I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?

Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>

Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
(same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).

On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>
>
> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).

I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.

I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
electrics.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>
>>
>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>
> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.

It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
noise, but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
converted to hybrids.

<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>

>
> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
> electrics.

Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
electrics!

On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>
>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>
> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
> noise,

Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.

but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
> converted to hybrids.

A ways off yet, AIUI.

>
> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>
>>
>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>> electrics.
>
> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
> electrics!

I guess not now.

Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>
>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>
>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>> noise,
>
> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.

That's not what the neighbours report.
<https://www.focustransport.org/2021/02/complaints-about-noisy-class-68-trains.html>

>
> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>> converted to hybrids.
>
> A ways off yet, AIUI.

The trial is just starting. If successful, it shouldn't take very long to
convert the fleet.

>
>>
>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>
>>>
>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>> electrics.
>>
>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>> electrics!
>
> I guess not now.
>
> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?

None

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>
>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>
>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>> noise,
>
>Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>
>but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>> converted to hybrids.
>
>A ways off yet, AIUI.
>
>>
>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>
>>>
>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>> electrics.
>>
>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>> electrics!
>
>I guess not now.
>
>Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>
The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
for long distance services.

On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:

> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>
>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>
>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>> noise,
>>
>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>
>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>> converted to hybrids.
>>
>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>> electrics.
>>>
>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>> electrics!
>>
>> I guess not now.
>>
>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>
> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
> for long distance services.

I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
throguh trains to Uckfield. The only significant diesel operations
left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
(aside from freight)?

Robin

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>
>>
>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>
> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>

A greater influence is whether or not the loco is providing Electric Train
Supply (hotel power, head end power etc.) to the train - this will result
in the power unit running substantially above idle speed.

The class 68s appear to have a certain quality to their sound which makes
them unpopular with the railway's lineside neighbours - reported as a deep
booming low note. In the case of Scarborough, the train is also much longer
than the stock previously used, which puts a loco idling outside someone's
house for an hour at a time, when previously the train only passed briefly
when leaving the station.

> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
> electrics.
>

There was recently a blip in the energy prices agreed between NR and the
FOCs (freight trains) which resulted in them using diesel traction instead;
I haven't heard any mention of it recently so I presume (perhaps
incorrectly) that normal working has been resumed. The TOCs (passenger
trains) operate under a different charging arrangement and weren't
affected.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>
>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>
>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>> noise,
>
> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>

I'm not sure why the status of the brake pipe should make any difference to
the sound a loco makes.

To elaborate a little: in normal circumstances, there will be enough air in
the loco's main reservoir to charge the brake pipe from zero (of a
passenger train; long freight trains may be a different matter). The
compressor will be electrically powered from the auxiliary
generator/alternator, and at normal engine speed (idle, or increased idle
to supply train supply) the compressor will recharge the main reservoir in
good time. Only if the train (loco, coaches or both) has been stood for
several hours and the air from various tanks has leaked away, will it take
longer to recharge the system; in these circumstances there may or may not
be a facility to run the engine faster in order to run the compressor
faster (HSTs there is, 08s there isn't), similar to the "compressor speed
up" switch on classes 14x/15x/16x.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:20:26 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>
>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>
>
>A greater influence is whether or not the loco is providing Electric Train
>Supply (hotel power, head end power etc.) to the train - this will result
>in the power unit running substantially above idle speed.
>
>The class 68s appear to have a certain quality to their sound which makes
>them unpopular with the railway's lineside neighbours - reported as a deep
>booming low note. In the case of Scarborough, the train is also much longer
>than the stock previously used, which puts a loco idling outside someone's
>house for an hour at a time, when previously the train only passed briefly
>when leaving the station.

There's no good reason to leave a loco idling for an hour in a station.
Hotel services can run on batteries and modern locos AFAIK start up pretty
quickly.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:20:26 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>
>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>
>>
>> A greater influence is whether or not the loco is providing Electric Train
>> Supply (hotel power, head end power etc.) to the train - this will result
>> in the power unit running substantially above idle speed.
>>
>> The class 68s appear to have a certain quality to their sound which makes
>> them unpopular with the railway's lineside neighbours - reported as a deep
>> booming low note. In the case of Scarborough, the train is also much longer
>> than the stock previously used, which puts a loco idling outside someone's
>> house for an hour at a time, when previously the train only passed briefly
>> when leaving the station.
>
> There's no good reason to leave a loco idling for an hour in a station.
> Hotel services can run on batteries and modern locos AFAIK start up pretty
> quickly.

