Redundant EMU's

[MatthewRead]

I've read that a lot of EMU's including some relatively new ones the new West Midlands is ditching the 323's and even the 350/2's on top of the replacement of other new EMU's such as the class 360's, 379's and 707's. Will any of them see new homes because I've heard even the 323's could end up in the scrapheap at their age.

 

[northwichcat]

Other than the oldest EMUs like the 313s, 507s and 508s I doubt the off-lease EMUs will head for the scrap heap. Don't forget Southeastern hasn't been re-let yet and some of the franchises which have been re-let recently may identify a need for additional/replacement units e.g. Scotrail might like the idea of replacing their 314s and 318s with 323s. There could also be short term leases if new EMUs don't arrive on time or if franchises urgently need extra capacity prior to the new EMUs arriving.

 

[D365]

Class 317 and preceding EMUs are virtually guaranteed for scrap. Other than that, I expect ROSCOs should be coming up with some creative ideas (the Class 769 conversion being one kf them) to keep their assets in use.

 

[43096]

Other than the oldest EMUs like the 313s, 507s and 508s I doubt the off-lease EMUs will head for the scrap heap. Don't forget Southeastern hasn't been re-let yet and some of the franchises which have been re-let recently may identify a need for additional/replacement units e.g. Scotrail might like the idea of replacing their 314s and 318s with 323s. There could also be short term leases if new EMUs don't arrive on time or if franchises urgently need extra capacity prior to the new EMUs arriving.

ScotRail might like the idea, but the 314s are already to be replaced by part of the 385 order. 323s are too long (23m vs 20m for 318s) for platforms when operating in pairs and you'd need to replace the 320s as well, for which there aren't enough 323s.

Above all, though, the 318s are on long term lease until the end of the franchise. Who needs a legally binding contract when trainspotters can move stuff around for whatever reason they want!?

 

[CosherB]

I've read that a lot of EMU's including some relatively new ones the new West Midlands is ditching the 323's and even the 350/2's on top of the replacement of other new EMU's such as the class 360's, 379's and 707's. Will any of them see new homes because I've heard even the 323's could end up in the scrapheap at their age.

Plenty of operators that would have 323s, 360's, 379's and 707s (plus pantograph) in a heartbeat, if ROSCOs and the DfT show willingness.

 

[northwichcat]

ScotRail might like the idea, but the 314s are already to be replaced by part of the 385 order. 323s are too long (23m vs 20m for 318s) for platforms when operating in pairs and you'd need to replace the 320s as well, for which there aren't enough 323s.

Above all, though, the 318s are on long term lease until the end of the franchise. Who needs a legally binding contract when trainspotters can move stuff around for whatever reason they want!?

I forgot about the new EMU order already replacing some of the existing EMUs.

When you say legally binding contracts do you mean like the ones GWR had with Porterbrook and Eversholt to lease 319s and 365s until 2019, only for break clauses to be activated and for GWR to take on 387s instead?

 

[edwin_m]

Plenty of operators that would have 323s, 360's, 379's and 707s (plus pantograph) in a heartbeat, if ROSCOs and the DfT show willingness.

That's not necessarily the case. Newer units may have higher operating costs (heavier, more sophisticated) as well as transitional costs (depot facilities, crew training). The better quality might attract more passengers but the TOC would need to convince itself that the extra revenue would make it worthwhile, or DfT that there was some sort of benefit to justify increased subsidy or lower premium for that TOC.

As to the ROSCOs, they would only allow an existing contract to be broken if it was in their own interest, specifically if they can lease replacement stock at a higher rental (=higher costs to the TOC again). If ROSCO A tries to poach business from ROSCO B part way through B's contract then B will insist on full payment according to the contract terms.

Porterbrook reportedly didn't offer the 323s to Northern franchise bidders because they wanted to concentrate them in the West Midlands, despite presumably having no firm offers from WM bidders to use them. Now the WM franchise apparently doesn't want them and they will probably go off lease. Unless there's something going on that we don't know about, this seems like an extrordinarily stupid move.

