Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Energy]

They have two tenders out.
One is for brand new bi mode units to replace some 165s on Aylesbury routes to be replaced around 2027.

They have 3, 2 are for December 2027 for new battery units and new/converted low-emission units, both 30-70 units.

I think it's highly likely we see the Mk5as on the CML

Highly? It depends on the silencer mods to qualify as being quieter than their current 68 sets and the tender requires possible 5/6 car operation, it's written for the class 175s with mk5as being a secondary option.

It also depends on the 68s being available, as DRS is retiring its heritage fleet it'll want 68s for its operations.

 

[Vanmanyo]

it's written for the class 175s with mk5as being a secondary option.

Except from the fact Chiltern have said to the DFT they don't want the 175s (this comes from several management staff from Chiltern).
It's down to the DFT but Chiltern want the Mk5as.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2023 ==

It also depends on the 68s being available, as DRS is retiring its heritage fleet it'll want 68s for its operations.

DRS are replacing these with 66s, and they'll get the current Chiltern 68s back anyway as they aren't compatible with the Mk5as I believe

 

[Energy]

Except from the fact Chiltern have said to the DFT they don't want the 175s (this comes from several management staff from Chiltern).

If that's true then great, I'd like to see the 68s and MK5as get use (with the necessary noise modifications) but I'm not really sure why Chiltern management would want them when they've been problematic at TPE.

DRS are replacing these with 66s

Are they? DRS lost 4 of its 66s at the end of 2022.

and they'll get the current Chiltern 68s back anyway as they aren't compatible with the Mk5as I believe

Yes, the TPE 68s had modifications to make them compatible.

 

[Vanmanyo]

I'm not really sure why Chiltern management would want them when they've been problematic at TPE

I think they would want them because
A) It would give them a huge capacity increase (without risk of being burnt to death like the 175s), potential to displace 168s on some diagrams and just generally increasing capacity
B) they would be easier to train as Chiltern already have drivers trained on 68s, and with it being a much smaller company, training drives should be cheaper and easier. I believe the main issue with tpe was staff more than anything

 

[JonathanH]

A) It would give them a huge capacity increase (without risk of being burnt to death like the 175s), potential to displace 168s on some diagrams and just generally increasing capacity

Running 5-car Mk5 sets instead of 6-car Mk3 sets won't give a capacity increase.

B) they would be easier to train as Chiltern already have drivers trained on 68s, and with it being a much smaller company, training drives should be cheaper and easier. I believe the main issue with tpe was staff more than anything

How widespread is class 68 knowledge amongst traincrew at Chiltern to actually start using them on more diagrams than the current limited usage? The driver knowledge thread suggests that only Stourbridge and Marylebone drivers know them so still a significant training exercise.

 

[paul1609]

The Settle-Carlisle was a 90mph railway in steam days especially during electrification north of Preston. Diverted double headed class 50s regularly maintained this speed north of Kirkby Stephen and even exceeded this on straighter parts of the route.
Apart from installation of intermediate block signals to accommodate the increase in coal traffic, signal braking distances have not not been reduced since steam finished. Hot axle box detectors are few and far between on this route as shown by the seized axle box on the cement train from Clitheroe derailed at Petterill Bridge Junction in Carlisle having travelled 80 miles from Clitheroe with the handbrake partly on.
I was told by a NR track worker that linespeed could easily be raised to 75 or even 80mph without difficulty as it is a paper exercise but the request would have to come from Northern and pay for the paperwork. He didn't say if it was DMU speed limit or overall.

Its much the same on Marshlink down on the south coast where the speed limit was reduced from 90 mph to 60 and in some parts 40 to match the performance of the thumper demus. The issue now is sighting of the user worked and footpath crossings which prevents the speed limit being restored. Weve now had 100 mph dmus for 20 years doing 40 mph between Doleham and Ore.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Running 5-car Mk5 sets instead of 6-car Mk3 sets won't give a capacity increase.

but if you run more mk5 sets (lets day double to diagrams than the mk3s today), that leads to more 168s being displaced increasing capacity. Also, the mk3s only have 5 coaches of standard class and one declassified business zone (I would imagine Chiltern would either declassify the Mk5a first or just replace it with a spare standard coach if that is possible). Aren't the mk5as longer than the mk3s anyway with more seats? I would imagine so as it's all about cramming seats in nowadays

 

[Clansman]

Aren't the mk5as longer than the mk3s anyway with more seats? I would imagine so as it's all about cramming seats in nowadays

Mk5s are shorter than Mk3s as they were designed to allow 16 equally-length coaches into Euston for the sleeper order.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Mk5s are shorter than Mk3s as they were designed to allow 16 equally-length coaches into Euston for the sleeper order.