There should be a shore supply.

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>>
>>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>>> noise,
>>>
>>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>>
>>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>>> converted to hybrids.
>>>
>>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>>> electrics.
>>>>
>>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>>> electrics!
>>>
>>> I guess not now.
>>>
>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>
>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>> for long distance services.
>
> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
> throguh trains to Uckfield.

Hourly Uckfield since shortly after the 171s we’re introduced, AIUI
(currently terminating at East Croydon, but booked through to London
Bridge).

> The only significant diesel operations
> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
> (aside from freight)?
>

Depending on your definition of "London Area"; West Ealing-Greenford,
Slough-Windsor, Henley and Marlow branches, Reading-Gatwick.
Reading-Basingstoke is presumably out of scope.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 2022-01-18 11:56:43 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>>>> noise,
>>>>
>>>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>>>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>>>
>>>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>>>> converted to hybrids.
>>>>
>>>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>>>> electrics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>>>> electrics!
>>>>
>>>> I guess not now.
>>>>
>>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>>
>>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>>> for long distance services.
>>
>> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
>> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
>> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
>> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
>> throguh trains to Uckfield.
>
> Hourly Uckfield since shortly after the 171s we’re introduced, AIUI
> (currently terminating at East Croydon, but booked through to London
> Bridge).

I hadn't realised it was all day, in my mind it was just a peak hours
service. I guess I'm living in the past on that one (or that once the
Thumpers left it, it became boring and not worthy of attention).

> The only significant diesel operations
>> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
>> (aside from freight)?
>>
>
> Depending on your definition of "London Area"; West Ealing-Greenford,
> Slough-Windsor, Henley and Marlow branches, Reading-Gatwick.
> Reading-Basingstoke is presumably out of scope.

I was broadly thinking "M25" or Zone 6 as my definition of London area,
so aside from my forgetfulness about Greenford, I'd regard those as
outside. Of course all such definitions are arbitrary to some extent.

Robin

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:20:26 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>
>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>
>>
>> A greater influence is whether or not the loco is providing Electric Train
>> Supply (hotel power, head end power etc.) to the train - this will result
>> in the power unit running substantially above idle speed.
>>
>> The class 68s appear to have a certain quality to their sound which makes
>> them unpopular with the railway's lineside neighbours - reported as a deep
>> booming low note. In the case of Scarborough, the train is also much longer
>> than the stock previously used, which puts a loco idling outside someone's
>> house for an hour at a time, when previously the train only passed briefly
>> when leaving the station.
>
> There's no good reason to leave a loco idling for an hour in a station.
> Hotel services can run on batteries and modern locos AFAIK start up pretty
> quickly.
>
>

Coach lighting and PIS runs on batteries, heating and aircon does not,
neither does the compressed air supply to operate the internal and external
doors.

Heating and aircon could run off shore supply where it's fitted, but as
modern loco-haulage is reasonably new (FSVO) to Marylebone and particularly
the TPE routes, it probably isn't. Plus you're likely to need a compressed
air supply too (though at least the power operated doors won't unlock the
doors on the wrong side of the coach if air pressure is lost, unlike
slam-door CDL).

It also potentially restricts operational flexibility, eg unless shore
supply and air is provided at multiple locations along each platform, you
can't then have a train of LHCS in 'on top of' a DMU stabled at the blocks.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:23:38 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>On 2022-01-18 11:56:43 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>>>>> noise,
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>>>>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>>>>
>>>>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>>>>> converted to hybrids.
>>>>>
>>>>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>>>>> electrics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>>>>> electrics!
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess not now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>>>
>>>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>>>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>>>> for long distance services.
>>>
>>> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
>>> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
>>> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
>>> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
>>> throguh trains to Uckfield.
>>
>> Hourly Uckfield since shortly after the 171s we’re introduced, AIUI
>> (currently terminating at East Croydon, but booked through to London
>> Bridge).
>
>I hadn't realised it was all day, in my mind it was just a peak hours
>service. I guess I'm living in the past on that one (or that once the
>Thumpers left it, it became boring and not worthy of attention).
>
>> The only significant diesel operations
>>> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
>>> (aside from freight)?
>>>
>>
>> Depending on your definition of "London Area"; West Ealing-Greenford,
>> Slough-Windsor, Henley and Marlow branches, Reading-Gatwick.
>> Reading-Basingstoke is presumably out of scope.
>
>I was broadly thinking "M25" or Zone 6 as my definition of London area,
>so aside from my forgetfulness about Greenford, I'd regard those as
>outside. Of course all such definitions are arbitrary to some extent.

