Suggestions for future use of Class 332s post-HEx

[DB]

Count me among the surprised that a home cannot be found for them. I know this site is especially contrarian ("Idiot! There is no stock for X, and of course this excess stock won't work on Y!") - but even as shorter units, I would have thought something might work.

If they are knackered, then a shortened set or two might work on not too intensive electric service - say the Abbey Line? Or a medium distance electric service like Birmingham to Liverpool? But those now interwork. Or something NW like Man/Liv to Blackpool. Hell, even a local shuttle from Crewe to Preston, much proposed.

There is a surplus of EMUs (some of them quite decent) coming off lease at the moment and in the next few years - hence it is unlikely that anyone would be interested in a small, fairly non-standard class which needs work.

If there was a shortage of EMUs it might be different, but at the moment there isn't, and won't be in the near future.

 

[Journeyman]

Count me among the surprised that a home cannot be found for them. I know this site is especially contrarian ("Idiot! There is no stock for X, and of course this excess stock won't work on Y!") - but even as shorter units, I would have thought something might work.

If they are knackered, then a shortened set or two might work on not too intensive electric service - say the Abbey Line? Or a medium distance electric service like Birmingham to Liverpool? But those now interwork. Or something NW like Man/Liv to Blackpool. Hell, even a local shuttle from Crewe to Preston, much proposed.

But they don't have TPWS! For the billionth time, that excludes them from every single part of the network they currently don't operate on, and fitting it will be extremely expensive.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

And what would be the point of that, when a new fleet for London-Norwich has been built (or is currently being built in some cases)?

Well exactly, did they need to be built? The answer was given though, not enough 332s to run to Norwich and riddled with corrosion. Still a shame.

 

[Domh245]

Well exactly, did they need to be built? The answer was given though, not enough 332s to run to Norwich and riddled with corrosion. Still a shame.

Not only that (and the oft mentioned TPWS issue) but the new trains were ordered in 2016, at which point there was no indication that the 332s would be freed up. It'd have also required a year long fudge around PRM compliance with the previous Mk3s needing to be used up to near enough now

 

[Journeyman]

Not only that (and the oft mentioned TPWS issue) but the new trains were ordered in 2016, at which point there was no indication that the 332s would be freed up. It'd have also required a year long fudge around PRM compliance with the previous Mk3s needing to be used up to near enough now

I'd suggest the new FLIRTs are far better. It's a very long time since the Norwich services had brand new stock. We need to stop scrabbling around for uses for old units just because some enthusiasts like them.

They're going. Get over it.

 

[D365]

The 332s (all thirteen) really are the new forum pet project, aren’t they!

 

[bluenoxid]

I’m not surprised that they are going. The writing is on the wall.

I think we have gone from famine to feast in a very short space of time with EMU stock. I don’t think people have realised how many new carriages have been placed on the network in the past few years. I don’t think Covid preventing/limiting travel has helped either

I do wonder if it’s a generation thing as well. The 332s were some of the first units to arrive post privatisation and many more forum members are now of an age where their introduction was just “yesterday” so to speak and their withdrawal is a bit of a surprise. I also wonder if the fleet has a different and more futuristic look than other fleets that are probably more boxy and standard.

 

[DB]

The 332s (all thirteen) really are the new forum pet project, aren’t they!

Might be down to 11 now - two sent to Newport yesterday, and anything sent there seems to be broken up pretty much immediately.

 

[swt_passenger]

Might be down to 11 now - two sent to Newport yesterday, and anything sent there seems to be broken up pretty much immediately.

This thread will probably still be coming up with ideas when there’s only one left, it’s had 9 months of dreaming so far...

 

[43096]

Is it? They're suffering from severe corrosion after 23 years of very intensive use, and aren't suitable for use elsewhere. It's not that much of a shame. It just happens.

I’ll say this again... the 332s have not been intensively used by current standards. A maximum availability requirement of 71% is not “intensive”. They just haven’t been looked after.

 

[Ianno87]

I’ll say this again... the 332s have not been intensively used by current standards. A maximum availability requirement of 71% is not “intensive”. They just haven’t been looked after.

