Speculation regarding Class 379 future

Mr Fenton · 6 Sep 2019

The 379s could be transferred to Southern to displace the 171s on the Ashford to Eastbourne and Brighton route, the 171s could be transferred to West Midlands Railway for services on the Snow Hill lines, Birmingham to Shrewsbury and Birmingham to Worcester/Hereford to replace the 170s and 153s used on these routes.

RailUK Forums

306024 · 6 Sep 2019

Hmm.... 379s on the Ashford to Eastbourne route may take a bit of effort, given they are only equipped to work on 25Kv overheads. A 379 was used as an experimental battery operated unit that was trialed on the Harwich branch a while back, but nothing seems to have come of that.

Doomotron · 6 Sep 2019

Mr Fenton said:
The 379s could be transferred to Southern to displace the 171s on the Ashford to Eastbourne and Brighton route, the 171s could be transferred to West Midlands Railway for services on the Snow Hill lines, Birmingham to Shrewsbury and Birmingham to Worcester/Hereford to replace the 170s and 153s used on these routes.
View attachment 68244

That would involve quite a bit of coasting...

edwin_m · 7 Sep 2019

Referring to the fitting of batteries, which was trialled on a 379?

43096 · 7 Sep 2019

Mr Fenton said:
The 379s could be transferred to Southern to displace the 171s on the Ashford to Eastbourne and Brighton route, the 171s could be transferred to West Midlands Railway for services on the Snow Hill lines, Birmingham to Shrewsbury and Birmingham to Worcester/Hereford to replace the 170s and 153s used on these routes.

Why do people persist in posting such gibberish? The fleet plan for West Mids is established now with new trains on order to replace the 170s and the 153s being displaced by the 230s and 172s.

Flinn Reed · 9 Sep 2019

Use the 379s on Great Northern services, then cascade the 387s there to Southern mainline services, running alongside the Gatwick Express examples. 377s released can then replace 313s on coastway.

RealTrains07 · 9 Sep 2019

Mr Fenton said:
The 379s could be transferred to Southern to displace the 171s on the Ashford to Eastbourne and Brighton route, the 171s could be transferred to West Midlands Railway for services on the Snow Hill lines, Birmingham to Shrewsbury and Birmingham to Worcester/Hereford to replace the 170s and 153s used on these routes.
View attachment 68244

If the 171s were going to go anywhere it would be EMR

West Mid Railway would never take them unless they were 172s

RealTrains07 · 9 Sep 2019

Mr Fenton said:
The 379s could be transferred to Southern to displace the 171s on the Ashford to Eastbourne and Brighton route, the 171s could be transferred to West Midlands Railway for services on the Snow Hill lines, Birmingham to Shrewsbury and Birmingham to Worcester/Hereford to replace the 170s and 153s used on these routes.
View attachment 68244

Section between ashford and ore is unelectrified so that wont be happening

MatthewRead · 9 Sep 2019

RealTrains07 said:
Section between ashford and ore is unelectrified so that wont be happening

But they would operate on battery power that is what has been suggested however they do need 3rd rail shoegear as well!

Railperf · 9 Sep 2019

with the 720's being delayed..surely the 379's will stay on while the worst 317's will be scrapped.

Sad Sprinter · 9 Sep 2019

Why on Earth are they replacing 8 year old trains?

hwl · 9 Sep 2019

Sad Sprinter said:
Why on Earth are they replacing 8 year old trains?

Leasing costs extortionate (Macquarie ex Lloyd's Bank leasing) when financing costs were more expensive.

More uniform fleet.

tbtc · 9 Sep 2019

Sad Sprinter said:
Why on Earth are they replacing 8 year old trains?

Why not?

BR routinely replaced "nearly new" trains with "new" trains on services - e.g. the Provincial routes that saw 150s replaced by 158s after just a few years. Other TOCs have replaced modern trains (e.g. Midland Mainline and SWT both got rid of 170s before they'd had them long, the FGW 180s, the HT 222s).

It makes sense for the TOC to replace their mix of trains (153/156/170/317/321/360/379 ... including different subfleets of some of those ... plus loco hauled ... ) with two types of train.

And, it's a commercial world - it's not GA's responsibility to find a home for the 379s - the ROSCO leased them for a certain period and that period is ending - it's like handing back a modern car after it's three year lease expires - just because GA has no further use for them doesn't mean they'll be scrapped.

Mikey C · 10 Sep 2019

tbtc said:
Why not?

BR routinely replaced "nearly new" trains with "new" trains on services - e.g. the Provincial routes that saw 150s replaced by 158s after just a few years. Other TOCs have replaced modern trains (e.g. Midland Mainline and SWT both got rid of 170s before they'd had them long, the FGW 180s, the HT 222s).

It makes sense for the TOC to replace their mix of trains (153/156/170/317/321/360/379 ... including different subfleets of some of those ... plus loco hauled ... ) with two types of train.

And, it's a commercial world - it's not GA's responsibility to find a home for the 379s - the ROSCO leased them for a certain period and that period is ending - it's like handing back a modern car after it's three year lease expires - just because GA has no further use for them doesn't mean they'll be scrapped.