And Greenford should soon be battery operated on a trial basis.

On 18/01/2022 13:23, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:23:38 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-01-18 11:56:43 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>>>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>>>>>> noise,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>>>>>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>>>>>> converted to hybrids.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>>>>>> electrics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>>>>>> electrics!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess not now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>>>>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>>>>> for long distance services.
>>>>
>>>> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
>>>> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
>>>> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
>>>> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
>>>> throguh trains to Uckfield.
>>>
>>> Hourly Uckfield since shortly after the 171s we’re introduced, AIUI
>>> (currently terminating at East Croydon, but booked through to London
>>> Bridge).
>>
>> I hadn't realised it was all day, in my mind it was just a peak hours
>> service. I guess I'm living in the past on that one (or that once the
>> Thumpers left it, it became boring and not worthy of attention).
>>
>>> The only significant diesel operations
>>>> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
>>>> (aside from freight)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Depending on your definition of "London Area"; West Ealing-Greenford,
>>> Slough-Windsor, Henley and Marlow branches, Reading-Gatwick.
>>> Reading-Basingstoke is presumably out of scope.
>>
>> I was broadly thinking "M25" or Zone 6 as my definition of London area,
>> so aside from my forgetfulness about Greenford, I'd regard those as
>> outside. Of course all such definitions are arbitrary to some extent.
>
> And Greenford should soon be battery operated on a trial basis.

Because it's an isolate?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:19:39 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:20:26 -0000 (UTC)
>> There's no good reason to leave a loco idling for an hour in a station.
>> Hotel services can run on batteries and modern locos AFAIK start up pretty
>> quickly.
>>
>>
>
>Coach lighting and PIS runs on batteries, heating and aircon does not,
>neither does the compressed air supply to operate the internal and external
>doors.

Bigger loco battery required then. No idea of the power requirements of a large
rake but say 100KW for everything - a half ton car EV battery would be enough
to run all that for an hour at a terminus.

>It also potentially restricts operational flexibility, eg unless shore
>supply and air is provided at multiple locations along each platform, you
>can't then have a train of LHCS in 'on top of' a DMU stabled at the blocks.

You lost me there.

On 18/01/2022 16:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:19:39 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:20:26 -0000 (UTC)
>>> There's no good reason to leave a loco idling for an hour in a station.
>>> Hotel services can run on batteries and modern locos AFAIK start up pretty
>>> quickly.
>>
>> Coach lighting and PIS runs on batteries, heating and aircon does not,
>> neither does the compressed air supply to operate the internal and external
>> doors.
>
> Bigger loco battery required then. No idea of the power requirements of a large
> rake but say 100KW for everything - a half ton car EV battery would be enough
> to run all that for an hour at a terminus.
>
>> It also potentially restricts operational flexibility, eg unless shore
>> supply and air is provided at multiple locations along each platform, you
>> can't then have a train of LHCS in 'on top of' a DMU stabled at the blocks.
>
> You lost me there.

Some platforms are long enough to hold two trains at once. Providing a
shore supply at each possible stopping position would increase the cost.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:19:39 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:20:26 -0000 (UTC)
>>> There's no good reason to leave a loco idling for an hour in a station.
>>> Hotel services can run on batteries and modern locos AFAIK start up pretty
>>> quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Coach lighting and PIS runs on batteries, heating and aircon does not,
>> neither does the compressed air supply to operate the internal and external
>> doors.
>
> Bigger loco battery required then. No idea of the power requirements of a large
> rake but say 100KW for everything - a half ton car EV battery would be enough
> to run all that for an hour at a terminus.
>

A few minutes wrestling with Google suggests that a Mk 3 coach takes 30kW
max, so a six-car train will need 180kW.

