Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[172007]

What environmental limitations are there on Chilterns operating more 68s into Marylebone?

Restricted in total number of arrivals and departures due to noise.

Allegedly there is a mod that makes the 68 quieter. If anyone had listened to 68014 it does seem quieter when moving away and at idle. There may be a couple more that are simular.

The noise issue is due to the apartments surrounding Marylebone. It may be that a small tweak to the pitch or something else very subtle may be all that required to stop the sound from penetrating the apartments so if my hunch and ears are right with 68014 any mod to allow more 68 powered trains to operate may be be extremely subtle.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It’s a tricky one. There’s nothing worse than persistent noise outside your home, but then I normally associate that with noisy neighbours, anti social behaviour outsid, building work and drilling at unsociable hours, etc. All stuff you can’t forsee or help. One fails to sympathise with people who chose to move alongside the railway and then hear trains, so long as it’s at a reasonable time of course, and I’m not aware of 68s running overnight.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It’s a tricky one. There’s nothing worse than persistent noise outside your home, but then I normally associate that with noisy neighbours, anti social behaviour outsid, building work and drilling at unsociable hours, etc. All stuff you can’t forsee or help. One fails to sympathise with people who chose to move alongside the railway and then hear trains, so long as it’s at a reasonable time of course, and I’m not aware of 68s running overnight.

Might have been more unsociable hours at the depot at Scarborough ?. The noise from a 68 is quite noticeable unfortunately, though I am not sure I find it too annoying as you say at reasonable hours. I think expectations people have nowadays are higher than they used to be but perhaps they should consider proximity to a railway before moving. An even better example of stupid expectation is a pub several hundred years old near me with a very nice pub garden - flats recently built overlooking and the residents have succeeded in getting the beer garden closed at 21:00 !.

 

[LondonerTravel]

Also 165 can double up on Met line,
168 can double up on Oxfords.

However still subject to final approval from Dft.

Also 5 car Mk5 isn't enough capacity for when on Peak or Weekend services, hence Chiltern looking to make most likely 6 or possibly 7 coaches.

So services will need to go express from Banbury, like before Covid 19.
Even a 6 car mk5 has less capacity than a 6 car Mk3, but is better than a 5 Car mk5.
Obvious will be to run hourly services from Banbury to London Marylebone, to connect with the Birmingham to London services in which mk5 will do.

However as Tpex only ran as 5 car fixed formation, 6 car still needs testing,
As each time you add or swap vehicles,
Or make to 6 car, Mk5 sets will need a complete software reset on them,
Hence only been used as 5 car, in the past on Tpex and being programmed to do so.

I’ve noticed the couple of times I’ve used the mk3 sets is that passengers don’t use the business zone carriage, and instead use the other 5 carriages. Maybe they feel it is only for 1st class commuters which is used to be, until it was discontinued. If they removed the branding from the carriage, passengers might be more inclined to use it.

 

[vuzzeho]

One fails to sympathise with people who chose to move alongside the railway and then hear trains

Isn't the problem that the 68s are much louder than everything else? I don't think it's noise that's the problem, but the noise of the 68s. As has been said before on this forum, the railway cannot expect everyone else to bend backwards to accommodate whatever is convenient for it.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Isn't the problem that the 68s are much louder than everything else? I don't think it's noise that's the problem, but the noise of the 68s. As has been said before on this forum, the railway cannot expect everyone else to bend backwards to accommodate whatever is convenient for it.

No, I agree. And I don’t think locomotives have any use in today’s passenger railway either, so it honestly baffles me why TPE ordered them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, I agree. And I don’t think locomotives have any use in today’s passenger railway either, so it honestly baffles me why TPE ordered them.

Because the coaches are of a similar design to the Caledonian ones they were essentially a follow on order so were meant to be delivered quickly. Unfortunately this didn't happen in reality.

 

[warwickshire]

Does anyone kindly know please, if all of the ex Transpennie Express x 13, Mk5 sets, have all actually gone off lease, please, In which they was expected to do so by the end of December 2024.

Or is any of the ex Mk5, sets still on lease to Transpennie Express or not.

Thank you
Warwickshire.

 

[Harpo]

No, I agree. And I don’t think locomotives have any use in today’s passenger railway either, so it honestly baffles me why TPE ordered them.

DfT’s franchise specification wanted 442s used as hauled stock but couldn’t specify 442 outright. The winning bid supplied a new build equivalent.

