Proposed trains for Stanstead: Class 379

[90019]

you are taking this really personal 90019 please stop

No, I pointed out why what you said was wrong, and then made a comment on a very offensive remark you made.

 

[dan_atki]

Enough of the arguments and offensive remarks.

 

[bronzeonion]

I hope it doesnt have the comfy seats in the front and rear coaches, just looks silly, either have the 3+2 seats on the whole train or the 2+2 seats on the whole train. At last Southern should be standardising it

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm surprised they are going for that look. I thought the 379s were going to have pointed noses like the Talent 2 to comply with new UIC regs

 

[Edvid]

I hope it doesnt have the comfy seats in the front and rear coaches, just looks silly, either have the 3+2 seats on the whole train or the 2+2 seats on the whole train.

This page suggests the 379s will be 2+2 in Standard and 2+1 in First.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

but there are only 5 Networkers in the family but there was another 2 proposed,and BR didnt take the mick with the names they made about 5 or 6 of the family and that was that,then they moved on and can i just say EPBs there were only 2 types BR design and bullied design,these days most 3XX's are ELECTROSTAR,and 1XX are turbostar and that was all i was saying ,why cant bombardier move on and make another name and diffrent design because they all look the same except the 357 which is a electric 170 to me,and can i say aswell there vauxhall have made 4 diffrent vectras,then this year an update off that come out and was called the insignia,i dont mind 5 or 6 but passed that is just it for me,it gets boring after like this proposed class 379,it looks like IR's 180

All this fuss about names.... I think you'll find that Bombardier is pushing the name Aventra for it's new generation EMUs (including Thameslink) rather than Electrostar. I don't think that Bombardier has made any reference to a colloquial name for the NXEA units, although if they have, I'm sure somebody here will point it out.

 

[Aictos]

Additionally, they will: be used on Stansted Express and West Anglia services, including some services to Cambridge.

So won't be used solely on the airport services but in theory, could have one end up on a Hertford East service or more likely some of the Cambridges.

 

[mackenzie_blu]

All this fuss about names.... I think you'll find that Bombardier is pushing the name Aventra for it's new generation EMUs (including Thameslink) rather than Electrostar. I don't think that Bombardier has made any reference to a colloquial name for the NXEA units, although if they have, I'm sure somebody here will point it out.

The 379 are Electrostars. NXEA ordered a product from the Electrostar family before it was announced they were going to be called 379's.

Not as well the Adventra is Elctrostars succer and the 379 are hald way inbetween with some of the new features of the Adventra to be installed on the 379's.

 

[DjU]

Indeed, both the new Bombardier Class 379 and the Siemens Class 380 appear to be Version 1.5 if you will

Whereas the Version 2.0 are the ones in the contention for Thameslink (and then presumably Crossrail)

 

[Daniel]

Additionally, they will: be used on Stansted Express and West Anglia services, including some services to Cambridge.

So won't be used solely on the airport services but in theory, could have one end up on a Hertford East service or more likely some of the Cambridges.

From speaking to a WA driver the other day, they apparently won't be appearing on the Hertford's, but will be on the some Cambridges - it was suggested to me that Bishops Stortford drivers will be the only ones trained on these units, as they do the Stansted Express' and some Cambridge services.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'd have to agree with what Daniel says about the likely routes these units will be used on, but not about traction knowledge. All three WA depots do StanEx and Cambridge services so I would expect that all WA drivers will be trained and not just those at Bishops Stortford.

O L Leigh

 

[Aictos]

Where are the three WA depots then? I guess Cambridge and Bishops Stortford are two but where's the third one?

I know Hertford East used to be a driver's/guards depot under BR days, don't know when it closed though?

 

[O L Leigh]

Chingford.

O L Leigh

 

[Aictos]

Cheers for that, just wondering though where are the other depots for NXEA and what routes do they do?

 

[Skimble19]

Hadn't seen this before now! I personally prefer them with the windows that the 375/377's have, as i think it looks more modern and fits in with the overall design of the train better. In response to the earlier comments about it looking good in NXEA livery, not sure if they will carry that now the franchise hasn't been given it's extension, shame really, finally a train that seems to suit the livery really well.

 

[O L Leigh]

Cheers for that, just wondering though where are the other depots for NXEA and what routes do they do?

It basically follows the routes and services run by the former constituent companies. However, there are the newer Liv St - Peterborough/Lowestoft services that were only introduced after the Greater Anglia franchise was let, so I'm not sure how they are split. Also not all depots on each division will cover all routes. For example, only Cambridge drivers go as far as Ely and Kings Lynn, but then they don't "sign" the GEML through Stratford out to Ilford CS.

