What trains will Southeastern order to replace the Networkers?

SolomonSouth · 5 Apr 2025

As I'm sure you're aware, Southeastern's aging Networkers are set to be replaced by new trains, which will likely be arriving in the late 2020s - early 2030s.

What I'm wondering, though, is just what trains they will use to replace the Networkers.

Will they use an Aventra? Stadler Metro? Desiro City? AT200 (a'la DC 385?) Or will they order a new design from scratch that we haven't seen yet?

Me personally - I think SE will be pushing for Desiro Cities as much as possible. They already have the 707s, which are not going anywhere any time soon, and it would be good for fleet efficiency to order similar trains if possible. The only stumbling block here is I'm not sure if Siemens still have the parts/means to make a Desiro City - it's been a good few years since the 707 and 717 were made. If they can't get a Desiro City, I honestly think they might opt for a brand-new platform of train.

Why? Well, Aventras and 777s - Stadler Metros - have both had severe reliability issues to the point where they are even worse than the 30-year old Networkers (especially the Aventras), and the 385 is a few years old so whether another AT200 can be made is uncertain, similar to the Desiro City situation.

What do you think? Let's speculate and discuss.

RailUK Forums

Zomboid · 5 Apr 2025

Siemens current offering is the Desiro Verve, apparently. So if they go with Siemens I'd guess it'll be that.

I wouldn't rush to judge the Aventras or Stadlers, they're still on the early part of the bathtub curve. They might turn out to be junk, but almost nothing has ever been reliable straight out of the box.

brad465 · 5 Apr 2025

The tender is probably not large enough for this, but I'd go for something that allows for what the Networkers have done with both metro and outer-suburban workings, with some of the units given an enhanced refurbishment for comfort while having high acceleration (and maybe a 90mph top speed). Electrostars have inferior acceleration that slows them down on the likes of the Maidstone East line, Tunbridge Wells' semi-fasts and all stations' calling services along the Chatham mainline. The Electrostar's higher top speed isn't well utilised on stopping patterns, so doesn't offset this.

I'd have gone for a slightly larger order that allows all 377s to be returned to Southern, while still replacing all the Networkers and maybe also the 376s.

SolomonSouth · 5 Apr 2025

brad465 said:
The tender is probably not large enough for this, but I'd go for something that allows for what the Networkers have done with both metro and outer-suburban workings, with some of the units given an enhanced refurbishment for comfort while having high acceleration (and maybe a 90mph top speed). Electrostars have inferior acceleration that slows them down on the likes of the Maidstone East line, Tunbridge Wells' semi-fasts and all stations' calling services along the Chatham mainline. The Electrostar's higher top speed isn't well utilised on stopping patterns, so doesn't offset this.

I'd have gone for a slightly larger order that allows all 377s to be returned to Southern, while still replacing all the Networkers and maybe also the 376s.

I agree with the bulk of your comment, but I believe the 377/6 have better acceleration than the standard 4 car Electrostar so a 5 car variant could be quick.

Sad Sprinter · 5 Apr 2025

I wish the government would invest in starting a British train builder that could supply the trains

Thirteen · 6 Apr 2025

Sad Sprinter said:
I wish the government would invest in starting a British train builder that could supply the trains

Why would they do that? There are plenty of factories by Siemens, CAF, Alstom etc that need the work.

Sad Sprinter · 6 Apr 2025

Thirteen said:
Why would they do that? There are plenty of factories by Siemens, CAF, Alstom etc that need the work.

All owned by different countries. How much of the engineering design of those companies is done in Britain vs importing the design and simply assembling them here?

CBlue · 6 Apr 2025

Sad Sprinter said:
I wish the government would invest in starting a British train builder that could supply the trains

Sad Sprinter said:
All owned by different countries. How much of the engineering design of those companies is done in Britain vs importing the design and simply assembling them here?

Given that the target market for building trains to UK spec is tiny, how do you expect to sustain the train builder given how long rolling stock lasts? Such a new enterprise is also going to struggle to complete internationally on export orders.
You make the situation even worse if you're trying to set up a full supply chain from raw materials onwards all based in one country....that's an excellent way to drive up component costs as everything would have to be developed from scratch.

