Is the class 455 really life expired?

[DustyBin]

You could argue that it is a major benefit of privatisation that the roscos take the risk on this, meaning that there is no need for a TOC to keep expensive old trains if the market conditions mean that cheaper new ones are available. Not perhaps so relevant for the 455s, but for the 350/2s,379s and 707s it is probably the case that the new trains cost less per month than those they replaced in leasing costs.

That’s a fair point regarding the newer stock with high leasing costs, but like you say it shouldn’t be relevant to anything inherited from BR.

 

[Journeyman]

Do I think the 455s are feeling outdated now? Yes.

But do I feel that the best use for an order for 750 new-build carriages is replacing them? Absolutely not...

Why not? SWR is going to get lower operating costs, lower lease charges, lower maintenance costs, increased flexibility, better passenger facilities and greater reliability out of the deal. They're replacing a mixed bag of four fleets of varying age and reliability, that all need their own components, maintenance regimes, diagrams and crew training. It's a no-brainer.

 

[DB]

Isnt this a justification of the structure set up at privatisation. The stock is owned by a ROSCO who take a commercial risk on it. The ROSCOS obviously did very well with the ex BR stock but it is a competative marketplace now and it seems that new stock can be provided without a massive financial downside to the TOC in question. In time the marketplace will adjust if mid-life fleets keep being scrapped before fully depreciated but at the moment it seems to be a buyers marketplace. We should actually be celebrating this a little. The ROSCOs are private companies and if we are getting newer and more suitable stock at their expense then tough luck on them. An argument against franchising was that the risk was nationalised whilst profits were not. At least in this case losses are laid at the feet of the private companies. as for the 365's well that is just a bit of a cock up.

I'm not sure that we should celebrate unnecessary waste. A coherent cascade plan would make far more sense and avoid situations like the 455s and 458s getting withdrawn not long after serious money was spent on them, and 350/2s with no home to go to.

 

[py_megapixel]

Why not? SWR is going to get lower operating costs, lower lease charges, lower maintenance costs, increased flexibility, better passenger facilities and greater reliability out of the deal. They're replacing a mixed bag of four fleets of varying age and reliability, that all need their own components, maintenance regimes, diagrams and crew training. It's a no-brainer.

I don't deny any of that. But SWR don't have the worst, or the most outdated, trains. That honour would have to go to either Scotrail (the Sprinters, 318s and 320s are really getting on a bit and experiencing some corrosion issues) or Northern (2 car or 4 car 150s on what would be busy commuter services simply isn't acceptable).

The problem is there's this tendency for everyone to only look at the relevant franchise area, and assume that investment must go into that area only. "Would new trains here have any benefit - yes - right, cool, that's what we're doing then." Nobody ever seems to think "There would be benefit here, but there would be more benefit from doing the same thing here instead."

 

[DustyBin]

I'm not sure that we should celebrate unnecessary waste. A coherent cascade plan would make far more sense and avoid situations like the 455s and 458s getting withdrawn not long after serious money was spent on them, and 350/2s with no home to go to.

I totally agree, it’s wasteful and makes no sense economically or environmentally. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, the lack of a coherent strategy seems to be the underlying issue here.

 

[Journeyman]

I don't deny any of that. But SWR don't have the worst, or the most outdated, trains. That honour would have to go to either Scotrail (the Sprinters, 318s and 320s are really getting on a bit and experiencing some corrosion issues) or Northern (2 car or 4 car 150s on what would be busy commuter services simply isn't acceptable).

The problem is there's this tendency for everyone to only look at the relevant franchise area, and assume that investment must go into that area only. "Would new trains here have any benefit - yes - right, cool, that's what we're doing then." Nobody ever seems to think "There would be benefit here, but there would be more benefit from doing the same thing here instead."

But that isn't the way things work now. It's down to particular franchise bidders and the DfT/Transport Scotland to make agreements on what will be done and how money will be spent. ScotRail could have chosen to bid on the basis of replacing 318s and 320s, but didn't, and as the franchise is let by a completely different organisation, it's irrelevant to what is being discussed here anyway.

Northern has also had a significant influx of new trains recently.

 

[py_megapixel]

But that isn't the way things work now. It's down to particular franchise bidders and the DfT/Transport Scotland to make agreements on what will be done and how money will be spent. ScotRail could have chosen to bid on the basis of replacing 318s and 320s, but didn't, and as the franchise is let by a completely different organisation, it's irrelevant to what is being discussed here anyway.

I understand all of this & I know this is how it works - I am simply arguing against it, because I think it leads to this problem, which I have already described.

Northern has also had a significant influx of new trains recently.

