Uniform Fleets - for or against?

[tbtc]

When potential "cascades" of units are discussed, it's common to see concentrating certain units at one TOC proposed (such as ScotRail swapping all their 158s for Central Trains 156s a few years ago). For a lot of enthusiasts this makes sense (easier engineering/ fewer classes for staff to learn, greater flexibility for allocations etc).

However, when this has happened in reality (for example EMT have 158s but no 170s, whilst LM/ XC have 170s but no 158s) we have complaints about badly used stock (e.g. someone suggesting that the LM Walsall line Turbostars should be used on the EMT Liverpool - Norwich service). Plus, it's more "boring" for some enthusiasts to have "uniform" fleets.

What do you think is the better arrangement?

 

[Failed Unit]

When potential "cascades" of units are discussed, it's common to see concentrating certain units at one TOC proposed (such as ScotRail swapping all their 158s for Central Trains 156s a few years ago). For a lot of enthusiasts this makes sense (easier engineering/ fewer classes for staff to learn, greater flexibility for allocations etc).

However, when this has happened in reality (for example EMT have 158s but no 170s, whilst LM/ XC have 170s but no 158s) we have complaints about badly used stock (e.g. someone suggesting that the LM Walsall line Turbostars should be used on the EMT Liverpool - Norwich service). Plus, it's more "boring" for some enthusiasts to have "uniform" fleets.

What do you think is the better arrangement?

I am all for the uniform fleets from the engineering perspective.

I also think that using the 170's on Walsall - Birmingham is a good use of the unit, the door configuration suits frequent stop high passenger throughput work. The 158's door configuration is perfect for the longer distance between stops the route gets and the corridor connections are needed if units work in multiple.

Remember the 158's have more seats than the 170's anyway and if EMT could not keep the 3 car 158's why would they have been allowed the 3 car 170's?

SWT to me is a good example of what can be achieved of having a uniform fleet. saying that EMT's 158 fleet has 3 different engines in it so even though they are all 158's they are still a pain for spares and fitters!

 

[Mintona]

Uniform fleets is best. If there were, say only 6, different classes of passenger trains in the country it would be even better.

- Intercity electric 2+2 and 2+1 seating. 9 carriages long (eg class 390) with pantograph.
- Intercity diesel 2+2 and 2+1 seating. 9 carriages long (eg long class 221).
- Regional electric 2+2 seating throughout, maybe a small first class. 4 carriages long (eg class 450) with pantograph and 3rd rail shoe.
- Regional diesel 2+2 seating throughout, maybe a small first class. 4 carriages long (eg long class 158 ).
- Commuter electric 3+2 seating throughout. 4 carriages long, easily detachable to other units of the same class for the peaks (eg class 375) with pantograph and 3rd rail shoe.
- Commuter diesel 3+2 carriages throughout. 2 carriages long, easily detachable to other units of the same class for the peaks (eg class 156).

Would be much easier for everyone I think. Oh and paint them all in the same colour with different logos on.

 

[jopsuk]

I'd agree with Mintona- the operational benifits of a truely uniform fleet would be huge (assuming the designs were right. A truly organised design would see that fleet use the same basic design- though for the Intercity, I'd run it as a rake of coaches with a powerhead at one end- especially for the diesel, as no-one like to go long with underfloor engines.

Spotter boredom should be the very, very last consideration in rolling stock policy!

 

[me123]

Spotter boredom should be the very, very last consideration in rolling stock policy!

I agree. I appreciate having 156s, 158s and 170s being interchangeable on some lines up here, but a uniform fleet is easier for TOCs and, to a lesser extent, passengers. (I always remember the woman who was scared when the Class 334 doors "jumped out" at here ).

However, there are some things you'd need to consider. For example, in a 156/158 swap, would the 156s replacing 158s be suitable replacements in terms of line speed and acceleration? Wouldn't have been a problem fir FSR/Central's proposed swap, but something that should always be kept in mind.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Enthusiasts do not like class 66's as they have taken over. But one could argue the streamlining of resources into the one class have saved freight on the railway. Before their introduction, there was such a mish mash of unreliable locomotive traction. Great for enthusiasts, terrible for the businesses who are to decide whether to spend their money sending goods by rail.

And this continues to the world of passenger rolling stock. It is obviously beneficial to concentrate stock and resources to as few locations as possible. If there are to be variations in stock, then uniformity in certain areas will certainly reduce overheads etc. This has to be coupled with stock suitability for the areas intended. This is especially apparent at Northern where 158's have been allocated to Leeds and 150's to Manchester. Both work better in their new locations and maintenance is concentrated.

In my line of business, the term 'efficiency' is being bandied about quite a bit during these times of economic uncertainty. Uniform fleets are just that.

