Public Transport in your particular part of the region

User avatar
dosxuk
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu 07 Feb, 2008 21.37
Location: Sheffield

Jonwo wrote: Thu 10 Jun, 2021 23.37 The 455s are 38 years old so it makes sense to replace them with newer trains, there is only so much refurbishment you can do and as we saw with the Class 483 on the Island Line, eventually it is cheaper to buy new trains compared to keep repairing the stock.
I think you mean, eventually it is cheaper to buy more second hand London pass-me-downs that are already 40 years old than it is to keep repairing the 80 year old stock.
Jonwo
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat 26 Apr, 2008 02.05

dosxuk wrote: Fri 11 Jun, 2021 22.26 I think you mean, eventually it is cheaper to buy more second hand London pass-me-downs that are already 40 years old than it is to keep repairing the 80 year old stock.
The Class 484s aren't the same as the D Stock as apart from the body shell and the bogies everything else is new.
cwathen
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 17.28

Pete wrote:The HSTs, in their original form, are now illegal to run due to their lack of accessibility. If you look at the ScotRail Inter7City project its been massively delayed due to the non standard state of the Mark 3 coaches
What actually is this problem Scotrail are having to get their MK3s made compliant? Crosscountry got all their's done, as did GWR, neither with any real fuss. I know Scotrail's fleet is far larger but AIUI it's not just a matter of volume, instead issues with the condition of the carriages are being cited for the delay yet neither XC nor GWR cited major problems in doing the conversion as Scotrail have done. And until very recently the Scotrail and GWR fleet had all been based in the same area for most of their lives. Just seems a bit off.

Not disagreeing with you, but 'illegal due to accessibility' seems to be a bit of a moveable feast. Dispensations to keep on running non compliant trains will keep on being made until they can be made accessible. If the problem with the 800's ended up being a bigger deal than it was leading to the withdrawal of parts of the fleet for a longer period of time then the most obvious temporary solution would be to press stored and unmodified HST stock into service (indeed, didn't GWR hire in an old unmodified EMR set just in case although never ended up using it?) which of course would have been done, despite being non compliant. And if part of the solution was to reform the castle sets and use them for intercity services again which meant they in turn got temporarily replaced with hired in locos and MK2F carriages only supposed to be used for charters (as they've done before) then that would have been done too and the required dispensations would have been granted to keep trains running.

The 'accessibility' requirement I do think is just a little bit over-egged unless there is some fundamental point I'm missing. This isn't about retention toilets - I'm amazed that took so long to become a requirement, but about actual accessibility. A person who has a mobility issue such that they cannot negotiate a step and a (sometimes significant) gap still cannot board even the most modern train unassisted - it's not like anyone has engineered a solution to avoid the need for a manually placed ramp to be used unlike was possible with buses. Thus it seemed a bit much that slam doors on MK3s are a no-no over accessibility (concerns over safety or dispatch delays maybe, but accessibility? Really?) but fitting electric doors to otherwise unchanged MK3s makes that stock compliant with no internal changes necessary?

Or indeed that Pacers weren't compliant seemingly only because of the two step entrance; if you can't negotiate the initial step up onto the train then having an additional step is surely irrelevant. It's surely a bit of an edge case to find someone that can do one step but can't do two (and even in that case a ramp can still be put down)? Not saying Pacers shouldn't have gone, but the thing that finally killed them was a technicality on accessibility rather than any of the other myriad number of reasons that should have seen them withdrawn before?
Jonwo wrote:The 455s are 38 years old so it makes sense to replace them with newer trains, there is only so much refurbishment you can do and as we saw with the Class 483 on the Island Line, eventually it is cheaper to buy new trains compared to keep repairing the stock.
The difference being the 483's are 80 years old rather than pushing 40 and they were repurposed stock anyway. 455s were designed specifically to operate short journey high volume commuter services which they've done since they were built having always operated in the same area. The traction equipment was replaced only 6/7 years ago and so they have been repowered with modern equipment and are perfectly reliable. Being MK3 derived they're pretty sturdily built too. They're also fine on accessibility. Only real thing they could do with as an upgrade is having a toilet fitted. Not saying they should run forever or that they shouldn't be on the list to be replaced, but to me they're not really a priority to be done yet they are SWR's flagship investment project.
Jonwo wrote:The Class 484s aren't the same as the D Stock as apart from the body shell and the bogies everything else is new.
To take that argument to it's logical conclusion, most HSTs were only 10 years old when withdrawn then. Didn't stop them being branded as old trains which needed replacement.
Jonwo
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat 26 Apr, 2008 02.05

I honestly don't see the issue with SWR replacing their older stock with new trains, surely it's a good thing to have new trains with the latest technology? Even the newer stock like the 707 which they inherited from SWT will be cascaded to South Eastern.

