Future of the 455s?

[antharro]

I know it's been said here (and in other places) that there is a possibility that SWR's 455s would go to Southern so they could replace their 455s. But I've not found anything concrete about this. Given that we seem to have an excess of EMUs, is it likely that such a move would not happen, and both 455 fleets would be scrapped and replaced with cascaded EMUs from other routes?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I know it's been said here (and in other places) that there is a possibility that SWR's 455s would go to Southern so they could replace their 455s. But I've not found anything concrete about this.

Absolutely not. While the obstructive issue of the different ROSCOs can be overlooked in extenuating circumstances - although Southern are hardly desperate compared to some TOCs - the SWR 455s are absolutely knackered and require large mileage exams and maintenance to carry on. They would not be compatible with the other 455s, and replacing them would seem strange as they’re the same age.

Given that we seem to have an excess of EMUs, is it likely that such a move would not happen, and both 455 fleets would be scrapped and replaced with cascaded EMUs from other routes?

Forget likely, it’s almost certain.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

In the next few years, a 455 will be arriving on Worktop 2 in my kitchen forming the Morning Shave service calling at My Bathroom only.

 

[MatthewRead]

I've been asking around over what will replace the Southern 455's and no one seems to know.

 

[JonathanH]

I've been asking around over what will replace the Southern 455's and no one seems to know.

The fact that no one seems to know is just because planning doesn't happen in the public domain. GTR and the DfT will have the situation under consideration and know the limitations of the fleet.

The fleet managers at Southern will be able to maintain their 455s for continued use until the units are no longer needed. The financial controllers will be planning the necessary expenditure. The traincrew will happily work them.

The fact that nothing is in the public domain about their replacement is not something to be anxious about.

Make the most of them whilst they continue to be in operation.

 

[Meerkat]

They really shouldn't be telling us until the contracts are signed! And when it involves a cascade that is quite a few dependencies down the line.

After all you don't announce which car you are definitely going to buy then ask the dealer if he will give you a good price.....

 

[Bald Rick]

I know it's been said here (and in other places) that there is a possibility that SWR's 455s would go to Southern so they could replace their 455s. But I've not found anything concrete about this. Given that we seem to have an excess of EMUs, is it likely that such a move would not happen, and both 455 fleets would be scrapped and replaced with cascaded EMUs from other routes?

Ladbroke are offering 100/1 against them being scrapped*

I've been asking around over what will replace the Southern 455's and no one seems to know.

It can surely only be other units from the GTR stable.

* they’re not really.

 

[Energy]

I've been asking around over what will replace the Southern 455's and no one seems to know.

The 455s are super cheap to lease and have fairly low utilisation so I'd imagine they aren't as worn out as the Southwestern ones.

GTR have apparently looked at 379s cascading the 387s from GN to Southern to replace the 313s, id imagine the extra 387s will also help replace the worst 455s.

 

[bramling]

The 455s are super cheap to lease and have fairly low utilisation so I'd imagine they aren't as worn out as the Southwestern ones.

GTR have apparently looked at 379s cascading the 387s from GN to Southern to replace the 313s, id imagine the extra 387s will also help replace the worst 455s.

This is almost certainly what will happen. 379 to GN is essentially a certainty (though not yet "announced"), which will displace some, but not all, 387s.

Without a significant thinning of services this wouldn't be enough to replace the 455 fleet, but would be sufficient to see off the 313s. Even with the 365s still retained it wouldn't have been enough to see off the 455s without something else being involved - the numbers could have been made to work if the SE 377/5 could have been released.

 

[43096]

This is almost certainly what will happen. 379 to GN is essentially a certainty (though not yet "announced"), which will displace some, but not all, 387s.

Without a significant thinning of services this wouldn't be enough to replace the 455 fleet, but would be sufficient to see off the 313s. Even with the 365s still retained it wouldn't have been enough to see off the 455s without something else being involved - the numbers could have been made to work if the SE 377/5 could have been released.

It really ought to be enough post Covid and the massive drop in commuting. Look at what SWR has done with losing 707s and stopping 45x units with no 701s coming in yet. There must be scope to reduce the South Eastern and GTR fleets similarly with the SE 377s being used to balance up.

So something like: 46 x 455 and 19 x 313 out (241 cars), 30 379s in to GN to release 30 387s south. There’s still full utilisation of the 707s to happen at SE which could via cascade release some of the 25 377s back to GTR.

