Chiltern tender for 20 - 70 units

[Neptune]

The Northern tender also includes options for a great many possible additional new units. The plan at the moment probably doesn't involve Northern off-leasing 195s, but the tender appears to allow for them to be replaced if plans change

Unless you know better than me (bear in mind I work within the department) then as it stands the new Northern fleet is to replace the 15x (and 769) fleet and the 195’s are staying.

 

[Snow1964]

Unless you know better than me (bear in mind I work within the department) then as it stands the new Northern fleet is to replace the 15x (and 769) fleet and the 195’s are staying.

It's quite obvious that the upper quantity doesn't rule out later options to do this in next few years, even if not short term intention to change the 195 fleet. From memory the tender gives build date range that runs beyond current lease period of 195s

This thread is 20-70 units, Chiltern has a minimum too, unlike Northern tender. Clearly Chiltern need a base quantity of 20 units, but aren't at this stage ruling out more.

That is what Framework contracts do, give the option of extending the order quantity at known price. Then if like the price, or is operationally more convenient can get more and not extend lease on something else, you take more.

 

[43074]

The TDNS shows us where Network Rail thinks the railway should be in a net-zero Britain, and there is very little use for stock that is not capable of electric operation from 25kv or 3rd rail. Thus, if we are to reach net-zero by 2050 we must assume implementation of TDNS by then, which means electrification of ALL (not just some) of Chiltern's network in under 30 years. The TDNS document that has been made public was only an interim report, which didn't include prioritisation of routes, but in my view Basingstoke - Reading and Didcot - Oxford - Leamington Spa - Coventry should be right near the top of the list. That would of course impact the Chiltern mainline, hopefully in as little as 5 years time let alone 10.

That document died a death when the Treasury refused to fund any of it, and I think there were parts of the industry sceptical about whether or not that amount of electrification could even be delivered by 2050. Unfortunately unlike in Scotland the commitment to net zero isn't legally binding.

Bearing in mind 2050 is only 25 years away and the next decade will be spent wiring MML and Transpennine (maybe if we're lucky the rest of Great Western?), it's probably a safe bet that Chiltern won't get any wires this side of 2040. With that in mind it makes perfect sense to procure battery/hybrid diesel stock as for almost half of its lifespan it will be working on a non electrified railway anyway.

 

[Snow1964]

any brand-new stock that is not electrifiction-ready is a very bad thing in my view. The TDNS shows us where Network Rail thinks the railway should be in a net-zero Britain, and there is very little use for stock that is not capable of electric operation from 25kv or 3rd rail. Thus, if we are to reach net-zero by 2050 we must assume implementation of TDNS by then, which means electrification of ALL (not just some) of Chiltern's network in under 30 years. The TDNS document that has been made public was only an interim report, which didn't include prioritisation of routes

Remember it is a net-zero target, that is doesn't ban small quantity of diesel trains, as long as something is offsetting it. It is also a target, not binding.

Whilst sourcing diesel only trains which might have a life until 2060s seems bonkers against this target, unfortunately still have a Government that is basing what it allows to be spent on a short term view.

Of course, Chiltern needs trains sooner rather than later, but they possibly might be redeployed in 2040s to some more remote lines (that would be near back of any queue for electrification) as interim replacement for something like 170s. This tender doesn't mean have to spend whole life on Chiltern route.

 

[Trainbike46]

That document died a death when the Treasury refused to fund any of it, and I think there were parts of the industry sceptical about whether or not that amount of electrification could even be delivered by 2050. Unfortunately unlike in Scotland the commitment to net zero isn't legally binding.

Bearing in mind 2050 is only 25 years away and the next decade will be spent wiring MML and Transpennine (maybe if we're lucky the rest of Great Western?), it's probably a safe bet that Chiltern won't get any wires this side of 2040. With that in mind it makes perfect sense to procure battery/hybrid diesel stock as for almost half of its lifespan it will be working on a non electrified railway anyway.

The UK-wide carbon budget, including the budget of 0 GHG emissions for 2050, is legally binding.

Remember it is a net-zero target, that is doesn't ban small quantity of diesel trains, as long as something is offsetting it. It is also a target, not binding.

