Chiltern Class 68s Withdrawal - what should Chiltern replace them with?

[driverd]

I'm not sure whare all this fuss about depots is coming from. Wembley would do just fine for either 222s or 175s. Just because they're made by Alstom (collectively, since the buy out of Bombardier), doesn't mean they have to go to an Alstom depot. Contractually it may be easier, but it's not a must. Northern maintain Bombardier (Alstom) Turbostars at Neville Hill, despite Crofton being a stones throw away. EMT maintain 222s at Derby, rather than the purpose built, Bombardier (Alstom) facility at Central Rivers - again, no great distance away.

Simply, Chiltern would re-train its staff and suitably equip the depot for the new fleet, like many TOCs have done, up and down the country, since the advent of TMDs.

Personally, I'd suggest the 222s are a great fit for Chiltern. They compete favourably with the Pendolinos that Chiltern pitch as competition on the Birmingham - London flows, provide the potential for improvements in long distance journey times and are capable of taking advantage of any future route upgrades.

The 175s would also be a reasonable fit, however, it's not ideal to have formations of coupled short trains (without gangways) from an operational perspective - especially on long distance runs. A pass com pulled in the wrong part of the unit can play holy heck, in terms of disruption, especially when staffing (as on Chiltern), is sometimes DOO, and otherwise quite limited. Before I get a plethora of replies saying "but look at operator x", I'll re-iterate, "not ideal" - I'm sure if it's the chosen option this is no reason at all to stop it, it just introduces slightly more risk, which if I were making the decisions, would tip me toward the 222 fleet.

In either case, I would certainly argue that copious numbers of very suitable stock will be available on the "used" market, come time for renewal, itd be a great shame to see another new train order whilst there's some very capable stock with life still left in it.

 

[JonathanH]

EMT maintain 222s at Derby, rather than the purpose built, Bombardier (Alstom) facility at Central Rivers - again, no great distance away.

Isn't it actually Bombardier staff who maintain 222s at Derby rather than EMR staff? The point is that Wembley isn't set up for them. As you say, perhaps it could be but there is a cost associated with that and both the Wembley site and Aylesbury are constrained spaces.

Personally, I'd suggest the 222s are a great fit for Chiltern. They compete favourably with the Pendolinos that Chiltern pitch as competition on the Birmingham - London flows, provide the potential for improvements in long distance journey times and are capable of taking advantage of any future route upgrades.

There is no need for Chiltern to compete with Avanti under the new railway. The 222s bring with them too much wasted space for the efficient movement of passengers on what are essentially shorter flows than on the Midland Main Line.

 

[driverd]

Isn't it actually Bombardier staff who maintain 222s at Derby rather than EMR staff? The point is that Wembley isn't set up for them. As you say, perhaps it could be but there is a cost associated with that and both the Wembley site and Aylesbury are constrained spaces.

Various depots aren't set up for CAF DMUs, but they re-equip and re-train. Where staff are from the manufacture it's simply contract maintenance, often they just tupe to the TOC should the contract end. Its really a 0% issue that's just been overblown here.

There is no need for Chiltern to compete with Avanti under the new railway. The 222s bring with them too much wasted space for the efficient movement of passengers on what are essentially shorter flows than on the Midland Main Line.

That's a huge assumption. Given the concession model is the one being used under GBR, the competition element still remains. Even ignoring this, if it was run as one big operation, arguably Chiltern services should still compete. Primarily to avoid fare monopoly and offer the consumer choice, but in addition, to providing numerous routing options to avoid excessive demand on one route.

If we're looking at vehicles in terms of £/mile/seat, I don't disagree that the 222s compare unfavourably to 175s. But what they have on the 175s is both comfort and performance, and it's very much up to the operator as to what they will prioritise. Personally I'd go for the performance foremostly.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not advocating a one fleet solution in the form of 222s - this would be solely a replacement for the longer distance runs (eg: Birminghams), turbo/turbostar stock would still be required for the stopping runs - 222s broadly replacing mk3 sets and releasing a limited number of 168s.

 

[Mikey C]

Isn't it actually Bombardier staff who maintain 222s at Derby rather than EMR staff? The point is that Wembley isn't set up for them. As you say, perhaps it could be but there is a cost associated with that and both the Wembley site and Aylesbury are constrained spaces.


There is no need for Chiltern to compete with Avanti under the new railway. The 222s bring with them too much wasted space for the efficient movement of passengers on what are essentially shorter flows than on the Midland Main Line.

