Chiltern tender for 20 - 70 units

[ac6000cw]

So what has changed since this document was published previously and posted on this forum on May 1st in post #71?

According to the update log, nothing railway related was updated in the 10th May version (row 13 is for Trinity House):

 

[12LDA28C]

God its too early to get new trains. They need to electrify the line first before concidering new rolling stock. Will these trains be equipped with pantographs?

Too early to get new trains? The current fleet of Class 165s urgently needs replacing and there are no current plans to electrify the route, so what would you suggest?

 

[Mgameing123]

Too early to get new trains? The current fleet of Class 165s urgently needs replacing and there are no current plans to electrify the route, so what would you suggest?

Make electrification plans now! Or maybe use other diesels which will be withdrawn soon.

 

[Trainbike46]

Make electrification plans now! Or maybe use other diesels which will be withdrawn soon.

The only sensible response to this is: Why not both?

Spin-off Chiltern/Snow Hill electrification thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ltern-network-and-the-snow-hill-lines.267548/

 

[12LDA28C]

Make electrification plans now! Or maybe use other diesels which will be withdrawn soon.

That would be down to NR, not Chiltern and it would take many years to complete, hardly a quick fix.

 

[Rhydgaled]

God its too early to get new trains. They need to electrify the line first before concidering new rolling stock. Will these trains be equipped with pantographs?

It depends what the new trains are designed for. There will be a need for long-distance regional stock with self-power capability (eg. class 175s) for many years yet - the important thing in my view is to make sure that any new-build orders are also capable of electric operation (ie. equipped with a pantograph or passive provision). Procurement of any new-build stock which is not capable of electric operation should be banned in my view (along with procurement of any more new-build capable of 125mph or more unless powered solely by OHLE - we have enough bi-modes of that power classification already).

 

[Mgameing123]

It depends what the new trains are designed for. There will be a need for long-distance regional stock with self-power capability (eg. class 175s) for many years yet - the important thing in my view is to make sure that any new-build orders are also capable of electric operation (ie. equipped with a pantograph or passive provision). Procurement of any new-build stock which is not capable of electric operation should be banned in my view (along with procurement of any more new-build capable of 125mph or more unless powered solely by OHLE - we have enough bi-modes of that power classification already).

That’s exactly what I’m thinking. With this rule Network Rail could start being pressured doing electrification projects around the country.

 

[SynthD]

That’s exactly what I’m thinking. With this rule Network Rail could start being pressured doing electrification projects around the country.

Putting pressure on them will achieve nothing, they don’t arrange the funding.

 

[The exile]

That’s exactly what I’m thinking. With this rule Network Rail could start being pressured doing electrification projects around the country.

Don’t think that it’s Network Rail that need to be pressured.

 

[Mgameing123]

Putting pressure on them will achieve nothing, they don’t arrange the funding.

Don’t think that it’s Network Rail that need to be pressured.

Yeah sorry I meant future governments.

 

[12LDA28C]

It depends what the new trains are designed for. There will be a need for long-distance regional stock with self-power capability (eg. class 175s) for many years yet - the important thing in my view is to make sure that any new-build orders are also capable of electric operation (ie. equipped with a pantograph or passive provision). Procurement of any new-build stock which is not capable of electric operation should be banned in my view (along with procurement of any more new-build capable of 125mph or more unless powered solely by OHLE - we have enough bi-modes of that power classification already).

It would be pretty pointless building a new fleet of trains with pantographs which are unlikely to touch a contact wire for the next 20 or 30 years, if at all. Passive provision to have one fitted maybe, but even that would greatly increase the cost of the new fleet for zero gain until (and if) electrification happens.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It would be pretty pointless building a new fleet of trains with pantographs which are unlikely to touch a contact wire for the next 20 or 30 years, if at all. Passive provision to have one fitted maybe, but even that would greatly increase the cost of the new fleet for zero gain until (and if) electrification happens.

Indeed we are scrapping fairly serviceable EMUs and have 321s in warm (?) store for such borderline cases of electrification. The 379s were beginning to look to be gas axe fodder until very recently.

