Chiltern MK3 replacement fleet possibilities?

[3141]

Google is your friend. 165s are a 1992 build and 168 post-privatisation, whereas Mk3s date back over 45 years. As for the other question, my crystal ball is in for repair at present!

The first Class 165/0 as used on Chiltern entered service in 1991 and I think were built in 1990. If Google says otherwise it isn't a totally reliable friend.

 

[Geeves]

Just in regards to the noise in stations at Victoria they seemed to be able switch to "hotel power mode" which as mentioned was absolutely fine, even pleasant to be near and of course when the train was fired up properly it just went to the regular 68 engine sound, ear splittingly loud and vibrating the station time ha. So clearly the option is already there regards to station layover noise

 

[HamworthyGoods]

If I were Beacon Rail I would read it as:

Option 1
Send us half a dozen Class 68 Mk5A sets as they are and we will use them for 3 years. This will give us chance to order something that fits better with what we really need.

Option 2
If you put a bit of investment into this then we will take them all and have use for them into the 2030s

You are missing option 3 which Beacon Rail has also been considering - lease the entire fleet of coaches abroad.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Indeed, and I am assuming the method of multi control used by the 68s and Mk5s is also used by such as Taurus and Vectron in mainland Europe. Presumably they could become a "poor man's Railjet or Citijet" with maybe only tyre profiles to change, and maybe some UIC labeling if they don't already have it.

You are missing option 3 which Beacon Rail has also been considering - lease the entire fleet of coaches abroad.

 

[Slug1]

With the 68 noise issues Stadler had found a potential solution but it was mentioned it's to do with the vibrations from within the engine room rather than just modifying the silencer.

There was engineers who spent some time at Stourbridge in 2022 doing a variety of tests on the noise.

 

[Richard Scott]

In terms of fuel consumption and noise, the 175’s would win.

I'd be surprised if the 175 would win on fuel economy if run as a 5 car set. There might not be much in it, however.

 

[sjpowermac]

You are missing option 3 which Beacon Rail has also been considering - lease the entire fleet of coaches abroad.

Your post is not correct, I’m well aware of the alternatives being considered abroad.

I clearly referenced the Chiltern tender document, the relevant part of my post (that to suit your post you omitted) I include below for your reference.

I tend to broadly agree with you regarding the tender, but note the wide range in terms of vehicles and projected time in service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Dec 2023 ==

Indeed, and I am assuming the method of multi control used by the 68s and Mk5s is also used by such as Taurus and Vectron in mainland Europe. Presumably they could become a "poor man's Railjet or Citijet" with maybe only tyre profiles to change, and maybe some UIC labeling if they don't already have it.

I’m not entirely sure how this is directly relevant to a thread titled ‘Chiltern Mk3 replacement fleet’.

Perhaps setting up a ‘possible uses abroad for the Mk5A stock’ might be appropriate?

 

[fgwrich]

With the 68 noise issues Stadler had found a potential solution but it was mentioned it's to do with the vibrations from within the engine room rather than just modifying the silencer.

There was engineers who spent some time at Stourbridge in 2022 doing a variety of tests on the noise.

It’s a shame I can’t add a video (I’ve tried, but it comes up as file too large) of 68023 at Edinburgh working solo. The noise difference between a 68 on ETS and a 68 without is incredible - certainly a much quieter loco.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I'd be surprised if the 175 would win on fuel economy if run as a 5 car set. There might not be much in it, however.

Decided to do some googling, it was hard to find any hard figures, but seems like the 68’s are actually pretty good on fuel! I’m used to 67’s which do quite like a drink, and with the 68 having more BHP assumed it would be equally thirsty.

Would be super interesting to actually see what MPG they would both get and see how that translates into cost per passenger.

 

[sjpowermac]

Decided to do some googling, it was hard to find any hard figures, but seems like the 68’s are actually pretty good on fuel! I’m used to 67’s which do quite like a drink, and with the 68 having more BHP assumed it would be equally thirsty.

Would be super interesting to actually see what MPG they would both get and see how that translates into cost per passenger.

The TPE Class 68/Mk5A sets had a maximum range of around 1100 to 1200 miles on a full tank of 5600 litres. This included fairly lengthy periods of time spent idling at Scarborough and York, but also trips over the Pennines.

Naturally the quoted figures will include a bit of a contingency, so the fuel consumption figures will be better.

It was usual for control in the early days to try and keep below 1000 miles before refuelling, but in the later days it became quite common to exceed this.

Hope that helps

 

[D365]

As I said above, I can tell you categorically that they do not have TPWS4.

Apologies - your post was ~10 minutes before mine; I didn’t have sight of it when posting my reply.

TPWS Mark 4 is a spesific supplier so there may well be something they already have in mind.

As some background. TPWS "4", "four" or "Mk.4" is the implementation of GE/RT8030 Issue 4 (Now superseded by GERT8075), and is actually known by the standard as "Enhanced TPWS". In terms of OBU implimentation this is actually the 2nd or 3rd generation depending on how one counts it.

