Southampton Tunnel closures announced

[Oracle]

The local press are full of the now-announced Southampton Tunnel closures. Basically it seems that during the day there will be single line working, and closures overnight, plus weekends and then a complete closure Christmas to into the New Year. 72 buses I think it has been said will shuttle passengers. It seems that Woolston, Netley? and Southampton Airport Parkway will be used for reversing trains. I suppose it's impractical to use St Denys GF [main Down to Up], and in fact I am not sure I have ever known it to be used in service!

 

[dan_atki]

Not only impractical but SWT are hoping to do work at both Swaythling and St Denys (including a bridge replacement at the latter) during the closures!

Then again Southampton Airport could also be seen as almost impractical as that will require a pilotman for every train to run wrong line Eastleigh to Southampton Airport (providing the same procedure is adopted as what happened the last time trains reversed there).

 

[TheSlash]

Southampton Airport is an obvious choice as a railhead due to it's local road connections. Getting buses in and out of St Denys, on either side, is quite difficult.
Dan, i think i'm missing something with your post?
Why is it difficult to supply a pilotman for a train between Southampton Airport and Eastleigh, a distance of less than a mile?
The Local Operating Manager's office is at Eastleigh, i'm sure he can find a dozen staff at the click of his fingers who would do the job. I know one bloke, now retired, who would do it for free!
I can see Bruce Knights' electric sidings being called into use, especially during disruption where traincrews are everywhere.

 

[royaloak]

Much easier to turn the trains back at Eastleigh, no need for pilot-man and keeps line available for all the engineering trains into/ out of the tunnel and St Denys work sites.
Eastleigh is easy to get to with the buses as well so why complicate things unnecessarily.

 

[Oracle]

With hindsight should there not have been a crossover at Parkway? The mind is boggling at 72 buses...where the heck are they going to be parked up and what about the effect on the traffic? I wonder if XC will run via the Laverstock Loop to avoid the closures?

 

[dan_atki]

Dan, i think i'm missing something with your post?
Why is it difficult to supply a pilotman for a train between Southampton Airport and Eastleigh, a distance of less than a mile?
The Local Operating Manager's office is at Eastleigh, i'm sure he can find a dozen staff at the click of his fingers who would do the job. I know one bloke, now retired, who would do it for free!

I think in a sense you have answered your own question. The Weymouth services do not stop at Eastleigh normally so either the pilotman is going to have to pick up the train at Winchester or the train will have to make an additional stop at Eastleigh. I did look at the timetable once but can't remember what's happening!

Then there's the fact that as a result of the single line working train frequency will be heavily cut to, at a guess, 2tph? Hardly seems worth it really and I expect most buses will be going to Eastleigh anyways!

Saying that though, I am glad they have decided to run through to SOA. Needing to get to SOA around New Year really wouldn't be fun if I had to make another change at ESL... It seems they have done what's best for the customers rather than themselves!

As has been said, using Eastleigh to reverse would be the least hassle as far as a train service is concerned but like I said, the extension to SOA seems (to me at least) purely for the passenger more than for any operational reason.

A crossover at SOA seems to be a rather obvious solution but I expect for the limited use it'd receive (and the resignalling necessary) it wasn't deemed to be value for money!

72 buses eh? Well Central isn't exactly spacy either is it? I'd hope the service is planned well enough to avoid clog ups at SOU, SOA, and ESL!

 

[Drsatan]

To avoid having to use 72 buses and mess around with terminating trains at Eastleigh & Southampton Airport, the Southampton - Salisbury & Romsey - Eastleigh lines should have been electrified along with the Laverstock Triangle and Salisbury - Basingstoke. However, knowing the DfT and NR this wouldn't happen

 

[PhilipW]

From a passenger viewpoint, one has to ask why SWT cannot run some trains to Bournemouth/Weymouth via Andover/Salisbury/Romsey. Yes, I know that it is not electrified and diesels would have to be attached/detached. Yes, it may be a big hassle but it is still posiible.

With everyone saying that rail replacement buses are only put on as a last resort, surely this has to be considered.

True, if I were an SWT manager I would avoid the diesel hassle and put on buses - far less complicated. Then who is railway being run for ? .... the passengers or the train companies.

If I were a passenger I would far rather have a longer journey via Salisbury and stay on the train. As it is, I would probably stay at home rather than go train-bus-train.

Then if SWT are re-imbursed by Network Rail (ie. the taxpayer) for journies that now don't take place, I don't suppose they care much about what the passengers want.

