Chiltern tender for 20 - 70 units

[Trainbike46]

No, you couldn't. It's extremely unlikely that any extension of 3rd/4th rail electrification would be sanctioned.

This is discussed in more detail in a separate thread, if you are interested

The best way to electrify the Chiltern Network and the Snow Hill Lines

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chiltern-tender-for-20-70-units.252837/page-4 Make electrification plans now! Or maybe use other diesels which will be withdrawn soon. What is the best way to go about electrifying the Chiltern Network and the Snow Hill Lines? - where to start? - Any...

www.railforums.co.uk

@HSTEd 's proposal does seem pretty sensible, though I suspect it is unlikely to happen

Chiltern's new units are planned to be in service by 2029 I believe, and they are needed sooner than that given the challenges faced in keeping an ageing fleet of 165s in service.

The only quicker option would be existing trains - though where you would get them from would be the question

I don't think entering service in 2029 or 2030 really changes anything about my point though...

 

[Rhydgaled]

Chiltern's new units are planned to be in service by 2029 I believe, and they are needed sooner than that given the challenges faced in keeping an ageing fleet of 165s in service.

Even a new fleet introduced in 2024 will not be life-expired before 2054 (a 30 year life), 2059 (35 years) or 2064 (40 years). We really do not want to be in a a position where GB rail is still running diesel trains all over the place over those timescales.

 

[Mikey C]

The current presumption against approval of third rail installations from the ORR applies solely to Network Rail-operated third rail installations. It specifically excludes installations operated by London Underground under their working practices.
Transfer of the line to London Underground would allow fourth rail installation, although as previously noted, at that point just extend the Met and be done with it.

Even if it was desirable, you'd have to significantly rebuild Amersham to Aylesbury to bring it up to Underground safety standards, fencing it it, removing several pedestrian level crossings etc.

It's noticeable how much safer Underground lines on the surface are when compared to Network Rail 3rd rail lines, with high fences and footbridges completely caged in.

 

[Trainbike46]

Siemens is pitching a BEMU+short sections of OHLE solution for various tenders currently open, including the Chiltern one.

A number of train operators are looking to replace their aging diesel fleets, including Chiltern, Great Western Railway (GWR), Northern, ScotRail, TransPennine Express (TPE) and Transport for Wales (TfW), whilst East-West Rail will need to secure new trains.

from: https://news.siemens.co.uk/news/sie...bp-3-5bn-and-consign-diesel-trains-to-history

There's a specific thread on this here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/siemans-bidding-to-build-new-trains-who-might-buy-them.268771/

But I figured I would share it here as it is relevant

 

[InTheEastMids]

Siemens is pitching a BEMU+short sections of OHLE solution for various tenders currently open, including the Chiltern one.

from: https://news.siemens.co.uk/news/sie...bp-3-5bn-and-consign-diesel-trains-to-history

There's a specific thread on this here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/siemans-bidding-to-build-new-trains-who-might-buy-them.268771/

But I figured I would share it here as it is relevant

Interesting. The subtext of the webpage to me is that they are positioning the combination of train + discontinuous electrification as an integrated solution. This wouldn't have flown pre-pandemic because obviously trains and electrification were procured separately by different organisations.

So question about whether GBR could procure in this way (i.e. within its remit / license) and whether it would - firstly whether it will give good competition, and secondly whether it could lock GBR into a stupidly expensive long-term train+infrastructure provision contract that looks like terrible value for money.

 

[MarkyT]

Even if it was desirable, you'd have to significantly rebuild Amersham to Aylesbury to bring it up to Underground safety standards, fencing it it, removing several pedestrian level crossings etc.

On the Aylesbury line, nearly 25km of the ~65km route to the parkway is already electrified. That's 38%. Chiltern Railways trains run on TfL-owned track already equipped with the four rail system between Harrow and Amersham. If the 4 rail system was extended 6km between Harrow and Neasden along the unelectrified section immediately parallel to the Metropolitan Line, fed from TfL substations, then the percentage electrified jumps to 47%, nearly half. That's got to be the way forward as long as the TfL supply can handle the extra current or can be enhanced affordably to do so.

It's noticeable how much safer Underground lines on the surface are when compared to Network Rail 3rd rail lines, with high fences and footbridges completely caged in.

All sensible measures in urban areas anyway, regardless of infrastructure owner and electrification type, to discourage trespass on busy railways.

So question about whether GBR could procure in this way (i.e. within its remit / license) and whether it would - firstly whether it will give good competition, and secondly whether it could lock GBR into a stupidly expensive long-term train+infrastructure provision contract that looks like terrible value for money.

