South Western Franchise DMU rolling stock renewal

[The Ham]

There's always the question of whether they can be maintained to a higher standard whereby they can be permitted to do 100 mph, without any other substantial alteration. It's a regular topic on here to talk about HSTs out of Paddington doing 128, 130, 135, 136 etc... 159s do 90 mph because that's what is allowed but is there any insurmountable reason why it can't be faster?

The two main restrictions (as I understand it, at least in terms of making it possible, ignoring any requirements for meeting any safety requirements such as crash tests) are brakes and top speed power, the former should be easy as there are plenty of 100mph plus DMU's so finding a suitable breaking system shouldn't be too hard. The latter could be as simple as re gearing, however that could mean that they don't pull away as fast, which could mean that over certain sections they could end up being slower.

Thinking outside of the box a little, of you are going to the time and expense of improving their top speed then why not look too clear them to 110mph and seek to have NR see if there are any sections of track that could be increased to 110mph. The reason being that if the third rail is replaced with OHLE then the EMU's could potentially also be cleared for higher line speeds. It could also benefit XC.

 

[The Ham]

An interesting aside, Waterloo to Weymouth via Yeovil (using the existing infrastructure) would be about 3 hours vs 2:40 and 2:55 via Southampton. However the faster service misses out some key interchange stations (Woking and Basingstoke), as such it could be viable to extend services that currently run to Yeovil to carry on to Weymouth.

That would of course mean the need for a few extra units (the exact number would depend on the frequency of the service).

 

[HSTEd]

If you want to improve journey times on the route I would look more towards the really surprisingly straight sections of the line west of Salisbury.
If you had 100mph capability you could certainly achieve some major savings there with improved track quality etc.

Does make me wonder what journey time to Exeter a 442 would be able to achieve (if it was electrified obviously).

 

[swt_passenger]

If SWTs were to replace all their 455 and 456s could all their Desiros and Junipers along with whatever else new build they went for that runs off of the 3rd handle an increase on supply voltage (like what LU have done on their sub-surface lines once they went over (apart from some parts of the District) to using all S stock?

It's actually the other way around. The NR enhancement plan explains that they are still waiting on LU to give the OK so that the supply voltage can be raised in the SWT inner area, (that feeds parts of the District line) - so it isn't the 455/456s that are the issue.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If you want to improve journey times on the route I would look more towards the really surprisingly straight sections of the line west of Salisbury.
If you had 100mph capability you could certainly achieve some major savings there with improved track quality etc.

Does make me wonder what journey time to Exeter a 442 would be able to achieve (if it was electrified obviously).

Would doubling the track throughout improve journey times much?

 

[HSTEd]

Would doubling the track throughout improve journey times much?

I doubt it - you might want a couple more loops to enable 2tph to operate through to Exeter but beyond that I doubt more track is the answer here.
100mph would help on the relatively high speed sections that are several miles long between stations.
There is a 3-4km dead straight between Salisbury and Tisbury for example - at least according to maps.
And further west there is some relatively straight track near Gillingham.

Electrification is probably the long term answer but that would be the longest third rail scheme in track mileage since Weymouth - and probably long before that.

 

[The Ham]

I doubt it - you might want a couple more loops to enable 2tph to operate through to Exeter but beyond that I doubt more track is the answer here.
100mph would help on the relatively high speed sections that are several miles long between stations.
There is a 3-4km dead straight between Salisbury and Tisbury for example - at least according to maps.
And further west there is some relatively straight track near Gillingham.

Electrification is probably the long term answer but that would be the longest third rail scheme in track mileage since Weymouth - and probably long before that.

Personally I think that NR need to look at what can be cleared for 110mph running (as there would be little point in 125mph running given the reduction in capacity by having pointy end trains), or as fast as possible if 110 isn't suitable, at low cost (I.e. not requiring land outside of that already owned by the railways), prior to electrification (or re electrification).

Once those schemes are looked at them see if they are worth doing prior to the wires going up.

 

[HSTEd]

But the wires are not going to be going up - if we have learned one thing in the last two years its that the RSSB report that determined that 25kV was cheaper than renewals is not worth the paper it is written on.

 

[The Ham]

But the wires are not going to be going up - if we have learned one thing in the last two years its that the RSSB report that determined that 25kV was cheaper than renewals is not worth the paper it is written on.

It is likely (see comments on the electrification of the North Downs Line) that Basingstoke to Salisbury (and beyond) will be OHLE.

 

[j.crocker355]

It is likely (see comments on the electrification of the North Downs Line) that Basingstoke to Salisbury (and beyond) will be OHLE.

What about doing a Chiltern? Mk3 (plug doors added) plus class 68/67 or something and dvt?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[HSTEd]

It is likely (see comments on the electrification of the North Downs Line) that Basingstoke to Salisbury (and beyond) will be OHLE.

