Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Budge1980]

Does what happened yesterday (05/03/2025) improve the chances of Chiltern getting these units? Being the problems out of Paddington in the morning and out of Euston in the evening?

As mentioned many times on here already, Chiltern already struggles to meet capacity to Oxford and Birmingham especially when having people transfer over from the main providers to the secondary route.

if I was the Chiltern‘s management, I’d have already been on the phone, Teams and E-mail this morning to the DFT saying ”see- give us these units. it’s happened again that we at Chiltern have had to save the day”.

 

[The Planner]

Does what happened yesterday (05/03/2025) improve the chances of Chiltern getting these units? Being the problems out of Paddington in the morning and out of Euston in the evening?

As mentioned many times on here already, Chiltern already struggles to meet capacity to Oxford and Birmingham especially when having people transfer over from the main providers to the secondary route.

if I was the Chiltern‘s management, I’d have already been on the phone, Teams and E-mail this morning to the DFT saying ”see- give us these units. it’s happened again that we at Chiltern have had to save the day”.

Getting new stock doesn't work on the "just in case" basis.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Getting new stock doesn't work on the "just in case" basis.

It definitely doesn't - but it is certainly becoming more obvious generally that Chiltern is very short of capacity.

 

[JamesT]

It definitely doesn't - but it is certainly becoming more obvious generally that Chiltern is very short of capacity.

But having more units that can work with their existing fleet is far more likely to improve capacity than adding on a microfleet of loco carriages.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

But having more units that can work with their existing fleet is far more likely to improve capacity than adding on a microfleet of loco carriages.

Isn't the idea not to simply replace the Mk3 like for like but to have additional rakes as well, thus releasing some 16x to add carriages to other existing services?

 

[JonathanH]

But having more units that can work with their existing fleet is far more likely to improve capacity than adding on a microfleet of loco carriages.

Sourcing units would be a much better idea than taking on the 68+Mk5s which are at best a very uneasy compromise for the fact that there are no units available.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It definitely doesn't - but it is certainly becoming more obvious generally that Chiltern is very short of capacity.

I think it is the post Covid cut back and recovery imbalance. Plus a desire from on high (DfT) to not spend money. It is affecting a lot of operators I feel.

We have expensive new trains from Hitachi.
We have other new trains that might be suffering from being "cheap" from Derby.
Generally getting implemented late.

We have spare EMUs rotting in sidings for want of a few suburban electrification schemes - I think the Welsh Valley could have used 321s and tram trains could have been ordered later when on street running was rather more imminent. Delaying the risk (see below Mk5s micro fleet).

For this topic - the Mk5s micro fleet :-
We have a relatively small fleet of Mk5s that currently rely on locomotives that are "too noisy". But otherwise might be ready to work again immediately instead of rotting in sidings. With hindsight these Mk5s would not exist as TPE should have ordered more 802s instead of having such a mixed fleet. Hindsight because the Mk5s were meant to be ready before the 802s but in the end did not arrive much sooner than the 802s.

I am not pro 802s btw. I think the UK railways has become too dependant on one type of train. We jumped in with both feet ordering too many early on. We had to order enough to justify Hitachi building the new factory at Newton Aycliffe. But we ordered so many that they were even getting built in Italy as well AND now there is a lack of orders. Fools rushed in perhaps.

So it could become a re-using Mk5s vs new 80xs argument just to keep Hitachi alive at Newton Aycliffe. But the Mk5s are ready and waiting if the 68s can be quietened down a bit.

Any news on the class 68 noise abatement ?.
Is it even being pursued ?.
If it is not then I suspect the Mk5s are not going to Chiltern unless another diesel locomotive is found or the deal is so cheap that Chiltern are prepared to wing it for a few more years.

But having more units that can work with their existing fleet is far more likely to improve capacity than adding on a microfleet of loco carriages.

I forgot to say. I doubt anything on the market now would be compatible with what Chiltern already has (165s and 168s). That is unless GWR gave up their 165s and 166s in an effort to replace all of theirs. Just as likely Chiltern are looking at options to replace their 165s.

As @Peter Mugridge says. The ex TPE Mk5s would be enough to cover some of the services the class 168s currently work so relieving pressure on 165s.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

As @Peter Mugridge says. The ex TPE Mk5s would be enough to cover some of the services the class 168s currently work so relieving pressure on 165s.

...and if they take them all "as they are" instead of reforming them, they could cover every Birmingham diagram with three sets on maintenance, and that would provide an overall capacity increase to Birmingham as well as releasing even more 16x for the rest of the services.

Someone on here pointed out a couple of months ago that if the first class carriage was refitted to match the rest of the train ( Chiltern don't do first class anyway these days ) then the capacity would match that of a Mk 3 rake without the need to reform the sets - so there wouldn't be any loss of capacity on the busier Birmingham runs either.

