Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
East Croydon seems a crazy place to turn around - must be very difficult to do it without conflict, and if you're going all the way there you may as well carry on another 15 mins to London Bridge. Oxted as a terminus I could understand off peak, that's what they always did in the days of electric stock to East Grinstead and Thumpers to Uckfield.
East Croydon you can turn round in Platform 5 and use the Reversible slow to keep completely clear of Up Slow traffic, if you wanted to. Although I agree it's slightly mad not to continue all the way to London Bridge.
I'd have thought the natural time to have electrified Uckfield was around the time when the Thumpers finished their service and the 377s came in. They could just then have ordered more 377s. Doing it in 1987 on the other hand with East Grinstead was presumably difficult as there were insufficient CIGs and VEPs to cover both branches. (Incidentally, and admittedly OT, where did they get the CIGs and VEPs from to cover the 1987 East Grinstead electrification? Some were released in 1988 with the introduction of Thameslink, but that leaves the Sep 87 - May 88 period unaccounted for).
That may have been so, but they didn't and now we're left with what we've got.
Personally, a short extension of 3rd rail to allow units to get round the corner at Hurst Green and battery units would be the optimum solution, even if it requires a rapid charge at Uckfield. I believe this has been suggested by other posters more knowledgeable than I as well. As mentioned in the general 3rd rail extension thread, Batteries under every EMU would have a wide range of benefits on the 3rd rail network generally.
In which case Electrostars might also have a problem:
319 vs 387
Length 19.83/19.21m vs 20.39m
Height 3.58m vs 3.77m
Width 2.82m vs 2.80m
The 171s are Length 23.62m, Height 3.77m and Width 2.69m which suggests if Mk3 stock can't go to Uckfield it's the width that's the problem and if clearances are *that* tight then Electrostars will also struggle being only 2 cm narrower - whereas the 171s are 11cm narrower than the 387s.
If u look at the profile of an electrostar compared to a 319 the body sides are tapered whereas the 319s are square. ....
...but i have to wonder why 700s are now allowed but 319s arent
In which case Electrostars might also have a problem:
319 vs 387
Length 19.83/19.21m vs 20.39m
Height 3.58m vs 3.77m
Width 2.82m vs 2.80m
The 171s are Length 23.62m, Height 3.77m and Width 2.69m which suggests if Mk3 stock can't go to Uckfield it's the width that's the problem and if clearances are *that* tight then Electrostars will also struggle being only 2 cm narrower - whereas the 171s are 11cm narrower than the 387s.
Could you use more 377s in that case, displaced from other diagrams (as they already go to East Grinstead; I assume Oxted tunnel is the tunnel under the Downs on the shared track before the branches diverge) and put the 387s on the 377 diagrams whose stock has been displaced to Uckfield?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You'll need to provide some evidence of these "problems" because battery units are already in use in other places.
Using a system which dates back to Edwardian times, was never designed to be used in the way it is being used and fails to meet basic 21st century safety criteria ? You wouldn't be so accepting of such lax standards with road or air transport so why should rail get a "free pass" ?
Third rail has been in use since at least 1933, so we've lived with it for close-on 100 years. I don't think it's a major safety concern if 20 or 30 miles of extra line in rural Sussex gets it, which is an extension to an existing network.
On the other hand, if it's going to cost too much to electrify it, and it's not considered economically viable to do so - or there is simply no stock available - that is a fair point. I presume just running the service with the existing 171s for the foreseeable future is not an option?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Electrostars have operated to East Grinstead for the last two decades, so no problem there.
One does wonder whether it’s a case that Mk3 *can’t* pass through the tunnel, as opposed to that they’ve been needed to so it has never been properly investigated. I recall in the 90s there was a thing about 207s passing through there, and it turned out this was merely due to lack of window bars.
I do remember on electrification the East Grinstead was worked with standard CIGs and VEPs (I remember this "in person" in 1987/8; indeed one of the 5 units used off-peak then formed part of a peak Littlehampton) but at some point they were considered unsuitable for the tunnel and a micro-fleet of modified VEPs with window bars was allocated to the service.
According to posts in the East Midlands thread the ex Scotrail 170s now formed in to 171s are going to East Midlands in September and the remainder of the 171s are being converted to 3 car units. This will benefit the Marshlink as they will then get 3 car units.
However it only leaves 8 or so spare carriages to provide either longer trains or additional services on the Uckfield line - but in an additional rumour the 171s will only go as far as East Croydon, so maybe the same number of units isn’t required. However changing at East Croydon in peak hours will be a nightmare.
On the positive side the report from the RSSB on electrification infill is eagerly awaited. That could lead to Uckfield being electrified with 3rd rail. However if that happens what stock would run down to Uckfield? Southern are losing one electric fleet this coming weekend. Will they have enough electric stock to serve Uckfield?