For example:

My employer builds very complex electro-mechanical equipment using a large amount of custom fabricated parts, and a few off-the-shelf ones. Probably a level of complexity and regulation similar to modern rolling stock.
The only companies we found willing to make these components in the quantities needed were in Austria and Italy. It was expensive enough setting up the initial assembly line without trying to fabricate all the electronic components on top of that.
It took six years from the company founding and to this date yearly investments from private capital of over $200m a year - and a further five years of the same funding before it even looked like things were close to breaking even.
This is the second startup company I've worked with that took the best part of a decade to get financially stable.

Now add politics to the mixture, with the short-termism that often accompanies such.....no-one is going to agree to spending all that money just to set up a train factory within government. Doubly so if setting up domestic supply chains for all the parts.

stadler · 6 Apr 2025

My personal preference would be some Desiro City trains. In my opinion the Desiro City is the best train in the country. Nice bright airy spacious trains. Also very reliable. One of the few trains that entered service without major issues. This is a well known reliable train that Southeastern already have experience with so ordering this would seem to make the most sense. I know the ironing board seats are often complained about but Southeastern could specify any seat type they want.

I would order the gangway version. Siemens offered this but no operator ordered them. I presume that Southeastern will want four coach units for quieter branches like the Sittingbourne to Sheerness line so gangways would be ideal so passengers can continue to walk between units.

Screenshot_20250406_135912_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

Or the other option is ordering them all as twelve coach units. This might actually be a good option as then they would never have to worry about short formations again. Having a very quiet train with excess capacity is not an issue but having a overcrowded short train is. So twelve coach units might work.

brad465 · 6 Apr 2025

stadler said:
Or the other option is ordering them all as twelve coach units. This might actually be a good option as then they would never have to worry about short formations again. Having a very quiet train with excess capacity is not an issue but having a overcrowded short train is. So twelve coach units might work.

As lovely as this is, I can think of some difficulties Southeastern would have if they did this:

1) Victoria-Orpington is max 8-car, while at Brixton and Herne Hill, 12-cars would easily foul junctions.
2) Not all stabling roads in Southeastern land can hold 12-car trains, so logistics surrounding the units would be limited.
3) SDO would be needed for Woolwich Arsenal, Charing X platforms 4-6 and Tunbridge Wells (if they were to be deployed on this route), assuming there is no problem with SDO at a terminus.

SolomonSouth · 6 Apr 2025

stadler said:
My personal preference would be some Desiro City trains. In my opinion the Desiro City is the best train in the country. Nice bright airy spacious trains. Also very reliable. One of the few trains that entered service without major issues. This is a well known reliable train that Southeastern already have experience with so ordering this would seem to make the most sense. I know the ironing board seats are often complained about but Southeastern could specify any seat type they want.

Indeed, I agree. Siemens make the most reliable trains. The Desiros are far more reliable than the similarly-aged Electrostars, and Desiro Cities are better than basically every new train. The 700 had some issues but every single Aventra has had far worse issues.

The only stumbling block here is the Desiro City has not been made for a while, and I don't think Siemens would still have the parts/means available to make another one.

Whichever train they do make, it would be good to make the number of carriages a multiple of 12 - 3, 4, 6 etc - so they can use the full length of platforms. The 707 cannot - they can only go up to 10 - which is not ideal.

bramling · 6 Apr 2025

SolomonSouth said:
Indeed, I agree. Siemens make the most reliable trains. The Desiros are far more reliable than the similarly-aged Electrostars, and Desiro Cities are better than basically every new train. The 700 had some issues but every single Aventra has had far worse issues.

The only stumbling block here is the Desiro City has not been made for a while, and I don't think Siemens would still have the parts/means available to make another one.

Whichever train they do make, it would be good to make the number of carriages a multiple of 12 - 3, 4, 6 etc - so they can use the full length of platforms. The 707 cannot - they can only go up to 10 - which is not ideal.

A word of caution on the Desiro City - as far as GN/TL goes, they haven’t been as reliable as promised. There may or may not be other unrelated reasons for this, for example maintenance arrangements, usage patterns not being exactly as originally envisaged, et cetera. But it’s still pretty common for diagrams to be cancelled due to non-availability of stock. To be fair they don’t seem to fail in service. GN’s 387 fleet seems to turn out better.

