Which trains are likely to be withdrawn more quickly now due to the coronavirus situation?

[squizzler]

Which rolling stock classes, in Britain and abroad, are likely to suffer an expedited withdrawal from service because of this crisis? I notice there are plenty of class withdrawal threads in the traction and rolling stock section, on which discussion turns to whether particular type is gone for good in the emergency timetable, but thought some might find a more speculative master thread to be useful.

 

[Mat17]

Pacers being a good bet - probably a dead cert for Northern 142s (of which there are only 4 left) and I dare say class 144 might bite the dust earlier? Who knows though?

 

[squizzler]

Seeking examples overseas, I thought of not an old train but one that is almost new, whose apparent jinx seems to live on. Somewhat off (my own) topic however as it is likely to be useful afterwards!

According to Wikipedia the V250 (Fyra) acquired by Trenitalia should have just about entered squadron service - running into Milan, the capital of Lombardy.

The first four entered on 9 June 2019 on Frecciargento services on the Adriatic railway between Milan and Ancona with all to be in service by early 2020 with services extended to Lecce.

 

[squizzler]

Still looking overseas, had SNCF already got rid of all their LHCS?

 

[Jamesrob637]

Still looking overseas, had SNCF already got rid of all their LHCS?

Don't really want to answer a question with another question but how frequent is the Bordeaux to Marseille route at present? That was one of the last "bastions" of haulage just after the December '19 timetable change.

 

[SHD]

Still looking overseas, had SNCF already got rid of all their LHCS?

No, not at all, although there is clearly a move towards EMUs and DMUs.

Corail coaches are notably still active between Paris and Clermont Ferrand, Paris and Limoges/Toulouse, Paris and Orléans/Tours, Strasbourg and Basel, Bordeaux and Marseille, etc.

New EMUs are being deployed on the Paris-Caen route.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Why would it make any difference? Coronavirus can "affect" any train, new or old. It would just have to be taken out of service for a deep clean/decontamination

 

[squizzler]

There are lots of trains, particularly in the UK, that are being phased out. The limited timetable currently in force allows some obsolete fleets to be removed with it likely that when the normal timetable is reinstated their replacements will all have arrived. I am hoping this thread can identify those classes.

Ironically, the emergency timetable is mostly not causing an 'early' withdrawal of the older trains, more like a 'less delayed than it was recently going to be' withdrawal. Many of these classes were intended to be withdrawn by the turn of the new year on account of Disability Acts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNR Class 319 (depending on delays to Aventra production) maybe?
442s
GA Mk3s (already out of service I believe)
Possibly Welsh Mk3s?
All remaining Pacers
I also believe the last Eurostar TMST (i.e. the ones not tarted up to E300s) is done with.

...would be some ideas?

 

[JonathanH]

There still seem to be a few HSTs out on EMR - as there is a diagram that starts from Neville Hill. I would have thought this might have been the perfect opportunity to remove them and not bother with the former LNER ones.

GWR 143s have been stood down and some EMR 153s.

68+Mk2s on Fife Circle appear to have stopped

 

[30907]

No, not at all, although there is clearly a move towards EMUs and DMUs.

Corail coaches are notably still active between Paris and Clermont Ferrand, Paris and Limoges/Toulouse, Paris and Orléans/Tours, Strasbourg and Basel, Bordeaux and Marseille, etc.

New EMUs are being deployed on the Paris-Caen route.

They are also common on TER semi-fast services in some areas - Alsace, Lyon, Provence - though gradually being replaced by more accessible and better-equipped EMUs.

There still seem to be a few HSTs out on EMR - as there is a diagram that starts from Neville Hill. I would have thought this might have been the perfect opportunity to remove them and not bother with the former LNER ones.

EMR are still running a fairly full peak timetable, so presumably the 222s can't cover everything (not yet?). They would also be taking a big gamble if they assumed they could manage without for the rest of the year.

 

[Jamesrob637]

315s/317s/some Merseyrail sets

 

[DarloRich]

Which old trains are most at risk from coronavirus?

