Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry

[WatcherZero]

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/Rolling%20Stock%20Strategy%20February%202013%20-%20Final%2011022013.pdf

This report summarises the emerging conclusions from the initial four months of work towards
the development of a first high level national passenger Rolling Stock Strategy. This is the first
time since privatisation that the industry has committed to develop a collaborative, industry-led
Strategy for passenger rolling stock. It is also the first time that the long-term rolling stock
implications of growth, electrification, HS2 and other major projects have been modelled and
considered together.

Firstly as the introduction makes out this is not a cascade plan, its a strategy to calculate how much rolling stock will be needed over the next 30 years taking into account HS2, electrification and all other committed infrastructure schemes. Underlying it as a master spreadsheet with the passengers carried on each route on each toc and consequenting stock requirements under 30 year low, medium and high growth scenarios. These growth rates are based on 0.7, 1 and 1.3x the medium growth scenario.

Since Privatisation 15 years ago the rolling stock fleet is 24% larger and operating 60% more route km, this strategy predicts that the fleet will further increase over the next 30 years between 53% and 99%. The proportion of electric rolling stock is expected to rise from 68% today to 80% in 2019 and nearly 90% in thirty years under the high electrification scenario. The amount of the network electrified is expected to rise from 40% today to 50% by 2019 and a minimum of 60% thereafter with the expectation that at least £3bn will be spent on electrification in each five year control period from 2019 onwards.

Between 13,000 and 19,000 new electric vehicles will be required by 2042 at an average build rate of 8-12 per week. 400-800 new diesel vehicles will be required.

My main problem with the strategy is that while its moving away from Government promoted cascading to franchise bidders including cascaded stock in their bids there is no overall control so you could have two franchise bids for different franchises 4 months apart and because of the development times of the bid and period before government announces a winner that stock may no longer be available.

Indicative stock requirements today and by 2042 as follows: Today/ L/M/H
Short distance Diesel 1055, 489, 426, 343
Middle distance Diesel 1334, 931, 634, 728
Long distance Diesel 1515, 108, 137, 188
Short distance Electric 2446, 3720, 4020, 4405
Middle distance Electric 4832, 9708, 11551, 13110
Long distance Electric + Bi 1105, 2527, 3381, 4255
Very High Speed 174, 1433, 1476, 1519

 

[hwl]

Joint NR, Leasing companies, ATOC (& DfT) report into Long term rolling stock strategy in the UK for the next 30 years published by NR today.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/download-media/6704


Plenty of electrification assumed and very few new DMUs...
(assumes no new DMUs in CP5 or 6)

 

[northwichcat]

Plenty of electrification assumed and very few new DMUs...
(assumes no new DMUs in CP5 or 6)

Assuming that the current policy of a rolling electrification programme continues in CP6, the work to date suggests that no new diesel vehicles (or other self-powered vehicles) would be required to be built in either CP5 or CP6. Many older diesel vehicles would be withdrawn over time, firstly those HSTs which are being replaced by IEP (although some might be used on other 23 TOCs including open access operators), and then by 2024 potentially 500 (50%) of the shorterdistance 75 mph DMUs procured by British Rail in the 1980s. There would be a smaller reduction in the number of 90 mph and 100 mph DMUs which were built after 1989, as many of these would be redeployed to provide additional capacity on non-electrified routes.

The report forecasts that there would be no requirement for any new diesel or hybrid rolling stock other than for limited capacity purposes whilst a long term electrification programme proceeds.

That reads to me that the direct replacement for life expired DMUs in CP5 and CP6 will be EMUs but some new DMUs or hybrid rolling stock may be required for extra capacity or new services.

 

[Greybeard33]

That reads to me that the direct replacement for life expired DMUs in CP5 and CP6 will be EMUs but some new DMUs or hybrid rolling stock may be required for extra capacity or new services.

A couple more interesting snippets from the document:

36. It is widely expected that present and future EC legislation regarding emissions from diesel engines (Directive 97/68/EC and its subsequent amendments, implemented in Great Britain as the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants) Regulations 1999, known as NRMM) will increasingly make it difficult or even impossible to procure and operate new DMUs having underfloor diesel engines, with an affordable business case. Indeed, EU consultation on possible tightening of the rules is now underway. Existing diesel trains can continue to operate for as long as necessary thanks to an amendment agreed in 2011.

76. The report forecasts that there would be no requirement for any new diesel or hybrid rolling stock other than for limited capacity purposes whilst a long term electrification programme proceeds. It is likely that as few as 400 to 800 new self-powered vehicles may be required to be built in the 30 years to 2042 – probably in the second half of this period – principally to serve routes that are unlikely ever to be electrified.

It looks as though new diesel or hybrid stock will have very high unit costs in future, because of both the new emissions requirements and the relatively small numbers needed. This should improve the business case for additional electrification projects in CP7 and beyond, creating a "virtuous circle" for an on-going rolling electrification programme.

