Future plans for rolling stock with stock consistency in mind

Status
Not open for further replies.

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
With small fleets of trains generally frowned up on now, what would be your ideas for new rolling stock and cascades for the next 10 years or so based on probable franchise changes, electrification and passenger forecasts?

Mine would include:
1. New 380s for Scotrail for newly electrified lines and class 314 replacement.
2. Class 185s cascaded to Scotrail with class 170s moving in opposite direction.
3. Possibly Sprinters leaving Scotrail depending how passenger numbers grow and extent of future electrification.
4. Northern 153s and 155s, Anglia 156s and LM 153s to go to EMT for extra capacity.
5. Anglia 170s to go to XC for extra capacity.
6. New order of one type of 172s or equivalent in many stages:
  • Replacement for cascaded Anglia units mentioned above
  • Class 142 replacement *
  • Class 143/4 replacement *
  • Class 150 replacement *
  • If required class 153/5 replacement (Class 153s likely to be reformed in to 2 car units because of the costs of DDA compliance.*
* Exact number for each stage dependant on electrification schemes and passenger growth.
7. Northern 323s and future TPE 350s to LM.
8. All 321s and 322s to the Anglia franchise and all 319s to Northern or vice versa.
9. Class 317s from Anglia to be used on Valley Lines when electrified.
10. DC version of class 378s or equivalent ordered as 507/8 and 313 replacement.
11. AC version of class 444 or equivalent (maybe call it a 355) ordered for TPE routes including as 350 replacement on Scottish services.
12. New Intercity train as direct replacement for HSTs (no need to get in another IEP debate.)
13. Class 121s either replaced by Parry People Movers or a new DMU as part of number 6.

As a before and after example:

Northern and TPE (current): 142, 144, 150, 153, 155, 156, 158, 170, 185, 321, 322, 323, 333

Northern and TPE (future): 156, 158, 170, 172, 319, 333, 355
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
You really mean a 455 variant? Or did you mean an 444?

Also your plan has several views that Siemens should get this order and Bombardier should get this. Sorry but that's unlikely to be done as you have to have an open competition not handle out contracts.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
5,677
Location
South Wales
I am not complaining if we get class 317's for the valley lines since it was proposed to use the class 315's. There should be an order for new class 172's for Northern to replace pacers and the oldest class 150's on routes which are unlikley to get electrified for a while.

They should electrify the Thames valley branhces as well as wire other lines on the GW network and place a further order for new emu's.

Hitachi have unveiled their AT-200 emu which could be ideal for the GW services around Reading with more class 319's to go elsewhere perhaps around Bristol.

The class 165/166's could be used down around Exeter perhaps on a 2 hourly stopping service from Exeter/Plymouth - Penzance as well as the various branches if they can be cleared.

ATW should get additional class 158's to provide extra capacity on their long distance services as well as perhaps allowing for some new services such as the proposed express service from Cardiff to west wales via the Swansea district line.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
You really mean a 455 variant? Or did you mean an 444?

Yes I did mean a 444, I'd suggest 355 as a class number though with 345 set to be allocated to Crossrail units and an AC version of a 444 would be very different.

Also your plan has several views that Siemens should get this order and Bombardier should get this. Sorry but that's unlikely to be done as you have to have an open competition not handle out contracts.

I know that but as LM and Southern have proved you can write a tender that is so specific only the bidder you want can win. I imagine that is what Scotrail will do to get more 380s.

With other orders I've stated "or equivalent" this means that the Bombardier or Siemens option already available is close to what is required. The "or equivalent" allows the builder of that train to come up with a new version or an alternative manufacturer to come up with their alternative.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
They should electrify the Thames valley branhces as well as wire other lines on the GW network and place a further order for new emu's.

How did I manage to miss that electrification scheme off? I have probably been a bit too generous with LM in allowing them to have a gain of 20 EMUs, in addition to the extra 10 they've already ordered. Northern may also have too many in my plans so there probably are enough EMUs to go around without an additional new order, it's just needs a bit of a re-work.

ATW should get additional class 158's to provide extra capacity on their long distance services as well as perhaps allowing for some new services such as the proposed express service from Cardiff to west wales via the Swansea district line.

