Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
How many 350's were WMT going to off lease on completion of 730 introduction?
If thats correct the insurers are going to have fun sorting out liability
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
5 Class 350s Flood Damaged
- Thread starter AJDesiro
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
sources from within rail industry have seen the following info, how true I do not know, but multiple people have sent me the same:-
That flooding at Northampton last Sunday....
7 desiros are beyond repair
Need all new electics and bogies
Been estimated it's going to cost £1.5 MILLION pound per desiro x 7
Also 3 class730s also beyond repair, also needing new bogies and electrics
Estimate for those is £1.2 MILLION pounds each
LNWR are now in dispute as too who is paying for this
Northampton waterways OPENED a dam up the road causing the whole river to burst and Northampton station flooding in 73 minutes starting at 2338 Saturday evening
All caught on CCTV
They didn't release the dam at the other end hence what caused the flood
The 3 x 730s and 5 x 350s all had pans up and drawing power at the time the water came in and flooded and exploded each unit
2 x 350s in bay 5 had pans down
That flooding at Northampton last Sunday....
7 desiros are beyond repair
Need all new electics and bogies
Been estimated it's going to cost £1.5 MILLION pound per desiro x 7
Also 3 class730s also beyond repair, also needing new bogies and electrics
Estimate for those is £1.2 MILLION pounds each
LNWR are now in dispute as too who is paying for this
Northampton waterways OPENED a dam up the road causing the whole river to burst and Northampton station flooding in 73 minutes starting at 2338 Saturday evening
All caught on CCTV
They didn't release the dam at the other end hence what caused the flood
The 3 x 730s and 5 x 350s all had pans up and drawing power at the time the water came in and flooded and exploded each unit
2 x 350s in bay 5 had pans down
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I've also seen that, but I would be more inclined to trust what WMT themselves have said of it being 5 units seriously damaged - they have no possible motive to lie about it, if anything their motive would be to say it's worse than it is in order to excuse disruption not caused by these 5 missing units.
Re-leasing 5 of the off-lease 350/2s is probably the easiest short term fix, once they've found someone to cough up for it.
Re-leasing 5 of the off-lease 350/2s is probably the easiest short term fix, once they've found someone to cough up for it.
87015
Established Member
It’s absolute nonsense from start to finish, can’t even get the day right!
If there is any truth in this then LNWR and the ROSCO(s) will be going after 'Northampton waterways' (whatever that is) and their insurers legally without a shadow of a doubt. Me learned friends will have a field day.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Assuming that five are fully serviceable l agree.
Last edited:
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,596
Won't it be LNR going after the ROSCO (for failing to provide the contracted stock) who in turn will go after NR who in turn will go after 'Northampton waterways' (probably an arm of the EA?).
meld3
Member
Don't hold your breath....
In 2007 I had a similar problem, my office's flooded with 3 feet of water from the nearby canal because someone forgot to open a sluice gate to relieve water pressure or some such reason.
Insurers were still pursuing the waterways when I sold the offices in 2021....
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,752
No. The other way round if anything - if units are a write-off the claim will be from ROSCO to TOC.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Depends I guess on the terms of the lease, and in particular whether accidental damage (which is what this would come under) is the TOC's to fix/insure against or the ROSCO's. Car leases, for example, are available on both sets of terms.
tumbledown
Member
Who would have been flooded if they didn't? Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't...
I saw what you did there lol....
I agree your comment but that doesn't mean that they get to dodge the consequences of their choices.
In theory, bringing back the 350/2's that have just gone off lease would be a quick fix, but seeing how long and complicated every process on the railways, it'll be a non-starter.
What effect is this having on LNWR at the moment?
What effect is this having on LNWR at the moment?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Short formations and cancellations, as one might expect, including 8 down to 4 which is catastrophic and results in people being left behind. (12 down to 8 is tolerable if cramped).
Razorblades
Member
Some of the 9 Class 323s that have recently been returned off-lease could be reinstated to help relieve this situation if only the various stakeholders could act in a joined-up fashion (mind you, if reinstating 350/2s is not possible....).
Sadly, I can see this now being the norm until LNR (finally) get the 730/2s into service.
I have no faith in the railway being joined up and proactive enough to do anything such as taking back some 350/2s or 323s that would actually be beneficial to the passengers...
I can confirm this. I was on a Crewe - Euston formed of a single 350 this morning. Absolutely rammed. Not helped by the Manchester-Eustons being cancelled due to a landslip.
Wivenswold
Established Member
This will result in significant legal action between all the parties involved. Initial solicitors letters will no doubt have already been sent.
Liability will be a fascinating dispute, sadly my firm doesn't insure any of them as I'd love to get my hands on this claim.
Liability will be a fascinating dispute, sadly my firm doesn't insure any of them as I'd love to get my hands on this claim.
I thought that LNWR are supposed to be getting some new trains which I've seen this year stabled outside Crewe Station, why can't some of these replace the ones damaged in Northampton floods? Unless not enough staff have been trained on them yet.
