Class 360 Future - ideas, suggestions, rumours

[RealTrains07]

It's been reported on other threads that the GA 360's have the old style cab that requires hacking off, making the addition of gangways a costly task.

Which is why i said pending since not all the 360 units can be converted

 

[samuelmorris]

110mph conversion I'm sure is doable, but I can't see them spending that much on converting them to gangwayed operation. As far as I know, it isn't explicitly necessary on that franchise is it?

 

[bramling]

110mph conversion I'm sure is doable, but I can't see them spending that much on converting them to gangwayed operation. As far as I know, it isn't explicitly necessary on that franchise is it?

Given that other operators have in some cases ceased using the gangways they have (GTR for example), that suggests they’re not really considered that worthwhile.

We’ve have 365s working in pairs and triples to Peterborough for two decades without issues, a similar journey to Corby, and more recently 387s to Cambridge and beyond where the gangways exist but aren’t used.

There’s also already non-gangwayed working on EMT when 222s work in pairs. Doesn’t seem to cause that much of a problem.

 

[Wivenswold]

And the fare structure for the MML north of Bedford absolutely does not justify 3+2 stock - Wellingborough - London is about 20% more expensive than Northampton - London. Mainly because it remained on the Inter City fare structure back in the 80s. It's also why extending Thameslink services up to Corby is a bit of a non-starter.

They're due a refurb as only carpets and covers have been done since they were built in 2002. I would say that's it's highly likely they will get new interiors when or slightly after they go to a new franchise. So it's time to start lobbying your operator for 2+2 seating. If that happens then the people of Wellingborough will have very good, reliable and safe trains.

 

[BlyRF]

They will do tasty work on the Goblin

 

[swt_passenger]

They will do tasty work on the Goblin

No they really won’t, for all the reasons previously given in the 710 thread.

 

[edwin_m]

Which is why i said pending since not all the 360 units can be converted

All the 360s have the two-window cab with no gangway. The ones with gangways are 350s.

I can't see them adding gangways. Ripping the cab and all the associated wiring out and cutting into the metal would be expensive and raise the nasty question of compliance with latest crashworthiness standards. The 350s being released by LNW would be a better option at the right price and with an internal refit.

 

[samuelmorris]

All the 360s have the two-window cab with no gangway. The ones with gangways are 350s.

I can't see them adding gangways. Ripping the cab and all the associated wiring out and cutting into the metal would be expensive and raise the nasty question of compliance with latest crashworthiness standards. The 350s being released by LNW would be a better option at the right price and with an internal refit.

I assume they haven't all been earmarked for the BatteryFlex programme?

 

[hwl]

I assume they haven't all been earmarked for the BatteryFlex programme?

just 231? so plenty available.

The GA 360 fleet size is ideal though as they can all go to the same TOC.

 

[RealTrains07]

All the 360s have the two-window cab with no gangway. The ones with gangways are 350s.

I can't see them adding gangways. Ripping the cab and all the associated wiring out and cutting into the metal would be expensive and raise the nasty question of compliance with latest crashworthiness standards. The 350s being released by LNW would be a better option at the right price and with an internal refit.

Even without a end cab gangway as what has already been said its not the do all end all, 360 are still good replacements

 

[samuelmorris]

just 231? so plenty available.

The GA 360 fleet size is ideal though as they can all go to the same TOC.

I was referring to the 350/2s as they're the only other units we know are off-lease. The 350/1,/3 and 450s aren't going to be going spare any time soon.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Does Corby need more than 4/5 cars? It isn't a massive place so I'd have thought a 110mph EMU of 360/379 with a suitable "express" type interior refit along the lines of the TPE 350s would be fine. Of course the only 5-car units of that type are the Heathrow Connect ones, are they owned by a ROSCO or by Heathrow like the 332s? If the latter that's a bit of a problem.

 

[swt_passenger]

Does Corby need more than 4/5 cars? It isn't a massive place so I'd have thought a 110mph EMU of 360/379 with a suitable "express" type interior refit along the lines of the TPE 350s would be fine. Of course the only 5-car units of that type are the Heathrow Connect ones, are they owned by a ROSCO or by Heathrow like the 332s? If the latter that's a bit of a problem.

The aim is also to provide long EMUs (240m) from Kettering, Wellingborough and Bedford to St Pancras. The project has been pretty clear about this for some time, a few years. Corby seems to be a convenient operational reversing point, not the sole purpose of the trains...

 

[RealTrains07]

Does Corby need more than 4/5 cars? It isn't a massive place so I'd have thought a 110mph EMU of 360/379 with a suitable "express" type interior refit along the lines of the TPE 350s would be fine. Of course the only 5-car units of that type are the Heathrow Connect ones, are they owned by a ROSCO or by Heathrow like the 332s? If the latter that's a bit of a problem.

