Future of Class 379

[Mamorin]

I wonder how much longer they're willing to keep the 379s around before they decide to have the units scrapped. After all, now they only cost money in upkeep in storage and they have no income from them.

If a new home for the 379s can’t be found by next February I can see them being scrapped, as by then they will have been sat in storage for a year with nobody wanting/being allowed them.

 

[dk1]

If a new home for the 379s can’t be found by next February I can see them being scrapped, as by then they will have been sat in storage for a year with nobody wanting/being allowed them.

Don’t think time makes any difference whatsoever.

 

[Mamorin]

I would argue time does matter as storage costs keep adding up as time goes on.

But I’m not Akiem so who knows how long it will be before the 379s get scrapped, if it comes to that.

Akiem could be eyeing up older fleets to replace like the 465s and 466s by sticking shoes on the 379s.

Anyway we will just have to wait and see what happens with the 379s.

 

[43102EMR]

I would argue time does matter as storage costs keep adding up as time goes on.

But I’m not Akiem so who knows how long it will be before the 379s get scrapped, if it comes to that.

Akiem could be eyeing up older fleets to replace like the 465s and 466s by sticking shoes on the 379s.

Anyway we will just have to wait and see what happens with the 379s.

I highly doubt they’ll get scrapped; I still strongly believe that sooner or later, a use will be found for them.

 

[dk1]

I would argue time does matter as storage costs keep adding up as time goes on.

But I’m not Akiem so who knows how long it will be before the 379s get scrapped, if it comes to that.

Akiem could be eyeing up older fleets to replace like the 465s and 466s by sticking shoes on the 379s.

Anyway we will just have to wait and see what happens with the 379s.

But the leasing company or the DfT just pay for storage.

 

[Mamorin]

I highly doubt they’ll get scrapped; I still strongly believe that sooner or later, a use will be found for them.

I hope a use can be found for the 379s I really do.

 

[Energy]

If a new home for the 379s can’t be found by next February I can see them being scrapped, as by then they will have been sat in storage for a year with nobody wanting/being allowed them.

I would argue time does matter as storage costs keep adding up as time goes on.

Storage isn't that expensive, the scrap value doesn't change with time. The concern is the unit deteriorating in storage.

Scrapping them when they don't have work after a few months would be short term thinking, give it a year or two and GTR might have enough passengers that they really need the capacity.

 

[Mamorin]

But the leasing company or the DfT just pay for storage.

Given government departments have been told to make cut backs I can’t see the DFT wanting to pay for the storage costs.

As for the leasing company it may come down to when do they want to cut their loses on the 379s.

As I’ve said before it’s a wait and see game, for now the 379s are just sat in storage.

 

[JonathanH]

GTR might have enough passengers that they really need the capacity

No matter how many passengers they have, the money won't be available to pay for leasing more trains. Indications in other threads is that the Treasury is looking for substantial ongoing cuts in rail expenditure. That may mean that even some of the 377 fleet goes off lease as services reduce, let alone leasing more trains.

 

[Mamorin]

Storage isn't that expensive, the scrap value doesn't change with time. The concern is the unit deteriorating in storage.

Scrapping them when they don't have work after a few months would be short term thinking, give it a year or two and GTR might have enough passengers that they really need the capacity.

Huh did not know storage costs were not expensive. As for units deteriorating thanks to Rail we know 11 units are not in good shape.

Still as you say GTR may have need of the fleet in two years time if passenger numbers pick up.

However the leasing costs have to come down before anybody will be allowed to have the 379s.

 

[Southern Dvr]

GTR have need of the fleet or a fleet similar that these could give up now.

But, and I’m gonna suggest y’all read this slowly.

“THERE IS NO MONEY”

It’s amazing to think it, but it’s true.

Perhaps they could run on HS2, instead of whatever tat is going on that!

 

[Energy]

GTR have need of the fleet or a fleet similar that these could give up now.

But, and I’m gonna suggest y’all read this slowly.

“THERE IS NO MONEY”

It’s amazing to think it, but it’s true.

Of course there is no money now, but its not that unlikely that commuter numbers increase in the next few years to justify the 379s. Scrapping them this early would be short term thinking.

 

[JonathanH]

Of course there is no money now, but its not that unlikely that commuter numbers increase in the next few years to justify the 379s.

If passenger numbers increase, that just reduces the losses the railway is making and returns money to the Treasury. It doesn't justify increasing costs through leasing more trains.

Passenger load factors would need to be up around 110% of seating capacity on a large number of trains first.

Also, it probably shouldn't be ignored that passenger numbers can be addressed by pricing as well as capacity.

 

[D365]

What about converting them to bi-mode a la 319 to 769? That way they would have much more possible homes if they gain diesel capabilities; call them the Class 779.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2022 ==


Why are the lease costs so expensive in the first place? Any possibility of an open access operator using them for a new service?

I’m sure Akiem are taking note the TOPS number is the least of the problems.

 

[ashkeba]

If passenger numbers increase, that just reduces the losses the railway is making and returns money to the Treasury. It doesn't justify increasing costs through leasing more trains.

Passenger load factors would need to be up around 110% of seating capacity on a large number of trains first.

Also, it probably shouldn't be ignored that passenger numbers can be addressed by pricing as well as capacity.

Artificially suppressing railway use would be very short term thinking because it would push people onto roads which costs society more.

So probably exactly what will happen

 

[JonathanH]

Artificially suppressing railway use would be very short term thinking because it would push people onto roads which costs society more.

The challenge I was thinking of to a greater extent is smoothing out loadings across the week, which may not include road use.

