They will be missed. But do they have to go?

[Connex466]

So as we all know. Many trains are being scrapped as they have seen the end of the usable life. Or have they.

We all remember the D78 stock right?
And we all know about the new vivarail class 230 d- train. Which is just a refurbished D78. So why not do this with the 91s, 43s, 465s, and every other train up for scrap. I'm not even gonna mention those new 707s that SWR have. and why have we got to have those new plastic 701s when our current rolling stocks are fine. Why replace what works perfectly????

 

[Connex466]

Vote:
A- Refurbish
Or
B-scrap and replace?

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't believe our railway is quite inefficient enough to scrap a fleet of reliable, modern 5-car EMUs at a time where we are somewhat short of capacity. Rumours are suggesting that they will go to Southeastern or Thameslink, but whatever happens, they won't go to waste.

I must say that I do agree with you when it comes to the Networker family. The Class 323s - which were built to serve the same purpose in different places, and are consequently rather similar, although unrelated - are starting to look dated on the inside, but they're getting a reasonably good refurb and staying with Northern. Apparently passengers were saying they thought it was a new train, and they're certainly suitable for service for another decade or two.

 

[pdeaves]

Which is just a refurbished D78

Well, not really. Completely rebuilt with few original 'working bits' components.

 

[JonathanH]

The problem with many of these trains is rust, corrosion and metal fatigue.

But, also, the trains don't really meet modern standards. For example:
* HST power cars all got rebuilt some time ago but there are big problems with rust of the steel bodied carriages.
* 91s simply don't accelerate quickly enough and are worn out.
* 321s could be rebuilt for 10 more years of service but is that money well spent?
* Networkers can't cope with the passenger loads they carry and something with wider doorways is needed.

There are only so many secondary routes you can cascade frontline rolling stock to and often the frontline rolling stock isn't suitable for operation on the secondary routes.

 

[sprinterguy]

So as we all know. Many trains are being scrapped as they have seen the end of the usable life. Or have they.

We all remember the D78 stock right?
And we all know about the new vivarail class 230 d- train. Which is just a refurbished D78. So why not do this with the 91s, 43s, 465s, and every other train up for scrap.

What, fit diesel engines to class 91s and 465s? I can't see that one happening. Excuse my ignorance but I wasn't aware anything was happening to the 465s in fact, for clarity do you mean the AC overhead 365s?

The class 91s were performed to fulfil a specific high speed inter-city role, and have been run ragged performing that role for the past thirty years: They've not been renowned for their reliability over their lifetimes, and it'd probably be the case that another round of expensive reliability improvements would be required fairly soon before they started dropping like flies. There's limited applications they could otherwise be applied to - Rail Operation Group's plan to use them coupled back to back on freight in Europe is certainly rather novel.

Many of the HSTs already are receiving modifications for a new lease of life on regional duties with GWR and Scotrail (And to continue their existing inter-city duties with Crosscountry): Unfortunately it's a program that's met with delay and complication at every turn and is likely to ultimately cause multiple years of disruption for Scotrail passengers.

I'm not even gonna mention those new 707s that SWR have. and why have we got to have those new plastic 701s when our current rolling stocks are fine. Why replace what works perfectly????

There are benefits and economies in terms of performance characteristics, traincrew knowledge, diagramming and maintenance in having one large fleet of homogeneous new trains.

In general, there's no need to keep reinventing new uses for old trains indefinitely once they have outlived their usefulness performing the role they were designed for - Obviously fairly new fleets like the 350/2s, 379s and 707s are a rather different case in point and I would hope further use is found for them. Such a shame that there's still so many unelectrified urban routes up North with two car 1980s diesel units trundling about on them that can't benefit from a fleet of modern 4-car Electrostars or Desiros!

 

[pdeaves]

How many rebuilds/refurbishments/re-uses 'count' before we are allowed to replace some old stock? Do all the HSTs have to keep running and running forever because someone thinks they can eke a few more runs out of them?

 

[JonathanH]

Excuse my ignorance but I wasn't aware anything was happening to the 465s in fact, for clarity do you mean the AC overhead 365s?

It was suggested that the 465 / 466 fleet would go in the bin during the next Southeastern franchise had the discussions not broken down because they didn't meet the DfT's specification for the franchise's metro rolling stock without considerable work.