Between the Mk5as and Mark 3s there is under a 1 metre difference between the two.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There would be the option of reseating them to a higher density layout and converting 1st to Standard. That would make the capacity about the same.

 

[Vanmanyo]

I would imagine 1st would be converted or just left without first branding yes

 

[CyrusWuff]

I would imagine 1st would be converted or just left without first branding yes

Or Chiltern - assuming they take the Mk5s on - would rebrand it as Business Zone in line with the Mk3s and start charging for it again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or Chiltern - assuming they take the Mk5s on - would rebrand it as Business Zone in line with the Mk3s and start charging for it again.

Doubt it, that's all long been abandoned. More Standard seats would be more useful.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Running 5-car Mk5 sets instead of 6-car Mk3 sets won't give a capacity increase.

Well... it would... the standards seat the same number of people as the Mk3s, the first would no doubt get refitted as a standard since Chiltern are a one class operator and if all the Birmingham services were turned over assuming the silencer tests work you's no longer have 3 car and 4 car DMUs running those services, so while you'd be about 70 seats down compared to a Mk3 rake, you'd be about 70 seats up on everything else. More importantly, it would be consistent across all services which would mean people wouldn't have to actively try to avoid services they know would only be three cars.

 

[JonathanH]

if all the Birmingham services were turned over assuming the silencer tests work you's no longer have 3 car and 4 car DMUs running those services, so while you'd be about 70 seats down compared to a Mk3 rake, you'd be about 70 seats up on everything else. More importantly, it would be consistent across all services which would mean people wouldn't have to actively try to avoid services they know would only be three cars.

Firstly, demand is not consistent across all Chiltern services. Three and four car 168s can be sufficient on many services, and putting the extra costs of leasing additional rolling stock, fuel and extra traincrew on the operation is not clever.

Secondly, the current longer formations presumably run where they are needed, which include both six and seven car 168 formations and the Mark 3s. I get that the enthusiast viewpoint wants to see 68s and Mk5s back out in service, but they are too inflexible to fit with an operation that correctly makes use of different length formations to align with expected passenger needs. 5-car sets of 68+Mk5 on all Birmingham services is a cut in capacity.

Third, what is the depot situation for 68+Mk5? I realise the current 68+Mk3 go to Wembley for servicing but is there enough depot capacity to use more hauled sets and their locomotives?

It is right to bin the Mark 3s, but a way needs to be found to do so that offers best value to the taxpayer, and is neutral or better in terms of long term subsidy.

 

[12LDA28C]

I honestly don't understand why Chiltern would want to go down the MK5/68 route - would this be to replace the 165s given the troubles that Chiltern have been experiencing with them lately or instead to replace the MK3s if this is indeed regarding a MK5 procurement?

No, a tender has already gone out for a new design to replace the 165s. There's a bit of a difference between a 75mph suburban commuter unit and a 100mph train for Chiltern Mainline services which is what is specified here.

 

[Rail Quest]

No, a tender has already gone out for a new design to replace the 165s. There's a bit of a difference between a 75mph suburban commuter unit and a 100mph train for Chiltern Mainline services which is what is specified here.

Yes but my thoughts were more along the lines of cascading 168s which would in turn replace the 165s. Of course, the idea that these would be used as a MK3 replacement makes more sense logically.

Even then though - if these were to be used as a MK3 replacement, are Chiltern expecting to change up the carriages to create 6 or even 7 carriage sets rather than the current five-car configuration? The MK5a sets seat 261 standard and 30 first currently I believe. I'm not sure on the seating capacity in each individual carriage but 261/4=65.25 so there's on average 65 seats in each standard carriage. Lets say the first class carriage is converted to standard at the same rate of 65 for the sake of argument and you'd increase capacity in the sets to 326. How does this compare with the current Chiltern MK3 consists in terms of capacity?

