Suggestions for future use of Class 332s post-HEx

[Journeyman]

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

Puts it in to perspective.

You should also bear in mind they're an extremely unusual model of S reg car, with difficult to obtain parts!

TOCS only ever operate small fleets of non-standard units if there is a genuine reason for doing so, be it technical (loading gauge, traction system etc) or there's a shortage of suitable alternatives at an affordable price. There's absolutely no way these units would make any TOC's life easier right now!

 

[The Ham]

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

There's various threads which are already discussing the future uses of the 222's.

If we're going to carry on the tradition what about a thread about where the scrapped early 112's (only in service for about 10 years) could have gone rather than be scrapped?

 

[43096]

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

Puts it in to perspective.

A proportion of the HST fleet would be the original 'S' reg (i.e. S as a suffix rather than prefix), and some of them are still in service.

 

[DB]

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These things wear out, break down, become uneconomic to repair, or are superseded by better versions, and they go for scrap.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

Not a valid comparison, as those things are not designed to last as long as a modern train.

Trains are now normally expected to have a 30 year-ish lifespan, so these are being scrapped earlier than would be expected (for clear reasons in this case, as we've been over a number of times).

 

[The Ham]

A proportion of the HST fleet would be the original 'S' reg (i.e. S as a suffix rather than prefix), and some of them are still in service.

Although the HST's are the same age as the S (suffex) registration cars, they are also a bit like Trogger's broom. In that the engines aren't the originals, not in fact are probably very much of them.

However again it comes down to the fact that we've got lots of EMU's and few diesel trains and so the EMU's go to be scrapped whilst DMU's and diesel locos keep on going, even though diesel trains tend to have shorter design lifes.

 

[43096]

Although the HST's are the same age as the S (suffex) registration cars, they are also a bit like Trogger's broom. In that the engines aren't the originals, not in fact are probably very much of them.

Some of the VP185 engines are over 25 years old now. Bodyshells, bogies, alternators and traction motors are all original items. Hardly Trigger's broom.

 

[Journeyman]

Some of the VP185 engines are over 25 years old now. Bodyshells, bogies, alternators and traction motors are all original items. Hardly Trigger's broom.

Yeah, the Trigger's Broom thing is nonsense. The reason HSTs have survived longer than 332s is because they still have practical use in some applications, and there's a shortage of newer high speed diesel trains. The 332s are just surplus with no suitable further application.

 

[The Ham]

Some of the VP185 engines are over 25 years old now. Bodyshells, bogies, alternators and traction motors are all original items. Hardly Trigger's broom.

I suspect that a lot of parts would have been replaced over the years.

Whilst the body shell is likely to be mostly the original (although there's likely to be a fair amount of anti corrosion work and fixing of debts and scrapes over the years) I suspect that there's various bits which have to replaced, if not while sections refurbished, over time.

 

[sam47]

You know, I came to this thread looking for real information about whether the 332s would be reused elsewhere but all i can find for multiple pages is disingenuous suggestions for reuse and even more disingenuous reasons why they can't be reused.

Does anybody know if there's some major problem with their condition (beyond non standard/ no tpws etc) why they are being scrapped?

They are fairly recent given most other scrap is 20 or more years older than it and they are very comfortable - bar the sleeper they are the last comfortable trains out of Paddington imo! So it's not surprising people on here like them. I doubt most users realise they're about to be withdrawn.

My personal daft reuse idea is wire up the Windermere branch and use them on the Northern services to Manc Airport. Why am I not Transport Secretary??

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

To be honest, while speculation is all very well and good, multiple forum members in the know have confirmed a total destruction order on the 332s. Sad as I am to say it (and I am sad, because I really like them), they’re not going to be reused...

 

[JN114]

There is zero economic case for keeping them.

ROSCOs would have had to buy them off Heathrow Airport. They weren’t interested while they have dozens off similarly capable EMUs already sat in storage off lease. They were offered for sale. Only scrap merchants were interested.

Supply and Demand. There are many more EMUs than we have use of at the moment in this country. It’d be more of a travesty to keep these over 379s or 350/2s for example.

They’re also 23 years old, so match your 20 years or more for scrap metric.

 

[Mamorin]

Unless you're a wikipedia editor. If you ask one of them, unit 014 is still extant!

The page has been updated in the past to note that 332014 has been scraped, but no “reliable sources” have been found to back this up so the edits have always been revoked.

I’m an editor and I tried to reason with other editors over using twitter as a source to back up that 014 had been scrapped, but wikiapeada sees twitter as an unreliable source and rules are rules.

