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

[driverd]

There's an interesting amount of confidence in what HS2 will achieve - there's a lot of it I think is far from certain.

Firstly, I'd suggest users are putting far too greater value on time. Even on relatively short distance journeys, plenty of customers already would rather save a few quid at the expense of 30 mins or so (eg, from my neck of the woods: Manchester-Leeds, Liverpool-Manchester, Leeds-York). The deciding factor will be the price point that HS2 enter the market at. It wouldn't surprise me at all if its relatively expensive, and many customers will opt for a longer journey.

Then there's the loss through connections. I've always been quoted the figure of 80% loss of customers as soon as a connection is introduced (thats from an Arup engineer who specialised in transport projects). To suggest someone would double back from as far a field as Leamington is a bit of a moot point once you consider the minimal journey time savings and increased expense. I'd suggest even the people of Solihul would generally stick to the direct, slower service, over the faff of a cross city change. That is, unless of course, HS2 services come into the market at a reasonable price point.

It's also fair to say that Chiltern obviously see the requirement for a more intercity element to their operation, there have been numerous options over the years to replace the 67s/68s but they have never been taken. I'd argue the future market is there, even discounting London-Birmingham flows, for a limited stop semi-express (Wycombe, Bicester, Banbury on the South end). Clearly that's less express than was, but still more of a regional express than a commuter run. I'm not saying a 168 wouldn't be suitable for this - merely that I'd expect a market to still exist, and this could be well served by a more intercity type unit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's also fair to say that Chiltern obviously see the requirement for a more intercity element to their operation, there have been numerous options over the years to replace the 67s/68s but they have never been taken. I'd argue the future market is there, even discounting London-Birmingham flows, for a limited stop semi-express (Wycombe, Bicester, Banbury on the South end). Clearly that's less express than was, but still more of a regional express than a commuter run. I'm not saying a 168 wouldn't be suitable for this - merely that I'd expect a market to still exist, and this could be well served by a more intercity type unit.

My inclination is that the whole route is basically very similar to the LNR services on the WCML to Birmingham (minus two tracks, but also minus 9 fast ICs an hour and the Crewe semifast) and probably requires a very similar service pattern, which does indeed involve a limited stop service from Marylebone to Birmingham for the benefit of the people at stations towards the Birmingham end just as exists on the WCML. I would however say that 168s (which do have very comfortable, fully window-aligned interiors) are perfectly suitable for this.

 

[HSTEd]

There's an interesting amount of confidence in what HS2 will achieve - there's a lot of it I think is far from certain.

Firstly, I'd suggest users are putting far too greater value on time. Even on relatively short distance journeys, plenty of customers already would rather save a few quid at the expense of 30 mins or so (eg, from my neck of the woods: Manchester-Leeds, Liverpool-Manchester, Leeds-York). The deciding factor will be the price point that HS2 enter the market at. It wouldn't surprise me at all if its relatively expensive, and many customers will opt for a longer journey.

The marginal cost to the government of a seat on HS2 will be dramatically lower than on either of the other two alignments.
There is little reason for the government to continue subsidising the carriage of passengers from Birmingham to London via other routes.

Indeed if they want a "budget" option, the likely best choice would be to put a Thameslink style high density interior into a HS2 train and pack more people in. Which could carry ~2800 people in a 400m formation. And if the fares are low people would happily tolerate that for three quarters of an hour or less.

Then there's the loss through connections. I've always been quoted the figure of 80% loss of customers as soon as a connection is introduced (thats from an Arup engineer who specialised in transport projects). To suggest someone would double back from as far a field as Leamington is a bit of a moot point once you consider the minimal journey time savings and increased expense. I'd suggest even the people of Solihul would generally stick to the direct, slower service, over the faff of a cross city change. That is, unless of course, HS2 services come into the market at a reasonable price point.

And yet vast numbers of people use connections at the London end, unless you suggest they all travel to within walking distance of the station?

Even now the train from Solihull to Marylebone is over 90 minutes.
It will be 45 minutes from Curzon Street to Euston, and if you want Crossrail it's only 38 minutes to Old Oak Common.

