|
Post by trt on Dec 28, 2016 11:49:28 GMT
An article just came up on BBC news concerning the age of rolling stock in the UK. It appears to be interpreted that, as the average is 21 years, this indicates somehow a lack of investment in the railways. The report also holds up the Caledonian Sleeper's 41 year old carriages as if it were something shocking. Some trains are described as decrepit and this is generalised as if the whole of the UK is paying through the nose for ancient carriages. It's not surprising as the person generalising that comment is from an organisation focussed on the North. Whilst reading it, I couldn't help but wonder what the expected life-span of a mainline carriage actually is. Surely the figures represent a return on the massive investment that fleets require; train carriages are not like cars where replacement every three years is a sign of prosperity. Doesn't the fact that 40 year old carriages are still in regular use mean that they were a wise investment?
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Dec 28, 2016 11:59:14 GMT
I agree.
Unless there is some fundamental change which would require the replacement of the chassis, a railway carriage is something of a medieval axe: you can keep repairing/replacing/updating bits indefinitely.
Provided that worn parts are replaced, there is no reason to complain because the chassis happened to have been made forty or more years ago.
What is far worse is if you find you need to replace much younger stock because the design is so fouled up that you cannot economically correct problems by replacement of duff parts/subsystems.
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Dec 28, 2016 12:01:52 GMT
An article just came up on BBC news concerning the age of rolling stock in the UK. It appears to be interpreted that, as the average is 21 years, this indicates somehow a lack of investment in the railways. The report also holds up the Caledonian Sleeper's 41 year old carriages as if it were something shocking. Some trains are described as decrepit and this is generalised as if the whole of the UK is paying through the nose for ancient carriages. It's not surprising as the person generalising that comment is from an organisation focussed on the North. Whilst reading it, I couldn't help but wonder what the expected life-span of a mainline carriage actually is. Surely the figures represent a return on the massive investment that fleets require; train carriages are not like cars where replacement every three years is a sign of prosperity. Doesn't the fact that 40 year old carriages are still in regular use mean that they were a wise investment? Age is nothing new, if the BBC bothered to check. Some of the Southern Railway 'new' post war EMUs were using chassis that were built before WW1. I can remember standing at Clapham Junction when I was 'spotting' in the early '60's to see a EPB(4SUB) with 'LSWR' on the bogie frame.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Dec 28, 2016 12:48:37 GMT
I agree with what has been posted so far. Worth noting that these values are soon going to come plummeting down with the introduction of the IEPs (for Great Western and Virgin East Coast), large numbers of new trains at Northern and TPE, Class 700s and 717s at Govia Thameslink, and entirely new fleets for Greater Anglia and Merseyrail.
From what I remember, the expected lifespan of a unit is ~30 years for Diesel, ~40 for electric, but obviously with a bit of TLC these can be stretched.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 28, 2016 13:32:10 GMT
you have to remember that the BBC were reporting that train services were being affected by engineering works on Boxing Day.
I think this is based on a factual report in Rail (or another mag).
The BBC have Transport Correspondents but don't use them.
Why check facts when you can create fake news?
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 28, 2016 13:48:47 GMT
It seems to me that there's great value to be had in maintaining a homogenous rolling stock within a particular service area. Thus the lines where capacity needs an increase will see massive re-fleeting projects with the stock shuffling around the system. Where there is the luxury of a particular design still being in-production, individual small orders can be fulfilled and homogeneity can be maintained. With London having the greatest pressure to increase train lengths and increase frequency, it seems only sensible that London services get re-fleeted and smaller franchises get the hand-me downs.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 28, 2016 14:36:51 GMT
I agree with what has been posted so far. Worth noting that these values are soon going to come plummeting down with the introduction of the IEPs (for Great Western and Virgin East Coast), large numbers of new trains at Northern and TPE, Class 700s and 717s at Govia Thameslink, and entirely new fleets for Greater Anglia and Merseyrail. From what I remember, the expected lifespan of a unit is ~30 years for Diesel, ~40 for electric, but obviously with a bit of TLC these can be stretched. That fits - the oldest diesels are the class 150s from the early 1980s. The oldest electrics on the Mainland are the Great Northern class 313s from the mid-1970s. The oldest hauled stock (in which category I include HST trailers) are the early 1970s Mark 2 lounge cars used on the sleepers, which have a fairly gentle life these days. The oldest locomotives in passenger use are the recently re-engined class 73s from the early 1960s, also on the sleepers. (Classes 37 and 57 date from the same era, and also have new engines). There are older freight engines (the class 20 design will be sixty next year) and some shunting engines are even older. For many of the oldest fleets (and in particular the Isle of Wight stock) the survivors are a tiny proportion of the original fleets, and way down one end of the bell-curve in terms of longevity. (And may well have used components from their fellows to keep them going). In the same way you can still see Morris Minors about, but not in the numbers you would have done fifty years ago.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 28, 2016 14:44:39 GMT