 

[sprinterguy]

It was suggested that the 465 / 466 fleet would go in the bin during the next Southeastern franchise had the discussions not broken down because they didn't meet the DfT's specification for the franchise's metro rolling stock without considerable work.

Ah righto, thanks for that, didn't think I'd heard of any concrete plans for them but third rail land is like a foreign country to me so I might have missed something.

 

[tbtc]

We all remember the D78 stock right?
And we all know about the new vivarail class 230 d- train. Which is just a refurbished D78. So why not do this with the 91s, 43s, 465s, and every other train up for scrap

A few years ago I'd have agreed with your sentiment. Back when CP4 was turning into CP5. We had plans to electrify lots of lines (not just those we have wired/ are wiring but the whole MML, the Electric Spine, the East-West route, the whole Transpennine route), so with the expectation that CP6 would see a lot of this work continue to do various branches (i.e. once you've wired up the main lines then the business case for infilling the gaps becomes a lot better - so once you've wired the MML to Sheffield then there's not far to go to wire to get to Doncaster/ Moorthorpe - plenty of other examples where wiring one line makes wiring the next one more attractive).

No point in buying lots of DMUs when we were going to have all this electrification by 2025. And we were going to have hundreds of EMUs freed up by Crossrail/ Thameslink (and other big projects).

So all we needed was some short term solution, bung some engines under one of the 315/317/319/321s (etc) and we'd have something to last until the mid 2020s (rather than buying pure DMUs that we wouldn't need once so many lines were wired up).

But the well documented problems we've had converting the 230s, turning a 319 into a 769 and sticking different doors on HSTs has convinced me that it's not really worth trying to upgrade an old train into one we can eke a further five/ten years out of, when you consider how quickly we can turn out brand new trains.

Ideal world - if you could stick some diesel engines into a 465 (to use your example) then there are a lot of unelectrified lines where a four coach 75mph unit could do a job - I'd be happy for local services around Sheffield to be replaced by a diesel 465 - they'd be very welcome - but the 319/769 fiasco has soured the concept for me - I'm not convinced that this is going to provide sufficient supply of reliable trains (and, even if it does convert a few trains, they will probably only last another five/ten years rather than the lifespan of brand new stock).

 

[TRAX]

Just because you, as an enthusiast, can’t see anything wrong with a train, doesn’t mean that there’s nothing wrong. Behind the scenes there’s a lot of issues on rolling stock, and work done to take care of those, but after a while it just doesn’t make sense to keep an ageing train running forever. We estimate the average life of a train is 40 years, and this hasn’t been determined by throwing dices. Thankfully professionals, and not railfans, take the decisions (excluding the obvious poor decisions made by politicians in some situations).

Rail enthusiasts need to remember they are nothing but passengers, and they just see 10 % of what a train really is.

Isn’t it time we all stopped with that conservatism mania ? Roll on, progress.

Scrap and replace.

 

[option]

The D78s were available at scrap prices, & they're aluminium, so no corrosion to worry about. They were well built, & well maintained.
That means that the conversion/refurb economics are completely different to other rolling stock.

 

[Kimi]

The class 91s were performed to fulfil a specific high speed inter-city role, and have been run ragged performing that role for the past thirty years: They've not been renowned for their reliability over their lifetimes, and it'd probably be the case that another round of expensive reliability improvements would be required fairly soon before they started dropping like flies.

To be fair, the Hitachi 80x are not breaking good records at this point - are 91s currently doing better in MTIN numbers?

When I looked last month, Roger Ford was showing them Hitachis as roughly level pegging with 142s for miles between incidents. When you turn realize the average speed of a pacer is going to be 1/3 that of IET then that would mean per _minute_ the IET are 3x worse - scrap 'em and regear the pacers!!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Keep them going forever I say!

It's about time we get Intercity 250 going too.

 

[Journeyman]

Just because you, as an enthusiast, can’t see anything wrong with a train, doesn’t mean that there’s nothing wrong. Behind the scenes there’s a lot of issues on rolling stock, and work done to take care of those, but after a while it just doesn’t make sense to keep an ageing train running forever...Rail enthusiasts need to remember they are nothing but passengers, and they just see 10 % of what a train really is.

This, x1000.

Please, enough of the desperate scrabbling about to find uses for spotters' favourites that are knackered, polluting, expensive to run and generally nowhere near as wonderful as many make them out to be.

