Crayons: Fleet standardisation

[HST43257]

Some may have dreamed that GBR may bring fleet standardisation into play. While this is possible to an extent with Sprinters nearing the end of life for example, this is less possible in many places because of how many new EMU fleets there are, for example. So my basic and relatively useless question is: For each semi imaginary sector of operation, what is the ideal existing train in your view? This isn’t with a view to actually bringing these trains in all over, but completely crayon-based. Mine would be:

Intercity: 80x - Electrics and Bimodes available, good acceleration and reaches 140. Seats need to improve but good otherwise imo

Commuter/Suburban: 387 - This is a tougher one. A 4-car EMU which has corridor connections to coupled units is ideal, with a top speed of 100/110. Tempted to say 700s instead because there’s less chance of a major shortform (4 instead of 12, say) and the standing space is very good on 700s, but they’re quite specialised to the extreme busy-ness (avoiding ambiguity) of the TL route

Regional/Rural: 755 - Bimode and good capacity. Very little wrong with them afaik

 

[popeter45]

i would go another way and look at 2 vertical stacks of homegenius train families (e.g. same bodyshell and components but specd for diffrent needs)

so for example a intercity FLIRT like the 745, a high density commuter version and a regional like the 755
as well as intercity Aventra, a high density commuter version like thr 720 and a regional version

probably clean sheet rather than the given examples thou

2 families to avoid a design flaw grounding the entire network like what happened with the 80X's

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Everything should be loco + coaching stock so there is no restriction on service length. The loco that had the highest fleet size was the gronk, as such I propose this to be used nationwide to save costs.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Everything should be loco + coaching stock so there is no restriction on service length. The loco that had the highest fleet size was the gronk, as such I propose this to be used nationwide to save costs.

But there is a restriction on service length if you run locos and coaches as this often means you have to have one less coach to find space for the loco….

 

[popeter45]

But there is a restriction on service length if you run locos and coaches as this often means you have to have one less coach to find space for the loco….

for an electric only service could have a passenger carrying loco with the same body as a carriage like the hungarian BVmot did, for Bi-mode the other end can be like a HST powercar

 

[Wolfie]

Everything should be loco + coaching stock so there is no restriction on service length. The loco that had the highest fleet size was the gronk, as such I propose this to be used nationwide to save costs.

Haha, get out of the mid-20th century - never going to happen.

 

[stevieinselby]

Commuter/Suburban: 387 - This is a tougher one. A 4-car EMU which has corridor connections to coupled units is ideal, with a top speed of 100/110. Tempted to say 700s instead because there’s less chance of a major shortform (4 instead of 12, say) and the standing space is very good on 700s, but they’re quite specialised to the extreme busy-ness (avoiding ambiguity) of the TL route

I would have different specs for inner and outer suburban.

For trains running entirely within the M25 or maybe just going one or two stops beyond if they are running stopping services, plus metro networks elsewhere (eg Liverpool, Glasgow), I would be looking at an Overground/CrossLizPurp/Thameslink style setup – prioritise standing and circulation space over seating, full walk-through fixed-formation set, no need for a top speed more than 75mph.

For trains running faster services from London out into the home counties, something a bit faster and with more creature comforts like a 387 is good.

 

[HSTEd]

I see the need for only two train classes, in extremis.

A 110mph electrodiesel/battery multiple unit. Gangwayed with level boarding.
A 200mph electric multiple unit, preferably with level boarding but I don't think one actually exists yet - the SMILE is probably closest.

Both designs should be capable of operating in multiple and should preferably have walk through gangways between vehicles.

I think pretty much everything else can be built out of those two trains, especially with modular interiors.
The TGV-M can supposedly entirely swap its interior in 48 hours.

 

[JonathanH]

no need for a top speed more than 75mph.

The problem with restricting speed to 75mph is that those trains get in the way of other trains where their path crosses with something a bit quicker. Even 345s are specified for 90mph, where they might not have been if there had been an historical equivalent.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Haha, get out of the mid-20th century - never going to happen.

I think you may have missed a joke there... read it again.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2024 ==

Everything should be loco + coaching stock so there is no restriction on service length. The loco that had the highest fleet size was the gronk, as such I propose this to be used nationwide to save costs.

Though you might still need units for branches with no run-round facilities- you could top&tail but that's far too inefficient. 139s or Pacers should suffice...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I'm not sure if I want a standardised fleet. I think the variation is interesting.

It makes sense for Intercity though I suppose. The Intercity125 was of course one train used seemingly everywhere.

