• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Rumour that Chiltern are going to lease class 68s to replace 67s (confirmed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
The class 68s have a greater mass don't they - sounds to me then they won't be as good as 67s for breaking?

I am sure the 68s will break just as much as the 67s do.

I dont think the braking on the 68s will be as good as the 67s though! ;)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Beveridges

Established Member
Joined
8 Sep 2010
Messages
2,136
Location
BLACKPOOL
The only advantage of the 68s is the horsepower. I'm sure they'll get to linespeed faster. But nothing can beat the reliability of the 67.

A 67 is exempt from the additional light loco roles. You can do 125mph light loco where line speed permits.

Why is that? Are the brakes much better on 67s ?
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Could be that's it's the total cost of the contract to Chiltern across an extended period of time: Say 6 locos funded for five years for £15 million = £0.5 million per loco per year.

Having had sight today of the actual press release Chiltern put out, it said nothing about £15m, so no idea where that figure came from in the businessdesk.com story, which gave no further info about the finances. I assume the lease will run for the seven years from this December until the end of the franchise in December 2021.
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
The only advantage of the 68s is the horsepower. I'm sure they'll get to linespeed faster. But nothing can beat the reliability of the 67.



Why is that? Are the brakes much better on 67s ?

It's already been stated that the 67s have a higher brake force as they are 125MPH locos
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
The class 68s have a greater mass don't they
No, the 68s are five tonnes lighter than the 67s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But nothing can beat the reliability of the 67.
Is it nothing to do with the unreliability of the class 67s as to why the Chiltern loco-hauled sets remain at, or near to, the bottom of any published reliability tables, then?

They don't currently paint a very rosy picture for loco haulage over multiple unit operation. :(
 
Last edited:

Photohunter71

Member
Joined
17 Jan 2012
Messages
576
Location
In a flat beside Niddrie West junction
So Chiltern are committing to use an untried loco type still to be cleared to run on NR?
67s must be poor performers if they are going to be ditched in this way.
The lease renewal cost would be bargain basement as there is no other work for them.
And DB (Arriva) has maintenance facilites at LNWR Crewe but is not using them?
Very odd.

As has been stated in a previous post, the 67's drink fuel as though it was going out of fashion. Maybe the CAT engined 68's with all their new fandango etc will be a little more cost effective to run loco hauled services, so are they looking at it from that point of view?
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,155
Location
Crewe

If that is the case I would imagine that they will have to have at least 5 vehicles and Mk3's at that behind them to be permitted to doo 100mph on the Chiltern Mainline. A lot of work needs to be done by Chiltern to upgrade their safety policy on their LHCS. 68 tonnes of brakekforce is pretty good but not anything like the class 67's.
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
If that is the case I would imagine that they will have to have at least 5 vehicles and Mk3's at that behind them to be permitted to doo 100mph on the Chiltern Mainline. A lot of work needs to be done by Chiltern to upgrade their safety policy on their LHCS. 68 tonnes of brakekforce is pretty good but not anything like the class 67's.

Why so? The 87s had 40t brake force and were thundering up and down the WCML at 110MPH.

EDIT: and if the brake force is the same on a production PC as the prototype then it has more brake force than an HST power car.
 
Last edited:

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
Why so? The 87s had 40t brake force and were thundering up and down the WCML at 110MPH.

EDIT: and if the brake force is the same on a production PC as the prototype then it has more brake force than an HST power car.

A powercar is lighter than a 68. That accounts for something.
A HST powercar also has quite a few coaches with it, and also another powercar. What are they allowed to reach on their own? The rest of the HST set will add to the brakeforce.
They are actually very good as a set though, as they can stop from 125, in the same distance conventional loco hauled trains used to take from 100.

I believe that TDK is just on about the Chiltern route though. Signal spacing is probably worse than on the WCML. Hence need for better brake force.
Would 87s be able to do 100 on the Chiltern route? Even if it were electrified.
 

Beveridges

Established Member
Joined
8 Sep 2010
Messages
2,136
Location
BLACKPOOL
Is it nothing to do with the unreliability of the class 67s as to why the Chiltern loco-hauled sets remain at, or near to, the bottom of any published reliability tables, then?

Why are they unreliable ? 67's have exactly the same mechanical parts as a 66, and no locomotive beats the reliability of a 66. Maybe DMU's are just more reliable even compared to the most reliable locomotive. Multiple units are so reliable as if something fails on one car there are always the other cars to keep it moving.
 

