Potential Chiltern rolling stock cascade, once Mk5s are introduced?

[hst43053]

Moderator note: Split from

Chiltern MK5s Starting 2026 (non speculative updates thread)

Chiltern have now announced this publicly. Notably it seems 1st is being retained as a paid-for upgrade, which is surprising given that they abandoned that with the Mk3s. I'm surprised they don't reseat that coach to Standard to up capacity. I suspect this also confirms they will have guards...

www.railforums.co.uk

Apologies if this is the wrong thread. Unsure if this is accurate or not, but have read on Facebook on an article about EWR that the introduction of these MK5s will now allow sufficient 168s to be displaced to run Bletchley to Oxford. Given the WMR 196s are subleased, I suppose this wouldn't be a bad idea if Chiltern can find their own spare stock.

I imagine the 196s will commence the service, but then as the MK5 rollout gathers pace next year, it will be interesting to see how the stock allocation on EWR may change.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Apologies if this is the wrong thread. Unsure if this is accurate or not, but have read on Facebook on an article about EWR that the introduction of these MK5s will now allow sufficient 168s to be displaced to run Bletchley to Oxford. Given the WMR 196s are subleased I suppose this wouldn't be a bad idea if Chiltern can find their own spare stock.

I imagine the 196s will commence the service, but then as the MK5 rollout gathers pace next year, it will be interesting the see how the stock allocation on EWR may change.

It has been explained way back in another thread (I cannot find).

These six 2car 196s were specifically ordered for East West Rail. They were ordered extra and put with the rest of the 196 fleet at WMR because there was no train operator decided for the route back at the time of ordering. They are not part of WMRs plans.

Whether the introduction of the ex TPE Mk5s means Chiltern (who are now the EWR operator) can dispense with their 196s I do not know. Depends if WMR need them - best to discuss in the 196 thread.

EDIT (22:16 02/09.2025)
just correcting here to avoid miss information. Apparently ordered 2017 so pre Covid. For EWR was a post Covid decision.
SUGGEST any further discussion goes in this 196 thread I found.

EDIT (10:25 03/09/2025)
Removed suggestion of thread as new thread started (moved here).

 

[hst43053]

It has been explained way back in another thread (I cannot find).

These six 2car 196s were specifically ordered for East West Rail. They were ordered extra and put with the rest of the 196 fleet at WMR because there was no train operator decided for the route back at the time of ordering. They are not part of WMRs plans.

Whether the introduction of the ex TPE Mk5s means Chiltern (who are now the EWR operator) can dispense with their 196s I do not know. Depends if WMR need them - best to discuss in the 196 thread.

Thanks, that's answered my question. I did search myself but couldn't find anything either.

 

[172007]

It has been explained way back in another thread (I cannot find).

These six 2car 196s were specifically ordered for East West Rail. They were ordered extra and put with the rest of the 196 fleet at WMR because there was no train operator decided for the route back at the time of ordering. They are not part of WMRs plans.

Whether the introduction of the ex TPE Mk5s means Chiltern (who are now the EWR operator) can dispense with their 196s I do not know. Depends if WMR need them - best to discuss in the 196 thread.

From 2017. West Mids ordered the full fleet of 26 all for their own services.

Full details on the full link below. Mo mention of 8 units being for anyone other than West Midlands.

Class 196 fleet

Meet our Class 196 trains.

www.westmidlandsrailway.co.uk

 

[43096]

These six 2car 196s were specifically ordered for East West Rail.

They weren't. They were ordered pre-Covid for WMR when the passenger railway was very different as part of replacing their 170s and increasing capacity.

You might argue that they are in effect now a delayed exchange with 172101-104 from Chiltern going to WMR. So WMR have a net reduction of 4 vehicles and Chiltern get an 8 vehicle reduction.

 

[plunet]

The BAU day to day service on Chiltern is plagued by short form trains, and passengers can sense that Chiltern are scrabbling around to keep their fleet on the tracks.

On the day breakdowns are seemingly an increasing cause of impacts to the operational service, whether it's breakdowns, trains being withdrawn last minute, or DMUs being run with some carriages being locked out of service. And even on the trains that do run there are very frequent complaints of aircon being broken or ineffective, toilets locked or leaking, seats being in a poor state, and as for the WiFi you might as well forget it. Whilst some of these are first world problems they are all avoidable if the fleet was in better shape.

All this is probably made worse by pressure to work the fleet they do have so hard that discretionary time in maintenance to go beyond the maintenance that is absolutely necessary to be proactive and fix some of the nice to haves is in short supply.

The DfTs own report on PiXC (passengers in excess of capacity) for Chiltern highlighted that the route had significant overcrowding and the main causes for this was that
The route had 46 train carriages less capacity than pre-pandemic
The route had the oldest average fleet age and fleet availability was impacted by increasing maintenance overheads due to the age of the fleet

So the news that Chiltern are getting an additional 65 trains of Mk5a capacity to replace 24 trains of MK3 capacity is really welcome and can't come soon enough for the passengers using the route.

