Railcars used by many JR firms in service for over 30 years

[katoftw]

"Some 30 percent of passenger railcars used by four Japan Railway companies have been in service since at least 1987, when the firms were created through the privatization of the Japanese National Railways, Jiji Press has learned."

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/19/business/economy-business/railcars-used-many-jr-firms-service-30-years/#.WNHRjtR94sY

Edited March 22, 2017 by katoftw

[bill937ca]

Thirty years? Not too long ago 80 years was common on the Kanbara Railway, Kotoden, Mietetsu 600v lines and other local private railways.  Japan is a land of contrasts.

Edited March 22, 2017 by bill937ca

[Suica]

Is that a bad thing though?

Lots of European rolling stock is that old, or even older. I think reasonable modernisation is often better than new purchases.

 

And especially looking at Germany, I'd even say the old stuff is more reliable.

[kvp]

And especially looking at Germany, I'd even say the old stuff is more reliable.

Not to mention botched modernization, where the rebuilt train might look better but is way less reliable. Btw. right now the oldest cars in commuter use in Hungary were made in 1954, so they are 63 years old. Compare this with the 583 series (50 years) where only a single museum unit is operating and even that will be scrapped soon. For museum/heritage operation, trains and even a few emus and dmus from the late 19th / early 20th century are preserved in running condition. I think 30 years is around the mark for the first rebuild. Then if enough working units remain, another at 60 years and usually final retirement at 90 years, leaving any still surviving units as working museum sets, usually with enough spares for another hundred years. The rebuilds are increasingly missed though, with some units used for 40 or more years without any major overhaul and then they are surprised many fall apart after 60 years.

 

The current japanese strategy seems to be to dismantle everything at the 30 years mark and modern trains and buildings between 15 to 20 years. This also means they are built to last only 15 to 20 years and without the possibility of a rebuild. This strategy has its merits though, like comparing a glass bottle with a modern pet bottle. Both are reusable and if taken care of the glass one will work much longer than the pet bottle. However if you have to carry one on you, the pet bottle is much lighter and less likely to break with daily use. You just have to toss it and get a new one from time to time before it falls apart due to aging. Imho modern japanese (and pretty much every other) trains are like these pet bottles. Cheap, light, recyclable, but have to be replaced more often than older designs.

[ToniBabelony]

I... I don't see the point or journalistic value in this...

[Suica]

I... I don't see the point or journalistic value in this...

Filler~

It reads as if someone just got some facts (everyone who commutes by train already knows anyway) and wrapped a few words around them. No message. No point.

[bill937ca]

Written by someone who is breathless at seeing anything older than a flip phone.

[bill937ca]

Its long been regarded that a basic, sturdy steel streetcar like the Perley Thomas cars in New Orleans or the Venotto in Milan, Italy could easily last 100 years. The 101 and 103 Series trains are very much the JR equivalent of those streetcars.  Basic, sturdy machines capable of doing a job well.  Somewhere along the line we moved past this and became obsessed with the only the newest frills. If its not new replace it.

[railsquid]

Energy efficiency is a big factor driving rolling stock renewal, I don't have the exact figures but there are some substantial differences between the 101/103 series design and E23x. And at some point you're going to be spending more keeping old stock in operation than it would cost to acquire new stuff.

 

Anyway the 30th anniversary of JNR privatisation is approaching, a lot of "what JNR era stuff is still around" articles in the press.

[Kiha66]

On a somewhat related note, the 485 series made its last run yesterday it looks like.

http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/119374.php

[Densha]

Meanwhile, JR West is still inventing new ways of upgrading their JNR-stock. This time they thought it would be a good idea to give the 381 series a new skirt: https://twitter.com/yoshichan7003/status/843418904554696705

[Sacto1985]

The 381 Series EMU on the Yakumo train may be pretty much the last stand for that model. However, they'll be around a long time because the recent retirement of 381 from the Kuroshio service between Osaka and Shingu may make it possible for more spare parts to keep the 381 on the Yakumo train running for a long time.

[Socimi]

Such useless article... the worst part is that it doesn't tells "the trains are old so they break down" or "the trains are old so they're dirty".

(that would be acceptable)

No.

It just tells "the trains are old." No point. No value.

 

In fact most of such "old" trains (if maintained properly) can last forever. Because they were exactly build to last that long!

(one such example is Milano's 1928 tram, wich was quoted by bill937ca).

 

Nowdays we prefer to buy new, shining, state-of-the-art, ultramodern trains that will break down in 10 years' time (IF they enter service without problems or being recalled to the factory for design flaws).

Also, 30 years ago terms like "Design Flaws", "Unreliability", "Problems when entering service", " X year lifespan" were just (almost) unheard;

for the above quoted resaon, and also because railway companies designed (sometimes like Tokyu Corp. even produced) their own stock, to be better suited to the railway the company was operating.

Now, the builder company designs a standard train and sells it. In most cases this train is unsuited (or atleas could be improved) for the necessities of the buyer.

 

Now a word about who writes such articles:

Most people who write such articles never fixed something, even the simplest thing (say setting a TV decoder). They prefer to call the technichian or buy a new one, thus they don't know the meaning of the word "reliability".

Also they have absoloutely NO knowledge of railways and never just made a real honest comparision between old and new trains (for example they never tried them themselves or asked railwaymans or commuters). They just say "series X train is XX years old, let's make a pointless article saying it's "old" (you don't say?).

 

As last i'm making an example:

 

Sometime ago, a rural televison reporter made a report about local trains on the Codogno-Cremona line, a single electrified track line in the middle of the countryside. (Codongo and Cremona are also linked by faster direct regional trains to Milano and Mantova, made of Vivalto or sometimes Casaralta coaches).

She started with "this 40-year old, dirty, obsolete railcar is in service on this line [...]"

*shows a shiny ALe 582 EMU (manufacturer plate clearly reads "built by Breda in 1991")*

Then she said "We ask such trains to be replaced with brand-new TAFs [...]"

 

To get a better idea:

http://www.jnsforum.com/community/topic/1062-your-local-trains/?p=139847

 

No comments required.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Socimi

[kvp]

The classic JNR 101/103 series had its teething problems ~50 years ago when the 101 prototypes constantly overloaded the overhead power supplies in Tokyo. They were worked out and many things were improved over the years. The idea of the JNR was to make better trains and they did that. Nowdays better might be defined differently. Today the cheap to build, cheap to run, no maintenance required and fully recyclable are the important points.

 

Retiring old stuff is sad but if you have something better, it's understandable. On the other hand if getting rid of old JNR stock also means getting rid of the line they run on, then it becomes a bad idea, but even that is understandable from a financial point as supporting dvindling communities is not profitable and the privatized JR companies are (in theory) for profit companies.