They probably could go on for some time, but clearly SWR got a deal they couldn't refuse on the Aventras, and replacing several classes with one class brings a lot of benefits.As the title suggests, the reason i ask is because they are modern and upto date on the interior and also have traction package which is effectively newer than anything on the rest of the SWR fleet (701s excluded ofcourse).
Thoughts?
One of the big factors since the mid/late 2000s is that credit has been exceptionally cheapI keep meaning to start a thread about this but whilst great deals are available on new rolling stock, ultimately it has to be paid for surely? Whilst I don’t advocate trying to keep genuinely life expired stock going indefinitely, we seem to be binning (or about to bin) an awful lot of decent EMUs in particular. I suppose in short what I’m asking is are we (i.e. tax payers and rail users) paying for shiny new trains we don’t actually need?
Which might already be happening; several of the 319s are experiencing such complications.They could probably go on for ever (or until the underframes rot) Like the SUB's and EPB's.
Which might already be happening; several of the 319s are experiencing such complications.
One of the big factors since the mid/late 2000s is that credit has been exceptionally cheap
Apologies if this is an inappropriate analogy, I’m just trying to get my head around the economics. I go out and get a cheap loan to buy a £30k car to replace my ten year old car which I own outright. It’s a great deal only 1% APR or whatever. But, it does need to be paid back, and I now have a monthly outgoing of say £600 whereas I could have kept my old car and not had to find that money. Going back to trains, is that £600 being paid by rail users and/or tax payers? If so I suspect most people would happily travel by 455 for a few more years if it saved them a few hundred quid on season tickets over the period.
The analogy breaks down as the 455s aren't owned outright, but instead are owned by Porterbrook, so there's already a monthly outgoing for them. The saving then by keeping the old units will be relatively small, but there then are additional savings to the company from having a common fleet (hence lower training & maintenance costs as well as being able to diagram units more efficiently), more modern trains (read: lighter & more energy efficient) which will both decrease costs, and not to mention the customer improvements (Aircon will be very welcome in the summers, as will the toilets all year round)
It might have been dealt with, but that doesn't guarantee the 455s will be economical to maintain beyond 5-10 years. Note that we haven't heard any further news from Porterbrook about their proposal to convert the 455s to be diesel and/or battery powered.If that was the case, it would have been identified and dealt with during the retractioning.
The basic answer is that they are not really life expired, but we've gone though a phase where the DfT liked to see new and shiny trains in franchise bids, so there's now a glut of surplus stock (EMUs particularly). And some of this has plenty of life left in it, but may well get scrapped anyway because nobody has a use for it.
Thanks, you’ve touched on what was going to be next question there. Are the leasing companies profiting excessively by over-charging for older rolling stock? Surely BR-era stock will have been paid for many times over by now. Is this an inherent problem with privatisation?
It might have been dealt with, but that doesn't guarantee the 455s will be economical to maintain beyond 5-10 years. Note that we haven't heard any further news from Porterbrook about their proposal to convert the 455s to be diesel and/or battery powered.
It's not possible to answer whether or not a rolling stock fleet is life expired unless you are privy to their maintenance regimes and the costs involved.
At this point with 321 and 319 projects (fairly) well advanced and a seeming over abundance of donor units for those I can't really see where a multi-mode 455 even fits? Who would it be for?It might have been dealt with, but that doesn't guarantee the 455s will be economical to maintain beyond 5-10 years. Note that we haven't heard any further news from Porterbrook about their proposal to convert the 455s to be diesel and/or battery powered.
Exactly my point. The 319s are known (by and large) to be in poor condition, and the 455s are older.Converting them to diesel would basically be the same process as the 319s, and that hasn't exactly gone smoothly.
Converting them to diesel would basically be the same process as the 319s, and that hasn't exactly gone smoothly.
Exactly my point. The 319s are known (by and large) to be in poor condition, and the 455s are older.
Converting them to diesel would basically be the same process as the 319s, and that hasn't exactly gone smoothly.
Exactly my point. The 319s are known (by and large) to be in poor condition, and the 455s are older.
They're still almost 40 years old, though, and there's no getting away from that. Realistically, how long do they really have?They aren't that much older, and SWT generally looked after their trains better than many operators.
You could argue that it is a major benefit of privatisation that the roscos take the risk on this, meaning that there is no need for a TOC to keep expensive old trains if the market conditions mean that cheaper new ones are available. Not perhaps so relevant for the 455s, but for the 350/2s,379s and 707s it is probably the case that the new trains cost less per month than those they replaced in leasing costs.Thanks, you’ve touched on what was going to be my next question there. Are the leasing companies profiting excessively by over-charging for older rolling stock? Surely BR-era stock will have been paid for many times over by now. Is this an inherent problem with privatisation?