Why dont all TOCs use the same train?

[Tiny Tim]

I would have thought, though, that the best investment would be a standard type that could have interior customisation. The process at present seems to me to be back to front - the TOCs do get involved in design then ask the ROSCOs to fund things, resulting in micro-fleets. If the ROSCOs were the ones designing, ordering, then selling products to the TOCs, the whole process would be easier and quicker.

The ROSCOs are little more than banks. Actually come to think of it, one of them is a bank. Apart from providing the money, they take little part in the nuts and bolts of rolling stock provision.

 

[David Goddard]

Because Virgin specified 221s and 220s use Alstoms TMS so they are compatible with 390s. How exactly were Bombardier meant to use someone elses (rubbish) TMS in 222s?

Out of interest, has a 220 or 221 ever worked with a 390?

 

[MCR247]

Not in service. Although I'm not 100% sure why the needed compatible TMS to rescue each other in emergency.....?

 

[fairliered]

Another large factor is defects.

Let's say every suburban diesel train is a 170. Then, there is a serious defect with the train which affects all that type. The manufacturer effectively re-calls the train as it has been discovered the fault is safety related, making the trains unsafe to move under their own power.

That means for a number of weeks (while the problem is fixed), most diesel operated trains would not be running and would cause chaos.

Nice idea but in practicality terms, wouldn't work :/

Bad example! I can't think of any 170 service that wouldn't be better with another alternative (158, 185 ot even 156).

 

[MCR247]

Oh yeah these extra 185s that would pop up out of thin air if 170s had a major defect

 

[matthewmacleod]

Bad example! I can't think of any 170 service that wouldn't be better with another alternative (158, 185 ot even 156).

What's with the 170 hate? They do a pretty good job in Scotland. 158s don't have the layout for Edinburgh-Glasgow services, 185s are a good 25% heavier for the same capacity, and 156s are very outdated. Plus, the 170s work happily in multiple with Sprinters.

Now, if they could just stop the friggin' internal panels from rattling quite so much...

 

[tbtc]

Because Virgin specified 221s and 220s use Alstoms TMS so they are compatible with 390s. How exactly were Bombardier meant to use someone elses (rubbish) TMS in 222s?

Its the fact that all of these computer systems cannot work with each other that frustrates me - I appreciate that different manufacturers have different systems, but there seem to be no "standards" any more which would allow different units from different manufacturers to co-operate.

We should have insisted on some kind of compatibility at privatisation to ensure that new stock would have to work with older stock (even if only for the purposes of hauling a "dead" train)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's with the 170 hate? They do a pretty good job in Scotland. 158s don't have the layout for Edinburgh-Glasgow services, 185s are a good 25% heavier for the same capacity, and 156s are very outdated. Plus, the 170s work happily in multiple with Sprinters.

Now, if they could just stop the friggin' internal panels from rattling quite so much...

For me (don't want to speak for others) but its the fact that they don't really seem to be suited to many routes - some other trains have poor acceleration, but 170s have the kind of "commuter" doors that don't really suit 100mph services either.

You know the old joke about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? That's a 170, as I see it.

 

[Lampshade]

What's with the 170 hate? They do a pretty good job in Scotland. 158s don't have the layout for Edinburgh-Glasgow services, 185s are a good 25% heavier for the same capacity, and 156s are very outdated. Plus, the 170s work happily in multiple with Sprinters.

Now, if they could just stop the friggin' internal panels from rattling quite so much...

Their acceleration is on a par with continental drift. The engines manage to be both frantic yet ineffectual, like a hamster pushing a filing cabinet.

 

[MCR247]

That post has actually made my day

 

[northwichcat]

Its the fact that all of these computer systems cannot work with each other that frustrates me - I appreciate that different manufacturers have different systems, but there seem to be no "standards" any more which would allow different units from different manufacturers to co-operate.

More likely a case of they can work together but no-one's bothered to do the work to get them to work together.

