Future of Class 707

[Bletchleyite]

planning and ordering of stock on a long-term basis

What, like the Incredibly Expensive Procurement?

I'm really not sure this minor EMU reshuffle and a coat of paint and new seat covers will come anywhere near the amount of money that has been thrown up the wall on IEP.

I like the Class 800 as I've seen it so far, but its procurement has been incredibly inefficient, and just to build what is basically a fairly standard 125mph EMU (which TPE are ordering far more cheaply from CAF) with diesel engines strapped underneath (not a hard thing to do).

 

[Deepgreen]

An explicit statement on the First Group press release last Monday.

The release only refers to 18 5 car units, which certainly points towards the 442s, but is not conclusive. I imagine the delay until December 2018 is to allow full refurbishment of the 442s (including uprated power to cope with the Portsmouth route perhaps)? However, could it be the displacement of 18 444s?

Regarding the 442s, though, the big question is; will those who partook of the 442 Farewell railtour be due a refund?

 

[Suraggu]

The release only refers to 18 5 car units, which certainly points towards the 442s, but is not conclusive. I imagine the delay until December 2018 is to allow full refurbishment of the 442s (including uprated power to cope with the Portsmouth route perhaps)? However, could it be the displacement of 18 444s?

It has been confirmed class 442's are returning, it's in the press release.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Make sense?
I'm sorry, but taking brand new trains out of service because DfT want a press release saying "we're building xx new trains" is anything but sense. It shows just what a screwed-up, wasteful, useless, degenerate operation the railway is.

It's called a functioning rolling stock market, with the private firms taking risks.
The ROSCOs have made an absolute killing out of stock shortages (engineered by the DfT) with every vehicle earning full whack for 20 years, with next to no risk.
Now they are earning their crust the way other firms do.
The story is not yet over, anyway.
Both Siemens and Angel Trains, and a future TOC which receives the 707s, may yet be winners.

 

[swt_passenger]

The release only refers to 18 5 car units, which certainly points towards the 442s, but is not conclusive. I imagine the delay until December 2018 is to allow full refurbishment of the 442s (including uprated power to cope with the Portsmouth route perhaps)? However, could it be the displacement of 18 444s?

442s were definitely explicitly mentioned in Monday's press release, in terms of:

We will introduce charging points on all other mainland trains - Class 442s, Class 444s and 450s by December 2018, Class 158s and 159s by December 2020

There are a number of other references to "fully refurbished trains by Dec 2018" to be used on the Portsmouth route. Are you perhaps suggesting that they fully refurbish a few 444s to provide 2+2 seating, and use 18 x 442s somewhere else?

 

[The Ham]

Make sense?

I'm sorry, but taking brand new trains out of service because DfT want a press release saying "we're building xx new trains" is anything but sense. It shows just what a screwed-up, wasteful, useless, degenerate operation the railway is.

I was getting at the current 707's are sent in turn back to the manufacture who then takes the coaches from the current 707's to put them back into a new configuration of coaches which has a better layout to then provide new trains to allow the current 707's to be sent back (and so on).

No 707's get scrapped, no 707's need to find a home elsewhere, no lease company is out of pocket (or at least only by a very small amount).

 

[Deepgreen]

What, like the Incredibly Expensive Procurement?

I'm really not sure this minor EMU reshuffle and a coat of paint and new seat covers will come anywhere near the amount of money that has been thrown up the wall on IEP.

I like the Class 800 as I've seen it so far, but its procurement has been incredibly inefficient, and just to build what is basically a fairly standard 125mph EMU (which TPE are ordering far more cheaply from CAF) with diesel engines strapped underneath (not a hard thing to do).

Indeed - how not to do it, certainly!

 

[Deepgreen]

442s were definitely explicitly mentioned in Monday's press release, in terms of:


There are a number of other references to "fully refurbished trains by Dec 2018" to be used on the Portsmouth route. Are you perhaps suggesting that they fully refurbish a few 444s to provide 2+2 seating, and use 18 x 442s somewhere else?

I suspect I have have not seen the full details of the release. As I said, all the evidence pointed to 442s from what I had seen - this confirms it. BTW, the pictogram for the new stock on the release shows a revolutionary 4 axle bogie being used! It also equates the 90 trains with 750 cars - so not all are to be ten car units.

