Suggested future uses for Class 379s

[adrock1976]

Before the Class 379 departure from Greater Anglia thread gets too wildly speculative going by some of the comments, I have started this one for members to suggest where they would be ideal in a hypothetical sense as Govia have not signed for them yet.

No idea but you'd assume the extra sized luggage racks would be swapped for more seats.

Why were replacements for the 379s ordered anyway?

Yes they would be non standard with the Aventras and Stadlers, but they'll now be non standard in somebody else's fleet.

Another operator having to deal with some non-standard units isn't Greater Anglia's concern, though?

It had been suggested on here before that the 379s leasing costs were rather high and replacing them with a more uniform fleet made sense from a financial perspective.

This has got me thinking of a route they could be suitable for, due to the design of the luggage racks.

The route I have in mind is the Blackpool North - Manchester Airport limited stop. As well as the luggage storage provision, they also have First Class, which could be proper First Class with complementary cups of tea or coffee served from a trolley.

Another hypothetical scenario is had the 379s been built with 750V DC third rail capabilities, perhaps these could have been dedicated to either London Waterloo - Weymouth, or London Victoria - Brighton limited stop? As they were never built with third rail capabilities, this will never happen now.

 

[sonic2009]

Take the first class out and replace the units around Leeds area for Northern that aren't new?

 

[AY1975]

Take the first class out and replace the units around Leeds area for Northern that aren't new?

Or ScotRail could take them to replace the 318s and 320s. They would presumably then have to be reduced to 3-cars, though.

 

[Neptune]

Take the first class out and replace the units around Leeds area for Northern that aren't new?

Here we go again. It soon comes around again and again, this strange idea that lower capacity 379’s are somehow seen as a replacement for 333’s.

If there was a need to replace them (which there isn’t) then Northern have stated previously that they’ll order extra 331’s.

 

[Kite159]

Can in theory a 379 work attached to a 387?

Great Northern seem the most logical fit, for the drivers there can't be much different between a 379 & 387. I would imagine route clearance will be a tick in the box with little if any adjustments needed. Would allow some of the 387s to be transferred south of the river as 313 replacements on Southern coastway services, allowing the oldest (mainline) rolling stock in the country to have a one way trip to Newport.

The 379s have a suitable First Class provision which might be worth the premium for some to upgrade to (2+1 seating), unlike the 387s where all you get is a cloth on the back of the seat!

 

[Jturner98]

Can in theory a 379 work attached to a 387?

Great Northern seem the most logical fit, for the drivers there can't be much different between a 379 & 387. I would imagine route clearance will be a tick in the box with little if any adjustments needed. Would allow some of the 387s to be transferred south of the river as 313 replacements on Southern coastway services, allowing the oldest (mainline) rolling stock in the country to have a one way trip to Newport.

The 379s have a suitable First Class provision which might be worth the premium for some to upgrade to (2+1 seating), unlike the 387s where all you get is a cloth on the back of the seat!

As far as I know the answer about multiple working between 379 and 387 is yes and no.

Yes - couplers are the same so they can couple for ECS moves and in an emergency

No - The TMS (train management system) is different between them so they couldn’t work in passenger service. Door operation between the two classes is different too.

 

[JonathanH]

The TMS (train management system) is different between them so they couldn’t work in passenger service.

Given the common manufacturer, is it really impossible for the software to be rewritten?

 

[Jturner98]

Given the common manufacturer, is it really impossible for the software to be rewritten?

Probably not but I can’t see it happening. The 379 does have features of the aventra though

 

[sonic2009]

Here we go again. It soon comes around again and again, this strange idea that lower capacity 379’s are somehow seen as a replacement for 333’s.

If there was a need to replace them (which there isn’t) then Northern have stated previously that they’ll order extra 331’s.

Aplogies, I didn't realise that the capacity was lower and would aggrevate.

 

[Bald Rick]

Another hypothetical scenario is had the 379s been built with 750V DC third rail capabilities, perhaps these could have been dedicated to either London Waterloo - Weymouth, or London Victoria - Brighton limited stop? As they were never built with third rail capabilities, this will never happen now.

AIUI making them third rail compatible is not at all difficult.

However in the very cash constrained railway we live in, they need to go somewhere that:

a) has older units that these can replace approximately like for like on existing services directly, or through subsequent cascade, with the older units going for scrap

b) run on AC

c) already operates electrostars, so that the driver training cost for the new fleet is minimised.

