Chiltern MK3 replacement fleet possibilities?

[CyrusWuff]

Ciltern 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

Four parallel tenders, though it's pretty obvious that not all of them will result in orders, the other three being:

• 026866-2022 for 30 to 70 "existing or converted" Battery Multiple Units
• 026867-2022 for 30 to 70 new BMUs
• 022896-2023 for 20 to 70 "new or converted" low emission MUs

 

[meld3]

Leasing cost is largely driven by interest rates (hence it was until recently cheaper to buy new than take over old leases), and interest rates are now 3x what they were 2 years ago meaning 6% interest on £100 million is an awful lot more than 2% interest, it would be very interesting to know what is now being quoted for say new build 197's Vs old-lease Mk5s.

 

[fgwrich]

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.

To me, the tender document combined with your confirmation that the 175s do not have the required TPWS confirms that it’ll be the TPE + Mk5 Package then. With Chiltern drivers already familiar with the 68s, and the suggestion that the cab layout was similar (can anyone prove it disprove that for me please), training shouldn’t take too long and would certainly be easier than a new to the Chiltern's fleet.

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

I’d have thought taking on the ex TPE fleet would include the ex TPE locos anyway - already set up for working with the Mk5 rakes including additional features like the PIS. The Chiltern locos then return back to DRS in exchange.

 

[xotGD]

My only complaint about the Mark 5a stock is the quality of the sound insulation. It is too good, and muffles the thrash from the 68s excessively.

Hopefully Chiltern will downgrade the first class coach to standard, allowing for a better experience through the tunnel from Moor St to Snow Hill.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

To me, the tender document combined with your confirmation that the 175s do not have the required TPWS confirms that it’ll be the TPE + Mk5 Package then. With Chiltern drivers already familiar with the 68s, and the suggestion that the cab layout was similar (can anyone prove it disprove that for me please), training shouldn’t take too long and would certainly be easier than a new to the Chiltern's fleet.



I’d have thought taking on the ex TPE fleet would include the ex TPE locos anyway - already set up for working with the Mk5 rakes including additional features like the PIS. The Chiltern locos then return back to DRS in exchange.

Makes sense as the Mk5s need to be used as the DFT approved the purchase of them and it would save them rotting in storage. I really can't believe we're still talking about noise of diesel on a main line out of London though, surely it will have to be electrified sooner rather than later once the politicians realise net 0 isn't going to happen for free.

 

[43096]

Hopefully Chiltern will downgrade the first class coach to standard, allowing for a better experience through the tunnel from Moor St to Snow Hill.

Or the tunnel out of Marylebone. Always good for some CAT thrash!

 

[Snow1964]

To me, the tender document combined with your confirmation that the 175s do not have the required TPWS confirms that it’ll be the TPE + Mk5 Package then. With Chiltern drivers already familiar with the 68s, and the suggestion that the cab layout was similar (can anyone prove it disprove that for me please), training shouldn’t take too long and would certainly be easier than a new to the Chiltern's fleet.

Realistically the only fleets that are going to meet the timescale are
175s (already off lease Ex Wales)
The mk5s (ex Transpennine)
Avanti class 221 (but XC has already claimed 7, Grand Central 2)

I consider the 221s to be outside option, although 222s are also likely to be available in 2025, think they would struggle to meet 2024 training date

One thing that I do wonder about is if Chiltern can get the mainline fleet fairly quickly, would they be able to do some cascade and release a few 165s to GWR (I realise the will need some mods to make them compatible, but the Reading ones rarely work in multiple so would be easy to move some there, and send some of Reading fleet to Bristol

b

 

[sjpowermac]

To me, the tender document combined with your confirmation that the 175s do not have the required TPWS confirms that it’ll be the TPE + Mk5 Package then. With Chiltern drivers already familiar with the 68s, and the suggestion that the cab layout was similar (can anyone prove it disprove that for me please), training shouldn’t take too long and would certainly be easier than a new to the Chiltern's fleet.



I’d have thought taking on the ex TPE fleet would include the ex TPE locos anyway - already set up for working with the Mk5 rakes including additional features like the PIS. The Chiltern locos then return back to DRS in exchange.

Currently the only locos that can work with the Mk5A stock in passenger service are 68019-68034.

