Rolling Stock - masses of stock coming off lease

[otomous]

SWR should have been compelled to renegotiate the lease on the 707s beyond the point they'll now be disposed of, retaining the existing fleets and avoiding the appalling waste of 458s fresh from hugely expensive rebuilds being binned. Similarly wasteful disposing of the retractioned 455s.

150s are unavoidably ancient, although presumably DDA modified examples will be expected to do another ten years or so. The next SE franchise going for new trains quite simply shouldn't be allowed to happen if we are awash with surplus rolling stock. Overhaul and refurbishment are available, make do with it. From dire shortages to wasteful excess; the industry needs to get a grip. Apparently there's a shortage of cash and the railway needs to be frugal. You wouldn't think so. Perhaps the government needs to think outside of the box here. Create a state owned ROSCO and reacquire this surplus stock that used to belong to the country. Overhaul it and offer it to TOCs at a sensible price, thus reducing overheads and subsidy. Yes ultimately that's still public money subsidising something, but better it subsidises state assets than subsidising train manufacturers through massive leasing costs.

The whole point of allowing private finance in was to cover large investments in rolling stock that the state was not willing to meet. There are mismatch issues with the Networkers and modern traffic requirements. SW chose to replace the fleet for sound reasons as they saw it; why should SE not be able to do the same? Frankly we’ve seen what happens when the DfT starts intervening in such decisions with the whole new Gatwick fleet wasted then replaced with unsuitable trains that should have been retired, then replaced again, not to mention the imposition of 313s on the south coast.

 

[BestWestern]

The whole point of allowing private finance in was to cover large investments in rolling stock that the state was not willing to meet. There are mismatch issues with the Networkers and modern traffic requirements. SW chose to replace the fleet for sound reasons as they saw it; why should SE not be able to do the same? Frankly we’ve seen what happens when the DfT starts intervening in such decisions with the whole new Gatwick fleet wasted then replaced with unsuitable trains that should have been retired, then replaced again, not to mention the imposition of 313s on the south coast.

Surely the whole point of allowing 'private finance' in was so that the government of the day could flog the nation's train fleets to the highest bidder, along with every other part of the railways?

Times are supposedly hard. The railway, whether one views it as a private thing, a public thing or the dysfunctional clash of both that it actually is, needs to cut costs, hard. The cost of leasing rolling stock, the very core element of running a railway, is astronomical. There are trains available which can be made to do the job. Make use of them. We are a long way from ideals with the current climate - TOCs who don't have enough trains to service their obligation to convey their passengers, infrastructure projects which are a total farce because the money doesn't exist to finish them, and a bloody massacre of much needed frontline staff being plotted and slowly carried out, to cut the subsidy sums. That is the everyday, the reality, and in that context scrapping serviceable rolling stock to replace it with something else to do the same job is simply not justified. The powers need to wake up and face the reality that right now the money isn't there, and the wastage is sinful. Look at GWML and IET, now crippled to the point of being seriously questionable. Value for money? Unlikely. Neither of the fancy new elements will do much to prevent the signalling system frequently falling over on the Paddington - Reading corridor. Peacemeal investment from an overstretched bank balance creates an inferior product that scores well below what could be achieved a little later when the money exists to do the job properly. Focus on optimising what we already have, get the books balancing and save the big ticket stuff for another day when we can see it through. New trains can wait, run a decent service with what's already available and people will thank you for it.

There are plenty of examples of making efficient use of what we already have; SWT 455 refurbs and retractioning and 456s to boost capacity, 458 rebuilds, 319s, Renatus, HST of course, and still to come SWR with the 442s. It might not be as flashy or headline grabbing as screaming about new trains, but it demonstrates how solutions can be found with existing assets rather than automatically tendering for new metal. Get it into the works (UK jobs there, too), brought up to standard and back out in service!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's market forces.
Once interest rates go up the pendulum will swing back to refurb rather than buying new.
Spare rolling stock is an incentive for the ROSCOs to cut their lease prices, and incidently for Open Access to have a chance of starting up.

Refurbs are bad news for manufacturers.
New trains are bad news for maintainers (a significant whole-life cost to the TOCs and ROSCOs).
You can't have both at the same time.

Mk3 coaches once littered the sidings after Pendolinos and Voyagers came in.
But today, virtually all of them have been pressed back into main line service.
Even the 442s are coming back.
The railway is very good at recycling its assets.
Some may be exported to earn the ROSCOs some cash (they and their bankers are the ones taking the risk, not the TOCs/DfT).