Error message from Siemens: You have attempted to draw power from a non Siemens provided feeder (our records indicate a Hitachi wire). Your vehicle is now disabled until a Siemens technician can attend, investigate and reset the unit. Do not attempt to move these vehicles as further damage will result. There may be contractual implications as your support arrangement requires the sole use of only our high-quality original Siemens electricity. Thank you for your continued custom.

 

[Trainbike46]

On the Aylesbury line, nearly 25km of the ~65km route to the parkway is already electrified. That's 38%. Chiltern Railways trains run on TfL-owned track already equipped with the four rail system between Harrow and Amersham. If the 4 rail system was extended 6km between Harrow and Neasden along the unelectrified section immediately parallel to the Metropolitan Line, fed from TfL substations, then the percentage electrified jumps to 47%, nearly half. That's got to be the way forward as long as the TfL supply can handle the extra current or can be enhanced affordably to do so.

All sensible measures in urban areas anyway, regardless of infrastructure owner and electrification type, to discourage trespass on busy railways.

That would be a great start!

You could go all BEMU on chiltern with fairly limited extra electrification, and most of it is useful for other services as well:

Didcot-Oxford (as part of GWR, used to recharge units in Oxford)

Marylebone Platforms (to recharge during layovers and turn-arounds)
~36 miles unelectrified
A section around Princes Risborough
~10 miles unelectrified to Aylesbury Vale Parkway one way
~30 miles unelectrified to Oxford one way
~30 miles unelectrified to King's Sutton
King's Sutton-Leamington Spa (~23 miles electrifiedas part of Oxford-Coventry for XC and freight)
~15 miles unelectrified one way towards Stratford upon Avon
~23 miles unelectrified one way to Birmingham Snow Hill

Assuming you don't want to touch the section in Birmingham, a BEMU that can reliably do 50-60 miles on battery can do all Chiltern services except the extensions beyond Birmingham Snow Hill

 

[cle]

What a stupid faff, having all these bits and incomplete sections. Just wire the route and re-allocate whatever the stock is, when it’s done.

 

[birchesgreen]

What a stupid faff, having all these bits and incomplete sections. Just wire the route and re-allocate whatever the stock is, when it’s done.

If it was as simple as that i'm sure that is what they would be doing...

 

[MarkyT]

What a stupid faff, having all these bits and incomplete sections. Just wire the route and re-allocate whatever the stock is, when it’s done.

With respect, that's the 1960s solution when loco changes were practical. Batteries provide the ability to continue on electric power through the gaps between electrified urban networks for longer distance regional trains and the ability to work through to minor branches that will never justify wires. No length of wire provided in a discontinuous scheme prevents the future addition of further wiring. New intermediate top-up sections of a few miles fed by a DNO connection can be established if a particular route is too long to achieve within charge capacity and they, in turn, could spark new schemes in the vicinity for more local trains to convert.

 

[Trainbike46]

What a stupid faff, having all these bits and incomplete sections. Just wire the route and re-allocate whatever the stock is, when it’s done.

I mean, I'd prefer if we were to just fully electrify the Chiltern lines, but that is unlikely, especially anytime soon. four sections, two of which are part of the full electrification of another line (didcot-Oxford-Leamington Spa-Coventry-Nuneaton), seems like a good start

 

[cle]

This 'something is better than nothing' prevailing mediocrity we are all afflicted with is not good. We should aspire to better with our core national infrastructure than half-arsed measures.

Look at the money our government has spent on completely stupid things or immoral things or plain corrupt things in the last few years - vs something which is an investment, is green and created skilled employment - and skills themselves (and efficiencies/productivity/innovation in the space), which are needed across our railway in turn.

But look at Bristol (both ways in), Oxford, the dog's dinner of the Valley lines - all so dumb. EWR getting built as diesel. And we are supposed to clap. Sorry but maybe it's a shade better than the US but it is pretty sh*t compared to a new line in any Western, and most Eastern European countries. Or Australia - which has quietly been very good, esp at urban transit, in the past few years. All new things wired. But let's hear the excuses and how we're lucky to have anything. Great attitude.

 

[Russel]

If it was as simple as that i'm sure that is what they would be doing...

Think it's more to do with someone having to pay for it rather than weather it's simple or not.

 

[birchesgreen]

This 'something is better than nothing' prevailing mediocrity we are all afflicted with is not good. We should aspire to better with our core national infrastructure than half-arsed measures.