ATW does also need more thought in my original post. They won't need many 150s after Valley Lines electrification, so having 172s replacing them would create a micro-fleet. Maybe they can have some of the Northern 158s instead of 172s and more for extra capacity, which can either be replaced at Northern through the 150 replacement order and EMUs.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,823
Is this assuming that the franchise map results in a combination of Northern and TPE next time around?

I'm not so sure this will happen to be honest, so whether ensuring fleets are common either side of the Pennines becomes a bit academic. In any case Northern pretty much operate in two halves anyway, as each half has sufficient scope on its own.

Having said that there are some good proposed moves in your list, I think the 350/4s and Northern 323s going to LM would be sensible. That would allow more 6 car operation on the Cross City line, plus LM's micro fleet of 7x 321s to go elsewhere.

I think the loosing franchise in the proposal would be EMT - where nearly all the other franchises would receive new or nearly new stock, EMT would receive yet more 15x stock. Although MML electrification could provide the opportunity for this to be retired in the not too distant future.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
I think the loosing franchise in the proposal would be EMT - where nearly all the other franchises would receive new or nearly new stock, EMT would receive yet more 15x stock.

I don't really consider that losing when they would gain more of what it already has without losing any existing stock. It's not the same as Northern gaining more 150s by losing 4 x 156s and 3 x 180s.

EMT don't have any Pacers or 150s which should be the priorities for replacement over the next 10 years.

I did mention HSTs being replaced and intended that for all HST operators including EMT.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,556
Location
Macclesfield
I am broadly in favour of many of jcollins' proposed measures. My more detailed aspirations would consist of:

Greater Anglia & East Midlands
Electrification of just the Uckfield line to free up 6 x 4-car 171/8s. These transfer to TPE to displace 9 x 2-car 170/3s. It is reportedly much harder to convert the 171/8s into standard 170s than it is the 171/7s, many of which started out as 170s, as the software used is markedly different, so leaving them as 171/8s with Dellner couplers seems logical where they could couple to 185s in an emergency.

9 x 2-car 170/3s go to GA to release 5 x 1-car 153s to EMT. Electrification of the Marshlink route releases 10 x 2-car 171/7s, which are converted back to 170/7s with BSI couplers and also move to GA, releasing 9 x 2-car 156s, which go to Northern.

Following this, Northern lose their 7 x 2-car 155s to EMT, and an additional swap around sees their 19 x 1-car 153s also going to EMT while EMTs' 15 x 2-car 156s moving to Northern. Greater Anglia now have one standard DMU fleet of 170s (8 3-car, 23 2-car), while Northern lose 33 class 153/155 carriages but gain 48 class 156 carriages, and EMT lose 30 class 156 carriages but gain 38 class 153/155 carriages. This gives EMT sufficient stock to reform all of their 153s back into 2-car 155s, giving them a total of 30 class 155 units against a present total of 15 class 156s and 16 class 153s.

If any of the Greater Anglia routes presently operated by 170s were to be electrified, such as Ely - Norwich, then GA would lose their 8 x 3-car 170s to XC, giving GA a standard DMU fleet of only 2-car 170s, and allowing all XC services on the Birmingham - Leicester - Stansted corridor to become 3 or 4 carriage formations.

And that is probably enough to be getting on with for the time being.
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
Yes I did mean a 444, I'd suggest 355 as a class number though with 345 set to be allocated to Crossrail units and an AC version of a 444 would be very different.

Yes, an AC 444 would be a 380 variant, quite different indeed.

I know that but as LM and Southern have proved you can write a tender that is so specific only the bidder you want can win. I imagine that is what Scotrail will do to get more 380s.

With other orders I've stated "or equivalent" this means that the Bombardier or Siemens option already available is close to what is required. The "or equivalent" allows the builder of that train to come up with a new version or an alternative manufacturer to come up with their alternative.

Fair point. I think the NW/TP order will be very interesting. As either Bombardier or Siemens could build units for it that could see it create units for the whole of the north with the 319 replacements (gotta happen at some point). That said there is quite a few other bidders who may surprise with cheap bids to get their foot in the door.

