What counts as a microfleet?

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What would you define as a microfleet (a term beloved of these forums) in terms of maximum number of units?

Goldfish62 has brought up something I'm forever moaning at people about -- calling fleet microfleets when they're not.

I think "microfleet" has to be one of the most wrongly overused terms on this forum. In threads discussing future Southeastern fleets, Class 376 and 458/4 get described as microfleets often, for example, despite being 36 and 28 strong fleets! Working alongside a very large fleet (465s) does not make them a microfleet.

In my opinion, it's got to be single figures to be a microfleet. Examples over the years I would call a microfleet:

4 Chiltern 172s
2 WMR 139s
5 TFL 360s
4 EMR 180s
5 GWR 180s
2 GC 221s
3 LNR 230s
2 GWR 150/0s (when in Reading, in Exeter they were part of a common DMU pool)
1? stupid GWR 230 thing that barely works


I suppose 7 Northern 155s and 7 Northern 769s would count too considering the overall size of the fleet, although even there, you can get quite a lot of use out of 7 trains. I definitely wouldn't consider anything over 9 trains a microfleet.

But calling a 30 strong fleet a microfleet is barmy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd agree 30 is nuts, but I'd say the Class 397s are one, though maybe the top end of it. They are operationally really annoying and 13 more 802s would have been so much better.

You forgot the 3 WMT 150s by the way, all for the cost of a few wires I bet it would have been cheaper to wire the Marston Vale 30 years ago than all the one-off faff that's happened on it since.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'd agree 30 is nuts, but I'd say the Class 397s are one, though maybe the top end of it. They are operationally really annoying and 13 more 802s would have been so much better.

You forgot the 3 WMT 150s by the way, all for the cost of a few wires

3 WMT 150s, yes, great example of a microfleet!

I wouldn't consider the 397s a microfleet. Not only is 12 not that much of a small number, they also dominate an entire long-distance route largely on their own (I appreciate some diagrams are now 802) without causing diagramming difficulties. There's also more of them than 807s!

 

[D365]

You forgot the 3 WMT 150s by the way, all for the cost of a few wires I bet it would have been cheaper to wire the Marston Vale 30 years ago than all the one-off faff that's happened on it since.

The Class 150s have previously been resourced from a larger pool (before Northern it was Silverlink and latterly London Midland), so I can’t imagine that it was a problem worth bothering with historically.

 

[Sorcerer]

I would argue that a microfleet is a specialised fleet of trains carved out specifically for one route across a larger network with little flexibility to operate elsewhere. I think the 397s could count as one because they are specifically allocated to Manchester-Scotland routes and couldn't be deployed anywhere else on the TPE network, while the 805/807s just about avoid the definition because they can also be used on Birmingham semi-fast trains as well as the Chester and Liverpool services.

 

[zwk500]

I'd say if the following apply:

• =< 10 units OR =< 10% of comparable fleet volume
• Units dedicated to a specific service with particular operating characteristics
• minimal commonality or special considerations vs comparable fleet for training/maintenance/staffing requirements.

As an example, the Turbostars on Southern have been described as a microfleet in the context of (currently) 17 units vs the 207 Class 277s and 46 shared 387s. They also are diesels so have special considerations against EMUs, but I would argue are not dedicated to a specific service being shared between the 2 non-electrified lines, and work into London and have previously worked Brighton-Ashford services.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I would argue that a microfleet is a specialised fleet of trains carved out specifically for one route across a larger network with little flexibility to operate elsewhere. I think the 397s could count as one because they are specifically allocated to Manchester-Scotland routes and couldn't be deployed anywhere else on the TPE network, while the 805/807s just about avoid the definition because they can also be used on Birmingham semi-fast trains as well as the Chester and Liverpool services.

But by that definition, the 30 odd DMUs on SWR would be a microfleet, as they're carved out specifically for the West of England line alongside 170 Desiros and 90 Aventras. And the 35 FLIRTS on TfW would be a micro fleet, as they're carved out specifically for the Valleys lines and Cardiff locals and can't really do much else. I vehemently deny any of those are microfleets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 13:27 ==

I'd say if the following apply:

• =< 10 units OR =< 10% of comparable fleet volume
• Units dedicated to a specific service with particular operating characteristics
• minimal commonality or special considerations vs comparable fleet for training/maintenance/staffing requirements.

As an example, the Turbostars on Southern have been described as a microfleet in the context of (currently) 17 units vs the 207 Class 277s and 46 shared 387s. They also are diesels so have special considerations against EMUs, but I would argue are not dedicated to a specific service being shared between the 2 non-electrified lines, and work into London and have previously worked Brighton-Ashford services.

Yes, I suppose proportions have to be accounted for.

