• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Where did the notion of ‘shorter stock’ come from?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
Growing up in the 90s, I wasn’t aware of any major TOCS, particularly long haul, using ‘short stock’ - think 5 car services with LNER, or reduction from 7 MK3s to 4 DEMU with the 22x family. I understand under ‘Operation Princess’ that Virgin chose shorter stock because services would be running more frequently, which soon turned out to be a faff in itself.

Where did this idea arise from initially? Had it been done elsewhere in the U.K. before Virgin? Was it something that TOCs in mainland Europe were doing?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,716
Location
Glasgow
Growing up in the 90s, I wasn’t aware of any major TOCS, particularly long haul, using ‘short stock’ - think 5 car services with LNER, or reduction from 7 MK3s to 4 DEMU with the 22x family. I understand under ‘Operation Princess’ that Virgin chose shorter stock because services would be running more frequently, which soon turned out to be a faff in itself.

Where did this idea arise from initially? Had it been done elsewhere in the U.K. before Virgin? Was it something that TOCs in mainland Europe were doing?

Weren't passenger numbers down somewhat at this point, but a lot of stock was life-expired?

There were also various agreements to introduce new, improved services as part of franchises so you had:

7-car loco-hauled and 7-car HSTs replaced by 4 and 5-car Voyagers on VXC albeit running more frequently

New semi-fast services on the MML introduced with 2-car 170s, allowing the HSTs there to miss out several stops and thus reduce journey times as well as making the timetable regular stops rather than quite random.

8 (increased to 9)-car Pendolinos replacing 7/8/9-coach Mk2f/Mk3 sets on the WCML, with 4-car 221s replacing 8-car HSTs on North Wales.

And I'm sure other examples I've forgotten. In each case, while the trains may be shorter or have less capacity the idea was for improvements in journey time and frequency.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,223
There is an argument that frequency generates patronage, so that, for example you get more passengers on a service of three-car units running every 15 minutes than on a twelve-car train once an hour.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There is an argument that frequency generates patronage, so that, for example you get more passengers on a service of three-car units running every 15 minutes than on a twelve-car train once an hour.

You do, so what you need is not a three-car unit every 15 minutes, probably you need 5 or 6.

I've long said for example (in 4-car days) that the MK-East Croydon service required 8 cars hourly or 8 cars half hourly due to the substantial extra custom a more frequent service would bring.
 

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,714
Back in the 1980s, the railway was concerned with improving speed. When it got to the late 1990s/early 2000s the driver was to improve frequency - which is what we saw with the likes of Trans Pennine and Cross Country, which introduced shorter trains but at more frequent intervals. There seemed to be little thought into the fact that new trains and increased frequency would attract more passengers, and from day 1, 'Operation Princess' trains were overcrowded - and still are, even though a few HSTs have been drafted in to help ease the situation. The idea of more frequent services has, and continues to, cause capacity issues on the network too.

With regard to LNER's 5 coach trains, these aren't intended to replace longer trains on the main routes, but should be used in 10-car formations on most services with lighter loaded trains (such as the new Lincoln services) being formed of 5-car sets. Having said that, the 06.40 Leeds-King's Cross was a 5-car set one day last week owing to problems with the second unit. I gather it was full and standing by Doncaster.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,716
Location
Glasgow
There is an argument that frequency generates patronage, so that, for example you get more passengers on a service of three-car units running every 15 minutes than on a twelve-car train once an hour.

I think that's broadly accurate, in each of the cases I outlined, the new stock proved inadequate.

Midland Mainline first extended ten of their seventeen Turbostars to 3-car, then later purchased sixteen 222s to replace them when that still proved insufficient.

Virgin originally were going for all 8-car 390s, then a handful were going to be 9, then as they entered service that was increased and then finally they were all made 9-car. Then of course some years later four 11-car units were built and many if the 9-car extended.

As for Virgin CrossCountry the timetable had to be re-written and they ended up hiring and then later leading some HSTs to cope with demand.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,716
Location
Glasgow
You do, so what you need is not a three-car unit every 15 minutes, probably you need 5 or 6.

I've long said for example (in 4-car days) that the MK-East Croydon service required 8 cars hourly or 8 cars half hourly due to the substantial extra custom a more frequent service would bring.

Perhaps TOCs should follow a new rule - if you double the frequency then double the number of cars you think you need and you might get it right! ;)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Perhaps TOCs should follow a new rule - if you double the frequency then double the number of cars you think you need and you might get it right! ;)

Pretty much. In most cases if you fill a 3-car set hourly you'll also near fill a 3-car set half hourly. I suspect going from half hourly to every 15 minutes might not be quite as much of a jump, though, so perhaps you'd need to go 2-car at 4tph (giving you 8 coaches per hour - but you might want one more unit so you can make a couple of busy trains 4-car because even if you have high frequency the one that arrives at the city at about 0845 and leaves it at about 1745 is going to be heaving). But TOCs simply don't seem to get the "sparks effect" and its frequency equivalent, which has resulted in disasters like Virgin XC and TPE.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Trans-pennine services via Huddersfield gradually shifted from an hourly 6-8 coach loco-hauled service with a few peak extras, to more frequent services formed of 2 to 6-car DMUs: by the end of the 1990s the daytime frequency was 4 trains an hour in the "core".