Actually, lack of intensive use might be an issue. On the typical 4tph service, trains only typically spend 38 minutes of every 75 minute round trip actually moving (i.e. 2 minute dwell time each way at CTA, ~22 minute turnround time at one end and ~11 minutes at the other). That's barely 50% of time out in service actually moving.

 

[JonathanH]

We need to stop scrabbling around for uses for old units just because some enthusiasts like them.

...or because they haven't operated widely across the network.

I’ll say this again... the 332s have not been intensively used by current standards. A maximum availability requirement of 71% is not “intensive”. They just haven’t been looked after.

What would have been the thinking behind an order of 14 units for operation as 10 diagrams (ie 5 pairs) in the first place? There can only ever have been an idea of running 4tph to Paddington.

 

[Ianno87]

...or because they haven't operated widely across the network.



What would have been the thinking behind an order of 14 units for operation as 10 diagrams (ie 5 pairs) in the first place? There can only ever have been an idea of running 4tph to Paddington.

The only thing I could think of would be allowing for a step-down of turnround times at both ends, rather than one. So 6 cycles = 12 units + 2 spares.

But, for whatever reason, HEx worked out only one step-down was somehow the most optimal operation.

 

[adc82140]

But they don't have TPWS! For the billionth time, that excludes them from every single part of the network they currently don't operate on, and fitting it will be extremely expensive.

As well as this, the fact that they are modern and electric precludes them going any preserved railway (who would pay good money to take the kids to ride on that at 25mph). The fact that they are modern and have slidy doors and aircon rules out use as holiday accommodation/garden pavilions/chicken houses. So that just leaves us with the scrap yard.

What would be nice though is if a cab can be sawn off and sent to the Cab Yard museum or similar, as an example of the early 90s generation of front end design.

 

[jon0844]

The 332s (all thirteen) really are the new forum pet project, aren’t they!

442, 332... I see a pattern and wonder what people will think about the 222s when they eventually go!

 

[Journeyman]

As well as this, the fact that they are modern and electric precludes them going any preserved railway (who would pay good money to take the kids to ride on that at 25mph). The fact that they are modern and have slidy doors and aircon rules out use as holiday accommodation/garden pavilions/chicken houses. So that just leaves us with the scrap yard.

Saving a driving vehicle for static display would be nice, but I can't see anyone rushing to do it.

 

[MarkyT]

Lack of TPWS is not the huge problem people make it out to be. It's a cost to rectify clearly, but one very big selling point for the system in the first place was the ease of retrofit to old stock using the same simple traction and braking interfaces as AWS, which the 332s already has clearly, and there would be a reference design for the work in the class 333. That current owners and potential buyers appear to believe such simple work is not justified shows just how unsuitable the trains are for continued use elsewhere in most other respects. Another issue to add to the list is the presence of the GW-ATP gear and its tight integration with the train control system. ATP would need stripping out as part of a rebuild to ensure reliability.

 

[Journeyman]

Lack of TPWS is not the huge problem people make it out to be. It's a cost to rectify clearly, but one very big selling point for the system in the first place was the ease of retrofit to old stock using the same simple traction and braking interfaces as AWS, which the 332s already has clearly, and there would be a reference design for the work in the class 333. That current owners and potential buyers appear to believe such simple work is not justified shows just how unsuitable the trains are for continued use elsewhere in most other respects. Another issue to add to the list is the presence of the GW-ATP gear and its tight integration with the train control system. ATP would need stripping out as part of a rebuild to ensure reliability.

It's a big problem if the choice is between "train not fitted with TPWS" and "train fitted with TPWS", of which dozens will soon be available, probably in better condition, with much more standard components and interiors, and without the ATP integration, which has certainly been an issue for ScotRail with their former GW HSTs. Yeah, sure, you can probably fit TPWS fairly easily, which people would do if there was a desperate need for trains and these were the only ones available, but the network will soon be awash with far more 25kV EMUs than it ever remotely knows what to do with.

 

[DB]

Also, these units are owned by Heathrow Airport, who are not in the business of leasing trains so would only be interested in selling them. They might even have asked the ROSCOs, but with surplus stock of their own they aren't likely to want any more.

