New build replacements for SWR diesel fleet

[pompeyfan]

I’m interested to know what everyone would replace the SWR diesel fleet with, and how you would spec them? Front end gangways for portion working? IC spec with luggage room? Something similar to Stadlers powerpack with ability to switch to 3rd rail or maybe even a hitachi IET style bimode unit?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m interested to know what everyone would replace the SWR diesel fleet with, and how you would spec them? Front end gangways for portion working? IC spec with luggage room? Something similar to Stadlers powerpack with ability to switch to 3rd rail or maybe even a hitachi IET style bimode unit?

I'd go doors at thirds. Probably something very much like a gangwayed Class 195 (I know that's a Class 196, but I'm thinking a layout much more like Northern's). Ideally third rail+<something else> bi-mode. No pointy nose, it's a waste of platform capacity. Not Stadler-style "mini-locomotives" - I love a bit of a FLIRT (!) but they too are a waste of platform capacity in this specific context.

 

[EastCoastway]

Electrification to Salisbury.... so some sort of bimode...

 

[pompeyfan]

Electrification to Salisbury.... so some sort of bimode...

sadly I think electrification is unlikely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Electrification to Salisbury.... so some sort of bimode...

Electrification to Salisbury or no, better to go with bi-modes anyway, not only for future flexibility (so might as well fit a pantograph as well) but also to get the filthy diesel out of London before it gets banned anyway.

 

[swt_passenger]

Follow on from EMR’s 24m 80x with a 100 mph sub class so can add end gangways. Any higher speed would be wasted especially between Waterloo and Basingstoke. Run most services as 10 car to fit Waterloo platforms, and as far as Salisbury or Yeovil, then all Exeter portions 5 car.

 

[pompeyfan]

Follow on from EMR’s 24m 80x with a 100 mph sub class so can add end gangways. Any higher speed would be wasted especially between Waterloo and Basingstoke. Run most services as 10 car to fit Waterloo platforms, and as far as Salisbury or Yeovil, then all Exeter portions 5 car.

I wasn’t aware there was an 80x available with gangways. How would you get round the portion working towards Bristol/Frome and Weymouth via YPM etc?

 

[Tio Terry]

Surely diesel is not an option bearing in mind the government’s intentions to phase out the use of fossil fuels?

 

[swt_passenger]

I wasn’t aware there was an 80x available with gangways. How would you get round the portion working towards Bristol/Frome and Weymouth via YPM etc?

There isn’t a gangwayed one yet, but I can’t see it being impossible. Not essential however. I guess the extensions to those places would have to be 5 cars as well. Or in the case of the occasional Saturday Weymouths, why bother at all?

I’m disregarding the regularly proposed idea of a regular Weymouth service all week as well. Can’t see it ever happening.

 

[pompeyfan]

There isn’t a gangwayed one yet, but I can’t see it being impossible. Not essential however. I guess the extensions to those places would have to be 5 cars as well. Or in the case of the occasional Saturday Weymouths, why bother at all?

I’m disregarding the regularly proposed idea of a regular Weymouth service all week as well. Can’t see it ever happening.

Ah I see. To be honest with you I agree, 3rd rail but carry Diesel engines around and fire them up on the move at Worting. That just leaves the Romsey rounders to find suitable stock.

 

[43096]

Ah I see. To be honest with you I agree, 3rd rail but carry Diesel engines around and fire them up on the move at Worting. That just leaves the Romsey rounders to find suitable stock.

Transfer the Romsey services to GWR and add units to their allocation to resource it.

 

[Snow1964]

I guess the obvious is a bi mode 23m with 2 pairs of doors, gangwayed throughout like a 444

However I wonder if 4 car sets would be more useful, with perhaps some 3 car units (for London-Salisbury only, with a higher proportion of first class). Maybe would require slightly shorter coaches. (Can the South Western take 260m trains, or is it limited to 240m these days. I remember travelling in the past on a class 50 +12 mk2Bs on Exeter route, but most only had loco plus 10 or 11 coaches)

Ideally could also work Portsmouth-Salisbury-Bristol-Cardiff route, but the segregation of franchises would probably preclude this. Even though a common fleet might be beneficial for both routes.

 

[adamedwards]

Yes to overhead as there's a future route via Heathrow in to Paddington.
I'm thinking the train is more a 385 with comfy 2+2 seating. But wide doors for peak hours into London.

 

[The Ham]

I've suggested elsewhere the following:

Build a fleet of 5 coach Bimodals to replace the 158/159/442/444 fleets.

You'd have circa 100 units with go anywhere capability, with the scope to run more frequent/longer services to Weymouth and a lot more 10 coach services on the WofE services in/out of Waterloo, whilst no more 3 coach services.

There would be some down sides:
- 5 coach units for services which are currently 2 (probably need to be 3 though)
- putting off lease the 444's aged circa 28 years old
- 634 seats on a 5 coach train Vs 692 on a 6 coach train (if 10*24m coaches could fit at Waterloo then that may reduce this gap)

Of those three probably only the last would really be of much concern (even then 24m coaches could help). Having 5 coach trains would probably just increase uptake on those services which are currently run as 2 coach trains.

