Suggestions for future use of Class 332s post-HEx

[MarkyT]

It may not be perfect, but it is a darn sight more relable and better sourced than Twitter or Wikipedia.

And three decades in the future, I'll be very likely to be able to find the source in an archive somewhere on the planet (assuming that still exists), whereas there's no guarantee a post on Twitter will be retrievable independently.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Dec 2020 ==

The point, really, is that users of any source should be reading them with a questioning mindset and not taking them at face value. The danger is that things become "fact" when they're not.

A very good point.

 

[Domh245]

UK railway wikipedia has become quite an odd place - there seems to be some sort of desire to turn it into an accurate and up to date database of sorts with the myriad livery diagrams, speculation as well as details around unit/loco dates, names, locations, etc. Some of these are useful but IMO wikipedia isn't the tool for that sort of thing.

 

[Bluejays]

Seeing quite a few messages suggesting Heathrow have neglected and not looked after the trains. Got to disagree, it seems to me like they've managed their assets brilliantly.
I'm no expert, but I can't imagine big midlife overhauls come cheap. That's not even taking into account the extra staff you'd need, bigger fleet size to cover trains being overhauled. Big TOCs are a bit better set up to absorb those costs over big fleets, but a small fleet would suffer disproportionate expense.

I know a lot of fleets in the UK are 30/40 plus, but I'd also imagine that for a fair few of those fleets it may well have worked out cheaper to replace them a fair few years ago. Anyone who has an aging car can see the ever increasing bills that follow.

The 332's have provided stellar service and are continuing to do so slightly beyond their planned withdrawal date. Now there are nice shiny trains to replace them. I understand why a lot of enhusiasts are desperate to see trains stay and be repurposed, but personally I like Heathrows approach to this fleet, work it hard then upgrade

 

[43096]

Seeing quite a few messages suggesting Heathrow have neglected and not looked after the trains. Got to disagree, it seems to me like they've managed their assets brilliantly.
I'm no expert, but I can't imagine big midlife overhauls come cheap. That's not even taking into account the extra staff you'd need, bigger fleet size to cover trains being overhauled. Big TOCs are a bit better set up to absorb those costs over big fleets, but a small fleet would suffer disproportionate expense.

I know a lot of fleets in the UK are 30/40 plus, but I'd also imagine that for a fair few of those fleets it may well have worked out cheaper to replace them a fair few years ago. Anyone who has an aging car can see the ever increasing bills that follow.

The 332's have provided stellar service and are continuing to do so slightly beyond their planned withdrawal date. Now there are nice shiny trains to replace them. I understand why a lot of enhusiasts are desperate to see trains stay and be repurposed, but personally I like Heathrows approach to this fleet, work it hard then upgrade

Except that - as I keep saying - the Heathrow fleet hasn't been worked hard. It's had an easy life.

 

[Journeyman]

Except that - as I keep saying - the Heathrow fleet hasn't been worked hard. It's had an easy life.

Anything used on a high frequency service on a single route tends to get worked harder than a general purpose fleet used over multiple routes. It's not hugely relevant anyway, as they're going because they can't be used elsewhere, and there's a huge surplus of EMUs.

 

[43096]

Anything used on a high frequency service on a single route tends to get worked harder than a general purpose fleet used over multiple routes.

10 diagrams (max) from 14 sets is a low availability requirement. There's plenty of diesel fleets harder worked than that and they are more complex to maintain.

It's not hugely relevant anyway, as they're going because they can't be used elsewhere, and there's a huge surplus of EMUs.

True, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that the 332s have had a hard life.

 

[swt_passenger]

UK railway wikipedia has become quite an odd place - there seems to be some sort of desire to turn it into an accurate and up to date database of sorts with the myriad livery diagrams, speculation as well as details around unit/loco dates, names, locations, etc. Some of these are useful but IMO wikipedia isn't the tool for that sort of thing.

I’ve been watching the edits made (and often quickly overwritten) over the last few weeks, the article now shows 5 units scrapped as of this evening (15th), but also claims that they were all withdrawn on the 12th, quoting “Railways Illustrated” which must have been making a prediction at the time it was printed. Just goes to show, that it’s not enough to assume it’s correct if it’s in a magazine, and wrong if it’s on social media...

 

[Bluejays]

Except that - as I keep saying - the Heathrow fleet hasn't been worked hard. It's had an easy life.

Except that - as I keep saying - the Heathrow fleet hasn't been worked hard. It's had an easy life.

