Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[21C101]

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?

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.

It is to my mind conceivable that 25KV could get as far north as Woking, north of there or anywhere in the Suburban area, no chance.

When the third rail electrification is worn out it is basically a case of renewing cables and craning in replacement substations/TP huts or replacing their innards. This can be done with fairly minimal disruption - as was shown on the fairly recent SR power upgrades where a large number of new substations were provided.

Replacing numerous bridges and installing OHLE as well as replacing/immumising most of the signalling and telecommunications kit (the older of which is probably not 25kV a.c. immunisable at all and will have to go and some of which is owned by third parties who would need compensation for any disruption to their commercial comms networks) would cause absolute chaos with weekend and overnight closures in all directions for years. Bear in mind the signalling and telecoms would have to be immunised for both a.c. and d.c. electrification as the d.c. can't be switched off until the a.c. is commissioned and in service.

Even if the a.c. could be done more cheaply (which is highly doubtful to say the least given the above) I'm convinced the disruption would make it politically unacceptable. Imagine the number of possessions to provide OHLE on the throats of Waterloo, Victoria and London Bridge and renew or immunise the S&T!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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...

I was assuming that the SWT desiros would be regeared for 110mph running. Or maybe even some proper intercity IEPs provided for Weymouth services with 125mph capability (alright that is flying pig territory...)

You may well be right that some freight loops would be needed, and a flyover at Basingstoke from the Reading line to the down "slow". It is not inconceivable though that the freights may end up running via Andover and the laverstock loop to Redbridge eventually.

 

[swt_passenger]

It is not inconceivable though that the freights may end up running via Andover and the laverstock loop to Redbridge eventually.

The proposal in the London and SE RUS (Hampshire section) was that freight traffic will probably increase such that it has to use both routes, and the 'via Laverstock' route will be in addition to the existing.

OTOH it's often pointed out that the only real problem area for further significant four tracking is through Winchester, as long as funds allow for all the tunnels to be duplicated, of course.

 

[bramling]

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.

Not sure if this is something specific to this line, but definitely doesn't apply elsewhere. North of the Thames has numerous routes, both DOO and guard operated, where non-gangwayed units work in multiple. Class 365s out of King's Cross for a start. Also on Southern I don't recall 455+456 combinations requiring more than just a driver on board.

The whole situation with the Southern 171s is unsatisfactory, as it's all very well producing all these different combinations, but it's asking for problems during times of disruption, plus a lot of wasted space due to various combinations having up to 4x unused middle cabs which are a waste of space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The real answer here is that a diesel island in an electric railway makes no sense, so long-term it either needs wiring or third rail to go down. Once that's done, these DMUs can go off and help plug the DMU gap elsewhere.

Bedford-Bletchley makes similarly little sense, even if usage is low - it is operationally inconvenient stuck as an island in a land of OHLE. And wiring it would have the added advantage that in case of severe WCML or Thameslink disruption, you could with very slight track modifications at Bedford (I think) run a 12-car shuttle missing out intermediate stations to get people where they are going, and bustitute the local stops. And it's going to get wired eventually as part of East West Rail anyway.

Neil

 

[edwin_m]

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

I'm a bit surprised none of the Turbostar classes 168-171 had end gangways. A gangwayed end was available on the similar but slightly wider Electrostar bodyshell, and most of the units delivered had them. The 172s in the West Midlands also have end gangways but I don't know if they are DOO-compatible.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is there really much difference between the Electrostar and Turbostar cabs other then the above mentioned difference in width? I know there will obviously be different gauges and switches between the two

 

[physics34]

I'm a bit surprised none of the Turbostar classes 168-171 had end gangways. A gangwayed end was available on the similar but slightly wider Electrostar bodyshell, and most of the units delivered had them. The 172s in the West Midlands also have end gangways but I don't know if they are DOO-compatible.

A bad oversight with the 171s indeed, but they were 'off the shelf' so don't know if a gangwayed one was available at the time.

 

[edwin_m]

A bad oversight with the 171s indeed, but they were 'off the shelf' so don't know if a gangwayed one was available at the time.

