked up on was the provision of high spped bi directional lines at sevaral points between Marylebone and Anyho to allow overtaking, plus increased line speeds up 100 mph over much of the route. With the souped up stock, these overtaking loops  and increases line speeds Chiltern think 90 minutes to Moor street is feasable on a regular basis.

However one of the problems is if Chiltern get these proposals approved and implemented it puts the electrification of the line at a much lower priority as it will have virtually all new or re-engined stock. Thus the chances of a cascade from Chiltern is unliikely much before the franchise expires in 2020.

The only hope for FGW is rapid elctrification in the North West, West of Manchester to eliminate diesel working to Blackpool, Wigan and Liverpool from the East. Thus the trans Pennine need to follow with extensive connections to the ECM. This would release a lot of units if it were done so servies could be all eletric.

This might mean some service becoming loco hauled with engine changes where the wires run out. Loco hauled is also the obvious solution for IC traffic from Cornwall to london and Birmingham.

As I have pointed out before a set of loco hauled coaches and two locos one diesel and electric is cheaper than the IEP for the same number of seats.



 




 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_172

i doubt it is possible to re engine and gearbox 165 to 100mph because other stuff needs to be taken in to consideration like brakes and final drives,if they have not been designed for 100mph running then they would need changing plus voith did not make any transmissions of the type required for a turbo capable of 100mph.the turbostar family of transmissions is of a different design they do not have a shaft input it is directly on the engine.to manufacture or modify an existing type would not be cost effective.not sure if the perkins engine would be capable either lets face it they struggle for 90 under 158's.

the 168 already have 100mph top speed same as 170 as the running gear is virtually the same  mtu engine bolted directly to a voith tranny.


 




 

I hope they do get them, will at least mean they wont require as many 150s, which will allow some more of the 150s to replace pacers with ATW and Northern. 

As I understand the Chiltern re-engining proposal is that it's both the engine and gearbox and a change from hydralic to mechanical which I understand the 172s will be.

The 165/0s also need the swing link on the bogie which means possible changes to the platforms at I think Sudbury Hill (or one of those stations between Neasen and West Ruislip)

I know that 170 acceleration is poor.

What is 168's acceleration like?

172 acceleration is meant to be better (hopefully even better than a 150).

168 similar to 170 acceleration.