 

[Trainbike46]

It would be pretty pointless building a new fleet of trains with pantographs which are unlikely to touch a contact wire for the next 20 or 30 years, if at all. Passive provision to have one fitted maybe, but even that would greatly increase the cost of the new fleet for zero gain until (and if) electrification happens.

GA bought bimodes (755s) for all their diesel routes a few years ago even though there were (and are) no plans to electrify them - similarly, TfW got DMUs with passive provision for electric or bimode operation (231s). It adds flexibility to your fleet, as seen by GA using the 755s on mainline services at times.

it's also a de-risking strategy for the ROSCO - if there are more potential future operators that could use them, the risk of them sitting idle post return by the current operator is reduced, the same logic that has led to most 3rd-rail stock bieng either dual-voltage or passively equiped for 25kV operation as well

 

[12LDA28C]

GA bought bimodes (755s) for all their diesel routes a few years ago even though there were (and are) no plans to electrify them - similarly, TfW got DMUs with passive provision for electric or bimode operation (231s). It adds flexibility to your fleet, as seen by GA using the 755s on mainline services at times.

Indeed as you say it adds flexibility however as Chiltern have no OHLE on any of their routes, they would not benefit in the same way that GA has.

 

[HSTEd]

It would be pretty pointless building a new fleet of trains with pantographs which are unlikely to touch a contact wire for the next 20 or 30 years, if at all. Passive provision to have one fitted maybe, but even that would greatly increase the cost of the new fleet for zero gain until (and if) electrification happens.

What fraction of the UK diesel passenger rolling stock fleet never operates on an electrified line?

I'm fairly certain it will not be a particularly large fraction.
At which point is it worth keeping a fleet of pure diesels? SNCF has come to the conclusion that it is not.

 

[12LDA28C]

What fraction of the UK diesel passenger rolling stock fleet never operates on an electrified line?

I'm fairly certain it will not be a particularly large fraction.
At which point is it worth keeping a fleet of pure diesels? SNCF has come to the conclusion that it is not.

What's the relevance of that question? Regardless of what routes other DMUs operate over, Chiltern's new units will most likely not see OHLE for a minimum of 20 years, if at all. Unless you can provide evidence of some future plan for the electrification of the Chiltern route within the lifespan of these units, specifying pantographs or even passive provision for such adds unnecessary cost for no benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's the relevance of that question? Regardless of what routes other DMUs operate over, Chiltern's new units will most likely not see OHLE for a minimum of 20 years, if at all. Unless you can provide evidence of some future plan for the electrification of the Chiltern route within the lifespan of these units, specifying pantographs or even passive provision for such adds unnecessary cost for no benefit.

If none of the Chiltern line is electrified in the 40-50 year lifespan of these units then there's something seriously wrong.

 

[HSTEd]

What's the relevance of that question? Regardless of what routes other DMUs operate over, Chiltern's new units will most likely not see OHLE for a minimum of 20 years, if at all. Unless you can provide evidence of some future plan for the electrification of the Chiltern route within the lifespan of these units, specifying pantographs or even passive provision for such adds unnecessary cost for no benefit.

Specifying electrodiesels may allow economies of scale with the procurement of rolling stock for the wider rail industry.
In addition, what if we later want to move stock around?

The Chiltern does not exist in a vacuum, we must consider what is the best policy in terms of the costs of the entire industry. Electrodiesels are unlikely to be substantially more expensive than pure diesels given noone else is likely to buy any pure-diesels again.

 

[Trainbike46]

What's the relevance of that question? Regardless of what routes other DMUs operate over, Chiltern's new units will most likely not see OHLE for a minimum of 20 years, if at all. Unless you can provide evidence of some future plan for the electrification of the Chiltern route within the lifespan of these units, specifying pantographs or even passive provision for such adds unnecessary cost for no benefit.

procuring a new fleet that has no potential for redeployment elsewhere if the needs of the chiltern line ever change (or it gets electrified) would be rather foolhardy, wouldn't it?

 

[cle]

Chiltern is still far above many other lines or schemes, I would say. Diesel units, even if pure diesel (but I hope not) - would find homes after the wires went up.

