Future rolling stock provision for Chiltern franchise?

[Nicholas Lewis]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/prior-information-notice-chiltern-services.246470/

According to the contract (linked in post 3) all the 165s and 168s leases currently expire 12/12/27

Whilst that date might have come about due to contract expiry, some of the 165s will be 37 years old by then, and the oldest 168s almost 30 years old. There is a fair chance that a new standard fleet would follow and sub-fleet could be returned.

Of course if common sense prevailed CAF or Stadler would have been given a three figure production run of their designs to deal with the cliff edge looming with the DMU fleet but wont happen and will get a proliferation of more non standard designs

 

[Vanmanyo]

According to the contract (linked in post 3) all the 165s and 168s leases currently expire 12/12/27

Whilst that date might have come about due to contract expiry, some of the 165s will be 37 years old by then, and the oldest 168s almost 30 years old. There is a fair chance that a new standard fleet would follow and sub-fleet could be returned.

would make sense, a whole new fleet, perhaps all the same units specced out differently depending on short vs longer routes, would mean that all drivers could in theory sign onto the units with EWR. I think the 168s have a longer life than the 165s, they seem to be holding up (maintenance wise) far better.

 

[12LDA28C]

would make sense, a whole new fleet, perhaps all the same units specced out differently depending on short vs longer routes, would mean that all drivers could in theory sign onto the units with EWR. I think the 168s have a longer life than the 165s, they seem to be holding up (maintenance wise) far better.

Certainly no new fleet for Chiltern on the horizon currently. The reason 168s 'seem to be holding up' is probably a) because they are newer and b) because they share commonality with Class 170s which means parts are much more readily available 'off the shelf' which can not be said of the 165s.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Certainly no new fleet for Chiltern on the horizon currently. The reason 168s 'seem to be holding up' is probably a) because they are newer and b) because they share commonality with Class 170s which means parts are much more readily available 'off the shelf' which can not be said of the 165s.

Ye sadly it's not looking good fleet wise for Chiltern. The most recent interesting thing was 168329 successfully running to Brum and back without spontaneously combusting. With the 68s looking to leave next year and the 165s being in a crap state something must be done soon surely?

 

[AJDesiro]

Ye sadly it's not looking good fleet wise for Chiltern. The most recent interesting thing was 168329 successfully running to Brum and back without spontaneously combusting. With the 68s looking to leave next year and the 165s being in a crap state something must be done soon surely?

It'll be like other operators (*cough* GWR), they'll withdraw them with no replacement, and either short-form services, or reduce frequencies. It's clear that the current people in charge do not want to invest more than they have to in rail.

 

[12LDA28C]

Ye sadly it's not looking good fleet wise for Chiltern. The most recent interesting thing was 168329 successfully running to Brum and back without spontaneously combusting. With the 68s looking to leave next year and the 165s being in a crap state something must be done soon surely?

Options are being explored around replacing the 68s and LHCS but that can't happen until certain other TOCs fleets are replaced themselves meaning other units can be cascaded to Chiltern routes.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Options are being explored around replacing the 68s and LHCS but that can't happen until certain other TOCs fleets are replaced themselves meaning other units can be cascaded to Chiltern routes.

I've heard 180s and 175s are prime candidates. I'm not sure about the 175s now ofc but we'll see

 

[warwickshire]

I've heard 180s and 175s are prime candidates. I'm not sure about the 175s now ofc but we'll see

I've heard Meridians from East Midlands Railway when enough 810s are in service.

 

[Vanmanyo]

I've heard Meridians from East Midlands Railway when enough 810s are in service.

that would be a cool replacement, but perhaps not in time for the 68s removal

 

[JonathanH]

I've heard Meridians from East Midlands Railway when enough 810s are in service.

That would be frankly ridiculous. They don't offer the appropriate level of capacity, there is nowhere on the Chiltern line to maintain them, and they guzzle diesel.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

That would be frankly ridiculous. They don't offer the appropriate level of capacity, there is nowhere on the Chiltern line to maintain them, and they guzzle diesel.

