• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

Best/Worst Parent Company At Ordering New Trains

Status
Not open for further replies.

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Which parent company ordered the best/worst trains?

For example (off the top of my head):

  • Virgin - 220/221/390s
  • Stagecoach - 450/458/707s
  • First - 175/180/185/397/701/802s and Mk5s
  • National Express - 170/334/460s
I'm sure there are many more though.

(I'm ignoring the 800/801s as they were ordered by the government - feel free to attribute trains to more than one parent company if you want, e.g. "Virgin" trains can count towards Stagecoach, First TPE was a mix of First and Keolis - you can argue about whether the LM 350s were really Stagecoach trains that were diverted to the Midlands)

Obviously not every TOC ordered new trains, but I think virtually every parent company has (other than Prism, Trenitalia and MTL?). Not every franchise has *needed* new trains (e.g. some inherited a fairly modern fleet). Sometimes there's a delay between ordering trains and them actually coming into service (under a new owner). But, based on the orders that the various parent company are responsible for, which TOC do you think have the best record at ordering new stock?

I'm partly asking this in relation to First's habit of ordering non-standard stock (or, at least, stock which no other companies subsequently place orders for) - got me wondering about how one parent company compared to another for ordering stock.

(and, no, BR don't count, especially as they had so many types of trains over fifty years, so it'd be impossible to find any consensus with such a varied track record)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,514
Location
Hampshire
387s on Great Western, 377s on FCC, 380s at ScotRail. Could you count the 700s too as they were ordered when FCC ran the franchise, though with the Government pulling the strings regarding the specifications?
 

Gaz55

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2020
Messages
89
Location
Doncaster
Would Arriva come under the 'worst' category. No new trains for Cross Country after nearly 15 years of operating the franchise, Political and behind the scenes pressure applied to nudge them into ordering new stock when they were awarded the Northern franchise.
 

WillPS

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2008
Messages
2,427
Location
Nottingham
Would Arriva come under the 'worst' category. No new trains for Cross Country after nearly 15 years of operating the franchise, Political and behind the scenes pressure applied to nudge them into ordering new stock when they were awarded the Northern franchise.
Same for Arriva Trains Wales and Arriva Trains Northern before them (not sure if the Class 333s arrived under Arriva ownership but they were definitely ordered before and funded by WYPTE).
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,877
Best has to be Govia, they are great at picking the most suitable rolling stock for the operator and have young fleets. For example:
  • For LM they picked 350/2s which were an excellent choice apart from the 3+2 seating, they are great trains and work well with the existing fleet of 350/1s.
  • The 172s at LM have also helped to improve the Snow Hill lines with their great acceleration.
  • At Southern they choice electrostars which are the most suitable due to Southern already having a lot of electrostars
  • At GN they picked Desiro Cities (717s) which fitted well maintenance wise with the 700s.

Abellio - Good but not always the most suitable:
  • At Scotrail I think more 380s would have worked better
  • Greater Anglia was good (FLIRTs are great units), not rolling stock related but they did overbid on Greater Anglia.
  • At LNWR the mix of Desiros and Aventras will probably end up with the random unit generator trying to get a Desiro and Aventra to work together, taking on the 360s and keeping the 350/2s would have worked better in my opinion
First - ok but don't always pick the best choice:
  • FTPE's choice of desiros meant they were reliable but they drink fuel, I can't blame First for the SRA deciding to cut the order.
  • 360s were a good choice, I would have prefered gangways but the 321s didn't have them either.
  • 180s and 175s were a bad choice, 175s would have been better as 170s.
  • TPE's choice of 3 fleets was a bad idea
  • Choice of 380s at First Scotrail is good
  • Avanti is good, nothing remarkable to say about it.
  • SWR's choice of 701s is fine (707s didn't meet DfT spec) but the 442s isn't.
Arriva - the worst:
  • They don't order anything unless they have to (Civitys are the only new trains they have ordered, XC has a dire need of more stock)
  • Even when they have to they get cheap units (seriously 2 car 195s with no gangway?) and then put them on the wrong routes (195s should be on stoppers with their better acceleration with 158s on long distance).
Stagecoach have good choices but EMT could have done with some new trains.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
101,242
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Arriva don't order anything unless they have to, even when they have to they get cheap units (seriously 2 car 195s with no gangway?) and then put them on the wrong routes (195s should be on stoppers with their better acceleration with 158s on long distance).

