Stagecoach Lose EMT to Abellio / Disqualified from 3 Franchises

[nightstar.train]

Does anyone know if the 222s meet the requirements for lights so as to not have yellow ends? I’m curious as to wether it’s compulsory for the 222s, or if it’s a style choice by EMR. Personally I think trains without yellow ends look rather weird. 

[Reorte]

On 18/08/2019 at 20:27, Davexoc said:

Not sure that livery suits that unit....

Are they going to name it Professor Plum?

I quite like it, looks smart.

[St. Simon]

21 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

Does anyone know if the 222s meet the requirements for lights so as to not have yellow ends? I’m curious as to wether it’s compulsory for the 222s, or if it’s a style choice by EMR. Personally I think trains without yellow ends look rather weird. 

 

Hi,

 

I doubt it, the Class 22x’s are quite old now and the headlights don’t seem to be as bright as a 700 or 800.

 

I saw a picture from Bombardier on LinkedIn earlier of a 222 in the purple (presumably the one on the previous page) at Derby, so it is out there now...

 

EDIT: Found it, it is 222104: https://rail.bombardier.com/en/newsroom/press-releases.html/bombardier/news/2019/bt-20190820_bombardier-confirms-three-year-services-contract-for/en

 

Regards,

 

Simon

Edited August 20, 2019 by St. Simon

[woodenhead]

21 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi,

 

I doubt it, the Class 22x’s are quite old now and the headlights don’t seem to be as bright as a 700 or 800.

 

I saw a picture from Bombardier on LinkedIn earlier of a 222 in the purple (presumably the one on the previous page) at Derby, so it is out there now...

 

EDIT: Found it, it is 222104: https://rail.bombardier.com/en/newsroom/press-releases.html/bombardier/news/2019/bt-20190820_bombardier-confirms-three-year-services-contract-for/en

 

Regards,

 

Simon

When a Meridian is 'quite old' then the world truly is bonkers.

 

A nice refurb and put them to use on Cross Country - they could do well on to retain the seating arrangements as now so they don't suffer the Voyager sardine syndrome.

[4630]

Indeed.  The Meridians are barely 15 years old.  In a rational world that would be around half life for rolling stock and approaching time for a mid-life refurbishment.  

Edited August 20, 2019 by 4630

[nightstar.train]

10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

When a Meridian is 'quite old' then the world truly is bonkers.

 

A nice refurb and put them to use on Cross Country - they could do well on to retain the seating arrangements as now so they don't suffer the Voyager sardine syndrome.

 

They’re 14-16 years old now. I know the HSTs have gone on and on but what’s standard life expectancy for a unit? 30 years? In which case they’re middle aged. 

[Zomboid]

The DfT loves new trains. Getting to 15 years service is pretty good by the standards of an organisation which sanctioned the renewal of a train which hadn't even entered service yet (707s).

[DY444]

10 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The DfT loves new trains. Getting to 15 years service is pretty good by the standards of an organisation which sanctioned the renewal of a train which hadn't even entered service yet (707s).

 

It's the money.  The lease cost of a 707 has been described as eye watering which is part of the reason they are going.  Rumour has it that 707s will end up on South Eastern but you can be certain that the lease rates will be a lot lower if they do. 

 

379s are the same, hugely expensive compared to other Electrostars even the recent builds.  Imo 379s are vastly superior to 360s and would have been ideal for MML to Corby and maybe a couple of peak hour crowd busters from Market Harborough as they are gangwayed throughout and already have 110mph capability.  I don't know what the plan is for the 360 interiors but unless there is a major refurb I think there will be howls of protest from the regulars used to a more Inter City type ambience.  No-one will ever convince me that 360s are going to the MML because they are the best available train for the job, it's because they are the cheapest available train for the job. 

 

See also stories of HT 180s coming to the MML in due course.  Just what Thameslink reliability needs - a train on the MML with a reputation for setting fire to itself.  It is however cheap.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

It's the money.  The lease cost of a 707 has been described as eye watering which is part of the reason they are going.  Rumour has it that 707s will end up on South Eastern but you can be certain that the lease rates will be a lot lower if they do. 

 

379s are the same, hugely expensive compared to other Electrostars even the recent builds.

 

One of the main reasons for the high cost is the DfTs very short (compared the the designed lifespan of trains) franchises!

 

If a leasing company is trying to recover their investment in 7 years rather than 27 years then obviously the lease costs will be higher. At one time you could be assured that fleets would remain employed on a route for many years regardless who won the franchise - these days with the 'new train fetish mentality at the 'DfT' there is a good chance you will be looking for a new home for your stock after 7 years, which means its essential to maximise your returns straight away.

 

Not that different to the modelling world in some respects where Hornby, etc expect to recoup their design costs in the initial release rather than doing so more gradually over many years releases.

