Why dont all TOCs use the same train?

[GodAtum]

Why dont all TOCs use the same train for certain functions such as intercity, suburban and outer suburban? For instance the Southern 377 is similar to the SWT 450.

 

[northwichcat]

Different operators have different requirements at different times and there's a requirement to go through a tendering process. For instance, TPE specified something like excellent hill climbing ability as a requirement so Bombardier couldn't have submitted a class 170 proposal and expected to win.

 

[starrymarkb]

Why dont all TOCs use the same train for certain functions such as intercity, suburban and outer suburban? For instance the Southern 377 is similar to the SWT 450.

Various factors including price, capacity at the manufacturer...

 

[Oswyntail]

Good heavens, you can't suggest that! That would mean co-ordination between TOCs, and ROSCOs doing what they were meant to.Besides, economies of scale might make things cheaper, which would never do.
IMHO, there should be a defined set of types (eg Inter-City, Intra-City, Outer Suburban, Inner Suburban) with a defined standard electric and diesel for each, interiors customisable for TOCs

 

[tbtc]

Having only a handful of types of stock would be too ambitious (e.g. rules change, meaning that you couldn't build a new Pacer these days - not disabled friendly - you couldn't build a new 185 these days as the engines don't meet emission allowances despite only being a few years old).

However there's no reason why it can't be stipulated that new stock has to be compatible with other trains - so that they could work in multiple etc - which would at least allow design to evolve whilst keeping things fairly "standard"

 

[starrymarkb]

But then you could end up with Jack of All Trades and Master of none... The Class 170

Even BR didn't fully standardise (the Networker was an attempt but there is still quite a difference between 465/2s and other 465s)

In the case of 450 v 377 could Bombardier have built enough 377s for SWT, SET and Southern in time for the 2005 deadline (IIRC they didn't manage it with Southern/SE) - To use a Aviation analogy Amercian Airline's huge narrowbody order was split between Boeing and Airbus as neither could supply 400 aircraft in the time scale needed

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why dont all TOCs use the same train for certain functions such as intercity, suburban and outer suburban? For instance the Southern 377 is similar to the SWT 450.

Well would you want only one choice of mobile phone, laptop or car?
There are 3-4 major manufacturers each offering the ideal solution for you.
Orders come in fits and starts and technology and standards keep changing.
Some TOCs are "comfortable" with particular manufacturers.
SWT was supposed to be overrun with Alstom Junipers until the first batch didn't work, which let Siemens in.
There's also what Roger Ford calls "Stanier-Gresley syndrome" - every TOC wants to have their unique solution, however daft in business terms.
Hence class 222 Meridians being incompatible with class 220/221 Voyagers.
e-Voyagers would be yet another small unique fleet.

But you are right, we need more standardisation.
After a spell of government management of rolling stock orders (IEP, Thameslink etc) , we seem to be going back to a world where the TOCs are in charge again.
We'll soon find out what EMUs the bidders for GW and Essex Thameside are going for.

 

[RobShipway]

Well would you want only one choice of mobile phone, laptop or car?
There are 3-4 major manufacturers each offering the ideal solution for you.
Orders come in fits and starts and technology and standards keep changing.
Some TOCs are "comfortable" with particular manufacturers.
SWT was supposed to be overrun with Alstom Junipers until the first batch didn't work, which let Siemens in.
There's also what Roger Ford calls "Stanier-Gresley syndrome" - every TOC wants to have their unique solution, however daft in business terms.
Hence class 222 Meridians being incompatible with class 220/221 Voyagers.
e-Voyagers would be yet another small unique fleet.

But you are right, we need more standardisation.
After a spell of government management of rolling stock orders (IEP, Thameslink etc) , we seem to be going back to a world where the TOCs are in charge again.
We'll soon find out what EMUs the bidders for GW and Essex Thameside are going for.

If it is first that win either GW or Essex Thameside franchsies, then I would suspect that they would probably use the same manufacturer that they have ordered the 6 car 125mph trains for ICWC from surely?

 

[David10]

If it is first that win either GW or Essex Thameside franchsies, then I would suspect that they would probably use the same manufacturer that they have ordered the 6 car 125mph trains for ICWC from surely?

Why, First have ordered trains from both Alstom and Siemens previously? Just because a manufacturer comes up with the most suitable 125mph tilting EMU, doesn't mean they will come up a winning deal on GW or ET.

 

[sprinterguy]

We'll soon find out what EMUs the bidders for GW and Essex Thameside are going for.

I would be highly surprised if any of the four bidders for the Essex Thameside franchise are considering replacing the 357s with new trains.

 

[johnnyp_360]

Interesting reading. Maybe a bit of topic, why are the 460s currently being stored? It seems like quite a big expensive thing to be just laying around and not making any money.

 

[RobShipway]

Interesting reading. Maybe a bit of topic, why are the 460s currently being stored? It seems like quite a big expensive thing to be just laying around and not making any money.

