Suggested future uses for Class 379s

[A0]

I think that is where the 350/2s could eventually come in. They are available to meet growth if they are eventually needed and can displace the 379s but in the meantime, the timetables need to be resource led.

The 350/2s are fast becoming the new 365 or 442 - basically a fleet where 101 ideas, most of them crazy, keep cropping up.

Why would GN want to take on the 350s ? It creates a driver training and maintenance headache which they've recently got rid off by standing down the 365s. The 387s and 379s are sufficiently similar that the training and maintenance headache wouldn't be reintroduced.

They, perhaps, would have made more sense for EMR Connect, offering the gangway end which the 360s don't - but then that would have raised the question of where the 360s would go.

I am not sure about the Southern region, but when you look at GTR as a whole it is very possible they could cascade out the 455s / 313s.

When you look at the companies, Thameslink - dedicated fleet with lots of spare capacity. I guess Cambridge - Maidstone East isn't relevant here as it would be South Eastern units it would be replacing. But we have 12 car trains running between London - Cambridge / Peterborough, so running 8 cars on other routes (instead of 12) may be enough in the peak. Cambridge passengers may be unhappy admittedly that they have a choice of a seat on the slower Thameslink service or need to stand on the Great Northern. I suspect that these arguments can be debated South of the Thames, If London - Brighton has lots of 12 car trains via Thameslink, does Victoria need them?

You mention 10 car trains, but could 8 suffice? with the drop in passengers numbers meaning the 3 car trains can be cascaded elsewhere.

I know it is often short sighted doing this, as when traffic grows again you can't build new trains quickly enough, but as you can't shorten routes with Thameslink trains, shortening the others and encouraging people onto the excess capacity of Thameslink may be the way of retiring the 313s and 455s. It is odd we are talking about reducing train lengths, I suspect dft would rather we drop the frequency to achieve the same thing and keep the train lengths the same, but that may have a hit on the revenue.

There are 30 x 313 and 46 x 455 - a reshuffle might just do away with the 313s, but it would service reductions / shortening formations remove the 455s ?

I'm not sure 387s are the right answer for the 'inner suburban' type work the 455s do in any case - I still think a small order of 707/717 type Desiro Citys or 710 type Aventras would make more sense.

 

[JonathanH]

Why would GN want to take on the 350s ? It creates a driver training and maintenance headache which they've recently got rid off by standing down the 365s. The 387s and 379s are sufficiently similar that the training and maintenance headache wouldn't be reintroduced.

Not now. 379s are the right thing to go there now, if the 387s really are needed elsewhere. I was merely noting that if there ever were a need for a growth build, the 350s could be the answer. It may never be needed and the 350s can remain in whatever siding they go to.

The simpler option is actually for the Southern / GX cuts to reduce the number of electric units on its network to the 214 377s and the 387s to stay put on GN but a 20% cut seems to be regarded as too severe.

 

[Fincra5]

Not now. 379s are the right thing to go there now, if the 387s really are needed elsewhere. I was merely noting that if there ever were a need for a growth build, the 350s could be the answer. It may never be needed and the 350s can remain in whatever siding they go to.

The simpler option is actually for the Southern / GX cuts to reduce the number of electric units on its network to the 214 377s and the 387s to stay put on GN but a 20% cut seems to be regarded as too severe.

Even simpler for GTR is the 379s to GN, 387s South to get rid of 455s, 377/5s back from SE, to get rid of 313s...

The 455 numbers don't match that of 387s but re-doing of diagrams will sort that.

 

[43096]

The 350/2s are fast becoming the new 365 or 442 - basically a fleet where 101 ideas, most of them crazy, keep cropping up.

Why would GN want to take on the 350s ? It creates a driver training and maintenance headache which they've recently got rid off by standing down the 365s. The 387s and 379s are sufficiently similar that the training and maintenance headache wouldn't be reintroduced.