This is true but unfortunately the broken way our country is run means that changing that is nigh on impossible at the moment.

 

[Trainbike46]

This 'something is better than nothing' prevailing mediocrity we are all afflicted with is not good. We should aspire to better with our core national infrastructure than half-arsed measures.

Look at the money our government has spent on completely stupid things or immoral things or plain corrupt things in the last few years - vs something which is an investment, is green and created skilled employment - and skills themselves (and efficiencies/productivity/innovation in the space), which are needed across our railway in turn.

But look at Bristol (both ways in), Oxford, the dog's dinner of the Valley lines - all so dumb. EWR getting built as diesel. And we are supposed to clap. Sorry but maybe it's a shade better than the US but it is pretty sh*t compared to a new line in any Western, and most Eastern European countries. Or Australia - which has quietly been very good, esp at urban transit, in the past few years. All new things wired. But let's hear the excuses and how we're lucky to have anything. Great attitude.

I agree with you tbh - GWR electrification should have been completed, at least to Oxford, Swansea, and Bristol (both ways), and any new railway, especially ones that are expected to be busy like EWR, should be electrified from the start.

For Chiltern, there is a reason the sections I suggested are the ones shared with other routes, like Didcot-Coventry-Nuneaton, that should be fully electrified for Xc and freight

 

[Peter Sarf]

I agree with you tbh - GWR electrification should have been completed, at least to Oxford, Swansea, and Bristol (both ways), and any new railway, especially ones that are expected to be busy like EWR, should be electrified from the start.

For Chiltern, there is a reason the sections I suggested are the ones shared with other routes, like Didcot-Coventry-Nuneaton, that should be fully electrified for Xc and freight

For me the options for Chiltern are

Infill electrification or Bi-Modes for when GW is electrified beyond Oxford Didcot to Birmingham- how long does one wait ?.
Use of the third and Fourth rail towards the London end - do current GOOD Bi-Modes work on DC ?.

Both a while off I fear and batteries will be needed into Marylebone because iirc the tunnel near the station is too tight for overhead electrification - unless third and fourth rail is allowed into Marylebone....

Is the Chiltern route immediately beyond Marylebones tunnel(s) and alongside the DC Metropolitain line likely to ever get overhead electrification ?.

The reason I ponder these is it indicates to me that for the Chiltern routes there are more unknowns and dependencies than there are for other routes. So this does make the potential choices for the tenders rather more open ended or "interesting".

 

[Snow1964]

Copying over some data published today (13th June) from the ORR data thread.

Chiltern has busiest trains (not including open access) at average of 30 passenger km per vehicle km, this is more than double some operators, so with official stats like that seems surprising haven't got DfT approval for more resources

 

[JonathanH]

Chiltern has busiest trains (not including open access) at average of 30 passenger km per vehicle km, this is more than double some operators, so with official stats like that seems surprising haven't got DfT approval for more resources

Is any allowance made in your calculations for the fact that Chiltern only operate 23m vehicles, few explicitly rural services, and are quite efficient with their train lengths?

 

[12LDA28C]

Is any allowance made in your calculations for the fact that Chiltern only operate 23m vehicles, few explicitly rural services, and are quite efficient with their train lengths?

'Efficient with their train lengths' is a very tactful way of saying 'short of rolling stock'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

'Efficient with their train lengths' is a very tactful way of saying 'short of rolling stock'.

They are a bit, but even so their mixed length DMUs mean that unlike most other South East TOCs who can typically only add capacity in multiples of 4 or 5 vehicles they can add just one by shuffling things around. It works fairly well.

 

[Snow1964]

Is any allowance made in your calculations for the fact that Chiltern only operate 23m vehicles, few explicitly rural services, and are quite efficient with their train lengths?

It is raw ORR number of passenger km divided by vehicle km

Lumo are highest at 58 passengers per coach but they sell mainly specific reserved seats.

30 is high for a commuter operator, if the counter-peak working (the train returning from busy journey) has 1 passenger per coach then obviously need 59 to get average of 30

It might form part of a business case that Chiltern needs extra stock if there are trains with crowding problems, or if Chiltern has on average busiest trains. I don't know what details are in their case to DfT but figure is higher than when Anglia or SWR got approval for new commuter trains. But DfT might have moved goalposts since.

It might be simply putting the main justification as some of their mk3 stock is over 45 years old and their class 165s are 34 years old and getting difficult or expensive to maintain.

 

[RailWonderer]

That would be a great start!

