Replacing 317's and 321's on Govia Thameslink Railway

Status
Not open for further replies.

petersi

Member
Joined
24 Apr 2012
Messages
438
Mod Note: Split from the c2c More Stock thread here http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=125589

Would 19 Class 377s be enough to replace 25 317s and 321s ?

Press release and Thameslink website claims that all 317 and 321s will be replaced by the end of the year.



They are being released from the Thameslink route which is getting brand new Class 700 trains and, by the end of the year, will have replaced all the older Class 317 and 321 trains. Meanwhile, the other trains are going through either heavy maintenance or overhauls to maintain and improve their reliability.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
1,968
Location
Surrey
Wood 19 class 377 be enough to replace 25 317'sand 321's ?

Press release and thameslink website claims that all 317 and 321's will be replaced by the end of the year

19 should be enough, don't forget that Thameslink are taking over a good few services on the GN side of things so that should cover for the lost units.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
12,192
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
19 should be enough, don't forget that Thameslink are taking over a good few services on the GN side of things so that should cover for the lost units.

I don't see 19 being enough to maintain the current timetable, as the ucurrent diagrams require 22 317s or 321s in service during the peaks. Even if they get a bit of efficiency saving out of the new units, the fact remains that they will require at least 22 units all in service at the same time, which clearly can't be achieved with 19 units. They won't be likely able to press any extra 365s into service as they are already tightly diagrammed (37/40), and there are still outstanding refreshes to do, plus a backlog of other work such as accessible toilets.

It would only work if some further Electostars come over temporarily, a handful of 700s enter service on GN (shudder), or a selection of peak or shoulder-peak services get reduced in length.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe so in the case of the 319s, but what is better. A 2 Car Pacer or 4 Car 319 on many of those routes for the North. Some will receive newer rolling stock in the future, but for now can make do with the 319s which, with a perfectly good refurbishment (take note!) will see them going strong for a few more years yet!

Not disputing that, however if Thameslink Programme didn't exist then many or all of the listed services would have had to receive new trais as there wouldn't otherwise have been enough electric stock to go round (313s 314s and 315s excepted, maybe). Great Western in particular is getting an awkward mix of stock, whereas the 365s would have been perfectly suitable staying on GN for their lifetime were Thameslink not happening. I'm quite sure many passengers will find the 365s preferable to the 700s.
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
I forgot about the Great Northern services that will continue into Kings Cross after Thameslink has become completely class 700s :oops:. I have lost track - so GN will use the 9*377/2s and all the 23*377/5s ?.

By the time all the 700s are delivered and even a few of those dv 377s could possibly become free c2c will have had time to order and get delivered their own totally new trains anyway. In the short term (but not right now) would it be possible for a few dv 377s to temporarily be loaned to c2c. That is before GN loses any/all of its current stock (365s) to Great Western which I presume could be delayed because Great Western might not be ready to use all of them yet ?.

Most, not all DV 377s are heading to GN. The rest are required on 'Southern' routes for their capacity upgrades.

There ios no spare 377s between moving of Thameslink and onto GN. Full 377 usage on GN is December this year so all the units are required there. c2c needs units from now until 2019 when its new builds arrive.

You mean a load of franchises getting second-hand stock, coming up to 30 years old in the case of the class 319s?

A dubious benefit given at least some of these services might have had new stock instead.

Despite your bitter comments, the truth is cascaded stock allowed an increase in capacity n Northern with 4 car 319s replacing other stock. And the simple fact they have been welcomed with the resulting decrease in crowding on many routes.

Let's not forget the railway is there to move people so capacity is key to that. Northern only got electric stock because of the TLP as its cascaded stock allowed for a lower costing upgrade to electric. If you are so anti 319s, when then they could have left Northern as is and not bothered and allowed the situation to be improved.

Maybe so in the case of the 319s, but what is better. A 2 Car Pacer or 4 Car 319 on many of those routes for the North. Some will receive newer rolling stock in the future, but for now can make do with the 319s which, with a perfectly good refurbishment (take note!) will see them going strong for a few more years yet!