Ideally they would get going and it would include EWR too, which could use the more 'regional' version and 4 car units. Minimum should be 3, I prefer 4 - and ideally we would see coupled 7 and 8 car consists, before talking about Marylebone being full.

 

[Mikey C]

I'd be amazed if there wasn't any electrification work on the Chiltern Line in the next 10 years, even if it was just easy sections to charge batteries to enable trains to get into Marylebone.

 

[12LDA28C]

procuring a new fleet that has no potential for redeployment elsewhere if the needs of the chiltern line ever change (or it gets electrified) would be rather foolhardy, wouldn't it?

The current Chiltern fleet has been working on the same lines for 32 years. In the absence of any kind of electrification plan, there is no reason currently to believe that their replacement will not remain with the operator for a similar length of time or longer.

I'd be amazed if there wasn't any electrification work on the Chiltern Line in the next 10 years, even if it was just easy sections to charge batteries to enable trains to get into Marylebone.

That is the only kind of electrification that seems likely at this point in time but that depends entirely on the design spec of the new units that replace the 165s.

 

[HSTEd]

The current Chiltern fleet has been working on the same lines for 32 years. In the absence of any kind of electrification plan, there is no reason currently to believe that their replacement will not remain with the operator for a similar length of time or longer.

The loco hauled stock hasn't been, to my knowledge.

And several groups of trains have joined and left Chiltern over the course of the privatisation era.
Indeed, several Class 165 units were transferred from GWR to Chiltern in 2004.

 

[DanNCL]

The current Chiltern fleet has been working on the same lines for 32 years. In the absence of any kind of electrification plan, there is no reason currently to believe that their replacement will not remain with the operator for a similar length of time or longer.

Some of it has, some of it hasn’t.

The 168/3s started out working with the 159s out of Waterloo, they were then part of a swap with TPE which saw these units head North and 158s head the other way, then the 168/3s eventually ended up on Chiltern. They’ve been on Chiltern for less than 10 years, they were built almost 25 years ago.

The Mark 3s saw use all over the place before Chiltern took them on. They were at least 30 years old when they reached Chiltern.

 

[12LDA28C]

Some of it has, some of it hasn’t.

The 168/3s started out working with the 159s out of Waterloo, they were then part of a swap with TPE which saw these units head North and 158s head the other way, then the 168/3s eventually ended up on Chiltern. They’ve been on Chiltern for less than 10 years, they were built almost 25 years ago.

The Mark 3s saw use all over the place before Chiltern took them on. They were at least 30 years old when they reached Chiltern.

This thread specifically relates to the tender(s) for new units being sought to replace the Class 165s which have been in service since 1992. That's the context in which my statement was made, i.e. the Class 165 fleet. The 168/3s are currently not due to be replaced and of course a separate tender is currently underway for the cascade of existing stock to replace the Mk3s.

The loco hauled stock hasn't been, to my knowledge.

And several groups of trains have joined and left Chiltern over the course of the privatisation era.
Indeed, several Class 165 units were transferred from GWR to Chiltern in 2004.

I believe the 165/0s were constructed for use on the Chiltern route but various units from the 165001-007 batch were indeed on loan to Thames Valley routes in the early years.

 

[DanNCL]

This thread specifically relates to the tender(s) for new units being sought to replace the Class 165s which have been in service since 1992. That's the context in which my statement was made, i.e. the Class 165 fleet. The 168/3s are currently not due to be replaced and of course a separate tender is currently underway for the cascade of existing stock to replace the Mk3s.

Is it just the 165s? I was of the impression that it was the 168s too.

 

[12LDA28C]

Is it just the 165s? I was of the impression that it was the 168s too.

The 168s have just started going through a multi-million pound fleet refresh, so I doubt they'll be replaced any time soon.

 

[JonathanH]

I believe the 165/0s were constructed for use on the Chiltern route but various units from the 165001-007 batch were indeed on loan to Thames Valley routes in the early years.

