Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[TheJRB]

Sadly it seems theses units won't result in better Marshlink capacity I'm told. Its mental how busy it is!

Hmm... maybe time to start writing to Damian Green then!

 

[Chrisgr31]

Regarding the bit about certain trains not being able to serve certain stations if it means a no part of a unit can access that platform -- I really don't see why this is such a major issue. Uckfield is very much a 'regulars' line, more so than many other lines I don't think this would in practice be a major issue, certainly not after a short bedding-in period.

You'd be surprised. I reckon on average twice a week someone fails to get off the 18.08 at their required stop as they haven't moved up from the rear carriages in time.

Its probably not a problem at Crowborough because the dwell time is so long as passngers queue through the rear carriages to get off.

But most evenings we have someone rum through at Edenbridge, Cowden or Eridge and frequently they dont make it.


On a separate note the change in length will I think have a significant impact in the morning peak. There are a significant number of people who catch the 7.08 Uckfield because it is 8 carriages and has more space, but they would prefer to be on the 6.30 ex Uckfield. So i expect that will still be very busy.

 

[158722]

Is the story I've heard that the TPE 170s are not moving to Chiltern linked in anyway with the 4x 170s to Southern move? If the idea was that TPE gets 8x 158s from ScotRail to substitute the 170s, perhaps this can't go ahead before 2016/17 as ScotRail can't give up that many units?

 

[northwichcat]

Is the story I've heard that the TPE 170s are not moving to Chiltern linked in anyway with the 4x 170s to Southern move? If the idea was that TPE gets 8x 158s from ScotRail to substitute the 170s, perhaps this can't go ahead before 2016/17 as ScotRail can't give up that many units?

Just thinking about this:

Chiltern didn't need all the 170/3s straight away.

Southern will get 4 x 3 car 170s 18 months before Network Rail complete the infrastructure work to allow longer formations.

Maybe a sublease of the 4 x 3 car 170s from Southern to Chiltern would allow TPE to keep the 170/3s until May 2016?

Also given TPE may take on Liverpool-Nottingham in May 2016, replacing 170/3s with 158s at that point would help give a consistent fleet if the 158s get refurbished to the same standard as the EMT ones.

 

[swt_passenger]

Southern will get 4 x 3 car 170s 18 months before Network Rail complete the infrastructure work to allow longer formations.

Southern have just announced (as quoted on the previous page - post #144) that the 4 units will be used from July 2015 to provide more 8 carriage trains on the existing infrastructure.

 

[northwichcat]

Southern have just announced (as quoted on the previous page - post #144) that the 4 units will be used from July 2015 to provide more 8 carriage trains on the existing infrastructure.

All 4? They make reference to more 8 carriage formations using SDO from May 2015 and 10 carriage formations from December 2016 post-platform lengthening (although they hope Network Rail will bring the work forward.)

 

[swt_passenger]

All 4? They make reference to more 8 carriage formations using SDO from May 2015 and 10 carriage formations from December 2016 post-platform lengthening (although they hope Network Rail will bring the work forward.)

You were just suggesting that all 4 should be subleased to Chiltern. Unless you meant some of the 4, so 1 or 2, I don't really see how they can.

 

[northwichcat]

You were just suggesting that all 4 should be subleased to Chiltern. Unless you meant some of the 4, so 1 or 2, I don't really see how they can.

Yes but then you suggested the 4 units would be in service with Southern from May. If they can't use all 4 then subleasing some out would save them money.

 

[swt_passenger]

Who says they can't use all four units though?

I'm just going by this "With these extra trains it will be possible to lengthen more services to their current maximum length of eight carriages once the new trains have been brought in and overhauled."

Perhaps the 4 units will not all be used on the first day if as mooted earlier they intended to re-aarrange them into 2 and 4 car?

Perhaps they'll get even more units to bring the maximum number of trains up to ten car?

Perhaps there isn't a massive conspiracy against TPE?

 

[physics34]

Yes but then you suggested the 4 units would be in service with Southern from May. If they can't use all 4 then subleasing some out would save them money.

during the AM peak there is the

06.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (6 car)
07.08 Uckfield to London Bridge (8 car)
07.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (6 car)
08.04 Uckfield to London Bridge (4 car)
08.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (2 car).

With the platforms as they are the 07.34 desperate needs to be an 8, the 08.04 desperately needs to be a 6 or an 8 and the 08.34 desperately needs to be ANYTHING more than 2!