They are being stored to have their current seats removed and the coaches from the class 460's that are going to be part of the 458's having 2+3 seating applied I believe.

 

[sprinterguy]

If it is first that win either GW or Essex Thameside franchsies, then I would suspect that they would probably use the same manufacturer that they have ordered the 6 car 125mph trains for ICWC from surely?

If the winning bidder of the Great Western franchise feels that running at 110mph plus is an essential feature for its’ Outer Suburban EMU fleet, then I personally would expect GW to simply procure an add-on order of additional 5-car IEPs rather than introduce a further new train class.

Things could get interesting though if the winning GW bidder decides that it fancies new 100 - 110mph EMUs rather than cascaded 319s.

 

[RobShipway]

If the winning bidder of the Great Western franchise feels that running at 110mph plus is an essential feature for its’ Outer Suburban EMU fleet, then I personally would expect GW to simply procure an add-on order of additional 5-car IEPs rather than introduce a further new train class.

Things could get interesting though if the winning GW bidder decides that it fancies new 100 - 110mph EMUs rather than cascaded 319s.

Bu surely, as you state if the winning GW bidder does fancy a new 100 - 110mph train, then they would simply add 5-car IEPS to the existing IEP order, but just have them with suburban style 3+2 seating.

 

[starrymarkb]

Bu surely, as you state if the winning GW bidder does fancy a new 100 - 110mph train, then they would simply add 5-car IEPS to the existing IEP order, but just have them with suburban style 3+2 seating.

Would IEP be suitable, surly they'd want something more like a Turbo in layout for the short distance and very busy commuter runs.

Plus you wouldn't get 3+2 in an IEP. It's only possible in wide bodied units (Turbos, 323s and 20m stock), IEP will be pretty narrow (due to the length of the stock)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I would be highly surprised if any of the four bidders for the Essex Thameside franchise are considering replacing the 357s with new trains.

Maybe not, but they might order some high-density extras, which won't be 357s.

If the winning bidder of the Great Western franchise feels that running at 110mph plus is an essential feature for its’ Outer Suburban EMU fleet, then I personally would expect GW to simply procure an add-on order of additional 5-car IEPs rather than introduce a further new train class.

Or maybe 395s (still Hitachi).
These trains will have to run on the fast line until Maidenhead at least (keeping up with IEPs), and with 125mph on the slow between Reading and Didcot it would seem a waste not to have 125mph-capable EMUs on the Oxford run.

 

[northwichcat]

However there's no reason why it can't be stipulated that new stock has to be compatible with other trains

You mean like 323s and 170s were built to be compatible with older BR trains.

Unfortunately, it seems like modern EMUs aren't even compatible with the previous model from the same manufacturer. :roll:

 

[swt_passenger]

They are being stored to have their current seats removed and the coaches from the class 460's that are going to be part of the 458's having 2+3 seating applied I believe.

No, the reason they are stored is because they are off lease following the decision to replacee them with 442s on extended Gatwick/Brighton Express services.

Their next use will now be as part of the 458/460 5 car project, but that is not why they originally went to store.

 

[tbtc]

You mean like 323s and 170s were built to be compatible with older BR trains.

Unfortunately, it seems like modern EMUs aren't even compatible with the previous model from the same manufacturer. :roll:

This really irritates me. I appreciate that we can't build more Sprinters, but I'd want new stock to be able to work with them.

125mph five coach Bombardier 221s can't work with 125mph five coach Bombardier 222s? Bonkers. Same goes for EMU equivalents (as you've said)

 

[northwichcat]

This really irritates me. I appreciate that we can't build more Sprinters, but I'd want new stock to be able to work with them.

125mph five coach Bombardier 221s can't work with 125mph five coach Bombardier 222s? Bonkers. Same goes for EMU equivalents (as you've said)

I imagine this is down to the franchise system and tendering process. Midland Mainline would have been more bothered about being able to use HST locos to rescue a failed DEMU than compatibility with units they didn't have so didn't specify compatibility with 220s and 221s. Then Bombardier probably thought that if it's not important to the end user then don't bother about it.

Had a proper tender been issued for new Central Trains EMUs instead of a common pool with Silverlink of converted 450s I wonder whether there would have been more effort to obtain an EMU compatible with a 321 and a 323.

 

[455driver]

125mph five coach Bombardier 221s can't work with 125mph five coach Bombardier 222s? Bonkers.

So you want Bombardier to buy the Alstom operating system to install it in the 222s instead of their own operating system?

Virgin specced the 220/221s to be compatible with the 390 and use the Alstom operating system, the builder of the 390s.

It was done for a good reason if you look at the big picture and not just individual classes.

 

[MCR247]

What I was going to say!

