• 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!

Preserved EMU Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Yes that is correct.

The 18 WAGN Cl315s had been transferred to Hornsey for maintenance, but at the start of the enlarged Greater Anglia franchise (not to be confused with the TOC of the same name) they were transferred back to Ilford along with all of the WA division's Cl317s. It was this influx of additional units (Cl317s had never been allocated to Ilford prior to this), together with GE's Cl360s which had not been present at the time while the WAGN allocation was away at Hornsey, that signalled the end of Ilford's care of the Cl306.

It was more the bit about the moves being done to save money - which seems unlikely and more that it made operational sense for the WA units to be based at Ilford as that depot was operated by the TOC whereas Hornsey was only for GN.

I should have been clearer - I wasn't doubting the moves, I was doubting the claimed rationale that it was about saving money as it seems far more likely to have been an operational decision.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,609
Location
In the cab with the paper
I should have been clearer - I wasn't doubting the moves, I was doubting the claimed rationale that it was about saving money as it seems far more likely to have been an operational decision.

Ah, I understand.

My recollection from the time was that it was part of the franchise specification at the time. I've no doubt that it saved money over having the fleets split across two depots, especially as Hornsey was operated by a different company.
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,974
Location
East Anglia
Everything National Express did during their tenure of the East Anglia franchise was about reducing cost. (e.g. reducing the Shenfield service to 4 cars outside the peaks and at weekends). Obviously it had to work operationally too, but the financial saving of moving out of Hornsey was too big to ignore. The poor old 306 didn’t stand a chance against the mighty NX financial machine.
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Everything National Express did during their tenure of the East Anglia franchise was about reducing cost. (e.g. reducing the Shenfield service to 4 cars outside the peaks and at weekends). Obviously it had to work operationally too, but the financial saving of moving out of Hornsey was too big to ignore. The poor old 306 didn’t stand a chance against the mighty NX financial machine.

However as OL points put, it *may* have been part of the franchise spec that they had to move out of Hornsey - which means whoever won the franchise would have had to do the same.

So until we know definitively, it's your opinion or speculation and should be framed as such, not opinion presented as fact.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,609
Location
In the cab with the paper
Everything National Express did during their tenure of the East Anglia franchise was about reducing cost. (e.g. reducing the Shenfield service to 4 cars outside the peaks and at weekends). Obviously it had to work operationally too, but the financial saving of moving out of Hornsey was too big to ignore. The poor old 306 didn’t stand a chance against the mighty NX financial machine.

I'm as saddened about it as you, but when you've got an operational railway to run you can't afford to have half a covered road taken up by a failed non-operational unit like the Cl306, especially when the size of your allocation is about to expand dramatically. Notwithstanding any issues about the non-fitment of safety equipment (I'm still unsure if it had TPWS) it needed a new HT lead to connect the pan to the transformer which was going to be a bespoke item due to it being longer than on existing units, and therefore not the sort of thing hiding at the back of a shelf in the parts store, and was going to cost an eye-watering amount to have made. The chances that it could ever have been made to run again even at that point looked slim.

The penny-pinching didn't start until a fair bit later in the franchise, by which time the Cl306 had already gone. We had the same issues with the Stansted Express being split and then reformed during the day to save mileage on the units. Gone too was the notion of a specific fleet of Cl317s to operate that service because they were accumulating mileage far quicker than their classmates with the consequent effect on the scheduling of exams.

As for the savings achieved by taking the units out of Hornsey, I've no doubt that it make financial and operational sense. However, as I said above, I'm not sure that the decision came from within the company but rather was imposed on them by the DfT. Prior to WAGN ceasing to exist and the GN side being grouped with Thameslink to form First Capital Connect, the WA side at least remained under the NX "London Lines" grouping together with WAGN, c2c and Silverlink. However, once the split had occurred there would have been an imperative to split the operational and financial dealings of each company wherever possible so that any issues suffered by one did not impact on the operation of the other.

Mind you, Hornsey did have the last laugh by "stiffing" Ilford over the Cl317 spares which should have come over with the fleet but didn't. There were even rumours that items such as traction motor snow screens just ended up in a skip because Hornsey decided that they no longer had any use for them. You can imagine the impact this had on the reliability of the fleet.
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,974
Location
East Anglia
So until we know definitively, it's your opinion or speculation and should be framed as such, not opinion presented as fact.

Well I was there at the time, involved in implementing the scheme to move units to Ilford, and saw the figures. There is nothing speculative or opinionated about it.

