Mk5A coaching stock and associated Class 68 locomotives to Chiltern Railways (including speculation/suggestions)

[FrontSideBus]

Funny enough, I spotted 68023 going through Crewe today at about 2 o'clock. Sorry for poor photo, I didn't have my camera ready

 

[Zomboid]

The coaches look like they just need the Chiltern logo applying...

What's the deal with moving them around at the moment?

 

[Richard123]

£385k/carriage/year feels expensive.

In Danish electrification (my current unit of railway costs outside our “unique” system), this contract value would fully electrify Moor St - Marylebone, and purchase 65 new EMU vehicles to run on it…

Perhaps that’s why it took so long to approve?

 

[Elecman]

I saw the same all grey set passing Rugeley earlier heading North.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

I would assume that would be the case. The mk3s are rather worn out although I think Chiltern have done a good job maintaining them.

4 out of 6 coaches had non-working aircon on my train home, and this is fairly normal at the moment.
Working toilet provision seems to have been hit-and-miss for a while.

As nice as the interiors are, unfortunately, they are well past their best and really should have been replaced by now if the DfT hadn't been dragging its feet.

 

[Energy]

£385k/carriage/year feels expensive.

In Danish electrification (my current unit of railway costs outside our “unique” system), this contract value would fully electrify Moor St - Marylebone, and purchase 65 new EMU vehicles to run on it…

Perhaps that’s why it took so long to approve?

Agreed, it includes maintenance but only until December 2026.

For comparison the 30x379s for Great Northern were estimated at £50M for 4 years, so £150M for 12 years compared to Chiltern’s £300M

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You would hope that they fit standard seats to the first class coach to make up for the loss in capacity relative to the Mark 3 sets. Better alignment of the seats to the windows wouldn't go amiss either.

That could be expensive thanks to the stupid policy of fitting reservation indicators to the interior walls rather than to the seats themselves (as per the DB ICEs). Unless they're just covered over or ignored, am I right in thinking that Chiltern don't currently do reservations?

 

[Energy]

That could be expensive thanks to the stupid policy of fitting reservation indicators to the interior walls rather than to the seats themselves (as per the DB ICEs). Unless they're just covered over or ignored, am I right in thinking that Chiltern don't currently do reservations?

They don’t currently.

I wouldn’t expect Chiltern to introduce them either, it would likely increase boarding time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That could be expensive thanks to the stupid policy of fitting reservation indicators to the interior walls rather than to the seats themselves (as per the DB ICEs). Unless they're just covered over or ignored, am I right in thinking that Chiltern don't currently do reservations?

Indeed not and no plan I have heard of to do so. A bit of black tape over the top would thus suffice.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

Expect they will just have it turned off / isolated. Hopefully that should be enough - whilst having the seat numbers displayed will be redundant, no different to the WMR 172/2 and 172/3 fleet which had seat numbers and signage from the start with LM (which never made any sense given their intended purpose!)

 

[FrontSideBus]

Just do what Northern did with their CAF units with seat reservation screens.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Expect they will just have it turned off / isolated. Hopefully that should be enough - whilst having the seat numbers displayed will be redundant, no different to the WMR 172/2 and 172/3 fleet which had seat numbers and signage from the start with LM (which never made any sense given their intended purpose!)

And plenty of the Northern ex-EMR 156s have seat numbers too.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Expect they will just have it turned off / isolated. Hopefully that should be enough - whilst having the seat numbers displayed will be redundant, no different to the WMR 172/2 and 172/3 fleet which had seat numbers and signage from the start with LM (which never made any sense given their intended purpose!)

My point was more to do with what happens if the seats were to be reconfigured, as another post had mentioned turning the 2+1 first class coach into 2+2 to match the rest of the set (and possibly reconfiguring the other vehicles too, to improve the seat-window alignment). It then dawned on me part way through writing that post, that I wasn't certain Chiltern has reservations (and as it turns out, they don't).

Given Chiltern's lack of reservations, that removes one of the obstacles to reconfiguring the sets- the reservation displays won't be used anyway so they can just be covered up or even left in place and switched out.

That said, even without reservations there's some value in having seats numbered up, as they can be used by passengers to identify the location of defects or faults when reporting them to the operator, and it'll then be easier for maintenance teams to find the problem. I'm thinking in terms of the stickers that used to be in (old) Northern's units, which displayed the vehicle number and asked passengers to report any defects or messes to their Twitter team.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Expect they will just have it turned off / isolated. Hopefully that should be enough - whilst having the seat numbers displayed will be redundant, no different to the WMR 172/2 and 172/3 fleet which had seat numbers and signage from the start with LM (which never made any sense given their intended purpose!)

LM did do reservations for a bit, but quickly gave up on the idea when placing them was rather sporadic and Euston commuters just ignored them. Probably never on the 172s though, that would be like reservations on Merseyrail or the Met Line.

