Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern

[physics34]

This is pretty much the word on the street, as too much work would need to be done. Not 100% confirmed either way though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is suggested in a report to Crowborough Town Council that it is possible that the reconfiguration of the Scotrail units in to 2 and 4 car units is not going to happen and they will be kept as 3 car units.

As a passenger this seems like a much better idea anyway if they can get them to talk to the 171s which has to be possible as a handful have already been converted.

The option to run as 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 car trains must be better than only being an even number.

realistically 3cars would be better for daytime uckfields and the Ashford line.

ALot of us agree that the uckfield morning peak trains dont need to be 10 car, just all services need to be strengthened equally.... if everything was 7 car (a 4 car and a 3 car) for example, that would pretty much do. 10 cars are needed in the PM peak i reckon though...

 

[158722]

This is pretty much the word on the street, as too much work would need to be done. Not 100% confirmed either way though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


realistically 3cars would be better for daytime uckfields and the Ashford line.

ALot of us agree that the uckfield morning peak trains dont need to be 10 car, just all services need to be strengthened equally.... if everything was 7 car (a 4 car and a 3 car) for example, that would pretty much do. 10 cars are needed in the PM peak i reckon though...

10 car fully diesel sets...! How on earth does the case for not electrifying Uckfield not add up?! Especially when EMU stock is available (319s, either directly or some cascade for 377s) and DMUs are desperately needed elsewhere.

 

[D365]

How on earth does the case for not electrifying Uckfield not add up?!

There isn't exactly much of a business case out of not electrifying a line...

 

[158722]

There isn't exactly much of a business case out of not electrifying a line...

True. Given that I speak Portuguese 90% of the time (where double negatives are allowed...), its not surprising my english ain't wot it used to be...

 

[D365]

True. Given that I speak Portuguese 90% of the time (where double negatives are allowed...), its not surprising my english ain't wot it used to be...

I think what you meant to say is either, how does the case for electrifying not add up, or, how does the case for not electrifying add up

 

[Chrisgr31]

10 car fully diesel sets...! How on earth does the case for not electrifying Uckfield not add up?! Especially when EMU stock is available (319s, either directly or some cascade for 377s) and DMUs are desperately needed elsewhere.

I don't know the difference in cost of operating diesels v electrics but the cost of electrifying the line is I understand pretty significant and complicated by the fact that its suggested there are issues with new 3rd rail. I also seem to recall that there is an issue with power supply and that there are difficulties with getting sufficient supply to the southern end of the line.

Tickets on the line are also cheaper than alternative routes. The alternative routes are quicker and I dont believe that electrification would make the difference up in time as the Uckfield line takes a winding route through the countryside. So if you electrify and increase the prices passengers will just desert to the BML and Hastings Line where the service is faster and more frequent.

As a passenger the other issue is that the class 171s are very comfortable, the potential replacement electric stock is nowhere near as comfy!

 

[Southern Dvr]

With 3x 3 car you could please almost everybody!

1x 3 car for Marsh,
2x 3 car to replace 2x 2 car diagrams on Uckfields,
3x 2 car freed up to strengthen busiest trains on the Uckfields.

Easy!

I guarantee you though that it won't be as easy as this when train planning get involved!

 

[swt_passenger]

A Lot of us agree that the uckfield morning peak trains dont need to be 10 car, just all services need to be strengthened equally.

The explanation in Network Rail's definition of the project explains why 10 car capacity is needed, I posted it about a year ago in this thread, my bolding:

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.

 

[Starmill]

I find it really amusing that it's such good value to lengthen platforms at small settlements in rural Kent and Surrey in order mainly to provide more East Croydon <> London Bridge capacity.

There's going to be buckets of over-capacity on some lf these 10-car trains between Oxted and Uckfield. Maybe the price of tickets on this section will go down?

 

[tsr]

I find it really amusing that it's such good value to lengthen platforms at small settlements in rural Kent and Surrey in order mainly to provide more East Croydon <> London Bridge capacity.

There's going to be buckets of over-capacity on some lf these 10-car trains between Oxted and Uckfield. Maybe the price of tickets on this section will go down?