Surely they should be shielding due to being in at risk group!

 

[gazthomas]

Which old trains are most at risk from coronavirus?

Surely they should be shielding due to being in at risk group!

That's exactly how I read it!

 

[Cowley]

Me too! I’ve amended the title now.

 

[merry]

I'd put money that, although not withdrawn, TPE will avoid using their 365s as far as possible [depends on the new stock being available], as they are rather heavy and so guzzle deisel like it's going out of fashion. Track access charges are also higher due to the weight.
Other operators may choose to use the most economic or practical stock in their portfolio (e.g. fewest staff if that's today's issue, or lowest per-mile lease charge, fuel cost or track access fee, maybe the least maintenance if staff are not avaialble, etc.). Choices will be different from any other time!

 

[Domh245]

I'd put money that, although not withdrawn, TPE will avoid using their 365s as far as possible [depends on the new stock being available], as they are rather heavy and so guzzle deisel like it's going out of fashion. Track access charges are also higher due to the weight.
Other operators may choose to use the most economic or practical stock in their portfolio (e.g. fewest staff if that's today's issue, or lowest per-mile lease charge, fuel cost or track access fee, maybe the least maintenance if staff are not avaialble, etc.). Choices will be different from any other time!

365s? You mean 185s? I don't see why they wouldn't use them if that's what they have, after all they are keeping hold of at least 18 of them.

Also don't forget that Government are now fronting costs for TOCs, so TOCs won't be particularly worried about access charges or fuel, but staffing factors will be an important factor. On that note presumably GWR are running fewer 2x5 car IETS during this because of the high staffing levels required for those?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Once the government comprehends the cost of the Covid-19 emergency measures on the national budget, I'd expect railway budgets to be squeezed.
Who's going to sign off any new builds when no-one knows when or how strongly the economy is going to grow back?
I doubt the franchise specs of the future will be as generous as those we currently have.
Existing orders will be OK, and there is still a lot of ordered new stock to deliver and get into service.
But I'd expect the early withdrawal of Mk3 and Mk4 stock and the delay/cancellation of expansion plans (eg LNER's planned new services).
Small non-standard fleets and those which are expensive to maintain will follow.

In an earlier famine, BR Inter-City took HSTs away from GW* routes so that the MML, XC and WCML could replace LHCS stock and speed up services.
I can see something like that coming down the track in the future, especially if there is a single management of operations.
As for HS2, it will have a whole set of new financial hurdles to pass before the money for it is released.
CP6 projects are probably safe, but by the time we get to CP7 planning in a couple of years, the impact of Covid-19 will be a lot clearer - and probably not favourable.

*The WR had so many HSTs it was running them on Oxford-Reading local services.

 

[merry]

@Domh245 Duh! Yes, 185, dashed it off quickly.
There is still a great incentive to be efficient - the national contract is supposedly fixed price, not cost-plus. So running fuel hungry and expensive access trains empty is not good for the TOC bottom line.
Anyway, you are right, dragging empty staffed stock round the network would just be daft. Oh wait, it happens in many places offpeak...oh well, can't win them all.

 

[Jamesrob637]

365s? You mean 185s? I don't see why they wouldn't use them if that's what they have, after all they are keeping hold of at least 18 of them.

Also don't forget that Government are now fronting costs for TOCs, so TOCs won't be particularly worried about access charges or fuel, but staffing factors will be an important factor. On that note presumably GWR are running fewer 2x5 car IETS during this because of the high staffing levels required for those?

Most Plymouth to Paddington were 5 vs 10 and that was LAST week so THIS week probably won't see any 10s!

 

[317 forever]

On a similar note, ScotRail are not using the unrefurbished 125s as they have sufficient refurbished examples for the reduced levels of service on those lines. So, this is painting the picture of them already being all refurbished.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

At the moment we need every train run at its maximum route length so there is space for those that need to travel.

Nothing should be being scrapped and PRM compliance needs to be suspended

Getting Britain safely back to work should be the industries priority so there is a source for future demand and need for this industry.

