Future of Class 379

[Bikeman78]

Only problem is the doors-at-thirds, but you could easily put some partition doors in if you wanted to.

No big deal. I've travelled from Cardiff to Paddington on class 387s a few times. Not much different to an IET. I don't really care so long as it keeps time.

 

[warwickshire]

A good source of mine informed me that 37601 took 379009 and 379027 moved from Ilford emud to Worksop for storage today.
On Friday 14th April 2023. 1103 5Q16 Ilford emud to Worksop Up Sidings.

 

[D365]

No, the 387s on the GN don't operate at 110mph. When 379s are mentioned as a possibility for GN, it has usually been pointed out that unlike 387s, they aren't ETCS ready.

Are the 379s a lot "less ready" than the 387s?

 

[JonathanH]

Are the 379s a lot "less ready" than the 387s?

Previous threads appear to have indicated that that is the case. You may know different?

For example - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-of-class-379.163185/page-4#post-5829742 - although the fact that 387101 went to Worksop for 'first in class' fitment at ETCS suggests the 387s aren't as ready as 'class 466' suggested.

 

[D365]

... although the fact that 387101 went to Worksop for 'first in class' fitment at ETCS suggests the 387s aren't as ready as 'class 466' suggested.

"First in Class" is a normal stage for almost every rolling stock upgrade/overhaul.

 

[Energy]

Previous threads appear to have indicated that that is the case. You may know different?

For example - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-of-class-379.163185/page-4#post-5829742 - although the fact that 387101 went to Worksop for 'first in class' fitment at ETCS suggests the 387s aren't as ready as 'class 466' suggested.

AFAIK they are about the same as far as ETCS ready goes. There is an agreement between all the electrostar ROSCOs for using the same ETCS fitment across all of them once the initial 387s are done.

 

[tomuk]

AFAIK they are about the same as far as ETCS ready goes. There is an agreement between all the electrostar ROSCOs for using the same ETCS fitment across all of them once the initial 387s are done.

AIUI the 387s have some pre-fitted wiring looms and some existing equipment was mounted differently allowing additional space for the ETCS equipment compared to the 379s. None of these are show stoppers and mean the ETCS fitment would take slightly longer than on a 387.

 

[JonathanH]

None of these are show stoppers and mean the ETCS fitment would take slightly longer than on a 387.

More importantly, it would presumably cost more as well.

I don't get the impression that anything is a 'show stopper' with a 379 but all the little things (110mph running on GW, taking out the first class seats, overhaul, ETCS etc) add up to make it easier to use 387s on GN and GWR where 379s could in theory take their place.

 

[Energy]

I don't get the impression that anything is a 'show stopper' with a 379 but all the little things (110mph running on GW, taking out the first class seats, overhaul, ETCS etc) add up to make it easier to use 387s on GN and GWR where 379s could in theory take their place.

How would 110mph on GW make it easier to run them on GWR? First class is also on GN

 

[JonathanH]

How would 110mph on GW make it easier to run them on GWR?

My point was that 387s work at 110mph on GW services, and 379s aren't currently able to, so can't replace 387s at GWR without the cost of the upgrade.

First class is also on GN

Yes, but the current first class on 379s may not be considered a good use of space, relative to the first class on 387s

 

[Southern Dvr]

If DfT/RDG/TOCs have even the slightest of cares about the travelling public then the Class 379s would be made to work on either GWR or GN in order to make some 387s available for other work. Southern Metro is about to have the shortest formations it’s had for decades and there will be extreme overcrowding.

The cold reality is that DfT/RDG and probably the TOCs just don’t care.

 

[geoffk]

Anyone think that the reason for scrapping relatively modern rolling stock is to reduce supply and thereby keep leasing costs high for the benefit of the finance companies/banks? "Follow the money" as they say.

 

[JonathanH]

Anyone think that the reason for scrapping relatively modern rolling stock is to reduce supply and thereby keep leasing costs high for the benefit of the finance companies/banks?

No, because it isn't. Which relatively modern stock has actually been scrapped apart from the 332s and two 360s that were in need of an expensive overhaul?

The 379s are out of use because the prospective customer doesn't want to pay for them.

 

[tomuk]

Anyone think that the reason for scrapping relatively modern rolling stock is to reduce supply and thereby keep leasing costs high for the benefit of the finance companies/banks? "Follow the money" as they say.

The ROSCOs are losing money if their stock ends up stored or scrapped. You need to follow the source of the money - The Treasury.

 

[Southern Dvr]

No, because it isn't. Which relatively modern stock has actually been scrapped apart from the 332s and two 360s that were in need of an expensive overhaul?

The 379s are out of use because the prospective customer doesn't want to pay for them.

The prospective customer ‘isn’t allowed to pay for them’ - remember nobody can do anything without DfT approval.

 

[JonathanH]

The prospective customer ‘isn’t allowed to pay for them’ - remember nobody can do anything without DfT approval.

I was taking the DfT to be the customer, not its intermediaries.

 

[MattRat]

Anyone think that the reason for scrapping relatively modern rolling stock is to reduce supply and thereby keep leasing costs high for the benefit of the finance companies/banks? "Follow the money" as they say.

Probably multiple reasons. A general apathy towards railways, meeting 'decarbonization' targets, etc, etc.

 

[Southern Dvr]

I was taking the DfT to be the customer, not its intermediaries.

Ahh. We’re on the same page then.

 

[Trainbike46]

No, because it isn't. Which relatively modern stock has actually been scrapped apart from the 332s and two 360s that were in need of an expensive overhaul?

The 379s are out of use because the prospective customer doesn't want to pay for them.