There's going to be buckets of over capacity when calling at Buxted and Uckfield... I wouldn't be so sure about the other stations. The longer platforms and longer trains combined will allow an even and lower loading throughout all parts of the trains from Crowborough Northwards, which is already subject to heavy loadings and even full & standing levels of passenger use. Half the people at East Croydon won't even notice specifically if a train from Uckfield train is longer anyway; all they see is a random train to whichever London terminal it's going to, and get on either by the ramps or by the stairs! Everywhere else on the line, people are pretty good at spreading out down the train. At Crowborough they even have little queues for each door during the morning peak, and the ones at the back are often just as long as those for the front. However, this sort of thing really only applies for the peak flow directions on this route, so of course half the ten car services would probably be nearly empty anyway, and in fact no matter how long they are.

Another issue, as mentioned before, is that if you didn't lengthen platforms, at least one unit of the train would be left hanging off the end during most or all station calls from Edenbridge Town to Crowborough, without anybody being able to access it without walking down the cess. This would be unacceptable should anybody need to move forward to alight or should they push an alarm, need tickets, need help of any sort... etc. Remember these units do not have gangways like 172s or 377s. If this happens now with a 4+2+2 car formation, the end-most 2-car unit will be locked out of use in the direction of travel where it doesn't see any platforms South of Hurst Green.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I find it really amusing that it's such good value to lengthen platforms at small settlements in rural Kent and Surrey in order mainly to provide more East Croydon <> London Bridge capacity.

There's going to be buckets of over-capacity on some lf these 10-car trains between Oxted and Uckfield. Maybe the price of tickets on this section will go down?

Nay far better to put the price up to cover the cost of the unused coaches !.

Seriously though I can see the goal is to provide a consistent 10-car service North from East Croydon. But I would have thought that once South of East Croydon ten cars formed 3+4+3 makes it more likely that an end unit would at least partially be in a short platform. Of course the practical point is that Southern need diesel units that have unit end gangways since they regularly run two or three units together. Its a pity the 171s (or any 170s) were not built with unit end gangways. It must have been easy since the design work was already done and implemented on their electric cousins (375 & 377s).

 

[physics34]

The explanation in Network Rail's definition of the project explains why 10 car capacity is needed, I posted it about a year ago in this thread, my bolding:

You just would've thought the new thameslink services planned would have the extra capacity to cope.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nay far better to put the price up to cover the cost of the unused coaches !.

Seriously though I can see the goal is to provide a consistent 10-car service North from East Croydon. But I would have thought that once South of East Croydon ten cars formed 3+4+3 makes it more likely that an end unit would at least partially be in a short platform. Of course the practical point is that Southern need diesel units that have unit end gangways since they regularly run two or three units together. Its a pity the 171s (or any 170s) were not built with unit end gangways. It must have been easy since the design work was already done and implemented on their electric cousins (375 & 377s).

Shoulda swapped out 171s for LM 172s.

 

[Southern Dvr]

It must have been easy since the design work was already done and implemented on their electric cousins (375 & 377s).

170s have been around since around 1997, 375/377 early 2000s. The design work was not already done at all and it was easier to just add more to the bulk order that was already in production.

 

[92002]

​

I find it really amusing that it's such good value to lengthen platforms at small settlements in rural Kent and Surrey in order mainly to provide more East Croydon <> London Bridge capacity.

There's going to be buckets of over-capacity on some lf these 10-car trains between Oxted and Uckfield. Maybe the price of tickets on this section will go down?

Would seem a lot more sensible to extend the 3rd rail. Stop modifying the 170s to non standard 171s and use existing 377s with SDO.

However sense was never s quality practiced at DfT.

There are numerous areas screaming out for more DMU coaches.

 

[D365]

Would seem a lot more sensible to extend the 3rd rail. Stop modifying the 170s to non standard 171s and use existing 377s with SDO.

Where do you suggest sourcing the existing Class 377s from, when all units are accounted for post-Thameslink. Also a third-rail extension really isn't all that straightforward...

 

[physics34]

Where do you suggest sourcing the existing Class 377s from, when all units are accounted for post-Thameslink. Also a third-rail extension really isn't all that straightforward...

Would have to keep more 455s than they plan to retire on the metro. Splitting and attaching could be reintroduced at Oxted.

 

[D365]

Would have to keep more 455s than they plan to retire on the metro. Splitting and attaching could be reintroduced at Oxted.

There are no plans to retire any Class 455 units outright, only to use them less intensively. It is expected that reliability will decrease with age.

