Future of the 350/2s

[Sad Sprinter]

I'm surprised people aren't angrier on this forum about the sheer wastage of good rolling stock.

 

[QSK19]

I'm surprised people aren't angrier on this forum about the sheer wastage of good rolling stock.

Oh we are angry, believe me; however, I think that, at the same time, we recognise the reasoning behind it and put the bigger picture into perspective.

For example, I’m very annoyed that the 379s are sat there doing nothing when, IMO, they’re a better alternative to the 360s. I’d love to bin the 360s and get the 379s in to replace them, but it won’t happen - 379s command higher lease fees and the 360s have had that much work done to them that it would be a very poor decision financially to move them on.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm surprised people aren't angrier on this forum about the sheer wastage of good rolling stock.

The thing is that using the 350/2s or 379s just means something else would go for scrap so the net effect of having them in storage isn't 'wasteful' as you put it.

It is pretty clear they aren't going to be used to expand the service offering, and they can't be used to replace diesel units without further investment in electrification.

It is fairly clear that shoehorning them into another operation just because the existing fleet is slightly older is not cost effective.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The thing is that using the 350/2s or 379s just means something else would go for scrap so the net effect of having them in storage isn't 'wasteful' as you put it.

It is pretty clear they aren't going to be used to expand the service offering, and they can't be used to replace diesel units without further investment in electrification.

It is fairly clear that shoehorning them into another operation just because the existing fleet is slightly older is not cost effective.

I think ordering rolling stock to replace rolling stock less than a decade old was very much wasteful. I can't think of any explanation that would make it less so.

 

[JonathanH]

I think ordering rolling stock to replace rolling stock less than a decade old was very much wasteful. I can't think of any explanation that would make it less so.

Indeed, but now that has happened, we can't do much about it.

As discussed in other threads, it is crazy that some of those orders weren't curtailed, even with the exit penalties then payable.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Indeed, but now that has happened, we can't do much about it.

As discussed in other threads, it is crazy that some of those orders weren't curtailed, even with the exit penalties then payable.

Why on Earth did it happen anyway?

 

[JonathanH]

Why on Earth did it happen anyway?

It resulted in cheaper cost of operation for the relevant franchises, and in the case of Greater Anglia, there were intended outlets for the use of 360s and 379s, albeit that since then it has been proven that the 379s aren't needed.

The further use for the 350/2s has always been less clear.

 

[Gaelan]

I’d love to bin the 360s and get the 379s in to replace them, but it won’t happen - 379s command higher lease fees and the 360s have had that much work done to them that it would be a very poor decision financially to move them on.

This is why the whole ROSCO system makes me so angry - perfectly good rolling stock left sit to rot because it makes some numbers on a spreadsheet higher.

 

[D365]

This is why the whole ROSCO system makes me so angry - perfectly good rolling stock left sit to rot because it makes some numbers on a spreadsheet higher.

It's money making for banks. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[3RDGEN]

Why on Earth did it happen anyway?

The new builds are cheaper to lease/operate than the current fleets mainly due to the cheap money used to buy the trains in the first place over the last ten years or so, that has now come to an end. GA is perfect now with just two fleets to worry about and train staff on, makes life so much easier.

The DfT has been after the ROSCO's for years and by flooding the market with new trains the ROSCO's are now stuffed with trains they can't lease out so prices should be depressed. 379's could have gone to EMR but 360's were cheaper so the 379's sit out of use at the ROSCO's expense, not the DfT's problem. Some of the units may go for export at some point but as already mentioned 350/2's to SWR is a good fit at the right price which maybe achieved once the ROSCO has had to park them up for twelve months or longer and paid storage.

 

[JonathanH]

Some of the units may go for export at some point but as already mentioned 350/2's to SWR is a good fit at the right price which maybe achieved once the ROSCO has had to park them up for twelve months or longer and paid storage.

Other than the fact that SWR is unlikely to need them, as it has a huge surplus of 701s if it can ever get them into service.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

This is why the whole ROSCO system makes me so angry - perfectly good rolling stock left sit to rot because it makes some numbers on a spreadsheet higher.

It's insane, if we're going to have these surplus trains lying around lets at least, please, please get some electrification in that this stock could use

 

[JonathanH]

This is why the whole ROSCO system makes me so angry - perfectly good rolling stock left sit to rot because it makes some numbers on a spreadsheet higher.

The alternative to 350s and 379s sitting in store is older units going for scrap.

They aren't suitable to replace Networkers. We already know there is no impetus to replace 323s (or anything else at Northern), and no use for them in Scotland.

