Most Shameful Stock Withdrawal

Which withdrawal of rolling stock made you most angry?


  • Total voters
    114
Status
Not open for further replies.

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
The poll for this has now been fixed so please everyone vote again.
Which withdrawal of stock by a TOC raised your ire the most?
The withdrawal of slam door stock is not included, as this was down to government legislation, and Virgin's Operation Princess is not included as it was apparently an "upgrade".
Adam :D
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
What about withdrawing the Cl312s before their time? The were contemporary with the 313s, although admittedly they were an older design. A few extra 90mph EMUs would be useful in a few places around the country...
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
What about withdrawing the Cl312s before their time? The were contemporary with the 313s, although admittedly they were an older design. A few extra 90mph EMUs would be useful in a few places around the country...

I didn't include them because I wasn't counting slam door stock as TOCs were pressured into withdrawing them, and I'm not sure how much use they would be, bearing in mind we currently have 9 317s stored out of use atm.

Adam :D
 

Pen Mill

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2010
Messages
337
Location
Yeovil Somerset
An opportunity for me to hark back to the 60s & 70s.

14s/15s/16s/17s/21s/22s/23s/28s/29s
All at around or under 10 years old whilst they were still building new 20s with someone carping on about standardisation.

35s/42s/43s/52s all lasting less than 15 years while 50s were built imo unnecessarily.

Colossal waste of money seemingly thrown away without a second thought.
 

atomicdanny

Member
Joined
7 Mar 2010
Messages
534
Location
Kent, UK
How about withdrawing all of the stock (mk1 dmus - Class 101 and a few others ?) that were replaced by Pacers!, although more for me the Class 365s being removed from Southeastern (I used to travel on these a lot when they did Victoria - Dover / Ramsgate)
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
I didn't include them because I wasn't counting slam door stock as TOCs were pressured into withdrawing them, and I'm not sure how much use they would be, bearing in mind we currently have 9 317s stored out of use atm.

Yeah, I know why they were withdrawn, but they still had plenty of life in them when it happened. There were 49 units, which would easily be enough to kick off an electrification project or two, whereas 9 units isn't. BR had a habit of electrifying a line and giving it old cascaded stock so as to defer the cost of new rolling stock (e.g. Leeds-Skipton Cl308s, Manchester Airport Cl309s, etc.).

The 312s could easily have been used in a similar way, maybe for the Snow Hill lines in the West Midlands, the Cardiff Valley Lines, or any of the other busy commuter networks that still run with diesels.
 
Joined
27 Feb 2007
Messages
276
An opportunity for me to hark back to the 60s & 70s.

14s/15s/16s/17s/21s/22s/23s/28s/29s
All at around or under 10 years old

Talking of the 60s, how about all steam traction, some of which was also less than 10 years old when retired?
 

mbonwick

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2006
Messages
6,208
Location
Kendal
I'm sorry but in terms of the poll, there's more to most of those options than meets the eye....
 

12CSVT

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
2,612
Class 58s were withdrawn when they were barely half way through their projected lifespan. One minute they were apparantly EWS's most reliable locos, next minute they were 'non-standard'. So how can a fleet of 50 class 58s be non-standard, but not a fleet of 30 class 67s, which were being introduced at the same time as the 58s were being withdrawn.
 

David10

Member
Joined
25 May 2012
Messages
391
Location
Manchester
So how can a fleet of 50 class 58s be non-standard, but not a fleet of 30 class 67s, which were being introduced at the same time as the 58s were being withdrawn.
Bring non-standard had nothing to do with their demise. The 58s were in need of an overhaul, EWS had a surplus of locos so elected to withdraw them rather than older, more recently locos. As history would show these too were mostly withdrawn by 2004.
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
I meant passenger stock since privatisation.
Sorry :p
Adam :D
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
52,817
Location
Yorkshire
I'm sorry but in terms of the poll, there's more to most of those options than meets the eye....
Yeah, like FGW withdrawing new-ish 180s and storing them. The 180s were/are unreliable, expensive to lease and operate, and were replaced with HSTs that not only had more capacity but saved money too.

