Suggestions for future use of Class 332s post-HEx

[The_Engineer]

Would somebody be kind enough to explain the benefit of stripping out the interior of these units and fitting TPWS for re-use in various locations when there are (or will shortly be) dozens of 350s, 360s, 379s and 707s (which, admittedly need to be made a little more AC-compatible) as well as all the Mk-3 derived units.

As you no doubt also believe, no benefit at all. Given they also have body-shell problems that would need further work for an extended life, Heathrow Express will probably have no takers for these units except for scrap.

 

[59CosG95]

Strip them completely and make an artifical reef in the Channel.

Good luck accurately positioning a train-based artificial reef in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.
Booth's awaits the class I think.

 

[hexagon789]

Good luck accurately positioning a train-based artificial reef in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.
Booth's awaits the class I think.

I was being a bit facetious. I think the knackers awaits them too, but a lot of people said that about the HSTs, 442s etc- so anything is possible.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Good luck accurately positioning a train-based artificial reef in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.
Booth's awaits the class I think.

Hopefully only after Neville Hill have sent down a man in a van to grab a few spare parts!

 

[hexagon789]

Hopefully only after Neville Hill have sent down a man in a van to grab a few spare parts!

What would the spares do for, 333s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What would the spares do for, 333s?

That was my thinking (being a small fleet, spares may become expensive in future), though given the reported state of the 332s compared to 333s there won't necessarily be much that's worth taking!

 

[hexagon789]

That was my thinking (being a small fleet, spares may become expensive in future), though given the reported state of the 332s compared to 333s there won't necessarily be much that's worth taking!

Quite possibly not!

Are the two classes identical then save lack of TPWS in the 332s and interior layout differences?

 

[jayiscupid]

It wouldn't have helped get most Leeds-Skiptons up to the capacity required though, the reason that West Yorkshire will receive 3 car variants of the 331s rather than the 4 cars so that they can be run either as 1*3 or 2*3. As nice as it would have been to get the 332s up (even nicer if the interiors were kept as is, well maybe not in peaks!) generally they could only generally be run as 4 car units with options for some paths to be 5, whereas having a combination of 331s single or doubled up & 333s means that formations can be varied to demand between 3,4 and 6 cars.

My original thought was to reduce both fleets to 3 car to give 30 x 3 car 333's to allow for doubling up in the peaks but as has been pointed out elsewhere the 332's are missing TPWS which would be expensive to fit. That and Northern have the 331's on the way.

It's a shame, the 332/333 family are the best looking units in use at the moment.

 

[jayiscupid]

Two problems with the 332s being redeployed.

1. They don't have AWS/TPWS
2. Mechanically they are not in the best of shape

That means they will need serious money spent on them if they are to be re-used. Indeed it is possible they would have needed serious money spending on them if they were to have continued on HEX for the remainder of the operating agreement. That's one of a number of reasons why this deal has been done.

Given the glut of emus soon to be available then I can't see any money being spent on the 332s to allow redeployment. Admittedly stranger things have happened but if I were a betting man then I reckon the scrapyard awaits.

Sadly I think you're right on this one. Didn't know about the AWS/TPWS so it doesn't make sense.

 

[coppercapped]

Two problems with the 332s being redeployed.

1. They don't have AWS/TPWS
2. Mechanically they are not in the best of shape
SNIPPED

Can you give any more information or hints as to the mechanical issues? Bodies, bogies, wheelsets or what?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Heathrow Express is also quite a different operation economically to most other rail services. It charges a premium fare for a fairly short journey but using essentially commodity rolling stock. It's quite possible that the trains paid themselves back already and HAL have essentially no need to keep them running. There'll be a web of discussions between HAL, GWR, HS2 Ltd and the government and the combination of a new depot needing to be built, the future of HEx post-Crossrail, the western and southern rail links, and the push for 769s to take over some Thames Valley self-powered services might have been enough to make them not worthwhile to keep. For instance, the government might have been not keen to pay for that new depot (and thus prevent the site being used for housing) if the HEx-specific service wasn't guaranteed to keep running well into the future. Even if the non-stop service continued, the interaction with the western and southern rail links might have meant that expensive depot would end up useless after only a few years.

 

[Domh245]

Can you give any more information or hints as to the mechanical issues? Bodies, bogies, wheelsets or what?

There was that issue that grounded them a year or so back. I can't remember if it was about roll bars or some suspect welding

 

[dp21]

I know their floors are pretty rotten. They look great from the outside but as has been said above they have some pretty nasty issues on the inside.

Additionally I think it was the 332s which had cracks appearing in the bogies and so they were grounded for a fleet check.

I'd have to agree with DY444 in that I reckon they'll be headed to the cutters. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 379s appear in the HEx equation somewhere at some point once the GW electrification ramps up. However that is purely speculation.

 

[Ayman Ilham]

It REALLY annoys me that such futuristic and luxurious trains (332) which still look very new today could potentially be going to scrap when they're not even that old! Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, units like the 142 looked old even when it was introduced in the mid-80s and they remained in service much longer than they were supposed to, where's the common sense gone to? At least put the 332s to storage or convert them into 333s like the GatEx 460s were converted to 458s!

Here's the chance for someone to open up an Open Access luxury commuter operation that doesn't use 442s...

YES someone should definitely do that! I've always wanted to see the 332's on longer journeys! Maybe some premium quality interurban express services or something?

Heretic, how dare you make such a suggestion....

What's wrong with that idea?

 

[class387]

What would the spares do for, 333s?

Is there still a Class 333 being used as a 'christmas tree' for spares? If so, could having some 332s for spares at least enable that unit to return to service?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I did see 333009 out on test one Sunday last year no idea if that's back in service or not. As with using bits of 332 on a 333, both look identical but there will be some differences "under the bonnet" - the same applies to the 321 and 322 fleets.

