• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Suggestions for future use of Class 332s post-HEx

Status
Not open for further replies.

D7666

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
587
Wonder if Didcot Railway Centre might take a vehicle, being the first electric trains to work on the "Great Western"?

Myth.

Not the first electric trains on real GWR.

Going backwards, Weymouth, electrified 1987, was GWR and only transferred to Southern Region by BR in ~1963, so that makes Vep Cig 442 etc way before 332. [[ GWR boat trains ran from Paddington, not Waterloo. ]]

If you want 25 kV, before that then, c.1970 was Oxley CS in to Wolverhampton (exclusive), which is on the GWR Padd - Birkenhead route. So you had ACL, not EMU. (( Oxley was not done 1966/1967, and was of lesser importance than later, in the orginal WCML AC timetable there no EBW in the base timetable pattern needing reversal at Oxley, far fewer ECS movements, 25s were used to haul to/from Oxley )).

OK, Oxley not passenger, but even before BR days passenger :

Kensington Olympia (then named Addison Road) etc was on the DC third rail electrified NLR / LNWR / LMSR network 1920s; the route was joint GWR owned, operated by 'LM' owned EMU stock but nonetheless over GWR track. [[ De-electrified 1950s? Subsequently re-electrified 1990s under channel tunnel works. ]]

And then the Hammersmith & City, another joint GWR route, and it even includes Paddington. And here GWR owned a proportion of the stock, and least to formation of LT, and probably continued owning after, I'll leave someone else to answer that bit.

OK digression from the end of 332s, probably does not belong in this tread, but that myth needs dispelling, as it was brought up here.

There are no doubt other examples.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Myth.

Not the first electric trains on real GWR.

Going backwards, Weymouth, electrified 1987, was GWR and only transferred to Southern Region by BR in ~1963, so that makes Vep Cig 442 etc way before 332. [[ GWR boat trains ran from Paddington, not Waterloo. ]]

If you want 25 kV, before that then, c.1970 was Oxley CS in to Wolverhampton (exclusive), which is on the GWR Padd - Birkenhead route. So you had ACL, not EMU. (( Oxley was not done 1966/1967, and was of lesser importance than later, in the orginal WCML AC timetable there no EBW in the base timetable pattern needing reversal at Oxley, far fewer ECS movements, 25s were used to haul to/from Oxley )).

OK, Oxley not passenger, but even before BR days passenger :

Kensington Olympia (then named Addison Road) etc was on the DC third rail electrified NLR / LNWR / LMSR network 1920s; the route was joint GWR owned, operated by 'LM' owned EMU stock but nonetheless over GWR track. [[ De-electrified 1950s? Subsequently re-electrified 1990s under channel tunnel works. ]]

And then the Hammersmith & City, another joint GWR route, and it even includes Paddington. And here GWR owned a proportion of the stock, and least to formation of LT, and probably continued owning after, I'll leave someone else to answer that bit.

OK digression from the end of 332s, probably does not belong in this tread, but that myth needs dispelling, as it was brought up here.

There are no doubt other examples.

I should've just said Great Western Main Line...
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I should've just said Great Western Main Line...

One way or other it would be pleasing to see at least a driving vehicle preserved. They were quite a forward-looking design at the time, and still manage to hold a “futuristic” appearance even now. They also represent a somewhat unique operation, unique in a number of ways.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,354
Yes, sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's unusual these days for units just over 20 years old to be scrapped.

It's obviously an issue which is going to affect a number of fleets in the near future (350/2 as well). With the government liking 'new and shiny' in franchise bids in recent years, and no coherent cascade plan, it's led to a surplus of EMUs around mid-life with no planned future use. Not such as issue with DMUs are most of those with no planned use (except 175s) are older already, although some still have life in them (158s, etc).

Plus the 222s and Avanti 221s...
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,883
Location
Way on down South London town
The Class 373s would have been more suitable <D

Yes! Im sure the linespeed between Shenfield to Chelmsford could be nudged up to 186mph

I did post a YouTube comment on a video of one of those Izy trains its terrible that the 373s are going to scrap-surely we could have put them on GWML or ECML services?
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Yes! Im sure the linespeed between Shenfield to Chelmsford could be nudged up to 186mph

I did post a YouTube comment on a video of one of those Izy trains its terrible that the 373s are going to scrap-surely we could have put them on GWML or ECML services?

