Impact of Lewes derailment on Southern fleet availability

brad465 · 13 Aug 2026

I've started this as a separate thread, where hopefully this is okay to discuss. Southern's fleet is stretched already, and two units being out of action will put huge pressure on it (while one unit remained upright and unaffected, I suspect being in an accident alone is enough for the RAIB to impound it, even if still serviceable). How could Southern manage in the short-term?

From memory a pool of up to 6x 387s are supposed to be interchangeable between Southern and Great Northern, so if this is the case then theoretically the impact will be minimal. However given this is in addition to ordinary maintenance downtime, there could still be problems. Here are things I could see happen if Southern need more stock and can't manage short-forms:

1) GWR or GN loan 2x units
2) Southeastern loan back 2x 377s
3) Thameslink allow a 700 to run some pure Southern services

RailUK Forums

bramling · 13 Aug 2026

brad465 said:
I've started this as a separate thread, where hopefully this is okay to discuss. Southern's fleet is stretched already, and two units being out of action will put huge pressure on it (while one unit remained upright and unaffected, I suspect being in an accident alone is enough for the RAIB to impound it, even if still serviceable). How could Southern manage in the short-term?

From memory a pool of up to 6x 387s are supposed to be interchangeable between Southern and Great Northern, so if this is the case then theoretically the impact will be minimal. However given this is in addition to ordinary maintenance downtime, there could still be problems. Here are things I could see happen if Southern need more stock and can't manage short-forms:

1) GWR or GN loan 2x units
2) Southeastern loan back 2x 377s
3) Thameslink allow a 700 to run some pure Southern services

I shouldn’t imagine it would have a massive effect, though a lot depends on the current state of the 379 availability. There should be a bit of slack on the GN side, and presumably 387101 could be returned to service in the medium term.

Class15 · 13 Aug 2026

Will the derailed unit likely be written off?

(I didn’t want to write this in the main thread, so hopefully it’s okay here!)

trainmania100 · 13 Aug 2026

Not directly related to this thread then, but dB cargo 66 is at marine with its freight . Assume that'll run light engine London via Brighton to release it.

442Haz · 13 Aug 2026

387172 appears ok at first sight, I suspect here the unit may have emergency braked upon derailment and the last 3 coaches may have tipped slowly anyway. 387304 is highly unlikely to be running for a very long time indeed now if at all

D365 · 13 Aug 2026

bramling said:
… and presumably 387101 could be returned to service in the medium term.

I sincerely hope that this will be the intention. Especially when considering that other Class 37x/38x units will be need to be fitted with Alstom’s onboard ETCS… eventually.

Toby3875 · 14 Aug 2026

Will 387304 be scrapped

bramling · 14 Aug 2026

Toby3875 said:
Will 387304 be scrapped

It’s way too early to tell. Clearly it has sustained damage, but the scale of this won’t become apparent until it is properly inspected. In its favour is it’s a relatively young unit and part of a well-regarded and in-demand fleet.

GEC465 · 14 Aug 2026

Toby3875 said:
Will 387304 be scrapped

Too early to tell. I imagine however it's most likely going to be repaired

Towers · 14 Aug 2026

bramling said:
It’s way too early to tell. Clearly it has sustained damage, but the scale of this won’t become apparent until it is properly inspected. In its favour is it’s a relatively young unit and part of a well-regarded and in-demand fleet.

I’d suggest it’s unlikely; three of the vehicles have rolled onto their sides and down an embankment, I would think it’ll be a case of ‘cannot guarantee their structural integrity’ etc.

But, of course, we shall see!

Razorblades · 14 Aug 2026

Toby3875 said:
Will 387304 be scrapped

No-one could possibly know at this stage, the unit's not even been recovered yet, so it's hardly going to have been inspected by its owner and its insurers.

JonathanH · 14 Aug 2026

Towers said:
I’d suggest it’s unlikely; three of the vehicles have rolled onto their sides and down an embankment, I would think it’ll be a case of ‘cannot guarantee their structural integrity’ etc.

It isn't integral construction though, unlike for instance a Pendolino, so different considerations may well apply.

442Haz · 14 Aug 2026

Toby3875 said:
Will 387304 be scrapped

Possibly rephrase to would anyone want to sign it again and drive it?

Doubt it. These are tough units and it’s not been caved in by a rear end collision. For all we know and I predict that the rolling occurred at low speed, but you may end up seeing the first driving car kept as a spare and the remainder written off. Who knows.

