• 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!

Stock query

Status
Not open for further replies.

xtradj

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2006
Messages
542
Can anyone advise me why in the south they are always getting new electric stock, whereas up north they end up with refurbished southern stock?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
A dense network of railways serve the south east area, with trains often operating at the maximum length permitted by the infrastructure. The number of trains required to fulfil this demand is huge, and hence traditionally different divisions (now TOCs) have ordered new trains to operate certain sets of services at different times, giving the impression of a constant rolling renewal programme. The Provincial sector approached fleet renewal with more of a “big bang” approach during the latter half of the 1980s, which means that the majority of rolling stock operating out of provincial towns and cities with be approaching end of life at around the same time.

The high volume of passengers paying high prices to travel into London on trains loaded to maximum capacity increases the ability of TOCs to pay the leasing charges demanded for new stock by the ROSCOs, whereas in provincial towns and cities the volume of passengers travelling is lower, meaning that leasing refurbished second hand stock represents a lower cost to the TOC against fares revenue received. Using second hand stock initially can enhance the BCR of an electrification scheme, such as the current use of 319s in the North West and the initial use of class 308s on the Airedale and Wharfedale services.

In the south east, the need to maximise capacity leads to new train designs being tailored to meet specific requirements, such as the need for Automatic Train Operation through the Thameslink and Crossrail cores and homogenous performance and station dwell times across the fleet. This can release existing rolling stock still with useful life left in it which better suits the lesser demands of operation in provincial areas.

It is worth noting that the midlands and north has also seen considerable investment in new rolling stock for regional and long distance services since the millennium, in the form of 170s, 175, 185s, 220s, 221s, 222s and 390s and with a new Transpennine train fleet to come. A new electric train fleet was also procured for the Airedale & Wharfedale lines in the form of the 333s, and further new electric trains are being ordered for local services in Yorkshire and the North West. It's also worth noting that some of the train fleets still in squadron service in the south east area (the 313s, 315s and 455s) are older than almost anything operating out of other towns and cities in the UK, the exceptions being similar electric units operating on Merseyside and in Scotland and a limited number of loco hauled workings.
 
Last edited:

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
A dense network of railways serve the south east area, with trains often operating at the maximum length permitted by the infrastructure. The number of trains required to fulfil this demand is huge, and hence traditionally different divisions (now TOCs) have ordered new trains to operate certain sets of services at different times, giving the impression of a constant rolling renewal programme. The Provincial sector approached fleet renewal with more of a “big bang” approach during the latter half of the 1980s, which means that the majority of rolling stock operating out of provincial towns and cities with be approaching end of life at around the same time.

The high volume of passengers paying high prices to travel into London on trains loaded to maximum capacity increases the ability of TOCs to pay the leasing charges demanded for new stock by the ROSCOs, whereas in provincial towns and cities the volume of passengers travelling is lower, meaning that leasing refurbished second hand stock represents a lower cost to the TOC against fares revenue received. Using second hand stock initially can enhance the BCR of an electrification scheme, such as the current use of 319s in the North West and the initial use of class 308s on the Airedale and Wharfedale services.

In the south east, the need to maximise capacity leads to new train designs being tailored to meet specific requirements, such as the need for Automatic Train Operation through the Thameslink and Crossrail cores and homogenous performance and station dwell times across the fleet. This can release existing rolling stock still with useful life left in it which better suits the lesser demands of operation in provincial areas.

It is worth noting that the midlands and north has also seen considerable investment in new rolling stock for regional and long distance services since the millennium, in the form of 170s, 175, 185s, 220s, 221s, 222s and 390s and with a new Transpennine train fleet to come. A new electric train fleet was also procured for the Airedale & Wharfedale lines in the form of the 333s, and further new electric trains are being ordered for local services in Yorkshire and the North West.

All wrong but that's the way the DFT work. Never mind the revenue in the South East. People everywhere are all fare(high) paying passengers who also deserve to be treated equally when it comes to new trains.
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
All wrong but that's the way the DFT work. Never mind the revenue in the South East. People everywhere are all fare(high) paying passengers who also deserve to be treated equally when it comes to new trains.
I am not sure how you can consider my post "all wrong". Surely it is not in contention that:


  • There are many more trains operating commuter and suburban services into London than into, say, Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. Even if you just consider the extensive third rail DC network south of the Thames.

