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!
Most certainly do, been there, done that. If they were to opt for longer fixed formations, which by their very nature can reduce actual siding vs car capacity, the pre 159 (loco hauled) arrangement of running some to/from Eastleigh might be an option?
potentially, but that many movements over the single line wouldn't be massively popular. One option may be to move the main depot to somewhere like Andover (and buy some land off the MOD) but keep stabling sidings at Salisbury, or potentially find some space near the quarry and substation west of the station.
Not sure how effective any new facing crossover (as above) would have been though tbh, due to the operational needs for a certain amount of time to elapse between each empty move entering the depot? Think there would still have been a degree of gridlock at certain times. Having a completely separate depot arrival and departure roads (separate connections with the main line) would have been beneficial though, allowing overnight departures off shed to be conflict free of units going on shed. Lack of space on the ground.....?
The benefit would be small but important. If you could get Platform 1 back into service and make 2, 3 and 4 usable from both directions it would give the timetable much-needed flexibility. It doesn't justify a wholesale resignalling, but it's the kind of thing you'd look to put in when some other project is doing major work.
Given costs are something all concerned will want to keep down, I think the answer is simple (ish - famous last words!) said slightly tongue in cheek. The detail of any such scheme is NEVER that simple of course. Put very basically sacrifice a couple of the five 9 car stabling sidings behind platform 1, and erect a new maintenance shed over the remaining three. Need to sacrifice a couple as extra floor space would be required between each road in a shed environment. It could be easily long enough to cater for (say?) 1 x 5 car unit undercover on each road and ancillary equipment etc, the present shed would remain as part of same, so certain aspects of maintenance equipment may not need to be replaced?
Then over on the Down side, is the site of 72B still clear (of buildings that is, not trees). Ideal location for a number of additional stabling sidings, and thus everything is still effectively within station limits, and thus as safe as can be from the attention of vandals etc. No massive changes for train crews or other staff either......
There had been talk once of converting SWR's 158 & 159 units to either hybrid or full electric operation, whether this has been considered recently I am not sure.
The biggest saving by doing this would be the end of diesel on these units if they were converted to full electric operation, this in turn would give more rapid acceleration when starting from station stops and also a significant reduction in exhaust gases going into the atmosphere.
There had been talk once of converting SWR's 158 & 159 units to either hybrid or full electric operation, whether this has been considered recently I am not sure.
The biggest saving by doing this would be the end of diesel on these units if they were converted to full electric operation, this in turn would give more rapid acceleration when starting from station stops and also a significant reduction in exhaust gases going into the atmosphere.
In the original electrification RUS they referred to converting the route to electric operation, not the rolling stock. AFAICS the 158 and 159 fleets are now far too old for payback of any conversion. We have seen they aren’t exactly rushing with the various Chiltern trials and proposals for their somewhat younger fleet.
The one thing I do hope is that SWR don't decide to 'modify' an older train again. It didn't go well with the 442s, and it isn't going well with GWRs 769s. They need brand-new stock.
The WoE line could theoretically do with similar stock to GWRs Portsmouth Services - 4 or 5 car, AC, DC and diesel engines - with potential for hydrogen in the future - but also with end gangways. I think a 755-style Stadler would do the trick for both operations, although at a substantial cost.
I would be surprised if anyone saw 125 miles of unelectrified railway, including around 70 miles of single track, multiple climbs in each direction, and which has a 1-2 tph service into two of the busiest stations of the country, and thought it was worth trying something experimental. Network Rail's 2020 route study has identified that isn't possible to deliver a reliable timetable with the amount of single track. Once anything goes wrong, the timetable tends to fall apart for hours. Not a good line to pick.
A bi-mode replacement seems most likely and sensible. Really shouldn't be running diesel into central London if possible.
In terms of the old 159 trains, they will be snapped up by pretty much any operator. Remember 150,156 are still in regular use and 158/9 are a pretty significant upgrade in terms of comfort.
I have a feeling 15X will be around for some time to come, especially with the air of austerity around...
A bi-mode replacement seems most likely and sensible. Really shouldn't be running diesel into central London if possible.