SolomonSouth · 6 Apr 2025

bramling said:
A word of caution on the Desiro City - as far as GN/TL goes, they haven’t been as reliable as promised. There may or may not be other unrelated reasons for this, for example maintenance arrangements, usage patterns not being exactly as originally envisaged, et cetera. But it’s still pretty common for diagrams to be cancelled due to non-availability of stock. To be fair they don’t seem to fail in service. GN’s 387 fleet seems to turn out better.

This is true. However, even if the 387 are more reliable, I still believe the Desiro City are still far more reliable than the 365s that used to operate on GN, and those survived 25 years, so the Desiro City could easily survive 30+.

One of my friends has Facebook and says that it is not unusual to see drivers and engineers constantly complaining about Networkers (or "Notworkers," as they are infamously known), so the Desiro Cities are still an improvement.

bramling · 6 Apr 2025

SolomonSouth said:
This is true. However, even if the 387 are more reliable, I still believe the Desiro City are still far more reliable than the 365s that used to operate on GN, and those survived 25 years, so the Desiro City could easily survive 30+.

One of my friends has Facebook and says that it is not unusual to see drivers and engineers constantly complaining about Networkers (or "Notworkers," as they are infamously known), so the Desiro Cities are still an improvement.

The 365s were pretty reliable for much of their life on GN. Diagrammed at 37 out of 40 for many years, which isn’t indicative of poor reliability, though 317/321 did have to cover occasionally.

I used 365s virtually daily from 1997 to 2020 and never had one fail in service, and only two delays caused by a defect on one - one was a defective cab air con, and the other was a defective speedometer, and both problems were able to be fixed.

The GN 365s benefited from being a later build than the 465s, and arguably Hornsey seemed to be much more on top of maintenance - as well as presentation.

SolomonSouth · 6 Apr 2025

bramling said:
The 365s were pretty reliable for much of their life on GN. Diagrammed at 37 out of 40 for many years, which isn’t indicative of poor reliability, though 317/321 did have to cover occasionally.

I used 365s virtually daily from 1997 to 2020 and never had one fail in service, and only two delays caused by a defect on one - one was a defective cab air con, and the other was a defective speedometer, and both problems were able to be fixed.

The GN 365s benefited from being a later build than the 465s, and arguably Hornsey seemed to be much more on top of maintenance - as well as presentation.

Interesting. Perhaps most of the complaints directed at "Networkers," are directed at 465s then. I thought they were very similar to 365 so it seems odd that the reliability would be so much worse. Still, I'm sure 365s were retired early for a good reason. The government wouldn't randomly bin perfectly good trains with 10+ years of life left. There must have been some kind of serious issue arising with the units.

Back on topic - I could see SE making a brand new design platform if they can't get ahold of Desiro Cities.

CAFs wouldn't work - they have many design issues with body cracking and low reliability, plus I'm not sure a DC third rail version of a 331 would work on SE as the carriage lengths are 24m and not 20m.

Now I think of it, Aventra coaches are not 20m either, so this wouldn't be ideal.

FLIRTs - could a third rail version of the 755 work? Perhaps (excluding the power pack).

D365 · 6 Apr 2025

SolomonSouth said:
Still, I'm sure 365s were retired early for a good reason. The government wouldn't randomly bin perfectly good trains with 10+ years of life left. There must have been some kind of serious issue arising with the units.

Surplus to requirements post-COVID.

brad465 · 6 Apr 2025

D365 said:
Surplus to requirements post-COVID.

And the only fleet left IIRC with GN requiring DOO monitors. This is another reason I can see Southeastern wanting the 376s gone before long: after Networker replacement the 376s would be the only fleet left needing DOO platform monitors, but if they can get rid of the 376s too, I think Southeastern could do away with all its platform monitors.

stadler · 6 Apr 2025

brad465 said:
And the only fleet left IIRC with GN requiring DOO monitors. This is another reason I can see Southeastern wanting the 376s gone before long: after Networker replacement the 376s would be the only fleet left needing DOO platform monitors, but if they can get rid of the 376s too, I think Southeastern could do away with all its platform monitors.

