Class 379 updates (all are OFF LEASE)

[dereksingh291]

There is no doubt they will be used again.

what will happen to them if they are not going to be used because the 379s have been running since march 2011?

 

[JonathanH]

what will happen to them if they are not going to be used because the 379s have been running since march 2011?

The leasing company will try and find someone who wants to use them at a price that is acceptable to both the party paying to use them and the company itself. In theory, they could go abroad, wherever the best price could be attained.

If the leasing company can find no takers, they will sit in a siding or the leasing company could seek to sell them. Storage has non-zero costs but the leasing company may be prepared to incur these costs if they take a view that the units would be needed and have more value in the future as passenger numbers recover.

If the scrap man were prepared to pay more for them than any other purchaser or the leasing company thought there was no prospect of future use, they would go for scrap. However, this is very unlikely because there should be a price at which they will see more use which is higher than their current scrap value.

 

[physics34]

Pure speculation but you can imagine a stalemate between the leasing company and the DfT during this period of cost cutting. Would be interesting to know their leasing cost vs a 387.

 

[bramling]

The leasing company will try and find someone who wants to use them at a price that is acceptable to both the party paying to use them and the company itself. In theory, they could go abroad, wherever the best price could be attained.

If the leasing company can find no takers, they will sit in a siding or the leasing company could seek to sell them. Storage has non-zero costs but the leasing company may be prepared to incur these costs if they take a view that the units would be needed and have more value in the future as passenger numbers recover.

If the scrap man were prepared to pay more for them than any other purchaser or the leasing company thought there was no prospect of future use, they would go for scrap. However, this is very unlikely because there should be a price at which they will see more use which is higher than their current scrap value.

I suspect there’s a game of politics / brinkmanship going on. It will be interesting to see who wins out.

This only works when there’s alternative stock, or perhaps for the time being if DFT is prepared to simply not run the services - though this is highly risky if passenger numbers rebound.

There’s already murmurings that GTR/DFT have been over optimistic in the amount of stock they have been planning to ditch.

It’s already questionable ditching 365s for 379s given the high leasing cost of the 379s - especially given the relatively small, albeit important, amount of work the 365s were doing pre-Covid.

Odds for another farce here?

 

[JonathanH]

Pure speculation but you can imagine a stalemate between the leasing company and the DfT during this period of cost cutting. Would be interesting to know their leasing cost vs a 387.

Yes, in the great money go round, you would imagine that DfT want the cost of using the 379s to certainly be no more than they are currently paying for 387s on the GN network if not a small saving. (I'm sure there was a suggestion somewhere that the 379 transfer had gone a little cold.)

There will no doubt be a higher cost to the Southern part of the operation involved in leasing 387s instead of 313s and 455s even without one for one replacement.

 

[bramling]

Yes, in the great money go round, you would imagine that DfT want the cost of using the 379s to certainly be no more than they are currently paying for 387s on the GN network if not a small saving. (I'm sure there was a suggestion somewhere that the 379 transfer had gone a little cold.)

There will no doubt be a higher cost to the Southern part of the operation involved in leasing 387s instead of 313s and 455s even without one for one replacement.

It would certainly be interesting to know what the leasing costs are for the various fleets.

One would have expected the 365s to be pretty cheap, especially being government owned at one point, but I’ve heard it said that this wasn’t the case.

 

[Roger B]

379007 (not 379002 - apols for the typo) and 379011 stabled in the carriage sidings adjacent to platform 8 at Cambridge this afternoon. Sorry, didn't notice whether pants were up or down!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Pure speculation but you can imagine a stalemate between the leasing company and the DfT during this period of cost cutting. Would be interesting to know their leasing cost vs a 387.

The DfT has long wanted to get even with the original Roscos on leasing charges, although the CMA blamed the DfT for fixing the market.
It's the Rosco that takes the risk of not being able to re-lease the trains (as they do with 350/2 and other fleets purchased at the time).
These trains were built/sold/leased at high prices and the Roscos need to cover their financing costs.