 

[JonathanH]

There’s still full utilisation of the 707s to happen at SE which could via cascade release some of the 25 377s back to GTR.

Hasn't the problem with release of 377s from SE always been the difficult question of finding enough units with selective door opening for the Maidstone East line (and possibly elsewhere)? Essentially 707s coming in only releases suburban stock whereas spreading the 375s further to cover additional mainline work doesn't have any backfill.

That said, we haven't yet had consultation on a programme service cuts on GTR and Southeastern and consideration of how to best use the available rolling stock on a simplified service structure. If SWR can reduce their fleet size, SE and Southern ought to be able to as well.

The 379 to GN does strike me as happening a bit too easily. I hope the DfT has got a good price for the taxpayer on their continued use.

 

[Class360/1]

According to Eversholt Rail, the GTR 455’s are due off lease by the end of March.

They will be up for lease and disposal.

Class	Type	Quantity	Config.	Build	Condition	TOC	Expiry	Lease/Disposal
455	EMU	46	4-car	1982-1984	In service	GTR	31 March 22	Lease/Disposal

Source: https://eversholtrail.co.uk/app/upl...ble-for-lease-and-or-disposal-20-Dec-2021.pdf

Please scroll down to the very bottom to see the relevant information.

 

[Class 466]

According to Eversholt Rail, the GTR 455’s are due off lease by the end of March.

They will be up for lease and disposal.

Class	Type	Quantity	Config.	Build	Condition	TOC	Expiry	Lease/Disposal
455	EMU	46	4-car	1982-1984	In service	GTR	31 March 22	Lease/Disposal

Source: https://eversholtrail.co.uk/app/upl...ble-for-lease-and-or-disposal-20-Dec-2021.pdf

Please scroll down to the very bottom to see the relevant information.

That's when the current TSGN contract expires - wouldn't be surprised to see that date change once a new one is signed.

 

[D365]

I.e. their future is very much still speculative. One would assume that Eversholt/GTR are in the process of negotiating.

 

[JonathanH]

The one true money saving option open to the DfT in terms of rolling stock would appear to be the opportunity to not renew leases when they come up for renewal?

While there is a suggestion that the 455 lease cost is low relative to other fleets, there is still the cost of maintenance, spares etc. If there is a natural break point, it seems obvious that money could be saved without any breach of contract or penalty payments by simply not renewing.

However, what makes that approach seem unlikely is that there has been no consultation on the cuts to services that would be needed to eliminate the 455s at the end of March 2022. I assume a short extension rather than a long term lease could be feasible to take the units through to a timetable change

 

[Snow1964]

The one true money saving option open to the DfT in terms of rolling stock would appear to be the opportunity to not renew leases when they come up for renewal?

While there is a suggestion that the 455 lease cost is low relative to other fleets, there is still the cost of maintenance, spares etc. If there is a natural break point, it seems obvious that money could be saved without any breach of contract or penalty payments by simply not renewing.

However, what makes that approach seem unlikely is that there has been no consultation on the cuts to services that would be needed to eliminate the 455s at the end of March 2022. I assume a short extension rather than a long term lease could be feasible to take the units through to a timetable change

There tends to be widely held assumption that if the franchise (or its Government sponsored successor) will just extend a lease. Technically both sides have to decide and agree to it. In theory the LeaseCo could say something like minimum 5 years or rate per month triples (example, not fact).

Might be extreme example, but just because it has a cheap lease, doesn’t mean has to stay cheap if someone is in a tight spot so becomes chance to make healthy profit. Rather depends on how hard the negotiations get, with a take it or leave it as the ultimate option. There is basically a trade off between price and how many months before a TOC returns them, with the biggest cumulative total being most profI table for LeaseCo.

 

[Energy]

While there is a suggestion that the 455 lease cost is low relative to other fleets, there is still the cost of maintenance, spares etc. If there is a natural break point, it seems obvious that money could be saved without any breach of contract or penalty payments by simply not renewing.

The 455s will probably be replaced when a lot of work needs doing to them, then they are suddenly not cheap and still old trains. When would the SR 455s next need an expensive overhaul?

 

[cactustwirly]

Absolutely not. While the obstructive issue of the different ROSCOs can be overlooked in extenuating circumstances - although Southern are hardly desperate compared to some TOCs - the SWR 455s are absolutely knackered and require large mileage exams and maintenance to carry on. They would not be compatible with the other 455s, and replacing them would seem strange as they’re the same age.


