Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[paul1609]

They'll be on a management contract by the time any more 170s arrive though...

Surely that's because nobody in their right mind would bid for Thameslink/ southern during the Thameslink programme, look at network rails current project management to see why!

 

[Starmill]

Isn't the reality that Southern are a premium paying franchise and that the stock will make more money on the Uckfield line that the heavily subsidised TPE routes?

I think this is a red herring, as the Uckfield line fares are good value in my perception compared to the TPE ones , and the stock will be full where it goes .

 

[Chrisgr31]

Uckfield fares are good value for the distance covered compared to those on the neighbouring lines. However that needs to be offset against the longer journey time and fewer trains per hour.

I understand that the line does make money though, maybe as theres not as much twin track to maintain!

 

[edwin_m]

Premium versus subsidy is a red herring. If you're looking at the economics the real question is which route the trains will earn more money on. I have a feeling this will be TransPennine because their trains vary from comfortable to rammed all day, whereas on Southern the extra units are probably only needed for a few peak journeys where most of the passengers are on season tickets.

 

[paul1609]

Where on the Uckfield line can you get dirt cheap Anytime PTE fares isn't Huddersfield-Leeds something like £3.5 for twenty miles?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Where on the Uckfield line can you get dirt cheap Anytime PTE fares isn't Huddersfield-Leeds something like £3.5 for twenty miles?

Huddersfield to Leeds is 17 miles each way and is £5.50 Single and £8.70 Return (from January). This works out as roughly 33p per mile single. The 46 miles from Uckfield to London is currently £15.80 single, so is roughly 34p per mile. So the PTE fares are not "dirt cheap".

There have been a number of significant fare increases in the West Yorkshire PTE area in recent years, all on the grounds of having to pay for "increased capacity and better services", which most observers will say have not been realised adequately.

However, this is not just the busy bit.

It is not uncommon for people to have to stand all the way from Manchester to Edinburgh on Friday afternoons and all day at weekends. Similarly all TPE core routes are full and standing at off peak times such as weekends, and it is not uncommon for people to have to stand all the way from Manchester to York, Sheffield, Preston and beyond at many times of the day and week. During holiday times trains to the Coast (Scarborough etc) are often full and standing throughout from Manchester and regularly leave people behind at Leeds and York with the next train being in one hour. Fares for many of these journeys are not cheap. Manchester - Leeds (43 miles) is currently £19.50 single, £27.60 return. Uckfield (46 miles) is £15.80 and £26.20. Thus for a peak time journey from Manchester to Leeds where you have a high probability of having to stand the whole way or not even fit on the train in the first place you are paying 32p per mile, from Uckfield to London you are paying roughly 29p per mile for the same journey, with a much greater chance of a seat and not getting left behind.

So why does the Uckfield line need even more capacity and the TPE routes need LESS capacity to make the overcrowding worse. And the Uckfield line is only busy at Peak times in my experience. The TPE routes are busy all the time.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely that's because nobody in their right mind would bid for Thameslink/ southern during the Thameslink programme, look at network rails current project management to see why!

Nevertheless, the point remains that they (i.e. GTR from July) aren't paying a premium, but receiving a management fee, with the entire farebox income going to DfT. So as said the additional units won't/can't affect the premium?

If the role of the new stock is simply to spread the existing passengers around a bit more (as per the Network Rail quote below) it won't even affect the fare income, so maybe they hope there's suppressed demand somewhere.

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

So why does the Uckfield line need even more capacity...

Network rail explained it like this (as I quoted in post #51):

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.

 

[northwichcat]

Also with North TPE there aren't really counter peak flows. A train going away from Manchester in the morning peak is providing a service in to another major city (Leeds or Liverpool) which is probably partly why TPE have a higher seat occupancy level than any of the London TOCs.

 

[Techniquest]

In a bid to break up the North vs South debate that's coming again, have we now got a confirmed date for what is moving where? I'm not looking through pages and pages of "TPX has X and Y going against it when Southern only have B going against it" posts, that'll take decades to find the gen when I'm sure I'm not the only one looking for news on the transfer!

 

[northwichcat]

In a bid to break up the North vs South debate that's coming again, have we now got a confirmed date for what is moving where? I'm not looking through pages and pages of "TPX has X and Y going against it when Southern only have B going against it" posts, that'll take decades to find the gen when I'm sure I'm not the only one looking for news on the transfer!