I'd argue that the Transpennie order proper will be more important than even Thameslink.
 

rail-britain

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2007
Messages
4,104
2. Class 185s cascaded to Scotrail with class 170s moving in opposite direction.
3. Possibly Sprinters leaving Scotrail depending how passenger numbers grow and extent of future electrification.
I like the sound of Class 185 units operating the remaining ScotRail Express routes, but there would be little benefit
The Class 185 units are remaining with FTPE allowing strengthening of existing services

How can Sprinters leave ScotRail when they are displaced by EMU?
There will be little benefit as the Class 156 units will need overhaul or reworking
Given how quickly the 150/2 was disposed of "on accessibility" grounds, but hovered up by other TOCs, I suspect the same will happen with the 156 fleet
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,823
I like the sound of Class 185 units operating the remaining ScotRail Express routes, but there would be little benefit
The Class 185 units are remaining with FTPE allowing strengthening of existing services

Except that they would be very well suited to the diesel routes ScotRail would have remaining. Particularly the Highland Mainline where the Cl170s struggle a bit, but Cl185s would have no problem, and would have the same opportunity to make up lost time compared to other stock as they do on the TP routes.

The Cl185s are remaining with FTPE after EMUs start running Manchester-Scotland, but what about post TP North electrification?

rail-britain said:
How can Sprinters leave ScotRail when they are displaced by EMU?

I'm not sure I understand this point.

rail-britain said:
There will be little benefit as the Class 156 units will need overhaul or reworking
Given how quickly the 150/2 was disposed of "on accessibility" grounds, but hovered up by other TOCs, I suspect the same will happen with the 156 fleet

Quite, while they might be "outdated" when viewed by ScotRail, they are almost perfect when compared to 14x or 150 stock in use elsewhere on the network!
 

rail-britain

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2007
Messages
4,104
Quite, while they might be "outdated" when viewed by ScotRail, they are almost perfect when compared to 14x or 150 stock in use elsewhere on the network!
Would another TOC really want these Class 156 units, given they won't have been refurbished / overhauled, plus requiring upgrading within their own franchise (probably not accounted for during their original bid)
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,556
Location
Macclesfield
Would another TOC really want these Class 156 units, given they won't have been refurbished / overhauled, plus requiring upgrading within their own franchise (probably not accounted for during their original bid)
Errr yes they most certainly will. There are a number of English provincial TOCs that are crying out for additional rolling stock, and the 156s have plenty of life left in them: Another 10 - 15 years easily. The Scottish 156s are in a pretty good condition from a passenger point of view, and given that the reported rate of failures is pretty low then I can only presume that they are in fairly good mechanical condition as well, overhauled or not.

Not everybody can afford to be as snobbish about their rolling stock and simply expect new rolling stock and extensive electrification to be handed to them on a silver platter like Scotrail can ;)
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
How can Sprinters leave ScotRail when they are displaced by EMU?

I'm assuming you mean:

How many Sprinters can leave ScotRail when they are displaced by EMU?

It'll depend on the exact extent of future electrification and how much passenger numbers grow on existing routes.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,951
The problem with sending the Cl185s anywhere is that they are enormously overweight and cannot operate coupled to any other class of DMU, which limits the possibilities with regard to capacity and the like. They also do not have gangways which prevents revenue collection and trolley service from being effective over longer journeys.

Any such units released by TPE North and Lancashire electrification that cannot be effectively used within the franchise should be stripped of centre vehicles and the ends sent to the sidings, with the aforementioned vehicles being used to extend the remaining units to four cars.

