Is the class 455 really life expired?

[DB]

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?

Because if they end up spending a load of money on a fleet then have them go off-lease before they've recouped it, or end up with fleets stored well below 30 years, the end result will be increased leasing charges.

 

[Journeyman]

Because if they end up spending a load of money on a fleet then have them go off-lease before they've recouped it, or end up with fleets stored well below 30 years, the end result will be increased leasing charges.

But the 455s are all 35+ years old!

 

[D365]

... the end result will be increased leasing charges.

If they inflate the prices of other fleets, then they'll be shooting themselves in their own foot, and the cycle will continue.

 

[DB]

But the 455s are all 35+ years old!

Sorry, I don't see your point.

I said:
if they end up spending a load of money on a fleet then have them go off-lease before they've recouped it
OR
end up with fleets stored well below 30 years

Quite clearly the first scenario is the one which may well apply to the 455s. The second applies to, e.g., the 350/2s.

 

[Journeyman]

If they inflate the prices of other fleets, then they'll be shooting themselves in their own foot, and the cycle will continue.

Exactly. The rolling stock market is incredibly competitive, and you don't have to go with one of the traditional ROSCOs any more. You can get a better deal elsewhere, so anyone hiking prices up to subsidise unused fleets is doing themselves a lot of damage.

Sorry, I don't see your point.

I said:
if they end up spending a load of money on a fleet then have them go off-lease before they've recouped it
OR
end up with fleets stored well below 30 years

Quite clearly the first scenario is the one which may well apply to the 455s. The second applies to, e.g., the 350/2s.

As has already been pointed out, it's highly likely that the 455 retractioning has already paid for itself, and therefore it isn't a problem. I can't honestly understand why so much effort is going into trying to get 455s to be kept long beyond their normal lifespan.

 

[DB]

If they inflate the prices of other fleets, then they'll be shooting themselves in their own foot, and the cycle will continue.

Only if the same doesn't happen with all ROSCOs - if all the ROSCOs perceive a risk of getting stung then they could all increase charges. UK train leasing doesn't have that many players, and continuing availability of cheap credit also isn't a given.

As has already been pointed out, it's highly likely that the 455 retractioning has already paid for itself,

40 million? I doubt it.

 

[D365]

I can't honestly understand why so much effort is going into trying to get 455s to be kept long beyond their normal lifespan.

We were in need of a new forum obsession now that the 332s are heading to the scrappies

 

[Train wasp]

It's worth bearing in mind that the 455s are now as old as the EPBs were when they were withdrawn, and quite a lot older than the SUBs, most of which lasted 20 to 30 yea

455’s aren’t much old then 442’s which should return to service sooner or later.

 

[cactustwirly]

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."

You say 150s on commuter routes isn't acceptable, but 455s are basically 150s with electric motors!! I don't really get your logic??

The 455s operate some of the busiest routes in the country, so there is a strong argument for their replacement based on capacity as well as age.

 

[Journeyman]

You say 150s on commuter routes isn't acceptable, but 455s are basically 150s with electric motors!! I don't really get your logic??

The 455s operate some of the busiest routes in the country, so there is a strong argument for their replacement based on capacity as well as age.

Yeah, there's no denying that some routes make much more financial and operational sense for new stock than others. It's unfortunate if your line is constantly at the bottom of the cascade pile, but there's usually a reason for it.

455’s aren’t much old then 442’s which should return to service sooner or later.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[DustyBin]

We were in need of a new forum obsession now that the 332s are heading to the scrappies

The 332s were different as I suspect you’re well aware.

I’ll reword my original question to try and make what I’m getting at a bit clearer. If (and it is if) the 455s or any other older fleets are suitable for further use should they not be retained, the leasing costs reduced (arguably to next to nothing) and the savings passed on to passengers? That won’t be popular with the ROSCOs but if they won’t play ball take the trains back into public ownership and lease them directly. I’m not ideologically opposed to privatisation by any means but it appears that too many parties are making a profit here on what is essential infrastructure.

 

[py_megapixel]

You say 150s on commuter routes isn't acceptable, but 455s are basically 150s with electric motors!! I don't really get your logic??

Several points to make here (and I really should have elaborated before):

1. The 455s have, as you say, electric traction - and pretty modern electric traction at that. This makes the experience in terms of levels of noise and ride quality significantly better than a 150.
2. The 455s and 456s tend to run in 6, 8 or 10 car formations. The 150s are often 2-car and never more than 4-car. If it wasn't for Covid, a drastic increase in capacity would be needed.
3. The 455s had a high quality interior refurbishment under SWT. The 150s got little more than a bit of paint under Serco-Abellio, and a cheap refresh under Arriva.

I absolutely think that replacing the 455s is a good idea. I also understand that it isn't a straight choice between replacing the 150s and the 455s. But if it was, to me, the 150s are the clear choice.