  • Provincial sectors' Pacer and Sprinter programmes introduced 664 new diesel units into service within a six year period. The vast majority of these are still providing the backbone of commuter and local services into provincial towns and cities and are only now approaching the end of their expected lifespan (granted, the Pacers have been overstretched somewhat).

  • Brand new fleets of trains have been procured for regional and long distance services covering Transpennine Express (185s), Crosscountry (220s & 221s), Midland Mainline (222s) and the West Coast main line (221s & 390s), as well as other non-specific regional services (the 170s and 175s have been moved about a bit as the franchise map has been withdrawn).

  • New electric trains either have been or are being procured for local services in Yorkshire and the North West.

  • Automatic Train Operation, common performance characteristics and minimal dwell times are essential to efficiently push as many trains as possible through the Thameslink and Crossrail cores each hour.

  • Displaced units such as the 319s are not life expired at 25 - 30 years old.

  • Procuring second hand rolling stock reduces the cost of equipping a newly electrified line.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,276
Government policy in response to a series of bad accidents was to replace all Mk1 stock in the former SR - this led to a bit of a knee jerk reaction to replace large numbers of existing trains, e.g. SWT and SN received 444/450 and 377s of various types.

I suspect those various new fleets were completely out of turn on a life expectancy basis, and some slammers would have carried on for longer.

But as others have said in previous discussions like this, with a typical EMU life approaching 45-50 years, in the steady state there can never be a time when everyone has new stock. Give it 20 years from now and much of the northern fleet might be younger than that in the south. It just goes in cycles.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am not sure how you can consider that "all wrong". Surely it is not in contention..

I think the suggestion was that DfT's policy is wrong, not your explanation of it, which seems fine to me.
 
Last edited:

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
Why did Northern not receive new Electric units as further electrification kicks in rather than cast off 319s from down South ?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,276
Why did Northern not receive new Electric units as further electrification kicks in rather than cast off 319s from down South ?

Because the post Thameslink timetable required far more, and longer trains with a consistent performance under ATO, and this resulted in the Class 700 order.

This made the 319 fleet of 90 odd four car units surplus and its existence improved the BCR for NW electrification.

But I expect you knew that, having been with these forums since 2011...
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Can anyone advise me why in the south they are always getting new electric stock, whereas up north they end up with refurbished southern stock?

because there is an evil conspiracy to deny poor northern folk thier birth rights. That or something to do with there being more people, paying more money, travelling more often on more trains in the south.

BTW: There weren't many slam door trains in the north when i lived there. London still had plenty until recently
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Can anyone advise me why in the south they are always getting new electric stock, whereas up north they end up with refurbished southern stock?

You mean like Great Northern, which has for many years been served by class 313s (late 1970s), 317s (mid 1980s), 321s (early 1990s) and 365s (mid 1990s)?

If you travel from Hertford North to London, for example, your train will date from the 1970s, which is rather older than anything operated by Northern.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
Because the post Thameslink timetable required far more, and longer trains with a consistent performance under ATO, and this resulted in the Class 700 order.

This made the 319 fleet of 90 odd four car units surplus and its existence improved the BCR for NW electrification.

But I expect you knew that, having been with these forums since 2011...

I more or less agreed that, but on the surface it seems so unfair.
 

Jamesb1974

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Messages
596
Can anyone advise me why in the south they are always getting new electric stock, whereas up north they end up with refurbished southern stock?

Because we live in a London-centric country.
 
Last edited:

43167

Member
Joined
18 Jan 2010
Messages
1,021
Location
Keighley
Can anyone advise me why in the south they are always getting new electric stock, whereas up north they end up with refurbished southern stock?

South East actually. The south west like the rest of the country had to make do with cast-offs. Though the midlands have done OK with the 172s & 350s.
 

W230

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
1,214
Because we live in a London-centric country.
Do we? Currently operating on the old West Anglia inners are 315s and 317s. Built right at the beginning of the 80's. Before Pacers/Sprinters.

And as far as i'm aware the south has plenty of Sprinters/Pacers in use out west...
 

W230

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
1,214
Not really a big surprise that report is it. Thameslink project, Crossrail to name the two biggies that are costing billions. The stock for these isn't going to replaced for the next 40 years once it's running.

