More Class 170s/171s for Southern??

[Class172]

LM are of highest risk of having their units leased by New franchises before the ITT goes out for a new LM franchise. They also have 170s!

hock:

Indeed, well spotted, I do think you have found the 'solution' which will be imposed! Some nice 3-car 170s for Marshlink with the 2-car 171s shuffled off to Uckfield, whilst meanwhile several hundred angry punters get left behind in the West Midlands...

And what do you offer in as compensation (don't say pacers)?

 

[158722]

hock:



And what do you offer in as compensation (don't say pacers)?

You jest, but instead of Northern dumping Pacers in the scrap bin when displaced by 319s, they are forced to retain them, with their otherwise spare DMU capacity being used to shift a load of ex-LM 150s back to the West Midlands to allow the 170s to head south...

 

[Blindtraveler]

Youve all overlooked the fact that the Edinburgh Glasgow QS Wires will when complete free up 24 170s and indeed it seams pritty certain that the earliest batch will go. The fact they havnt refurbed thems a giveaway!

 

[158722]

Youve all overlooked the fact that the Edinburgh Glasgow QS Wires will when complete free up 24 170s and indeed it seams pritty certain that the earliest batch will go. The fact they havnt refurbed thems a giveaway!

16 170s maximum and the general consensus is 156s and 158s will be heading south, not the 170s which are seen as the pride of the fleet. Those 24 were refurbished a couple of years earlier than the rest, admittedly no doubt due for work again around when due to be displaced, as you say.

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps the Uckfield Line trains will run to something like this during the peak:

• Uckfield-London Bridge (1tph)
  • 4-Car Uckfield-Oxted
  • 10-Car Oxted-London Bridge
• Uckfield-Oxted (1tph)
  • 4-Car
  • Connects with East Grinstead-London Bridge service

I think that this service level could be achieved with the present number of 171s on the Uckfield line. I don't know how busy the trains are so I do not know if 4-car trains is long enough for the Uckfield to Oxted section.

 

[LM 170]

Youve all overlooked the fact that the Edinburgh Glasgow QS Wires will when complete free up 24 170s and indeed it seams pritty certain that the earliest batch will go. The fact they havnt refurbed thems a giveaway!

Thank You some one finally remembered that ScotRail has a hell of a lot of 3 Car Class 170s. The thing with ScotRail is there's a lot of new wires and brand new Class 380s etc. But no stock is heading south of the boarder?

 

[158722]

Thank You some one finally remembered that ScotRail has a hell of a lot of 3 Car Class 170s. The thing with ScotRail is there's a lot of new wires and brand new Class 380s etc. But no stock is heading south of the boarder?

That has been said many times and refuted just as frequently. ScotRail will most likely be able to release 12 or so units from 2016 when the E&G goes electric with more DMUs, likely 156s and 158s, when Stirling, etc goes live and the Glasgow south projects get completed in 2018/19. 40-50 units by the end of the decade.

 

[nomis1066]

It is, potentially, an awful lot of cash just to get to Hastings 20 mins or so quicker from London, and run longer trains on a branch line that sees 2 carriages an hour.

Especially when much the same result could be got running an hourly fast Hastings - London Bridge service (with some clever timetabling) and doing something clever to get a couple of extra carriages on the Marshlink.

Hastings to Charing Cross route is stuffed to the gills with trains at the business end and clever timetabling unravels all too quickly with snowballing delays in no time. Electrifying the two diesel routes is pure common sense - the Uckfield line is now well used and will be even more so if the missing seven miles to Lewes see trains again. Give people a decent direct service and they will use it.

Exactly the same applies to the route via Rye which will benefit like the Uckfield line did if it's plugged properly into the network. It's not just about speeding up Hastings to London times - there are far more benefits than just that. And by properly, I mean electrified and restored to double track so you can operate a proper railway.

