Possible AC EMU future cascade scenarios?

[tbtc]

The 360/2s weren't anything to do with DfT. They were bought and paid for by Heathrow Airport Ltd around 17 years ago, to do a specific job - one which they did until the Elizabeth Line superseded it. Thereafter, there was nothing that they were needed or suitable for.

The DfT can be blamed for quite a few things, but not in this case.

Agreed

For the benefit of anyone coming on here without reading the entire thread, and unwilling to suggest a reasonable use for these 5x five coach (pure) EMUs, the basics seem to be this:

• Private Company A (Heathrow Airport) ordered/ bought these twenty five carriages, knowing that they wouldn’t need them Post-Crossrail. We complain about them being scrapped after “only” seventeen years, but presumably the business plan was based on them not even being used that long (since Crossrail should have been running fully in 2018)?

• Private Company B (ROC) buy them, explore options for freight conversion, try to find a niche that they could be suited for, are unable to find a use, send them for scrap

• Enthusiasts: “why has the DfT failed?”

One thing the DafT can be blamed for is being party to scaling back Electrification projects that has lead to a surplus of EMUs

True, but if Network Rail had delivered the electrification on the GWML etc within the CP5 expectations then there’d not have been any need for DfT to rein in costs to try to get things back working again, so I think we need to give context

 

[91108]

• Me : Traveling to Leicester from Nottingham on an awful 156 reading that 18 year younger 360s are being dragged to a scrapyard.

 

[DelW]

• Me : Traveling to Leicester from Nottingham on an awful 156 reading that 18 year younger 360s are being dragged to a scrapyard.

I'm not clear how 5 redundant EMUs might be used to improve that journey, bearing in mind that dieselising old electric units hasn't been particularly successful so far?

 

[43102EMR]

I'm not clear how 5 redundant EMUs might be used to improve that journey, bearing in mind that dieselising old electric units hasn't been particularly successful so far?

I don’t think that was the point that’s being made - how are 16 year old EMUs being sent for scrap when 30-40+ year old DMUs are still running on the network?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2022 ==

Agreed

For the benefit of anyone coming on here without reading the entire thread, and unwilling to suggest a reasonable use for these 5x five coach (pure) EMUs, the basics seem to be this:

Private Company A (Heathrow Airport) ordered/ bought these twenty five carriages, knowing that they wouldn’t need them Post-Crossrail. We complain about them being scrapped after “only” seventeen years, but presumably the business plan was based on them not even being used that long (since Crossrail should have been running fully in 2018)?

Private Company B buy them, explore options for freight conversion, try to find a niche that they could be suited for, are unable to find a use, send them for scrap

Enthusiasts: “why has the DfT failed?”

I agree with this to an extent, but the DfT/Treasury also shares some of the blame in the sense of lack of electrification on the UK rail network, which would have reduced the risk of the 360/2s being unable to find work under ROG.

 

[43096]

I don’t think that was the point that’s being made - how are 16 year old EMUs being sent for scrap when 30-40+ year old DMUs are still running on the network?

The point is the same: spare EMUs are useless for diesel routes.

 

[91108]

A network, of which, the Northern end of the Midland Mainline should already have been electrified.

 

[Energy]

The new LNwR fleet seems to be the one which has created the issues, though GA could have waited one more franchise term with their EMU replacement and focussed on DMUs instead.

They could have, the 317s are getting rather old though. They (and presumably the non renatus 321s) would also need PRM mods and didn't meet the shorter journey times. The 379s and 360s would be fairly easy to cascade somewhere.

LNWR was an over order, it replaced the young 350/2s while the growth and 319 replacement could have been done by 360s, which would work better operationally.

 

[DelW]

I don’t think that was the point that’s being made - how are 16 year old EMUs being sent for scrap when 30-40+ year old DMUs are still running on the network?

Well, basically, because there's no work available for a small fleet of five 16 year old EMUS, while there is work available for 30 - 40 year old DMUs. The point would be valid if newer DMUs were being scrapped, but they aren't...

 

[Trainbike46]

Well, basically, because there's no work available for a small fleet of five 16 year old EMUS, while there is work available for 30 - 40 year old DMUs. The point would be valid if newer DMUs were being scrapped, but they aren't...

Not yet, that is. There seems to be a chance that (some of) the class 22x trains will end up being scrapped long before they reach 40

 

[SprattyHeath]

It did surprise me somewhat that trains with still a lot of life left in them are going for scrap, but clearly seems it was inevitable. They've been sat in storage since they last ran on the Heathrow Connect (TFL Rail) services back in 2020 and have nowhere else to go.

I would imagine that there will be spare parts to keep the remaining 360s with EMR going.

 

[D365]

A network, of which, the Northern end of the Midland Mainline should already have been electrified.

Agreed. We’re about 30 years behind, where it comes to electrification, but that’s very much alternative history territory.

 

[91108]

Well, basically, because there's no work available for a small fleet of five 16 year old EMUS, while there is work available for 30 - 40 year old DMUs. The point would be valid if newer DMUs were being scrapped, but they aren't...