Which is likely why it won't happen.
Its wierd to see Network Rail engaging in crayonista design studies [in the Electrification RUS, amongst other places] for 25kV electrification that it will never be able to pay for given its ludicrous cost.

 

[The Ham]

Which is likely why it won't happen.
Its wierd to see Network Rail engaging in crayonista design studies [in the Electrification RUS, amongst other places] for 25kV electrification that it will never be able to pay for given its ludicrous cost.

In which case then NR should be looking at line speed importants so that 10 coach 22x units could be used to run the Exeter services (similar capacity to the current 9 coach trains) whilst more conventional DMU's run the local services.

Once Crossrail 2 opens and the are at least 3tph to Salisbury, most of which are likely to be over 6 coaches long and by electrifying to the could enable the Basingstoke stoppers to call at the minor stations to limit the number of stops on longer distance services, then I would have thought that the cost of electrification would be justifiable (bearing in mind it has recently had new signals and a number of bridges where adjusted as part of the project to clear the route for higher freight trains). It should also be borne in mind that the government has a requirement to reduce pollution and so long-term use of DMU's is likely to be likely only on really basket cases.

Basically if you can't make Basingstoke to Salisbury electrification pay for itself (especially if there are any penalties that the government would incur for missing their pollution targets) then we have little or no chance of any lines getting done.

 

[HSTEd]

In which case then NR should be looking at line speed importants so that 10 coach 22x units could be used to run the Exeter services (similar capacity to the current 9 coach trains) whilst more conventional DMU's run the local services.

That would probably require major doubling works that could get very expensive.

(bearing in mind it has recently had new signals and a number of bridges where adjusted as part of the project to clear the route for higher freight trains).

Remember that the required clearances for 25kV have nearly doubled - so it is highly unlikely that the bridge raisings will be sufficient, more will likely be required.

Basically if you can't make Basingstoke to Salisbury electrification pay for itself (especially if there are any penalties that the government would incur for missing their pollution targets) then we have little or no chance of any lines getting done.

At 25kV, I don't think we have much chance of anything else being added to the current programme, which is being descoped at every opportunity.

 

[Sean Emmett]

Remember its your minimum speeds one needs to look at more than your maximum speeds.

Absolutely! Had lengthy discussions on Welsh Highland forums with those advocating 25 mph vice 20 mph running to reduce overall journey times.

So 1/4 mile at 20 mph takes 45 sec and at 25 mph takes 36 sec. So 9 sec saving per quarter mile and 36 sec per mile.

But the limit on the twisty mile north of Rhyd Ddu had to be reduced to 10 mph due to threepenny bit track. At 10 mph this took 90 sec for a quarter mile, raising it to 15 mph took only 60 sec, a saving of 30 sec per quarter mile or two minutes per mile.

It would have required raising nearly 4 miles from 20 to 25 mph to make the same saving in time, with increased wear and tear and all that.

Nelson's fleet was limited to the speed of the slowest ship, and a single line railway is limited by the most restrictive single line section. Ideally, loops spaced equidistantly on a straight, flat plain. Nullarbor?

But geography, both human and physical, is rarely so kind. So its no point in speeding up say Salisbury - Tisbury for a 110 mph dash along the Dinton straight unless you are going to improve Axminster - Pinhoe as well, which appears to be the constraint. This needs a double line bridge under the M5 and/or extension of the Axminster dynamic loop.

Had a chat with various NIR staff on the 'Castlerock Semaphore' and they have similar constraints on the single line to Coleraine. Need to save time on all sections to be able to speed up time overall, assuming you want an even interval timetable.

Haste not necessarily speed!

 

[The Ham]

Absolutely! Had lengthy discussions on Welsh Highland forums with those advocating 25 mph vice 20 mph running to reduce overall journey times.

So 1/4 mile at 20 mph takes 45 sec and at 25 mph takes 36 sec. So 9 sec saving per quarter mile and 36 sec per mile.

But the limit on the twisty mile north of Rhyd Ddu had to be reduced to 10 mph due to threepenny bit track. At 10 mph this took 90 sec for a quarter mile, raising it to 15 mph took only 60 sec, a saving of 30 sec per quarter mile or two minutes per mile.

It would have required raising nearly 4 miles from 20 to 25 mph to make the same saving in time, with increased wear and tear and all that.

Nelson's fleet was limited to the speed of the slowest ship, and a single line railway is limited by the most restrictive single line section. Ideally, loops spaced equidistantly on a straight, flat plain. Nullarbor?

But geography, both human and physical, is rarely so kind. So its no point in speeding up say Salisbury - Tisbury for a 110 mph dash along the Dinton straight unless you are going to improve Axminster - Pinhoe as well, which appears to be the constraint. This needs a double line bridge under the M5 and/or extension of the Axminster dynamic loop.