Agreed, people tend to get too preoccupied with the London to Birmingham aspect of the Chiltern route network, when ultimately they are more of a LNWR type operator, serving commuters along the route

Chiltern only use the Mk3s due to a lack of 168s/170s, which are the perfect train for them, being comfortable enough, but also without the wasted space and fuel costs of 125mph stock. The 175s are the next best thing

 

[Nova1]

however, it's not ideal to have formations of coupled short trains (without gangways) from an operational perspective - especially on long distance runs. A pass com pulled in the wrong part of the unit can play holy heck, in terms of disruption, especially when staffing (as on Chiltern), is sometimes DOO, and otherwise quite limited.

I'm not sure for Chiltern this is of huge concern, obviously the 168 fleet is not gangwayed and I've often seen three 168 units running together.

 

[Philip]

Even if a suitable depot could be found on this route, there is still the problem of splitting the fleet of 175s between different operators and depots. Only a small micro fleet would be needed if they are there just to replace the loco hauled stock, and there has been no indication of Chiltern cascading their class 168s. More Turbostars (170s) would make more sense than a completely new fleet type, of which there would only be about 10 needed of the 27 total.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a huge assumption. Given the concession model is the one being used under GBR, the competition element still remains.

No, it doesn't.

Even ignoring this, if it was run as one big operation, arguably Chiltern services should still compete. Primarily to avoid fare monopoly and offer the consumer choice, but in addition, to providing numerous routing options to avoid excessive demand on one route.

Are 3 265m Pendolinos plus a 160m Desiro not enough? Plus HS2 soon enough...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2021 ==

The 175s would also be a reasonable fit, however, it's not ideal to have formations of coupled short trains (without gangways) from an operational perspective

You know that the vast majority of Chiltern trains are, and have been for years, formed of multiple coupled ungangwayed units, right? Operated DOO or with one guard.

It strikes me there are three sensible options.

One, Chiltern take 175s.

Another, all 175s go to Northern and they release their small number of 170s to Chiltern.

A third, GWR 165s to Chiltern, 175s to Northern, Northern 15x to GWR.

I can see how the middle one might be favourable as Northern are using 170s mostly on local services totally unsuited to them due to poor acceleration.

 

[driverd]

No, it doesn't.

Well, it does, in so far as there will still be a requirement to make a certain amount of money. So long as this motive exists, an easy way to achieve this is by offering cheaper fares for the same journey or a better quality journey than the competition.

Unless its directly prohibited or fares (including apex) are to be set centrally, it's not going to change.

Are 3 265m Pendolinos plus a 160m Desiro not enough? Plus HS2 soon enough...

I mean, probably, but that hasn't stopped Chiltern explicitly competing on this market for a good decade or so now.

You know that the vast majority of Chiltern trains are, and have been for years, formed of multiple coupled ungangwayed units, right? Operated DOO or with one guard.

Yes - precisely why I added the sentences at the end of that paragraph (thought I'd cleared this bit up early haha). As I say - if I were making the decisions - but I'm not. Just from over a decade working in rail ops, I can say there are more than a handful of occasions each year where a lack of gangway contributes to a delay, complicates an incident or reduces operational flexibility.

Another, all 175s go to Northern and they release their small number of 170s to Chiltern.

Not entirely sensible. Northern would end up with a microfleet that's incompatible with anything else. The 175s aren't really suitable for a lot of northerns work and they re-introduce extended dwells that have been mitigated by the 170/195 door layout.

I can see how the middle one might be favourable as Northern are using 170s mostly on local services totally unsuited to them due to poor acceleration.

So aside from the Harrogate work, they've actually broadly found their place. They're well suited to the Sheffield - Hull run. There's a whole host of reasons for northern not to want 175s - that's not to say they'll necessarily hang on to the 170s for ages, I just wouldn't expect them to directly swap out one for the other. I'd say the most likely scenario for the release of 170s would be for the introduction of battery 331s/a handful of 195 vehicles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

fares (including apex) are to be set centrally

Correct, yes, they are. Hence no on rail competition at all.

Some differentiation may remain where this grows the market as a whole, but WMT is enough of a provision for that.

 

[HSTEd]

Franchising is dead, the railway is now to be run by defacto London Overground style concessions.

It is not in the railway's interest to maintain London-Birmingham traffic over Chiltern, especially once HS2 opens and guts the market completely.

222s would be ludicrously wasteful overkill for regional services at 100mph and less.

Ultimately its make do with the diesel fleet or order FLIRTs in the long run.....

 

[brad465]

Electrify a large part of the mainline to OHLE where service demand can warrant a business case (Marylebone to Oxford/Bicester North maybe). Then bring in EMUs for services that can be done on all electric within that, and increase the order of Class 93s to replace the 68s directly to run on electric under the wires, then diesel/battery for the rest of the way to places like Birmingham and Kidderminster.