A point often overlooked by many as they complain of cascaded stock. The 319s are the start of improving the offering from Northern.

I don't see 19 being enough to maintain the current timetable, as the ucurrent diagrams require 22 317s or 321s in service during the peaks. Even if they get a bit of efficiency saving out of the new units, the fact remains that they will require at least 22 units all in service at the same time, which clearly can't be achieved with 19 units. They won't be likely able to press any extra 365s into service as they are already tightly diagrammed (37/40), and there are still outstanding refreshes to do, plus a backlog of other work such as accessible toilets.

Ah but you trying to guess based on today's timetable. Don't forget the 377s and 365 will have only there Kings Lynn and half the Peterbrough services to run so a lot less than today.

Trying to make sense from todays timetable will leaving you making errors like above assumptions.

It would only work if some further Electostars come over temporarily, a handful of 700s enter service on GN (shudder), or a selection of peak or shoulder-peak services get reduced in length.

377s will come over for the long term very shortly. With 700s not far behind.

Not disputing that, however if Thameslink Programme didn't exist then many or all of the listed services would have had to receive new trais as there wouldn't otherwise have been enough electric stock to go round (313s 314s and 315s excepted, maybe). Great Western in particular is getting an awkward mix of stock, whereas the 365s would have been perfectly suitable staying on GN for their lifetime were Thameslink not happening. I'm quite sure many passengers will find the 365s preferable to the 700s.

The business case for the North West wires were built on cascaded stock. GW is not really getting that awkward range of stock. Its getting three types for three times of trips, not difficult really. And lets not forget your GN has been running around with multiple stocks for far long and I don't see the issue raising its head on GN!

The 365s were never going to stay on GN with the modern Thameslink Programme. And as for your belief that GN passengers will prefer the 365, I doubt they will in 10, 20 years when crowding levels go up. Aftrer all passengers want to travel and ability to get on the train in the next few decades which is what the Thameslink Programme is aimed at sorting.
 
Last edited:

D365

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
8,299
And as for your belief that GN passengers will prefer the 365, I doubt they will in 10, 20 years when crowding levels go up. Aftrer all passengers want to travel and ability to get on the train in the next few decades which is what the Thameslink Programme is aimed at sorting.

Exactly, especially south of Stevenage where trains really fill up in peak hours. Lots of off-peak capacity to sell too..!
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
12,192
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Ah but you trying to guess based on today's timetable. Don't forget the 377s and 365 will have only there Kings Lynn and half the Peterbrough services to run so a lot less than today.

Trying to make sense from todays timetable will leaving you making errors like above assumptions.

Perhaps you could read properly before spouting your rubbish.

Let's make things quite clear:

TODAY the diagrams call for 10x317 and 12x321, making a total of 22.

The initial post suggested the 317s and 321s will be replaced THIS YEAR.

There will be two new timetables coming in THIS YEAR, and two new timetables coming in NEXT YEAR, neither of which will feature the "only there Kings Lynn and half the Peterbrough services", as Thameslink will not be arriving until 2018.

I know Thameslink is a concept of great wonder and excitement to you, however in the meantime the railway goes on.

Another post suggested GN would only be getting 19x377s to replace 25x317/321. With no other stock, 19x377 would never be able to provide 22x diagrams. That's not an "error", and it's not an "assumption" - it's reality.

As you say, it would appear GN will in fact be getting more than 19x 377s, so not an error at all in stating that there would have to be more than 19x 377s arriving THIS YEAR to replace the 317s/321s THIS YEAR, if short-forms are to be avoided THIS YEAR and/or NEXT YEAR.

Once again, you either can't or won't respond to the original point made, instead you respond to something different - giving the illusion of responding to the original argument whilst in fact responding to something different.
 
Last edited:

Simon11

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2010
Messages
1,090
Latest talk has been discussions on new rolling stock that will be available shortly.
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
Perhaps you could read properly before spouting your rubbish.