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
Why so? The 87s had 40t brake force and were thundering up and down the WCML at 110MPH.

EDIT: and if the brake force is the same on a production PC as the prototype then it has more brake force than an HST power car.

Two things. 87s have rheostatic brake in addition to friction brake.

Secondly, all stock operating above 110 must be able to a) if electric re-gen and/or electric brake through a neutral section and b) be able to apply the brakes from both end of the train - as an HST can and as 89/91 plus DVT can. Faster reduction of brake pipe means quicker application.

Bottom line is that proving braking distances now falls to the operator. So operator will undertake testing to demonstrate, in a variety of conditions, that braking requirements can be met.

I think Chiltern/DRS/Vossloh need to get their 68s working before worrying about brake performance! There's still the question over how the DVT will control the loco, i.e. will 68s for Chiltern be fitted with AAR or will DVTs be fitted with a UIC568/WTB interface and Mk3s be through wired for UIC568.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
Formal promulgation today in "The Oxford Mail":-

CHILTERN Railways has agreed a deal to lease six new 100mph diesel locomotives for services linking Bicester and Banbury with London and Birmingham.

It said their haulage capabilities meant extra coaches could be added to Mainline Silver trains if passenger numbers continued to grow.

The Class 68s will be sub-leased from freight train operator Direct Rail services, which has 15 of the 3,750-horsepower locomotives on order. They will replace 12-year-old Class 67s hired from Chiltern’s sister company DB Schenker.

These have been used on the Mainline Silver express trains and ‘queue-buster’ rush-hour commuter trains between Banbury and London since 2010.

The first Class 68 to arrive in the UK is undergoing tests, with another on trial at a rail technology centre in the Czech Republic.

They will be delivered this autumn for driver training and are expected to enter service in December. Chiltern managing director Rob Brighouse said: “It allows us to prepare for future expansion as demand for our line increases.”

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11148214.New_trains_on_order_for_Chiltern_services/
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,155
Location
Crewe
Why so? The 87s had 40t brake force and were thundering up and down the WCML at 110MPH.

EDIT: and if the brake force is the same on a production PC as the prototype then it has more brake force than an HST power car.

Not with only 5 coaches they wern't
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think anyone meant any personal insult, but as I'm sure you're aware there are one or two trolls on the Internet - so people on a forum are naturally sceptical of new people who announce 'big news'.

Stick around, join in, get to know some of the regulars - you might have fun!

There wasn't an insult this is the line in the OP post that may have brought a barrage of comments As far as im aware im one of the first to find this out. THIS IS HAPPENING to me it seems that the OP is dishing out confidential information that only they know about when in fact this has been on the cards for 2 years. Sorry guys but with the Dad bit etc. it is open for comments of the trolling nature as they say!
 

Warbonnet

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
43
Why are they unreliable ? 67's have exactly the same mechanical parts as a 66, and no locomotive beats the reliability of a 66. Maybe DMU's are just more reliable even compared to the most reliable locomotive. Multiple units are so reliable as if something fails on one car there are always the other cars to keep it moving.

Not quite!
I think the main problem with the 67's is the electronics as its Spanish that is also old tech and more than abit useless.
The 67 also uses the old EMD '645' V12 unit which was a "hand me down" unit from the U.S and was previously used before being rebuilt for the 67's, the same is true for the 57's! Its bassicly a lump dating from its first introduction from 1965! (the 645 denotes 645 cubic inches per cylinder, EMD use the imperial numbering system on all their power units). The V12 645 unit, although very good in its day does drink fuel, one reason being is the fact it has old tech mechanical injection. EMD also used to make a V20 of this engine which really was a beast!
The 66 on the other hand uses the later and more fuel efficient '710'G V12 which uses electronic fuel injection aswel as tried and tested EMD electronics in the traction package. That's why the 66 is so reliable.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,901
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
Not quite!
I think the main problem with the 67's is the electronics as its Spanish that is also old tech and more than abit useless.
The 67 also uses the old EMD '645' V12 unit which was a "hand me down" unit from the U.S and was previously used before being rebuilt for the 67's, the same is true for the 57's! Its bassicly a lump dating from its first introduction from 1965! (the 645 denotes 645 cubic inches per cylinder, EMD use the imperial numbering system on all their power units). The V12 645 unit, although very good in its day does drink fuel, one reason being is the fact it has old tech mechanical injection. EMD also used to make a V20 of this engine which really was a beast!
The 66 on the other hand uses the later and more fuel efficient '710'G V12 which uses electronic fuel injection aswel as tried and tested EMD electronics in the traction package. That's why the 66 is so reliable.