You could go all BEMU on chiltern with fairly limited extra electrification, and most of it is useful for other services as well:

Didcot-Oxford (as part of GWR, used to recharge units in Oxford)

Marylebone Platforms (to recharge during layovers and turn-arounds)
~36 miles unelectrified
A section around Princes Risborough
~10 miles unelectrified to Aylesbury Vale Parkway one way
~30 miles unelectrified to Oxford one way
~30 miles unelectrified to King's Sutton
King's Sutton-Leamington Spa (~23 miles electrifiedas part of Oxford-Coventry for XC and freight)
~15 miles unelectrified one way towards Stratford upon Avon
~23 miles unelectrified one way to Birmingham Snow Hill

Assuming you don't want to touch the section in Birmingham, a BEMU that can reliably do 50-60 miles on battery can do all Chiltern services except the extensions beyond Birmingham Snow Hill

Three or four car Stadler WINK BEMU units like those used in the Netherlands would be ideal. The 168s could be cascaded with a follow on order. They need to be all 100mph and enough infrastucture to allow for an Oxford fast with a semi fast.

 

[Energy]

Three or four car Stadler WINK BEMU units like those used in the Netherlands would be ideal. The 168s could be cascaded with a follow on order. They need to be all 100mph and enough infrastucture to allow for an Oxford fast with a semi fast.

The Stadler WINK is a GTW replacement intended for lightly used lines, not the Chiltern Mainline.

 

[RailWonderer]

The Stadler WINK is a GTW replacement intended for lightly used lines, not the Chiltern Mainline.

Stadler offer very flexible platforms which can be amended to suit the needs of any route. Seating density and interior spec can all be tailored for Chiltern unless they want 3+2 of course. I think if they go for longer trains 3+2 is unnecessary.

Back to your point. So far it’s only been lightly used lines that go for battery units, I’m not aware of any commuter operation to use BEMU as most sensible governments electrify (unless you’re Nigeria and you opt for HSTs with Talgo coaches).

 

[Trainbike46]

Three or four car Stadler WINK BEMU units like those used in the Netherlands would be ideal. The 168s could be cascaded with a follow on order. They need to be all 100mph and enough infrastucture to allow for an Oxford fast with a semi fast.

the WINK in the Netherlands has diesel engines as well as batteries and OHLE compatibility, and is therefore a trimode.

Stadler already has a trimode for the UK the 756, which is a FLIRT, so why would they use a different platform when the needs could be met by a FLIRT.

Also, the FLIRT is available in a BEMU version (the FLIRT AKKU)

In short, why would a new platform be advantageous over the FLIRT platform that already operates in the UK?

 

[RailWonderer]

the WINK in the Netherlands has diesel engines as well as batteries and OHLE compatibility, and is therefore a trimode.

Stadler already has a trimode for the UK the 756, which is a FLIRT, so why would they use a different platform when the needs could be met by a FLIRT.

Also, the FLIRT is available in a BEMU version (the FLIRT AKKU)

In short, why would a new platform be advantageous over the FLIRT platform that already operates in the UK?

The answer is a bit complicated. The WINK is a derivative of the FLIRT, which is the platform. GTW and SMILE are other derivatives of FLIRT. Some are high floor/low floor, some have panoramic windows, some are double decker (obviously not for the UK), some are tapered (NSB FLIRT units) some are Russian gauge etc. The extra diesel engines seem to be the only thing setting the WINK apart from the FLIRT AKKU except that the WINK made up of a lighter carbody which Chiltern won't need as the line is standard heavy rail. There may be weight restrictions on that line in the Netherlands but thats my guess as I'm not a Dutch rail engineer.

The UK units are all FLIRTS which strangely use the intercity front end despite being regional units like for TfW and Anglia.

https://stadlerrail.com/en/products/

A Chiltern order would likely resemble GA and TfW's ones for the sake of not having to readapt a new variant again - unless Chiltern wanted end doors or something like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

GTW and SMILE are other derivatives of FLIRT.

This isn't the case. GTW predates FLIRT (hence it not having a silly name). If anything, FLIRT is an evolution of GTW.

 

[RailWonderer]

This isn't the case. GTW predates FLIRT (hence it not having a silly name). If anything, FLIRT is an evolution of GTW.

That's right, but all the 'silly names' are variants of the FLIRT though but GTW is written on wikipedia to sound like it's a variant rather than the predecessor (like the Turbo/Clubman to the Turbostar). I wouldn't rely on wikipedia but not sure where else in English you can read about this other than Stadler's websites which obviously don't mention GTWs anymore as they aren't in production.