Speculation regarding Class 379 future

[Jass]

I just looked on wikipedia to find the 745s are replscing these trains. They're only 8 years old, where will they end up?

 

[supervc-10]

I believe that as of yet, there is no fixed plan. IIRC the lease costs on these were very high so GA took the opportunity to replace them with 745s. Same sort of situation with the SWR 707s, or the WM 350/2s I believe.

 

[mic505]

I'd wager South Africa because of their similar ''Electrostar Guage Train'' over there, in contrast to the 360/2s to Thailand.

 

[TrainBoy98]

379s fitted with shoegear/batteries and sent to Southern to displace the 171s, that can then go to Abellio for EMR?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would reckon at least one of the newish-but-being-replaced EMU fleets (350/2 or these, or even both) will go to Northern allowing the scrapping of the 319s. ScotRail might also benefit similarly.

Failing that, fit shoegear and send them to Southern.

The 360/2s and Thailand was an oddity born of the fact that Thailand has the only UK gauge (loading and rail) operation outside the UK, and that it is a 100% Desiro operation so they are a natural fit.

 

[rebmcr]

379s fitted with shoegear/batteries and sent to Southern to displace the 171s, that can then go to Abellio for EMR?

Come now, that would make too much sense.

 

[aleggatta]

379s fitted with shoegear/batteries and sent to Southern to displace the 171s, that can then go to Abellio for EMR?

on a realistic note for this: Shoegear is an easy fit. Full battery operation IIRC was discovered to need more battery space than would be available on a DV electrostar as the battery health was deteriorating on the trial due to the size of the cell being too small and subsequently it was being overworked. I suspect it could work on a SV 377 with the extra space on the PTOSL being available, but I think the other limitation was charge time? Probably not an issue for Marshlink units to be interworked with other east coastway services, but likely an issue for Uckfield with the longer charge time required for DC routes compared to AC routes.

 

[Wivenswold]

They're going nowhere for the foreseeable. GA banked on Network Rail doing work to accommodate Class 720s on the West Anglia branches in their bid prospectus but seemingly didn't bother to ask NR or offer funding. So GA needs to keep a small fleet of 4 car units but using the Class 321s on the "West Side" would require platform sighting alterations or a guard. The 360s are off to the East Midlands which leaves the 379s or renaging on the "new trains" pledge with what will be 40 year old class 317s.

 

[TrainBoy98]

on a realistic note for this: Shoegear is an easy fit. Full battery operation IIRC was discovered to need more battery space than would be available on a DV electrostar as the battery health was deteriorating on the trial due to the size of the cell being too small and subsequently it was being overworked. I suspect it could work on a SV 377 with the extra space on the PTOSL being available, but I think the other limitation was charge time? Probably not an issue for Marshlink units to be interworked with other east coastway services, but likely an issue for Uckfield with the longer charge time required for DC routes compared to AC routes.

Ah, i remembered there was some issues but couldn't remember what - thank you for filling the gaps in my knowledge.
Shame, that might've actually made sense to do otherwise!

 

[cjmillsnun]

on a realistic note for this: Shoegear is an easy fit. Full battery operation IIRC was discovered to need more battery space than would be available on a DV electrostar as the battery health was deteriorating on the trial due to the size of the cell being too small and subsequently it was being overworked. I suspect it could work on a SV 377 with the extra space on the PTOSL being available, but I think the other limitation was charge time? Probably not an issue for Marshlink units to be interworked with other east coastway services, but likely an issue for Uckfield with the longer charge time required for DC routes compared to AC routes.

To be fair battery energy density has moved on a lot recently and as far as charging goes 500 A at 750V is 375 kW charging (potentially) so it depends how much energy in kWh you’ll need for the uckfield route and whether the con rail can give 500 A consistently with a train in a terminus (definitely can’t do it in addition to traction power on the move and intermediate station calls will be too short to be meaningful)

 

[Prestige15]

None of these would ever happen but this is just a fantasy

Move them to a open access Airport Express (Gatwick Airport - WCML - Manchester Airport)

Move them to Southern/Open access to form a new Coaster express (Hastings - Weymouth)

Move them to Northern to replace the 319 and form a new service between Newcastle - Edinburgh (Scotrail or Northern)

Move them to Cross Country for the Manchester - Coventry section

Move them to a open access Southern east & west rail link (Southend - Stratford - North London Line - GWML - Wales)

Send them to Southern genually

 

[clagmonster]

They're going nowhere for the foreseeable. GA banked on Network Rail doing work to accommodate Class 720s on the West Anglia branches in their bid prospectus but seemingly didn't bother to ask NR or offer funding. So GA needs to keep a small fleet of 4 car units but using the Class 321s on the "West Side" would require platform sighting alterations or a guard. The 360s are off to the East Midlands which leaves the 379s or renaging on the "new trains" pledge with what will be 40 year old class 317s.

