Next Chiltern Franchise

[adamskiodp]

Hi folks,

The following points and questions are from my limited knowledge as a leisure user with no knowledge of how franchises work or are regulated. Please forgive my ignorance if I have things wrong.

Mods: Please move if in the wrong forum.

Chiltern Railways seem to have achieved quite a lot in their current franchise (IMHO). On the whole a much better service to Birmingham (although some passengers in the London end might have seen a reduced service) and the new service to Oxford seems to have been a success. The rolling stock on the Mainline seems very comfortable although there are overcrowding issues (but I understand that rolling stock is controlled by DfT regulations), and journey times seem reasonable. I know there have been a lot of short formations due to extra maintenance work, but I assume that they don’t want to invest in any more rolling stock due to being so close to the end of the franchise.

My main journeys are from Aylesbury to London via Amersham which seem to be a poor relation to the Wycombe/Oxford/Birmingham routes. I know there are restrictions on rolling stock and journey time due to the Amersham to Harrow LUL section.

Would it be unreasonable to expect some further improvements in the next franchise (whoever that is) to the Aylesbury to Princes Risborough section. Such as double tracking (separate to the East West proposals which seem to be stalled at the moment) the line and having a much faster journey time with improved rolling stock to London? Other similar sized towns of a similar distance from London seem to have a much better service, or will Aylesbury continue to be a forgotten backwater?

What are the chances that the Met will give up the Amersham/Chesham branch to the new Chiltern franchise (just keeping the Uxbridge/Watford branches) to allow electrification of the whole line with improved rolling stock and better journey time?

What about reviving the West Hampstead Interchange project that was supposed to rebuild the station(s) to give a better interchange between the Thameslink, North London, Metropolitan, Jubilee and Chiltern lines?

Sorry for the ramble, just thinking out loud really.

What other ideas do people have for the next Chiltern franchise starting next December?

regards and Happy New Year to all

(Edited to add a point about the West Hampstead Interchange)

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

There are a few things we have to consider, the main one is the Williams Rail Review which WILL be published in the coming weeks, this is now expected to see the end of the franchising system as the Government has confimed it has no intention of continuing franchising in its current form.

A number of changes have been mentioned in the press over the last two years: concessions, customer out base-contracts and open access model (for major InterCity services). These seem like what will be what is recommended.

Who knows it may be a concession for Chiltern, if so there are a number of improvements we could see:

• Longer trains on Birmingham service as well as Oxford services.
• New stock to meet long term demand?
• Could see an extension of the Moor Street services to Snow Hill which would free up the bays for the Bordersley chords when it happens

 

[gingertom]

There are a few things we have to consider, the main one is the Williams Rail Review which WILL be published in the coming weeks, this is now expected to see the end of the franchising system as the Government has confimed it has no intention of continuing franchising in its current form.

A number of changes have been mentioned in the press over the last two years: concessions, customer out base-contracts and open access model (for major InterCity services). These seem like what will be what is recommended.

Who knows it may be a concession for Chiltern, if so there are a number of improvements we could see:

• Longer trains on Birmingham service as well as Oxford services.
• New stock to meet long term demand?
• Could see an extension of the Moor Street services to Snow Hill which would free up the bays for the Bordersley chords when it happens

I would like to think electrification is on the cards. Marylebone needs to clean up its air.

 

[The Planner]

Would it be unreasonable to expect some further improvements in the next franchise (whoever that is) to the Aylesbury to Princes Risborough section. Such as double tracking (separate to the East West proposals which seem to be stalled at the moment) the line and having a much faster journey time with improved rolling stock to London?

No to double tracking, highly unlikely for speed improvements either.

What are the chances that the Met will give up the Amersham/Chesham branch to the new Chiltern franchise (just keeping the Uxbridge/Watford branches) to allow electrification of the whole line with improved rolling stock and better journey time?

None

Could see an extension of the Moor Street services to Snow Hill which would free up the bays for the Bordersley chords when it happens

I expect the next franchise/concession/whatever will finish before the Bordesley Chords

I would like to think electrification is on the cards. Marylebone needs to clean up its air.