Indeed, as none were ever built it suggests that a gangwayed version of the narrower Turbostar cab was maybe never developed.

Perhaps the perception at the time was that DMUs were for quieter routes and rarely worked in multiple? That may have been true in the 1990s but it's not true now, with many Scotrail and some TPE and XC workings using coupled 170s as well as Southern. In my view TPE also missed a trick in failing to specify end gangways for the 185s.

However, if Southern had obtained units with end gangways, probably the extra units they now need would still not have had them...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When the third rail electrification is worn out it is basically a case of renewing cables and craning in replacement substations/TP huts or replacing their innards. This can be done with fairly minimal disruption - as was shown on the fairly recent SR power upgrades where a large number of new substations were provided.

True, but while 750V needs a substation or TP hut every couple of miles, and continuous trackside feeder cables typically at 33kV to connect them. With 25kV the equivalents are tens of miles apart and between them there is nothing except the OLE itself (both systems also need a SCADA link).

I do see your point about the bridges, and there is also signalling immunisation and older DC-only stock to worry about (which probably means not going west of Basingstoke until the Waterloo area signalling and the 455s are replaced). So despite being attracted to 25kV conversion on the grounds of engineering elegance I also have doubts about whether it is economical in practice.

 

[Chrisgr31]

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

You are of course right. However I think the East London Line takes paths on the Norwood Junction to New Cross section. Mind you its a red herring as theres no space at East Croydon!

 

[The Ham]

It is to my mind conceivable that 25KV could get as far north as Woking, north of there or anywhere in the Suburban area, no chance.

When the third rail electrification is worn out it is basically a case of renewing cables and craning in replacement substations/TP huts or replacing their innards. This can be done with fairly minimal disruption - as was shown on the fairly recent SR power upgrades where a large number of new substations were provided.

Replacing numerous bridges and installing OHLE as well as replacing/immumising most of the signalling and telecommunications kit (the older of which is probably not 25kV a.c. immunisable at all and will have to go and some of which is owned by third parties who would need compensation for any disruption to their commercial comms networks) would cause absolute chaos with weekend and overnight closures in all directions for years. Bear in mind the signalling and telecoms would have to be immunised for both a.c. and d.c. electrification as the d.c. can't be switched off until the a.c. is commissioned and in service.

Even if the a.c. could be done more cheaply (which is highly doubtful to say the least given the above) I'm convinced the disruption would make it politically unacceptable. Imagine the number of possessions to provide OHLE on the throats of Waterloo, Victoria and London Bridge and renew or immunise the S&T!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I was assuming that the SWT desiros would be regeared for 110mph running. Or maybe even some proper intercity IEPs provided for Weymouth services with 125mph capability (alright that is flying pig territory...)

You may well be right that some freight loops would be needed, and a flyover at Basingstoke from the Reading line to the down "slow". It is not inconceivable though that the freights may end up running via Andover and the laverstock loop to Redbridge eventually.

Although wiring up Waterloo would be difficult, it is likely to become a lot easier post Crossrail 2 when a load of the metro services are diverted to run under London (using OHLE).

In fact until a lot of work is done further out and after Crossrail 2 is done then Waterloo ceases to be the bottle neck. As then the aproach to the Crossrail 2 tunnel portal is likely to be, along with junctions like Woking.

For instance Crossrail 2 could see 10 or more services an hour diverted away from Waterloo, however Woking is unlikley to be able to cope with an extra 6 trains an hour (2tph to to each of Salisbury, Southampton and Portsmouth) meaning that there will be less trainsover the currently crowded section between CLapham Junction and Waterloo.

Also it makes undertaking engineering works less of a problem as many train serices can carry on running into and out of London even with Waterloo closed. Although it does mean that passengers would be getting a long distance service from the outer areas (say Basingstoke) and then having to change at Clapham to then reach central London. However there will be a fair number that will be doing that anyway as it will be quicker than changing at Waterloo.

 

[dubscottie]

A bad oversight with the 171s indeed, but they were 'off the shelf' so don't know if a gangwayed one was available at the time.