Really? Knowing the introduction plan timeline is rubbish? I think you need to think before you post.

Let's make things quite clear:

TODAY the diagrams call for 10x317 and 12x321, making a total of 22.

The initial post suggested the 317s and 321s will be replaced THIS YEAR.

The suggestion of replacing is an assumption not generated in facts. As for 317/321 being replaced this year, I don't believe there is anything offical saying this?

There will be two new timetables coming in THIS YEAR, and two new timetables coming in NEXT YEAR, neither of which will feature the "only there Kings Lynn and half the Peterbrough services", as Thameslink will not be arriving until 2018.

The 700s will arrive this year in service on the GN. You are trying to jump from today to December 2018 without having any knowledge of the facts yet seem to believe your answers are the only correct ones.

And don't forget the alterations to the timetable in 2018 as well when Kings Cross sees the reduction in services when through service on the Thameslink Core operating in two separate stages.

I know Thameslink is a concept of great wonder and excitement to you, however in the meantime the railway goes on.

Thameslink isn't a concept to me, its a job.

Another post suggested GN would only be getting 19x377s to replace 25x317/321. With no other stock, 19x377 would never be able to provide 22x diagrams. That's not an "error", and it's not an "assumption" - it's reality.

Its an assumption. Reality is you don't have access to the diagrams nor the timetable yet you are trying to claim you know better. Your making false assumptions based on your opinion, I reject your assumptions as being fact.

As you say, it would appear GN will in fact be getting more than 19x 377s, so not an error at all in stating that there would have to be more than 19x 377s arriving THIS YEAR to replace the 317s/321s THIS YEAR, if short-forms are to be avoided THIS YEAR and/or NEXT YEAR.

The 377s and 700 will both be in service this year so your suggestions of not enough units is actually false. 12 car 700s will help reduce the unit numbers required in your guesswork.

Once again, you either can't or won't respond to the original point made, instead you respond to something different - giving the illusion of responding to the original argument whilst in fact responding to something different.

No it's not that I won't give information, its just not everything is allowed to be public but hey keeping swinging and missing. I'm replying to the quite frankly senseless posts your are making trying to claims when you know nothing of the actual plan while attacking those that do.
 

D365

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
8,299
Class377/5, I think your misunderstanding with bramling is based on an earlier post by Skimble19 claiming the GN Class 317/321 fleet will be replaced by the end of this year. Further discussion on this matter should belong in the relevant Thameslink/Great Northern topics I believe.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
12,192
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Really? Knowing the introduction plan timeline is rubbish? I think you need to think before you post.



The suggestion of replacing is an assumption not generated in facts. As for 317/321 being replaced this year, I don't believe there is anything offical saying this?



The 700s will arrive this year in service on the GN. You are trying to jump from today to December 2018 without having any knowledge of the facts yet seem to believe your answers are the only correct ones.

And don't forget the alterations to the timetable in 2018 as well when Kings Cross sees the reduction in services when through service on the Thameslink Core operating in two separate stages.



Thameslink isn't a concept to me, its a job.



Its an assumption. Reality is you don't have access to the diagrams nor the timetable yet you are trying to claim you know better. Your making false assumptions based on your opinion, I reject your assumptions as being fact.



The 377s and 700 will both be in service this year so your suggestions of not enough units is actually false. 12 car 700s will help reduce the unit numbers required in your guesswork.



No it's not that I won't give information, its just not everything is allowed to be public but hey keeping swinging and missing. I'm replying to the quite frankly senseless posts your are making trying to claims when you know nothing of the actual plan while attacking those that do.

Wow! All this, simply over pointing out that 19x377 will not be sufficient to replace 22x317/321, which remains quite correct.

Are you saying there aren't 22x317/321 diagrams? You seem to think no one else has any access to facts apart from yourself. It's a fact that there are 22x 317/321 diagrams, unless you know different - yes or no?

In my original post I made it quite clear that the shortfall *could* include 700s.