It's already been explained above why there is such huge spending on infrastructure in the South East at present. Once the current projects are finished that's it for the large scale projects for now. I don't see how replacing some old trains oop north with some new ones will change anything in terms of usage for one. It's on the 'to do' list :D

I lived in Sheffield until fairly recently. I didn't know anyone who got to work by trains or tram, a couple used the bus. Everybody else drove. You could replace the old Pacers but it wouldn't get people out of their cars. And that's not to say that they shouldn't be replaced, just that it's not a priority.

Where I now live in London, nobody drives to work everybody takes the train or bus. I'm sure if you actually took account of the sheer number of people who rely on public transport day in day out and don't even own a car you see the reality of the situation.

Do you own a car James? ;)
 

Jamesb1974

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Messages
596
Not really a big surprise that report is it. Thameslink project, Crossrail to name the two biggies that are costing billions. The stock for these isn't going to replaced for the next 40 years once it's running.

It's already been explained above why there is such huge spending on infrastructure in the South East at present. Once the current projects are finished that's it for the large scale projects for now. I don't see how replacing some old trains oop north with some new ones will change anything in terms of usage for one. It's on the 'to do' list :D

I lived in Sheffield until fairly recently. I didn't know anyone who got to work by trains or tram, a couple used the bus. Everybody else drove. You could replace the old Pacers but it wouldn't get people out of their cars. And that's not to say that they shouldn't be replaced, just that it's not a priority.

Where I now live in London, nobody drives to work everybody takes the train or bus. I'm sure if you actually took account of the sheer number of people who rely on public transport day in day out and don't even own a car you see the reality of the situation.

Do you own a car James? ;)

I'm sorry, I'm merely presenting the facts that investment in London far outweighs the rest of the country and always has done.

With reference to your claim that no one uses trains/trams in Sheffield, then that may very well be the case. I've never commuted in Sheffield, so I can't say either way whether your claim is true or false. However, try broadening your horizons and try to get a seat/standing room on some of the commuter services into the bigger cities like Manchester, Leeds or Liverpool and see how it compares. Why shouldn't we non-Londoners have new trains? Why does the rest of the country have to put up with knackered, life expired stock that is held together with tape and bits of string?

Nobody drives to work in London because a) the roads are so congested b) the congestion charge for inner London is expensive and c) you've had all the money spent on you so you have a fantastic commuter network anyway! And yes, I own a car. But then again, there aren't many passenger services running at 2am when I need to get into work to drive my own train. I haven't worked in an occupation or industry that wasn't based on working unsociable shifts since about 1991, so having a car is a must for me. Not everyone has the 'luxury' of going to the same place at the same time on the same days.

As a final point, why did you have to spoil a reasonable comment with a bit of condescending stereotyping?

'Oop north'??
 
Last edited:

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
I'm surprised no-one has made the most important point of all, namely that the economy of London (and by implication also a significant part of that of the rest of the country) relies very heavily on the availability of rail services from the dormitory towns to London. Put it another way, if all the commuter services to the provincial cities were withdrawn people and businesses would soon adjust. Do the same in London and everything collapses. This in itself drives the much higher level of investment in transport in and around London.
 

Jamesb1974

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Messages
596
I'm surprised no-one has made the most important point of all, namely that the economy of London (and by implication also a significant part of that of the rest of the country) relies very heavily on the availability of rail services from the dormitory towns to London. Put it another way, if all the commuter services to the provincial cities were withdrawn people and businesses would soon adjust. Do the same in London and everything collapses. This in itself drives the much higher level of investment in transport in and around London.

Utter rubbish.

So if all the commuter services into Manchester were withdrawn, the city would carry on as normal? Or Leeds, or Liverpool or Cardiff? Believe it or not, the rest of the Uk does actually contribute to the well-being of the country! It isn't all about London. Plenty of big businesses and organisations are based outside of London and rely on commuting workers from their own dormitory towns.
 
Last edited:

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
I'm sorry, I'm merely presenting the facts that investment in London far outweighs the rest of the country and always has done.
That's because the scale of the problem is much bigger!

The London and Heathrow Travel to Work Areas contain over 17% of the working population. Which is more than the combined population of the other eight TTWAs in the top ten; Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool, Leicester, Bristol and Belfast TTWAs. [*]

The population of Greater London alone has increased from 7 million at the turn of the Millennium to almost 9 million today.

[*] Source: ONS
 

Jamesb1974

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Messages
596
That's because the scale of the problem is much bigger!