 

[cactustwirly]

Several points to make here (and I really should have elaborated before):

1. The 455s have, as you say, electric traction - and pretty modern electric traction at that. This makes the experience in terms of levels of noise and ride quality significantly better than a 150.
2. The 455s and 456s tend to run in 6, 8 or 10 car formations. The 150s are often 2-car and never more than 4-car. If it wasn't for Covid, a drastic increase in capacity would be needed.
3. The 455s had a high quality interior refurbishment under SWT. The 150s got little more than a bit of paint under Serco-Abellio, and a cheap refresh under Arriva.

I absolutely think that replacing the 455s is a good idea. I also understand that it isn't a straight choice between replacing the 150s and the 455s. But if it was, to me, the 150s are the clear choice.

But how overcrowded are the 150 routes??
They may be full and standing, but are they crush loaded so they leave people behind?

10 cars is immaterial to the issue, as the amount of passengers into Waterloo is orders of magnitude greater than in the north.

 

[Journeyman]

Several points to make here (and I really should have elaborated before):

1. The 455s have, as you say, electric traction - and pretty modern electric traction at that. This makes the experience in terms of levels of noise and ride quality significantly better than a 150.
2. The 455s and 456s tend to run in 6, 8 or 10 car formations. The 150s are often 2-car and never more than 4-car. If it wasn't for Covid, a drastic increase in capacity would be needed.
3. The 455s had a high quality interior refurbishment under SWT. The 150s got little more than a bit of paint under Serco-Abellio, and a cheap refresh under Arriva.

I absolutely think that replacing the 455s is a good idea. I also understand that it isn't a straight choice between replacing the 150s and the 455s. But if it was, to me, the 150s are the clear choice.

You're talking about apples and oranges here. The continued operation of 150s is completely irrelevant to replacing 455s.

 

[py_megapixel]

You're talking about apples and oranges here. The continued operation of 150s is completely irrelevant to replacing 455s.

I don't understand why people keep bringing this up. I've said on multiple occasions now that I know that it's not a direct choice between replacing the 150s and replacing the 455s.
What I am saying is that if there was a national strategy for rolling stock renewal, with funding being allocated based on where the need for it was, rather than the franchise holders bidding on what to replace - which, to clarify, I know there is not - I believe that the 150s should be a greater priority for replacement than the 455s.

In addition, the 150s are just an example, which I am using here to illustrate that the 455s are not the absolute highest priority units for replacement in the entire country, as some people seem to be making out that they are.

You could just as well say that whether the 455s are life-expired is also completely irrelevant to replacing 455s, because the replacement of 455s is going to happen, like it or not, because that's what First/MTR's bid stated.

Now, we're getting very close to speculative territory now, so I won't be discussing this further in this thread. Please use this one instead:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-we-have-a-national-strategy-for-how-rolling-stock-is-replaced.213471/

 

[43096]

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

Same old usual tedious garbage about privatisation and free trains. You clearly still don't understand the difference between the value of a business and the value of individual assets, despite this being gone over multiple times.

 

[Journeyman]

Same old usual tedious garbage about privatisation and free trains. You clearly still don't understand the difference between the value of a business and the value of individual assets, despite this being gone over multiple times.

Given their age, and very short remaining lifespan, the value of class 455s as assets is very low, especially because the leasing market is awash with surplus EMUs at the moment.

 

[physics34]

They have alot of corrosion issues. Can they be patched up and used for another 20 years...probably.... but you have to take into account is it financially viable to keep them going? Probably not.

 

[43096]

Given their age, and very short remaining lifespan, the value of class 455s as assets is very low.

That will largely depend on what lifespan was assumed for the re-tractioning.

 

[Journeyman]

That will largely depend on what lifespan was assumed for the re-tractioning.

But that's no longer relevant. Even if they were fit for another 50 years, no-one wants or needs them.

 

[D365]

But that's no longer relevant. Even if they were fit for another 50 years, no-one wants or needs them.

Exactly. I don't get this obsession with trying to foist the units back onto SWR. They [the 455 fleet] are a privately owned asset, as before it's up to Porterbrook to do with them as they see fit.

 

[Wolfie]

I don't understand why people keep bringing this up. I've said on multiple occasions now that I know that it's not a direct choice between replacing the 150s and replacing the 455s.
What I am saying is that if there was a national strategy for rolling stock renewal, with funding being allocated based on where the need for it was, rather than the franchise holders bidding on what to replace - which, to clarify, I know there is not - I believe that the 150s should be a greater priority for replacement than the 455s.

In addition, the 150s are just an example, which I am using here to illustrate that the 455s are not the absolute highest priority units for replacement in the entire country, as some people seem to be making out that they are.

