GWR Tender for 30 x 4 car EMUs

507020

On Moderation
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,297
Location
Southport
40, now none though sadly (won’t say anymore, as much as I liked them as units we’ve had more than enough 365 appreciation threads!)
I mean bringing 30 of those back from the grave should probably be included in GWR’s list of options if only for completeness, to see how such a decision would compare financially to whichever variations of Electrostars are available this week.
40, and the reason why GWR didn’t take them is because of electrification delays *cough cough*
I know and there are still no electric services to Bath, Oxford, Swansea etc…
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
12,509
40, and the reason why GWR didn’t take them is because of electrification delays *cough cough*
No. The reason GWR didn't take 365s had nothing to do with electrification delays. It was because they made a business case to have a full complement of brand new class 387s which were better suited to their requirements than 365s.

There were enough 387s to work to Oxford if it had been electrified - the spare units are used on Heathrow Express instead.
 

Class15

Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
158
Location
UK
No. The reason GWR didn't take 365s had nothing to do with electrification delays. It was because they made a business case to have a full complement of brand new class 387s which were better suited to their requirements than 365s.

There were enough 387s to work to Oxford if it had been electrified - the spare units are used on Heathrow Express instead.
Couldn’t 365s have worked some Bristol TM trains?
 

AzureOtsu

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2021
Messages
89
Location
Hove
This thread has delved into a class 365 what if scenario. like I posted earlier its probable that gwrs 387s are going to be cascaded to gtr. why would they have shoegear as built if they were never going to use them. it's kind similar to how the 387s were used for thameslink as an interim measure until the class 700s were delivered, then cascaded to great northern. the specification for 30 units and their being 30 379s just backs up this tinfoil hat theory further...
 

Class455

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2016
Messages
1,330
I’ve not heard anything concrete about these so this is just guess work, but 33x 387 to GTR, 30x 379 to GWR does make sense, especially if combined with the 6x 387s from c2c. I suspect 3 units wouldn’t be too major a loss for GWR, whereas an additional 33x 387s to GTR would come in very handy.. convenient timing too.
Someone else suggested this on a discord server I'm on and it seems very feasible to me that GTR could receive the GWR 387's with 379's going to GWR instead. 33x 387's plus the 6 ex C2C 387's and 23 377/5's if Southeastern decided to bring Networkers back from storage would give GTR 64 additional trains which would be enough to fully replace the 313 and 455 fleets and could also allow some of the peak extra trains that 365's used to operate to return if demand ever recovered (though unlikely), or future proof the eventual electrification of the Uckfield branch (whenever that may happen). On Southern meanwhile, the 455 withdrawal has resulted in overcrowding in a few places, so this would justify a business case for extra stock.

From a fleet perspective, moving GWR 387's over to GTR instead of 379's would give GTR a more common fleet, all owned by the same leasing company too so would result in cheaper operating costs. The only issue I see with this happening is the work required on the 379's and 387's to bring them up to GWR and GTR specifications respectively, which I wouldn't be so sure is something the DfT would particularly want spend money on, but if the GWR 387's went to Great Northern instead of Southern, 387101-129 would only require Southern vinyls to bring them upto the same specification as the metro 377's since they already have Southern interiors.

This cascade would make perfect sense to do in my eyes, but I wonder if the DfT see it that way?

It seems very odd to me that GWR would tender for stock they already have and I don't think I've seen anything like it in the past. I'm wondering if GWR have already lost their 387's (excluding the HEX ones of course) to GTR and they are tendering for their replacements (which fits the bill for the 30x 379's)? Perhaps this also could be why talk of Great Northern receiving Class 379's has gone cold recently?
 

D365

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
9,525
like I posted earlier its probable that gwrs 387s are going to be cascaded to gtr. why would they have shoegear as built if they were never going to use them.
The Class 375/6s were fitted for OHLE when they were built. Never ventured away from the Kent routes…
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
59,520
Location
Yorkshire
Just a gentle reminder this is a thread for updates regarding GWR Tender for 30 x 4 car EMUs

For discussion on any other topic, please create a new thread (if there isn't one already); any speculative discussion must be posted exclusively in the Speculative Discussion forum please.
 

class397tpe

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2022
Messages
78
Location
Cambridge
I was thinking of the Standard class seating, which is far worse in the 387s
Fully agree - the 379s are lovely inside in standard class.