Why on earth would we do that? They're far too long, and both lines have just been re-equipped with brand new 80x units.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,585
I did post a YouTube comment on a video of one of those Izy trains its terrible that the 373s are going to scrap-surely we could have put them on GWML or ECML services?
The 373s are corroded from the tunnel so are getting retired earlier than other fleets and only a few years older than the 332s.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,354
Location
Torbay
... its terrible that the 373s are going to scrap-surely we could have put them on GWML or ECML services?
Why on earth would we do that? They're far too long, and both lines have just been re-equipped with brand new 80x units.
Also a very complex and heavy three or four current design with umpteen different signal systems and operating modes and limited route availability. They're not particularly powerful for their weight compared to other similar era TGV based trains, which was acceptable for the longer non-stop legs of Eurostar, but SNCF only used the shorter NoL sets for domestic operations. Best off as razor blades or Chinese bridges with the price of scrap iron at the moment!
 

CBlue

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2020
Messages
803
Location
East Angular
Is this before or after a non driving motor carriage from a 442 is put in the middle to allow 3rd rail capability? Or perhaps top and tail with redundant pacers to make a bi-mode.


My suggestions are of course deliberately silly. I hope the other suggestions above have also been posted in a tongue-in-cheek way!
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Is this before or after a non driving motor carriage from a 442 is put in the middle to allow 3rd rail capability? Or perhaps top and tail with redundant pacers to make a bi-mode.


My suggestions are of course deliberately silly. I hope the other suggestions above have also been posted in a tongue-in-cheek way!

New uses MUST be found for blatantly unsuitable, knackered rolling stock at all costs!
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,506
New uses MUST be found for blatantly unsuitable, knackered rolling stock at all costs!
Perfectly acceptable to throw the 379s, 350/2s and 365s into storage. But the 332s, 373s and 442s? Soldier on they must!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,606
Nowhere near enough of them though for use on London to Norwich services even if they had been suitable.
I think post #486 might have been replying to the immediate preceding post about the 222 and 221 (#485). It isn’t that obvious when quotes aren’t used though...
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,506
I think post #486 might have been replying to the immediate preceding post about the 222 and 221 (#485). It isn’t that obvious when quotes aren’t used though...
Indeed, especially when it's a suggestion that diesel units should be used on a route that is 100% electrified.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,883
Location
Way on down South London town
I honestly couldn't tell if Sad Sprinter was serious or not!

Wasn't being serious about the linespeed, but seriously suggested using them on domestic mainlines. Fanciful I know, but
they are my favourite trains...

I think post #486 might have been replying to the immediate preceding post about the 222 and 221 (#485). It isn’t that obvious when quotes aren’t used though...

No I was just replying to the thread title-suggesting 332s could run to Norwich.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
No I was just replying to the thread title-suggesting 332s could run to Norwich.

And what would be the point of that, when a new fleet for London-Norwich has been built (or is currently being built in some cases)?
 

HarryL

Member
Joined
14 Sep 2020
Messages
243
Location
Leeds
But it's a small, non-standard fleet that needs extensive and expensive work before it can be used anywhere. I don't see the problem here.
I think its because people (including myself having used the 333s basically daily before covid times) see these units as iconic on the lines they serve even though they're so niche so it's a shame to see some of them go now.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
I think its because people (including myself having used the 333s basically daily before covid times) see these units as iconic on the lines they serve even though they're so niche so it's a shame to see some of them go now.

Is it? They're suffering from severe corrosion after 23 years of very intensive use, and aren't suitable for use elsewhere. It's not that much of a shame. It just happens.
 

HarryL

Member
Joined
14 Sep 2020
Messages
243
Location
Leeds
Is it? They're suffering from severe corrosion after 23 years of very intensive use, and aren't suitable for use elsewhere. It's not that much of a shame. It just happens.
Oh I don't doubt they've got lots of issues now, but it's a shame in the regard of them being so iconic on the line and getting replaced with more generic trains that likely won't reach that status. Obviously purely sentimental, replacing is always bound to happen eventually and all power to them getting an easier (and probably cheaper) fleet to maintain but I don't think any replacement will quite stick in peoples minds as much like these have.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,506
I guess the 332s are the 90s equivalent of Class 442...
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
I guess the 332s are the 90s equivalent of Class 442...

Won't last anywhere near as long - the 442s sat around for ages; thr 332s look like all being scrapped pretty rapidly!
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,109
Count me among the surprised that a home cannot be found for them. I know this site is especially contrarian ("Idiot! There is no stock for X, and of course this excess stock won't work on Y!") - but even as shorter units, I would have thought something might work.

If they are knackered, then a shortened set or two might work on not too intensive electric service - say the Abbey Line? Or a medium distance electric service like Birmingham to Liverpool? But those now interwork. Or something NW like Man/Liv to Blackpool. Hell, even a local shuttle from Crewe to Preston, much proposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top