These Mk5a will be focussed on Marylebone-Birmingham; this will then permit the cascade of DMUs to the rest of the route to eliminate the continual short forms and enable the maintenance regime to catch up and keep more of the fleet fault free more of the time.

Added to all of the above the 168s are going through an interior refresh (so there's a loss of capacity of a DMU there as they go off for a few weeks).

Quite what happens to the 165s will be interesting to see. Many of the components on these units are no longer made, I know Chiltern were already having spares custom made before the pandemic, it can't be getting any better. Will they be forced to extend the lease on the 165s and go though a major refurbishment or will a new fleet be procured?

Another gotcha is the requirement for trains running over the met line needing tripcocks. With the met being resignalled would there be additional pressure from TfL on the DfT/Chiltern to be looking for trains that could be compatible with the Met Line new signalling in the medium/long term to eliminate the need to maintain tripcocks and visual aspect signals.

 

[43096]

So the news that Chiltern are getting an additional 65 trains of Mk5a capacity to replace 24 trains of MK3 capacity is really welcome and can't come soon enough for the passengers using the route.

I’m not sure how many press releases you have been reading, but it is 65 coaches/vehicles not “trains” replacing 24 Mark 3 vehicles.

 

[brad465]

Apologies if this is the wrong thread. Unsure if this is accurate or not, but have read on Facebook on an article about EWR that the introduction of these MK5s will now allow sufficient 168s to be displaced to run Bletchley to Oxford. Given the WMR 196s are subleased, I suppose this wouldn't be a bad idea if Chiltern can find their own spare stock.

I imagine the 196s will commence the service, but then as the MK5 rollout gathers pace next year, it will be interesting to see how the stock allocation on EWR may change.

I foresee Oxford-Milton Keynes being very in demand once up and running, given the service is connecting 2 major settlements. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if both 196s and some extra 168s are needed to run this service to cope with demand.

 

[PLY2AYS]

I foresee Oxford-Milton Keynes being very in demand once up and running, given the service is connecting 2 major settlements. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if both 196s and some extra 168s are needed to run this service to cope with demand.

If Chiltern even succeed in running services over it at all…

But alas, this is speculation. I apologise.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The DfTs own report on PiXC (passengers in excess of capacity) for Chiltern highlighted that the route had significant overcrowding and the main causes for this was that
The route had 46 train carriages less capacity than pre-pandemic

Not sure how they've concluded it's 46 fewer vehicles, when all that's been lost is the Mk3 Slamdoor set (7 vehicles) and the 172/1s (8 vehicles.)

 

[plunet]

I’m not sure how many press releases you have been reading, but it is 65 coaches/vehicles not “trains” replacing 24 Mark 3 vehicles.

Agree it's vehicles / coaches / carriages and not trains. I did get the numbers broadly right though?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2025 ==

Not sure how they've concluded it's 46 fewer vehicles, when all that's been lost is the Mk3 Slamdoor set (7 vehicles) and the 172/1s (8 vehicles.)

I did wonder the same, but I kinda took the DfT's own stats which are effectively marking their own homework of starving the Chiltern route of capacity as read.

Can anyone offer any insight how the DfT came up with 46 carriages deficit?

Rail passenger numbers and crowding on weekdays in major cities in England and Wales: 2022 (revised)

www.gov.uk

And scroll down to the Chiltern paragraph....

 

[30907]

Can anyone offer any insight how the DfT came up with 46 carriages deficit?

So poorer availability is 2/3 of it.

 

[Kite159]

I foresee Oxford-Milton Keynes being very in demand once up and running, given the service is connecting 2 major settlements. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if both 196s and some extra 168s are needed to run this service to cope with demand.

Agreed, I can see those 2 coach 196s being massively overcrowded otherwise.

Although it will depend on the timetable between Oxford & Bicester as well as that goes from 2tph to 4tph.

But then Chiltern will probably need to keep some 168s on the Birmingham route, especially at peak times when the 4 standard class Mk5 coaches will be a headline in the PiXC stats (whilst first class carries around the freshest of fresh air)

 

[plunet]

Would Chiltern be empowered to move their trains between the two routes?

Other than staff familiarisation and training, would there be any technical paperwork/approvals needed for 168s or 165s to run on the East-West route?

As far as I know post franchising DfT control the rolling stock allocations to each route, and whilst Chiltern might practically be able to move stock between the routes, would DfT want that, need to permit that, and be likely to permit it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

165s and 166s could only operate on EWR with guards or dispatchers, as there are no DOO mirrors on the route and only the 196s have DOO cameras.

 

[PLY2AYS]

Would Chiltern be empowered to move their trains between the two routes?

Other than staff familiarisation and training, would there be any technical paperwork/approvals needed for 168s or 165s to run on the East-West route?

As far as I know post franchising DfT control the rolling stock allocations to each route, and whilst Chiltern might practically be able to move stock between the routes, would DfT want that, need to permit that, and be likely to permit it?

