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

[WamBamYam]

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?

 

[JonathanH]

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?

Discussed here
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tion-into-marylebone-due-to-pollution.224355/

The short answer is they would just have to use the rest of their existing fleet.

 

[Suraggu]

The class 68s and Mk.3s are due for withdrawal during the Chiltern Railways national rail contract.

In the contract it states they are working on a fleet plan for cascaded and new stock going forward 2023 onwards.

 

[DanNCL]

Being pedantic, it’s only actually the Mark 3s that’d be withdrawn. The 68s would just go back to DRS.

 

[MatthewRead]

I thought the 68/MK3 sets were staying?

 

[hooverboy]

The class 68s and Mk.3s are due for withdrawal during the Chiltern Railways national rail contract.

In the contract it states they are working on a fleet plan for cascaded and new stock going forward 2023 onwards.

So what would be in line to replace them?
Presumably they would be looking for a comparable amount of seats as 6*mk3 can handle. 2* 3 car(8 sets) CL175 not available as they are with TFW,but would just about cover that.TMD is also at Birmingham.

2*3 car ex TPE 185's could also fill in,but the access charges are astronomical due to them being so heavy.

222's would be free,and the fleet size would be just about right to enable a 30min express marylebone-birmingham moor st/snow hill service. The route is only 100mph,so a bit overkill, although acceleration on the meridians is far superior to the turbostars.Track access charges would also be considerably less than cl68+6*mk3+DVT

 

[hooverboy]

So what would be in line to replace them?
Presumably they would be looking for a comparable amount of seats as 6*mk3 can handle. 2* 3 car(8 sets) CL175 not available as they are with TFW,but would just about cover that.TMD is also at Birmingham.

2*3 car ex TPE 185's could also fill in,but the access charges are astronomical due to them being so heavy.

222's would be free,and the fleet size would be just about right to enable a 30min express marylebone-birmingham moor st/snow hill service. The route is only 100mph,so a bit overkill, although acceleration on the meridians is far superior to the turbostars.Track access charges would also be considerably less than cl68+6*mk3+DVT

The new stock mooted would likely be replacements for the networkers.Given they are getting on a bit now the metropoiltan services do need a refresh.

 

[Prestige15]

I sense CAF DMU's

 

[Suraggu]

So what would be in line to replace them?
Presumably they would be looking for a comparable amount of seats as 6*mk3 can handle. 2* 3 car(8 sets) CL175 not available as they are with TFW,but would just about cover that.TMD is also at Birmingham.

2*3 car ex TPE 185's could also fill in,but the access charges are astronomical due to them being so heavy.

222's would be free,and the fleet size would be just about right to enable a 30min express marylebone-birmingham moor st/snow hill service. The route is only 100mph,so a bit overkill, although acceleration on the meridians is far superior to the turbostars.Track access charges would also be considerably less than cl68+6*mk3+DVT

IF 222's were cascaded, to fully utilise there superior acceleration over 168s it would need a timetable recast.

But with 168s staying at CR and whatever the cascades fleet will be, a timetable recast is unlikely to happen for the long term.

 

[JonathanH]

222's were cascaded, to fully utilise there superior acceleration over 168s it would need a timetable recast.

Or just run them in 168 timings in some sort of Eco mode. Why would the superior acceleration need to be used with the associated higher fuel consumption?

As posted above, Chiltern just need to remove the 68+Mk3 sets and make do with the rest of their existing rolling stock to reduce the overall lease costs.

I note that if GWR do start operating 769s, release of some of their 3-car 165s to Chiltern might be the answer to eliminating the 68s. That seems to also be a big if though.

 

[The Planner]

Suspect people need to calm down with the 222 wibble. With the cost reductions required they will likely have to sweat the assets. Where would they maintain them for a start.

 

[Wolfie]

I sense CAF DMU's

Noone in their right mind would buy new DMUs, particularly for services into London.

 

[philosopher]

I sense CAF DMU's

I hope not. Don’t want Chiltern getting bumpy trains that keep breaking down!

 

[hooverboy]

Suspect people need to calm down with the 222 wibble. With the cost reductions required they will likely have to sweat the assets. Where would they maintain them for a start.

I kind of agree with that.175s or 180's would make a lot more sense as the birmingham tmd's(actually oem's) are within spitting distance of the chiltern mainline.
222's is wishful thinking,they would definitely fit the bill though,and a fleet of 22 is sufficient for a half hourly clock-face roster for the expresses.they just divert at nuneaton for the spring clean and tweak at derby,it's not going out of the way that much.