And no more of the myth about the South East getting all the funding at the expense of the North etc - very little has been done south of the river in terms of new railway other than platform 7 at Gatwick - and even those benefits are negated to an extent by restrictive route locking that we didn't have prior to platform 7 opening. The Kent and Sussex mainlines remain with long two line bottlenecks.

As for new diesel stock, we are already seeing how that works these days - Peter (TPE) being robbed to pay Paul (Chiltern). Government interference in rolling stock procurement plus total incompetence has left us where we are.

All I can see short term for Marshlink, is some extra 377s becoming available when the delayed 700s turn up - and run a Brighton Hastings service with a cross platform connection at Hastings where the two car diesels operate a shuttle to Ashford. But even that would be at least two years away which is no way to solve the overcrowding problems of today.

 

[TEW]

If the only difference is the coupler, could all the 170s or all the 171s (whichever there is the smaller number off around the country) have their couplers replaced so that all use the same coupling type?

There is a logic to the 170s and 171s having different couplers. 170s have BSI couplers so they can couple with 15x units and 171s have Dellner couplers so they can rescue/be rescued in an emergency by 377s.

 

[Surreyman]

Build some Bi-Modes!
New DC EMUs with a diesel engine(s), yes I know there have ben issues around latest emissions/size & space but I am sure these could be overcome.
Could also be used on Marshlink.
An AC version would have many more possible routes.

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed, well spotted, I do think you have found the 'solution' which will be imposed! Some nice 3-car 170s for Marshlink with the 2-car 171s shuffled off to Uckfield, whilst meanwhile several hundred angry punters get left behind in the West Midlands...

What could be more worrying for them is Rail North have requested the Northern franchise spec states Pacers and 150s will be replaced over the course of the next Northern franchise. Guess which type of DMU is cheapest to operate out of the other Sprinters, the Turbostars, the Desiros and the Coradias? It's the 172s so if the DfT state they want the next Northern franchise to be more cost effective then getting hold of as many 172s as possible would help achieve that target. Getting hold of 185s released by North TPE electrification (set to be December 2018), which would be another option but would be a lot less cost effective.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You jest, but instead of Northern dumping Pacers in the scrap bin when displaced by 319s, they are forced to retain them, with their otherwise spare DMU capacity being used to shift a load of ex-LM 150s back to the West Midlands to allow the 170s to head south...

I doubt any Pacers will be heading for the scrap bin until at least the December 2018 timetable change as there's so much extra capacity needed on routes not being electrified. Remember the 319s being cascaded to Northern and FGW was supposed to provide additional capacity to the network not to provide Pacer replacements.

 

[Grumpy]

Youve all overlooked the fact that the Edinburgh Glasgow QS Wires will when complete free up 24 170s and indeed it seams pritty certain that the earliest batch will go. The fact they havnt refurbed thems a giveaway!

I wonder why the Government haven't suggested sending 319's to Scotland. Just the job for Edinburgh-Glasgow QS. Should go down well with the local politicians.

 

[Chrisgr31]

LM are of highest risk of having their units leased by New franchises before the ITT goes out for a new LM franchise. They also have 170s!

Of course LM are a GOVIA franchise so it makes the swap even easier.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

will be nice to drive some different 170s (171s).... I know 171801-806 too well. 171804 was causing me grief this morning!

Wonder if that is the same unit that was causing grief yesterday, although I believe several were playing up yesterday, the approx 7:05 ex Uckfield and the 18:08 ex LBG were 6 not 8 carriages yesterday due to a faulty unit and Twitter was suggesting the 14:08 ex LBG was cancelled yesterday due to a faulty unit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 'obvious' solution, as had been said before, is to raise ticket prices on the Uckfield line to a level comparable to adjacent routes, such that customers who drive to Buxted / Eridge etc from these lines to save over £1000 a year go back to commuting on the lines they should be. That generates more empty seats on the Uckfield line in the peak than 10 car trains, and leaves the diesel trains where they are needed.