I can only apologise to those who have notebooks and cameras but it is a much more efficeient way to run a railway.

One only has to look at Ryanair. Questionable as they may be, their overhead costs are significantly less due to the fact that every one of their planes is the same as the others.

 

[Daimler]

From the perspective of those operating the railway, as everyone else has already said, a uniform fleet is in many respects - possibly all respects - a good thing. However, I don't believe that 'uniform' should mean 'fixed formation' for intercity trains - I was at Kings Cross this afternoon and saw NXEC trains coming in and leaving full and standing - and well into double figures in each coach, I would estimate, on one train coming in from the north. While it may complicate matters operationally, it would be nice to see a more versatile railway.

From an enthusiast's perspective, I hate uniform fleets - they diminish 'interesting-ness' hugely!

 

[tbtc]

Enthusiasts do not like class 66's as they have taken over. But one could argue the streamlining of resources into the one class have saved freight on the railway. Before their introduction, there was such a mish mash of unreliable locomotive traction. Great for enthusiasts, terrible for the businesses who are to decide whether to spend their money sending goods by rail

Good point.

I got interested in railways by all the small classes of locos, but now I'm older having six versions of (basically) the same type of loco just seems wasteful (e.g. the 81/82/83/84/85s or the 24/25/26/27/29/33s).

The idea of Grand Central having a brand new class of Chineese units sounds backward if there's only going to be single figures, same with the small number of 175/180s.

The downside of allocating certain classes to specific regions is that some places "lose", meaning journeys of an hour or two on a Pacer in some places whilst Turbostars do "local" trains elsewhere.

 

[WillPS]

The door formation of Turbostars and 150 Sprinters is suitable for local stopping services, whilst the rest of the Sprinters are more suitable for longer distance. The Norwich-Liverpool service fits in neither category, showing characteristics of both. It should be a long distance service, but it's treated as just a massive local service by the regulators and/or EMT. If stops are taken away between 'big' stations, the service would be fine for Turbostars. Unfortunately, as it is a Turbostar would be far more efficient for the service.

I'm of the opinion that all DMUs should be uniform to the extent that they all can work in multiple, as is true of Pacers, Sprinters and Turbostars. Things like the Desiro DMUs are a mistake for that lack of interchangability.

 

[xc170]

As ive wrote before on hear, railways are hear for passengers not enthusiasts, its more a case of what more practicle, not what is more boring!

Adam

 

[GNERman]

Northern Rail seems to cope with lots of little fleets...

 

[A0]

Northern Rail seems to cope with lots of little fleets...

Not, I suspect, through their own choice.

The DMUs are fairly standard (Pacers & Sprinters) though the 180s are non standard.

The main diversity is on the EMUs and that's historic. I suspect such diversity will disappear as some of their units need replacement.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Northern Rail seems to cope with lots of little fleets...

The Northern rail DMU fleet are all standard plus, as I stated before, certain classes are allocated to certain depots, concentrating resources. Every little helps.

 

[First class]

Merseyrail and c2c have a 100% uniformed fleet, (507+508 effectively the same). Passengers, (and staff), know what to expect- and as I've said before, simplicity is what is missing on our railways.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Merseyrail and c2c have a 100% uniformed fleet, (507+508 effectively the same). Passengers, (and staff), know what to expect- and as I've said before, simplicity is what is missing on our railways.

Makes a lot of sense. My main problem is with non gangwayed stock. Even if you had two pacers to put together, it may not make a lot of difference to the efficiency of it due to lack of through movement.

 

[tbtc]

So, logically, would it make sense to swap Northern's 23 class 150s for a similar number of Pacers?

It would mean Northern, ATW and FGW kept the same number of units. FGW would lose all their Pacers (keeping a "unified" fleet of 150s), Northern would lose their 150s (but gain all the 143s, to go with them having all the 144s), and ATW would lose their 143s.

Currently:
ATW 15 x 142, 15x 143 and 31 x 150
FGW 7 x 142, 8 x 143 and 25 x 150
Northern 73 x 142, 23 x 144 and 23 x 150

Proposed:
ATW 15 x 142 and 46 x 150
FGW 7 x 142 and 33 x 150
Northern 73 x 142, 23 x 143 and 23 x 144

(all of this assumes no "other" transfers, e.g. ignores the London Midland 150s that will shortly be available)

Similarly, would it make operational sense to concentrate the seven class 155s at NXEA, meaning a "uniform" fleet of 153/155s there, whilst Northern get a similar number of 156s (simpler than the current 153/155/156 split that they have)?

Obviously not all of these are "politically" sensible; e.g. WYPTE wouldn't want to swap "their" 155s for 156s...

Are there any other 'simple' swaps that could be done like this?