Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[WatcherZero]

Yes edwins right, the priority requirement for fencing on 3rd rail is safety whereas on OHLE its security. If their doing work they might as well fit fencing at the same time to try and reduce trespass and its negative impact on service reliability.

 

[Fincra5]

Stick a few 3 Cars on the Ashford Branch, free up a couple of 2 cars 171s to join 4 Cars. Then use some 3 cars in 6 car formations or to make 10, 2 x3 + 1x 4..

LM's 172's are more ideal for the Uckfield Branch... means the guard can actually walk the whole train!

 

[Class83]

If the lease is up the lease is up. Transpennine is losing its Turbostars against its will and its was already struggling desperately for rolling stock. In comparison, right now Scotrail has perhaps five DMUs that are surplus to capacity.

If Scotrail has 5 DMUs surplus to capacity, why are they running loco hauled extras in the peaks? If true, it just seems another example of the tradition of robbing Peter to pay Paul and as usual Paul is in the South East of England.

 

[Chrisgr31]

http://www.courier.co.uk/end-line-c...tory-23260449-detail/story.html#ixzz3Ga79lXLE

very poorly written piece!

I spoke to the reporter today. She was very insistent that the letter states that there is to be addional rolling stock on the Uckfield Line in July 2015.

 

[physics34]

I spoke to the reporter today. She was very insistent that the letter states that there is to be addional rolling stock on the Uckfield Line in July 2015.

Ah thats good. I was more commenting on the errors in the article such as; all trains are 5 car, and the bit about the East London Line!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Stick a few 3 Cars on the Ashford Branch, free up a couple of 2 cars 171s to join 4 Cars. Then use some 3 cars in 6 car formations or to make 10, 2 x3 + 1x 4..

LM's 172's are more ideal for the Uckfield Branch... means the guard can actually walk the whole train!

Really though the wisest move was to do a 172 add-on to the LM order for the uckfield/ashford line, and then send the 171s elsewhere where they are needed.

Alas, nobody thought of it!

 

[Altnabreac]

Are there any extra 158s Scotrail might be getting? Could see the long term logic of reducing to 2 different DMU classes and if Scotrail were signing up more 158s they could dispose of some 170s next year?

Otherwise it's hard to see where more than 2-3 units are coming from in the Scotrail fleet short term.

 

[WatcherZero]

Northern would probably be happy to swap some 158's for 170's :P

Some doubled up formation diagrams could go back to single unit again.

 

[bramling]

http://www.courier.co.uk/end-line-c...tory-23260449-detail/story.html#ixzz3Ga79lXLE

very poorly written piece!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


im not sure third rail is cheaper to install? Its cheaper to maintain though.

Overhead AC has been mentioned ...probably just silly rumours though,

although according to a network rail guy who travelled in my cab a few weeks ago, if third rail was installed, miles and miles of new fencing would have to be put up to conform to regulations!

I can't believe 3rd rail on the Uckfield line would be massively expensive. Basically the cost would be for about 6-7 substations, third rail and cabling, plus support services like fencing etc. I'd hope the signalling not to require massive modification as that all dates from the 1990s.

The biggest issue at present is the idea of converting the entire 3rd-rail system to 25KVAC, imposing the equivalent of planning blight. No one can commit to any kind of 3rd rail infill until this issue is resolved. Infilling with 25KVAC is not ideal for short lines like Uckfield, as you have the cost of a dedicated supply point, plus the equipment required for the AC/DC interface. Just about tolerable for a dead-end stub line, but certainly not for North Downs where you would end up with 4 interfaces, most of which in awkward locations.

On the subject of Southern class 171s, it was always ridiculous to order these trains with 2 and 4 car variants. The 2 cars are always chronically overcrowded on Ashford - Brighton, and when working in multiple results in wasted cab space. The fleet needs expanding somehow, preferably with all units being minimum 3 cars.

 

[Chrisgr31]

At the time the 171's were ordered I think many thought it was a daft idea as the Uckfield Line has very few passengers and it should be closed!

It's a classic example of proving how successful a reliable service that actually goes where people want to go at a price they can afford can be.

It's a shame that Arriva don't have the same approach on the buses that serve some of the stations on the route as that might solve some of the parking issues.

