Chiltern wanting to get hold of new stock

[67018]

It was certainly mentioned in one of the mags when they launched the Oxford idea that loco-hauled would free 168s off the Birmingham services to run to Oxford instead.

So, have they changed their minds, or realised that they need both as a result of passenger growth? The growth is likely to continue given the hundreds of new houses currently being built along the route, and peak time trains are noticeably fuller these days.

 

[Nym]

So what about TPE's sustained growth over the last 10 years?

 

[WatcherZero]

So, have they changed their minds, or realised that they need both as a result of passenger growth? The growth is likely to continue given the hundreds of new houses currently being built along the route, and peak time trains are noticeably fuller these days.

Talk seems to be several TOCs that were interested have gone off the idea of Loco hauled stock in the last couple of years as the operational cost/reliability disadvantages vs MU stock become more pronounced.

 

[swt_passenger]

So, have they changed their minds, or realised that they need both as a result of passenger growth? The growth is likely to continue given the hundreds of new houses currently being built along the route, and peak time trains are noticeably fuller these days.

I think it is both. The Dec 13 CP5 plans include this:

...On the Chiltern Main Line, platform extensions are required to facilitate the proposal for train lengthening to 9-car operation at key stations in the morning peak, to deliver increased capacity into London Marylebone.
Scope of works
Platform extensions are required to accommodate the proposed 9-car operation at five key stations on the Chiltern route: Bicester North, Haddenham and Thame Parkway, Princes Risborough, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield.

They refer to the proposed 9 car operations as being DOO, so that leads by default to longer trains of 168 type, and the inclusion of Bicester North suggests they aren't starting from Oxford - possibly Banbury.

 

[Mikey C]

So what about TPE's sustained growth over the last 10 years?

The growth in the Chiltern area is far greater, a massive amount of housing is being built in the area, and economically the area is far more buoyant than the TPE region

 

[pemma]

The growth in the Chiltern area is far greater, a massive amount of housing is being built in the area, and economically the area is far more buoyant than the TPE region

When the TPE franchise First TPE specified that 56 x 3 car trains would be required with an option to add additional carriages if demand increased. Those weren't considered enough trains to include Scottish services.

According to TPE they carried 13m passengers in their first year and got 23m passengers 5 years later, which should be enough to justify TPE placing an order for around 129 additional carriages but yet they've only received 40 more to date and if Chiltern take the 170/3s without them being replaced then the figures reduced to 22 additional carriages.

How many extra carriages can Chiltern justify on the same basis and how many have they received?

 

[RPM]

They refer to the proposed 9 car operations as being DOO

That will be interesting. The existing Chiltern DOO agreement is for a maximum of 7 cars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There is also a possibility of lengthening the loco-hauled trains. Currently, with 67s this couldn't be done without impacting on timings, but when & if 68s take over (on the cards but not 100% confirmed) it could be done as they are geared for 100mph not 125mph so have better acceleration characteristics.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I'd be very surprised if 68's weren't pulling Chiltern coaches within a year.

 

[The Planner]

Currently, with 67s this couldn't be done without impacting on timings, but when & if 68s take over (on the cards but not 100% confirmed) it could be done as they are geared for 100mph not 125mph so have better acceleration characteristics.

Unless we have sorted them out, all the loco hauled are timed as 168s anyway.

 

[3141]

My recollection is that Chiltern's franchise agreement includes an undertaking to obtain additional rolling stock as passenger numbers rise.

It's unusual for there to be competition for the same trains, but if the 170s are reaching the end of their lease with TPE, the owning ROSCO is acting perfectly reasonably if it favours a new long lease with Chiltern over a short extension with TPE.

I don't think we should be surprised if Chiltern previously said they were looking for more loco-hauled stock but are now looking at DMUs. Circumstances change. If you find you can get trains which are closer to your requirements it's sensible to go after them.

