Rolling stock whose capacity has been superseded by increased demand over time.

[hexagon789]

Just about everything built during the era of "2 for 3 replacement".

2 for 3 replacement?

Am I the only one to find the OP's question somewhat vacuuous, asking, in effect, about a truism?

Nope, on reflection I think I've worded it rather badly too! Two ticks and I'll see if I can sort that to better reflect what I meant.

 

[LOL The Irony]

2 for 3 replacement?

I think that might be Sprinterisation

 

[hexagon789]

I think that might be Sprinterisation

I thought that, but I've never heard it referred to as "2 for 3 replacement". Certainly that wouldn't apply in many cases, being more 2 for 4, 5 or 6.

 

[F Great Eastern]

185s anyone?
Blocked by govt from being extended to 4 car units and lack of capacity found out as a result on TPE services due to passenger growth. About to be replaced by 5 car trains that will again face the same problem a few years down the line.

You forgot to mention that First, Siemens and HSBC was signed for 56 trains and right at the last minute the SRA came in and reduced the order to 51 trains and threatened to bring the whole deal down unless the other parties agreed to this, which went down VERY WELL with all parties.

There were 3 more diagrams that First planned to operate with doubled up 185s to provide sufficient capacity which they were prevented from doing so. A couple of years later, the government then turned around to First and argued why services on the same routes were overcrowded...laughable.

 

[furnessvale]

I thought that, but I've never heard it referred to as "2 for 3 replacement". Certainly that wouldn't apply in many cases, being more 2 for 4, 5 or 6.

On average it was 2 for 3 and it was definitely a government policy and called that at the time.

 

[gazzaa2]

Was discussing how things used to be and came upon the Pendolinos as new. When first introduced, as I'm sure many people know, the sets were all 8-car. This was the orginal plan for the 53 units as new but it was later decided to extend them to 9-car and so only the first 31 entered service as 8-car.

With present passenger levels as they are, if the Pendolinos were all 8-car overcrowding would be pretty likely and so this wouldn't be acceptable now.

So...what other examples of rolling stock were adequate (or near enough) at either time of introduction or planning but which are now inadequate or had to be modified to remain acceptable for use now.

Half the network, frankly. Particularly in and around big cities and settlements.

UK population has soared massively in the last 20 years or so.

 

[Steelwheels]

Not to mention with the introduction of LEZ and congestion zone charges, a lot more car drivers will be ditching their cars to travel by rail into the major city centres in the future.

 

[jagardner1984]

One might argue that a considerable over supply in a rolling stock order (simplistically, your projections suggest you need a 3 car train, order at least a 4 car train in every case) might have saved UK railways a large amount given the amount of rolling stock that is largely full very early on in its life (if not from Day 1).

The solution currently used, of constantly cascading dozens of micro fleets of 10/20/50 units around the country rather than having far fewer types, which collectively the industry orders a lot of, is massively inefficient, in logistics, training, and many other ways.

 

[Edders23]

really I would have to say ALL multiple units as they are a fixed size and cannot be extended the way carriage formations could be and these days there is no such thing as a relief train

 

[F Great Eastern]

One might argue that a considerable over supply in a rolling stock order (simplistically, your projections suggest you need a 3 car train, order at least a 4 car train in every case) might have saved UK railways a large amount given the amount of rolling stock that is largely full very early on in its life (if not from Day 1).

The problem is that whilst what you say sounds good in theory, in practice the SRA back in the day wouldn't allow things like that because they would say there isn't sufficient demand no matter what you said. It's happened a good few times and is the reason that we ended up with 153 carriages in the TPE Desiro DMU fleet instead of 224.

The same SRA turned around to the likes of TPE and ask them what they are going to do about severe overcrowding a couple of years later as they seek to nationalise the praise and privatise the blame and hoodwink the public that it's about private greed rather than overcrowding caused by a public body.