All pre-covid and pre-surplus trains.

 

[Fokx]

Because the coaches are of a similar design to the Caledonian ones they were essentially a follow on order so were meant to be delivered quickly. Unfortunately this didn't happen in reality.

And the idea was that the carriages could still be used post TPRU electrification with a bi-mode unit such as the class 93 on the Scarborough and Middlesbrough services which aren’t fully electrified

 

[stevieinselby]

No, I agree. And I don’t think locomotives have any use in today’s passenger railway either, so it honestly baffles me why TPE ordered them.

Hitachi were not able to deliver a full fleet of 802s in a sensible timescale to cover the full Nova programme, so they split it into 3 separate fleets – bi-mode, electric and diesel.
There were no DMUs available that they felt were suitable and made economic sense in 5-car formation, and the hope was that if there was any future electrification of the core or the full route then they could swap the locos out for bi-mode or electric locos and not have a load of surplus DMUs.
In hindsight, they would probably agree that the complications around having different manufacturers for the locos and carriages, and the complex leasing and sub-leasing arrangements for each of them, was a far worse option than any redundancy and wastefulness of having 5 underfloor diesel engines, but the thing about hindsight is that it comes too late!

 

[Energy]

DfT’s franchise specification wanted 442s used as hauled stock but couldn’t specify 442 outright. The winning bid supplied a new build equivalent.

All pre-covid and pre-surplus trains.

The 2015 TPE Invitation To Tender says:

5.4.2.24 Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the TPE Train Fleet:

i. The class 185 and class 350 multiple units that are currently comprised within the TPE Train Fleet (subject to the requirement to sub-lease Class 185 units to the Northern Franchise for an initial period until December 2017);

ii. Diesel multiple units that are not Class 14x, Class 15x or Class 17x and that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern franchisees, but that will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, either because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it;

iii. Up to four 2-car diesel multiple units of similar characteristics to TPE’s Class 170 units must be assumed for bid purposes to be leased until December 2017, as a proxy for the arrangements that the Department envisages will be put in place with the incumbent operator to mitigate the transfer of these units to the Chiltern Franchise with effect from February 2016;

iv. Vehicles of Class 442 following their release from the TSGN franchise;

and v. Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure.

The limits are due to the Northern franchise's tender running simultaneously, so this avoids "double dipping" with bidders using the same stock on both ITTs. The class 442s are mentioned (and were likely in mind) but an equivalent wasn't required. The 68/Mk5As were chosen for quick delivery, the Mk5As were a tag-on order to Caledonian Sleeper and the 68s were an existing design, but ended up entering service in August 2019 rather than Autumn 2018.

In hindsight, there are much better options for quick capacity. Letting the Scotrail 170s temporarily move to TPE (they already have some) before moving to Northern would be a good option. Given the state of GWEP, bumping the TPE 802s up the Hitachi order queue and letting the GWR HSTs live on for a few more months wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

[37201xoIM]

The 2015 TPE Invitation To Tender says:








The limits are due to the Northern franchise's tender running simultaneously, so this avoids "double dipping" with bidders using the same stock on both ITTs. The class 442s are mentioned (and were likely in mind) but an equivalent wasn't required. The 68/Mk5As were chosen for quick delivery, the Mk5As were a tag-on order to Caledonian Sleeper and the 68s were an existing design, but ended up entering service in August 2019 rather than Autumn 2018.

In hindsight, there are much better options for quick capacity. Letting the Scotrail 170s temporarily move to TPE (they already have some) before moving to Northern would be a good option. Given the state of GWEP, bumping the TPE 802s up the Hitachi order queue and letting the GWR HSTs live on for a few more months wouldn't be the end of the world.

Thank you, Energy, for laying that ghost that the franchise spec mandated LHCS - it's an oft-repeated myth in all sorts of fora. It never did; it was merely felt to be a pragmatic decision by First Group (and personally I don't think it was the wrong one, aside from the legitimate 'microfleets' question).

 

[Energy]

it was merely felt to be a pragmatic decision by First Group (and personally I don't think it was the wrong one, aside from the legitimate 'microfleets' question).

If the goal is to meet the DfT's tender then it makes a lot of sense given the very limited options (otherwise it would probably be a random assortment of mk2 and mk3s). For the operator being lumbered with a mixed fleet for the next 30+ years* is a bit disadvantage.