 

[Greenback]

From a passenger viewpoint, one has to ask why SWT cannot run some trains to Bournemouth/Weymouth via Andover/Salisbury/Romsey. Yes, I know that it is not electrified and diesels would have to be attached/detached. Yes, it may be a big hassle but it is still posiible.

With everyone saying that rail replacement buses are only put on as a last resort, surely this has to be considered.

True, if I were an SWT manager I would avoid the diesel hassle and put on buses - far less complicated. Then who is railway being run for ? .... the passengers or the train companies.

If I were a passenger I would far rather have a longer journey via Salisbury and stay on the train. As it is, I would probably stay at home rather than go train-bus-train.

Then if SWT are re-imbursed by Network Rail (ie. the taxpayer) for journies that now don't take place, I don't suppose they care much about what the passengers want.

Unfortunately, the viewpoint of the passenger seems to be the last thing taken into account. I don't think it is acceptable to shift people on to coaches when there are alternatives available. Don't forget the long list of things that rail replacement buses can't accommodate, along with the general inconvenience of it all.

It's nothing more than a disgrace!

 

[dan_atki]

From a passenger viewpoint, one has to ask why SWT cannot run some trains to Bournemouth/Weymouth via Andover/Salisbury/Romsey. Yes, I know that it is not electrified and diesels would have to be attached/detached. Yes, it may be a big hassle but it is still posiible.

With only 30 3-car 159s and 11 2-car 158s? I don't think so! That'll completely mess up the West of England services and inconvenience yet more customers!

Sure, if they had a larger fleet I could start to see the idea for such a service - but the very fact they'd have to operate a 9/12-car 159 for a peak time service to Bournemouth/Weymouth means the idea is rather impractical with such a small fleet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unfortunately, the viewpoint of the passenger seems to be the last thing taken into account. I don't think it is acceptable to shift people on to coaches when there are alternatives available. Don't forget the long list of things that rail replacement buses can't accommodate, along with the general inconvenience of it all.

It's nothing more than a disgrace!

I'm going to have to disagree in this case. It would seem all four TOCs using the tunnel have been negotiating with Network Rail on how to minimise the inconvenience as much as possible.

One of the two lines through the tunnel will be open throughout most of the work leaving through services still available. Sure there will be some delays but in the scheme of things I think they're negligable.

Also my point above about terminating at Southampton Airport from the north when the tunnel is completely closed. It would be much less hassle (from an operational perspective) for them to terminate at Eastleigh, but they have taken things into consideration and are providing SOA with a service. Limited, nonetheless, but better than nothing. I'm sure that is only there for the customer rather than themselves.

 

[PhilipW]

With only 30 3-car 159s and 11 2-car 158s? I don't think so! That'll completely mess up the West of England services and inconvenience yet more customers!

I was not thinking of using DMUs; I agree that would cause other problems.

I was thinking of attaching a diesel loco to the 444s. I am sure that someone will now say that it will be easier to climb Everest than it would be to attach a loco. Hmm, not from the passenger's viewpoint.

Yes, I do appreciate that all TOCs have been liaising with Network Rail to minimise the disturbance. Not withstanding that there is still a 10 day period over Christmas and many weekends when there is no through train service through Southampton. If I was an optional traveller from Bournemouth/Weymouth I would opt with my feet and stay at home.

 

[Oracle]

As mentioned, there will be no overnight trains..so it's worse than might have first appeared.

 

[Greenback]

I'm going to have to disagree in this case. It would seem all four TOCs using the tunnel have been negotiating with Network Rail on how to minimise the inconvenience as much as possible.

One of the two lines through the tunnel will be open throughout most of the work leaving through services still available. Sure there will be some delays but in the scheme of things I think they're negligable.

Also my point above about terminating at Southampton Airport from the north when the tunnel is completely closed. It would be much less hassle (from an operational perspective) for them to terminate at Eastleigh, but they have taken things into consideration and are providing SOA with a service. Limited, nonetheless, but better than nothing. I'm sure that is only there for the customer rather than themselves.

It's good that one line will be open for part of the week. It's a pity if it can't be done for the whole period as it's well documented that passengers dislike rail replacement buses. I've traveleld on a fair few in my time, and it hasn't been so bad for me as I tend to travel light and am still 9relatively) young.

But for those with heavy luggage, baby buggies or pets, engineering closures often mean that they are unable to travel by rail. Although this thread is specifically about Southampton, there are other cases which impact on peoples ability to travel, not least of which is the Severn Tunnel Junction closure this Christmas which virtually cuts South Wales off from the majority of the network.

