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.
I am not sure how you can consider my post "all wrong". Surely it is not in contention that: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 that "all wrong". Surely it is not in contention..
Why did Northern not receive new Electric units as further electrification kicks in rather than cast off 319s from down South ?
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?
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 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...
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?
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?
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.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...
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
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 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.
That's because the scale of the problem is much bigger!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
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%.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.
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 thatAll 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!
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.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?
I think reasons for the 'cast-offs' have already been explained - and are fairly obvious.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?
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.
Source: Travel in London Report 8 - TfL
- 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.
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.
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.)It's not a nonsensical argument at all! It is a proven fact that London gets more investment than the rest of the country.
Apologies, I inferred incorrectly from your comment:At no point did I say or imply that commuting conditions were better in London.
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?
Indeed and making use of the 'cast-off' 319s is a quick and cost-effective way to meet that demand.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!
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.I'm sorry if you disagree, but I come from an area that has seen very little investment in anything.
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.