 

[12LDA28C]

Even then though - if these were to be used as a MK3 replacement, are Chiltern expecting to change up the carriages to create 6 or even 7 carriage sets rather than the current five-car configuration? The MK5a sets seat 261 standard and 30 first currently I believe. I'm not sure on the seating capacity in each individual carriage but 261/4=65.25 so there's on average 65 seats in each standard carriage. Lets say the first class carriage is converted to standard at the same rate of 65 for the sake of argument and you'd increase capacity in the sets to 326. How does this compare with the current Chiltern MK3 consists in terms of capacity?

Who knows? Is it even possible to do this as the Mk5s are designed to run in a fixed formation. Also some stations on the mainline route will not taken seven coaches. Discussion of whether a reconfiguration of the Mk5 FC vehicle to standard is discussed upthread, which would provide more seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, a tender has already gone out for a new design to replace the 165s. There's a bit of a difference between a 75mph suburban commuter unit and a 100mph train for Chiltern Mainline services which is what is specified here.

There's not that much difference given that Chiltern's operation is basically a near-copy of LNR's bar the lack of wires. The Class 195 would be suitable for all Chiltern services, for example, in sufficient numbers. As would, if you shoved the wires up, the 350/2.

It may have pretensions towards being InterCity but it's not really.

 

[12LDA28C]

It may have pretensions towards being InterCity but it's not really.

I never suggested it was. It's primarily a commuter railway however since the Evergreen projects it became a viable alternative to people travelling from Birmingham to London, with 100mph trains making the journey in little over 90 minutes although of course that is now a distant memory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I never suggested it was. It's primarily a commuter railway however since the Evergreen projects it became a viable alternative to people travelling from Birmingham to London, with 100mph trains making the journey in little over 90 minutes although of course that is now a distant memory.

Certainly, but as I said doors-at-thirds 100mph mechanical transmission DMUs in 3 and 4-car lengths are suitable for their entire operation. They don't need, to slightly misuse the name, a "Pretendolino". It might be that taking on end doored stock (be that Mk5 or 175) is the cheapest and most expedient option like it was with the Mk3s, but if there were 170s available I don't doubt they'd just jump for those.

 

[43096]

If that's true then great, I'd like to see the 68s and MK5as get use (with the necessary noise modifications) but I'm not really sure why Chiltern management would want them when they've been problematic at TPE.

Let’s be honest, it’s not really down to Chiltern. This is about DfT saving face after TPE ditched them.

The problems at TPE are very largely down to the operator - Beacon are saying the issues are dealt with (and there’s no off the record comments to the contrary, apparently).

 

[WSMP]

I never suggested it was. It's primarily a commuter railway however since the Evergreen projects it became a viable alternative to people travelling from Birmingham to London, with 100mph trains making the journey in little over 90 minutes although of course that is now a distant memory.

With Evergreen the idea was travelling between London and Birmingham with no noticeable time difference against Virgin to attract a broader range of time sensitive customers, but with Chiltern having much lower costs and therefore lower fares. I've no idea why the current management stepped back from it, they were making good money from it.

The Chiltern Mk3s were supposed to be standard class only with a trolley service, but they had to use the WSMR ones when DB refused to fund refurbishing more Mk3s for Chiltern. Ironically Chiltern only bought Mk3s because the ROSCOs didn't have any suitable trains and the manufacturers wouldn't make any due to changing emissions laws (or something like that as I recall).

There's quite a few options for Chiltern:
EMR's Class 222's are about to be replaced, 23 5 car sets
Avanti's Class 221 are about to be replaced, 18 5 car sets
Class 180s, you can knock together 11 5 cars formations
Mk5a: 13 5 car sets

My feeling is that the note about "less noise" means they don't want the Mk5a. The Class 168s are DOO South of Banbury, which saved a lot of money, I wonder what the plan is from that aspect?

 

[43096]

There's quite a few options for Chiltern:
EMR's Class 222's are about to be replaced, 23 5 car sets

Given thed elays to the 810 project, they're almost certainly not available in time to meet the requirement.

Avanti's Class 221 are about to be replaced, 18 5 car sets

Of which 7 are already committed to XC. Would they be available in time, though?

Class 180s, you can knock together 11 5 cars formations

You can't. There's 10 sets on long term lease to Grand Central, which leaves four sets - insufficient to cover the requirement.
You have missed 175s off your list - they can be paired up to form 5 or 6 car formations and are available.