I can quite honestly see all 4 units being used straight away as they will be needed.

With the platform extensions the 07.08 and 07.34 are meant to be the ones becoming 10 car. Im not sure at how the other formations will line up, but the 2 car one at 08.34 MUST be extended.

 

[158722]

during the AM peak there is the

06.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (6 car)
07.08 Uckfield to London Bridge (8 car)
07.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (6 car)
08.04 Uckfield to London Bridge (4 car)
08.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (2 car).

With the platforms as they are the 07.34 desperate needs to be an 8, the 08.04 desperately needs to be a 6 or an 8 and the 08.34 desperately needs to be ANYTHING more than 2!

I can quite honestly see all 4 units being used straight away as they will be needed.

With the platform extensions the 07.08 and 07.34 are meant to be the ones becoming 10 car. Im not sure at how the other formations will line up, but the 2 car one at 08.34 MUST be extended.

With an extra 4 units, assume 3 diagrammed, so;
06.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (6 car)
07.08 Uckfield to London Bridge (8 car)
07.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (6 car) - 4 & 2 becomes 3 & 3 & 2 = 8
08.04 Uckfield to London Bridge (4 car) - single 4 plus 4 displaced from 0734 or extra 3, thus 7 or 8 car.
08.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (2 car) - single 2 plus 4 from 0734 or extra 3, thus 5 or 6 car.

A nice rise in capacity, however the game pans out.... If they risk diagramming the 4th unit M to F, even better.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's also the possibility of reforming them into 2s and 4s of course as someone posted a few days ago. Once that was done you'd be looking at the utilisation of the consolidated fleets, so you probably could increase daily availability by the whole 12 car amount.

 

[physics34]

With an extra 4 units, assume 3 diagrammed, so;
06.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (6 car)
07.08 Uckfield to London Bridge (8 car)
07.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (6 car) - 4 & 2 becomes 3 & 3 & 2 = 8
08.04 Uckfield to London Bridge (4 car) - single 4 plus 4 displaced from 0734 or extra 3, thus 7 or 8 car.
08.34 Uckfield to London Bridge (2 car) - single 2 plus 4 from 0734 or extra 3, thus 5 or 6 car.

A nice rise in capacity, however the game pans out.... If they risk diagramming the 4th unit M to F, even better.

yeh that looks like what it could very well be.. wouldnt surprise me if they aimed to use all 4 units!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's also the possibility of reforming them into 2s and 4s of course as someone posted a few days ago. Once that was done you'd be looking at the utilisation of the consolidated fleets, so you probably could increase daily availability by the whole 12 car amount.

the reforming would be a good move in my opinion, but there has been nothing about that mentioned by Southern/GTR as of yet.

 

[D6975]

If made into 2x4 and 2x2
We could get
06.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 2+4 goes to 4+4
07.08 Uckfield to London Bridge 4+4 remains 4+4
07.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 4+2 goes to 4+4
08.04 Uckfield to London Bridge 4 goes to 4+2
08.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 2 goes to 2+2+2

5x4 + 3x2 used at the moment
Becomes
7x4 + 4x2
So both of the extra 4s used and one of the 2s.

Or you could swap the 0634 and 0804 over to be the other way round..

 

[physics34]

If made into 2x4 and 2x2
We could get
06.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 2+4 goes to 4+4
07.08 Uckfield to London Bridge 4+4 remains 4+4
07.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 4+2 goes to 4+4
08.04 Uckfield to London Bridge 4 goes to 4+2
08.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 2 goes to 2+2+2

5x4 + 3x2 used at the moment
Becomes
7x4 + 4x2
So both of the extra 4s used and one of the 2s.

Or you could swap the 0634 and 0804 over to be the other way round..

Certainly more flexible to have them as 2s and 4s.

 

[Chrisgr31]

If made into 2x4 and 2x2
We could get
06.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 2+4 goes to 4+4
07.08 Uckfield to London Bridge 4+4 remains 4+4
07.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 4+2 goes to 4+4
08.04 Uckfield to London Bridge 4 goes to 4+2
08.34 Uckfield to London Bridge 2 goes to 2+2+2

5x4 + 3x2 used at the moment
Becomes
7x4 + 4x2
So both of the extra 4s used and one of the 2s.

Or you could swap the 0634 and 0804 over to be the other way round..

