Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[physics34]

803 failed at Crowborough last night leading to 1708 off LBG being cancelled

They need to bung the dellners on 422 and send it out now!! Ha ha

 

[Shempz]

803 failed at Crowborough last night leading to 1708 off LBG being cancelled

I could almost taste the irony, as there was a meeting arranged with Southern's area manager at Edenbridge Town around 7pm yesterday evening to talk about the service and future plans! 5.08 cancelled, the next couple of Uckfields were veal crates, and the 7.08 was formed of 2 carriages and did not stop at E Croydon or Oxted.

 

[TransportHub]

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!

What about using battery 379s (or equivalent) instead of electrifying the line. Maybe putting a charging point at Uckfield if the battery will not last the whole length.

 

[Chris125]

What about using battery 379s (or equivalent) instead of electrifying the line. Maybe putting a charging point at Uckfield if the battery will not last the whole length.

It's hard to see such trains being a viable option anywhere due to the weight, expense and relatively short life of the batteries, but the Uckfield branch is especially unsuited due to it's length, the number of units required and IIRC the limited power draw available from the third rail for recharging.

Even if there was a charging point at Uckfield, adding further expense, I doubt turnaround times are long enough and they couldn't be cut short to recover from delays.

I'd reccomend reading Ian Walmsleys thoughts on the 379 trial here and here.

Chris

 

[edwin_m]

A battery unit would have to draw extra current on the electrified sections to charge the batteries. As the Uckfield trains are at maximum length and the third rail system is already near its limit, this would probably mean more severe restrictions on current available for traction and therefore these trains having lower performance than straight electrics.

 

[aaronoxford77]

Some are already here. I managed a few pics of them on the way to selhurst.

 

[physics34]

170422 is hiding away in the selhurst repair shed now with dellner couplers fitted, so in theory it's now a 171.

 

[Blindtraveler]

It is now I guess a case of internal refresh, relivery and a testing run or 2? Sooner the better by sounds of it

 

[physics34]

It is now I guess a case of internal refresh, relivery and a testing run or 2? Sooner the better by sounds of it

allegedly they are in a bad way mechanically so it might be a while yet. They are all being reformed into 2 and 4 cars also. Wouldnt be surprised if we didnt see them until 2016!

 

[JonathanH]

allegedly they are in a bad way mechanically so it might be a while yet. They are all being reformed into 2 and 4 cars also. Wouldnt be surprised if we didnt see them until 2016!

How does 'in a bad way mechanically' happen? 170401-170420 are in daily service in Scotland and while there could be a few 'rogues' in a batch of 24 units there can't be a reason why the last four numerically should be different from the other twenty.

On the other hand, I can imagine that Southern want the units to be reliable and without problems when they are introduced.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

170422 is hiding away in the selhurst repair shed now with dellner couplers fitted, so in theory it's now a 171.

The other three are still at Stewart's Lane - see post #14 here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=116019 for a picture grabbed from a passing 378 on Monday.

 

[physics34]

How does 'in a bad way mechanically' happen? 170401-170420 are in daily service in Scotland and while there could be a few 'rogues' in a batch of 24 units there can't be a reason why the last four numerically should be different from the other twenty.

On the other hand, I can imagine that Southern want the units to be reliable and without problems when they are introduced.

Allegedly, they all need new engines and wheelsets, they came down from scotland with many faults.

Maybe these got overhauled a fair while ago.

 

[Domh245]

Once scotrail knew which units were moving to southern, they would probably have stopped putting money towards repairs, as in a few months, they would no longer be their problem, and investing money in them would be a waste of money. A bit like the situation with AGA and LOROL.

 

[Wolfie]

Once scotrail knew which units were moving to southern, they would probably have stopped putting money towards repairs, as in a few months, they would no longer be their problem, and investing money in them would be a waste of money. A bit like the situation with AGA and LOROL.

Do you really think that the ROSCOs don't have clauses in their contracts with TOCs about acceptable levels of condition for the return of stock? If Scotrail were dumb enough to do what you describe I assume that the ROSCO will do any necessary repairs and then present Scotrail with a damn big bill!

 

[northwichcat]

Do you really think that the ROSCOs don't have clauses in their contracts with TOCs about acceptable levels of condition for the return of stock? If Scotrail were dumb enough to do what you describe I assume that the ROSCO will do any necessary repairs and then present Scotrail with a damn big bill!

Reportedly Angel Trains did issue a fine for the state the 3 x 180s subleased from East Coast to Northern were returned in.

Looking at the Porterbook site the Scotrail units are leased on soggy leases, while the Southern ones are on dry leases. A difference being with a dry lease the TOC has greater responsibility for maintenance work. I realise the 170s being referred to are Eversholt ones but I imagine the leasing arrangements will have been similar for all Scotrail units.

 

[Wolfie]

Reportedly Angel Trains did issue a fine for the state the 3 x 180s subleased from East Coast to Northern were returned in.

Looking at the Porterbook site the Scotrail units are leased on soggy leases, while the Southern ones are on dry leases. A difference being with a dry lease the TOC has greater responsibility for maintenance work. I realise the 170s being referred to are Eversholt ones but I imagine the leasing arrangements will have been similar for all Scotrail units.