My point was as understood by 43102EMR.
At time where the use of fossil fuels should be getting reduced the sight of a 55 year old Class 37 hauling 17 year old EMUs to be scrapped whilst travellers on many lines in this country are riding on 30 or 40 year old DMUs, often short formed because they themselves are in short supply, sums up all that is wrong.
Im sorry if you don’t get that because a Class 360 can’t run on the non electrified line that my 156 is on - that line should have been electrified years ago.

 

[JonathanH]

I would imagine that there will be spare parts to keep the remaining 360s with EMR going.

I would imagine that EMR / Siemens already have a supply chain to obtain spare parts. It may not be worthwhile getting them off the 360/2s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My point was as understood by 43102EMR.
At time where the use of fossil fuels should be getting reduced the sight of a 55 year old Class 37 hauling 17 year old EMUs to be scrapped whilst travellers on many lines in this country are riding on 30 or 40 year old DMUs, often short formed because they themselves are in short supply, sums up all that is wrong.
Im sorry if you don’t get that because a Class 360 can’t run on the non electrified line that my 156 is on - that line should have been electrified years ago.

We need more electrification, yes, but it won't come soon enough for those 360s to be useful.

 

[bramling]

Agreed

For the benefit of anyone coming on here without reading the entire thread, and unwilling to suggest a reasonable use for these 5x five coach (pure) EMUs, the basics seem to be this:

• Private Company A (Heathrow Airport) ordered/ bought these twenty five carriages, knowing that they wouldn’t need them Post-Crossrail. We complain about them being scrapped after “only” seventeen years, but presumably the business plan was based on them not even being used that long (since Crossrail should have been running fully in 2018)?

• Private Company B (ROC) buy them, explore options for freight conversion, try to find a niche that they could be suited for, are unable to find a use, send them for scrap

• Enthusiasts: “why has the DfT failed?”

How about we replace the last one with “Taxpayers: “why has the DfT failed?”, and perhaps add one relating to farepayers too?

I think everyone here gets that the 360/2s were procured by Heathrow. But equally it’s a reasonable question to ask as to whether the industry should have foreseen the availability of five less-than-half-life EMUs, common to a type running on the network in significant numbers, and factored them into a rolling stock strategy. The problem is we don’t appear to have such a strategy in any form.

It isn’t simply the cost of procuring new-build EMUs, but all the issues that surround introducing them - extra burden on training resources, depot alterations, for example.

It’s one thing if the Heathrow fleets were the only ones where this had been the outcome, but they aren’t. If it happens to either the 350/2 or 379 fleets then things really have gone mad. It was bad enough with the 365s, especially after they’d only recently had money spent on them.

 

[91108]

How about we replace the last one with “Taxpayers: “why has the DfT failed?”, and perhaps add one relating to farepayers too?

I think everyone here gets that the 360/2s were procured by Heathrow. But equally it’s a reasonable question to ask as to whether the industry should have foreseen the availability of five less-than-half-life EMUs, common to a type running on the network in significant numbers, and factored them into a rolling stock strategy. The problem is we don’t appear to have such a strategy in any form.

Heathrow Airport Limited will also have depreciated the 360/2 fleet on their books each year to pay less tax and make all the sums add up.
15 years later they are devalued to zero and sold to ROG, probably at scrap value.
ROG take a punt at them, it doesn’t work out so they sell them for scrap.
You are spot on, we don’t have any strategy in any form. Just various entities making their own money off it all.

 

[bramling]

We need more electrification, yes, but it won't come soon enough for those 360s to be useful.

So a failure of planning, then? That’s the point people are making, rightly in my opinion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2022 ==

Heathrow Airport Limited will also have depreciated the 360/2 fleet on their books each year to pay less tax and make all the sums add up.
15 years later they are devalued to zero and sold to ROG, probably at scrap value.
ROG take a punt at them, it doesn’t work out so they sell them for scrap.
You are spot on, we don’t have any strategy in any form. Just various entities making their own money off it all.

I can understand that Heathrow will have made a business case. However we should remember the comparatively high fares charged on both Heathrow Connect and Heathrow Express, and the issue over HAL charging access fees for the airport tunnel in respect of Crossrail. So ultimately people using rail to Heathrow have picked up the tab for this business case through high fares. I suppose I shouldn’t care too much as I don’t use rail to Heathrow!

 

[43096]

A network, of which, the Northern end of the Midland Mainline should already have been electrified.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. It isn’t though and that’s the key point.

 

[91108]

So a failure of planning, then? That’s the point people are making, rightly in my opinion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2022 ==



I can understand that Heathrow will have made a business case. However we should remember the comparatively high fares charged on both Heathrow Connect and Heathrow Express, and the issue over HAL charging access fees for the airport tunnel in respect of Crossrail. So ultimately people using rail to Heathrow have picked up the tab for this business case through high fares. I suppose I shouldn’t care too much as I don’t use rail to Heathrow!

Business is business as you say and someone pays the tab, usually unwittingly.
No doubt the scrap value probably went up as well whilst they were stored.