 

[MarkyT]

It's a big problem if the choice is between "train not fitted with TPWS" and "train fitted with TPWS", of which dozens will soon be available, probably in better condition, with much more standard components and interiors, and without the ATP integration, which has certainly been an issue for ScotRail with their former GW HSTs. Yeah, sure, you can probably fit TPWS fairly easily, which people would do if there was a desperate need for trains and these were the only ones available, but the network will soon be awash with far more 25kV EMUs than it ever remotely knows what to do with.

Also, these units are owned by Heathrow Airport, who are not in the business of leasing trains so would only be interested in selling them. They might even have asked the ROSCOs, but with surplus stock of their own they aren't likely to want any more.

All I'm saying is retrofitting TPWS alone would be a very cheap and easy job for a purchasing ROSCO to arrange if there was any possible market for the trains and that was all that was required. It is almost certainly other technical and condition issues that will make the transaction unviable.

 

[Energy]

All I'm saying is retrofitting TPWS alone would be a very cheap and easy job for a purchasing ROSCO to arrange if there was any possible market for the trains and that was all that was required. It is almost certainly other technical and condition issues that will make the transaction unviable.

It has been said before that TPWS would require a change to the trains braking system which makes it very expensive.

 

[londonteacher]

Here is the best use for them:

Baked bean tins and razers.

 

[MarkyT]

It has been said before that TPWS would require a change to the trains braking system which makes it very expensive.

If the AWS today is emulated within the ATP in a similar fashion as it would be in a new 'native ETCS' train today, then that makes sense, but that alone doesn't make it the major issue in its own right as the obsolete unsupported ATP would ideally be stripped out anyway for reliability and maintainability, rather it's just part of that bigger issue. That TPWS wasn't fitted when others on the network were doesn't prove that it would have been particularly difficult though; it simply wasn't required and wasn't worth ANY money or operational downtime as all regularly traversed track was equipped with GW-ATP, a safer full supervision system negating the need for anything else at the time.

 

[JN114]

Ownership is the main driver, the other issues are all solvable.

There is no incentive whatsoever for a ROSCO to buy them off Heathrow, all the major players already have fleets of similarly capable EMUs coming off lease without a home.

There is even less of an incentive for Heathrow Airport to enter the leasing market themselves.

 

[SussexLad]

Just export them somewhere. South Africa or Ireland or anywhere really. Scrap seems an environmental waste because of the damage to the environment to build them in the first place

 

[MarkyT]

Ownership is the main driver, the other issues are all solvable.

There is no incentive whatsoever for a ROSCO to buy them off Heathrow, all the major players already have fleets of similarly capable EMUs coming off lease without a home.

There is even less of an incentive for Heathrow Airport to enter the leasing market themselves.

Heathrow Airport would no doubt sell the trains in a flash if there were potential buyers queuing up and they could net more out of the transaction than scrapping them and there weren't any other factors involved. They are no longer a TOC as I understand, and the sooner they can get the 332s all off their books, the quicker they can close down all remaining maintenance and servicing activities at Old Oak Common, a site they must vacate. They have nowhere else to store them so without a buyer they'll need them off the premises as soon as possible.

 

[43096]

Just export them somewhere. South Africa or Ireland or anywhere really. Scrap seems an environmental waste because of the damage to the environment to build them in the first place

Which bit of no-one wants to buy them are you struggling with?

 

[D365]

Which bit of no-one wants to buy them are you struggling with?

It's nice to dream sometimes

 

[DelW]

I wonder how many of the posters complaining about the "premature" scrapping of these units, themselves still run 20+ year old cars, washing machines, lawnmowers, televisions, etc.? I doubt that it's very many.

These things wear out, break down, become uneconomic to repair, or are superseded by better versions, and they go for scrap. Just like trains do.

 

[adc82140]

I wonder how many of the posters complaining about the "premature" scrapping of these units, themselves still run 20+ year old cars, washing machines, lawnmowers, televisions, etc.? I doubt that it's very many.

These things wear out, break down, become uneconomic to repair, or are superseded by better versions, and they go for scrap. Just like trains do.

If they were cars, they would be "S" reg.

Puts it in to perspective.