The London and Heathrow Travel to Work Areas contain over 17% of the working population. Which is more than the combined population of the other eight TTWAs in the top ten; Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool, Leicester, Bristol and Belfast TTWAs. [*]

The population of Greater London alone has increased from 7 million at the turn of the Millennium to almost 9 million today.

[*] Source: ONS

All of which rather neatly proves my point that we live in a London-centric country! It seems the rest of the Uk can go hang, as long as good old London gets its investment!

None of the above goes anyway to explaining why London and the South seem to get the best of everything before the rest of the country. Unless there is some king of unwritten rule that if you live south of Watford, you are automatically entitled to better commuting conditions than anyone else? :lol:

Ps, the 17% figure was actually 16% and that was 15 years ago. The last data was in 2011 and showed that the London share of the working population had actually fallen to 14.7%, with a 'mere' increase of 180k workers. Manchester, on the other hand had grown from 845k to 1.2 million or an increase of about 393k. As the 'latest' figures are five years out of date, they don't really prove anything for either of us!
 
Last edited:

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
Ps, the 17% figure was actually 16% and that was 15 years ago. The last data was in 2011 and showed that the London share of the working population had actually fallen to 14.7%, with a 'mere' increase of 180k workers.
You have misinterpreted the data. The ONS split the London TTWA into two between 2001 and 2011, hence why I described the London and Heathrow TTWAs which combined make up the 17% figure, or to be precise 17.3%.

As the population of Greater London alone has increased by over 500,000 since 2011, the population of the London and Heathrow TTWAs will only have increased further.
 

Jamesb1974

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Messages
596
You have misinterpreted the data. The ONS split the London TTWA into two between 2001 and 2011, hence why I described the London and Heathrow TTWAs which combined make up the 17% figure, or to be precise 17.3%.

As the population of Greater London alone has increased by over 500,000 since 2011, the population of the London and Heathrow TTWAs will only have increased further.

Thanks, I did indeed miss that. It still doesn't explain why the rest of the country gets the cast off's though, which is the whole point of this thread. I'm as guilty as anyone for leading it astray, but it is still the main point. Why is the rest of the country treated as secondary to London?
 
Last edited:

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
All of which rather neatly proves my point that we live in a London-centric country! It seems the rest of the Uk can go hang, as long as good old London gets its investment!
That's rather a nonsensical argument. It's like complaining that the NHS spends far more on treating people with diabetes than they do on people with colds. Spending should be based on need and if you compare commuting in London with commuting anywhere else in the country, you'll understand that

None of the above goes anyway to explaining why London and the South seem to get the best of everything before the rest of the country. Unless there is some king of unwritten rule that if you live south of Watford, you are automatically entitled to better commuting conditions than anyone else? :lol:
If you think commuting conditions are better in London than anywhere else, you clearly have never travelled on public transport in London during the rush hour.

  • Over 1.25 million people travel into Central London every day. 89% of them use TfL and/or National Rail, only 5% use cars - and in fact 3% cycle.
  • Something in the order of 2.5 billion bus journeys are made in London every year - that's about 7 million per day.
  • There are 1.3 billion journeys made on London Underground every year - more than the entire National Rail network combined.
Source: Travel in London Report 8 - TfL

Transport in London is a problem which is orders of magnitude bigger than elsewhere in the country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It still doesn't explain why the rest of the country gets the cast off's though, which is the whole point of this thread. I'm as guilty as anyone for leading it astray, but it is still the main point. Why is the rest of the country treated as secondary to London?
I think reasons for the 'cast-offs' have already been explained - and are fairly obvious.

Take the Class 700s and the connected cascade of Class 319s. In trying to provide the required capacity to meet demand on the Thameslink corridor, the only way to achieve the required number of trains per hour is by using ATO and trains that have an identical acceleration/deceleration profile. So you have to purchase a new fleet of trains (the 700s). This means you get left over with a large number trains (the 319s) which have a lot of usable life left in them. By refurbishing them and moving them north, it reduces the cost of electrification programme in the north west and therefore increases the viability of that electrification programme.

And hopefully you do realise that not all stock in London is shiny and new. The Great Northern inner suburban routes are operated by Class 313s - which date from 1976. The LU Bakerloo line and Piccadilly lines both have trains which date from the early/mid 1970s, whilst it's only four years since they finally replaced their Metropolitan line stock, which dated from 1960.
 