Given it's 16 minutes or so and the stations are literally the same complex - for all but the slowest and most decrepit passenger it's going to be significantly faster to double back.

It's also fair to say that Chiltern obviously see the requirement for a more intercity element to their operation, there have been numerous options over the years to replace the 67s/68s but they have never been taken. I'd argue the future market is there, even discounting London-Birmingham flows, for a limited stop semi-express (Wycombe, Bicester, Banbury on the South end). Clearly that's less express than was, but still more of a regional express than a commuter run. I'm not saying a 168 wouldn't be suitable for this - merely that I'd expect a market to still exist, and this could be well served by a more intercity type unit.

Chiltern's interests do not necessarily align with the Government's or the nation's interests.

 

[driverd]

The marginal cost to the government of a seat on HS2 will be dramatically lower than on either of the other two alignments.
There is little reason for the government to continue subsidising the carriage of passengers from Birmingham to London via other routes.

Could you expand on this? I can't see how a ground up, high speed route, would cost less than existing routes. Maybe I'm missing the obvious.

Indeed if they want a "budget" option, the likely best choice would be to put a Thameslink style high density interior into a HS2 train and pack more people in. Which could carry ~2800 people in a 400m formation. And if the fares are low people would happily tolerate that for three quarters of an hour or less.

Agree entirely.

And yet vast numbers of people use connections at the London end, unless you suggest they all travel to within walking distance of the station?

London is a bit of an interesting exception, basically because of the high frequency and customer non-requirement to plan a journey on the underground etc - it's just perceived as turn up and go. I think you start to see the loss of market when you look at genuinely cross-London journeys, especially if you compare journeys and destination pairs that are also served by XC.

Chiltern's interests do not necessarily align with the Government's or the nation's interests.

Interesting discussion to have I suppose as to how the publics interests are best served - I suppose many would argue business and the market are best placed to tell you - clearly Chiltern had been making that work pretty well up to 2019.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting discussion to have I suppose as to how the publics interests are best served - I suppose many would argue business and the market are best placed to tell you - clearly Chiltern had been making that work pretty well up to 2019.

"The market" doesn't work in the context of a subsidised business, it only really tells you properly when it is a "pure" market, which rail isn't.

If you want "the market" to tell you, then withdraw all subsidy and the Chiltern Line will quickly close in its entirety.

 

[HSTEd]

Could you expand on this? I can't see how a ground up, high speed route, would cost less than existing routes. Maybe I'm missing the obvious.

Faster journeys mean that the same rolling stock can make more trips, meaning less rolling stock and crew per seat of capacity provided.
Especially with DOO for a 400m formation.

In addition, the capital cost of building the railway is not really relevant since it will already be built - what matters is marginal cost of providing more capacity, which will be low because it will be a long time before the HS2 core is actually 'full'.
And high speed trainsets aren't very expensive given how many miles they would be able to run up every day.

 

[Philip]

Are the 68s definitely going?

Wouldnt a Tory government instinctively believe that private operator will innovate and increase the revenue, and Chiltern was relatively innovative and 'profitable' wasnt it?
It certainly wont be high up the list but I can imagine they would intend to go in that direction for everything but the clearly metro and rural operators.
But also as I think they would prioritise lines that had been upgraded and had new stock it would wait until they had sorted out a post diesel future, and that would be the next stock change after the one being discussed here, and even later if electrification is on the cards.
Basically it needs an interim solution and I would say that is the 175s, one way or another.

It would mean splitting the fleet between different maintenance depots and TOCs which wouldn't be practical.

 

[driverd]

"The market" doesn't work in the context of a subsidised business, it only really tells you properly when it is a "pure" market, which rail isn't.

If you want "the market" to tell you, then withdraw all subsidy and the Chiltern Line will quickly close in its entirety.

I hear you, but I mean in the context that railways are/were a market (ie: competition at point of bid). I suppose I'd highlight the success of Chiltern thus far - it's really been hailed as a success story generally speaking. Also, I haven't a clue on the figures, but pre-covid, to what extent were it's operations subsidised?