So presumably there will need to be about a dozen units for half hourly Hertford East and peak additionals, two for Southminster (as Wickford bay is too short for a 710) and one for Harwich (length of Manningtree bay). Thus giving a requirement of about 15 retained units, with spares will probably be a fleet of 18. Are there any requirements for legacy fleet units I have missed, or are there still likely to be some 379s looking for a home?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It's great that privatisation has brought us so many wasted billions of pounds worht of trains less than 20 years old.

 

[Kojo87]

It's great that privatisation has brought us so many wasted billions of pounds worht of trains less than 20 years old.

Agree it's such a waste going to be so many trains with plenty of life possibly going for scrap or just sitting around doing nothing i.e 350's , 379's , 387's , ideally they should of been of sent to Heathrow Express as they are Airport ready and the GWR 387s to C2C .

 

[Clansman]

Move them to Northern to replace the 319 and form a new service between Newcastle - Edinburgh (Scotrail or Northern)

This has already been taken into account in the ScotRail franchise agreement with Edinburgh-Dunbar services soon due to be extended to Berwick Upon Tweed using 385s, with future scope for ScotRail to request ORR for access to paths to extend these to Newcastle in future.

If the 379s are going to have a future, by my reckoning having them in TOCs working bit-part services alongside existing services purely on a basis to improve these services' capacity without thinking through the dependent logistics such as paths (such as previous suggestions such as Manchester to Coventry), just seems a bit unrealistic to be viable in reality (tbf not that any, including my own, are anyways). The same logic applies to the government somehow handing them to an open access operator, when it's dependent on a company coming forward with a clear and viable proposal in the first place - which as history shows isn't a process that is going to see the 379s in use any time soon after their lease expires even if a proposal came forward. And thirdly, having them come into a TOC to replace MUs which are currently undergoing heavy investment to make them suitable for the next decade or two, in circumstances not proposed by TOC bidders during franchise consultation processes, again seems illogical. The 379s future use to me would seem likely in circumstances where EMUs of their specifications have been proposed to come into a TOC from the get-go (EMR Corby if not 360s - as banded for years?), or where they are drafted in mid-franchise by TOCs to provide a contingency solution when circumstances change unexpectedly and urgently need rectifying.

In the spirit of the latter, I'd utilise the battery tech that one was initially trialled with in 2015 (if there is leeway in the original 60 mile off-wire running limit), and run them around Fife and the borders. They'd be a much welcome capacity increase both on and off-peak, and seem a far better longer term solution than procuring new rolling stock or having to rely on the current reliability of the 158s/170s which aren't in great standing at the moment (although the same risk applies to the 379s, probably increased with new tech that's not been used in consistent service over a prolonged period of time). In addition, long term it alleviates the pressure to wire Fife - possibiliy the most challenging electrification project the UK will see in the next couple decade or two - for the sake of providing EMU benefits which could otherwise be just about achieved through other means such as this in the short/medium term.

In principle it seems like one of the less absurd ideas. They come are fitted with batteries, come in, take over Fife if not the Borders and subsequently fulfilling the commitments that have so far are nothing other than major shortfalls in this woeful period for ScotRail in relation to rolling stock. However, when thinking it through it would cause logistical disturbances to diagramming, crew training, and the flexibility of the DMU fleet around Edinburgh - which would be resorted to Central Belt - Tayside locals. But on the other hand it would allow ScotRail to continue on with the plan to shift 156s off the WHL and get them off Glasgow Queen Street's books to concentrate them out've Glasgow Central (pending on whatever is happening with this plan nowadays). It'd also allow the spare units to strengthen capacity on other units, provide flexibility when it's soarly needed when reliability is dwindling and services are being shortformed and/or cancelled, and to ultimatley facilitate with capacity during the pre-empted and unexpected less pre-empted the introduction of HSTs which will definiltey not be complete by the time the 379s are returned to their leasing companies. As proposed, their introduction with technology already tried and tested (albeit not by any great standard) would seem to be the 'kill a few birds' saviour ScotRail need at this moment in time to get them through.

 

[rebmcr]

Agree it's such a waste going to be so many trains with plenty of life possibly going for scrap or just sitting around doing nothing i.e 350's , 379's , 387's , ideally they should of been of sent to Heathrow Express as they are Airport ready and the GWR 387s to C2C .

Do 379s have the capability to be fitted with ERTMS?

 

[Wivenswold]

So presumably there will need to be about a dozen units for half hourly Hertford East and peak additionals, two for Southminster (as Wickford bay is too short for a 710) and one for Harwich (length of Manningtree bay). Thus giving a requirement of about 15 retained units, with spares will probably be a fleet of 18. Are there any requirements for legacy fleet units I have missed, or are there still likely to be some 379s looking for a home?