These locos have additional equipment fitted in the cabs for driver operation of the carriage doors and touch screens to interface with the various safety systems on the stock (see attached picture).

The locos physically interface with the stock through two systems. There are the nose mounted ‘Stadler’ cables that essentially perform the same function as the ARR cables on the current Chiltern sets.

In addition there is a ‘CAF’ cable (see attached picture) that carries information from the computer systems onboard the stock e.g. Hot Axel Box Detection.

Regarding training, the TPE set up was as follows:

8 days traction conversion course to learn the Class 68s.

A further 8 days to learn the Class 68s in combination with the Mk5A stock.

Hope that helps, but if I’ve missed anything please let me know and I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Currently the only locos that can work with the Mk5A stock in passenger service are 68019-68034.

These locos have additional equipment fitted in the cabs for driver operation of the carriage doors and touch screens to interface with the various safety systems on the stock (see attached picture).

The locos physically interface with the stock through two systems. There are the nose mounted ‘Stadler’ cables that essentially perform the same function as the ARR cables on the current Chiltern sets.

In addition there is a ‘CAF’ cable (see attached picture) that carries information from the computer systems onboard the stock e.g. Hot Axel Box Detection.

Regarding training, the TPE set up was as follows:

8 days traction conversion course to learn the Class 68s.

A further 8 days to learn the Class 68s in combination with the Mk5A stock.

Hope that helps, but if I’ve missed anything please let me know and I’ll do my best to answer your questions.


View attachment 149127



View attachment 149128

Excellent info, would chiltern drivers need all of that time as they already sign 68’s ?
TFW drivers just need a 5 day course to sign 197’s so I guess and driver who signs a DMU would just need about 5 days To sign the 175.
If all that time is needed for 68’s then that could be a point in the 175’s court.

I also forget that the 175’s are now over 20 years old !!

 

[sjpowermac]

Excellent info, would chiltern drivers need all of that time as they already sign 68’s ?
TFW drivers just need a 5 day course to sign 197’s so I guess and driver who signs a DMU would just need about 5 days To sign the 175.
If all that time is needed for 68’s then that could be a point in the 175’s court.

I also forget that the 175’s are now over 20 years old !

Light engine, there is no difference in the way 68019-34 function and handle in comparison with the rest of the fleet and so for any Chiltern drivers who sign Class 68s then that part of the course wouldn’t be necessary.

That leaves training on the combination of Class 68/Mk5A stock. The TPE course was 8 days, but that did include allowance for practical handling ‘pass out runs’. I *think* the ‘classroom’ part was 6 days.

Worth bearing in mind too that if the Class 68/Mk5A sets are chosen for this work, then Chiltern might well develop their own course. The times quoted are for the way TPE approached training.

 

[172007]

Light engine, there is no difference in the way 68019-34 function and handle in comparison with the rest of the fleet and so for any Chiltern drivers who sign Class 68s then that part of the course wouldn’t be necessary.

That leaves training on the combination of Class 68/Mk5A stock. The TPE course was 8 days, but that did include allowance for practical handling ‘pass out runs’. I *think* the ‘classroom’ part was 6 days.

Worth bearing in mind too that if the Class 68/Mk5A sets are chosen for this work, then Chiltern might well develop their own course. The times quoted are for the way TPE approached training.

Question is whether DOO cameras can be added to the Mk5A's and screens placed in the 68.

 

[dereksingh291]

How old are the class 165/168 units including the MK3 sets and will Chiltern Railways get a brand new fleet of trains at some point in the future?

 

[Energy]

Question is whether DOO cameras can be added to the Mk5A's and screens placed in the 68.

Isn't Chiltern mirrors and guard north of Banbury (and all LHCS)?

Why can't LHCS use mirrors?

 

[sjpowermac]

Question is whether DOO cameras can be added to the Mk5A's and screens placed in the 68.

That isn’t the question asked by the poster I replied to.

I thought that Chiltern DOO was mirror based, but I’m happy to be corrected on that.

If it is mirror based then your question should really be one about visibility from the Class 68 and Mk5A Driving Trailer cab.

The CAF Class 397 units certainly have bodyside cameras, but currently the Class 68/Mk5A stock do not. I’ve no idea about retrofitting.