Whilst sourcing diesel only trains which might have a life until 2060s seems bonkers against this target, unfortunately still have a Government that is basing what it allows to be spent on a short term view.

Of course, Chiltern needs trains sooner rather than later, but they possibly might be redeployed in 2040s to some more remote lines (that would be near back of any queue for electrification) as interim replacement for something like 170s. This tender doesn't mean have to spend whole life on Chiltern route.

Using offsets for the easiest to decarbonise transport mode is not a proposition that should be seriously entertained. These rural lines you mention should get BEMUs or hydrogen trains before 2050

 

[Mikey C]

The Chiltern lines aren't some sleepy branchline, to be left to the end of the electrification programme. I'd be staggered if some sort of electrification project hadn't started by 2035, if not earlier to remove diesels from at least London and Birmingham

By 2034 all buses in London will be electric, I can see the ULEZ rules getting stricter for cars and commercial vehicles too, even the 168s by the 2030s are really going to stand out.

 

[RailWonderer]

Bearing in mind 2050 is only 25 years away and the next decade will be spent wiring MML and Transpennine (maybe if we're lucky the rest of Great Western?), it's probably a safe bet that Chiltern won't get any wires this side of 2040. With that in mind it makes perfect sense to procure battery/hybrid diesel stock as for almost half of its lifespan it will be working on a non electrified railway anyway.

It is flabbergasting how a London commuter railway and key regional route will still be unelectrified by then. If that is the case they have no choice but to order pure DMUs to replace 165s and 168s assuming battery technology does not sufficiently improve by then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is flabbergasting how a London commuter railway and key regional route will still be unelectrified by then. If that is the case they have no choice but to order pure DMUs to replace 165s and 168s assuming battery technology does not sufficiently improve by then.

They could order bi-modes, which could later be useful for a progressive electrification programme. No need to buy mechanical DMUs.

 

[12LDA28C]

Does it actually say "New or refurbished" anywhere? I only can find "new or converted". This also isn't just about replacing the 68s

This isn't about replacing the 68s at all. The fleet needing replacing with new units is the Class 165s. A replacement is sought for the 68s/LHCS as soon as possible, currently May 2024 and options are already being explored around cascading units from other operators.

The 168s are about to go through a refresh program which I believe will see them remain in service potentially for another ten years.

I agree that most Chiltern electrification would be 25kv, but there's a small possibility that 3rd rail may be considered the more-practical solution for the Aylesbury route since that is not entirely away from existing 3rd rail (ok, it's actually London Underground so presumably 4 rails rather than just three, but aren't there sections south of London where National Rail 3rd rail stock runs on LU 4-rail infrustructure?).

As has been discussed many times on this forum, the chances of extending the fourth rail system from Amersham to Aylesbury are zero.

The mark 3s may be 45 years old, but they have had substantial life-extension work done (such as fitting power doors) - does anyone know how many extra years life that work was intended to give?

The need to replace the Mark 3s has little to do with their age and much more to do with Class 68s being the subject of noise complaints from Marylebone residents so much so that Chiltern have been forced to limit the number of daily loco-hauled departures and arrivals into Marylebone to placate local stakeholders.

 

[Rhydgaled]

That document died a death when the Treasury refused to fund any of it

It isn't funded, but it remains the nearest thing we have to an official decarbonisation plan for the rail industry. Plus, did the Treasury not refuse to fund it until this year? If not, then the lack of funding certainly does not mean the document is dead, since it was mentioned in the CCC's 2022 progress report to Parliament:

• Government intends to remove diesel-only trains from the network by 2040, with the system being Net Zero by 2050. The TDP sets out Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy as a blueprint for how this will be achieved.
• A comprehensive delivery plan is now needed, outlining which lines will be electrified and when and providing guidance on investment in new technologies and procurement of zero-emission trains

Whilst sourcing diesel only trains which might have a life until 2060s seems bonkers against this target, unfortunately still have a Government that is basing what it allows to be spent on a short term view.