I'd add the 365s to the list of modern stock scrapped.

And I don't think it is outlandish to suggest that the ROSCOs look to make decisions that they believe will make them the most money, or as the case may be, the smallest loss - which may in some cases involve early scrapping of stock early, because there is no customer willing to pay, and keeping trains stored and in a usable condition does cost money.

 

[Doomotron]

Anyone think that the reason for scrapping relatively modern rolling stock is to reduce supply and thereby keep leasing costs high for the benefit of the finance companies/banks? "Follow the money" as they say.

You're finding a conspiracy where there isn't one. The Class 379s are owned by SNCF/Akiem, their only UK fleet. If they scrapped the 379s they would have no fleet to increase the prices of. As said above, the reason they're not being used is because of Akiem's pricing. They are good trains that should be used, but the first step is for Akiem to lease them at a more acceptable price.

 

[D365]

I'd add the 365s to the list of modern stock scrapped.

Middle-aged - the Class 465s certainly aren't considered modern anymore.

 

[tomuk]

I'd add the 365s to the list of modern stock scrapped.

And I don't think it is outlandish to suggest that the ROSCOs look to make decisions that they believe will make them the most money, or as the case may be, the smallest loss - which may in some cases involve early scrapping of stock early, because there is no customer willing to pay, and keeping trains stored and in a usable condition does cost money.

The 365s were both getting on a bit and due to some unfortunate storekeeping lost the ability to go back on Third Rail the probable natural home.

The main problem with the 365s was they were actually owned by the government due to the novel 'Hire Purchase' scheme they were bought under just prior to privatisation. When they went of lease it was the governments problem what to do with them.

 

[ls2270]

37608 is hauling 379002 and 016 today as 5Q16 1041 Ilford Depot to Worksop.

 

[43096]

You're finding a conspiracy where there isn't one. The Class 379s are owned by SNCF/Akiem, their only UK fleet. If they scrapped the 379s they would have no fleet to increase the prices of. As said above, the reason they're not being used is because of Akiem's pricing. They are good trains that should be used, but the first step is for Akiem to lease them at a more acceptable price.

SNCF have had no stake in Akiem since last year and it was 50:50 ownership with DWS since 2026 before that.

 

[A0]

The 365s were both getting on a bit and due to some unfortunate storekeeping lost the ability to go back on Third Rail the probable natural home.

The main problem with the 365s was they were actually owned by the government due to the novel 'Hire Purchase' scheme they were bought under just prior to privatisation. When they went of lease it was the governments problem what to do with them.

They were also 'non standard' in many ways - which the later fleets, such as Electrostars or Desiros aren't.

Wasn't there something about the 365s which caused problems with signalling unless addressed ? Electrical interference springs to mind - got mentioned on one of the other interminable threads on the 365s......

If DfT/RDG/TOCs have even the slightest of cares about the travelling public then the Class 379s would be made to work on either GWR or GN in order to make some 387s available for other work. Southern Metro is about to have the shortest formations it’s had for decades and there will be extreme overcrowding.

The cold reality is that DfT/RDG and probably the TOCs just don’t care.

Bit in bold - "cold reality" as you put it, is the railways are costing the government and therefore the taxpayer billions in subsidies.

The rail industry was completely protected during the Covid pandemic, seems incapable of modernising its working practises and reducing costs. And whilst passengers on Southern are taxpayers, the majority of taxpayers aren't Southern passengers or even regular rail users.

The rail industry - particularly on the passenger side needs to modernise its working practises and reduce its cost of operation - leasing stock to ship fresh air doesn't do that.

 

[43074]

The rail industry - particularly on the passenger side needs to modernise its working practises and reduce its cost of operation - leasing stock to ship fresh air doesn't do that.

Although in this case leasing the stock to GTR certainly wouldn't result in shipping fresh air, as you put it.

 

[A0]

Although in this case leasing the stock to GTR certainly wouldn't result in shipping fresh air, as you put it.

But it increases the cost to GTR = more subsidy, as well as the costs of modifications to the 379s as alluded to by JonathanH.

And it also presumes that the 387s aren't going to be shipping fresh air on the Southern which I assume is where you think they should go ? Don't forget not all Southern's trains run full all the time - I suspect fewer than 50% run full and standing - which means for at least half that time those units would be shipping fresh air around.

 

[43074]

But it increases the cost to GTR = more subsidy, as well as the costs of modifications to the 379s as alluded to by JonathanH.

And it also presumes that the 387s aren't going to be shipping fresh air on the Southern which I assume is where you think they should go ? Don't forget not all Southern's trains run full all the time - I suspect fewer than 50% run full and standing - which means for at least half that time those units would be shipping fresh air around.

Chances are any additional stock would be used to strengthen peak services - particularly via Peckham Rye which is now a 5-car route - and stable at sidings/Depots during the off peak. That's how the peak has been catered for in the London area since the early 20th Century.

Also what costs of modifications? 379s need work on them because they've been out of use for ages not because they are fundamentally unsuitable for use on GN.

 

[A0]

Chances are any additional stock would be used to strengthen peak services - particularly via Peckham Rye which is now a 5-car route - and stable at sidings/Depots during the off peak. That's how the peak has been catered for in the London area since the early 20th Century.

Also what costs of modifications? 379s need work on them because they've been out of use for ages not because they are fundamentally unsuitable for use on GN.

See post #720 about not being fitted with ECTS.

 

[43074]

See post #720 about not being fitted with ECTS.

379s are just as capable of being modified for ETCS as 387s though, there is nothing fundamental stopping it from being fitted.

That's just an excuse trotted out by people who - for whatever reason - refuse to accept the possibility that more stock is needed.