379s fitted with shoegear/batteries and sent to Southern to displace the 171s, that can then go to Abellio for EMR?
on a realistic note for this: Shoegear is an easy fit. Full battery operation IIRC was discovered to need more battery space than would be available on a DV electrostar as the battery health was deteriorating on the trial due to the size of the cell being too small and subsequently it was being overworked. I suspect it could work on a SV 377 with the extra space on the PTOSL being available, but I think the other limitation was charge time? Probably not an issue for Marshlink units to be interworked with other east coastway services, but likely an issue for Uckfield with the longer charge time required for DC routes compared to AC routes.379s fitted with shoegear/batteries and sent to Southern to displace the 171s, that can then go to Abellio for EMR?
on a realistic note for this: Shoegear is an easy fit. Full battery operation IIRC was discovered to need more battery space than would be available on a DV electrostar as the battery health was deteriorating on the trial due to the size of the cell being too small and subsequently it was being overworked. I suspect it could work on a SV 377 with the extra space on the PTOSL being available, but I think the other limitation was charge time? Probably not an issue for Marshlink units to be interworked with other east coastway services, but likely an issue for Uckfield with the longer charge time required for DC routes compared to AC routes.
on a realistic note for this: Shoegear is an easy fit. Full battery operation IIRC was discovered to need more battery space than would be available on a DV electrostar as the battery health was deteriorating on the trial due to the size of the cell being too small and subsequently it was being overworked. I suspect it could work on a SV 377 with the extra space on the PTOSL being available, but I think the other limitation was charge time? Probably not an issue for Marshlink units to be interworked with other east coastway services, but likely an issue for Uckfield with the longer charge time required for DC routes compared to AC routes.
So presumably there will need to be about a dozen units for half hourly Hertford East and peak additionals, two for Southminster (as Wickford bay is too short for a 710) and one for Harwich (length of Manningtree bay). Thus giving a requirement of about 15 retained units, with spares will probably be a fleet of 18. Are there any requirements for legacy fleet units I have missed, or are there still likely to be some 379s looking for a home?They're going nowhere for the foreseeable. GA banked on Network Rail doing work to accommodate Class 720s on the West Anglia branches in their bid prospectus but seemingly didn't bother to ask NR or offer funding. So GA needs to keep a small fleet of 4 car units but using the Class 321s on the "West Side" would require platform sighting alterations or a guard. The 360s are off to the East Midlands which leaves the 379s or renaging on the "new trains" pledge with what will be 40 year old class 317s.
Agree it's such a waste going to be so many trains with plenty of life possibly going for scrap or just sitting around doing nothing i.e 350's , 379's , 387's , ideally they should of been of sent to Heathrow Express as they are Airport ready and the GWR 387s to C2C .It's great that privatisation has brought us so many wasted billions of pounds worht of trains less than 20 years old.
This has already been taken into account in the ScotRail franchise agreement with Edinburgh-Dunbar services soon due to be extended to Berwick Upon Tweed using 385s, with future scope for ScotRail to request ORR for access to paths to extend these to Newcastle in future.Move them to Northern to replace the 319 and form a new service between Newcastle - Edinburgh (Scotrail or Northern)
Agree it's such a waste going to be so many trains with plenty of life possibly going for scrap or just sitting around doing nothing i.e 350's , 379's , 387's , ideally they should of been of sent to Heathrow Express as they are Airport ready and the GWR 387s to C2C .
That's some good analysis. There are issues around the original plan for the deployment of the 20 Class 745s, those closer to Crown Point will know more but my reading of it was that the GA team's diagramming knowledge was proven to be totally inadequate for "real world" operation. End result, they fudged up the fleet size and make-up. So there may well be a further legacy requirement but most of us on the outside simply don't know how planning for what's left of the brand new timetable is going.So presumably there will need to be about a dozen units for half hourly Hertford East and peak additionals, two for Southminster (as Wickford bay is too short for a 710) and one for Harwich (length of Manningtree bay). Thus giving a requirement of about 15 retained units, with spares will probably be a fleet of 18. Are there any requirements for legacy fleet units I have missed, or are there still likely to be some 379s looking for a home?