 

[Peter Sarf]

...and if they take them all "as they are" instead of reforming them, they could cover every Birmingham diagram with three sets on maintenance, and that would provide an overall capacity increase to Birmingham as well as releasing even more 16x for the rest of the services.

Someone on here pointed out a couple of months ago that if the first class carriage was refitted to match the rest of the train ( Chiltern don't do first class anyway these days ) then the capacity would match that of a Mk 3 rake without the need to reform the sets - so there wouldn't be any loss of capacity on the busier Birmingham runs either.

Crickey - that's thirteen sets of Mk5s if they do not need to re-form them.
Mind you that will never happen unless the class 68s are getting quietened or replaced - Thats a lot of 68 activity at Marylebone otherwise !.

 

[craigybagel]

...and if they take them all "as they are" instead of reforming them, they could cover every Birmingham diagram with three sets on maintenance, and that would provide an overall capacity increase to Birmingham as well as releasing even more 16x for the rest of the services.

Someone on here pointed out a couple of months ago that if the first class carriage was refitted to match the rest of the train ( Chiltern don't do first class anyway these days ) then the capacity would match that of a Mk 3 rake without the need to reform the sets - so there wouldn't be any loss of capacity on the busier Birmingham runs either.

Crickey - that's thirteen sets of Mk5s if they do not need to re-form them.
Mind you that will never happen unless the class 68s are getting quietened or replaced - Thats a lot of 68 activity at Marylebone otherwise !.

So long as you can persuade the DFT to pay for the trains, and for all the guards you'd need to work them....

Methinks a bit of realism is needed here. It's hard to see anything much beyond a like for like replacement of the MKIIIs on their existing diagrams.

 

[Peter Sarf]

So long as you can persuade the DFT to pay for the trains, and for all the guards you'd need to work them....

Methinks a bit of realism is needed here. It's hard to see anything much beyond a like for like replacement of the MKIIIs on their existing diagrams.

If the capacity is needed consistently then perhaps it can be justified.

We also have to remember the 165s are getting long in the tooth. More likely it will be strung out until a large new fleet becomes overdue.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Methinks a bit of realism is needed here. It's hard to see anything much beyond a like for like replacement of the MKIIIs on their existing diagrams.

Given that people on the inside have apparently talking about reforming them into nine rakes of six cars, that's still a lot more than a like for like Mk3 replacement, so something of an increase in diagrams must have been factored in to the calculations?

 

[craigybagel]

If the capacity is needed consistently then perhaps it can be justified.

We also have to remember the 165s are getting long in the tooth. More likely it will be strung out until a large new fleet becomes overdue.

There's plenty much older DMUs in service up and down the country. There's also a long history of overcrowded routes being left to suffer

Given that people on the inside have apparently talking about reforming them into nine rakes of six cars, that's still a lot more than a like for like Mk3 replacement, so something of an increase in diagrams must have been factored in to the calculations?

According to this thread, we've been weeks away from an announcement for what feels like years now.

I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm just saying I don't see how it can be likely. Replacing DOO capable units with non DOO capable loco & stock, running out of a station where there are already complaints about the current much more limited use of those locos. In the last couple of years, Chiltern have let 68 knowledge slip from Moor Street drivers, and Banbury - Marylebone route knowledge for Banbury guards. Regaining that is going to be expensive, on top of all the other costs for bringing in MKVs. I know we have a new government in that's a little more easy going on spending, but I'm struggling to see the business case on this one.

I'll be very happy to be proved wrong though.

 

[The exile]

There's plenty much older DMUs in service up and down the country.

Older, yes: “much older”, hardly (depend on your definition of “much”). Quite a lot of those have at the very least the early stages of tender for replacement under way (only GWR’s 150s don’t, IIRC.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

...and if they take them all "as they are" instead of reforming them, they could cover every Birmingham diagram with three sets on maintenance, and that would provide an overall capacity increase to Birmingham as well as releasing even more 16x for the rest of the services.

Someone on here pointed out a couple of months ago that if the first class carriage was refitted to match the rest of the train ( Chiltern don't do first class anyway these days ) then the capacity would match that of a Mk 3 rake without the need to reform the sets - so there wouldn't be any loss of capacity on the busier Birmingham runs either.

Considering the fact that Birmingham is 3tp2h in the off-peak at the moment that could be a good shout. If they did that and capacity became an issue again then surely they could always order more coaches from CAF further down the line?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Okay.

In the spirit of the thread title, where else is scope for use of these ?.
Ideally somewhere not yet using DOO and not sensitive to noise.

