why are we so scrap happy

[daccer]

I think most commentators would agree that we are chronically short of rolling stock in this country. This is I believe an accepted truth. Yet we seem to be able to keep mutliple scrap yards working flat out. On top of this we can find stock to export to other systems - Mk2's to New Zealand, class 87's to Bulgaria and now class 86's to Hungary.

I pose a simple question. The rush to scrap/retire old stock is it short sighted and/or short termist? Why do we we have a desire to abandon trusted designs so quickly - this stock is seemingly still of value overseas.

We abandoned Mk 1 stock and scrapped the lot on H+S grounds. Wouldnt it have been more sensible to retain some stock to help just in the peak periods. Is it safer to have nice new stock jam packed with passengers blocking aisles and doorways rather than an old Mk1 DMU.

It is a simplistic argument I know but as rows of old EWS locos stand waiting for the cutting torch I couldnt help wondering if maybe we havent in the past been too quick in scrapping redundant stock. We all know that passenger demand ebbs and flows but with the way we dispose of rolling stock it does leave us critically short in times of rapid growth. There is no strategic reserve in play and so the solution for managing demand seems to be upping prices.

This is obviously a consequence of the fragmented nature of our railways were there is little coordination between entities and everyone is mainly concerned with the bottom line but it does seem slightly nuts!

 

[yorkie]

The government don't really care about overall safety - overcrowding and increased ticket costs force people into their cars. And we all know being in a Mk1 coach is far safer than being in a car.

 

[O L Leigh]

...but they'd be safer in a modern MU than in a Mk1.

However, the problem is not the amount of rolling stock but the capacity of the network. Platforms are only a certain length and you can only run so many trains per hour along any given route. Even if we had more trains to run in the peak where would we put them?

O L Leigh

 

[daccer]

It seems to me that SDO is ok for some areas and not for others. Why is that - are we all so stupid that we are going to fall out of train doors into the track? surely SDO is a better bet than having to extend platforms all the time. I see on the TL proramme a couple of stations cant have extended platforms because of space constraints - at these stations SDO is OK. I dont believe for a second that all the routes that have congested trains cant squeeze in additional services.

There are two ways to increase capacity - more trains or longer trains. If the first isnt available then surely the second will be. There cant be many routes where the trains are as long as platforms permit and also headways dont allow for additional trains. I stand corrected on this but a little bit of willing seems to be the major thing lacking. If a train is going to be scrapped anyway why not keep it just for use at peak times. If commuters are packed like sardines into a nice shiny new unit they dont get to enjoy the benefits of the new build anyway.

Anyway enough whingeing - that horse has bolted long ago. There is so little stock lying around not being used that it is an empty argument. I hope that when the next batch of units become redundant some thought is given before sending them off for scrap. I am sure the ROSCO's scrap so quickly to save on the storage costs of redundant stock and also to take advantage of high scrap prices so there is maybe not so much incentive to hold on and see if alternatives can be found.

 

[O L Leigh]

SDO is fine at some locations, but there is still a limit to how long a train can physically be. Mostly this limit is set by the length of platforms at terminus stations. At Liv St the longest a train can be is 12 cars. Any longer than that and it will be standing ahead of the signal, foul of all the pointwork and occupying track circuits that would have the effect of tying up the entire station.

But as I said before, the capacity is not just about train length but line capacity. During the peaks we run so many trains that any sort of failure inevitably leads to long-lasting disruption because there isn't the spare capacity to allow the service to recover. At most times during the day we despatch trains at an interval of 2-3 minutes from Liv St. We just couldn't do it any quicker.

As to questioning the intelligence of the punters, I'm afraid that yes they are that daft. I've seen the footage of people jumping out onto the track to prove it too.

O L Leigh

 

[daccer]

I suppose we sould never underestimate the idiocy of the common man!!

I wasnt really thinking about the London commuter routes when i started the thread as they really are maxed out. I was really thinking more of the rest of the country were often busy commuter trains are 2-car and overcrowing really is caused by a lack of vehicles. at the moment we have dmu diagrams being covered by LHCS as there are no spare units about.

There are always peaks and troughs in traffic flows and we seem unable to take full iadvantage of them as lead times on new builds are so long.

By my reckoning there is no way we will be keeping up with passenger growth with new builds if we replace like for like and scrap the old units. This does then mean congestion can only increase. London will be partly protected from this by the schemes currently being undertaken.

Like I said at the moment it is an empty argument as there are few vehciles available anyway to be used. Those that are still fit for use seem to be finding a home in New Zealand rather than finding use here.

 

[EM2]

O L Leigh - I wonder how often you've been my driver from Forest Gate to Liv St and back?
And I agree about both points, certainly on NXEA Metro. Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park and (I think) Seven Kings can only take 8 and there are concerns (especially at Maryland) that they can't be extended for Crossrail.
And I don't think you can run any closer than every ten mins. Even a three minute delay causes problems.

 

[tbtc]

I think, if anything, that the opposite is true.