The downside of this approach is that increased frequency causes greater demand, which then increases overcrowding. Luckily the TPE franchise allowed for growth and investment in new stock. In the future TPE will be operating 5 services (I'm discounting the stopper) per hour with a minimum of 5 carriages per service (the Hulls being double 185s). One can only hope that a future Cross-Country franchise will do the same.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
There is an argument that frequency generates patronage, so that, for example you get more passengers on a service of three-car units running every 15 minutes than on a twelve-car train once an hour.

There is truth in that. Look at the bus companies in the 80s. They started running regular "BuzzBus" services around towns using minibuses. Demand shot up and they then became single deckers and in some cases double deckers.

While the Virgin plans were sound in theory, they were doomed to failure. I think they were trying to go for a hub and spoke system (Birmingham being the hub) but trains travelling hundreds of miles will get delayed and that is where it failed.
 

DM352

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2019
Messages
76
Location
Matlock
I noticed this happening when two car class 150's replaced three car class 116/120's in the Brum area in the late 80's with no timetable increase, and the new trains were often full at rush hour. I guess beyond the prototypes, two car class 150's were built as a cost saving of not having powered/unpowered centre cars?

Similar goes for the 153's being created as "extra" trains to replace two car first gen dmu's, not necessarily only class 12x bubble cars.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I noticed this happening when two car class 150's replaced three car class 116/120's in the Brum area in the late 80's with no timetable increase, and the new trains were often full at rush hour. I guess beyond the prototypes, two car class 150's were built as a cost saving of not having powered/unpowered centre cars?

Similar goes for the 153's being created as "extra" trains to replace two car first gen dmu's, not necessarily only class 12x bubble cars.

The provincial sector of BR (formed 1982 - the year of lowest passenger numbers and Serpell (Beaching II) report) basically removed a coach from all trains when replaced (sprinters) in order to cut costs as well as ordering the pacers. It became Regional Railways etc. by the time most of the stock was delivered and passenger numbers had started to rise noticeably again.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
There is an argument that frequency generates patronage, so that, for example you get more passengers on a service of three-car units running every 15 minutes than on a twelve-car train once an hour.

The problem is that whilst general increase in demand is the established wisdom of what happens, the exact level by which demand increases is genuinely hard to accurately forecast and provide for. And it's hard to justify extra stock financially on a 'just in case' basis.
 

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,714
The provincial sector of BR (formed 1982 - the year of lowest passenger numbers and Serpell (Beaching II) report) basically removed a coach from all trains when replaced (sprinters) in order to cut costs as well as ordering the pacers. It became Regional Railways etc. by the time most of the stock was delivered and passenger numbers had started to rise noticeably again.

I'm pretty sure the '3 into 2' policy was one forced upon BR by the government who held the purse strings. Mind you, that policy occurred in Yorkshire anyway when a lot of DMUs were reduced from 3 to 2 vehicles in 1982-84 (some will remember the Class 111 units, which had their centre cars and two engines removed and renumbered into the 78xxx series). This was completely separate to the more recent policy and was a purely cost-cutting exercise.

The problem is that whilst general increase in demand is the established wisdom of what happens, the exact level by which demand increases is genuinely hard to accurately forecast and provide for. And it's hard to justify extra stock financially on a 'just in case' basis.

Yet justifying the extra staff financially (after all, 4 services an hour rather than 1 needs more drivers so doesn't come cheap!) and track access seems to be perfectly ok...
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
While the Virgin plans were sound in theory, they were doomed to failure. I think they were trying to go for a hub and spoke system (Birmingham being the hub) but trains travelling hundreds of miles will get delayed and that is where it failed.

XC is actually reasonably punctual - one of the things that gives me a bit of a "buzz" on the railway is seeing a train from Scotland roll into a station in Cornwall bang on time, and that happens more often than it doesn't. It was the falling to bits old rolling stock that generally made it unpunctual.

The problem with VXC/Princess was overcrowding - that's all. And the pruning of the network was pretty much just to release stock for strengthening.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I'm pretty sure the '3 into 2' policy was one forced upon BR by the government who held the purse strings. Mind you, that policy occurred in Yorkshire anyway when a lot of DMUs were reduced from 3 to 2 vehicles in 1982-84 (some will remember the Class 111 units, which had their centre cars and two engines removed and renumbered into the 78xxx series). This was completely separate to the more recent policy and was a purely cost-cutting exercise.
Yes as a result of the recommendations of Sir David Serpell's 1982 report...
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
There is truth in that. Look at the bus companies in the 80s. They started running regular "BuzzBus" services around towns using minibuses. Demand shot up and they then became single deckers and in some cases double deckers.