It is incredibly inefficient to have uneven use of capacity across the week so one way of not needing to lease more rolling stock is to charge more for the busiest days where passengers are choosing to travel only one or two weeks while not distinguishing costs for passengers travelling five days a week.

 

[Southern Dvr]

Of course there is no money now, but its not that unlikely that commuter numbers increase in the next few years to justify the 379s. Scrapping them this early would be short term thinking.

The railway and certainly DfT only do short term thinking.

Increased passenger numbers in a few years is of no interest right now. If that was the case there wouldn’t be the mass withdrawal of carriages we have currently. Furthermore there would be a hoot given to the concept of ‘if you build it they will come’ whereas all that’s happening now is cut cut cut.

You may not want the 379s to go in the bin, but it seems very very likely that’s what’s going to happen.

 

[jackot]

The railway and certainly DfT only do short term thinking.

Increased passenger numbers in a few years is of no interest right now. If that was the case there wouldn’t be the mass withdrawal of carriages we have currently. Furthermore there would be a hoot given to the concept of ‘if you build it they will come’ whereas all that’s happening now is cut cut cut.

You may not want the 379s to go in the bin, but it seems very very likely that’s what’s going to happen.

We've seen it happen before, the D(a)fT will probably scrap the 379s now and order 30 brand new trains in a few years' time, simply because they are focused on short term saving.

 

[JonathanH]

We've seen it happen before, the D(a)fT will probably scrap the 379s now and order 30 brand new trains in a few years' time, simply because they are focused on short term saving.

The interesting question about that is the extent to which the lease and maintenance cost of new trains would differ from the 379s, and how many years away the issue is going to arise.

In any case, a future Networker replacement fleet on Southeastern could directly release 376s to Southern if more trains were actually required there at some point.

 

[Trainbike46]

We've seen it happen before, the D(a)fT will probably scrap the 379s now and order 30 brand new trains in a few years' time, simply because they are focused on short term saving.

fortunately, the decision on whether to scrap the 379s or store them for longer doesn't lie with the DfT, but with Akiem, who will be looking to maximise their income from them, and this is unlikely to be achieved from scrapping them rather than wait for a while longer

 

[Southern Dvr]

fortunately, the decision on whether to scrap the 379s or store them for longer doesn't lie with the DfT, but with Akiem, who will be looking to maximise their income from them, and this is unlikely to be achieved from scrapping them rather than wait for a while longer

Wrong.

Most TOCs are under the cosh of DfT and cannot do anything without DfT approval. I’m led to believe this was was one of the reasons the 379 to GN - 387 to SN cascades didn’t happen.

TOC wants to lease 379, goes to DfT to ask if they can and DfT says ‘NO WAY!!’ therefore after a while Akiem realises they’re not gonna have any work for their units and send them off to be scrapped.

 

[skyhigh]

Storage isn't that expensive, the scrap value doesn't change with time.

Oh but it does. Scrap value goes up and down all the time based on metal prices. I believe prices are currently quite favourable - so you could end up in a situation with high metal prices and the owners deciding it's a good time to cash in rather than wait for unlikely future use and watching the scrap value drop.

 

[43102EMR]

Wrong.

Most TOCs are under the cosh of DfT and cannot do anything without DfT approval. I’m led to believe this was was one of the reasons the 379 to GN - 387 to SN cascades didn’t happen.

TOC wants to lease 379, goes to DfT to ask if they can and DfT says ‘NO WAY!!’ therefore after a while Akiem realises they’re not gonna have any work for their units and send them off to be scrapped.

Needless to say, that doesn’t mean the DfT won’t change their minds… it just means it isn’t happening for the time being.

 

[jackot]

Wrong.

Most TOCs are under the cosh of DfT and cannot do anything without DfT approval. I’m led to believe this was was one of the reasons the 379 to GN - 387 to SN cascades didn’t happen.

TOC wants to lease 379, goes to DfT to ask if they can and DfT says ‘NO WAY!!’ therefore after a while Akiem realises they’re not gonna have any work for their units and send them off to be scrapped.

Yes. I’m certain GTR would have snapped up the 379s if the price was right and if DfT would have approved it, but there simply isn’t the revenue to warrant it. The problem is, the revenue won’t return either if they keep operating an overcrowded, sub-par service that will put users of rail travel off it altogether.

 

[43074]

Yes. I’m certain GTR would have snapped up the 379s if the price was right and if DfT would have approved it, but there simply isn’t the revenue to warrant it. The problem is, the revenue won’t return either if they keep operating an overcrowded, sub-par service that will put users of rail travel off it altogether.

I'm certain GTR still want (some of) the 379s, but as you say the DfT and the Treasury are the problem there.

 

[Southern Dvr]

DfT can’t change its mind, for it lost it a long long time ago!!!

 

[Peregrine 4903]

No matter how many passengers they have, the money won't be available to pay for leasing more trains. Indications in other threads is that the Treasury is looking for substantial ongoing cuts in rail expenditure. That may mean that even some of the 377 fleet goes off lease as services reduce, let alone leasing more trains.

That latter sentence is nonsense.

 

[43096]

That latter sentence is nonsense.

How do you know? If you can see into the future, could I have this week's lottery numbers, please?

 

[Peregrine 4903]

How do you know? If you can see into the future, could I have this week's lottery numbers, please?

29, 36, 43, 28 and 97

 

[43102EMR]

How do you know? If you can see into the future, could I have this week's lottery numbers, please?

In what world would Southern lose some of their 377s, considering they’re getting the ones from SE as they simply don’t have enough units to replace their 40+ year old EMUs?