The ones that are desperate for more carriages are the 6:34 and 8:34 but of course this doesnt explain where the carriages to make the 10 car units are coming from!

 

[jopsuk]

On expensive bits, turbostars are essentially "modular" in constructions. Is it technically possible to remove the entire cab and fit an "inner" end?

 

[otomous]

yeh that looks like what it could very well be.. wouldnt surprise me if they aimed to use all 4 units!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


the reforming would be a good move in my opinion, but there has been nothing about that mentioned by Southern/GTR as of yet.

Modern Railways mentions they will be reformed into 2 and 4 car units, does each car have an engine to make this possible? I don't sign the traction (yet!).

 

[physics34]

Modern Railways mentions they will be reformed into 2 and 4 car units, does each car have an engine to make this possible? I don't sign the traction (yet!).

yeh each car has an engine,and a compressor, etc etc

 

[Class 170101]

I believe so.

Anglia did it once removing the centre car from 170207 (a 3 car unit) and inserting it into 170270 (a two car unit) to make a three car unit when 207 was damaged by a severe fire and out of service for a lengthy period.

 

[Hophead]

The ones that are desperate for more carriages are the 6:34 and 8:34 but of course this doesnt explain where the carriages to make the 10 car units are coming from!

Aren't Southern taking all of them (how many is that? - not read that far back) but sub-leasing part of the fleet back to ScotRail for a period (presumably till Glasgow - Edinburgh is complete).

 

[21C101]

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!

And if ac overhead is put in miles and miles of overhead wiring and poles will need to be put up to make it work and most of the overbridges rebuilt. Chain link fence has always been needed in third rail areas, its hardly the biggest cost. Sounds like the crunch of straws being clutched.

Ashford Hastings makes sense to be 25kV ac as it joins onto HS1 and will inevitably have Javelins once juiced. As it is contigious with the Ashford Station 25kv a.c. an electrical supply intake and substation will only be needed at the Hastings end. Signalling is ancient tokenless block so having to replace it to give immunity to a.c. is not the end of the world.

Uckfield line is I would say marginal. It would need more substations if third rail but if overhead it is wholly self contained so would need at least two electrical intakes for resilience plus two substations if you want any measure of reliability. Also you would need to redo the signalling for a.c. immunity, replace the signals with signals with a.c. cages round them . Its signalling is quite recent (20 or so years old) so is probably d.c. immunised already. Hopefully whatever they do they redouble the line at the same time.

Doing North Downs as two short separate bits of isolated a.c. with three lots of d.c. in between (Redhill - Reigate, Shalford Jct -Ash and Wokingham - Reading would be mad. Equally so would be to have continuous a.c. through Guildford, the cost of immunising the signalling and replacing half the signals and upgrades to the telecom kit through Guildford for both a.c. and d.c. electrification would be eyewatering. That boat was missed when Guildford was resignalled 10 or so years ago.

 

[bramling]

And if ac overhead is put in miles and miles of overhead wiring and poles will need to be put up to make it work and most of the overbridges rebuilt. Chain link fence has always been needed in third rail areas, its hardly the biggest cost. Sounds like the crunch of straws being clutched.

Ashford Hastings makes sense to be 25kV ac as it joins onto HS1 and will inevitably have Javelins once juiced. As it is contigious with the Ashford Station 25kv a.c. an electrical supply intake and substation will only be needed at the Hastings end. Signalling is ancient tokenless block so having to replace it to give immunity to a.c. is not the end of the world.

Uckfield line is I would say marginal. It would need more substations if third rail but if overhead it is wholly self contained so would need at least two electrical intakes for resilience plus two substations if you want any measure of reliability. Also you would need to redo the signalling for a.c. immunity, replace the signals with signals with a.c. cages round them . Its signalling is quite recent (20 or so years old) so is probably d.c. immunised already. Hopefully whatever they do they redouble the line at the same time.

Doing North Downs as two short separate bits of isolated a.c. with three lots of d.c. in between (Redhill - Reigate, Shalford Jct -Ash and Wokingham - Reading would be mad. Equally so would be to have continuous a.c. through Guildford, the cost of immunising the signalling and replacing half the signals and upgrades to the telecom kit through Guildford for both a.c. and d.c. electrification would be eyewatering. That boat was missed when Guildford was resignalled 10 or so years ago.