Of course, Chiltern needs trains sooner rather than later, but they possibly might be redeployed in 2040s to some more remote lines (that would be near back of any queue for electrification) as interim replacement for something like 170s. This tender doesn't mean have to spend whole life on Chiltern route.

Of course, they can cascade to somewhere nearer the back of the queue, but we are already looking at 161 CAF Civity DMUs with a life until the early 2050s, with the majority of those still being with us into the mid-to-late 2050s. When you consider that even routes which are never likely to be wired (such as the Heart Of Wales Line) have services running through onto busier routes which will need to be wired (as Craven Arms - Shrewsbury would be), virtually everything really needs to be bi-mode to avoid burning diesel under the wires.

Using offsets for the easiest to decarbonise transport mode is not a proposition that should be seriously entertained.

And yet this Government certainly appears to be entertaining that proposition - those offsets should be reserved for the really hard stuff like steel making (and for going net-negative after we've reached the net-zero target) - it really is rather scary.

The Chiltern lines aren't some sleepy branchline, to be left to the end of the electrification programme.

Aye. In fact, I'd put the middle part of the Chiltern Main Line fairly near the front of the queue, in order to ensure that there are wires all the way from Basingstoke to Manchester by the time the Voyagers are 35-40 years old. That would allow XC to replace them on Manchester-Bournemouth with dual-voltage EMUs - no need to develop a 125mph unit with self-power, 3rd rail and OHLE modes.

They could order bi-modes, which could later be useful for a progressive electrification programme. No need to buy mechanical DMUs.

Exactly; but unlike the Northern tender this one appears to allow for brand new units which are not electrification-ready. That is very worrying.

As has been discussed many times on this forum, the chances of extending the fourth rail system from Amersham to Aylesbury are zero.

I was actually thinking more of installing third rail southwards into Marylebone from wherever the Chiltern services join the 4-rail (Harrow-on-the-Hill?) so that dual-voltage EMUs would only have to switch between 3rd rail and OHLE once per journey (at Amersham on Aylesbury services and at the earliest practical point after Neasden Junction on Chiltern Main Line services) instead of putting OHLE from the Chiltern Main Line into Marylebone in which case the main line would be 25kv only but Aylesbury branch services would have to switch over twice (Harrow-on-the-Hill? and Amersham).

 

[snowball]

The UK-wide carbon budget, including the budget of 0 GHG emissions for 2050, is legally binding.

A legally binding target is meaningless unless accompanied by statements of who will be punished and in what way if it isn't met. Even then it's meaningless as the government can repeal it when they begin to realise they have destroyed any chance of meeting it.

The 2010 Child Poverty Act imposed legal requirements on the government but it was repealed by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.

A new child poverty target | Children's Commissioner for England

In 1999, as Prime Minister, Tony Blair committed in a speech at Toynbee Hall to a twenty year project “for ours to be the first generation to end child

www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk

 

[12LDA28C]

I was actually thinking more of installing third rail southwards into Marylebone from wherever the Chiltern services join the 4-rail (Harrow-on-the-Hill?) so that dual-voltage EMUs would only have to switch between 3rd rail and OHLE once per journey (at Amersham on Aylesbury services and at the earliest practical point after Neasden Junction on Chiltern Main Line services) instead of putting OHLE from the Chiltern Main Line into Marylebone in which case the main line would be 25kv only but Aylesbury branch services would have to switch over twice (Harrow-on-the-Hill? and Amersham).

There is no more chance of that happening than extending northwards from Amersham. There are currently no plans to fit OHLE on Chiltern routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no more chance of that happening than extending northwards from Amersham. There are currently no plans to fit OHLE on Chiltern routes.

There aren't at the moment, but once central London becomes a ZEZ (Zero Emissions Zone), which I'm sure it will in due course, this might change somewhat with lots of pressure to stop running diesels.

 

[Snow1964]

There aren't at the moment, but once central London becomes a ZEZ (Zero Emissions Zone), which I'm sure it will in due course, this might change somewhat with lots of pressure to stop running diesels.

If that did happen, would also affect the diesel 159s into Waterloo, and operators like Grand Central too.