In terms of the old 159 trains, they will be snapped up by pretty much any operator. Remember 150,156 are still in regular use and 158/9 are a pretty significant upgrade in terms of comfort.
I have a feeling 15X will be around for some time to come, especially with the air of austerity around...
I think that is a fairly universal consensus. The one train that is desperately needed is a bi-mode for long secondary lines. (not a high speed version, but 100mph), comfortable for journeys upto 4 hours, but with doors that can cope with churn at busy intermediate stations.
But we are in period of limbo, franchises with new train orders have ground to a halt, GBR aren’t ready to order, rolling electrification programme doesn’t currently exist.
Probably best can hope for is Conservative Government realise great chunks of Wessex are theirs to lose as area is missing out on levelling up funds so wake up and offer replacement for Waterloo-Exeter and Portsmouth-Cardiff. And yes displaced stock will help out nationally.
For 150s and Cardiff to Portsmouth you'd be better off leaving the 159s where they are and just sending the bimode 385s straight to there.
The 159s have the wrong door layout for Cardiff to Portsmouth (158s used to work it, they took too long to board) and for 150 workings (when on GWR a 158 turns up instead of a 150 it ends up getting later and later during the summer peaks).
I know I’m late here but they ran in three carriage formations. Double them all up and run them in 5/6 carriage formations and they’d have been perfect, only they didn’t have the stock to do that.
I think that is a fairly universal consensus. The one train that is desperately needed is a bi-mode for long secondary lines. (not a high speed version, but 100mph), comfortable for journeys upto 4 hours, but with doors that can cope with churn at busy intermediate stations.
But we are in period of limbo, franchises with new train orders have ground to a halt, GBR aren’t ready to order, rolling electrification programme doesn’t currently exist.
Probably best can hope for is Conservative Government realise great chunks of Wessex are theirs to lose as area is missing out on levelling up funds so wake up and offer replacement for Waterloo-Exeter and Portsmouth-Cardiff. And yes displaced stock will help out nationally.
Closest thing we have is the Stadler Units. They could probably do it. Considering they are creating new stock for the Glasgow subway, I'm sure adding a 3rd rail shoe is within their capabilities.
With a lull in orders, rolling stock construction companies will probably be willing to negotiate on prices. Just needs a bright spark in procurement at DfT to take advantage.
Major issue, as you say is lack of clarity on electrification. This is one of the biggest issues across the network at the moment.
Closest thing we have is the Stadler Units. They could probably do it. Considering they are creating new stock for the Glasgow subway, I'm sure adding a 3rd rail shoe is within their capabilities.
I don't get why people are pushing for Flirts, especially when it was reported on a previous page that Stadler apparently won't do end gangways. Do you know who has experience with bi-modes, 3rd rail and will offer end gangways no questions asked? Siemens, Alstombardier and Hitachi.
I don't get why people are pushing for Flirts, especially when it was reported on a previous page that Stadler apparently won't do end gangways. Do you know who has experience with bi-modes, 3rd rail and will offer end gangways no questions asked? Siemens, Alstombardier and Hitachi.
Stadler is the only manufacturer that has completely level boarding, which is a massive benefit for access purposes, and can help speed up boarding as well.
Furthermore, their hyperflexible solution to bimode operation (with a separate car for the engines), makes it really easy to reliably convert the train in the future for fully zero-carbon operation.
Also, have you had a chance to travel on any of the FLIRTS that are out there? They are fantastic trains from a passenger perspective, I fully understand why people want that at more places
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No-one appears to have said that FLIRTS couldn't be built with gangways, just that the ones for the UK weren't, which given the services the existing FLIRTs are intended for make sense, you'd never need them there anyway.
Conversely, I wonder why some people seem to see gangways as such an essential part? To me, if the choice was gangway or level access it would be level access every time
At most operations, a train that's gangwayed throughout only requires 2 members of staff maximum. A train that isn't would require a member of staff per unit. A WoE service can have up to 4 units per service.
At most operations, a train that's gangwayed throughout only requires 2 members of staff maximum. A train that isn't would require a member of staff per unit. A WoE service can have up to 4 units per service.