I can't see either of these lines being electrified until the whole Southern Region 25kV conversion 'issue' is resolved one way or the other. Yes in a perfect world this system would be overhead, but it isn't, and I just can't see the disruption arising from conversion of the entire system being worthwhile.

In the meantime, for as long as this remains a live issue, there is no prospect of any further lines being electrified on 3rd rail, which is crazy because Uckfield at least is crying out for it. As outlined above, there is no prospect at all of either Uckfield or North Downs making a case as a standalone 25kV scheme.

 

[21C101]

I can't see either of these lines being electrified until the whole Southern Region 25kV conversion 'issue' is resolved one way or the other. Yes in a perfect world this system would be overhead, but it isn't, and I just can't see the disruption arising from conversion of the entire system being worthwhile.

In the meantime, for as long as this remains a live issue, there is no prospect of any further lines being electrified on 3rd rail, which is crazy because Uckfield at least is crying out for it. As outlined above, there is no prospect at all of either Uckfield or North Downs making a case as a standalone 25kV scheme.

Personally I see the whole "convert the southern to 25kV" issue as a flying pig of the highest magnitude. A massive and vast capital outlay to achieve exactly what substantial benefits?

Basingstoke to Southampton might get done, but at least there you could take advantage of the a.c. by upping the linespeed to 125mph ands the a.c. will be continuous with the rest of the a.c. network via Mortimer. Can't think of anywhere else on the Southern you could get 125mph on.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Personally I see the whole "convert the southern to 25kV" issue as a flying pig of the highest magnitude. A massive and vast capital outlay to achieve exactly what substantial benefits?

Basingstoke to Southampton might get done, but at least there you could take advantage of the a.c. by upping the linespeed to 125mph ands the a.c. will be continuous with the rest of the a.c. network via Mortimer. Can't think of anywhere else on the Southern you could get 125mph on.

I would hope that the SWML main line would be converted to overhead from Waterloo down to as far as Poole, ideally all the way to Weymouth. The other that could do with overhead would be from Waterloo to Exeter St Davids.

The Thameslink route south of the Thames (all the 3rd rail section) maybe could benefit from OLE to Brighton. Would any of the main lines in Kent benefit from being converted to OLE?

When any given section of 3rd rail is knackered, what's the relative costs for renewal and replacement with OLE?

 

[swt_passenger]

Personally I see the whole "convert the southern to 25kV" issue as a flying pig of the highest magnitude. A massive and vast capital outlay to achieve exactly what substantial benefits?

Basingstoke to Southampton might get done, but at least there you could take advantage of the a.c. by upping the linespeed to 125mph ands the a.c. will be continuous with the rest of the a.c. network via Mortimer. Can't think of anywhere else on the Southern you could get 125mph on.

You can't up the line speed without altering the signalling, and the two track sections mean your prospective 125 mph train will just catch up all the existing 100 mph EMUs, and the 2 x 75 mph freights per hour more quickly.

Unless your cunning plan include 4 tracking throughout, I may have missed that...

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

When any given section of 3rd rail is knackered, what's the relative costs for renewal and replacement with OLE?

It's definitely supposed to be cheaper at full renewal. That's one of the fundamental reasons the subject is being proposed at all by the DfT.

 

[Southern Dvr]

What should be happening from July is that some of the 2 car circuits can be made up to 3 cars and i would suspect the 4-car that does the 0518 up from Uckfield will come down to a 3 car but will attach on arrival at Bridge to make the 0638 Down & 0804 Up workings a 6 car.

Remember, these new 8 cars and 10 cars (when they start) can be made up of current units, they won't have to have a 'new' 3 car in the formation!

The biggest problem of all is that you cannot have a unit that is not platformed at a station. This is the reason why you don't see 2+2+4 car operations. There is also, to my understanding, a restriction on having a unit unattended, therefore the guards are supposed to ride in the other unit to the driver when they are in multiple.

 

[jopsuk]

There is also, to my understanding, a restriction on having a unit unattended, therefore the guards are supposed to ride in the other unit to the driver when they are in multiple.

That HAS to be a local arrangement, as certainly north of the Thames there's loads of 2-unit and 3-unit DOO services- often without inter unit gangways.

Of course, just because it is a common practice doesn't mean that it is best practice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You also have unplatformed units - such as at Bushey on the fast lines - but they are gangwayed. I guess Southern's aren't (wonder why? DOO equipment position?)

Neil

 

[Aictos]

Is it just me but isn't the East London Line nowhere near Edenbridge?