And I'm pretty sure I've read official GTR publicity stating 317s/321s will be replaced THIS YEAR. Whether that turns out to be true or not remains to be seen, but I'm not sure why, again, you're so keen to jump the gun to 2018. Passengers turning up at stations in the meantime will expect current levels of capacity to be sustained in the meantime, so it's hardly unreasonable to look at how this will happen, and what implications this has for potential spare stock available for elsewhere (eg c2c).

If you can't engage in a civilised discussion about something as simple as rolling stock allocation without feeling the need to resort to personal attacks and thinking that you're the only person who has any knowledge about this part of the railway, no wonder I find it hard to accept your reassurances about how certain elements of the Thameslink Programme timetable will work in reality.
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
6,443
Wow! All this, simply over pointing out that 19x377 will not be sufficient to replace 22x317/321, which remains quite correct.

Are you saying there aren't 22x317/321 diagrams? You seem to think no one else has any access to facts apart from yourself. It's a fact that there are 22x 317/321 diagrams, unless you know different - yes or no?

In my original post I made it quite clear that the shortfall *could* include 700s.

And I'm pretty sure I've read official GTR publicity stating 317s/321s will be replaced THIS YEAR. Whether that turns out to be true or not remains to be seen, but I'm not sure why, again, you're so keen to jump the gun to 2018. Passengers turning up at stations in the meantime will expect current levels of capacity to be sustained in the meantime, so it's hardly unreasonable to look at how this will happen, and what implications this has for potential spare stock available for elsewhere (eg c2c).

If you can't engage in a civilised discussion about something as simple as rolling stock allocation without feeling the need to resort to personal attacks and thinking that you're the only person who has any knowledge about this part of the railway, no wonder I find it hard to accept your reassurances about how certain elements of the Thameslink Programme timetable will work in reality.

1. Services that go over to Thameslink (either North or South of the river) in phases in 2018 will have to be running the new stock well in advance of the timetable changes.

2. The 700s are equivalent to circa 30x 4 car units for the current services so there is net gain overall on the GN routes.

3. The 317/321 diagrams can be replaced with the 19x 377s and 2x 8 car 700s note that 377/5 is stating that both 377s and 700s will be running on GN routes this year.

4. More 365s should be available post refurb programme and there is no less pressure for them to go to GWR as they don't have enough wires.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
12,192
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
1. Services that go over to Thameslink (either North or South of the river) in phases in 2018 will have to be running the new stock well in advance of the timetable changes.

2. The 700s are equivalent to circa 30x 4 car units for the current services so there is net gain overall on the GN routes.

3. The 317/321 diagrams can be replaced with the 19x 377s and 2x 8 car 700s note that 377/5 is stating that both 377s and 700s will be running on GN routes this year.

4. More 365s should be available post refurb programme and there is no less pressure for them to go to GWR as they don't have enough wires.

Do we know when the 365 refurbishment is likely to be completed? At present I believe there are around 10 units remaining to be touched, plus interior works on 365518/9, and further (PIS/accessible toilets) work on most. Obviously the latter won't take as long per unit, however can this work be done at Hornsey or will the units have to go back to works again?
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
Class377/5, I think your misunderstanding with bramling is based on an earlier post by Skimble19 claiming the GN Class 317/321 fleet will be replaced by the end of this year. Further discussion on this matter should belong in the relevant Thameslink/Great Northern topics I believe.

As for fleet replacement, well wait and see. But Iagree this is rather off topic and I'm getting fed up with some negitive attitudes on here that confuse opinion with facts.

What stock is available this spring/summer?

No AC stock is being freed up. That's the problem.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
12,192
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
As for fleet replacement, well wait and see. But Iagree this is rather off topic and I'm getting fed up with some negitive attitudes on here that confuse opinion with facts.



No AC stock is being freed up. That's the problem.

Here we go again, straw man strikes again. What you really mean is you're fed up with anything that disagrees with your own views and opinions, or anyone else posting with access to facts and figures.

As it happens, I've now got it in print from GTR that they plan to minimum commence replacing both the 317 and 321 fleets this year, target is by December timetable.
 
