Great Northern Fleet - 379s

[Sutton in Ant]

I happen to agree with you, but comparing fleet sizes alone can't be that useful.

I agree on that 1. I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .

 

[Kite159]

I agree on that 1. I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .

Which simply won't work as every rail franchise is different in terms of the area covered and number of trains they operate daily.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which simply won't work as every rail franchise is different in terms of the area covered and number of trains they operate daily.

Plus huge differences in clientele and travel purpose, not to mention travel trends (drop in business/commuter travel, with more leisure travel).
Periodic franchise bids were a decent way of addressing these changes over time.
Currently there is no way to evolve rolling stock fleets, other than life expiry or (rarely) electrification.

 

[JonathanH]

I just think it is nonsense that people on this website are saying that Southern Railway doesn't need any more rolling stock.

The point of view that I take issue with is that Southern needs more rolling stock, just because it lost 46 455s and 19 313s. Passenger numbers have taken a nosedive and are recovering somewhat, and there may be some challenges during that recovery, but Southern may never need a fleet as large as it had in February 2020. The cut in passenger numbers is broadly equivalent to the cut in fleet size, which suggests it isn't unreasonable.

Where those challenges exist, then Southern, and the wider GTR, can take sensible steps to make provision for more rolling stock. That may not mean increasing service provision or indeed fleet size back to what it was in February 2020, and may mean that small, incremental, changes are the way forward.

 

[skyhigh]

I agree on that 1. I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .

That is completely ridiculous.

Based on that logic, you're suggesting C2C needs to quadruple their fleet size.

Similar for LNER.

Just because a commuter TOC has 300-odd units that often run in multiple.

 

[ScotGG]

It's too simplistic to say x or y rail company needs this or that.

Who is serving more metro v long distance? Commuter v leisure? What areas of population growth is x or y serving? All factors and all different even within London. For example c2c go through the vast Beam Park development. Southern serve Croydon and major developments there - though TL also are a major player in the area. Many factors come into play. Southeastern go through Lewisham and Kidbrooke to give but two major areas of housing growth.

Just outside London they also serve Ebbsfleet and Northfleet. Many variables at play. All will likely need to retain levels they have given population growth. We don't need any to lose more stock as rumoured with Southeastern.

 

[Minstral25]

Southern Railway has lost 46 455s which has not been replaced and lost 19 313s which has not been replaced.

Railway travel has been going up since COVID-19. I will say that it is Southern that needs more Rolling Stock. I just think it is nonsense that people on this website are saying that Southern Railway doesn't need any more rolling stock. Southern saying that their services are increasing. That is where additional rolling stock is needed.

Southern also completely refigured their rolling stock requirements by major changes to Timetables, when the 455's and 313's left. Most routes are still recording 70% of pre-Covid figures but more importantly spread throughout the day - not just at peak times.

They did this partly by removing services that generally were not busy and will be doing another reconfiguration of the West Coastway in June that will reduce need for more units. There are a few places they have gone too far judging by reports and the main one is the Sydenham corridor, but overcrowding is mostly on one or two services on each route which has always been the case. However it is looked at they do not need to replace all 65 units they lost, probably only need a net gain around 10-15 units.

So if they are getting all 39 class 387's south of the river (by using 379's and some 700/717s North) they can afford to lose some 377's to SouthEastern, probably around 25, if so making a net gain of around 14 units.

 

[Mikey C]

12 car Thameslink services now operate over many "traditional" Southern routes anyway, which complicates direct comparisons.

 

[brad465]

12 car Thameslink services now operate over many "traditional" Southern routes anyway, which complicates direct comparisons.

Yes and comparing unit numbers doesn't account for overall capacity: 700s come in 8 and 12 car lengths, equal to 2 or 3 4-car units.

 

[bramling]

12 car Thameslink services now operate over many "traditional" Southern routes anyway, which complicates direct comparisons.

This is an interesting point. If one thinks about the 2018 Thameslink changes, we now have
* Horsham to Peterborough replaces Victoria to Horsham
* Arguably Cambridge to Brighton seems to have replaced Victoria to Brighton, though this doesn’t seem to have been the original plan?
* Bedford to East Grinstead replaces some London Bridge to East Grinstead services, though the comparison is complicated by Covid
* Forget Littlehampton as that is finished and back to Southern

Luton to Rainham / Orpington are both replacing Southeastern services, as is Welwyn to Sevenoaks, and would have been Cambridge to Maidstone.