Units/ coaches/ locos are only built to last for a certain period (say 20 years). By the time HSTs/ Pacers etc get withdrawn, they'll have lasted a lot longer than intended. It'll be another generation before we consider scrapping the 1980s built 150/ 153/ 155/ 156/ 158s.

Whilst we're promised 172 new coaches for local diesel trains in England (outside London) there's no plans to withdraw anything.

I agree that longer trains are needed (better than cramming *more* trains onto our busy network), but loco hauled services with ancient MK2s isn't the answer (especially with the need to "top and tail" etc. It'd be fun on a preserved railway, but not the answer for main lines.

 

[daccer]

the beauty of a train is that it has no inbuilt redundancy. Aircraft are limited by the number of cycles they fly and once they reach that limit thats it (life extension plans are possible but rare. Trains on the other hand can be constantly updated and revitalised and as long as the bits that wear out are replaced and bodywork looked after can pretty much keep going indefinitely albeit with decreasing reliability as they get older.

My point was really that we have intense peaks in traffic volumes (peak period) which we dont have enough stock for. I am sure commuters wouldnt mind travelling on pretty moldy old kit if it meant getting a seat. We are not talking about ideals just practicalities. The stock would be used purely on an as needed basis for the peaks.

I wasnt merely talking about LHCS either. We ditched the whole fleet of first gen dmu's when a few selected sets might have made the difference in major commuter areas of the North and West. There is no better example of the need for a strategic reserve than the fact that Northern is currently running 125mph Adelantes on short length commuter trains as nothing else is available.

The next time you are sitting in the toilet of a 2 car Sprinter between Norwich and Liverpool because it is the only seat available due to a shortage of suitable rolling stock you might not be so damning about Mk2 stock.

As for top n tail - Long Marston is full of DVT's waiting for a new owner.

For me in the very short term I would electrify the MML asap. I would nick all the spare class 90's from DBS, cobble together some coaching stock ; MK3's if possible but MK 2's even and cascade the MML HST's to XC and put the spare Meridians and Voyagers onto inter urban routes such as Norwich-Liverpool and Cardiff - Portsmouth. When the IEP does arrive then class 91's can go to the MML if it isnt to get the IEP for awhile.

I am sure that there are a million things wrong with this but none are insurmountable. MML c/b ratio for electrification is very high. There is no 125mph running on the MML anyway so 110mph class 90's should be fine with timings. It gives us a cascade with no new stock needed. At the moment the next inter-city stock to arrive (non WCML) is the IEP in 2014-2015. How crammed is the long distance network going to be by then. How crammed will XC be?

 

[mbonwick]

It would have to be Mk2s, there' sno spare Mk3s left.

 

[Metroland]

The capacity thing is somewhat overplayed. Its only a few lines approaching London that are anything like nearing capacity - namely the GE main line, WCML, GWML and lines out of Waterloo, London Bridge, Victoria etc. Even then its because most of its on the flat or timetables, the actual numbers of passengers shifted pales in comparison to some German or some Asian lines. Japanese lines are 2-3 times busier than the GEML for example.

Most of the rest of the network, if it is reaching capacity is because of:

1. Single line sections
2. Signal spacing
3. Flat junction layouts.
4. Timetabling
5. Previous track rationalisation, especially: Single lead junctions, removal of goods loops, removal of ability to make parallel moves.

Most of the above can be corrected with the right planning/investment in time. BR did a lot of screw layouts up, for example at York.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse documents/BusinessPlan2007/PDF/Business Plan 2007.pdf

P14 shows the current state of affairs.

As for getting rid of stock: yes, quite ridiculous most of the time.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

Isnt the Next Intercity Stock the Extra Pendolino's/Longer Pendolino's?

 

[daccer]

it is - that is great for the wcml but that wont lead to any cascades of any sort - the other main lines will have to wat until IEP makes an appearance and cascades can happen. We are talking seven or eight years maybe to see any meaningful difference. I am not sure what state XC will be in in eight years time but MML and GW will be full by then. I should think XC will have imploded. They need to get extra long distance veicles on the network. Apart from the Pendelinos under order everything else due for construction or delivery is suburban stock for London or Scotland. If the extra vehicles do materialise for Northern it will be dmu's for rural/urban services not for long distance work.

The strategic reserve for the whole network at the moment consists of a couple of Adelantes (to go to Grand Union for Dec), some 442's and some redundant 508's (probably Merseyrail bound), the MK 3 's are all but gone and as can be seen from FGW's LHCS stock the MK 2's are being delved into. If the TOC's want stock above and beyond this they have to go to the Riviera Alliance or other charter organisations for stock. IEP is minimum seven years away - I would love to hear the TOC's plans to cope with growth on the long term routes until IEP arrives.

 

[O L Leigh]

O L Leigh - I wonder how often you've been my driver from Forest Gate to Liv St and back?

Never. I'm on the WA side.