As for SWTs 458s, that was over DDA issues and a clever ploy to lowering leasing costs. There's some info on that here. So that's another suggestion that really shouldn't be in the list IMO!

And Southern had no say in the 460s replaced by 442s.. given that the DfT is put as the reason for other options, why is Southern put down for this? :s Also it conveniently misses out the fact that the Juniper coaches are going to strengthen SWTs Junipers - which is very badly needed as those trains can be ridiculously busy.
 

tom1649

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2010
Messages
911
My personal gripe is that the South Eastern 508s were not well maintained and since being run into the ground have been prematurely stored. They are unlikely to be used again. This is at a time when the rest of the PEP derived stock continues to provide good service.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
15,285
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Not finding a home for the ex-WCML Mk3 loco-hauled sets (other than those sent to Norwich) was pretty gross.
That meant 15-odd sets of perfectly good long-distance stock deterioriating in sidings (with the class 87s to haul them) for a decade.
I know most of them found a home eventually but we frittered away the best years of this fleet.
Probably blame the ROSCO on this one, for not investing in them earlier.

Most of the "shameful" list is in fact good housekeeping by the TOCs, though I find the life history of the 458s (scorned one minute, shining example the next) particularly bizarre.
 
Last edited:

A0wen

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
3,811
Not finding a home for the ex-WCML Mk3 loco-hauled sets (other than those sent to Norwich) was pretty gross.
That meant 15-odd sets of perfectly good long-distance stock deterioriating in sidings (with the class 87s to haul them) for a decade.
I know most of them found a home eventually but we frittered away the best years of this fleet.
Probably blame the ROSCO on this one, for not investing in them earlier.

.

Question is where're they could have been used though. The WCML had new Pendos with timings the 87s and coaches couldn't match. The ECML didn't need them as they had sufficient Mk4s and 91s, and Anglia took enough 90s and coaches for their needs.

No good for MML or GWML as not electrified and only limited use to XC as it would have meant having to make loco changes to diesel at various points.

Unfortunately that particular stock was a victim of being too restricted to be easily redeployed elsewhere. Hardly the Roscos fault.
 

Pen Mill

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2010
Messages
337
Location
Yeovil Somerset
I don't think GA/Abellio can be blamed for the 317/7 storage as they had just received 30 x 379s from a 2009 order.
[wiki]In 2009, as part of the government's wider rolling stock plan, an order was placed for thirty four-car Class 379 Electrostar units intended for use by National Express East Anglia (now operated by Greater Anglia) on the Stansted Express and West Anglia services.[wiki]


The 317/7s can possibly be used as a filler on North West electrics ?

142s were sidelined due to technical issues I believe.

In fact added to explanations in Yorkie's post , you appear to be getting unduly excited over genuine cases of necessity at the relevant times.
 
Last edited:

Drsatan

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
1,832
Location
Land of the Sprinters
As for SWTs 458s, that was over DDA issues and a clever ploy to lowering leasing costs. There's some info on that here. So that's another suggestion that really shouldn't be in the list IMO!

And Southern had no say in the 460s replaced by 442s.. given that the DfT is put as the reason for other options, why is Southern put down for this? :s Also it conveniently misses out the fact that the Juniper coaches are going to strengthen SWTs Junipers - which is very badly needed as those trains can be ridiculously busy.

I remember reading in e-motion (SWT's customer magazine, abolished when SWT's franchise was renewed in February 2007), admitting that either the 458s or the 442s would have to go, since SWT did not have enough drivers to operate both fleets.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
Can I add there's one missed off here.

First North Western reintroduced a class 31 hauled 4 car mk2 set towards the end of the franchise to cover 2 x 158s being subleased to TPE. Northern could have kept that set on despite getting the 2 x 158s back from TPE but chose not to.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,598
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Question is where're they could have been used though. The WCML had new Pendos with timings the 87s and coaches couldn't match. The ECML didn't need them as they had sufficient Mk4s and 91s, and Anglia took enough 90s and coaches for their needs.

No good for MML or GWML as not electrified and only limited use to XC as it would have meant having to make loco changes to diesel at various points.

Unfortunately that particular stock was a victim of being too restricted to be easily redeployed elsewhere. Hardly the Roscos fault.

