Where do you think 707s will end up? Could any go to Southeastern?

[Jass]

Where will they go when replaced? SE networkers are getting old and need a good replacement

 

[ComUtoR]

Potentially replacing 376s. Nothing confirmed that I'm aware of.

 

[Jass]

It would be stupid to replace the 376s as they still have life in them. They need a proper refurb though

 

[brad465]

Where will they go when replaced? SE networkers are getting old and need a good replacement

707s cannot completely replace Networkers. While I expect the latter to get replaced if a new franchise is awarded properly, there are only 30 x 707s of 5 car length, compared to 147 x 465s and 43 x 466s of 4 and 2 car length respectively.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Couldn't they do to the North London Line?

 

[swt_passenger]

A couple of relevant previous threads in case anyone missed them:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-707-future.178579/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-of-class-707.144409/

 

[RealTrains07]

Surely they can be converted to overhead and sent up north?

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely they can be converted to overhead and sent up north?

Of course they can. Part of their acceptance included running on 25 kV OHLE, using the first two units that came with pantographs and transformers etc. But your obvious challenge is to find somewhere ‘up north’ that actually needs 5 car EMUs without toilets, an area that hasn’t already got more suitable stock organised already...

 

[RealTrains07]

Northern? If they had toilets added and possible 1 coach removed, could be used there possibly??

Just depends on cost of adding whats needed

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course they can. Part of their acceptance included running on 25 kV OHLE, using the first two units that came with pantographs and transformers etc. But your obvious challenge is to find somewhere ‘up north’ that actually needs 5 car EMUs without toilets, an area that hasn’t already got more suitable stock organised already...

The only obvious fit would have been Merseyrail, for which they would have been ideal exactly as they are (run 5 car all day and vary the timetable for demand instead of the train length) - but they of course already have the FLIRTs coming.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northern? If they had toilets added and possible 1 coach removed, could be used there possibly??

Just depends on cost of adding whats needed

350/2s would probably be easier if Northern want some Desiros.

 

[swt_passenger]

350/2s would probably be easier if Northern want some Desiros.

Exactly. There are just too many easier solutions using other available stock that is already a suitable length, fitted with toilets, and 25 kV capable.

 

[Altfish]

Give them 35-years, stick a battery in them and send then to Northern and describe them as 'new' stock

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It pains me to say it as I love the 318s, but I don’t suppose the 707s would be an ideal replacement for them? Similar number, only problem is the toilet issue.

 

[Entertexthere]

Give them 35-years, stick a battery in them and send then to Northern and describe them as 'new' stock

You clearly must be working for Northern with that mindset!

 

[RealTrains07]

The only obvious fit would have been Merseyrail, for which they would have been ideal exactly as they are (run 5 car all day and vary the timetable for demand instead of the train length) - but they of course already have the FLIRTs coming.

Even if they were an option the 707s would need cab end doors because of underground section in liverpool

 

[Kite159]

In a silly world where stabling wasn't an issue, send them to South Eastern to work as a micro-fleet alongside the 376s, this will release 465+466s to allow more services to be operated by triple 465s.

I'm not sure if South Eastern could run a 465+465+466+466 combo on one of the few services currently run with triple 465s.

Either that, or ask Siemens to build a 6th coach with loo & motors along with more units, maybe some 8-coach units as well as Networker replacements [the 8-coach units will be for Victoria services which are limited to 8-coaches]

 

[Dr_Paul]

What's wrong with them that's making South-West wish to dispose of them so soon after their coming into service? I've been on them quite a few times to and from Waterloo and have had nothing to complain about.

 

[swt_passenger]

What's wrong with them that's making South-West wish to dispose of them so soon after their coming into service? I've been on them quite a few times to and from Waterloo and have had nothing to complain about.

They didn’t meet the standing capacity and dwell time requirements for suburban stock laid down by DfT in the new SW franchise ITT. As has been mentioned in most of the previous 707 based threads...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if they were an option the 707s would need cab end doors because of underground section in liverpool

Ah yes, good point.

 

[RealTrains07]

What's wrong with them that's making South-West wish to dispose of them so soon after their coming into service? I've been on them quite a few times to and from Waterloo and have had nothing to complain about.

No toilets, they dont meet the PRM requirements either

 

[43096]

No toilets, they dont meet the PRM requirements either

Nonsense. The 707s are fully PRM compliant.

 

[RealTrains07]

Nonsense. The 707s are fully PRM compliant.

Wasnt a universal toilet part of the requirements?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasnt a universal toilet part of the requirements?

If there are toilets, at least one must be a universal access type. There don't have to be any, and indeed completely removing them is a valid option for the likes of 153s.

The Merseyrail 777s will not have toilets. The Crossrail units won't. Etc.

(Though I do personally believe toilet urgency is not considered adequately as a disability as well as gender discrimination[1], and while I wouldn't mandate toilets on board I would mandate one of toilets on board or toilets at every station served for the full period of service, at the very least of the RADAR key type if vandalism is a known issue).

[1] Much easier for a bloke to wee in a bush.

 

[RealTrains07]

If there are toilets, at least one must be a universal access type. There don't have to be any, and indeed completely removing them is a valid option for the likes of 153s.

The Merseyrail 777s will not have toilets. The Crossrail units won't. Etc.

Issue is that the lines they operate on at the moment, windsor reading lines are long distance

Crossrail and merseyrail have no toilet facilities mainly cause they both have underground sections. We’re talking a mainline train here

 

[Bletchleyite]

Issue is that the lines they operate on at the moment, windsor reading lines are long distance

Crossrail and merseyrail have no toilet facilities mainly cause they both have underground sections. We’re talking a mainline train here

PRM-TSI does not legislate on the type of service. The requirements are identical for the Cornwall-Scotland Voyager as the Stourbridge Shuttle.

Waterloo-Reading is an outersuburban stopping type service not at all dissimilar to the Merseyrail Chester service.

 

[43096]

Issue is that the lines they operate on at the moment, windsor reading lines are long distance

Crossrail and merseyrail have no toilet facilities mainly cause they both have underground sections. We’re talking a mainline train here

707s only work one train to Reading per day (1935 off Waterloo), so hardly a big issue.

 

[Kite159]

Issue is that the lines they operate on at the moment, windsor reading lines are long distance

Crossrail and merseyrail have no toilet facilities mainly cause they both have underground sections. We’re talking a mainline train here

Waterloo to Windsor takes roughly 55 minutes end to end, it is not long distance.

The 376s on South Eastern & 378s on London Overground also don't have toilets and in theory folk travelling from end to end could be on them for ~ 50 minutes (i.e Crayford/Slade Green to Charing Cross, West Croydon to Highbury & Islington).

 

[RealTrains07]

Waterloo to Windsor takes roughly 55 minutes end to end, it is not long distance.

The 376s on South Eastern & 378s on London Overground also don't have toilets and in theory folk travelling from end to end could be on them for ~ 50 minutes (i.e Crayford/Slade Green to Charing Cross, West Croydon to Highbury & Islington).

By long distance i meant hour long or almost hour long journeys

 

[swt_passenger]

Wasnt a universal toilet part of the requirements?

No it wasn’t. SWR made it a feature of their PR after the announcement that they’d won, but it wasn’t required in the ITT. The reasons were as I stated in post #19, I’ve cut and pasted the exact wording in previous “707” threads and really can’t be bothered to look it up again...