Chiltern wanting to get hold of new stock

[168lover]

I was checking chiltern's twitter feed I saw one of the regular short formed train tweet. Someone replied saying that chiltern should got more stock. Chiltern replied saying that 'We're trying to get hold of more stock.' does this mean more 172s,165s or 168s or something completely different?

 

[MK Tom]

Could also be new locos for the silver sets or more mark 3s.

 

[Polarbear]

As I recall, Chiltern's original intention was to acquire more loco hauled trains for the London - Birmingham route which would release 168's for the new Oxford services.

Given that the Oxford service is due to start within 2 years, it's probably about now that they will need to think about how any new trains are likely to be sourced.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It is the reply that is always given on twitter as it is diplomatic. I would not expect anything anytime soon or anything different from what we know.

 

[edwin_m]

They could probably make some use of any FGW 165s or 166s that aren't needed elsewhere.

 

[route:oxford]

Should simply order eight 6-car 172s.

Whilst this this suggestion is likely to cause instant outrage amongst many contributors to the forum due to the "inflexibility"...

The more thoughtful will have done the calculations and worked out that should the Chiltern mainline ever be electrified and the stock cascaded this would allow the entire Class 172 to be reformed into 39 3 car sets.

 

[IanXC]

Was there not a tender issued for the provision of locos some months ago? Does anyone know what the outcome of that was?

 

[43067]

i remember that. wasn't there something to do with the lease of the Cl67's and or getting new loco's. dare i say the Cl68's

 

[jimm]

a. DB has acquired most of the Mk3 passenger coaches that are not currently in traffic with a view to using more on Chiltern services - which was one of the reasons FGW has had to resort to converting buffet cars into TSOs for its HSTs.

b. As has been pointed out here previously, Chiltern has issued a tender for locomotives to operate its services.

c. FGW use almost exactly the same wording on Twitter when they are asked about more trains. I assume other TOCs do as well.

d. All FGW's Turbos are going to be needed right where they are until at least the end of 2016 and with the start of East-West Rail services using diesel traction at the end of 2017, that's where a lot of the sets to be released from Thames Valley duty will be going initially.

 

[20Man]

I seem to remember someone from Chiltern saying that they couldn't order more 172's as the engines didn't meet new emissions regulations. I use Chiltern a lot, and my wife commutes to Marylebone, and they certainly do need more stock, 3 or 4 car 168's on Birmingham trains aren't enough, so making more of them loco hauedl stock would release more units for the Oxfords, which I would think would need to be at least 6 car sets.

They were looking for new locos, I think most people assumed this would probably be class 68's but I haven't heard anymore on this. There has been talk of them trying to get some 170's from Scotland when the Edinburgh - Glasgow electrification is finished, but that is some way off I guess.

The impression I get is that new build diesel units probably wont happen with the amount of electrification going on, cascades of existing stock being more likely. Most people assume that the Chiltern line will be a candidate for electrification after the current schemes are finished. This would give the chance to extend Crossrail via Greenford to, say, High Wycombe and also to link into the East - West route. I'm not saying the Crossrail link would happen but would make sense. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[jopsuk]

If I recall correctly, the tender was for 12-14 locos? In which case I'd guess at them intending to run 11-13 LHCS diagrams?

How many would be needed to run all Birmingham services as LHCS?

 

[pemma]

There will also be the LO 172s up for grabs in a few years time.

 

[MK Tom]

There will also be the LO 172s up for grabs in a few years time.

They would need to be re-geared wouldn't they? Think they only have a 75mph top speed.

 

[anthony263]

They would need to be re-geared wouldn't they? Think they only have a 75mph top speed.

Not too sure since I mentioned back last august on the read I created about my London trip that I had see a plate in a London Overground 172 which said top speed 100mph.

I do agree the natural choice for the LO class 172's is Chiltern however these wont be available til we getowards 2017. If Chiltern can and do order new units then it is likely we will see passengers in other parts of the uk complaining that their operators do the same.

A order of a small batch of dmu's is likely to be very expensive however the class 150's etc will not last forever even after major refurbishment so perhaps the cancelled dmu order program could be resurected in some fashion.

