What counts as a microfleet?

[35B]

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.

I disagree. I think the term is well used in circumstances like the 376 or 458/4 where provision of that fleet means that the trains involved require separate management for use on a common set of services, imposing additional parts and training obligations on the operator.

In these cases, it is not the absolute size of the fleet that counts, but the impact on operational management.

 

[liamf656]

My comment is a lot of whataboutery but interested to hear your thoughts.

Would you take into account the wider scale of the fleet as well? If my imaginary TOC had 200 units of 387s but also ran 20 units of 319s, would the 319s count as a microfleet if compared to the rest of what I run?

Or say, for example, I have many of the same type of train but different classes, for example a bunch of Desiros split into fleets of 9 350s, 9 360s, 9 444s, 9 450s, but also a random fleet of 9 150s, are they all microfleets or would you lump the Desiros together and count the 150s as a microfleet?

 

[brad465]

LNER's 897s under construction must come under a microfleet, as they are only 10 of them and are very different to all the IETs they use. There may also be a similar argument for the 745s, which also have two different interior layouts and are supposed to be put on different dedicated routes (though often end up interchanging).

 

[Sorcerer]

LNER's 897s under construction must come under a microfleet, as they are only 10 of them and are very different to all the IETs they use. There may also be a similar argument for the 745s, which also have two different interior layouts and are supposed to be put on different dedicated routes (though often end up interchanging).

By my original definition the 897s are a microfleet in terms of numbers (just 10 trainsets) and how the role could've theoretically gone to more bi-mode Hitachi units with cost of procurement being the only factor, but they do still have some flexibility in terms of where they can be used on the LNER network. The 745 I would argue is a bit different because it's filling a unique role as an intercity unit on the Great Eastern route which couldn't have gone to a 720, but at the same time it's not exactly the same as the other express passenger units on the network.

 

[norbitonflyer]

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.

I thought the two fleets had diverged on some technical respects over the years, and are now not compatible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 17:49 ==

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

A bit of an exaggeration. Two 150/0s, fifty 150/1s and 85 150/2s for a total of 137.

The original 150/0s, with their unique non-driving centre cars, are without doubt a microfleet.

 

[Western Sunset]

So would the ten original "Peaks", AKA class 44, be considered a microfleet?

 

[D365]

A bit of an exaggeration. Two 150/0s, fifty 150/1s and 85 150/2s for a total of 137.

The original 150/0s, with their unique non-driving centre cars, are without doubt a microfleet.

Having been ostensibly constructed as prototype units, 001 and 002 also feature other technical nuances, as a result of various modifications throughout their working life.

 

[quantinghome]

I'd say any fleet under 100 carriages is micro; anything under 200 is mini/midi.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'd say any fleet under 100 carriages is micro; anything under 200 is mini.

I completely disagree and have to say 100 carriages is way, way, way too generous for such a criteria.

That would suggest that the following are microfleets:

All 50 Class 150/1

All 42 ScotRail 156s

All 40 ScotRail 158s

All 33 Class 320s

All 30 Class 159s

All 30 (or was 30 until scrapping began) TfW 150/2s

All 21 Class 166

All 27 Class 175

All 26 Class 196

All 26 EMR 158s

All 24 TfW 158s

All 21 Class 318s

All 21 EMR 360s

And I think calling any of those a microfleet would be mad

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the number of units matters more than the number of coaches, as well as how many of other things the operator has. Ten 10 car units probably would be, but a hundred single car units clearly not.

 

[quantinghome]

I completely disagree and have to say 100 carriages is way, way, way too generous for such a criteria.

That would suggest that the following are microfleets:

All 50 Class 150/1

All 42 ScotRail 156s

All 40 ScotRail 158s

All 33 Class 320s

All 30 Class 159s

All 30 (or was 30 until scrapping began) TfW 150/2s

All 21 Class 166

All 27 Class 175

All 26 Class 196

All 26 EMR 158s

All 24 TfW 158s

All 21 Class 318s

All 21 EMR 360s

And I think calling any of those a microfleet would be mad

We have a very different understanding of how a fleet is categorised. What we are looking to avoid when we talk about "microfleets" is a small one-and-done order of unique design that lacks significant economies of scale over its lifecycle of development, construction and operation & maintenance. In contrast to that, in my view all 158/159s are a single fleet. Obviously the nature of current rail operations mean they are used by different operators. But that doesn't mean they aren't a single fleet. Likewise 350s/360s, 320s/321s, Turbostars, etc. Basically any trains that are essentially the same design, allowing for minor, usually cosmetic, variations.