You could just as well say that whether the 455s are life-expired is also completely irrelevant to replacing 455s, because the replacement of 455s is going to happen, like it or not, because that's what First/MTR's bid stated.

Now, we're getting very close to speculative territory now, so I won't be discussing this further in this thread. Please use this one instead:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-we-have-a-national-strategy-for-how-rolling-stock-is-replaced.213471/

If your strategy was followed it would create a disincentive to properly refurbish/update technically. Why would you do that, and then find yourself operating old trains for years, when if you don't bother you will get new stock?

 

[py_megapixel]

If your strategy was followed it would create a disincentive to properly refurbish/update technically. Why would you do that, and then find yourself operating old trains for years, when if you don't bother you will get new stock?

New thread created to discuss exactly this here (trying to avoid derailing this one) and I think the opening post might answer some of your questions: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...egy-for-how-rolling-stock-is-replaced.213471/

 

[Domh245]

40 million? I doubt it.

Running the maths on this with numbers from here:

~4 years* saving from Regenerative braking benefits @ £2mil a year = £8 mil
Savings from reduced maintenance:
At 340 miles/diagram, 5 days a week, 51 weeks a year, total mileage in 4 year consideration period is 346,800mi
At 10,000mi interval, 35 exams required. At 15,000mi interval 23 exams required, 12 exams saved (12*91 = 1092 exams across fleet)
At quoted £150,000/refurbishment, total saved is = £157,794,000 (which seems a ludicrous amount of money but ho hum!)

Total savings in 4 years: £8mil + £157.8mil = £165.8mil. Which is far higher than the £25.3m porterbrook had to pay (DfT picked up the other 1/3rd of the £38 mil quoted)

To make it break even currently at £40mil, the cost of each overhaul saved would have to be £30,450 - which even them seems a bit more reasonable!

* last unit was completed September 2017, but first unit was completed in early 2016. Given replacement rates and the fact that these'll be last of the fleets to go (some time in 2022), this'll only keep getting higher, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were 5 years of saving by the end

 

[Energy]

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."

This is not a 455 or SWR problem, SWR needed trains with more capacity and better acceleration so they got them. The fact Northern should be getting electrification and replacing its trains is a completely seperate problem and isn't related to SWR.

It is if they don’t need replacing.

They do need replacing, they do not meet the requirements for acceleration and capacity so they are not fit for purpose at SWR.

455’s aren’t much old then 442’s which should return to service sooner or later.

442s were abandoned by SWT, then picked up and subsequently abandoned by GatEx. Operators do not want them but it was a franchise need (not a requirement but very much worded to favour the 442s) to bring the 442s back into service whereas the 455s were not required to be kept by the DfT rather required to be replaced. The 442s have also been having some problems...

 

[gimmea50anyday]

A lot of people are mentioning that 455s are 35-40 years old. True, however parts of them are much older. some of the 455s contain trailer cars from PEP derived 507s before they were transferred to Merseyrail back in 1982. Also the compressors and traction motors were recovered from SUB units which were being scrapped at the time of the 455s construction, not dissimilar to the 442s reusing REP traction equipment. southern region had a policy of reusing equipment where possible.

 

[Journeyman]

A lot of people are mentioning that 455s are 35-40 years old. True, however parts of them are much older. some of the 455s contain trailer cars from PEP derived 507s before they were transferred to Merseyrail back in 1982. Also the compressors and traction motors were recovered from SUB units which were being scrapped at the time of the 455s construction, not dissimilar to the 442s reusing REP traction equipment. southern region had a policy of reusing equipment where possible.

The SWR units were fitted with new AC traction packages in 2015 to 2017, so that's why a lot of people seem to be going crazy about withdrawing them. The Southern units retain the original DC motors and compressors etc.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I have to agree it does seem barmy to spend money retractioning the trains only to ditch them just a few short years later but then again it seems only yesterday HSTs were re-engined. If however newer trains are more reliable and fuel efficient then it stands to reason they will eventually be replaced, especially when electrical systems now factor in electronic technologies that age and are updated quicker.

 

[Journeyman]

I have to agree it does seem barmy to spend money retractioning the trains only to ditch them just a few short years later but then again it seems only yesterday HSTs were re-engined. If however newer trains are more reliable and fuel efficient then it stands to reason they will eventually be replaced, especially when electrical systems now factor in electronic technologies that age and are updated quicker.

The question we haven't managed to conclusively answer is what the payback period on the retractioning project was, but there's evidence to suggest it's already completely repaid itself. If that's the case, there really isn't much of an issue in getting rid of them. I doubt many people were expecting them to last much beyond the middle of this decade or so anyway.

 

[DustyBin]

They do need replacing, they do not meet the requirements for acceleration and capacity so they are not fit for purpose at SWR.

But those criteria are arbitrary?