The Future Of ROSCO's

[DB]

Let's also remember that the ROSCOs do take on risk- think about the 350/2s, which despite being excellent units with many years left, are currently without a future.

Plud the 458s and 455s - going off lease not long after having had extensive work done.

 

[JonathanH]

With some newer post-privatisation stock owned by other companies than the original ROSCOs, I wonder how many ROSCOs effectively provide stock for the TOCs now?

Set out here https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/who-we-work-with/industry/rolling-stock-companies

Rolling stock companies

Rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs) own most of the coaches, locomotives and freight wagons on the rails, which they hire out to train and freight operating companies.

ROSCOs have replaced many of the older trains that were being used before privatisation with modern vehicles. They are often responsible for the maintenance and rebuilding of the vehicles they hire out.

Leasing companies

Angel Trains Ltd
Beacon Rail
Caledonian Rail Leasing
Eversholt Rail Group
GE
Halifax Asset Finance
Macquarie European Rail
Lombard North Central
Porterbrook Leasing Company Ltd

Plus Agility Trains East / Agility Trains West.

 

[Mikey C]

It should be perfectly possible to come up with a collaborative approach to this. The current system clearly doesn't work very well, with the Pacers (and I would also argue 150s) staying in service for longer than they should, and on the other hand units (EMUs) which are fairly new or have recently had extensive refurbishment going off-lease before they should. These issues could be avoided with a coherent cascade plan, which could include broad specifications for new fleets required, and ROSCOs could then offer what they thought met those specifications via a tendering process.

But then the main reason for that was the lack of electrification for many years, and then the failures of the NR led electrification programme which led to many projects being cancelled. And to be fair to the ROSCOs, the 769 project to reuse surplus EMUs is led by one of them, Porterbrook, so they can be progressive

 

[317 forever]

Thank you for the list and source Jonathan.

 

[DB]

But then the main reason for that was the lack of electrification for many years, and then the failures of the NR led electrification programme which led to many projects being cancelled. And to be fair to the ROSCOs, the 769 project to reuse surplus EMUs is led by one of them, Porterbrook, so they can be progressive

The main reason is no coherent cascade plan, aggravated by the low interest rates allowing cheap finance on new trains.

 

[43096]

Set out here https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/who-we-work-with/industry/rolling-stock-companies



Plus Agility Trains East / Agility Trains West.

In fact that list is somewhat out of date as it is missing Rock Rail and First Rail Holdings (and probably others) and Macquarie European Rail is now part of Akiem.

 

[3141]

The main reason is no coherent cascade plan, aggravated by the low interest rates allowing cheap finance on new trains.

There are certainly examples of cascades in BR's time, like Class 50s going to the Western Region after the West Coast main Line was electrified, but was there ever a "coherent cascade plan" rather than individual enhancement schemes which included a new role for stock that would be displaced?

 

[DB]

There are certainly examples of cascades in BR's time, like Class 50s going to the Western Region after the West Coast main Line was electrified, but was there ever a "coherent cascade plan" rather than individual enhancement schemes which included a new role for stock that would be displaced?

They didn't stick whole fleets in long term storage, so there must have been.

 

[Meerkat]

They didn't stick whole fleets in long term storage, so there must have been.

Maybe they just ran stuff til it fell apart

 

[DB]

Maybe they just ran stuff til it fell apart

That's not really the point. Stock was superseded on frontline routes in plenty of cases, and most of it ended up on other services.

The only things withdrawn relatively early early tended to be very specialised for a role (Deltics), or pilot scheme classes which weren't taken forward as larger builds

 

[3141]

They didn't stick whole fleets in long term storage, so there must have been.

That doesn't follow. They didn't have the money to buy so much new stock that "whole fleets" of existing stock became surplus and could go into long-term storage. That doesn't mean that there was a coherent cascade plan. It could equally well mean that their situation was much more hand-to-mouth, and when new stock was authorised for a particular route they had to look at what was being displaced and work out whether it was that stock, or something else, that was at the end of its life and should be withdrawn.

 

[DB]

That doesn't follow. They didn't have the money to buy so much new stock that "whole fleets" of existing stock became surplus and could go into long-term storage. That doesn't mean that there was a coherent cascade plan. It could equally well mean that their situation was much more hand-to-mouth, and when new stock was authorised for a particular route they had to look at what was being displaced and work out whether it was that stock, or something else, that was at the end of its life and should be withdrawn.

Despite these claims that they had to just carry on using stock due to lack of money, the lifespans under BR tended to be similar to lifespans now.

Sticking perfectly good trains which have years of life left, such as the 350s, into store is just wasteful as is spending a lot on 458 and 455 and then storing them. BR would not have done this.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

At one time there was indeed a "coherent" cascade plan. The introduction of HSTs allowed for a mass movement over several years of LHCS from the GWML/ECML to other routes allowing for a major reduction in the Mk1 fleet. Unfortunately the plan was seriously disrupted when the Treasury forced BR to reduce the size of the HST order. It does rather make the point that such high-level planning, much like electrification, needs some form of central command and agreed/sustained funding

 

[Meerkat]

Despite these claims that they had to just carry on using stock due to lack of money, the lifespans under BR tended to be similar to lifespans now.

Sticking perfectly good trains which have years of life left, such as the 350s, into store is just wasteful as is spending a lot on 458 and 455 and then storing them. BR would not have done this.

Talk me through all those early diesels and whether they were used for a full 30+ years? And the standard steam locos for that matter.
I assume sensible cascade includes all that tatty stuff dumped on cross country and regional services before the sprinters turned up, and the unreliable locos dumped on the WoE line?