Chiltern signed a lease for the TPE 170/3s starting in March 2015 (the current franchise end date) but have agreed to sublease them all back until the May 2015 timetable change. There's been conflicting information about how replacements could be sourced (including conflicting information from DfT.) TPE were not allowed to sign a lease extension for the 170/3s without DfT authorisation given March 2015 to February 2016 is covered by the Direct Award for which a signed deal is not in place. TPE have plans to use 60 x DMUs* until Manchester-York is electrified which is currently scheduled for December 2018 but may not happen until much later now. When the Direct Award is signed we'll probably hear which passengers will suffer as a result.

* There were rumours DfT were looking at Southern taking the 170/3s in time for the December 2016 change with TPE taking on units being freed up by electrification in lieu.

 

[Techniquest]

Interesting, thanks!

 

[Chrisgr31]

In a bid to break up the North vs South debate that's coming again, have we now got a confirmed date for what is moving where? I'm not looking through pages and pages of "TPX has X and Y going against it when Southern only have B going against it" posts, that'll take decades to find the gen when I'm sure I'm not the only one looking for news on the transfer!

Southern are apparently receiving 4 of the Scotrail Class 170s so that services can be lengthened in july 2015. There are rumours that 1 of the 4 is coming in January to allow Southern to play with it and know what works they need to do with the other 3 to make them compatible with the their existing fleet of 171's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the role of the new stock is simply to spread the existing passengers around a bit more (as per the Network Rail quote below) it won't even affect the fare income, so maybe they hope there's suppressed demand somewhere.

The Network Rail quote actually states

"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"

so it depends on what the established growth projection is!

However at a Meet the Manager session Southern told me that large numbers of people in the Uckfield catchment area used alternative routes. It was either 40 used other routes or only 40% used the Uckfield route, I cant remember which.

We'll soon know the answer!

 

[Minstral25]

I've always thought a better return would be to run Uckfield as a diesel branch terminating at Oxted and then run 2 Victoria and 2 London Bridge electrics from East Grinstead. Doubling the East Grinstead service and providing sufficient stock for East Croydon to London as both services could be up to 12 coaches.

It would also mean that Diesel trains would not have to run under the wires (or technically over the third rail).

I suppose my view is because I've never understood why the passenger numbers on the Uckfield route are so low yet they get a huge amount of attention compared to routes much more overcrowded in the Southern area.

 

[Chrisgr31]

There are occasions where I hate laptops, computers and this site and this is one of them when I am trying to do this post for the 4th time. The first 2 occasions it was lost as I was timed out whilst wrif=ting it and it didnt leep it as I logged in and the 3rd time I thought I'd copy it to save ib in case it lost it only to hit paste instead of copy!

Anyway priior to Southern taking on the route and acquiring the Class 171s there was a shuttle Uckfield Oxted with a couple of through trains in the peak. Passenger numbers were very low as there was the added journey time from changing, some had to change at Oxted and East Croydon and the uncertainity as to whether the shuttle would actually be running from Oxted.

The trains to London up to around 10am are busy are many evening trains are well patronised albeit by commuters.

I think the problem for leisure travellers is the length of journey and timetabling. From Crowboough its 1hr 8 to London Bridge and 1hr 20 to charing cross 1hr 15 to Victoria. Day return costs £11.40.

From Haywards Heath you have up to 8 trains an hour (with 1 change on some) journey time from 45 minutes to Victoria, cost £5 advance £14.50 day return. From Tunbridge Wells its 54 minutes to Charing Cross, up to 4 trains an hour, and £13.60.

The faster journey time and more frequent service makes all the difference for leisure travellers who are potentially saving nearly 90 minutes each way! but at least 30 minutes each way. For day leisure travellers who are not exactly sure what time they are travelling this is ideal.

Even for those going further (manchester, Birmingham, Bristol etc) the time savings probably add up and there is probably little additional cost in the alternatives.

This is I suspect why off-peak services are relatively empty. If it was a half hourly service or faster service you might find more people using it. But its a lot of investment for a might!

 

[physics34]

yeah the Uckfield to Oxted shuttle being extended to LBG is one of the main reasons for the increase in ridership.

 

[92002]

yeah the Uckfield to Oxted shuttle being extended to LBG is one of the main reasons for the increase in ridership.

