Next Chiltern Franchise

[Meerkat]

Having bi-modes would certainly make it easier to electrify the route bit-by-bit, over a number if years.
Why would buying a bi-mode be a much bigger risk than, say, buying a DEMU?
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.

I would agree if it was a franchise based on electrification and fleet renewal, but otherwise there won’t be any electrification to use for a long time.
A bi-mode would be a bigger risk because I think they would be buying one that doesn’t exist.
The Stadlers lose length to the diesel modules - wouldn’t Chiltern have issues about required passenger length within platform length constraints?

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

It is near certain, I reckon, that there will be an outright ban on diesel-powered transport vehicles in central London within 20 years. Within 10 years I think it is possible, within 20 I'd say absolutely dead-certain.

Therefore any franchise that goes to a London terminus needs bi-modes or they'll find themselves with big issues when this happens.

Even if they don't wire the whole route, they'll need to wire a short section (or use batteries) for this.

 

[Energy]

It is near certain, I reckon, that there will be an outright ban on diesel-powered transport vehicles in central London within 20 years. Within 10 years I think it is possible, within 20 I'd say absolutely dead-certain.

Therefore any franchise that goes to a London terminus needs bi-modes or they'll find themselves with big issues when this happens.

Even if they don't wire the whole route, they'll need to wire a short section (or use batteries) for this.

And there aren't many diesel train builders, CAF are the only true diesel train maker. Stadler do other them, like the class 231, but they look to be a bimode without the pantograph equipment.

At this point bimodes look certain.

 

[Aictos]

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.

London Marylebone to High Wycombe is a suburban service not a Mainline service.

Birmingham and Oxford tho yes they can be classed as Mainline services.

 

[Meerkat]

It is near certain, I reckon, that there will be an outright ban on diesel-powered transport vehicles in central London within 20 years. Within 10 years I think it is possible, within 20 I'd say absolutely dead-certain.

Therefore any franchise that goes to a London terminus needs bi-modes or they'll find themselves with big issues when this happens.

Even if they don't wire the whole route, they'll need to wire a short section (or use batteries) for this.

I can see electrification extensions elsewhere cascading units to Chiltern, who have to make do until a comprehensive route electrification plan develops.
You can’t even really start Chiltern electrification design until you have sorted out strategic issues - how to deal with LU, when will WM do the Snow Hill lines and what services/paths will they leave Chiltern, which project does Banbury-Leamington (Chiltern/XC/freight), will freight be going Banbury-Leamington or Oxford-Bletchley etc etc.

 

[si404]

Therefore any franchise that goes to a London terminus needs bi-modes or they'll find themselves with big issues when this happens.

But, unless it is a 10-year franchise (which it probably won't be) that reckons the restriction on diesels (or electrification) will happen during its lifetime, why would they bother with bi-modes unless it was a condition of the franchise? The need for bi-modes won't be theirs, but the costs will be and they will reap none of the benefits of that extra expense.

AFAICS, the only reason why the next franchise would get new trains are because it's a requirement of the franchise to get new trains. Other reasons like replacing Turbos or needing a bigger fleet to increase service would be cascade from places electrifying.

They won't buy new trains for something that is likely to happen, but only after their franchise runs out. And unless the agreement specifically specifies bi-mode, if they can get diesels cheaper (inc operating costs), they'll get diesels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And there aren't many diesel train builders, CAF are the only true diesel train maker. Stadler do other them, like the class 231, but they look to be a bimode without the pantograph equipment.

The FLIRT is an EMU. You can optionally stick a generator car or two in to power it, and you can optionally have a pantograph and transformer/third rail pickup if you want that.

It does indeed seem to be only CAF now doing a classic mechanical DMU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But, unless it is a 10-year franchise (which it probably won't be) that reckons the restriction on
diesels (or electrification) will happen during its lifetime, why would they bother with bi-modes unless it was a condition of the franchise

If new-build I reckon it will be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see electrification extensions elsewhere cascading units to Chiltern, who have to make do until a comprehensive route electrification plan develops.

I can't see them getting 15x, and the 170s are needed elsewhere to allow 15x to start being scrapped. If anything I'd more expect Chiltern to get new bi-modes and the 165s and 168s to go to regional franchises to allow 15x to start being scrapped - they are getting on a bit now!

 

[Meerkat]

Would the Stadler bi-mode work with platform lengths and Chiltern unit lengths?
4 cars are lumpier than their current length mix, and three cars would lose a lot of space to generator units when tripled up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would the Stadler bi-mode work with platform lengths and Chiltern unit lengths?
4 cars are lumpier than their current length mix, and three cars would lose a lot of space to generator units when tripled up.

They are presently I believe considering reforming the 168s into all 3-car sets. A 3-car conventional 23m DMU is about the same length as a 4-car FLIRT. So I doubt that would be an issue.

The wasted platform length might be, though. But you do get the upside of no need for assisted boarding, which as Chiltern is primarily a DOO railway might well be an advantage. Without that they may find they eventually need to add OBS to handle on-demand accessibility.

 

[Meerkat]

A 3x4 Stadler formation would have some serious power!

Has there been any work done yet to see what the clearances are like?
The bridges and tunnels in town look very low - might be forced to go with batteries for that bit?
How do the TfW tri-mode Stadlers work - some of the generators replaced by a block of batteries (presumably low floor means nowhere else to put them?)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A 3x4 Stadler formation would have some serious power!

Has there been any work done yet to see what the clearances are like?
The bridges and tunnels in town look very low - might be forced to go with batteries for that bit?
How do the TfW tri-mode Stadlers work - some of the generators replaced by a block of batteries (presumably low floor means nowhere else to put them?)?

I think they're 3-car units, so there will be 2 spare engine bays?

 

[Meerkat]

I think they're 3-car units, so there will be 2 spare engine bays?

7x3 car and 17x4 car from a quick google.
Would 3 cars have enough power if they have to lug the batteries around, depending how much spare charge they have to boost acceleration?