Prior Information Notice Chiltern services

[Snow1964]

Government has issued Prior Information notice for Chiltern also covering East West Rail

As it covers number of services which seem to overlap with Chiltern, South Birmingham suburban, and some GWR and XC services, so putting them in separate thread for discussion

II.1.1 Title​

Contract for Chiltern Rail Services. Currently Operated by the Chiltern Railway Company Limited.

II.2.4 Description of the procurement​

Contract for provision of commuter and regional rail services on the UK conventional mainline rail system. It is envisaged the services would run between:

(a) London to Kidderminster via Birmingham Moor Street
(b) London to Banbury
(c) London to Oxford via High Wycombe
(d) London and/or Leamington Spa to Stratford-upon-Avon
(e) Leamington Spa to Birmingham Moor Street
(f) London to Aylesbury via both Amersham and High Wycombe
(g) Oxford to Milton Keynes via Bletchley, as the first of 3 connection stages (CS1) of the East West Rail project (EWR)

This is a mixture of leisure, business and commuter travel.

The East West Rail (EWR) Project is set to introduce new rail services between Oxford and Cambridge in 3 distinct phases referred to as connection stages 1 to 3 (CS1 to CS3).

CS1 aims to introduce passenger services between Oxford and Milton Keynes between December 2024 and September 2025.

[Withdrawn] East West Rail (Connection Stage 1): prior information notice

www.gov.uk

 

[JonathanH]

So, operation of services on EWR is sitting within a reissued concession for what we currently know as the Chiltern operation?

 

[Snow1964]

So, operation of services on EWR is sitting within a reissued concession for what we currently know as the Chiltern operation?

Yes appears to be intention to be an amendment to Chiltern contract with services Oxford-Milton Keynes commencing between
December 2024 and September 2025

Chiltern Railway Company Limited 2021 rail contract

Rail contract and ancillary legal documents for Chiltern Railways.

www.gov.uk

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Using 196's? so more traction knowledge needed for Chiltern drivers or will they create a dedicated link?

 

[swt_passenger]

So all those times they issued statements implying it would be a new ‘mini TOC‘ turned out to be rubbish after all, exactly as most of us expected.

 

[12LDA28C]

Using 196's? so more traction knowledge needed for Chiltern drivers or will they create a dedicated link?

196s sub-leased from WMR so yes, more traction knowledge required but only at one Depot.

 

[nw1]

So, operation of services on EWR is sitting within a reissued concession for what we currently know as the Chiltern operation?

That to me seems perfectly natural. It's obviously in the "Chiltern" area, so Chiltern, or whatever its successor operating unit is, would be the obvious organisation to run it. For example, it would enable interworking with Marylebone-Oxford services should this be necessary for operational reasons, e.g. platform availability at Oxford or optimising turnarounds.

In fact, with Chiltern operating a slimmed-down timetable with presumably less stock requirements, could EWR, while it's still simply Oxford-Milton Keynes, simply be operated with Chiltern's existing pool of units rather than getting in new units from somewhere else?

 

[Snow1964]

Using 196's? so more traction knowledge needed for Chiltern drivers or will they create a dedicated link?

So is your thinking using some 196s in the Birmingham area, to displace other stock which allows them to cover EW rail.

Ultimately whoever gets the next award, is going to have to think about rolling stock when EWR starts in 2 years time. By then Chiltern will have 35 year old 165s which can't be expected to last much longer

 

[JamesT]

That to me seems perfectly natural. It's obviously in the "Chiltern" area, so Chiltern, or whatever its successor operating unit is, would be the obvious organisation to run it. For example, it would enable interworking with Marylebone-Oxford services should this be necessary for operational reasons, e.g. platform availability at Oxford or optimising turnarounds.

In fact, with Chiltern operating a slimmed-down timetable with presumably less stock requirements, could EWR, while it's still simply Oxford-Milton Keynes, simply be operated with Chiltern's existing pool of units rather than getting in new units from somewhere else?

I'm not sure there's that much slack in the Chiltern fleet, especially with the oft-mooted withdrawal of the Mk3 sets.
If they could, I'm sure they would already be beefing up their Oxford services to cope with the influx of displaced GWR passengers.

 

[nw1]

So is your thinking using some 196s in the Birmingham area, to displace other stock which allows them to cover EW rail.