Not many options, really.

 

[D365]

Given the common manufacturer, is it really impossible for the software to be rewritten?

Somebody would have to pay up.

 

[O L Leigh]

Is this coming from inside GTR rather than the RUK rumour?

Given that it passed very quickly from speculation into (as yet not officially confirmed) fact, I never bothered commenting on it before. However, I don't really think that the Cl379s are a particularly good fit for GN. They are not dual-voltage capable and have a very different internal layout to the Cl387s, and it would seem that there is some appetite for them to have some form of internal refit before deployment, even for the Fen Line service.

As such, I would have thought that they would have been better deployed onto GWR. They could have either been used on the HEx service (ideal as they already have an airport express layout) or for longer runs, such as the Cardiff services that are periodically discussed where their better internal specification would make them preferable. That would have allowed Cl387s to have gone from GWR to GTR to create the cascade needed to see off the Cl313s and maybe a few other other units, giving them a consistent and coherent fleet.

Yes they would be non standard with the Aventras and Stadlers, but they'll now be non standard in somebody else's fleet.

Yes, but not by that much. Operationally Cl379s and Cl387s are the same train, while from a maintenance perspective they share an awful lot of components. It would be like mixing Cl317s with Cl321s. While I doubt they could operate in multiple in passenger service, I'm sure that this could be overcome through modification if necessary.

 

[bramling]

Given that it passed very quickly from speculation into (as yet not officially confirmed) fact, I never bothered commenting on it before. However, I don't really think that the Cl379s are a particularly good fit for GN. They are not dual-voltage capable and have a very different internal layout to the Cl387s, and it would seem that there is some appetite for them to have some form of internal refit before deployment, even for the Fen Line service.

As such, I would have thought that they would have been better deployed onto GWR. They could have either been used on the HEx service (ideal as they already have an airport express layout) or for longer runs, such as the Cardiff services that are periodically discussed where their better internal specification would make them preferable. That would have allowed Cl387s to have gone from GWR to GTR to create the cascade needed to see off the Cl313s and maybe a few other other units, giving them a consistent and coherent fleet.



Yes, but not by that much. Operationally Cl379s and Cl387s are the same train, while from a maintenance perspective they share an awful lot of components. It would be like mixing Cl317s with Cl321s. While I doubt they could operate in multiple in passenger service, I'm sure that this could be overcome through modification if necessary.

The whole thing is a Covid knee-jerk. GN was doing perfectly well before with its 387s and 365s.

Unless the peak extras disappear altogether, GN will be left with an odd mix, all the more so if 387 and 379 have to be diagrammed separately.

It does seem that the main motivation is to now get rid of the 313s, more so than to find a home for the 379s, as surplus stock “is the leasing company’s problem” on the wonderful modern railway.

In a pre-Covid world it might have been a more simple case of 379 replacing the GN 387s, sending 18 or so to replace the 313s, and having 10 spare for any other use.

 

[JonathanH]

As such, I would have thought that they would have been better deployed onto GWR. They could have either been used on the HEx service (ideal as they already have an airport express layout) or for longer runs, such as the Cardiff services that are periodically discussed where their better internal specification would make them preferable.

Yes, but they weren't ready at the time that a new HEX fleet was needed and the arrangements are now in place. The use of 387s on Cardiff services shouldn't 'wag the dog'. It isn't their primary work.

 

[QSK19]

Hypothetically, if EMR were able to get rid of the 360s, the 379s could run the Connect services. Gangwayed and younger by about 7-8 years.

In any case, I can’t recall if these were actually a contender for the Connect (or what was known at the time as Electrics) services before the 360s were selected?

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes, but they weren't ready at the time that a new HEX fleet was needed and the arrangements are now in place. The use of 387s on Cardiff services shouldn't 'wag the dog'. It isn't their primary work.

Yes I know that, which is why I wrote it all in the past tense (and also why I moved it into the Speculative Discussion section).

But if the Cardiff service is set to stay, then I do think that a Cl379 would be preferable to a Cl387 and the Cl387 could remain doing it's primary work.

The whole thing is a Covid knee-jerk.

I didn't think I even mentioned the "C" word.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hypothetically, if EMR were able to get rid of the 360s, the 379s could run the Connect services. Gangwayed and younger by about 7-8 years.

