• 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 465 and 466 set for storage/scrap: possible uses for them in future?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,383
I thought this deserved its own thread given its currently hidden in the train in Beckenham siding thread.

It appears that the first trains are heading to scrap and others to storage as 707s arrive.

Those going seem a mix of various sub classes. Total numbers going are also unknown.

Will it be around 150 carriages going to free space for 150 carriages of Class 707s once they all arrive?

Is there a future for any of the Networkers heading away to storage? The oldest is around 29 years old.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
I didn't think there was any plan to scrap 465s at this time.

Edit: just read elsewhere some are going into storage. Scratch that comment, then.
 

Class 466

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,450
I have reason to believe these are the first two moves to get units to Gillingham Depot before they get moved off to Worksop.


Tue 15th:
5G01 2008 Grove Park Up C.H.S. to Gillingham E.M.U.D.

Sat 19th:
5G01 2000 Grove Park Up C.H.S. to Gillingham E.M.U.D.
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,490
Is it not just for storage ( somewhere safer than random sidings on the SE Network), whilst the 707s are introduced?
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Is it not just for storage ( somewhere safer than random sidings on the SE Network), whilst the 707s are introduced?
Yeah, I was always under the impression that the 707s were intended to deal with future growth.
 

Class 466

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,450
Yeah, I was always under the impression that the 707s were intended to deal with future growth.
Is it not just for storage ( somewhere safer than random sidings on the SE Network), whilst the 707s are introduced?
The 465s will be stored and unless some miraculous siding space appears on the SE network, they won't be coming back
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,383
Indeed there's just no space for them and no plans for new sidings. Can't see them being used elsewhere in any great numbers so scrappage it is
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,138
Location
Taunton or Kent
Good heavens! Networkers off for scrap, that's sad news. Perhaps I had best make my way to London ASAP...
There's only 30x 707s and nothing else destined to replace them, so while I wouldn't wait forever, I can't see the entire fleet going for another few years at least.
The 465s will be stored and unless some miraculous siding space appears on the SE network, they won't be coming back
I'm guessing Chart Leacon isn't enough and/or will take too long. Of course if SE really cared they'd beef up security at Beckenham, Sidcup, get Dartford 2 road back in use to modern H&S standards as well, but that's another story.

The third rail Networkers happen to the last ones in the overarching family to get something scrapped (of course 166s are all present for the pedantic), having had the fortune of not being involved in write-off accidents, despite a higher probability by virtue of being the largest fleet.

Indeed there's just no space for them and no plans for new sidings. Can't see them being used elsewhere in any great numbers so scrappage it is
Chart Leacon is being reopened, but it's a while off (2023 IIRC) and I wouldn't be surprised if on it's own it doesn't fulfil all storage requirements.
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,490
Southern would rather the loaned 377/5s back! SE can keep their Networkers!
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,138
Location
Taunton or Kent
Why carn't Southern have a few and scrap the 313's . They can put them on the Brighton/Portsmouth . As they have toilets
Gauge clearance perhaps?

Whats wrong with 2rd that it doesn't meet H&S standards ?
Apologies if I put the wrong number/name to it, I'm referring to the one that was taken out of use as, from discussion in a thread on the specific siding a while back, it's no longer safe to use. My overall point was while we do need extra stabling capacity on the SE Network, I think that there are opportunities to make better use of existing infrastructure, citing Beckenham and Sidcup as well (while each is very small, it all adds up).
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,560
Location
UK
Apologies if I put the wrong number/name to it, I'm referring to the one that was taken out of use as, from discussion in a thread on the specific siding a while back, it's no longer safe to use. My overall point was while we do need extra stabling capacity on the SE Network, I think that there are opportunities to make better use of existing infrastructure, citing Beckenham and Sidcup as well (while each is very small, it all adds up).
2rd is correct just that I was confused over the H&S standards part. The entire sidings needs a rebuild tbh.

Sidcup and Beckenham are interesting. Operationally leaving them empty is the best option. Using them for berthing just adds too many additional problems.
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,503
Location
Reading
Saddened to read this, particularly, as others have said, when there is older more inferior stock still in service elsewhere.
They have a good decade left in them and could be put to good use in this time.
707s to SouthEastern will just give them an even more mixed fleet - and we could see formation shortages when they are short of "the right type" of train for a service. If they are just displacing like for like then they would have been better going to Southern to (ultimately) displace 313s.
 

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,777
Saddened to read this, particularly, as others have said, when there is older more inferior stock still in service elsewhere.
They have a good decade left in them and could be put to good use in this time.
707s to SouthEastern will just give them an even more mixed fleet - and we could see formation shortages when they are short of "the right type" of train for a service. If they are just displacing like for like then they would have been better going to Southern to (ultimately) displace 313s.
Its totally ridiculous just like how the 365s being sent off lease 15 years early is ridiculous.