In the 21st Century it is wrong that many ctizens are deterred, or prevented, from travelling by train because it is far too inconvenient to provide what need only be a skeleton service of through trains avoiding the engineering sites completely, if a blockade must take place at all.

 

[royaloak]

I was thinking of attaching a diesel loco to the 444s. I am sure that someone will now say that it will be easier to climb Everest than it would be to attach a loco. Hmm, not from the passenger's viewpoint.

That would be me then,
How many diesels are fitted with delner couplings at the right height, um lets have a think, none! so how do you propose coupling them up, the only thing that can rescue a Desiro is realistically another Desiro, unless you want to use the "emergency" coupling that can only be assembled by fitters (and takes an absolute age to set up), the paxs could be at Eastleigh, on the bus and half way to Southampton before the dragging job leaves Basingstoke. These things do look silly but people look long and hard at what is the best solution to get people from A-B and the reasons for that solution are not always obvious.
Of course if we still had the pigs (442s) we could drop the buck-eye and use 67s/ 47s or any loco if we didnt want the aircon to work, but that is another story.

 

[yorksrob]

That would be me then,
How many diesels are fitted with delner couplings at the right height, um lets have a think, none! so how do you propose coupling them up, the only thing that can rescue a Desiro is realistically another Desiro, unless you want to use the "emergency" coupling that can only be assembled by fitters (and takes an absolute age to set up), the paxs could be at Eastleigh, on the bus and half way to Southampton before the dragging job leaves Basingstoke. These things do look silly but people look long and hard at what is the best solution to get people from A-B and the reasons for that solution are not always obvious.
Of course if we still had the pigs (442s) we could drop the buck-eye and use 67s/ 47s or any loco if we didnt want the aircon to work, but that is another story.

Sounds like an error in the design and procurement of the rolling stock in that case then. True, on the old Southern Region (SUB's and later 455's) were always out of step with the rest of the region, but everything else could always be dragged.

I can remember travelling between Ashford and Hastings in a CIG hauled by (I think ) a class 47. True, we didn't have any lights, but then there never seem to be any lights on coaches either .

 

[Drsatan]

The 57s have Dellner couplers I think.

 

[royaloak]

Read my post, specifically the "at the right height" bit, 57s are set about 6 inchs too high (or our stock is set too low) which is why Southern didnt persue the hire of some 57s a couple of years ago.
Oh and dont get me started on "stock procurement" we will be here for hours and hours and hours and hours and that is just talking about couplings!

 

[2030720310]

It seems that Woolston, Netley? and Southampton Airport Parkway will be used for reversing trains. I suppose it's impractical to use St Denys GF [main Down to Up], and in fact I am not sure I have ever known it to be used in service!

I've been on a train that has reversed at St Denys before..

 

[TheSlash]

I thought that, but Oracle means using the emergency Groundframe London end of the station on the mainlines.

 

[Oracle]

Quite so...the Down-Up GF or SB-NB main lines [not the Fareham branch], which I believe was last used in earnest when there was engineering work on the line.

 

[royaloak]

Am I right in thinking the emergency cross over can't be used by trains with passengers on because it isn't fitted with facing point locks? That's what they are called isn't it, got brain fade.

 

[PhilipW]

,
How many diesels are fitted with delner couplings at the right height, um lets have a think, none!

So 444s can't be coupled to any disel loco then !

Might I ask what happens whenever they break down or have to be moved to anywhere (a workshop for example) outside the 3rd rail area ?

This seems like a good design specification by SWT. Can we have an EMU that can't be coupled to a diesel. Then we won't have to bother with complicated diversions when the line is being repaired. We'll just cancel the trains and run buses instead. Network Rail will then pay for the buses and give us some money for all the people who will stay at home. That should make life nice and easy for us. The passengers ? Well, they are a dumb lot. They will just have to accept what they are given. We'll leave it to Network Rail to put out some spin that buses are only there as a last resort when there really is no diversionary alternative.

 

[thefab444]

If they need to be moved outside of the 3rd rail area, this will usually be done by road, or hauled by a diesel locomotive using translator coaches.

It's all very well slagging off SWT for not providing compatible diesel locomotives, but surely it's an unneccessary expense given that they'll only be used about twice a year (failures can be rescued by another Desiro and if the power goes off, things are screwed anyway)? I don't want ticket prices to go up even more just so we can buy a fleet of unreliable Class 57s which will probably fail as soon as they are required!

Besides, practically every other MU ordered since privatisation (and many before!) have been pretty much incompatible with common diesel locos.