To be fair I think OLR-Northern have realised this, and 195s are creeping onto stopping services where they do indeed perform very well and could allow timetable improvements if done consistently. It certainly seems very common to see 195s on Rose Hills and the Hope Valley stopper, for example.
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,886
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
I don't think it's realistic to relate the ordering of new trains to the parent companies of franchises. Most new trains have been ordered as a result of requirements in the franchise tender documents. For example, the three franchises that cover the former Southern Region had to order new trains to replace slam-door stock. In some other cases, the DfT made it clear that new trains were not on the agenda. Many more recent franchise tender documents have made it clear that proposing new trains will score points when bids are assessed. The South Western tender had requirements about capacity and dwell times which existing trains did not meet.

When they respond to such requirements, the owning groups/bidders need to balance what they are proposing to order against the cost. They are also constrained by what's available at the time, and/or that can be delivered (relatively) quickly and put into revenue-earning service. There are other aspects of the bids that will help determine who wins the franchise, so the winner may not be the one who offered the best trains, and an unsuccessful bidder might have offered something really good.

If it turns out that one group has a good record of ordering good trains, I think that will be the result of many factors, several of them outside the bidders' control, and not particularly a matter for which the group might be praised.
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
4,391
Location
London
It could be argued that M40 Trains (parent of Chiltern following the management buyout) was one of the best, given they broke the 1064 day new train order hiatus with the initial build of 168/0s. Whilst they're certainly not the most glamorous of trains, they met Chiltern's requirements at the time.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,749
Location
Chester
Would Arriva come under the 'worst' category. No new trains for Cross Country after nearly 15 years of operating the franchise, Political and behind the scenes pressure applied to nudge them into ordering new stock when they were awarded the Northern franchise.

Unfortunately, I expect this is because the franchise agreement doesn't permit Arriva to procure new rolling stock for CrossCountry.

Also, to be fair to Arriva, they did propose acquiring around twenty brand new 170s for the Wales & Borders franchise back in the early 2000s, but this was refused.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,877
Also, to be fair to Arriva, they did propose acquiring around twenty brand new 170s for the Wales & Borders franchise back in the early 2000s, but this was refused.
This was when the DfT managed it so not suprising, the Welsh Government would have probably been delighted to get some 170s.
 

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,793
Many more recent franchise tender documents have made it clear that proposing new trains will score points when bids are assessed.
New trains should be bought in because their is a genuine need for them not because of point scoring.

Regarding arriva in terms of poor train ordering I agree they are the worse but at the same time right now, no point for arriva to order new stock when a batch of 221s and 222s will be available within the next couple of years.

Best for me is govia, they order new trains when they are needed. Abellio decision with LNRs new trains is not gonna end well, diagramming is gonna be problematic with a fleet of 50/50 350 and 730
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,700
First - ok but don't always pick the best choice:
  • FTPE's choice of desiros meant they were reliable but they drink fuel, I can't blame First for the SRA deciding to cut the order.
  • 360s were a good choice, I would have prefered gangways but the 321s didn't have them either.
  • 180s and 175s were a bad choice, 175s would have been better as 170s.
  • TPE's choice of 3 fleets was a bad idea
  • Choice of 380s at First Scotrail is good
  • Avanti is good, nothing remarkable to say about it.
  • SWR's choice of 701s is fine (707s didn't meet DfT spec) but the 442s isn't.
Arriva - the worst:
  • They don't order anything unless they have to (Civitys are the only new trains they have ordered, XC has a dire need of more stock)
  • Even when they have to they get cheap units (seriously 2 car 195s with no gangway?) and then put them on the wrong routes (195s should be on stoppers with their better acceleration with 158s on long distance).
Stagecoach have good choices but EMT could have done with some new trains.
Class 360s (gangway-less Class 350) exist reportedly because of DOO sighting issues. First did plan them as 350s originally.

The next three points can only be made with the benefit of hindsight.

Certain forum members will remember my surprise at seeing a three car Class 195 on the Hope Valley stopper. What an upgrade from the 142s of old!
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I don't think it's realistic to relate the ordering of new trains to the parent companies of franchises. Most new trains have been ordered as a result of requirements in the franchise tender documents. For example, the three franchises that cover the former Southern Region had to order new trains to replace slam-door stock. In some other cases, the DfT made it clear that new trains were not on the agenda. Many more recent franchise tender documents have made it clear that proposing new trains will score points when bids are assessed. The South Western tender had requirements about capacity and dwell times which existing trains did not meet.