Though the DfT can probably see the disadvantages to TPE of losing the 170s it's a privatised railway, and they aren't likely to tell Chiltern they cannot have the trains they want when they need them to meet franchise obligations, and they can't tell a rolling stock company that they've got to extend the existing lease with TPE. Perhaps TPE should look for some loco-hauled stock.

 

[pemma]

My recollection is that Chiltern's franchise agreement includes an undertaking to obtain additional rolling stock as passenger numbers rise.

It's unusual for there to be competition for the same trains, but if the 170s are reaching the end of their lease with TPE, the owning ROSCO is acting perfectly reasonably if it favours a new long lease with Chiltern over a short extension with TPE.

Almost all the 170s are off-lease very soon due to the state of the franchising system, only the XC ones are secured for the next few years due to it being a more recent franchise award. The Anglia ones are off-lease from July this year, the LM ones are off-lease from September next year, the Scotrail ones are off-lease from November this year, while the Southern 171s go off-lease next July. It almost seems like Chiltern were spoilt for choice and opted for the ones that had a lease expiring a few months before they required them.

There has been competition for trains before:
* FGW secured some ex- CT and TPE 158s on short term loans and hoped to keep them in addition to their ex- Wessex 158s but Northern also wanted them and looked to have won the battle until they lost 158s to Scotrail.
* FGW apparently wanted to keep the 142s that they subleased from Northern but Northern needed more capacity and once FGW had additional 150s they couldn't put a good business case together for keeping them.
* Northern wanted to keep the 156s they lost to EMT but as a condition of getting additional class 150 carriages DfT made them release 4 x 156s.

Though the DfT can probably see the disadvantages to TPE of losing the 170s it's a privatised railway, and they aren't likely to tell Chiltern they cannot have the trains they want when they need them to meet franchise obligations, and they can't tell a rolling stock company that they've got to extend the existing lease with TPE. Perhaps TPE should look for some loco-hauled stock.

The issue TPE have is the franchise currently ends in 2015 and is set to be extended to 2016. Considering it'll only be for 8 months they won't want to fund a crew training program for a new type of train.

Stephen Hammond seemed to suggest that TPE will be able to hang on to 170/3s until the May 2015 timetable change (opposed to giving them up on 1st April 2015) and talks about hopefully Chiltern subleasing a few back until the end of the franchise in 2016.

There's also talk about Northern subleasing 158s to TPE and I can't see that working as no 158s will be freed up by electrification and TPE won't want a few 170s alongside a few 158s, while Northern can't afford to lose 8 or 9 trains.

So I think the best compromise would be Chiltern to only take 4 x 170s in May 2015 and for Northern to sublease 4 x 156s to Anglia who can then sublease their 4 x 2 car 170s to TPE. That way Chiltern gain capacity, Anglia gain a little (as 156s have higher capacity than 170s), TPE keep the same amount of stock and while Northern lose it would hopefully be a net gain if they have a number of 319s to use by May 2015.

 

[Class172]

So I think the best compromise would be Chiltern to only take 4 x 170s in May 2015 and for Northern to sublease 4 x 156s to Anglia who can then sublease their 4 x 2 car 170s to TPE. That way Chiltern gain capacity, Anglia gain a little (as 156s have higher capacity than 170s), TPE keep the same amount of stock and while Northern lose it would hopefully be a net gain if they have a number of 319s to use by May 2015.

If only such joined-up thinking was possible in real life...

 

[3141]

This from The Journal, a daily paper serving the North East.

“Ministers were told it was disgraceful that they were planning to take 170 modern trains from across the entire North of England and send them south, serving constituencies such as the prime minister’s.”

There are at least three factual errors in that sentence, which is quite an achievement.

 

[pemma]

People in the North East seem to be under the impression that when the government says North they mean Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and York so maybe 'across the North' is correct.

 

[TDK]

I'd be very surprised if 68's weren't pulling Chiltern coaches within a year.

They will be as Chiltern are leasing I think 5 of them

 

[RPM]

This from The Journal, a daily paper serving the North East.