 

[D365]

The page has been updated in the past to note that 332014 has been scraped, but no “reliable sources” have been found to back this up so the edits have always been revoked.

I’m an editor and I tried to reason with other editors over using twitter as a source to back up that 014 had been scrapped, but wikiapeada sees twitter as an unreliable source and rules are rules.

I understand that, but looking at the fact that Heathrow has been reported to have issued a "total destruction order" on the Class 332 fleet, there's a chance that nothing will be written in the press until the 332s are extinct. Which means the article is always going to be out of date.

 

[HarryL]

The page has been updated in the past to note that 332014 has been scraped, but no “reliable sources” have been found to back this up so the edits have always been revoked.

I’m an editor and I tried to reason with other editors over using twitter as a source to back up that 014 had been scrapped, but wikiapeada sees twitter as an unreliable source and rules are rules.

If it's the photo I'm thinking of then the TOPS number is visible in the photo, albeit behind some text edited over it. That is if the editors have seen the photo in the first place, it's under the tweet saying one's been scrapped.

 

[DB]

The page has been updated in the past to note that 332014 has been scraped, but no “reliable sources” have been found to back this up so the edits have always been revoked.

I’m an editor and I tried to reason with other editors over using twitter as a source to back up that 014 had been scrapped, but wikiapeada sees twitter as an unreliable source and rules are rules.

I'm sure I've seen a photo somewhere on the internet of the mangled remains of one of the cabs!

but wikiapeada sees twitter as an unreliable source and rules are rules.

That's a very poor approach to evaluating sources - of course Twitter can be wrong, but a sensible way to handle this would be to look at who actually wrote it and the context, just as with any other source. A blanket ban just looks like laziness / inability to evaluate sources properly.

 

[43096]

I’m an editor and I tried to reason with other editors over using twitter as a source to back up that 014 had been scrapped, but wikiapeada sees twitter as an unreliable source and rules are rules.

Oh the irony. Wikipedia sees Twitter as being an unreliable source. It's not like Wikipedia is exactly the most reliable of sources, is it?

You know, I came to this thread looking for real information about whether the 332s would be reused elsewhere but all i can find for multiple pages is disingenuous suggestions for reuse and even more disingenuous reasons why they can't be reused.

Does anybody know if there's some major problem with their condition (beyond non standard/ no tpws etc) why they are being scrapped?

They are fairly recent given most other scrap is 20 or more years older than it and they are very comfortable - bar the sleeper they are the last comfortable trains out of Paddington imo! So it's not surprising people on here like them. I doubt most users realise they're about to be withdrawn.

My personal daft reuse idea is wire up the Windermere branch and use them on the Northern services to Manc Airport. Why am I not Transport Secretary??

The reasons they aren't being reused are not disingenuous. They are fact. If you read them you would know why the 332s have a one-way ticket to the scrapyard.

Interesting that you complain about multiple pages of disingenuous suggestions for re-use, then add one of your own for Windermere services.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm sure I've seen a photo somewhere on the internet of the mangled remains of one of the cabs!



That's a very poor approach to evaluating sources - of course Twitter can be wrong, but a sensible way to handle this would be to look at who actually wrote it and the context, just as with any other source. A blanket ban just looks like laziness / inability to evaluate sources properly.

What are they expecting? A press release from the scrapyard? A DfT announcement? A Channel 5 documentary? If you suddenly need formal documentary evidence then there’s going to be a lot of units that will have to be “unscrapped”...

 

[JonathanH]

What are they expecting? A press release from the scrapyard? A DfT announcement? A Channel 5 documentary? If you suddenly need formal documentary evidence then there’s going to be a lot of units that will have to be “unscrapped”...

Photographic evidence of the scrap move ought to be sufficient. Unfortunately, some slip under the radar, particularly if they go by road.

 

[Mamorin]

What are they expecting? A press release from the scrapyard? A DfT announcement? A Channel 5 documentary? If you suddenly need formal documentary evidence then there’s going to be a lot of units that will have to be “unscrapped”...

What is expected is a news article from somewhere like rail magazine etc... or at least that’s what I’ve been told we can use as a source.

Oh the irony. Wikipedia sees Twitter as being an unreliable source. It's not like Wikipedia is exactly the most reliable of sources, is it?


The reasons they aren't being reused are not disingenuous. They are fact. If you read them you would know why the 332s have a one-way ticket to the scrapyard.

Interesting that you complain about multiple pages of disingenuous suggestions for re-use, then add one of your own for Windermere services.

For the UK railways and UK rolling stock wikiapeada is quite reliable as the rules are very strictly enforced on pages to do with the UK railways.

