How can the industry lower its costs?

[455driver]

If we had common standards on things like bogies, doors, electronics, coupling (and insisted that new stock was compatible with anything else built to this standard) then we'd have a much simpler railway. If only!

We do have common standards, its just that by the time the next order goes in the standards have changed.

 

[Oswyntail]

I just cant understand why we have to re-invent the wheel every time there is a requirement for new trains.

I would guess because there is such a gap between train orders, and technology (and environmental requirements) has moved on. If there were a continual stream of, say, DMU orders, there would be an incentive to accommodate each new requirement as it emerged. When there are years between orders, it is probably easier to reinvent the wheel. But why there are not genuine interoperability standards defeats me.

 

[tbtc]

We do have common standards, its just that by the time the next order goes in the standards have changed.

Fair point.

What would be good would be to have a benchmark unit and insist that everything built after it had to be compatible, in the way that BR made sure that the 155, 156, 158, 159s had to be able to work with a 150.

 

[Tom B]

Was it not the case in the days of BR that all DMUs could work in multiple, excluding a very few oddballs?

I guess the problem is that in the fragmented privatised railway, nobody is bothered about standards or compatibility - they are filling a given need. Although are DfT not heavily involved in the process? Presumably the benefits which BR would have seen of being able to shufty a unit from Penzance to Aberdeen according to requirements aren't valid now, and the economies of scale would be less marked. But there would surely be benefits in only carrying one line of spare parts, training drivers/fitters on one broad class of vehicle etc?

It isn't just a railway problem though - "whole life" costs are often not considered in life in general, and maintenance/servicing/upkeep etc is not sexy to designers and beancounters.

 

[Andrewlong]

Just found some old copies of the Railway Magazine and was fascinated to read about the size of fare rises back in those days and how it was reported...

January 1985 - "Fares and season ticket rates on British Railways are to go up from January 6 by 'around 6.5 per cent'. Previous general increase as twelve months ago. Where new equipment has been introduced some fares will be increased beyond the average to reflect cost of investment for instance the Bedford Moorgate services and ordinary fares on Gatwick Express trains"

January 1986 - "British Railways Board fixed the average sizes of fare increases to be implemented January 12. All fares will be increased by an average of 8 per cent, the first increase for 12 months. In London & the SE & on local & provincial services, the average increase will be 7.5% and saver tickets which which were increased last summer will go up by around 7%. Selected standard fares and long-distance season tickets on Inter-City services will be raised by about 10%.

And back in Jan 1984 - Central government Public Sector Obligation (PSO) grant for 1983 would be £819m compared with £862m in previous year.

 

[Beveridges]

How can the Industry lower its costs?

By not having FOUR locos ALL POWERING when running a light engine move. Yes, you really need two 37s and two 47s all going flat out, to haul absolutely nothing???

 

[455driver]

Was it not the case in the days of BR that all DMUs could work in multiple, excluding a very few oddballs?

Blue star for locos,
Blue square for DMUs.

 

[HSTEd]

As to technology moving on.... this doesn't seem to haev been a massive problem in America with AAR jumpers working on the vast majority of locomotives.

All you have to do is establish a standard with sufficient connections for future technology and insist that backwards compatibility is maintained.

 

[AlanFry1]

All I can say is that if the railway's where a not for profit company (like Network Rail), then it would mean better value for money for the farepayer/taxpayer, since more of the money will be used to improve the service without any addtional money.

All the government has to do is not "renew" the franchises, which will mean that within a few years (when the current ones expire) all the TOCs will be out of the hands of the private operators (thanks to the ICWC fiasco...)

 

[A-driver]

How can the Industry lower its costs?

By not having FOUR locos ALL POWERING when running a light engine move. Yes, you really need two 37s and two 47s all going flat out, to haul absolutely nothing???

Chances are they have all been prepped and are being moved somewhere to start work with a very short turn around and as such wont have time to re-prep or fire them up again upon arrival.

