• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Will the Chiltern 68s continue beyond the May 2022 Timetable Change?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
Northern aren't going to release 170s to anyone though. The point here is for Chiltern to manage with less stock to reflect lower loadings and start to reduce costs.

If Northern have to similarly start reducing their diesel fleet, it may well be the 155s that go first then the worst examples of the 150 fleet.

Giving up a total of 31 coaches without any replacement is not sustainable if Chiltern want to prevent serious overcrowding on their London-Birmingham services. Perhaps if they roughly halved that number (so bringing in 5 or 6 sets of 3 coach trains to replace all of their mk3 stock) it would meet a better balance of cost cutting whilst maintaining enough capacity.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,397
Giving up a total of 31 coaches without any replacement is not sustainable if Chiltern want to prevent serious overcrowding on their London-Birmingham services.
How many services do those 31 carriages actually cover? Three peak services on a weekday and some fill in turns then two services on a Saturday so that is, at best 18 of those 31 carriages.

Chiltern have a very flexible unit fleet that means they can form services of any length between 2 and 9 coaches. Lopping coaches off some workings that are not overcrowded frees up stock to displace the hauled sets. That is surely be how the DfT will most likely be seeing it.
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
2,009
All the Alstom stuff can be maintained in birmingham by their OEM,which is not far away.
What Alstom facility in Birmingham? If your thinking of Washwood Heath it was demolished a few years ago in preparation for the new HS2 depot.
 

popeter45

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2019
Messages
1,497
Location
london
full crayon but if Chiltern needed to keep the Mark 3's for a while but cant use the class 68's would any 93's be avalible in time? and would they even be able to run for so long on Diesel
get them to run battery only as far as Wembely then switch to Diesel for the rest of the route
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,397
full crayon but if Chiltern needed to keep the Mark 3's for a while but cant use the class 68's would any 93's be avalible in time? and would they even be able to run for so long on Diesel
The whole point is to get rid of both the Mark 3s as well as the locomotives.
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
2,009
The only sensible solution is to get them some 170s to add to the 168s. They would actually need less 170s then mk3s as it is easier to resource the diagrams out of a larger pool of the same stock.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,397
Is there someone who can provide a genuine assessment of passenger loads on Chiltern at present. This thread seems to be implying that all services are arriving at Marylebone totally overcrowded as they were in March 2020 and a release of rolling stock couldn't possibly be contemplated. That sounds rather far fetched based on reports of peak time commuting being at 65%-70% of what it was in March 2020 and what we know about the passengers from further out being the ones more inclined to be continuing to work from home. Losing the Mark 3s equates to a loss of about 15% of capacity. If 35% of passengers have been lost, it seems apparent that the rest of the fleet can cope.

Or is Chiltern somehow bucking the trend?
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
8,279
Is there someone who can provide a genuine assessment of passenger loads on Chiltern at present. This thread seems to be implying that all services are arriving at Marylebone totally overcrowded as they were in March 2020 and a release of rolling stock couldn't possibly be contemplated. That sounds rather far fetched based on reports of peak time commuting being at 65%-70% of what it was in March 2020 and what we know about the passengers from further out being the ones more inclined to be continuing to work from home. Losing the Mark 3s equates to a loss of about 15% of capacity. If 35% of passengers have been lost, it seems apparent that the rest of the fleet can cope.

Or is Chiltern somehow bucking the trend?
But then other London termini don't have 2 and 3 car trains arriving during the rush hour. And presumably some of the lost passengers will return - if people come into the office say 3 days a week, chances are the vast majority will come in on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, so those days will need plenty of capacity.

GWR used to have pokey 165s and 166s arriving at Paddington, now they regularly have 8 car 387s, a massive leap in capacity. Thameslink services are fixed 8 and 12 car trains.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,900
Order a dozen sets of Mark 5s and expand the use of 68s. Offer a proper Intercity service.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,485
Order a dozen sets of Mark 5s and expand the use of 68s. Offer a proper Intercity service.