Having travelled on the 11.45 from Crowborough the other day it would appear some of the off peak services are getting busy. Perhaps they need to run 4 and 3 car units on the Uckfield line sending the 2 car ones down to enhance the Marsh line.

Wonder how many additional units Southern are getting (if any). They could do with an additional spare unit as well, as too often units are short/canceled due to lack of stock.

 

[D6975]

How long are the platforms at the stations along the Uckfield line?

From what I can see by crudely measuring on Google Earth, quite a few seem to be about 6-7 coaches long, which means SDO is necessary for 2x4 cars that currently work some services.
Using 10 car rakes would mean drawing up - I can't see that happening.
Unless the platforms have been recently lengthened that is, of course.

 

[hwl]

How long are the platforms at the stations along the Uckfield line?

From what I can see by crudely measuring on Google Earth, quite a few seem to be about 6-7 coaches long, which means SDO is necessary for 2x4 cars that currently work some services.
Using 10 car rakes would mean drawing up - I can't see that happening.
Unless the platforms have been recently lengthened that is, of course.

Platform lengthening is due to start soon.
I think someone on here report initial vegetation etc. clearance for surveys taking place recently.

 

[swt_passenger]

The main point of the project is to provide full length trains on the part of the route nearer London. Because with this particular DMU stock 10 x 23m is the practical length limit into London Bridge, and because they don't have end gangways, making SDO unacceptable, the platforms are being lengthened.

The CP5 enhancements plan also mentions that they do not expect actual usage on the stations on the Uckfield line to increase.

 

[northwichcat]

Really though the wisest move was to do a 172 add-on to the LM order for the uckfield/ashford line, and then send the 171s elsewhere where they are needed.

Alas, nobody thought of it!

That's because everyone was looking at electrification - both 3rd rail and OHE, then Network Rail decided the cost:benefit ratio for electrification was poor compared to other routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Northern would probably be happy to swap some 158's for 170's :P

Some doubled up formation diagrams could go back to single unit again.

What's interesting is Network Rail's platform lengthening plans include platforms to take 4 x 24m* trains on the Hope Valley and Mid-Cheshire lines. Although, that was proposed before Chiltern got their paws on the TPE 170s.

* They class modern stock which has something like 23.8m carriages as 24m, while classing 153/155/156/158/159s as 23m.

 

[physics34]

How long are the platforms at the stations along the Uckfield line?

From what I can see by crudely measuring on Google Earth, quite a few seem to be about 6-7 coaches long, which means SDO is necessary for 2x4 cars that currently work some services.
Using 10 car rakes would mean drawing up - I can't see that happening.
Unless the platforms have been recently lengthened that is, of course.

Edenbridge Town 5 car
Hever 5 car
Cowden 5 car
Ashurst 5 car
Eridge 5 car
Crowborough 6 car
Buxted 5 car
Uckfield 8 car.

(going by 171 coach length)

Yeah and platform extension work to 10 car is expected to start in the spring,

 

[Helvellyn]

What's interesting is Network Rail's platform lengthening plans include platforms to take 4 x 24m* trains on the Hope Valley and Mid-Cheshire lines.

Could simply be a case of future proofing given that it is now known new build DMU stock will be next to non-existant. Therefore cascades will be the order of the day. Why lengthen a platform to take 4 x 23m trains only to have to go the cost of further extensions if needed for 4 x 24m trains?

 

[158756]

Could simply be a case of future proofing given that it is now known new build DMU stock will be next to non-existant. Therefore cascades will be the order of the day. Why lengthen a platform to take 4 x 23m trains only to have to go the cost of further extensions if needed for 4 x 24m trains?

They are however planning extensions to 4x23m on several other lines. How expensive is the extra 4 metres?

 

[Class83]

That's because everyone was looking at electrification - both 3rd rail and OHE, then Network Rail decided the cost:benefit ratio for electrification was poor compared to other routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What's interesting is Network Rail's platform lengthening plans include platforms to take 4 x 24m* trains on the Hope Valley and Mid-Cheshire lines. Although, that was proposed before Chiltern got their paws on the TPE 170s.

* They class modern stock which has something like 23.8m carriages as 24m, while classing 153/155/156/158/159s as 23m.

So presumably ex Scotrail 156s are the plan as 170s & 185s are 3 car so 4 car platforms are pretty useless.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The main point of the project is to provide full length trains on the part of the route nearer London. Because with this particular DMU stock 10 x 23m is the practical length limit into London Bridge, and because they don't have end gangways, making SDO unacceptable, the platforms are being lengthened.