However, the depots are as follows.

Great Eastern: Colchester, Gidea Park, Ilford, Southend Victoria and, just possibly, Clacton (although I'm not sure this depot still exists).

Mainline/Rural: Ipswich, Liv St and Norwich.

West Anglia: Bishops Stortford, Cambridge and Chingford.

Hadn't seen this before now! I personally prefer them with the windows that the 375/377's have, as i think it looks more modern and fits in with the overall design of the train better.

It is only an artist's impression at the moment. Given that FCC's Cl377's have the old style windows I see no reason why the Cl379's won't also. However, we shall just have to wait and see.

O L Leigh

 

[MCR247]

Didnt 378s have new ones?

 

[Minstral25]

I hope it doesnt have the comfy seats in the front and rear coaches, just looks silly, either have the 3+2 seats on the whole train or the 2+2 seats on the whole train. At last Southern should be standardising it

Please don't Southern - 3+2 is awful awful awful! narrow aisle, get very close to people sitting with you, no armrests = rubbish journey. Just on that factor alone the 379's sound good but visually I think they are a nice development of a good design

 

[jopsuk]

I've been thinking about the idea of the 379s being used for services other than Stansted Express (as happens with the current Stan Ex fleet). To me, it sounds like little more than tokenistic pandering to politicians.

What would be better, in my opinion, and as someone regularly using the West Anglia line from Cambridge, would be a heavy refurb of the entire NXEA 317 fleet. Start by displacing the /7s and /8s by the 379s onto WA duties to allow /1s to be progressively taken out and a new interior fitted.
Decide on a single interior design that will eventually find its way onto every unit in the fleet, and work through all the trains- though perhaps doing the ex-airport trains before the /6s, as full tables aren't ideal for stopping commuter services.

Radically, I'd suggest withdrawing 1st class from the route. With (at the end) more units, and in parallel with the station extension program, more 4 car services will be able to be 8, and some of the 8s will be able to be 12, thus giving more seats. I'm pretty sure that most 1st class tickets on the route are only to ensure a seat at peak time- 1st class in a 317/1 in many cases lacks saloon doors, lacks tables and has the standard class seating from Mk3 carriages, and being DOO commuter trains there's no catering at all- hardly 1st class service. So abandon the idea, and make the trains all-standard.

So, 2+2, mainly bay, seating, as they currently mainly have, would be the order of the day. An accessible retention toilet to replace the two narrow cupboard drop-on-the-track loos. Air con. Electric door buttons to replace the stiff, black rubber buttons that often need to be held rather than pushed to open the doors.

Carry out whatever mechanical and electrical modifications are needed to help life extend them?

Much better than a couple of token peak Cambridge (maybe the Kings Lynn and Ely ones?) services with the new units each day.

Really radical: carry out the same internal refurbishment on FCC's fleet.

Really Really radical: as they're basically the same carriage design do the 318, 319, 320, 321 and 322 fleets across the country the same way.

Hyper radical: the 319s on cascade will be going AC only. Modify all the classes to have the same cab end (I'd go for 317 original design). Basically make them a single class (with a sub-class of three car units)

Wibble.

 

[DjU]

I've been thinking about the idea of the 379s being used for services other than Stansted Express (as happens with the current Stan Ex fleet). To me, it sounds like little more than tokenistic pandering to politicians.

What would be better, in my opinion, and as someone regularly using the West Anglia line from Cambridge, would be a heavy refurb of the entire NXEA 317 fleet. Start by displacing the /7s and /8s by the 379s onto WA duties to allow /1s to be progressively taken out and a new interior fitted.
Decide on a single interior design that will eventually find its way onto every unit in the fleet, and work through all the trains- though perhaps doing the ex-airport trains before the /6s, as full tables aren't ideal for stopping commuter services.

Somebody like O L Leigh might be able to clarify this, but i believe there is already rumours that there is the intent to create a Cambridge sub-fleet. (probably from the /6s)

 

[O L Leigh]

There are just too many rumours to be able to comment.

My inclination is that the proposed level of refurb would simply be too great for what is now a 30 year old design.

O L Leigh

 

[RobShipway]

If the the class 508 and 313 trains can be refurbished for new routes which are older trains I would suspect than the class 317 trains, then begs the question why the class 317 trains cannot be refurbished in the same way?

 

[O L Leigh]

And what refurbishment are they getting...?