 

[JonathanH]

These trains were built/sold/leased at high prices and the Roscos need to cover their financing costs.

Yes, but if there are voids, the position is no different from that for the owners of commercial property at the moment. Any investment is a gamble of sorts and the value of that investment may go down as well as up. Essentially the problem the leasing company has is that there is one customer who can dictate whether an asset is used or not.

 

[Bishopstone]

Bargaining and brinkmanship is exactly what the rail industry should be doing at the moment, and I’d go so far as to say they should be poring over any expensive long-term contracts, looking for get-outs, loopholes and termination clauses.

Circumstances have changed, and suppliers who had decades of easy returns, effectively underwritten by the taxpayer, will now need to sweat a bit for their profit, which is as it should be.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Bargaining and brinkmanship is exactly what the rail industry should be doing at the moment, and I’d go so far as to say they should be poring over any expensive long-term contracts, looking for get-outs, loopholes and termination clauses.

Circumstances have changed, and suppliers who had decades of easy returns, effectively underwritten by the taxpayer, will now need to sweat a bit for their profit, which is as it should be.

Agree and they should start with the 701's

 

[JonathanH]

Circumstances have changed, and suppliers who had decades of easy returns, effectively underwritten by the taxpayer, will now need to sweat a bit for their profit, which is as it should be.

Unfortunately, reports elsewhere suggest that the costs of rail components have increased because the taxpayer is now seen to be paying.

 

[D365]

379002 and 379011 stabled in the carriage sidings adjacent to platform 8 at Cambridge this afternoon. Sorry, didn't notice whether pants were up or down!

Hopefully up

 

[43102EMR]

379002 and 379011 stabled in the carriage sidings adjacent to platform 8 at Cambridge this afternoon. Sorry, didn't notice whether pants were up or down!

Considering those two were at Parkeston, I wonder why they’ve moved to Cambridge? Hopefully this is a good sign!

 

[dk1]

Unfortunately, reports elsewhere suggest that the costs of rail components have increased because the taxpayer is now seen to be paying.

Sounds quite plausible.

 

[nw1]

Exactly, not everyone can have a uniform fleet, and can dump modern but non standard stock. And if fleets need topping up a few years down the line, different trains may need to be purchased anyway. Unless you then replace the entire fleet yet again!

C2C for example needed some more trains, so have ordered some 720s, which are significantly different from their existing 357s (24m vs 20m carriages for example). Maybe they should have been allowed to replace their entire fleet (of perfectly good 357s) to have a uniform fleet as well...After all what happens to the 357s isn't their problem

It does seem crazy to replace not-very-old units. We've managed with non-uniform fleets in the past, with units formerly only replaced when they reached their natural end-of-life.

But I get the impression from these threads that things have changed in the economics of how the railway is run, which makes doing this financially worthwhile. Still seems wasteful to me though.

 

[dk1]

It does seem crazy to replace not-very-old units. We've managed with non-uniform fleets in the past, with units formerly only replaced when they reached their natural end-of-life.

But I get the impression from these threads that things have changed in the economics of how the railway is run, which makes doing this financially worthwhile. Still seems wasteful to me though.

I’m not sure it’s so much that the economics have changed. The 720s are very late so this probably would’ve been the chosen path. Coming out of Covid has just changed the number of units currently required to run the timetable.

 

[Class 170101]

Unfortunately, reports elsewhere suggest that the costs of rail components have increased because the taxpayer is now seen to be paying.

How does that one work?

 

[Wivenswold]

Does anyone have a list of where each of the 379s are being stored by any chance?
If not I'll get to work sifting through Anglia-gen and Flickr. It's unusual for any odd workings to not be photographed unless they happen in the dead of night.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Does anyone have a list of where each of the 379s are being stored by any chance?
If not I'll get to work sifting through Anglia-gen and Flickr. It's unusual for any odd workings to not be photographed unless they happen in the dead of night.