The obvious solution is to extend the 3rd rail and release the 170s to TPE.

It is DfT we are talking here though.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The obvious solution is to extend the 3rd rail and release the 170s to TPE.

It is DfT we are talking here though.

Whilst you are right that is the obvious thing to do, the passengers would prefer the money was spent on returning the track to twin track and kept as diesel.

The diesel trains are more comfortable than the electric ones, and in addition easy to find at London Bridge and East Croydon!

Returning the twin track would also reduce the number of delays and probably reduce the dwell time in London Bridge. At the moment the timetable means they have a 15 minute dwell time in London Bridge, and presumably thats due to the need to get through the single track bits. So if it was all twin track they could dwell at Uckfield instead.

However neither is likely to happen!

 

[bramling]

Whilst you are right that is the obvious thing to do, the passengers would prefer the money was spent on returning the track to twin track and kept as diesel.

The diesel trains are more comfortable than the electric ones, and in addition easy to find at London Bridge and East Croydon!

Returning the twin track would also reduce the number of delays and probably reduce the dwell time in London Bridge. At the moment the timetable means they have a 15 minute dwell time in London Bridge, and presumably thats due to the need to get through the single track bits. So if it was all twin track they could dwell at Uckfield instead.

However neither is likely to happen!

It is ridiculous that Uckfield remains non-electrified, as surely there must be a business case to remove the diesel operation. I guess the problem is that any electrification would be based around the current track layout. No doubt at some time in the future this line will end up getting re-doubled, the electrification would now have to be altered, as would the signalling, all of which pushes up the cost. I think that if the line hadn't been singled then it would have been electrified by now, although another argument is that the singling (at the time) may have prevented the line from deteriorating to a state where it could have closed.

It doesn't help that there remains a state of indecision over the future of third rail. I don't believe a business case could be made to electrify Uckfield on AC as a stand-alone project as it would require two supply points for a relatively short section of railway, the supply points being one of the major costs. Also it wouldn't resolve the issue over how much should we pay for passive provision for redoubling in the future.

Ideally, someone needs to bite the bullet and redouble and 3rd-rail electrify. Then Uckfield gets 12-car Electrostars (surely there should be some surplus after the class 700s arrive?), and most or all of the 171s can go up north.

(Personally I would pull a few class 205s out of preservation and put them on Ashford-Hastings, then all the 171s can go up north, and Brighton-Hastings can get longer trains).

 

[Class 170101]

Does the lack of decision regarding BML 2 which wishesto use the Uckfield line not help either?

 

[swt_passenger]

Does the lack of decision regarding BML 2 which wishesto use the Uckfield line not help either?

I thought it was quite clear from the recent Sussex route study draft (chapter 6) that Lewes to Uckfield was on the very furthest back burner, which is something of a decision. They don't ever use the term BML2 as far as I can see though.

The conclusion is re-enforced therefore that Lewes – Uckfield adds
value only when combined with a new lines scheme north of Hurst
Green/ Sanderstead. On the current understanding of demand
growth, it is outside the timeframe of this study to determine what
shape such a scheme would take, save to recognise that protection
of the existing Lewes – Uckfield alignment is a sensible approach for
the future.

The bit in bold probably means it might be looked at some time after 2043 - I doubt there'll be any 170s or 171s running around by then...

 

[Shempz]

Whilst you are right that is the obvious thing to do, the passengers would prefer the money was spent on returning the track to twin track and kept as diesel.

The diesel trains are more comfortable than the electric ones, and in addition easy to find at London Bridge and East Croydon!

Returning the twin track would also reduce the number of delays and probably reduce the dwell time in London Bridge. At the moment the timetable means they have a 15 minute dwell time in London Bridge, and presumably thats due to the need to get through the single track bits. So if it was all twin track they could dwell at Uckfield instead.

However neither is likely to happen!

Tell me about it. I get the 6.55am from Ashurst to LBG every weekday morning, and after leaving Ashurst, I'd say it is delayed between 5 - 10mins before it reaches Cowden on at least 2 - 3 times a week, to wait for a pretty much empty down train to Uckfield to pass. Of course, in really bad cases, the knock on effect can mean the train gets stuck behind a East Grin train, or has to wait outside S Croydon/E Croydon for ages waiting for a platform.

The most annoying thing is in the evening the opposite sometimes occurs where we have to wait for a London bound train to pass through the single track.

