The Networker programme had high ambitions for sure... until the bean-counters got their way!Wasn't the original "Networker" plan supposed to cover all 3 NSE sectors until it was decided that it would only cover the Kent lines and KX?
Part of that is progress.
23m coaches were an improvement on 20m coaches but there are places where the clearances don't permit their use. Should we have been constrained to 20m coaches forever?
.
I agree it would be a great deal easier if we had a standardised C1/C3/C4 Rating over the entire network as far as kinematics is concerned.it's very lucky the that we do have the option with the flirts at 20m/16m,although artics can pose a new set of problems.
I could certainly see such an approach working for southest/southern/southwest,where you just need to assign a basic stock type(s) for exclusive 3rd rail and bi-mode.give the numbers of units it would keep costs down too if a big order placed rather than numerous micro-fleets of 20-40 odd...especially if it's a rolling programme..ie we'll order 500 of these going into service at the rate of 70 sets per year...that will help manufacturers with planning their design and production lines.Except those operating divisions were all part of BR; I'm not a fan of privatisation especially but do feel that the biggest problem with it was the franchises were too small which prevented a unified service; something that admittedly has been rectified more recently with GWR for example.
Granted a 'pan-Southern' franchise would continue to operate from different depots and have subdivisions for the SW, S and SE, but the point is it would be the same company, all divisions would be running in cooperation, not in competition, with each other, and could order the same stock, allowing one division's units to 'rescue' another's for example, plan a unified timetable to minimise conflicts at places like Havant, or enable joint working of certain routes which crossed subdivisions, such as SOU to Victoria (granted this didn't happen under BR either but in theory it could), or even design completely new routes from scratch without having to tread on another company's toes.
Are you sure that it was standardisation which led to a lack of design progression - rather than other things like financial constraints?
Perhaps if it was specified in the train design acceptance to run on NR metals the same coupler and TMS must be used on all stoc, then you would have a more standardised compatibility across the network. There's no real reason why a 185 can't MU with a 444 or 350, or a 170 to a 377. the need of the will isn't there of course, but the theory is. Common standards need only be specified as a requirement to conform to and they will quickly sort themselves out. As @GrimShady pit it, the America s have been doing it since the 1940s, why can't we? The answer there being privatisation fragmentation.
Coupler wise for MUs the aim is that everyone should use Dellner at standard height albeit the electrical connections are different but enough to allow brake release and towing dead units.Perhaps if it was specified in the train design acceptance to run on NR metals the same coupler and TMS must be used on all stoc, then you would have a more standardised compatibility across the network. There's no real reason why a 185 can't MU with a 444 or 350, or a 170 to a 377. the need of the will isn't there of course, but the theory is. Common standards need only be specified as a requirement to conform to and they will quickly sort themselves out. As @GrimShady pit it, the America s have been doing it since the 1940s, why can't we? The answer there being privatisation fragmentation.
There's no real reason why a 185 can't MU with a 444 or 350
That doesn't seem to be as great a problem recently, with several franchises going for a total fleet replacement. The 80x are turning out to be quite numerous, and on the regional scale the 195+196+TfW variety of CAF unit will number more than the ubiquitous 170s, the 150s, or the 156s.Isn't it just money that's the problem?
It would be great for Northern to replace all their trains with 195s, but they can't afford it.
It'll be a problem for years with operators ordering (not particularly) small fleets when compared to the mighty 150 / 156 / 158 practically go anywhere units.
Yes, but that was when it wasn't at all clear what systems would be best.BR weren't exactly good at standard MU controls either. There was a ridiculous amount of different control mechanisms on the first gen diesels.
Standardisation can come when innovations stagnate. For now we're better off getting the much needed new features in.
Yes - there seem to have been several recent situations where massive issues have arisen from a backlog of training on new units. The Thameslink debacle and now the Scotrail HSTs. A lot of this could surely be avoided by having a limited number of stock types, and making sure that most staff were able to work most of them.
I assume this must have generally been the case when the majority of passenger stock on the network was mkI/II/III coaches?
The first generation d.m.u.s could also be loco hauled, if necessary, having standard buffers and couplings.
Isn't it just money that's the problem?
It would be great for Northern to replace all their trains with 195s, but they can't afford it.
It'll be a problem for years with operators ordering (not particularly) small fleets when compared to the mighty 150 / 156 / 158 practically go anywhere units.
But what about services that won't ever see units coupled?IMO 195 and 331 should have been designed to be both mechanical and electrical compatible WITH gangways.
But what about services that won't ever see units coupled?
Seems unnecessarily obstructive of the drivers view for no reason.
To be fair, there are designs of the 331 with gangways... they're being built for WMT.
If MUs were specified at procurement with a capability of relatively easy cab replacement allowing them to be redeployed to a greater number of roles, the additional cost would probably be recovered in their lifetime. If cab signalling eventuallybecomes widespread, it is likely that gangway connections might become more universal, (as was the case in the old SR).Standardised rolling stock that's interchangeable.
If MUs were specified at procurement with a capability of relatively easy cab replacement allowing them to be redeployed to a greater number of roles, the additional cost would probably be recovered in their lifetime. If cab signalling eventuallybecomes widespread, it is likely that gangway connections might become more universal, (as was the case in the old SR).