Once you dismiss those opportunities, the next oldest fleets are the Southern, Southeastern and c2c Electrostars, and the SWR 444 / 450 fleets. Replacing 20 year old trains with 10 year old trains in a standardised fleet doesn't make sense either.

At least with the ROSCOs, the taxpayer isn't having to pay (directly) for the storage of surplus rolling stock.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

This is why the whole ROSCO system makes me so angry - perfectly good rolling stock left sit to rot because it makes some numbers on a spreadsheet higher.

I don’t personally see how you’re impacted by it or what the alternative is. They’ve been replaced by newer stock and it’s not feasible to replace older stock with what’s been made surplus, for a variety of reasons. If they have no work it’s Akiem who will feel that, not you.

 

[3RDGEN]

This is why the whole ROSCO system makes me so angry - perfectly good rolling stock left sit to rot because it makes some numbers on a spreadsheet higher.

This is how leasing was meant to work 25 years ago but it never happened much to the DfT's dislike, it is now finally happening. In time it will work out as cascades occur once prices match expectations, the recent GN tender for electric units is about finding out if the ROSCO is willing to tender a fair price for the 379's after 12+ months of storage.

 

[tbtc]

I'm surprised people aren't angrier on this forum about the sheer wastage of good rolling stock.

There are plenty of bigger wastes of money

Ultimately these redundant trains are just metal/ plastic that we have no current use for

It’s a shame, sure, but given the billions needed to subsidise the railway, it’s just one of many things , and there are bigger priorities (but those are for other threads)

This is why the whole ROSCO system makes me so angry - perfectly good rolling stock left sit to rot because it makes some numbers on a spreadsheet higher.

BR used to leave lots of rolling stock sat in sidings, maybe using them on a “seaside special” each summer but otherwise idle

But the people who enjoyed seeing dozens of unused locomotives at various sheds in the 1980s are often upset at the waste of money that is unused EMUs similarly inactive forty years later

 

[Gaelan]

At least with the ROSCOs, the taxpayer isn't having to pay (directly) for the storage of surplus rolling stock.

Sure, not directly, but every penny the ROSCOs make ultimately comes from the taxpayer (or the farepayer).

I don’t personally see how you’re impacted by it or what the alternative is. They’ve been replaced by newer stock and it’s not feasible to replace older stock with what’s been made surplus, for a variety of reasons. If they have no work it’s Akiem who will feel that, not you.

Full disclosure: I'm not particularly well-informed on any of this, and most of my knowledge here comes from threads like this one. So I could be missing something major, grain of salt, etc.

That being said, the problem (I think) lies with how we got into this situation: the fact that it was cheaper for GA to get brand new trains (the FLIRTs) than keep the existing 10-year-old trains they had (the 379s, which - if you consider the resources being put into the railway and not numbers on spreadsheets - cost nothing to keep). Surely, in a sensible system, those resources could have been better spent on replacing far older units anywhere else in the country?

the recent GN tender for electric units is about finding out if the ROSCO is willing to tender a fair price for the 379's after 12+ months of storage.

Fair enough, if a sensible cascade ends up coming out of this it'll be a lot better. Time will tell if that ends up happening, I suppose.

 

[RailWonderer]

The alternative to 350s and 379s sitting in store is older units going for scrap.

They aren't suitable to replace Networkers. We already know there is no impetus to replace 323s (or anything else at Northern), and no use for them in Scotland.

Once you dismiss those opportunities, the next oldest fleets are the Southern, Southeastern and c2c Electrostars, and the SWR 444 / 450 fleets. Replacing 20 year old trains with 10 year old trains in a standardised fleet doesn't make sense either.

At least with the ROSCOs, the taxpayer isn't having to pay (directly) for the storage of surplus rolling stock.

Is it just the lack of shoe gear that's the issue? They're 3+2 and would be able to replace some Networkers which means a new order wold be cheaper as fewer new units would need to be replaced.

That being said, the problem (I think) lies with how we got into this situation: the fact that it was cheaper for GA to get brand new trains (the FLIRTs) than keep the existing 10-year-old trains they had (the 379s, which - if you consider the resources being put into the railway and not numbers on spreadsheets - cost nothing to keep). Surely, in a sensible system, those resources could have been better spent on replacing far older units anywhere else in the country?