Unfortunately, the DfT was often a poor client, and bids suiting the tender more than the actual operator were common. Look at Greater Anglia - 5 car 2+3 seated 720s are great for a franchise bid, at only slightly less seated capacity (490 seats) than an 8 car 360 (560 seats) but in the real world the seats are difficult to access so its a noticeable downgrade on some lines.

I still think an entirely Hitachi fleet, likely based out of a new depot near Liverpool, would have been better. Given the state of GWEP delaying the units 1 year to push TPE up the queue wouldn't have been the end of the world. But that's for another thread.

*if the mk5as hadn't been cut short...

 

[37201xoIM]

Certainly agree about "bidding to the tender" - don't we know it! (Must admit I worked around the margins of the 2014-15 NT and TP refranchising, for sins that must have been far worse than I could have imagined...!)

But as you say, risking getting off-topic so I shall shut up and wish Chiltern well - I suspect the fleet will be a success for them: our loss and all that!

 

[73128]

I’ve noticed the couple of times I’ve used the mk3 sets is that passengers don’t use the business zone carriage, and instead use the other 5 carriages. Maybe they feel it is only for 1st class commuters which is used to be, until it was discontinued. If they removed the branding from the carriage, passengers might be more inclined to use it.

Some do but it's fine as it is, thank you.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

Surely nine sets isn’t enough - With each London - Birmingham journey taking roughly two hours you need 10 sets to cover a 2tph frequency, plus a couple spare, so ideally, Chiltern should be going for at least 12 sets if they go through with the mk5s IMO

 

[AF91]

Surely nine sets isn’t enough - With each London - Birmingham journey taking roughly two hours you need 10 sets to cover a 2tph frequency, plus a couple spare, so ideally, Chiltern should be going for at least 12 sets if they go through with the mk5s IMO

There wouldn't be enough capacity on the mk5a sets as they are so they'd need reforming to a certain degree. They'd be interspersed with 168s on the birminghams to give the required number of circuits.

Even with the ability to cover all 10 circuits with the loco sets, they'd probably still need to use 168s occasionally either as longer sets for peak busting or shorter sets to pick up the occasional random small stops in the area unless SDO is i use.

 

[Russel]

Has there been any updates on the Mk5's going to Chiltern?

 

[Lanley]

I’ve just passed a Mk5 set outside Birmingham New Street on the way to Longsight

Realtime Trains | 5Q32 1446 Long Marston to Longsight T.M.D. (D) | 05/02/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q32 1446 departure from Long Marston to Longsight T.M.D. (D) on 05/02/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Peter Sarf]

I’ve just passed a Mk5 set outside Birmingham New Street on the way to Longsight

Realtime Trains | 5Q32 1446 Long Marston to Longsight T.M.D. (D) | 05/02/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q32 1446 departure from Long Marston to Longsight T.M.D. (D) on 05/02/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Was on its way from Long Marston to Longsight for maintenance apparently.
Not part of any plans for any future use except to say being looked after for potential re-use somewhere.

Link here to thread on current status.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

There wouldn't be enough capacity on the mk5a sets as they are so they'd need reforming to a certain degree. They'd be interspersed with 168s on the birminghams to give the required number of circuits.

Even with the ability to cover all 10 circuits with the loco sets, they'd probably still need to use 168s occasionally either as longer sets for peak busting or shorter sets to pick up the occasional random small stops in the area unless SDO is i use.

Slightly ambitious (and probably rubbish), but personally, what I'd do is:

• go for at least 10 ex-TPE sets
• Extend all of these to eight carriages (SDO will be needed). This would probably mean ordering some new mk5 coaches from CAF.
• While they're at it, order some more mk5s to be a direct replacement for the mk3s, so those locos can continue to be used, and add to the overall fleet.

This would leave enough sets for all Birmingham services, and some additional ones for an increase in Stourbridge services, including introducing off-peak services and maybe extending them back to Kidderminster.

Seems sensible to me, but I'm sure I'm completely delusional!

 

[Peter Sarf]

Slightly ambitious (and probably rubbish), but personally, what I'd do is:

• go for at least 10 ex-TPE sets
• Extend all of these to eight carriages (SDO will be needed). This would probably mean ordering some new mk5 coaches from CAF.
• While they're at it, order some more mk5s to be a direct replacement for the mk3s, so those locos can continue to be used, and add to the overall fleet.

This would leave enough sets for all Birmingham services, and some additional ones for an increase in Stourbridge services, including introducing off-peak services and maybe extending them back to Kidderminster.