Ultimately I think the Chiltern tender could go one of two ways :
1) a quick solution (something like extra batch of 196 or 197), obviously simpler and thus cheaper than a bi-mode, but with lot more residual value risk in 20 years time
2) some sort of diesel electric unit convertible to battery electric, which would take lot longer to design and test, but might work out uneconomic in short term, especially if it gets delayed like class 701

I wouldn't like to guess which one of these would have best whole life cost, over 25 years or 40 years, or what relative monthly costs would be. My hunch is current high interest rates mean the cheaper, quicker to build diesel version will be economically more attractive for a 25 year life, than the longer term unit over a 40 year lifespan because unlikely to be an environment tax on rail diesel fuel

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that did happen, would also affect the diesel 159s into Waterloo, and operators like Grand Central too.

Yes, and so it should.

Burning dead dinosaurs will, and should, become totally unacceptable in urban areas in the 40-50 year lifespan of any unit ordered today.

Ultimately I think the Chiltern tender could go one of two ways :
1) a quick solution (something like extra batch of 196 or 197), obviously simpler and thus cheaper than a bi-mode, but with lot more residual value risk in 20 years time
2) some sort of diesel electric unit convertible to battery electric, which would take lot longer to design and test, but might work out uneconomic in short term, especially if it gets delayed like class 701

I wouldn't like to guess which one of these would have best whole life cost, over 25 years or 40 years, or what relative monthly costs would be. My hunch is current high interest rates mean the cheaper, quicker to build diesel version will be economically more attractive for a 25 year life, than the longer term unit over a 40 year lifespan because unlikely to be an environment tax on rail diesel fuel

I'd be unsurprised to see a 19x solution (the 196 in particular would be a pretty decent direct swap for the 165), but it's a horrible piece of short-termism to build units for a lifespan half of the norm.

 

[Trainbike46]

It isn't funded, but it remains the nearest thing we have to an official decarbonisation plan for the rail industry. Plus, did the Treasury not refuse to fund it until this year? If not, then the lack of funding certainly does not mean the document is dead, since it was mentioned in the CCC's 2022 progress report to Parliament:




Of course, they can cascade to somewhere nearer the back of the queue, but we are already looking at 161 CAF Civity DMUs with a life until the early 2050s, with the majority of those still being with us into the mid-to-late 2050s. When you consider that even routes which are never likely to be wired (such as the Heart Of Wales Line) have services running through onto busier routes which will need to be wired (as Craven Arms - Shrewsbury would be), virtually everything really needs to be bi-mode to avoid burning diesel under the wires.


And yet this Government certainly appears to be entertaining that proposition - those offsets should be reserved for the really hard stuff like steel making (and for going net-negative after we've reached the net-zero target) - it really is rather scary.

Unfortunately, I would not describe our government as being serious. They're not serious about the climate crisis, or dealing with the cost of living crisis, or even growing the economy

A legally binding target is meaningless unless accompanied by statements of who will be punished and in what way if it isn't met. Even then it's meaningless as the government can repeal it when they begin to realise they have destroyed any chance of meeting it.

The 2010 Child Poverty Act imposed legal requirements on the government but it was repealed by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.

A new child poverty target | Children's Commissioner for England

In 1999, as Prime Minister, Tony Blair committed in a speech at Toynbee Hall to a twenty year project “for ours to be the first generation to end child

www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk

you are of course right that the government could change the law in the future, however that does not mean there isn't currently a legal obligation to meet the carbon budgets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately, I would not describe our government as being serious. They're not serious about the climate crisis, or dealing with the cost of living crisis, or even growing the economy

Fortunately this doesn't really matter as they're unlikely to win the General Election next year, and they know it.

 

[Mikey C]

Wouldn't the leasing costs on new pure diesels be really high though, as any leasing company would be worried about being stuck in 25 years time with trains with very restricted use?

 

[12LDA28C]

Wouldn't the leasing costs on new pure diesels be really high though, as any leasing company would be worried about being stuck in 25 years time with trains with very restricted use?

I would have thought leasing costs on a more basic standard DMU would be less than a more complex hybrid type that had cost more to construct? Of course it's worth bearing in mind that even a brand new DMU would be considerably more fuel-efficient and less polluting than a 35-year-old Class 165 unit.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Wouldn't the leasing costs on new pure diesels be really high though, as any leasing company would be worried about being stuck in 25 years time with trains with very restricted use?