When they respond to such requirements, the owning groups/bidders need to balance what they are proposing to order against the cost. They are also constrained by what's available at the time, and/or that can be delivered (relatively) quickly and put into revenue-earning service. There are other aspects of the bids that will help determine who wins the franchise, so the winner may not be the one who offered the best trains, and an unsuccessful bidder might have offered something really good.

If it turns out that one group has a good record of ordering good trains, I think that will be the result of many factors, several of them outside the bidders' control, and not particularly a matter for which the group might be praised.

I take your points, but this thread is intended to be more about who has ordered the "best"/"worst" trains (rather than most/least) - e.g. IMHO Virgin's 220/221s have been better trains than First's 180s. National Express's 170s have been better than First's 175s - living in an unnelectrified part of the country, I've less experience to properly judge whether the 350/450s are better/worse than the 375/376/377/379s though.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
101,242
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The next three points can only be made with the benefit of hindsight.

I'm not sure that's true - there is the solid example of the West Midlands, where a complete fleet replacement with high acceleration DMUs (172s) was used to excellent effect to upgrade a run-down, old suburban service to modern standards. Yes, it should ideally have been wired, but it's clear that using modern units has improved it immeasurably.

That said, it does seem "new Northern" are learning.
 

Statto

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2011
Messages
3,361
Location
At home or at the pub
Bit harsh singling out Virgin, the fleet is around 17 years, still plenty of years left, although the interior really could do with a refurb being quite drab & gloomy
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,700
I'm not sure that's true - there is the solid example of the West Midlands, where a complete fleet replacement with high acceleration DMUs (172s) was used to excellent effect to upgrade a run-down, old suburban service to modern standards. Yes, it should ideally have been wired, but it's clear that using modern units has improved it immeasurably.
Energy is suggesting that ordering diesels from Alstom was a mistake, due to their longstanding reliability issues. TPE expected to have their Mk5As in service quickly, hence the split order. As for the Class 442s, again it was hoped they could be in service quickly. I don't understand what WMT has to do with these three points that I was referring to.
 

RailWonderer

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2018
Messages
1,792
Location
All around the network
This was when the DfT managed it so not suprising, the Welsh Government would have probably been delighted to get some 170s.
Two points here. Firstly, are you sure it was it the DfT and not the SRA?
Secondly, it's never been made clear on here why these bodies refused or had certain rolling stock orders cut down e.g. 51 vice 55 class 185s, 21 vice 25 class 360s, and 0 vice 20 something class 170s.
A general question, are there any documents clearly explaining the grounds for refusal? The whole idea of privatisation was to bring more efficiency, competitive pricing and better standards to the railways so it seems contrary knowing the government held back some more than keen ToCs (and admittedly forcing the hand of more reluctant ones i.e. the horrendous National Express).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
101,242
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Energy is suggesting that ordering diesels from Alstom was a mistake, due to their longstanding reliability issues. TPE expected to have their Mk5As in service quickly, hence the split order. As for the Class 442s, again it was hoped they could be in service quickly. I don't understand what WMT has to do with these three points that I was referring to.

Sorry, I wrongly thought you were responding to this point @Energy also made, with which I wholeheartedly agree, and it looks very much like OLR-Northern do as well (because 195s on Rose Hill stoppers definitely didn't feature in the original plans - but the diesel Manchester suburban "S-Bahn" services are a perfect place for them absent the wires).

Even when they have to they get cheap units (seriously 2 car 195s with no gangway?) and then put them on the wrong routes (195s should be on stoppers with their better acceleration with 158s on long distance).
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,877
Energy is suggesting that ordering diesels from Alstom was a mistake, due to their longstanding reliability issues
To be fair this did require hindsight. 170s were not as common when the 175s were ordered.

TPE expected to have their Mk5As in service quickly, hence the split order
This would have also needed hindsight but 3 microfleets still isn't great even if they are reliable.

The 442s were known to be difficult which is why Stagecoach didn't like the idea of bringing them back.

Two points here. Firstly, are you sure it was it the DfT and not the SRA?
Getting them confused as the SRA are no longer a thing.
 

Gaz55

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2020
Messages
89
Location
Doncaster
Unfortunately, I expect this is because the franchise agreement doesn't permit Arriva to procure new rolling stock for CrossCountry.

Also, to be fair to Arriva, they did propose acquiring around twenty brand new 170s for the Wales & Borders franchise back in the early 2000s, but this was refused.
I'd not heard that before. It seems very short sighted to have a franchise agreement that doesn't allow for new trains to be ordered, espesacially given the years of overcrowding on XC. Sort of tying one hand behind your back, one that doesn't allow the operator to respond to increases in passengers, etc.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
2,075
I'm partly asking this in relation to First's habit of ordering non-standard stock (or, at least, stock which no other companies subsequently place orders for) - got me wondering about how one parent company compared to another for ordering stock.
It's not really First's problem that Alstom's products were so bad. They also inherited the Class 175/180 order from GWT/NWT when they acquired the original management buyout TOCs.

