Crayons: Fleet standardisation

[JonathanH]

What you really wouldn't want to get locked into is a huge order over many years with the original manufacturer the only one who can make modifications if you want upgrades or other changes.

Yes, which is presumably why there were two separate builds of 465/466 Networkers with detail differences to the same basic specification.

Interoperability with dual sourcing would appear to be better than single sourcing, unless, I imagine, the single source is 'in-house'.

 

[Peter Wilde]

How about more nationwide standardisation of couplings? And drivers cabs, so that, for example, all future orders for commuter EMUs or DMUs would be the same to drive? Surely ridiculous to allow each manufacturer to go their own way so that drivers need extensive retraining whenever stock is provided new, or brought in by cascade from another region.

(If the underlying technology of the train’s systems really must evolve further as years go by - something which is argually less important for such a mature technology than manufacturers may claim - surely the cab controls and layout does not need to change too? Instead one could have an interposed layer of computer emulation, so that old-style controls could interact correctly with the new technical gubbins).

It is astonishing on the railway how much retraining seems to be necessary as things stand at present, and how much it sets back the introduction of new stock. On the roads, if one keeps a car for 10 years or so and then buys a new one, the changes to controls and associated (and distracting) tech are challenging - yet the (amateur) driver is expected to cope after a 15 minute handover and talk through by a salesman from the garage.

 

[bahnause]

How about more nationwide standardisation of couplings? And drivers cabs, so that, for example, all future orders for commuter EMUs or DMUs would be the same to drive? Surely ridiculous to allow each manufacturer to go their own way so that drivers need extensive retraining whenever stock is provided new, or brought in by cascade from another region.

(If the underlying technology of the train’s systems really must evolve further as years go by - something which is argually less important for such a mature technology than manufacturers may claim - surely the cab controls and layout does not need to change too? Instead one could have an interposed layer of computer emulation, so that old-style controls could interact correctly with the new technical gubbins).

It is astonishing on the railway how much retraining seems to be necessary as things stand at present, and how much it sets back the introduction of new stock. On the roads, if one keeps a car for 10 years or so and then buys a new one, the changes to controls and associated (and distracting) tech are challenging - yet the (amateur) driver is expected to cope after a 15 minute handover and talk through by a salesman from the garage.

You're solving a problem here that doesn't exist in reality. At a traction training course, the layout of the cab is the least of the problems. Where which lever is and what it does is not really an issue. It can be done in half an hour. Standards for driver's cabs have existed for years, so have the systems for running in multiple This has not changed the need for traction training, as this largely relates to the ‘hardware’. And this differs considerably in some cases and may also vary depending on the area of application. How is the brake system structured, where are the shut-off valves for brakes, which inverter feeds which systems? No software layer will be able to cover this. A vehicle with synchronous motors behaves differently and has different fault symptoms than a three-phase motor vehicle. Technology evolves. There are indeed railway companies that have made their old and new vehicles compatible using software and/or hardware. In these cases, the staff has to be trained on all types and additionally on the restrictions in mixed operation.

 

[HSTEd]

Well 701s have fancy bogs and theoretically have auto stopping and door opening......

Standardisation across a big TOC is enough, and even that can mean sub-optimal stock for some lines.

Even without standardisation trains are rapidly converging into <5 types, and probably soon into 2 types (110mph+ and <110mph electrodiesel)
Even if the trains are notionally different, there is not really much between an Electrostar and Desiro on a fundamental level.

Modular interiors are becoming the norm, and increasingly divorce the interior of the train from its mechanical and electronic components.

What you really wouldn't want to get locked into is a huge order over many years with the original manufacturer the only one who can make modifications if you want upgrades or other changes.

The alternative is we are locked in with a bunch of orders with multiple manufacturers, all of which are incentivised to maximise customer lock in.
There aren't enough manufacturers to ensure that a train order can feasibly be discarded if the manufacturer starts playing hard ball. No one is going to be willing to throw away 1000+ vehicles after all.

And attempting to maintain a "market" just forces you to buy trains you don't want to stop plant closures - see the current debacle with Derby.

Careful attention to specification to avoid ultra proprietary interfaces would avoid most of the lock in issues, and when you are contracting for upgrades to a fleet of 15,000+ vehicles it will be much easier to get people to put the effort in to service other people's products. And thats assuming you don't just develop the upgrade capability in house since you only have one fleet.

 

[Trainbike46]

In my view, there will always be a range of different vehicles around, simply because we (sensibly) don't replace all trains at the same time. However, more standardisation would be better - if you look at the various recent aventra orders, really it would have been better if they were of fewer types. The 710s, 720s and 730s could all have been the same type technologically (with gangways), with different interiors as needed between LO and commuter operations. That way, it would be easier to move trains as needed between the current GA, C2C, LO, and LNWR operations. In a similar way to how the 387s have moved around as needed between GTR (Great Northern), GTR (southern and Gatwick Express), GWR, etc. The 170s have done similar moves around the country, both short term and long term.

