Chiltern MK3 replacement fleet possibilities?

[richa2002]

It is a LOT noisier than the others including heavy low frequency vibration (which is extremely annoying compared to just the hum of a DMU engine).

I get this for a stabled train but not for one that is just passing by.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get this for a stabled train but not for one that is just passing by.

The issue isn't them passing by. The complaints come from people by stations or depots where they sit idling, if only for a few minutes per train.

The residential developments under discussion at Marylebone are basically directly at the outer platform ends.

 

[Richard Scott]

The issue isn't them passing by. The complaints come from people by stations or depots where they sit idling, if only for a few minutes per train.

The residential developments under discussion at Marylebone are basically directly at the outer platform ends.

Sorry but of you live by a railway line you expect noise. I live by a line and a 66 is noisy at 3am. Won't be any 68s at 3am in Marylebone. Seems we live in times where everyone expects what they want and sometimes that isn't possible.

 

[James Finch]

How many 5-car MK5a sets are available? If there are enough to cover the existing 68/MK4, has anyone considered that Chiltern may want to shorten some excess to 4-car offerings for EWR? Remaining coaches could be used to lengthen the long distance fleet to Birmingham...?

(Just spitballing ideas, feel free to shoot down!)

 

[JonathanH]

How many 5-car MK5a sets are available? If there are enough to cover the existing 68/MK4, has anyone considered that Chiltern may want to shorten some excess to 4-car offerings for EWR? Remaining coaches could be used to lengthen the long distance fleet to Birmingham...?

(Just spitballing ideas, feel free to shoot down!)

A locomotive like a class 68 on four coaches is not a sensible option for all sorts of reasons, and certainly not what EWR needs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry but of you live by a railway line you expect noise. I live by a line and a 66 is noisy at 3am. Won't be any 68s at 3am in Marylebone. Seems we live in times where everyone expects what they want and sometimes that isn't possible.

The railway is duty bound and legally bound, as are we all, not to cause a noise nuisance. These locomotives are louder than anything before or since and are a noise nuisance. Only the original HST engines were even close, but these weren't noisy at idle. 66s are nowhere near as bad.

Hopefully the modifications to prevent this will be successful, and they can continue to be used.

 

[12LDA28C]

How many 5-car MK5a sets are available? If there are enough to cover the existing 68/MK4, has anyone considered that Chiltern may want to shorten some excess to 4-car offerings for EWR? Remaining coaches could be used to lengthen the long distance fleet to Birmingham...?

(Just spitballing ideas, feel free to shoot down!)

It's already been agreed what traction will be working EWR services and the 68s and Mk5s would not be suitable.

 

[Richard Scott]

The railway is duty bound and legally bound, as are we all, not to cause a noise nuisance. These locomotives are louder than anything before or since and are a noise nuisance. Only the original HST engines were even close, but these weren't noisy at idle. 66s are nowhere near as bad.

Hopefully the modifications to prevent this will be successful, and they can continue to be used.

Then, if that's the case why were they approved for use?
Believe me at 3am under full load a 66 is very noisy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then, if that's the case why were they approved for use?

Goodness only knows.

 

[Energy]

There is another option, the tender has no outcome. Existing rolling stock has leases extended for a few more years until 165 replacement arrives, reform the 168s to 3 cars each, 22 168s should be enough to operate the 9 London to West Midlands diagrams as 6 car, remaining 6 168s is enough for EWR services and can be moved onto a decent Stratford Upon Avon service once EWR has permanent stock. Oxford, Aylesbury and High Wycombe served by the 165 replacement.

The 68/Mk5as can be a good option but they need the noise and DOO sorted, I can't see the DfT signing off on additional guards.

 

[172007]

Because Chiltern's method of operation for LHCS requires a guard on board. There's no DOO equipment north of Banbury, for a start.

You miss my point. I am quite sure that class 68's and Mk5's are capable of being fitted with camera equipment self contained on the train like 350's and 172's have been. This has nothing to do with platform / station mounted equipment extra a few extra lights for dark spots.

Methods of work change over time. The majority of trains south of Banbury are DOO so why would Chiltern not want to use the new sets with Mods as DOO and DCO dependent on North or South of Banbury. They already do 10 bell dispatch north of Banbury so that's part of the DCO wat there already.

 

[12LDA28C]

You miss my point. I am quite sure that class 68's and Mk5's are capable of being fitted with camera equipment self contained on the train like 350's and 172's have been. This has nothing to do with platform / station mounted equipment extra a few extra lights for dark spots.

And you miss mine. Maybe the 68s and Mk5s are indeed capable of being fitted with door cameras and in-cab monitors but that does not mean that those modifications would actually happen.

Methods of work change over time. The majority of trains south of Banbury are DOO so why would Chiltern not want to use the new sets with Mods as DOO and DCO dependent on North or South of Banbury. They already do 10 bell dispatch north of Banbury so that's part of the DCO wat there already.