 

[OxtedL]

I've always thought a better return would be to run Uckfield as a diesel branch terminating at Oxted and then run 2 Victoria and 2 London Bridge electrics from East Grinstead. Doubling the East Grinstead service and providing sufficient stock for East Croydon to London as both services could be up to 12 coaches.

At peak times there are already 4 trains an hour East Grinstead<>London, in the pattern you describe. Most of those that presently need to be are 12 coaches long. The Oxted bay cannot turn round anything more than 4 coaches long, so could not handle current peak Uckfield train lengths - the only alternative is to shunt them to platform 2. Even if you shortened them all to 4 car, then Oxted becomes a bottleneck, and even more so if you run more electrics from East Grinstead (or even just from Oxted) to handle the changing passengers.

Running trains through from Uckfield to London is the most sensible capacity solution, at least in the peaks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tell me about it. I get the 6.55am from Ashurst to LBG every weekday morning, and after leaving Ashurst, I'd say it is delayed between 5 - 10mins before it reaches Cowden on at least 2 - 3 times a week, to wait for a pretty much empty down train to Uckfield to pass. Of course, in really bad cases, the knock on effect can mean the train gets stuck behind a East Grin train, or has to wait outside S Croydon/E Croydon for ages waiting for a platform.

The single track between Hever and Ashurst is a big source of 5-10 minute delays for everyone travelling north on both Oxted lines, I too experience them regularly.

Because everything passes something else at Ashurst, any delay of 7+ minutes (and some weeks there are a lot of these, especially at present with London Bridge) ends up passed on to both a northbound Uckfield and the following northbound East Grinstead.

I think that if a case could be made for redoubling any of the three sections of single track, this would be the prime candidate.

 

[physics34]

At peak times there are already 4 trains an hour East Grinstead<>London, in the pattern you describe. Most of those that presently need to be are 12 coaches long. The Oxted bay cannot turn round anything more than 4 coaches long, so could not handle current peak Uckfield train lengths - the only alternative is to shunt them to platform 2. Even if you shortened them all to 4 car, then Oxted becomes a bottleneck, and even more so if you run more electrics from East Grinstead (or even just from Oxted) to handle the changing passengers.

Running trains through from Uckfield to London is the most sensible capacity solution, at least in the peaks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The single track between Hever and Ashurst is a big source of 5-10 minute delays for everyone travelling north on both Oxted lines, I too experience them regularly.

Because everything passes something else at Ashurst, any delay of 7+ minutes (and some weeks there are a lot of these, especially at present with London Bridge) ends up passed on to both a northbound Uckfield and the following northbound East Grinstead.

I think that if a case could be made for redoubling any of the three sections of single track, this would be the prime candidate.

needs to be done. While all the squabling is going on about electrifiying and extending the line they should at least double track it again.

saying that, ive heard a hell of alot of embankment work will need to be done. Too costly again.

 

[OxtedL]

It is ridiculous that Uckfield remains non-electrified, as surely there must be a business case to remove the diesel operation. I guess the problem is that any electrification would be based around the current track layout.

It is unlikely that the track layout is holding electrification back. You won't be able to find room for more trains even post-electrification since there are capacity constraints north of Sanderstead, and indeed north of Hurst Green. Any redoubling is thus likely to be performance related and probably limited. With no redoubling formally planned, a business case should be ignoring it regardless.

A much more likely reason electrification hasn't happened yet is the cost (perhaps see the current thread about third rail electrification costs if you want to discuss this), and the fact that other projects will be more deserving of the money. It is also possible as you note that uncertainty over the future of third rail has had an impact, but the cost will be the biggest issue.

...Then Uckfield gets 12-car Electrostars (surely there should be some surplus after the class 700s arrive?), and most or all of the 171s can go up north.

The idea that there are some surplus electric carriages is misleading. At present almost all carriages will be spoken for post-Thameslink, including for lengthening on Southern or Southeastern, or for transfer to some other part of the country following electrification. Because of this, the business case for electrification will need to demonstrate why it deserves ~35-60 carriages +spares more than another project, or else fund them directly. I think the former will be difficult.

needs to be done. While all the squabling is going on about electrifiying and extending the line they should at least double track it again.

I don't see why it needs to be done. Partial (or total) redoubling would certainly improve punctuality and reliability though.