Seems sensible to me, but I'm sure I'm completely delusional!

I think Chiltern (or the DfT) will not want to spend on building more Mk5s or adapting existing ones. Perhaps they would if all goes well in a few years time but of course sods law dictates that by then CAF will have moved on to making something different.

There were 13 five car set DTSO + TSO + TSO + TSO + TF,
Plus 1 spare DTSO.

To make longer six car sets DTSO + TSO+ TSO + TSO + TSO + TF
Would result in 9 six car sets.
Spares would be 5 x DTSO, 4 x TF & 3 x TSO.

Forgive me if the coach names are not strictly correct.
DTSO = Driving Trailer Standard Open,
TSO = Trailer Standard Open (I vaguely recall one in three TSOs has an accessible loo),
TF = Trailer First (which has no gangway at one end - loco).

The Trailer Firsts cannot be in mid formation as they have no gangway connection at one end.
This means that lengthening results in spare DTSOs and TFs because only the TSOs can be added (or removed).

First modification, if ever, would be to turn the spare TFs into TSOs by changing the seating and getting 4 gangways off the spare DTSOs.
That would result in seven spare TSOs and one usable spare DTSO. Could make one more six car set OR just lengthen seven of the nine sets by one TSO.

The modifications to the 68s to reduce noise will have to happen before any stock modifications.

 

[AF91]

Slightly ambitious (and probably rubbish), but personally, what I'd do is:

• go for at least 10 ex-TPE sets
• Extend all of these to eight carriages (SDO will be needed). This would probably mean ordering some new mk5 coaches from CAF.
• While they're at it, order some more mk5s to be a direct replacement for the mk3s, so those locos can continue to be used, and add to the overall fleet.

This would leave enough sets for all Birmingham services, and some additional ones for an increase in Stourbridge services, including introducing off-peak services and maybe extending them back to Kidderminster.

Seems sensible to me, but I'm sure I'm completely delusional!

In an ideal world you'd keep the 13 sets and order additional carriages to extend them. 7 cars would definitely be viable but 8 car might be possible as long as they could fit in the bays at Moor Street.

13 sets should allow for the Birmingham circuits to all be covered by mk5as plus a few on maintenance or spare.

The possible plans at the moment are purely looking at uses for the existing fleet rather than adding anything new.

 

[Energy]

In an ideal world you'd keep the 13 sets and order additional carriages to extend them. 7 cars would definitely be viable but 8 car might be possible as long as they could fit in the bays at Moor Street.

13 sets should allow for the Birmingham circuits to all be covered by mk5as plus a few on maintenance or spare.

The possible plans at the moment are purely looking at uses for the existing fleet rather than adding anything new.

If the first class carriage was reseated, and staff area removed, then they'd be roughly equivalent to a 5 car 168.

Most Birmingham runs are 4/5 car 168s, so it would be fine day to day. However, when an event is on at Wembley Chiltern typically change around maintenance to get most services to 6/7 cars. The mk5a rakes are fixed formation and would struggle on match days, especially as standing will be better on the 168s.

 

[Belfastmarty]

The modifications to the 68s to reduce noise will have to happen before any stock modifications.

Has there ever been a confirmation from an official source that this is happening ? It feels like something of an urban myth at the moment.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Has there ever been a confirmation from an official source that this is happening ? It feels like something of an urban myth at the moment.

I am afraid a silencing effort could well be a myth or a failure. All we know is the 68s are throaty.

 

[Mgameing123]

The class 68s aren't popular at the London end of the route with the railway's neighbours.

Maybe don't live next to the railway if you don't like the sound of trains?

 

[jh64]

Maybe don't live next to the railway if you don't like the sound of trains?

I definitely agree with that principle, but the noise of a 68 is like nothing else out there. I live around 1km from the ECML - I can just about hear diesel trains in the distance if I have the window open, but a passing 68 sounds like a low-flying helicopter even with the windows shut.

 

[D1062]

I definitely agree with that principle, but the noise of a 68 is like nothing else out there. I live around 1km from the ECML - I can just about hear diesel trains in the distance if I have the window open, but a passing 68 sounds like a low-flying helicopter even with the windows shut.

Good job the nimbys weren’t there when the deltics were in service on the ECML. we used to stay at my friends family near Grantham when out on the bash in the late 70’s/early 80’s. They lived 5 miles away from the line but you could here the deltics from that distance away!