First D-Trains ready for sale

[surfsup]

It would appear from news this week that the Valley Lines may face a further choice. They can either take a fleet of 230s, which will be quicker to construct + Provide additional capacity fairly quickly and fairly cheaply, Wait another year or two as Porterbrook tries out it's potential new Diesel Powered 455 (Ex SWT)- Which would at least come with a readymade layout fairly suitable for the Valley Lines network but may not be available until late 2018/2019 at the earliest, or put up with the current situation until a decision has finally been made from those in Cardiff Bay. At least, if the All Wales Franchise does take on the 230s, it can and should be only for the short to medium term at the very least while decisions are finally made as to which lines will receive electrification and new or cascaded EMUs.

 

Within the current rolling stock climate, I'd be surprised if the Valley Lines network does see new EMUs in the future. This being a result of the large swathes of the 319, 321 and 360s all going off lease from Thameslink / Anglia / FGW-Hex-C within the next 2 or so years. New trains may be nice and shiny, but both Eversholt and Porterbrook both have mass refurbishment programs on the table - and has shown effectively how a 321 can be made to feel like a new EMU again with the 'Renatus 321' project. In my opinion, if the Valley Lines network does remain as a heavy rail 'Metro' network, I'd be fairly happy to see 'Renatus 320s' working them.

[Hesperus]

All too often in the past, on our railways, we have seen perfectly good stock go to waste in favour of an obsession with new build that has been more often than not compromised.

 

I can't think of any stock British Rail retired early in order to replace it with new build apart from steam engines (which were more about staffing and legislation than a desire for new).  A lot of early diesels had short lives but that had more to do with Beechings closures making them redundant than newer replacements (though perhaps the Westerns could have stayed longer in place of new 56's). 

 

EWS's purchase of 250 66's seemed wasteful when it resulted in 15-25 year old engines being withdrawn and the Eurostars and 442's seemed to have short lives (which have been explained many times on RMWeb) but that doesn't seem to be something that happens a lot.

 

We do seem to have arrived in a new era of waste with Anglias complete fleet replacement.  I can understand why Thameslink needs new units in order to operate a Crossrail style service and can see merit in the D78 replacement for similar reasons.  A raft of new stock at an operator will often see a bit of middle aged stock looking for a home but the sheer quantity of 90's built stock that could end up scrapped soon is a criminal waste of resources.

[Mike Storey]

Criminal waste or not, leasing (or equivalent), which dominates current European traction and rolling stock procurement, should produce that outcome. The Networker is a classic case, where running costs, particularly maintenance and repair, have proven to be very high compared to more modern equivalents. Only the ROSCO's/banks involved have to worry about whole life costs. The plethora of new entrants to the game has ensured that the original assumptions of the ROSCO's are now laid bare.

 

It may not be apparent, but the fact is that the average age of the UK railways' rolling stock was (until very recently) significantly higher than in the last 10 years of BR. Leasing, where the primary suppliers were a virtual monopoly, did not improve renewal rates, but the emergence of competition, from the likes of Hitachi, has begun to change that.

 

Modular construction and monocoque shells increasingly mean that re-use of original TRS is a misnomer. D78 is perhaps one of the last, traditional chassis based units which could qualify.

[Coryton]

Within the current rolling stock climate, I'd be surprised if the Valley Lines network does see new EMUs in the future. This being a result of the large swathes of the 319, 321 and 360s all going off lease from Thameslink / Anglia / FGW-Hex-C within the next 2 or so years. New trains may be nice and shiny, but both Eversholt and Porterbrook both have mass refurbishment programs on the table - and has shown effectively how a 321 can be made to feel like a new EMU again with the 'Renatus 321' project. In my opinion, if the Valley Lines network does remain as a heavy rail 'Metro' network, I'd be fairly happy to see 'Renatus 320s' working them.

 

My experience is that most people will judge the age of a train by the state of the interior, even if there are clues like the use of slam doors.

 

And why not? That's what they interact with (apart from the impact of failures if a train has become unreliable due to its age I suppose).

 

The interior of the "refurbished" green GWR 158s look nice and new - even though they have just re-upholstered the seats the 158s originally came with. The unrefurbished ones with newer seats look older.

[Jonboy]

This week i was at Reading getting a train to Gatwick, a sprinter was sat at the end of a bay locked out of use in the old FGW Barrie livery. I watched a teenage girl have a paddy about how she wasn't getting on that scabby old train....the service train then rolled in behind it, an identical unit in the new green and she jumped on quite happy....says it all I think about perceptions.

[Nearholmer]

Indeed.

 

There was solidly-based "before and after" perception research when the C stock and 67TS were upcylcled by London Underground about 15-20 years ago, and a significant proportion of customers were convinced that they were brand new.