When one looks at the above, this doesn’t actually replace that much Southern. If anything more Southeastern stock seems to have been freed up. They also benefited from the 395s as well. So on balance it’s probably reasonably for Southern to be seen to have the greater need. Not that passenger need seems to come in to it, the current priority seems to be binning the 465/2 fleet; and seemingly the rest of the Met-Camm units too.

I’ve ignored Sutton and Bedford to Brighton as they have both been Thameslink for many many years.

Have I missed anything?

 

[ThameslinkUser]

* Forget Littlehampton as that is finished and back to Southern

Which is a shame really

 

[Failed Unit]

Just looking at the current timetable, the Charing Cross - Maidstone service does actaully match up to a degree with the London - Cambridge services. Surely if they actually implement Maidstone - Cambridge that is some extra SE units to use elsewhere? (Along with reduce the 379 / 387 requirements north of the river)

It is a shame that the 700s are not reliable enough for this to happen.

 

[bramling]

Just looking at the current timetable, the Charing Cross - Maidstone service does actaully match up to a degree with the London - Cambridge services. Surely if they actually implement Maidstone - Cambridge that is some extra SE units to use elsewhere? (Along with reduce the 379 / 387 requirements north of the river)

It is a shame that the 700s are not reliable enough for this to happen.

Even if the availability was better I don’t think there’s enough units, without removing some from a different TL service. Rainham seems to have swallowed up the Maidstone units. I guess it might be possible to trim this back to Kentish Town, though risky from a loadings point of view.

 

[Failed Unit]

Back in 2017 they thought they had enough units to do both

 

[Minstral25]

12 car Thameslink services now operate over many "traditional" Southern routes anyway, which complicates direct comparisons.

When COVID hit in 2020 - Southern services had already been reconfigured for two years based on Thameslink taking over many services. So when Southern withdrew the 455s and 313s these were separate changes to Thameslink taking over services.

This is an interesting point. If one thinks about the 2018 Thameslink changes, we now have
* Horsham to Peterborough replaces Victoria to Horsham
* Arguably Cambridge to Brighton seems to have replaced Victoria to Brighton, though this doesn’t seem to have been the original plan?
* Bedford to East Grinstead replaces some London Bridge to East Grinstead services, though the comparison is complicated by Covid
* Forget Littlehampton as that is finished and back to Southern

Luton to Rainham / Orpington are both replacing Southeastern services, as is Welwyn to Sevenoaks, and would have been Cambridge to Maidstone.

When one looks at the above, this doesn’t actually replace that much Southern. If anything more Southeastern stock seems to have been freed up. They also benefited from the 395s as well. So on balance it’s probably reasonably for Southern to be seen to have the greater need. Not that passenger need seems to come in to it, the current priority seems to be binning the 465/2 fleet; and seemingly the rest of the Met-Camm units too.

I’ve ignored Sutton and Bedford to Brighton as they have both been Thameslink for many many years.

Have I missed anything?

Horsham to Peterborough Services replaced the half-hourly London Bridge to Horsham via Redhill services, not the Victoria services.

Bedford to Three Bridges (via Redhill) replaced the half hourly London Bridge to Tonbridge/Reigate services, the Reigate services were replaced by the new London Victoria to Reigate semi fast service, which in turn replaced the Redhill call on the Arun Valley (Bognor/Portsmouth/Southampton) fast Horsham trains from Victoria.

Again all these changes were at the 2018 timetable change, which was 2 years before COVID and the withdrawal of 455 & 313s, so not a reason for withdrawal.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

That is completely ridiculous.

Based on that logic, you're suggesting C2C needs to quadruple their fleet size.

Similar for LNER.

Just because a commuter TOC has 300-odd units that often run in multiple.

This is nonsense. I did not suggest that C2C and LNER should quadruple in fleet size. What I was suggesting is that no rail company should be short of rolling stock.

 

[PGAT]

This is nonsense. I did not suggest that C2C and LNER should quadruple in fleet size. What I was suggesting is that no rail company should be short of rolling stock.

Also Southern and Southeastern are similar operators with similar needs in terms of fleet

 

[Sutton in Ant]

Also Southern and Southeastern are similar operators with similar needs in terms of fleet

That is totally true.

 

[bramling]

When COVID hit in 2020 - Southern services had already been reconfigured for two years based on Thameslink taking over many services. So when Southern withdrew the 455s and 313s these were separate changes to Thameslink taking over services.



