Chiltern MK3 replacement fleet possibilities?

[JonathanH]

Also, the 175's aren't exactly ideal for quick, high volume loading through the end-doors. Will only increase station dwell time.

Neither are Mk3s, nor Mk5s, but what helps is that the Mk3s are currently kept to high peak services with a high proportion of long distance travel, leaving 168s to work the other services with more frequent stops.

 

[100andthirty]

It has been suggested that Beacon have a fix for the noisy class 68s

 

[Mollman]

What about 222s coming free at East Midlands? Especially as from the Modern Railways Scottish feature it sounds like Transport Scotland/ ScotRail aren't chomping at the bit to replace the HSTs.

 

[Mikey C]

The 175s surely make more sense. Chiltern originally only chose loco hauled Mk3 carriages because they were available, if there had been spare 170s they would have grabbed them instead.

 

[renegademaster]

I, for one, will enjoy contract award immensely.

If the Mk5s are selected, there will be a political sh.tstorm as modern trains taken away from long suffering TPE customers are redeployed to serve well off Buckinghamshire commuters.

Alternatively, furious and influential home counties folk railing against knackered, combustible Welsh cast-offs that are only fit for the scrapyard being foisted on them.

It's not exactly taken away when TPE have already abandoned them

 

[Philip]

The 175s surely make more sense. Chiltern originally only chose loco hauled Mk3 carriages because they were available, if there had been spare 170s they would have grabbed them instead.

There isn't a suitable maintenance depot on the route and would be expensive to build a new one, plus q full training programme woud be needed. The last year has proven the 175s need regular heavy maintenance to keep reliability good.

 

[fgwrich]

I, for one, will enjoy contract award immensely.

If the Mk5s are selected, there will be a political sh.tstorm as modern trains taken away from long suffering TPE customers are redeployed to serve well off Buckinghamshire commuters.

Alternatively, furious and influential home counties folk railing against knackered, combustible Welsh cast-offs that are only fit for the scrapyard being foisted on them.

It's not exactly taken away when TPE have already abandoned them

Not only that, but one look at Chiltern’s social media feeds will tell you that the so called “well off Buckinghamshire commuters” aren’t exactly enjoying a life of luxury either. A lot of overcrowding and regular cancellations have been happening on the Chiltern lines over the last year or so, not helped by various units being out of service*.

*eg Chiltern having similar parts availability issues with the Turbo’s for one thing.

 

[185143]

I, for one, will enjoy contract award immensely.

If the Mk5s are selected, there will be a political sh.tstorm as modern trains taken away from long suffering TPE customers are redeployed to serve well off Buckinghamshire commuters.

Alternatively, furious and influential home counties folk railing against knackered, combustible Welsh cast-offs that are only fit for the scrapyard being foisted on them.

How history would be repeating itself!

We've been here before with 170/3s and TPE gaining 156s leased from Northern.

 

[Benjwri]

It's not exactly taken away when TPE have already abandoned them

Although obviously it’s not that simple, TPE didn’t give them up, they will have been told to by the DfT, and the DfT will effectively be giving them to Chiltern.

 

[renegademaster]

Although obviously it’s not that simple, TPE didn’t give them up, they will have been told to by the DfT, and the DfT will effectively be giving them to Chiltern.

They where told not to because it wasn't making economic sense for them , not because some scheming civil servant wanted them for down south.
The prime issue at TPE is not enough staff not insufficient rolling stock

 

[Snow1964]

Taking it bit by bit from tender spec

The Chiltern Railway Company Limited ("Chiltern"), is seeking proposals from established rolling stock owners for the leasing and associated maintenance services of between 25 and 70 of their existing vehicles to operate intercity and regional services on the Chiltern Main line.

So only the longer distance services

The vehicles are expected to have the following characteristics: • Comprised of either self-powered multiple units or coaching vehicles that can be hauled by locomotive; • Be able to be utilised in fixed formations of between 5 and 6 passenger vehicles or sub-multiples of;

Fixed formations, so pairs of 3car units are unlikely, and suggests to me would expect it to be gangwayed throughout, otherwise would give option of two short formations capable of being coupled. Although something like a surplus 5car voyager would meet this

• Capable of operating at 100mph; • (in relation to driving vehicles) fitted with the TPWS Mark 4 protection system (this is a requirement of the Chiltern Main Line); • Have power operated centrally-locked doors;

100mph rules out sprinters, but will have to bow to others which version of TPWS various stock is fitted with

• Compliant with accessibility legislation; • Compatible with the existing infrastructure on the Chiltern Main Line;

So no modifications to platforms or ramp positions

• Offer passengers a high-level of on-board comfort including full HVAC systems, on-board CCTV and real-time passenger information;

Most stock built in last 25 years has this anyway

• Deliver a reduction in ambient noise compared to the rolling stock that operates Chiltern's existing London to Birmingham services (Class 68 locomotive and MKIII coaches).