Faster journeys mean that the same rolling stock can make more trips, meaning less rolling stock and crew per seat of capacity provided.
Especially with DOO for a 400m formation.

In addition, the capital cost of building the railway is not really relevant since it will already be built - what matters is marginal cost of providing more capacity, which will be low because it will be a long time before the HS2 core is actually 'full'.
And high speed trainsets aren't very expensive given how many miles they would be able to run up every day.

So your point centres on higher fleet utilisation and less staff?

Firstly, there's no question that the government are going to recover construction costs through the life of the asset and that will undoubtedly increase fares.

I don't disagree on the capacity point.

Again, £/mile, I don't know enough to assert a position, but it seems a dubious claim. Considering ongoing maintenance of the permanent way would surely be far more expensive than on conventional infrastructure, along with the costs of power consumption for such a powerful machine and the maintenance costs associated with a high performance train, you can't help but assume the cost will be substantially higher than a traditional, 100mph DMU?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would mean splitting the fleet between different maintenance depots and TOCs which wouldn't be practical.

I think it makes sense to do one of:

1. All 175s to Northern, their 170s released to Chiltern
2. All 175s to Chiltern, some 168s released to Northern

I'm fairly easy as to which (the latter may be better due to Castlefield), but that keeps the 175s together.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2021 ==

I hear you, but I mean in the context that railways are/were a market (ie: competition at point of bid). I suppose I'd highlight the success of Chiltern thus far - it's really been hailed as a success story generally speaking. Also, I haven't a clue on the figures, but pre-covid, to what extent were it's operations subsidised?

The 2016 figures are here:

Rail subsidy per passenger mile

Input indicator, broken down by rail franchise, published annually from May 2011.

www.gov.uk

That had it as 2.7p per passenger mile, which is one of the lower ones. It ranges from a premium of 3.8p per passenger mile on Southern, to a subsidy of 35.3p on, unsurprisingly, Northern. TfW and ScotRail excluded as those are devolved. Only two TOCs, Southern and SWT, paid a premium.

 

[Bald Rick]

The deciding factor will be the price point that HS2 enter the market at.

agreed, mostly

It wouldn't surprise me at all if its relatively expensive, and many customers will opt for a longer journey.

it won’t be, except at busy times. Lots of seats to fill.

I'd suggest even the people of Solihul would generally stick to the direct, slower service, over the faff of a cross city change

many users of Solihull to London are driving to Solihull. they will drive to Birmingham Interchange.

It's also fair to say that Chiltern obviously see the requirement for a more intercity element to their operation

that requirement was chasing revenue through market share, by taking virgin / Avanti passengers*. That won’t be a requirement in future.

*its not me saying this, an ex MD of Chiltern told me.

 

[JonathanH]

I think it makes sense to do one of:

1. All 175s to Northern, their 170s released to Chiltern
2. All 175s to Chiltern, some 168s released to Northern

It would be intriguing to know what the owners of the 175s are actually working on and whether anyone is actually interested in them. I could easily imagine it is neither of those two things.

I appreciate your comment about the railway not discarding the 175s when there are older units in use but equally saving costs through slimming down train fleets is the highest priority right now, with units on the shortest leases the easiest to discard, together with those that have the highest running costs.

 

[HSTEd]

Firstly, there's no question that the government are going to recover construction costs through the life of the asset and that will undoubtedly increase fares.

The government's strategy will be to maximise net income

This does not mean the fares will necessarily be set high.
Ultimately piling it high and selling it cheap, given the extremely low marginal cost of more capacity, will be a good way of maximising incomes.

Again, £/mile, I don't know enough to assert a position, but it seems a dubious claim. Considering ongoing maintenance of the permanent way would surely be far more expensive than on conventional infrastructure, along with the costs of power consumption for such a powerful machine and the maintenance costs associated with a high performance train, you can't help but assume the cost will be substantially higher than a traditional, 100mph DMU?

Power consumption for a seat-km on a Class 390 is actually larger than on a TGV Duplex despite the latter being much faster due to the huge weight of the tilt gear.

And diesel DMUs are far from being particularly energy efficient.