Yes, with all credit due to @03_179 and Part Time Spotter.

379001 – At Parkston (S)
379002 – At Parkston (S)
379003 – At Parkston (S)
379004 – At Parkston (S)
379005 – At Ilford
379006 – At Ilford
379007 – At Orient Way CS
379008 – At Ilford
379009 – At Parkston (S)
379010 – At Parkston (S)
379011 – At Parkston (S)
379012 – At Cambridge Sidings
379013 – At Orient Way CS
379014 – At Parkston (S)
379015 – At Parkston (S)
379016 – At Parkston (S)
379017 – At Parkston (S)
379018 – At Parkston (S)
379019 – At Parkston (S)
379020 – At Parkston (S)
379021 – At Ilford
379022 – At Parkston (S)
379023 – At Ilford
379024 – At Ilford
379025 – At Ilford
379026 – At Parkston (S)
379027 – Not allocated
379028 – At Parkston (S)
379029 – At Parkston (S)
379030 – At Cambridge Sidings

 

[43102EMR]

Does anyone have a list of where each of the 379s are being stored by any chance?
If not I'll get to work sifting through Anglia-gen and Flickr. It's unusual for any odd workings to not be photographed unless they happen in the dead of night.

Part Time Spotter has a blog which has the full list https://partimespotter.wordpress.com/2022/02/15/379-locations-15-02-2022/

 

[Roger B]

379007 and 379011 weren't visible from the platforms of Cambridge Station this morning.
They were definitely not where they were when I saw them on Monday.
As to where they are now?

 

[03_179]

007 - At Orient Way CS

011 - At Cambridge Siding Arr 1556 on 14/02

 

[Steve Harris]

379007 and 379011 weren't visible from the platforms of Cambridge Station this morning.
They were definitely not where they were when I saw them on Monday.
As to where they are now?

Don't you mean 002 and 011 ??

379002 and 379011 stabled in the carriage sidings adjacent to platform 8 at Cambridge this afternoon. Sorry, didn't notice whether pants were up or down!

 

[Wivenswold]

Thank you both for the link to that website, never seen it before!

Mentioned in the Allocations section but with GA saying there's more units available from next week there's speculation over whether a few 379s might make it out into service again, if there isn't a sudden influx of 720s that is.

 

[03_179]

Thank you both for the link to that website, never seen it before!

Mentioned in the Allocations section but with GA saying there's more units available from next week there's speculation over whether a few 379s might make it out into service again, if there isn't a sudden influx of 720s that is.

I've been around a while.

If the 379s come back I'll post the allocations

 

[Roger B]

Don't you mean 002 and 011 ??

Thanks Steve. Sorry - typo in my first post - should've read 007 - corrected now.

 

[Bikeman78]

Thank you both for the link to that website, never seen it before!

Mentioned in the Allocations section but with GA saying there's more units available from next week there's speculation over whether a few 379s might make it out into service again, if there isn't a sudden influx of 720s that is.

With 23 class 317s to cover just eight diagrams it seems that the need for class 379s is minimal.

 

[Railperf]

A pair of 379's sitting at Orient Way have had pans up for most of the week but passing yesterday - were both down. 379007 is still branded.

With 23 class 317s to cover just eight diagrams it seems that the need for class 379s is minimal.

Yes, looks like maximum of 10 pairs needed during this week - so unless they start falling apart - there should be enough.

 

[43102EMR]

A pair of 379's sitting at Orient Way have had pans up for most of the week but passing yesterday - were both down. 379007 is still branded.


Yes, looks like maximum of 10 pairs needed during this week - so unless they start falling apart - there should be enough.

379013 is the unbranded one - they’re likely being held on standby until they’re needed again (i.e. when they covered a 720 on Cambridge services the other week)

EDIT: Turns out it’s 005!