They've done over 20 years, and by all accounts they've done it without the type of heavy overhauls that a lot of other fleets have. It seems that Heathrow made the decision to work the fleet as hard as possible rather than try to extend its lifespan. That was the context of my comment about Heathrow working their assets hard. Not quite sure why you feel the need to try and wedge in your point again.

 

[43096]

Not quite sure why you feel the need to try and wedge in your point again.

Because it's correct and people are just sticking with the "they've had a hard life" mantra, even though it is incorrect.

 

[Journeyman]

Because it's correct and people are just sticking with the "they've had a hard life" mantra, even though it is incorrect.

But whether it's correct or not is irrelevant. Even if they were pristine - and it's widely known they're not - they're still no good for re-use.

 

[Class465pacer]

Oh the irony. Wikipedia sees Twitter as being an unreliable source. It's not like Wikipedia is exactly the most reliable of sources, is it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Dec 2020 ==


The reasons they aren't being reused are not disingenuous. They are fact. If you read them you would know why the 332s have a one-way ticket to the scrapyard.

Interesting that you complain about multiple pages of disingenuous suggestions for re-use, then add one of your own for Windermere services.

Funny you say that. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source either.

Also the "hard Twitter ban" that has been mentioned is incorrect, as I believe it can be used as a source if it is a verified account concerned that is already considered reliable outside of Twitter.

 

[bluenoxid]

Except that - as I keep saying - the Heathrow fleet hasn't been worked hard. It's had an easy life.

That’s interesting.

What are the relative of a few of their units versus 333s and some of the 170 fleet that will be of a similar age

Does the mileage get logged in TOPS (I’m probably wrong)

I know mileage isn’t the only wear measure but it’s a good starting point.

 

[KC1]

Still can’t get my head round how this much quality of a train can go for scrapping already. It’s crazy. And yet, replacing them with almost standard 387s.

The 332s have that sense of quality and class that is way and above the standard of any 387 no matter how you upgrade those, even in standard class on a 332 you felt it always had far, far superior quality to most other trains currently running.

 

[59CosG95]

Still can’t get my head round how this much quality of a train can go for scrapping already. It’s crazy. And yet, replacing them with almost standard 387s.

The 332s have that sense of quality and class that is way and above the standard of any 387 no matter how you upgrade those, even in standard class on a 332 you felt it always had far, far superior quality to most other trains currently running.

A plush interior can hide no end of mechanical and electrical sins. This is a fleet that has had no major mid-life overhaul, no work to make it compatible with anywhere outside the GWML, and has had to be grounded due to cracks in the running gear.

It's comparable to the gentry of 18th century Britain plastering their faces with white lead face powder and then using extra lead to cover up the damage caused by lead poisoning, compounding the problem further.

 

[goldenarrow]

Still can’t get my head round how this much quality of a train can go for scrapping already. It’s crazy. And yet, replacing them with almost standard 387s.

The 332s have that sense of quality and class that is way and above the standard of any 387 no matter how you upgrade those, even in standard class on a 332 you felt it always had far, far superior quality to most other trains currently running.

Your point on interiors is adept, they were tastefully updated to suits the needs of the custom they received.

But this glossy exterior is but a thin veneer for trains that are mechanically and structurally worn out. They have been worked to bone through the intensive operating requirements of HEX and I have heard their maintenance cycles being described as 'only covering the essentials' which may go some way to explain the issues with corrosion and ingress having developed over the years. Before it would even be considered that these trains be used elsewhere the fleet would need a comprehensive structural overhaul and with market conditions currently favouring new build rolling stock, that just doesn't look attractive.

The reality is that HAL paying for a bespoke fleet again for a service that stands a very good chance of being killed off completely by the Elizabeth line is a pie in the sky when a much more low risk option is available. GWR don't lose too much since their 387's were destined for a wired network that has since had its wings clipped and HAL can still have a premier express service through arm's length contracting with lower financial risk.

 

[Energy]

he reality is that HAL paying for a bespoke fleet again for a service that stands a very good chance of being killed off completely by the Elizabeth line is a pie in the sky when a much more low risk option is available.

Worst case scenario all or some of the 387s just get converted back from HEX to more normal operations and head to either GWR or one of the many other electrostar operators.

 

[david1212]

.... for trains that are mechanically and structurally worn out ....

The same can be said for the IOW class 483's with 3rd January as last scheduled running day. The age difference though is around 60 years or put another way a total service life of 4x longer.