Is there room to retro-fit them into class 57, 67, 68? Of would we need
a(nother) new build of locos? It may be easier to fit them (or a
heavily-silenced generator) into the DVT and not use the loco for train
supply at all.

Edit: Wikipedia suggests that Chiltern's Mk3 DVTs *are* fitted with
generators, so presumably the 68 really is just idling to keep the air
supply up. It'd seem to be fairly trivial to be able to have a compressor
in the DVT to maintain the main res pipe pressure.

>> It also potentially restricts operational flexibility, eg unless shore
>> supply and air is provided at multiple locations along each platform, you
>> can't then have a train of LHCS in 'on top of' a DMU stabled at the blocks.
>
> You lost me there.
>
>

If you have train supply and air pipe only fitted at the buffer stops, your
LHCS (loco-hauled coaching stock) train has to stop at the buffer stops.

But in a station with, say, 12-coach long platforms, you might want to have
a 2- or 3- car DMU arrive first and stand for most of an hour, then a few
minutes later have the 6-car LHCS train arrive in the same platform, wait
almost an hour, and leave just before the DMU does. Now your LHCS train
can't be connected to the shore supply cable and air pipe which are at the
buffers, because they’re not usually 70m long. So you'd need to provide a
second set of connections and control gear at that location. Which is ok
until one day you want to run a 4-car DMU on that diagram, etc etc.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 18/01/2022 09:24, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>
>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>> for long distance services.
>
> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
> throguh trains to Uckfield. The only significant diesel operations
> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
> (aside from freight)?

Voyagers out of Euston?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:29:50 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 18/01/2022 13:23, Recliner wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:23:38 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-01-18 11:56:43 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>>
>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>>>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>>>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>>>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>>>>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>>>>>>> noise,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>>>>>>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>>>>>>> converted to hybrids.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>>>>>>> electrics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>>>>>>> electrics!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess not now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>>>>>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>>>>>> for long distance services.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
>>>>> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
>>>>> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
>>>>> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
>>>>> throguh trains to Uckfield.
>>>>
>>>> Hourly Uckfield since shortly after the 171s we’re introduced, AIUI
>>>> (currently terminating at East Croydon, but booked through to London
>>>> Bridge).
>>>
>>> I hadn't realised it was all day, in my mind it was just a peak hours
>>> service. I guess I'm living in the past on that one (or that once the
>>> Thumpers left it, it became boring and not worthy of attention).
>>>
>>>> The only significant diesel operations
>>>>> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
>>>>> (aside from freight)?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Depending on your definition of "London Area"; West Ealing-Greenford,
>>>> Slough-Windsor, Henley and Marlow branches, Reading-Gatwick.
>>>> Reading-Basingstoke is presumably out of scope.
>>>
>>> I was broadly thinking "M25" or Zone 6 as my definition of London area,
>>> so aside from my forgetfulness about Greenford, I'd regard those as
>>> outside. Of course all such definitions are arbitrary to some extent.
>>
>> And Greenford should soon be battery operated on a trial basis.
>
>Because it's an isolate?
>
Only in electrical terms. Traction Juice (two varieties) is available
at both ends of the shuttle so it only needs the battery when on the
move. A quick and dirty bodge could be done with a dual-voltage unit
with an onboard battery, maybe a 313 or similar with the battery in
the locked-out London end as the intermediate stations only have
2-carriage platforms. The main impediment (if it is) to new OHLE looks
like Drayton Green tunnel.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:29:50 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/2022 13:23, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:23:38 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-01-18 11:56:43 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>>>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>>>>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>>>>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>>>>>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>>>>>>>> noise,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>>>>>>>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>>>>>>>> converted to hybrids.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>>>>>>>> electrics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>>>>>>>> electrics!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess not now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>>>>>>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>>>>>>> for long distance services.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
>>>>>> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
>>>>>> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
>>>>>> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
>>>>>> throguh trains to Uckfield.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hourly Uckfield since shortly after the 171s we’re introduced, AIUI
>>>>> (currently terminating at East Croydon, but booked through to London
>>>>> Bridge).
>>>>
>>>> I hadn't realised it was all day, in my mind it was just a peak hours
>>>> service. I guess I'm living in the past on that one (or that once the
>>>> Thumpers left it, it became boring and not worthy of attention).
>>>>
>>>>> The only significant diesel operations
>>>>>> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
>>>>>> (aside from freight)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Depending on your definition of "London Area"; West Ealing-Greenford,
>>>>> Slough-Windsor, Henley and Marlow branches, Reading-Gatwick.
>>>>> Reading-Basingstoke is presumably out of scope.
>>>>
>>>> I was broadly thinking "M25" or Zone 6 as my definition of London area,
>>>> so aside from my forgetfulness about Greenford, I'd regard those as
>>>> outside. Of course all such definitions are arbitrary to some extent.
>>>
>>> And Greenford should soon be battery operated on a trial basis.
>>
>> Because it's an isolate?
>>
> Only in electrical terms. Traction Juice (two varieties) is available
> at both ends of the shuttle so it only needs the battery when on the
> move. A quick and dirty bodge could be done with a dual-voltage unit
> with an onboard battery, maybe a 313 or similar with the battery in
> the locked-out London end as the intermediate stations only have
> 2-carriage platforms. The main impediment (if it is) to new OHLE looks
> like Drayton Green tunnel.
>

