(10 Feb 2015, 8:02 pm)Dan wrote The issue, judging by the posts on Social Media, is related to the reliability of rolling stock. Bus operators see that they are having issues with the reliability of their rolling stock and make attempts to fix it. Clearly, as you say, Nexus (and other associated parties) are not in a position to replace the rolling stock on the Tyne & Wear Metro system, so the problems are going to be ongoing for the foreseeable future.Surely though, the operators of the Metro would have known some time ago that the trains would need replacing. Would it not have been sensible to, instead of refurbishing the current stock, buy new trains?
I wouldn't wish to spark a huge debate in this thread as it's not completely relevant, but at the moment, bus operators can pace themselves and replace their rolling stock over time. The oldest stock is kept in a reserve role and doesn't usually see frontline service on demanding work. Under the Quality Contracts Scheme, the operators would not have this control. I think it's a fair enough assumption to suggest that most contracts will stipulate a Euro 5 allocation, yes? This means that the operators will either have to replace the stock completely (to retain a similar level of work as they currently have) or SCRT-fit their fleet with Eminox modifications. Both incur a cost - but the operators will have to do it regardless... Just doesn't seem like a level playing field in my eyes?
I can't imagine that since the trains were new in 1980, 35 years ago, they haven't made enough money to replace them?
I've just had a look at the London Underground rolling stock, and by the looks of it trains new in 1992 will be replaced during the 2020's by the New Tube For London. 12 years younger than Metro trains.