Suggestions for future use of Class 332s post-HEx

[quantinghome]

Wouldn't the 332s be useful for Northwest to Man Airport services? There'd be no need for a major refurbish as they are already set up for airport luggage requirements.

 

[43096]

Wouldn't the 332s be useful for Northwest to Man Airport services? There'd be no need for a major refurbish as they are already set up for airport luggage requirements.

Really? Have you read this thread and what the issues are with redeploying 332s?

Given that Northern and TPE have already got their rolling stock plans in place, what would the 332s be replacing in your plan?

 

[hexagon789]

Trouble is development costs. For a small dedicated fleet these could not be recouped, the economies of scale in the sale of a large fleet won't apply so the unit cost of a micro fleet might be so high to prevent it being viable. So the thought of upcycling a small fleet of units like the 332 may come into play. Sounds like the 230 D-train sales pitch!

It does doesn't it, I think they have a stronger case than the D-train.

 

[D365]

It does doesn't it, I think they have a stronger case than the D-train.

Want me to put you in touch with Mr Shooter then?...

 

[hexagon789]

Want me to put you in touch with Mr Shooter then?...

No - Hitachi so I can give them a piece of my mind about the 385s, but thanks anyway!

 

[js1000]

Wouldn't the 332s be useful for Northwest to Man Airport services? There'd be no need for a major refurbish as they are already set up for airport luggage requirements.

Northern are generally fine in regards to EMUs. It's the DMUs that are the problem - specifically how to ensure enough new units so the Pacers can (finally) be consigned to the dustbin.

 

[MarkyT]

i suppose what we are leading up to is, how best can the small fleet of 332s be recycled, is it feasible to fit them with batteries, along with the other things needed (AWS/TPWS etc)?

A cab shot up-thread suggests the 332s already have AWS. It's possible their unusual history resulted in them never getting TPWS because of their limited operating range and the presence of the GW ATP on all lines traversed, but TPWS retrofit is actually fairly easy as it uses the same traction and braking interfaces as AWS while being otherwise largely self contained. That's why it was such a compelling retrofit to the general network and fleet in the first place when the industry had to 'do something' about train protection. The 333s must have received TPWS so would represent a design template for that on the 332s. Conversion of either train to ETCS would be a much taller order I'm sure and probably not worth if for a small fleet of what is now a comparatively old train. That's possibly the primary reason to get the 332s out of Heathrow which will allow the pilot ATP system to be finally decommissioned in the airport tunnels and on the GWML. With their similarity to 333s I would have thought a very good fleet strengthening case could be made for the Leeds electric network and they could be maintained at Neville Hill.

 

[t_star2001uk]

A cab shot up-thread suggests the 332s already have AWS. It's possible their unusual history resulted in them never getting TPWS because of their limited operating range and the presence of the GW ATP on all lines traversed, but TPWS retrofit is actually fairly easy as it uses the same traction and braking interfaces as AWS while being otherwise largely self contained. That's why it was such a compelling retrofit to the general network and fleet in the first place when the industry had to 'do something' about train protection. The 333s must have received TPWS so would represent a design template for that on the 332s. Conversion of either train to ETCS would be a much taller order I'm sure and probably not worth if for a small fleet of what is now a comparatively old train. That's possibly the primary reason to get the 332s out of Heathrow which will allow the pilot ATP system to be finally decommissioned in the airport tunnels and on the GWML. With their similarity to 333s I would have thought a very good fleet strengthening case could be made for the Leeds electric network and they could be maintained at Neville Hill.

All very well and good.BUT

1-Do Heathrow Airport want to sell them.
2-Would a ROSCO want to buy them.
3-Would a TOC want to lease them.

All unanswered questions. Whos to say that HAL wont stack them in a big pile and replace the A380 model on the approach. Or even convert them into new jetways. Just because they are similar to other units on the network doesnt immediatly mean that they are going to be reused. If and when HAL decide to sell, if the scrap man offers the best price, then that is where they will go.

 

[edwin_m]

1-Do Heathrow Airport want to sell them.
2-Would a ROSCO want to buy them.
3-Would a TOC want to lease them.

