• 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!

Network rail yellow fleet withdrawal

Zontar

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2018
Messages
573
Location
Birmingham
Apparently it is all going to be replaced.


Network Rail has started preliminary market engagement on a contract to provide new rail infrastructure monitoring services, with an estimated total value of £1.2bn excluding VAT.
The Rail Infrastructure Monitoring Service Replacement contract is expected to run from 26 February 2027 through 25 February 2035, with a potential extension up to 25 February 2043 for a total of 16 years.

The current infrastructure monitoring data is primarily gathered through a fleet of dedicated monitoring trains, known colloquially as the “yellow fleet”. However, Network Rail has identified that this ageing fleet is outdated and increasingly unpredictable, necessitating its retirement and replacement.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
2,115
I'm not sure if its just me but it doesnt seem reasonable that drones, robots, and satellite systems are able to do PLPR or MENTOR duties.
I'm struggling to decipher if the word 'Replacement' is intended to insinuate new rolling stock or a 'Withdrawal' with no rolling stock replacement.
 
Joined
22 Jan 2024
Messages
99
Location
Yorkshire
Looks like a fishing exercise to see what gets suggested!

I can't somehow see the yellow fleet being replaced - a complete new fleet of bespoke monitoring trains would cost a fortune.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,130
Location
Bristol
I'm not sure if its just me but it doesnt seem reasonable that drones, robots, and satellite systems are able to do PLPR or MENTOR duties.
I'm struggling to decipher if the word 'Replacement' is intended to insinuate new rolling stock or a 'Withdrawal' with no rolling stock replacement.
It's probably a mix of both.

Looks like a fishing exercise to see what gets suggested!
Which is a very normal thing for these tendering options to have. I'm quite happy for NR to ask what other people offer rather than ask people to match a pre-set specification, as there's lots of good ideas outside NR as well as inside it.
I can't somehow see the yellow fleet being replaced - a complete new fleet of bespoke monitoring trains would cost a fortune.
I can see any of the current fleet on the production lines being heavily modified after initial assembly. It'd then be able to be maintained at any of the manufacturer's depots for the mechanical/electrical side. A fleet of 125mph Go-anywhere bi-modes would be handy.
 
Joined
22 Jan 2024
Messages
99
Location
Yorkshire
I personally think a heavily modified class 745 would be a suitable replacement

An articulated unit would probably not be a great idea - it would only be possible to maintain it at sites which could jack the whole thing. Something with more conventional separate vehicles with their own bogies would be more flexible.
 

WirralLine

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2024
Messages
309
Location
Wirral
I can see any of the current fleet on the production lines being heavily modified after initial assembly. It'd then be able to be maintained at any of the manufacturer's depots for the mechanical/electrical side. A fleet of 125mph Go-anywhere bi-modes would be handy
950001 of course being just that was it not - a fleet on a current production line at the time (150/1) but built as a track monitoring unit from day 1.

I'm sure plenty of additional costs involved these days though!
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
8,667
Location
Taunton or Kent
Looks like a fishing exercise to see what gets suggested!

I can't somehow see the yellow fleet being replaced - a complete new fleet of bespoke monitoring trains would cost a fortune.
Like everything, it can't last forever. Except 37s though, which run on fuel from the fountain of youth.
 

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
2,115
Logic says; Bolt the requirement on as a follow on from a new train order since the factory is already producing body shells. Something like the AT300 or Civity would be ideal.
I find it hard to believe the 153s are life expired.. they’re being upgraded as we speak.
 

Halish Railway

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2017
Messages
2,040
Location
West Yorkshire / Birmingham
I do wonder if one or several of the off-lease Class 221s would make an ideal replacement for the NMT and PLPR trains, being a high performance and mechanically robust train, with a possible maintenance facility in the form of Central Rivers being a stone’s throw from where the PLPR trains are currently based.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,814
Location
Hampshire
Don’t forget though, as technology moves on the capabilities and requirements of Network Rail to have such a large infrastructure monitoring fleet will change. Nearly new item of A/C rolling stock in the country now can provide realtime OHLE / Pantograph information back to both the operators & NR, while a small number of SouthEasterns 707s have LIDAR* fitted to the fronts of them.

*or similar
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,130
Location
Bristol
https://trainlogger.co.uk/units - this link has a list of trains on order, although it may be out of date. NR are going to need a bi-mode or Diesel option you'd think, unless they order a 730 that can be dragged around as needed. Hitachi's greater length would restrict options for the very twisty branch lines, but the 897s may be suitable if one set can be shortened appropriately.
 

saismee

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2023
Messages
286
Location
UK
There are none spare and they are all electric. Not much cop off the wires.
Also not suitable for 125mph operation, so it would almost certainly be better to use some kind of IET derivative in every conceivable case.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,130
Location
Bristol
Also not suitable for 125mph operation, so it would almost certainly be better to use some kind of IET derivative in every conceivable case.
Although one consideration with that is 125mph stock is likely to be less suitable to go over the majority of the network, so either NR procures a 'Main line' and 'branch line' fleet, or it accepts that slower (90/100mph?) paths are an acceptable trade-off.