Even so Southern would not have taken on a bunch of nails and be expected to sort them out without, as a bare minimum, some commensurate adjustment in lease terms....

 

[Stats]

Allegedly, they all need new engines and wheelsets, they came down from scotland with many faults.

The May 2015 Meet the Manager provided some information on the work to be carried out.

http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/customer-services/meet-the-manager-may-2015/

You now have additional carriages to use on the Uckfield line - when will these be introduced?
The work to extend the platforms should start this summer, with all work due for completion by next summer allowing 10 carriage trains to run along the line. Our commitment is to introduce 10 carriage trains onto the Uckfield line when the platforms have been lengthened by Network Rail.

In the meantime the plan for the additional 12 diesel carriages, which we have now received, is to put them through a multi-million pound internal and external overhaul to make them compatible with our current fleet, and fit for purpose. We are currently doing a detailed engineering assessment of these trains to understand all of the work required.

When this is done, we will be able to programme in the work - some internally at our depots, some by external suppliers. This will include work on the engines and wheelsets, as well as modifications to make the trains compatible with our existing diesel fleet, such as changes to the door mechanisms, driver’s cab system and couplers, and new electronics to allow the additional units to 'communicate' with our current trains which at the moment they are unable to. This is a complex task as the trains we have received, whilst looking similar to our existing fleet, are technically very different.

When this work is complete we will be able to use them at peak times, in advance of the platforms being ready, to strengthen more services up to the current maximum length permitted of eight, providing the much needed extra capacity at the earliest opportunity. All 12 carriages are earmarked for use on the Uckfield line.

We will shortly be providing some further communications with our passengers to explain the programme of works and benefits of the scheme.

 

[physics34]

The May 2015 Meet the Manager provided some information on the work to be carried out.

http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/customer-services/meet-the-manager-may-2015/

Ah, cheers.

 

[Fincra5]

Semi-off topic but the SN network could have benefited from a LM style 172 cab, alas these weren't available at the time. But LM's 172 setup would be ideal for the Uckfield branch, it would mean the Guard can'work' more of the train on this busy commuter line.

 

[tsr]

Semi-off topic but the SN network could have benefited from a LM style 172 cab, alas these weren't available at the time. But LM's 172 setup would be ideal for the Uckfield branch, it would mean the Guard can'work' more of the train on this busy commuter line.

One thing which may be of benefit is the lack of requirement for SDO/door deselect if all the platforms can be lengthened to 10 coaches in one go. This would mean that, except for the few Uckfield services which stop at Riddlesdown and Woldingham (which are currently of a length suitable for the doors of an 8 coach 171 formation, or 9 coaches of 377 stock), the guard could choose either of what will be two rear units to work the train from, though it would be preferable to have them available to the largest number of passengers (eg. in the rearmost 4 coach unit of a 10 coach formation). In addition, they could also dispatch from wherever in these rear two units that the sightlines along the platform and other local requirements permit, meaning that ticket checking could take place without having to head back through one or more coaches back to the correct one for SDO operation at each stop. So the line may see a modest revenue jump due to the longer platforms, as well as the attraction of longer trains.

 

[physics34]

Semi-off topic but the SN network could have benefited from a LM style 172 cab, alas these weren't available at the time. But LM's 172 setup would be ideal for the Uckfield branch, it would mean the Guard can'work' more of the train on this busy commuter line.

makes too much sense, that theyll never do it.

Im sure if they put their minds and money to it they could do the mods and it would make life a hell of a lot better for everyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

makes too much sense, that theyll never do it.

Im sure if they put their minds and money to it they could do the mods and it would make life a hell of a lot better for everyone.

Might it be easier, in that case, just to swap a few units with LM, if LM would be amenable to it?

 

[MCR247]

Doubt it, why would LM want to go through the hassle of converting 171s back to 170s, which have poorer acceleration and aren't generally suited to Snow Hill lines?

 

[D365]

If inter-cab gangways are so vital I'm sure Bombardier could take care of a conversion!

 

[Fincra5]

They're not vital but would be beneficial for the commuter network... But I doubt any TOC would want the expense of converting the cab. Although being modular it wouldn't be too painful, just costly.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Wouldn't converting a cab to have a corridor connection on a Turbostar basically mean building new cabs?

 

[jopsuk]

It would, yes. It would be interesting to see Bombardier price it up, even if just to a back-of-fag-packet extent.

It would be unpopular with drivers, as it would make the cab cramped and potentially draughty.

 

[Domh245]

It would, yes. It would be interesting to see Bombardier price it up, even if just to a back-of-fag-packet extent.

It would be unpopular with drivers, as it would make the cab cramped and potentially draughty.

It would make the cab almost identical to the 377s, with only small differences in where things are located, and the type of controls.

 

[physics34]

someone mentioned on here that a 377 body is slightly wider than a 170/171 (not sure about 172s) which would make a gangwayed cab difficult to make from scratch... not sure where the 172 cab comes in in that respect.

I always thought the LM 172s shouldve gone to southern and swap them with southerns 171s.

 

[jopsuk]

It would make the cab almost identical to the 377s, with only small differences in where things are located, and the type of controls.

It would be a little narrower. Not much though. I bet if you asked drivers that sign both which cab they prefer between the 171 and the 377 they'd go for the diesel!