Future plans for rolling stock with stock consistency in mind

[jopsuk]

The Class 380 already has 6 doors, why does it need more?

It doesn't. I rather meant placing the doors at the end of the carriages, like a 444/other Intercity-type stock. Frankly, the 185s should have had that arrangement and LM would be well served if their 110mph fleet was so arranged.

 

[HSTEd]

How the hell 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.

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.

Right, thanks to some trawling through various Siemens presentations I have been able to derive an estimate on the fuel consumption of Class 185s per vehicle kilometre, with a figure in the region of 0.59L per vehicle kilometre.
This compares to the figure for the Class 170 Turbostar of 0.454L per vehicle kilometre. Although a Class 172 has a higher power engine it is also significantly lighter so I will assume the figure is reasonable.
IT appears that each Class 185 travels approximately 282800 kilometres per year, which means that each three vehicle train burns approximately 123000 litres of additional fuel per year compared to the Turbostar.
This translates at present fuel prices of roughly 73p/litre of red diesel to roughly £89790 of additional fuel expenditure.

Additionally the train has roughly 16.5p/train kilometre higher access costs than the Turbostar, translating to roughly £46660 per year in reduced track access charges. (I am using old figures here from CP4 so this figure is probably an underestimate, ditto using the highest figure for the Turbostar faily of trains I have available).

This translates to £136,450 in annual savings from fuel and track access costs each year.

As both of these metrics are inflation dependant the most appropriate financing instrument is an index linked gilt. Indeed if ROSCOs can expect the trains to be used continuously until they choose to dispose of them and have a sufficiently strong position to hike rental charges on trains if this is shown to be no longer the case, why should we rent rolling stock from them since we are effectively carrying all the risks of not using them for the full rated lifetime of ~30 years?
So an IL30 gilt has a coupon -0.19% at the present time, so the repayment of the loan for a £4,500,000 trainset over 30 years would require payments of £141,500 per annum.

This means that at present fuel prices and the 2009-10 track access charges, buying new trainsets would be £5000 per trainset-year more expensive than retaining the current trains.
This assumes that maintenance of the trains is identically costly in both the cae of the Turbostars and the Desiros.
However this is unlikely to be the case as it is highly likely that the Turbostars have drastically reduced consumption of brake pads thanks to being rather lighter and the fact that both trains seem to rely exclusively on friction braking. (As the hydraulic retarding brake system for the Cl185s likes to cause engine fires when used). The trains are also ten years (or will be closer to 20 when TPE North is finished which is when I propose to dispose of them) and thus are likely to have lower maintenance charges.

I will continue to search for maintenance cost figures per train kilometre, but it appears that they are a large quantity (NR Electrification RUS mentioned 70p/kilometre but I can't remember if that was per vehicle or not) so small gains by the Turbostar over the Desiros will pay large dividends. Currently the Turbostar comes out 1.94p/train kilometres more expensive to run excluding maintenance differentials.

 

[sprinterguy]

Now that is very interesting, thanks for providing those figures. Particularly those for fuel consumption: I had an idea of what it was for Turbostars, but I had had some difficulty tracking down a source for the Cummins QSK19 engine as used in the 185s. It's good to see the numbers laid out.

However despite your detailed analysis, I'm still not convinced by your proposition I'm afraid - sorry!

 

[HSTEd]

Now that is very interesting, thanks for providing those figures. Particularly those for fuel consumption: I had an idea of what it was for Turbostars, but I had had some difficulty tracking down a source for the Cummins QSK19 engine as used in the 185s. It's good to see the numbers laid out.

However despite your detailed analysis, I'm still not convinced by your proposition I'm afraid - sorry!

Yeah, I had to derive an estimate by a rather roundabout route, so Im not entirely sure about it, but it seems to match with the Cl220, about ~30% heavier per carriage but ~25-30% slower to it tends to cancel out.

Yeah, it is a rather strange proposition which only works because we have very low interest rates available for borrowing at the present time, this calculation also assumes that the leasing company for the 185s has defrayed all those costs and is now only charging for ongoing upkeep.... which considering the age of the rolling stock is a silly assumption, so its even more in favour of the Turbostars....
Or the additional subsidy to Network Rail to maintain routes at a standard linespeed of 100mph when only multiple units use the line at anything approaching that speed. (For instance after electrification I don't think TPE north would need anything more than 75/MU100 if they used Turbostars instead of Cl185s) I am not sure this is included in track access charges which just covers marginal maintenance costs caused by track damage and electric power use.

But atleast you don't think I'm either raving lunatic or a complete idiot now

 

[sprinterguy]

But atleast you don't think I'm either raving lunatic or a complete idiot now

Rest assured, it never quite got to that stage It's always reassuring to see some well considered maths behind some of the ideas that are proposed on this forum

 

[HSTEd]

Rest assured, it never quite got to that stage It's always reassuring to see some well considered maths behind some of the ideas that are proposed on this forum

Indeed..... my argument about the 175s is similar but there is a far weaker economic case to replace them with new Turbostars, I think I have a chance of proving one based on the possibility of SP100 speed limits becoming feasible on many routes that they can not operate above 75/90mph on and superior acceleration thanks to higher power to weight ratio.

Problem is people don't like the idea of Turbostars replacing 175s... pity it would be really expensive to engineer an Express Sprinter style Turbostar body shell (ie. end doors), it would also count towards building some longer distance electrostars.....

And yes, I do want to do the "Sprinter operated railway" that Regional Rail was trying for, but with -stars.

 

[jopsuk]

And yes, I do want to do the "Sprinter operated railway" that Regional Rail was trying for, but with -stars.

Well quite- if RR and NSE had been properly allowed to replace all their old stock in the way they wanted, then RR would have been entirely Sprinters of some form (no Pacers!), with NSE slightly behind them going (almost) entirely Networker/Network Turbo- plus 313/315/317/321/455/456 and maybe 442.

 

[rail-britain]

It doesn't

A Class 380 has six doors, per carriage
One / two internal connection door
Four external platform doors
One / no external connection door

 

[sprinterguy]

A Class 380 has six doors, per carriage
One / two internal connection door
Four external platform doors
One / no external connection door

You've missed the point a second time, jopsuk said "it doesn't" in respect of the fact that a class 380 doesn't need more than six doors.

(That's the first time I've seen internal dividing doors being used to contribute to a total when external doors are being discussed as well)

 

[Class377/5]

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?

Yes it doesn't make sense but that's the world we live in.

 

[IanXC]

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?

I don't think its reasonable to see safety as a fixed target. Surely we should be aiming to improve safety by design as we go?

Big Four coach designs were withdrawn, and their replacements, Mark 1s, were praised for their crash-worthiness. Move forward to the 1990's and Mark 1's were withdrawn over safety fears.