*Hides behind parapet*

 

[Clansman]

Northern have nothing to gain by releasing 170s for 175s. It's the same old type of proposal that tends to pop up on here whereby someone thinks a TOC would willingly invest money to benefit another TOC for the sake of keeping a fleet that isn't theirs and that isn't interoperable with their other fleets, in service for a few years.

From a government perspective, it might fly, but certainly not from Northern's own doing.

The structure of the railways isn't set up so as to collectively encourage the sweating of assets. It's all down to what a TOC wants vice what it needs vice what it can get at minimal cost. Nothing more, nothing less. No TOC seeks to sweat assets that isn't theres. They merely want what's best for them - and if that means a fleet based 200 miles south that's not life expired gets binned, then so be it. It's nothing to do with the TOC that doesn't operate them unless they genuinley need them in a way that's economical enough to justify the effort required to get them introduced.

I'd say the most likely scenario for the release of 170s would be for the introduction of battery 331s/a handful of 195 vehicles.

Agree with you there. No reason for Northern to bin the 170s unless it's for new builds of their own specification.

 

[Wolfie]

Northern have nothing to gain by releasing 170s for 175s. It's the same old type of proposal that tends to pop up on here whereby someone thinks a TOC would willingly invest money to benefit another TOC for the sake of keeping a fleet that isn't theirs and that isn't interoperable with their other fleets, in service for a few years.

From a government perspective, it might fly, but certainly not from Northern's own doing.

The structure of the railways isn't set up so as to collectively encourage the sweating of assets. It's all down to what a TOC wants vice what it needs vice what it can get at minimal cost. Nothing more, nothing less. No TOC seeks to sweat assets that isn't theres. They merely want what's best for them - and if that means a fleet based 200 miles south that's not life expired gets binned, then so be it. It's nothing to do with the TOC that doesn't operate them unless they genuinley need them in a way that's economical enough to justify the effort required to get them introduced.


Agree with you there. No reason for Northern to bin the 170s unless it's for new builds of their own specification.

GBR, DfT and HMT can and should overcome the sort of parochial self-interest that you describe in your first para. TOCs taking the attitude that you describe may well find themselves hammered.

 

[Bald Rick]

It strikes me there are three sensible options.

One, Chiltern take 175s.

Another, all 175s go to Northern and they release their small number of 170s to Chiltern.

A third, GWR 165s to Chiltern, 175s to Northern, Northern 15x to GWR.

4) Chiltern don’t replace them with anything. It’s not like the passengers are back.

 

[Clansman]

TOCs taking the attitude that you describe may well find themselves hammered.

I'm not quite sure what you mean?

I'm more describing why people propose that a TOC like Northern should be actively engaged in Chiltern's (or any other TOC's) interests to the extent where its own rescources would be dedicated to solving Chiltern's issues by 3-way trading their 170s for 175s - thus acting against their own operational and customer interest?

So long as TOCs exist, it doesn't make any sense for any of them to willingly go as far as such examples as above for the sake of keeping a fleet that isn't theirs in use when they have no meaningful advantages in doing so.

Where the rationale would be for penalising them for not doing so out of their own accord, I have no idea. Hypothetically, it's like saying that Northern be penalised for not going out their way to offer Chiltern 170s, is it not?

 

[Meerkat]

Franchising is dead

Nah, its just resting. Once the passengers are back the express TOCs will move back to the franchisee having control.
However at the moment DfT are effectively setting prices so they wont be liking Chiltern competing with Avanti (the nationalisation fans should have been careful what they wished for), so I would expect any incoming stock to be for the medium distance market - outer commuter type rather than inter city.
It does also give the opportunity for DfT to have a right merry go round with the stock, and get it in the right places to match an undieseling plan (they dont seem to want to just electrify....). But who has any confidence the DfT have the will or the talent to do that competently??
If Chiltern need more stock (if) then the 175s, either directly or via them replacing 170s that come to Chiltern seem the logical answer, and if DfT want that they can make it happen, even if Northern don't like it.
What length contract are the 68s on, and who owns the coaches?

 

[JonathanH]

Primarily to avoid fare monopoly and offer the consumer choice, but in addition, to providing numerous routing options to avoid excessive demand on one route.

I suspect if you canvassed the DfT and Treasury, a fare monopoly is exactly what they want for the railway.

If the DfT wishes to do so, it is quite at liberty to price off demand by increasing unregulated fares from the Chiltern operation such that the stock Chiltern currently operates is totally sufficient to eliminate the hauled sets.