 

[jon0844]

I would guess because there is such a gap between train orders, and technology (and environmental requirements) has moved on. If there were a continual stream of, say, DMU orders, there would be an incentive to accommodate each new requirement as it emerged. When there are years between orders, it is probably easier to reinvent the wheel. But why there are not genuine interoperability standards defeats me.

How much could be built to be scalable? The shells could be gradually upgraded, with a degree of backward compatibility for xx years, or xx generations.

Standard coupling and other things would make sense, being able to interchange engines/motors would also make sense.

For future wiring needs, I'd expect many systems could be IP based and so you simply install a glorified network on the train so everything can communicate with other things - added on a modular basis. As technology improves, you can upgrade the network and still retain backward compatibility (up to a point, which is still better than nothing).

You could ensure that different manufacturers all build trains to be interchangeable, to your specification, so it doesn't mean being tied to one successful bidder and putting all your eggs into one basket.

I'm sure someone will explain why the above can't work, but I still think there's a lot more we could do than is being done today.

 

[HSTEd]

The free market says it can't work.

We need numerous competing standards or something to encourage competition and innovation.

That is what the ideologues would say anyway. In reality some sort of IP based network is almost certainly the future, just look at EPS type braking in American freight operations for an example.

 

[Oswyntail]

The free market says it can't work.

We need numerous competing standards or something to encourage competition and innovation.

That is what the ideologues would say anyway. ....

Actually, the free market (and the idealogues) say it would work. Whatever the standardised specification, in a free market the suppliers would compete to meet it, and, in the process introduce improvements to distinguish their products from each other. In a controlled market there would be no incentive to do other than meet the specification exactly.

 

[underbank]

It isn't just a railway problem though - "whole life" costs are often not considered in life in general, and maintenance/servicing/upkeep etc is not sexy to designers and beancounters.

Speaking as an accountant, I have to disagree - the idea, to me, of standardisation is incredibly "sexy". I really can't see how any proper accountant would want it any other way. Reduced stocks, reduced training, etc are a wet dream for an accountant!

I spent a while as the FD of a design & manufacturing company and was plagued by the techs & designers re-inventing the wheel . It was like a vanity thing for them to start from scratch for every new project. Even though we had designs, jigs, moulds, etc going back years, they were never referred to when a new poject came in. If that wasn't bad enough, they never even considered what components we had, either in stock, or had designs & supply chains set up for. So for nearly every project, there was work to do throughout the firm - sourcing materials, training on manufacturing the new product, testing and accreditations, admin, procurement, etc.

A classic example that I remember vividly - as it was the straw that broke the camels back and led to some very heated Board meetings and a very late change of attitude from the designers and tech people - was where a designer decided to use a bolt/nut/washer combo that was 1mm different to anything we'd used before and was definitely non standard. It meant procurement, all kinds of safety testing and accreditations, CNC re-progamming, etc - cost thousands of pounds. When challeneged, the designer admitted that there was no design/tech reason for it to be non standard by 1mm - he could easily have used a standard bolt/nut/washer that we already had in stock, which had already been accredited, etc - but apparently it never crossed his mind to think and check.

That event caused a minor revolution in the firm, with the techs and designers having to go and spend time in the machining, stores and procurement departments so that they could see what components the firm already had and they could see finished products outside their particular design ranges. More importantly, the drawings and designs were opened up to them all, so that they could see what had already been done. The entire operation changed from a "zero base" approach to a "let's see what we've already got and see if it can be tailored/changed" approach.

In my experience, it's not proper accountants who cause excess costs - it's the artistic/tech people who seemingly would rather be creative and create something new rather than just tweak the old. Of course, there are also many people occupying positions involving financial management who aren't accountants and foul things up by short-termism or flawed decision making.

 

[Manchester77]

I don't think railways are attractive for many journeys.

Price really is not the issue.

If you are commuting - fine, you will consider trains to avoid traffic, and because it's predictable - you know what time you need to be at work and what time to come home.

But for general usage, there's no way that the railways can take you to Tesco, or Thorpe Park, or whatever it is, at least not unless you are prepared to suffer significant inconvenience in terms of getting from home to station and from station to destination.