Last edited:

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
In the case of SWT, the fact that they already use DMUs on diagrams that should be EMUs seems to suggest that you are clutching at straws here.

Temporarily converting a few to AC seems rather extreme anyway, perhaps you should stick to practical and realistic suggestions...

Not to forget that making DC only units in DV isn't just as simple as putting a pan and transformer onto a train. You are required to rewrite the software. You'd also need to alter any other unit that it nwould interact with. From start to finish your looking about 12 months before it could be in service anyway. The AC tractioning of the 455's and extended testing or the 458/5 convertion is an indication of just how much work work it takes.

Here we go again, straw man strikes again. What you really mean is you're fed up with anything that disagrees with your own views and opinions, or anyone else who also has access to facts and figures.

No opinions on my part, only facts. But I don't think we can agree on that simple point, especially with your negitive viewpoint of anything changing.

As it happens, I've now got it in print from GTR that they plan to at least replace both the 317 and 321 fleets this year, target is by December timetable.

Perhaps then you should go place your printed information in the correct thread and we can discuss it there? We have derailed this thread long enough.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
20,917
Location
Nottingham
Not to forget that making DC only units in DV isn't just as simple as putting a pan and transformer onto a train. You are required to rewrite the software. You'd also need to alter any other unit that it nwould interact with. From start to finish your looking about 12 months before it could be in service anyway. The AC tractioning of the 455's and extended testing or the 458/5 convertion is an indication of just how much work work it takes.

That's a bit extreme. The post you replied to referred to 450s which were built as dual voltage capable designs including mountings for a pantograph and a transformer. A 450 with AC power is effectively a 350. So the difficult parts, the design and the software, already exist. The same would apply to a 375 or 377.

However, given that SWT is procuring more DC units it's unlikely they would have any spare.
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
That's a bit extreme. The post you replied to referred to 450s which were built as dual voltage capable designs including mountings for a pantograph and a transformer. A 450 with AC power is effectively a 350. So the difficult parts, the design and the software, already exist. The same would apply to a 375 or 377.

However, given that SWT is procuring more DC units it's unlikely they would have any spare.

The software does not exist. Each TOC has its own database and in this example you have the SDO issue to account for. The 450s don't have a safety case for running on AC either which is another stumbling block.

For example when the 377/2 and 387/2 transfered to Thameslink they required modifications with completely different software. It takes a few days to change this.

Just because a unit has been built with being made dual voltage doesn't mean it easy to change it, especially when you've got over a decade of wear on the unit. Everything must be proven on paper then in practice prior to passenger service.

You may think its extreme, but its not. And I havent even mentioned driver training which will take months on its own. The recent issues with the 458/5 or the 455 conversion (which its been nearly a year since the second unit had work started) shows its not a quick fix.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
12,192
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Not to forget that making DC only units in DV isn't just as simple as putting a pan and transformer onto a train. You are required to rewrite the software. You'd also need to alter any other unit that it nwould interact with. From start to finish your looking about 12 months before it could be in service anyway. The AC tractioning of the 455's and extended testing or the 458/5 convertion is an indication of just how much work work it takes.



No opinions on my part, only facts. But I don't think we can agree on that simple point, especially with your negitive viewpoint of anything changing.

Once again from you, straw man. I don't have a "negitive" (negative, actually) view of "anything changing", I've never said that. Where change is implemented I expect it to produce benefits, and as far as possible not introduce disbenefits. Bolting a single-point failure (double-track core) on the end of a reasonably reasonably resilient mainly 4-track railway from London to Huntingdon (six tracks Holloway to Stevenage if you include Hertford), having a timetable vulnerable to importing delays off other regions, and sticking a half-hourly service with 3 vastly different stopping patterns on a double-track railway containing 8 stations are all serious performance risks. I wouldn't mind so much if there appeared to be anything approaching meaningful mitigation of these and other issues, but there isn't. "It will work" just doesn't reassure.

