How small a fleet is a "micro-fleet"?

[hooverboy]

Particularly as a small production run may mean sourcing (and where no longer in production) commissioning bespoke spares is extremely difficult. Its a lot easier to justify a bespoke spares order (that may require hundreds of units that result in years of spares as a minimum production run) if you can use it on the majority of your fleet rather than the minority.

E.g. You have 6 vehicles but the minimum order is enough spare bespoke door pistons to last you a decade whereas on your main fleet of 60 that same quantity would see you through 1-2 years. May even incentivise you to order even more for the unit cost savings.

so what we need for some of the older unit replacements(say 153/14x), is a "scrapheap challenge" approach to building something with existing spares(and likely to be in supply for the next 15 years), rather than:
1)refurbed 50 year old stock which mechanically is quite fatigued anyway.
2)bespoke orders with cutting edge gear that needs machining(and programming),milling,jigging etc etc.

other than things like euro3B compliant engines(which would be of benefit anyway as you'll get better fuel efficiency and reliability),the rest probably could be cobbled together and something reasonably functional for around 1/3 the price of a new unit...either that or dudley very light rail centre gets a pet project to make:

i)mini 2 car artic centre bogie, 15m per car.
ii)fully disability compliant
iii)best route availability.this is meant to go anywhere that pacers and 23m+ vehicles can't.
iv)sub 25 long tonne per car,(light enough for low running costs,but robust enough to beat up a tractor)
v) can do 1m/s/s+ at 0-40mph
vi) 75mph top speed.

don't worry too much about the bells and whistles like wi-fi...although this could be incorporated in train location/signalling from now on.
aircon would be nice but not essential....it's a low cost rural/semi rural transit vehicle with frequent stops and a need for the odd bike/wheelchair.

turbostars : nice,but too long/too heavy/poor acceleration.high access charges.
sprinter(153): ticks the boxes on acceleration, but again is too long for some bendy routes, and still a bit heavy
14x: light but RA adversely impeded by single axle,acceleration not great, poor accessibility,but not bad on track access charges and fuel

ideas please!....CAD or photoshop welcome!

 

[James James]

so what we need for some of the older unit replacements(say 153), is a "scrapheap challenge" approach to building something with existing spares(and likely to be in supply for the next 15 years), rather than:
1)refurbed 50 year old stock which mechanically is quite fatigued anyway.
2)bespoke orders with cutting edge gear that needs machining(and programming),milling,jigging etc etc.

other than things like euro3B compliant engines(which would be of benefit anyway as you'll get better fuel efficiency and reliability),the rest probably could be cobbled together and something reasonably functional for around 1/3 the price of a new unit.

Or you could just ask Stadler to build the shortest Flirt possible. 1.5x the size of a 153 is probably acceptable. Their trains are quite standardised, so parts are probably easily available.

 

[hexagon789]

When GWR had its 180s I would've called that a micro-fleet but I would not have called Grand Central's 180s a micro-fleet.

 

[hooverboy]

Or you could just ask Stadler to build the shortest Flirt possible. 1.5x the size of a 153 is probably acceptable. Their trains are quite standardised, so parts are probably easily available.

I think it's probably an option,but I don't know what their units costs are.
a 3 car unit is something approaching the £4m mark....so just reducing that to 2 car lets say £3m...still quite a chunky bank balance isn't it?

I'm thinking shoestring pacer budget for something useable(target £2m or less for a 2 car),with the lowest running costs possible,but kinder on the rails than pacers.

 

[Roast Veg]

You only have to watch a couple of episodes of scrapheap challenge to see how reliable that engineering methodology is. Fantastic programme, but I'd rather trains were expected to work rather than be surprised when they do.

 

[Parallel]

I wouldn’t call GWR’s 143s (8 in a total and signed commonly by only one depot plus probably a couple at another) a micro fleet. I would regard anything less than 4-5 units operated by a TOC a micro fleet though, like when Chiltern operated the 121s.

 

[bussnapperwm]

The Class 139 is a micro fleet in that it's only 2 units, confined to 0.75 of the British rail network

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Class 139 is a micro fleet in that it's only 2 units, confined to 0.75 of the British rail network

Though as they have a dedicated depot and were ordered specifically to avoid wasting a unit on a short branch, that's an example of when a micro-fleet is appropriate. I suppose when people moan about awkward micro-fleets it's more when there's a small number of a particular class in general rotation:- such as the 155s, 150/0s or the remaining West Midlands sprinters (and arguably 144012).