Not for the whole, if any of, route it won't be.

 

[si404]

What are the chances that the Met will give up the Amersham/Chesham branch to the new Chiltern franchise (just keeping the Uxbridge/Watford branches) to allow electrification of the whole line with improved rolling stock and better journey time?

None - Marylebone-Neasden wouldn't cope with the required frequency to serve it, while the Met has space for them.

Add in that Marylebone (and Harrow-on-the-Hill, where it seems large numbers would change onto the Met) wouldn't be able to handle the number of passengers, even assuming the trains are long enough. The most-recent Mayor's Transport Strategy shows serious crowding on the route in 2041 with Rickmansworth and Amersham having very crowded trains leaving them southbound in the am peak (and then the averages drop with addition of Chesham and Watford branches, masking the issue) - and worse with the strategy somehow (cf map 10 in this CityMetric summary).

I'd argue that the only handover of services there would be is the handing over of the Leamington - Moor Street shuttle to West Midlands Railway.

Unless they are going to continue to go with a Chiltern model (long term, with infrastructure improvements in lieu of some premiums), I doubt the operator would do any infrastructure improvements (especially big ones like electrification, or the OOC branch) - with Network Rail being the instigator of those. If it's a 5 years franchise/concession, then I don't hold out much hope for improvement beyond the following even being considered:

• Longer trains on the turbo routes, ending the 2-car services in London
• smart ticketing (London's contactless PAYG to Wycombe?, Swift extensions in Warwickshire?, The Chiltern ITSO card fully implemented at all its stations?) as that's an in-thing
• timetable irregularities removed (Little Kimble being every train, not the most it is now; changes at the limited stop stations like Sudbury & Harrow Road, and Islip)
• possible doubling of London service to Stratford (to hourly) and Aylesbury Vale Parkway (to half-hourly)

 

[Energy]

Rolling stock wise, I could see this happening:

• 165s replaced by 168s (maybe sent to GWR? Otherwise scrapped)
• New mainline trains ordered to replace the 68/mk3s and to allow the cascade of 168s
• All the 168s getting reformed to 3 cars long.

For new trains I could see:

• Bimode flirts (maybe the ec250/smile but bimode)
• Bimode aventras
• Bimode Hitachi

Route wise, there aren't enough 168s to fully replace the 165s so I would suggest:

• Sending the Birmingham to Leamington shuttle to WMR
• "Upgrading" a few services to mainline ones such as the London Marylebone to High Wycombe.
• Axing the parliamentary trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Route wise, there aren't enough 168s to fully replace the 165s so I would suggest:

• Sending the Birmingham to Leamington shuttle to WMR
• "Upgrading" a few services to mainline ones such as the London Marylebone to High Wycombe.
• Axing the parliamentary trains.

4. Bringing some 170s in from another TOC in return for something else, e.g. a multi-way swap involving GWR - 165s to GWR, 158s from GWR to Northern, 170s to Chiltern (then modded to 168 spec).

 

[Energy]

4. Bringing some 170s in from another TOC in return for something else, e.g. a multi-way swap involving GWR - 165s to GWR, 158s from GWR to Northern, 170s to Chiltern (then modded to 168 spec).

Possibly, TfW have a few 170s, the 8 3 car ones could come to Chiltern, do we know if these are staying at TfW or are they getting replaced by CAFs.

If XC lose some in the future then maybe some of them could come to Chiltern.

 

[Along the bay]

Rolling stock wise, I could see this happening:

• 165s replaced by 168s (maybe sent to GWR? Otherwise scrapped)
• New mainline trains ordered to replace the 68/mk3s and to allow the cascade of 168s
• All the 168s getting reformed to 3 cars long.

For new trains I could see:

• Bimode flirts (maybe the ec250/smile but bimode)
• Bimode aventras
• Bimode Hitachi

Route wise, there aren't enough 168s to fully replace the 165s so I would suggest:

• Sending the Birmingham to Leamington shuttle to WMR
• "Upgrading" a few services to mainline ones such as the London Marylebone to High Wycombe.
• Axing the parliamentary trains.