Of course the first priority is the operational railway, so yes the 306 had to be moved out. TPWS parts had been obtained (saw them in the guards brake) but never fitted.

If the DfT did impose the decision to move out of Hornsey they were pushing at an open door when it came to the £££s. We just did what we were told but yes the Stansted Express splitting was another financial rather than operating decision.

As an aside when we were removing the doors on a 317 in Ilford to repair them the date of the newspaper we found was a bit of a surprise. Clearly nothing had been done there for a while.
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Well I was there at the time, involved in implementing the scheme to move units to Ilford, and saw the figures. There is nothing speculative or opinionated about it.

Of course the first priority is the operational railway, so yes the 306 had to be moved out. TPWS parts had been obtained (saw them in the guards brake) but never fitted.

If the DfT did impose the decision to move out of Hornsey they were pushing at an open door when it came to the £££s. We just did what we were told but yes the Stansted Express splitting was another financial rather than operating decision.

As an aside when we were removing the doors on a 317 in Ilford to repair them the date of the newspaper we found was a bit of a surprise. Clearly nothing had been done there for a while.

We're heading way off topic.

But if DFT did stipulate that NXEA were to maintain their units at Ilford not Hornsey, there would have been an operational reason for doing so - it's clear that TOCs have been aligned to depots. In some ways it was odd that Hornsey had ended up with the West Anglia fleet, but WAGN was an 'odd' formation of a TOC in any case. Perhaps what should have happened in the beginning is where we've ended up now with the WA line as part of the East Anglia franchise working out of Liverpool St.

And whilst the final decision on Thameslink depots wasn't taken until 2008, it's inconceivable that there wasn't some thought being given to that at any point after 2000 and Hornsey would have been a prime contender for taking on that work.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,892
Location
South Wales
One 1938 stock unit fro. The Isle of Wight is being fitted with batteries and run.on the Llanelli and mynndd mawr railway
 

4SubAsociation

Verified Rep
Joined
4 Dec 2020
Messages
300
Location
Ashford, Kent
Anything can be done with enough money. But where is the money coming from?
Agreed. A good example of this is Tornado (i know not EMU preservation), which took 18 years and 3 million pounds. I think once someone has proved it can be done then more people are willing to donate. They say the P2 project might be ready in the late 2020's. They have already raised over £4 million out of the £6 million required.

 

DJ_K666

Member
Joined
5 May 2009
Messages
918
Location
Way too far north of 75A
Completely agree. My wife was very unimpressed by the Thumper on the Dartmoor Railway a few years ago. Ok, I know it’s diesel but she said it reminded her of the grotty BR/NSE slam door stock she used to get to and from school
Thats probably because it was :E

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Generator van and a pair of jump leads. Job's a good'un...
Pretty much. Whack some 'bagpipes' on a BG (TLV style) and you've got platform coupling capability and through wiring that the SR mk1 tyoe EMUs were convenient for.

Or a fairground generator in the guards van. Hasn't the Eden Valley railway at Warcop done this with their MLV?
 

VEP3417

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
710
Location
Hampshire
the difference between steam and emu preservation is with steam, i think anyway, people seem to be more willing to dip their hands in their pockets, than for emu preservation, and you can see why, but just means a lot of emus are left languishing waiting for their day to come because people still see them as a bit modern compared to steam stuff
 

madannie77

Member
Joined
12 May 2009
Messages
427
Location
The Station Garden of Eden
Thats probably because it was :E

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Pretty much. Whack some 'bagpipes' on a BG (TLV style) and you've got platform coupling capability and through wiring that the SR mk1 tyoe EMUs were convenient for.

Or a fairground generator in the guards van. Hasn't the Eden Valley railway at Warcop done this with their MLV?

One of the Eden Valley Railway's MLVs does indeed have a generator in it which is used to charge the batteries in the vehicles when they are providing the passenger service with 4-CEP 2315, which is generally the third Sunday of each month.
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
2,372
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
How much power would you need to move the various preserved units 30mph tops 25mph running speed on preserved railways? Would the 'electromechanical' control of old units be compatible with current battery technology.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,319
How much power would you need to move the various preserved units 30mph tops 25mph running speed on preserved railways? Would the 'electromechanical' control of old units be compatible with current battery technology.
All EMUs have a high voltage bus (and some lower voltage buses). Supply a suitable voltage across it and the unit won't know the difference.

You'll need a suitable battery management device (so you don't overheat them) and a monitor for it in the cab.
 

JKF

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2019
Messages
1,285
It probably doesn’t have to be that high-tech, maybe hook up a load of old fork lift batteries or something like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top