 

[F Great Eastern]

really I would have to say ALL multiple units as they are a fixed size and cannot be extended the way carriage formations could be and these days there is no such thing as a relief train

So in that case you'd have to have a loco or a DVT on teach end which has the problem that you then have two vehicles, one at each end that cannot carry passengers which limits the amount of platform space to be used for carrying passengers.

 

[jagardner1984]

Which is why in some ways, the suggestion by the Rail Delivery Group Of having the operators running each franchise more as a concession, to a tighter specification from DfT, actually does make a lot of sense.

Then it could be said by DfT, this is our suburban DMU product for the next 5 years, we will have 1000 carriages please, deploy them as you will. By the time the final sets are being delivered, oh it turns out that route is developing a little faster than the one we planned these for, let’s simply move the units around.

As it is, the scattergun approach to procurement over the last few years will leave some real headaches for the planners of the next 20-30 years.

Of course, taking responsibility hasn’t been a strong point of successive inhabitants of the DfT.

 

[RailWonderer]

One might argue that a considerable over supply in a rolling stock order (simplistically, your projections suggest you need a 3 car train, order at least a 4 car train in every case) might have saved UK railways a large amount given the amount of rolling stock that is largely full very early on in its life (if not from Day 1).

This is what I’ve been saying for some time now. Replacement is too often like for like and doesn’t always take into account for an increase in needed capacity over time. For example, 444s replacing 442s and slam door stock didn’t help ease capacity for long, class 360s replacing 312s, same story.

GWR replacing 2 and 3 car turbos doubling to 4, 5 and 6 car was improved with 8 and 12 car 387s - a notable exception.

XC had the same problem with 170s and Voyagers from what I hear often overcrowded

 

[F Great Eastern]

Which is why in some ways, the suggestion by the Rail Delivery Group Of having the operators running each franchise more as a concession, to a tighter specification from DfT, actually does make a lot of sense.

Thing is though that if this was to happen, you can be sure that the TOCs will get the blame when things go wrong and the DFT are perfectly happy to let them happen. The mission statement of the DFT is effectively to nationalise the praise and privatise the blame, as one ex senior railwayman put it to me.

Then it could be said by DfT, this is our suburban DMU product for the next 5 years, we will have 1000 carriages please, deploy them as you will. By the time the final sets are being delivered. As it is, the scattergun approach to procurement over the last few years will leave some real headaches for the planners of the next 20-30 years.

By having one fleet from one manufacturer, you would not promote a good quality of vehicle being provided since having the only order for a large number of years would mean there is no incentive to provide a quality product. If you don't keep the rolling stock market competitive, the quality of rolling stock will drop as the incentive to provide a good quality product is lost.

The only reason Bombardier upped their game (which still isn't perfect) is because they had to in order to stay competitive. They're already pitching themselves as the only company we should go to after Brexit which is bad, because if any company is a shoo-in for an order without having to provide a product that is better than the rest then quality will drop.

That being said I do agree that there needs to be less variation and less of a scattergun approach, just that going to a completely uniform stock isn't the answer either, somewhere in between the two is.

Of course, taking responsibility hasn’t been a strong point of successive inhabitants of the DfT.

The role of the DFT is to micromanage behind the scenes and when improvements are made and positive things happen to slap their logo all over it and get the minister to go out to the press and look like the government are doing well.

When they make a decision that backfires they go hiding and start blaming the operator who had their hands tied behind their back in the knowledge that the passengers will blame the operator who is too scared to speak out about the whole situation in fear of the DFT seeking to make life difficult for them.

It's perfect for them, they get all of the praise for everything, whilst they get none of the blame for any of their actions so don't need to take responsibility. The Tory government are excellent at this, giving the impression that services are not run by them even though they're micromanaging behind the scenes, so they can always blame someone else. See also: Education.

 

[F Great Eastern]

This is what I’ve been saying for some time now. Replacement is too often like for like and doesn’t always take into account for an increase in needed capacity over time. For example, 444s replacing 442s and slam door stock didn’t help ease capacity for long, Cass 360s replacing 312s, same story.

