Should we have a national strategy for how rolling stock is replaced?

[py_megapixel]

Following a discussion in the thread, "Is the class 455 really life-expired?", I thought we ought to have a thread about this.

Currently, whether rolling stock is replaced or not is decided rather inconsistently based upon what franchisees bid, and therefore indirectly based on what the DfT chooses.
This leads to the situation where there are massive inconsistencies, where some very new rolling stock is replaced, while other stock is still in service despite being extremely outdated.

So should a system be established to mitigate this?
Perhaps there should be a system whereby new fleets of trains are specified for a particular lifespan - for example, 35 years (obviously this would be different for each order). A schedule should be created for each fleet, indicating when mechanical overhauls, retractioning, interior refurbs etc. should be carried out, and franchise holders should be required to commit to ensuring that this schedule is observed and that general maintenance is kept to a good standard. This schedule could be modified if the use of the units changes, but it should not be able to be done unilaterally by the TOC.

Once the units have reached the end of their specified life, franchise bids should be required to allow for their withdrawal, whether this involves new build or cascade.
Similarly, unless the DfT provides a specific derogation (which should only happen if a fleet becomes very unreliable), bids which involve replacements of stock which will not reach the end of the specified life within the franchise length should be considered noncompliant.

I'm aware that this is quite "fantasy" and that this would probably require some major alterations to the structure of the way rolling stock leasing works. I'm also open to discussing alternative suggestions if anyone has them!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm aware that this is quite "fantasy" and that this would probably require some major alterations to the structure of the way rolling stock leasing works. I'm also open to discussing alternative suggestions if anyone has them!

I'm not sure it's that fantasy - the 80x are basically pretty close to being a standard InterCity train, with TOCs mostly only varying the colour scheme and the choice between lengths of 5 and 9-car.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Any 'system' that seems to place a high weighting to 'specified life' seems likely to encourage an even higher degree of inertia.

For example: "we don't need to electrify this line for 30 years because the current DMUs are only five years old"; or

"there's no point in raising the linespeed to 110mph because the current (10-year-old) trains can only do 90mph" or

"we can't do much to improve dwell times because we've just introduced some new trains with 23m vehicles and end doors".

I am much more inclined to a policy where stock can be (re-)deployed tactically and, frankly, if it's past its appeal/usefulness then disposed of.

 

[Journeyman]

We're pretty close to having that strategy. I just think you disagree with certain aspects of it.

 

[mark-h]

The current situation results in batches of orders for stock and then gaps when nothing is ordered or constructed. This makes it hard for the manufacturers to develop a skilled workforce and efficient production facilities resulting in orders going to overseas manufacturers.

 

[6Gman]

Once the units have reached the end of their specified life, franchise bids should be required to allow for their withdrawal, whether this involves new build or cascade.
Similarly, unless the DfT provides a specific derogation (which should only happen if a fleet becomes very unreliable), bids which involve replacements of stock which will not reach the end of the specified life within the franchise length should be considered noncompliant.

What if the rolling stock concerned is still ideal for the services on which they are to be used?

 

[Journeyman]

The current situation results in batches of orders for stock and then gaps when nothing is ordered or constructed. This makes it hard for the manufacturers to develop a skilled workforce and efficient production facilities resulting in orders going to overseas manufacturers.

That situation hasn't applied for years. Just about all the UK train builders are operating at capacity and have healthy orders.

 

[py_megapixel]

All of the posts made here are valid points, and the constructive criticism is very much appreciated.

(This thread is titled "Should we have..." for this very reason - I'm not an expert and I'm interested to hear what pitfalls such a strategy might have!)

 

[colchesterken]

The whole system is floored. here in Anglia land we are having a new fleet,= finding new homes for the 360s and the 379s ,loads of money was spent on the refurb of 30x 321. apart from the door banging when passing other trains @ 100mph they are a very nice train with AC traction and air con
C2C wanted a few extra trains for rush hour work, why not send them the recon 321s rather than them leasing new trains for one or two return trips a day
We have the daft situation of loads of stock which has 10 yrs+ life left going to store and rotting before going for scrap
Could all this bad management and lack of forward planning be part of the reason why we have the highest fares in Europe, last yr (2019) on holiday I did a 70km trip on SNCF, walk on off peak 10 euro!!