But, we digress, as anything that doesn't agree with your view of the world is "negative", or "uninformed", or "wrong", or "an error", or "guesswork", or "an assumption", or "a joke".

Perhaps then you should go place your printed information in the correct thread and we can discuss it there? We have derailed this thread long enough.

I just did. In actual fact it is in the correct thread, as before you launched into your usual defensive rant in favour of your beloved Thameslink Programme, the issue was about when and what rolling stock might be released for c2c. Given the upcoming rolling stock changes on GTR, what happens there is potentially relevant to c2c.

Meanwhile, as it happens, earlier today with a couple of minutes to spare whilst passing through my local GTR station, out of curiosity I had a look round and quickly found basically the same information in both poster and leaflet form, so it's not particularly hard to come by.

Moving back slightly to topic, does anyone know if anything has been proposed for the GTR 317s and 321s when they leave GTR? The assumption seems to be Greater Anglia, but has this been officially proposed or confirmed anywhere? My feeling is they wouldn't be available in time to benefit c2c though, depending on when their new units emerge.
 
Last edited:

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
The software does not exist. Each TOC has its own database and in this example you have the SDO issue to account for. The 450s don't have a safety case for running on AC either which is another stumbling block.

For example when the 377/2 and 387/2 transfered to Thameslink they required modifications with completely different software. It takes a few days to change this.

Just because a unit has been built with being made dual voltage doesn't mean it easy to change it, especially when you've got over a decade of wear on the unit. Everything must be proven on paper then in practice prior to passenger service.

You may think its extreme, but its not. And I havent even mentioned driver training which will take months on its own. The recent issues with the 458/5 or the 455 conversion (which its been nearly a year since the second unit had work started) shows its not a quick fix.

Driver training issues would still be there if they had got their hands on the 360s, so that was probably not an issue.

Unless the 350/2s have had their software completely replaced, the software should exist as they were built as dual-voltage.

The argument about the decade of wear would also apply to the 360s that they intended to use so that couldn't have really been an issue
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,542
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
Moving back slightly to topic, does anyone know if anything has been proposed for the GTR 317s and 321s when they leave GTR? The assumption seems to be Greater Anglia, but has this been officially proposed or confirmed anywhere? My feeling is they wouldn't be available in time to benefit c2c though, depending on when their new units emerge.
I believe the 321s are certainly bring eyed up others who baulked at the cost of the Porterbrook 387s proposed in negotiations. Not c2c AFAIK though - they need units last month not a complicated cascade...
 
Last edited:

JonathanH

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
7,325
c2c won't take anything pre-privatistion, they've said that at one of the timetable crisis meetings with MPs.

Things might have been different if c2c had got the 10 321/4s they were said to have been due when London Midland got the 350/2 fleet. Was that ever a real proposal and did FCC (3) and London Midland (7) just have the greater need at the time?
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,582
Getting away from things that aren't happening and ideas for things that won't happen...

There's a requirement they have out for 17 new units. At the moment they've converted/are converting 17 of the 357s to "metro" spec. So will the new units come as "metro" spec and the 357s be made back to a consistent spec?
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
Driver training issues would still be there if they had got their hands on the 360s, so that was probably not an issue.

Unless the 350/2s have had their software completely replaced, the software should exist as they were built as dual-voltage.

The argument about the decade of wear would also apply to the 360s that they intended to use so that couldn't have really been an issue

Driver training issue would still have been there of course but your missing the point. Extended testing would have delayed that. 360 driver training could have begun shortly as the units would have been ready for training start away.

As software for the 350/2 would never have been used in a DV unit as they are AC only! We you mean the 350/1? That software won't be valid on the 450s as it's not got either correct database in it nor would it be approved for passenger use. Things like SDO on the 450 means there will be a big difference between the 450s and 350s now software wise. You can't just slap on software from a different unit.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
12,192
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Things might have been different if c2c had got the 10 321/4s they were said to have been due when London Midland got the 350/2 fleet. Was that ever a real proposal and did FCC (3) and London Midland (7) just have the greater need at the time?