Someone else suggested this on a discord server I'm on and it seems very feasible to me that GTR could receive the GWR 387's with 379's going to GWR instead. 33x 387's plus the 6 ex C2C 387's and 23 377/5's if Southeastern decided to bring Networkers back from storage would give GTR 64 additional trains which would be enough to fully replace the 313 and 455 fleets and could also allow some of the peak extra trains that 365's used to operate to return if demand ever recovered (though unlikely), or future proof the eventual electrification of the Uckfield branch (whenever that may happen). On Southern meanwhile, the 455 withdrawal has resulted in overcrowding in a few places, so this would justify a business case for extra stock.

From a fleet perspective, moving GWR 387's over to GTR instead of 379's would give GTR a more common fleet, all owned by the same leasing company too so would result in cheaper operating costs. The only issue I see with this happening is the work required on the 379's and 387's to bring them up to GWR and GTR specifications respectively, which I wouldn't be so sure is something the DfT would particularly want spend money on, but if the GWR 387's went to Great Northern instead of Southern, 387101-129 would only require Southern vinyls to bring them upto the same specification as the metro 377's since they already have Southern interiors.

This cascade would make perfect sense to do in my eyes, but I wonder if the DfT see it that way?

It seems very odd to me that GWR would tender for stock they already have and I don't think I've seen anything like it in the past. I'm wondering if GWR have already lost their 387's (excluding the HEX ones of course) to GTR and they are tendering for their replacements (which fits the bill for the 30x 379's)? Perhaps this also could be why talk of Great Northern receiving Class 379's has gone cold recently?
I mean they could just not bother with the exteriors and interiors - like the southeastern trains that are basically still running around in connex colours. The 379s are pretty plain so could just stick some GWR logos on. Are the GWR 387s vinyled or is that dark green paint?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
5,863
Location
Peterborough
Fully agree - the 379s are lovely inside in standard class.


I mean they could just not bother with the exteriors and interiors - like the southeastern trains that are basically still running around in connex colours. The 379s are pretty plain so could just stick some GWR logos on. Are the GWR 387s vinyled or is that dark green paint?
I believe the dark green was painted before delivery.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
3,550
Location
Surrey
This is how the provision of rolling stock was envisioned when the railway was privatised, a competitive market where an Operator can choose which supplier offers best value

Basically got existing 387s vs 379s vs 350/2s

Sort of becomes a Dutch auction for the ROSCO, how low a price do they want to offer them with a potential alternative of sitting idle not bringing in any revenue.

Of course it may be that if a fleet exceeds 30 (say 37) then they get offered them all at a job lot price, very handy if you really need 33 as at now.

I do wonder if Porterbrook has got a better offer to take 30 387s so has told GWR they cannot extend. Otherwise why not issue tender for 33 (which is quantity they currently have)
The DfT aren't going to allow a ROSCO to get more income from another TOC the DfT is subsidising unless there is a clear business case in doing so. 379's are certified for 110mph which GWR need so they will need to certified for that which may need modifications all that costs so would be reflected in any leasing terms. ECML is a few years off going ETCS on the Southern end so will need EMUs that can deliver that functionality which we know 387's can easily (ie HEX387's) but can the 379's?
 

Agent_Squash

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,004
which we know 387's can easily (ie HEX387's) but can the 379's?

The 379s and 387s are both Mk 2 Electrostars - there’s very little difference between the two. Indeed, you could convert a 379 to dual voltage by just sticking some shoes on and adding the buttons iirc…
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
3,550
Location
Surrey
The 379s and 387s are both Mk 2 Electrostars - there’s very little difference between the two. Indeed, you could convert a 379 to dual voltage by just sticking some shoes on and adding the buttons iirc…
best sticking some shoes on them and giving them to Southern then keeps it simple.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
8,911
Location
here to eternity
Just a gentle reminder that discussion on this thread should be confined to the actual tender itself.

If anyone wants to speculate as to what they would like to have seen in the tender then they are welcome to start a thread in the Speculative section of the forum.

thanks
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
26,891
Location
Fenny Stratford

STINT47

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2020
Messages
424
Location
Nottingham
Reading this thread and it strikes me as madness to potentially replace a modern fleet and leave the discarded trains sat in sidings.

