Class 365 withdrawal suggestions

[bramling]

How many 319s are sitting around unused (or soon to be in the case of the LNW ones?).

Must be enough to replace the 313s at the very least.

I can’t see too much value in doing that. For one it’s replacing one DC fleet with another. Secondly the 319s seem to be having a rather chequered post-Thameslink life. Thirdly there would need to be crew training. I’m not sure if SDO would be needed in places.

The rationale for concentrating Electrostars on Southern is it gives quite significant levels of standardisation.

For GN the amount of crew knowledge required for the 365s could be quite minimal if concentrated on KX to Peterborough and Baldock. This does seem to be GTR’s way of gaining creep points with the DfT!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Apr 2021 ==

But on the flip side, dirt cheap to essentially write-off.



A really big "if" at this stage. Rolling stock is not the most difficult issue to solve if push comes to shove (albeit with some lead time if newly procured stock is required).

Depends how one quantifies the cost of writing them off. As a taxpayer and farepayer who has essentially contributed to the cost of building, maintaining and upgrading these trains, I object to them being binned simply because the industry has got its predictions wrong. Unlike something like the 442s, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the 365s, both operationally and from a user’s point of view, on the contrary they’re reliable and popular.

The difficulty is that storing them is a problem - the ones stored since 2018 must already be deteriorated to some extent. As you say, what happens next is a big “if”, none of us really know what’s going to happen with demand. A year from now we could just as easily be in the position where something close to a 2019 evening peak has become the norm again, in which case the industry is potentially going to be short of trains again, like it has been for much of the last decade. Reactivating stored trains is surely potentially more problematic than keeping them going on low-mileage diagrams - the maintenance required for the 365s since May 18 can’t be that massive on account of their low daily mileages.

 

[Class465pacer]

The last update I can find on Varamis is from August, so I don't know if that is still happening. I can think of one other alternative use though - East-West rail. They would need to decide to electrify the route though as the current plans are to use DMUs.

Assuming East West Rail is done by 2025, why should it use trains that will be 30 years old?

 

[365 Networker]

Assuming East West Rail is done by 2025, why should it use trains that will be 30 years old?

Because the 365s are likely to be much cheaper to lease compared to new trains, they are proven to be reliable, have good acceleration and one is currently being fitted with ETCS - which could be rolled out to the rest of the fleet.

 

[Ianno87]

Depends how one quantifies the cost of writing them off. As a taxpayer and farepayer who has essentially contributed to the cost of building, maintaining and upgrading these trains, I object to them being binned simply because the industry has got its predictions wrong.

There's been a minor thing called a pandemic, that has thrown all previous predictions out of the window, and the biggest seismic shift to rail demand probably in history. Demand needs are now being reassessed as a result. Old normal (in passenger demand terms) is unlikely to be back for quite some time. As a taxpayer and farepayer myself for these units for many years, I object to continuing to pay for them when they a simply not needed for demand in the short term. If we still want there to be an industry, the gap between costs and revenue needs to reduce.

The old passenger predictions were perfectly fine, but now somewhat "overtaken by events". Nobody could reasonably have forseen Covid, nor its short or long term impacts (the latter still being highly uncertain)

Unlike something like the 442s, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the 365s, both operationally and from a user’s point of view, on the contrary they’re reliable and popular.

Users who have now largely disappeared.

The difficulty is that storing them is a problem - the ones stored since 2018 must already be deteriorated to some extent. As you say, what happens next is a big “if”, none of us really know what’s going to happen with demand. A year from now we could just as easily be in the position where something close to a 2019 evening peak has become the norm again, in which case the industry is potentially going to be short of trains again, like it has been for much of the last decade. Reactivating stored trains is surely potentially more problematic than keeping them going on low-mileage diagrams - the maintenance required for the 365s since May 18 can’t be that massive on account of their low daily mileages.

I would love to be wrong on this, and have passengers back with a vengeance very quickly. I guess with them in storage they could be reactivated quickly in 12-18 months time should the need arise. But commuters ain't going to be rushing back to £4k+ season tickets any time soon.

 

[bramling]

Assuming East West Rail is done by 2025, why should it use trains that will be 30 years old?

Because they’re available, probably essentially free to lease, and are proven to be both reliable and comfortable, and their performance would be entirely within the realms of EWR requirements. The only potential issue is if the time in storage has harmed them.

 

[Aictos]

One potential use is freight using routes that are fully electrified eg routes that the Class 325 uses between London and Scotland as a example.

 

[A0]

Assuming East West Rail is done by 2025, why should it use trains that will be 30 years old?

I take it you know the old saying about 'assume'.

It's not just a case of wiring it though - you need a maintenance depot that is local to the line and can take these units on. The only depot with experience of them is Hornsey and I'm guessing that's more than blocked out with its current TSGN work. I suspect that's less of a problem with some of the DMUs because there are several depots familiar with them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I take it you know the old saying about 'assume'.