 

[hexagon789]

What's wrong with that idea?

I'm pretty sure that was a joke.

 

[The Ham]

What's wrong with that idea?

The 442's are the go to unit for such suggestion and given the love for them, which boarders on the fanatical, I was being a bit silly.

Given that most of the 442's are now spoken for then I don't see a reason for them not to be replaced by a different unit for such suggestions.

 

[hexagon789]

The 442's are the go to unit for such suggestion and given the love for them, which boarders on the fanatical, I was being a bit silly.

Given that most of the 442's are now spoken for then I don't see a reason for them not to be replaced by a different unit for such suggestions.

How about the 314s?

 

[Starmill]

I wouldn't worry unnecessarily about them going for scrap. They are several years younger than the Trans-Manche Super Trains, they are much less specialised, another fleet of almost exactly the same train is being retained elsewhere in the country and they are not as difficult to maintain.

 

[js1000]

I'm sure the question is being begged somewhere - send the 332s north to join the 333s?
It seems a fairly sensible course of action, given how similar the two classes are.
That can then allow most of the new EMUs on order for Northern to be concentrated around Manchester.

But would Northern really want the 332s even if they were in a fit state to do so?

I suspect they have their eyes on the 323s which could replace the 321s and 322s, and potentially most, if not all of the 319s.

Operating only 323s, 331s and the 333s would give them great flexibility in terms of EMUs for the next 15 years and would allow them to focus on solving the diesel problem. Because if the 769 project fails or is unreliable in service then "spanner in the works" is an understatement.

 

[Ayman Ilham]

I'm pretty sure that was a joke.

Thought so if I had the money, which unfortunately I don't I would use them to run my own premium services, retaining the same Heathrow Express livery and interior cos honestly, you seriously can't beat that sleek aesthetic!

Here are some route ideas if I were to use the 332s (just a bit of fun really):
London Euston to Manchester Airport calling at MK Central, Nuneaton, Lichfield Trent Valley, Stoke-on-Trent, Wilmslow & M'cr Airport
Coventry to Blackpool North calling at Birmingham International, Aston*, Lichfield City, Stoke-on-Trent, Winsford/Hartford (alternate), Warrington Bank Quay, Preston & Blackpool North
(Dual Voltage Conversion) Cambridge to Southampton Central calling at Stevenage, London St Pancras**, London Bridge, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Horsham, Chichester, Havant, Southampton Airport Pkwy** and Southampton Central
Portsmouth Harbour to Bradford Forster Square via Chichester, Hove, Gatwick Airport, London Bridge, Peterborough, Wakefield Westgate, Leeds** and Bradford Forster Square

* using an existing chord that bypasses B'ham city centre to avoid traffic blockage and revenue abstraction by passing or stopping at New Street
** may not stop here to avoid revenue abstraction

 

[Domh245]

Given that most of the 442's are now spoken for then I don't see a reason for them not to be replaced by a different unit for such suggestions.

They're all spoken for, 6 units for alliance rail's Waterloo to Southampton service (odds of that happening I'll leave up to you) and the rest for SWR

 

[bastien]

They might as well have 360s or 350/2s, though, both of which will be available and are basically exactly the same as what they've got, give or take a bogie swap and upgraded aircon.

That line is standard gauge.

Do the 332s share any major components with the 450, 350 etc. Desiros? If so, scrapping beckons!

 

[hexagon789]

I know the 332s do not have TPWS, but I also read on another forum that they don't have AWS either - is that correct?

 

[edwin_m]

Do the 332s share any major components with the 450, 350 etc. Desiros? If so, scrapping beckons!

Not for mechanical parts, because for the 332 these came from CAF with Siemens electrics and the other classes were entirely built by Siemens. I guess it's possible some electrical parts are common, but I'm not sure replacing a part with one from a unit 10 years older makes a great deal of sense.

I know the 332s do not have TPWS, but I also read on another forum that they don't have AWS either - is that correct?

Probably correct because they have only every worked on routes fitted with GW ATP, which exempts them from the requirement to have both AWS and TPWS for operation on non-ATP routes. AWS on its own wouldn't serve any purpose, as to operate on non-ATP routes it is mandatory to have TPWS as well. The TPWS kit is in any case designed as a replacement for the AWS equipment and provides both functions, so any pre-existing AWS would be replaced if TPWS Was fitted.

 

[hexagon789]

Not for mechanical parts, because for the 332 these came from CAF with Siemens electrics and the other classes were entirely built by Siemens. I guess it's possible some electrical parts are common, but I'm not sure replacing a part with one from a unit 10 years older makes a great deal of sense.


Probably correct because they have only every worked on routes fitted with GW ATP, which exempts them from the requirement to have both AWS and TPWS for operation on non-ATP routes. AWS on its own wouldn't serve any purpose, as to operate on non-ATP routes it is mandatory to have TPWS as well. The TPWS kit is in any case designed as a replacement for the AWS equipment and provides both functions, so any pre-existing AWS would be replaced if TPWS Was fitted.

Are they the only stock running on mainline rail in the UK to not be fitted with TPWS and/or AWS then?

 

[cjmillsnun]

AWS is fitted. But they don't have a DRA fitted. (Image from thecircleoflondon.blogspot.co.uk)

 

[hexagon789]

AWS is fitted. But they don't have a DRA fitted. (Image from thecircleoflondon.blogspot.co.uk)

Thanks for the photo, it's quite interesting to see in the cab of a 332.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for the photo, it's quite interesting to see in the cab of a 332.

Indeed. What is the purpose of the handheld radio?