Whilst I'm sure that the 444's would easily find a future use (much more easily and without so many of the crazy suggestions which were put forward for the 442's).

By having a go anywhere fleet it could make distributing the fleet depending on where the need was the greatest easier to achieve. Including the planning of maintenance on units.

Ideally it would be done along with plans to extend Electrification towards Salisbury and Southampton with maybe even onto Yeovil being included/planned.

SWR would basics have three major fleets, Metro, 450's (or their replacements) and the new "844" (bimodal 444 type train).

 

[The Ham]

Yes to overhead as there's a future route via Heathrow in to Paddington.
I'm thinking the train is more a 385 with comfy 2+2 seating. But wide doors for peak hours into London.

Indeed, such a service would be of great use whenever there was a problem inwards of Weybridge.

However even when it was running well extra capacity between Basingstoke/Guildford and Woking would be of great use.

 

[Kite159]

I've suggested elsewhere the following:

Build a fleet of 5 coach Bimodals to replace the 158/159/442/444 fleets.

You'd have circa 100 units with go anywhere capability, with the scope to run more frequent/longer services to Weymouth and a lot more 10 coach services on the WofE services in/out of Waterloo, whilst no more 3 coach services.

There would be some down sides:
- 5 coach units for services which are currently 2 (probably need to be 3 though)
- putting off lease the 444's aged circa 28 years old
- 634 seats on a 5 coach train Vs 692 on a 6 coach train (if 10*24m coaches could fit at Waterloo then that may reduce this gap)

Of those three probably only the last would really be of much concern (even then 24m coaches could help). Having 5 coach trains would probably just increase uptake on those services which are currently run as 2 coach trains.

Whilst I'm sure that the 444's would easily find a future use (much more easily and without so many of the crazy suggestions which were put forward for the 442's).

By having a go anywhere fleet it could make distributing the fleet depending on where the need was the greatest easier to achieve. Including the planning of maintenance on units.

Ideally it would be done along with plans to extend Electrification towards Salisbury and Southampton with maybe even onto Yeovil being included/planned.

SWR would basics have three major fleets, Metro, 450's (or their replacements) and the new "844" (bimodal 444 type train).

Do the 444s need to be replaced with Bi-Modes? Seems a tad pointless in all fairness carrying around the extra weight of diesel engines & fuel when not required for services currently run with the 444s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do the 444s need to be replaced with Bi-Modes? Seems a tad pointless in all fairness carrying around the extra weight of diesel engines & fuel when not required for services currently run with the 444s.

No, the 444s don't need replacement any more than the similarly-aged 350s do. They've got at least another 20 years in them. They are popular and well-designed with few significant faults. Binning them off would be an utter waste of money.

All that is needed is a small order of bi-modes to replace the 159s, which do rather rattle your ears after 3 hours!

 

[swt_passenger]

Transfer the Romsey services to GWR and add units to their allocation to resource it.

That fits with the Wiltshire CC preference to extend it through to Swindon via a Melksham as well, in which case it would be still have to be a majority diesel route.

 

[The Ham]

No, the 444s don't need replacement any more than the similarly-aged 350s do. They've got at least another 20 years in them. They are popular and well-designed with few significant faults. Binning them off would be an utter waste of money.

All that is needed is a small order of bi-modes to replace the 159s, which do rather rattle your ears after 3 hours!

Any such order would be within the next franchise, with 500 coaches to be built the full fleet probably wouldn't be delivered until the 444's were at least 28 years old maybe even just past 30.

A like for like swap in coach numbers for the 159 fleet wouldn't get you past 100 coaches and so would be expensive, especially if it's not a follow on order.

Even at 150 coaches that's a lot of R&D costs per coach if it's a new design.

As the 444's are able to be fitted with a pantograph and run under wires are well over third rails there's plenty of scope for them to be used elsewhere

The other thing to consider is that it stops the majority of the WofE line needing to be electrified quickly and so allows other lines/routes to be done whilst also creating a new large fleet of bimodal trains which will be useful for the decades to come for lines (probably not staying on the WofE line) which will not be electrified.

 

[Meerkat]

It’s got to be bimode, ready for 25kv and >100mph to be added later.
No to thirds doors - it’s long distance and barely stops in the busy section.

As with 444 and 450 being on the same basic platform the bimode can have an Exeter Line Version and a suburban version with thirds doors to do Romsey and North Downs (and maybe the Bristol-Southampton corridor as tri-mode once GW electrification makes it to Bristol via Bath, then any remaining 769 stuff elsewhere)

Any issues converting Salisbury to an EMU depot?

Any chance of it happening this franchise?
Gets diesels out of London and suburbia, new trains for Tory voters, frees up the 159s for cascade.

 

[Doomotron]

Hitachi AT200s would be sensible, but I'd like Class 93s with third rail capability and Mark 5 coaches.