Chiltern have never operated trains dispatched in this manner so that would involve risk assessments, rewriting a new method of operation and so on. Chiltern is a relatively small TOC with limited resources and this would mean a lot of work for those involved. Also I'm sure the unions representing drivers and guards would raise some concerns if not outright objections. Would it really be easier and cheaper to modify the stock, risk assess the locos and stock, stations and dispatch process and rewrite methods of operation than to just employ some additional guards?

There is another option, the tender has no outcome. Existing rolling stock has leases extended for a few more years until 165 replacement arrives, reform the 168s to 3 cars each, 22 168s should be enough to operate the 9 London to West Midlands diagrams as 6 car, remaining 6 168s is enough for EWR services and can be moved onto a decent Stratford Upon Avon service once EWR has permanent stock. Oxford, Aylesbury and High Wycombe served by the 165 replacement.

The 68/Mk5as can be a good option but they need the noise and DOO sorted, I can't see the DfT signing off on additional guards.

Doesn't sound much of an option to me. Reforming 168s to 3-cars each greatly reduces flexibility you seem to be assuming 100% availability of the fleet. Heavy maintenance on the 168 fleet is carried out at Aylesbury which requires some diagrams to/from AYS to be 168s for maintenance purposes. You may also have missed the fact that 196s will be used on EWR, not Chiltern's own stock. This may be the speculative discussion section but some grounding in the reality of the situation is required.

 

[Energy]

you seem to be assuming 100% availability of the fleet

18/22 is 81% availability, fairly reasonable to me.

Reforming 168s to 3-cars each greatly reduces flexibility

The London - West Midlands services are generally 4/5/6 cars already, when they are shorter they are usually crowded.

You may also have missed the fact that 196s will be used on EWR, not Chiltern's own stock.

I'm aware that 6x196s were talked about, which is why I think 6 168s is enough. It's unclear whether WMR is in the position to give up 196s.

If it is 196 operation then the 6 168s can be used on a decent Stratford-Upon-Avon service or used on Aylesbury to cycle the units through heavy maintenance.

Heavy maintenance on the 168 fleet is carried out at Aylesbury which requires some diagrams to/from AYS to be 168s for maintenance purposes.

The 168s are just turbostars, they can have maintenance done elsewhere and Aylesbury becomes pure 165-replacement maintenance.

Or the 6 168s can be used on Aylesbury to cycle the units through heavy maintenance.

 

[12LDA28C]

The London - West Midlands services are generally 4/5/6 cars already, when they are shorter they are usually crowded.

A combination of 2, 3 a 4-car units gives flexibility that a whole fleet of 3-car units does not. Some platforms can only accommodate 5 car trains, for a start.

I'm aware that 6x196s were talked about, which is why I think 6 168s is enough. It's unclear whether WMR is in the position to give up 196s.

They are not 'talked about', that is the plan.

The 168s are just turbostars, they can have maintenance done elsewhere and Aylesbury becomes pure 165-replacement maintenance.

Wrong. Engine changes can only be carried out at Aylesbury, as can tyre-turning as no other Chiltern locations have a wheel lathe.

 

[Class 800]

So if the 222s have fewer seats, can they not be refurbished / adjusted to provide for them?

Eg by removing first class, buffet area etc?

They are not as wasteful of space as the Voyagers. For one they do not have a UAT in every carriage.

 

[Richard Scott]

So if the 222s have fewer seats, can they not be refurbished / adjusted to provide for them?

Eg by removing first class, buffet area etc?

They are not as wasteful of space as the Voyagers. For one they do not have a UAT in every carriage.

They're also very fuel hungry so not ideal. I wouldn't want to be the company that has to pay the fuel bills for those.

 

[Wyrleybart]

They're also very fuel hungry so not ideal. I wouldn't want to be the company that has to pay the fuel bills for those.

222s also have the voyager style restricted width "tilt" bodyshells which provide less airy saloons. Although operating interurban type timetables, their end doors are probably more suited to that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

222s also have the voyager style restricted width "tilt" bodyshells which provide less airy saloons. Although operating interurban type timetables, their end doors are probably more suited to that.

They're a bit narrow but 168s have a "tilt profile" too (even though they aren't designed to tilt) so people will see it as normal.

 

[Meerkat]

They're a bit narrow but 168s have a "tilt profile" too (even though they aren't designed to tilt) so people will see it as normal.

Electro/turbostars do seem rather cramped when you are used to Siemens big square profiles!

 

[Class 800]

Electro/turbostars do seem rather cramped when you are used to Siemens big square profiles!

There‘s a train I take (GN Cambridge semifast) that used to be operated by 700s but is now usually 387s.

The 387s are a far more comfortable ride. Quieter, better suspension, carpeted floors and cleaner toilets.

 

[RobShipway]

Looking at the replacement stock request https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W51/813170912 and that the lineside noise of class 68 loco's whether hauling Mk3 or Mk5 is not the requirement of Chiltern. On a similar basis I would say the same for the class 175 units in current form, as I believe that there has also been complaints about lineside noise for class 165/168 units.

