Chiltern class 68s and mk3s/dvts

[Vanmanyo]

Hi all, with the news that XC and GWR are not going to be using their Mk3s after the end of this year that leaves just Chiltern and Scotrail with mark 3s. I was just wondering if Chiltern have plans to remove the mk3 sets by the end of year, with them being a small fleet with high maintenance costs and the 68s always having noise complaints at Marylebone. But what would Chiltern replace them with (if anything), the Birmingham route is still very popular usually requiring at least 5 carriages, more at peak times, and the current fleet of 168/165 wouldnt be enough for demand, or do they try and stick with the mk3 sets for another year until perhaps suitable replacements come up or funding for new stock (something which hasn't happened since the 168/2s, the 168/3s were former TPE 170s).

 

[JonathanH]

Nothing was one suggestion last year. Given what has happened elsewhere such a suggestion isn't outlandish.

Chiltern railways mk3 replacement.

Out of interest what in your opinion could replace the chiltern mk3s. 1. Possibly 175 direct from TFW. 2. Possibly 175 to Northern. 170 from Northern to Chiltern. 3. Possibly 170 From Cross Country to Chiltern railways so no issues there. By cross country getting Super Voyagers from Avanti...

www.railforums.co.uk

There doesn't appear to be any movement on the desire from Westminster Council to see the class 68s banished.

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

There was a rumour in this month's Modern Railways that Chiltern would need to withdraw their Class 68 traction. Is there any truth behind this? If true what options do folk think will be considered to top up their fleet?

www.railforums.co.uk

Westminster City Council demand immediate end to Class 68 operation into Marylebone due to pollution

There are those on here who have questioned whether pressure will be brought on HMG to end the running of diesel trains into crowded cities. The London Evening Standard today disproves any such thoughts.... 'Heavily polluting diesel locomotives must be banned from Marylebone station to improve...

www.railforums.co.uk

At one point, 175s were being suggested, but clearly they have problems at the moment.

Future of the Chiltern LHCS extras

There's been a lot of debate about whether or not Chiltern Railways will continue with the 68/CS sets and which trains they will use if they choose to replace them. However, in this present age of rail cuts & savings, should the 'extras' even continue at all in their current form or should a...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Vanmanyo]

Nothing was one suggestion last year. Given what has happened elsewhere such a suggestion isn't outlandish.

Chiltern railways mk3 replacement.

Out of interest what in your opinion could replace the chiltern mk3s. 1. Possibly 175 direct from TFW. 2. Possibly 175 to Northern. 170 from Northern to Chiltern. 3. Possibly 170 From Cross Country to Chiltern railways so no issues there. By cross country getting Super Voyagers from Avanti...

www.railforums.co.uk

There doesn't appear to be any movement on the desire from Westminster Council to see the class 68s banished.

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

There was a rumour in this month's Modern Railways that Chiltern would need to withdraw their Class 68 traction. Is there any truth behind this? If true what options do folk think will be considered to top up their fleet?

www.railforums.co.uk

Westminster City Council demand immediate end to Class 68 operation into Marylebone due to pollution

There are those on here who have questioned whether pressure will be brought on HMG to end the running of diesel trains into crowded cities. The London Evening Standard today disproves any such thoughts.... 'Heavily polluting diesel locomotives must be banned from Marylebone station to improve...

www.railforums.co.uk

At one point, 175s were being suggested, but clearly they have problems at the moment.

Thanks, Johnathan, it'll be interesting to see what happens to them as the DfT clearly doesn't want to invest, I hope they keep them for the meantime and try and find long term replacements.

 

[Whybother]

They will still be hanging around until the timetable change May24.

There hasn’t been any change on that plan which was previously agreed by the DfT.

 

[aem7ac]

They will still be hanging around until the timetable change May24.

There hasn’t been any change on that plan which was previously agreed by the DfT.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but May 2024 or May 24th? Trying to see if I have a chance at photographing these in June.

 

[The Planner]

They will still be hanging around until the timetable change May24.

There hasn’t been any change on that plan which was previously agreed by the DfT.

May 24 doesnt exist, it will be June 24.

 

[XAM2175]

May 24 doesnt exist, it will be June 24.

Perhaps, for the avoidance of doubt, timetable changes should be referred to as <month> <four-digit year> - because this reply still doesn't resolve the ambiguity for posters who're not fully aware of the plans.

 

[zwk500]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but May 2024 or May 24th? Trying to see if I have a chance at photographing these in June.

For clarity, they were referring to May 2024, but as @The Planner has mentioned it's actually the June 2024 timetable change.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

May 24 doesnt exist, it will be June 24.

Assuming the Better Timetable for Passenger and Freight Date Change gets approved by the ORR who are currently considering the change to the Network Code part D. At the moment it’s in the balance over which way that will go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2023 ==

Hi all, with the news that XC and GWR are not going to be using their Mk3s after the end of this year that leaves just Chiltern and Scotrail with mark 3s.

GWR will still be using their mk3s beyond the end of this year, it’s just the HST mk3s which are going.

 

[The Planner]

Assuming the Better Timetable for Passenger and Freight Date Change gets approved by the ORR who are currently considering the change to the Network Code part D. At the moment it’s in the balance over which way that will go.