I still cant see chiltern going for the 180's though, they have a horrid reputation for reliability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Dec 2021 ==

I sense CAF DMU's

I think given the stink that's been kicked up about supposed pollution(even though the cl68's are much cleaner than the dmu's) I can see some sort of green solution happening.I don't think CAF will cut it to be honest.
I see it being either alstom hydroflex platform or stadler,due to the detatchable/exchageable power pack.

I would not complain at all with the latter.Having used GA flirts I can assure you that the rural punters think they hit the jackpot.TFW will be the same.

 

[JonathanH]

222's is wishful thinking,they would definitely fit the bill though,and a fleet of 22 is sufficient for a half hourly clock-face roster for the expresses.they just divert at nuneaton for the spring clean and tweak at derby,it's not going out of the way that much

They don't fit the bill though because they are overspecified for what is needed. They also don't have a suitable depot to be based at. Derby transfers to Hitachi as part of the 810 deal and is too far off the Chiltern route in any case. See the problems Stadler have had supplying 745s for the Stansted route from a remote base.

I kind of agree with that.175s or 180's would make a lot more sense as the birmingham tmd's(actually oem's) are within spitting distance of the chiltern mainline.

What knowledge do Tyseley have of either 175s or 180s?

 

[The Fox 4846]

In an ideal world the Chiltern mainline needs intercity type trains for its flagship Birmingham and Oxford routes. I would have seen the 222s as a good option having the capacity and superior acceleration through the Chiltern hills. The 168s are good trains however for the mainline routes they can often be overcrowded and when substituted for a 165 can be a god awful experience.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In an ideal world the Chiltern mainline needs intercity type trains for its flagship Birmingham and Oxford routes. I would have seen the 222s as a good option having the capacity and superior acceleration through the Chiltern hills. The 168s are good trains however for the mainline routes they can often be overcrowded and when substituted for a 165 can be a god awful experience.

With the Chiltern route's low speed, their high capacity and their InterCity style interior (but relative lack of luggage space due to small overheads, which isn't that important on a route primarily populated with daytrippers), Class 175s are made for this, and they will be available soon. Voyagers or derivatives would drink fuel and waste a lot of space in comparison.

As they have a similar hydraulic driveline to the 168s, it may even be possible to fit them with the HyDrive kit, thus meaning an end to diesel operation within Greater London.

If bringing them in would make the fleet too large, you could either scrap some 165s or release some 168s to TOCs like Northern who urgently need a few more doors-at-thirds 100mph DMUs.

 

[JamesT]

With the Chiltern route's low speed, their high capacity and their InterCity style interior (but relative lack of luggage space due to small overheads, which isn't that important on a route primarily populated with daytrippers), Class 175s are made for this, and they will be available soon. Voyagers or derivatives would drink fuel and waste a lot of space in comparison.

As they have a similar hydraulic driveline to the 168s, it may even be possible to fit them with the HyDrive kit, thus meaning an end to diesel operation within Greater London.

If bringing them in would make the fleet too large, you could either scrap some 165s or release some 168s to TOCs like Northern who urgently need a few more doors-at-thirds 100mph DMUs.

I'd imagine that GWR would quite happily take any spare 165s to bolster their fleet. GWR will have to think of replacing the 150s at some point.

 

[JonathanH]

I'd imagine that GWR would quite happily take any spare 165s to bolster their fleet. GWR will have to think of replacing the 150s at some point.

I'd go for the opposite if the 769s actually work. Chiltern backfilling the loss of the 68 and stock using GWR 165s. Replacing 68+Mk3s and short HSTs is more of a priority than eliminating 150s. (165s/166s will never be able to run to Gunnislake or Looe.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd go for the opposite if the 769s actually work. Chiltern backfilling the loss of the 68 and stock using GWR 165s. Replacing 68+Mk3s and short HSTs is more of a priority than eliminating 150s. (165s/166s will never be able to run to Gunnislake or Looe.)

175s are a much better fit if you are after recreating the Mk3 style travelling environment in a unit that has near-identical operating economics to a 168 due to having a similar weight and driveline.

Yes, I know, door position prejudice, and the 168s are very nice indeed, but 165s aren't much better than 150s, a big downgrade and a low top speed.

 

[JonathanH]

175s are a much better fit if you are after recreating the Mk3 style travelling environment in a unit that has near-identical operating economics to a 168 due to having a similar weight and driveline.

Yes, I know, door position prejudice, and the 168s are very nice indeed, but 165s aren't much better than 150s, a big downgrade and a low top speed.

90mph operation on the GWR 165s would be fine for Oxford with 168s freed up for Birmingham services if necessary. It also keeps maintenance simple, avoiding the undue costs of adding an additional fleet to the Chiltern operation.