Why is it that the 465 and 466 networkers. Trains that were built in the 90s are being replaced while others have trains that are a decade older than them which are being kept.

Utterly ridiculous
 

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
968
The Networkers have limited route clearance, no air conditioning, a ridiculously cramped seat layout, slow to load - yes they are a classic train but in the same way the VEPs were hopelessly antiquated by the time they were withdrawn, the Networkers are most definitely no longer the train of the future....
 

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
1,888
I cant help thinking that this is a little short sighted for the 466s.. Aren't there still plently of 8 car services in peaks which could be extended with them?

Also, isnt a 10car 707 a huge reduction in seated capacity compared to a 10car 465/466?
 

Class 466

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,450
I cant help thinking that this is a little short sighted for the 466s.. Aren't there still plently of 8 car services in peaks which could be extended with them?

Also, isnt a 10car 707 a huge reduction in seated capacity compared to a 10car 465/466?
There are yes, but that doesn’t solve the problem of finding spaces to actually stable them.

Seated capacity, yes - loading capacity no. Which is what busy metro routes need.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,138
Location
Taunton or Kent
I cant help thinking that this is a little short sighted for the 466s.. Aren't there still plently of 8 car services in peaks which could be extended with them?

Also, isnt a 10car 707 a huge reduction in seated capacity compared to a 10car 465/466?
If I was doing the allocations (and I confess I'm far from qualified) I'd be sending the 466s away ahead of anything else if something had to go in place of 707s: the 466s don't have full PRM compliance and when it comes to making 10 car trains, the 707s coming in would do the job, with 465s prioritised for 8 and even 12 car sets where possible (of course 3x 466s are going to store along with another for scrap, but there's still 39 left and 8x465s going away in one form or another that would be equal in carriage number to 16x 466s).
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,842
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Why carn't Southern have a few and scrap the 313's . They can put them on the Brighton/Portsmouth . As they have toilets

I can’t see SN taking them due to the issues revolving around route clearance.

But what would be viable would be to move the 377/5s to SN to replace the 313s, and backfill with surplus 465s.
 

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
1,888
I can’t see SN taking them due to the issues revolving around route clearance.

But what would be viable would be to move the 377/5s to SN to replace the 313s, and backfill with surplus 465s.
Agreed, this would be the best use of all assets.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
I can’t see SN taking them due to the issues revolving around route clearance.
When I worked with Network Rail on the Thameslink Programme, there were plans to redeploy 465s on Southern suburban services, which were very rapidly dropped when it was realised just how much signalling immunisation work was needed. It was a ridiculously expensive business.
 

Class 466

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,450
I can’t see SN taking them due to the issues revolving around route clearance.

But what would be viable would be to move the 377/5s to SN to replace the 313s, and backfill with surplus 465s.
A net reduction in capacity for Southeastern on the mainline- 465s do not have SDO so the Maidstone East Line services would once again be reduced to 4 or 6 coaches rather than the 8 all day it currently enjoys.

it’s much better to just remove some of the least reliable networkers and keep the air conditioned stock on the mainline.

other 375 operated services were strengthened because of the 377s arriving (stock displacement) so it really would be a bad move overall to lose 377s and keep those 465s.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,138
Location
Taunton or Kent
A net reduction in capacity for Southeastern on the mainline- 465s do not have SDO so the Maidstone East Line services would once again be reduced to 4 or 6 coaches rather than the 8 all day it currently enjoys.

it’s much better to just remove some of the least reliable networkers and keep the air conditioned stock on the mainline.

other 375 operated services were strengthened because of the 377s arriving (stock displacement) so it really would be a bad move overall to lose 377s and keep those 465s.
Is it known what services are having allocations/diagrams changed as a result of the storage and scrap moves, or because of covid were there enough units not operating to allow withdrawal without any passenger service changes? In the long run the limited mainline workings 465s enjoy will have to stay if 707s don't get toilets fitted anytime soon.
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,490
A net reduction in capacity for Southeastern on the mainline- 465s do not have SDO so the Maidstone East Line services would once again be reduced to 4 or 6 coaches rather than the 8 all day it currently enjoys.

it’s much better to just remove some of the least reliable networkers and keep the air conditioned stock on the mainline.

other 375 operated services were strengthened because of the 377s arriving (stock displacement) so it really would be a bad move overall to lose 377s and keep those 465s.
SE will lose them eventually ;)
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,693
Location
London
2rd is correct just that I was confused over the H&S standards part. The entire sidings needs a rebuild tbh.

Sidcup and Beckenham are interesting. Operationally leaving them empty is the best option. Using them for berthing just adds too many additional problems.

My understanding was it was the proximity of the 3rd rail and the walking route?

Anyway onto the point at hand, I thought 707s in reality have only marginally more capacity than 465/466s or indeed less? Better for crush-loading sure, but will we have as much of that anymore?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top