[RANGERS]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

.......I think there will be howls of protest from the regulars used to a more Inter City type ambience....

This is already being watched very closely, Corby/ Kettering/ Wellingborough commuters already pay significantly more per mile compared to those to stations further south, the so called “Inter-City premium”.

 

Until the May 2018 timetable debacle, Bedford and Luton commuters had the option of a slow or semi-fast Thameslink, or a fast EMT service, all at the same price. Guess which they chose? This has now ceased in order to balance peak capacity but will return in Dec 2020.

[nightstar.train]

5 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

It's the money.  The lease cost of a 707 has been described as eye watering which is part of the reason they are going. 

 

It’s not just lease costs. Maintaining the necessary maintenance infrastructure (spare parts, manuals, fitter training) and driver training for a small separate fleet will be very costly. Even if a 707 cost the same as a new train to lease, from this point of view it makes sense to just add few onto the new train order and have common maintenance and driver pool. 

[DY444]

1 hour ago, nightstar.train said:

 

It’s not just lease costs. Maintaining the necessary maintenance infrastructure (spare parts, manuals, fitter training) and driver training for a small separate fleet will be very costly. Even if a 707 cost the same as a new train to lease, from this point of view it makes sense to just add few onto the new train order and have common maintenance and driver pool. 

 

True but the 707s will meet that problem wherever they go unless it's to an existing Desiro City operator or their transfer is coupled with an order for more to replace existing stock and thus achieve a common fleet. 

[Zomboid]

There's 30 of them, it's not exactly a small fleet. 30 x 5 car units is more than enough to run (for example) a regular London to Corby service...

 

(Not suggesting that they're suitable without a major refurb!)

[RANGERS]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

There's 30 of them, it's not exactly a small fleet. 30 x 5 car units is more than enough to run (for example) a regular London to Corby service...

 

(Not suggesting that they're suitable without a major refurb!)

That doesn’t sound far wide of the mark, the capacity planning work which was done when the bidding was open was admittedly based on four car sets, but it suggested ten/ eleven trains to maintain a half hourly service (remember the journey time will increase to around 80mins) most of which would require three sets in the peaks so with eight trains in service (say 3 x 4 car units each) and three out as spares (say 4 x units total) its around that kind of number.

 

Five cars would upset the whole applecart, increasing the seats per unit but with two sets maximum per train, reducing the capacity per train I’d guess. Perhaps the 3+2 seating will compensate for having fewer coaches!

[mdvle]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

One of the main reasons for the high cost is the DfTs very short (compared the the designed lifespan of trains) franchises!

 

If a leasing company is trying to recover their investment in 7 years rather than 27 years then obviously the lease costs will be higher. At one time you could be assured that fleets would remain employed on a route for many years regardless who won the franchise - these days with the 'new train fetish mentality at the 'DfT' there is a good chance you will be looking for a new home for your stock after 7 years, which means its essential to maximise your returns straight away.

 

But the SWR franchise is also 7 years, so that isn't the entire story if a new build of the Class 701 is that much cheaper than the (also new) Class 707. 

 

As for the 30 year lifespan of trains, I wonder if that is even still true?  It may be a case that all the technology on board means that it is easier/cheaper to build a new train than to try and keep these newer trains in service past 15 years...

 

 

 

[TravisM]

16 hours ago, DY444 said:

See also stories of HT 180s coming to the MML in due course.  Just what Thameslink reliability needs - a train on the MML with a reputation for setting fire to itself.  It is however cheap.

 

The four Hull Trains Class 180’s are all heading to Grand Central as they need them to increase capacity and it’s easier for a ROSCO to keep a small fleet with one operating company.

[great central]

1 hour ago, jools1959 said:

 

The four Hull Trains Class 180’s are all heading to Grand Central as they need them to increase capacity and it’s easier for a ROSCO to keep a small fleet with one operating company.

Hope someone's told our new bosses then, according to them only a few weeks ago the HT 180s were going to undergo a thorough rework at Etches Park before replacing the ex GC HST sets........

[TravisM]

11 hours ago, great central said:

Hope someone's told our new bosses then, according to them only a few weeks ago the HT 180s were going to undergo a thorough rework at Etches Park before replacing the ex GC HST sets........

 

From what I learned from some Hull Trains drivers earlier this year when they were training on HST’s and they couldn’t wait to get rid of the 180’s.  When I asked where they were going, they laughed and said “Grand Central and good riddance lol”.

[david.hill64]

On 22/08/2019 at 06:29, mdvle said:

 

As for the 30 year lifespan of trains, I wonder if that is even still true?  It may be a case that all the technology on board means that it is easier/cheaper to build a new train than to try and keep these newer trains in service past 15 years...