 

[A0]

There are many new trains on the horizon and as a result many would need a new home or face a new life as a washine machine or a nail clipper.

According to Modern Railway, Here are the stocks that are potentially at risk.

Ex BR:
90/MK3/DVT (GA, though i do expect the class 90 may move to freight duties)
150, 153b(LM/GA)
317 (All of them)
319 (LM/GTR)
321 (All of them)
323 (LM/NR)
455/456 (SWR)
442 (Excluding those moving to SWR)
HST (GWR/VTEC/GC Excluding those that are moving to scotland/GC HST may be part if Grand Central takes all 180's)
91/MK4 (Excluding those that are about 7 remain with VTEC and a small number to wcml
365 (Remaining 21)
465/466 (All of them aparently)

Class 142/144/313/315 are also on the list but i wont be surprise if they get scraped

Modern:
170 (GA)
180 (HT)
185 (Remaining 22)
350/2/350/4
360/360/2
379
458/5
707
A number of Electrostars may also be affected if the next South Eastern Franchise also goes for new trains


Do you think that TOC's are doing the right thing or just wasting money and do you have any suggestions for these stocks?

All of the 'modern' ones will find homes - that's not in doubt. Example, the 350/4s will probably end up with one of LM's successors. The 379s could easily end up with EMT for Corby services.

The only questionable one there is the 458s as they are 3rd rail only and not easily converted to 25kv. The rest will be fine.

Of the ex BR stuff - the 90s could become freight, the Mk3s and DVTs likely to be scrapped. The DMUs will doubtless find homes as there's a shortage of DMUs in various places.

I could see the 317s going for scrap - given their age, along with the PEP derived units (313/4/5 507/8) owing to age and condition. The 365s may be problematic being a small fleet and not readily compatible with others, so they may be on their way out.

 

[otomous]

Surely the whole point of allowing 'private finance' in was so that the government of the day could flog the nation's train fleets to the highest bidder, along with every other part of the railways?

Times are supposedly hard. The railway, whether one views it as a private thing, a public thing or the dysfunctional clash of both that it actually is, needs to cut costs, hard. The cost of leasing rolling stock, the very core element of running a railway, is astronomical. There are trains available which can be made to do the job. Make use of them. We are a long way from ideals with the current climate - TOCs who don't have enough trains to service their obligation to convey their passengers, infrastructure projects which are a total farce because the money doesn't exist to finish them, and a bloody massacre of much needed frontline staff being plotted and slowly carried out, to cut the subsidy sums. That is the everyday, the reality, and in that context scrapping serviceable rolling stock to replace it with something else to do the same job is simply not justified. The powers need to wake up and face the reality that right now the money isn't there, and the wastage is sinful. Look at GWML and IET, now crippled to the point of being seriously questionable. Value for money? Unlikely. Neither of the fancy new elements will do much to prevent the signalling system frequently falling over on the Paddington - Reading corridor. Peacemeal investment from an overstretched bank balance creates an inferior product that scores well below what could be achieved a little later when the money exists to do the job properly. Focus on optimising what we already have, get the books balancing and save the big ticket stuff for another day when we can see it through. New trains can wait, run a decent service with what's already available and people will thank you for it.

There are plenty of examples of making efficient use of what we already have; SWT 455 refurbs and retractioning and 456s to boost capacity, 458 rebuilds, 319s, Renatus, HST of course, and still to come SWR with the 442s. It might not be as flashy or headline grabbing as screaming about new trains, but it demonstrates how solutions can be found with existing assets rather than automatically tendering for new metal. Get it into the works (UK jobs there, too), brought up to standard and back out in service!

Certainly there was political dogma involved in privatisation, but come the early 90s there was a lot of money needing spending on new stock and infrastructure and the government wasn't willing to find it. Private finance in the form of the ROSCOs allowed the slam doors in the south to be replaced, and new fleets on the West Coast and Cross Country routes. I don't particularly like that they bought a public asset for a song either but there's no putting that genie back in the bottle for the moment.

However there are good reasons for wholesale replacement of a fleet which the opportunities offered by cheap finance and a franchise change make attractive.

