Rolling stock panel dismisses idea of shorter-lifespan trains
DESIGNING trains with a lifespan of just 20 years, in order to reduce their capital cost, has been rejected by a panel of rolling stock experts.
With the average lifespan of a train currently 30-35 years, and estimated at costing an average of £1.2 million per vehicle, the suggestion was made by a member of the audience during a panel debate at the Rolling Stock Procurement Forum in London on November 27.
Shorter lifespans were also thought to reduce the risk of obsolescence and the need for expensive refurbishments that are required to keep pace with changing legislation, technology and passenger expectations.
With more than 7,000 new vehicles expected to enter service between now and 2021, manufacturers have had to face several difficult design challenges by anticipating future demands - including the future arrival of in-cab signalling and shifting government policy on further electrification of the network.
“New vehicles can be re-engineered, but it’s getting harder and harder,” said Richard Davies, director of Rail Strategy and Economics.
“The key word for me is modularity, as things are changing far faster than we expected. So the key thing is to be able to upgrade them later in life in terms of tractions and interiors.”
Mark Molyneux, Head of Engineering at the Rail Delivery Group, added: “I think we do design trains to last too long, so they need to be modular so we can reuse parts.”
Panel members cited Hitachi’s Intercity Express Programme bi-mode trains as an example of a modular train with a design life of up to 30 years. Meanwhile, older trains such as Vivarail’s Class 230s (comprising refurbished London Underground District Line stock built between 1978-81) are available in diesel, electric, battery or hybrid mode, demonstrating how well-designed stock can be repurposed to meet changing demands even after more than 35 years’ service.
Steve White, Head of Rolling Stock Contracts at Go-Ahead Group, also pointed out that lowering the cost of new trains could have an adverse effect on operators, by increasing the leasing charges they must pay for older units in order to compensate ROSCOs for the reduced rate they could charge if new trains became much cheaper.
He said: “I cannot see anyone specifying train lives of less than 35 years. The cost of finance is low at the moment, but for how much longer?
“If you start to specify for 20 years, then you start to upset the current balance. And you can imagine what will happen to the cost of leasing new trains if everyone starts handing their fleets back at their midpoint in order to get new trains.”