Heathrow cant use the 360s once all the 345s are in use and able to use the heathrow tunnel so really they should just pass them on the other operators

 

[hwl]

I was referring to the 350/2s as they're the only other units we know are off-lease. The 350/1,/3 and 450s aren't going to be going spare any time soon.

231 is the battery flex victim.

Overall only about 55% of 350/2s would've been required.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Heathrow cant use the 360s once all the 345s are in use and able to use the heathrow tunnel so really they should just pass them on the other operators

Or re-allocate them to Bangkok...

 

[RealTrains07]

Or re-allocate them to Bangkok...

Best not, we are short of EMU units as it is

 

[RealTrains07]

All the 360s have the two-window cab with no gangway. The ones with gangways are 350s.

I can't see them adding gangways. Ripping the cab and all the associated wiring out and cutting into the metal would be expensive and raise the nasty question of compliance with latest crashworthiness standards. The 350s being released by LNW would be a better option at the right price and with an internal refit.

You could argue the same with 460 to 458 conversion surely?

 

[swt_passenger]

People here generally start off finding reasons why something can’t be done.

But I don’t see why if a 2014 vintage 350/4 gangway is ok at 110 mph, then the exact same hardware can’t be fitted to a 360. It really should just need sensible negotiation with ORR, as you say in principle it’s very little different to fitting a new gangway to a 460.

 

[edwin_m]

You could argue the same with 460 to 458 conversion surely?

Perhaps, but the problems they had with probably make it less likely anyone will do anything similar to a mid-life unit in the future. I don't think 460-458 did anything as drastic as adding or removing cabs.

 

[hwl]

Possibly so, but the problems they had with probably make it less likely anyone will do anything similar to a mid-life unit in the future. I don't think 460-458 did anything as drastic as adding or removing cabs.

Apart from removing the existing cab and fitting new!

From 460 Wikipedia page

before

after

 

[edwin_m]

Ok, that's a fairly drastic change visually. But it may be that the actual cabs were pretty similar without the gangway and the "Darth Vader" front end.

 

[Rick1984]

blank

 

[RailWonderer]

People here generally start off finding reasons why something can’t be done.

But I don’t see why if a 2014 vintage 350/4 gangway is ok at 110 mph, then the exact same hardware can’t be fitted to a 360. It really should just need sensible negotiation with ORR, as you say in principle it’s very little different to fitting a new gangway to a 460.

Given that the class 360 was denied a gangway by health and safety for visibility reasons and would have required a thorough structural redesign, it doesn't seem worth it to build a gangway. Plus, if they head north in a few years time when GA are done with them, units up there probably wont need a gangway since most services wont operate in multiples. 323s, 319s, 350s and 185s could name many more) rarely operate in multiples in the north.
I don't see this obsession to give the 360s a gangway, keep them as they are, the adorably reliable ugly things.

 

[RealTrains07]

Given that the class 360 was denied a gangway by health and safety for visibility reasons and would have required a thorough structural redesign, it doesn't seem worth it to build a gangway. Plus, if they head north in a few years time when GA are done with them, units up there probably wont need a gangway since most services wont operate in multiples. 323s, 319s, 350s and 185s could name many more) rarely operate in multiples in the north.
I don't see this obsession to give the 360s a gangway, keep them as they are, the adorably reliable ugly things.

Funny though why they are the only desiro EMU with that design. Why wasnt the 450,350 or 444 which all came after the 360 scrutinised for poor visibility??

 

[swt_passenger]

Funny though why they are the only desiro EMU with that design. Why wasnt the 450,350 or 444 which all came after the 360 scrutinised for poor visibility??

None of them operated without a guard, is the simple answer.

 

[RealTrains07]

None of them operated without a guard, is the simple answer.

Dont see how that affects driver visibility when operating the train?

 

[F Great Eastern]

Funny though why they are the only desiro EMU with that design. Why wasnt the 450,350 or 444 which all came after the 360 scrutinised for poor visibility??

The 360s were the first Desiro units to be ordered and at that point Siemens had a gangway cab, which was proposed for the First Great Eastern order, and a non gangway cab option.

When the gangway cab which was built on the mock-up, was rejected by the Health and Safety Executive, Siemens offered to build the non gangway cab on in order to prevent a sizeable delay in delivering the trains whilst they worked on a new design of cab that was compliant.

The cab design used on the 350/444/450 is not the same one as was on the mock-up 360. Years ago there was a photo online of it, but don't think there is anymore.

 

[swt_passenger]

Dont see how that affects driver visibility when operating the train?

It’s about visibility of the platform. When the 360s were new, onboard CCTV direct to the cab wasn’t on the agenda, so the 360 driver would have had to use either monitors on the platform, or mirrors. This is a significant problem with platforms on the right hand side of the train from a driver’s perspective.

 

[D365]

Best not, we are short of EMU units as it is

Are we?