 

[Chris125]

Should simply order eight 6-car 172s.

There are no available designs compliant with current standards - don't forget that 5 years have passed since the 172's were procured. A sizeable order, unlikely in the foreseeable future, would be needed to justify the costs of a new or updated design meeting the latest engine and crashworthiness standards.

Chris

 

[Chrisgr31]

Pops along to remind people that Southern also keep saying that they need more diesel stock for moth the Uckfield and Marshlink lines. However rather than say they would like to order more they say that they are not allowed to order anymore due to emission rules.

However the DoT must think there is some stock or a solution somewhere as the new franchise documents suggest they'll be running longer trains on the Uckfield line during the currency of the new franchise. Those trains have to come from somewhere! The LO 172's will be popular!

However it would seem that the LO 172s could go to the Marshlink, the Marshlink 172's to the Uckfield line and te Chilterns is loco hauled.

I can remember being on loco hauled services on the Uckfield line, but I guess the single line track at Uckfield means thats no longer possible.

 

[43074]

Pops along to remind people that Southern also keep saying that they need more diesel stock for moth the Uckfield and Marshlink lines. However rather than say they would like to order more they say that they are not allowed to order anymore due to emission rules.

However the DoT must think there is some stock or a solution somewhere as the new franchise documents suggest they'll be running longer trains on the Uckfield line during the currency of the new franchise. Those trains have to come from somewhere! The LO 172's will be popular!

However it would seem that the LO 172s could go to the Marshlink, the Marshlink 172's to the Uckfield line and te Chilterns is loco hauled.

I can remember being on loco hauled services on the Uckfield line, but I guess the single line track at Uckfield means thats no longer possible.

I doubt 172s would be popular on London Bridge to Uckfield or Marshlink because they don't have toilets and to fit them would be costly, as well as being limited to 75mph although apparently there's nothing to stop them from doing 100mph. I would cascade the 172s to East Anglia (another region in need of rolling stock).

Then I would electrify Uckfield and Marshlink and supply them with a new build of 4 car 377s. These would displace the 171s (possibly converting them back to 170s) to another TOC, possibly Chiltern Railways as their 168/2s are virtually identical to the 171/7 and 171/8s as they were built at the same time, IIRC. Network Rail have decided DC electrification is unfeasible so you could set the ball rolling with AC conversion on the Southern, if you wanted to, with these lines although DC electrification is better than no electrification.

[/fantasy]

 

[Peter Sarf]

Makes sense to electrify Uckfield. Generally I would hope that electrification of other routes would supply enough cascaded dmus to avoid the need to build new dmus. However there must be a point where all useful electrification projects have been done and there are still pockets of diesel operation. These could be larger than pockets so one day new dmus wil be required unless some current designs last forever. Que posbibilty bmus (battery powered multiple units).

On topic. I suspect Chiltern could use enough loco hauled Mk3 coaches to cause quite a few spare dmus. I am thinking this would result in Chiltern having more dmus than they need. Longer term the Chiltern routes must be a candidate for electrification as not much out from London will be left to electrify !.

Perhaps the non-Birmingham services will one day go through Crossrail or another similar tunnel. Since Crossrail will also swallow up the Paddington non-intercity services perhaps Chilterns Birmingham services will be diverted to - - Paddington. The end of Marylebone ?. After all if we really sort out Londons transport then I would expect the termini will be replaced by through stations in many cases. Thats happened to a certain extent in Paris - I think I am right ?. Thinking about it Merseyrail consists of separate routes with termini joined together.

 

[jimm]

Makes sense to electrify Uckfield. Generally I would hope that electrification of other routes would supply enough cascaded dmus to avoid the need to build new dmus. However there must be a point where all useful electrification projects have been done and there are still pockets of diesel operation. These could be larger than pockets so one day new dmus wil be required unless some current designs last forever. Que posbibilty bmus (battery powered multiple units).

On topic. I suspect Chiltern could use enough loco hauled Mk3 coaches to cause quite a few spare dmus. I am thinking this would result in Chiltern having more dmus than they need. Longer term the Chiltern routes must be a candidate for electrification as not much out from London will be left to electrify !.