Agreed - if the timing were better then the 87s and Mk3s could have moved over to a newly electrified GWML/ MML for the rest of their lives - one of those "missed opportunities" (of which, in hindsight, there are many!)
 

Temple Meads

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
Devon
Gotta be the storing of the 153's, that seriously caused problems, and was totally out of order in my opinion.
 

A0wen

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
3,811
Agreed - if the timing were better then the 87s and Mk3s could have moved over to a newly electrified GWML/ MML for the rest of their lives - one of those "missed opportunities" (of which, in hindsight, there are many!)

The thing is even 10 years ago the 87s were 30 years old - so you'd have replaced mid-late 1970s HSTs with early 1970s locos and coaches.........

And that's even if either the GWML or MML had been serious electrification candidates at that time.

I suspect the fact the HSTs are getting towards the end of their life is part of the reason electrification is now considered viable - in that the main rolling stock will need to be replaced in the next 10 - 15 years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can I add there's one missed off here.

First North Western reintroduced a class 31 hauled 4 car mk2 set towards the end of the franchise to cover 2 x 158s being subleased to TPE. Northern could have kept that set on despite getting the 2 x 158s back from TPE but chose not to.

Perhaps it wasn't retained because it was "non standard" against FNW's wider fleet and the inherent operating issues and running costs that retaining would have entailed meant it was not viable to do so?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not a 'national' rail one, but I'd suggest the premature withdrawl of the original Jubilee line stock on the Underground?

Surely tube stock should last more than 20 or so years ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What about withdrawing the Cl312s before their time? The were contemporary with the 313s, although admittedly they were an older design. A few extra 90mph EMUs would be useful in a few places around the country...

Perhaps BR shouldn't have still been building suburban stock with slam-doors in the mid 1970s? The PEP designs had sliding doors, which has helped to ensure their life hasn't been curtailed. And the 317s / 455s (which were the next batch of EMUs) were also sliding door, which means they're safe.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
27,946
Location
Yorks
Perhaps BR shouldn't have still been building suburban stock with slam-doors in the mid 1970s? The PEP designs had sliding doors, which has helped to ensure their life hasn't been curtailed. And the 317s / 455s (which were the next batch of EMUs) were also sliding door, which means they're safe.

I'm afraid I don't agree with the implication that slam doors are unsafe. However, the Southern probably could have done with moving over to Mk 2 design for it's slammers (as the Eastern did).

With regard to the Mk 3's I think it's a shame they weren't cascaded to cross country services - perhaps with new loco's. Perhaps this may have been possible had the Cross Country network been the same shape at the time that it is now (missing out the northern part of the WCML and not requiring tilt).
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,598
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
The thing is even 10 years ago the 87s were 30 years old - so you'd have replaced mid-late 1970s HSTs with early 1970s locos and coaches.........

And that's even if either the GWML or MML had been serious electrification candidates at that time

I was thinking that they could have squeezed a few years out of them on the GWML/ MML before getting something new for those lines (in the way that BR put the old 308s on the Airedale/ Wharfdale lines for a few years to offset the cost of electrification - then gave them brand new EMUs once things had settled down), not as a long term thing.

But, as you say, we weren't electrifying any other lines at the time that the 87s were being replaced, so it's a moot point.
 

A0wen

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
3,811
I'm afraid I don't agree with the implication that slam doors are unsafe. However, the Southern probably could have done with moving over to Mk 2 design for it's slammers (as the Eastern did).

With regard to the Mk 3's I think it's a shame they weren't cascaded to cross country services - perhaps with new loco's. Perhaps this may have been possible had the Cross Country network been the same shape at the time that it is now (missing out the northern part of the WCML and not requiring tilt).

I'm not implying that they're unsafe - I do believe that sliding doors tend be more user-friendly in that people aren't having to climb over your knees to get out and the large vestibules of units such as the 313s or 317s made for quicker loading / unloading at each station - reasons why travelling on a 313 on the GN was nicer than than a 312 back in those days.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,129
Location
Redcar
and the large vestibules of units such as the 313s or 317s made for quicker loading / unloading at each station

Have you ever seen a 4VEP unload at Waterloo? Don't think you'll see a train empty out faster than that ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top