 

[PhilipW]

I have not read what Cross Country are doing during the blockades, but I presume that they are still running their hourly service through to Bournemouth via Andover and the Laverstock curve.

If so, then it will be possible to get from Bournemouth to London all on a train with just one change at Basingstoke. Yet this possibility does not seem to be advertised by SWT - they just advertise train-bus-train.

Why is this ? Perhaps XC with their 4-coach mini trains don't want many SWT passengers on them for which they will probably receive little or no money from ORCATS. An earlier post stated that all four TOCS affected are working together to minimise any convenience to the passenger. If so then this XC/SWT combination would be advertised to passengers.

 

[thefab444]

During the period of SLW through the tunnel, Cross Country will run their normal service. When the tunnel is completely blocked, Cross Country will run a two hourly service to Bournemouth, via Andover and Romsey. The other hour's service will start and terminate at Reading; previously this would have been Basingstoke but more recently they seem to just cut the service at Reading - although XC have also terminated at Eastleigh in the past.

Note that the diversions only save time for passengers going to Reading or north - the Bournemouth - Basingstoke train/bus time is either 1h35 or 1h53, the XC diversion time is 1h36. For London, 2h21 or 2h27 compared to 2h25 for XC.

 

[royaloak]

So 444s can't be coupled to any diesel loco then ! .

NO they can't.

Might I ask what happens whenever they break down or have to be moved to anywhere (a workshop for example) outside the 3rd rail area ?

This seems like a good design specification by SWT. Can we have an EMU that can't be coupled to a diesel. Then we won't have to bother with complicated diversions when the line is being repaired. We'll just cancel the trains and run buses instead. Network Rail will then pay for the buses and give us some money for all the people who will stay at home. That should make life nice and easy for us. The passengers ? Well, they are a dumb lot. They will just have to accept what they are given. We'll leave it to Network Rail to put out some spin that buses are only there as a last resort when there really is no diversionary alternative.

Answered perfectly by CeliaDrummond, of course if you would like to try I am sure any train company will take on somebody who hasn't got a clue about the number 1 purpose of running the (very short) franchise, TO MAKE MONEY, and wants to spend millions on compatibility issues that will be used about 5 times in the trains life, when you could save the money AND get paid by Network Rail as you wrote above, more profit.
The specification has to meet all the latest H&S rules, so we have the Dellner coupling, there are no rules about how high it has to be or where or how the electrical box is wired, XC/ VWC its above (but only because they were both spec-ed by Virgin), SWT/Southern its below (but wired differently), e* its on both sides. Common sense and railways do not go together, do you work on the railway because if you do you will see it 20 times a day

 

[yorksrob]

Rather than changing all the couplings why not start off with what you've got (be it loco's or Mu's) and as far as possible specify everything after to match ,

Or, if you have one of those occasions where technology moves on to something better, build as much as possible following to match that. Then, if your loco's are out of date, kit out two or three to deal with all non 3rd rail stock transfers, diversions and rescues etc.

Or, if the company really can't manage any of the above, hire something.

 

[87015]

Rather than changing all the couplings why not start off with what you've got (be it loco's or Mu's) and as far as possible specify everything after to match ,

Or, if you have one of those occasions where technology moves on to something better, build as much as possible following to match that. Then, if your loco's are out of date, kit out two or three to deal with all non 3rd rail stock transfers, diversions and rescues etc.

Or, if the company really can't manage any of the above, hire something.

Behave, that might cost money = TOCs not interested!!

 

[NXEA!]

going back to royaloak's idea couldnt gatex/ southern swap there 442's for the desiros for the blockade period as lm 350's have been used lately on southern services so 444's could run quite easily im sure. then that way the lavertsock idea could be used with a few 67's or 47's based at basingstoke draggin them through to southampton. also if they cudnt do the swap they could use the 442's in store as some of them are mechanically sound. that way 1 or 2 peak services could be provided through to bournemouth/weymouth.

 

[royaloak]

Unfortunately no SWT driver has current traction knowledge of the 442s and Southern don't have any drivers trained on the 444/450s so nobody can drive them. Not sure who drives the 350s but that was a long term jobbie so would possibly make sense to train a few drivers.
The 350s that Southern used were part of a complicated stock swap so FCC could hire some 377/2s while their own 377/5s were delivered.
As for the 442s in store, they have now been taken on by Southern and I wouldn't class a unit that has been stored for over a year as reliable, oh they would definitely need a good clean, but there would be a long line of drivers that would LOVE to have them back.