 

[merry]

At the moment we need every train run at its maximum route length so there is space for those that need to travel.

Nothing should be being scrapped and PRM compliance needs to be suspended

Getting Britain safely back to work should be the industries priority so there is a source for future demand and need for this industry.

On the contrary, where those with PRM need essential tavel, it's most inequitable that they should be further restricted than everyone else. Inaccessible stock needs more assistance boarding, and in the journey, which can't be given easily with distancing - so if anything, to meet the needs of Social Distancing, and equality, acceleration of new stock introductoins and minimising use of inaccessible stock, would be better. Generally, new stock is likely easier to clean (by design) and should require less staff intervention in operation (as a design requirement). Well, we can hope...

Yes, longer trains would allow better distancing, but as I understand it most of the new stock already offers more space per unit (certainly on TPE and LNE), so is an ideal choice all round. Given shortage of staff (due to staff who must shield and can't work safely), running more services is not an option, so choosing the most helpful stock for the limited possible service is the best option. And that includes optomising PRM access, even if only as a side effect of best stock choices.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

On the contrary, where those with PRM need essential tavel, it's most inequitable that they should be further restricted than everyone else. Inaccessible stock needs more assistance boarding, and in the journey, which can't be given easily with distancing - so if anything, to meet the needs of Social Distancing, and equality, acceleration of new stock introductoins and minimising use of inaccessible stock, would be better. Generally, new stock is likely easier to clean (by design) and should require less staff intervention in operation (as a design requirement). Well, we can hope...

Yes, longer trains would allow better distancing, but as I understand it most of the new stock already offers more space per unit (certainly on TPE and LNE), so is an ideal choice all round. Given shortage of staff (due to staff who must shield and can't work safely), running more services is not an option, so choosing the most helpful stock for the limited possible service is the best option. And that includes optomising PRM access, even if only as a side effect of best stock choices.

People needing assistance maybe better served by having a dedicated road based transport solution in the current crisis?

Yes get new stock into use asap but if capacity is capped at 10% then we need to maximise what we have to stand any chance of being able to transport people safely to/from work.

 

[Bikeman78]

There are lots of trains, particularly in the UK, that are being phased out. The limited timetable currently in force allows some obsolete fleets to be removed with it likely that when the normal timetable is reinstated their replacements will all have arrived. I am hoping this thread can identify those classes.

Ironically, the emergency timetable is mostly not causing an 'early' withdrawal of the older trains, more like a 'less delayed than it was recently going to be' withdrawal. Many of these classes were intended to be withdrawn by the turn of the new year on account of Disability Acts.

The problem is that driver training has stopped, at least I think that is still the case. Unless it resumes then some of the mothballed fleets will have to come back. Especially if the focus is on maximum length trains in the coming weeks.

I thought that the phase 2 317s would be grounded but that has not been the case. Nearly all of them have worked since lockdown. I do not think the 144s will come back because nearly all the 195s have arrived and most crews are trained on them. Conversely, any increase in service in Wales will see the Pacers come back. Unless anyone knows different, little, if any, crew training has been done on 769s.

 

[Jamesrob637]

(Some) 142s may have to stay but must be coupled to a PRM-compliant 15X if train lengths are going to be optimised due to social distancing. Conversely we may see a couple of 144s in the same situation.

 

[Bikeman78]

LNR Class 319 (depending on delays to Aventra production) maybe?
442s
GA Mk3s (already out of service I believe)
Possibly Welsh Mk3s?
All remaining Pacers
I also believe the last Eurostar TMST (i.e. the ones not tarted up to E300s) is done with.

...would be some ideas?

LNR 319s is a good shout. Presume they are moving around empty to keep them working?
442s weren't planned to be withdrawn. They will probably come back for a while but could be binned if passenger numbers drop semi permanently.
I think you are right about Welsh Mk3 but I expect Welsh Pacers will return.
The last old unrefurbished Eurostar ran mid March.