“Ministers were told it was disgraceful that they were planning to take 170 modern trains from across the entire North of England and send them south, serving constituencies such as the prime minister’s.”

There are at least three factual errors in that sentence, which is quite an achievement.

Ooh is the Witney branch going to be reopened? I do hope so.

 

[deltic08]

This from The Journal, a daily paper serving the North East.

“Ministers were told it was disgraceful that they were planning to take 170 modern trains from across the entire North of England and send them south, serving constituencies such as the prime minister’s.”

There are at least three factual errors in that sentence, which is quite an achievement.

I have read the entire 20 pages of Hansard and this is an accurate account of what was said by MPs in the debate. Would you like to enlighten us where "at least three factual errors" are?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I have read the entire 20 pages of Hansard and this is an accurate account of what was said by MPs in the debate. Would you like to enlighten us where "at least three factual errors" are?

“Ministers were told it was disgraceful that they were planning to take 170 modern trains from across the entire North of England and send them south, serving constituencies such as the prime minister’s

The factual errors:
a) 9 modern trains are being transferred south not 170
b) They are taking them from two narrow corridors (Hull/Cleethorpes-Manchester) not the "entire north of England"
c) The Chiltern route does not directly serve Witney, the PM's constituency
(although I'm sure some Witney folk will be using Oxford Parkway on the day it opens).

I don't think this debate is meant to be entirely serious.

 

[Julian Hornby]

In 2015 they're getting 170s from FTPE.

 

[swt_passenger]

In 2015 they're getting 170s from FTPE.

We know. It's what the last 5 pages of this thread have been discussing, basically since it was reported in Modern Railways in late Feb, and repeated in post #127...

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Chiltern do not want to run passenger services to Stourbridge and Kidderminster on Saturday and Sunday evenings but it's not down to logistics because they can for money http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/S20381/2014/03/22/advanced

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Chiltern do not want to run passenger services to Stourbridge and Kidderminster on Saturday and Sunday evenings but it's not down to logistics because they can for money http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/S20381/2014/03/22/advanced

That was a charter, from the brownies of all people. Something to do with national science week according to this.

 

[deltic08]

“Ministers were told it was disgraceful that they were planning to take 170 modern trains from across the entire North of England and send them south, serving constituencies such as the prime minister’s

The factual errors:
a) 9 modern trains are being transferred south not 170
b) They are taking them from two narrow corridors (Hull/Cleethorpes-Manchester) not the "entire north of England"
c) The Chiltern route does not directly serve Witney, the PM's constituency
(although I'm sure some Witney folk will be using Oxford Parkway on the day it opens).

I don't think this debate is meant to be entirely serious.

Then don't make it serious by raising the point in the first place.

a) We all know what 170 trains refers to but this is how class 170 trains is referred to in the Hansard transcript. 185 trains could have been worse.
b) MPs in the Northeast referred to this leading to a shortage of trains on Tyneside and Teesside resulting in continued use of Pacers.
c) One MP referred directly to the Prime Minister having a better service to his constituency with a choice of routes now.

In defence of the newspaper, it was quite accurate and I would have written the same if I had referred to the transcript without knowledge of railways. Perhaps next time mock the contributors to the Parliamentary debate not those who report it.

 

[RPM]

Was it ever actually on the cards that TPE were going to keep the 170s after receiving their 350s? This whole story reeks of opportunist political spin. The real story is that TPE are getting rid of 18, decade-old diesel vehicles and gaining 40 brand new electric vehicles. That's good isn't it?

 

[pemma]

Was it ever actually on the cards that TPE were going to keep the 170s after receiving their 350s?

Yes it most certainly was, as already explained in this thread. TPE were expected to keep the 170/3s until at least December 2018. (Dec 18 is when most of North TPE is set to switch to EMUs so some DMUs would be freed up.)