The 91s were designed for thirty years, which they've done. The HSTs are well beyond their design lives. Even the 465s are no spring chickens - they've been around for over 25 years, and are now not particularly well suited for the routes they run on, as well as being quite unreliable and unsuitable for redeploying elsewhere.

I know SWT did a good job refurbing and retractioning the 455s, but the oldest ones are not far off 40 now. Do we really want to keep these things going when better, more cost-effective options are available?

 

[Energy]

I find it irritating people trying to keep old trains on when they are clearly too old. I read int he Scotrail HST alternative forum that the reason Scotrail got HSTs was because the person in charge was a HST enthusiast, also because Scotrail couldn't really afford the 80Xs but the could afford other stock like Stadler Flirts.

The HSTs are 40 years old now, the conversions with power doors have had lots of delays, it probably would have been quicker to put an 802 tag on order than have the HSTs converted. At this point, why spend so much time and money on trains which will only last 5-10 years max, the Scotrail HSTs may barely stay for 6-7 years...

 

[JonathanH]

The HSTs are 40 years old now, the conversions with power doors have had lots of delays, it probably would have been quicker to put an 802 tag on order than have the HSTs converted. At this point, why spend so much time and money on trains which will only last 5-10 years max, the Scotrail HSTs may barely stay for 6-7 years...

In some instances, it is worth using secondhand rolling stock with a relatively short lifespan if it proves a concept and allows new stock to be justified later. On paper, HSTs may have looked easy to put into service in Scotland with replacements then to be bought in 10 years time and buys time before electrification goes to Aberdeen. They might have had to settle on 170s otherwise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In some instances, it is worth using secondhand rolling stock with a relatively short lifespan if it proves a concept and allows new stock to be justified later. On paper, HSTs may have looked easy to put into service in Scotland with replacements then to be bought in 10 years time and buys time before electrification goes to Aberdeen. They might have had to settle on 170s otherwise.

170s aren't bad units and would probably have been more reliable. If they'd been able to get enough of them (or even 158s) to ensure 6-car formations on every service, they'd arguably have been preferable.

 

[Energy]

170s aren't bad units and would probably have been more reliable. If they'd been able to get enough of them (or even 158s) to ensure 6-car formations on every service, they'd arguably have been preferable.

Agreed, 170s are desired units as shown by as soon as a few go off lease they get snapped up by another operator, they are good units and because of their age they are cheaper while still having plenty of life left.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think that for some people the railways are a place of profound sentimentalism and looking at the railways as simply an apparatus run purely for efficiency is, while perfectly reasonable in the real world, somewhat depressing in the enthusiast’s world.

The Intercity 125, for example, is something that has been around literally for as long as I can remember. It’s a massive part of what the modern British railway its character. Sure, this argument can be applied to the end of steam or locomotive hauled trains on the Midland, Western and Eastern Regions but I think we could all say the 125 has made more of a cultural impact on the railways than any other train-possibly ever built.

Clearly, there are two types of enthusiasts-realists and romantics. I’m very much of the latter. I’m not interested in the latest equipment, rolling stock and operators, I’m more interested in how a railway looks and feels.

 

[Journeyman]

Clearly, there are two types of enthusiasts-realists and romantics. I’m very much of the latter. I’m not interested in the latest equipment, rolling stock and operators, I’m more interested in how a railway looks and feels.

I'm actually able to see it from both perspectives, as I have a personal interest in railways, and also work in the industry. I think it's fair to say that a lot of enthusiasts have a rather one-sided view, and feel that the network should be run as their own personal theme park.

If we take the HST, I will fully agree that it was the best train BR ever made, and by the standards of the seventies, it was fast, reliable, comfortable and hugely successful, commercially and technically. It was instrumental in bringing InterCity into profit, and it was pretty iconic. However...a lot changes in forty years, and I get fed up with people insisting that there's nothing wrong with them and that they'll keep going forever.

I think we need to get over it and accept that they've done what they were meant to do, and there's increasingly less of a place for them.

I'm hugely nostalgic about Southern slam-door stock, especially Thumpers, class 37s on the North Wales Coast, the Underground's A Stock, first-gen DMUs, and assorted other ancient bits of kit, but I understand they're no longer fit for purpose or easy/reliable to operate, and they have to go. Likewise, I'm going to miss the Pacers and the tube stock on the Isle of Wight. But let's just get over it. Times change.

 

[scotrail158713]

Yep. Take a look at Scotrail HST introduction.