 

[Deepgreen]

It's called a functioning rolling stock market, with the private firms taking risks.
The ROSCOs have made an absolute killing out of stock shortages (engineered by the DfT) with every vehicle earning full whack for 20 years, with next to no risk.
Now they are earning their crust the way other firms do.
The story is not yet over, anyway.
Both Siemens and Angel Trains, and a future TOC which receives the 707s, may yet be winners.

It's still very inefficient no matter who takes the risk/real hit.

 

[Deepgreen]

It has been confirmed class 442's are returning, it's in the press release.

As I seem not to be able to see the detailed release, may I ask you to provide the link? Thanks.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's still very inefficient no matter who takes the risk/real hit.

Yes, capitalism is a very inefficient system - except for all the others...

 

[DarloRich]

It's called a functioning rolling stock market, with the private firms taking risks.
The ROSCOs have made an absolute killing out of stock shortages (engineered by the DfT) with every vehicle earning full whack for 20 years, with next to no risk.
Now they are earning their crust the way other firms do.
The story is not yet over, anyway.
Both Siemens and Angel Trains, and a future TOC which receives the 707s, may yet be winners.

but there is no risk to the ROSCO! There never is. Any cost to them will simply be passed on to us as tax payers/ passengers.

They know the government cant allow good trains to "rot in sidings" when people are crammed onto existing trains "like cattle" ( to go a bit Daily Mail). It could, of course, be a gambit to force down the lease costs for SWT NEWCO

DG is right though - it is inefficient and a misuse of resources.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's still very inefficient no matter who takes the risk/real hit.

That depends. The inherent risk of expensively-bought trains going unused will have the effect of encouraging ROSCOs to order standardised trains which can be reconfigured as necessary over their working life. ROSCO demand for standardised and configurable trains should then drive rolling stock manufacturers to design that into their products. More configurable trains means more efficiency as it won't then be as necessary to replace them if their requirements change.

This idea works really well for standard EMUs. Theoretically a 20m EMU fleet could be reconfigured to run everything from busy inner-city metro services all the way up to medium-distance regional express routes like the London Midland services to Crewe.

 

[coppercapped]

but there is no risk to the ROSCO! There never is. Any cost to them will simply be passed on to us as tax payers/ passengers.

They know the government cant allow good trains to "rot in sidings" when people are crammed onto existing trains "like cattle" ( to go a bit Daily Mail). It could, of course, be a gambit to force down the lease costs for SWT NEWCO

DG is right though - it is inefficient and a misuse of resources.

I hesitate to get embroiled in this discussion, but as neither you, nor anyone else posting on this forum, is privy to the details of the plans or how they will play out, your conclusion is purely conjecture.

 

[DarloRich]

I hesitate to get embroiled in this discussion, but as neither you, nor anyone else posting on this forum, is privy to the details of the plans or how they will play out, your conclusion is purely conjecture.

but of course. Based upon nothing more than cynicism, suspicion, past history and tea.

 

[Billy A]

I was getting at the current 707's are sent in turn back to the manufacture who then takes the coaches from the current 707's to put them back into a new configuration of coaches which has a better layout to then provide new trains to allow the current 707's to be sent back (and so on).

No 707's get scrapped, no 707's need to find a home elsewhere, no lease company is out of pocket (or at least only by a very small amount).

That suggestion sounds suspiciously like common sense. It'll never work!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That suggestion sounds suspiciously like common sense. It'll never work!

I wouldn't rule it out yet.

 

[Deepgreen]

I hesitate to get embroiled in this discussion, but as neither you, nor anyone else posting on this forum, is privy to the details of the plans or how they will play out, your conclusion is purely conjecture.

Not purely so, but partly; based on some things we do know (or least which have emanated from the 'horse's mouth'. The terms above are often linked.

 

[HH]

we as tax payers will simply end up paying for the changes and the delays. Any resources the ROSCO expend will be passed on, pipework or no pipework!

This is mere supposition. ROSCOs no longer have the ability to make automatic profits, as DfT aren't giving section 54 protection and there's a lot of competition. Currently, it's a buyer's market.

 

[HH]

The repainting into another livery so soon after delivery, the abortive training for SWT/FSW, etc. My view is that it is far more than "slightly poor planning" - it is symptomatic of the fractured strategic view, when there should be planning and ordering of stock on a long-term basis, rather than juggling it around to suit the whims of TOCS.