I think it's naive to imagine that there are millions of people out there just aching to get on the railways if the price were to drop.

First step is to look at motor car usage, particularly for short journeys, and encourage alternatives, i.e. cycling and walking.

I use the train to pop to sansburys in urmston (from trafford park, 2 stops)!!
I (and my family and some of my friends) use it as much as they can, for example if I'm visiting my family and I have enough time I will walk to Stretford metrolink, take a tram to Piccadilly then a train to Gatley and then walk to their house. But then again there it is as I said, TIME. If you have enough time for changes and connections then your journeys a doddle but if not it can be slow.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Speaking as an accountant, I have to disagree - the idea, to me, of standardisation is incredibly "sexy". I really can't see how any proper accountant would want it any other way. Reduced stocks, reduced training, etc are a wet dream for an accountant!

I spent a while as the FD of a design & manufacturing company and was plagued by the techs & designers re-inventing the wheel . It was like a vanity thing for them to start from scratch for every new project. Even though we had designs, jigs, moulds, etc going back years, they were never referred to when a new poject came in. If that wasn't bad enough, they never even considered what components we had, either in stock, or had designs & supply chains set up for. So for nearly every project, there was work to do throughout the firm - sourcing materials, training on manufacturing the new product, testing and accreditations, admin, procurement, etc.

A classic example that I remember vividly - as it was the straw that broke the camels back and led to some very heated Board meetings and a very late change of attitude from the designers and tech people - was where a designer decided to use a bolt/nut/washer combo that was 1mm different to anything we'd used before and was definitely non standard. It meant procurement, all kinds of safety testing and accreditations, CNC re-progamming, etc - cost thousands of pounds. When challeneged, the designer admitted that there was no design/tech reason for it to be non standard by 1mm - he could easily have used a standard bolt/nut/washer that we already had in stock, which had already been accredited, etc - but apparently it never crossed his mind to think and check.

That event caused a minor revolution in the firm, with the techs and designers having to go and spend time in the machining, stores and procurement departments so that they could see what components the firm already had and they could see finished products outside their particular design ranges. More importantly, the drawings and designs were opened up to them all, so that they could see what had already been done. The entire operation changed from a "zero base" approach to a "let's see what we've already got and see if it can be tailored/changed" approach.

In my experience, it's not proper accountants who cause excess costs - it's the artistic/tech people who seemingly would rather be creative and create something new rather than just tweak the old. Of course, there are also many people occupying positions involving financial management who aren't accountants and foul things up by short-termism or flawed decision making.

I had a similar experience in R&D. The designers would spec non standard resistors and capacitors in to their design which would make the procurement of eval unit components a right pain. Most times they would eventually state that a standard value would be fine!

As for ignoring TCO numbers then the procurement process is shot and needs a complete overhaul.

I would say it would never happen in public procurement but there is always the exception that proves the rule.......ahem WCML......

 

[The Ham]

Better standardisation of fleet purchases.

There should be a 'standard' DMU / EMU body design for the whole of the rail network. Manufacturers could compete to produce trainsets based on such standard bodies. It is hopelessly uneconomic to procure as is done now, with trains desigend for one or two routes. Limited efforts have been made before such as AC / DC designs for southern services, but what is needed is standard designs, where bogies are essentially the same, but differing capacities of traction motor can be fitted. All DEMU / EMU's should have through corridors. Yes, it may INCREASE the initial cost a little, but long term it REDUCES the cost - eg TPE 185 units (great units except seats are too hard) often connected into pairs, no corridor connection two guards or revenue loss due to non-fare-paying. Because the control systems differ between classes, they cannot be swapped around to meet changing demand. To cope with increased capacity, extra coaches are often required, but once the production line is finished its hugely expensive to restart - this would be less of a problem if there were standard basic designs. It is not particularly obvious why 8 coach train sets in south which need to be made 12 should be dumped onto the rest of the country and south gets new 12 coach sets - even if the speed needs upping to 110 or 125, it should be possible to simply switch supply equipment and brakes, not need a new class. It should also be made irrelevant whether its a DMU or EMU being ordered - it should be a simple matter to convert from one to the other as circumstances dictate- ie a week or two, at most, not forever.