 

[Peter Sarf]

On the subject of third rail electrification I get the feeling this is no longer in vogue anywhere as the powers that be are in love with 25kV AC overhead electrification only. Hence why they are prepared to consider replacing parts of the existing third rail network with it !. Otherwise it would be the obvious solution .

 

[physics34]

There are no plans to retire any Class 455 units outright, only to use them less intensively. It is expected that reliability will decrease with age.

Yeh was more of a very unlikely idea. Pretty sure it is too expensive to electrify the uckfield line in its current form. Speaking to a network rail fella last year, he stated that miles and miles of up to spec fencing would need to be erected too at a high cost. The best option seems to be the battery 379!

 

[Shempz]

I would have thought that the 2nd line should be reintroduced on the Uckfield line first before anything else! That's been the cause of many delays between Cowden-Ashurst-Eridge in the mornings while the London bound train waits for the down train to pass through.

 

[physics34]

I would have thought that the 2nd line should be reintroduced on the Uckfield line first before anything else! That's been the cause of many delays between Cowden-Ashurst-Eridge in the mornings while the London bound train waits for the down train to pass through.

my thoughts too. Double track it again in bits... anything would be better than nothing.... you could even have a half hourly daytime service or at least a shuttle.

Hever to Ashurst (Blackham Junction) would solve a lot of problems.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Splitting and attaching could be reintroduced at Oxted.

That's the best reason not to electrify the Uckfield line. Really wouldn't want this back, although at least these days there is actually a pub in the centre of Oxted. Have in the past spent many hours at Oxted as the connection or a crew member wasnt at Oxted
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

my thoughts too. Double track it again in bits... anything would be better than nothing.... you could even have a half hourly daytime service or at least a shuttle.

Hever to Ashurst (Blackham Junction) would solve a lot of problems.

Blackham Junction is at Ashurst is it? Ah the incident the other day makes more sense then, thought it was down at Buxted.

Anyway hopefully I have said in the past, if not I meant to say it. I would prefer those seeking an extension to Lewes would campaign for it in bits, starting with double tracking the existing track, then may be electrification, then filling in the gap may make more sense.

 

[Townsend Hook]

That's the best reason not to electrify the Uckfield line. Really wouldn't want this back, although at least these days there is actually a pub in the centre of Oxted. Have in the past spent many hours at Oxted as the connection or a crew member wasnt at Oxted

Southern split and attach mid-journey fairly reliably at Horsham and Haywards Heath now, I don't see how Oxted would be any different. The only issue if Southern's current staffing problems, but one would hope that would have been solved by the time NR got around to electrifying Uckfield.

 

[physics34]

That's the best reason not to electrify the Uckfield line. Really wouldn't want this back, although at least these days there is actually a pub in the centre of Oxted. Have in the past spent many hours at Oxted as the connection or a crew member wasnt at Oxted
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Blackham Junction is at Ashurst is it? Ah the incident the other day makes more sense then, thought it was down at Buxted.

Anyway hopefully I have said in the past, if not I meant to say it. I would prefer those seeking an extension to Lewes would campaign for it in bits, starting with double tracking the existing track, then may be electrification, then filling in the gap may make more sense.

sorry i was just digressing slightly. The incident was at Greenhurst Junction just north of Buxted yeh.

 

[grid56126]

170424 should be moving Stewarts Lane to Selhurst at approx 11.00 this morning. . .

 

[03_179]

170424 should be moving Stewarts Lane to Selhurst at approx 11.00 this morning. . .

5Y90 arrived safely at Selhurst this morning and is in the repair shed as we speak.

 

[physics34]

5Y90 arrived safely at Selhurst this morning and is in the repair shed as we speak.

work seems to be progressing on the first two at least. I guess all is being done at Selhurst except the repaints which are anyones guess
.. (Derby or Doncaster??!)

 

[Southern Dvr]

work seems to be progressing on the first two at least. I guess all is being done at Selhurst except the repaints which are anyones guess
.. (Derby or Doncaster??!)

Or Selhurst again with vinals!

 

[physics34]

Or Selhurst again with vinals!

would be a shame

 

[Class377/5]

work seems to be progressing on the first two at least. I guess all is being done at Selhurst except the repaints which are anyones guess
.. (Derby or Doncaster??!)

422 was moving around the depot last week 423 in bits.