JonathanH · 14 Aug 2026

442Haz said:
Possibly rephrase to would anyone want to sign it again and drive it?

There was no obvious failure of 387304 that contributed to this incident. You could likewise suggest that no one would want to drive a train again between Wivelsfield and Lewes.

Peter Mugridge · 14 Aug 2026

JonathanH said:
It isn't integral construction though, unlike for instance a Pendolino, so different considerations may well apply.

Isn't everything built with integral construction these days, though? The term is generally used to mean no separate underframe, with the bodyshell providing the structural strength. The Pendolinos are made with extrusions but the basic structural principles are the same - there's no separate underframe.

Western Lord · 14 Aug 2026

442Haz said:
Possibly rephrase to would anyone want to sign it again and drive it?

Plenty of locomotives have been repaired and put back into service after fatal accidents, e.g. Harrow and Wealdstone. The loco involved in the Tay Bridge disaster was recovered and repaired, apparently drivers ncknamed it "the diver".

442Haz · 14 Aug 2026

Western Lord said:
Plenty of locomotives have been repaired and put back into service after fatal accidents, e.g. Harrow and Wealdstone. The loco involved in the Tay Bridge disaster was recovered and repaired, apparently drivers ncknamed it "the diver".

Well I can recollect very well VEP unit 3404 was almost blacklisted in all but name. It even had a nickname floating about at some point but for the life of me can’t remember what it was

But yes you’re right on the points you make from a purely factual point of view. It all seems a bit irrelevant anyway I doubt 387304 will be alive and well after this.

Bletchleyite · 14 Aug 2026

JonathanH said:
It isn't integral construction though, unlike for instance a Pendolino, so different considerations may well apply.

All post-Mk2 units and coaches (inclusive, bar Pacers) are of integral construction (the other option being body-underframe as Mk1s and earlier were). Though these are I believe bolted aluminum rather than welded like Pendolinos so there are different considerations?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2026 ==

Peter Mugridge said:
Isn't everything built with integral construction these days, though? The term is generally used to mean no separate underframe, with the bodyshell providing the structural strength. The Pendolinos are made with extrusions but the basic structural principles are the same - there's no separate underframe.

Correct. Other than Pacers everything since the Mk2 is of integral construction rather than body-underframe, though there are a few different types and there is steel vs. ally, though both Pendolinos and Electrostars are ally.

Towers · 14 Aug 2026

JonathanH said:
It isn't integral construction though, unlike for instance a Pendolino, so different considerations may well apply.

How do you mean? It certainly isn’t body-on-chassis, that went out with the ark!

JonathanH · 14 Aug 2026

Towers said:
How do you mean? It certainly isn’t body-on-chassis, that went out with the ark!

Sorry, I used the wrong term. What I waa trying to get at was that one of the issues (I think) around 390033 being rebuilt was that they couldn't ascertain where the strains were on the body structure, and that the method of construction of an Electrostar is different, so perhaps it is easier to identify what needs to be repaired. (I agree it is nothing like body on chassis.)

brad465 · 14 Aug 2026

Has any unit in the UK been involved in an accident of comparable or higher severity been returned to service? If this unit did return to service after a lengthy repair, I wouldn't be surprised if it's had the most repair work of any damaged unit to return to service after an accident. For this reason, I can see it being written off.

Towers · 14 Aug 2026

JonathanH said:
Sorry, I used the wrong term. What I waa trying to get at was that one of the issues (I think) around 390033 being rebuilt was that they couldn't ascertain where the strains were on the body structure, and that the method of construction of an Electrostar is different, so perhaps it is easier to identify what needs to be repaired. (I agree it is nothing like body on chassis.)

The issue with anything built integrally is that, whilst very much stronger than body-on-chassis construction, it can be very difficult to repair anything beyond relatively minor damage as you can’t really take it all apart to straighten the bent bits out.

A good example is the once common conversations here about cutting holes in the sides of Mk3 coaches (for various reasons!), and the general understanding that you can’t because you’d compromise the integrity of the structure. Damage and subsequent repairs are, very broadly, similar; once it’s been damaged you often can’t really do a lot with it.

442Haz · 14 Aug 2026

brad465 said:
Has any unit in the UK been involved in an accident of comparable or higher severity been returned to service? If this unit did return to service after a lengthy repair, I wouldn't be surprised if it's had the most repair work of any damaged unit to return to service after an accident. For this reason, I can see it being written off.