Needless to say as a passenger on the line I can agree that it would not be a particularly popular option! It also of course ignores the fact that a significant number of people who should be Uckfield line passangers as thats there nearest options drive to stations on the Brighton mainline or Tunbridge Wells because the service from those options is quicker and more frequent even if it costs more. Increase the Uckfield Line prices and more people will be driving to those lines so you'd have a double whammy adding to congestion there.

it was interesting that during the Oxted landslip I was leaving my house in Crowborough at the same time as I usually would to catch the Uckfield Line train, instead I caught the 29 bus to T Wells, and train to London, arriving in London at the same time as I would usually!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps the Uckfield Line trains will run to something like this during the peak:

• Uckfield-London Bridge (1tph)
  • 4-Car Uckfield-Oxted
  • 10-Car Oxted-London Bridge
• Uckfield-Oxted (1tph)
  • 4-Car
  • Connects with East Grinstead-London Bridge service

I think that this service level could be achieved with the present number of 171s on the Uckfield line. I don't know how busy the trains are so I do not know if 4-car trains is long enough for the Uckfield to Oxted section.

Most of the peak hour trains are standing room only from Eridge or Edenbridge and same in reverse therefore reducing them to 4 cars would not be a particularly popular move. Changing at Oxted is not ideal as its not uncommon for the conenctions to go, although its becoming more popular purely due to the overcrowding on the 18.08 ex LBG.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If they upgraded the track and returned it to twin track then the existing 171s could spend longer at full speed, although not sure this would speed up the service sufficiently toenable them to do enough return journeys!

 

[Class172]

It's the 172s so if the DfT state they want the next Northern franchise to be more cost effective then getting hold of as many 172s as possible would help achieve that target. Getting hold of 185s released by North TPE electrification (set to be December 2018), which would be another option but would be a lot less cost effective.

New build or existing 172s - if existing then surely you are advocating the electrification of the Snow Hill Lines, otherwise it would not go down well if 3-year old trains were removed from their intended route?

 

[northwichcat]

New build or existing 172s - if existing then surely you are advocating the electrification of the Snow Hill Lines, otherwise it would not go down well if 3-year old trains were removed from their intended route?

Have you not heard what's happened with the 170/3s? I'm suggesting the same thing could happen again as DfT seem happy to let contracts to be negotiated between TOCs and ROSCOs without DfT involvement, even if the said units won't be surplus to requirements at the lease end date.

LM's units have lease expiry dates in September 2015 and Porterbrook have produced a brochure advertising their 172s to interested parties: http://www.porterbrook.com/downloads/brochures/172 Brochure.pdf So operator x could come along and say "Can we lease your 172/2s and 172/3s in time for the December 2015 timetable change for a period of around 10 years", Porterbrook will say "Certainly. That'll cost you £x."

The 172s will be 5 years old by then - the same sort of age the SWT 170s were when they were replaced by cascaded 158s, or the newer CT 170s were when they were replaced by 158s on the Liverpool-Norwich route. It's not uncommon for newer stock to be replaced by older stock.

 

[Class172]

The 172s will be 5 years old by then - the same sort of age the SWT 170s were when they were replaced by cascaded 158s, or the newer CT 170s were when they were replaced by 158s on the Liverpool-Norwich route. It's not uncommon for newer stock to be replaced by older stock.

But what would replace the 172s, I can only think of 150s... everyone around here thinks we've rid of those now.

We'll have to wait and see what sort of shambles happens come next year.

(The 172s will be 4 years old in Sept 2015, since they were built over the summer/autumn 2011)

 

[physics34]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Wonder if that is the same unit that was causing grief yesterday, although I believe several were playing up yesterday, the approx 7:05 ex Uckfield and the 18:08 ex LBG were 6 not 8 carriages yesterday due to a faulty unit and Twitter was suggesting the 14:08 ex LBG was cancelled yesterday due to a faulty unit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mine was the 08.04 ex-uckfield, I was aware the 8 car was only 6 car yesterday as we spoke about it in the drivers lobby!

