• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 360 Future - ideas, suggestions, rumours

Do you think the Greater Anglia 360s need replacement

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 26.0%

  • No

    Votes: 111 74.0%
  • Total voters
    150
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,418
Points about cabs and gangway possibilities might draw a parallel with the fairly recent 460 to 458/5 conversions. They presumably met certain crash worthiness rules as part of the conversion, so I expect a 360 conversion isn't actually impossible, even if it is unlikely...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

A

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,663
Location
Redcar
swt_passenger said:
so I expect a 360 conversion isn't actually impossible, even if it is unlikely...
Click to expand...
My impression is that Siemens would simply chop off the cab and stick a gangwayed cab on the front. I believe that the whole thing is effectively one 'module' that you can take on/off. Now, whether it would be considered financailly worth it is a whole other ball game...
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,849
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Could be good as dedicated units to run a Corby semifast EMU service from St Pancras, then? Calling at say Luton AP, Luton, Bedford then all stations to Corby, with those stops removed from regular EMTs (other than possibly the northmost one for northbound connections)?

As for gangways, they are useful, but on commuter type trains not essential. So if they ended up in the son-of-LM fleet for any reason, say, I'm sure we'd cope.
 
mallard

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
JonathanH said:
Luton Express? What paths exist on the Midland Line for any extra trains on top of 16tph on Thameslink and 6tph for East Midlands? What station is this going to run from?
Click to expand...

No idea, but it's something the Airport have been pushing for and the EM franchise consultation document includes questions relating to improving services to/from Luton Airport Parkway. Of course, the result could be that a "Luton Express" type service is combined with the Corby service, similar to how some Gatwick Express services continue through to Brighton.
 
F Great Eastern

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,589
Location
East Anglia
The design of the 360s front end was changed because the Health and Safety executive was not happy with the original gangway cabs visibility for DOO operation, the first few off the production line were actually built with gangways but then were retrofitted with a non gangway cab and the others built as standard. The mock-up displayed by FGE actually had a gangway.

There were design changes made to the construction of the other Desiros, that allowed a revised gangway cab to be fitted, it's believed that these design changes were more than just a newer front end, so it remains to be seen if they could fit a 350/444/450 style front end to a 360 as the engineering of these units was said to have been modified to allow a different cab to be attached.
 
43096

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,289
edwin_m said:
I think that's extremely unlikely, as Northern will have entered into a lease contract with Porterbrook for 319s until the end of the franchise. This is a legal contract between two companies and if its terms are breached by either Northern (not paying for the trains) or Porterbrook (not supplying them) then that party will be in court. The only circumstances I can think of where Porterbrook might release them from that contract are:
  • If Northern wanted to lease something more modern and expensive from Porterbrook, this increasing Porterbrook's total income (and Northern's costs). The 360s are owned by Angel and it's next to impossible that Porterbrook would voluntarily give up their income in favour of a competitor.
  • If Porterbrook had someone else who wanted to hire the 319s and would pay more for them, and Northern was willing to let them go. The only way 319s have a unique selling point is if they are converted into 769s, and there's no sign that the demand for them will mop up the currently off-lease 319s let alone those already running in electric mode for Northern.
  • If the 319s are so unreliable that they fail to meet any availability criteria that may exist in the lease. Even if these clauses exist, the 319s now seem tolerably reliable so it's unlikely they would be invoked.
It's remotely possible that there is a break clause in the contract, which would allow either party to terminate it at a specific time, but if so Porterbrook would most likely charge a risk premium. As Northern can deliver their franchise commitments with 319s there is no real upside for them in agreeing to this on the off-chance something else will come along whose benefits justify the cost and hassle of changing fleets.

Probably the only applicable situation would be if Northern got some external funding to increase its electric services. If they are additional then the existing contract would not be broken and the 319s would not be "binned". Even then, unless the service uplift was improbably large, Northern would most likely go for more 319s instead of a microfleet of something else.
Click to expand...
The 350/2s are Porterbrook owned, so if there is a deal to be done that could be it. The other, more unlikely, alternative deal is Northern keeping their 323s and taking some more from LM in exchange for 319s.
 
D365

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,455
Bletchleyite said:
Could be good as dedicated units to run a Corby semifast EMU service from St Pancras, then? Calling at say Luton AP, Luton, Bedford then all stations to Corby, with those stops removed from regular EMTs (other than possibly the northmost one for northbound connections)?

As for gangways, they are useful, but on commuter type trains not essential. So if they ended up in the son-of-LM fleet for any reason, say, I'm sure we'd cope.
Click to expand...

There's the Class 379 fleet going spare around the same time. Not sure what this discussion about chopping and changing the cabs is about, the Electrostars already have gangways.
 
TT-ONR-NRN

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,472
Location
Farnham
Bletchleyite said:
Could be good as dedicated units to run a Corby semifast EMU service from St Pancras, then? Calling at say Luton AP, Luton, Bedford then all stations to Corby, with those stops removed from regular EMTs (other than possibly the northmost one for northbound connections)?
Click to expand...

I suppose they would be fine on the Corby route but you’d want them to change them to 2x2 Grammar seating like on a 350-1.

Thing is the 379s would probably suit the route better. They’re more suited for longer journeys.
 
TT-ONR-NRN

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,472
Location
Farnham
Bletchleyite said:
3+2 would be fine for what is a slightly long outersuburban service. It's not much different to LM to Northampton.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is very harshly to Northampton passengers really, 70 miles on a Mainline. No alternative Virgin service to take apart from one measly peak service! Just because one TOC treats their customers harshly doesn’t mean EMT should too!
 