Retain the 68s and get MK 5s instead. Theres not a lot of wiring for a bi-mode to use

 

[Energy]

Retain the 68s and get MK 5s instead. Theres not a lot of wiring for a bi-mode to use

Maybe, maybe a 68 and 7 Mk5 carriages? Could the 68s be made to accelerate quicker? There would need to be a new order anyway so maybe a class 93 like one?

 

[si404]

Theres not a lot of wiring for a bi-mode to use

There's the 4th rail between Harrow and Amersham, and that's it. Most services see no electrification at all.

I guess the approach to Oxford is going to be electrified in the future, but that's not a lot of Chiltern's mileage.

 

[Energy]

Unless CAF can do a diesel 397 q doubt there is much choice, plus I doubt many lessors will finance a train which doesn't have much future, look at the voyagers bright now...

 

[swt_passenger]

I’ve always believed that IF Chiltern could get enough 168 compatible DMUs then they’d quickly get rid of the loco hauled stock. I reckon it’s a bonus while it lasts but it isn’t necessarily long term, so assuming they’ll replace it with something new cannot really be assumed...

 

[Clip]

The problem with Chiltern is that there just isnt the capacity at Marylebone for much more improvements - until that changes then i cant see that anything will happen

 

[Energy]

I’ve always believed that IF Chiltern could get enough 168 compatible DMUs then they’d quickly get rid of the loco hauled stock. I reckon it’s a bonus while it lasts but it isn’t necessarily long term, so assuming they’ll replace it with something new cannot really be assumed...

Agreed, I didn't suggest loco hauled initially because if Chiltern wanted loco hauled they would have got more loco hauled trains by now. It seems like a stop gap until more stock is ordered, they only got 6 of them so a new order at the time would be expensive, the 172s were part of the LO order I believe.

 

[JamesT]

Unless CAF can do a diesel 397 q doubt there is much choice, plus I doubt many lessors will finance a train which doesn't have much future, look at the voyagers bright now...

Er, they do. Diesel Civity's in this country are currently going to be classes 195, 196, and 197.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Er, they do. Diesel Civity's in this country are currently going to be classes 195, 196, and 197.

No end-doored options, though I'm sure they could do a "Class 197"[1] if somebody ordered one.

I'd suggest they may need to consider bi-modes, even if those are series battery hybrids charging from the diesel engines outside of London. I can see, within 20 years, an outright ban on diesel-powered vehicles in central London of any kind. Anyone still operating pure DMUs would be rather stuck, and short of cascading it to regional lines what they buy is going to need to last 30-40 years.

Your off-the-shelf options there are Stadler and Hitachi - either would do, though the FLIRT door layout may be better for these services.

[1] I think that number is already taken but you know what I mean.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

No end-doored options, though I'm sure they could do a "Class 197"[1] if somebody ordered one.

I'd suggest they may need to consider bi-modes, even if those are series battery hybrids charging from the diesel engines outside of London. I can see, within 20 years, an outright ban on diesel-powered vehicles in central London of any kind. Anyone still operating pure DMUs would be rather stuck, and short of cascading it to regional lines what they buy is going to need to last 30-40 years.

Your off-the-shelf options there are Stadler and Hitachi - either would do, though the FLIRT door layout may be better for these services.

[1] I think that number is already taken but you know what I mean.

197s are for TFW , 196 for WMT and 195 for northern

 

[adamskiodp]

Thankyou all. Some very interesting thoughts.

I guess we’ll have to wait another 23 months to find out

 

[Mogz]

It would be nice if Chiltern resurrected the old GWR route to Merseyside (though it would now have to go to Liverpool Lime Street, not Birkenhead Woodside), perhaps as a once per day working.

It could continue beyond Birmingham to Shrewsbury, Wrexham, Chester and then over the Halton Curve into Liverpool.