It won't be a 313. Last year, the trial of the two-car battery train was
reported to be due to start this April, but I imagine it's been delayed.
The trial will be for between one and three years. I don't know if they
plan to use the unit that was last in use in Glasgow.

I'm sure the 92s will be happy to greet an old friend from across the Mile
End platforms!

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:18:18 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:29:50 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/01/2022 13:23, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:23:38 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-01-18 11:56:43 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>>>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>>>>>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>>>>>>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>>>>>>>>> noise,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>>>>>>>>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>>>>>>>>> converted to hybrids.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>>>>>>>>> electrics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>>>>>>>>> electrics!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess not now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>>>>>>>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>>>>>>>> for long distance services.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
>>>>>>> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
>>>>>>> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
>>>>>>> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
>>>>>>> throguh trains to Uckfield.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hourly Uckfield since shortly after the 171s we?re introduced, AIUI
>>>>>> (currently terminating at East Croydon, but booked through to London
>>>>>> Bridge).
>>>>>
>>>>> I hadn't realised it was all day, in my mind it was just a peak hours
>>>>> service. I guess I'm living in the past on that one (or that once the
>>>>> Thumpers left it, it became boring and not worthy of attention).
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only significant diesel operations
>>>>>>> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
>>>>>>> (aside from freight)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depending on your definition of "London Area"; West Ealing-Greenford,
>>>>>> Slough-Windsor, Henley and Marlow branches, Reading-Gatwick.
>>>>>> Reading-Basingstoke is presumably out of scope.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was broadly thinking "M25" or Zone 6 as my definition of London area,
>>>>> so aside from my forgetfulness about Greenford, I'd regard those as
>>>>> outside. Of course all such definitions are arbitrary to some extent.
>>>>
>>>> And Greenford should soon be battery operated on a trial basis.
>>>
>>> Because it's an isolate?
>>>
>> Only in electrical terms. Traction Juice (two varieties) is available
>> at both ends of the shuttle so it only needs the battery when on the
>> move. A quick and dirty bodge could be done with a dual-voltage unit
>> with an onboard battery, maybe a 313 or similar with the battery in
>> the locked-out London end as the intermediate stations only have
>> 2-carriage platforms. The main impediment (if it is) to new OHLE looks
>> like Drayton Green tunnel.
>>
>
>It won't be a 313. Last year, the trial of the two-car battery train was
>reported to be due to start this April, but I imagine it's been delayed.
>
The last mention seems to have been in Railway World in November which
isn't inevitably a bad sign. I was thinking in terms of AC/DC trains
as that seems more logical if there turns out to be a sufficient
demand between two electrified locations not that far apart. The
trouble with most (all?) current dual-voltage units is that you can't
use less than three coaches (motor coach+something with a cab on each
side).

>The trial will be for between one and three years. I don't know if they
>plan to use the unit that was last in use in Glasgow.
>
That seems to be the main suspect.