TT-ONR-NRN

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,472
Location
Farnham
Bletchleyite said:
I'm no fan of 3+2 seating, but if you think that's harsh I think you've led a rather sheltered life. Most commuters would like *any* seat.
Click to expand...

It is harsh really. I rarely sit in 3x2 seating but it looks horrific. I can’t handle it so I do first class on trains with 3x2 usually. And actually most people avoid the middle seat and I don’t blame them!

EDIT: Similarly I think 2x2 on trains going to Birmingham and Liverpool is very bad, but then again you have got Virgin.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,849
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
TT-ONR-NRN said:
It is harsh really. I rarely sit in 3x2 seating but it looks horrific. I can’t handle it so I do first class on trains with 3x2 usually. And actually most people avoid the middle seat and I don’t blame them!
Click to expand...

I think you need to go somewhere like India if you think UK 3+2 seating is harsh.
 
A

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,663
Location
Redcar
Bletchleyite said:
Those might be better with Southern to allow BR era EMUs to be scrapped.
Click to expand...
I'd been eyeing them for Corby as 1) They won't need any conversion work to third-rail and 2) The interior is of a very high standard so should be much easier to sell as a replacement for 222s than a high-density 360.
 
DanNCL

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
4,286
Location
County Durham
Weren't the Heathrow Connect 360s originally built as 350s, but were re-built as 360s before being delivered? If this was the case then surely the change can be done the other way round
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,849
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Oh, weren’t 379s built as dual voltage like 350/1s? My mistake if not. I thought all Electrostars were (but some lack pantograph/transformer and some lack shoe gear)
 
Starmill

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,376
Location
Bolton
As to trains with 3+2, as long as the airline seating is all in pairs and not in triples then I can tolerate a journey in an airline (usually window) seat.
Generally I don't support it though, because it's rubbish for people making long journeys and also for crush-loaded trains it severely limits standing space and increases dwell time.

The Sprinters (especially horrible former FNW and other 150/1), Mersyrail pacers and some upcoming new stock, are abominations of 3+2. 450s are better but not much.

323s have a 3+2 layout but there's actually loads of space around the seats, helped by the wider, longer body. In those it's remarkably nice.
 
A

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,663
Location
Redcar
Bletchleyite said:
Oh, weren’t 379s built as dual voltage like 350/1s? My mistake if not. I thought all Electrostars were (but some lack pantograph/transformer and some lack shoe gear)
Click to expand...
No shoe gear. I assume it would be reasonably simple job but still far easier to drop them onto an AC line rather than convert.

However, we are rather getting off topic (and I'm in part to blame! :oops:) so shall we leave this for another thread?
 
LOL The Irony

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
edwin_m said:
I think that's extremely unlikely, as Northern will have entered into a lease contract with Porterbrook for 319s until the end of the franchise. This is a legal contract between two companies and if its terms are breached by either Northern (not paying for the trains) or Porterbrook (not supplying them) then that party will be in court. The only circumstances I can think of where Porterbrook might release them from that contract are:
  • If Northern wanted to lease something more modern and expensive from Porterbrook, this increasing Porterbrook's total income (and Northern's costs). The 360s are owned by Angel and it's next to impossible that Porterbrook would voluntarily give up their income in favour of a competitor.
  • If Porterbrook had someone else who wanted to hire the 319s and would pay more for them, and Northern was willing to let them go. The only way 319s have a unique selling point is if they are converted into 769s, and there's no sign that the demand for them will mop up the currently off-lease 319s let alone those already running in electric mode for Northern.
  • If the 319s are so unreliable that they fail to meet any availability criteria that may exist in the lease. Even if these clauses exist, the 319s now seem tolerably reliable so it's unlikely they would be invoked.
It's remotely possible that there is a break clause in the contract, which would allow either party to terminate it at a specific time, but if so Porterbrook would most likely charge a risk premium. As Northern can deliver their franchise commitments with 319s there is no real upside for them in agreeing to this on the off-chance something else will come along whose benefits justify the cost and hassle of changing fleets.

Probably the only applicable situation would be if Northern got some external funding to increase its electric services. If they are additional then the existing contract would not be broken and the 319s would not be "binned". Even then, unless the service uplift was improbably large, Northern would most likely go for more 319s instead of a microfleet of something else.
Click to expand...
This just proves that Northern should have thought this over before excepting unreliable knackered hand-me-downs that had been with 5 different operators across the south east.
 
J

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,773
with ALL the fleets coming off lease, do remember that it is relatively simple to entirely strip out the interior and fit whatever seating configuration whoever is paying for it wants. Even without different seats, it's likely that a heavy overhaul (replacing flooring etc) would see the seats removed for refurbishment anyway.
 
F Great Eastern

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,589
Location
East Anglia
DanNCL said:
Weren't the Heathrow Connect 360s originally built as 350s, but were re-built as 360s before being delivered? If this was the case then surely the change can be done the other way round
Click to expand...

The first Desiro product to be given design sign-off was the 360, but there was a last moment change of plan about the gangways because of the Health and Safety Executive. It was deemed that the FGE 360s couldn't retain their gangways unless there was more substantial work done to the design of the train, it wasn't as simple as just slightly modifying the cab, so it was decided to build them without gangways since it would have been the quicker option.

The 350s were said to have been built with the 'lessons learnt' from the issues that made the 360s unable to have a cab with a gangway and the body, systems and engineering was built with this in mind and the 350s had no problems at all with getting certified. The updated Desiro build could then take either a full width front end or a front end with a gangway so there should be no reason why the Heathrow Connect units cannot take a gangway cab, since they are of the updated build.

The problem with the GA 360s is they were built to have the old rejected gangway cab and the whole driving car was laid out for that, whereas the second batch of 360s had the driving car built with a new gangway cab design in mind
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top