Class 360s are another order that was cut, the initial order was for 25x4 car which was cut by the SRA

 

[RailWonderer]

The role of the DFT is to micromanage behind the scenes

I got chastised on another thread for suggesting the DfT should interfere less and leave ToCs to make more decisions because of the DfT’s micromanagement.

 

[USRailFan]

Didn't most HSTs have only seven intermediate cars originally?

 

[43096]

Didn't most HSTs have only seven intermediate cars originally?

As built, 58 sets were 7 car, 37 sets were 8 car.

 

[whhistle]

I suspect both 195's will be joining this list in the near future.

... and people moan the Government doesn't buy enough!

I can't think of many (less than 10) services that a 2-coach train is suitable all the time.
For the sake of easiness, may as well just order 3 coach trains as a minimum these days.

 

[hexagon789]

I got chastised on another thread for suggesting the DfT should interfere less and leave ToCs to make more decisions because of the DfT’s micromanagement.

I think you are quite correct though, TOCs should have more input; after all they are the ones operating the service.

Didn't most HSTs have only seven intermediate cars originally?

Western Region and Cross-Country sets were 2+7, Eastern/Scottish Region were 2+8 originally.

On average it was 2 for 3 and it was definitely a government policy and called that at the time.

Thank you, I'd never come across the term before.

 

[tonysk14]

185s anyone?
Blocked by govt from being extended to 4 car units and lack of capacity found out as a result on TPE services due to passenger growth. About to be replaced by 5 car trains that will again face the same problem a few years down the line.

A few years, more like a few months.

 

[moogal]

How about the 378s? Started off as 3-car on the NLL, then extended to 4, and now 5. And often still crush-loaded.

 

[tbtc]

On average it was 2 for 3 and it was definitely a government policy and called that at the time.

In fairness to the "hindsight" now displayed on this thread (not having a dig at any one poster, just the generally accepted line that everyone should have known that these trains would be insufficient etc etc), the "two for three" approach was partly because the new units were going to be much more reliable than the first generation of DMUs that they were replacing - plus improved journey times (both speeds, acceleration and dwells), as well as frequency increases, so you often got a two coach DMU on an hourly frequency replacing an irregular (but longer) one, with the new services providing a faster overall service.

I'm not saying it was perfect, but the theory was that the efficiency of the new trains would permit an improved level of service.

But then, that period thirty years ago is a bit of a murky one when people try to look back at it - e.g. "BR were marvellous because they had all of these great plans for new trains like the massive Networker programme; if they'd been allowed to continue then they'd have replaced everything old with these new 471s or 157s etc" but also "BR struggled for money, hence splitting most of the 155s up to form single coach 153s and other economy measures".

@moogal 's post about the 378s is an interesting one - at the time they were just replacing 313s so probably sufficient short term capacity - but these were a class that could be extended and extended again, as well as additional trains being built - so there's a good news story.

Maybe if things had been different and we'd been able to build additional centre carriages for 220s or 185s etc then we'd think of those trains differently (e.g. a Voyager is wonderfully reliable and nippy, when you're not stood up for an hour outside the bogs noticing the pong, so if we'd had scope to lengthen them then maybe they'd be much better appreciated - maybe not loved but certainly held in higher regard). If First/Keolis could had had sixty 185s that were four coaches long (with scope for a fifth) then maybe they'd be appreciated a lot more and we wouldn't be talking about getting rid of them (e.g. to Ireland because we were running out of UK uses for them).

Whilst I'm comfortable with a world of multiple units, I struggle to defend the tiny production lines that mean we can't simply add in an extra couple of coaches (without building new jigs etc). I'm not a misty eyed nostalgist who suggests loco-hauled is the answer to *everything* but I do admit that it would have been a lot easier to lengthen trains with an extra unpowered "go anywhere" carriage (which is a lot harder to do when you have a bespoke train like a 185 that can only work with additional 185 carriages).