That's some good analysis. There are issues around the original plan for the deployment of the 20 Class 745s, those closer to Crown Point will know more but my reading of it was that the GA team's diagramming knowledge was proven to be totally inadequate for "real world" operation. End result, they fudged up the fleet size and make-up. So there may well be a further legacy requirement but most of us on the outside simply don't know how planning for what's left of the brand new timetable is going.

 

[clagmonster]

There are issues around the original plan for the deployment of the 20 Class 745s, those closer to Crown Point will know more but my reading of it was that the GA team's diagramming knowledge was proven to be totally inadequate for "real world" operation. End result, they fudged up the fleet size and make-up. So there may well be a further legacy requirement but most of us on the outside simply don't know how planning for what's left of the brand new timetable is going.

Indeed. I thought the numbers optimistic when I first saw them.

At present, there are 11 class 90 diagrams, including a peak only diagram, for a half hourly Norwich service. It would be reasonable for the peak diagram to become a transfer move for a Stansted unit to get from/to Crown Point, but even then you have 10 diagrams for 10 units, which is clearly unsustainable. Even if an hourly Norwich in 90 shaves off a diagram, I reckon they are still a unit short, quite possibly two.

Similarly, there are nine diagrams for the Stansted units, plus the Norwich peak, giving 100% utilisation. That is in no way sustainable.

I reckon over the two fleets, even with heroic timetabling for the Norwich units and assuming the third hourly Norwich is a 710, they are at least two units short of where they would want to be. Assuming 12 car rakes, that is 6 more 379s above the 15 for the branches. Allowing an additional spare, that leaves a retained fleet of 22.

Great Eastern suburban stuff really isn't my area of expertise, but how optimistic do you think they have been with the 710 diagramming? Could they end up having to retain all 30 379s?

 

[sonic2009]

Wouldn't the best option be to send them to GWR if they can fit batteries and run them off the wires on the between Didcot and Oxford/Banbury?

 

[MrPIC]

Indeed. I thought the numbers optimistic when I first saw them.

At present, there are 11 class 90 diagrams, including a peak only diagram, for a half hourly Norwich service. It would be reasonable for the peak diagram to become a transfer move for a Stansted unit to get from/to Crown Point, but even then you have 10 diagrams for 10 units, which is clearly unsustainable. Even if an hourly Norwich in 90 shaves off a diagram, I reckon they are still a unit short, quite possibly two.

Similarly, there are nine diagrams for the Stansted units, plus the Norwich peak, giving 100% utilisation. That is in no way sustainable.

I reckon over the two fleets, even with heroic timetabling for the Norwich units and assuming the third hourly Norwich is a 710, they are at least two units short of where they would want to be. Assuming 12 car rakes, that is 6 more 379s above the 15 for the branches. Allowing an additional spare, that leaves a retained fleet of 22.

Great Eastern suburban stuff really isn't my area of expertise, but how optimistic do you think they have been with the 710 diagramming? Could they end up having to retain all 30 379s?

The 720's I'm assuming will plug any gaps in the 745 diagrams, certainly as far as Stansted Express goes, its 9 (pairs of) units at present which leaves one 745 spare for maintenance etc. I believe the fleets will be operated independently outside of the swapping of units to and fro to Crown Point with 720's filling any holes. There is a completely new timetable coming anyway so trying to work everything out to current timings etc is futile for now.

 

[Wivenswold]

Indeed. I thought the numbers optimistic when I first saw them.

At present, there are 11 class 90 diagrams, including a peak only diagram, for a half hourly Norwich service. It would be reasonable for the peak diagram to become a transfer move for a Stansted unit to get from/to Crown Point, but even then you have 10 diagrams for 10 units, which is clearly unsustainable. Even if an hourly Norwich in 90 shaves off a diagram, I reckon they are still a unit short, quite possibly two.

Similarly, there are nine diagrams for the Stansted units, plus the Norwich peak, giving 100% utilisation. That is in no way sustainable.

I reckon over the two fleets, even with heroic timetabling for the Norwich units and assuming the third hourly Norwich is a 710, they are at least two units short of where they would want to be. Assuming 12 car rakes, that is 6 more 379s above the 15 for the branches. Allowing an additional spare, that leaves a retained fleet of 22.

Great Eastern suburban stuff really isn't my area of expertise, but how optimistic do you think they have been with the 710 diagramming? Could they end up having to retain all 30 379s?

I did some work based on a working timetable a year or so ago and came to the conclusion that many trains will be shorter, even allowing for the increased seat numbers on the Aventras, in particular I had several shoulder peak services running as 5 car in substitute of 8. In the case of my regular trains they are packed 8 cars and dropping to 5 would present so many problems, not least because the seating capacity includes tip up seats by the doors that will hammer dwell times.