 

[cslusarc]

Fleet standardisation is what is needed to deliver saving in operations.

 

[Harpo]

But there is a restriction on service length if you run locos and coaches as this often means you have to have one less coach to find space for the loco….

Versus 2/4/6 cab lengths, some of which will also take up platform space.

However, you’d have to build a huge number of expensive new locos for standardisation and with how many modes of operation?

 

[Snow1964]

Although I like Flirt design, I would think the highest priority is a regional train.

My take would be :
22-23m max length carriages (not route restricted)
doors at quarter, three quarter (to help with churn stations)
seating & ambiance suitable for 3+ hour journeys
multi-mode (able to use electrification) with batteries
110mph (on 25kv), 90-100mph on others
5car (preferably 6car) sets (so no short regional trains)
max length 122m (so double sets fit most platforms)

Basically a replacement for 158, 159, 166, (and 156, 165) etc

 

[JonathanH]

Fleet standardisation is what is needed to deliver saving in operations.

Does single sourcing place too much reliance on one supplier? How long is it possible to keep on building the same type of train without a change of model?

Would BR have been better with 150s on all diesel routes? Probably not.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Fleet standardisation is what is needed to deliver saving in operations.

I'm not sure we need to go this far. How about

Component standardisation and interoperability is what is needed to deliver saving in operations.

Fleet standardisation is of course one way to get the above points but there are other routes.

 

[FlyingPotato]

While fleet standardisation is efficient, it may not be resilient. The IETs were quite standardized having the same basic design used on many routes, but we saw what happened with the cracking
Imagine if most trains in the UK were flirts for example and a similar event occurred

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not sure if I want a standardised fleet. I think the variation is interesting.
It makes sense for Intercity though I suppose. The Intercity125 was of course one train used seemingly everywhere.

Not on the WCML, though they did take some Mk3 coaches before the Pendolinos.
Don't forget HS1 and HS2 either, both running proper high speed (140mph+) and running their trains onto classic tracks.
There's still the dilemma over tilt on the WCML and its impact on line speeds/capacity.
You also don't want to end up with a single manufacturer, and need to remain competitive with global trends (ie no UK exceptionalism).
Otherwise everything is bespoke for the UK and thus more expensive.

 

[dosxuk]

Fleet standardisation is what is needed to deliver saving in operations.

How would nationwide standardisation help saving money operationally? What savings would actually be gained?

How long is it possible to keep on building the same type of train without a change of model?

You could build identical stock indefinitely if you wanted. Whether that is desirable is a different matter, and it's likely to get more and more expensive as time goes on to source outdated components and use outdated construction methods.

 

[JonathanH]

How would nationwide standardisation help saving money operationally? What savings would actually be gained?

Rolling stock could redistributed as necessary to meet demand and all training would be identical. Maintenance could be centralised.

Whether that is desirable is a different matter, and it's likely to get more and more expensive as time goes on to source outdated components and use outdated construction methods.

Yes, it would become outdated, but the components would also be manufactured indefinitely as well so the supply would be continuous. The same upgrades could be applied fleet wide.

 

[HSTEd]

How would nationwide standardisation help saving money operationally? What savings would actually be gained?

Drastic reduction in training burden, reduction in spare parts holding, ability to move units between operators as required.

 

[dosxuk]

Rolling stock could redistributed as necessary to meet demand and all training would be identical. Maintenance could be centralised.

How many parts of the country currently have such a surplus of stock that it would be desirable to move them somewhere else? And do the receiving areas have the space to stable / maintain any additional stock if it was to be moved? Furthermore, if you had such a standardised stock, would you actually have as much of it? If rather than each area having it's own spares, you had a smaller number of centralised spares (this could mean a capex saving, but an opex increase - as you'd need to move the spares around the country)

Maintenance being centralised is a bit of a own goal - ideal maintenance would be completely de-centralised, with it happening as close to where the stock is being used as possible - reducing the amount of ECS movements and increasing skilled work around the country. Is it really a desire to have stock that spends all it's days running around in Cornwall having to pop up to (say) Birmingham every week for its checks?

Yes, it would become outdated, but the components would also be manufactured indefinitely as well so the supply would be continuous. The same upgrades could be applied fleet wide.

That would apply to components that are exclusively manufactured for the railway industry, which are few and far between. While some manufacturers could probably be persuaded to continue manufacturing them for such a small user, they would significantly increase in cost. Just look at all the trouble Bombardier had with the 379's when their previous door button supplier stopped making the buttons they were using.