So 68s need new exhaust silencers (which are probably desirable anyway)

• Any diesel-powered solutions shall be compatible with alternative fuels, such as HVO, from the service introduction date. The above is not an exhaustive list of Chiltern's requirements and further information will be provided in the procurement documentation.

Shouldn't be a problem

The rolling stock proposed shall be available to support a driver training programme within 2024 and available to enter passenger service by early 2025.

So something that isn't available in 2024 for training, or for full service in 2025 because might still be needed elsewhere isn't an option

The vehicles (including provision of a locomotive where a locomotive and coaches option is proposed) will be leased by Chiltern will an expected lease duration of between 3 and 12 years.

12 years from 2025 is 2037, assuming a nominal 35 year life effectively rules out anything built before 2002. Although maybe could stretch that a bit

Replacement (Existing) Rolling Stock for Chiltern Railways [Notice]

The Chiltern Railway Company Limited ("Chiltern"), is seeking proposals from established rolling sto... A Utilities Contract Notice by Chiltern Railway. Value 300M.

bidstats.uk

 

[Energy]

Fixed formations, so pairs of 3car units are unlikely, and suggests to me would expect it to be gangwayed throughout, otherwise would give option of two short formations capable of being coupled. Although something like a surplus 5car voyager would meet this

"Or sub-multiples of" - fixed formation 5 or 6 cars is acceptable as is units which can be coupled together to form 5 or 6 cars.

Surplus 221s is an interesting (if unlikely) shout. Central Rivers a little far away.

 

[Leeds1970]

They where told not to because it wasn't making economic sense for them , not because some scheming civil servant wanted them for down south.
The prime issue at TPE is not enough staff not insufficient rolling stock

i dont know about TPE south but Rolling stock is very much an issue on the north route, many services that were promised to be 6 car class 185s turn up as 3 cars resulting in severe over crowding - just like the good old days.

 

[D6975]

Surplus 221s is an interesting (if unlikely) shout. Central Rivers a little far away.

Not really. Have you seen how many 220/221s run ecs from New St to Central Rivers each night?

 

[3141]

I, for one, will enjoy contract award immensely.

If the Mk5s are selected, there will be a political sh.tstorm as modern trains taken away from long suffering TPE customers are redeployed to serve well off Buckinghamshire commuters.

Alternatively, furious and influential home counties folk railing against knackered, combustible Welsh cast-offs that are only fit for the scrapyard being foisted on them.

By no means all passengers who live in Buckinghamshire are well-off; and Chiltern serves Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and the West Midlands. These stereotypes are just so inaccurate.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I can confirm that 175’s absolutely do not have TPWS4 so would need that retro fitting. And there is not a lot of space where the panel is currently.

With 13x5 coach MK5’s available with 291 seats per set that would make 3,783 seats total.

As for 175’s there are enough to make 10x5 coach sets (3+2) and then 3x6 coach sets (3+3).
So 13 sets total.
The 16x3 cars make 3,040 seats and the 10x2 cars make 1,220 seats.
So a total of 4,260 which is 477 more across the 13 sets.

Even the 5 car 175 would have 312 seats and the 6 car 380. So in terms of capacity, the 175’s would certainly be better.
In terms of fuel consumption and noise, the 175’s would win.

I’m terms of crew training, the 68’s and MK5’s would win out.

I’ve not been on the MK5’s but it seems like people love to travel on the 175’s but not the MK5’s.

Also all of Chilterns services are standard only and the MK5’s have first class.

Will be interesting either way.

 

[danbarjon]

I think the Class 175s would be a good option for them given the timeframe but at the same time is anyone likely to want to take them after all the issues TFW had?

 

[Lurcheroo]

I think the Class 175s would be a good option for them given the timeframe but at the same time is anyone likely to want to take them after all the issues TFW had?

The fire issues are caused by a build up of debris around the engine as far as I understand and was totally negated with a good maintenance routine of cleaning the problem area.

