Standardise to save costs?

[matacaster]

Why on earth does a new fleet need to be specified and built pretty much every time new stock is required? When the new fleet appears, it often - cannot be connected to other existing trains easily
- has completely different electronics to any other train (so is very buggy)
- utilises different components rather than existing ones -bodyshell, lights, panels, seats, bogies, motors etc. - must have harder and more uncomfortable seats than before.
- is built for a specific route making it difficult to redeploy when it's original purpose is no longer needed. - because it's a new design, it costs more, needing crash worthiness testing etc

I do recognise that this might inhibit inovation, but the present system is far too wasteful and leads to very late delivery of new stock.

Is it beyond the whit of man to have a few standardised designs with only the internal seating plan etc being a variable?

A further point is designs should be guaranteed for X years from inception , including power unit. Thus additional orders could then be placed should there be unexpected demand, rather than a completely new build.


Any views

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the 80x exactly that?

There isn't a regional equivalent, I will give you.

 

[JonathanH]

I think the point is that there comes a time when it is necessary to move forward with technology.

A huge number of Electrostar vehicles were built. Should they have simply kept on building that model in perpetuity or are the features on the 345/701/710/720 units which justify the change in design?

It might be noted that 720s are replacing 317s, 321s, 360s and 379s which is standardisation.

Isn't the 80x exactly that?

There isn't a regional equivalent, I will give you.

168/170/171s were, which then were slightly advanced in the 172. There isn't a current model because DMUs aren't being built any more.

 

[HST43257]

I would happily live in a world where all trains are something like

IC - IETs
Commuter - 4-5 car EMUs with connections
Regional - Hydrogen+Battery+Electric

 

[PTR 444]

What happens when one of your standardised fleets fails and every single unit (possibly scattered around all regions in the UK) has to be taken out of service? Your idea would risk a scenario like what happened earlier this year with the IET cracks but on a much larger scale.

 

[JonathanH]

What happens when one of your standardised fleets fails and every single unit (possibly scattered around all region in the UK) has to be taken out of service? Your idea would risk a scenario like what happened earlier this year with the IET cracks but on a much larger scale.

That shouldn't happen. There would never be complete standardisation across the network in any case because trains typically last 25-35 years and the product cycle is less than half that.

 

[zwk500]

Why on earth does a new fleet need to be specified and built pretty much every time new stock is required? When the new fleet appears, it often - cannot be connected to other existing trains easily
- has completely different electronics to any other train (so is very buggy)
- utilises different components rather than existing ones -bodyshell, lights, panels, seats, bogies, motors etc. - must have harder and more uncomfortable seats than before.
- is built for a specific route making it difficult to redeploy when it's original purpose is no longer needed. - because it's a new design, it costs more, needing crash worthiness testing etc

Lots of these are entirely down to the whim of the body specifying the contract, which is usually the DfT. Having different lights, panels and seats is equally possible with a standard bodyshell as it is to have identical interiors on different stock.

I do recognise that this might inhibit inovation, but the present system is far too wasteful and leads to very late delivery of new stock.

Late delivery of new stock is an issue of managing the build and delivery of the stock itself, and a new production run of an existing run has every chance of running just as late. The solution is not to build old designs, but to deliver the new trains to time!

Is it beyond the whit of man to have a few standardised designs with only the internal seating plan etc being a variable?

Many are. Hence we have the Desiro, Electrostar, and IET/AT300 families.

A further point is designs should be guaranteed for X years from inception , including power unit. Thus additional orders could then be placed should there be unexpected demand, rather than a completely new build.

So a private manufacture is just going to sit there with an empty factory, staff and equipment on hand just in case the UK govt realises it didn't order enough trains?