 

[hexagon789]

Another one would be the MML. As I understand it the 4 and 5-car 222s are often pretty full on Nottingham/Sheffield semi-fast workings but as I recall under Midland Mainline these were orginally two-car 170s.

That must've been "interesting"! Though I'm not sure what they replaced, were these new services?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

It's safe to assume in 2009 when the preview HS1 class 395 javelin service started there was capacity all over the show units just sat there all day, then the proper timetable kicked in and they were carrying round fresh air because the fares were noticeably higher than the regular services, slowly people cottoned on to them being worth the extra cost and liked the later services provided, then the Olympics happened thousands were introduced to them daily and all of a sudden they started to make sense, the basic services were becoming busy all day, then they stretched the fleet, they started the circular St Pancras to St Pancras services running many services as 6 car only because there wasn't enough units to run everything with 12 car trains, this resulted in a tipping point, they went from well used to standing room only/crush loading (in peak) in a space of only a few years! Kent commuters have begged SE to buy more trains, and due to the DfT not specifying it in any contracts or extensions we are left with the conundrum of its popularity, no new franchisee or hope in sight

 

[tbtc]

Another one would be the MML. As I understand it the 4 and 5-car 222s are often pretty full on Nottingham/Sheffield semi-fast workings but as I recall under Midland Mainline these were orginally two-car 170s.

That must've been "interesting"! Though I'm not sure what they replaced, were these new services?

BR: HST every forty five minutes from London to Leicester (every ninety minutes to Sheffield, same to Nottingham), irregular stops at stations between London and Leicester

MM inherited: HST every half hour to Leicester (hourly to Sheffield, same to Nottingham) , irregular stops at stations between London and Leicester

MM introduced an hourly London - Nottingham service and an hourly London - Derby service (with random extensions to Matlock, Barnsley and Burton) that stopped at all stations between London and Leicester so that the HSTs generally ran non-stop from London to Leicester (so faster journeys for long distance passengers)... these new services were ran by two coach 170s and sat at Leicester for around ten minutes so that they were overtaken by the HST (i.e. the London - Nottingham 170 got to Leicester a few minutes before the London - Sheffield HST and departed a few minutes after it, so that you could do journeys like Bedford - Sheffield or a faster journey from London to Nottingham than having boarded the 170 at St Pancras)

MM introduced three car 170s to replace the two car ones (rather than introduce a third coach to the existing ones?)

MM planned four coach 222s to replace the three coach 170s (which meant no more Matlock services as a weak bridge on the branch wouldn't cope with a heavy 222

MM also ordered some nine coach 222s which were intended for an hourly London - Leeds service (seems a long time ago, an era where a TOC would speculatively order new long trains in the hope of being given paths!). I think the SRA were the ones who didn't permit the Leeds service. Shame.

EMT took over, reformed the 222s into four/five/seven coach formations

EMT gained the poisoned chalice of the Corby branch, got the Hull Trains 170s to provide capacity, amended the timetables so that there weren't the same "slow" services any more - everything operated by 125mph stock (and Corby services taking some of the "local" stops meaning the Derby/ Nottingham services could be sped up), London - Derby service extended to Sheffield (running within about five minutes of the existing service due to poor paths at first and not serving Chesterfield due to capacity problems on the line but things slowly improved)

So it's been a gradual set of improvements, same as Hull Trains (who went from 170s to four coach 222 to five coach 180s and soon 5x26m 802s)

 

[RLBH]

In fairness to the "hindsight" now displayed on this thread (not having a dig at any one poster, just the generally accepted line that everyone should have known that these trains would be insufficient etc etc), the "two for three" approach was partly because the new units were going to be much more reliable than the first generation of DMUs that they were replacing - plus improved journey times (both speeds, acceleration and dwells), as well as frequency increases, so you often got a two coach DMU on an hourly frequency replacing an irregular (but longer) one, with the new services providing a faster overall service.