 

[DanNCL]

I'm not certain myself. They do seem like a shoe-in, almost a drag-and-drop replacement for the Mark 3s since they will likely need very little work to be used with the 68s Chiltern already have.

More likely that the 68s used with the Mk5As at TPE would go with them to Chiltern and the existing 68s there to freight. Two advantages of that, nothing would need to be modified for multiple working with Mk5A driving trailers, and extra AAR fitted locos would be available for freight.

future 165 replacement runs Aylesbury (Or LU does)

Not a chance of LU ever running to Aylesbury again.

I’ve not been on the MK5’s but it seems like people love to travel on the 175’s but not the MK5’s.

The only real issue with the Mk5As from a passenger perspective is the poor window alignment. Some on this forum love to moan about the ride quality but honestly it isn't that bad, certainly no worse than a lot of other stock on the network.

 

[Doomotron]

More likely that the 68s used with the Mk5As at TPE would go with them to Chiltern and the existing 68s there to freight. Two advantages of that, nothing would need to be modified for multiple working with Mk5A driving trailers, and extra AAR fitted locos would be available for freight.

I was going to suggest that but I wasn't sure whether it would be workable. I'm sure some people would complain that there's no point replacing a train with identical ones, but I suspect it would go as you suggest as well.

 

[D365]

Class 68/88 I believe are fitted with Unipart TPWSfour. I am not aware of Class 175 having been upgraded to Mk4 / Enhanced TPWS.

 

[Lurcheroo]

The only real issue with the Mk5As from a passenger perspective is the poor window alignment. Some on this forum love to moan about the ride quality but honestly it isn't that bad, certainly no worse than a lot of other stock on the network.

Ahh that’s good to hear. People make the Same complaints about another CAF product, the 197’s, and having travelled on them plenty, I think they’re not as awful as they say, so probably similar situation with the MK5’s then.

Class 68/88 I believe are fitted with Unipart TPWSfour. I am not aware of Class 175 having been upgraded to Mk4 TPWS.

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

 

[XCTurbostar]

So as others have mentioned, the tender is strongly suggestive of Mk5s.. so we either have 67s or 68s. Two thoughts:-
- Do we have any details on the possible 68 exhaust silencer and why this hasn’t been considered before e.g. TPE at Scarborough?
- Clearly a fleet of 70 coaches will require more stabling too?

 

[L+Y]

Forgive what may be a dense question because I'm behind the times on this- does 13x Mk5 sets replacing 6(?)x Mk3 sets free up an internal cascade of sufficient DMUs for East West Rail services? Are Chiltern still responsible for EWR?

 

[MCR247]

Forgive what may be a dense question because I'm behind the times on this- does 13x Mk5 sets replacing 6(?)x Mk3 sets free up an internal cascade of sufficient DMUs for East West Rail services? Are Chiltern still responsible for EWR?

I don’t believe so as EWR initially will be using WMR 196s until they find/need a more long term solution.

 

[MrJeeves]

Also all of Chilterns services are standard only and the MK5’s have first class

Mk3's have business zone, which is essentially 1st class, but minus the upgrade cost since COVID! I don't think this is a stickler at all really.

 

[Snow1964]

Forgive what may be a dense question because I'm behind the times on this- does 13x Mk5 sets replacing 6(?)x Mk3 sets free up an internal cascade of sufficient DMUs for East West Rail services? Are Chiltern still responsible for EWR?

Yes and no
Initially for upto 3 years EWR will used borrowed 196s from West Midlands. However EWR has been added to Chiltern franchise / management contract so it is their longer term problem.

Chiltern is running 2 parallel tenders, the other is for 25-70 new vehicles (separate thread), I think they are looking at some cascading and nearer 90-100 vehicles in total, not the combined max of nearer 140 vehicles

 

[Nym]

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.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I don’t believe so as EWR initially will be using WMR 196s until they find/need a more long term solution.

EWR will be operated as part of the Chiltern franchise, initially using 196s subleased from WMR

 

[43096]

More likely that the 68s used with the Mk5As at TPE would go with them to Chiltern and the existing 68s there to freight. Two advantages of that, nothing would need to be modified for multiple working with Mk5A driving trailers, and extra AAR fitted locos would be available for freight.

Your comment about AAR is a red herring. The AAR implementation on 68008-015 is limited and only allows operation with a DVT.