The CP5 enhancements plan also mentions that they do not expect actual usage on the stations on the Uckfield line to increase.

Whats does the part of the route near London mean? Many of the existing peak hour trains are standing room only before they get as far as Edenbridge and all are standing room only leaving Edenbridge. Currently all the diesels are fast from Oxted to London Bridge only stopping at East Croydon.

At the moment they use door selection as several of the trains are too long for most of the platforms they call at. However with the existing stock being made up of 4 and 2 car units the platforms for a 10 car train need to be at least 9 car long, and once they are 9 there's a minimal cost in making them 10.

 

[WatcherZero]

They are however planning extensions to 4x23m on several other lines. How expensive is the extra 4 metres?

More than you would expect, however a lot less expensive than doing it twice.

I think their just future proofing rather than working with foreknowledge, they try and predict what rolling stock will be used but ultimately its the franchise which tells them what capacity they require and then their legally obliged to provide it.

 

[hassaanhc]

Whats does the part of the route near London mean? Many of the existing peak hour trains are standing room only before they get as far as Edenbridge and all are standing room only leaving Edenbridge. Currently all the diesels are fast from Oxted to London Bridge only stopping at East Croydon.

At the moment they use door selection as several of the trains are too long for most of the platforms they call at. However with the existing stock being made up of 4 and 2 car units the platforms for a 10 car train need to be at least 9 car long, and once they are 9 there's a minimal cost in making them 10.

Put the 2-car in the middle so only 7 cars have to fit?

 

[swt_passenger]

Whats does the part of the route near London mean? Many of the existing peak hour trains are standing room only before they get as far as Edenbridge and all are standing room only leaving Edenbridge. .

I can only quote Network Rail's definition of the project:

The key output is the provision of extra capacity between East Croydon and London Bridge, and on the Oxted Line by enabling 10-car trains to operate.

[and...]

The project’s primary aim is to provide additional train capacity to be utilised further towards London, it is therefore assumed the project will not result in large numbers of additional passengers using the Uckfield Line over and above established growth projections and provision of additional passenger facilities at these locations will not be required as part of this scheme.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I can only quote Network Rail's definition of the project:

I guess what they mean is that it is to provide seating for those that are currently standing, which makes sense as on some trains people are standing for an hour. Whether it will attract additional growth is more difficult to determine. If fares on alternative options continue to rise at a faster rate I can see more people trying it, also if salaries don't increase I can see more people using it. The £1,000 to £1,500 saving out of taxed income is worth having if you have fixed travel times.

Hopefully we'll find out in July what will happen!

 

[northwichcat]

So presumably ex Scotrail 156s are the plan as 170s & 185s are 3 car so 4 car platforms are pretty useless.

As the plan is:

Platform lengthening at the stations identified :
 4x 24m car length at Mossley Down, Greenfield Down, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Mouldsworth, Delamere, Cuddington, Greenbank, Plumley Down, Ashley Down, Hathersage and Grindleford
 4 x 23m car length at Dove Holes, Chapel-en-le Frith, Middlewood, Woodsmoor, Humphrey Park, Glazebrook Down, New Lane, Bescar Lane, Moses Gate, Hall i’th’wood, Darwen, Ramsgreave & Wilpshire, Langho, Whalley and Clitheroe
 6 x 24m car length at Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows
 3 x 23m car at Bamber Bridge Up

I think that suggests:
* 4 car 156s for the Southport and Buxton lines.
* 4 car Turbostars on the Hope Valley line.
* 4 car Turbostars or 175s on the Mid Cheshire line.
* 4 car 170s on the Manchester-Selby/Hull semi-fasts (which will stop at stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield)
* 6 car 185s on Liverpool-Sheffield services
* York-Blackpool services (operated by 3 car 158s) calling at Bamber Bridge.

Of course it doesn't rule out shorter trains but does rule out longer trains unless the plans change. It also pre-dates Chiltern taking on the 170/3s that were planned to be used on the Manchester-Selby/Hull semi-fasts pre-electrification.