GA needed the 755s and the order of 38 wasn't large enough so they tacked on 20 745s (10 of which were needed to replace 90+mk3s on the Norwich IC) so it made sense. Arguably they should have kept the 379s on the WA lines and used the other 10 745s for other GE routes but the bid team liked the sound of an entire fleet replacement to win the 10 year extension.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

720s and 745s are newer and more technologically advanced trains than 379s, so personal interior tastes aside, the lay passenger has precious little to complain about.

 

[JonathanH]

Is it just the lack of shoe gear that's the issue? They're 3+2 and would be able to replace some Networkers which means a new order wold be cheaper as fewer new units would need to be replaced.

Thinking more of door cycles and interior layout, in particular the vestibule space and standbacks, not being suitable for metro work, although clearly they also don't have shoegear.

All in all, a substantial rebuild needed.

Networkers also aren't now what would be built for metro work, as they don't have the standee areas and passenger space needed, and have too much floor area devoted to seats.

 

[A0wen]

Is it just the lack of shoe gear that's the issue? They're 3+2 and would be able to replace some Networkers which means a new order wold be cheaper as fewer new units would need to be replaced.

GA needed the 755s and the order of 38 wasn't large enough so they tacked on 20 745s (10 of which were needed to replace 90+mk3s on the Norwich IC) so it made sense. Arguably they should have kept the 379s on the WA lines and used the other 10 745s for other GE routes but the bid team liked the sound of an entire fleet replacement to win the 10 year extension.

There was a bit more to it than that though - what they've done with the WA lines is standardise it on a mix of Flirts and Aventras. But on the WA side something needed to be done given the age of the 315s and 317s.

And even if they'd kept the 379s, they'd still have needed something else:

379 - 30 x 4 car.

317 - 59 x 4 car
315 - 61 x 4 car

And the Aventras probably made sense for some of the Great Eastern e.g. to Shenfield as it's the same design being used for the Elizabeth Line so things like platform lengths, signal sightings etc would have been common.

 

[Trainbike46]

This is how leasing was meant to work 25 years ago but it never happened much to the DfT's dislike, it is now finally happening. In time it will work out as cascades occur once prices match expectations, the recent GN tender for electric units is about finding out if the ROSCO is willing to tender a fair price for the 379's after 12+ months of storage.

The GN tender is also a potential place where these 350s could go - so that may be part of the logic here, as there's now (at least) 2 fleets available, so there will be some competition

There was a bit more to it than that though - what they've done with the WA lines is standardise it on a mix of Flirts and Aventras. But on the WA side something needed to be done given the age of the 315s and 317s.

And even if they'd kept the 379s, they'd still have needed something else:

379 - 30 x 4 car.

317 - 59 x 4 car
315 - 61 x 4 car

And the Aventras probably made sense for some of the Great Eastern e.g. to Shenfield as it's the same design being used for the Elizabeth Line so things like platform lengths, signal sightings etc would have been common.

The 720s also offer massive seated capacity, which was one of the main things the various Anglia bids were judged on.

Though potentially it would have been better to keep all the 745s on GE and to a single spec, and have a 720-only WA line (with a subfleet for stansted), hindsight is 20/20

 

[43096]

It's money making for banks. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's also a way of financing new trains that the TOCs can't do and the Government is unwilling to do. We've also seen that when the Government does get directly involved in buying new trains it makes very bad and very expensive choices.

Essentially, a big proportion of the growth of the railway over the 20 years up to 2019 was funded by the ROSCOs, because when you get more punters you need more trains.

 

[JonathanH]

It's also a way of financing new trains that the TOCs can't do and the Government is unwilling to do. We've also seen that when the Government does get directly involved in buying new trains it makes very bad and very expensive choices.

Indeed, it should never be forgotten that the Labour Party, in the guise of John Prescott, were pressing for train leasing while British Rail was still the operator, so we could have had ROSCOs even with BR, and fleets parked up in hard times.

Essentially, a big proportion of the growth of the railway over the 20 years up to 2019 was funded by the ROSCOs, because when you get more punters you need more trains.

The thing that always gets brought up about the early ROSCOs getting the BR fleet on the cheap has arguably worked its way out of the system now.

 

[Chester1]

I think that Northern must just be a dumping ground for old stock, in the eyes of some people, hence the threads suggesting that we have to deal with rubbish like the 175s because people can’t contemplate that some trains are either unfit for purpose or too costly to upgrade or are just surplus to requirements (without massive infrastructure expenses like restricting lines, extending platforms)

If the Forum existed fifty years ago then we’d have had threads suggesting using surplus Deltics on the Ormskirk - Colne branchlines

If Northern ran lots of services suited to eighty meter trains running entirely under the wires then 350/2s would be welcomed. However, since they don’t, it feels fairly pointless trying to imagine homes for them in this neck of the woods

Deltics on Ormskirk - Colne... Spot on!