Of course we can get into a discussion about how much variation would be needed to separate trains into different fleets (for example are 220/221/222s the same fleet or related but different fleets?) Similar arguments are had between biologists over what constitutes a species, or linguists over defining the boundary between dialect and language.

 

[zwk500]

We have a very different understanding of how a fleet is categorised. What we are looking to avoid when we talk about "microfleets" is a small one-and-done order of unique design that lacks significant economies of scale over its lifecycle of development, construction and operation & maintenance. In my view all 158/159s are a single fleet. Obviously the nature of current rail operations mean they are used by different operators. But that doesn't mean they aren't a single fleet. Likewise 350s/360s, 320s/321s, Turbostars, etc. Basically any trains that are essentially the same design, allowing for minor, usually cosmetic, variations.

It can do - as it places constraints on the economies of scale for operation and maintenance.

Of course we can get into a discussion about how much variation would be needed to separate trains into different fleets (for example are 220/221/222s the same fleet or related but different fleets?) Similar arguments are had between biologists over what constitutes a species, or linguists over defining the boundary between dialect and language.

I agree that the use of Family, Class and Subclass has certainly become blurred over time in a similar way to biological classifications and linguistic definitions.

 

[quantinghome]

It can do - as it places constraints on the economies of scale for operation and maintenance.

I suppose so, but that's a risk for any train design like the Class 158/159 which is intended for nationwide use. Inevitably they are going to be worked all over the country, out of multiple depots and locations. What constrains economies of scale is not that they are distributed nationally, but that they end up operating alongside several other train types and get the 'random unit generator' problems.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I would say it's less about there being a definitive threshold, and more about the effects that microfleets have which to me all increase the costs and complexities of delivering a train service.

1- loss of economies of scale during design/production
2- loss of flexibility in day to day operations
3- loss of substitutability (cascadability?)

And then it's really thinking about which of these issues matters the most.

From my perspective both the 33 Cl810s and the dozen or so HST that EMT used to operate are both microfleets but for different reasons.
With the Cl810s, most of the economies of scale and learning that should have come from similarity to 80x got flushed away because Grayling basically promised that cancelling MMLE (2017 version) would have no performance impacts.

And whilst the HST did have significant economies from scale, and were quite easily cascaded, but back in the 2010s, EMT were operating 3 different 222 and 2 different HST formations, so arguably the most complex IC fleet on one of the smallest and least-complex routes. [EDIT: So operationally a microfleet, if you were an EMT manager]

Most trains are now quite hard to cascade and that's partly their ever increasing complexity, but also the way we have specified and procured trains as part of the franchising system.

 

[frankmoh]

376s being called a microfleet is silly. I've always thought that microfleets must be both small in number (<10) and also be largely incompatible with other existing trains. The 376s are literally 1/5 of Southeastern's Electrostar fleet.

 

[35B]

We have a very different understanding of how a fleet is categorised. What we are looking to avoid when we talk about "microfleets" is a small one-and-done order of unique design that lacks significant economies of scale over its lifecycle of development, construction and operation & maintenance. In contrast to that, in my view all 158/159s are a single fleet. Obviously the nature of current rail operations mean they are used by different operators. But that doesn't mean they aren't a single fleet. Likewise 350s/360s, 320s/321s, Turbostars, etc. Basically any trains that are essentially the same design, allowing for minor, usually cosmetic, variations.

Of course we can get into a discussion about how much variation would be needed to separate trains into different fleets (for example are 220/221/222s the same fleet or related but different fleets?) Similar arguments are had between biologists over what constitutes a species, or linguists over defining the boundary between dialect and language.

That is one definition, and it's important.

But, as others point out, the procurement operator by operator leads to fragmentation of those national fleets and, in the context of the OP's original question, it is the impact of having small bits and pieces of fleet within a larger whole that matters.

For example, I would regard the 707s as a microfleet within SouthEastern, even though the Desiro City design is more widely used. It requires specific training, parts and maintenance, adding complexity to the overall opertaion of the TOC.