Drastic reduction in training burden, reduction in spare parts holding, ability to move units between operators as required.

The same number of drivers would still need to be trained. The only training savings you would gain are from those drivers who move areas - who will need training on the new routes anyway - so those savings are pretty minimal.

I suspect spare parts are not a significant expense - you'd probably still need roughly the same quantity in the system, although there would be some savings from being able to ship them around and from any purchasing in larger quantities.


I'm not disagreeing there would be savings, I just don't think they would make much difference to the operational bottom line. The savings I can foresee are insignificant to the turnover - closer to a rounding error than opening up new opportunities with the savings.

 

[Mikey C]

Train design doesn't stand still anyway. The later Electrostars (379, 387) have significant differences from the earlier ones. And even with the 377s, the window design changed half way through.

Similarly the Turbostars were a relatively standard train across the UK, the later 172s are significantly different from the rest of the them.

 

[HSTEd]

How many parts of the country currently have such a surplus of stock that it would be desirable to move them somewhere else? And do the receiving areas have the space to stable / maintain any additional stock if it was to be moved?

If all stock is interchangeable the cost of moving stock around the country would be very small, because you could strengthen services heading in the right direction or move very long lashups of units with whichever drivers are available.

Furthermore, if you had such a standardised stock, would you actually have as much of it? If rather than each area having it's own spares, you had a smaller number of centralised spares (this could mean a capex saving, but an opex increase - as you'd need to move the spares around the country)

Well if we had less stock that would be a further saving in terms of stabling, maintenance and capital tied up in rolling stock.

Maintenance being centralised is a bit of a own goal - ideal maintenance would be completely de-centralised, with it happening as close to where the stock is being used as possible - reducing the amount of ECS movements and increasing skilled work around the country. Is it really a desire to have stock that spends all it's days running around in Cornwall having to pop up to (say) Birmingham every week for its checks?

If it improves maintenance productivity, yes.
I don't think where the jobs are really matters, what matters is that we achieve the highest productivity of staff possible.

A single or very small number of total train fleets would allow trains to be maintained wherever is most convenient without worrying about maintaining competence for a train type that would not be a depot's primary business.
It may even lead to a net reduction in ECS mileage as long distance moves for maintenance checks could be eliminated if desired.

That would apply to components that are exclusively manufactured for the railway industry, which are few and far between. While some manufacturers could probably be persuaded to continue manufacturing them for such a small user, they would significantly increase in cost. Just look at all the trouble Bombardier had with the 379's when their previous door button supplier stopped making the buttons they were using.

The Network Rail passenger rail fleet is ~16000 vehicles.
That is more than large enough to ensure most key components remain in manufacture.
The Class 379 fleet amounted to a mere 120 vehicles, its not really comparable.

The same number of drivers would still need to be trained. The only training savings you would gain are from those drivers who move areas - who will need training on the new routes anyway - so those savings are pretty minimal.

It would mean there was only ever one traction course required by drivers.

 

[Meerkat]

If you order the same train for the whole country by the time the last ones are delivered they will be out of date on entry to service.

 

[HSTEd]

If you order the same train for the whole country by the time the last ones are delivered they will be out of date on entry to service.

I think level boarding is probably the last great 'revolution' in passenger train design we are likely to see.

Most performance parameters are butting up against physical limits at this point.
For examples, trains can't really accelerate faster than modern multiple units because of fundamental adhesion limits, whilst magnetic track brakes offer emergency decelleration rates that are limited by passenger safety.

If we just built 16000 MU vehicles today, I doubt they would look terribly outdated in a couple of decades time. Or at least, not outdated enough to make the idea look silly.

 

[JonathanH]

If we just built 16000 MU vehicles today, I doubt they would look terribly outdated in a couple of decades time. Or at least, not outdated enough to make the idea look silly.

That is certainly true of Electrostars which don't look anyway near as life expired as the previous generation did after 20 years.

 

[Meerkat]

That is certainly true of Electrostars which don't look anyway near as life expired as the previous generation did after 20 years.

But 'Electrostar' covers quite a lot of variations and improvements.

 

[JonathanH]

But 'Electrostar' covers quite a lot of variations and improvements.

It does. The point I am making is that the 1999 built Electrostars are not out of place against stock built in the last few years.

 

[Meerkat]

It does. The point I am making is that the 1999 built Electrostars are not out of place against stock built in the last few years.

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.

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.