Could SWR use battery Class 350/2 as DMU replacements?

[thealm]

I was wondering weather South Western Railway could use Porterbrook’s battery Class 350’s as replacements for DMUs.

 

[VT 390]

If they had their seating changed to 2+2 similar to the class 444 seating they could be an option (at least until the entire fleet of SWR's 450/444's are fully replaced) as they would be more similar to SWR's other longer distance 450's/444's and would have better standing space for the peak periods out of Waterloo, also I am not sure but I think there is a similar number of 350'2 as the 158/159's.
However would 12 carriage sets be able to operate on the Salisbury route as 8 would be a lot less capacity than the current 9 159's and would doors at the third positions be a good idea for the longer distance Exeter services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

would doors at the third positions be a good idea for the longer distance Exeter services?

I'm increasingly of the view that doors not at the vehicle ends are better for everything - they speed boarding and alighting on an increasingly busy network by orders of magnitude.

Battery units would also remove the engine racket. I've paid good money to avoid coming back on the SWR Exeter service having gone there on it. My ears couldn't stand it. 15x are fine for an hour or two, but 3-4 hours of it is awful. 158s are particularly bad because it's a particularly irritating whine rather than a guttural engine grunt as per other 15x.

 

[HSTEd]

Now that modern rolling stock has fully sealed and full width gangways between vehicles, I'm not really convinced there is ever a reason to have end doors.
You can easily put corridor doors at the vestibule ends if you really want, but with modern climate control systems the occasional gust of air lasting a few seconds is quickly overcome.

 

[JonathanH]

I was wondering weather South Western Railway could use Porterbrook’s battery Class 350’s as replacements for DMUs.

It would be better to use the 350s as they are (subject possibly to an internal refit and fitting of DC equipment) to provide additional capacity on the Portsmouth line instead of 442s.

 

[DerekC]

If they had their seating changed to 2+2 similar to the class 444 seating they could be an option (at least until the entire fleet of SWR's 450/444's are fully replaced) as they would be more similar to SWR's other longer distance 450's/444's and would have better standing space for the peak periods out of Waterloo, also I am not sure but I think there is a similar number of 350'2 as the 158/159's.
However would 12 carriage sets be able to operate on the Salisbury route as 8 would be a lot less capacity than the current 9 159's and would doors at the third positions be a good idea for the longer distance Exeter services?

The off-wire range of the Bombardier IPEMU was about fifty miles, as I recall. That might almost get you Worting Junction to Salisbury and back - but forget Exeter! I think you will need the hydrogen version for that. Or even better - put some wires up!

 

[swt_passenger]

The off-wire range of the Bombardier IPEMU was about fifty miles, as I recall. That might almost get you Worting Junction to Salisbury and back - but forget Exeter! I think you will need the hydrogen version for that. Or even better - put some wires up!

Quite true, and I think “Porterbrook’s battery 350” is a theoretical product only. I think it’s highly premature to consider it for anything.

Back to the theoretical train length though, the Waterloo to Salisbury section is 10 x 23m capable,
so 12 x 20m ought to be just a case of fine tuning...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Correct what people have said thus far re: Exeter via Honiton. You have two realistic options:
- Have the battery 350s with shoes on, which would mean they can be used for various tasks including:
-- A potential shuttle / through route to Fawley etc.
-- Able to be used on the 'Three Rivers' service.
-- Can be used with good enough batteries for the Waterloo to Salisbury service (hourly, if not to include an extension of one of the two 'stopping' services to provide through services on the Farnborough - Andover/Salisbury sort of axis.

The problem you then have is the Exeter bit. One could suggest a better diesel fleet for that - 175s keep coming up, as strangely do 220/222 sort of things. You also need to factor in future additional services like the Axminster/Honiton - Exeter shuttle to fill in the hourly gaps; so you still need diesels for that bit as they won't be able to cycle on and off Salisbury or fuelling as quickly.

175s only running hourly from Waterloo at off-peak and peak times (if you assume they run up to 10 car formation, perhaps involving making 8 x 4 car and then 19 x 2 car) would allow at least 3 high-peak diagrams of 2x4 + 1x2, and then 4 car continuations beyond Yeovil Junction or Salisbury. They could also be fast from Waterloo to Basingstoke to avoid being used as peak Woking trains.

 

[DerekC]

Quite true, and I think “Porterbrook’s battery 350” is a theoretical product only. I think it’s highly premature to consider it for anything.....

I think it's a practical product. It just has severe limitations as to off-wire/3rd rail range. A third rail version would have been perfect for the North Downs line, but there doesn't seem to be any prospect of that - pity - it would have made a great technology demonstrator.

Correct what people have said thus far re: Exeter via Honiton. You have two realistic options:
- Have the battery 350s with shoes on, which would mean they can be used for various tasks including:
-- A potential shuttle / through route to Fawley etc.
-- Able to be used on the 'Three Rivers' service.
-- Can be used with good enough batteries for the Waterloo to Salisbury service (hourly, if not to include an extension of one of the two 'stopping' services to provide through services on the Farnborough - Andover/Salisbury sort of axis.

The problem you then have is the Exeter bit. One could suggest a better diesel fleet for that - 175s keep coming up, as strangely do 220/222 sort of things. You also need to factor in future additional services like the Axminster/Honiton - Exeter shuttle to fill in the hourly gaps; so you still need diesels for that bit as they won't be able to cycle on and off Salisbury or fuelling as quickly.