Yes, the loading gauge may be better in some parts of the country, which might allow greater room onboard with disrete designs, but its simply not worth having lots of separate classes with little in the way of common parts and training requirements. It is the wrong approach. Years ago, it was impractical technically to produce a single emu/dmu design, but I don't think it should be now, it just needs someone to sit down and specify an adaptable body shell framework. Door opening can be altered dependent on use ie heavy commuter or long distance. The interiors would differ of course to provide more luxury for long distance services, but the shell would be the same.

IEP is also a complete waste of money. Refurbish 225's - the biggest customer experience improvement would be to replace those crap rock-hard seats. Introduce 140MPH signalling on ECML, maybe introduce tilt for Scotish services use money saved on IEP to electrify to aberdeen, inverness, hull, harrogate. No need for IEP then.

Although some standardisation would save money going to the extreme that you talk about would cost more money (why should trains which spend all their lives on track travelling at no more than 75mph be able to travel, with a few minor upgrades, at 140mph).

Also the first load of IEP's are being used to replace the 125's it is only a possible follow on order which would be replacing the 225's and the jury's out on if we do get IEP or a refurbished 225.

There is also the argument that IEP is providing some level of standardisation of IC rolling stock, as when there were new trains in 2000 (voyagers, meridians and Pendilinos) there were 4 different classes of train where most could work together but not the meridians. When they were ordered there where 272 pendilino coaches, 136 voyager coaches, 216 super voyager coaches and 143 meridian coaches (a total of 767 coaches).

Compare this to the 596 coaches for the first phase of IEP (to replace the 125's) with a possible follow on order of 270 coaches (to replace the 225's*) which is a total of 866 coaches of 3 classes (in the same way that Voyagers and Super Voyagers are different classes) all of which will use the same spare parts, have the same maintenance requirements, require the same maintenance skills, etc. The only difference between the three classes will be 1 will be electric (with a diesel engine for self rescue) and 9 coaches long, one will be bi-modal and 5 coaches long and one will be bi-modal and 9 coaches long.


*personally I'm of the view that some of the follow on order will happen, but it will not be to replace the 225's on the ECML, rather they will be used on both the GWML & ECML to provide even more capacity along the core (electrified lines) to allow the cascading of some of the bi-modal trains to replace the 125's to the south west and/or to run on the MML.

Any "spare" trains left in the follow on order could then be used to provide trains to replace the voyagers on XC where they would be running totally under wires in 2019.

Any Meridians and/or Voyagers freed up could then be used to strengthen existing services.

As by 2019 with just 3% growth per year there could be 123 passengers for every 100 at the moment, so by doing the above it frees up a lot of IC class trains to provide extra capacity without having to go through the tender process for a small order of trains.

 

[Dave1987]

Just to say the IEP project can hardly count as reducing costs considering it is currently at £5bn and rising!! Going to cost roughly £7.5m per coach. Hardly reducing costs is it.

 

[tbtc]

Just to say the IEP project can hardly count as reducing costs considering it is currently at £5bn and rising!! Going to cost roughly £7.5m per coach. Hardly reducing costs is it.

Surely it depends on what the alternative is?

 

[Dave1987]

Surely it depends on what the alternative is?

Without wanting to start another debate on IEP there are much much cheaper alternatives but the DFT have got it into their heads that they want IEP and nothing any industry expert seems to say to them will sway them now. There is no need to design this from scratch when there are far far cheaper off the shelf traction available. HS2 is a totally different argument because there is no alternative as the WCML cannot cope with any more increase in traffic. A brand new line is needed and why not make the journey a lot shorter at the same time.

 

[tbtc]

Without wanting to start another debate on IEP there are much much cheaper alternatives but the DFT have got it into their heads that they want IEP and nothing any industry expert seems to say to them will sway them now. There is no need to design this from scratch when there are far far cheaper off the shelf traction available

As I've tried to explain on the IEP thread, there are costs involved with any alternative.