In any case, I can’t recall if these were actually a contender for the Connect (or what was known at the time as Electrics) services before the 360s were selected?

The early CP5 enhancement delivery plans, (back when they were regularly published), in around 2015 referred to “12 car class 377 or 350 or their derivatives”, which covers a heck of a lot of AC stock…

 

[MattRat]

They could replace the Southern's 313s easily as Southern already has experience with Electrostars, although I don't know how useful that would really be.

 

[skyhigh]

They could replace the Southern's 313s easily as Southern already has experience with Electrostars, although I don't know how useful that would really be.

Not without at least some modifications to make them dual voltage capable.

 

[Neptune]

The whole thing is a Covid knee-jerk. GN was doing perfectly well before with its 387s and 365s.

Unless the peak extras disappear altogether, GN will be left with an odd mix, all the more so if 387 and 379 have to be diagrammed separately.

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.

Aplogies, I didn't realise that the capacity was lower and would aggrevate.

No need to apologise It’s just that so many people in the past seemed to think 379’s (or 350/2’s) are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. The Leeds area has a mix of 331’s and 333’s perfectly suited to the services they work. No need for shorter trains with less capacity just because they are surplus to requirements at their current TOC.

As well as the above it would also mean bringing in a totally different fleet and all the needless costs that it would incur despite Northern publicly stating last year that they want to have less classes in the fleet, not more.

It’s the same as everyone suggesting that the 170’s should be removed from Northern ‘because they work routes unsuited to their express capabilities’ conveniently forgetting that only 6 of 16 work the Harrogate line each day with the remainder on far more suitable routes such as Scarborough to Sheffield and that they’ll soon have a dedicated maintenance depot away from the main fleet alongside the 155’s at Hull. EMR is the oft touted destination in exchange for some 15 years older 158’s (thanks for the offer of some scrap in exchange). Don’t EMR also have less suited stop/start routes conveniently forgotten about?

Anyway apologies, I’ve strolled off topic.

 

[Failed Unit]

The whole thing is a Covid knee-jerk. GN was doing perfectly well before with its 387s and 365s.

Unless the peak extras disappear altogether, GN will be left with an odd mix, all the more so if 387 and 379 have to be diagrammed separately.

It does seem that the main motivation is to now get rid of the 313s, more so than to find a home for the 379s, as surplus stock “is the leasing company’s problem” on the wonderful modern railway.

In a pre-Covid world it might have been a more simple case of 379 replacing the GN 387s, sending 18 or so to replace the 313s, and having 10 spare for any other use.

Won’t that be the case now (short term). We don’t know when 12 car trains will be needed again. No idea when the Baldick peaks will restart so 30x 379 for 29 387s work. But granted if rail does recover we will have a small fleet of something on GN. Knowing the way the rail industry works it could be a 37x class as the 387s are fully used in the south. Or a new build.

that said it could be many years before 12 cars are needed again.

must admit it does seem wrong this is happening with EMUs considering the problems we have with DMUs. So many high frequency routes that could be electrified and used them.

I guess this is the dft cost cutting. “Permanently“ remove 12 car working and the Baldock service and cascade the 387s south to ultimately remove the 313s and some 455s. (Fleets that no-one can really argue are going too soon)

 

[warwickshire]

Most likely the 379s would have been coming off lease anyway just by careful planning and use of units.
Maybe the original plan is still going ahead more or less? Ie keep all the red 387/2s on Gatwick Express not on the gtr kings cross lines.
Then in future use 379s all on gtr kings cross services etc.
313s will be replaced very soon ie this year in the next few months. However also 365s replaced as well. So in reality the 365s will have survived only another 12 to 18 months or so.
379s most likely gtr future use as was originally expected and planned ie due to go off lease anyway 2022.

 

[A0]

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.

I was wondering the same thing......

It couldn't be that a poster's like of a certain unit has clouded their judgement perchance?

And the fact 379s aren't dual voltage isn't a problem for GN since they have dedicated DV fleets for the routes which need them. Of course from a maintenance perspective it might actually be easier for Hornsey to have the 379s instead of 365s given the similarities between 387s and 379s.

Not without at least some modifications to make them dual voltage capable.

