Pessimistic outlook for displaced rolling stock

[F Great Eastern]

319's are going to be emergency leases to GA if their new fleet of EMU's don't work out.

I assumed that they would keep some of their existing stock on, but alas seems not the case.

 

[swt_passenger]

319's are going to be emergency leases to GA if their new fleet of EMU's don't work out.

I assumed that they would keep some of their existing stock on, but alas seems not the case.

That's not how it reads, as we've just noted elsewhere, they were an alternative if the "additional trains' - a batch of 317s were not available by January this year. So might as well be considered overtaken by events.

 

[Ships]

I've heard this said about 153s quite a few times recently. Why are they in more urgent need of replacement than 150s and 156s then? Is it to do with build quality/parts, something like that?

If nothing else they're a gauging nightmare.

 

[43096]

319's are going to be emergency leases to GA if their new fleet of EMU's don't work out.

I assumed that they would keep some of their existing stock on, but alas seems not the case.

That does actually make sense as the 319s have PRM modifications to allow use beyond 31/12/19, whereas most of the 317 and 321 fleet doesn't.

 

[urpert]

if I was a 465/466 I'd be clinging to the hope that they don't make many tin cans or razor blades from aluminium.

A lot of the Met-Camm Networker bodies are full of water anyway. They're already halfway to being an artificial reef

 

[swt_passenger]

That does actually make sense as the 319s have PRM modifications to allow use beyond 31/12/19, whereas most of the 317 and 321 fleet doesn't.

Repeating my earlier post above, that is not what it says. The 319s were an option in case the 317s didn't show up in time. The stuff on page 302 needs to be read in conjunction with a few of the previous sections. There are also tables much earlier in the franchise agreement that list the GA fleet without mentioning 319s.

The question of PRM Mods to 317s and 321s (and other non-PRM mods to them and most existing trains) is also dealt with in earlier sections.

 

[MotCO]

Nobody's mentioned the 230 class

 

[D365]

If it was considered uneconomical for a small fleet of Class 319s to replace the Class 321s on Great Northern (when ScotRail wanted to pinch theirs), why would it be any different for Greater Anglia?

 

[Andrew1395]

Class 67 who will want them in five years time?

 

[swt_passenger]

.. they'll still need a stopgap to cope with Bromsgrove and capacity enhancements - is there any reason they *wouldn't* go to the cross city line?

LM already have stock allocated for Bromsgrove improvements, it was the reason for part of the 350/3 order.

 

[TheEdge]

Class 67 who will want them in five years time?

Charter work might keep some of them going

 

[ChrisHogan]

LM already have stock allocated for Bromsgrove improvements, it was the reason for part of the 350/3 order.

The two 350s for Bromsgrove via an internal cascade were deployed to Euston services some time ago.

 

[D365]

Yep, they've certainly not sat around doing nothing. So unless there's some more Class 319s coming their way, they will need to free up some stock internally.

 

[CosherB]

Class 67 who will want them in five years time?

DBC and Colas, obviously. :roll:

 

[swt_passenger]

Yep, they've certainly not sat around doing nothing. So unless there's some more Class 319s coming their way, they will need to free up some stock internally.

I didn't think that they were doing nothing either, but they may be why the 7 x 321s were rarely in full use, and IIRC the same probably applies to the 319s.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Yep, they've certainly not sat around doing nothing. So unless there's some more Class 319s coming their way, they will need to free up some stock internally.

Full Bromsgrove service now deferred until May 2018. Might give the new franchise time to find extra electric units.

Shortforming apology from LM here:
https://www.londonmidland.com/travel-information/live-information/euston-line-short-formed-services

 

[Mikey C]

A lot of the Met-Camm Networker bodies are full of water anyway. They're already halfway to being an artificial reef

As they also haven't been retractioned unlike the BREL/ABB ones, I guess these will go when new stock is ordered for the SE London lines, but a few of the ABB ones might be kept for use elsewhere?

 

[urpert]

As they also haven't been retractioned unlike the BREL/ABB ones, I guess these will go when new stock is ordered for the SE London lines, but a few of the ABB ones might be kept for use elsewhere?

Perhaps, though I'm not sure there would be much demand for very tired 25 year old DC-only units...

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I knew I would enrage someones pedant mode by doing that, I in no way did it with that intent...



Thats why I added the caveat to that statement, if it is real it not over the whole fleet. Someone did mention that the small windows close together can cause an optical illusion that makes it looked curved.

aren;t the body sides of the 153/155 effectively Leyland National / Pacer parts ?

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I've just got on at at Huddersfield a direct service to Wigan. Guess what our Northern overlords have provided for this voyage - a Merseyrail pacer. The sooner we are rid of these, the better.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

aren;t the body sides of the 153/155 effectively Leyland National / Pacer parts ?

Not quite- built by Leyland yes, and panels riveted on like the Leyland Pacers. The 153/155 construction has more in common with the experimental Leyland re-bodied Mk1, though using a new chassis rather than one from the 1950s.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Well, I've just got on at at Huddersfield a direct service to Wigan. Guess what our Northern overlords have provided for this voyage - a Merseyrail pacer. The sooner we are rid of these, the better.

Just 2 odd years to go - it'll come around quickly!

 

[RichJF]

Most MK3 cars should be scraped, save for the ones at Scotrail. All MK4 stock should be scraped.

Unless you do a Chiltern-style conversion into a modern, compliant train. Given the heavy investment in the DVT's/coaches/loco lease then they have many years left.

Would this conversion have been cost-effective for GEML instead of ordering new EMU's?

 

[MCR247]

Would this conversion have been cost-effective for GEML instead of ordering new EMU's?

The winning bidder chose not to do it, infer from that what you will