Speaking of new stock, I wonder if the original Tramlink stock will be replaced within this decade? My guess is that it'll probably will replaced within the decade although not sure which new stock they'd use as the original stock was by Bombardier and the 2012 stock is from Stadler but a lot of tram and light rail system in other parts of the country and abroad use CAF Urbos stock which does look very nice and IIRC CAF already has a contract with TFL for the new DLR stock so it wouldn't be a surprise if they're awarded the contract for new Tram stock in the future.
TVenthusiasm2
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue 06 Apr, 2021 15.34

Jonwo wrote: Sat 12 Jun, 2021 14.16
Speaking of new stock, I wonder if the original Tramlink stock will be replaced within this decade? My guess is that it'll probably will replaced within the decade although not sure which new stock they'd use.
Totally agree with you, the original fleet is getting tired and needs renewal within this decade

In addition, TFL really should use Urbos 3 units on the tram network, like West Midlands Metro does, if they want to keep the fleet fresh, like they do with the buses, considering they keep getting more buses, especially Wrights buses.
Image
User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2183
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

In common with EMUs, trams are normally built for a 40 year service life including a mid-life overhaul. The original Supertram fleet in Sheffield is still going strong and is a good few years older than Tramlink's.

Manchester Metrolink and West Mids Metro are the only systems to have replaced their original stock completely, and in both cases the cause was poor quality stock from AnsaldoBreda.
Image
Jonwo
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat 26 Apr, 2008 02.05

TFL is replacing their almost 30 year stock of B90 and B92 DLR trains from 2023 so it wouldn't be too surprising if the CR4000 is replaced this decade or the beginning of the next decade but I suspect in terms of priority, it's low on the list compared to replacing Tube Stock.

Speaking of DLR, it seems that they will be changing the livery when the new trains come in, the mock up I've seen online suggests they're going for teal and white which would mean all the different TFL serives will have their own livery:
https://www.keymodernrailways.com/artic ... leet-build
JAS84
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri 12 Aug, 2011 10.23
Location: Hull, UK

Wow, has the pandemic finished off Stagecoach? National Express in talks to buy them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58636437
Martin Phillp
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed 11 May, 2011 01.28

I'm sure NatEx would keep the Megabus brand which provides a budget tier coach service in comparison to their brand.

It'd also see National Express return to the London market with Stagecoach London as they used to operate Travel London which was the former Connex Bus business which is now Abellio London.
TVF's London Lite.
bilky asko
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 19.48

JAS84 wrote: Tue 21 Sep, 2021 21.50 Wow, has the pandemic finished off Stagecoach? National Express in talks to buy them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58636437
I like the two photos in that article - one with the new National Express coach, the other with a Stagecoach bus taken circa 15 years ago.
Image
scottishtv
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu 01 Apr, 2004 15.36
Location: Edinburgh

According to today's Times:
National Express is expected to have to divest Stagecoach’s Megabus operations in the intercity coach market. National Express and Megabus are the UK’s only two nationwide coach operators although Flixbus a German disruptor, has entered and is expanding in the market.
NX sold their Scottish local bus business in Dundee last year, so if there are competition concerns they would probably focus on overlap in Birmingham/West Midlands (is there any?) and the coach network. There's also no overlap with trains any more.

Not sure about Citylink coaches up here which is owned jointly by ComfortDelGro/Stagecoach. It's a rather tired looking operation - would be nice to see it branded NX with a better website and apps.

Longer term, I think Stagecoach sensed some sort of franchising/higher degree of public ownership is coming (they have been fiercely opposed to it in NE England and Manchester) so may have decided now's the time to throw in the towel - especially given the pandemic has left all bus companies reliant on government funding right now.

I'd have thought this was a risky purchase, but NX say Stagecoach's network of depots will help them grow their coach business.
Please Respond