I cannot see the logic in building to many trains to create competition. Whilst it might save the taxpayer some money in the short term it's still a crazy way to run a railway. It would be much better to agree a lease price for the duration of the trains life thus ensuring value for money. Or better yet why not just buy them using taxpayers money? Purchased by the people, used by the people, seems more sensible to me.

In the long term the leasing companies will factor the risk of having trains standing idle into their leases/costs, they will not buy if they can't make money. So overall any saving now is going to be clawed back one way or the other.

At times the way we run our railways seems illogical tome.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
12,509
Is this not an expression of interest rather than a commitment?
It still amounts to the same thing regardless of what it is - a test of whether 379s are available at a cost comparable to the existing 387s.

Or better yet why not just buy them using taxpayers money?
Aren't there better things the taxpayer can spend £100 million on?

Reading this thread and it strikes me as madness to potentially replace a modern fleet and leave the discarded trains sat in sidings.
In this instance, it does appear that the intention is to use a set of units that are currently in sidings and find useful employment for the displaced units, so there won't be modern units without work.
 
Last edited:

43102EMR

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2021
Messages
876
Location
UK
In this instance, it does appear that the intention is to use a set of units that are currently in sidings and find useful employment for the displaced units, so there won't be modern units without work.
I mean there is a far simpler solution, which the government seem to be very reluctant to committing to at the moment :s
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
2,254
Location
West Wiltshire
Is this not an expression of interest rather than a commitment?

The subtle difference is that asking for expressions of interest is a way of fishing to see who comes forward offering potentially suitable stock

If one of those two potential fleets was already well advanced to be rented out elsewhere (even if currently secret) then unlikely to have it offered.

The danger with this sort of request is that if only one fleet turns out to be available (and you want it to commence in 10 months time) then rather open yourselves to being offered the only available fleet at high price.

If you look at it from say Porterbrooks stance, a customer is saying how much for another 5 years, as an example could charge same as now (+ inflation), or if you think might take someone else’s trains (eg 379s) might cut price by say 20%, but if you found out the alternatives aren’t available then might decide to up the price as customer is stuck with take it, or leave it deal, and no deal means no rolling stock.

I am not aware of any historic rights with 387s that mean there is a right to extend a lease for 5 years. GWRs existing lease might expire 31/03/23 and to use football analogy the fleet are out of contract and available for free transfer.
 

Wyrleybart

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
925
Location
South Staffordshire
The 379s would presumably become de-facto 387s - so no more 2-1 seating if they did win the tender.

Erm no. That would be like WCR renumbering their 47/8s into 57317 onwards.

A 379 is a 379 not a 387, although the Rosco could spend a ****load on the fleet and upgrade them to class 387 standard I suppose.

The question is whether it would be cheaper to fit 3rd rail kit or ETCS to the379s to make them usable.
 

Reliablebeam

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2017
Messages
225
I've been involved in more than my fair share of public sector procurements, and have learnt to be very, very wary of smartalecs* who have magic off the shelf products they can 'easily' modify to suit that taxpayer backed list of demands. This is called famous last words and I note the railway industry seems to suffer from the same problem, as from my point of view the 769 and 230 experience looks wearily familiar to me. The 387's are one of the few good points of GWR and it would be a shame to lose them.

I found the Akiem specs for the 379's on their website and notice they push the '110 mph with modifications' line. What is the performance actually like vis the 387's?

*be particularly wary of wide boy salesmen coupled with fresh graduates..
 

43102EMR

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2021
Messages
876
Location
UK
I've been involved in more than my fair share of public sector procurements, and have learnt to be very, very wary of smartalecs* who have magic off the shelf products they can 'easily' modify to suit that taxpayer backed list of demands. This is called famous last words and I note the railway industry seems to suffer from the same problem, as from my point of view the 769 and 230 experience looks wearily familiar to me. The 387's are one of the few good points of GWR and it would be a shame to lose them.

I found the Akiem specs for the 379's on their website and notice they push the '110 mph with modifications' line. What is the performance actually like vis the 387's?

*be particularly wary of wide boy salesmen coupled with fresh graduates..
Have to admit the 379s are some of the best Electrostars I’ve ridden on - would definitely not be complaining if they were to replace the 387s!
 

Top