So my I estimate that having a fleet of 20 on the West Side and 10 on the East Side for Southminster and the Chelmsford starters (give them a decent train in the morning to say sorry for standing on everything else) would ease the pressure on the 720 fleet and allow a few of them to be dedicated to Ilford Intercity diagrams. I'm off next week, might be time to fire-up the spreadsheet again.

 

[43096]

I did some work based on a working timetable a year or so ago and came to the conclusion that many trains will be shorter, even allowing for the increased seat numbers on the Aventras, in particular I had several shoulder peak services running as 5 car in substitute of 8. In the case of my regular trains they are packed 8 cars and dropping to 5 would present so many problems, not least because the seating capacity includes tip up seats by the doors that will hammer dwell times.

So my I estimate that having a fleet of 20 on the West Side and 10 on the East Side for Southminster and the Chelmsford starters (give them a decent train in the morning to say sorry for standing on everything else) would ease the pressure on the 720 fleet and allow a few of them to be dedicated to Ilford Intercity diagrams. I'm off next week, might be time to fire-up the spreadsheet again.

Add to that the mess up with ordering two different types of 12-car FLIRT for the Norwichs and Stansteds. A single type would have made much more sense, and the simple solution then for the Ilford Intercity diagrams would be to keep 379s on Stansted and use more FLIRTs on the ICs.

 

[RichJF]

Long shot but I think they'll end up at Southern on the Uckfield to allow the 171s to depart elsewhere in the long run...

Run as battery multiple units (with a charging strip of 3rd rail at Uckfield) standalone, or run as splitters with 377s on the East Grinstead off-peak.

 

[RailWonderer]

If GA do keep the 379s, they’d have to renegotiate a lease and would pay a lot less than what they’re paying now, as rolling stock ordered around that time was very expensive. Failing that, they’re gone.
I like the idea of keeping them on, they are superior to the 720 spec and wouldn’t represent a downgrade from a 745. As capacity boosters they would be useful, so for the 8 cars downgraded to 5 diagrams that may suffer most from overcrowding, those could become 8 car 379s. I’d like to see them stay, but if GA’s bid team do the talking and walking and not operational people, I don’t have such confidence.

 

[Wivenswold]

Personally and this is "pie in the sky" I'd like to see them used for longer commuter services in the same way that 309s were. Give the customers of the Clacton, Harwich and Ipswich peak services a quality, comfortable ride in to work after 26 years of the saggy 3+2 class 321 seats. There are so many holes in that plan it will never happen so it's years more of being woken at Witham or Chelmsford while some lardy-bloater (like myself) tries to wedge themselves into the adjacent middle seat.

 

[samuelmorris]

They will probably need to sit idle for a fair while for them to be offered at a low enough lease price to be taken up I suspect. Then see who is most desperate once the dust settles. A great shame as I too would love to have them on the GEML, quite possibly over and above the 720s.

 

[Saperstein]

Long shot but I think they'll end up at Southern on the Uckfield to allow the 171s to depart elsewhere in the long run...

Run as battery multiple units (with a charging strip of 3rd rail at Uckfield) standalone, or run as splitters with 377s on the East Grinstead off-peak.

Good idea in theory but that would mean having to build a sub station just for that platform length of 3rd rail.

Anyway the 379s are AC only aren’t they?

What about Chester to Birmingham, or even London, via Crewe? They could charge up under the wires ready for the unnelectrified bit between Crewe and Chester.

Saperstein.

 

[samuelmorris]

Good idea in theory but that would mean having to build a sub station just for that platform length of 3rd rail.

Anyway the 379s are AC only aren’t they?

What about Chester to Birmingham, or even London, via Crewe? They could charge up under the wires ready for the unnelectrified bit between Crewe and Chester.

Saperstein.

Adapting them to DC will still be less work than turning them all into battery units - a lot less in fact.

 

[hwl]

Good idea in theory but that would mean having to build a sub station just for that platform length of 3rd rail.

Anyway the 379s are AC only aren’t they?

What about Chester to Birmingham, or even London, via Crewe? They could charge up under the wires ready for the unnelectrified bit between Crewe and Chester.

Saperstein.

Biggest problem is that the electric distribution network in the Uckfield branch area is a bit pants so nothing to plug the transformer into.
Hence more 3rd rail fed from a new 33kV cable along the East Grinstead branch from Dormansland is probably the answer. The existing the supply north of Hurst Green is maxed out to...

The cost of fitting 3rd rail to modern EMUs where the design work is already done is minimal. Cable, fuse/circuit breaker, 3rd rail shoes and some Iroko strips.

 

[JamesRowden]

The Southeastern franchise service specification requires there to be an additional 2tph of London - Tonbridge - East Kent services during both the peak and the off-peak. More Electrostars cascaded to Southeastern would seem the simplest option.

Also some existing services may need to be lengthened to meet increasing demand.