Horsham to Peterborough Services replaced the half-hourly London Bridge to Horsham via Redhill services, not the Victoria services.

Bedford to Three Bridges (via Redhill) replaced the half hourly London Bridge to Tonbridge/Reigate services, the Reigate services were replaced by the new London Victoria to Reigate semi fast service, which in turn replaced the Redhill call on the Arun Valley (Bognor/Portsmouth/Southampton) fast Horsham trains from Victoria.

Again all these changes were at the 2018 timetable change, which was 2 years before COVID and the withdrawal of 455 & 313s, so not a reason for withdrawal.

Am I understanding the above then that Bedford - Three Bridges hasn’t really released any Southern stock, being that there’s a new Southern service to Reigate in there?

Covid certainly muddies the water, however there does seem to be a presumption that the significant extra capacity provided by the generally longer Thameslink service gave some surplus capacity overall which was felt able to be trimmed away when Covid hit. Same on GN where the Thameslink service is the same as pre-2020 but capacity has been lost from the 365 and 387 services. Essentially the extra capacity which Thameslink was supposed to provide for growth has been lost, and perhaps in some cases we’ve lost capacity required for the present as well. Meanwhile, housebuilding continues apace.

Thanks politicians, no wonder why it seems like the whole population now despises *all* of you as a profession. Not good for the future health of the country.

 

[skyhigh]

This is nonsense. I did not suggest that C2C and LNER should quadruple in fleet size. What I was suggesting is that no rail company should be short of rolling stock.

You said:

I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .

Which reads to me as if you thought there should be the same number of units at every TOC. I'm glad you agree that interpretation is nonsense!

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Surely the ex LNWR Class 350/2s when replaced and made redundant by the Class 730s they should undoubtedly be sent to GTR either to Southern, especially due to their recent reduction in rolling stock since the 455s and 313s were withdrawn? plus the Class 350/2s are owned by Porterbrook who now also owns the Class 379s, could they maybe finance a deal to lease both the trains as capacity enhancers on GTR? As in the late noughties London Midland 350/1s were temporarily utilised on Southern to provide cover for the 377/5s I believe.

Also is Porterbrook still in favour of the Class 350/2 units being converted to battery power for use on non electrified lines? or has that proposal been abandoned. As coincidentally GWR are experiencing success with the battery 230 so a competitor to the concept may be favourable!

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely the ex LNWR Class 350/2s when replaced and made redundant by the Class 730s they should undoubtedly be sent to GTR either to Southern, especially due to their recent reduction in rolling stock since the 455s and 313s were withdrawn? plus the Class 350/2s are owned by Porterbrook who now also owns the Class 379s, could they maybe finance a deal to lease both the trains as capacity enhancers on GTR? As in the late noughties London Midland 350/1s were temporarily utilised on Southern to provide cover for the 377/5s I believe.
[…]

Class 350/2 cannot operate on third rail. Only 350/1 are fitted.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Furthermore, that would just serve to diversify a fleet that is near enough as standard as you can realistically get without a whole-fleet replacement.

 

[Skimble19]

So if they are getting all 39 class 387's south of the river (by using 379's and some 700/717s North) they can afford to lose some 377's to SouthEastern, probably around 25, if so making a net gain of around 14 units.

Not all of the 387s are moving south of the river, some will remain with Great Northern.

 

[JonathanH]

What I was suggesting is that no rail company should be short of rolling stock.

That isn't really what you are suggesting though. Southern and GTR aren't short of rolling stock to operate the contracted service.

What you don't like is that the services and formations can't be increased from their current levels, which is a different thing, and effectively what the tender is about.

 

[Mikey C]

This is an interesting point. If one thinks about the 2018 Thameslink changes, we now have
* Horsham to Peterborough replaces Victoria to Horsham
* Arguably Cambridge to Brighton seems to have replaced Victoria to Brighton, though this doesn’t seem to have been the original plan?
* Bedford to East Grinstead replaces some London Bridge to East Grinstead services, though the comparison is complicated by Covid
* Forget Littlehampton as that is finished and back to Southern

Luton to Rainham / Orpington are both replacing Southeastern services, as is Welwyn to Sevenoaks, and would have been Cambridge to Maidstone.

When one looks at the above, this doesn’t actually replace that much Southern. If anything more Southeastern stock seems to have been freed up. They also benefited from the 395s as well. So on balance it’s probably reasonably for Southern to be seen to have the greater need. Not that passenger need seems to come in to it, the current priority seems to be binning the 465/2 fleet; and seemingly the rest of the Met-Camm units too.