67s are 710 power units - which are notoriously bad at providing ETH to add to the issues. GM power units get worse as they progress - you'd never break anything with a 567 in it...
 

Warbonnet

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
43
67s are 710 power units - which are notoriously bad at providing ETH to add to the issues. GM power units get worse as they progress - you'd never break anything with a 567 in it...

Yep, you are quite correct, my mistake, its the 57's which use the 645 and ofcourse the 59's which use the V16 version of it.
Mentioning the '567' unit, I was only last night looking at a GP9 still earning its keep at 63 years old!:lol:
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,761
Location
Back in Sussex
I'm not sure about '...notoriously bad at providing ETH...', what I do remember of their first year of operation was that we were banned from using ETH/ETS/HEP at stations and in the PRDC because of the dreadful screaming and howling that they produced when it was selected
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
I'm not sure about '...notoriously bad at providing ETH...', what I do remember of their first year of operation was that we were banned from using ETH/ETS/HEP at stations and in the PRDC because of the dreadful screaming and howling that they produced when it was selected

Typical American loco. Always need high revs to supply ETS.
Although saying that, a true American loco is usually worse. They seem to need the engine at a constant RPM all the time.
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,155
Location
Crewe
I'm not sure about '...notoriously bad at providing ETH...', what I do remember of their first year of operation was that we were banned from using ETH/ETS/HEP at stations and in the PRDC because of the dreadful screaming and howling that they produced when it was selected

The 67 was quite reliable and still is providing ETS/ETH/HEP the normal revs at tick over is about 265 but with the ETH it is 400 odd. When the 67's are at Marylebone or were at Marylebone the rule was to shut the engine down if it was to stand for more than 10 minutes. Chiltern have combatted the problem of leaving engines running by installing a small (in loco standards) engine into the DVT to supply ETH when the 67 engine is not running. The problem with the 67's as their fuel consumption, you are looking at a maximum of 1200 miles (and that is ambitious) using 4000 - 5000 litres of diesel and obviously the more coaches the more fuel they will consume.
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
Would the extra cost of hireing brand new 68 s outweigh the extra cost of excessive fuel consumpton

Wouldnt want to say on tha one, although its probably a close run thing.
There are extra benefits to the 68s though. Like the ability to extend the trains if necessary.
They will also have nippier acceleration than the 67s I would imagine.
 

Old Hill Bank

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
971
Location
Kidderminster
Getting back to the logistics of this, longer trains?
Stourbridge Depot with it's four roads will only take 8 vehicle formations in each and currently hosts three Silver Trains at DVT+6 x Mk3+Loco and two 4-car class 168s.
The two stabling sidings at Moor Street are of similar length.
How will longer trains work.
 

matt

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
30 Jun 2005
Messages
7,812
Location
Rugby
Various posts removed, can we keep it on topic about the class 68s being used by Chiltern, thanks
 

NickBucks

Member
Joined
17 May 2013
Messages
183
Did the 67's ever run at 125 mph in revenue earning service as promised under Evergreen
1/2 ? . Seems as if we are now exchanging 125 mph max locos for 100 mph locos albeit with fuel savings. I thought the Class 170 DMU's were capable of 125 mph in theory.
No doubt the December 2014 timetable will reflect longer journey times.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Nothing higher than 100 between Moor St and Marylebone anyway if I recall, so 125 isnt possible let alone promised? Timetable will stay as it is considering it is all based on 168 timings.
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,761
Location
Back in Sussex
Did the 67's ever run at 125 mph in revenue earning service as promised under Evergreen
1/2 ? . Seems as if we are now exchanging 125 mph max locos for 100 mph locos albeit with fuel savings. I thought the Class 170 DMU's were capable of 125 mph in theory.

Unless the rules have been considerably altered 170's cannot be run at 125mph, assuming they were actually capable of it, because of the lack of safety for passengers, a crumple zone, or whatever you want to call it, would have to extend to at least the first set of doors, if not further, leaving virtually no room to actually carry passengers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top