A lot of the costs of IEP aren't anything to do with IEP not being "off the shelf", they are because of the PFI financing and the fact that the lease covers all maintenance/ depots (which means that it looks a lot higher than the naked cost of just buying a Pendolino outright (no PFI, no maintenance etc).

You could "save" a lot of money on the IEP costs by buying them outright (and accounting for the maintenance separately).

 

[Drsatan]

Without wanting to start another debate on IEP there are much much cheaper alternatives but the DFT have got it into their heads that they want IEP and nothing any industry expert seems to say to them will sway them now. There is no need to design this from scratch when there are far far cheaper off the shelf traction available. HS2 is a totally different argument because there is no alternative as the WCML cannot cope with any more increase in traffic. A brand new line is needed and why not make the journey a lot shorter at the same time.

An alternative might be loco-hauled stock but the problems with locomotive hauled trains (e.g. need for shunting staff, locomotive change-overs) have been covered lots of times before. I accept IEP has its flaws and is considerably more expensive than it ought to be due to consultancy fees and administrative costs but it's the least worst option.

 

[richieb1971]

The railways should be run by the government. There is much more wrong with our railways than just the pricing structure.

I could write all day but I will say this much, the balance is usually wrong.

1) HS2 is not needed. We want fast trains, but we don't need to keep up with France and Japan. HS2 is an advert that we are competing, when in reality those countries have state run affairs and we don't. So scrap that idea and keep what we got. The WCML is adequate.

2) Electrifying the MML is a good idea, as is the west coast link. I'd take a bunch of that HS2 money and push for the completion of the East side as well.
Having operating routes that exist is better than upgrading a pre existing route.

3) Freight locos. We have lots sitting idly in depots. In summer months they could be used to pull beach resort trains. Nobody has ever done this before but I think its a great idea. If you ran 3 a week to Yarmouth, Skegness, Blackpool that would be adequate.

Alot of these need to be re-engined or restored rather than buying foreign motive power. We have 87002 and some 86 getting sold to some foreign country whilst we buy up new locos elsewhere around the world.

4) Presentation. Not to sound like a dick. But our trains look like **it most of the time. FCC don't clean the windows for months and quite a few have graffiti on them. In contrast if you take a look at youtubes of Japan their trains are white. And I mean WHITE! Like some kind of washing powder advert WHITE!

5) The best way to cut costs on British railways is to make them profit free. Just say to the government that we want all the money to be reinvested. People like Richard Branson shouldn't be able to profit from a public service. If they were profit free our engines would be restored, reengined. Our windows would be cleaned and more jobs would be created.

It would be a railway that we could be proud of.

Its the only option that makes sense. Then if people use the trains, they get upgraded. If people use cars, our trains don't get upgraded.

Oh and lastly, I think all British motive power should wear the Union Jack. I'm British and I'm damn proud of it. If I ran the railways that would be a given.

On the 3rd of July 1938 - Mallard - 126MPH - Steam record
On the 1st of November 1987 - HST - 148mph - Diesel record

2 out of 3 isn't bad. We can build trains, don't forget that either.

 

[jon0844]

Is the WCML going to be adequate in 2032, 2040 and 2050?

As for presentation, most TOCs clean their trains when they're in the depots and I rarely see dirty FCC trains but I'm on the 'nice' side and on the Thameslink side, the trains now have to go into some nasty areas and be left in nasty areas, hence the massive increase in graffiti. There's a balance between taking the train out of service, with cancellations that will leave passengers stranded, or running it until there's time to remove it. Sadly, FCC has little, if any, spare stock.

Not sure how the Government running things would change most of what you say. They'd likely be quicker to just cancel trains, no? They'd certainly be far less accountable in terms of a TOC trying to maintain a reputation over a Government agency that would not need to worry.

 

[PR1Berske]

"The WCML is adequate"

It really isn't. Having had decades of investment, it's still choked at major pinchpoints, uneven in aim and ill defined for purpose, with too few expansion opportunities in important areas.

