Class 365 (if being scrapped) have a trailer added to 165/166

[DM352]

If 365's are going to be scrapped, could the TC be added to 3 car 165/6 units for more capacity? i felt the 165/6 units seem short formed from what they replaced in NSE days. Know major rewiring and extra weight of a TC could stop this in its tracks. If doable, it woud not look like a 455/7!

I would prefer 365's not to be scrapped and go back in whole or 3 car to DC land if the AC areas are saturated (e.g. replace 313's) but this would have happened by now if it will ever.

 

[JonathanH]

If 365's are going to be scrapped, could the TC be added to 3 car 165/6 units for more capacity? i felt the 165/6 units seem short formed from what they replaced in NSE days. Know major rewiring and extra weight of a TC could stop this in its tracks. If doable, it woud not look like a 455/7!

I would prefer 365's not to be scrapped and go back in whole or 3 car to DC land if the AC areas are saturated (e.g. replace 313's) but this would have happened by now if it will ever.

The proposal is for extra trailers in 165/166 taken from 465s rather than 365s, but it requires a retraction exercise to be developed and proved. 165/166 are Angel units as are 465s, 365s are not - Angel would have to buy the 365s to use the trailers in the 165s.

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...165-166s-to-other-routes.207960/#post-4724219 and https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-extension-2020-to.198852/page-6#post-4550520

I would prefer 365's not to be scrapped and go back in whole or 3 car to DC land if the AC areas are saturated (e.g. replace 313's) but this would have happened by now if it will ever.

Not necessarily. It may depend on the negotiations, existing leases atc. You don't just stop using 313s (for example) because something else becomes available, particularly if the replacement fleet comes from a different leasing company, because you might otherwise end up paying to lease two fleets at once.

However, it has been well versed on this forum that the equipment required to convert this units to DC operation does not exist any more so I agree it seems unlikely.

 

[43096]

The proposal is for extra trailers in 165/166 taken from 465s rather than 365s, but it requires a retraction exercise to be developed and proved. 165/166 are Angel units as are 465s, 365s are not - Angel would have to buy the 365s to use the trailers in the 165s.

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...165-166s-to-other-routes.207960/#post-4724219 and https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-extension-2020-to.198852/page-6#post-4550520

Only some of the 465s are Angel owned. The BREL/ABB units are Eversholt, the GEC sets are Angel’s from memory. The 365s aren’t ROSCO owned any more, they’re actually owned by the DfT.

 

[JonathanH]

Only some of the 465s are Angel owned. The BREL/ABB units are Eversholt, the GEC sets are Angel’s from memory. The 365s aren’t ROSCO owned any more, they’re actually owned by the DfT.

Yes, and the 466s https://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Products-Services/Regional-Passenger-Trains/23. Anyway, the point relevant to this thread is that the actual proposal is 465 cars into 165/166s, not 365s as summarised in 'Clarence Yard''s postings. Whether the DfT would give the 365 cars 'free' to Angel Trains is a matter for conjecture and presumably the justification would depend on the timing of Networker replacement on Southeastern relative to the 165/166 programme being proved. It is clearly cheaper for Angel Trains to use their own surplus stock for a 165/166 extension programme rather than obtaining further stock from a third party.