Where did you hear the rumour the 171's will only go as far as East Croydon? I wouldn't put much stock into that. Where is the spare capacity at East Croydon to terminate them there? (Answer there isn't any)
Third rail has been in use since at least 1933, so we've lived with it for close-on 100 years. I don't think it's a major safety concern if 20 or 30 miles of extra line in rural Sussex gets it, which is an extension to an existing network.
Further back than that, the LSWR started using 3rd rail electrification before WW1 - it was tge formation of the Southern which led to its adoption as a standard at the expense of the LBSC 6,600v OHL.
I'm constantly amazed that the RMT who play the safety card at the drop of a hat haven't campaigned against such a system which is fundamentally dangerous to those in close proximity to it.
(Incidentally, and admittedly OT, where did they get the CIGs and VEPs from to cover the 1987 East Grinstead electrification? Some were released in 1988 with the introduction of Thameslink, but that leaves the Sep 87 - May 88 period unaccounted for).
I hear the problem with battery units is having them in multiple. Im not sure exactly why. . I might be to do with differing voltages etc as the baterries get weaker? Not what we need.
True, in fact this was the case until at least July 1988, so both the Sep 1987 and May 1988 timetables had EPBs. I guess they had spare EPBs as some 455s were transferred over from the SWD to the Central, IIRC.
However no service was pure EPB, there was always at least one CIG or VEP in the formation. 5 (2x4CIG, 3x4VEP IIRC) were needed off peak, so probably at least double that in the peak. There was certainly at least one 8CIG and at least one 8VEP in the peak, and the frequency doubled.
Where did you hear the rumour the 171's will only go as far as East Croydon? I wouldn't put much stock into that. Where is the spare capacity at East Croydon to terminate them there? (Answer there isn't any)
The rumour about terminating at East Croydon came from Twitter. Personally not putting much stock on it. The only thing that possibly gives it legs is that it happened during lockdown. However at the time there was less traffic through Croydon so they weren’t in the way as much.
True, in fact this was the case until at least July 1988, so both the Sep 1987 and May 1988 timetables had EPBs. I guess they had spare EPBs as some 455s were transferred over from the SWD to the Central, IIRC.
However no service was pure EPB, there was always at least one CIG or VEP in the formation. 5 (2x4CIG, 3x4VEP IIRC) were needed off peak, so probably at least double that in the peak. There was certainly at least one 8CIG and at least one 8VEP in the peak, and the frequency doubled.
I was a commuter on the line for a year or two covering the last days of the diesel service and the start of electric services. In addition to the classes mentioned above the odd 4CEP would put in an occasional guest appearance. One morning soon after the 1987 storm I found myself on a unit that (from memory) was a 4VEP motor and TS sandwiched between 4CIG driving trailers (it may have been the other way round, i.e CIG middle with VEP ends). I think it had the designation 4VIG hand painted on the front.
I was a commuter on the line for a year or two covering the last days of the diesel service and the start of electric services. In addition to the classes mentioned above the odd 4CEP would put in an occasional guest appearance. One morning soon after the 1987 storm I found myself on a unit that (from memory) was a 4VEP motor and TS sandwiched between 4CIG driving trailers (it may have been the other way round, i.e CIG middle with VEP ends). I think it had the designation 4VIG hand painted on the front.
I think that was unit 7700 / 3000. CIG ends and VEP middle. It was on the South Western Division for a time, and worked VEP diagrams. However I think it then migrated to the Central. I remember seeing it frequently on the SWD in around 1985 and then I think at East Croydon in 1987 - which would have been in the October half-term, so also shortly after the storm.
One of the main reasons cited for replacing the 171s on the Uckfield line is the problem of reliability predicated on the use of just a handful of units on what is a closed diagram service. Instead of enabling integration of the service by utilising other DC stock after a program of third-rail infill, replacement of DMUs by battery-powered units would not resolve this, but rather maintain the status quo.
One of the main reasons cited for replacing the 171s on the Uckfield line is the problem of reliability predicated on the use of just a handful of units on what is a closed diagram service. Instead of enabling integration of the service by utilising other DC stock after a program of third-rail infill, replacement of DMUs by battery-powered units would not resolve this, but rather maintain the status quo.
Not if all EMUS are fitted with the batteries, which would be sensible given the additional cost per unit is likely to be low and the many benefits for both regular and disrupted operation it would bring.
Not if all EMUS are fitted with the batteries, which would be sensible given the additional cost per unit is likely to be low and the many benefits for both regular and disrupted operation it would bring.
But, if the aim of the batteries is mostly to have back-up power (to limp to next station) and boosts while accellerating, the batteries could be much smaller than if the trains needed to cover significant distances without electrification.
In addition, most (all?) current DC stock is not fitted with batteries, so it would be a long time untill all DC EMUs are fitted with batteries, if it was decided it's even worth the extra cost and weight. In the short to medium term the closed diagram service with dedicated stock would remain
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