That, and in many cases replacing three 20m vehicles (or even 17m) with a brake van by two 23m vehicles would have little or no loss in seat numbers.

Things like Sprinterisation and Operation Princess always seem to catch the railway by suprise. Turns out that making a service more frequent doesn't just spread out your existing passengers, but gains you more because it's more convenient. If the Voyagers had been 8 cars and 5 cars rather than 5 cars and 4 cars - or the 185s built as 4-car sets (and more of them) I think they'd be viewed very differently.

Scotrail's 170s are another screamingly obvious case of being overtaken by demand. It's telling that the HSTs are giving back similar seating capacity (though more frequently) to when the lines were worked by loco-hauled rakes of 7 or 8 20m coaches.

 

[hexagon789]

BR: HST every forty five minutes from London to Leicester (every ninety minutes to Sheffield, same to Nottingham), irregular stops at stations between London and Leicester

MM inherited: HST every half hour to Leicester (hourly to Sheffield, same to Nottingham) , irregular stops at stations between London and Leicester

MM introduced an hourly London - Nottingham service and an hourly London - Derby service (with random extensions to Matlock, Barnsley and Burton) that stopped at all stations between London and Leicester so that the HSTs generally ran non-stop from London to Leicester (so faster journeys for long distance passengers)... these new services were ran by two coach 170s and sat at Leicester for around ten minutes so that they were overtaken by the HST (i.e. the London - Nottingham 170 got to Leicester a few minutes before the London - Sheffield HST and departed a few minutes after it, so that you could do journeys like Bedford - Sheffield or a faster journey from London to Nottingham than having boarded the 170 at St Pancras)

MM introduced three car 170s to replace the two car ones (rather than introduce a third coach to the existing ones?)

MM planned four coach 222s to replace the three coach 170s (which meant no more Matlock services as a weak bridge on the branch wouldn't cope with a heavy 222

MM also ordered some nine coach 222s which were intended for an hourly London - Leeds service (seems a long time ago, an era where a TOC would speculatively order new long trains in the hope of being given paths!). I think the SRA were the ones who didn't permit the Leeds service. Shame.

EMT took over, reformed the 222s into four/five/seven coach formations

EMT gained the poisoned chalice of the Corby branch, got the Hull Trains 170s to provide capacity, amended the timetables so that there weren't the same "slow" services any more - everything operated by 125mph stock (and Corby services taking some of the "local" stops meaning the Derby/ Nottingham services could be sped up), London - Derby service extended to Sheffield (running within about five minutes of the existing service due to poor paths at first and not serving Chesterfield due to capacity problems on the line but things slowly improved)

So it's been a gradual set of improvements, same as Hull Trains (who went from 170s to four coach 222 to five coach 180s and soon 5x26m 802s)

So the 170s replaced nothing effectively. Thank you for the run down on the services, it's quite difficult to find timetables for that period really.

 

[Mikey C]

Away from the NR/BR network, the 1983 Tube stock were a massive error. Specced at a time of declining passenger use with single leaf doors to save money, those doors made them a complete liability once passenger numbers recovered and started growing strongly, and contributed to them being scrapped after a tiny life, with all gone by 1998.

 

[furnessvale]

In fairness to the "hindsight" now displayed on this thread (not having a dig at any one poster, just the generally accepted line that everyone should have known that these trains would be insufficient etc etc), the "two for three" approach was partly because the new units were going to be much more reliable than the first generation of DMUs that they were replacing - plus improved journey times (both speeds, acceleration and dwells), as well as frequency increases, so you often got a two coach DMU on an hourly frequency replacing an irregular (but longer) one, with the new services providing a faster overall service.

I'm not saying it was perfect, but the theory was that the efficiency of the new trains would permit an improved level of service.

Similar theories allowed the planners to decide that a remodelled Preston station would only need to cater in the future for 80% of the traffic it was carrying at the time.

In a wonderful self fulfilling prophecy, the remodelled station only carried 80% of the previous traffic!