I know that is not a popular opinion but they are just too expensive to run, and the celebrated hill climbing prowess is becoming increasingly less impressive thanks to the improving power to weight ratio of the latest generation of Turbostars, which can be built with gangways and can interwork with the nation's enormous sprinter fleet.
 

rail-britain

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2007
Messages
4,104
How many Sprinters can leave ScotRail when they are displaced by EMU?
No, I already know roughly how many will be displaced by electrification, how can they leave?
The vast majority will be retained for strengthening existing and new services
The remaining Class 156 units are to be returned to RoSCo (that's a separate issue)
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,556
Location
Macclesfield
The problem with sending the Cl185s anywhere is that they are enormously overweight and cannot operate coupled to any other class of DMU, which limits the possibilities with regard to capacity and the like. They also do not have gangways which prevents revenue collection and trolley service from being effective over longer journeys.
So sending them to Scotrail to operate the longer distance inter-regional routes would work very well. At present, there are only a limited number of diagrams where 158s work in multiple with 170s, and I would envisage that following the completion of EGIP electrification the Haymarket allocated Central Belt 158s will be the first units to be re-allocated away from Scotland, with 158+170 working being done away with and the working of 170s in pairs that is already widely prevalent being focused on to an even greater extent. Plus, the existing 170s already lack corridor connections at the cab ends, so there would be no loss of utility here from employing 185s on the route.

Their hill climibing capabilities would be welcome on the Highland main line.
Any such units released by TPE North and Lancashire electrification that cannot be effectively used within the franchise should be stripped of centre vehicles and the ends sent to the sidings, with the aforementioned vehicles being used to extend the remaining units to four cars.
I am increasingly thankful that you are not in any position to govern rolling stock policy. How much money would have been simply flushed down the pan by your predelection for taking perfectly serviceable DMUs that are under ten years old and mothballing them?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The remaining Class 156 units are to be returned to RoSCo (that's a separate issue)
Is there a rolling stock policy in place stating what will replace 156s on the West Highland line in that case? At present, 158s have gauging issues on the route (although I doubt that these would be anything near insurmountable) and while I can contemplate the suitability of using 170s on the WHL from a passenger capacity point of view I would be doubtful of their increased costs of operation being conducive to taking over the route.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
No, I already know roughly how many will be displaced by electrification, how can they leave?
The vast majority will be retained for strengthening existing and new services
The remaining Class 156 units are to be returned to RoSCo (that's a separate issue)

Your post makes no sense. You're saying Sprinters can't leave but the 156s (a type of Sprinter) will leave!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,951
Their hill climibing capabilities would be welcome on the Highland main line.

They guzzle fuel like no tomorrow, cannot use SP differentials (even if there are none on the route in question it is possible they could be introduced in the future) and have higher track access charges than Turbostars or similar DMUs.

I am increasingly thankful that you are not in any position to govern rolling stock policy. How much money would have been simply flushed down the pan by your predelection for taking perfectly serviceable DMUs that are under ten years old and mothballing them?

No more than was flushed down the pan by purchasing a fleet of EMUs and then mothballing them after roughly ten years. (The Gatwick express units). There is also precedent for getting rid of units after a similar period in service in the past.
The railway is haemorrhaging money and you want to squander money maintaining a fleet of units of questionable utility?

And surely the money lost would be the ROSCOs as they were the ones who bought the units?
 

rail-britain

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2007
Messages
4,104
So sending them to Scotrail to operate the longer distance inter-regional routes would work very well. At present, there are only a limited number of diagrams where 158s work in multiple with 170s, and I would envisage that following the completion of EGIP electrification the Haymarket allocated Central Belt 158s will be the first units to be re-allocated away from Scotland, with 158+170 working being done away with and the working of 170s in pairs that is already widely prevalent being focused on to an even greater extent. Plus, the existing 170s already lack corridor connections at the cab ends, so there would be no loss of utility here from employing 185s on the route
There are big changes coming, the DMU fleet will probably be simplified on the Class 158 and 170
The majority of remaining local services will be operated by 158 (single or pair)
The GSW, Fife and ScotRail Express services will be operated by 170 (single or pair)
Adding the Class 185 would be beneficial to the Express services, although at the expense of a slight reduction in capacity, as a result many services would have to run in pairs, this then negates the 158+170 strenthening that currently occurs
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Your post makes no sense. You're saying Sprinters can't leave but the 156s (a type of Sprinter) will leave!
That is correct, they cannot leave Scotland as replied earlier :
The remaining Class 156 units are to be returned to RoSCo (that's a separate issue)
 
Last edited:

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Why do we ned to have USSR-style centralised planning and Government Departments deciding who gets what and where and when? It doesn't work like that with any other industry. Government doesn't decide what aircraft to order and allocate to the airlines (there ought to be a lesson there with the Avro Tudor, Comet, Brabazon and Saro Princess, as salutary examples of what Government specifying things to the tiniest detail does to the competitiveness of an industry). I know people will say 'Virgin got to choose what rolling stock they wanted, and looked what happened, we got the Voyagers', but if they'd had to face the commercial consequences of that decision, i.e. they lost business siginificantly, rather than being cushioned from the effects by Government protection, they'd surely have rectified it, just as an Airline would have done if they'd ordered aircraft that turned out to be too small).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes, an AC 444 would be a 380 variant, quite different indeed. .

Why should that be? They were designed to be easily adaptable for dual voltage; that's why they have a well for the pantograph. Why compromise when the existing design could be used? I suppose it might need modifying with 380-style front ends to satisfy EU Requirements, but that shouldn't be impossible while using the 444 bodyshel.
 

rail-britain

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2007
Messages
4,104
Why do we ned to have USSR-style centralised planning and Government Departments deciding who gets what and where and when?
That's what it has evolved into
It does make a mockery of the franchise process and an amount of uncertainty
The bidder advises they will renew existing rolling stock, but it is then specified by the DfT

At least Transport Scotland have seen through the flaws in this and from the next ScotRail franchise will be more flexible
The current fleet will be retained, and can be used by the new franchisee as they see fit, it's a great idea
The older stock is then displaced by the new rolling stock, which both parties have agreed to
If the new franchisee cannot utilise the old rolling stock, then it is returned to RoSCo
If the new franchisee wants to exchange or buy their own rolling stock, they can (at their own risk)
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
The problem with sending the Cl185s anywhere is that they are enormously overweight and cannot operate coupled to any other class of DMU, which limits the possibilities with regard to capacity and the like. They also do not have gangways which prevents revenue collection and trolley service from being effective over longer journeys.

Any such units released by TPE North and Lancashire electrification that cannot be effectively used within the franchise should be stripped of centre vehicles and the ends sent to the sidings, with the aforementioned vehicles being used to extend the remaining units to four cars.

I know that is not a popular opinion but they are just too expensive to run, and the celebrated hill climbing prowess is becoming increasingly less impressive thanks to the improving power to weight ratio of the latest generation of Turbostars, which can be built with gangways and can interwork with the nation's enormous sprinter fleet.

You do seem fond of sending trains that are less than 10 years old to the sidings if they do not satisfy your strignent criteria. You weren't in charge of motive power planning on BR in the 1960s, were you?
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,461
You could probably stick end doors on the 380 bodyshell. The 380 is a Desiro UK version 1.5-much updated from the 350/360/444/450 design.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Because otherwise we end up with tiny classes of rubbish like the 175s, Comrade :lol:

Which are regarded by many as among the highest quality recent DMUs, and knock Turbostars or Voyagers into a cocked hat.

Actually, though, I do see your point; I think the problem was that, in the early days of "privatisation", they were more or less starting from scratch, so operators had to take a gamble on what might prove to be satisfatcory; but now the main manufacturers have well established product lines, just like with Airlines, they should be able to choose what they think is best rather than it being allocated to them by Government. For second hand stock, then I suppose there's some argument for having some central body to organise what to transfer and where, since otehrwise you might have one operator speculatively snapping up stock or sitting on it so that competitors can't get it (rather like DBS do), and if they're paying the operators subsidies it's fair enough that they should have a say in what their money goes towards when they're ordering new stock, but i think it should be rather like what they do when tendering Bus services, specifying general capacity and requirements (speed, facilities & so on), not the Government getting involved in such obssessive detail as it does.
 
Last edited:

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
185's could be a good bet for the Stansted to Birmingham route? Either that or the fleet of 220's, whichever is best suited.

I don't like routes which have a mix of stock operating, although HST's and Meridians on the MML are okay. However I did prefer it when MML had the franchise, 170's on the slower stopping trains, HST's on the express passengers (usually).
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
You could probably stick end doors on the 380 bodyshell. The 380 is a Desiro UK version 1.5-much updated from the 350/360/444/450 design.