The HLOS for CP4 had TPE down for getting 40 additional vehicles by December 2012. Initially they were going to be new DMUs but that was changed after electrification announcements. 40 x 20m carriages for the amount of additional passengers TPE are carrying won't even solve all the overcrowding problems on the TPE network.

The May 2014 timetable makes use of the additional trains to provide extra services on North TPE. If TPE lost the 170/3s without gaining replacement stock then some of the additional services will have to be removed from the timetable, while other services would get an insufficient number of carriages.

This whole story reeks of opportunist political spin.

Had the government not mucked around with the franchises then an ITT for a new TPE franchise would currently be out to tender with bidders able to offer Porterbrook much longer terms for rolling stock than First TPE currently can. First TPE can't negotiate to keep any rolling stock beyond 2015 even though they are likely to be given an extension until 2016. So the whole situation has been caused by the franchising fiasco which is a political problem not a commercial problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The factual errors:
a) 9 modern trains are being transferred south not 170

While the 185s are a few years newer than the 170/3s, the 170/3s are modern compared to the average age of rolling stock in the North.

b) They are taking them from two narrow corridors (Hull/Cleethorpes-Manchester) not the "entire north of England"

There's a presumption that Northern will have to forfeit 8 x 158s to TPE to 'solve the problem' and that those 158s will come off Yorkshire routes and be replaced by 150s off North West routes, which should be being used to provide extra capacity on the most overcrowded Northern services once EMUs start to arrive.

 

[edwin_m]

Then don't make it serious by raising the point in the first place.

a) We all know what 170 trains refers to but this is how class 170 trains is referred to in the Hansard transcript. 185 trains could have been worse.

...

In defence of the newspaper, it was quite accurate and I would have written the same if I had referred to the transcript without knowledge of railways. Perhaps next time mock the contributors to the Parliamentary debate not those who report it.

The speaker was seriously misleading (probably mis-informed rather than deliberately disingenuous) and the journalist didn't have the knowledge to pick up and point out the error. Therefore there are probably people across the North East thinking that dozens of their trains are about to disappear. Has anyone put out a correction?

 

[transmanche]

Has anyone put out a correction?

Two comments on the online article pointing out the error, but nothing 'official'.

 

[3141]

As I don't look at this site regularly I've only just read the comments on my post no. 193.

LNW-GW Joint has already responded to the question asked by deltic08.

A further error was the statement about ministers "planning to take 170 modern trains" since as far as I know ministers were not responsible for the proposal to lease class 170s to Chiltern, and Stephen Hammond has actually been seeking to delay the move of stock from TPE, or at least to reduce the number of units that will make the move at first.

deltic08 says "perhaps next time mock the contributors to the Parliamentary debate not those who report it". I can understand the reporter for The Journal reproducing what he read in Hansard, but I think he might have wondered if it really was as many as 170 trains, and I don't think you need to be an expert or an enthusiast about railways to realise that there might be something questionable about such a large number. In the end, the people who write for newspapers are responsible for what they produce, and if they get it substantially wrong it is entirely legitimate to point that out, even if they did obtain the information from a source they should have been able to rely on.

 

[deltic08]

The speaker was seriously misleading (probably mis-informed rather than deliberately disingenuous) and the journalist didn't have the knowledge to pick up and point out the error. Therefore there are probably people across the North East thinking that dozens of their trains are about to disappear. Has anyone put out a correction?

Not to my knowledge. I endorse the error, even though inadvertently wildly exaggerated, as it is about time that Northerners are stirred into realising what a bad hand we are being dealt by London centric civil servants. The quality of trains up here is **** compared to the Southeast. Northwest electrification was only authorised to mop up surplus 319s from Thameslink. Writing down their value by scrapping would have raised the cost on paper of replacement 700s and the whole Thameslink project until some Herbert at the DafT decided financially and politically that the North is the best place for old, unwanted (s)crap.

 

[transmanche]

it is about time that Northerners are stirred into realising what a bad hand we are being dealt by London centric civil servants.

*yawn* :roll: