Varamis Rail Class 321s & 325s”

[ExRes]

The 325's just replaced van carriages and had no staff let aline sorting.

Close run thing at times though, there were a number of occasions at the PRDC when the shutter doors were closed and a postie was still loitering/working inside, fortunately I think they were all rescued before train departure

 

[172007]

Close run thing at times though, there were a number of occasions at the PRDC when the shutter doors were closed and a postie was still loitering/working inside, fortunately I think they were all rescued before train departure

Rofl

 

[Skimpot flyer]

There was indeed one occasion I know of. The joke among staff was that if the train had left the confines of PRDC, even to the reception sidings, the postie would have faced a conduct code charge of ‘missing from point of duty’

 

[Royston Vasey]

There was indeed one occasion I know of. The joke among staff was that if the train had left the confines of PRDC, even to the reception sidings, the postie would have faced a conduct code charge of ‘missing from point of duty’

"Your postie was delivered to a neighbour"

 

[MotCO]

"Your postie was delivered to a neighbour"

"We were unable to deliver your postie today. Please rearrange delivery"

 

[Royston Vasey]

"We were unable to deliver your postie today. Please rearrange delivery"

Your postie can now be collected from Mossend Delivery Office

 

[TastyMaltesers]

All joking aside, I wonder what the reasoning is behind prioritising the older 321s over the 325s?

 

[Jacob Porrett]

All joking aside, I wonder what the reasoning is behind prioritising the older 321s over the 325s?

325s probably rusty?

 

[fgwrich]

325s probably rusty?

Am I right in thinking that the 325s were due overhauls with neither Royal Mail or DB wanted to pay for putting them through. The 321s, though stored, may be slightly better in this respect.

 

[sad1e]

325s probably rusty?

I would be surprised , they've been stored in the PRDC since withdrawal where they should be safe from the elements. Unless they were already in a state Pre withdrawal.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Am I right in thinking that the 325s were due overhauls with neither Royal Mail or DB wanted to pay for putting them through. The 321s, though stored, may be slightly better in this respect.

You could be right yeah.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2026 ==

I would be surprised , they've been stored in the PRDC since withdrawal where they should be safe from the elements. Unless they were already in a state Pre withdrawal.

Think they weren't far off to be fair.

 

[D365]

Close run thing at times though, there were a number of occasions at the PRDC when the shutter doors were closed and a postie was still loitering/working inside, fortunately I think they were all rescued before train departure

Each of the cargo payloads was/is fitted with smoke detectors and personnel detectors. If a sensor is triggered, this puts a light on in the active cab.

I would be surprised , they've been stored in the PRDC since withdrawal where they should be safe from the elements. Unless they were already in a state Pre withdrawal.

Think they weren't far off to be fair.

I am by no means a structural engineer, but I've never heard it be said that the 325 bodyshells were in poor condition. Especially when compared to certain examples of Class 319 or Class 150/156.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

RAIL Magazine issue 1071 page 13. Article about Varamis Rail starting up again and getting the correct paperwork to start operations again using their 321 fleet. Interesting it mentions that the majority of their fleet including 321s and 325s will be scrapped and only keeping a handful of units.

 

[sad1e]

RAIL Magazine issue 1071 page 13. Article about Varamis Rail starting up again and getting the correct paperwork to start operations again using their 321 fleet. Interesting it mentions that the majority of their fleet including 321s and 325s will be scrapped and only keeping a handful of units.

The same article was posted up thread When it was released online earlier last month. It seems there is no confirmed source for the rest of the 321's and 325s being scrapped.

Although I think it strange that varamis haven't run another test since their last run , Almost a month ago.

 

[Royston Vasey]

RAIL Magazine issue 1071 page 13. Article about Varamis Rail starting up again and getting the correct paperwork to start operations again using their 321 fleet. Interesting it mentions that the majority of their fleet including 321s and 325s will be scrapped and only keeping a handful of units.

Shambolic to run a £7-figure fundraising specifically to acquire 325s, not run them (or anything else) for a year and then scrap the lot. That's not being sentimental about 325s, that's just baffling management.

But I think with Robin Gisby coming on board (in every sense) earlier this year and now seemingly thoroughly in charge, they're in good hands, but is the market even there?

I'm interested in how much of their debt to Network Rail has been paid off or written off, it was a massive pile.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Slightly unrelated to Varamis operations but a GBRF path has appeared from 06/10 to 11/12 timed in the same way as DB Class 325s were (Electric locomotive, trailing load 325 tonnes, Planned for 100mph max)

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C01664/2026-10-20/detailed

 

[zwk500]

Slightly unrelated to Varamis operations but a GBRF path has appeared from 06/10 to 11/12 timed in the same way as DB Class 325s were (Electric locomotive, trailing load 325 tonnes, Planned for 100mph max)

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C01664/2026-10-20/detailed

Were the Class 325 paths really timed as a loco not a EMU?

Or is this another weird data error from interpreting the Bplan timing load?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Were the Class 325 paths really timed as a loco not a EMU?

Yes, see one of today's paths (yes they're still in the timetable).

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C01664/2026-10-09/detailed

 

[XCTurbostar]

Yes, see one of today's paths (yes they're still in the timetable).

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C01664/2026-10-09/detailed

These are different paths operated by GBRF not DB

 

[Class15]

It’s indeed correct that they were pathed as locos.

 

[sad1e]

Slightly unrelated to Varamis operations but a GBRF path has appeared from 06/10 to 11/12 timed in the same way as DB Class 325s were (Electric locomotive, trailing load 325 tonnes, Planned for 100mph max)

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C01664/2026-10-20/detailed

GBRF doing test runs for varamis then possibly.

Or maybe further trials of that mail 769 conversion?

 

[zwk500]

It’s indeed correct that they were pathed as locos.

Having had the opportunity to flick through BPlan, I suspect that there's a data error with the Timing Load that is causing RTT to misreport it. There's no loco-hauled timing load with a trailing load of 325t in the data I can see.

I am fairly sure they at least were timed as Class 325 EMU in TPS. Not that it's especially important.

 

[cj_1985]

GBRF doing test runs for varamis then possibly.

Or maybe further trials of that mail 769 conversion?

I thought the pair of parcel 769s had been returned to Porterbrook, and Long Marston, several months ago.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

I thought the pair of parcel 769s had been returned to Porterbrook, and Long Marston, several months ago.

Talking of 769s. Aren't the ROG pair still at Castle Donnington for storage?

 

[cj_1985]

Talking of 769s. Aren't the ROG pair still at Castle Donnington for storage?

I'd question if the diesel gensets are still serviceable if they (the 769s) are still there

 

[sad1e]

if they (the 769s) are still there

Can confirm firsthand that the 768s were there as of March 8th this year , and have seen videos more recently of them still at Castle Donnington.

 

[XCTurbostar]

I would suspect given the paths exist up to christmas, they are either: Placeholder paths or GBRF are intending on using the 769s for Royal Mail. 769549 and 769535 were the two previously used for GBRF testing.

 

[ayubdaud]

Having had the opportunity to flick through BPlan, I suspect that there's a data error with the Timing Load that is causing RTT to misreport it. There's no loco-hauled timing load with a trailing load of 325t in the data I can see.

I am fairly sure they at least were timed as Class 325 EMU in TPS. Not that it's especially important.

Can't recall now if 325 were altered to loco hauled to allow them to have been consisted by the FOC. Varamis got around it by being XU paths

 

[Adrian Barr]

Having had the opportunity to flick through BPlan, I suspect that there's a data error with the Timing Load that is causing RTT to misreport it. There's no loco-hauled timing load with a trailing load of 325t in the data I can see.

I am fairly sure they at least were timed as Class 325 EMU in TPS. Not that it's especially important.

As per the post above, the "loco-hauled" aspect is related to how the reporting was normally done for the 325s in TOPS on Royal Mail duties. They were effectively consisted as "freight trains without a loco" (and occasionally with a loco) in the same way as the loco-hauled mail trains. MPV circuits are also often shown as loco-hauled. This is a bit of a "fudge" with how the schedule is set up in TRUST / TOPS which may be different from how it looks in the planning systems.

Multiple unit schedules can cause issues with TOPS because they expect the consist entry to come either from systems that only the TOCs use, or from POIS inputs (passenger equivalent of TOPS) which can be more temperamental than using regular TOPS. I remember there were some oddities where if an MPV was running on a multiple unit schedule, in some cases it wouldn't accept a consist due to the system insisting that a POIS input was invalid for a class 6 train, or it didn't accept YXAs being freight stock on what it thought should be a passenger train headcode or train category - I can't quite remember but there were one or two annoying incompatibilities along those lines...

1M36 schedule in TRUST, showing much the same info as RTT (loco-hauled, 325 timing load. PV = Parcels Vans):

Train 071M36M runs MSX from 06/10/26 to 11/12/26 - Auto-Call
Train category PV Loco-Hauled 309 miles Applicable Timetable Service
Train service code 55460080 Catering N/A
Uid C01664 Sector 54 Sub-sector 02 Set up by TSDB on 09/10/26 Type WTT

Location Booked C Pw Miles Tlod Ctg Pfm Eng Pth Consist
07915 SHIELDMR 08:42 325 1 ORIGINATING PT
07972 ABINGTON 09:05 09:15 0 29 5 9 CALLING POINT
35531 WARRTN BQ 11:28 11:30 0 204 2 5H CALLING POINT
42128 CWECOALYD 11:57 12:08 0 228 3H CALLING POINT
42140 CREWE 12:13 12:26 0 228 2 6H CALLING POINT
70081 DAVTRYREC 13:45 309 TERMINATING PT

Varamis 1M04 WTT path set up as a multiple unit schedule with a 321 timing load (XU = express passenger train, unadvertised):

Train 071M04M runs FSX from 18/05/26 to 10/12/26 - Manual-Call
Train category XU Multiple-Unit 292 miles Applicable Timetable Service
Train service code 59980001 Catering N/A
Uid C08651 Sector 95 Sub-sector 05 Set up by TSDB on 09/10/26 Type WTT

Location Booked C Pw Miles Tlod Ctg Pfm Eng Pth Pcnt TI
07360 MOSSND DY 17:45 321 3 3H
09161 CARLISLE 18:57 18:59 0 92 8 19H
69215 BHAM INTL 21:57 292