If there's no further need for driver training because the trains are the same, things like strengthening one route when there is engineering work on another becomes much easier; For example, if the southern ECML is shut, trains from there could be used to strengthen all trains to maximum length on the MML. This is currently more difficult as the drivers that know the MML don't know the 80x, and drivers that know the 80x don't know the MML, so would require driver training to make possible (as has happened with Hull Trains and GC running on the ECML, and GWR running into Euston)

And attempting to maintain a "market" just forces you to buy trains you don't want to stop plant closures - see the current debacle with Derby.

It does seem hard to maintain a market for buying rolling stock, yes. I would however argue that the decision to order more 345s before the option was lost forever was the right one as the Elizabeth Line will need the extra trains.

Careful attention to specification to avoid ultra proprietary interfaces would avoid most of the lock in issues, and when you are contracting for upgrades to a fleet of 15,000+ vehicles it will be much easier to get people to put the effort in to service other people's products. And thats assuming you don't just develop the upgrade capability in house since you only have one fleet.

All very important points! lock-in should really be avoided, as should small microfleets.

 

[popeter45]

In my view, there will always be a range of different vehicles around, simply because we (sensibly) don't replace all trains at the same time.

for replacing all the trains thats not as much as of an issue as would take years to build such as fleet, maybe even enough that once the fleet is replaced its just in time to start the cycle again
the Mark 2's had a 12 year production run, same as the Mark 1's and 13 years for the mark 3's

such a massive task may even bring up the idea of building in house BREL style

 

[signed]

It's the logical thing, but once more than half the fleet is done, it's already obsolete and something better for the needs at hand exists

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All very important points! lock-in should really be avoided, as should small microfleets.

Microfleets aren't always a bad thing. If you have a few units that are different from the rest of your fleet, but are used as a common pool, that's not ideal as you need to ensure all crews operate the "odd ones out" often enough to retain competency, or diagram those units separately from the rest of the fleet.
However if you have a service that's a bit of an "odd one out" and requires non-standard equipment due to its unusual nature or particular constraints (Stourbridge Town branch for example) then a small microfleet is just what's needed.

Now if your required microfleet shares a number of components with the larger squadron fleet, that's likely to be a bonus... but it isn't always going to be possible.

 

[stevieinselby]

Microfleets aren't always a bad thing. If you have a few units that are different from the rest of your fleet, but are used as a common pool, that's not ideal as you need to ensure all crews operate the "odd ones out" often enough to retain competency, or diagram those units separately from the rest of the fleet.
However if you have a service that's a bit of an "odd one out" and requires non-standard equipment due to its unusual nature or particular constraints (Stourbridge Town branch for example) then a small microfleet is just what's needed.

Sure, if you need a microfleet because a very small number of services have very specific requirements that are wildly different from the rest of the fleet then yes, you're going to have to have a small number of non-standard trains. The Stourbridge service is one of very, very few examples of where that is appropriate.

But if we look at some of the other train types around that were built with 20 or fewer sets, it's hard to see what was so special about them. Were the requirements of the West Yorkshire suburban services so different from those of London or the West Midlands that 16 CAF 333s needed to be procured when Electrostars and Desiros were being built in much bigger numbers to do the same job?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If I remember rightly, when the 333s were ordered many of the large-scale orders to replace the Southern Region Mk1 EMUs were still at the bidding stage. Adtranz (as-was) had the first few batches of Electrostars in production and Alstom had Junipers destined for SWT and ScotRail. Desiro UKs were just a twinkle in Siemens's eye!

Presumably the 333 order was considered the best option at the time, otherwise something else would have been chosen. If they'd been anything else they'd still have been isolated from any sister fleets to this day, so not much gained in the way of economies of scale.
I recall talk back in the early 2000s about a possible order of a second batch of 333s to replace the three 321s (and one diesel diagram due to 333009s status as Neville Hill's "christmas tree"). In the end the 322s came in a few years later.

 

[Mikey C]

If I remember rightly, when the 333s were ordered many of the large-scale orders to replace the Southern Region Mk1 EMUs were still at the bidding stage. Adtranz (as-was) had the first few batches of Electrostars in production and Alstom had Junipers destined for SWT and ScotRail. Desiro UKs were just a twinkle in Siemens's eye!

Presumably the 333 order was considered the best option at the time, otherwise something else would have been chosen. If they'd been anything else they'd still have been isolated from any sister fleets to this day, so not much gained in the way of economies of scale.
I recall talk back in the early 2000s about a possible order of a second batch of 333s to replace the three 321s (and one diesel diagram due to 333009s status as Neville Hill's "christmas tree"). In the end the 322s came in a few years later.

And the 333s were a close relative of the Heathrow 332s, so it's not as if they were a brand new design.