175s would benefit Northern if they were reliable by allowing 195s to replace sprinters on commuter services. They are incredibly unreliable so it is a bad idea and their best use is razer blades and tin cans...

It might be worth Porterbrook storing 350/2s for a while to see what happens with passengers numbers. Anyone have an idea of the cost of store relative to their value?

 

[43096]

Indeed, it should never be forgotten that the Labour Party, in the guise of John Prescott, were pressing for train leasing while British Rail was still the operator, so we could have had ROSCOs even with BR, and fleets parked up in hard times.


The thing that always gets brought up about the early ROSCOs getting the BR fleet on the cheap has arguably worked its way out of the system now.

Ironically it was Prescott's pre-1997 re-nationalisation rhetoric that was one of the key risks that meant the sale values of the ROSCOs were lower than they might otherwise have been.

Any "getting it on the cheap" view can only be with the benefit of hindsight. A business (and its assets) is only worth what a buyer is prepared to pay at the time - it's not as if there were other, much higher bidders at the time.

 

[JonathanH]

Anyone have an idea of the cost of store relative to their value?

Assuming that all 37 350/2s fit at Long Marston, they may already be paying for the storage space.

 

[CBlue]

I'm surprised people aren't angrier on this forum about the sheer wastage of good rolling stock.

Did people get "angry" about the amount of money BR p***ed up the wall during the time they ordered all those random and esoteric diesel loco classes....?


At the moment we are undergoing a reduction in services alongside little expansion in electrification. Outside of the bubble this forum likes to inhabit, there are certainly bigger concerns with regards to wasted money....and it's coming out of the ROSCO's coffers anyway.

That the suggestions so far include putting 3+2 seated stock on London - Cardiff diagrams simply indicates how much the stock isn't needed, no?

I don’t think Philip wants to engage in the issues that all this would entail, it’s purely about playing trains with no grasp of the actual reality of it all.

Quite - just look at the post history and it speaks for iself. I had tried to enter a discussion in the same vein - I think all he is interested in is pontification.

 

[RobShipway]

I know that many might get angry at this comment, but the only good thing about the storage of the class 350/2 units and class 379 units, is that if EMU's are required for testing, you have 67 units available.

You also have plenty of spare parts for the other Desiro and Electrostar fleets should you require them as well, where any parts maybe compatible.

Both Akiem for the class 379 and Porterbrook with the class 350/2 now have units which can be used for Battery-Electric Multiple unit testing with possible conversion to be freight trains, similar to Eversholt's Swift Express run by Varamis Rail.

Another alternative, although I suspect it would only be one unit is whether a company like Eastern Rail Services would purchase any of the 350/2 or class 379 units to be used for filming where a commuter train is needed. However, they do have class 321 unit 321434 for this requirement which I believe fulfills most of the needs.

In an ideal world, I would convert the class 350/2's to be freight trains, with batteries added plus third rail running shoes so that they could travel between OHLE and third rail routes, then use the batteries on routes where no electrification exists between electrified routes. Not sure that all 350/2 units would be able to be used though and at most you probably only likely to be using 2 or 3 units.

The class 379 fleet could be treated similarly with third rail shoes added and batteries, then be used on routes like Eastbourne to Ashford International replacing class 171 units. However, you would not need all of them.

But I know that the two ideas above, are just pipe dreams and have been discussed many times within the threads of these forums. It is probably more likely, that the 350/2 and class 379 units will just be used for parts.

 

[Philip]

It would be better to find use for the 350/2s than have them sitting around in storage - a waste of resources. If it was a case of either/or then surely the better option would be for the 323s to be scrapped for the parts and for Northern to take on the more modern and larger fleet of 350/2s. Another advantage would be the 350 gangway connections which the 323s, 331s and 333s don't have.

I think my idea of reforming them into 3-car units and the 350/1s and 4s into 5-car has merit. A 3-car 350/2 may be shorter than a 323, but there is more standing room available in the former and if Northern changed the seating layout to remove the 4-seaters and just had airline seats then I doubt there would much of a reduction in seating capacity.
Regarding 5-car LNR 350s; now that loadings are less peaky and more spread out across the day, I'd have thought that having nearly all LNR south WCML services running as 10 coaches would be an improvement compared with running most of them as 8 coaches and the occasional 12 coach?