 

[brad465]

Okay.

In the spirit of the thread title, where else is scope for use of these ?.
Ideally somewhere not yet using DOO and not sensitive to noise.

GWR could be a shout. Put them on Exeter-Cardiff Central services (as they'll become when the service to Penzance is split at Exeter) and allow the IETs on them to be used on more and longer intercity services. If there's a surplus then the frequency could be increased (at least between Taunton and Bristol); stations like Bridgwater could do with a higher frequency for the area its serving.

 

[Peter Sarf]

GWR could be a shout. Put them on Exeter-Cardiff Central services (as they'll become when the service to Penzance is split at Exeter) and allow the IETs on them to be used on more and longer intercity services. If there's a surplus then the frequency could be increased (at least between Taunton and Bristol); stations like Bridgwater could do with a higher frequency for the area its serving.

Thats a good shout.
I was wondering about Bi-Modes and that might be bearable Cardiff-Exeter (he says trying to remember where the worst banks are).

 

[87015]

so have TPE actually handed them back yet for anyone else to take on, is this the month or is the situation the same as last year?

 

[craigybagel]

Older, yes: “much older”, hardly (depend on your definition of “much”). Quite a lot of those have at the very least the early stages of tender for replacement under way (only GWR’s 150s don’t, IIRC.

That's a fair point. I'd forgotten just how far away the early 90s are by now!

My point still stands though; as you say most of the earlier stock is still only at tender stage. It seems to me like it would be a strange decision to rush replacing the 165s with such an expensive option.

Okay.

In the spirit of the thread title, where else is scope for use of these ?.
Ideally somewhere not yet using DOO and not sensitive to noise.

A year ago I said TfW - but they've put a lot of effort into the 67s/MKIVs and it's starting to pay dividends. ScotRail to replace HSTs would be my next guess; the devolved TOCs have a lot more leeway and they would seem to tick a lot of boxes. But the smart money seems to be on them holding out for 222s.

To be honest, I think if there was an obvious option, we'd probably already know about it. And I'd still say Chiltern is a likely option; possibly even the most likely. It's just I don't think they'll take on anywhere near the full fleet.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That's a fair point. I'd forgotten just how far away the early 90s are by now!

Argh - don't remind me !.

My point still stands though; as you say most of the earlier stock is still only at tender stage. It seems to me like it would be a strange decision to rush replacing the 165s with such an expensive option.

I must admit I would expect a grander long term strategy to replace the 165s etc with two fleets. One long distance DMUs for Marylebone to beyond Oxford (maybe nearer) and a more suburban like DMU for the rest. Then where does any electrification fit in I wonder - its not straight forward.

A year ago I said TfW - but they've put a lot of effort into the 67s/MKIVs and it's starting to pay dividends. ScotRail to replace HSTs would be my next guess; the devolved TOCs have a lot more leeway and they would seem to tick a lot of boxes. But the smart money seems to be on them holding out for 222s.

To be honest, I think if there was an obvious option, we'd probably already know about it. And I'd still say Chiltern is a likely option; possibly even the most likely. It's just I don't think they'll take on anywhere near the full fleet.

Now that might be the sticking point. If Chiltern are proposing to only take a proportion of the Mk5s (be that re-formed or otherwise) I can see the ROSCO holding out for a TOC that would use the whole fleet (13 sets of 5 cars) as it is. Its a microfleet already but splitting it up makes it worse. Also Chiltern might be going for a lease that is only as long as they think they can get away with the noisy 68s, The ROSCO might be holding out for a longer lease.

 

[Harpo]

GWR could be a shout. Put them on Exeter-Cardiff Central services

Or maybe some 442s for the Cornish branches might be more practical?

 

[craigybagel]

I must admit I would expect a grander long term strategy to replace the 165s etc with two fleets. One long distance DMUs for Marylebone to beyond Oxford (maybe nearer) and a more suburban like DMU for the rest. Then where does any electrification fit in I wonder - its not straight forward.

It's a line that realistically should be near the top priority for electrification, which would make the debate a lot easier. Sadly there doesn't seem to be much happening on that front?

Now that might be the sticking point. If Chiltern are proposing to only take a proportion of the Mk5s (be that re-formed or otherwise) I can see the ROSCO holding out for a TOC that would use the whole fleet (13 sets of 5 cars) as it is. Its a microfleet already but splitting it up makes it worse. Also Chiltern might be going for a lease that is only as long as they think they can get away with the noisy 68s, The ROSCO might be holding out for a longer lease.

I suspect that may well be the issue. On paper, a like for like replacement MKIII to MKV seems pretty sensible, and you'd think it would have been done by now - but if the ROSCO is preferring to go all or nothing, it would explain the delay.