 

[Irascible]

Short answer would be either "yes" or "maybe" - I feel like we certainly need stronger standards concerning interoperability.

Does one shoe fit all? well I'm pretty sure you could replace everything from a 150 to a 170 with two basic body patterns ( there *is* still a need for end door more-seats layouts ), givem DEMU/hybrid one control system, and let operators jiggle the seating as usual. I don't think anyone actually offers anything suitable off the shelf though, so perhaps what we really need are more programmes like IEP until we actually get good at them.

 

[RealTrains07]

The current situation results in batches of orders for stock and then gaps when nothing is ordered or constructed. This makes it hard for the manufacturers to develop a skilled workforce and efficient production facilities resulting in orders going to overseas manufacturers.

But thats the thing about the railway. Unike car manufacturing. There is not always a constant need or demand for new trains.

Having periods without ordering new fleets is normal as there isnt going to be life expired fleets needing replacement every single year.

I would argue we have too many manufacturers for an industry which dosent need so many. Its flooded.

 

[RealTrains07]

If we tried replacing every single fleet in the country we would not need new train for 2 decades at a minimum. That what seems to be happening now, trains especially mid life are being wasted over “state of the art” new trains due to TOC convenience and ROSCO greed.

How we deal with rolling stock needs an overhaul. Otherwise rail manufacturers won’t survive longterm.

End of life stock such as the HSTs and whatever is left of the second gen BR built units need replacing as they are end of life but 2010 built units such as 350/2s and 379s need new homes. Units like those play a vital part in giving train manufacturers a future. They need plenty of mid life stock running on the rails now so that they have work to to replace these trains in the future when they turn end of life.

 

[DustyBin]

The whole system is floored. here in Anglia land we are having a new fleet,= finding new homes for the 360s and the 379s ,loads of money was spent on the refurb of 30x 321. apart from the door banging when passing other trains @ 100mph they are a very nice train with AC traction and air con
C2C wanted a few extra trains for rush hour work, why not send them the recon 321s rather than them leasing new trains for one or two return trips a day
We have the daft situation of loads of stock which has 10 yrs+ life left going to store and rotting before going for scrap
Could all this bad management and lack of forward planning be part of the reason why we have the highest fares in Europe, last yr (2019) on holiday I did a 70km trip on SNCF, walk on off peak 10 euro!!

My thoughts exactly. Somebody is picking up the tab for all of this waste, and I don’t think it’s the TOCs or ROSCOs....

 

[RealTrains07]

My thoughts exactly. Somebody is picking up the tab for all of this waste, and I don’t think it’s the TOCs or ROSCOs....

Exactly. This is what concerns me about the DfT now having a bigger say when it comes to TOCs and there train stock compared to pre covid. They havent got a clue what they are doing and will happily waste modern trains that cost millions just because its convenient even though these modern trains meet all modern regs and PRM requirements and have 15 - 20 years left on the railway.

we need more imput from rail experts who aren’t politicians. That might help when it comes to creating a better system maybe?

 

[A0wen]

The whole system is floored. here in Anglia land we are having a new fleet,= finding new homes for the 360s and the 379s ,loads of money was spent on the refurb of 30x 321. apart from the door banging when passing other trains @ 100mph they are a very nice train with AC traction and air con
C2C wanted a few extra trains for rush hour work, why not send them the recon 321s rather than them leasing new trains for one or two return trips a day
We have the daft situation of loads of stock which has 10 yrs+ life left going to store and rotting before going for scrap
Could all this bad management and lack of forward planning be part of the reason why we have the highest fares in Europe, last yr (2019) on holiday I did a 70km trip on SNCF, walk on off peak 10 euro!!

Well the 360s have already found a home, the 379s probably will fairly shortly given the electrification which is underway in various areas.

It's worth remembering the 321s are now 30 year old trains so are nearing the end of their life - their performance is, by modern EMU standards, relatively poor and their capacity is reduced by virtue of the age of their design - in fact they've reached the same age their immediate predecessors, the Class 312s, did when they were withdrawn.

