DMU cascade

[whole diary]

[Fourbee]

Seems to have captured Jack Straw's imagination as well as he asked a question about this in PMQ's today!

[a-driver]

I think the farce involving the fTPE trains just goes to show who is running the "privatised" UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railway network. 

Considering you can't lease trains off your own back without making an application to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) the whole situation stinks of incompetence  It is also worrying to think that the current FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Class 180s could go the same way.

[IndustryInsider]

Interesting how at it's inception Chiltern had a nice uniform fleet of Class 165s, but after this cascade will find itself with a rather higgledy piggledy mess of Class 165s, Class 168s, Class 170s, Class 172s, Mk 3 Carriages, Class 67s, DVTs^‡(resolve), and (probably eventually) Class 68s!

Oops - I forgot their Class 121 'Bubble Cars'. 

[northwestuser]

The situation with TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) is this:

First TPE proposed an order of 56 x 3 car 185s with the option to add 4th cars at a later date if demand increased.  After the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) got involved this became 51 x 3 car 185s and 9 x 2 car 170s (8 from SWT^▸ (South West Trains) and 1 from Central) so this looked reasonable until it was decided that to allow the Virgin VHF frequency the Voyagers off Manchester-Scotland would be used for enhancing Holyhead/Chester to London services.  This meant TPE also had to take on Manchester-Scotland services but didn't get any extra stock to run those additional services.

The previous DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) realised TPE were short of stock and proposed they would get an additional 10 x 4 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), which formed part of the same withdrawn ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) would have allowed new DMUs on Cardiff-Portsmouth and additional DMUs for Northern.  The idea was an additional hourly service between Liverpool and York and more capacity on Scottish services.  The ITT was withdrawn on the basis that electrification was a better alternative so for TPE the 10 x 4 car DMUs became 10 x 4 car 350/4s.  However, this has involved diverting Manchester to Scotland services via Wigan instead of via Bolton meaning there's more pressure on the Northern Rail services on the Manchester-Bolton-Preston corridor.

Starting this May TPE will run an hourly Manchester-Wigan-Scotland services and the existing hourly Manchester Airport to Newcastle service will be replaced by two hourly services: Liverpool-Newcastle via Manchester Victoria and Manchester Airport to York.  This means the 185s and 350s cannot stretch to cover all the TPE services.

Apparently the preferred proposal is now for TPE to get 8 x 158s from Northern in lieu but this has quite a few issues:
1. While Northern are expected to get 319s to use on the Chat Moss route the released DMUs have already been allocated new duties - with the re-opening of the Todmorden curve a Manchester Victoria to Todmorden service should be extended to Blackburn via Burnley, as well as extra capacity in particular on the Bolton corridor which won't have usable electrics until the December 16 timetable change.
2. Northern don't use 158s on any of the North West routes being electrified.
3. The Northern 158s don't have First Class and the interior standard of them is much poorer than the TPE 170s.
4. The 158s are 90mph capable and the TPE timetabling is based on using 100mph capable trains.

Apparently talks over a franchise extension between Northern and DfT aren't going well at the moment so DOR might finish up running the interim franchise.

[northwestuser]

Interesting how at it's inception Chiltern had a nice uniform fleet of Class 165s, but after this cascade will find itself with a rather higgledy piggledy mess of Class 165s, Class 168s, Class 170s, Class 172s, Mk 3 Carriages, Class 67s, DVTs^‡(resolve), and (probably eventually) Class 68s!

Apparently Chiltern have asked Porterbrook to convert the 170/3s to 168s and are looking at having a fleet of 28 x 3 car 168s.  There would be a surplus 170 centre car though but I'm sure an operator like Anglia, LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) or XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) (who have a mix of 2 and 3 car 170s) would happily take that on.

[paul7575]

Apparently Chiltern have asked Porterbrook to convert the 170/3s to 168s and are looking at having a fleet of 28 x 3 car 168s. 

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) the only fundamental difference between Chiltern's 'Turbostars' and everyone else's is that the 168 coupling electrical boxes were wired to interface with 165s, whereas most other 170s are wired to work with 15X series units, such as 158s etc.   I expect the 172s Chiltern operate are also wired specifically for their requirements to MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) with 165s and 168s.   I doubt it will be a significant modification at all.  There would be no real necessity to renumber them into the 168 series - other than for neatness - they could just as easily be made a new 170 subclass.  After all that's what was done with the 172s...

Paul

[Southern Stag]

As far as I know the Chiltern 172s are wired differently to enable them to couple to the Chiltern fleet. It can't be a major modification as the LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) 172s which are wired for coupling to 15x units and 170s are not deemed different enough to warrant a different class number. Renumbering to 168s does seem possible though, the 168/2s are already 170s in all but name and the wiring differences. The 168/0s do look quite different to the later 168s and 170s.

[northwestuser]

The 168s also have a tripcock fitted which the 170s do not.  According to Wikipedia the 172s cannot operate on the London to Aylesbury Line due to a lack of tripcock, so presumably 170s are also banned from running services on those lines.

[paul7575]

The 168s also have a tripcock fitted which the 170s do not.  According to Wikipedia the 172s cannot operate on the London to Aylesbury Line due to a lack of tripcock, so presumably 170s are also banned from running services on those lines.

The 172s have inside frame bogies, these would clearly be difficult to fit a conventional tripcock to, so it hasn't been done.  There would be no equivalent problem with the 170s, but whether it would be necessary to fir tripcocks would depend on where Chiltern chose to operate them.

Paul

[Network SouthEast]

The only issue with 172s running on the Metropolitan line is they can't be the leading unit. Coupled to a 165 or 168 at the front is fine, as only the leading bogie needs to have a trip cock.

Not mentioned so far, but I suspect the TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) 170s will be fitted with ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) too.

[JayMac]

So they can run into Marylebone with a 165/168 leading. What happens then though? Could the 172s be shunted out the way without a tripcock?

[grahame]

So they can run into Marylebone with a 165/168 leading. What happens then though? Could the 172s be shunted out the way without a tripcock?

Yes, no doubt it could be shunted out of the way, or the train could go out via Wycombe.   Clever circular diagrams all day - out via Risborough and back via the Met! 

[Network SouthEast]

Graham pretty much sums it up.

The tripcock is only needed to run on the tracks owned by LUL^▸ (London Underground Ltd). On Network Rail lines, such as Marylebone station having a tripcock is not important (as TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) would act like a tripcock (and then there's the ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) too)).

[Southern Stag]

The 172s don't actually have any diagrams via Amersham though. With only 4 of the units it is quite easy to avoid it.

[ChrisB]

It would be harder once the 173s are introduced, unless the conversion to 168s include the tripcocks.

More interestingly, is where they're going to depot / maintain them as Aylesbury & Wembley are somewhat fll & unexpandable....