Southern does have a fairly unique position in that it's got a huge fleet which is pretty much all one type, and although out of context 17 diesel trains doesn't sound anything like microfleet, alongside 250 EMUs of the same family, maybe more so.

 

[zwk500]

But by that definition, the 30 odd DMUs on SWR would be a microfleet, as they're carved out specifically for the West of England line alongside 170 Desiros and 90 Aventras.

I'd argue that once you include the Romsey Rounder and their Jaunts to Yeovil Pen Mill and Westbury, the 158/159 fleet is not specifically for only 1 route so wouldn't fall under @Sorcerer's definition.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

10 or less to me is a microfleet .

 

[zwk500]

Southern does have a fairly unique position in that it's got a huge fleet which is pretty much all one type, and although out of context 17 diesel trains doesn't sound anything like microfleet, alongside 250 EMUs of the same family, maybe more so.

For clarity, IMO the Southern turbostar fleet fails my 'dedicated service' criterion so I would not count it as a microfleet. If southern have a microfleet I'd argue it's the pantograph-fitted units for the WCML services, but you could argue they have too much maintenance/training overlap with the non-AC electrostars Southern has.

 

[Sorcerer]

But by that definition, the 30 odd DMUs on SWR would be a microfleet, as they're carved out specifically for the West of England line alongside 170 Desiros and 90 Aventras. And the 35 FLIRTS on TfW would be a micro fleet, as they're carved out specifically for the Valleys lines and Cardiff locals and can't really do much else. I vehemently deny any of those are microfleets.

Which I suppose then brings us to another question: could those routes have been allocated to another piece of rolling stock within the existing fleet? I can't speak for the TfW or SWR fleet, but with the 397s they could've just as well been 802s (or perhaps more ideally, the 802s could've all been 397s instead ). Meanwhile the thirteen 805s and ten 807s couldn't have just been substituted with more 390s because of electrification (Chester/North Wales 805s) and the stop at Liverpool South Parkway (Liverpool 807s) along with there also simply not being enough of them.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'd argue that once you include the Romsey Rounder and their Jaunts to Yeovil Pen Mill and Westbury, the 158/159 fleet is not specifically for only 1 route so wouldn't fall under @Sorcerer's definition.

I suppose it depends if you're willing to separate 158 and 159. 159 is exclusively London to WoEl. 158s is primarily Romsey, with the occasional one stacked on to the 159s, only because they don't have enough.

But I certainly agree the 159s would not be a microfleet.

 

[The exile]

10 or less to me is a microfleet .

… as a long-term quantity. I’d also. E tempted to exclude prototypes and “concept provers”.

 

[zwk500]

I suppose it depends if you're willing to separate 158 and 159. 159 is exclusively London to WoEl. 158s is primarily Romsey, with the occasional one stacked on to the 159s, only because they don't have enough.

The use of the 159s on the other services, even if they would prefer not to, demonstrates they're not dedicated in the way the Parry People Movers are to Stourbridge or the Marston Vale Units are. The MV units would never* end up operating a Bletchley-Euston service even in extremis

* - I'm sure somebody will now come along with a photo of them doing exactly that...

 

[hexagon789]

What about subclasses?

Such as a small, internally unique subclass within a larger more standardised class fleet of one or two subclasses.

I'm thinking of ScotRail where you had the four ex-Hull Trains 170/3s among a much larger 170 fleet of 'Express' (34 units) and 'Suburban' (21 units) 170/4s.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What about subclasses?

Such as a small, internally unique subclass within a larger more standardised class fleet of one or two subclasses.

I'm thinking of ScotRail where you had the four ex-Hull Trains 170/3s among a much larger 170 fleet of 'Express' (34 units) and 'Suburban' (21 units) 170/4s.

I definitely don't think they count personally because you don't really have to carefully diagram them to ensure the four 170/3s only end up on certain services/avoid certain services. You just chuck them in the common pool.

Just like when TfW had two Northern 150/2s for a couple of years, they were VERY non standard with their nasty 2+3 seating and other differences, but they weren't a microfleet, as they just worked as part of a larger pool of 150s with no diagramming complexities caused by their arrival.

 

[zwk500]

What about subclasses?

Such as a small, internally unique subclass within a larger more standardised class fleet of one or two subclasses.

I'm thinking of ScotRail where you had the four ex-Hull Trains 170/3s among a much larger 170 fleet of 'Express' (34 units) and 'Suburban' (21 units) 170/4s.

What's the difference to actually operating them though? If it's only seat Layouts then that's no different to giving individual units promotional livery wraps, IMO.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What's the difference to actually operating them though? If it's only seat Layouts then that's no different to giving individual units promotional livery wraps, IMO.