It will happen, the only votes against it were from freight. I can't see ORR not rubber stamping it.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It will happen, the only votes against it were from freight. I can't see ORR not rubber stamping it.

There’s a Dispute Hearing with the Access Disputes Committee on 19th April so we shouldn’t have to wait too long to find out what direction this goes in unless it is settled out of court in advance.

 

[The Planner]

There’s a Dispute Hearing with the Access Disputes Committee on 19th April so we shouldn’t have to wait too long to find out what direction this goes in unless it is settled out of court in advance.

Not sure of the relevance of ADRC in the decision?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Not sure of the relevance of ADRC in the decision?

In essence GBRf have raised a dispute against the June timetable change date only appearing in v2 of the Rules as v1 showed the old May dates and the fact that v2 of the Rules don’t match part D of the Network Code for the timetable change - the papers appeared today on the ADRC website.

 

[The Planner]

In essence GBRf have raised a dispute against the June timetable change date only appearing in v2 of the Rules as v1 showed the old May dates and the fact that v2 of the Rules don’t match part D of the Network Code for the timetable change - the papers appeared today on the ADRC website.

Thats tenuous at best, it wont stop anything happening as they are disputing a process issue. V1 is a proposal document and 2 the decision document normally, same applies to 3 and 4.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Thats tenuous at best, it wont stop anything happening as they are disputing a process issue. V1 is a proposal document and 2 the decision document normally, same applies to 3 and 4.

However all versions should align with part D of the Network Code so it’s all going to get quite processy me thinks.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Thats tenuous at best, it wont stop anything happening as they are disputing a process issue. V1 is a proposal document and 2 the decision document normally, same applies to 3 and 4.

The determination has been reached by the ADRC - Network Rail essentially lost this hearing having no legal grounds to deviate from the timescales in Part D of the Network Code. @The Planner looks like it may stop things happening for now.

Determination
74. Having carefully considered the submissions and evidence and based on my analysis of the legal and contractual issues, my determination is as follows.
i) NR has, and had, no legal entitlement to depart from the timescales set out in Part D of the Network Code as presently constituted. Although there is a significant Proposal for Change in existence (PfC120), NR did not, and does not, have any legal entitlement to implement the revised timescales in the Proposal for Change until approval is given by ORR.
ii) NR’s request that its approach be endorsed is refused.

Full Determination here.

https://accessdisputesrail.org/accessDisputesCommitteeIndex/TTPDeterminations/Determinations/TTP2187%20-%20Determination.pdf

 

[Vanmanyo]

The determination has been reached by the ADRC - Network Rail essentially lost this hearing having no legal grounds to deviate from the timescales in Part D of the Network Code. @The Planner looks like it may stop things happening for now.

Determination
74. Having carefully considered the submissions and evidence and based on my analysis of the legal and contractual issues, my determination is as follows.
i) NR has, and had, no legal entitlement to depart from the timescales set out in Part D of the Network Code as presently constituted. Although there is a significant Proposal for Change in existence (PfC120), NR did not, and does not, have any legal entitlement to implement the revised timescales in the Proposal for Change until approval is given by ORR.
ii) NR’s request that its approach be endorsed is refused.

Full Determination here.

https://accessdisputesrail.org/accessDisputesCommitteeIndex/TTPDeterminations/Determinations/TTP2187%20-%20Determination.pdf

What is this determination regarding?

 

[The Planner]

What is this determination regarding?

The change to three (sort of) timetables a year amd how NR has gone about it process wise.

 

[Vanmanyo]

The change to three (sort of) timetables a year amd how NR has gone about it process wise.

Ah

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Ah

Basically NR should not have just ploughed on with this until they got ORR agreement (which is currently out for consultation by the ORR).

A salutary reminder to NR of their licence conditions and obligations which in this case are clearly spelt out in Part D of the Network Code.

 

[Whybother]

May 24 doesnt exist, it will be June 24.

Technically the contract that is in place has been signed up to May 2024. Any contract extension would have to be agreed even if it is only for a month.

It wouldn’t be the first time that things have to change that don’t match up with the official timetable change dates.

The 68s were meant to go on the 24th August 2022, can you tell me which timetable change this original removal date matches? Things aren’t always that matched up in the railway world!

 

[Vanmanyo]

The 68s were meant to go on the 24th August 2022, can you tell me which timetable change this original removal date matches? Things aren’t always that matched up in the railway world!

Units can just disappear without being in line with timetables. I mean atm 68s are pathed as 168s on weekends so they could easily be swapped if needed.

 

[AJDesiro]

Units can just disappear without being in line with timetables. I mean atm 68s are pathed as 168s on weekends so they could easily be swapped if needed.

It would be foolish to withdraw the Mk 3 sets without a replacement, anyone with common sense would be able to tell you that.

With the current climate and the withdrawal of several fleets with no immediate replacement (EMR 180s, GWR HSTs, even Chiltern’s 172s) it does seem that they will just end up being withdrawn without an immediate replacement, they’d likely need another overhaul in a few years too - the DfT will likely instruct Chiltern to withdraw them and either cut frequencies or short form more services.

If the rumours for 175s or 180s are true though, there may be hope for Chiltern, who are already short of units with the amount of 165s that have been stripped for spares.