Yes, but nowhere near as many as SWR, and nowhere near enough.

 

[Journeyman]

I understand all of this & I know this is how it works - I am simply arguing against it, because I think it leads to this problem, which I have already described.

Replacing 40-year-old trains is not a problem in any size, shape or form.

Yes, but nowhere near as many as SWR, and nowhere near enough.

But that isn't anything SWR can do anything about, and a large build of Aventras isn't what Northern need anyway.

 

[DB]

But that isn't the way things work now. It's down to particular franchise bidders and the DfT/Transport Scotland to make agreements on what will be done and how money will be spent. ScotRail could have chosen to bid on the basis of replacing 318s and 320s, but didn't, and as the franchise is let by a completely different organisation, it's irrelevant to what is being discussed here anyway.

You mean it isn't the way things have worked recently - things won't be the same going forward, that's fairly clear now.

Replacing 40-year-old trains is not a problem in any size, shape or form.

It is when they've recently had a load of money spent on retractioning them - proper planning would mean that sort of situation wouldn't occur.

 

[Journeyman]

You mean it isn't the way things have worked recently - things won't be the same going forward, that's fairly clear now.



It is when they've recently had a load of money spent on retractioning them - proper planning would mean that sort of situation wouldn't occur.

But they've still got a good few years out of the re-tractioning, and it'll still be a while before they go anyway. How long would any other franchise bidder have kept them?

 

[DB]

But they've still got a good few years out of the re-tractioning, and it'll still be a while before they go anyway. How long would any other franchise bidder have kept them?

Not long enough for it to have been worthwhile.

Without knowing the plans of the other main bidder that's an unknown, but I believe it was Stagecoach, and given that the retractioning was done while they were running it, it seems fairly likely that they would have retained them.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not long enough for it to have been worthwhile.

Without knowing the plans of the other main bidder that's an unknown, but I believe it was Stagecoach, and given that the retractioning was done while they were running it, it seems fairly likely that they would have retained them.

Then their bid would have been non-compliant? It’s all academic anyway because the decision was made in 2016 and no amount of debate will change it.

 

[Journeyman]

Not long enough for it to have been worthwhile.

In all honesty, I don't think any of us are qualified to answer that question. SWR are the only ones with that knowledge - they've looked at the fleet, and their outgoings, and decided to replace it on the basis that they'll be in a better position afterwards.

Without knowing the plans of the other main bidder that's an unknown, but I believe it was Stagecoach, and given that the retractioning was done while they were running it, it seems fairly likely that they would have retained them.

I don't think Stagecoach were all that keen to keep hold of the franchise, really. They put in a non-compliant bid because they weren't prepared to carry the risk expected of them by the DfT.

 

[DB]

Then their bid would have been non-compliant? It’s all academic anyway because the decision was made in 2016 and no amount of debate will change it.

Did the tender specifically state that the 455s had to be replaced?

 

[DustyBin]

Replacing 40-year-old trains is not a problem in any size, shape or form.

It is if they don’t need replacing.

But that isn't anything SWR can do anything about, and a large build of Aventras isn't what Northern need anyway.

I think that’s the point some of us are trying to make here, i.e. there is no coherent national strategy.

 

[py_megapixel]

I think that’s the point some of us are trying to make here, i.e. there is no coherent national strategy.

Precisely!

 

[Journeyman]

It is if they don’t need replacing.

Do you know for a fact that they don't? Given their age, they're extremely unlikely to last much longer without major new expenditure being required. Many vehicles of similar age are running into serious corrosion problems.

 

[swt_passenger]

Did the tender specifically state that the 455s had to be replaced?

Not explicitly. It was done by specifying standing capacity and dwell time standards that the existing fleets couldn’t meet, as I wrote in post #14.

 

[DB]

Do you know for a fact that they don't? Given their age, they're extremely unlikely to last much longer without major new expenditure being required. Many vehicles of similar age are running into serious corrosion problems.

Do you think the owner would have spent a load on retractioning without checking the corrosion situation? Not likely, is it?

 

[BayPaul]

Did the tender specifically state that the 455s had to be replaced?

Yes, as mentioned above, they don't meet requirements for various capacity, timing and door requirements.

 

[DustyBin]

Do you know for a fact that they don't? Given their age, they're extremely unlikely to last much longer without major new expenditure being required. Many vehicles of similar age are running into serious corrosion problems.

No I don’t know that, they may be in worse condition than they appear to be. There are other (younger) fleets in a similar position though, but I’m trying not to drag this thread too far OT.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Do you know for a fact that they don't? Given their age, they're extremely unlikely to last much longer without major new expenditure being required. Many vehicles of similar age are running into serious corrosion problems.