Agreed, plus as someone who's actually been on 222s, they're horrible trains to travel on - seats are quite uncomfortable!

 

[43066]

I've heard 180s and 175s are prime candidates. I'm not sure about the 175s now ofc but we'll see

You really, really don’t want 180s, unless you want the Chiltern mainline to be regularly blocked by units which have caught fire or otherwise sat down…

 

[Vanmanyo]

That would be frankly ridiculous. They don't offer the appropriate level of capacity, there is nowhere on the Chiltern line to maintain them, and they guzzle diesel.

I think if they had somehwere to maintain them they wouldnt be so bad. Remember we're on about potential 68 replacements and fleet strengthening - something these can definitely do. I don't think they would be at all suitable with the quick fire stops towards birmingham (potentially 7 stops within 30 minutes). I believe the 168s are one of the worst units when it comes to fuel economy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2023 ==

You really, really don’t want 180s, unless you want the Chiltern mainline to be regularly blocked by units which have caught fire or otherwise sat down…

I mean I never said I wanted these units haha. If reliability weren't an issue they wouldn't be bad choices. I think the 175s would be more suited to the stop-start nature of the CML

 

[43066]

If reliability weren't an issue they wouldn't be bad choices.

Very comfortable to travel in, to be fair.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Very comfortable to travel in, to be fair.

Never been on a 180, but the 175s are nice units when they dont blow up

 

[12LDA28C]

I've heard Meridians from East Midlands Railway when enough 810s are in service.

I believe this is the most likely option currently

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2023 ==

That would be frankly ridiculous. They don't offer the appropriate level of capacity, there is nowhere on the Chiltern line to maintain them, and they guzzle diesel.

Plenty of maintenance facilities on the Chiltern line. Moving up one vehicle length to fuel a unit inside a depot wouldn't be a huge hardship.

 

[The Planner]

I believe this is the most likely option currently

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2023 ==



Plenty of maintenance facilities on the Chiltern line. Moving up one vehicle length to fuel a unit inside a depot wouldn't be a huge hardship.

Could be interesting at Marylebone if this were to happen, careful consideration needed into what formation you would use for platforming.

 

[Mikey C]

Agreed, plus as someone who's actually been on 222s, they're horrible trains to travel on - seats are quite uncomfortable!

They're not horrible trains at all, they're pretty decent actually. The seats are worn out, but that's not the fault of the design.

Whether thirsty 125mph trains are a good solution is another issue, but at least they will be available

 

[12LDA28C]

Could be interesting at Marylebone if this were to happen, careful consideration needed into what formation you would use for platforming.

Not necessarily. If the 222s are purely introduced as a replacement for the 68s / LHCS and used on the same services then there will be no issue. The LHCS is always given its own platform apart from a few isolated instances of extreme disruption and I believe approval has to be sought before running a DVT into a platform already occupied by a unit fitted with a BSI coupler, and vice versa.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

They're not horrible trains at all, they're pretty decent actually. The seats are worn out, but that's not the fault of the design.

Whether thirsty 125mph trains are a good solution is another issue, but at least they will be available

The only good thing about them is that at least they look quite nice, unlike the 220 and 221s which look quite ugly.

 

[The Planner]

Not necessarily. If the 222s are purely introduced as a replacement for the 68s / LHCS and used on the same services then there will be no issue. The LHCS is always given its own platform apart from a few isolated instances of extreme disruption and I believe approval has to be sought before running a DVT into a platform already occupied by a unit fitted with a BSI coupler, and vice versa.

Sounds like a mini fleet if all they are replacing are the LHCS then.

 

[3RDGEN]

175's for Chiltern was looked at a few years back, all the 3 cars and a few 2 cars maintained from Wembley West Coast depot.

Fully refurbished 5 car 222's on all the Birmingham services would be a good idea, now these are an "Alstom" fleet they could perhaps maintain them at Wembley West Coast.