The Environment Agency opened the flood gates at Sixfields on the Nene, which caused flooding of the station. There’s obvious questions about that decision and what advice was given during the weather warning that this was a possibilty.
At the Riverside Sidings, flood water came up above the railhead, however the units stabled there are fine and moved under their own power.
There were five units in the bays with pans up, where flood water came up to solebar level. These were:
350377, 350233, 350242 and
350113, 350254
ROG 37s were used to move these.
At the Riverside Sidings, flood water came up above the railhead, however the units stabled there are fine and moved under their own power.
There were five units in the bays with pans up, where flood water came up to solebar level. These were:
350377, 350233, 350242 and
350113, 350254
ROG 37s were used to move these.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,162
If it was that easy, the Class 701s would all be in service by now.
The Class 730/2s are not yet cleared for passenger service.
modernrail
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,440
Seriously bad form if thr EA did that without having a little look on the map to see what would be affected downstream and then issue very specific targeted warnings through their systems, including phone calls.
You don’t purposely flood a large mainline station without giving NR notice, even if only on safety grounds.
It might well be a totally justified action but I struggle to believe the EA are not in the firing line here, unless of course they did put a warning through that was then not acted on.
Whether the EA are actually legally culpable is another matter. I can see this falling between some cracks, particularly if there was a general warning out for the area. If that was the case perhaps the onus shifts on the rail companies. They might argue lack of precedent but if the warning for that area was strong enough - I am sure the EA will argue that legally, no further warning was necessary.
Couple of further thoughts
- should the pans not have been down if the units were out of service. I have no knowledge on this point but would have thought there might be advantage in standard procedure to not having trains pan up if they are not doing anything - in case anything funny comes down the wires?
- how might this work with the contracts with the DfT. Gov now takes revenue risk but does that is a long way from Gov taking risk on leased assets. Does that fall to the TOC? If so, is this an example of a risk that genuinely sits with the private sector under the current model for non-nationalised TOCS (and if so is something that will be back on the public side for nationalised TOCS)
You don’t purposely flood a large mainline station without giving NR notice, even if only on safety grounds.
It might well be a totally justified action but I struggle to believe the EA are not in the firing line here, unless of course they did put a warning through that was then not acted on.
Whether the EA are actually legally culpable is another matter. I can see this falling between some cracks, particularly if there was a general warning out for the area. If that was the case perhaps the onus shifts on the rail companies. They might argue lack of precedent but if the warning for that area was strong enough - I am sure the EA will argue that legally, no further warning was necessary.
Couple of further thoughts
- should the pans not have been down if the units were out of service. I have no knowledge on this point but would have thought there might be advantage in standard procedure to not having trains pan up if they are not doing anything - in case anything funny comes down the wires?
- how might this work with the contracts with the DfT. Gov now takes revenue risk but does that is a long way from Gov taking risk on leased assets. Does that fall to the TOC? If so, is this an example of a risk that genuinely sits with the private sector under the current model for non-nationalised TOCS (and if so is something that will be back on the public side for nationalised TOCS)
Last edited:
87015
Established Member
No units could/should have been pan up, as the station was blocked and the power isolated under planned engineering work at the time of the flooding
modernrail
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,440
Could that engineering work have impacted/delayed a decision to move the units that might otherwise have been an easier/quicker decision?
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Interesting.
Might be worth mentioning that the arm of the Nene that flows though Sixfields is a different one to the one coming from the North, and it's a flood relief channel to the latter that is very close to the station and presumably the cause of the station flooding. The confluence is downstream of the station.
To me it suggests that another flood gate further downstream (possibly at South Bridge) should have been opened at about the same time. What presumably happened is that the released water then met restriction further downstream and flowed back up (against the normal flow) the storm channel to the station.
Also explains why the whole of Jimmys' End wasn't under water - the flood relief channel had the effect pf delivering the excess water into a very confined area, and the only place for it to go was the station.
SLC001
Member
We live near Sixfields and the flood plain around us never looked full to capacity - levels have been much higher in recent times. Mind you, if they opened the flood gates at Sixfields that may explain it. It is worrying that the levels at Sixfields were so high - was the flood plain capable or big enough to absorb the excess water or take it off fast enough to prevent the high levels seen? Whatever, one hopes that a full enquiry is carried out to prevent as much as is possible similar occurrences in the future. In this latest case, the railway has suffered badly.
Merle Haggard
Established Member
There was an enquiry after the 1998 floods; the cause was given as blocked storm drains. The report said that the defences were now fit for all but a one in 200 year event.
Doesn't time fly!
SLC001
Member
Which suggests something went wrong such as blocked culverts and drains possibly caused by the flooding and / or human error. Knowing the issues near us, I wouldn't be surprised if cost cutting through lack of money contributed to the problem. I do know disputed land ownership and responsibility for maintenance has caused minor flooding near us.
- Status