 

[D365]

We are not going to have enough electrification done by 2020 to allow even the Pacers to be withdrawn, let alone begin to make any inroad into the Sprinter classes...

 

[Gareth Marston]

We are not going to have enough electrification done by 2020 to allow even the Pacers to be withdrawn, let alone begin to make any inroad into the Sprinter classes...

Its not entirely clear whether they'll be any electric units on the ground to go under the wires anyway! Agreed that some Pacers wills till be around post 2020.

It should be easy enough to identify non electric pockets and plan cascades accordingly?

 

[northwichcat]

Agreed that some Pacers wills till be around post 2020.

Even ignoring DDA keeping the oldest 142s in service until 2024 is really pushing it.

Also unless I missed something this ATOC document isn't consistent with various Network Rail documents. For instance, there is no mention of tram-train usage on the rail network should the Sheffield-Rotherham trial be successful.

 

[hwl]

Even ignoring DDA keeping the oldest 142s in service until 2024 is really pushing it.

Also unless I missed something this ATOC document isn't consistent with various Network Rail documents. For instance, there is no mention of tram-train usage on the rail network should the Sheffield-Rotherham trial be successful.

The document says it excludes international, LUL and light rail/tram rolling stock

 

[johnb]

Its not entirely clear whether they'll be any electric units on the ground to go under the wires anyway! Agreed that some Pacers wills till be around post 2020.

The 700s and 345s will be in operation by then, so there'll be plenty of pre-loved 'leccy units to go round.

 

[tbtc]

It should be easy enough to identify non electric pockets and plan cascades accordingly?

There are plenty of "pockets", but a lot of the focus of CP5 electrification was the longer distance stuff (London to Swansea/ Sheffield), rather than the short sections of unelectrified line that could free up DMUs (with the noticeable exception of the Valley Lines).

The Snow Hill route through Birmingham, GOBLIN, the line through Wigan to Southport and the line through Warrington Central are pockets that would free up a lot of DMUs (per mile of electrification)

 

[LE Greys]

The document says it excludes international, LUL and light rail/tram rolling stock

Yet it still seems to include 174 very high speed vehicles. Since the only 'very high speed' trains in this country are 373s, then that's a bit odd. 395s would have to go under 'medium-distance electric'.

 

[hwl]

Yet it still seems to include 174 very high speed vehicles. Since the only 'very high speed' trains in this country are 373s, then that's a bit odd. 395s would have to go under 'medium-distance electric'.

The 395s type units have been lumped in the very high speed bracket because they use HS1. The 174 figure assumes HS2 doesn't happen. The other figures of 1433, 1476, 1519 assume HS2 phase 1 and 2 happening then some additional units added to use up the last few paths later on.

 

[D365]

Its not entirely clear whether they'll be any electric units on the ground to go under the wires anyway! Agreed that some Pacers wills till be around post 2020.

The 700s and 345s will be in operation by then, so there'll be plenty of pre-loved 'leccy units to go round.

Before then the 116+140 Southern-led order will have released enough 319s for refurbishment and reuse.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yet it still seems to include 174 very high speed vehicles. Since the only 'very high speed' trains in this country are 373s, then that's a bit odd. 395s would have to go under 'medium-distance electric'.

But as shown, '140 mph and above' is actually their definition of 'very high speed', and 174 (29 x 6) is the precise number of 395 vehicles isn't it?

So what's the issue?

 

[LE Greys]

But as shown, '140 mph and above' is actually their definition of 'very high speed', and 174 (29 x 6) is the precise number of 395 vehicles isn't it?

So what's the issue?

Just a question of definintions. I would have left out the 'very high speed' section altogether, if I'd been writing the report, and just lumped the 395s in with other medium-distance units, and any planned stock for HS2 in with the long-distance units.

I've studied zoology, we have similar debates over what is related to what all the time. Taxonomy is the art of the pedantic, as we say.

 

[johnb]

Before then the 116+150 Southern-led order will have released enough 319s for refurbishment and reuse.

I'd like to see the faces on St Pancras commuters if the 319s were replaced by a joint order of 116s and 150s

(yes, I know what you mean of course - just loving the image...)

 

[Class377/5]

Before then the 116+150 Southern-led order will have released enough 319s for refurbishment and reuse.

116+140. You added an extra 2.5 units

 

[D365]

116+140. You added an extra 2.5 units

So I did, now to go and subtract 10 from the rest of my posts... 116+140 = 256 = 64x4 - I just did a Maths revision session in school

I'd like to see the faces on St Pancras commuters if the 319s were replaced by a joint order of 116s and 140s

(yes, I know what you mean of course - just loving the image...)