Take Apple's iPhones and iPads and Adobe Flash Player, the reason they don't work together is because Steve Jobs decided that Flash is outdated and a new emerging programming technology called HTML5 is better. So Apple spent all their time and resource on HTML5. The problem is the end user is more likely to encounter Flash content than HTML5 content until some time in the future, so at present it's a disadvantage. In the future it will likely be an advantage by which time the end users will have upgraded to a newer model anyway! :roll:

 

[Lampshade]

The problem is the end user is more likely to encounter Flash content than HTML5 content until some time in the future, so at present it's a disadvantage.

I'm a developer of both, HTML5 won't be a standard for at least another 5 years, it's simply not ready.

Anyway, back on topic

 

[whhistle]

Bad example! I can't think of any 170 service that wouldn't be better with another alternative (158, 185 ot even 156).

Chose that class as an example as there are a large amount spread over many operators.

Giving an example does not call for an opinion on that class, considering the topic of the thread... :roll:

 

[BananaRepublic]

....So Apple spent all their time and resource on HTML5. The problem is the end user is more likely to encounter Flash content than HTML5 content until some time in the future, so at present it's a disadvantage.....

I'm a developer of both, HTML5 won't be a standard for at least another 5 years, it's simply not ready.....

Apart from Adobe stopping all further development of Flash, now Google have dropped Flash support from the latest version of Android; as have Microsoft with the new RT mobile version of Window 8 (but will keep it on the full fat W8 for a short period of time).

HTML5 is not a completely finished article but Flash is already dying, with an estimated 65% of all websites that use it, also having an alternative viewing option for PC's and devices that don't run the horrible thing.

...and yes, let's get back on topic.





--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why dont all TOCs use the same train for certain functions such as intercity, suburban and outer suburban? For instance the Southern 377 is similar to the SWT 450.

Having a choice is a good thing, in theory, as it provides competition and should stimulate advances and improvements being made.
However we can see the result of the free for all, post initial privatisation, which has left us with some small fleets of what may be regarded as "non-standard" or "orphan" classes.
The Alstom Coradia (175 & 180) and sister Coradia Juniper (334, 458 & 460) designs spring to mind.

In its attempt to sort out future inter-city train provision, the DafT recognised the need for standardisation, before anyone went off half-cock and started specifying or ordering any small fleets of incompatible trains. A standard core design was one of the original basic objectives of the Inter city Express Programme. Some might say it was the only sensible aspect to the requirements?

They attempted to do the same with the now aborted "New DMU" programme, for exactly the same reasons.

Those two attempts at standardisation only came about because the DafT had to take the initiative in getting new trains ordered, in the absence of any impetus from the ROSCO's or TOC's.
It's an entirely different situation with orders for EMU's, where there are several manufacturers competing to deliver the goods, so to speak, but I agree with most observers, that there should be a higher degree of standardisation on things like couplings and different on-board train management systems being able to communicate with each other.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

But then you could end up with Jack of All Trades and Master of none... The Class 170

Even BR didn't fully standardise (the Networker was an attempt but there is still quite a difference between 465/2s and other 465s)

In the case of 450 v 377 could Bombardier have built enough 377s for SWT, SET and Southern in time for the 2005 deadline (IIRC they didn't manage it with Southern/SE) - To use a Aviation analogy Amercian Airline's huge narrowbody order was split between Boeing and Airbus as neither could supply 400 aircraft in the time scale needed

No but if the SRA had insisted on operational compatibility then there would have been flexibility. And the 2005 deadline was nonsensical anyway, the mark 1 stock was built into the mid 1970s and had a 40 year life, and then the bogies and electrical equipment could have been recycled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Different operators have different requirements at different times and there's a requirement to go through a tendering process. For instance, TPE specified something like excellent hill climbing ability as a requirement so Bombardier couldn't have submitted a class 170 proposal and expected to win.