As a driver who drives stock of different ages and types on the same routes, I can see the benefit of common stock. In performance terms, the timings are more predictable, the dwell times, even the turnaround times - seemingly silly things like cleaners being able to walk through and grab the bins from the same places or quicker cab set up. It's less knowledge for the driver to retain which could make fault finding quicker, certainly makes training drivers quicker, fleet can concentrate on fewer classes, retain a more standard set of plant and parts, etc for maintenance, a longer time between depot visits, all of which cuts costs (for whose advantage is another discussion) and creates higher availability for passengers.

Or the available off lease stock just isn't suitable and can't be made so more quickly than a whole new fleet. The Electostars with a mixture of 2-2 and 2-3 seating might be suitable for longer distance Kent services but not so good for the Metro services where we need a pack em in design - one with fast acceleration and braking, full SDO and walk through capability. Networkers, 455s and 319s don't meet these needs, I could well understand why a new franchise holder might seek to order a new fleet to get maximum capacity out of the infrastructure by going for fixed formation go anywhere trains.

And we can't really blame the TOCs for the infrastructure issues - that's a result of government policy - the TOCs have to operate within their remit which might mean choosing to buy a whole new fleet when BR might have cascaded from elsewhere.

 

[hwl]

There are trains available which can be made to do the job. Make use of them. We are a long way from ideals with the current climate - TOCs who don't have enough trains to service their obligation to convey their passengers, infrastructure projects which are a total farce because the money doesn't exist to finish them, and a bloody massacre of much needed frontline staff being plotted and slowly carried out, to cut the subsidy sums...
There are plenty of examples of making efficient use of what we already have; SWT 455 refurbs and retractioning and 456s to boost capacity, 458 rebuilds, 319s, Renatus, HST of course, and still to come SWR with the 442s. It might not be as flashy or headline grabbing as screaming about new trains, but it demonstrates how solutions can be found with existing assets rather than automatically tendering for new metal. Get it into the works (UK jobs there, too), brought up to standard and back out in service!

If you go to some of the franchises concerned and look at things in detail out wouldn't come to same conclusion.

Making existing trains do the job is now often proving more expensive than buying new especially when you look at the total operating cost of new stock as the maintenacne requirements are far lower. Often going of new stock means you can maintain lots more stock with the existing facilitates and not spend tens of millions on new depot.

For example going full 10car on SWR metro would require the replacement of circa 50% of the 455s as there aren't enough 456s, with the new stock needing SDO and always running on Kingston Loop services to add to complications in running services.
The narrow door opening on 455s and 456s cause huge dwell time issues and their relatively poor acceleration prevents any improvements in service levels or timetabling.
Hence the sensible option is to replace all the 455s and 456s.
The 458s didn't get a suitable internal refurb to address dwell times and standing issues and have been less reliable since the refurb and 5 car conversion so would realistically need more spending on them.
The 707s order was a big oops moment, they were only specified to performance match 455s on acceleration etc which no longer makes sense if the 455s are being replaced. they have wider door etc for better dwell times but not the right interior layout required to furtherr reduce dwell times needed to meet the requirements for the new franchise. As a mid franchsie add on DfT effectively had to agree to a less than optimal price but SWT and the ROSCO order stock that has a) fewer traction motors than other desiro city models with only 40% powered axles compared to 505 on the others b) smaller traction motors 150kW vs 200kW in the others, so the average installed power per axle is 60kW compared to 100kW. A 707 will be easily out performed by a networker for example. The cost of leasing new Aventras is also lower.

A uniform fleet will also need fewer spare units reducing leasing costs. A modern uniform fleet even more so.

So why should franchises be crippled with make do and mend when there are better AND cheaper alternatives?

 

[hwl]

Or the available off lease stock just isn't suitable and can't be made so more quickly than a whole new fleet. The Electostars with a mixture of 2-2 and 2-3 seating might be suitable for longer distance Kent services but not so good for the Metro services where we need a pack em in design - one with fast acceleration and braking, full SDO and walk through capability. Networkers, 455s and 319s don't meet these needs, I could well understand why a new franchise holder might seek to order a new fleet to get maximum capacity out of the infrastructure by going for fixed formation go anywhere trains.

And we can't really blame the TOCs for the infrastructure issues - that's a result of government policy - the TOCs have to operate within their remit which might mean choosing to buy a whole new fleet when BR might have cascaded from elsewhere.

Excellent post from someone who actually understands the issues on the ground!

New stock with SDO is a much better investment than attempting to sort the platforms at Woolwich Dockyard and Charing Cross for longer metro services!

 

[43096]

The 458s didn't get a suitable internal refurb to address dwell times and standing issues and have been less reliable since the refurb and 5 car conversion so would realistically need more spending on them.