 

[Emblematic]

Plenty of operators that would have 323s, 360's, 379's and 707s (plus pantograph) in a heartbeat, if ROSCOs and the DfT show willingness.

Can't imagine why a ROSCO wouldn't want to have all of their stock leased out. It earns nothing parked off lease. What they won't do is spend large amounts on upgrades to stock that's life expired, but if it's usable I'd expect them to pitch it at every opportunity.

 

[mallard]

Newer units may have higher operating costs (heavier, more sophisticated) as well as transitional costs (depot facilities, crew training).

Very much doubt they'd be more expensive to run than diesels though... 379s in particular would be pretty much perfect for a modernised Chiltern route (the last remaining diesel-only London commuter network). They could even keep their mk3s by "swapping" 68s for 88s...

Even though Chiltern are about the only TOC that even pretends to care about the quality of the on-board experience outside first class (probably because they've dropped that anachronism as every commuter operator should) and has made excellent efforts with the diesels, the 379s are very new and have a "high-quality" intercity-ish interior due to their primary use on Stansted Express, more than a match for the 168s with a minor refresh/colour swap.

Still, I'm sure they'll make some scrap dealer very happy...

Of course, once the Chiltern route is wired, it only makes sense to do the Snow Hill lines; the 360s would work very well there...

 

[Emblematic]

Porterbrook reportedly didn't offer the 323s to Northern franchise bidders because they wanted to concentrate them in the West Midlands, despite presumably having no firm offers from WM bidders to use them. Now the WM franchise apparently doesn't want them and they will probably go off lease. Unless there's something going on that we don't know about, this seems like an extraordinarily stupid move.

With 20-20 hindsight that's easy to say. We don't know what the other WM bid fleet plans were, and it may be that one of more of the bidders were intent on using the whole fleet. Porterbrook may have just taken the view that the chances of leasing the whole fleet were enough outweigh any offers they had on the Northern 17. So far it hasn't worked out, They still have the fleet available to offer, they are only at a loss if they don't remarket them successfully and they get stored off lease.

 

[gsnedders]

ScotRail might like the idea, but the 314s are already to be replaced by part of the 385 order. 323s are too long (23m vs 20m for 318s) for platforms when operating in pairs and you'd need to replace the 320s as well, for which there aren't enough 323s.

Above all, though, the 318s are on long term lease until the end of the franchise. Who needs a legally binding contract when trainspotters can move stuff around for whatever reason they want!?

707s are the only ones I can imagine potentially coming to Scotland, though that would likely mean either shortening them to three cars or lengthening them to six cars (given the practical six-car limit on many lines). They'd probably be reasonable on many of the shorter Glasgow suburban runs.

But yeah, with the 318s on long-term lease and the Glasgow routes all taking subsidy, we won't get new stock until there's more running at capacity in the peaks.

 

[CosherB]

With 20-20 hindsight that's easy to say. We don't know what the other WM bid fleet plans were, and it may be that one of more of the bidders were intent on using the whole fleet. Porterbrook may have just taken the view that the chances of leasing the whole fleet were enough outweigh any offers they had on the Northern 17. So far it hasn't worked out, They still have the fleet available to offer, they are only at a loss if they don't remarket them successfully and they get stored off lease.

I'd gladly take the 323s back over the 319s in Northernland!

 

[F Great Eastern]

317s will all go to the scrapheap, can't see over 100 321s finding work either with the 323/350/360/379/707s being freed up as well and the lack of electrification

 

[Bletchleyite]

350/1 and /3 will not be freed up.

350/2 maybe.

 

[bramling]

I've read that a lot of EMU's including some relatively new ones the new West Midlands is ditching the 323's and even the 350/2's on top of the replacement of other new EMU's such as the class 360's, 379's and 707's. Will any of them see new homes because I've heard even the 323's could end up in the scrapheap at their age.

I really can't see the 323s being scrapped. They have some particular features going for them, including a very high seating capacity for a 3x 23m train, plus good acceleration performance, and also I believe they have been retractioned recently. They also still have a modern feel, unlike something like a 319 which feels a little dated.