Good reason for using loco-hauled stock in push-pull mode. There is a need for just two types of stock, one with two end doors and another with two end doors and two intermediate doors, which would be a variation on the first type. All the proliferation of designs is nonsensical.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Apart from Adobe stopping all further development of Flash, now Google have dropped Flash support from the latest version of Android; as have Microsoft with the new RT mobile version of Window 8 (but will keep it on the full fat W8 for a short period of time).

HTML5 is not a completely finished article but Flash is already dying, with an estimated 65% of all websites that use it, also having an alternative viewing option for PC's and devices that don't run the horrible thing.

...and yes, let's get back on topic.





--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having a choice is a good thing, in theory, as it provides competition and should stimulate advances and improvements being made.
However we can see the result of the free for all, post initial privatisation, which has left us with some small fleets of what may be regarded as "non-standard" or "orphan" classes.
The Alstom Coradia (175 & 180) and sister Coradia Juniper (334, 458 & 460) designs spring to mind.

In its attempt to sort out future inter-city train provision, the DafT recognised the need for standardisation, before anyone went off half-cock and started specifying or ordering any small fleets of incompatible trains. A standard core design was one of the original basic objectives of the Inter city Express Programme. Some might say it was the only sensible aspect to the requirements?

They attempted to do the same with the now aborted "New DMU" programme, for exactly the same reasons.

Those two attempts at standardisation only came about because the DafT had to take the initiative in getting new trains ordered, in the absence of any impetus from the ROSCO's or TOC's.
It's an entirely different situation with orders for EMU's, where there are several manufacturers competing to deliver the goods, so to speak, but I agree with most observers, that there should be a higher degree of standardisation on things like couplings and different on-board train management systems being able to communicate with each other.

All that is needed is a fleet of go-anywhere vehicles that can operate in push-pull mode with diesel or electric locos and existing mark 3 stock which is apparently good for up to about 2040. The fleet needs to be brought up to modern standards with power doors, retention toilets and a retractable step to bridge the gap between platform and train. This is a standard feature on the continent but has been omitted from the IEP. The only big question would be whether to standardise on the BR 1000 V system or the 415 3-phase as used on HSTs. Vehicles can be coupled semi-permanently in rakes of about 6 with normal buffing and drawgear at the outer ends.

Having been stuck in a forest in Sweden for 5 hours, half of it spent trying to couple a diesel locomotive to an X2000 train, I have strong views on the need for compatibility.

 

[starrymarkb]

A lot of the slam door stuff was older then that though!

And are you sure Mk3 stock is good for another 30 years? That would give a 70 year life... I can't see that happening both from a corrosion view point and from a political view point. (70 year old stock in service on top routes?)

If you were going to rebuild the entire fleet it would probably be better to order new build. If you are buying new in bulk the cost of conversion would be similar to the cost of new build...

 

[D365]

If Mk3 stock (and Class 442?) is refurbished like Chiltern have done, perhaps they will last for at least 15 more years, barring any major structural issues or defects. Mk2 stock has been withdrawn from nearly all regular passenger service, hasn't it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In terms of ordering the same rolling stock in future, aside from designing new rolling stock themseles (which I don't think would be too popular?), DfT should standardise future rolling stock. Admittedly, by looking at the classes below, I think they could have done a lot worse.

Inner Suburban: 172, 378 (Aventra or Desiro City?)
Outer Suburban: 172, (185), 377, 379, 350/360/380/450 (Aventra or Desiro City?)
Regional/Rural: 172, (185), 344/444 ?
InterCity: IEP, 390 (or 391, tilting EMUs), eVoyagers (Project Thor)

Where could this be improved?

 

[starrymarkb]

but is there a need to standardise? If you say TOCs can only buy one companies products expect them to raise their prices significantly (as the TOC has the choice to buy the stock at the inflated price or go without)

Competition means that manufacturers are forced to innovate in an attempt to win orders. Alstom's Articulated Thameslink design comes to mind, though it proved too radical for NR/DfT.