I’ve ignored Sutton and Bedford to Brighton as they have both been Thameslink for many many years.

Have I missed anything?

The 395s aren't relevant as they've been in service since 2009. Many of Southern's 377s arrived after then.

In reality, you'd need to do a deep analysis of each operator's routes and the levels of overcrowding. GTR south of the river has a slightly odd fleet, with high capacity 700s with lots of standing room operating express services from the coast, and lower density 377s operating inner suburban Southern routes! Southeastern has a more logical split between Metro and longer distance stock.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

That isn't really what you are suggesting though. Southern and GTR aren't short of rolling stock to operate the contracted service.

What you don't like is that the services and formations can't be increased from their current levels, which is a different thing, and effectively what the tender is about.

Well. You may say that but what I am saying is that there is so much saying that the Southern network isn't short of any available rolling stock. While passenger services are recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and commuters are returning to traveling on the railways. There is a fact that train services will end up being full again. With rumors that Southern Network will be bringing more service? I would not think that it would be fair for commuters to be on a train for a long time when it is packed and the commuters which some of them will have issues with mobility to endure that type of service.

I totally understand Southeastern Railways' reasoning for bringing in extra rolling stock as they want to be less reliant on the networkers. But recently, they have had some rolling stock coming to them in the form of the 707s X 28 from South Western Railways and an extra 2 at a later date. They have subleased from Southern 25 377/5s and I respect that they want to keep them until Southeastern get new rolling stock.

I am expecting the 377/5s to stay with Southeastern till the new rolling stock is in service. But, thinking that it is rumored that Southeastern are wanting more 377s. I think that it is excessive.

I hope that Southern can get more additional rolling stock for the eventuality brining in more services later this year.

 

[bramling]

The 395s aren't relevant as they've been in service since 2009. Many of Southern's 377s arrived after then.

In reality, you'd need to do a deep analysis of each operator's routes and the levels of overcrowding. GTR south of the river has a slightly odd fleet, with high capacity 700s with lots of standing room operating express services from the coast, and lower density 377s operating inner suburban Southern routes! Southeastern has a more logical split between Metro and longer distance stock.

All fair points, in particular Southern getting extra 377s - though they did lose the 456s and 442s. Perhaps the only conclusion we can draw is that it’s all very complex and difficult to make comparisons!

Agreed with how things have panned out with the 700s. You can get a 700/0 from Kings Lynn to London, yet on Southern suburban it’s the luxury of a 377! Quite incredible really.

What gets me is this constant desire to get rid of Networkers, that keeps seeming to emerge. There is little wrong with the 465/9s from a passenger point of view, and the last thing we need is GTR and/or SE making themselves short simply to allow Networkers to be removed from the books. Is there actually anything official that this is actually planned?

 

[Stephen42]

All fair points, in particular Southern getting extra 377s - though they did lose the 456s and 442s. Perhaps the only conclusion we can draw is that it’s all very complex and difficult to make comparisons!

Agreed with how things have panned out with the 700s. You can get a 700/0 from Kings Lynn to London, yet on Southern suburban it’s the luxury of a 377! Quite incredible really.

What gets me is this constant desire to get rid of Networkers, that keeps seeming to emerge. There is little wrong with the 465/9s from a passenger point of view, and the last thing we need is GTR and/or SE making themselves short simply to allow Networkers to be removed from the books. Is there actually anything official that this is actually planned?

The main problem with them is their reliability, from the Southeastern joint performance strategy:

There have been ongoing issues throughout the year with the 465/9 fleet and bolster cracks. A quarter of the 465/9 fleet have had to be repaired at Doncaster over the year and while we are close to having very few trains out of service, a number are still being monitored and it’s expected at some point further units will need to be repaired

The repairs themselves are unlikely to be cheap, plausibly a good business case to replace when coupled with the likely additional costs of leasing only part of the 379 fleet. Taking the maximum of the "up to 17" class 377s and adding the final pair of 707s would feasibly be enough to remove the 465/9s from the picture entirely leaving the class 466s which there isn't an obvious replacement and less of a cracking problem.

That would leave an additional 13 or so units for GTR to run additional/lengthen services across their network alongside finding use for any 700/717s if there are some available at peak times.

 

[foggy69]

I might have missed it, but why not transfer the displaced 387 units straight to SouthEastern and leave the 377 with Southern.