I can remember standing at Clapham Junction when I was 'spotting' in the early '60's to see a EPB(4SUB) with 'LSWR' on the bogie frame. Even "Pullman" was possible, as various components of the 6PUL and Brighton Belle units were interchangeable with other SR units. Some class 455s not only have a trailer from a 508, but have motors recovered from 4SUBs, which had post-war steel bodies, which were mounted on older chassis, which had originally had wooden Edwardian-era coach bodies mounted on them, which had originally been hauled by steam locomotives. And of course the 442s recovered traction gear from the 4REPs, whose bodies had been rebuilt from mark 1 hauled stock.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Dec 28, 2016 14:58:16 GMT
Has there actually ever been a time when the fleet was predominantly young? The BBC should be applauding the railways' economy and prudence, not digging up meaningless statistics.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Dec 28, 2016 15:08:54 GMT
Has there actually ever been a time when the fleet was predominantly young? The BBC should be applauding the railways' economy and prudence, not digging up meaningless statistics. I guess the average age of the fleet on the occasion of the first service on the Liverpool to Manchester railway was quite low. The era of dieselisation would have has quite a low average as well you'd have thought
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2016 16:06:02 GMT
Remember the jokes about "The Age Of The Train" and the Class 424 "Networker Classic" etc? The "Networker Classic" was an idea brought up in the Nineties Recession, whereby a Fully Refurbished chassis had a brand new body, and a brand new set of Brakes installed, to produce an economical replacement train with modern styling!! The "D-Train" concept of 2016 reminds me of the "Networker Classic" concept of the Nineties.....
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 28, 2016 16:55:29 GMT
The "D-Train" concept of 2016 reminds me of the "Networker Classic" concept of the Nineties..... Except the 424 was a new body on old mechanicals, and the D train is new mechanicals under an old body.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Dec 28, 2016 17:19:27 GMT
Remember the jokes about "The Age Of The Train" I can remember the classic spoof, though no details who it or the lead up to the punch line. For those who may not remember, BR had a rather good series of adverts promoting rail travel, ending up with someone singing: "This is the age of the train .. This is the aaage ... of the train" Naturally, (how they couldn't see it coming I don't know), one of the sketch shows quickly came up with a spoof where they asked why we had to put up with dirty, unreliable, slow, transport, followed by - yes, you've guessed it. No link to the ads on youtube because they all include a certain TV presenter and I don't want everyone bringing their tea up.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 28, 2016 17:26:38 GMT
Has there actually ever been a time when the fleet was predominantly young? The BBC should be applauding the railways' economy and prudence, not digging up meaningless statistics. I guess the average age of the fleet on the occasion of the first service on the Liverpool to Manchester railway was quite low. The era of dieselisation would have has quite a low average as well you'd have thought Steam was phased out by 1968, by which time the main line diesel locomotive fleet was between 0 and 11 years old. Some electric locos and diesel shunters were a little older (Class 76 dated from the early fifties, class 70 from 1940, and there were still some 1940s SR and LMS shunters about). However, the passenger carrying fleet is what matters to the passenger. The Beeching cuts had, of course, allowed much of the older stock to be disposed of, whether it was serviceable or not. The entire dmu fleet was between 5 and 12 years old, and the most of the AC electric fleet (classes AM2 to AM10) were less than ten years old, although the AM6 and AM7s dated from about 1950, having been converted to AC around 1960. By 1968 most hauled stock was BR Mark 1 - post 1951. Bumping up the average was the Southern Region, which was still operating a large pre-war fleet of SUBs, PULs, CORs, BILs, HALs etc, many dating back to the early 1930s, on the Central and Western Divisions, alongside newer (1950s) stock built for the Kent Coast electrification and the South Eastern suburban ten-car scheme. There were also pre-war units in the Liverpool area and on the Manchester-Altrincham line. Some things never change though - probably the oldest coaching stock in 1968 was the 1920s-vintage Standard Tube stock, introduced to the Isle of Wight the previous year! The problem with the modernisation programme was that all dmus were of roughly the same age, and therefore fell due for replacement at around the same time. Hence the big bulge in DMU building in the early 1980s - and now, it seems, the late 2010s. It wouldn't have been so bad this time round if the Pacers had been let go after their 20 year design life expired.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 28, 2016 17:39:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 28, 2016 17:41:30 GMT
someone singing: "This is the age of the train .. This is the aaage ... of the train". The "someone" was Peter Auty, then a St Pauls Cathedral chorister, who also sang "Walking in the Air" on the original 1982 soundtrack of "The Snowman". (Aled Jones's hit single is a later recording). Unfortunately, in the rush to get the film ready for broadcast on Boxing Day 1982, Auty's name was omitted from the credits until it was remastered for the 20th anniversary edition. He is still singing professionally, now as a tenor. I saw him in performance earlier this month.