 

[bramling]

It is unlikely that the track layout is holding electrification back. You won't be able to find room for more trains even post-electrification since there are capacity constraints north of Sanderstead, and indeed north of Hurst Green. Any redoubling is thus likely to be performance related and probably limited. With no redoubling formally planned, a business case should be ignoring it regardless.

A much more likely reason electrification hasn't happened yet is the cost (perhaps see the current thread about third rail electrification costs if you want to discuss this), and the fact that other projects will be more deserving of the money. It is also possible as you note that uncertainty over the future of third rail has had an impact, but the cost will be the biggest issue.


The idea that there are some surplus electric carriages is misleading. At present almost all carriages will be spoken for post-Thameslink, including for lengthening on Southern or Southeastern, or for transfer to some other part of the country following electrification. Because of this, the business case for electrification will need to demonstrate why it deserves ~35-60 carriages +spares more than another project, or else fund them directly. I think the former will be difficult.


I don't see why it needs to be done. Partial (or total) redoubling would certainly improve punctuality and reliability though.

Some interesting points; certainly in the medium-term there will be a surplus of EMUs, I can envisage a situation not too many years away where we see some of the ex-BR EMUs stored. Many of these may be AC, however there will also be a large number of class 365s looking for a new home. I can't see it being too difficult to source a comparatively small number of EMUs for Uckfield, at reasonable lease cost, even if it involves something of a reshuffle. The class 442s look to be surplus soon also, although it's not clear if these are able to continue in service without some major work.

The Uckfield singling has definitely proved to be a mistake, albeit with the benefit of hindsight. Apart from being central to a fatal accident (albeit not the immediate cause), the constraints this today places on a congested network must surely make it a candidate for redoubling, but unfortunately I can imagine it's not cheap to do now.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The Uckfield singling has definitely proved to be a mistake, albeit with the benefit of hindsight. Apart from being central to a fatal accident (albeit not the immediate cause), the constraints this today places on a congested network must surely make it a candidate for redoubling, but unfortunately I can imagine it's not cheap to do now.

I suspect that when you compare the cost of redoubling the track now with the cost of bringing it up to standard all those years ago it does appear a mistake. At the time of course many users were saying it was a mistake as it was fairly obvious to them that if the service was improved then the users would come, but never mind.

If the route was electrified one could potentially save paths north of Hurst Green by joining and splitting trains at Oxted.

 

[Bald Rick]

It is ridiculous that Uckfield remains non-electrified, as surely there must be a business case to remove the diesel operation.

As it happens, there isn't. Not by a long way.

 

[Chrisgr31]

As it happens, there isn't. Not by a long way.

And whilst I am a great supporter of the Uckfield line as I commute on it daily I am not surprised at that information at all.

Having done some googling this document www.networkrail.co.uk/networkrus_electrification.pdf seems to suggest electrification costs £500k to £650k per km. No idea of the amount of trck but a guess of 90km doesnt sound unreasonable which gives a cost of £45 million, which does sound unreasonable!

However even so it would seem unlikely that the line os making a profit of £1 mill a year, so even a cost of £20 mill wouldn't stack up.

 

[158722]

And whilst I am a great supporter of the Uckfield line as I commute on it daily I am not surprised at that information at all.

Having done some googling this document www.networkrail.co.uk/networkrus_electrification.pdf seems to suggest electrification costs £500k to £650k per km. No idea of the amount of trck but a guess of 90km doesnt sound unreasonable which gives a cost of £45 million, which does sound unreasonable!

However even so it would seem unlikely that the line os making a profit of £1 mill a year, so even a cost of £20 mill wouldn't stack up.

I would disagree with this analysis as the value of redeploying the class 171s elsewhere on the network must also be considered. What is the value of making this extra DMU fleet available for another operator or permitting the withdrawal of some 142s? Has that been factored into the overall cost-benefit and valued accordingly?

 

[northwichcat]

I would disagree with this analysis as the value of redeploying the class 171s elsewhere on the network must also be considered. What is the value of making this extra DMU fleet available for another operator or permitting the withdrawal of some 142s? Has that been factored into the overall cost-benefit and valued accordingly?

When National Express had the Anglia franchise they suggested to Network Rail in a RUS response that their own franchise was a suitable one for taking on the 171s, saying that could allow them to release their Sprinters to another operator such as Northern. Network Rail didn't seem interested though.