As 170s can operate in 2, 3 and 4 car formations, it's possible for Scotrail to release 3 car 170s and a different operator to take the centre cars to the one which takes the driving cars. Some of the ex-TPE 3 car 158s are at EMT but the centre cars were sent to Northern and inserted in the ex-FNW 158s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

More than you would expect, however a lot less expensive than doing it twice.

I think their just future proofing rather than working with foreknowledge, they try and predict what rolling stock will be used but ultimately its the franchise which tells them what capacity they require and then their legally obliged to provide it.

With the Mid-Cheshire line there are 25 platforms at stations between Mouldsworth and Navigation Road and 15 of those could already take 4 x 24. If the stations with the longer platforms had 94m trains it might be a different story. I don't know how that compares to the Buxton and Southport lines.

It was noted in a RUS that the Hope Valley and Mid-Cheshire lines were suitable lines to cascade 'regional style' DMUs down to, yet for the Buxton and Southport lines it was noted they needed high density seating.

 

[physics34]

Confirmed today that "4 x class 170s" are to be leased by southern, but overhauled first. 10 car trains will not be possible until the platforms are lengthened, discussioned are being held with network rail to ensure this is completed in the earliest possible time", says the southern staff brief.

 

[JonathanH]

Confirmed today that "4 x class 170s" are to be leased by southern, but overhauled first. 10 car trains will not be possible until the platforms are lengthened, discussioned are being held with network rail to ensure this is completed in the earliest possible time", says the southern staff brief.

If it is four 170s, then that lends weight to the theory that they would be 170393-396. Presumably they will follow 170392 becoming 171730 and be renumbered as 171s.

 

[samogers]

How long are the platforms at the stations along the Uckfield line?

From what I can see by crudely measuring on Google Earth, quite a few seem to be about 6-7 coaches long, which means SDO is necessary for 2x4 cars that currently work some services.
Using 10 car rakes would mean drawing up - I can't see that happening.
Unless the platforms have been recently lengthened that is, of course.

Uckfield - 8 car 171 (8 x 23m)
Buxted, Eridge, Ashurst, cowden, hever, Edenbridge town - 5 car 171
Crowborough - 6 car

 

[Class83]

Confirmed today that "4 x class 170s" are to be leased by southern, but overhauled first. 10 car trains will not be possible until the platforms are lengthened, discussioned are being held with network rail to ensure this is completed in the earliest possible time", says the southern staff brief.

Turbostars need a whole lot less 'overhauling' than 319s, or does 'overhaul' now mean, 'revinyl'. Any news on what is to replace them at Scotrail?

 

[physics34]

Turbostars need a whole lot less 'overhauling' than 319s, or does 'overhaul' now mean, 'revinyl'. Any news on what is to replace them at Scotrail?

just quoting what was said on the item in the staff brief. I think these unit have 171 style seating so thats also a plus i suppose.

Yeh can't see them running around in that scotrail livery with southern!

No news on replacements

 

[westcoaster]

Not knowing exact numbers could some of the 4 car units give up a coach to the 2 car units. So you have 3 and 4 car units 2x3+ a 4 to make ten coach train, also could that help overcrowding on the brighton ashford services, not sure the platforms are long enough at the ashford end of the line.

 

[bramling]

Not knowing exact numbers could some of the 4 car units give up a coach to the 2 car units. So you have 3 and 4 car units 2x3+ a 4 to make ten coach train, also could that help overcrowding on the brighton ashford services, not sure the platforms are long enough at the ashford end of the line.

I make it 10x2 and 6x4. Add in 4x3, gives scope for:

16x3
4x2

This would allow 2x 10 car formations for the peaks, although at the risk of requiring all the 2 car units to be in traffic.

Perhaps we're more likely to see the 3 car units reformed into 4 cars to give

8x4
12x2

This would allow more 10 car trains to be formed up, and might allow at least some of the Ashford-Brighton trains to be made up of either 1x4 or 2x2, although without working out potential diagrams this could be asking too much. It might work is Ashford-Brighton was cut back to Ashford-Eastbourne however.

The other possibility is the Scotrail ones stay as they are and work Ashford-Brighton, allowing the 2-car units to be added to Uckfield diagrams.

Whichever way it ends up, it's all a bit messy as there's a lot of space being wasted with too many driving cabs and more toilets than required. They would be better with just 3-car and 4-car units, but they would need quite a few more centre cars to make all the 2-cars up to 3.