Utter nonsense. The 458s' interior is fine for the services they work: 2+2 seating with some 1+1 near the door areas and plenty of standing room. Reliability was poor after the rebuild but is now much improved - cancellations and short forms are rare now. The only real issue now is the toilets which have been poor from day one.

 

[sjoh]

I'm particularly interested in the 'small but mighty' improvements that could be achieved through the cascade of some of the modern stock on that list. Think what XC (or EMT) could do with just a handful of extra 170s from GA, for example. Similarly for ATW with a few (I believe mechanically similar to 175's) 180s.

We've seen what a comparative handful of 377's from Southern have been able to achieve with southeastern. My prediction is we're likely to see lots of small improvements to regional services as a result of this.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Surely with the 379s they could fit shoes and use them on SE as they are of the same family as the 375/377 units?

With the 350/2 they could replace 323s fully on the Walsall/Wolverhampton plus take up Chase Line electrics and 350/4s couldo easily put themselves to use on the bottom end of the WMCL.

Give Chiltern some more 170s to swap for their 172s and use them on Shrewsbury/Hereford/Nuneaton/Kenilworth/Marston Vales, leaving the 172/2&172/3 units for Snow Hill

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

With the 350/2 they could replace 323s fully on the Walsall/Wolverhampton plus take up Chase Line electrics and 350/4s couldo easily put themselves to use on the bottom end of the WMCL.

The new Abellio WM franchise seems to want 5/10-car 23m sets on Euston services, rather than 4/8/12-car 20m 350/2s.
That is probably a significant improvement in cost/efficiency (more seats, fewer cabs, less marshalling).
The same pattern is visible on their plans for GA services out of Liverpool St.
The 350/1s have to stay as they have a DfT lease guarantee until 2025 (though not necessarily on WM).

 

[TheWalrus]

I would like to see the remaining HSTs go to XC and work the majority of North East-South West services.

I would also have thought the now spare 319s and other EMUs could replace the old 313s etc. What would be the possibility of fitting a third rail shoe to say 323s (or other EMUs) and use them on services operated currently by say 508s?

 

[47802]

I would like to see the remaining HSTs go to XC and work the majority of North East-South West services.

I would also have thought the now spare 319s and other EMUs could replace the old 313s etc. What would be the possibility of fitting a third rail shoe to say 323s (or other EMUs) and use them on services operated currently by say 508s?

XC should really be looking for a replacement for HST's in the next franchise, and given the number of newer EMU's that will be released in the next few years apart from the Northern 319's it should be Flex units or scrap

 

[northwichcat]

Given the EMT, W&B and GWR franchises are not yet re-let and the Northern one still has a requirement to secure additional DMUs I don't think we'll have a DMU surplus but are making progress towards ending the DMU shortage which we currently have.

 

[tbtc]

Funny how quickly the tide turned from "it's shocking that we are paying leasing costs for all of these ancient BR-trains that should have been scrapped ages ago" to "we should just make-do and mend and it'd be a waste to replace old trains".

It’s clearly in the interests of recent franchise winners to have bid in the way they did, in view of what the DfT stipulated. They get more modern trains that should become more reliable, need less maintenance, and have lower leasing costs, and they get largely homogenous fleets. But that’s achieved through a shocking waste of money in relation to trains that have at least ten years more life in them – and in some cases many more years than that – and while some of those trains will survive, the realistic consequence of making so many trains surplus to requirements over just a few years is that many of them will be scrapped

What happened in the past is the past. We took several wrong turnings to get where we now are, but that cannot not be changed. We just have to deal with the situation in front of us.

And, at the moment, if it's cheaper to get a 100% new fleet like GA are doing (with savings on maintenance, cheaper lease costs, the simplicity of having one big fleet that can interwork and communicate with each other... plus the chance to have wifi/ bi-mode/ air conditioning as standard) then that's the way forward.

Look at how expensive it has been to convert a Pacer and a 321 to modern standards (the ePacer and the Renatus mods)... look how long it took with the 458/460 conversion/upgrades... consider how many trains you'd need to take out of a stretched fleet whilst you upgraded them all to post-2020 standards...

I don't know if you are a car driver, but there comes a time when it becomes cheaper to run a modern fuel efficient one than to keep sweating a tired old vehicle (when each MOT becomes a bigger headache... when it starts to spend more and more time off the road... when you are paying all of this money to stop it falling apart when you could save cash and get a new one with Bluetooth etc as standard). Same goes for trying to upgrade features on an old car.

