trains in storage

ess · 7 Dec 2011

how many trains are actually 'in storage'? i often hear on these forums about mk3 carriages and dmus sat in storage which is a really terrible state of affairs given the number of over capacity services and passengers left on the platform incidents that happen every day

RailUK Forums

gordonthemoron · 7 Dec 2011

Went past Trowell? depot last sunday, there are shedloads of locos there

Nym · 7 Dec 2011

DMUs in storage currently (From what I know, servicable DMUs) sits at 5 units (Actualy 4 as one is on short term lease) these would be the five 180 units currently out of use.

EMU wise, I think I'm right in saying that it's only the ex. Gatwick Express stock currently in store, and is prohibitively expensive to convert for use outside of 3rd rail land.

Mk3 wise, most users of this forum don't realise just how much work would need to be done to return a lot of these to use, they have been sat in storage for a long time, and there is actually a lot of equipment in a Mk3 to go wrong and deteriorate over a period of time.

I invite corrections

tbtc · 7 Dec 2011

Nym said:
DMUs in storage currently (From what I know, servicable DMUs) sits at 5 units (Actualy 4 as one is on short term lease) these would be the five 180 units currently out of use

Are you including the three in use with Northern in that figure?

(fourteen units, five with GC, four with HT, one on short term lease, three with Northern, one spare?)

pemma · 7 Dec 2011

There's 508s in storage but they haven't been well maintained by their previous owners so they need a lot of work doing to them.

Nym · 7 Dec 2011

Yes.

I'm clasing the long term OOU unit and the three currently with NT as 'Stored'

shinkansen1966 · 7 Dec 2011

Nym said:
EMU wise, I think I'm right in saying that it's only the ex. Gatwick Express stock currently in store, and is prohibitively expensive to convert for use outside of 3rd rail land.

Yes, I think most are currently in storage.

Is this the best possible use for this rolling stock ? Is there really no use for it on the rail network ?

pemma · 7 Dec 2011

Nym said:
EMU wise, I think I'm right in saying that it's only the ex. Gatwick Express stock currently in store, and is prohibitively expensive to convert for use outside of 3rd rail land.

In that case why not add pantographs to 8 of the 450s (making them 350s) and use the ex-Gatwick units on SWT services and release the converted 350s to LM, who can them release their 321s to another operator for extra capacity?

Nym · 7 Dec 2011

Oh I know a use for it but it means some radical changes...

From the 460, remove a TFO TCO and TSO from each one, giving 24 'Trailers'

From the 458s, remove the PTSO from 8 of these, replacing each with a trailer from the 460, we now have 16 spare trailers and 8 six car 460s. With pantograph cars, add pantograph, send to run routes off Manchester Airport that are of a reasonably long distance.

We also have 16 spare tailer cars. Now, depending on what route the 460s end up on, they could either remain within them, keeping 460s as 8 car units, they will fit in Manc Airport, but not Manchester Oxford Road or the Bolton Corridor, so Liverpool may be an option. Or, insert these into some of the 458s...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

jcollins said:
In that case why not add pantographs to 8 of the 450s (making them 350s) and use the ex-Gatwick units on SWT services and release the converted 350s to LM, who can them release their 321s to another operator for extra capacity?

Or this...

Or if heathrow airtrack comes about and is 3rd rail, they'd be ideal for that.

sprinterguy · 7 Dec 2011

gordonthemoron said:
Went past Trowell? depot last sunday, there are shedloads of locos there

If you mean Trowell in Nottinghamshire, then no doubt you are referring to Toton.

Most of the locos stored there are class 60s owned by DB Schenker. It's cheaper for DB to switch off and not use around eighty locos that it owns outright while making maximum use of the class 66s it leases.

davelew99 · 7 Dec 2011

Having just being watching 'the great british property scandal' where they were campaigning to have empty properties renovated instead of demolished (and new builds put in their place).

Apparently to renovate your typical terraced house it is around £100k, to build new £220k (these numbers may have been biased to support the argument)

I am interested to know what the actual costs of building new rolling stock is against renovating old stock - in particularly where old stock can be used to lengthen existing trains.

For example, as I understand the 507/508's were built as 4-car sets - but all the ones running around merseyside are 3-car (or 2 of these coupled together)

Nym · 7 Dec 2011

Theres a major difference to consider though, the lifespan of a victorian house is another 100+ years, rolling stock thats currently in store (excluding the 180s and 460s) has another 20 years at best, and most of that will need DDA modification. New stock has a 40 - 50 year lifespan compared to this.

SF-02 · 7 Dec 2011

Platforms on Southeastern lines to Dartford are currently being lengthened to have 12 car trains, for the Olympics initially with the altered timetable. I saw them working on Plumstead late last night.