 

[Bald Rick]

Nah, its just resting. Once the passengers are back the express TOCs will move back to the franchisee having control.

that’s not how GBR will work. Besides, for the ‘express’ TOCs, passengers generally are back, except for premium business travel.

 

[Meerkat]

that’s not how GBR will work. Besides, for the ‘express’ TOCs, passengers generally are back, except for premium business travel.

Pretty sure that in whichever government document GBR was revealed in it was stated that once things were more settled some of the TOCs (ie the less unprofitable ones) will get their powers to set prices etc back.

 

[JonathanH]

Pretty sure that in whichever government document GBR was revealed in it was stated that once things were more settled some of the TOCs (ie the less unprofitable ones) will get their powers to set prices etc back.

The Williams-Shapps review certainly envisaged long-distance operators being given commercial freedom over faresetting.

Where and when it represents value for money and is financially sustainable, operators will have more commercial freedom, particularly on long-distance routes.

Great British Railways will bring the railways' finances together in a single organisation across track, train and the rail estate. It will manage cost and revenue decisions for the network, with budgets pushed down to regional and even local levels, though as described below there will be more commercial freedom and autonomy for operators of long-distance services as passenger numbers recover.

On long-distance services, where operators will have more commercial freedom, including more control over fare setting, a greater range of book-ahead tickets will be offered. These will help to end the sudden cliffs in prices that passengers can encounter at different times of the day. Advance purchase tickets have been a great innovation of privatisation and will continue to help to reduce fares at peak and near-peak fares.

 

[172007]

Franchising is dead, the railway is now to be run by defacto London Overground style concessions.

It is not in the railway's interest to maintain London-Birmingham traffic over Chiltern, especially once HS2 opens and guts the market completely.

222s would be ludicrously wasteful overkill for regional services at 100mph and less.

Ultimately its make do with the diesel fleet or order FLIRTs in the long run.....

The snag is, there are a lot of people who love in South Birmigham, and also surrounding Leamington and Warwick who find the Chiltern route more convenient than News Street, International and Coventry to goto London. I suspect a statisticaly noticeable number if the Chiltern offer was reduced would more probably jump in a car and go down the M40.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The snag is, there are a lot of people who love in South Birmigham, and also surrounding Leamington and Warwick who find the Chiltern route more convenient than News Street, International and Coventry to goto London. I suspect a statisticaly noticeable number if the Chiltern offer was reduced would more probably jump in a car and go down the M40.

I don't think reducing the service is proposed, but if you stopped pricing people onto it from the WCML (or reduced the differential), the trains could be shorter, which would make up for the loss of the 68s.

 

[HSTEd]

The snag is, there are a lot of people who love in South Birmigham, and also surrounding Leamington and Warwick who find the Chiltern route more convenient than News Street, International and Coventry to goto London. I suspect a statisticaly noticeable number if the Chiltern offer was reduced would more probably jump in a car and go down the M40.

WIll those people in South Birmingham still prefer Chiltern route to International/Interchange when they can be in Euston in 38 minutes from there?
Or when Curzon Street is effectively the same station as Moor Street and doubling back will be significantly faster?

And it's not really reasonable to run an enormously expensive to operate pseudo-long distance service for the benefits of some people in Leamington and Warwick.

 

[cle]

WIll those people in South Birmingham still prefer Chiltern route to International/Interchange when they can be in Euston in 38 minutes from there?
Or when Curzon Street is effectively the same station as Moor Street and doubling back will be significantly faster?

And it's not really reasonable to run an enormously expensive to operate pseudo-long distance service for the benefits of some people in Leamington and Warwick.

If we ran the same service and marketed/positioned it differently, you'd quit whinging. But either way, Chiltern feed into two large cities, in commuter and regionally between them both. So it will continue to run. It might not be pushed as a London-Brum alt (there will be Avanti and LNWR too, should they stop? This is genuinely an alt route, not just a stopping pattern/stock change) - but it'll be the same and people can choose to use it however they need.

And why shouldn't the people of Wycombe, Bicester, Banbury, Leamington, Warwick and Solihull have fast services to both large cities on either end of their routes? That's a decent enough market, which other than Solihull, HS2 won't completely decimate.

But it's a great route as they may well sell a seat twice - which won't happen much on Avanti or HS2!

 

[Bald Rick]

Pretty sure that in whichever government document GBR was revealed in it was stated that once things were more settled some of the TOCs (ie the less unprofitable ones) will get their powers to set prices etc back.