Yeah, I have to agree.
Ex SWR 158886, to give another example, hardly forms a microfleet.

Neither does the small amount of refurbished EMR stock which differ from the unrefurbished stock.

 

[norbitonflyer]

10 or less to me is a microfleet .

If that is the only criterion, than Hull Trains and Lumo's entire fleets are "microfleets"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 13:47 ==

I'd say if the following apply:

• =< 10 units OR =< 10% of comparable fleet volume...................

Maybe both have to be true?

A thought - would class 09 (26 out of over 1,000 "350"s) count

 

[hexagon789]

What's the difference to actually operating them though? If it's only seat Layouts then that's no different to giving individual units promotional livery wraps, IMO.

It affected seat reservations for one thing, as the layout was so different.

They also tried to concentrate them on a particular service corridor, but were unable to do so reliably so gave up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 13:50 ==

I definitely don't think they count personally because you don't really have to carefully diagram them to ensure the four 170/3s only end up on certain services/avoid certain services. You just chuck them in the common pool.

They did try to diagram them specially when first obtained but failed to do so reliably.

The layout affected seat reservations, as none of the vehicles matched the layouts in the other units even vaguely.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They did try to diagram them specially when first obtained but failed to do so reliably.

The layout affected seat reservations, as none of the vehicles matched the layouts in the other units even vaguely.

I'd say they could maybe have been one back then, but once they gave up and made them part of a common pool, nah.

 

[zwk500]

It affected seat reservations for one thing, as the layout was so different.

That's no different to a short-form or another unit substitution though.

Maybe both have to be true?

I specifically chose 'Or' to allow for the situation where an operator may have a very large fleet and therefore comparatively a fleet is still abnormally small even if it's in the ~15 vehicle range and therefore larger than some entire TOCs!

I supposed technically it'd be 'AND OR' rather than just 'Or', but I specifically didn't want to put a hard upper limit on what constituted a microfleet.

 

[stevieinselby]

Should we also consider the national fleet rather than just the fleet within a particular TOC or operating area of GBR?

So while the 150s used on the Marston Vale line are a microfleet in terms of WMR, there are still hundreds of them running around other parts of the country so they aren't that unusual – whereas when they were briefly running 230s on the route, those have never numbered into double digits at all and so they were very definitely a microfleet.

And also consider whether a unit type is sufficiently similar to another that, while there might only be a handful with that specific TOPS class, they are part of a bigger family of units that can with together and have broadly the same mechanicals – on a strict definition they might still be a microfleet but it wouldn't be a negative or difficulty in the same way as it is for genuinely small clusters of trains.

 

[Sorcerer]

Should we also consider the national fleet rather than just the fleet within a particular TOC or operating area of GBR?

I don't expect it would make much of a difference to be honest. Even if an 801 is only specifically deployed for ECML express routes that still wouldn't make it a microfleet because of the sheer numbers and route coverage. Meanwhile the 397s would still arguably be a microfleet on both scales because it's a small number of sets on a very specific route, though under GBR it could potentially operate with more network flexibility such as possibly being cascaded to work alongside the 897s when they enter service (which are also arguably a microfleet by numbers but maybe not by flexibility within the LNER network).

 

[A S Leib]

Is Waterloo & City line rolling stock a microfleet? As far as I know, length is the only difference with the remaining stock on the Central line, which definitely isn't a microfleet.

 

[SECR 65]

In my opinion the 171s with Southern do count as a microfleet, as they are the only stock for the Uckfield and Marshlink, compared to 377s which go absolutely everywhere.

You could say the 387/3s are a microfleet at 6 (sort of 5 after the derailment) but they are diagrammed as part of the pool so in my opinion they are not.

I don't think it's fair to say that all the dual-voltage 377s are a microfleet - the /2s are used randomly. This morning I had 377209 on a Coastway service, and once last week 377211, but most commonly it's a 377/4 or a 387/2.

 

[Sorcerer]

Is Waterloo & City line rolling stock a microfleet? As far as I know, length is the only difference with the remaining stock on the Central line, which definitely isn't a microfleet.

Despite the difference in length between trains on both lines I wouldn't call it a microfleet by any means given you could theoretically run Waterloo & City stock on the Central Line (unless there's some technical things I am not aware of).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

You could say the 387/3s are a microfleet at 6 (sort of 5 after the derailment) but they are diagrammed as part of the pool so in my opinion they are not.

With c2c and GWR, yes, but with GN and Southern, no.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I’d also be tempted to exclude prototypes and “concept provers”.

Absolutely. I agree.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that we've got a bit of crossover let's throw it here too - European captive stock on HS2 would be a microfleet. It's not however now planned for that exact reason.