I suspect that the Cl315 refurb is still the benchmark in terms of the amount of work carried out and the overall improvement brought about as a result, even though the original seat frames and seating layout were retained. And this is my point. There is only so much you can do before you start having to worry about DDA compliance. When you start having to impose these conditions on a 30 year old train you might as well chuck it away and get a new one.

O L Leigh

 

[Vulcan]

Is it me or does that train look like it's levitating...

yes, it needs some shadow beneath it.

As for rounded window edges, it prevents fatigue in the corners.

 

[jon0844]

The 319s aren't much newer than the 317s - and they're going to be given a radical refit that will see them going for ages. This will have to include accessible/universal/disabled toilets and any new requirements that come in over the next few years.

I guess it comes down to how solid the exterior is. If that's sound, or can be made to be, then what's the problem? Everything inside will change, everything underneath will probably change. For all intents and purposes, it's a brand new train (probably more reliable too).

In this day and age of recycling, it makes good sense to do this too. It must be cheaper to refit an existing train than build a new one?

 

[Vulcan]

ah, just realised there were several more pages between this post and the one I quoted.

ah well, still true

 

[Bighat]

If you credit the forum it would be much better...

What, and get banned by you lot for mentioning another forum?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Please check your spelling.

Looks nice though.

O L Leigh

Very few people know that Stansted does not have an 'A' in its spelling.

It more confusing when the nearby village of Stanstead Abbots DOES but Stansted Mountfitchet does NOT!

Work THAT one out!

 

[O L Leigh]

I guess it comes down to how solid the exterior is. If that's sound, or can be made to be, then what's the problem? Everything inside will change, everything underneath will probably change. For all intents and purposes, it's a brand new train (probably more reliable too).

And how good do you think a 30 year old Cl317 all-steel bodyshell is under all that paint and vinyls? Some of our units are beginning to look like doilies. Sure you can cut out the affected sections and weld-in a patch, but these repairs are mostly cosmetic and don't actually make the bodyshell in that section as sound as it was when brand new.

And then you have all that nonsense that SWT had with the Cl458's. These were designed before the DDA requirements had been finally agreed and so were designed "in good faith" based on the draft legislation. Turns out that these requirements didn't make it through unchanged and so the units were non-compliant because of silly things like the door buttons being a few millimetres too high and the PIS screens needing an extra row of LED's. Broadly speaking you can get away with this when it's a new train, but how do you get around the problem on a 30 year old design when the door apetures are found to be too narrow or the floor too high?

As for them suddenly being more reliable, well perhaps they will end up being so but they won't be to start off with. I called the refurbed Cl315's "Frankensteins" for a while because of the way Bombardier had added new bits to old trains. They got there in the end, but we did have a lot of fun and games with them to start off with when the original 1970's technology had a falling-out with the new-fangled bits. And even now, are the Cl315's more reliable than, say, the Cl376's...?

I don't doubt that a full rebuild is at least feasible, but I do question the point of it. There are currently two active MU production lines with more manufacturers vying to get into the market. The best answer is withdrawal and replacement.

Very few people know that Stansted does not have an 'A' in its spelling.

I think you mean more than one 'A'.

It more confusing when the nearby village of Stanstead Abbots DOES but Stansted Mountfitchet does NOT!

Work THAT one out!

It's not that nearby. Besides, the planes only go from the one and not the other.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

What are they going to do to the 319s then, if you say the 317s aren't up to it. Aren't they almost identical, give or take a couple of years?

Personally, I'd want a new train - but that's just because I like new things (and can't understand how we can't make anything new of decent quality - or at least Bombardier can't).

 

[ukrob]

About five years ago the Merseyrail fleet (which is a few years older than the 317s) was refurbished at a cost of £32 million, or around £180k per carriage.

There are about 240 x 317 carriages with NXEA so lets allow a very generous £230k per vehicle for a refurb. That comes to £55 million against around £300 million for new build stock to replace stock which has only had 30 years use (and many of them less than 25 years).

I don't know the condition of the units at all, in fact I have never been on a 317 - these are just some figures for people to think about.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What are they going to do to the 319s then, if you say the 317s aren't up to it. Aren't they almost identical, give or take a couple of years?

Personally, I'd want a new train - but that's just because I like new things (and can't understand how we can't make anything new of decent quality - or at least Bombardier can't).

Both were built in two batches, the 317s 1981-1982 and the later batch 1985-1986.

The 319s were 1987-1888 and the later ones in 1990, which gives a nine year period in which the 317s and 319s were built.