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Dec 28, 2016 17:45:46 GMT
Remember the jokes about "The Age Of The Train" I can remember the classic spoof, though no details who it or the lead up to the punch line. For those who may not remember, BR had a rather good series of adverts promoting rail travel, ending up with someone singing: "This is the age of the train .. This is the aaage ... of the train" Naturally, (how they couldn't see it coming I don't know), one of the sketch shows quickly came up with a spoof where they asked why we had to put up with dirty, unreliable, slow, transport, followed by - yes, you've guessed it. No link to the ads on youtube because they all include a certain TV presenter and I don't want everyone bringing their tea up. That is so considerate of you
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Dec 28, 2016 20:03:49 GMT
40 year old carriages are still in regular use mean that they were a wise investment? Age is nothing new, if the BBC bothered to check. Some of the Southern Railway 'new' post war EMUs were using chassis that were built before WW1. I can remember standing at Clapham Junction when I was 'spotting' in the early '60's to see a EPB(4SUB) with 'LSWR' on the bogie frame. The source report/story must have come from a central source, because The Gruniad published a similar article at the same time... Oh and The MirrorOh and the Press ReaderOh and The Daily ExpressOh and The Daily HeilSeems to be a complete coincidence me......
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Dec 28, 2016 21:03:44 GMT
Age is nothing new, if the BBC bothered to check. Some of the Southern Railway 'new' post war EMUs were using chassis that were built before WW1. I can remember standing at Clapham Junction when I was 'spotting' in the early '60's to see a EPB(4SUB) with 'LSWR' on the bogie frame. The source report/story must have come from a central source, because The Gruniad published a similar article at the same time... Oh and The MirrorOh and the Press ReaderOh and The Daily ExpressOh and The Daily HeilSeems to be a complete coincidence me...... It's worth wondering why it's taken 2 months for this to make it's way into the news though. The data was released on the 27th of October by the ORR, but it seems the Press Association has been saving this up for a slow news day.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 28, 2016 21:32:12 GMT
Given that most seem to quote something along the lines of "With rail fares rising by 2.3%, thinktank IPPR North says passengers are ‘paying through the nose for decrepit trains’", I think the IPPR have released a press statement. Fascinating ORR data, thanks, domh245.
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Dec 28, 2016 21:50:15 GMT
So for the first time in my 44 years I can quote Shakespeare in the full knowledge that I am using the correct context....
Imagine Sir Alec Guiness, Sir Laurence Olivier or Sir John Gielgud if you will...
Cue the Macbeth soliloquy...
Online shadows (the press) that wail and scream, to any idiot that may be foolish to listen, to make believe (propaganda) that means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Dec 28, 2016 21:52:17 GMT
Doubt if the average age of rolling stock in the era of dieselisation was that low, mainly because of the wagon fleet. Carriage stock too, especially on the SR, was pretty high. And quite a lot of the carriages c1970 were early 50s in origin, or before...
