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

[Anonymous10]

class 175s would be the logical option the fleet is made of 3 and 2 car sets so could easily be made into a 6 car train and have recently had a refurb granted colour scheme wouldn't match but all considering it means the interior's would be pleasant until given a light refurb to change the colour scheme

 

[JonathanH]

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.

Where is the money going to come from for new trains?

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)

Forgive my ignorance but is that spending already happening and funded by TfL?

 

[Mikey C]

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.

The GWR 165s have significantly worse interior than the Chiltern ones, so would need a fair bit of work to make them similar (air cooling, removing the hoppers, changing the end seating to 2+2)

The 90mph GWR 165s I assume are just regeared when compared to the 75mph Chiltern ones, so would have much poorer acceleration to the 168s, which wouldn't help Chiltern operate a 100mph 2 track railway

 

[JonathanH]

The GWR 165s have significantly worse interior than the Chiltern ones, so would need a fair bit of work to make them similar (air cooling, removing the hoppers, changing the end seating to 2+2)

GWR 165s have similar air cooling to the Chiltern 165s now - they just locked the ventilators instead of fitting plain glass.

The interior is hardly relevant - I'm not suggesting GWR 165s directly replace the 68+Mk3 sets, rather than there is an arrangement to allow 165s to displace 168s to replace the 68+Mk3 workings. There is a planned tidy up of the interiors in the GWR units - the Chiltern 165s retain 3+2 seating in the middle of each unit and there is only one bay of 3+2 in the ends of the units in any case.

It is only an idea in any case. GWR may well have to keep their 165s if the 769s never enter service or they want to eliminate use of the short HST sets.

 

[Ex-controller]

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 latter point was what I was about to post - replacement for the ScotRail HSTs could be a worthwhile move for either 222s or 175s, more likely the former I’d say.

 

[JamesT]

The latter point was what I was about to post - replacement for the ScotRail HSTs could be a worthwhile move for either 222s or 175s, more likely the former I’d say.

The tender for the last Scotrail franchise was worded in such a way to exclude Class 22x. Have things changed enough in the intervening time that they will have changed their mind?

 

[Ex-controller]

The tender for the last Scotrail franchise was worded in such a way to exclude Class 22x. Have things changed enough in the intervening time that they will have changed their mind?

I wasn’t aware of that. I’ve no idea if minds would have been changed, perhaps the transfer to public ownership will make an impact.

That might be to do with excluding units with under floor engines, but given the amount that class 170 and class 158 units have to deputise you wonder if it’s worth making such a stipulation.

 

[JonathanH]

The tender for the last Scotrail franchise was worded in such a way to exclude Class 22x. Have things changed enough in the intervening time that they will have changed their mind?

Was that just to avoid bidders leaving XC and EMR with no rolling stock by bidding higher for the units?

In another thread, more appropriate for the discussion of 222 future, the idea of using 222s on Scotrail is seen as inappropriate because of the short time between introduction / training and plans for new electric trains.

The issue that keeps on coming up with 222s is there being no suitable depot for them. As 'The Planner' points out, that is a very pertinent issue when it comes to 222s being totally inappropriate for Chiltern.

 

[Philip]

Is there a nearby Alstom depot on the Chiltern route which could house 175s? It is said that they need heavy maintenance to keep the reliability going well. Also it wouldn't make sense only sending a handful there to replace the loco hauled stock.

I notice 170s haven't been mentioned yet; would a more logical solution be to send Northern's 170s to Chiltern (compatible with 168s) and then 175s or more CAF units replace these 170s at Northern?

Neither 170s or 175s make sense though in the context of TfL wanting to reduce the number of polluting diesel trains in London terminals; they are older and so not as clean or green an option as a new order of CAF DMUs or bi-modes would be.

 

[JonathanH]

Is there a nearby Alstom depot on the Chiltern route which could house 175s?

No. Chiltern's maintenance is run in-house. Tyseley is run by West Midlands Trains.

I notice 170s haven't been mentioned yet; would a more logical solution be to send Northern's 170s to Chiltern (compatible with 168s) and then 175s or more CAF units replace these 170s at Northern?

Would Northern be happy with that arrangement? I doubt their 170s are up for grabs.

 

[xotGD]

Keep the 68s. Order Mark 5a stock.

Job's a good 'un.

 

[Philip]

No. Chiltern's maintenance is run in-house. Tyseley is run by West Midlands Trains.


Would Northern be happy with that arrangement? I doubt their 170s are up for grabs.

They are currently deployed on an unsuitable route, the Harrogate line, because of their poor acceleration for the stopping service; and their high top speed wasted on a fairly slow speed line. They won't be considerably missed based on their current duties.

 

[JonathanH]

They are currently deployed on an unsuitable route, the Harrogate line, because of their poor acceleration for the stopping service; and their high top speed wasted on a fairly slow speed line. They won't be considerably missed based on their current duties.