 

 

 

The 30 year lifespan is a natural consequence of designing to meet standards for the forces that the vehicles must be able to withstand. To meet these you end up with a hefty shell and bogies whose mechanical integrity is assured for 30+ years. Even those vehicles suffering from body rot are reasonably strong. It's why projects such as Vivarail make sense. It doesn't make much sense to set up a production line for body and bogie builds if what you have already is good enough.

Completely agree though about modern electronics and control systems. They are never going to have such a long life and replacing these makes sense, hence the re-engineering packages for Networkers etc.

[jim.snowdon]

It's often not so much that the electronics don't have a longer life but that as technology moves on, the manufacturers stop making particular semiconductor devices. When I started my railway engineering career, 45-odd years ago, thyristors were the latest thing, and the key to the transition from electro-mechanical traction equipments to solid state equipments. Now, they are technically obsolete, and if you can source alternative devices, there are usually consequential problems such as fitting them into the heatsinks, or having to modify the circuits used to turn them off. Similar issues apply to core components like microprocessors, as well as knowledge of the actual software required to run a traction equipment. Complete replacement ends up being the more economic solution.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It's often not so much that the electronics don't have a longer life but that as technology moves on, the manufacturers stop making particular semiconductor devices. When I started my railway engineering career, 45-odd years ago, thyristors were the latest thing, and the key to the transition from electro-mechanical traction equipments to solid state equipments. Now, they are technically obsolete, and if you can source alternative devices, there are usually consequential problems such as fitting them into the heatsinks, or having to modify the circuits used to turn them off. Similar issues apply to core components like microprocessors, as well as knowledge of the actual software required to run a traction equipment. Complete replacement ends up being the more economic solution.

 

Jim

Exactly so - and it doesn't just apply to railways.  One reason many commercial ships are nowadays designed and built for much shorter service lives than was once the case is because their electronic fit is rarely supported over much more than 10 years so one midlife electronics/control system refit/upgrade and that's about all it is economic to do.

[TravisM]

8 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It's often not so much that the electronics don't have a longer life but that as technology moves on, the manufacturers stop making particular semiconductor devices. When I started my railway engineering career, 45-odd years ago, thyristors were the latest thing, and the key to the transition from electro-mechanical traction equipments to solid state equipments. Now, they are technically obsolete, and if you can source alternative devices, there are usually consequential problems such as fitting them into the heatsinks, or having to modify the circuits used to turn them off. Similar issues apply to core components like microprocessors, as well as knowledge of the actual software required to run a traction equipment. Complete replacement ends up being the more economic solution.

 

Jim

 

That also applies to the Class 60’s and to a certain extent the Class 90’s and 92’s.  The bodies, running gear and power unit are basically sound but the electronics are late 1980’s design, outdated and basically near impossible to get spares.  

 

When DBC rebuilt theirs as well as Colas, they ripped the electrics out and started again.  With the costs of rebuilding having to be addressed and at this present climate, it’s not economical to do the whole fleet though this might change if tier 5 emissions come into effect.  The Class 60’s still might have a future but that’s for others to decide.

[mdvle]

11 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

The 30 year lifespan is a natural consequence of designing to meet standards for the forces that the vehicles must be able to withstand. To meet these you end up with a hefty shell and bogies whose mechanical integrity is assured for 30+ years. Even those vehicles suffering from body rot are reasonably strong. It's why projects such as Vivarail make sense. It doesn't make much sense to set up a production line for body and bogie builds if what you have already is good enough.

 

But the Vivarail example only exists because LU went with replacement instead of rebuilding ...

 

The essential problem, as mentioned by others, is with many of the systems needing complete replacement you are now talking about taking the train / unit out of service for an extended length of time.  This in turn means that to rebuild an entire fleet in any reasonable time frame you need a large number of units out of service, and with the lack of spare units this simply isn't feasible.

 

Hence the move to new build after shorter periods of time.

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

But the Vivarail example only exists because LU went with replacement instead of rebuilding ...

 

The essential problem, as mentioned by others, is with many of the systems needing complete replacement you are now talking about taking the train / unit out of service for an extended length of time.  This in turn means that to rebuild an entire fleet in any reasonable time frame you need a large number of units out of service, and with the lack of spare units this simply isn't feasible.

 

Hence the move to new build after shorter periods of time.

Although they seem to have been managed it quite well with the re-equipment of the 465/466 fleet, and more recently with the 455 fleet on the SouthWestern. A lot can be achieved by designing the new equipment packages as direct replacements for the existing packages, treating the whole thing as an exercise in component replacement.

 

 The real difficulties arise when you want to add facilities that were not there before.

 

Jim

[jjb1970]

The issue of long term supportability of software controlled systems and equipment such as distributed control system architecture etc was a very big concern in the marine industry as ships adopted digitally controlled engines and full platform management systems etc. Whilst there have been problems the systems have been supported better than anybody anticipated and very few of the predictions of doom came true.