Had a chat with various NIR staff on the 'Castlerock Semaphore' and they have similar constraints on the single line to Coleraine. Need to save time on all sections to be able to speed up time overall, assuming you want an even interval timetable.

Haste not necessarily speed!

All true enough, I however had been thinking of the line between Woking and Salisbury/Southampton, where it is all relatively straight and the site limits are probably only what they are due to the limitation of the stock that is using them. In doing so (other than the limits that freight impose) there could be scope for some journey time improvements without doing any/much in the way of actual works but potentially provides the most benefit.

However, even in the section where there are single line sections with loops there could be advantages (I.e. a network that is better able to recover from disruption and delays and/or being able to run two trains following each other in one direction before needing that section to be clear for a train or trains to run the other way during times of diversions) in having faster line speeds even if in normal service the trains only need to run at the current line speeds.

For instance if over the single line sections you could run a down class 800 followed by a 159 (slightly delayed) which then pass a train heading up (which is less slightly delayed than the down 159) but the delayed units can then make up their delays by running faster (say 80mph rather than 60mph). Then that is better than only running the class 800's and showing everyone down by making them stop at every station.

Yes, to work really well you would need to increase the lengths of double track but probably not by as much as you would otherwise need to do if speeds started low.

Driver's would soon learn that they wouldn't have to go flat out to keep to the timetable, this would be assisted by any technology that helps drivers by telling them the optimum speed to travel at. However would mean that if a train was a few minutes behind schedule it would be easier to make up the lost time and could mean less missed slots which could delay other services (even if they were delayed then they would be less delayed than they would have been and would also have more scope to make the time too).

 

[The Ham]

That would probably require major doubling works that could get very expensive.

I perhaps wasn't clear, by using the 22x's to run services beyond Yeovil and running traditional (read up to 100mph) DMU's on the services as far as Yeovil it could mean that the Exeter services would be able to skip some of the more mirror stations. Add in better acceleration from stations and it could improve the journey time of the services over the section of double track, even if they were then limited to running at the same speeds West of Yeovil.

 

[swt class 450]

I think if and when SWT get new DMUs they definitely need to get ones that have wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions. The 158s and 159s which are used at the moment are really not suitable for SWT services. The 165 / 166 / 168 / 170 / 171 / 172 / 185 trains would all be good suitable trains to use. I used to travel on their 170s a lot and was always very impressed with them.

I personally think though that one of the best options would be to use all of the 185s from First Trans Pennine Express when they become available. SWT already have a large fleet of Siemens Desiro trains so these would fit in very well.

Currently there are 51 x 3 coach units. They could either be kept as they are now as 51 x 3 coach units or they could be split up as follows.

25 x 2 coach 185s
1 x 3 coach 185s
25 x 4 coach 185s

The current SWT DMU fleet is as follows.

10 x 2 coach 158/8s
22 x 3 coach 159/0s
8 x 3 coach 159/1s
total = 40 units

So 51 x 185s would be a perfect amount as it would also allow SWT to increase the length of their trains to reduce overcrowding.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

SWTs used to use some Turbostars on the Exeter route - why did they get rid of them? Only reason I can think of is that at the time they might have been a microfleet

 

[D365]

SWTs used to use some Turbostars on the Exeter route - why did they get rid of them? Only reason I can think of is that at the time they might have been a microfleet

They swapped eight of their Class 170s with TPE in return for ten two-car Class 158s and eight three-cars which they converted to Class 159/1 spec. Microfleet and no gangways was the reason for this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I personally think though that one of the best options would be to use all of the 185s from First Trans Pennine Express when they become available. SWT already have a large fleet of Siemens Desiro trains so these would fit in very well.

Once again, the fact that SWT operates a large number of Desiro electric units does not improve the business case for taking on the Class 185s. Not to mention that all 51 won't be coming spare, and Northern need 20-odd "Class 170 equivalent" diesels at around the same time as TPE release 22 of their units.

 

[43096]

Once again, the fact that SWT operates a large number of Desiro electric units does not improve the business case for taking on the Class 185s. Not to mention that all 51 won't be coming spare, and Northern need 20-odd "Class 170 equivalent" diesels at around the same time as TPE release 22 of their units.

Do stop confusing the issue by quoting facts!!!!!

You should know by now that there is always someone on here with an idea for everything that is completely impractical.

 

[swt_passenger]

I personally think though that one of the best options would be to use all of the 185s from First Trans Pennine Express when they become available.

They definitely are not all available, as per the various franchise ITTs. You'll need to go back to the drawing board...

 

[The Ham]

They definitely are not all available, as per the various franchise ITTs. You'll need to go back to the drawing board...