The term "microfleet" is neutral in itself - it is purely descriptive. That may be justified (e.g. cl. 139 on the Stourbridge branch) or a complete pain in the backside (the 150/0s on Northern).

 

[Goldfish62]

"Micro" means very small or a factor of one millionth. I don't think I could ever seriously use it to describe a train fleet.

"Small, non-standard fleet" feels much more appropriate to me.

 

[Wyrleybart]

So where do we stand on the battery fitted 777s ?
Are they a micro fleet of the main fleet ?
I assume that all Merseyrail drivers drive them, and they work the whole network if there are more than enough to cover the Headbolt Lane diagrams ?

 

[quantinghome]

But, as others point out, the procurement operator by operator leads to fragmentation of those national fleets and, in the context of the OP's original question, it is the impact of having small bits and pieces of fleet within a larger whole that matters.

For example, I would regard the 707s as a microfleet within SouthEastern, even though the Desiro City design is more widely used. It requires specific training, parts and maintenance, adding complexity to the overall opertaion of the TOC.

The term "microfleet" is neutral in itself - it is purely descriptive. That may be justified (e.g. cl. 139 on the Stourbridge branch) or a complete pain in the backside (the 150/0s on Northern).

I agree it's a problem and ideally we should be minimising the number of train types that any one operator (or whatever entity within GBR replaces operators). However, it is, I suspect, an issue that will always be with us, given the difficulty of cleanly replacing an entire region's trains, or keeping a fleet together over its lifespan.

 

[TRAX]

In my opinion, it's got to be single figures to be a microfleet.

I think it depends on the rest of the fleet.
5 trains of a specific type when the other types are in 50 or 100-odd quantities is a micro-fleet.
But 5 trains of a specific type when the other types are in 10 or 15-odd numbers isn't.

 

[mmh]

What's wrong with "small fleet" and "large fleet"?

 

[Sorcerer]

So where do we stand on the battery fitted 777s ?
Are they a micro fleet of the main fleet ?
I assume that all Merseyrail drivers drive them, and they work the whole network if there are more than enough to cover the Headbolt Lane diagrams ?

That's an interesting one because while the 777/1 can work anywhere else on the Merseyrail network the same can't be said for the 777/0 which makes them a specialised variant. But whether they count as a microfleet depends on whether you include subclasses that can vary in technical differences (such as number of coaches) but not enough to get their own TOPS classification (such as bi-mode vs pure electric).

 

[Goldfish62]

What's wrong with "small fleet" and "large fleet"?

Indeed, and anything is better than "microfleet" which in the vast majority of cases is a ridiculous description, hence why I've never seen it used anywhere outside these forums (although I expect that someone will now point towards a multitude of such quotes from elsewhere ).

 

[35B]

What's wrong with "small fleet" and "large fleet"?

Plenty - "microfleet" (whatever the derivation) covers a number of scenarios that "small" or "large" do not.

 

[MickeyN]

What about the 5 class 484's on the Isle of Wight?

 

[Class15]

I disagree. I think the term is well used in circumstances like the 376 or 458/4 where provision of that fleet means that the trains involved require separate management for use on a common set of services, imposing additional parts and training obligations on the operator.

In these cases, it is not the absolute size of the fleet that counts, but the impact on operational management.

Completely disagree.

28 is enough to be suited to work on a longish specific route wholly, while having enough units that spare/maintenance requirements can be met without reducing the % of the fleet in service.

I’d say 10 units is the cutoff, maybe 20 if we must insist.

Absolutely not 28 or 36 though.

 

[Goldfish62]

What about the 5 class 484's on the Isle of Wight?

If considering the whole of SWR that's a small, non-standard fleet. If just Island line then it's the whole (passenger) fleet!

 

[35B]

Completely disagree.

28 is enough to be suited to work on a longish specific route wholly, while having enough units that spare/maintenance requirements can be met without reducing the % of the fleet in service.

I’d say 10 units is the cutoff, maybe 20 if we must insist.

Absolutely not 28 or 36 though.

But those units don’t work in the way you suggest but inter worked with other fleets.

I’d agree with you if you’d made the comment about the 442s (1st incarnation), or the cl. 488/9/73 combinations