 

[geoffk]

Other issues are incompatibility of couplings (BSI/Dellner/Scharfenberg) and loading gauge restrictions placed on certain types of stock. The latter were prevalent on BR and its predecessors, the best known being the narrow tunnels on the Hastings line, but additional restrictions have come with newer rolling stock, e.g. 155s cannot run to Wigan Wallgate. Are most of these due to modern units having more equipment under the floor? Weight restrictions imposed by bridges will always be there. Many passengers probably believe that any train should be able to run anywhere and couple to any other but this is far from the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are most of these due to modern units having more equipment under the floor?

Most such restrictions are because something, either above or below the solebar, would whack something on the route concerned.

 

[Energy]

Worth remembering a lot of ex-BR trains are around the same age... the current system is a bit broken however the only TOC which has these problems have been the Abellio ones (the SWR 707s found a home and were reported to be going to SE from fairly early on, the rest of SWRs fleet was either old (455/456) or unreliable (458)), GA wasn't too bad as the 321s and mk3s were nearly at the end of their life and 317s really needed replacing, the 379s could find another operator fairly easily and so could the 360s. However WMT was pretty bad, the 323 replacement isn't a suprise and they have found a home at Northern anyway but the 350/2s replacement really isn't great, these trains work very well at LNWR bar their 2+2 seating and I would have prefered the 360s to be added instead inaddition. I'm also not a fan of the 196 order, we shouldn't be ordering DMUs...

 

[A0wen]

I'm also not a fan of the 196 order, we shouldn't be ordering DMUs...

Even if you wanted to, you can't electrify many of the routes the DMUs are covering immediately and some are probably impractical to ever electrify - Conwy Valley anyone ?

The DMUs which are due replacement will also be over 30 years old - i.e. the Sprinters - and moving to new DMUs will reduce emissions by virtue of having more modern drivetrains with the relevant emissions systems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if you wanted to, you can't electrify many of the routes the DMUs are covering immediately and some are probably impractical to ever electrify - Conwy Valley anyone ?

Go to Switzerland and tell me that electrifying the Conwy Valley isn't feasible

Battery operation probably cheaper, though.

 

[A0wen]

Go to Switzerland and tell me that electrifying the Conwy Valley isn't feasible

Battery operation probably cheaper, though.

Feasible and viable are not the same - I'm not sure electrifying at 25kv a route which has limited clearances and a pre-disposition for flooding is a good idea......

 

[HSTEd]

Yes we should, but we won't get it.

Instead we get a zoo of incompatible units designed for maximum manufacturer lock in.

 

[DustyBin]

Well the 360s have already found a home, the 379s probably will fairly shortly given the electrification which is underway in various areas.

It's worth remembering the 321s are now 30 year old trains so are nearing the end of their life - their performance is, by modern EMU standards, relatively poor and their capacity is reduced by virtue of the age of their design - in fact they've reached the same age their immediate predecessors, the Class 312s, did when they were withdrawn.

How close is “nearly” though, ten years? This isn’t like renewing your mobile phone a couple of months early just because you can, we’re talking about millions of pounds of assets going to waste. There’s the Renatus units as well to consider.

The 312s themselves were withdrawn prematurely so I’m not sure they’re the best comparison to be honest

Worth remembering a lot of ex-BR trains are around the same age... the current system is a bit broken however the only TOC which has these problems have been the Abellio ones (the SWR 707s found a home and were reported to be going to SE from fairly early on, the rest of SWRs fleet was either old (455/456) or unreliable (458)), GA wasn't too bad as the 321s and mk3s were nearly at the end of their life and 317s really needed replacing, the 379s could find another operator fairly easily and so could the 360s. However WMT was pretty bad, the 323 replacement isn't a suprise and they have found a home at Northern anyway but the 350/2s replacement really isn't great, these trains work very well at LNWR bar their 2+2 seating and I would have prefered the 360s to be added instead inaddition. I'm also not a fan of the 196 order, we shouldn't be ordering DMUs...

We need new DMUs (I can’t say I’m a fan of the 196s though!). Realistically we’re never going to have a fully electrified network, and whilst I’m supportive of new and innovative technology, it isn’t there yet. Diesel remains the only practical solution and will do so for the foreseeable future. I expect certainly the lower end of the 15x series of DMUs to be replaced by more DMUs, assuming they don’t do more than another ten years.

Yes we should, but we won't get it.