It's not just a case of wiring it though - you need a maintenance depot that is local to the line and can take these units on. The only depot with experience of them is Hornsey and I'm guessing that's more than blocked out with its current TSGN work. I suspect that's less of a problem with some of the DMUs because there are several depots familiar with them.

What depot is planned to maintain the EWR DMUs to start with?

 

[Class465pacer]

Because the 365s are likely to be much cheaper to lease compared to new trains, they are proven to be reliable, have good acceleration and one is currently being fitted with ETCS - which could be rolled out to the rest of the fleet.

Because they’re available, probably essentially free to lease, and are proven to be both reliable and comfortable, and their performance would be entirely within the realms of EWR requirements. The only potential issue is if the time in storage has harmed them.

A new line needs new trains. The 365s will have been rotting in storage for several years (half the fleet already have been) so reliability is not a given. New trains can also be cheap to lease and provide good acceleration. There is no good reason to take near-expired hand me downs instead of actual investment in new rolling stock.

 

[365 Networker]

New trains can also be cheap to lease and provide good acceleration

Yes, but just look what is happening with the CAF units - which are themselves cheap new trains. The 365s on the other hand were not cheap when new and were built to a much better standard.

There is no good reason to take near-expired hand me downs instead of actual investment in new rolling stock

The 313s were over 30 when introduced on the Coastway lines, so it's not that unusual.

 

[bramling]

A new line needs new trains. The 365s will have been rotting in storage for several years (half the fleet already have been) so reliability is not a given. New trains can also be cheap to lease and provide good acceleration. There is no good reason to take near-expired hand me downs instead of actual investment in new rolling stock.

The 365s are not near-expired. The reliability and condition of the active units is very good. Why does a new line need new trains?

 

[Ianno87]

The 365s are not near-expired. The reliability and condition of the active units is very good. Why does a new line need new trains?

Because it won't be many years of operation before the trains would need replacing anyway. And it's better to design infrastructure and trains to complement each other.

 

[43096]

Because it won't be many years of operation before the trains would need replacing anyway. And it's better to design infrastructure and trains to complement each other.

It's better to design the infrastructure to be as flexible as possible so you're not locked into one type of train without expensive infrastructure modifications.

 

[Class465pacer]

Yes, but just look what is happening with the CAF units - which are themselves cheap new trains. The 365s on the other hand were not cheap when new and were built to a much better standard.

The 313s were over 30 when introduced on the Coastway lines, so it's not that unusual.

We don’t need old trains on cheap leases and we don’t need cheap CAF trains either. Stadler, Alstom and Hitachi can provide good products.

The 313s have been the source of multiple complaints from Coastway commuters due to their lack of toilets and air con - that is not a good example for introducing elderly trains on lines.

The 365s are not near-expired. The reliability and condition of the active units is very good. Why does a new line need new trains?

They will be life expired after they’ve been locked in storage for nearly a decade when EWR is scheduled to start.

 

[365 Networker]

Stadler, Alstom and Hitachi can provide good products.

They can, but they are also more expensive.

 

[Ianno87]

It's better to design the infrastructure to be as flexible as possible so you're not locked into one type of train without expensive infrastructure modifications.

With a cost, of course.

 

[Aictos]

The 365s are not near-expired. The reliability and condition of the active units is very good. Why does a new line need new trains?

Pardon for asking the obvious but surely it's better to have cascaded rolling stock for a period of time then once the business case case is good enough for newer trains then introduce a more modern fleet.

In any case, nobody knows if the EWR route will even get electrified in our lifetime.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Ideally, the 365s should be used on a newly electrified line - problem is, no lines are currently being electrified, and those that have just been completed already have their own rolling stock required (example: Class 360 for the Midland Main Line).

In an ideal world, I'd love to see the 365 on GWR services from Exeter to Cardiff via Bristol and Taunton whenever these lines are finally electrified. Which, sadly at the moment, we don't know if these lines will ever get electrified or not.

 

[CarrotPie]

I’m not sure if SDO would be needed in places.

SDO wouldn't be a problem unless they ran in multiple, as all stations on the Southern network (except Three Oaks, Doleham and Winchelsea) can accommodate at least 4 cars.

 

[Ianno87]

Pardon for asking the obvious but surely it's better to have cascaded rolling stock for a period of time then once the business case case is good enough for newer trains then introduce a more modern fleet.

In any case, nobody knows if the EWR route will even get electrified in our lifetime.

It would be, to put it mildly, slightly disingenuous to ignore the costs of new rolling stock in the business case of a new line when you know they are going to need replacing relatively early in its lifespan. The whole life costs of the line must be appraised, not the short term one.