All unanswered questions. Whos to say that HAL wont stack them in a big pile and replace the A380 model on the approach. Or even convert them into new jetways. Just because they are similar to other units on the network doesnt immediatly mean that they are going to be reused. If and when HAL decide to sell, if the scrap man offers the best price, then that is where they will go.

1 - almost certainly yes. I don't think your other suggestions are serious, and why would they hang onto something that they have no use for and costs them a fair bit to keep?
2 - almost certainly no. The ROSCOs are lumbered with stock of similar or older vintage that they are unlikely to find a profitable use for, so they would be ill-advised to buy more.
3 - almost certainly no. All current franchises are tied to existing leases or commitments to buy new stock, and these cannot be backed out of except at huge cost. It's highly unlikely a TOC could just add to its fleet, as this would increase subsidy/reduce premium for most TOCs and DfT would have to agree that. In the few cases where extra units could earn more than they cost, there is some other constraint (probably capacity) preventing this, or the TOC would have expanded its fleet already. New franchises have scope to make choices on what units they use, but none of the franchises in the pipeline has need for a 100mph AC-only unit. The possible exception is the Corby line, where my somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion further back met with little response and there are other units such as 379 which are more suited.

 

[coppercapped]

A cab shot up-thread suggests the 332s already have AWS. It's possible their unusual history resulted in them never getting TPWS because of their limited operating range and the presence of the GW ATP on all lines traversed, but TPWS retrofit is actually fairly easy as it uses the same traction and braking interfaces as AWS while being otherwise largely self contained. That's why it was such a compelling retrofit to the general network and fleet in the first place when the industry had to 'do something' about train protection. The 333s must have received TPWS so would represent a design template for that on the 332s. Conversion of either train to ETCS would be a much taller order I'm sure and probably not worth if for a small fleet of what is now a comparatively old train. That's possibly the primary reason to get the 332s out of Heathrow which will allow the pilot ATP system to be finally decommissioned in the airport tunnels and on the GWML. With their similarity to 333s I would have thought a very good fleet strengthening case could be made for the Leeds electric network and they could be maintained at Neville Hill.

You probably already know this, but the primary reason for getting the 332s out of Heathrow is not directly to do with the signalling but that the site of their maintenance depot at Old Oak Common is required for the construction of HS2. The site has to be cleared by December 2019 to permit HS2 to keep to its schedule.
HS2 Ltd. is required by its Act to replace any facilities lost by the construction of HS2. In the case of Heathrow Express there was a consideration to build a replacement at Langley. As this would have cost some £100 million to be able to maintain the trains until the end of the BR/BAA contract in 2023, the DfT decided that this would be wasted money for only 5 years and therefore engineered the scheme to replace the 332s by re-fitted 387s.

 

[Domh245]

the DfT decided that this would be wasted money for only 5 years and therefore engineered the scheme to replace the 332s by re-fitted 387s.

So you are saying that electrification to Oxford was postponed because of HS2‽


*Dons tin foil hat*

 

[MarkyT]

I suppose GWR could plausibly accommodate the 332s at Reading but there would have been a cost in dedicated facilities, maybe not as much as a standalone depot at Langley, but a considerable expense nonetheless, and at least some of the 387s would have been idle as a result possibly. As to a Leeds transfer I suppose it would only stack up as a ROSCO proposal to homogenise a fleet in exchange for transferring some other class elsewhere to achieve a similar aim. I'm not entirely familiar with the broader emu fleet in the west/south Yorkshire local area, so I can't be sure this is plausible.

 

[D365]

Since GW-ATP is being replaced, wouldn't the Class 332s have had to be refitted anyway [with ETCS] in order to continue operating.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I suppose GWR could plausibly accommodate the 332s at Reading but there would have been a cost in dedicated facilities, maybe not as much as a standalone depot at Langley, but a considerable expense nonetheless, and at least some of the 387s would have been idle as a result possibly. As to a Leeds transfer I suppose it would only stack up as a ROSCO proposal to homogenise a fleet in exchange for transferring some other class elsewhere to achieve a similar aim. I'm not entirely familiar with the broader emu fleet in the west/south Yorkshire local area, so I can't be sure this is plausible.