The 375s still require the use of platform DOO monitors. They would need to replace the 375s or retrofit the 375s with cameras if they wanted to get rid of all platform monitors. Although considering that the almost identical 377s have DOO cameras it should not be too difficult to retrofit.

brad465 · 6 Apr 2025

stadler said:
The 375s still require the use of platform DOO monitors. They would need to replace the 375s or retrofit the 375s with cameras if they wanted to get rid of all platform monitors. Although considering that the almost identical 377s have DOO cameras it should not be too difficult to retrofit.

Good point, although they might be able to massively scale back the extent of DOO monitors on the network (they could remove them from all the lines feeding into Dartford and the Hayes' line for example). I believe the DOO cameras on 377s are what is stopping them going through Shakespeare tunnel to Dover though, so either tests need to be done that confirms having these cameras is actually fine, or some other mitigation would have to occur to allow 375s with retrofitted cameras to use the tunnel to Dover.

SolomonSouth · 7 Apr 2025

The tender is 350 to 640 carriages. I imagine that Southeastern will be pushing for around 600 carriages, as they can use the most 12-car trains then - by ordering 3, 4 or 6 coach trains and coupling them. I doubt they would order 12 coach trains. (600 is the highest round number in that range that is a multiple of 12). Also, the 465 and 466 still remaining are significantly short of 600 carriages, so it would be a net gain - which they will probably need given that travel demand is only increasing post-COVID.

Mikey C · 7 Apr 2025

SolomonSouth said:
Now I think of it, Aventra coaches are not 20m either, so this wouldn't be ideal.

The 701s and 710 are 20m units.

SolomonSouth · 7 Apr 2025

Mikey C said:
The 701s and 710 are 20m units.

Hmm, so something similar could be used to replace 465s then.

JonathanH · 7 Apr 2025

SolomonSouth said:
Hmm, so something similar could be used to replace 465s then.

You'd imagine that something closer to a 710 is going to be more appropriate than something close to a 701 in terns of interior specification.

Mikey C · 7 Apr 2025

JonathanH said:
You'd imagine that something closer to a 710 is going to be more appropriate than something close to a 701 in terns of interior specification.

I would have thought the opposite! After all the 701s have a pretty similar interior to the 707s, with "normal" seating but plenty of standing space.

SolomonSouth · 9 Apr 2025

Mikey C said:
I would have thought the opposite! After all the 701s have a pretty similar interior to the 707s, with "normal" seating but plenty of standing space.

A 701 interior wouldn't be bad on Southeastern metro, in all fairness. It would be far roomier than a 465 interior, and would also provide more seats than a 376 interior, whilst also having tables.

Sutton in Ant · 9 Apr 2025

I would think that Southeastern Railway will order something similar to a 730, which operates on WMR and soon, LNWR.

vuzzeho · 9 Apr 2025

I'm actually not sure whether or not Alstom even offers the Aventra anymore. Looking on their website, they only list the Adessia platform now, although they have the 710s and 345s as case studies, still with the Aventra name. I think they're more interested in putting forward a British Adessia now.

TT-ONR-NRN · 10 Apr 2025

vuzzeho said:
I'm actually not sure whether or not Alstom even offers the Aventra anymore. Looking on their website, they only list the Adessia platform now, although they have the 710s and 345s as case studies, still with the Aventra name. I think they're more interested in putting forward a British Adessia now.

To be fair, it was never their design, rather Bombardier offered it at the time they acquired them, so it then became known as an Alstom product. So it wouldn’t surprise me if they want to push ahead with a new design of their own.

YorkshireBear · 10 Apr 2025

vuzzeho said:
I'm actually not sure whether or not Alstom even offers the Aventra anymore. Looking on their website, they only list the Adessia platform now, although they have the 710s and 345s as case studies, still with the Aventra name. I think they're more interested in putting forward a British Adessia now.

I think if I remember the Green Signals interview with the head of Alston UK he said the same. Which is why the Cross rail order at the time was so important as they were close to shutting down that platform as well as the factory workload.

D365 · 10 Apr 2025

TT-ONR-NRN said:
To be fair, it was never their design, rather Bombardier offered it at the time they acquired them, so it then became known as an Alstom product. So it wouldn’t surprise me if they want to push ahead with a new design of their own.

Derby was already working on new rolling stock platforms and bids at the time of Bombardier’s acquisition (e.g. EMR InterCity). I believe that the Derby design efforts have been folded into the Alstom ’Adessia’ offering.

What trains will Southeastern order to replace the Networkers?

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member