This is where if the class 175 units are to replace the class 68 MK3 sets, then the class 175 units I believe would need to be converted to bi-mode being diesel/battery hybrid. Now, I know from other threads many believe that it is not possible to convert the class 175 units to be bi-mode. This leaves us with looking at converting other existing stock.

I wonder if within the next year, some class 170 units will become available?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I wonder if within the next year, some class 170 units will become available?

Where from though? They're pretty well used by Northern on the Scarborough Sheffield route, and although the gearing isn't ideal for the other, Harrogate-based routes they're used on, the new stock order is for Sprinters and won't cover them. ScotRail already ridded themselves of the DMUs made redundant by the 385s, and already need to stretch their current 170 fleet to cover many of the white elephant HSTs. And EMR already don't have enough 170s to operate the wholly Turbostar Regional operation they wanted.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I wonder if within the next year,

They also state training to start this year with entry into service early next year, making that outside of them time frame.

It has been said on a thread somewhere that there is supposedly some proposed silencer mods for the 68’s.

 

[172007]

Class 68 silencer Mods.

Starting to wonder whether they exist even on a cad system.

Has anyone seen anywhere were a class 68 has been running about of idling with any kind of mod. You would think a Chiltern one would have sprouted a trial version by now.

 

[RobShipway]

Where from though? They're pretty well used by Northern on the Scarborough Sheffield route, and although the gearing isn't ideal for the other, Harrogate-based routes they're used on, the new stock order is for Sprinters and won't cover them. ScotRail already ridded themselves of the DMUs made redundant by the 385s, and already need to stretch their current 170 fleet to cover many of the white elephant HSTs. And EMR already don't have enough 170s to operate the wholly Turbostar Regional operation they wanted.

What about Cross Country class 170 units?

They also state training to start this year with entry into service early next year, making that outside of them time frame.

It has been said on a thread somewhere that there is supposedly some proposed silencer mods for the 68’s.

Class 68 silencer Mods.

Starting to wonder whether they exist even on a cad system.

Has anyone seen anywhere were a class 68 has been running about of idling with any kind of mod. You would think a Chiltern one would have sprouted a trial version by now.

If there was silencers for class 68's, as @172007 states I would have thought that we would have seen them by now.

The only other answer that I can see, if MK5A coaches are to be used by Chiltern, is with using class 93 in battery mode out of Marylebone and diesel mode onwards, instead of using class 68. The issue comes though as to whether the diesel engine would have enough power to be recharging the battery and with hauling 5 MK5A coaches between London Marylebone and Birmingham Moor Street, without the need to be using the pantograph.

 

[12LDA28C]

Looking at the replacement stock request https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W51/813170912 and that the lineside noise of class 68 loco's whether hauling Mk3 or Mk5 is not the requirement of Chiltern. On a similar basis I would say the same for the class 175 units in current form, as I believe that there has also been complaints about lineside noise for class 165/168 units.

This is where if the class 175 units are to replace the class 68 MK3 sets, then the class 175 units I believe would need to be converted to bi-mode being diesel/battery hybrid. Now, I know from other threads many believe that it is not possible to convert the class 175 units to be bi-mode. This leaves us with looking at converting other existing stock.

I wonder if within the next year, some class 170 units will become available?

A separate tender has already been issued for hybrid/battery stock, to replace the Class 165s. There have only been complaints made about 165/168 units when they have been left running for extended periods and Chiltern have issued an instruction to drivers to mitigate against this.

Class 68 silencer Mods.

Starting to wonder whether they exist even on a cad system.

Has anyone seen anywhere were a class 68 has been running about of idling with any kind of mod. You would think a Chiltern one would have sprouted a trial version by now.

As mentioned in previous posts, a modification is in development although I'm not aware of a loco being fitted with the modification at this stage.

The only other answer that I can see, if MK5A coaches are to be used by Chiltern, is with using class 93 in battery mode out of Marylebone and diesel mode onwards, instead of using class 68. The issue comes though as to whether the diesel engine would have enough power to be recharging the battery and with hauling 5 MK5A coaches between London Marylebone and Birmingham Moor Street, without the need to be using the pantograph.

I think it's beyond unlikely that Class 93s will be used with the Mk5s and no suggestion has been made that 93s are even being considered, or indeed available.

 

[43096]

What about Cross Country class 170 units?

What about them?

 

[The Planner]

What about Cross Country class 170 units?

And what replaces those?

 

[RobShipway]

And what replaces those?

Well it could be that the 7 class 221 units transfer from AWC to XC, could replace the 7 2-car class 170/1 units or 7 of the 170/6 units. Those class 170 units, could then transfer to Chiltern.

 

[12LDA28C]

Well it could be that the 7 class 221 units transfer from AWC to XC, could replace the 7 2-car class 170/1 units or 7 of the 170/6 units. Those class 170 units, could then transfer to Chiltern.

Why would Class 221 units be used to replace 170s when extra capacity is desperately needed on routes operated by Class 220s which see regular shortforms and/or overcrowding? These routes seem the most likely destination for Class 221s.