Given how busy the network is, having two groups of units might be justified, although given NR's financial position procuring more than is strictly necessary may be harder to justify. All depends if NR feels it will be able to get much better efficiency from a high-speed path on the 100mph+ bits of the network than the efficiency of having fewer units that can go over more lines without restrictions.
 

noddingdonkey

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2012
Messages
847
This is a good point- could the capability be added to a proportion of production units/locos to record as they go about their daily work rather than using dedicated trains?
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,906
Location
Gomshall, Surrey
Although one consideration with that is 125mph stock is likely to be less suitable to go over the majority of the network, so either NR procures a 'Main line' and 'branch line' fleet, or it accepts that slower (90/100mph?) paths are an acceptable trade-off.

Given how busy the network is, having two groups of units might be justified, although given NR's financial position procuring more than is strictly necessary may be harder to justify. All depends if NR feels it will be able to get much better efficiency from a high-speed path on the 100mph+ bits of the network than the efficiency of having fewer units that can go over more lines without restrictions.
Why - HSTs are able to get to the most dilapidated and remote branch lines, so what would prevent other 125mph-capable stock from doing the same?
 

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
2,115
Why - HSTs are able to get to the most dilapidated and remote branch lines, so what would prevent other 125mph-capable stock from doing the same?
Most restrictions on 'HST's as a consist are due to the Mk3 profiles and lengths. Powercars are usually fine.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,130
Location
Bristol
Why - HSTs are able to get to the most dilapidated and remote branch lines, so what would prevent other 125mph-capable stock from doing the same?
Length of fixed formations at terminal stations will be one problem, and the Hitachi 26m bodyshell is still awkward for twisty routes despite the various mitigations in the design.
 

tfw756rider

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2024
Messages
251
Location
Wales
https://trainlogger.co.uk/units - this link has a list of trains on order, although it may be out of date. NR are going to need a bi-mode or Diesel option you'd think, unless they order a 730 that can be dragged around as needed. Hitachi's greater length would restrict options for the very twisty branch lines, but the 897s may be suitable if one set can be shortened appropriately.
The 730/2s are about to enter service in June 2025, but I think Alstom Derby are winding down Aventras after the second batch of 345s (10 more units from Alstom, not the for-some-reason separately mentioned 10 from Alstom and 9 from defunct Bombardier), to build any Adessias instead (I believe they're hoping Southeastern will order some). As for the mention of a cancelled order for hydrogen Aventras, sure... I guess the site just wants a record of it. As for them (normally) being electric-only trains, I believe Alstom said they'd build battery/overhead electric bi-mode, or even diesel/battery/overhead electric tri-mode trains if I recall correctly, but they were less keen on building diesel/overhead electric bi-modes.

The 810s have been undergoing driver instructor training and are also due to enter service around the end of 2025 / beginning of 2026, following the training of the normal drivers. However, Hitachi may not want to make another AT300 with "short" vehicles, due to them having more issues than conventional AT300s.

Most 805s and 807s have been in service, but more conventional AT300s have been ordered by First Rail open-access (Hull Trains / Lumo, not only Lumo as mentioned) and Grand Central (the former are mentioned as Class 804, but this is not the case as they've not yet received a class number - on the other hand, correctly, no class number is mentioned for the latter).

65 (of 77) 197s have been in service, and at least 74 are now believed to have been built. That site/page doesn't seem the most in accurate in general, as it states Chester and Machynlleth as depots even for 3-car 197s - Machynlleth will only have some 2-car 197s. I believe CAF Newport will assemble 8 of the 897s once 197 assembly has completely finished.

93s / 99s - I guess Network Rail could order some Stadler locomotives in general if they wanted/needed some. I'm not really familiar with the wagons / specialist vehicles they'd haul, but don't Network Rail have some fairly new ones of those anyway, and if they needed new new ones, they'd know how to acquire them?

=========================

The Stadler 398s are doing daytime test runs in the South Wales valleys and are due to enter service around the end of 2025 / beginning of 2026. They're bi-mode (battery/overhead electric) units, but I'm guessing Network Rail aren't going to want tram-trains :lol:

HS2 trains - the "due" date of 2025 is no longer correct - I'm not aware of their build having even started yet. Also, even if they weren't electric-only, they may be a touch overkill for Network Rail, and they're not a standard product anyway, as they'll be a product of an Alstom-Hitachi joint venture.

23 (of 46) Stadler 555s were built as of June 2024 (and 5 have been in service), but, like the 398s, I doubt Network Rail would want these metro trains. Also, they're overhead electric, and the wrong voltage and electricity type for the National Network. Yes, that could be changed, but no point if they'd be unsuitable anyway.

CAF B23s (to supposedly enter service "in 2025") and Siemens 24TS (planned to enter service "in 2025") - like the 398s and 555s, I highly doubt Network Rail would want either of these! And again, electric-only of course, and like the 555s, there wouldn't be any point in changing the power input (from third rail and fourth rail in these cases).
 
Last edited:

Top