168s (and I assume 165s) are already cleared to drive over the route.
They can be moved very easily from Banbury to Oxford via Tackley or via Bicester South/Gavray Jn onto the Up/Down Bletchley… unsure of storage arrangements at Bletchley depot.

165s and 166s could only operate on EWR with guards or dispatchers, as there are no DOO mirrors on the route and only the 196s have DOO cameras.

Provided they’re left hand side door release, they could theoretically be used for DOO. But one of ASLEF’s aims to protect members is to ensure DOO doesn’t expand further than it already has… and since the platforms aren’t set up for DOO, I suspect that particular point of contention may continue to raise its head.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Provided they’re left hand side door release, they could theoretically be used for DOO.

You mean lookback? Even if there wasn't an objection to DOO generally I can't see unions signing off any more of that, even though I recall there is a bit of it on Chiltern at present.

 

[PLY2AYS]

You mean lookback? Even if there wasn't an objection to DOO generally I can't see unions signing off any more of that, even though I recall there is a bit of it on Chiltern at present.

Yeah absolutely right. There’s a bit, but it’s certainly not something that should be continued or extended.

Seems like an oversight to have built these brand new stations and line without any 21century features, like OLE and balise for SDO.

Alas, we’re digressing from the topic at hand. Happy to continue on another thread if needs be (before we get shouted at)

 

[Whybother]

Agree it's vehicles / coaches / carriages and not trains. I did get the numbers broadly right though?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2025 ==


I did wonder the same, but I kinda took the DfT's own stats which are effectively marking their own homework of starving the Chiltern route of capacity as read.

Can anyone offer any insight how the DfT came up with 46 carriages deficit?

Rail passenger numbers and crowding on weekdays in major cities in England and Wales: 2022 (revised)

www.gov.uk

And scroll down to the Chiltern paragraph....

The 46 vehicles quoted was formed up of the following, which is a deduction from the pre-pandemic unit useage figures She short forms were rife.

MK3 slam door = 7 vehicles
4x 2car 172s = 8 vehicles
15 vehicles departed Chiltern either for sale or to WMT

5x 2car 165 = 10 vehicles
2x 2car 168 = 4 vehicles
3x 3car 168 = 9 vehicles
2x 4car 168 = 8 vehicles
31 vehicles on a maintenance uplift (upgrades, special projects [hybrid units], age failures, unit damage)

 

[giblets]

It’s all good talking about the cascade, but unless they cascade and add carriages, current 165 users are likely to be standing more with a significant reduction in seating capacity.
With a 3 car 165 having 288 seats and the 168s just 204.

 

[Snow1964]

When the 6 196s were allocated to East West Route, wasn't it declared it was a 2 year loan. I can't find the original announcement now and might be misremembering.

Of course it might have changed since, especially with the recent change to DfT procurement spreadsheet where GWR section now says with possible extra units for other operators.

Chilterns 165s are slightly older than GWRs so combining order always made sense. And many of GWR proposed BEMUs will need to be dual voltage as they operate Reading-Gatwick, Redbridge-Portsmouth and Dorchester-Weymouth. With the Met line now 750v rather than 600v they either just need a centre fourth rail pick up or the same arrangement used on Wimbledon and Richmond branches where fourth rail is effectively bonded at zero volts to running rails.

I am not a signalling expert so I don't know how practical it is to add LT S-stock cab signalling onto new units allowing tripcocks to be removed when running along Met line. I assume it can be done technically, but if it is cheaper long term than maintaining the tripcocks and line side signals, I do not know.

 

[PLY2AYS]

When the 6 196s were allocated to East West Route, wasn't it declared it was a 2 year loan. I can't find the original announcement now and might be misremembering.

Of course it might have changed since, especially with the recent change to DfT procurement spreadsheet where GWR section now says with possible extra units for other operators.

Chilterns 165s are slightly older than GWRs so combining order always made sense. And many of GWR proposed BEMUs will need to be dual voltage as they operate Reading-Gatwick, Redbridge-Portsmouth and Dorchester-Weymouth. With the Met line now 750v rather than 600v they either just need a centre fourth rail pick up or the same arrangement used on Wimbledon and Richmond branches where fourth rail is effectively bonded at zero volts to running rails.

I am not a signalling expert so I don't know how practical it is to add LT S-stock cab signalling onto new units allowing tripcocks to be removed when running along Met line. I assume it can be done technically, but if it is cheaper long term than maintaining the tripcocks and line side signals, I do not know.

Would defeat the point of all the new signalling they’ve installed between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham then wouldn’t it?
Hybrid traction is certainly the way forward. Chiltern are keen to electrify, provided the DfT gives them the funding…
The rolling-stock would likely be procured at the same time a firm plan is in place for that.

 

[Whybother]

I am not a signalling expert so I don't know how practical it is to add LT S-stock cab signalling onto new units allowing tripcocks to be removed when running along Met line. I assume it can be done technically, but if it is cheaper long term than maintaining the tripcocks and line side signals, I do not know.

There is no point. The costs involved to fit the equipment would be huge and the units are due to be removed at some point soon. So trying to get that past the DfT bean counters would be a mammoth task.