>I'm sure the 92s will be happy to greet an old friend from across the Mile
>End platforms!
>
Isn't Mile End a bit over the local horizon from Greenford or Ealing ?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:38:36 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:18:18 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:29:50 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/01/2022 13:23, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:23:38 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-01-18 11:56:43 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-17 23:15:37 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:09:17 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>>>>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 21:12, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just seen it suggested (on a board that needs a login so I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a link) that Chiltern are to stop using 68s. Anyone know any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more? Replace with other locos or withdrawl of loco hauled completely?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not heard that, but if true, it would almost certainly mean the latter. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be one of the easier ways of cutting costs. It would also appease the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours at Marylebone who complain of the noise from the idling 68s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (same problem as TPE have had at Scarborough).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not think that idling diesel electrics made all that much noise,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in reality, particularly is the brakes are not charged.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's both noise and air pollution. Getting rid of the 68s will reduce the
>>>>>>>>>>> noise,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, I thought that a diesel electric on idle with a vented brake pipe
>>>>>>>>>> would not actually make that much noise -- hardly more than a DMU.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but might have less effect on the air pollution until the DMUs are
>>>>>>>>>>> converted to hybrids.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A ways off yet, AIUI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I also thought that trains running on diesel were less expensive than
>>>>>>>>>>>> electrics.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, yes, but Chiltern obviously won't be replacing them with
>>>>>>>>>>> electrics!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess not now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any electrification prospects anywhere on Chiltern, however?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The London end is getting increasingly surrounded by wet string so
>>>>>>>>> eventual "fill in" seems a likely consequence but not just yet and not
>>>>>>>>> for long distance services.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess there can't be much diesel operation left in the Lodon area. I
>>>>>>>> don't think there's any left at Liverpool St, King's Cross is now just
>>>>>>>> GC, Paddington is down to the Night Riviera and a handful of Oxford
>>>>>>>> trains, and on the Southern it's just Salisbury/Exeter and the few
>>>>>>>> throguh trains to Uckfield.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hourly Uckfield since shortly after the 171s we?re introduced, AIUI
>>>>>>> (currently terminating at East Croydon, but booked through to London
>>>>>>> Bridge).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hadn't realised it was all day, in my mind it was just a peak hours
>>>>>> service. I guess I'm living in the past on that one (or that once the
>>>>>> Thumpers left it, it became boring and not worthy of attention).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only significant diesel operations
>>>>>>>> left are Chiltern and the Midland mainline services. Have I missed any
>>>>>>>> (aside from freight)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depending on your definition of "London Area"; West Ealing-Greenford,
>>>>>>> Slough-Windsor, Henley and Marlow branches, Reading-Gatwick.
>>>>>>> Reading-Basingstoke is presumably out of scope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was broadly thinking "M25" or Zone 6 as my definition of London area,
>>>>>> so aside from my forgetfulness about Greenford, I'd regard those as
>>>>>> outside. Of course all such definitions are arbitrary to some extent.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Greenford should soon be battery operated on a trial basis.
>>>>
>>>> Because it's an isolate?
>>>>
>>> Only in electrical terms. Traction Juice (two varieties) is available
>>> at both ends of the shuttle so it only needs the battery when on the
>>> move. A quick and dirty bodge could be done with a dual-voltage unit
>>> with an onboard battery, maybe a 313 or similar with the battery in
>>> the locked-out London end as the intermediate stations only have
>>> 2-carriage platforms. The main impediment (if it is) to new OHLE looks
>>> like Drayton Green tunnel.
>>>
>>
>>It won't be a 313. Last year, the trial of the two-car battery train was
>>reported to be due to start this April, but I imagine it's been delayed.
>>
>The last mention seems to have been in Railway World in November which
>isn't inevitably a bad sign. I was thinking in terms of AC/DC trains
>as that seems more logical if there turns out to be a sufficient
>demand between two electrified locations not that far apart. The
>trouble with most (all?) current dual-voltage units is that you can't
>use less than three coaches (motor coach+something with a cab on each
>side).
>
>>The trial will be for between one and three years. I don't know if they
>>plan to use the unit that was last in use in Glasgow.
>>
>That seems to be the main suspect.
>
>>I'm sure the 92s will be happy to greet an old friend from across the Mile
>>End platforms!
>>
>Isn't Mile End a bit over the local horizon from Greenford or Ealing ?
>
Ah, 1992 stock not a class 92.