So, if you are bidding for a franchise then the idea of replacing 37s/ 90s/ 153s/ 156s/ two coach 170s/ three coach 170s/ five varieties of 317s/ two varieties of 321s/ 360s and 379s with Aventras and Flirts ... so that you don't need to take dozens of carriages out of service whilst they are upgraded... so staff training is a lot easier... so maintenance becomes simpler... so trains are compatible... you'd be daft not to.

The thing that puzzles me isn't that GA are going for an all-new fleet... the thing that puzzles me is that SWR are trying to resurrect a handful of superannuated 442s (rather than tag on an extra order of Aventras). I know I've said this before on other threads, but it seems to go against the grain.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm particularly interested in the 'small but mighty' improvements that could be achieved through the cascade of some of the modern stock on that list. Think what XC (or EMT) could do with just a handful of extra 170s from GA, for example. Similarly for ATW with a few (I believe mechanically similar to 175's) 180s.

We've seen what a comparative handful of 377's from Southern have been able to achieve with southeastern. My prediction is we're likely to see lots of small improvements to regional services as a result of this.

I shall also be interested to see what wider benefits come from rolling stock availability...
e.g. the usage increase that will happen when the TransPennine capacity improvements come in might even result in another of the services each hour going over to a long l/h trainset - if suitable locos can be found.

tbtc makes a good point about older vehicles getting to the stage where it is obviously cheaper to start again, but for some reason railway rolling stock seems to soldier on for a lot longer than road vehicles. Maybe we punters just don't see the cost or the amount of effort needed to keep it in service, unlike our own cars.

 

[47802]

The thing that puzzles me isn't that GA are going for an all-new fleet... the thing that puzzles me is that SWR are trying to resurrect a handful of superannuated 442s (rather than tag on an extra order of Aventras). I know I've said this before on other threads, but it seems to go against the grain.

As has been stated before I think its mainly the fact they can get them into service quickly and provide extra capacity, compared to new build, of course they may well have got a very good deal from the leasing company as well.

 

[TheWalrus]

XC should really be looking for a replacement for HST's in the next franchise, and given the number of newer EMU's that will be released in the next few years apart from the Northern 319's it should be Flex units or scrap

I would personally like to see XC order a fleet of bi-mode 802s (or something similar) to replace all of the Voyagers and take advantage of the sections of wires along their routes. It may seem contradictory but I think HSTs are great on the South West route and if they can go on for another 10 Years then it would be great to do that, order a number of 802s then another batch at a later date.

Problem is then what would happen to the Voyagers?

 

[AM9]

... What would be the possibility of fitting a third rail shoe to say 323s (or other EMUs) and use them on services operated currently by say 508s?

Irrespective of the old vs. new discussion, I think that the class 323 is an ac-only design in mthat it may not have a conventional 750VDC traction bus. To create one would require a redesign of the ac mode hardware or (worse) creation of a 50Hz ac bus using a DC to ac inverter. The class 319 is fairly unique

 

[Roast Veg]

Saw it written on this forum that the 323s use a 1000v bus IIRC.

 

[Domh245]

Saw it written on this forum that the 323s use a 1000v bus IIRC.

According to a manual for the 323s that I found online, they have a 1500v AC bus for the traction motors (which is rectified and then turned into the 3 phase AC within the traction converters), and a 240v AC for some auxiliaries, both taken straight from the transformers (the 240v feed is then also transformed and rectified to a 110v DC supply for the main auxiliaries).

 

[tbtc]

tbtc makes a good point about older vehicles getting to the stage where it is obviously cheaper to start again, but for some reason railway rolling stock seems to soldier on for a lot longer than road vehicles. Maybe we punters just don't see the cost or the amount of effort needed to keep it in service, unlike our own cars.

I think that it's partly been because old stock was fairly low-tech - so you could keep running a 313 or a HST or even a 483 because there was very little to go wrong on them.

Modern stock has computers which become outdated (e.g. you need to keep the technology up to date but there comes a time when the software providers won't support older technology).

Plus, there's the demand for up to date features. A 1980s train wasn't too dissimilar on board to an 1880s train (as far as a passenger might have been concerned - obviously the driver's experience will have changed!), but now we need disabled access (wider doors, bigger toilets etc), we demand things like plugs at seats/ wifi/ air conditioning ... we require a good PIS and CCTV ... all of which is difficult/ costly/ time-consuming to add onto existing stock (but can be easy to specify as new).