They aren't solely employed on the Harrogate line. They are appropriate traction for the other routes they do as posted here.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/195s-truly-awful-not-a-step-forward.223797/page-6#post-5372170

 

[Bald Rick]

Keep the 68s. Order Mark 5a stock.

Job's a good 'un.

It’s the 68s that are the problem...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It’s the 68s that are the problem...

Only in the opinion of a misguided politician. Many of the suggested alternatives in this thread (175s, 222s, additional Turbos/Clubmans (Clubmen? )) are older, more polluting diesels than the 68s themselves. They're just quieter because they have multiple smaller engines rather than one big one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only in the opinion of a misguided politician. Many of the suggested alternatives in this thread (175s, 222s, additional Turbos/Clubmans (Clubmen? )) are older, more polluting diesels than the 68s themselves. They're just quieter because they have multiple smaller engines rather than one big one.

Noise pollution is still pollution, to be fair.

 

[Anonymous10]

Noise pollution is still pollution, to be fair.

and to be fair i remember being in Scarborough waiting for a northern service to hull and there was a tpe class 68 outside the waiting room on the line for a good 15 mins and that was exceptionally irritating

 

[Bald Rick]

Only in the opinion of a misguided politician. Many of the suggested alternatives in this thread (175s, 222s, additional Turbos/Clubmans (Clubmen? )) are older, more polluting diesels than the 68s themselves. They're just quieter because they have multiple smaller engines rather than one big one.

Yes, but a politician that is evidently listeneD to.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It’s the 68s that are the problem...

Exactly, part of this is about saving money and that’s got to be getting rid of the 68s so there’s no longer fines for noise pollution for which Chiltern have racked up quite a few so far.

 

[Bald Rick]

Exactly, part of this is about saving money and that’s got to be getting rid of the 68s so there’s no longer fines for noise pollution for which Chiltern have racked up quite a few so far.

Have they? That’s news.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Have they? That’s news.

They have several times so far, that’s over noise. There’s a separate issue over emissions which is still brewing too.

 

[Bald Rick]

They have several times so far, that’s over noise. There’s a separate issue over emissions which is still brewing too.

Again, have they? I’ve seen nothing suggesting they have at all, and you would expect repeat offences to be of increasing interest to local media.

 

[Philip]

On the point of noise pollution, a 175 may not be quite as loud as a 68 or 185 when idle, but when setting off and under load I would say it is more noisier in an obtrusive way.

 

[Energy]

Its been said that the 165s have 10 years left in their body shells so I honestly don't expect a replacement for them.

The obvious solution is to get more 168s though that isn't possible, assuming it won't be new units then 22xs seem the most likely to me with maintenance carrying on at Central Rivers TMD. Just have to make sure the units reach Birmingham for maintenance.

 

[The Planner]

Its been said that the 165s have 10 years left in their body shells so I honestly don't expect a replacement for them.

The obvious solution is to get more 168s though that isn't possible, assuming it won't be new units then 22xs seem the most likely to me with maintenance carrying on at Central Rivers TMD. Just have to make sure the units reach Birmingham for maintenance.

Surely that only works if Chiltern get 220 or 221? Central Rivers don't do 222s. That is some hefty ECS moves too with no easy way of getting them to Snow Hill or Moor St for start or end of service.

 

[Energy]

That is some hefty ECS moves too with no easy way of getting them to Snow Hill or Moor St for start or end of service.

Thought there was a fairly easy way from New St. to Moor St or Snow Hill?

 

[wobman]

Whats happening to the Drs 68's ? Do they have cab bell buzzers and door interlock ?

Just wondering if they would be better suited for tfw and its Mk4s than the 67s from DB .

 

[swt_passenger]

Its been said that the 165s have 10 years left in their body shells so I honestly don't expect a replacement for them.

The obvious solution is to get more 168s though that isn't possible, assuming it won't be new units then 22xs seem the most likely to me with maintenance carrying on at Central Rivers TMD. Just have to make sure the units reach Birmingham for maintenance.

Last time they needed 168s they converted nine 170s. Can’t that still be done in theory?

 

[JonathanH]

Thought there was a fairly easy way from New St. to Moor St or Snow Hill?

You would have to reverse at Tyseley (or Rowley Regis). It would certainly be time consuming. I think in the hypothetical realm of trying to run Chiltern line services from Central Rivers, you would probably have some services that started or ended at Solihull to avoid the need for reversals. However, putting 30 miles of dead mileage onto the cost of operating the Chiltern service really doesn't make much sense (and they don't do 222s there either).

 

[Energy]

You would have to reverse at Tyseley (or Rowley Regis). It would certainly be time consuming. I think in the hypothetical realm of trying to run Chiltern line services from Central Rivers, you would probably have some services that started or ended at Solihull to avoid the need for reversals. However, putting 30 miles of dead mileage onto the cost of operating the Chiltern service really doesn't make much sense (and they don't do 222s there either).

Ahh ok

Last time they needed 168s they converted nine 170s. Can’t that still be done in theory?

There aren't any 170s available.