No.. It was a case of "you can have this or nothing".

Thats why Irish Rail went to Korea/Japan for DMU's

Derby unwilling to adapt to customer needs. I am sure some TOC's asked for gangways and were told no chance!

 

[jopsuk]

I'm a bit surprised none of the Turbostar classes 168-171 had end gangways. A gangwayed end was available on the similar but slightly wider Electrostar bodyshell, and most of the units delivered had them. The 172s in the West Midlands also have end gangways but I don't know if they are DOO-compatible.

The gangway on electrostars didn't appear until the first revision of the design- the 357s, the initial batch of Electrostars, have "turbostar" style cabs.

 

[158722]

I still think that the DfT & government should over-rule Network Rail and electrify to Uckfield with third rail and whilst they are on with it, re-double it with one eye on the future Lewes reinstatement. It sensibly removes an operational misnomer of a diesel island in the middle of a third rail network and provides a significant number of the newest generation of diesel units in the country for re-deployment elsewhere. The current and planned 170/171 usage on the branch is probably worth around 20 Pacer withdrawals elsewhere, Mr Clegg & Mr Cameron...

 

[21C101]

I still think that the DfT & government should over-rule Network Rail and electrify to Uckfield with third rail and whilst they are on with it, re-double it with one eye on the future Lewes reinstatement. It sensibly removes an operational misnomer of a diesel island in the middle of a third rail network and provides a significant number of the newest generation of diesel units in the country for re-deployment elsewhere. The current and planned 170/171 usage on the branch is probably worth around 20 Pacer withdrawals elsewhere, Mr Clegg & Mr Cameron...

I think when the line was resignalled and when the East Grinstead line was electrified, passive provision for d.c. electrification was included. Obviously passive provision for 25Kv a.c. was not included.

 

[Kentish Paul]

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.

Please note that The Marshlink does not "join" onto HS1. Major track alterations would be required. HS1 (domestic) can only access platforms 5&6 at Ashford, the Marshlink platforms 1&2. At the moment it would require two reversals. Of course it could be done given enough will and (of course) money.

It is not just a case of wiring up Ashford to Hastings and everything is fine.

 

[JamesRowden]

Please note that The Marshlink does not "join" onto HS1. Major track alterations would be required. HS1 (domestic) can only access platforms 5&6 at Ashford, the Marshlink platforms 1&2. At the moment it would require two reversals. Of course it could be done given enough will and (of course) money.

It is not just a case of wiring up Ashford to Hastings and everything is fine.

I think that 21C101 meant that the HS1 power supply could be joined to the Marshlink rather than that the tracks join. Thus the rest of his post makes sense.

 

[Southern Dvr]

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

You've hit the nail on the head there, Turbostars obviously don't have gangways and are not DOO(P) approved!

 

[Kentish Paul]

I think that 21C101 meant that the HS1 power supply could be joined to the Marshlink rather than that the tracks join. Thus the rest of his post makes sense.

Agreed as regards the 25Kv supply, but without the track alterations the Marshlink would become an OHLE island still running a shuttle service to wherever it was decided. 21C101 does mention using Javelins (CL395).

Why would you use a 140mph capable 6 car train to run between Ashford and Hastings that cannot continue up HS1 when a 2 car diesel unit (should be more) is the norm at present.

 

[TheJRB]

Agreed as regards the 25Kv supply, but without the track alterations the Marshlink would become an OHLE island still running a shuttle service to wherever it was decided. 21C101 does mention using Javelins (CL395).

Why would you use a 140mph capable 6 car train to run between Ashford and Hastings that cannot continue up HS1 when a 2 car diesel unit (should be more) is the norm at present.

If the Marshlink was electrified with OHLE, I don't see why the through service to Brighton couldn't be kept but with dual voltage stock. In fact I can't invisage a scenario wherby the through service is sacrificed as it's one of the main reasons the Marshlink has become so popular.

 

[Class 170101]

You've hit the nail on the head there, Turbostars obviously don't have gangways and are not DOO(P) approved!