 

[Crompton Karl]

It's fairly simple id say. The government, during the franchise process should standardize couplings. Now I know it's old style but BR pre 1972 stock had the right idea, everything and anything could rescue/couple to any other form of stock on the network. Regardless of the type of stock. A loco could couple to a MU and drag it out of the way if it failed. Another EMU or DMU even if they were from different manufacturers could do this. Then BR deviates from this scheme with the PEP prototypes and it's all gone to pot. From standard hooks and buckeyes we've gone via tightlocks, Sharfenburgs and the like. Now I know time moves on as does technology but common sense must prevail.

I mentioned this years ago on this forum about standardization of couplings on British stock.

I still would like to see a standard coupler, yes I know it can't be draw hooks, buffers and or buckeyes but take the industry standard, for instance for the theory of this post a sharfenburg. Then make sure this is stipulated in the tender process for any future stock procurement.

Each and every piece of British rolling stock must have the following.

Standard automatic coupler Scharfenburg.
Stipulated height with a standard automatic layout so every manufacturer can have this installed within their stock.
Each unit has a set piece of software allowing the unit to be worked in multipul with another unit regardless of manufacturer.
The coupler must have the function to drop and expose an adaptor, allowing a HST style draw bar coupling to allow a loco to rescue unit in the event of poor weather or failure, meaning no buffers need to be installed on the unit.
The unit must have standard air brake pipes and ets socket within the coupling area to allow a loco to operate the unit safely. Meaning in times of snow a service could still be run with locomotives that have a ets rating providing power for heating and door operation of the trains.

It's not feasible to have a class 57 style special built of stock allocated, better to adapt existing locos for this purpose.

It can be done, it was done in the past. All those 1st gen dmus (well the majority of them) could work in multiple whether built by metcam, brcw or BR themselves. It's a case of stipulating before building a set of certain requirements.

All the best

Karl

 

[Tiny Tim]

The idea of Standard Locomotives is one that BR pursued with limited success. To begin with, after 1947, many regional (Big Four) designs continued to be built, and once steam was on it's way out the capacity to build enough new diesels and electric trains wasn't there, so a multiplicity of designs from a variety of builders (including BR) continued. I don't know if BR attempted to standardise much after that. Constant technical and regulatory changes, combined with the long life of a train mean that establishing a range of standard designs would take a long time to achieve, and might well impede improvements. The TOCs aren't designers, builders or even owners of rolling stock, and have to rely on the likes of Alstom or Siemens for new designs. That would be quite difficult to change, and the ROSCOs will only want to buy the rolling stock that represents a good investment to them. About the only thing that's going to be standard is 1435mm between the rails.

 

[Oswyntail]

,,,and the ROSCOs will only want to buy the rolling stock that represents a good investment to them.,,,

I would have thought, though, that the best investment would be a standard type that could have interior customisation. The process at present seems to me to be back to front - the TOCs do get involved in design then ask the ROSCOs to fund things, resulting in micro-fleets. If the ROSCOs were the ones designing, ordering, then selling products to the TOCs, the whole process would be easier and quicker.

 

[whhistle]

Another large factor is defects.

Let's say every suburban diesel train is a 170. Then, there is a serious defect with the train which affects all that type. The manufacturer effectively re-calls the train as it has been discovered the fault is safety related, making the trains unsafe to move under their own power.

That means for a number of weeks (while the problem is fixed), most diesel operated trains would not be running and would cause chaos.

Nice idea but in practicality terms, wouldn't work :/

 

[sprinterguy]

Maybe not, but they might order some high-density extras, which won't be 357s.

That’s a good point, although there are also other opportunities to provide additional capacity using existing rolling stock for the bidders to explore.

 

[tbtc]

So you want Bombardier to buy the Alstom operating system to install it in the 222s instead of their own operating system?

Virgin specced the 220/221s to be compatible with the 390 and use the Alstom operating system, the builder of the 390s.

It was done for a good reason if you look at the big picture and not just individual classes.

I'm just amazed that they couldn't build (125mph five coach) 222s capable of working with the (125mph five coach) 220/221s that they'd just finished building, that's all

 

[starrymarkb]

Another large factor is defects.

Let's say every suburban diesel train is a 170. Then, there is a serious defect with the train which affects all that type. The manufacturer effectively re-calls the train as it has been discovered the fault is safety related, making the trains unsafe to move under their own power.

That means for a number of weeks (while the problem is fixed), most diesel operated trains would not be running and would cause chaos.

Nice idea but in practicality terms, wouldn't work :/

As Berlin found when the new Bombaradier S-Bahn stock (some 300 trains) was withdrawn with major safety defects...

 

[MCR247]

I'm just amazed that they couldn't build (125mph five coach) 222s capable of working with the (125mph five coach) 220/221s that they'd just finished building, that's all

Because Virgin specified 221s and 220s use Alstoms TMS so they are compatible with 390s. How exactly were Bombardier meant to use someone elses (rubbish) TMS in 222s?