Forget likely, it’s almost certain.

The Southern 455s will also need the same exams soon. And the SWR 455s have brand new AC motors and running gear, which are more reliable and cheaper to maintain than the old DC motors fitted to the southern 455s

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2021 ==

The one true money saving option open to the DfT in terms of rolling stock would appear to be the opportunity to not renew leases when they come up for renewal?

While there is a suggestion that the 455 lease cost is low relative to other fleets, there is still the cost of maintenance, spares etc. If there is a natural break point, it seems obvious that money could be saved without any breach of contract or penalty payments by simply not renewing.

However, what makes that approach seem unlikely is that there has been no consultation on the cuts to services that would be needed to eliminate the 455s at the end of March 2022. I assume a short extension rather than a long term lease could be feasible to take the units through to a timetable change

Well running no trains saves money, but that defeats the point of the railway.
There isn't enough slack in the fleet to just cut the 455s. Unless you want to leave London Bridge via Peckam Rye and Victoria/London Bridge via Norbury routes without a service.

 

[JonathanH]

There isn't enough slack in the fleet to just cut the 455s. Unless you want to leave London Bridge via Peckam Rye and Victoria/London Bridge via Norbury routes without a service.

The changes at SWR have shown that a 10-car railway is now unnecessary with the passenger loads now comfortably fitting in 8-car trains. Likewise, the coast routes no longer need 12-car operation and there are no longer 'peak extras' in the timetable. All of these things free up units to backfill the current 455 operation. They could look at running 5-377 vs 8-455 on some services, and possibly some routes can be cut where there is duplication - London Bridge to Caterham / Tattenham Corner trains running as shuttles to / from Purley would be one idea, Dorking / Horsham trains picking up stops north of Sutton again to eliminate the Victoria to Epsom service another, but there may well be others.

More routes running an hourly rather than half-hourly frequency through the day like East Grinstead will also create some slack in terms of maintenance schedules.

A number of these sort of 'soft' cuts could all add up to allow the 455s to go.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Dorking / Horsham trains picking up stops north of Sutton again to eliminate the Victoria to Epsom service another, but there may well be others.

I use these two service groups on a regular basis and a lot of the time most of the seats on both are taken once on the London side of Sutton. Cutting out the Victoria to Epsom stoppers and inserting their stops into the Dorking / Horsham trains would result in those being full and standing a lot of the time - even off peak.

 

[bramling]

The changes at SWR have shown that a 10-car railway is now unnecessary with the passenger loads now comfortably fitting in 8-car trains. Likewise, the coast routes no longer need 12-car operation and there are no longer 'peak extras' in the timetable. All of these things free up units to backfill the current 455 operation. They could look at running 5-377 vs 8-455 on some services, and possibly some routes can be cut where there is duplication - London Bridge to Caterham / Tattenham Corner trains running as shuttles to / from Purley would be one idea, Dorking / Horsham trains picking up stops north of Sutton again to eliminate the Victoria to Epsom service another, but there may well be others.

More routes running an hourly rather than half-hourly frequency through the day like East Grinstead will also create some slack in terms of maintenance schedules.

A number of these sort of 'soft' cuts could all add up to allow the 455s to go.

The trouble is, how long does all this continue to be true? The leading companies seem to be making the point that off-lease stock is quite likely to be promptly scrapped, so there’s a big risk we end up seriously short of trains to cater for a return in demand, which is quite likely to happen over time, especially inner-suburban.

Or, to put it another way, we could have undone a decade’s worth of capacity enhancement, and then be unable to afford to put that right.

It’s not like new fleets are settling down well, look at the 701s for an example of that.

The 379 solution seems to work as follows:

From

29x 387 + 19x 365 (*) + 18x 313 = 66

to:

29x 387 + 30x 379 = 59

If one adds the 6x LTS 387s or a few 387/2s then this is essentially the same as was started with, and in fact amounts to *more* vehicles as the 313s are 3-car. I can’t see the 455s fitting into this, not without a very considerable thinning of services and lengths.

(I’ve taken the 365 figure to be 19, as although GTR had 21 two of these seemed to be “over & above”).

 

[Meerkat]

Release and scrap the old stuff, add capacity later as it becomes necessary with small orders to whichever factory needs keeping open.
Politically efficient if not financially so.