Correct. At which point you'd look at keeping them somewhere they could work without modification.... GN Kings Lynn and peak services for example which allows the removal of a small, non standard class (365s). Too often one of the complaints around here is "privatisation has lead to too much non-standardisation", yet suggest something which would lead to greater standardisation for one TOC and it's somehow wrong....

 

[MattRat]

Out of curiosity, is there any way for the 379s to replace both GNs 365s and some 387s, as you wouldn't need that many to replace Southern's 313s, and then everyone wins.

 

[JonathanH]

Out of curiosity, is there any way for the 379s to replace both GNs 365s and some 387s, as you wouldn't need that many to replace Southern's 313s, and then everyone wins.

The 365s have already gone. GN are operating 35 387s but there are only 30 379s. Southern need to replace 19 313s and 46 455s. There needs to be a combination of (permanent) service cuts as well as the 379s to square the circle.

Ideally GN would make do with 30 379s and some changes in the overlying class 700 operation and Southern / GX would have 56 387s, 214 377s, no 313s and no 455s.

 

[A0]

Out of curiosity, is there any way for the 379s to replace both GNs 365s and some 387s, as you wouldn't need that many to replace Southern's 313s, and then everyone wins.

Taking numbers from Wikipedia - so apologies for any errors or omissions.

OK - originally GN retained 21 x 365s for 'peak time' services.

GN then decided to withdraw the remaining 365s to be replaced with 387s from Gatwick Express.

Currently GN have 29 x 387/1 (which were their own) and 3 x 387/2 (Gat Ex units) with a further 6 x 387/2 ex Gat Ex on loan to GWR.

There are 30 x 379 - so whilst on the face of it the answer is 'yes' the unanswerable question at present is what form the GN timetable will take later in the year. If all the peak extras are reinstated then they may genuinely have a need for both the 379 and the existing number of 387s.

Southern have 19 x 313 so assume you'd need 19 x 387s to replace. You could return the 9 x 387/2 and you'd have to take some of GN's 387s as well.

 

[Failed Unit]

Out of curiosity, is there any way for the 379s to replace both GNs 365s and some 387s, as you wouldn't need that many to replace Southern's 313s, and then everyone wins.

Probably with the current timetable, the 387s wouldn't be needed north of the river at all if the Baldocks and 12 car working isn't needed. (Which I really can't see for a few years)

 

[JonathanH]

Currently GN have 29 x 387/1 (which were their own) and 3 x 387/2 (Gat Ex units) with a further 6 x 387/2 ex Gat Ex on loan to GWR.

GWR have returned the 387s they has on loan. There are six 387/2s at GN. Three 387/2s went back to Gatwick Express.

Southern have 19 x 313 so assume you'd need 19 x 387s to replace. You could return the 9 x 387/2 and you'd have to take some of GN's 387s as well.

Is it clear that 387s would directly replace 313s? Some sort of fleet shuffle within Southern might be advantageous to have all 56 387s at Stewarts Lane with the 10-car operation (4+3+3 formations) binned in the Metro area and 3-car 377s sent back to the coast. That way, coupled with only running 8-car formations on the longer distance Southern services, no peak extras and some service simplification might just free up enough 377s to achieve the aim of removing both 313s and 455s.

As '43096' pointed out in another thread, GN would be better off with the 37 350/2s with the 30 379s being refitted for DC operation. The 350s aren't yet available of course and someone would have to pay for 379 conversion. In the short term, the 379s going to GN and operating a reduced level of service seems a reasonable next step.

 

[Failed Unit]

GWR have returned the 387s they has on loan. There are six 387/2s at GN. Three 387/2s went back to Gatwick Express.


Is it clear that 387s would directly replace 313s? Some sort of fleet shuffle within Southern might be advantageous to have all 56 387s at Stewarts Lane with the 10-car operation (4+3+3 formations) binned in the Metro area and 3-car 377s sent back to the coast. That way, coupled with only running 8-car formations on the longer distance Southern services, no peak extras and some service simplification might just free up enough 377s to achieve the aim of removing both 313s and 455s.

As '43096' pointed out in another thread, GN would be better off with the 37 350/2s with the 30 379s being refitted for DC operation. The 350s aren't yet available of course and someone would have to pay for 379 conversion. In the short term, the 379s going to GN and operating a reduced level of service seems a reasonable next step.

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.

 

[JonathanH]

I know it is often short sighted doing this, as when traffic grows again you can't build new trains quickly enough

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.

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?

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.