O L Leigh

 

[ladysue]

The capacity thing is somewhat overplayed. Its only a few lines approaching London that are anything like nearing capacity - namely the GE main line, WCML, GWML and lines out of Waterloo, London Bridge, Victoria etc.

A lot of the big northern cities like Leeds and Manchester are very busy and overcrowded and need more units.I'm sure the commuters in Leeds wouldnt mind some loco hauled trains as described by daccer.

 

[A0]

I suspect the problem is what is available is 'the wrong kind of stock'.

Many of the shortages / overcrowding seem to be on commuter services - not really suitable for conversion to Mk2s and Cl 86 / 87s, not least because of the much slower loading times on slam door stock.

The only lines which could use the 86s / 87s are:

ECML - which doesn't need them as it's got 91s and HSTs where non electrified is needed.

GEML - which has 90s and DVTs

WCML - which has Pendos.

They're not suitable for MML as that would only cover Bedford - St Pancras and I suspect the performance wouldn't be good enough for stoppers.

Nor could they do the GN FCC services - loading times would be too long, can't run north of Cambridge as the wires aren't up to it.

 

[jopsuk]

If it wasn't for half of them running to Kings Lynn, the FCC GN "Cambridge Express" trains wouldn't be so much of an issue for slam door "intercity" type stock- the xx15 services (both ways) would have no dwell time issues (the xx45s, which also run non-stop south of Cambridge, also serve all stops Cambridge-Kings Lynn and return).

 

[whoshotjimmi]

A lot of the big northern cities like Leeds and Manchester are very busy and overcrowded and need more units.I'm sure the commuters in Leeds wouldnt mind some loco hauled trains as described by daccer.

Wasn't the whole idea of ridding of loco hauled stock because it was inefficient and expensive? What would be the point of keeping a number of locos and carriages just for providing extra capacity on a few services a day? To me, that spells business suicide. As a passenger in Leeds, I would much rather save a bit of money and spend it wisely on the proposed new build stock than on keeping a set of 37's in order. Plus, I would think that slam door stock MK2 and 3 would create more problems on busy commuter services than it would solve. I can just see the one numpty leaving the door open at a station and someone having to go close it - as AOwen correctly points out. Then there is the problem of topping and tailing. No, I think the money is much better spent improving our railways through modernisation and better use of rolling stock than reinventing the past.

 

[87015]

Wasn't the whole idea of ridding of loco hauled stock because it was inefficient and expensive? What would be the point of keeping a number of locos and carriages just for providing extra capacity on a few services a day? To me, that spells business suicide. As a passenger in Leeds, I would much rather save a bit of money and spend it wisely on the proposed new build stock than on keeping a set of 37's in order. Plus, I would think that slam door stock MK2 and 3 would create more problems on busy commuter services than it would solve. I can just see the one numpty leaving the door open at a station and someone having to go close it - as AOwen correctly points out. Then there is the problem of topping and tailing. No, I think the money is much better spent improving our railways through modernisation and better use of rolling stock than reinventing the past.

The Mk3 sets on Euston-Northampton commuters for a year 2004-2005 worked a treat. Very popular with commuters and a good few minutes quicker than the 321 timings which replaced them. Commuters are the best bunch for closing doors as they are regular travellers.

 

[ladysue]

Wasn't the whole idea of ridding of loco hauled stock because it was inefficient and expensive? What would be the point of keeping a number of locos and carriages just for providing extra capacity on a few services a day? To me, that spells business suicide. As a passenger in Leeds, I would much rather save a bit of money and spend it wisely on the proposed new build stock than on keeping a set of 37's in order. Plus, I would think that slam door stock MK2 and 3 would create more problems on busy commuter services than it would solve. I can just see the one numpty leaving the door open at a station and someone having to go close it - as AOwen correctly points out. Then there is the problem of topping and tailing. No, I think the money is much better spent improving our railways through modernisation and better use of rolling stock than reinventing the past.

Maybe the commuter trains now are not as bad as they used to be. For passengers like myself who are disabled it is about getting a seat. I'm not fussed about what the train is pulled by.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

The Mk3 sets on Euston-Northampton commuters for a year 2004-2005 worked a treat. Very popular with commuters and a good few minutes quicker than the 321 timings which replaced them. Commuters are the best bunch for closing doors as they are regular travellers.

This wouldn't work in Leeds, on which my post was based, as the only electrified lines out of Leeds are to Skipton/Ilkley where there are very short distances between stops and the trains are very good anyway and Doncaster which doesn't have the demand. The rest would need to be top and tailed by 2 Diesel locos - more expensive, less reliable and slower than the DMU's they would replace.

 

[A0]

The Mk3 sets on Euston-Northampton commuters for a year 2004-2005 worked a treat. Very popular with commuters and a good few minutes quicker than the 321 timings which replaced them. Commuters are the best bunch for closing doors as they are regular travellers.

Not a very fair comparison that, because the subsequent timetables were affected by the West Coast modernisation works.

I'm pretty sure the fast Northampton trains now - which are the Trent Valley services - are faster to Euston than those services were.