Electrification to Oxford and then Birmingham is the real solution but never mind.

 

[The Planner]

175's for Chiltern was looked at a few years back, all the 3 cars and a few 2 cars maintained from Wembley West Coast depot.

Fully refurbished 5 car 222's on all the Birmingham services would be a good idea, now these are an "Alstom" fleet they could perhaps maintain them at Wembley West Coast.

That is a convoluted ECS move!

 

[Failed Unit]

It will be interesting to see what DMU will be displaced with the already committed electrification. When you look at the ex BR fleet (this maybe for another thread)

150 - Scrapped (but not real replacement)
156 - Scrapped (again no real replacement in Scotland / Northern but at least Scotland does have electrification happening)
158/9 - Not sure if Chiltern could make use of any of these. I would prefer them to go to EMR and send the 170s down to Chiltern (Although I suspect I am alone here)
165/6 - Can't see how Great Western can free these up - are they more likely to get rid of the 15x or the 16x first. - Shame they never do the infills as Reading - Gatwick would be perfect to free up some units.
185 - Have these still got no home - so many rumours I can't keep up but can Chiltern take these (or the mk5s if TPE are really not going to use them and keep the 185s instead)

 

[JonathanH]

Fully refurbished 5 car 222's on all the Birmingham services would be a good idea

Unless there is a way that the 168s can be redeployed elsewhere and there is acceptance of an increased subsidy to Chiltern to run less efficient trains, full use of 222s doesn't seem probable or indeed necessary.

 

[Trainbike46]

As this is a speculative thread, I figured it would be okay for me to post what I'm hoping for:

-Keep the 68s plus mk 3's until the 165s need replacement
-Start electrification of the Snow Hill lines and the london bits of the chiltern route with OHLE, except for possible 4th rail extensions within london
-Order new FLIRT trains, fitted out for OHLE and 4th rail electric, as well as diesel engines like the 755s, timed to arrive when the oldest Chiltern stock reaches around 40 years
-do a full fleet replacement, cascade the 168s to other operators (convert to 170s in all likelihood)
-Electrify the whole route over time, when that is finished either cascade the FLIRTS if another operator would benefit from them, or remove the thrash cupboards to have straight EMUs

 

[12LDA28C]

Sounds like a mini fleet if all they are replacing are the LHCS then.

Indeed, the LHCS is due to go in May 2024 so time is running out to find a replacement and get drivers, fitters etc trained up in time, if not an extension for the 68s will have to be sought. There is no prospect of the 165s and 168s being replaced in the near future.

 

[3RDGEN]

That is a convoluted ECS move!

It is and Wembley isn't really set up for diesel maintenance either.

If the desire is just to replace the LHCS in the near future then a few TfW 150's to GWR and GWR 165's to Chiltern is a short term option with no new fleets for either company so little training required.

 

[12LDA28C]

As this is a speculative thread, I figured it would be okay for me to post what I'm hoping for:

-Keep the 68s plus mk 3's until the 165s need replacement
-Start electrification of the Snow Hill lines and the london bits of the chiltern route with OHLE, except for possible 4th rail extensions within london
-Order new FLIRT trains, fitted out for OHLE and 4th rail electric, as well as diesel engines like the 755s, timed to arrive when the oldest Chiltern stock reaches around 40 years
-do a full fleet replacement, cascade the 168s to other operators (convert to 170s in all likelihood)
-Electrify the whole route over time, when that is finished either cascade the FLIRTS if another operator would benefit from them, or remove the thrash cupboards to have straight EMUs

The topic of this 'speculative thread' is purely what will replace the 68s and LHCS when the current agreement is due to expire in May 2024. I think you may have gone rather beyond the remit with this 'wishlist' which seems to belong in cloudcuckooland.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2023 ==

GWR 165's to Chiltern is a short term option with no new fleets for either company so little training required.

Not a great replacement for 100mph locos and stock, a 90mph DMU but better than nothing I suppose...