However, using some of those that become spare could be beneficial in increasing train lengths, increasing service frequency (such as to Bristol) or for new routes (Waterloo to Weymouth via Yeovil, which would be of a comparable journey time as the skirt of the two services each hour).

 

[Suraggu]

After seeing this route first hand, the commuters of Andover, Whitchurch and Overton stand in an orderly queue (Like the Japanese do) and know where the doors are located depending on the length of train. It actually speeds up loading times at these stations where during the morning peak every seat is taken.

Whilst the WoE line continues to grow in passenger numbers the long term solution is 23m as stock with 1/3 & 2/3 doors but the class 185 is not the answer. This line and it's passengers deserve to have seats and giving them trains with less seating is not the answer. Gangway fitted units is a must and with the maximum capacity of 10 cars in the Peak with SDO fitted on the Salisbury to Waterloo section.

A 100mph top speed and superior acceleration from a standing start would save minuses but that can make all the difference.

 

[Class 170101]

SWTs used to use some Turbostars on the Exeter route - why did they get rid of them? Only reason I can think of is that at the time they might have been a microfleet

They swapped eight of their Class 170s with TPE in return for ten two-car Class 158s and eight three-cars which they converted to Class 159/1 spec. Microfleet and no gangways was the reason for this.

Weren't the 170s also less reliable than the 15x fleet? I think I read somewhere that availability was something like 8/9 for 15X fleet but 7/9 for the 170s or something similiar?

 

[The Ham]

After seeing this route first hand, the commuters of Andover, Whitchurch and Overton stand in an orderly queue (Like the Japanese do) and know where the doors are located depending on the length of train. It actually speeds up loading times at these stations where during the morning peak every seat is taken.

Whilst the WoE line continues to grow in passenger numbers the long term solution is 23m as stock with 1/3 & 2/3 doors but the class 185 is not the answer. This line and it's passengers deserve to have seats and giving them trains with less seating is not the answer. Gangway fitted units is a must and with the maximum capacity of 10 cars in the Peak with SDO fitted on the Salisbury to Waterloo section.

A 100mph top speed and superior acceleration from a standing start would save minuses but that can make all the difference.

I agree 185's aren't THE solution for the WofE line, however they could be a partial solution which could allow more peak hour trains to run as 10 coach trains, could allow more 6 coach units West of Yeovil and more 9 coach (rather than 6) in the contra peak.

It very much depend on if the franchise wants to do bimodal now (if there is the scope for enough to be built) or wait to see what electrification happens and then opt for new trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As an example, if the franchise were to take 10 x 185's and reform then to be 4 and 2 coach units, that would mean that half of the Waterloo/Yeovil services could be switched to bring 8 coach trains to Salisbury and 4 coach after. (Take an extra 2 units, a total of 12 and it could be a bit hourly service to Weymouth via Yeovil).

That would mean there would be enough 2 coach 185's to replace half the duties of the current 158's so as to be able to allow more to be used to run 10 coach trains in the peaks.

In fact (I've not done the maths on what it would take to do so, as I don't know how many 158's are currently used on the Waterloo services), but it could be possible (especially with the Lymington Branch reverting to EMU) for the 158's to be used only on the Waterloo services.

If all the 158's (10 units) are used that would allow 5 services to be 10 coach services into Waterloo, which is enough to run every service as 10 coaches for 2.5 hours. Which would be say every WofE line service arriving at Waterloo between 7:30 and 10:00 Yes if there was a fault with a 158 the train would be short formed to be 9 coaches, but I don't see that as too much of a problem as a one off.

I would then be tempted to send the 4 coach 158's to a siding between the peaks, and/or as the units that run the Bristol potion of those services.

Even if there was a need for strengthening of some services currently run by 158's there could be enough 159's to allow that to happen (either directly or by directly replacing a 185 which had taking that on that diagram and in doing so allowing that unit to run paired with another).

There could even be enough units to run the Bristol services hourly (maybe as a shuttle service during the peaks to maximise the availability of the 158's).

 

[j.crocker355]

Where are gwr 158's going after the turbo cascade? Could they be used to strengthen existing 159's?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[MatthewRead]

Where are gwr 158's going after the turbo cascade? Could they be used to strengthen existing 159's?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

To Exeter!

 

[59CosG95]

To Exeter!

Where they'll hopefully put the 150/2s on Pacer diagrams, and operate the longer haul regional services in the area themselves.

 

[MatthewRead]

Where they'll hopefully put the 150/2s on Pacer diagrams, and operate the longer haul regional services in the area themselves.

That's right Spot On

 

[43096]

To Exeter!

Nope.

That was the plan, but the electrification cutbacks in the Thames Valley mean fewer 16x sets go west, so the 158s need to be retained in their current area. The duties the 158s were to transfer to are to get short 2+4 HST sets. Well, that's the current plan....