Of course when it comes to the 332s and to an much lesser extent the 333s, this is kind of a problem as very few news sites ever talk about the 332s.

I'm sure I've seen a photo somewhere on the internet of the mangled remains of one of the cabs!



That's a very poor approach to evaluating sources - of course Twitter can be wrong, but a sensible way to handle this would be to look at who actually wrote it and the context, just as with any other source. A blanket ban just looks like laziness / inability to evaluate sources properly.

It’s because twitter can be wrong and that anybody can’t write anything on twitter that it is banned on wikiapeada.

There was talk a few weeks ago about what to do with the rule and about maybe allowing verified twitter accounts be use aka blue checkmark accounts, but the rule on twitter did not change.

 

[DB]

It’s because twitter can be wrong and that anybody can’t write anything on twitter that it is banned on wikiapeada.

There was talk a few weeks ago about what to do with the rule and about maybe allowing verified twitter accounts be use aka blue checkmark accounts, but the rule on twitter did not change.

So can anything be wrong - just because it's published in a magazine doesn't make it reliable, for example. Banning a whole platform is ridiculous and rather suggests that whoever made the decision has no confidence in their moderators to be able to make a sensible judgement.

 

[Mamorin]

So can anything be wrong - just because it's published in a magazine doesn't make it reliable, for example. Banning a whole platform is ridiculous and rather suggests that whoever made the decision has no confidence in their moderators to be able to make a sensible judgement.

While some magazines can be wrong wikiapeda will only accept magazines which are extremely accurate, such as rail magazine, the BBC etc.

social meida is only baned because anybody can write anything on social media.

the rules do have their downsides however as can ve seen with the class 332s and also was seen for a long time with the Class 322 when the class 322s moved to GA.

Took about a month for a reliable source to be found saying that the 322s have had left Northern and went to GA.

 

[D365]

social meida is only baned because anybody can write anything on social media.

However there is photographic evidence of 014 having been scrapped.

 

[MarkyT]

While some magazines can be wrong wikiapeda will only accept magazines which are extremely accurate, such as rail magazine, the BBC etc.

social meida is only baned because anybody can write anything on social media.

the rules do have their downsides however as can ve seen with the class 332s and also was seen for a long time with the Class 322 when the class 322s moved to GA.

Took about a month for a reliable source to be found saying that the 322s have had left Northern and went to GA.

Also social media accounts, even official company accounts, could disappear overnight, and even the platforms themselves come and go. How could they then ever be verified again as sources? Publications may disappear too, but many libraries and other independent archives will keep copies physically or electronically indefinitely. Whether a particular train in a fleet still in existence doesn't matter at all really in the scheme of things, but the rules have to apply and be applied consistently to protect more important articles.

However there is photographic evidence of 014 having been scrapped.

Needs a reliable persistent source for future verification.

 

[DB]

Also social media accounts, even official company accounts, could disappear overnight, and even the platforms themselves come and go. How could they then ever be verified again as sources?

So following that logic, presumably you would ban all online sources as any website can disappear overnight?

 

[D365]

So following that logic, presumably you would ban all online sources as any website can disappear overnight?

archive.org. Assuming that doesn't disappear!

 

[MarkyT]

So following that logic, presumably you would ban all online sources as any website can disappear overnight?

I didn't say I would ban anything. I'm just trying to understand Wikipedia's policies. What you say about websites generally is correct though, although organisations like the internet archive do attempt to independently keep a persistent record of as much as they can. However, these don't and probably can never guarantee to archive everything, especially every single social media post.

 

[DB]

archive.org. Assuming that doesn't disappear!

Yes, but you need to know exactly what and when you are looking for!

 

[43096]

What is expected is a news article from somewhere like rail magazine etc... or at least that’s what I’ve been told we can use as a source.

Rail magazine isn't noted as being reliable. It all gives the impression that the accuracy is actually built on rather suspect foundations.

For the UK railways and UK rolling stock wikiapeada is quite reliable as the rules are very strictly enforced on pages to do with the UK railways.

I'll spare you the embarrassment of critiquing a suitable article.

I'm also rather amused that someone saying they're an editor for Wikipedia can't actually spell Wikipedia.

 

[Ianno87]

Rail magazine isn't noted as being reliable.

It may not be perfect, but it is a darn sight more relable and better sourced than Twitter or Wikipedia.

 

[43096]

It may not be perfect, but it is a darn sight more relable and better sourced than Twitter or Wikipedia.

I wouldn't say any of them are reliable.

The point, really, is that users of any source should be reading them with a questioning mindset and not taking them at face value. The danger is that things become "fact" when they're not.