175s only running hourly from Waterloo at off-peak and peak times (if you assume they run up to 10 car formation, perhaps involving making 8 x 4 car and then 19 x 2 car) would allow at least 3 high-peak diagrams of 2x4 + 1x2, and then 4 car continuations beyond Yeovil Junction or Salisbury. They could also be fast from Waterloo to Basingstoke to avoid being used as peak Woking trains.

I could believe the Fawley bit (if it ever happens) except that the electrified part of the route would be quite short and regular extended layovers at Southampton Central might be needed to recharge. Southampton to Lymington would work better. Not sure what the "Three Rivers" service is. The rest looks complicated and doesn't eliminate diesels. Unless hydrogen turns out to be the answer, wiring (or preferably third railing if ORR can be bypassed) Worting Junction - Exeter looks the only possible option.

 

[AM9]

Quite true, and I think “Porterbrook’s battery 350” is a theoretical product only. I think it’s highly premature to consider it for anything.

Back to the theoretical train length though, the Waterloo to Salisbury section is 10 x 23m capable,
so 12 x 20m ought to be just a case of fine tuning...

So even if 240m trains were a problem, a pair of 350/2s would have a standard seated capacity of 492 which is just 24 less than three 159s 516. As for 2+2 seating being necessary, the 350/2s are the preferred type for Northanpton services and the Waterloo to Salisbury journey only takes aropund 10 minutes more so the existing seating would not require changing.

 

[swt_passenger]

I could believe the Fawley bit (if it ever happens) except that the electrified part of the route would be quite short and regular extended layovers at Southampton Central might be needed to recharge. Southampton to Lymington would work better. Not sure what the "Three Rivers" service is. The rest looks complicated and doesn't eliminate diesels. Unless hydrogen turns out to be the answer, wiring (or preferably third railing if ORR can be bypassed) Worting Junction - Exeter looks the only possible option.

Three Rivers is the local “community rail partnership” that basically covers the Salisbury - Romsey service. I don’t think Fawley is worth mentioning as the county council have declared against it. Local authority ”stakeholders” apparently want the Salisbury - Romsey service to continue operating direct via Redbridge towards Central, rather than extended by running the other way via Chandlers Ford and then towards Fawley.

 

[Aictos]

Battery units would also remove the engine racket. I've paid good money to avoid coming back on the SWR Exeter service having gone there on it. My ears couldn't stand it. 15x are fine for an hour or two, but 3-4 hours of it is awful. 158s are particularly bad because it's a particularly irritating whine rather than a guttural engine grunt as per other 15x.

You must really hate the prospect of a trip between Inverness and Wick then despite the scenery as that’s longer then 4 hours!

Instead of messing around with batteries, just operate them as 3rd Rail/Diesels sets as you won’t need to worry about running out of juice!

 

[DerekC]

Three Rivers is the local “community rail partnership” that basically covers the Salisbury - Romsey service. I don’t think Fawley is worth mentioning as the county council have declared against it. Local authority ”stakeholders” apparently want the Salisbury - Romsey service to continue operating direct via Redbridge towards Central, rather than extended by running the other way via Chandlers Ford and then towards Fawley.

Thanks - I should have known that.

 

[VT 390]

So even if 240m trains were a problem, a pair of 350/2s would have a standard seated capacity of 492 which is just 24 less than three 159s 516. As for 2+2 seating being necessary, the 350/2s are the preferred type for Northanpton services and the Waterloo to Salisbury journey only takes aropund 10 minutes more so the existing seating would not require changing.

But SWR are trying to remove 2+3 seating from the fast Portsmouth services which is not to to different a journey to to Salisbury so if Portsmouth should get 2+2 seating why shouldn't Salisbury?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But SWR are trying to remove 2+3 seating from the fast Portsmouth services which is not to to different a journey to to Salisbury so if Portsmouth should get 2+2 seating why shouldn't Salisbury?

Or indeed Northampton. The answer is probably that (a) 3+2 is fine for Portsmouth, but (b) that Portsmouth passengers and politicians shout loudly.

 

[swt_passenger]

But SWR are trying to remove 2+3 seating from the fast Portsmouth services which is not to to different a journey to to Salisbury so if Portsmouth should get 2+2 seating why shouldn't Salisbury?

“Fast services” being the key. They aren’t removing 2+3 from all Portsmouth services. An electric Salisbury service would probably be all stations between Basingstoke and Salisbury, and could easily be provided as an extension of the existing 2+3 Basingstoke terminating trains.

 

[VT 390]

“Fast services” being the key. They aren’t removing 2+3 from all Portsmouth services. An electric Salisbury service would probably be all stations between Basingstoke and Salisbury, and could easily be provided as an extension of the existing 2+3 Basingstoke terminating trains.

I was thinking that an electric service to Salisbury would replace the existing services but if it were an additional service as an extension of the Basingstoke terminators then 2+3 seating would be fine.

 

[Energy]

Maybe they should just convert the 350/2s to 2+2? The refurbished 442s seem to have had a quick death after the refurb so the 350/2s could replace them easily.

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe they should just convert the 350/2s to 2+2? The refurbished 442s seem to have had a quick death after the refurb so the 350/2s could replace them easily.

Yes, there really must come a point when they take the 350/2s to operate the Portsmouth line (reseated to keep the no450 lobby happy) in place of the planned 442s which are a waste of effort.