The tender is specifying that they should be able to be converted away from that at some point in their lives, so I doubt they'd be age restricted like that.

This might give Stadler an edge; aren't the 755s designed to have their power modules ( the "thrash cabinets" ) changed during their lives should they need to be? meaning an off the shelf product is available which fits the tender...

 

[Snow1964]

Wouldn't the leasing costs on new pure diesels be really high though, as any leasing company would be worried about being stuck in 25 years time with trains with very restricted use?

This might not be a big problem, if it is existing design that can be delivered relatively quickly.

If they can make money on a train for say 20-25 years from 2025, is it better bet, compared to a train that costs say 1.2 times as much, which might take 2 extra years to be certified, but be in service 2027 to about 2067, but will need modifying (and extra money spent) half way through its life.

From Finance company point of view, it will be best P&L return, any environmental difference is not their problem. Also diesel option has little risk, the second option comes with risks over getting it certified and uncertainty over modification costs mid life.

If Finance Co has got its return in 20-25 years, any subsequent lease into the 2050s is virtually pure bonus income. If can't lease it out not suddenly going to make loss as will have based costings on no income after 25 years.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a DMU with batteries to get them out of London plus Birmingham, and room for 25kv equipment later on.

They could also charge these at least on the Aylesbury line between Amersham and Neasden with some upgrades to electricity supply on the LU section, with a charger in each platform (perhaps Vivarail's Fast Charge tech) at Marylebone/AVP supplementing this to use batteries for the whole trip.

 

[Trainbike46]

I would have thought leasing costs on a more basic standard DMU would be less than a more complex hybrid type that had cost more to construct? Of course it's worth bearing in mind that even a brand new DMU would be considerably more fuel-efficient and less polluting than a 35-year-old Class 165 unit.

A leasing company will price in the risk of any DMMUs (so diesel-only and hard to adapt to non-diesel power) being retired early. An example

If say a bimode is 20% more expensive to buy, using completely fictional numbers:

DMMU 100
Bimode 120

DMMU lifespan (assumed to 2050 by leasing company): 25 years
Bimode lifespan: 40 years

build cost per year
DMMU 4
bimode 3

Obviously lease will include other costs, but a more expensive train can cost less per year in lease if the lease company is confident the lifespan will be longer, and the risk of early retirement will certainly push up costs of leasing new diesel-only trains

This might not be a big problem, if it is existing design that can be delivered relatively quickly.

If they can make money on a train for say 20-25 years from 2025, is it better bet, compared to a train that costs say 1.2 times as much, which might take 2 extra years to be certified, but be in service 2027 to about 2067, but will need modifying (and extra money spent) half way through its life.

From Finance company point of view, it will be best P&L return, any environmental difference is not their problem. Also diesel option has little risk, the second option comes with risks over getting it certified and uncertainty over modification costs mid life.

If Finance Co has got its return in 20-25 years, any subsequent lease into the 2050s is virtually pure bonus income. If can't lease it out not suddenly going to make loss as will have based costings on no income after 25 years.

You make some assumptions here I would disagree with. Most importantly, I don't think it is a given that a DMMU would be in service faster than a bimode. There are proven, existing bimodes on the network today (for Chiltern the FLIRT is the most suitable of those). And occasionally trains that one would expect on the network without major issues can take longer. For example, at Greater Anglia, the Aventras were supposed to be in service before the FLIRTs, but in reality it was the other way around. And that was Stadlers first UK MU order ever, for future orders one would expect less problems as experience with the UK network increases. Bombardier on the other hand had a simpler train to deliver (electric only, not bimode) and had mroe experience with the UK railways, yet they were slower.