Ultimately whoever gets the next award, is going to have to think about rolling stock when EWR starts in 2 years time. By then Chiltern will have 35 year old 165s which can't be expected to last much longer

Could the 172s move from Birmingham area?

 

[12LDA28C]

That to me seems perfectly natural. It's obviously in the "Chiltern" area, so Chiltern, or whatever its successor operating unit is, would be the obvious organisation to run it. For example, it would enable interworking with Marylebone-Oxford services should this be necessary for operational reasons, e.g. platform availability at Oxford or optimising turnarounds.

In fact, with Chiltern operating a slimmed-down timetable with presumably less stock requirements, could EWR, while it's still simply Oxford-Milton Keynes, simply be operated with Chiltern's existing pool of units rather than getting in new units from somewhere else?

No. Chiltern is short of stock as it is and anyway the DfT have specified the stock to be used, which is 196s - it's not Chiltern's decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2023 ==

So is your thinking using some 196s in the Birmingham area, to displace other stock which allows them to cover EW rail.

196s will be used only on EWR, that's the plan. That limits the amount of drivers that will need to be trained on the new units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2023 ==

Ultimately whoever gets the next award, is going to have to think about rolling stock when EWR starts in 2 years time.

Services are planned to start in December 2024.

 

[chiltern trev]

Deleted as reason for 196s stated whilst creating origin comment.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Could the 172s move from Birmingham area?

Potentially, but I suspect Chiltern wouldn't want them back given they seemed to spend more time under repair than in service! Plus there are only four ex-Chiltern 172s, with the eight ex-London Overground ones being limited to 75mph.

Though as stated, the proposed initial stock is six 196/0s subleased from WMT.

 

[The Planner]

Ultimately whoever gets the next award, is going to have to think about rolling stock when EWR starts in 2 years time. By then Chiltern will have 35 year old 165s which can't be expected to last much longer

Services are planned to start in December 2024.

Testing next spring/summer, so a year, not two.

 

[12LDA28C]

Testing next spring/summer, so a year, not two.

Indeed.

 

[MarkyT]

While I accept they're reasonable modern trains from a quality POV, it's surely a poor show to specify pure diesel units on a 'new' railway in 2023, not even with electric transmission so there's no easy battery hybrid conversion option in the future to allow engines to be turned off in stations and other sensitive areas. Civities on the continent have been supplied in electric variants but does this imply a conversion to electric transmission is easy, or a possibility at all?

 

[Snow1964]

While I accept they're reasonable modern trains from a quality POV, it's surely a poor show to specify pure diesel units on a 'new' railway in 2023, not even with electric transmission so there's no easy battery hybrid conversion option in the future to allow engines to be turned off in stations and other sensitive areas. Civities on the continent have been supplied in electric variants but does this imply a conversion to electric transmission is easy, or a possibility at all?

I suspect various LeaseCo were happy with a pure diesel version on assumption some rural lines will never be electrified, and building more pure diesel trains may be banned in a few years. Therefore probably got a train which would be easy to lease out for at least 30 years, or even 40 years, as other diesel trains get withdraw.

No sign going to need bi-modes in electric mode for decades at places like Cornwall, or Carmarthenshire etc. So pure diesel just simplifies things.

 

[MarkyT]

I suspect various LeaseCo were happy with a pure diesel version on assumption some rural lines will never be electrified, and building more pure diesel trains may be banned in a few years. Therefore probably got a train which would be easy to lease out for at least 30 years, or even 40 years, as other diesel trains get withdraw.

No sign going to need bi-modes in electric mode for decades at places like Cornwall, or Carmarthenshire etc. So pure diesel just simplifies things.

True, but going for an electric transmission at least gives an easy option to add batteries for a hybrid configuration later, which immediately provides the opportunity to harvest braking energy, switch off diesels in stations, and potentially provide some extra peak oomph for short periods in acceleration and hill climbing. The TfW 231s demonstrate that approach, although there's also the large Welsh order for diesel Civities to consider! Chiltern were investigating conversion of some of their units to electric transmission battery hybrids, but this seems to have gone very quiet lately.

 

[12LDA28C]

Chiltern were investigating conversion of some of their units to electric transmission battery hybrids, but this seems to have gone very quiet lately.

Two units were identified for conversion, one of which has been on trial in service for around 18 months and has not been an unqualified success.