 

[Chrisgr31]

Have you not heard what's happened with the 170/3s? I'm suggesting the same thing could happen again as DfT seem happy to let contracts to be negotiated between TOCs and ROSCOs without DfT involvement, even if the said units won't be surplus to requirements at the lease end date.

LM's units have lease expiry dates in September 2015 and Porterbrook have produced a brochure advertising their 172s to interested parties: http://www.porterbrook.com/downloads/brochures/172 Brochure.pdf So operator x could come along and say "Can we lease your 172/2s and 172/3s in time for the December 2015 timetable change for a period of around 10 years", Porterbrook will say "Certainly. That'll cost you £x."

The 172s will be 5 years old by then - the same sort of age the SWT 170s were when they were replaced by cascaded 158s, or the newer CT 170s were when they were replaced by 158s on the Liverpool-Norwich route. It's not uncommon for newer stock to be replaced by older stock.

Looking at the Portbrook brochure the compatibility with the Class 171's is mentioned several times and mere requires a coupler change, and it appears the external paintwork is almost in Southern Colours already!

In fact with clever scheduling you could run those on the Uckfield line already as they have end gangways and you wouldnt have the problem of people being trapped in units that are off the end of the platform!

 

[northwichcat]

(The 172s will be 4 years old in Sept 2015, since they were built over the summer/autumn 2011)

I was actually looking at the introduction date of the LO 172s not the LM 172s when I said 5 years.

Looking at the Portbrook brochure the compatibility with the Class 171's is mentioned several times and mere requires a coupler change, and it appears the external paintwork is almost in Southern Colours already!

Of course Govia may propose a brand new colour scheme for the 171s.

One thing to note is that the TOC would be required to fund the change to make them compatible, while with the 319s Porterbrook are willing to fund changes provided an operator signs a long enough lease for them - Northern are only currently able to offer short term leases.

 

[al.currie93]

The correct answer is, of course, no more 170/171s to Southern. As suggested countless times, the solution is to electrify both Marshlink (overhead) and Uckfield (3rd rail) to eliminate these diesel lands.

I doubt Uckfield will be electrified for a long time, as the cost of extending the distribution circuit to simply get the electricity to the proposed railway substations is extortionate. May be surprised though!

 

[Wolfie]

LM are of highest risk of having their units leased by New franchises before the ITT goes out for a new LM franchise. They also have 170s!

If you wish me (a Whitehall insider albeit not in transport) to be VERY cynical the West Midlands is also one of the areas of the country with lots of marginal constituencies (far more than the North West). To use a Sir Humphrey-ism it would be a "very brave" coalition minister who allowed such a move to proceed with a general election due next year.....

 

[A0]

The 172s will be 5 years old by then - the same sort of age the SWT 170s were when they were replaced by cascaded 158s, or the newer CT 170s were when they were replaced by 158s on the Liverpool-Norwich route. It's not uncommon for newer stock to be replaced by older stock.

Agree it's not uncommon, but it's usually happened for operational reasons.

In the case of SWT the replacement of the 170s removed a small 'sub class' of DMU and replaced it with a unit which, to all intents and purposes, was identical to the rest of the DMU fleet they already ran.

In the case of Liverpool - Norwich - this happened when Central Trains was broken up and this service passed to EMT which made sense given its route ran through EMT's core operating area. Again, EMT didn't receive 170s and did have 158s. Also - don't 158s have a greater seating capacity than a 170?

 

[northwichcat]

In the case of Liverpool - Norwich - this happened when Central Trains was broken up and this service passed to EMT which made sense given its route ran through EMT's core operating area. Again, EMT didn't receive 170s and did have 158s. Also - don't 158s have a greater seating capacity than a 170?

Well under Central Liverpool-Norwich got between 2 and 5 cars which was 158s on some services and 170s on others. When the next franchise was awarded CT removed the 170s from Liverpool-Norwich in preparation for the next franchise. EMT refitted the 158s to have less table and facing seats to increase the overall capacity.