In an ideal world someone would be taking hold of this current mess, and perhaps making a few changes to franchise agreements where it would do some good. The ideal outcome is some further electrification, but with the current near-fiasco situation with recent schemes that simply isn't going to happen, and history shows storing trains for long periods tends not to have a good outcome.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

350/1 and /3 will not be freed up.

350/2 maybe.

Is there scope within the WM franchise agreement for the 350/4s to join the /1s and /3s?
AIUI they'll be displaced from TPE by 397s.

 

[Marklund]

When you say legally binding contracts do you mean like the ones GWR had with Porterbrook and Eversholt to lease 319s and 365s until 2019, only for break clauses to be activated and for GWR to take on 387s instead?

This.

 

[47802]

If the TOC can better deals for new trains then so be it and I would doubt that Dft can force train operators to lease trains which are end of lease

 

[Clansman]

Scotrail might like the idea of replacing their 314s and 318s with 323s.

Why??

 

[Geeves]

The price of scrap metal has really crashed in the last few years so I can see a lot of stock being stored but most likely sitting around for a while. I am sure the 323s will find a home, maybe send them to the North east for the Morpeth and Durham work? Who knows. 313, 314, 315 and 317 I cant see any use for.

 

[northwichcat]

Why??

Newer, higher capacity trains which don't cost much more to run.

 

[43096]

317s will all go to the scrapheap, can't see over 100 321s finding work either with the 333/350/360/379/707s being freed up as well and the lack of electrification

No 333s are being freed up. Their duties change slightly, but they all remain on lease to Northern.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'd gladly take the 323s back over the 319s in Northernland!

I don't think we know the length of the Northern leasing deals for the 319s.
They came in dribs and drabs, and now we have the 769 conversion.
Most of the fleet is seemingly going to be parked.

There is no other practical solution for the start of electric working to Blackpool and Windermere (and probably Wigan), but I imagine Northern will be watching the options for later-model EMUs with interest.
I'm not sure there are enough 323s to replace Northern 319s, but some combination of more modern EMUs may become viable as the franchise progresses.
Northern seem to be locked into the 769 bi-mode solution though.
The 323s are unique, of course, without a manufacturer to support them.
The detailed West Midlands solution is not yet clear either.

 

[F Great Eastern]

No 333s are being freed up. Their duties change slightly, but they all remain on lease to Northern.

I meant 323s, sorry

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there scope within the WM franchise agreement for the 350/4s to join the /1s and /3s?
AIUI they'll be displaced from TPE by 397s.

Since I first replied, this has now been confirmed in the Abellio win West Midlands thread...

 

[sd0733]

If the franchise agreement could be changed, and I know that's a big if,could some/all of maybe the 379s end up over on c2c? Gives the franchise a fleet within the common electrostar platform which no new fleet is going to have. Maybe the interior is not that suited to the work on that route but if more units were there more services could be run as 12 car

 

[route101]

Newer, higher capacity trains which don't cost much more to run.

385s are coming to replace 314s .

 

[edwin_m]

Very much doubt they'd be more expensive to run than diesels though... 379s in particular would be pretty much perfect for a modernised Chiltern route (the last remaining diesel-only London commuter network). They could even keep their mk3s by "swapping" 68s for 88s...

but...

with the current near-fiasco situation with recent schemes that simply isn't going to happen, and history shows storing trains for long periods tends not to have a good outcome.

 

[swt_passenger]

If the franchise agreement could be changed, and I know that's a big if,could some/all of maybe the 379s end up over on c2c? Gives the franchise a fleet within the common electrostar platform which no new fleet is going to have. Maybe the interior is not that suited to the work on that route but if more units were there more services could be run as 12 car

It's been suggested dozens of times in various threads here. AFAICT the DfT can, and often do re-write their own rules, so yes it almost certainly can happen.

 

[MatthewRead]

Wish I'd voted in Labour they wouldn't have cancelled all of the elctrification schemes if anything they would have expanded on electrification and put the railways back into public ownership.