As has been stated before I think its mainly the fact they can get them into service quickly and provide extra capacity, compared to new build, of course they may well have got a very good deal from the leasing company as well.

Good point. I still think it'll be more hassle that it's worth (compared to ordering fifteen/twenty "InterCity" EMUs as the first batch of the big order of Aventras before the "suburban" ones are built.

But First/MTR know the finances, they may well (as you say) have got the 442s at a knock-down price (given the lack of other TOCs for the ROSCO to lease them to - it just seems to be swimming against the tide of newbuilds - especially when they are ordering hundreds of Aventra carriages.

 

[TheWalrus]

Yep, staff and passengers both can’t wait

Pity the poor soul that gets the 180s next!

I like 180s they are my favourite DMU. They could be used on a semi-fast Exeter to London service calling at Taunton, Westbury, Pewsey, Bedwyn, Hungerford, Newbury and Reading or via Chippenham and Swindon. Just to suit me lol

 

[Starmill]

The thing that puzzles me isn't that GA are going for an all-new fleet... the thing that puzzles me is that SWR are trying to resurrect a handful of superannuated 442s (rather than tag on an extra order of Aventras). I know I've said this before on other threads, but it seems to go against the grain.

I don't think it's that surprising - you said it yourself. The trains were already off-lease and SW/SE/SN are really the only places they could ever go. So they must have got a fantastically good deal on them, modifications and all.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I can see HTs 180s replacing the Mk3s with Arriva, almost identical inside to a 175, just longer. Use the extra two carriages for the premier class seating???

 

[Malcolmffc]

I'm shocked that anyone would think that the 455/456s should have been kept around on SWR for another 10 years. They are clapped out, cause major dwell time issues and are hellish in summer due to the lack of aircon on trains. Really they should have gone years ago.

 

[bussnapperwm]

The new Abellio WM franchise seems to want 5/10-car 23m sets on Euston services, rather than 4/8/12-car 20m 350/2s.
That is probably a significant improvement in cost/efficiency (more seats, fewer cabs, less marshalling).
The same pattern is visible on their plans for GA services out of Liverpool St.
The 350/1s have to stay as they have a DfT lease guarantee until 2025 (though not necessarily on WM).

If only the Marston Vale line was sparked up and then potentially we could have through London Euston to Bedford electric services using the /4s (with some platform alterations). Either that or if they had ever decided to put wires on Snow Hill/Shrewsbury and Nuneaton/Kenilworths. Use the /2s on Wolverhampton/Walsall/Shrewsbury and /4s on Snow Hill (with first class removed)

That would mean that the 172 fleet could go to Chiltern to replace their life expired Class 165 fleet, with the 170 fleet converted to 168/4s for Mainline services.

 

[TheWalrus]

If only the Marston Vale line was sparked up and then potentially we could have through London Euston to Bedford electric services using the /4s (with some platform alterations). Either that or if they had ever decided to put wires on Snow Hill/Shrewsbury and Nuneaton/Kenilworths. Use the /2s on Wolverhampton/Walsall/Shrewsbury and /4s on Snow Hill (with first class removed)

That would mean that the 172 fleet could go to Chiltern to replace their life expired Class 165 fleet, with the 170 fleet converted to 168/4s for Mainline services.

How many 165s do chiltern have? We could have them in Devon for Exmouth to Paignton would surely be better acceleration and less dwell times than a 158 or maybe 150?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Its awkward though, if GWR operate their West of England fleet as 150s, 158s, 165s and 166s. Currently it is 143s, 150/1s, 150/2s and 153s, which are all similar and can be coupled together. Turbos cannot be coupled wih Sprinters, so that factor is going to be a pain for GWR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The new Abellio WM franchise seems to want 5/10-car 23m sets on Euston services, rather than 4/8/12-car 20m 350/2s.

It's also a better fit to demand as the Southern south WCML service has shown (upping to 8-car peak and 5-car off-peak has near enough got rid of the overcrowding issue). There are very few services for which 4x20m is adequate, but plenty more for which 8x20m is excessive. Yet in the peaks all the 8x20m ones are overcrowded. So a choice between 120/240m may well be a better one (assuming 24m Aventras) than 80/160/240.

It's worth bearing in mind that the 350/1s weren't designed for the south WCML, they came about as a result of a reduced SWT order, so were somewhat of an "accident".