Jamesb1974

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Messages
596
That's rather a nonsensical argument. It's like complaining that the NHS spends far more on treating people with diabetes than they do on people with colds. Spending should be based on need and if you compare commuting in London with commuting anywhere else in the country, you'll understand that

If you think commuting conditions are better in London than anywhere else, you clearly have never travelled on public transport in London during the rush hour.

  • Over 1.25 million people travel into Central London every day. 89% of them use TfL and/or National Rail, only 5% use cars - and in fact 3% cycle.
  • Something in the order of 2.5 billion bus journeys are made in London every year - that's about 7 million per day.
  • There are 1.3 billion journeys made on London Underground every year - more than the entire National Rail network combined.
Source: Travel in London Report 8 - TfL

Transport in London is a problem which is orders of magnitude bigger than elsewhere in the country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think reasons for the 'cast-offs' have already been explained - and are fairly obvious.

Take the Class 700s and the connected cascade of Class 319s. In trying to provide the required capacity to meet demand on the Thameslink corridor, the only way to achieve the required number of trains per hour is by using ATO and trains that have an identical acceleration/deceleration profile. So you have to purchase a new fleet of trains (the 700s). This means you get left over with a large number trains (the 319s) which have a lot of usable life left in them. By refurbishing them and moving them north, it reduces the cost of electrification programme in the north west and therefore increases the viability of that electrification programme.

And hopefully you do realise that not all stock in London is shiny and new. The Great Northern inner suburban routes are operated by Class 313s - which date from 1976. The LU Bakerloo line and Piccadilly lines both have trains which date from the early/mid 1970s, whilst it's only four years since they finally replaced their Metropolitan line stock, which dated from 1960.

It's not a nonsensical argument at all! It is a proven fact that London gets more investment than the rest of the country. And I'm not talking solely about transport here. It gets more investment per head than anywhere else in the country, for everything! Something like 24 times more investment, depending on which paper you read. London gets what London wants. Want a new bridge with a garden on it? There you go! Take it completely away from transport and you have things like this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/we-cant-all-go-to-the-royal-opera-house-funding-is-too-london-centric-says-arts-chief-7584907.html

That is what I mean by living in a London-centric country. The fact that we are talking about railways is immaterial. London swallows up the lion's share of funding because, well just because it's London!

At no point did I say or imply that commuting conditions were better in London. I am fully aware of how big London is and how many journies there are. Despite being (as one other poster quaintly put it) 'from oop north', I have actually been to London on more than one occasion. My views on the place are irrelevant, but I have been and I have experienced trying to travel during peak hour. Rather, my argument was a counter argument to the statement that no one in the North commutes by train and later on, that if we removed all commuter traffic from cities other than London, they'd just survive anyway.

Overcrowding and travel chaos isn't a London specific thing. There are plenty of trains in other parts of the Uk that are overcrowded on a daily basis! And yes, I also know that there is old stock in the London area! But there is an awful lot of newer stock in London than there is elsewhere in the UK! I'm sorry if you disagree, but I come from an area that has seen very little investment in anything. It rankles with a lot of people in my area that London can seemingly click it's fingers and get what it wants, while we (workers, tax payers, good citizens just like anyone else) get sweet fa.

Now, we aren't going to agree on this matter, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the well constructed posts with (refreshingly for this forum), some facts to back it up.

Northern and proud.
 
Last edited:

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
It's not a nonsensical argument at all! It is a proven fact that London gets more investment than the rest of the country.
I'm not going to argue with that, but mainly that because of all the people who live in a relatively small area. (And yes, there are also certain things in London that are funded and which are only there because it's the capital.)

At no point did I say or imply that commuting conditions were better in London.
Apologies, I inferred incorrectly from your comment:
Unless there is some king of unwritten rule that if you live south of Watford, you are automatically entitled to better commuting conditions than anyone else?

Overcrowding and travel chaos isn't a London specific thing. There are plenty of trains in other parts of the Uk that are overcrowded on a daily basis!
Indeed and making use of the 'cast-off' 319s is a quick and cost-effective way to meet that demand.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but I come from an area that has seen very little investment in anything.
I suspect that I live further north than you. And I want to see more investment in transport in the north. But I recognise that London's problems defy all comparison.

Perhaps Douglas Adams summed it up best in Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy. (Just replace 'space' with 'London's transport problems' and 'a long way down the road to the chemist' with 'any other UK city's transport problems' ;) )

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
We've been through this discussion many, many, many times. Please do a search on past topics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top