All ways round, I simply don’t know enough about Chiltern to answer your question.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Light engine, there is no difference in the way 68019-34 function and handle in comparison with the rest of the fleet and so for any Chiltern drivers who sign Class 68s then that part of the course wouldn’t be necessary.

That leaves training on the combination of Class 68/Mk5A stock. The TPE course was 8 days, but that did include allowance for practical handling ‘pass out runs’. I *think* the ‘classroom’ part was 6 days.

Worth bearing in mind too that if the Class 68/Mk5A sets are chosen for this work, then Chiltern might well develop their own course. The times quoted are for the way TPE approached training.

That isn’t the question asked by the poster I replied to.

I thought that Chiltern DOO was mirror based, but I’m happy to be corrected on that.

If it is mirror based then your question should really be one about visibility from the Class 68 and Mk5A Driving Trailer cab.

The CAF Class 397 units certainly have bodyside cameras, but currently the Class 68/Mk5A stock do not. I’ve no idea about retrofitting.

All ways round, I simply don’t know enough about Chiltern to answer your question.

Interesting points.
I too know little about how chiltern work.
175’s also do not have any body side cameras or screen in the cab so I would guess that what ever issue will exist, both sets will need a solution.

 

[fgwrich]

Currently the only locos that can work with the Mk5A stock in passenger service are 68019-68034.

These locos have additional equipment fitted in the cabs for driver operation of the carriage doors and touch screens to interface with the various safety systems on the stock (see attached picture).

The locos physically interface with the stock through two systems. There are the nose mounted ‘Stadler’ cables that essentially perform the same function as the ARR cables on the current Chiltern sets.

In addition there is a ‘CAF’ cable (see attached picture) that carries information from the computer systems onboard the stock e.g. Hot Axel Box Detection.

Regarding training, the TPE set up was as follows:

8 days traction conversion course to learn the Class 68s.

A further 8 days to learn the Class 68s in combination with the Mk5A stock.

Hope that helps, but if I’ve missed anything please let me know and I’ll do my best to answer your questions.


View attachment 149127



View attachment 149128

Light engine, there is no difference in the way 68019-34 function and handle in comparison with the rest of the fleet and so for any Chiltern drivers who sign Class 68s then that part of the course wouldn’t be necessary.

That leaves training on the combination of Class 68/Mk5A stock. The TPE course was 8 days, but that did include allowance for practical handling ‘pass out runs’. I *think* the ‘classroom’ part was 6 days.

Worth bearing in mind too that if the Class 68/Mk5A sets are chosen for this work, then Chiltern might well develop their own course. The times quoted are for the way TPE approached training.

Absolutely Perfect, Thank You for your post - that certainly answers a few of my questions. How does the Mk5 DVT cab compare that of the 68s?

Either way, I would be very very highly surprised if Chiltern / DfT picks anything else other than these. All the signs are pointing in the right direction for them, including the already in position familiarity with the 68s.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Either way, I would be very very highly surprised if Chiltern / DfT picks anything else other than these. All the signs are pointing in the right direction for them, including the already in position familiarity with the 68s.

I agree, it certainly does.
Not to mention they’re significantly newer than the 175’s and I can’t really see another operator in a position to or would want to, take on the 68+MK5’s.

Certainly a few other operators who could take the 175’s.

 

[Snow1964]

How old are the class 165/168 units including the MK3 sets and will Chiltern Railways get a brand new fleet of trains at some point in the future?

Class 165 were built 1990-92, in service 32 years
Class 168 were built in batches 1998-2004, so 19-25 years old

The mk3 coaches came from various batches, I think the oldest is about 46 years old, most are 40+ years old. The DVTs are newer 33-35 years old

The remainder of Chiltern fleet will probably be replaced sometime during 2030s

 

[Carlisle]

Is DOO allowed on push- pull sets ? It’s been said previously on here it’s happened in Ireland but is it widespread elsewhere in Europe ?
If not the 175s might be preferable.as they’ll likely be either compatible with existing mirrors/monitors or can have bedyside cameras installed relatively easily .

 

[Razorblades]

How old are the class 165/168 units including the MK3 sets and will Chiltern Railways get a brand new fleet of trains at some point in the future?

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!

 

[LowLevel]

I suspect the DOO thing is a bit of a red herring and the answer will be much like what the answer was with the mk3 sets - just chuck guards on them, if they're running the longer distance trains having someone on them isn't really a bad thing anyway. I didn't see anything about DOO ready in the tender.