The replacement of the 379s is a bit different to some of the older upgrades as in this case an entirely suitable fleet of trains is being replaced simply because the operator can get a new fleet for a lower cost, which is frankly bizarre as presumably the 379 ROSCO will now have to lower their charges to get further use, or face storing or even scrapping a valuable asset

The other replacements you mention at least were driven by operational reasons, whether planned BR cascading or upgrading an inadequate fleet (e.g. the MML 170s)

RealTrains07 · 10 Sep 2019

Mikey C said:
The replacement of the 379s is a bit different to some of the older upgrades as in this case an entirely suitable fleet of trains is being replaced simply because the operator can get a new fleet for a lower cost, which is frankly bizarre as presumably the 379 ROSCO will now have to lower their charges to get further use, or face storing or even scrapping a valuable asset

The other replacements you mention at least were driven by operational reasons, whether planned BR cascading or upgrading an inadequate fleet (e.g. the MML 170s)

But thats the world we live in. Really the TOCs should own their own trains but their you have it.

The 379s will have a future. Like the 707s they are new EMU units which have huge potential considering that.

With the 379s being overhead, even more possibilities than just going to southern!

hwl · 10 Sep 2019

RealTrains07 said:
But thats the world we live in. Really the TOCs should own their own trains but their you have it.

Which would make franchise change overs incredibly messy.
It also wouldn't work finacially for TOCs.

Sad Sprinter · 10 Sep 2019

hwl said:
Which would make franchise change overs incredibly messy.
It also wouldn't work finacially for TOCs.

It’s just one of the many joys of the privatised railway.

whhistle · 10 Sep 2019

Getting back on topic...

Are the 379s 3rd rail "ready"?
As in, fit the shoes and it's good to go?

Islineclear3_1 · 10 Sep 2019

RealTrains07 said:
With the 379s being overhead, even more possibilities than just going to southern!

Remember the original Class 375/6's for Connexx South Eastern introduced around 2003? They ran about with pans in DC land but were deemed unsuitable for operation anywhere else despite their overhead potential

Mind you, things might have been a bit different back then... I'm sure there will be a use for 379s

aleggatta · 10 Sep 2019

whhistle said:
Getting back on topic...

Are the 379s 3rd rail "ready"?
As in, fit the shoes and it's good to go?

I believe, all that is required would be third rail shoes and shoe air supply/pipework, shoe fuse boxes, DC shore supply changeover switch, DC shore supply socket, DC mode contactor, Shoegear lowered governor and associated pipework, possibly some additional valves in the PTOSL, TCMS update and DC mode button fitment in the cab.

Edit: And High Speed circuit breakers

I don't know if any DC wiring was put in place at build (this has to go above the equipment cases on the DMOS's) like the AC wiring was put in place on the 3771/3/4/6 but the inter car jumpers should be set up for the DC bus already.

Kite159 · 10 Sep 2019

If the future is in DC-land, in my mind it would make more sense sending the 379s to Great Northern in place of the 387s, that way the engineers don't have to mess around with installing the 3rd rail bits. The 387s can then go south of the river.

aleggatta · 10 Sep 2019

Kite159 said:
If the future is in DC-land, in my mind it would make more sense sending the 379s to Great Northern in place of the 387s, that way the engineers don't have to mess around with installing the 3rd rail bits. The 387s can then go south of the river.

This would make sense, however it is dependant on deals to be done with ROSCOs. It has also been said (however I cannot confirm this) that 379's are fully compatible with other 37x Electrostars? However I have a feeling the DOO camera system is from Petards whereas the 377 system is from Faiveley so don't suspect this to be the case...

Wivenswold · 10 Sep 2019

Based on nothing but gut feeling but I don't think the 379s will go anywhere. The mix of units ordered by GA's bidding team is set to cause problems. More seats, more carriages, fewer units equals decreased flexibility. You just can't switch effortlessly from 4/8/12 to 5/10 when the entire region's infrastructure was built for the former.

Energy · 11 Sep 2019

Wivenswold said:
Based on nothing but gut feeling but I don't think the 379s will go anywhere. The mix of units ordered by GA's bidding team is set to cause problems. More seats, more carriages, fewer units equals decreased flexibility. You just can't switch effortlessly from 4/8/12 to 5/10 when the entire region's infrastructure was built for the former.

They would have to change their franchise agreement to allow them to keep the 379s.

hwl · 11 Sep 2019

Energy said:
They would have to change their franchise agreement to allow them to keep the 379s.

Every franchise agreement gets amended in some way...
Just look at the neighbouring C2C for changes to rolling stock plan.

Wivenswold · 11 Sep 2019

Yep, what @hwl said. Also, the Government are not in a strong position to lecture TOCs about unfulfilled promises and missed targets.

Roast Veg · 11 Sep 2019

Would they not be a good fit for replacing the last of the 365s on the GN?

Prestige15 · 26 Sep 2019

The 379 could remain with GA .

According to RAIL issue 888.
GA joint project manager Steve Mitchell told RAIL that it would be possible that the class 745/1 that are destined for Stansted Express may be used on the Great Eastern Express (more likely to work the planned semi fast London - Norwich), This is because the 379 already meets disability requirements. He also says it makes little sense to replace stocks that is compliant while retaining non compliant stocks.

Scottychoo · 26 Sep 2019

As I said on the 745 thread, 745s will not be used on the Stansteds , one of the many reasons being they won't fit through Hackney Downs platform. Rest assured the 379s won't be going anywhere

MrPIC · 26 Sep 2019

I agree, however don't forget the 745's are due to displace 379's which will displace 317's which are certainly not PRM compliant, and the 720's seem major delayed. Who knows what will happen

Speculation regarding Class 379 future

Member

Attachments

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Member