There isn't really anywhere in West Yorkshire they'd fit. The current fleet is 16x 333s, 3x 321s & 5x 322s, which operate on just a handful of routes. The 321/322s are due to be replaced by a number of 3-car 331s which will largely work in pairs. There are no new electric routes due to start up in the next few years and no need for extra 4 and 5-car units.

 

[Domh245]

Since GW-ATP is being replaced, wouldn't the Class 332s have had to be refitted anyway [with ETCS] in order to continue operating.

What sort of timescales were being mooted for that though? Crossrail are/were going to the expense of developing the ETCS overlay for the Heathrow branch so presumably the expectation prior to this was that GW-ATP was going to be around for a while.

 

[edwin_m]

So you are saying that electrification to Oxford was postponed because of HS2‽

I think it was fortuitous that electrification to Oxford was deferred, leading to GWR having some spare units and depot capacity.

But I guess this means more units and depot enhancement if and when electrification to Oxford goes ahead, unless Heathrow Express has become something else (through running to Heathrow Southern with depot elsewhere?) by then.

 

[MarkyT]

What sort of timescales were being mooted for that though? Crossrail are/were going to the expense of developing the ETCS overlay for the Heathrow branch so presumably the expectation prior to this was that GW-ATP was going to be around for a while.

There was a 'plan B' for 'enhanced TPWS' to replace ATP on the GWML if ETCS was not possible to complete before full Crossrail service commencement. That appears to be what is happening. An ETCS overlay has to happen in the airport tunnels as there was no way Crossrail was going to fit its new trains with a third obsolete cab signalling system just for working into the Heathrow tunnels, and it makes little sense to fit entirely new TPWS and AWS there only to rip it out again after a short while for ETCS. The main element of Enhanced TPWS on the main line is to fill in the currently unfitted intermediate plain line signals that were not fitted in the original programme. This work will clearly be temporary in nature pending the eventual ETCS overlay, but it is much simpler work to undertake above ground than in the tunnels, and due to the complexity of layouts a high proportion of signals are fitted already anyway, and all signals already have AWS.

 

[swt_passenger]

But I guess this means more units and depot enhancement if and when electrification to Oxford goes ahead, unless Heathrow Express has become something else (through running to Heathrow Southern with depot elsewhere?) by then.

The number of EMUs had already been reduced since the original 37 x 387 and 21 x 365 plans down to 45 x 387, and the number of bi-mode 802s increased. It is quite possible that the orders for the trains to cope with the eventual Oxford wiring already exist, and they will already have a depot plan.

 

[Grumpy]

There isn't really anywhere in West Yorkshire they'd fit. The current fleet is 16x 333s, 3x 321s & 5x 322s, which operate on just a handful of routes. The 321/322s are due to be replaced by a number of 3-car 331s which will largely work in pairs. There are no new electric routes due to start up in the next few years and no need for extra 4 and 5-car units.

It would make more sense to take some of the 332 trailers and stick in the 333s to make a 5 car 333. This would give more seats (assuming the new trailer re-seated like the other 333s) than two 3 car 331s working in pairs. Also the guard would have access through the train. Cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, less platform space needed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It would make more sense to take some of the 332 trailers and stick in the 333s to make a 5 car 333. This would give more seats (assuming the new trailer re-seated like the other 333s) than two 3 car 331s working in pairs. Also the guard would have access through the train. Cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, less platform space needed.

Whilst we both know that this suggestion is highly unlikely to happen IRL, it's not a bad suggestion in theory because:

• It avoids the TPWS issue by not using any 332 cabs (Counter-point: another solution to withdrawal of 321/322s required as a result).
• It has been suggested that the 332s haven't aged well. This idea would maybe allow the vehicles/components in the worst condition to be rejected while still making use of the better examples.

In reality, scrapping is most likely.

 

[43096]

Whilst we both know that this suggestion is highly unlikely to happen IRL, it's not a bad suggestion in theory because:

• It avoids the TPWS issue by not using any 332 cabs (Counter-point: another solution to withdrawal of 321/322s required as a result).
• It has been suggested that the 332s haven't aged well. This idea would maybe allow the vehicles/components in the worst condition to be rejected while still making use of the better examples.