While the Virgin plans were sound in theory, they were doomed to failure. I think they were trying to go for a hub and spoke system (Birmingham being the hub) but trains travelling hundreds of miles will get delayed and that is where it failed.
This. It originated at bus privatisation as you describe and the “bus bandits” transferred it to rail (most notably XC) having not learned their lesson.
 

Colin1501

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
168
Would I be right in thinking that the 'Voyagers' were originally intended to be six cars (or capable of extension to six cars), given that the vehicles are lettered ABCF in the four-car units, and ABCDF in the fives? Presumably, a six-car would hsve been ABCDEF.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Would I be right in thinking that the 'Voyagers' were originally intended to be six cars (or capable of extension to six cars), given that the vehicles are lettered ABCF in the four-car units, and ABCDF in the fives? Presumably, a six-car would hsve been ABCDEF.

Built for that, yes, though I don't know if it was ever actually planned to go to 6.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
Running shorter trains more frequently has been going on for a very long time. Quite a few pre-grouping companies went for single-coach steam ‘railmotors’ shuttling backwards and forwards more often than a handful of irregular ‘ordinary trains’.

Many first generation electrification schemes did the same, often to try and counter tram competition.

Then we had the GWR diesel railcars.

And people forget how when the HSTs were first introduced they were derogatively dismissed by some enthusiasts as ‘Half Sized Trains’, especially in 2+7 configuration.

Certainly not inspired by sectorisation, privatisation, bus bandits or anything else. Basic railway playbook stuff.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
The problem is that whilst general increase in demand is the established wisdom of what happens, the exact level by which demand increases is genuinely hard to accurately forecast and provide for. And it's hard to justify extra stock financially on a 'just in case' basis.

And the extra demand isn't there from the start either, but builds up over a period of time
 

class 9

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2010
Messages
948
XC is actually reasonably punctual - one of the things that gives me a bit of a "buzz" on the railway is seeing a train from Scotland roll into a station in Cornwall bang on time, and that happens more often than it doesn't. It was the falling to bits old rolling stock that generally made it unpunctual.

The problem with VXC/Princess was overcrowding - that's all. And the pruning of the network was pretty much just to release stock for strengthening.
Most of the delays to XC services are due to following late running stoppers and questionable regulating decisions, having said that, there is quite a lot of slack in the timings.
 

ajrm

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2019
Messages
148
I'm pretty sure the '3 into 2' policy was one forced upon BR by the government who held the purse strings.

Looking at it the other way round, the Provincial Sector realised that they could make a much stronger investment case by replacing every 3-car unit with 2 new carriages.

It's not quite as straightforward as that, though, because utilisation and reliability of the Sprinters was much, much higher than the 1st generation DMUs, and they had a longer range as well. So although the seating capacity per train was lower, fewer carriages were able to work much harder.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Looking at it the other way round, the Provincial Sector realised that they could make a much stronger investment case by replacing every 3-car unit with 2 new carriages.

It's not quite as straightforward as that, though, because utilisation and reliability of the Sprinters was much, much higher than the 1st generation DMUs, and they had a longer range as well. So although the seating capacity per train was lower, fewer carriages were able to work much harder.

The same logic that saw TfL replace the 3 old Woolwich ferries with 2 new ones.

Obviously the new ferries will be much more reliable than the old ones, ha ha
 

ajrm

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2019
Messages
148
They also weren't 2/3 of the length. Many classic DMUs were 18m vehicles. 3 X 18 is 54m, whereas 2 X 23m is 46m - only 8m difference.

Yes, indeed. From a quick and dirty online search, 188 seats in a typical 3-car 101 formation vs 163 in a 2-car Class 156 as built.
 

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,714
Yes, indeed. From a quick and dirty online search, 188 seats in a typical 3-car 101 formation vs 163 in a 2-car Class 156 as built.

Although in many areas, it was the 142 or 150 that replaced a Class 101 - the 156s were used to replace loco-hauled trains in places line Scotland.
 

talltim

Established Member
Joined
17 Jan 2010
Messages
2,454
This. It originated at bus privatisation as you describe and the “bus bandits” transferred it to rail (most notably XC) having not learned their lesson.
The difference is that the lead times and service lives of busses is a lot shorter, so it was relatively easy and cheap to increase capacity once demand was proved. This doesn’t work on the railway. They did learn the lesson with busses but the failure was in not realising it doesn’t transfer easily to rail
 

ajrm

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2019
Messages
148
Although in many areas, it was the 142 or 150 that replaced a Class 101 - the 156s were used to replace loco-hauled trains in places line Scotland.

Same argument applies though; 62/64 seats in a Mk1 or 2 TSO versus 74/76 in a 156 carriage.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Yet justifying the extra staff financially (after all, 4 services an hour rather than 1 needs more drivers so doesn't come cheap!) and track access seems to be perfectly ok...

Yes, because that's basically fixed per train.

But for train length, do you pay for one more coach, two more carriages, three more carriages, etc..... when you're basically adding cost variably with no real way of pinning down the incremental revenue at each step.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top