The Williams-Shapps review certainly envisaged long-distance operators being given commercial freedom over faresetting.

thanks both. That reinforces my point, especially the “where it offers value for money* and is financially sustainable**”

In this case, I would expect it means that the future West Coast Operator has more freedom in setting fares, whilst the Chiltern (and WMR) operators do not. Simple.

*results in net positive in cash terms
** and will be for the foreseeable future

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2021 ==

And it's not really reasonable to run an enormously expensive to operate pseudo-long distance service for the benefits of some people in Leamington and Warwick.

It’s only expensive to operate because of the stock used, and as we know that’s going.

There will remain a need for services from Warwick, Leamington, Banbury, Bicester etc to London, as there will for the same stations to Brum. It is actually more efficient to make them the same service. the service will continue, but I’d be very surprised if Chiltern only tickets, for example, remain, at least for Birmingham to London.

 

[HSTEd]

If we ran the same service and marketed/positioned it differently, you'd quit whinging. But either way, Chiltern feed into two large cities, in commuter and regionally between them both.

Is questioning the sacred Chiltern stopping pattern simply "whinging"?

So it will continue to run. It might not be pushed as a London-Brum alt (there will be Avanti and LNWR too, should they stop? This is genuinely an alt route, not just a stopping pattern/stock change) - but it'll be the same and people can choose to use it however they need.

Once you remove the London-Birmingham, the economic case for the "fast" Chiltern services simply collapses.

I would expect the first-stop Bicester trains to go or gain stops at High Wycombe, although it is likely you would get a total recast of the timetable and the service pattern would look nothing like it does now.

But it's a great route as they may well sell a seat twice - which won't happen much on Avanti or HS2!

Selling a seat twice sounds great until you realise just how much more expensive those seats are than the HS2 ones!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2021 ==

It’s only expensive to operate because of the stock used, and as we know that’s going.

There will remain a need for services from Warwick, Leamington, Banbury, Bicester etc to London, as there will for the same stations to Brum. It is actually more efficient to make them the same service. the service will continue, but I’d be very surprised if Chiltern only tickets, for example, remain, at least for Birmingham to London.

Yes, I am not arguing to break the railway in half or anything like that.

But there is a certain largesse in the stopping pattern that is currently justified by significant numbers of end to end passengers that I don't think will really be justifiable in the post HS2 world.

Although I would be interested to see if an all MU fleet could lead to some interesting options in portion working terms - especially in terms of trains to Stratford upon Avon.

 

[Bald Rick]

Although I would be interested to see if an all MU fleet could lead to some interesting options in portion working terms - especially in terms of trains to Stratford upon Avon.

perhaps we could see a return to Slip working at Bicester!

I think we’ll see something not dissimilar to today’s stopping patterns, as in the timetable operating now, not Pre covid. I also wonder if the extensions beyond Snow Hill will last. They must cost a lot for relatively little Income (esp post HS2)

 

[The Planner]

WIll those people in South Birmingham still prefer Chiltern route to International/Interchange when they can be in Euston in 38 minutes from there?
Or when Curzon Street is effectively the same station as Moor Street and doubling back will be significantly faster?

And it's not really reasonable to run an enormously expensive to operate pseudo-long distance service for the benefits of some people in Leamington and Warwick.

Its an interesting question and without the detail would be difficult to answer. Anyone who uses Warwick Parkway I would expect to migrate over to Interchange considering they are going to be driving there. Solihull etc might well double back via Curzon St. Leamington may migrate over depending on whether they already go to Warwick Pwy. You still need the overall service though, probably with more stops.

 

[Meerkat]

Are the 68s definitely going?

thanks both. That reinforces my point, especially the “where it offers value for money* and is financially sustainable**”

In this case, I would expect it means that the future West Coast Operator has more freedom in setting fares, whilst the Chiltern (and WMR) operators do not. Simple.

*results in net positive in cash terms
** and will be for the foreseeable future

Wouldnt a Tory government instinctively believe that private operator will innovate and increase the revenue, and Chiltern was relatively innovative and 'profitable' wasnt it?
It certainly wont be high up the list but I can imagine they would intend to go in that direction for everything but the clearly metro and rural operators.
But also as I think they would prioritise lines that had been upgraded and had new stock it would wait until they had sorted out a post diesel future, and that would be the next stock change after the one being discussed here, and even later if electrification is on the cards.
Basically it needs an interim solution and I would say that is the 175s, one way or another.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wouldnt a Tory government instinctively believe that private operator will innovate and increase the revenue, and Chiltern was relatively innovative and 'profitable' wasnt it?

“Past performance is no indicator of future returns”