Bearing in mind one of the objectives of this exercise is to reduce the expenditure on paying fines for emissions breaches in Marylebone from the 68s that seems a bizarre idea.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,397
But then other London termini don't have 2 and 3 car trains arriving during the rush hour. And presumably some of the lost passengers will return - if people come into the office say 3 days a week, chances are the vast majority will come in on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, so those days will need plenty of capacity.

GWR used to have pokey 165s and 166s arriving at Paddington, now they regularly have 8 car 387s, a massive leap in capacity. Thameslink services are fixed 8 and 12 car trains.
In the case of Paddington, that is electrics replacing diesels - GWR operated 5 and 6-car 165/166 formations where appropriate immediately prior to the 387s with more seats. The passenger loads on Thameslink are vastly greater than those into Marylebone.

When electrics operate into Marylebone one day in the distant future it will be reasonable to have longer trains in the plan (although someone will have to build a depot for them somewhere). Until then, with each carriage having its own diesel engine, it is somewhat sensible not to operate longer trains than are needed. With no more than a two-track railway, many short trains with flighting of departure times need to operate to maintain journey times.
 

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,513
Lets just say ‘less than most London commuter routes’.
Another big loss for Chiltern will be the almost complete loss of tourists going to Bicester Village shopping centre which pre Covid would have kept their off-peak Oxford services busy.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,397
Another big loss for Chiltern will be the almost complete loss of tourists going to Bicester Village shopping centre which pre Covid would have kept their off-peak Oxford services busy.
Even if the flows to Bicester Village were a good source of revenue, they never needed the capacity of 68-hauled trains.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,816
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Another big loss for Chiltern will be the almost complete loss of tourists going to Bicester Village shopping centre which pre Covid would have kept their off-peak Oxford services busy.

Unlike commuters, tourists are likely to return in due course. Though why on earth they want to go to an outlet village I have no idea! :)
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
5,484
Location
London
Bearing in mind one of the objectives of this exercise is to reduce the expenditure on paying fines for emissions breaches in Marylebone from the 68s that seems a bizarre idea.
Except the emissions from the 68s are lower than the rest of the Chiltern fleet as they meet Stage IIIB emissions standards, unlike the 165s and 168s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Another big loss for Chiltern will be the almost complete loss of tourists going to Bicester Village shopping centre which pre Covid would have kept their off-peak Oxford services busy.
Whilst that was the case during the various lockdowns and effective travel bans, it's reasonable to assume the tourists are returning.

That said, I'd expect numbers to be lower at the moment due to the typical weather in the UK in January and early February.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,442
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I’m slightly lost here, the mk3 sets are planned to go to save money on a network which has since a big drop in commuting and yet the proposals here seem to be bringing in an a net increase in vehicles just so some 170s don’t go spare so actually adding in cost. Bizarre!!

That really isn’t how businesses work, you lease the number of trains you need it really isn’t the railways concern what the leasing company does with the other vehicles.

It would be the railway’s concern if the leasing company scraps a load of off-lease stock, and then passenger numbers rise.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,485
Except the emissions from the 68s are lower than the rest of the Chiltern fleet as they meet Stage IIIB emissions standards, unlike the 165s and 168s.

I believe it to be noise emissions that’s the issue at Marylebone
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
I believe it to be noise emissions that’s the issue at Marylebone

I find this strange as the 68s make a superb sound - loud and deep but not obtrusive like Sprinters. Nothing like the thunderous roar of a big diesel loco thrashing out of a covered station with all the acoustic effects from the roof and walls.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,397
I find this strange as the 68s make a superb sound - loud and deep but not obtrusive like Sprinters.
If you go to Leeds when there is a 68 there you definitely know about it even not up close.

While the sound of a 68 is attractive to enthusiasts it is likely to be incredibly off-putting to the general public. Sprinter noise likewise but only at the moment they pull away.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
If you go to Leeds when there is a 68 there you definitely know about it even not up close.