But the truth of the matter is, there is no obvious candidate to take on the entire fleet, at least not in the real world where finances are limited.

 

[aar0]

Could the MkVs not work with a quieter loco? 67s?

 

[D365]

Could the MkVs not work with a quieter loco? 67s?

Only the ex-TPE 68s are fitted with the CAF multiple working.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It's a line that realistically should be near the top priority for electrification, which would make the debate a lot easier. Sadly there doesn't seem to be much happening on that front?

I know the tunnel just beyond Marylebone does not have enough clearance - amazingly for the last mainline built in the UK before HS1. It would be a candidate for discontinuous electrification.

But lines using both DC 3rd (and 4th) rail and AC are a complicated affair. Would be better to give the underground dual voltage trains and convert the above ground sections to AC. That is so that Chiltern can be AC (not the other way round because no new DC electrification is likely to be allowed).

I suspect that may well be the issue. On paper, a like for like replacement MKIII to MKV seems pretty sensible, and you'd think it would have been done by now - but if the ROSCO is preferring to go all or nothing, it would explain the delay.

But the truth of the matter is, there is no obvious candidate to take on the entire fleet, at least not in the real world where finances are limited.

I suppose if the Mk5s all went to GWR and then Chiltern get a load of cascaded 165s would that free up enough 168s to work solely to Birmingham ?.

Could the MkVs not work with a quieter loco? 67s?

Been ruled out before. I think 68s have more power. Certainly there would be conversion costs/issues - iirc the 67s do not have a capability to control the Mk5s as it needs a more involved backwards compatibility conversion. Also would mean crew training.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

I know the tunnel just beyond Marylebone does not have enough clearance - amazingly for the last mainline built in the UK before HS1. It would be a candidate for discontinuous electrification.

But lines using both DC 3rd (and 4th) rail and AC are a complicated affair. Would be better to give the underground dual voltage trains and convert the above ground sections to AC. That is so that Chiltern can be AC (not the other way round because no new DC electrification is likely to be allowed).

I think it'd make much more sense if a Chiltern electrification went down the route of AC/4th rail EMUs. You'd wire it from Marylebone to Harrow-on-the-Hill where Aylesbury trains would run on 4th rail as far as Amersham where the wires would resume (you would probably need to bond the centre rail to the running rails here but that isn't really an issue). Trains for Birmingham would be on overheads throughout. The LUL 4th rail and AC OLE should be able co-exist on adjacent lines from Finchley Road until Harrow (same thing happens between Bromley by Bow and Upminster seemingly without issue).

The reason I think the dual voltage should be on the NR side of things is because you'd have to procure new trains for the Met line fitted with a pantograph, transformer and rectifier only to be used on one relatively short stretch of track (short in comparison to the whole Met line network).

And if you meant converting more of the Met network to AC (Finchley Road to Amersham/Chesham/Uxbridge/Watford) then it starts getting like quite a big, expensive, and highly disruptive job for not much benefit to the LUL since they're already an electrified railway. Also you have to consider the adjacent Jubilee line and the Piccadilly line for the Uxbridge branch. It makes so much more sense to put the burden of dual voltage on the NR trains because they will mainly be using the on-board transformer and rectifier that 25kV AC needs most of the time.

Dual voltage trains like this typically have 750V motors driven by a motor drive that requires a DC input. That DC input can either be connected to the shoegear for 3rd rail running, or to the rectifier and 25000/750 transformer for overhead use. In that way you see that DC EMUs are technically cheaper and simpler on board.

This is all by the by though. We all know that if any Chiltern electrification comes about, it will definitely make use of batteries. At least for Marylebone to Harrow but probably further on as well.

 

[Richard Scott]

Could the MkVs not work with a quieter loco? 67s?

Unlikely that would happen as 67s less fuel efficient (as far as I'm aware despite their power deficit still use 10% more fuel than a 68).

 

[sad1e]

How hard would it be to convert a 68 into an 88, aren't they quite similar locomotives.
if you could convert 68's into 88s wouldn't it futureproof these sets and you would only use the diesel of the 88 through the tunnels out of Marylebone and use ohle when the Chiltern lines are electrified

 

[Class15]

How hard would it be to convert a 68 into an 88, aren't they quite similar locomotives.
if you could convert 68's into 88s wouldn't it futureproof these sets and you would only use the diesel of the 88 through the tunnels out of Marylebone and use ohle when the Chiltern lines are electrified

Slight problem, which is that the 88s don’t have enough diesel range for the whole chiltern route. You could probably only get 88s once more was electrified.

(Also, I’ve always thought that third rail is the best idea for the tunnels out of Marylebone, particularly for already dual-voltage Aylesbury services)