 

[The Planner]

Errr, no, why would they want to do that?

 

[transmanche]

It would be nice if Chiltern resurrected the old GWR route to Merseyside (though it would now have to go to Liverpool Lime Street, not Birkenhead Woodside), perhaps as a once per day working.

But why? What purpose would it serve?

Birmingham, Smethwick and Wolverhampton already have direct services to Liverpool. As does Chester. Wrexham and Shrewsbury will get direct trains to Liverpool when the Liverpool-Chester via Halton Curve service is extended to Shrewsbury/Cardiff.

It's hard to see who would actually benefit from such a service, other than nostalgia hunters.

It could continue beyond Birmingham to Shrewsbury, Wrexham, Chester and then over the Halton Curve into Liverpool.

In Birmingham, it would have to go via New Street rather than Moor Street. Which would complicate matters for Chiltern passengers.

 

[krus_aragon]

Possibly, TfW have a few 170s, the 8 3 car ones could come to Chiltern, do we know if these are staying at TfW or are they getting replaced by CAFs.

They're planned to stay at TfW indefinitely, alongside the CAF 197s.

One favoured crayonista idea is that TfW would keep the 175s instead, but the current service plans would only require half of the 175 fleet, leaving the ROSCO with an undesirable microfleet.

 

[Aictos]

It would be nice if Chiltern resurrected the old GWR route to Merseyside (though it would now have to go to Liverpool Lime Street, not Birkenhead Woodside), perhaps as a once per day working.

It could continue beyond Birmingham to Shrewsbury, Wrexham, Chester and then over the Halton Curve into Liverpool.

No thanks, I rather they work on improving service frequency and lengthening of services where possible then operate a route that has no benefits. Ta

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're planned to stay at TfW indefinitely, alongside the CAF 197s.

One favoured crayonista idea is that TfW would keep the 175s instead, but the current service plans would only require half of the 175 fleet, leaving the ROSCO with an undesirable microfleet.

Could Chiltern take 175s? They're vaguely equivalent in comfort terms to Mk3 coaches and would work on the long distance runs, and on what is primarily a commuter and day-trip network the lacking luggage provision may not be a great issue.

 

[Energy]

Could Chiltern take 175s? They're vaguely equivalent in comfort terms to Mk3 coaches and would work on the long distance runs, and on what is primarily a commuter and day-trip network the lacking luggage provision may not be a great issue.

I also doubt Chiltern will want them, leasing rates on new trains are low right now so there isn't much advantage over new stock.

 

[Meerkat]

I also doubt Chiltern will want them, leasing rates on new trains are low right now so there isn't much advantage over new stock.

You reckon leasing rates for diesels will be low?! Twenty year lifespan.....

 

[transmanche]

You reckon leasing rates for diesels will be low?! Twenty year lifespan.....

Interest rates are low, thus leasing costs are low. It's why SWR are getting ride of their 707s and GA are getting rid of their 379s.

If the trains are bi-mode rather than pure diesel (or built so that diesel engines can easily be replaced with some other form of power) then there's no reason to assume they'll have a short lifespan and attract higher leasing costs.

 

[Meerkat]

I can’t see Chiltern getting bimodes when there is no electrification and no plans as yet!
Certainly be a big risk to buy bi-modes that they don’t need and don’t exist yet (I am assuming Stadlers would be too long, and AT300s to be overspecced)

 

[transmanche]

I can’t see Chiltern getting bimodes when there is no electrification and no plans as yet!

Having bi-modes would certainly make it easier to electrify the route bit-by-bit, over a number if years.

Certainly be a big risk to buy bi-modes that they don’t need

Why would buying a bi-mode be a much bigger risk than, say, buying a DEMU?

and don’t exist yet (I am assuming Stadlers would be too long, and AT300s to be overspecced)

I'm pretty sure that Stadler will build a train of whatever length you like! They have built 65m-long 3-car units and 80m-long 4-car units for GA, 65m-long 4-car units for Merseyrail as well as the 240m-long 12-car units for GA.