The other AIUI has encountered problems getting the hybrid system to work and is rumoured to have been aborted, potentially returning to full diesel configuration.

 

[DelW]

Is it possible that operation by Chiltern *might* help with getting the Aylesbury link under consideration again at some point? Integration with other Chiltern services might make sense at some stage.

By then Chiltern will have 35 year old 165s which can't be expected to last much longer

Well, GWR ditching their 769s means that they'll be running 165s and 166s for the foreseeable future, as well as Chiltern's carrying on. (Comments above say that EWR will still be using 196s though).

 

[12LDA28C]

Is it possible that operation by Chiltern *might* help with getting the Aylesbury link under consideration again at some point? Integration with other Chiltern services might make sense at some stage.

I certainly hope so but there is nothing definite at this stage although at least part of the route north of Quainton is being relaid with this consideration in mind.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

No. Chiltern is short of stock as it is and anyway the DfT have specified the stock to be used, which is 196s - it's not Chiltern's decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2023 ==



196s will be used only on EWR, that's the plan. That limits the amount of drivers that will need to be trained on the new units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2023 ==

Effectively a small sub fleet not very efficient way of managing a cash strained railway so DfT better provide sufficient funding.

 

[JamesT]

Effectively a small sub fleet not very efficient way of managing a cash strained railway so DfT better provide sufficient funding.

Why would it be a sub fleet? Surely they'll be maintained as part of WMR's fleet?

 

[12LDA28C]

Why would it be a sub fleet? Surely they'll be maintained as part of WMR's fleet?

I believe that has yet to be agreed but it would seem to make sense for fuelling and light maintenance to be done at Banbury with the heavier stuff done at Tyseley

 

[DarloRich]

I note the documents refer to Oxford to Milton Keynes via Bletchley, as the first of 3 connection stages (CS1) of the East West Rail project (EWR). Do we expect the further E-W services to be folded into this concession?

 

[Trainbike46]

I note the documents refer to Oxford to Milton Keynes via Bletchley, as the first of 3 connection stages (CS1) of the East West Rail project (EWR). Do we expect the further E-W services to be folded into this concession?

I suspect that will depend on how long it takes before stage 2 and 3 open

 

[DarloRich]

I suspect that will depend on how long it takes before stage 2 and 3 open

indeed! stage three will be after the next ice age!

 

[zwk500]

True, but going for an electric transmission at least gives an easy option to add batteries for a hybrid configuration later, which immediately provides the opportunity to harvest braking energy, switch off diesels in stations, and potentially provide some extra peak oomph for short periods in acceleration and hill climbing. The TfW 231s demonstrate that approach, although there's also the large Welsh order for diesel Civities to consider! Chiltern were investigating conversion of some of their units to electric transmission battery hybrids, but this seems to have gone very quiet lately.

I don't think the specification of available units for EWR is a particular problem, although I agree that the specification of Diesel-Mechanical units for new stock was a bit silly instead of Diesel-Electric with the option for battery conversion. Should EWR ever get wires there would of course be a stock shuffle anyway.

Is it possible that operation by Chiltern *might* help with getting the Aylesbury link under consideration again at some point? Integration with other Chiltern services might make sense at some stage.

A very small one. Although I don't think extending Marylebone-AVP services to MK would make much sense for various reasons. But Chiltern will know that market very well, which is a useful thing to have if making a case for the services. In any event, I'd expect they want to 'bed in' EWR with just MK-Oxfords to start with, later trains can always be added of course.

I note the documents refer to Oxford to Milton Keynes via Bletchley, as the first of 3 connection stages (CS1) of the East West Rail project (EWR). Do we expect the further E-W services to be folded into this concession?

I would, although it partly depends what option is chosen for the Marston Vale. If the local train is kept I could see that staying with LNR and only the stuff running through to Winslow going with Chiltern. And, as was noted by yourself, CS3 is some way off...

 

[DarloRich]

I would, although it partly depends what option is chosen for the Marston Vale. If the local train is kept I could see that staying with LNR and only the stuff running through to Winslow going with Chiltern.

i would stick it with Chiltern. Removes a diesel island from an otherwise electric service provider. I suspect, however it is easier not to bother!

 

[cle]

I would think a local Marston service could gladly sit within Chiltern's diesel pool and drivers, and indeed - keep the new rails greased via Quainton with stock moves to Aylesbury, in advance of a passenger service.