 

Kevin

[black and decker boy]

From what has been written in the magazines, Anglia are going to be paying lower lease rentals on the bulk of their new fleets than they currently pay on their mix of BR and early privatisation era new builds.

 

This is a symptom of very low finance rates as well as the competition the train building sector.

[asmay2002]

EWS's purchase of 250 66's seemed wasteful when it resulted in 15-25 year old engines being withdrawn and the Eurostars and 442's seemed to have short lives (which have been explained many times on RMWeb) but that doesn't seem to be something that happens a lot.

It comes down to relative operating costs. If the new trains cost significantly less to operate than the existing ones they can pay for the changeover relatively quickly and then start to save you money.  The LMS under Stamp understood this in the 1920s and scrapped a lot of newish but relatively uneconomic engines.  It's unlikely to be wasteful. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by asmay2002

[wombatofludham]

I wonder what the result would be of a hypothetical opinion poll of new stock at exiting frequencies via the use of cheaper, refurbished or "D" type stock at a higher frequency?  For example, here on the Cambrian we have a two hourly 158, most of which run through to Birmingham, the best level of service ever.  Aberystwyth has an experimental nearly hourly service but a shortage of stock means there are gaps in that hourly service and the Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury "shorts" are two car.  It would be interesting to see if local people along the coast route might be prepared to accept longer D trains but only running through to Machynlleth at an hourly frequency (which should be possible with the current spacing of loops), thereby trading frequency and capacity for the convenience of through trains to the Midlands.  The Aberystwyth service could then use the freed-up 158s to plug the gaps and increase capacity.

 

Now some will prefer a lower frequency of through trains to Birmingham, but I suspect some might prefer an hourly frequency of longer, "second hand trains" with guaranteed connections at Mach.

 

It would certainly be a good test of the DfT's weighting they give new stock procurement in franchise negotiations.

[phil-b259]

Having ridden on Pacers in Wales, the South West and North West and having lived in London riding on the D Stock, I know which I would prefer to do an hour long journey in. Wimbledon to Upminster by D Stock was fine but I was less keen on Barry to Aberdare in a Pacer.

 

 

 

So Wales gets fobbed off with rubbish again. We, along with lots of places up north, have had to endure Pacers and now we are potentially going to get these.

 

Look can we STOP comparing their new incarnation as class 230s  to their previous lives trundling around London.

 

FACT:- The interiors will be extensively modified - blocking up some of the doors for starters, fitting new, higher  quality seats etc so those of you complaining about an Underground ambiance on board are talking complete and utter rubbish.

 

True there is considerable scope for variation as to the specifics - but none of them replicate the crush loading layout necessary for the Underground and were the 230s deployed in Wales then the interior would be equivalent or better than what the Pacers currently provide.

[JDW]

As far as the 230s go, it seems to me that re-using the bodyshells and rebuilding everything else is little different to scrapping the bodyshells and re-using the same metal to produce a new one.  If it ain't broke... I think we as enthusiasts forget that to most people, its a train.  They won't recognise it as X or Y or Z, and wouldn't have a clue where the bodyshell came from if no one told them.  It's just a new train.  A better one than a Pacer too, no doubt.  But new, so they'll automatically think its better.  

 

We replaced these buses:

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2768/4116442190_96373808e7_z.jpg

with these buses:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5585/14880110163_c519fc3765_b.jpg

and had so many compliments on how much better they were, how much more comfortable the seats were, how much smoother the ride was, how much quieter they were, that the gear changes were more gentle, and so on.  Now, some of you may have spotted, unlike a 142 and a 230, they actually look quite similar.  The enthusiast side of you might have cared enough and looked closely enough to see that the two pictures are the same bus.  In a different colour, and with black leather seat covers instead of purple leather seat covers.  And a few TV screens and lots of vinyls inside.  But otherwise identical and unchanged.  And most people thought they had new buses.  For most people, trains, like buses, are something they get on and get off, and barely notice what the sides are made of, or whether it says Metro-Cammel or Bombardier or Hitacho on the step treads.

[jim.snowdon]

Much as when the London Underground C stock fleet got a complete refurbishment c.1990, when they were already 20-0dd years old and looking distinctly jaded.

 

Jim

[surfsup]

Perhaps a better argument for a Before & After here could be the refurbishment of the Mk3 Fleets? The FGW Refurbishment of 2007-9 made th Mk3s feel equally as modern as a 180, The only thing not completing the completely new train feel was the retention of the original doors. Chilterns Mk3s received brand new doors supplied by Wabtec and based on the 444s, while the former W&S interior retained the original seats. Either way, both Mk3s offered a significant and noticeable difference to their pre-refurbishment designs and both gave a quality like new feel to them.