Did Chiltern in the early days? I forget now.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

Surely the released 168s could do a new Banbury semi fast or fast, so the Birminghams don’t have to stop as much and therefore don’t get overcrowded

 

[JonathanH]

Surely the released 168s could do a new Banbury semi fast or fast, so the Birminghams don’t have to stop as much and therefore don’t get overcrowded

Which released 168s? That is a second phase of the introduction. For the period they just replace the Mk3 sets like for like, it looks like a big reduction in capacity.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Surely the released 168s could do a new Banbury semi fast or fast, so the Birminghams don’t have to stop as much and therefore don’t get overcrowded

I am not sure there is space in the timetable at the London end?

 

[MerlinRail 804]

Which released 168s? That is a second phase of the introduction. For the period they just replace the Mk3 sets like for like, it is a reduction in capacity.

True, didn’t think of that!

I am not sure there is space in the timetable at the London end?

they ran more services than they do now pre COVID, so it is possible

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably someone high up in the DfT have demanded the return of first class for his daily commute from Bicester, outside peak times 1st class will be carrying fresh air or the odd chancer. Give it 3 months before it gets dropped due to low loadings.

I'd figure it's more that DaFT want income maximised, and aren't willing to fund the purchase of a load more Sophias (yuck!) to convert that coach to Standard.

Personally I'd convert it and at the same time densify Standard to two tables per coach, that way you'd get about the same number of seats as a Mk3 set, albeit in a bit less comfort. It's almost all tables at present which isn't really needed for Chiltern.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2025 ==

Surely the released 168s could do a new Banbury semi fast or fast, so the Birminghams don’t have to stop as much and therefore don’t get overcrowded

There is an undertone of "we might increase services once they're all going" in there. Three trains per hour to Birmingham instead of two would increase capacity, or as you say a Banbury terminator and the Birminghams having fewer stops.

 

[SynthD]

It's almost all tables at present which isn't really needed for Chiltern.

How is that decided? It's not Lumo.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How is that decided? It's not Lumo.

It's not Lumo but it is primarily a lowish cost (in which case seating isn't a priority) and commuter (who generally prefer privacy) operation, plus one where capacity is at a premium.

I can see no reason why Chiltern shouldn't have similar interiors to the Class 730, indeed were Chiltern electrified I'd consider the 5 car Class 730/2 an ideal unit for them (or indeed the 350/1 which has a similarly high density layout).

With those I'd perhaps lop a row out and space slightly better, but the general high density layout is appropriate for Chiltern, which is not a true intercity operation, but is essentially the same as the WMT WCML operation but without the fast lines and Avanti.

 

[birchesgreen]

Chiltern have confirmed it on Linkedin and posted some interior shots (or mock-ups anyway)

 

[cle]

Look decent and if these replace any 168 Birmingham runs, that is a huge upgrade.

And if that enables some of the pre-Coivd frequency (the hourly Banbury, was Stratford!) - to speed up service for the extremities, all the better.

I expect that future Oxford closures to come might see the bay side kept open, and a lot of use on Chiltern - or a full closure, sending people to Parkway. So more 168s for longer services will be better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Look decent and if these replace any 168 Birmingham runs, that is a huge upgrade.

I wouldn't agree. 168s are about the most comfortable DMUs going. The only thing where Mk5 Standard wins is overhead luggage space which is poor on all Turbostars.

 

[Topological]

I never made it onto a Mk5, but are the pictures in @birchesgreen post not real? It would seem odd to do mock-up when the real things are available.

 

[zwk500]

I never made it onto a Mk5, but are the pictures in @birchesgreen post not real? It would seem odd to do mock-up when the real things are available.

Looking at the edges, I wonder if somebody's got the original press releases of TPE's interior (or even a base-layer version of it) and photoshopped the Chiltern interior in. I could be wrong though, but there'd be quite a cost involved in fitting out the coach and taking it for a spin on an empty run just to get some photos, and the mock-ups would have been generated for client approval by the designer anyway.

 

[Topological]

Looking at the edges, I wonder if somebody's got the original press releases of TPE's interior (or even a base-layer version of it) and photoshopped the Chiltern interior in. I could be wrong though, but there'd be quite a cost involved in fitting out the coach and taking it for a spin on an empty run just to get some photos, and the mock-ups would have been generated for client approval by the designer anyway.

As I say, I never went on one. But the interior does have a strong similarity to the TPE interior on the 397s, 802s and 185s, all of which I have been on in recent years.

Admittedly, the fact that the train is moving does suggest mock up. Though the trains are regularly running to and from Longsight.

 

[3RDGEN]

I never made it onto a Mk5, but are the pictures in @birchesgreen post not real? It would seem odd to do mock-up when the real things are available.

They look real and are the TPE interiors, may of been touched up to look new but that's the original TPE interior. Luckily they have photo'd the one table that matches a window in the the Standard coach.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yeah i think they have been processed to an extent. We'll just have to wait until 2026!

 

[Mikey C]

Is there anyway they could be reformed to create fewer longer sets? 5 * 22m carriages per unit is pretty short for the sort of journeys they operate on.