Unipart calls theirs TPWSfour.
Thales calls theirs TPWS Mk4
Mors Smitt (Wabtec) simply call theirs TPWS.

(Oh, and each of the first two are copywrited!)

So this would lean toward something that is fitted with Thales TPWS rather than Unipart.
Or, simply that the person writing the spec lives more in the Thales universe than the Unipart universe...

Should also note that the inclusion of Enhanced TPWS can also very much include ETCS fitted vehicles, as although it's not a requirement to meet GE/RT8030 Iss.4 to be "ETCS Ready" for NTC operation, everything will be as Enhanced TPWS is the only product offered that includes the ETCS integration for NTC handover.

Thanks. When one’s ”day job” clients use the trademarked product name of their contracted supplier, with almost religious regularity, it’s easy for requirement managers to misconstrue this.

 

[Lurcheroo]

The TPE Class 68/Mk5A sets had a maximum range of around 1100 to 1200 miles on a full tank of 5600 litres. This included fairly lengthy periods of time spent idling at Scarborough and York, but also trips over the Pennines.

Naturally the quoted figures will include a bit of a contingency, so the fuel consumption figures will be better.

It was usual for control in the early days to try and keep below 1000 miles before refuelling, but in the later days it became quite common to exceed this.

Hope that helps

Very helpful thank you !
so seems like they’d not be getting much more than 2MPG.
I was told that the 175’s used to get about 4-5MPG up and down the marches. But there would not be much idling time in that schedule when compared to the 68’s at York or Scarborough.
I guess for chilterns use, then the 68’s might have a figure more compatible to that of the 175’s.
But that’s about the best conclusion I can get, which, could be totally wrong

 

[Snow1964]

I'd be surprised if the 175 would win on fuel economy if run as a 5 car set. There might not be much in it, however.

Two parts to this, 175s ought to win on fuel, but having multiple older engines, rather than one big new one, means they would lose out on maintenance time and cost.

Which of the two, extra fuel vs extra maintenance is bigger cost I cannot answer

 

[43096]

Indeed, and I am assuming the method of multi control used by the 68s and Mk5s is also used by such as Taurus and Vectron in mainland Europe. Presumably they could become a "poor man's Railjet or Citijet" with maybe only tyre profiles to change, and maybe some UIC labeling if they don't already have it.

I believe the 68s and Mark 5s use WTB (Wire Train Bus), but not sure what flavour.

The Taurus, Vectron and RailJet standard is WTB-ÖBB which is increasingly becoming the standard system: DB and DSB have specified it for their Talgo stock, for example.

WTB-ÖBB doesn’t need the extra jumper cable that the Mark 5s have - it’s all done using the standard UIC jumpers - so assume they are different?

 

[sjpowermac]

Very helpful thank you !
so seems like they’d not be getting much more than 2MPG.
I was told that the 175’s used to get about 4-5MPG up and down the marches. But there would not be much idling time in that schedule when compared to the 68’s at York or Scarborough.
I guess for chilterns use, then the 68’s might have a figure more compatible to that of the 175’s.
But that’s about the best conclusion I can get, which, could be totally wrong

You are most welcome.

I think the idling is a factor, especially with the locos left running with ETS on.

Were the figures for the Class 175 for a 2 or a 3-car set? The Class 68/Mk5A is, of course, for 5-cars.

 

[Lurcheroo]

You are most welcome.

I think the idling is a factor, especially with the locos left running with ETS on.

Were the figures for the Class 175 for a 2 or a 3-car set? The Class 68/Mk5A is, of course, for 5-cars.

Yes I think it is too!

Unfortunately I couldn’t say 100% but I believe it was more of a rough average for all formations and workings.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Regarding the noise problems, it’s worth remembering that the Class 68 with the Electric Train Supply switched off is actually a very quiet loco. As I understand it the focus so far has been on modifying the Class 68 silencer.

Pure speculation, but the T1 vehicle adjacent to the loco has about a third of the saloon occupied by a catering galley/guards accommodation. I wonder if that area might accommodate a substantial battery for powering the ETS in stations with the ETS supply on the loco only kicking in above, say, 20 mph.

I know absolutely nothing about train internals beyond “train go wheeee” so please excuse this no doubt stupid question.

But: if the problem is ETS in stations, and nowhere else, could this be solved by using a shoreline supply? Plug train in when in station. Unplug train before departure.

I guess plugging/unplugging is a minor faff and would presumably require some modifications. But the GWR Greenford charging trials are an interesting way of getting electricity into a train without needing to expressly plug it in.

 

[Richard Scott]

Two parts to this, 175s ought to win on fuel, but having multiple older engines, rather than one big new one, means they would lose out on maintenance time and cost.