[great central]

When EMT had an SWT 158 on hire early in the franchise many people asked if that was a new train. Fairly recently re-furbished it was in total contrast to the mixture of rather tired ex Central, Trans-pennine and Wessex stock that formed the fleet at that time. Of course, as those units were then re-furbished the same question was asked again

[black and decker boy]

Look can we STOP comparing their new incarnation as class 230s to their previous lives trundling around London.

 

FACT:- The interiors will be extensively modified - blocking up some of the doors for starters, fitting new, higher quality seats etc so those of you complaining about an Underground ambiance on board are talking complete and utter rubbish.

 

True there is considerable scope for variation as to the specifics - but none of them replicate the crush loading layout necessary for the Underground and were the 230s deployed in Wales then the interior would be equivalent or better than what the Pacers currently provide.

Well that appears to be one of the issues many railway commentators have with D78. The headline lease cost predictions given by Vivarail were for the do minimum refurb so no new seats, no new body panels etc, just in essence a deep clean plus cab front mods and engines.

 

For the full new interior, new body panels to close up door opening etc, the lease rental was much higher and closer to heavy rail sprinters.

 

Considering the new build train lease costs are currently comparable to or lower than existing fleeets then D78 may have missed its chance to be anything other than a quirk.

 

When first proposed, D78 certainly had great potential, I could see many routes up north benefitting from the extra capacity but delays in getting their prototype working and the politicians totally moving the goalposts in the 2015 election (scrap pacers, no London cast offs etc) has changed all that.

[Coryton]

For the full new interior, new body panels to close up door opening etc, the lease rental was much higher and closer to heavy rail sprinters.

 

Considering the new build train lease costs are currently comparable to or lower than existing fleeets then D78 may have missed its chance to be anything other than a quirk.

 

When first proposed, D78 certainly had great potential, I could see many routes up north benefitting from the extra capacity but delays in getting their prototype working and the politicians totally moving the goalposts in the 2015 election (scrap pacers, no London cast offs etc) has changed all that.

 

Given the imminent need to replace or (possibly) carry out serious alterations to Pacers, then timescales are likely to become important. I would imagine procuring brand new trains would take quite a bit longer then getting a D-train. 

 

Mind you, if a brand new train really is a comparable cost then something doesn't seem right.

[Coryton]

Perhaps a better argument for a Before & After here could be the refurbishment of the Mk3 Fleets? The FGW Refurbishment of 2007-9 made th Mk3s feel equally as modern as a 180, The only thing not completing the completely new train feel was the retention of the original doors. 

 

I would say the refurbished FGW Mk 3s feel much more modern than a 180.

 

Last time I looked,180's don't have that feel of as many high backed seats as possible crammed into a long tube that seems to be de rigour nowadays.

[Fenman]

... Mind you, if a brand new train really is a comparable cost then something doesn't seem right.

 

A few years back after living in central London for a couple of decades (and, thus, not having a car, or having paid much attention to them), I remember being startled one day to realise just how many brand-new and apparently extremely expensive cars were on the roads - BMWs, Mercedes, Chelsea tractors - while there were very few old bangers. I remember thinking how as a society we seemed to have gotten extraordinarily richer in a very short space of time.

 

And then one of my nieces explained to me that the majority of people didn't actually buy their cars any more, they got them through rental or lease deals. As long as you could get the cheap finance, you too could look like a rich person by getting a new BMW every year or two, and then paying out month after month after month.

 

I guess the same thing happens to train operating companies: as long as you can afford the lease payment next month, you can have a shiny new train. The only problem will come if the cost of money goes up significantly, and your leases might start to get a bit pricey. D-trains at that time might then start to look cheap.

 

Finance is a funny thing.

 

Paul

[Mike Storey]

A few years back after living in central London for a couple of decades (and, thus, not having a car, or having paid much attention to them), I remember being startled one day to realise just how many brand-new and apparently extremely expensive cars were on the roads - BMWs, Mercedes, Chelsea tractors - while there were very few old bangers. I remember thinking how as a society we seemed to have gotten extraordinarily richer in a very short space of time.

 

And then one of my nieces explained to me that the majority of people didn't actually buy their cars any more, they got them through rental or lease deals. As long as you could get the cheap finance, you too could look like a rich person by getting a new BMW every year or two, and then paying out month after month after month.

 

I guess the same thing happens to train operating companies: as long as you can afford the lease payment next month, you can have a shiny new train. The only problem will come if the cost of money goes up significantly, and your leases might start to get a bit pricey. D-trains at that time might then start to look cheap.

 

Finance is a funny thing.