 

[Snow1964]

You make some assumptions here I would disagree with. Most importantly, I don't think it is a given that a DMMU would be in service faster than a bimode. There are proven, existing bimodes on the network today (for Chiltern the FLIRT is the most suitable of those). And occasionally trains that one would expect on the network without major issues can take longer. For example, at Greater Anglia, the Aventras were supposed to be in service before the FLIRTs, but in reality it was the other way around. And that was Stadlers first UK MU order ever, for future orders one would expect less problems as experience with the UK network increases. Bombardier on the other hand had a simpler train to deliver (electric only, not bimode) and had mroe experience with the UK railways, yet they were slower.

I was thinking more of a 196 or 197 clone for the DMU from a factory coming towards end of current builds, so could build quickly, vs Stadler Flirts (but Stadler have recently won multiple European orders, so factory capacity might be limited short term), and third scenario of another manufacturer having to adapt an existing design, which has the certification period.

I just assumed first one was quickest, but accept I might be wrong

 

[Mikey C]

A leasing company will price in the risk of any DMMUs (so diesel-only and hard to adapt to non-diesel power) being retired early. An example

If say a bimode is 20% more expensive to buy, using completely fictional numbers:

DMMU 100
Bimode 120

DMMU lifespan (assumed to 2050 by leasing company): 25 years
Bimode lifespan: 40 years

build cost per year
DMMU 4
bimode 3

Obviously lease will include other costs, but a more expensive train can cost less per year in lease if the lease company is confident the lifespan will be longer, and the risk of early retirement will certainly push up costs of leasing new diesel-only trains

My thoughts exactly. And I sometimes think people are too influenced by the actions of the current government. A future one (in 2035 say) could start getting much stricter about removing diesels from urban areas. After all it's not a massive leap to imagine a future London Mayor banning all ICE vehicles on the road in Central London, or only allowing in hybrids in electric mode, which would make pure DMUs look very out of kilter.

The existing CAFs already provide a decent supply of DMUs to run on quiet rural lines.

 

[Snow1964]

Not directly related to tender, but might be relevant

DfT have published 30th August, the Chiltern train service requirements

Chiltern Railway Company Limited 2021 rail contract

Rail contract and ancillary legal documents for Chiltern Railways.

www.gov.uk

 

[SynthD]

14. Hydrid fleet trials - Chiltern must produce quarterly reports on whether they could adopt any hybrid trains available.

15. Operator 2050 roadmap - Chiltern must publish a report on how they will reach net zero by 2050 by a redacted date.

27. Remote monitoring trial - Chiltern must install monitoring on some trains.

29. Replace ATP. With TPWS 4.

34. Improve customer experience. Better lighting, cctv, WiFi.

36. Emissions at Marylebone. Produce a report into lowering emissions. Order two more hybrid flex conversions. Propose fleet replacement options to the DfT.

I summarised the relevant points from the commitments document, the second pdf in the link above. No mention of toilets.

 

[12LDA28C]

14. Hydrid fleet trials - Chiltern must produce quarterly reports on whether they could adopt any hybrid trains available.

15. Operator 2050 roadmap - Chiltern must publish a report on how they will reach net zero by 2050 by a redacted date.

27. Remote monitoring trial - Chiltern must install monitoring on some trains.

29. Replace ATP. With TPWS 4.

34. Improve customer experience. Better lighting, cctv, WiFi.

36. Emissions at Marylebone. Produce a report into lowering emissions. Order two more hybrid flex conversions. Propose fleet replacement options to the DfT.

I summarised the relevant points from the commitments document, the second pdf in the link above. No mention of toilets.

29 is already well underway.

 

[Snow1964]

The Chiltern tenders are on DfT pending contracts list
rows 125 and 126

Future commercial contracts for DfT and partners

Listing of upcoming Department for Transport (DfT) and associated bodies commercial contracts – known as the commercial pipeline – for which bidders may apply.

www.gov.uk

 

[Mikey C]

The Chiltern tenders are on DfT pending contracts list
rows 125 and 126

Future commercial contracts for DfT and partners

Listing of upcoming Department for Transport (DfT) and associated bodies commercial contracts – known as the commercial pipeline – for which bidders may apply.

www.gov.uk

Are those 2 rows alternative solutions, as one says "New Battery-Electric Rolling Stock for Chiltern Railways" and the other "Low Emissions Rolling Stock (New or Converted) for Chiltern Railways"?