Loan isn't quite the right word. 001-007 were transferred to Thames to enable the North Downs Line to be converted to Turbo operation in 1993. They were gradually transferred back to Chiltern some years later - 006/007 first at the start of the Thames franchise, then 001 in 2003, 004 in early 2004 and finally 002/003/005 at the end of 2004, so after eleven years of operation with Thames. The Chiltern order had included a growth build which the early 1990s recession deemed not needed.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If none of the Chiltern line is electrified in the 40-50 year lifespan of these units then there's something seriously wrong.

This times several million. It is such an important point, I can't agree enough.

It would be pretty pointless building a new fleet of trains with pantographs which are unlikely to touch a contact wire for the next 20 or 30 years, if at all.

Well, if you build a diesel fleet without provision for a pantograph then they would be unlikely to touch a contact wire - they would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Electrification cannot easily proceed if doing so would mean scrapping nearly new trains which cannot easily be adapted to make use of the wires.

Unless you can provide evidence of some future plan for the electrification of the Chiltern route within the lifespan of these units, specifying pantographs or even passive provision for such adds unnecessary cost for no benefit.

Providing evidence of a plan for electrification within the lifetime of any new fleet is easy. Such evidence can be found here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...sation-Network-Strategy-Executive-Summary.pdf Yes, it is unfunded; but it is a plan. Since it is Network Rail's response to the UK's (legally binding, if I recall correctly) commitment to acheive net-zero emissions by 2050 (only 26 years away) then this is well within the 35-40 year lifespan of a new train (particularly considering the class 195, 196 and 197 DMUs already have a lifespan stretching out to 2050 or beyond).

What fraction of the UK diesel passenger rolling stock fleet never operates on an electrified line?

I'm fairly certain it will not be a particularly large fraction.

I'm not sure what it is now, but certainly if Network Rail was to deliver the TDNS then it would be next to none. A handful of units on the Cornish and Thames Valley branches, plus Wrexham-Bidston if it isn't extended onto Merseyrail. That's it. You could probably work the GWR branches with the class 196 fleet alone, leaving a massive surplus of 135 class 195/197 units to replace the 5 TfW class 230s. We do not need any more new-build straight DMUs.

Even now, if we banned the burning of diesel under the wires (and on the 3rd rail network) tommorow (not that it would be pratical to do so in the short term due to a lack of regional bi-modes and power supply limitations) there's not all that much outside of Devon, Cornwall and northern Scotland which would be unaffected.

Chiltern is still far above many other lines or schemes, I would say. Diesel units, even if pure diesel (but I hope not) - would find homes after the wires went up.

Yes, any new Chiltern DMUs would probably find homes if the Chiltern route was wired, but that would meerly move the problem of blighted electrification prospects to wherever they end up. Sometime between now and 2050 (probably much closer to now than then), we are going to reach a point where there will be a difficult decision to make between:

• scrapping a sizeable fleet of DMUs with a good few years life left in them (even if Chiltern don't add to the problem, there are already the Civity fleets to worry about)
• totally gutting said DMUs and trying to salvage as much as possible, such as bodyshells, for use in 'new' EMUs
• ensuring that our rail network will have failed to play it's part in reaching net-zero (with significant sections still remaining unelectrified)

Furthermore, with an expanding electrified network, there would be fewer and fewer routes left that need DMUs and therefore an increased risk that said DMUs will not be a good fit for the market they end up serving (we arre already seeing this problem with 170s, 195s and 197s). A DMU built for urban commuting will not be a very good choice to cascade to something like the West Highland Line.

 

[12LDA28C]

Providing evidence of a plan for electrification within the lifetime of any new fleet is easy. Such evidence can be found here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...sation-Network-Strategy-Executive-Summary.pdf Yes, it is unfunded; but it is a plan. Since it is Network Rail's response to the UK's (legally binding, if I recall correctly) commitment to acheive net-zero emissions by 2050 (only 26 years away) then this is well within the 35-40 year lifespan of a new train (particularly considering the class 195, 196 and 197 DMUs already have a lifespan stretching out to 2050 or beyond).

A plan that is unfunded and mentioned in generalised terms with no specific detail is not much of a plan. I also believe 'net zero' is a myth - I'd stake money on it not being achieved within the target timescale.

Much more likely than the electrification of the Chilterns is the development of battery technology and this appears to be the most likely option Chiltern will investigate when sourcing new trains.