 

Paul

 

Indeed. Recently, the BofE (or was it the OBR?) highlighted this fast growing credit risk. They suggest many of these personal contracts are being signed with people who would not normally qualify for "loans" as large as these - shades of sub-prime mortgages. Dealers/manufacturer finance houses are falling over each other to make their sales figures look much better than they would have done with conventional financing. Look out for some very cheap, nearly new Range Rovers/BMW's/Volvos and Audis at an auction house near you soon.....

 

Train leasing on the other hand, is old hat, and stock usually represents a liability not an asset, so the two situations have few similarities.

[John M Upton]

Having suffered some pretty rough and terrible rides on the D Stock in District Line service the only place I would consider selling them to is the scrap man.  Rather keep the Pacer's going!

[Coryton]

Train leasing on the other hand, is old hat, and stock usually represents a liability not an asset, so the two situations have few similarities.

 

What does that mean?

[Titan]

What does that mean?

 

I think what he is getting at is when a train comes off lease, if it can't be leased again it is only worth scrap, perhaps a little more if it can be exported. When a 3 year old (or less) car comes off lease it is worth considerably more than scrap and is therefore much less of a liability.

[jjb1970]

Leasing can make perfect sense, in the right circumstances it works extremely well. One of the things that some find difficult to get is that you have to view leasing as buying a service or capability, not buying an asset. Many businesses don't really want the complications of buying expensive assets and the associated through life work and since those assets are merely tools to do a job whether or not you own them or lease them is somewhat moot providing you have the capacity and capability needed to maintain your service provision.

Whether or not leasing is the right option depends on many variables. If you want to keep an asset for it's useful life then outright purchase will invariably be cheaper and if you have a good in-house (or even contracted out) maintenance and management capability along with intending to keep the asset for it's life then leasing is unlikely to be the better choice. If you need short term additional capacity or capability, do not plan to keep the asset for it's full life or want to get rid of all the complications associated with asset ownership then leasing does become attractive. Yes, if compared with outright purchase for the same item over a period of 25 years leasing will probably look silly but if a company renews its fleet at more frequent intervals then outright purchase can look the poor choice.

Another thing to consider is that you can transfer some risk. By buying a service provision it is the responsibility of the lessor to figure out how to provide that service. In electricity generation I had some exposure to "power by the hour" arrangements where GE or RR were contracted to provide MWhrs and how they did so was entirely down to them. Of course they were well paid for the service but the electricity companies basically washed their hands of interest in the gas turbine generators under these arrangements other than starting and stopping them and managing output. All maintenance, condition monitoring, engine swap outs etc was managed by the engine supplier and there were some rather high liquidated damage liabilities if they failed to provide the agreed power within the terms of the contract. Nobody wants a gas turbine, they want power, buying power as opposed to buying engines can be an excellent solution.

I'm not saying leasing is always better than outright purchase, but neither is outright purchase always better than leasing. One thing to understand when comparing costs is that any comparison of costs can only be done if you understand what you're comparing, for example the costs of a wet lease will be completely different to a dry lease, the costs of a power by the hour arrangement are not really comparable to the initial purchase price of an engine. Sometimes we see horror stories about the hideous rip off of leasing because people compare a total service package including all maintenance, spare part provision, management etc with a simple purchase price which has no costs added for through life operation and support. 

Whether or not leasing makes sense also obviously depends on the terms of the lease agreement. PFI is effectively a form of leasing and we've seen some real stinkers of contracts in PFI, yet an awful lot of organisations have based their asset policy on leasing for decades and seem to consider it to be a good deal.

[jjb1970]

I see two problems for the D train:

 

1. The problems with electrification now make new build diesel trains look propitious. Not so long ago new build DMUs were viewed as toxic debt by leasing companies and the idea of a relatively cheap and available rebuild looked very attractive.

 

2. The cost of credit is critical to the competiveness of leasing companies. They borrow money to acquire the asset and the cost of this borrowing is built into their lease charges. I may be wrong, but I'm guessing companies like Stadtler, Siemens and Bombardier will be able to access lower cost credit than those making the D train and combined with the probable future book value of a new build being higher it may be that although the initial sticker price of the D train may be cheaper, the costs to the leasee of newbuild trains from one of the major suppliers may actually be lower.

[Coryton]

you need short term additional capacity or capability, do not plan to keep the asset for it's full life or want to get rid of all the complications associated with asset ownership then leasing does become attractive. Yes, if compared with outright purchase for the same item over a period of 25 years leasing will probably look silly but if a company renews its fleet at more frequent intervals then outright purchase can look the poor choice.

 

Or if the company is renewed at frequent intervals over 25 years, i.e. rail franchises...