Also the infrastructure, being modern and fit for purpose, is not going to be substantially more expensive in marginal maintenance terms than the traditional route.

 

[tomuk]

That had it as 2.7p per passenger mile, which is one of the lower ones. It ranges from a premium of 3.8p per passenger mile on Southern, to a subsidy of 35.3p on, unsurprisingly, Northern. TfW and ScotRail excluded as those are devolved. Only two TOCs, Southern and SWT, paid a premium.

You've picked the overall subsidy there which includes the NR grant payments, in my view you should compare the column (a) TOC figures:

Chiltern	3.7p premium
Virgin WC	3.5p premium
London Midland	2.6p subsidy
Northern	17.3p subsidy

In actual fact Chiltern were making a better job of it then Virgin WC so maybe they deserve to retain commercial freedoms under GBR.

 

[HSTEd]

You've picked the overall subsidy there which includes the NR grant payments, in my view you should compare the column (a) TOC figures:

Why?

Why should we ignore the enormous subsidy given to them through artificially reduced track access charges?
Without including them the figures are so desperately detached from reality to be utterly meaningless.

 

[tomuk]

Why?

Why should we ignore the enormous subsidy given to them through artificially reduced track access charges?
Without including them the figures are so desperately detached from reality to be utterly meaningless.

I have no problem with adjusting the track access charges as long as they represent the true costs relating to the train service not those due to inefficiencies and historic structural issues in Network Rail. You seem a fan of looking at the marginal costs when comparing HS2.

The point I was making was Chiltern were making a better fist of the market then Virgin West Coast so why should they and their customers have a worse service imposed on them.

 

[HSTEd]

The point I was making was Chiltern were making a better fist of the market then Virgin West Coast so why should they and their customers have a worse service imposed on them.

Well when HS2 comes the ICWC operator, as we know it today, will essentially cease to exist.
Most of its service pattern simply won't exist any more.

Pendolinos will be gone.
It will likely end up as a business unit of whatever is running the LNWR service at that time.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It would be intriguing to know what the owners of the 175s are actually working on and whether anyone is actually interested in them. I could easily imagine it is neither of those two things.

I appreciate your comment about the railway not discarding the 175s when there are older units in use but equally saving costs through slimming down train fleets is the highest priority right now, with units on the shortest leases the easiest to discard, together with those that have the highest running costs.

Out of interest, are you aware how continuously cynical you are with every single speculatory idea that comes up? It is the speculative discussion subforum - things are meant to be rather far-fetched, you know!

 

[tomuk]

Well when HS2 comes the ICWC operator, as we know it today, will essentially cease to exist.
Most of its service pattern simply won't exist any more.

Pendolinos will be gone.
It will likely end up as a business unit of whatever is running the LNWR service at that time.

I don't entirely disagree with that, post HS2 the West Coast will change to service more intermediate journeys., The pendolinos may hang around for a bit pending replacement stock.

But HS2 is still 10 years away what about the immediate future.

 

[JonathanH]

Well when HS2 comes the ICWC operator, as we know it today, will essentially cease to exist.
Most of its service pattern simply won't exist any more.

Pendolinos will be gone.
It will likely end up as a business unit of whatever is running the LNWR service at that time.

Isn't the plan that the operator of HS2 services also runs the ICWC operation?

 

[Bald Rick]

You've picked the overall subsidy there which includes the NR grant payments, in my view you should compare the column (a) TOC figures:

Chiltern	3.7p premium
Virgin WC	3.5p premium
London Midland	2.6p subsidy
Northern	17.3p subsidy

In actual fact Chiltern were making a better job of it then Virgin WC so maybe they deserve to retain commercial freedoms under GBR.

Chiltern only paid that level of premium because they had gone after the Birmingham traffic. Had they not, Virgin would be comfortably ahead.

 

[CR165022]

would FLIRT's be a good replacement for either the DMUs or the 68 sets?
(sorry if thats been mentioned already)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

would FLIRT's be a good replacement for either the DMUs or the 68 sets?
(sorry if thats been mentioned already)

I'd say a fleet of 755s would be ideal. Especially if they were bi-mode versions so that a rolling de-pollution ( i.e. electrification ) of the route could be started.