 

[The Ham]

All that is needed is a fleet of go-anywhere vehicles that can operate in push-pull mode with diesel or electric locos and existing mark 3 stock which is apparently good for up to about 2040. The fleet needs to be brought up to modern standards with power doors, retention toilets and a retractable step to bridge the gap between platform and train. This is a standard feature on the continent but has been omitted from the IEP. The only big question would be whether to standardise on the BR 1000 V system or the 415 3-phase as used on HSTs. Vehicles can be coupled semi-permanently in rakes of about 6 with normal buffing and drawgear at the outer ends.

Mark 3 coaches can not be used on a go anywhere service as they are 23m long and chunks of the network currently have services run with vehicles of 20m in length or less.

Are retractable steps needed on the IEP's? Given that most of the stations served will have quite straight platforms.

Also 6 coach (mark 3's) groupings would not work well, as at the very least to double them up would make them 276m long (without an engine) which is already 16m longer than the proposed 10 car IEP's (which are self powered). What would happen once such a train reached the end of the line, would the the engine need to switch ends or would the 6 coach rakes have controls in them so you could control them from either end but would mean wasted space or would you have a DVT which would make them even longer?

Add to this that there would be 24 sets of doors rather than 20 on the IEP's, 11 coach joints rather than 9, not to mention toilet's, luggage space, etc. All of which reduces the amount of usable space within the train.

Having been stuck in a forest in Sweden for 5 hours, half of it spent trying to couple a diesel locomotive to an X2000 train, I have strong views on the need for compatibility.

Can anyone provide a similar example to this that has happened in the UK?

I would suggest that most TOC's have Thunderbirds which they can use on their own stock, so the likelihood of it having happened here would be slim.

 

[507 001]

It can be done, it was done in the past. All those 1st gen dmus (well the majority of them) could work in multiple whether built by metcam, brcw or BR themselves. It's a case of stipulating before building a set of certain requirements.

All the best

Karl

No they couldn't, well not necessarily, remember there were all sorts of coupling codes, blue square, red triangle etc.

Not even all BR locos could work together, blue star etc.

 

[Crompton Karl]

No they couldn't, well not necessarily, remember there were all sorts of coupling codes, blue square, red triangle etc.

Not even all BR locos could work together, blue star etc.

I did say the majority could, not all

Reading this months Today's Railways Europe edition it seems that the EU are on it and are trying to bring in a series of regulations on standardisation of multiple working/coupling practices. About time too.

 

[mallard]

Can anyone provide a similar example to this that has happened in the UK?

I would suggest that most TOC's have Thunderbirds which they can use on their own stock, so the likelihood of it having happened here would be slim.

I do seem to remember reading an account by a rail enthusiast of an incident where an expired HST was rescued by a cl59 and it took a while for them to work out how to couple it... But like you say, most modern stock has a suitable thunderbird loco, enough redundancy that a complete failure is highly unlikely or at least has the capability to be rescued by other MUs of the same/similar classes.

 

[starrymarkb]

I do seem to remember reading an account by a rail enthusiast of an incident where an expired HST was rescued by a cl59 and it took a while for them to work out how to couple it...

There is always the risk of that when a rescue loco is commandeered, not sure if that can be fully prevented

 

[millemille]

The ROSCOs are little more than banks. Actually come to think of it, one of them is a bank. Apart from providing the money, they take little part in the nuts and bolts of rolling stock provision.

I would suggest, with respect, that you know very little of how ROSCO's work if you believe the above to be true.

As a former ROSCO fleet engineer and now, as TOC engineer working closely with several ROSCO's, I can assure you that you are very far from the truth with your statement.

 

[DarloRich]

Why dont all TOCs use the same train for certain functions such as intercity, suburban and outer suburban? For instance the Southern 377 is similar to the SWT 450.

trollage?