Perhaps some Pacer prototypes, anybody?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

If there are to be no new DMU orders then what routes would have to be electrified in CP6 & 7 to either free up enough DMU's to cascade elsewhere or which routes could be electrified to directly replace DMU's? Seems that electrifying intercity routes like cross county core will free up some of the 22x classes but these are unsuited to replacing older sprinters on some routes.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Pretty much every suburban line to every large town/city in the entire country. Every main line/regional lines and quite a lot of rural lines too!

 

[DXMachina]

Seems that electrifying intercity routes like cross county core will free up some of the 22x classes but these are unsuited to replacing older sprinters on some routes.

Perhaps 22x units could replace SWT 158/159s on west of england runs, freeing up the super sprinters for a trickle-down replacement of the older sprinters?

 

[LE Greys]

Whatever you do with them, it will mean that some routes that underwent 'Sprinterisation' will have to be beefed up to cope with the extra track forces. I'd have them replacing 170s on various EMT and XC routes, mostly because they could still work out of Central Rivers and Etches Park. However, that would involve 4-car units replacing 2-car Turbostars and 5-car units replacing 3-car Turbostars, to maintain seating levels. Similar issues exist with the 185s. I'd like to see it, because it would mean widespread investment for secondary routes.

 

[northwichcat]

If there are to be no new DMU orders then what routes would have to be electrified in CP6 & 7 to either free up enough DMU's to cascade elsewhere or which routes could be electrified to directly replace DMU's? Seems that electrifying intercity routes like cross county core will free up some of the 22x classes but these are unsuited to replacing older sprinters on some routes.

That's a very valid point. The poster tbtc has pointed out on numerous occasions that most of the new stock over the past 10 years or so has been intended for medium-longer distance services and that's meant units like 158s and 170s have been cascaded down on to all-stops services.

 

[Kali]

Perhaps 22x units could replace SWT 158/159s on west of england runs, freeing up the super sprinters for a trickle-down replacement of the older sprinters?

Interesting idea - tilting 221s could speed up things a lot east of Salisbury if you threw money at the route! although a bit of a waste of their abilities. 22x on the Chiltern line might be something else to think about.

 

[Dolive22]

Are there any good sources of stats for number of seats? Preferably also loading gauge etc.

I used to have a database (probably still do, but it's on a backup 2-300 miles away) and the Siemens website is up the spout, one site is offline completely and another is full of 404s.

 

[Pugwash]

Why are the train leasing companies allowed to collude ? this is surely anti competative and should be declared against EU rules ?

 

[Dolive22]

Why are the train leasing companies allowed to collude ? this is surely anti competative and should be declared against EU rules ?

What collusion? Is this the planned cascades? I think there may be exceptions in some cases where there is a public benefit, although not as many as there were. In any case, the companies don't collude, DfT dictates.

 

[Pugwash]

What collusion? Is this the planned cascades? I think there may be exceptions in some cases where there is a public benefit, although not as many as there were. In any case, the companies don't collude, DfT dictates.

In theory the train leasing companies should be in competition for business, it appears the market is looking more and more rigged.

about time a not for profit government owned firm was set up to look after new rolling stock.

 

[Dolive22]

In theory the train leasing companies should be in competition for business, it appears the market is looking more and more rigged.

about time a not for profit government owned firm was set up to look after new rolling stock.

I don't see how they can compete, it's not like there are 100 customers and however many suppliers and they supply goods which are to varying degrees substitutes for each other, and customers choose from options. The customers (TOCs) get handed a list of services to run within the limits of what can run. They need x trains that run at y speed with z seats, with Route Availability n and loading gauge not exceeding Wx. DfT knows what those trains will be when they let the franchise, almost down to knowing the unit numbers.

Railways just don't work as a market, because they're natural monopolies, and because the nature of the industry doesn't suit a free market for the rails and the trains. Even my Macroeconomics teacher said that, and he practically had a shrine to Thatcher.

 

[hwl]

Interesting idea - tilting 221s could speed up things a lot east of Salisbury if you threw money at the route! although a bit of a waste of their abilities. 22x on the Chiltern line might be something else to think about.

A reasonable chunk of Chiltern is going to be electrified in CP5 as part of the electric spine or EWR (could EWR become part of the Chiltern franchise?) so an easy and efficient way of releasing lots of cascadeable DMUs would be to electrify the rest in CP6 thus releasing 164 cars of 165/168/172s (in a mix of 2/3/4 car combinations). So presumably 165s to FGW or is it successor (also assuming the south Wales lines being ex GWR could also take them?) and 168 /172s to existing operators XC, GA, Scotrail, LM or Southern to make maintenance and compatibility issues easier i.e. avoid adding yet more DMU types to Northern "Zoo" unless all the pacers are scrapped first. Lots of sprinters would be released which could be concentrated with Northern on the routes that don't get electrified in CP5/6.