|
|
|
Post by trt on Dec 28, 2016 22:06:14 GMT
I should add that the ORR report must be for passenger rolling stock only, not freight. I'm not seeing any freight TOCs in the tables.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 29, 2016 3:47:52 GMT
Doubt if the average age of rolling stock in the era of dieselisation was that low, mainly because of the wagon fleet. Carriage stock too, especially on the SR, was pretty high. And quite a lot of the carriages c1970 were early 50s in origin, or before... the Rail article linked above gives the perspective of then and now. the Press Association piece features 35 year old trains being operated by TfL Rail just after the first of the new trains is delivered. The BBC and other sources just repeated original.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Dec 29, 2016 8:32:00 GMT
That article doesn't take the kind of historical perspective that allows comparisons with 30 or 40 years ago. Fleet renewal in BR times depended on Treasury approval for adding to the public debt. Now, it is more a function of which franchises are coming up,and how much interest (competition) there is in each one. With LU for Treasury read Mayor. In the 60s, make do and mend in the face of declining usage was the rule in LT, and a vast proportion of the spend went on the Victoria Line anyway... Now we have exponentially increasing usage!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 29, 2016 17:33:42 GMT
That article doesn't take the kind of historical perspective that allows comparisons with 30 or 40 years ago. Fleet renewal in BR times depended on Treasury approval for adding to the public debt. Now, it is more a function of which franchises are coming up,and how much interest (competition) there is in each one. With LU for Treasury read Mayor. In the 60s, make do and mend in the face of declining usage was the rule in LT, and a vast proportion of the spend went on the Victoria Line anyway... Now we have exponentially increasing usage! With franchises it is entirely down to what the DfT specify and whether bidders are "brave" (daft?) enough to bid something in excess of that in the hope that may give them an edge. Also worth recalling that Patrick McLoughlin had to overrule his chief civil servant in respect of DMU / Pacer replacement on the Northern franchise. I'd argue that franchise only got what it got because of Osborne's "Northern Powerhouse" politicking exercise. Whether any such largesse will be seen again is highly questionable in my view. The electrification problems in the NW are already creating risks and issues for Arriva and First on the Northern and Transpennine franchises. Other work such as as extra platforms at Manchester Piccadilly is now being "reviewed" by Network Rail. If that is cancelled it is likely to blow a hole through the assumptions on the franchises. The upcoming new franchises on East Midlands, Wales devolved network and South Eastern will be worth watching to see if any ongoing largesse is going to be funded especially where electrification should be a key component (East Midlands and Wales). I expect there to be little or no further electrification as Mr Hammond doesn't appear to have the same enthusiasm for rail investment and he'll have his hands full with Brexit issues. The railways have no independence from government funding and control. The TOCs are simply contractors seeking to make the most return for doing the bare minimum as allowed under the terms of their franchise. DfT is in control of Network Rail and seems incapable of improving its efficiency. The only remedy is to cut work or rephase so far into the future that it's unlikely to happen. At some point the disconnect of NR delivery with the promises made by various TOCs is going to cause serious issues for the DfT and a lot of political fall out when promises are not delivered.
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Dec 29, 2016 18:17:32 GMT
The article from the bbc states the youngest trains are 9 years old........ermm the class 700s, the new gatwick express stock are just two examples i can think of which are less than 9 years old?!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 29, 2016 19:11:14 GMT
Sloppy journalism. The fleet with the youngest average age is Transpennine, at nine years, but there are many larger fleets with a range of ages including some brand new trains. The largest fleets all tend to cluster around the average - most of the outliers like TfL, Merseyrail and transpennine are quite small fleets, with just one or two classes.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 30, 2016 11:34:34 GMT
Sloppy journalism. The fleet with the youngest average age is Transpennine, at nine years, but there are many larger fleets with a range of ages including some brand new trains. The largest fleets all tend to cluster around the average - most of the outliers like TfL, Merseyrail and transpennine are quite small fleets, with just one or two classes. I'm genuinely puzzled as to why people are surprised that the average age of the fleet is ~ 20 years. All of the fleet will have been bought with a business case which will have assumed that the economic life of the kit is 35-40 years, the median of which is.... BTW, we shall soon see the demise of the sailor's jack knife syndrome - modern kit has so much software that cannot be easily replaced after 5-10 years, let alone 25-30. (Anyone still got a punched card reader these days...?) snoggle - the exchange between McLoughlin and his Perm Sec was entirely theatre to satisfy the Public Accounts Committee. The point was that the business case (as opposed to political/moral/nutritional or whatever) for replacing the Pacers was weak and that was what had no doubt been briefed to McLoughlin; his Perm Sec wanted to ensure that his back was suitably covered when he was overruled - I dare say, he drafted both sides of the exchange of letters.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Dec 30, 2016 12:14:05 GMT
<<I dare say, he drafted both sides of the exchange of letters.>> Yes, it's a bit disconcerting when you first draft a letter to yourself AND the reply. But it soon becomes second nature.
|
|