Why do different TOCs used different trains?:roll: Simply to make things hard for people. Why do you think?:roll:

I would imagine a lack of a central procurement "brain" has something to do with it.However each TOC will be looking for stock that best suits thier needs, services and budgets. Do Northern need the same train as East Coast? Do Southern need the same train as Virgin?

Can you imagine the glee at the winning rolling stock builder when htey won the contract. A massive payment and the destruction of all thier competition

btw Why do you not drive the same car as me?

 

[sprinterguy]

trollage?

Why do different TOCs used different trains?:roll: Simply to make things hard for people. Why do you think?:roll:

I would imagine a lack of a central procurement "brain" has something to do with it.However each TOC will be looking for stock that best suits thier needs, services and budgets. Do Northern need the same train as East Coast? Do Southern need the same train as Virgin?

Can you imagine the glee at the winning rolling stock builder when htey won the contract. A massive payment and the destruction of all thier competition

GodAtum does ask why there is not a standard train design for each of “intercity, suburban and outer suburban”: There is no suggestion that one design of train should be expected to cover all of these sectors. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable call for a greater level of standardisation to me.

Unfortunately there are insufficient controls under the present privatised structure of the rail industry to effectively deliver a standard design without running the risk of the chosen manufacturer abusing their monopoly position. BR stimulated competition between manufacturers through differentiation of components (such as the Cummins and Perkins power units fitted to batches of 158s) as well as through the actual rolling stock tenders, where the requirements were closely stipulated enough to ensure a level of compatibility between a family of trains. As you say, the lack of a central “brain” unfortunately makes it very difficult to achieve such joined up thinking under the present fragmented system of privatisation.

 

[tbtc]

but is there a need to standardise? If you say TOCs can only buy one companies products expect them to raise their prices significantly (as the TOC has the choice to buy the stock at the inflated price or go without)

Competition means that manufacturers are forced to innovate in an attempt to win orders. Alstom's Articulated Thameslink design comes to mind, though it proved too radical for NR/DfT.

Competition is fine, but there should be some standard compatibility.

There's plenty of competition in the electronic world, but we have standard sizes on the vast majority of USBs/ camera memory cards/ headphone sockets - so I can use different products by different companies together without any problems.

If Siemens and Bombardier build trains differently then that's their decision, but we should insist on some degree of "backwards compatibility" so that new stock can work alongside existing trains.

Reading this months Today's Railways Europe edition it seems that the EU are on it and are trying to bring in a series of regulations on standardisation of multiple working/coupling practices. About time too.

Good news

 

[IanXC]

Out of interest, has a 220 or 221 ever worked with a 390?

I've wondered this. If the intention is for rescue purposes its hard to imagine a 5 car 221 being suitable to haul a 9 car 390 for very long at all!

 

[MCR247]

They have a lot of power and obviously this wouldn't be for a 125 EPS working so it shouldn't be that hard to get it up to say 50mph?

 

[6Gman]

The idea of Standard Locomotives is one that BR pursued with limited success. To begin with, after 1947, many regional (Big Four) designs continued to be built, and once steam was on it's way out the capacity to build enough new diesels and electric trains wasn't there, so a multiplicity of designs from a variety of builders (including BR) continued. I don't know if BR attempted to standardise much after that. Constant technical and regulatory changes, combined with the long life of a train mean that establishing a range of standard designs would take a long time to achieve, and might well impede improvements. The TOCs aren't designers, builders or even owners of rolling stock, and have to rely on the likes of Alstom or Siemens for new designs. That would be quite difficult to change, and the ROSCOs will only want to buy the rolling stock that represents a good investment to them. About the only thing that's going to be standard is 1435mm between the rails.

But the vast majority of first generation DMUs were interoperable (Blue Square code) and a good proportion of 1st gen locos were also.

 

[yorksrob]

Don't forget the 25 or so years of Southern EMU's (EPB's to VEP's) which were compatible. The DEMU's were all compatible with eachother as well.