The cost benefits of Chiltern having a standard 165 / 168 fleet can't be understated in the current environment.

It also reduces lease costs for GWR, although equally there is the operational costs of short HSTs to remove there as well which the 165s could undoubtedly help.

Sacrificing the 175s and 222s off the railway as a means of eliminating lease costs should be very high on the DfT's list. 'Mk3 travelling environment' is a total irrelevance.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

All 168s are getting this hybrid malarkey. Add to that the sweating of 165s, and you can see where this is going.

There is, it seems, a reasonable desire to bring in ‘something’, but at this stage it seems somewhat unlikely. The 168s are now really showing their age, and some photos shown to me the other day were shocking.

A new build order would arguably be best. Potentially in the order of one fleet, with two sub-classes. Those being urban interior and ‘Birmingham interior’.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cost benefits of having a standard 165 / 168 fleet can't be understated in the current environment.

I get that, but because 175s have the "Sprinter driveline" there is a lot of commonality there that wouldn't exist with e.g. Voyagers.

 

[JonathanH]

I get that, but because 175s have the "Sprinter driveline" there is a lot of commonality there that wouldn't exist with e.g. Voyagers.

Yes, I get that. There should be no chance of 222s going anywhere near the Chiltern line whereas 175s are at least possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sacrificing the 175s and 222s off the railway as a means of eliminating lease costs should be very high on the DfT's list.

I agree there is potential good sense in scrapping the 222s as they are a poor fit for anywhere, similar with 180s due to poor reliability. I don't agree regarding the 175s. They are just 100mph end-doored Sprinters - uprated 156s, basically - and there is no sense in scrapping them whatsoever. It would be better, if you are going to scrap anything, to start with the oldest Sprinters rather than the newest ones.

To be fair there are lots of places they might be useful, e.g. replacing GWR's HSTs for one.

 

[The Planner]

100mph is low speed now?

 

[Meerkat]

I agree there is potential good sense in scrapping the 222s as they are a poor fit for anywhere, similar with 180s due to poor reliability. I don't agree regarding the 175s. They are just 100mph end-doored Sprinters - uprated 156s, basically - and there is no sense in scrapping them whatsoever. It would be better, if you are going to scrap anything, to start with the oldest Sprinters rather than the newest ones.

To be fair there are lots of places they might be useful, e.g. replacing GWR's HSTs for one.

175s would be useful on Northern Connect wouldn't they?
On Chiltern would you use them as 168s or try to replace the 68s, which would be a bit awkward on length - not enough centre coaches to avoid multiple units (I'm assuming this would be an issue on the 'flagship' services or do they not need crew to walk up and down?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

100mph is low speed now?

It's lower than 125mph (and as a result means less wasted space and overpowering, 185s aside).

175s would be useful on Northern Connect wouldn't they?

They would, yes, though more 170s (i.e. 168s released by sending all the 175s to Chiltern) would be more useful given the crowding issues at Castlefield and Victoria.

On Chiltern would you use them as 168s or try to replace the 68s, which would be a bit awkward on length - not enough centre coaches to avoid multiple units (I'm assuming this would be an issue on the 'flagship' services or do they not need crew to walk up and down?)

The thread is about replacing 68 hauled stock, though you could send them all down and replace some 168s as well, to send those to Northern for whom the doors at thirds are more useful (see Castlefield).

Chiltern is mostly DOO and has no on board service, so working in multiple without gangways is not an issue, and indeed is the norm. Like any sensible TOC they don't have silly rules about units without a guard in them even on the guarded section north of Banbury (or was it Bicester, I forget).

 

[dm1]

FLIRTs for the Aylesbury via Amersham services would be perfect. I suspect Stadler could build them with 4th rail pickups fairly easily. Then a battery pack for the unelectrified sections on either end. If you coordinate well with TfL you could make them compatible with the Thales ATO signalling and simplify the resignalling on the north end of the met by eliminating tripcocks entirely (at the cost of heritage services unfortunately)

With the added bonus of level boarding on all trains along the met line and no longer running diesel trains over electrified tracks, and more similar performance of the trains to the S-Stock.

You could then cascade the 165s to other services and make them longer.


With batteries proving themselves to be reliable for journeys up to 100km it really would be a no-brainer.

Which is why it will never happen of course...

 

[Doctor Fegg]

175s are a much better fit if you are after recreating the Mk3 style travelling environment in a unit that has near-identical operating economics to a 168 due to having a similar weight and driveline.

Shooter-era Chiltern valued the premium travelling environment. Today's more Arrivafied Chiltern, less so. Under GBR? I doubt they'll give a flying one... sadly.