Major expenditure was spent not long ago

 

[Journeyman]

Do you think the owner would have spent a load on retractioning without checking the corrosion situation? Not likely, is it?

The decision to retraction them was taken in 2013, long before the ITT was issued for the new franchise, so Stagecoach at that time may well have had very different intentions compared to the situation which later panned out. They subsequently decided they wanted to walk away, so it isn't relevant, really. SWR now run the franchise, and operate the trains, so it's up to them to decide how much longer the lifespan of the trains will be. In any case, there will still be 455s operating for a few years yet, so there's every likelihood we'll get ten years or so out of the first ones to be re-tractioned. That's fairly respectable.

A lot of money was spent on giving the Brighton Belle units a major refurb only three years before withdrawal, and the D Stock was withdrawn about a decade before the original planned date, simply because circumstances change. If better solutions come along, they're worth adopting. The 455s are going to get increasingly difficult to operate, and however well they've been looked after, they're like ovens in the summer, lack modern information systems, and lack toilets, despite being used on some fairly long runs. I think whoever ended up operating the franchise would have ended up replacing them at the earliest opportunity. Let's get over the retractioning thing, shall we? It's still given a good few years of cheaper, more reliable operation, so what's the problem?

 

[BayPaul]

It is if they don’t need replacing.



I think that’s the point some of us are trying to make here, i.e. there is no coherent national strategy.

Lots of wasteful things have happened recently, I'd suggest things like PRM modifying trains that were planned to go out of service in a few years and transfer of LNER HSTs to EMR are two more obvious wastes. Strangely, both of those were apparently DfT led, so were part of a national strategy, so a national strategy may not be a good thing either! I would suggest that if a mistake has been made it was on retractioning the 455s in the first place, knowing that they were elderly trains that were unlikely to meet future franchise requirements.

 

[Journeyman]

Major expenditure was spent not long ago

But that sort of thing happens all the time - Renatus 321s, for example. Things change, and so decisions need to be made to deal with that. In any case, as stated, the DfT insisted on bidders replacing them.

 

[Domh245]

Did the tender specifically state that the 455s had to be replaced?

No, but they do not qualify for the 0.25sqm/passenger standing capacity, which in turn would affect the number of passengers each train can accommodate with an impact then on everything else (financial & train planning models) which would likely result in non-compliance with the ITT

Yes, as mentioned above, they don't meet requirements for various capacity, timing and door requirements.

It didn't explicitly require them to be replaced, but I imagine you'd struggle to meet the ITT if you did use them

 

[Journeyman]

Lots of wasteful things have happened recently, I'd suggest things like PRM modifying trains that were planned to go out of service in a few years and transfer of LNER HSTs to EMR are two more obvious wastes. Strangely, both of those were apparently DfT led, so were part of a national strategy, so a national strategy may not be a good thing either! I would suggest that if a mistake has been made it was on retractioning the 455s in the first place, knowing that they were elderly trains that were unlikely to meet future franchise requirements.

But presumably SWT did the maths and decided it was worthwhile, knowing full well that they weren't guaranteed to retain the franchise anyway? They could have just kicked the can down the road, but chose not to.

 

[Domh245]

But presumably SWT did the maths and decided it was worthwhile, knowing full well that they weren't guaranteed to retain the franchise anyway? They could have just kicked the can down the road, but chose not to.

Stagecoach/SWT didn't pay for it though, it was porterbook that had to stump the cash (£40m) up. It was needed to allow use of the 707s (as part of the larger 10 car suburban upgrade) which didn't really leave them much choice but to do it

Given the benefits of the new packs (reduced maintenance, regenerative braking) it'll have probably been cost neutral for SWT, as the savings will have gone to the increased lease costs levied for pay the £40m back, and I wouldn't be too surprised if porterbook will have gotten their investment back by the time they're offleased

 

[D365]

Stagecoach/SWT didn't pay for it though, it was porterbook that had to stump the cash (£40m) up. It was needed to allow use of the 707s (as part of the larger 10 car suburban upgrade) which didn't really leave them much choice but to do it

This is the point I always try to make. It's the ROSCO that takes the risk on such investments, and it's up to them to use their assets in order to make a return for their shareholders. Why are we so concerned about how long the ROSCOs can sweat ex-BR assets?

 

[Journeyman]

This is the point I always try to make. It's the ROSCO that takes the risk on such investments, and it's up to them to use their assets in order to make a return for their shareholders. Why are we so concerned about how long the ROSCOs can sweat ex-BR assets?

Exactly. Given that they were effectively given a whole bunch of free trains, the 455s have been nice little earners for 25 years!