They weren't too desparately needed at the time, as the second tranche of FCC units spent quite a few months stored in Welwyn sidings pending a timetable change to utilise them.

They've been used well since however, even if they are mainly used in the peaks.

I have a suspicion sending them to c2c was never a very developed plan, open to being corrected on this though.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
20,917
Location
Nottingham
The software does not exist. Each TOC has its own database and in this example you have the SDO issue to account for. The 450s don't have a safety case for running on AC either which is another stumbling block.

I wrote part of the safety case for the 450s and 350s and they are basically the same design of train - in fact the 350s were originally ordered as 450s. The really critical software is that in the traction package, and the package itself is identical so if the software is different the correct version could easily replace it. I'm not saying you can bolt the pantograph and transformer on and run one tomorrow but equally the experience with the 350 would make a notional safety case for a 450 on AC pretty straightforward. Especially on the c2c route where the signalling is pretty new with none of the older stuff that tends to cause the most problems with EMC. Remember how the 350s helped out on the DC network without having any major approval problems?

Does c2c even need SDO? I thought all the platforms were built out to 12-car a few years back.

For example when the 377/2 and 387/2 transfered to Thameslink they required modifications with completely different software. It takes a few days to change this.

A few days is nothing compared with the 455 and 458/5s you were talking about upthread, where an AC conversion would basically involve building an extra coach and take the unit out of service for weeks if not months.

Just because a unit has been built with being made dual voltage doesn't mean it easy to change it, especially when you've got over a decade of wear on the unit. Everything must be proven on paper then in practice prior to passenger service.

I agree some paperwork is needed as I mentioned above. But adding a pan and transformer is not really any different to replacing these items on a unit that has been running with them for a few years. Otherwise the ROSCOs have wasted a fair amount of their money by specifying dual voltage capability on most of their EMU orders.
 
Last edited:

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,423
Location
London
Here we go again, straw man strikes again. What you really mean is you're fed up with anything that disagrees with your own views and opinions, or anyone else posting with access to facts and figures.

As it happens, I've now got it in print from GTR that they plan to minimum commence replacing both the 317 and 321 fleets this year, target is by December timetable.

It's also available on the website, here:

www.thameslinkrailway.com/about-us/...ssenger-satisfaction-rises-on-great-northern/
 

whoosh

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
847
Wow! All this, simply over pointing out that 19x377 will not be sufficient to replace 22x317/321, which remains quite correct.

Are you saying there aren't 22x317/321 diagrams? You seem to think no one else has any access to facts apart from yourself. It's a fact that there are 22x 317/321 diagrams, unless you know different - yes or no?

There may well be 22x317/321 diagrams at the moment. But the situation at the moment is that some of those diagrams will be for 317s, and some of those diagrams will be for 321s. They can't run together, or rather it's the company's policy that they don't, so there may well be inefficiencies which can be overcome with 377s coming along that can all couple to each other, and a possible reduction in diagrams because of this.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
12,192
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
There may well be 22x317/321 diagrams at the moment. But the situation at the moment is that some of those diagrams will be for 317s, and some of those diagrams will be for 321s. They can't run together, or rather it's the company's policy that they don't, so there may well be inefficiencies which can be overcome with 377s coming along that can all couple to each other, and a possible reduction in diagrams because of this.

Very hard to reduce the numbers required when they're all currently in service at the same time - especially without a pretty major timetable rewrite.

Bear in mind many of the diagrams in question only do a couple of peak-time trips.

For example, at 0745 in the morning all 10 317s are on their way into London in pairs, and all 12 321s are either running in service or on their way empty to work a service. There is only one detachment (of a 12-car 321) of the entire fleet in the morning peak, no attachments. Good luck finding a way to maintain that with a reduced fleet, without reducing a formation somewhere.

And, in the unlikely event that you do manage to juggle things to free up a unit, the priority should be to lengthen the one remaining morning-peak service towards King's Cross than remains formed of 1x321 in the current timetable, and is grossly overcrowded.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top