Whilst there would be a short term issue with driver training, although the drivers all already sign Siemens stock, there are benefits:
- Allows all GTR services north of KX to be Siemens stock
- Allows total replacement of the 387s on the route that the 379s don’t
- Means all of Hornsey can become a Siemens depot (350/700/707)

 

[bramling]

Could I ask why separately diagramming 379’s & 387’s is an odd mix whilst ‘GN was doing perfectly well before with its 387’s and 365’s’ which, of course, needed diagramming separately.

The difference before was that the 365 work was quite segregated from the 387 work, in that 365s were doing either KX-Peterborough fasts or Baldock services. In the proper timetable there’s still a considerable amount of dividing and joining at Cambridge, though not as much since regular 8-car working to Kings Lynn.

So how would the work be divided up? Do the 379s take over all the Kings Lynn work and the residual 387s do the peak extras only, in which case one fleet will be doing a high mileage and the other a very low mileage? Or do you mix it up, in which case when disruption happens there’s the risk of ending up with the wrong number of each type ending up at stabling points?

Obviously this would be obviated if both fleets can work together and completely indiscriminately.

 

[Kite159]

Could in theory the 379s do the regular GN routes with some of the peak time extra services being 700s if there is spare units from some peak time extras getting removed (ie Littlehampton & East Grinstead)

 

[A0]

The difference before was that the 365 work was quite segregated from the 387 work, in that 365s were doing either KX-Peterborough fasts or Baldock services. In the proper timetable there’s still a considerable amount of dividing and joining at Cambridge, though not as much since regular 8-car working to Kings Lynn.

So how would the work be divided up? Do the 379s take over all the Kings Lynn work and the residual 387s do the peak extras only, in which case one fleet will be doing a high mileage and the other a very low mileage? Or do you mix it up, in which case when disruption happens there’s the risk of ending up with the wrong number of each type ending up at stabling points?

Obviously this would be obviated if both fleets can work together and completely indiscriminately.

So they'd have had the same issue if they'd kept the 365s on the basis of the timetable ? Hence the problem is the change in the timetable and retaining the 365s is irrelevant.

 

[Fincra5]

Whilst there would be a short term issue with driver training, although the drivers all already sign Siemens stock, there are benefits:
- Allows all GTR services north of KX to be Siemens stock
- Allows total replacement of the 387s on the route that the 379s don’t
- Means all of Hornsey can become a Siemens depot (350/700/707)

350's also need investment in being refreshed and fitted with DOO equipment! Cameras and Monitors aren't cheap, when you add all the software and wiring.

 

[jon0844]

350's also need investment in being refreshed and fitted with DOO equipment! Cameras and Monitors aren't cheap, when you add all the software and wiring.

This. Given the issues with getting the cameras to work reliably on the 387s (and for a while, I think some 700s had issues?) you wouldn't willingly introduce a new fleet and risk having them unable to stop anywhere without platform staff on duty to do a degraded dispatch. (Remember, the platform cameras/screens are not used anymore and will gradually be removed, not reinstated and new ones fitted where there were previously dispatchers).

The 379s will come, so it's just a case of what happens with the the other stock afterwards.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

People bleat all the time about no through trains from Victoria and Clapham Junction to Brighton but the reality is there is 4tph of capacitous trains with a simple change at East Croydon or Gatwick Airport with same platform connection.

Your approach only attracts the passengers that have no alternative which doesn't maximise revenue.

For the railway to survive and thrive it needs to attract passengers and with a destination where lots of people like to go the journey opportunity needs to be easier. Living in SW London you currently need two changes of train to make that journey that will dissuade some people so revenue opportunity lost.

The current GATEX to Brighton (should they restart!!) could stop at CLJ the only reason they don't is DofT can't then charge a premium fare to GTW. DofT really need to get away from this and apply the Shapps-Williams of simple fare structure ie one fare from GTW then calls a C.Jcn could be implemented.