Highly unlikely that more loco-hauled stock will cause a single spare dmu at Chiltern. The intention is to operate six-car trains to Oxford when that route opens and any other units freed will help ease crowding elsewhere on Chiltern's services.

 

[mr_jrt]

...not to mention, LO are going to need the 172s for operating the Greenford shuttle when they take it and the Romford shuttles over, unless they pay to get the Greenford line wired as well (somewhat unlikely after the Goblin saga).

 

[anthony263]

The Romford branch is electrified so a emu will be used for this (I hope)

 

[pemma]

They would need to be re-geared wouldn't they? Think they only have a 75mph top speed.

Or LM could take on both the Chiltern and LO 172s and Chiltern could take on some of LM's (100mph) 170s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt 172s would be popular on London Bridge to Uckfield or Marshlink because they don't have toilets and to fit them would be costly

Given a lot of older multiple units with toilets are to get new accessible toilets over the next few years the cost may not be as much as you think due to mass production of new train toilets.

 

[TDK]

In their current climate the only stock Chiltern could afford is more Mk3 coaching stock/DVT, the loco's are all hired in. Some DVT's and Coaches where given to Chiltern to use when WSMR were kicked out and as far as I am aware all the Mk3/DVT's are owned by DB, whether Chiltern have to pay lease costs for these is another question but I wouldn't be surprised if they had to pay leasing costs. Class 172's cost £1m per coach where Mk3 coaching stock cost hell of a lot less even after being refurbed and converted to run with 67's. The track access is also a lot less for Mk3 vice 172.

 

[swt_passenger]

...not to mention, LO are going to need the 172s for operating the Greenford shuttle when they take it and the Romford shuttles over...

Speculation alarm is sounding here...

 

[Eagle]

...not to mention, LO are going to need the 172s for operating the Greenford shuttle when they take it and the Romford shuttles over, unless they pay to get the Greenford line wired as well (somewhat unlikely after the Goblin saga).

Has it been confirmed that TfL are taking these services over (whether under the LO or Crossrail brand)? I know there have been a lot of rumours but I thought TfL were saying they didn't want anything to do with them.

 

[ainsworth74]

Speculation alarm is sounding here...

Sounding? I'd say it was blaring with an ear piercing shriek!

 

[Eagle]

To be fair, it's not baseless speculation...

There was some surprise back in June when it was confirmed that the DfT would devolve the West Anglia rail franchise to TfL, a major step towards the devolution of London’s rail services. Although not stated at the time, sources now suggest that the DfT have placed a price on this devolution of services, one on which the two parties are now negotiating terms – TfL must take on two other London branch lines as well.

UPDATE: TfL have kindly provided us with a statement on this subject, clarifying their perspective on the matter. This can be found at the end of the article here.

 

[swt_passenger]

To be fair, it's not baseless speculation...

But that's about the only source, and TfL took the fairly unusual step of contacting London Reconnections and denying it, hence the update at the end of their article.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If I remember correctly the 165s and 166s are slightly bigger than other units loading guage wise. When they leave the Paddington services it is being suggested on other threads that they will be hard to fit in elsewhere. As Chiltern also use the same units does it not make sense to replace all of chilterns 168s and 172s with 165s and/or 166s ?. Unsure regarding suitability for longer distance services maybe ?.

Mark3 coaches for services to Birmingham or beyond Banbury mind you.

I feel its logical for the 172s on Chiltern and LO to end up with LM - one fleet in one place. 168s are more or less the same as 170s are they not ? - so could go to an operator already running 170s.

Of course its all logical pretty solutions to make things tidy - they might well have no actual use.

 

[pemma]

If I remember correctly the 165s and 166s are slightly bigger than other units loading guage wise.

They are the same width as 150s but have longer carriages than 150s so the two things combined means they are more restricted as to where they can travel.

168s are more or less the same as 170s are they not ?

Different coupling system. 168s are able to couple up with 165s and 166s while 170s are able to couple up with all types of Sprinter and also 172s.