Mk5a: 13 5 car sets

My feeling is that the note about "less noise" means they don't want the Mk5a. The Class 168s are DOO South of Banbury, which saved a lot of money, I wonder what the plan is from that aspect?

I think it's the other way. The noise requirement is about modifications to the 68s to reduce noise. This is clearly aimed at getting the Mark 5As back on lease (with 175s in the mix to make it competitive) and is driven by DfT (not Chiltern) as a way to reduce the embarrasment in an election year of having almost new trains stood off lease.

 

[JonathanH]

The Class 168s are DOO South of Banbury, which saved a lot of money, I wonder what the plan is from that aspect?

Surely they will continue to primarily use 168s on most services because of this.

They literally don't have an establishment of guards to start running all services on the Birmingham route with guards south of Banbury. Clearly there are sufficient guards for operation north of Banbury.

driven by DfT (not Chiltern) as a way to reduce the embarrasment in an election year of having almost new trains stood off lease.

Why should there be any embarrassment about having surplus and less than ideal rolling stock not in use?

No one points at empty office blocks and retail units and claims that is the government's issue, and that they ought to provide money for retailers or employers to start using them. Lease voids happen, and they happen for a good reason when the wrong product is put to the market.

It is not government's job to avoid lease voids, indeed that could be seen as misappropriation of taxpayer funds.

 

[12LDA28C]

My feeling is that the note about "less noise" means they don't want the Mk5a. The Class 168s are DOO South of Banbury, which saved a lot of money, I wonder what the plan is from that aspect?

The general feeling around the industry is that Chiltern certainly are interested in the Mk5s, dependent on the Class 68 noise reduction modifications being successful.

Class 168s (and indeed 165s) being DOO south of Banbury is nothing to do with 'saving money', it's purely down to a historical arrangement which required guards north thereof. LHCS use guards throughout.

 

[JonathanH]

Class 168s (and indeed 165s) being DOO south of Banbury is nothing to do with 'saving money', it's purely down to a historical arrangement which required guards north thereof. LHCS use guards throughout.

Total Route Modernisation in the era of Network South East brought DOO to the lines Chiltern then operated when the 165 fleet was introduced. That was undoubtedly part of running a more efficient railway.

Once Chiltern services started running north of Banbury, they needed guards for that operation.

It is somewhat obvious that and change to the rolling stock that required guards on more services south of Banbury would cost more money. Setting up a guard establishment at Marylebone for around 50 guards to run every Birmingham service with a guard south of Banbury would run to millions of pounds on an annual basis.

 

[12LDA28C]

Total Route Modernisation in the era of Network South East brought DOO to the lines Chiltern then operated when the 165 fleet was introduced. That was undoubtedly part of running a more efficient railway.

Once Chiltern services started running north of Banbury, they needed guards for that operation.

It is somewhat obvious that and change to the rolling stock that required guards on more services south of Banbury would cost more money. Setting up a guard establishment at Marylebone for around 50 guards to run every Birmingham service with a guard south of Banbury would run to millions of pounds on an annual basis.

I'm interested to see your calculations for the requirement for '50 guards' at Marylebone to run every Birmingham service with a guard.

 

[43096]

Why should there be any embarrassment about having surplus and less than ideal rolling stock not in use?

No one points at empty office blocks and retail units and claims that is the government's issue, and that they ought to provide money for retailers or employers to start using them. Lease voids happen, and they happen for a good reason when the wrong product is put to the market.

It is not government's job to avoid lease voids, indeed that could be seen as misappropriation of taxpayer funds.

Why? Because the reason the Mark 5As exist is down to Government - LHCS was specified as part of the TPE ITT when they were ordered. The decision to end their use with TPE was down to the Government's own DOR organisation. That is completely different to empty offices and retail units which were not ordered by, specified by or used by Government. Government paw prints are all over the Mark 5 decisions - so yes, there is a considerable embarrassment factor about them (much like was the case with the 707s).

 

[Philip]

How about Chiltern taking enough mk5 sets to replace the mk3 sets, plus an extra set which can then be broken up to provide a 6th coach in most/all of the operational mk5 sets?

Then send the remaining mk5 sets to Cross Country to use on Manchester-Bournemouth, freeing up Voyagers to strengthen other routes & potentially introduce new services?