 

[Meerkat]

I'd say a fleet of 755s would be ideal. Especially if they were bi-mode versions so that a rolling de-pollution ( i.e. electrification ) of the route could be started.

Might need one of the others to give up and sell their factory to Stadler before they get many more orders...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Might need one of the others to give up and sell their factory to Stadler before they get many more orders...

Stadlers aren't ideal for South East commuter services anyway (other than electric ones) because the "mini locomotives" use up platform space. OK, less than a full sized Class 68, but really for the South East you want to keep everything underfloor so as to have maximum passenger accommodation length for the platform length, even if you have an unpowered low-floor coach in the middle (as would be a very good idea).

 

[Anonymous10]

Stadlers aren't ideal for South East commuter services anyway (other than electric ones) because the "mini locomotives" use up platform space. OK, less than a full sized Class 68, but really for the South East you want to keep everything underfloor so as to have maximum passenger accommodation length for the platform length, even if you have an unpowered low-floor coach in the middle (as would be a very good idea).

if they can afford a 68s worth of space they can loose the small amount of room that the mini loco requires and given how much quieter they are without the under floor engine's

 

[Meerkat]

Stadlers aren't ideal for South East commuter services anyway (other than electric ones) because the "mini locomotives" use up platform space. OK, less than a full sized Class 68, but really for the South East you want to keep everything underfloor so as to have maximum passenger accommodation length for the platform length, even if you have an unpowered low-floor coach in the middle (as would be a very good idea).

Indeed. Also the Stadlers arent a great plan if you really are going to electrify it all relatively soon. Binning off the engines isn't just dropping them off the bottom like an 8** it is scrapping a whole 'coach' (unless you are hoping for conveniently timed later orders wanting a cheap price....)

 

[gingertom]

I'd say a fleet of 755s would be ideal. Especially if they were bi-mode versions so that a rolling de-pollution ( i.e. electrification ) of the route could be started.

range of a 755 on diesel is somewhat limited, especially with a lot of 90+mph running. So whilst they might be good from the passenger perspective I suspect the frequent trips they'd need to make to a depot for fuel might knock this on the head. Shame, really. Nice trains.

 

[Meerkat]

Does the requirement for the Chiltern 'expresses' rather overlap with the SWML to Exeter? Bi-mode, regional but with heavy long commuting, decent speed needed.
Do Alstom (Bombardier) or Hitachi have anything suitable with serious engineering planning behind it (rather than marketing making a slide deck saying they can sling an engine underneath an existing product)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

range of a 755 on diesel is somewhat limited, especially with a lot of 90+mph running. So whilst they might be good from the passenger perspective I suspect the frequent trips they'd need to make to a depot for fuel might knock this on the head. Shame, really. Nice trains.

They are nice, but there's no particular reason you can't put the same interior in another type of vehicle, and you could put a low floor unpowered intermediate vehicle into anything, it just requires the bullet to be bitten in mandating it for all new orders and pushing for it on existing kit where the production line is still open.

Crikey, the Swiss actually did the equivalent of us sticking a low floor unpowered intermediate into the 150s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2021 ==

Does the requirement for the Chiltern 'expresses' rather overlap with the SWML to Exeter? Bi-mode, regional but with heavy long commuting, decent speed needed.
Do Alstom (Bombardier) or Hitachi have anything suitable with serious engineering planning behind it (rather than marketing making a slide deck saying they can sling an engine underneath an existing product)?

Given that Hitachi already have the 80x platform, I see no particular reason they couldn't easily do one with a 24m vehicle (already the plan for the MML), a blunter nose (perhaps with the AT200 gangway) and 110mph top speed.

 

[JonathanH]

Given that Hitachi already have the 80x platform, I see no particular reason they couldn't easily do one with a 24m vehicle (already the plan for the MML), a blunter nose and 110mph top speed.

Something that looks like a 385 with room for self-propulsion.

(I still maintain that Chiltern has an adequate fleet to just bin off the 68s without any replacements.)