Class 170s are DOO (P) approved and have done DOO (P) work between Ipswich and Liverpool Street and still do between Ipswich and Colchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I still think that the DfT & government should over-rule Network Rail and electrify to Uckfield with third rail and whilst they are on with it, re-double it with one eye on the future Lewes reinstatement. It sensibly removes an operational misnomer of a diesel island in the middle of a third rail network and provides a significant number of the newest generation of diesel units in the country for re-deployment elsewhere. The current and planned 170/171 usage on the branch is probably worth around 20 Pacer withdrawals elsewhere, Mr Clegg & Mr Cameron...

Correct but where is the electric stock currently to displace the 170/ 171s?

 

[jopsuk]

No.. It was a case of "you can have this or nothing".

Thats why Irish Rail went to Korea/Japan for DMU's

Derby unwilling to adapt to customer needs. I am sure some TOC's asked for gangways and were told no chance!

I'd guess if Southern had truly been able to specify the 171s, they'd have had the same bodyshell length and width as the Electrostars?

 

[RobShipway]

Would the line between Hastings and Brighton be able to take the weight of the Class 395's, if the Marshlink line was changed to OHLE?

 

[physics34]

I'd guess if Southern had truly been able to specify the 171s, they'd have had the same bodyshell length and width as the Electrostars?

not sure 171s can be shorter due to the underframe equipment.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Would the line between Hastings and Brighton be able to take the weight of the Class 395's, if the Marshlink line was changed to OHLE?

The heaviest vehicles in the 395s weigh 46.7 tonnes.

The heaviest vehicles in the 171 fleet weigh 47.8 tonnes.

So I'd say yes, the track could take it.

 

[geoffk]

Does Scotrail have spare stock? If not, how will they be able to give up four 170s and eight 158s before Edinburgh - Glasgow is electrified? Recent electrification to Cumbernauld and Whifflet will not release that many units and they will need (five?) more for the Borders (Waverley) route opening next September.

 

[otomous]

Class 170s are DOO (P) approved and have done DOO (P) work between Ipswich and Liverpool Street and still do between Ipswich and Colchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Correct but where is the electric stock currently to displace the 170/ 171s?

Least of our worries - plenty of empty 377s going to Grinstead now between the peaks that could be used on the Uckfield line. It's a case of sweating the assets. The main reason Grinstead was juiced but not Uckfield at the same time was that stock could be sweated for one but there was not enough for both.

 

[dubscottie]

I'd guess if Southern had truly been able to specify the 171s, they'd have had the same bodyshell length and width as the Electrostars?

In theory yes and if ADtranz or Bombardier had been more customer focused then they would have found a way of making it.

Instead it was "this is the model we are making. you can pick what colour it is in but nothing else".

 

[HSTEd]

Correct but where is the electric stock currently to displace the 170/ 171s?

We are fairly soon going to be swimming in 100mph EMUs with nowhere to go.

Class 319s for example, and Class 317s.
If there are not enough 319s to go around, send 317s up north in lieu of 319s and put the 319s to work.
Or use Class 365s if any are shaken lose by the musical depot-roads game being played at Thameslink.

 

[47802]

In theory yes and if ADtranz or Bombardier had been more customer focused then they would have found a way of making it.

Instead it was "this is the model we are making. you can pick what colour it is in but nothing else".

Isn't that Bombardier's philosophy to try and keep to a standardised design, especially if its for a relatively low number of trains, nothing wrong with that in my view, and how do you know they wern't more customer focused but the costs of changing the design might have been too high for the customer. Obviously a large order may justify significant changes to the design.

 

[edwin_m]

They were customer-focused enough to make gangwayed and non-gangwayed versions of the Electrostar cab, so I don't think this is the reason the diesel version didn't have a gangwayed cab. It may be that any customers wanting a gangwayed version were quoted a high price that they didn't want to pay, to cover all the design work. It may also have something to do with the fact that Porterbrook bought up the entire Turbostar production "on spec" for a period, so probably anyone wanting to lease them would have had to take whatever Porterbrook had decided to buy.