Instead we get a zoo of incompatible units designed for maximum manufacturer lock in.

That’s another concern I have, I meant to bring it up actually.

 

[43096]

(the SWR 707s found a home and were reported to be going to SE from fairly early on, the rest of SWRs fleet was either old (455/456) or unreliable (458)),

If a fleet that was the most reliable in the country at one point is deemed “unreliable” then shouldn’t we be replacing the country’s entire fleet on that basis? The replacements aren’t exactly noted for reliability, either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We need new DMUs (I can’t say I’m a fan of the 196s though!). Realistically we’re never going to have a fully electrified network, and whilst I’m supportive of new and innovative technology, it isn’t there yet. Diesel remains the only practical solution and will do so for the foreseeable future. I expect certainly the lower end of the 15x series of DMUs to be replaced by more DMUs, assuming they don’t do more than another ten years.

The idea with the 195, and the whole reason 2-car sets exist, is that electrification will cascade them onto the sort of rural route where the wires will never be justified.

 

[Energy]

If a fleet that was the most reliable in the country at one point is deemed “unreliable” then shouldn’t we be replacing the country’s entire fleet on that basis? The replacements aren’t exactly noted for reliability, either.

How reliable has the 458s been since they got a complete rebuild? They are still a microfleet though...

 

[A0wen]

How close is “nearly” though, ten years? This isn’t like renewing your mobile phone a couple of months early just because you can, we’re talking about millions of pounds of assets going to waste. There’s the Renatus units as well to consider.

The 312s themselves were withdrawn prematurely so I’m not sure they’re the best comparison to be honest

The Renatus units are a micro-fleet - that puts them at risk.

The 321s probably were 30 years old when they went - their sister units, the 310s, went when they were 35 years old. Most other AC units have gone at 35-40 years, but they were all getting pretty tired at that point as the recently withdrawn class 313s showed.

It's not "millions" going to waste if they're not needed and aren't suitable for the rail network now.

If you want to talk about "millions" going to waste where the rail industry is concerned, then scrapping 7 year old 9Fs in the late 60s was a far bigger problem.

 

[RealTrains07]

Worth remembering a lot of ex-BR trains are around the same age... the current system is a bit broken however the only TOC which has these problems have been the Abellio ones (the SWR 707s found a home and were reported to be going to SE from fairly early on, the rest of SWRs fleet was either old (455/456) or unreliable (458)), GA wasn't too bad as the 321s and mk3s were nearly at the end of their life and 317s really needed replacing, the 379s could find another operator fairly easily and so could the 360s. However WMT was pretty bad, the 323 replacement isn't a suprise and they have found a home at Northern anyway but the 350/2s replacement really isn't great, these trains work very well at LNWR bar their 2+2 seating and I would have prefered the 360s to be added instead inaddition. I'm also not a fan of the 196 order, we shouldn't be ordering DMUs...

Mark 3s aren’t nearly life expired. They are life expired as much as the 317s are i would say.

I agree. Ordering new DMUs shouldn’t really be happening when we have projects going on with battery and hydrogen EMUs is pretty ridiculous. But then again it does hugely depend on the sort of route they are required for, in some cases diesel is the best option for now.

WMT have made some poor decisions in replacing their trains in my view. Feel like its being done to make the west midlands mayor look good and to prove that investment is made in the midlands rather than being for passenger benefit.

WMT getting rid of the 350/2s is exactly why we have a problem with how rolling stock is dealt with. They are being replaced not because they are old or because of the seating layout but because WMT cares more about saving money even if they put to waste millions of previous investment in the midlands.

 

[Journeyman]

Mark 3s aren’t nearly life expired. They are life expired as much as the 317s are i would say.

Yes, they are! Most of them have terrible corrosion issues, obsolete and unreliable electronics and slam doors which make them non-PRM compliant. You can't actually get more life expired than that.

Enthusiasts are far too attached to Mark 3s.

 

[Energy]

Yes, they are! Most of them have terrible corrosion issues, obsolete and unreliable electronics and slam doors which make them non-PRM compliant. You can't actually get more life expired than that.

Enthusiasts are far too attached to Mark 3s.

I wasn't too sure which one to put them in and decided to put in the nearly expired because of the younger class 90s.