HS2 is overdue - we should have not been chasing the traditionalists dream of WCML for so long as we have.

 

[richieb1971]

The WCML is adequate of getting people from A-B. If the HS2 proposition was costing 1 billion I would probably say go for it. Why do you say its not adequate? Because trains don't run at 200mph? There are people completely cut off from the railways and you want to spend billions on a line where a pre existing one is already there?

What will more than likely happen when HS2 is alive and running is that the WCML will become a cheaper option. Alot of people will say "Pay £++++ for HS2 or save some ££££ and go with the WCML".

The other problem with HS2 is that its just linking major cities. For the rest of us we get the pleasure of seeing 200mph trains whizzing past but never stopping. People travelling from MK to Euston will still use the WCML because HS2 isn't going past there.


As for government control. They control things now. They are just not as "hands on" as they were. Its a public service. If the railways were making as much money as they are now but it was profit free, we would see investment in the railway. A big difference than now. We would also be able to knock a few ££££ off the prices of fares that everyone is complaining about without it having much of a knock on effect. Just my humble opinion.

 

[tbtc]

1) HS2 is not needed. We want fast trains, but we don't need to keep up with France and Japan. HS2 is an advert that we are competing, when in reality those countries have state run affairs and we don't. So scrap that idea and keep what we got. The WCML is adequate

How can the WCML cope with predicted growth rates over the next fifty years?

3) Freight locos. We have lots sitting idly in depots. In summer months they could be used to pull beach resort trains. Nobody has ever done this before but I think its a great idea. If you ran 3 a week to Yarmouth, Skegness, Blackpool that would be adequate

We have a lot fewer idle freight locos now than we used to under BR - nowadays we have a small number of intensively used freight locos (rather than hundreds of freight locos that sat idle for long periods).

Where are the spare carriages for "beach" trains? Almost every fit carriage is used regularly - again, we don't have the yards of "spare" stock nowadays, the railway is too busy for that kind of luxury

5) The best way to cut costs on British railways is to make them profit free. Just say to the government that we want all the money to be reinvested. People like Richard Branson shouldn't be able to profit from a public service. If they were profit free our engines would be restored, reengined. Our windows would be cleaned and more jobs would be created.

It would be a railway that we could be proud of

I've got a Co-op and a Tesco within walking distance. One provides better value for money whilst being a lot cleaner/better presented. It's not the "not for profit" supermarket...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why do you say its not adequate? Because trains don't run at 200mph?

No, because we can't realitically extend the LM 350s beyond twelve coaches (or the 390s beyond eleven coaches), yet the passenger numbers keep going up.

We are running out of space on some existing lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why do you say its not adequate? Because trains don't run at 200mph?

No, because we can't realitically extend the LM 350s beyond twelve coaches (or the 390s beyond eleven coaches), yet the passenger numbers keep going up.

We are running out of space on some existing lines.

 

[richieb1971]

Ok, I see why longer trains are needed.

So based on what you guys are saying the railways are doing as good as they can right now? I find that hard to believe.

I don't frequently use the train and when I do its usually for pleasure. I'm an enthusiast not a regular commuter or anything like that.

I preferred BR days to this era. Perhaps my rose tinted glasses are giving me the wrong perspective on things.

 

[D1009]

I don't frequently use the train and when I do its usually for pleasure. I'm an enthusiast not a regular commuter or anything like that.

I preferred BR days to this era. Perhaps my rose tinted glasses are giving me the wrong perspective on things.

I think most enthusiasts preferred the BR era to the current era, but we have to acknowledge that since then thousands of new passengers have been attracted to the railway, and technology has moved on since those days. There are enough heritage lines and main line charter trains (until the bean counters decide they're not viable any more) to cater for nostalgia.

 

[Dave1987]

I think most enthusiasts preferred the BR era to the current era, but we have to acknowledge that since then thousands of new passengers have been attracted to the railway, and technology has moved on since those days. There are enough heritage lines and main line charter trains (until the bean counters decide they're not viable any more) to cater for nostalgia.

I totally agree the railway has to move with technology advances. Electric traction is the future.