Why should that be? They were designed to be easily adaptable for dual voltage; that's why they have a well for the pantograph. Why compromise when the existing design could be used? I suppose it might need modifying with 380-style front ends to satisfy EU Requirements, but that shouldn't be impossible while using the 444 bodyshel.

Apart from the fact that Siemens scrapped the ability to build the 444's, the fact that any 350/450/444 are now not allowed for introduction on the UK railway as the design does not meet safety requirements. Only reason the 350/3 & /4's got order is because they are planned to join LM in a few years and have 'grandfather' rights.

All new designs for introduction on new routes require the new safely standards. The whole reason for the body shell of a 380 is to meet the standard so there's no hope of any new Desiro or Electrostar unless it's an add on on existing routes. In fact even the new 377/6's are quite the same as the other 377's with the new improved shells used on the 379 that are more like the Adventra (aka Electrostar mkII) than 357/375/377.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Apart from the fact that Siemens scrapped the ability to build the 444's, the fact that any 350/450/444 are now not allowed for introduction on the UK railway as the design does not meet safety requirements. Only reason the 350/3 & /4's got order is because they are planned to join LM in a few years and have 'grandfather' rights.

All new designs for introduction on new routes require the new safely standards. The whole reason for the body shell of a 380 is to meet the standard so there's no hope of any new Desiro or Electrostar unless it's an add on on existing routes. In fact even the new 377/6's are quite the same as the other 377's with the new improved shells used on the 379 that are more like the Adventra (aka Electrostar mkII) than 357/375/377.

And surely no one need even think about the absurdity of that. Yes, class 444s, 450s and 350s are no longer Safe. :roll: Was this the EU or the Department for Stupidity that decided that little absurdity?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,556
Location
Macclesfield
The railway is haemorrhaging money and you want to squander money maintaining a fleet of units of questionable utility?
Ahem, as I also pointed out in the McNulty thread, your response to this supposed "haemorrhaging of money", in a range of applications, is to withdraw from service trains that are providing a perfectly adequate service - In the Great Western case, the West of England HSTs, and in other areas, the 175s, 180s and 185s, and then procure, at great expense, an entirely new fleet of class 172 derivatives, with all the associated costs of building new or altering existing maintenance depots to service the new train design, retraining all drivers and traincrew staff on the new trains, and a costly study into ensuring that the trains can be cleared for all the routes they are expected to operate? In the case of the three classes of DMU I have listed, they are also all 12 or less years old, no more than a quarter or a third of the way through their intended operational lifespans!

How do you think that that all of that is going to result in cost savings over continuing to operate the 185s on TPE, 175s on Welsh services or HSTs on West of England services? I would wager that you wouldn't see any savings recognised from such a course of action for 20 years at least, and in the here and now, it would represent a huge loss.

The 185s do not have "questionable utility" at all. They may not be as fuel efficient or track friendly as Turbostars, but that does not automatically make them the spawn of the devil and totally unsuitable for the regional services they are designed to perform. I feel that the economics of the situation have been somewhat lost in the sprawl of your anti-185 hyperbole.

No more than was flushed down the pan by purchasing a fleet of EMUs and then mothballing them after roughly ten years. (The Gatwick express units). There is also precedent for getting rid of units after a similar period in service in the past.
There are eight class 460s. Taking your proposal of breaking up the 185s alone, that is going to result in around 25 units (although a similar number of carriages) "going to the sidings". And just because there is a precedent for something, doesn't mean that it should be followed: Have you never heard of the phrase, "learn from the past"? How on earth would removing entirely serviceable and modern trains from service result in any sort of cost saving in the greater scheme of things?

And surely the money lost would be the ROSCOs as they were the ones who bought the units?
I try to stay out of the convoluted financial arrangements that exist on the railways. It probably all filters down to the general public and "the taxpayer" eventually though: For starters, in the increased subsidies that the Government would have to pay out to the TOCs when the ROSCOs hike their leasing charges as they feel that they can no longer gaurantee to recoup the costs of new rolling stock over a longer period of time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top