Usually not I think. Carriages have been reformed before example VEP 3404 which was a hybrid Clapham and Purley survivor train, the remaining carriages naturally being scrapped. I think the 455 unit involved in the Oxshott incident was returned to service after a very expensive repair with a spare body shell and repairs to other coaches, but it didn’t tip over. Apart from that I can’t think of a whole unit in a comparable situation where it is flipped over and the unit has come back to service fully as one.

Towers · 14 Aug 2026

442Haz said:
Usually not I think. Carriages have been reformed before example VEP 3404 which was a hybrid Clapham and Purley survivor train, the remaining carriages naturally being scrapped. I think the 455 unit involved in the Oxshott incident was returned to service after a very expensive repair with a spare body shell and repairs to other coaches, but it didn’t tip over. Apart from that I can’t think of a whole unit in a comparable situation where it is flipped over and the unit has come back to service fully as one.

Indeed the Oxshott 455 was a rather big job! I would think that’s probably the biggest repair in modern times, the vehicle concerned was crushed by a falling cement lorry before being completely rebuilt using the driving car of a former experimental DMU - quite some ‘buffing out’!

JonathanH · 14 Aug 2026

There are numerous examples of units going through bufferstops and having been rebuilt.

Also the 156 (156499) that was damaged at Falls of Cruachan - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10251545 - in 2010.

The Glasgow to Oban service derailed shortly before 2100 BST on Sunday, near the Falls of Cruachan power station by Loch Awe.

The train driver has told how he and other staff helped lead passengers to safety.

Both carriages caught fire and came to rest over a 15-metre embankment. All 60 passengers were safely rescued.

A lot will surely depend on the condition of the side of the train that isn't currently visible.

bramling · 14 Aug 2026

JonathanH said:
There are numerous examples of units going through bufferstops and having been rebuilt.

Also the 156 (156499) that was damaged at Falls of Cruachan - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10251545 - in 2010.

A lot will surely depend on the condition of the side of the train that isn't currently visible.

Whilst it’s an interesting discussion, I don’t think we are going to get an answer on this one. The vehicles don’t seem to have collided with each other, though there will have been a lot of stress round the couplings presumably. Then there’s what might have been hit especially in terms of trees and any lineside structures.

I hope it comes back, the 387s are fundamentally a decent train, even with their ironing board seats. It would be a shame to lose one, and in the long-term the combined TSGN needs to be as big as possible given the number of units removed in response to Covid.

Islineclear3_1 · 14 Aug 2026

brad465 said:
Has any unit in the UK been involved in an accident of comparable or higher severity been returned to service? If this unit did return to service after a lengthy repair, I wouldn't be surprised if it's had the most repair work of any damaged unit to return to service after an accident. For this reason, I can see it being written off.

I remember back in the 1980s, visiting Slade Green workshops (long before networkers), one of the driving coaches of 4VEP 7724 (involved in the Copyhold accident from memory) had its damaged cab replaced with that from a 4CIG. I'm sure there were many others.

Nicholas Lewis · 14 Aug 2026

442Haz said:
Possibly rephrase to would anyone want to sign it again and drive it?

Doubt it. These are tough units and it’s not been caved in by a rear end collision. For all we know and I predict that the rolling occurred at low speed, but you may end up seeing the first driving car kept as a spare and the remainder written off. Who knows.

One of the passengers videos from inside one of the overturned carriages shows the windows intact suggesting low impact and not much longitudinal movement after it overturned. Ultimately I guess will be whether the leasing company wants to spend the money or not.

bramling · 15 Aug 2026

brad465 said:
Has any unit in the UK been involved in an accident of comparable or higher severity been returned to service? If this unit did return to service after a lengthy repair, I wouldn't be surprised if it's had the most repair work of any damaged unit to return to service after an accident. For this reason, I can see it being written off.

I seem to remember a class 323 was involved in a rather nasty incident at North Rode some years back, hit a car at pretty much 90mph and then derailed, but fortunately remained upright and in line. Eventually returned to traffic.

boiledbeans2 · 16 Aug 2026

brad465 said:
Has any unit in the UK been involved in an accident of comparable or higher severity been returned to service? If this unit did return to service after a lengthy repair, I wouldn't be surprised if it's had the most repair work of any damaged unit to return to service after an accident. For this reason, I can see it being written off.

C08 stock? From the 7/7 bombings. A complete rebuild above the solebar. I'm surprised they didn't just write them off. Were LU having a shortage of C stock?

Impact of Lewes derailment on Southern fleet availability

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member