Which of the two, extra fuel vs extra maintenance is bigger cost I cannot answer

I still doubt the 175 would win on fuel, when sprinters first came out each car (with around 280hp, no air conditioning load and lighter carriages) was reputed to do 6.6mpg so be surprised if a 175 is anywhere near that. I have no knowledge of a 68 fuel consumption but expect it's in region of 1mpg and may be better.

 

[Snow1964]

With the 68 noise issues Stadler had found a potential solution but it was mentioned it's to do with the vibrations from within the engine room rather than just modifying the silencer.

This sounds like changing the pads in any engine mounting brackets, possibly just different density material, might help

But: if the problem is ETS in stations, and nowhere else, could this be solved by using a shoreline supply? Plug train in when in station. Unplug train before departure.

I guess plugging/unplugging is a minor faff and would presumably require some modifications.

Plugging in would be a faff, but might be suitable for long layovers, a similar solution was used on HSTs at Paddington and Kings Cross in late 1970s (which is why they have opening panel between / below headlights)

Pure speculation, but the T1 vehicle adjacent to the loco has about a third of the saloon occupied by a catering galley/guards accommodation. I wonder if that area might accommodate a substantial battery for powering the ETS in stations with the ETS supply on the loco only kicking in above, say, 20 mph.

Batteries could solve the noise problem at intermediate calls, if good for 5-10 minutes. However might be easier to have separate generator set for longer layovers at termini (assuming would then need substantial battery if looking at upto hour). Ireland use to use generator units in coaches, as for many years its loco had no ETH so concept is well documented.

It is few years since I have been to Marylebone and had good look around, but possibly the station is more suitable for locos to be at buffer stop end or outer end from noise perspective. Doesn't really matter which end if Chiltern downgrade first class.

 

[northernbelle]

Doesn't Chiltern's DVT fleet have gen sets fitted for exactly this?

It will be interesting to see how this pans out - the answer is definitely not a 'fait accompli' at this stage - I think the DfT would sooner remove fleets than pay for them to be reallocated.

If I were a betting man, I could see the Mk 5 sets ending up abroad.

 

[Richard Scott]

Doesn't Chiltern's DVT fleet have gen sets fitted for exactly this?

It will be interesting to see how this pans out - the answer is definitely not a 'fait accompli' at this stage - I think the DfT would sooner remove fleets than pay for them to be reallocated.

If I were a betting man, I could see the Mk 5 sets ending up abroad.

If they want to remove fleets then replacing mk3s with 175s isn't achieving that as 175s currently removed!

 

[HSTEd]

WTB-ÖBB doesn’t need the extra jumper cable that the Mark 5s have - it’s all done using the standard UIC jumpers - so assume they are different?

A cyberattack on my employer has left me unable to get hold of the coupling/connector diagrams, but I believe the Mark 5s on sleeper duties make use of the same spec drawn up for the Nightstar Stock. Not sure what they use on the daytime ones, but its probably different again!

EDIT: Apparently Wire Train Bus is a european standard similar in concept to the ECP braking spec being pushed in North America for freight use.

 

[43096]

A cyberattack on my employer has left me unable to get hold of the coupling/connector diagrams, but I believe the Mark 5s on sleeper duties make use of the same spec drawn up for the Nightstar Stock.

That would make sense as the Class 92s were obviously set up for Nightstar from new.

Not sure what they use on the daytime ones, but its probably different again!

Almost certainly!

 

[warwickshire]

If Chiltern could delay further and introduce into service say May 2025, rather than December 2024, bit of a outsider could the 5 car ex Meridens be used from Emr instead???.

 

[The Planner]

Regardless they’d have nowhere to go, OOC itself isn’t designed for Chiltern services to terminate, there are no free platforms, and there certainly isn’t space for them on the lines into Paddington, or the platforms in Paddington.

They would have their own seperate platform(s), not in the main complex.

 

[Philip]

If loco-hauled coaches are ruled out, surely for a number of reaaons the surplus 221s or 222s would be the best option for multiple units?

Without a specialised heavy maintenance depot & regime, the 175s would be better off on short-distance quiet routes without any intensive diagrams.

 

[JonathanH]

If Chiltern could delay further and introduce into service say May 2025, rather than December 2024, bit of a outsider could the 5 car ex Meridens be used from Emr instead???.

They simply don't offer the right sort of capacity for the route for the length of train.

 

[Lurcheroo]

They simply don't offer the right sort of capacity for the route for the length of train.

Would be over 100 less seats compared to the 5 car MK5’s or 5 car 175’s.

 

[SynthD]

Without a specialised heavy maintenance depot & regime, the 175s would be better off on short-distance quiet routes without any intensive diagrams.

The current locos appear to live in Stourbridge, this depot would probably accommodate the result of this selection.

 

[Class15]

The current locos appear to live in Stourbridge, this depot would probably accommodate the result of this selection.

Isn’t Stourbridge the 139 depot and the 68s are maintained at Wembley?