Indeed. I thought the numbers optimistic when I first saw them.There are issues around the original plan for the deployment of the 20 Class 745s, those closer to Crown Point will know more but my reading of it was that the GA team's diagramming knowledge was proven to be totally inadequate for "real world" operation. End result, they fudged up the fleet size and make-up. So there may well be a further legacy requirement but most of us on the outside simply don't know how planning for what's left of the brand new timetable is going.
Indeed. I thought the numbers optimistic when I first saw them.
At present, there are 11 class 90 diagrams, including a peak only diagram, for a half hourly Norwich service. It would be reasonable for the peak diagram to become a transfer move for a Stansted unit to get from/to Crown Point, but even then you have 10 diagrams for 10 units, which is clearly unsustainable. Even if an hourly Norwich in 90 shaves off a diagram, I reckon they are still a unit short, quite possibly two.
Similarly, there are nine diagrams for the Stansted units, plus the Norwich peak, giving 100% utilisation. That is in no way sustainable.
I reckon over the two fleets, even with heroic timetabling for the Norwich units and assuming the third hourly Norwich is a 710, they are at least two units short of where they would want to be. Assuming 12 car rakes, that is 6 more 379s above the 15 for the branches. Allowing an additional spare, that leaves a retained fleet of 22.
Great Eastern suburban stuff really isn't my area of expertise, but how optimistic do you think they have been with the 710 diagramming? Could they end up having to retain all 30 379s?
Indeed. I thought the numbers optimistic when I first saw them.
At present, there are 11 class 90 diagrams, including a peak only diagram, for a half hourly Norwich service. It would be reasonable for the peak diagram to become a transfer move for a Stansted unit to get from/to Crown Point, but even then you have 10 diagrams for 10 units, which is clearly unsustainable. Even if an hourly Norwich in 90 shaves off a diagram, I reckon they are still a unit short, quite possibly two.
Similarly, there are nine diagrams for the Stansted units, plus the Norwich peak, giving 100% utilisation. That is in no way sustainable.
I reckon over the two fleets, even with heroic timetabling for the Norwich units and assuming the third hourly Norwich is a 710, they are at least two units short of where they would want to be. Assuming 12 car rakes, that is 6 more 379s above the 15 for the branches. Allowing an additional spare, that leaves a retained fleet of 22.
Great Eastern suburban stuff really isn't my area of expertise, but how optimistic do you think they have been with the 710 diagramming? Could they end up having to retain all 30 379s?
Add to that the mess up with ordering two different types of 12-car FLIRT for the Norwichs and Stansteds. A single type would have made much more sense, and the simple solution then for the Ilford Intercity diagrams would be to keep 379s on Stansted and use more FLIRTs on the ICs.I did some work based on a working timetable a year or so ago and came to the conclusion that many trains will be shorter, even allowing for the increased seat numbers on the Aventras, in particular I had several shoulder peak services running as 5 car in substitute of 8. In the case of my regular trains they are packed 8 cars and dropping to 5 would present so many problems, not least because the seating capacity includes tip up seats by the doors that will hammer dwell times.
So my I estimate that having a fleet of 20 on the West Side and 10 on the East Side for Southminster and the Chelmsford starters (give them a decent train in the morning to say sorry for standing on everything else) would ease the pressure on the 720 fleet and allow a few of them to be dedicated to Ilford Intercity diagrams. I'm off next week, might be time to fire-up the spreadsheet again.
Long shot but I think they'll end up at Southern on the Uckfield to allow the 171s to depart elsewhere in the long run...
Run as battery multiple units (with a charging strip of 3rd rail at Uckfield) standalone, or run as splitters with 377s on the East Grinstead off-peak.
Adapting them to DC will still be less work than turning them all into battery units - a lot less in fact.Good idea in theory but that would mean having to build a sub station just for that platform length of 3rd rail.
Anyway the 379s are AC only aren’t they?
What about Chester to Birmingham, or even London, via Crewe? They could charge up under the wires ready for the unnelectrified bit between Crewe and Chester.
Saperstein.
Biggest problem is that the electric distribution network in the Uckfield branch area is a bit pants so nothing to plug the transformer into.Good idea in theory but that would mean having to build a sub station just for that platform length of 3rd rail.
Anyway the 379s are AC only aren’t they?
What about Chester to Birmingham, or even London, via Crewe? They could charge up under the wires ready for the unnelectrified bit between Crewe and Chester.
Saperstein.