 

[Bikeman78]

Exactly. Fiddling around with old trains just because people are desperate to make everything last 40 years, and it just leads to a slow, cruddy train that provides an embarrassing and unreliable service. I know from living on a 769 route - thankfully our ones are being replaced.

We are short of DMUs and there are bucket loads of spare EMUs. The solution is obvious to everyone apart from DfT. For the avoidance of doubt, it doesn't involve hydrogen or trying to put engines under EMUs.

 

[Energy]

We are short of DMUs and there are bucket loads of spare EMUs. The solution is obvious to everyone apart from DfT. For the avoidance of doubt, it doesn't involve hydrogen or trying to put engines under EMUs.

Electrification is needed but takes time and more importantly money.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Electrification is needed but takes time and more importantly money.

So its a shame they didn't start getting a move on a good few years ago like many other countries did.

 

[warwickshire]

5Q76 1001 Bicester Mod Gbrf to Newport Docks (Simsgroup)
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:71785/2022-08-24/detailed

Another unit (reportedly 360204) on the way to Newport

Confirmed 37612 with 360204 through Appleford around about on time going for scrap. Note at the momment they are going in order in how they arrived at Bicester back in February and March 2021. 360205 and 360204 was the first to arrive and the first to leave.
It appears they are also going singly.
How the rest will go in which order a case of wait and see.
Interesting about 360201 though because back in December 2021 after Lydney it needed a move back to Bicester with the Van's.
However it appears along with the mk3 ex tfw stock and the 360s now going for scrap in due course. Rail Operations Group have pulled fully out from the Charter and Stock class 360 hire business.

 

[Energy]

So its a shame they didn't start getting a move on a good few years ago like many other countries did.

... they did. Its the GWEP and other programs but the GWEP went way over budget. I'm not defending the lack of electrification but many don't seem to understand the lack of unlimited money at the DfT.

 

[Bikeman78]

Electrification is needed but takes time and more importantly money.

Our European neighbours manage to find the money. So does Scotland for that matter. Meanwhile DfT prefers to waste money on feasibility studies, hydrogen and 769s, with nothing useful to show for it. EMUs are being towed to Sims passing Newport where people are unable to board two car DMUs owing to overcrowding.

 

[Towers]

The 360/2s were limited to use on Heathrow - Paddington stoppers for 15 years, then were placed into store from 2020 with both HEX and later ROG following their purchase of the fleet. I saw some photos of 360201 being used for a film shoot at the Dean Forest Railway, and it wasn’t in the best of conditions - you can see why ROG decided to sell them for scrap rather than pay more to keep them in storage!

There is no reason for a modern, 15 year old EMU to be in poor condition other than incompetence on the part of its owner.

Whilst it's true that these particular units may have had little to do with the DfT directly, the fact remains that the DfT have micromanaged Britain's rolling stock fleets ever since privatisation. There has consistently been a total lack of any sort of structure, joined-up thinking or basic common sense, and however the details sit, these are modern, high quality units that were built to operate on our national railway infrastructure and are no more than middle aged. That is deeply wasteful, an ugly problem that seems to permeate throughout the rolling stock landscape currently, and that the systems in place don't allow better control of the overall situation is woeful.

 

[DelW]

My point was as understood by 43102EMR.
At time where the use of fossil fuels should be getting reduced the sight of a 55 year old Class 37 hauling 17 year old EMUs to be scrapped whilst travellers on many lines in this country are riding on 30 or 40 year old DMUs, often short formed because they themselves are in short supply, sums up all that is wrong.
Im sorry if you don’t get that because a Class 360 can’t run on the non electrified line that my 156 is on - that line should have been electrified years ago.

But even if there were electrified lines wanting extra stock, *this particular* fleet - only five units, non-gangwayed, non-standard, probably needing major overhauls - wouldn't have been likely to be popular with any operators. You can say that they ought to have been specified with future re-use in mind, but why would HAL, 17 years ago, have specified something different from what they wanted, on the off-chance of improving reuseability in 2022?

I can see your point that a strategy to increase the lifespan of trains (or cars, ships, aircraft) is a Good Thing in principle, but I really can't see how keeping 360/2s sat around in storage any longer would help with that.

 

[Crossover]

DMU conversion or fitting of shoe gear prohibitively too expensive, and TPWS fitting the same. Scotrail want only 3 car and 6 car trains and are snobby towards hand me downs and have the money to pay for brand new bespoke rolling stock (likely a 385 follow on order and a DMU version of them as well).

Well they took on ex LM 321s and are running them as 320s right now.

And the HST's! Hand-me-down to an extreme!

Modern stock seems to be much more route or service specific.

Arguably also less flexible in that sets can't easily be taken apart and reformed as well

That didn’t age well, the second one‘s gone now…

In fairness to @TT-ONR-NRN, their post to me read as speculation and not anything authoritative

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

In fairness to @TT-ONR-NRN, their post to me read as speculation and not anything authoritative

Yes I was just wondering if there was a chance the odd one out of the group was being offed only, but apparently not.

 

[swt_passenger]

In fairness to @TT-ONR-NRN, their post to me read as speculation and not anything authoritative

Sure. It was a reasonable idea at the time.