Alstom struck a little luckier with their Juniper EMUs. Stagecoach acquired the 458s to expand their fleet on SWT and National Express the 334s as Class 303 replacements and 460s for Gatwick Express. Even then the Alstom issues meant Stagecoach looked to Siemens for their slamdoor replacement order - in a different world we might have had a much bigger fleet of 458s vice the 450s and an EMU style 175 vice the 444.
 

Parallel

Established Member
Joined
9 Dec 2013
Messages
4,006
I’m not sure Arriva are that bad. Other than Northern, a lot of their other franchises and operations ran/have been running for a long time and why would they order a fleet of new trains when they only have/had a couple of years left running the respective services? None of the current stock needed replacing when they took on Arriva Trains Wales, CrossCountry and Chiltern. Their 195 and 331 order at Northern meant the following Northern operation could withdraw all its Pacers before the likes of TfW and GWR.

It’s not always necessary to order new trains if other suitable trains are available and can be cascaded.
 
Last edited:

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,749
Location
Chester
I'd not heard that before. It seems very short sighted to have a franchise agreement that doesn't allow for new trains to be ordered, espesacially given the years of overcrowding on XC. Sort of tying one hand behind your back, one that doesn't allow the operator to respond to increases in passengers, etc.

It is very short sighted, I agree. The 2004-2016 Northern franchise had the same issue.

I’m not sure Arriva are that bad. Other than Northern, a lot of their other franchises and operations ran/have been running for a long time and why would they order a fleet of new trains when they only have/had a couple of years left running the respective services? None of the current stock needed replacing when they took on Arriva Trains Wales, CrossCountry and Chiltern. Their 195 and 331 order at Northern meant the following Northern operation could withdraw all its Pacers before the likes of TfW and GWR.

It’s not always necessary to order new trains if other suitable trains are available and can be cascaded.

Perhaps not, but the CrossCountry and Wales & Borders franchises have been in dire need of additional capacity for a very long time. If there aren't any suitable units available to provide an increase in capacity, then the only option is to order new units. It's only in the past few years that there's actually been any spare DMUs available.

Arriva's proposal to procure Turbostars for ATW was to boost capacity, rather than replace the Pacers which they felt could continue in traffic until the end of the franchise period.
 
Last edited:
Joined
9 Dec 2012
Messages
659
Perhaps Prism Rail would be the near the bottom. Only new stock out of their 4 franchises was for the Class 357 out of Fenchurch St for the LTS and i would hazard a guess that was a franchise requirement (even a political one) whoever was going to run it. If they could have got away with 317s there they would.
 

Parallel

Established Member
Joined
9 Dec 2013
Messages
4,006
Perhaps not, but the CrossCountry and Wales & Borders franchises have been in dire need of additional capacity for a very long time. If there aren't any suitable units available to provide an increase in capacity, then the only option is to order new units. It's only in the past few years that there's actually been any spare DMUs available.

Arriva's proposal to procure Turbostars for ATW was to boost capacity, rather than replace the Pacers which they felt could continue in traffic until the end of the franchise period.
ATW was also a no growth franchise. Things were probably adequate in 2003 but not in 2016. Still, I’d argue that’s not necessarily ATW’s fault, more down to the DaFT and the Welsh Government.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,996
Alstom struck a little luckier with their Juniper EMUs. Stagecoach acquired the 458s to expand their fleet on SWT and National Express the 334s as Class 303 replacements and 460s for Gatwick Express. Even then the Alstom issues meant Stagecoach looked to Siemens for their slamdoor replacement order - in a different world we might have had a much bigger fleet of 458s vice the 450s and an EMU style 175 vice the 444.
By extension, the 350/1 sets would also have been Junipers as they were part of the original SWT Desiro order (32 x 5car sets became 450101-110 and 350101-130). From that the rest of the 350s would also be Junipers: Alstom’s lack of support for the 458s cost them orders for well over 1,000 vehicles.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,597
Location
UK
TfL (Rail and Overground) for ordering Aventras when they should have got 700 derived stock.
Because they actually work, and don't have annoying rattles and a really rough ride (like a pacer EMU)

The first gen 378s are actually ok
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,967
Location
East Anglia
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top