In reality, scrapping is most likely.

Subject to platform lengths in Yorkshire you could extend all 333s to 5-car as there are 9 332s with one intermediate trailer and 5 sets with 2 trailers - so 19 trailers for 16 sets. Add in the 331 plan and that would mean all the Leeds/Bradford/Skipton/Ilkley service would get lengthened trains.

 

[Iskra]

What's supposed to be working Manchester-Airport-Blackpool once wired? Could 332's suffice to free-up more DMU's?

 

[IanXC]

What's supposed to be working Manchester-Airport-Blackpool once wired? Could 332's suffice to free-up more DMU's?

I think there might just be a plan for 20 May

319s and 323s for the time being, followed by 319s and 331s.

 

[Iskra]

I think there might just be a plan for 20 May

319s and 323s for the time being, followed by 319s and 331s.

That's good to know. Sorry, can't keep up with the Northern stock changes! No TPE DMU's to Blackpool then anymore?

 

[318266]

1. Install TPWS
2. Build the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
3. Deploy 332's on it.
4. Store at Shields Depot.

There. A good use for the Class 332. Issues and how to avert:
No TPWS: Add TPWS
Doesn't like snow: Put 380's on during snow and half the services, nobody would mind as most flights would be cancelled!
Interior: It's on airport runs, who cares?

 

[gingertom]

1. Install TPWS
2. Build the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
3. Deploy 332's on it.
4. Store at Shields Depot.

There. A good use for the Class 332. Issues and how to avert:
No TPWS: Add TPWS
Doesn't like snow: Put 380's on during snow, nobody would mind as most flights would be cancelled!
Interior: It's on airport runs, who cares?

if there's 380s available during snow then what are they doing when there's no snow? No point running anything else!
I can't see a use for the 332s, except perhaps the trailer vehicles for strengthening 333s and 331s as per 43096's post above. The rest of them, recycle any reusable spare parts then scrap what's left.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Subject to platform lengths in Yorkshire you could extend all 333s to 5-car as there are 9 332s with one intermediate trailer and 5 sets with 2 trailers - so 19 trailers for 16 sets. Add in the 331 plan and that would mean all the Leeds/Bradford/Skipton/Ilkley service would get lengthened trains.

The plan is for some lengthening to 6-car platforms on the Airedale line, but not all AFAIK. Though if all units were longer that would introduce extra costs to extend platforms at minor stations on the Leeds to Doncaster line which is currently planned to be served by 333s (12m longer than the current 321/322s, though they've run to Donny occasionally in the past so I assume platforms already take a 4-car 23m unit). Either that or Donny gets downgraded to single 331 operation, which would be fun in the peaks!

 

[mainlinemiller]

Hello all

Just thought I'd like to add to this, as I am internal with Siemens and can provide a bit of info.

As far as I am aware, there is no future plans for these units. There is a number of issues with them at present with bodywork & bogies, and they are also non standard type Desiros. They do not have TPWS either which would have to be retrofitted, but it is unlikely this will happen.

Heathrow own the units and would have to be sold by themselves to another party to be in with a chance of surviving. They will probably be put into storage as a result.

Cheers

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Hello all

Just thought I'd like to add to this, as I am internal with Siemens and can provide a bit of info.

As far as I am aware, there is no future plans for these units. There is a number of issues with them at present with bodywork & bogies, and they are also non standard type Desiros. They do not have TPWS either which would have to be retrofitted, but it is unlikely this will happen.

Heathrow own the units and would have to be sold by themselves to another party to be in with a chance of surviving. They will probably be put into storage as a result.

Cheers

They're not Desiros... they pre-date the Desiro concept by a good few years and aren't even a Siemens design: they're a CAF design with Siemens providing the running gear I believe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're not Desiros... they pre-date the Desiro concept by a good few years and aren't even a Siemens design: they're a CAF design with Siemens providing the running gear I believe.

They indeed even look like CAF stock - the high, curved ceiling line is a big signature of 1990s CAF stock, the NIR units are the same.