 

[Carlisle]

I suspect you’re right if it’s ultimately just a handful of trains for the long distance routes.

 

[JonathanH]

I suspect you’re right if it’s ultimately just a handful of trains for the long distance routes.

Whilst that is true, the lack of DOO would almost certainly limit introduction to a handful of trains, particularly if a whole new establishment of guards were needed at the London end where currently there are none.

 

[Iskra]

I suspect you’re right if it’s ultimately just a handful of trains for the long distance routes.

If they’re bothering with Mk5’s, surely it makes sense to use as many as possible for commonality and freeing up as many DMU’s as possible for elsewhere? There’s little point in a microfleet, and it would probably make it even harder to find a home for the remaining MK5’s for the ROSCO.

 

[fgwrich]

If they’re bothering with Mk5’s, surely it makes sense to use as many as possible for commonality and freeing up as many DMU’s as possible for elsewhere? There’s little point in a microfleet, and it would probably make it even harder to find a home for the remaining MK5’s for the ROSCO.

If any units are freed up, I suspect it'll be the worst of the Turbo units, quite possibly to become a Christmas Tree for the 165 fleet. On a very outside chance, any 168s could be freed up for EMR.

 

[sjpowermac]

Absolutely Perfect, Thank You for your post - that certainly answers a few of my questions. How does the Mk5 DVT cab compare that of the 68s?

Either way, I would be very very highly surprised if Chiltern / DfT picks anything else other than these. All the signs are pointing in the right direction for them, including the already in position familiarity with the 68s.

You are most welcome, I am glad if I have been able to help.

The cab layout of the Mk5A Driving Trailer is almost identical to the Class 68.

The training requirement for the Mk5A sets is governed by the onboard systems.

As an example, the sets come with ASDO (Automatic Selective Door Operation) so TPE had to train drivers on how that works.

In many regards the Class 68/Mk5A sets have many similarities with a modern DMU/EMU, just that the power pack is situated at one end of the train.

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

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.

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’m definitely not an engineer, so can’t field questions on that and accept that it might be a daft suggestion!

 

[43096]

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’m definitely not an engineer, so can’t field questions on that and accept that it might be a daft suggestion!

That is not the worst idea suggested on here by a very long way.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I’m definitely not an engineer, so can’t field questions on that and accept that it might be a daft suggestion!

In Engineering we spend a lot of time learning about the Japanese ways and they believe that when trying to find a solution to a problem, you should get absolutely everybody that has anything to do with it involved (so in manufacturing, get the factory workers as well as engineers, technicians and management involved) and that there are no silly suggestions, and they should all be considered for their own merits.

There is a well known story about a factory machine that would randomly spew out a bunch of rubbish parts then continue working normally, and it was a machine operator who noted the vibrations of trains when waiting to catch their train home and suggested that passing trains on a nearby railway to the factory could be the cause, and sure enough the times linked up and they built a moat around the factory to dampen the vibrations and the problem went away. (Unsure if this is a true story, but was told by my engineering tutor who spent 20 years working in engineering out in Japan).

But anyway, this is the UK so, please stop being so daft (I say in Jest)

 

[norbitonflyer]

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.

What makes the ETS equipment so noisy?

 

[sjpowermac]

What makes the ETS equipment so noisy?

The engine revs increase dramatically when the ETS is switched on. It really does sound like a different loco.

In Engineering we spend a lot of time learning about the Japanese ways and they believe that when trying to find a solution to a problem, you should get absolutely everybody that has anything to do with it involved (so in manufacturing, get the factory workers as well as engineers, technicians and management involved) and that there are no silly suggestions, and they should all be considered for their own merits.

There is a well known story about a factory machine that would randomly spew out a bunch of rubbish parts then continue working normally, and it was a machine operator who noted the vibrations of trains when waiting to catch their train home and suggested that passing trains on a nearby railway to the factory could be the cause, and sure enough the times linked up and they built a moat around the factory to dampen the vibrations and the problem went away. (Unsure if this is a true story, but was told by my engineering tutor who spent 20 years working in engineering out in Japan).

But anyway, this is the UK so, please stop being so daft (I say in Jest)

That’s a great story and thank you for your kind words too!