There's not enough networkers for 12 car trains with a normal timetable I believe. Why not use the Gatwick Express trains there? They're only 10 years old and it's such a waste for them to be in storage.

HSTEd · 8 Dec 2011

Nym said:
Theres a major difference to consider though, the lifespan of a victorian house is another 100+ years, rolling stock thats currently in store (excluding the 180s and 460s) has another 20 years at best, and most of that will need DDA modification. New stock has a 40 - 50 year lifespan compared to this.

There is the "Networker Classic" concept that gives you 15+ years extra life on 40-50 year old stock for 15% of the price of new stock.

Assuming you can get it to work.

Blindtraveler · 8 Dec 2011

HSTEd said:
There is the "Networker Classic" concept that gives you 15+ years extra life on 40-50 year old stock for 15% of the price of new stock.

Assuming you can get it to work.

this is new to me. Would somebody explain?

HSTEd · 8 Dec 2011

Blindtraveler said:
this is new to me. Would somebody explain?

There was a proposal to rebuild Mark 1 derived EMU stock in the early 90s with a new bodyshell that would meet crash standards in the post Clapham Junction era.

This relied on the fact that the traction control equipment and other bits on a Mark 1 will last forever as it is basically a huge piece of metal. For some reason that I've never been able to find out the project was abandoned and mass replacement of stock with Electrostars and Desiros occured instead.

Blindtraveler · 8 Dec 2011

mad. totally bonkers that it never
happened!

jopsuk · 8 Dec 2011

They built one (driving, though I'm not sure it was functional) carriage- appreciate this might not be much use to you Blindtraveler but it looked a bit like a Turbostar/Class 357 Electrostar with sliding (rather than plug) doors. More here

HSTEd · 8 Dec 2011

Blindtraveler said:
mad. totally bonkers that it never
happened!

Id always assumed there was something that made it impractical, but I've never been able to determine what.

Ofcourse, if it had happened the Southern Region would still be dominated by Mark 1 derived stock today, rather than just the 5WES units.

EDIT:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74009/4407210866/ some pictures of the aforementioned single converted carriage in Victoria for showing off purposes.

hairyhandedfool · 8 Dec 2011

I would be surprised if the Winsford accident (1999) didn't have something to do with it.

HSTEd · 9 Dec 2011

Would that accident really effect the programme? I imagine the trains would be rather more heavily built than a Pacer.

Nym · 9 Dec 2011

Maybe it was more to do with the labour goverment's policy of prefering shiney new things to old things refurbished (housing policy anyone?) that or just that darn sarth they like shiney things?

Blindtraveler · 9 Dec 2011

or perhaps they just found diziros cumfortable? Weard!

hairyhandedfool · 9 Dec 2011

HSTEd said:
Would that accident really effect the programme? I imagine the trains would be rather more heavily built than a Pacer.

Well, I don't think, after that accident, a company would be keen on having a train that could be perceived to have the same potential. I don't think we will ever know what the real reason was.

Incidentally, does anyone know if the 424 DTC is still at Derby?

BestWestern · 9 Dec 2011

Was the projected cost of rebodying Slammers for this project ever actually given? Perhaps it simply wasn't cost effective enough to make it more attractive than newbuilds? Bear in mind that a MK1 underframe is presumably fairly flimsy in comparison to something like a MK3, which we seem to be able to rebuild over and over until the end of time. Sooner or later these old underframes would presumably have reached the point of no return in terms of corrosion and deterioration of structural integrity, and you'd then be left with a load of recent-ish bodyshells which would have had no use

yorksrob · 9 Dec 2011

Not necessarily.

Some EPB/HAP stock lasting well into the nineties was built on recovered underframes from pre-war SUB stock (built in the early 20th century), so I doubt the Mk 1 underframes (which I understand were more robust than pre Mk 1 versions) would have suffered from such problems.

Oswyntail · 9 Dec 2011

I suspect Bestwestern has hit the nail on the head. Given the advances in both equipment and legal requirements, I should imagine the savings from using the underframes would have been minimal, probably negated by the extra costs of having to constrain any design to fit them. Add in to that the possibility of warranty issues and you can understand the decisions taken

jamesontheroad · 9 Dec 2011

Blindtraveler said:
mad. totally bonkers that it never
happened!

Never with an EMU, but it did happen with an entire DMU class

Blindtraveler · 9 Dec 2011

had forgotten!

yorksrob · 9 Dec 2011

In a way it's a shame it didn't happen - the money saved could have been spent building additional rolling stock to cope with overcrowding.

I wouldn't mind betting that the estimated lifespan of 15 years was highly pessimistic (more in line with a traditional refurb than a complete rebuild), bearing in mind that they actually managed to extend the lifespan by a further ten years just by - er not replacing them !

On the plus side - we did get another ten years of them as proper trains

trains in storage

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member