While the sound of a 68 is attractive to enthusiasts it is likely to be incredibly off-putting to the general public. Sprinter noise likewise but only at the moment they pull away.

Hard to say, the groan and whine of a DMU/EMU might not produce as much noise but the noise from these can be very obtrusive. I don't think it's just be enthusiasts who appreciate the noise - not that many people can fail to be impressed by the sound of a class 68 or 37/40 at full pelt.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,626
Location
Yorkshire
Hard to say, the groan and whine of a DMU/EMU might not produce as much noise but the noise from these can be very obtrusive. I don't think it's just be enthusiasts who appreciate the noise - not that many people can fail to be impressed by the sound of a class 68 or 37/40 at full pelt.
Ask the residents of Scarborough what they think. I don’t think the word ’impressed’ comes into it.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,917
Location
Cambridge, UK
Except the emissions from the 68s are lower than the rest of the Chiltern fleet as they meet Stage IIIB emissions standards, unlike the 165s and 168s.
The 68's meet Stage IIIA, not IIIB.

It's the 88's that have IIIB compliant diesel engines.

The 165s and 168s were built before the Euro emissions rules applied to railway vehicles, so yes they are likely to have higher emission levels than the 68s.
 

Anonymous10

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2019
Messages
2,634
Location
wales
I find this strange as the 68s make a superb sound - loud and deep but not obtrusive like Sprinters. Nothing like the thunderous roar of a big diesel loco thrashing out of a covered station with all the acoustic effects from the roof and walls.
until your waiting in the waiting room and cant hear yourself think. from a plainly passenger non enthusiast perspective they are just plain noisy and they would likely appreciate a quieter train
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,471
Location
Glasgow
Not when HS2 is coming.
This is thing that has to be remembered when talking about Chiltern's "intercity" aspirations. There's no point in them investing time and money in the London-Birmingham express market long-term. Their fleet and service plans need to be tailored to the intermediate markets along that route, not end-to-end traffic.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
Ask the residents of Scarborough what they think. I don’t think the word ’impressed’ comes into it.

If people choose to live in a house near to a railway line they can't have too many complaints. It's a bit of a nonsense considering that beyond 30 years ago there were much noisier locos (diesel and steam) and multiple units going past all the time - people just got on with it.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,626
Location
Yorkshire
If people choose to live in a house near to a railway line they can't have too many complaints. It's a bit of a nonsense considering that beyond 30 years ago there were much noisier locos (diesel and steam) and multiple units going past all the time - people just got on with it.
It’s rather more than that in the Scarborough case though isn’t it, unless you’ve not read what’s been going on there for the past few years. Noise pollution is a very serious issue with these locos, especially when a new depot is built near your house (which wasn’t there when the majority of people no doubt bought their house and could cope with an hourly DMU going past in either direction).

I lived next to a far busier railway line many many years ago and the sound of trains passing is something you can eventually block out, like the sound of the planes under who’s flight path I now live. However to suddenly have that racket playing all night is a very different case.

Would you be happy if there was a depot built near your house with in your own words ‘loud and deep’ locomotives idling all night?
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
It’s rather more than that in the Scarborough case though isn’t it, unless you’ve not read what’s been going on there for the past few years. Noise pollution is a very serious issue with these locos, especially when a new depot is built near your house (which wasn’t there when the majority of people no doubt bought their house and could cope with an hourly DMU going past in either direction).

I lived next to a far busier railway line many many years ago and the sound of trains passing is something you can eventually block out, like the sound of the planes under who’s flight path I now live. However to suddenly have that racket playing all night is a very different case.

Would you be happy if there was a depot built near your house with in your own words ‘loud and deep’ locomotives idling all night?

No I wouldn't be happy if the locos were left idling all night, it would be bad for noise and for unnecessary emissions. However, firstly this isn't the case at Marylebone; they aren't idling there all night and in the case of Scarborough why not just switch them off overnight rather than leaving them running idle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top