1. They won't be re-painted; they will be given a new vinyl. It's a lot cheaper.

2. Training is a fraction of what the RS costs; penny wise, pound foolish?

3. Planning and ordering stock on a long-term basis is all very well, providing those planning and ordering both know what they're doing and have a crystal ball to forecast future needs. Otherwise the way it works currently might actually work out better - Cl700 and IEPs are a result of long term planning; hardly a great advertisement...

 

[HH]

I was getting at the current 707's are sent in turn back to the manufacture who then takes the coaches from the current 707's to put them back into a new configuration of coaches which has a better layout to then provide new trains to allow the current 707's to be sent back (and so on).

No 707's get scrapped, no 707's need to find a home elsewhere, no lease company is out of pocket (or at least only by a very small amount).

The amount wouldn't be small. Firstly Siemens would have to produce more units in the short term to allow the units to be cycled through refurb while still achieving the required availability. Secondly, the refurb would not be cheap or quick: there's toilets, changes to layout, upgraded IT and it seems improvements to power are needed. And at the end their income would be lower than it is now! That looks a fairly hefty bath to me.

 

[HH]

I hesitate to get embroiled in this discussion, but as neither you, nor anyone else posting on this forum, is privy to the details of the plans or how they will play out, your conclusion is purely conjecture.

That is also conjecture.

 

[coppercapped]

That is also conjecture.

A fair cop!

 

[squizzler]

This is mere supposition. ROSCOs no longer have the ability to make automatic profits, as DfT aren't giving section 54 protection and there's a lot of competition. Currently, it's a buyer's market.

The stalls of the electric train market are groaning under the weight of new and re-tractioned stock. If you need DMU's then it's slim pickings at the DfT food bank!

 

[swt_passenger]

A little while back, didn't a Rosco order a speculative build of a load of Electrostars? That seemed to work OK, they aren't exactly sitting in sidings. Don't recall them getting any criticism, people probably thought it was a brilliant idea.

I doubt the 707s are going to sit on the shelf for long...

 

[HH]

The stalls of the electric train market are groaning under the weight of new and re-tractioned stock. If you need DMU's then it's slim pickings at the DfT food bank!

This is true; at the moment there seems to be more interest in bi-modes. It's also true that part of the reason for EMU glut and DMU shortfall are the constant delays to electrification.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

but there is no risk to the ROSCO! There never is. Any cost to them will simply be passed on to us as tax payers/ passengers.

Well, what about the Pacers?
Porterbrook will have scores of them on its hands with little likelihood of earning any money for them, with 10 years life left in them.
Some people on here would say they are too good to scrap ("better any train than no train"), but the DfT has decided they must go.
They have earned well with them since 1996, so no tears for the ROSCO, but they have to stand the loss, including the wasted investment in "e-Pacers".
The whole point of privatising the train fleet was to get some innovation and risk into the market.
We are just watching that unfold.

We used to tell BA to order Tridents, BAC-111s and Concordes, which didn't do either BA, BAe or RR (all nationalised at one point) any good.
They are doing much better dealing with airlines which buy what they want commercially.

 

[DarloRich]

Well, what about the Pacers?
Porterbrook will have scores of them on its hands with little likelihood of earning any money for them, with 10 years life left in them.
Some people on here would say they are too good to scrap ("better any train than no train"), but the DfT has decided they must go.
They have earned well with them since 1996, so no tears for the ROSCO, but they have to stand the loss, including the wasted investment in "e-Pacers".
The whole point of privatising the train fleet was to get some innovation and risk into the market.
We are just watching that unfold.

We used to tell BA to order Tridents, BAC-111s and Concordes, which didn't do either BA, BAe or RR (all nationalised at one point) any good.
They are doing much better dealing with airlines which buy what they want commercially.

What are you talking about? Pacers don't have 10 years life left in them plus they will be fully depreciated assets which are well life expired which you seem to be trying to compare with a brand new little used asset with about 25 years life left in them.

 

[DarloRich]

This is mere supposition. ROSCOs no longer have the ability to make automatic profits, as DfT aren't giving section 54 protection and there's a lot of competition. Currently, it's a buyer's market.

you can't honestly be that niave about the world - the ROSCO carries no risk.we will carry the costs of any changes directly or indirectly

 

[coppercapped]

you can't honestly be that niave about the world - the ROSCO carries no risk.we will carry the costs of any changes directly or indirectly

And what happens if the solution now adopted turns out to be more economic - for all parties - in the medium term over that selected by SWT under different circumstances? Why do you assume that it will cost the taxpayers or passengers more money than alternatives?

Cynicism is not a valid answer.