 

[D365]

The same can be said for the IOW class 483's with 3rd January as last scheduled running day. The age difference though is around 60 years or put another way a total service life of 4x longer.

That being said, the Island Line is one with very specific rolling stock requirements, much more so than the Great Western.

 

[7 Ingleborough]

Alternative use for 332s? Well I did try to get three vehicles as static Ops Training Vehicles for GWR, No joy. We were originally getting some redundant 313s but that fell through. So we are still stuck with a rapidly rusting Mk2.

 

[DB]

Alternative use for 332s? Well I did try to get three vehicles as static Ops Training Vehicles for GWR, No joy. We were originally getting some redundant 313s but that fell through. So we are still stuck with a rapidly rusting Mk2.

Couldn't you have got Any Mk3s? Or are those no better than Mk2s for what you need?

 

[Mikey C]

IF GWR hadn't been given such a generous number of 387s, I wonder if scrapping the 332s would have been such an attractive option

After all the original plan was for a mixed 365 and 387 fleet, so would GWR have sacrificed 110mph 387s to run an airport service, when their regular services had older 100mph 365s?

 

[JN114]

Possibly not.

If things had gone “as planned” though HEx would now be operating from a new purpose-built depot at Langley, so may well have sought either an overhaul of the 332s, or ordered a new, purpose built fleet. Services would be running, or about to start running via the Western Access which is now again gathering dust on the shelf. And electrification would have been completed including the branches due for wiring and Oxford, so would GWR have had units to spare? Probably not.

If they had gone down the fleet replacement route (which my money was on), then I’m sure we’d still be having all the conversations in this thread about it being a waste, or could you use them xyz, and the same answers will have applied.

 

[43096]

IF GWR hadn't been given such a generous number of 387s, I wonder if scrapping the 332s would have been such an attractive option

After all the original plan was for a mixed 365 and 387 fleet, so would GWR have sacrificed 110mph 387s to run an airport service, when their regular services had older 100mph 365s?

The availability of the 387s has basically meant that the cost of a new depot for HEx has been avoided, as they can be maintained at Reading. I suppose the alternative to anew depot would have been to fit the 332s with TPWS and maintain them at Reading if there had been capacity.

 

[MarkyT]

Possibly not.

If things had gone “as planned” though HEx would now be operating from a new purpose-built depot at Langley, so may well have sought either an overhaul of the 332s, or ordered a new, purpose built fleet. Services would be running, or about to start running via the Western Access which is now again gathering dust on the shelf. And electrification would have been completed including the branches due for wiring and Oxford, so would GWR have had units to spare? Probably not.

If they had gone down the fleet replacement route (which my money was on), then I’m sure we’d still be having all the conversations in this thread about it being a waste, or could you use them xyz, and the same answers will have applied.

332s would have needed major levels of re-engineering to accommodate ETCS which is an absolute must for continues operation alongside Elizabeth Line in the airport tunnels. I suspect they would have have been replaced soon under any scenario, with their corrosion issues, poor power to weight ratio compared to all the new GWR trains, and their stiff, track hostile suspension. While they may turn out to be nothing special interior-wise, the replacement 387s are simply better trains in all other respects.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2020 ==

The availability of the 387s has basically meant that the cost of a new depot for HEx has been avoided, as they can be maintained at Reading. I suppose the alternative to anew depot would have been to fit the 332s with TPWS and maintain them at Reading if there had been capacity.

and ETCS, with neccessary mods to train management and traction control system, probably in excess of £2m per cab. And time out of service to consider, effort to test and prove revised systems incl. software all for a small non standard fleet. Not looking a good business case!

 

[43096]

332s would have needed major levels of re-engineering to accommodate ETCS which is an absolute must for continues operation alongside Elizabeth Line in the airport tunnels. I suspect they would have have been replaced soon under any scenario, with their corrosion issues, poor power to weight ratio compared to all the new GWR trains, and their stiff, track hostile suspension. While they may turn out to be nothing special interior-wise, the replacement 387s are simply better trains in all other respects.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2020 ==


and ETCS, with neccessary mods to train management and traction control system, probably in excess of £2m per cab. And time out of service to consider, effort to test and prove revised systems incl. software all for a small non standard fleet. Not looking a good business case!

Good point, I'd forgotten about the ETCS requirement. Depending on what other cascades were in place, perhaps a re-use of the 360/2s would have been considered, with some 360/1s brought in to make up the numbers might have been an option, as Desiro ETCS fit will be needed at some point. Getting rather off-topic now, though!