That isn't true, there are operators that would allow a non-gangwayed unit to run with only 2 members of staff (or even DOO, with just a driver)
In addition, if the WoE line requires long trains, the number of coaches per unit could be increased from the current 3 coaches to 4, 6 or even 12 coaches, eliminating the problem, and reducing the amount of cabs required
That isn't true, there are operators that would allow a non-gangwayed unit to run with only 2 members of staff (or even DOO, with just a driver)
In addition, if the WoE line requires long trains, the number of coaches per unit could be increased from the current 3 coaches to 4, 6 or even 12 coaches, eliminating the problem, and reducing the amount of cabs required
Yes, I would like to think that when given the chance to order brand new stock, SWR would have units of at least 4 cars, maybe 5. They seem to spend most of their time coupled together anyway, often with 3+ units from Waterloo. The less intermediate cabs there are, the more space there is for seats and passengers, so I would think it would be in SWRs' best interest.
The only time this could pose a problem would be the Romsey-Salisbury route, as 5 car may be a bit overkill for that - they could always keep a few 158/9s behind to operate it, a bit like what they did with the 3Cigs on the Lymington branch for a while whilst the rest of the slam doors were retired - especially as almost all of the route is still unelectrified.
At most operations, a train that's gangwayed throughout only requires 2 members of staff maximum. A train that isn't would require a member of staff per unit.
That is utter nonsense. For starters, SWR run non-through-gangwayed stock in multiple with only two staff members. And there is at least one TOC that runs three such units in multiple with just one member of staff.
Yes. Based on the engines included in the greater anglia 755s (2-engines for the /3s, 4 engines for the /4s), you would still only need one powerpack for a 6-coach bimode FLIRT.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It might be worth just electrifying the relevant lines though, and getting straight EMUs
Stadler is the only manufacturer that has completely level boarding, which is a massive benefit for access purposes, and can help speed up boarding as well.
Furthermore, their hyperflexible solution to bimode operation (with a separate car for the engines), makes it really easy to reliably convert the train in the future for fully zero-carbon operation.
Also, have you had a chance to travel on any of the FLIRTS that are out there? They are fantastic trains from a passenger perspective, I fully understand why people want that at more places
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No-one appears to have said that FLIRTS couldn't be built with gangways, just that the ones for the UK weren't, which given the services the existing FLIRTs are intended for make sense, you'd never need them there anyway.
Conversely, I wonder why some people seem to see gangways as such an essential part? To me, if the choice was gangway or level access it would be level access every time
The answer to your question is quite simply, there are stations in some places that would only be able to offer six cars in a station of say a nine coach train. Now, yes passengers should make sure that they are in the 6 coaches for the station that they require, however you do have days such as when say football matches are on that the six cars for the required station are full at the time a passenger wants to or needs to travel. With the trains having a gangway between units, it then make sit easier for a passenger to walk through the train to get off the station they require, if they are not in the first 6 cars.
Yes, I would like to think that when given the chance to order brand new stock, SWR would have units of at least 4 cars, maybe 5. They seem to spend most of their time coupled together anyway, often with 3+ units from Waterloo. The less intermediate cabs there are, the more space there is for seats and passengers, so I would think it would be in SWRs' best interest.
The only time this could pose a problem would be the Romsey-Salisbury route, as 5 car may be a bit overkill for that - they could always keep a few 158/9s behind to operate it, a bit like what they did with the 3Cigs on the Lymington branch for a while whilst the rest of the slam doors were retired - especially as almost all of the route is still unelectrified.
Surely, this is where it would be best to order both 6-car and 4-car units, both plus power pack car. For London Waterloo - Salisbury you would have a 6-car unit working with a 4-car unit, with the 4 car unit going on to Exeter St David's.
Any other four car units could be used to work routes such as Romsey - Salisbury.
Conversely, I wonder why some people seem to see gangways as such an essential part? To me, if the choice was gangway or level access it would be level access every time
If those two features actually were mutually exclusive, I'd agree that level boarding is more important.
We aren't the only country that widely uses end-gangways, but we do seem to have become dependent on them in certain areas. The way the West of England line is operated makes gangways important, but those practices aren't necessarily set in stone.
I don't get why people are pushing for Flirts, especially when it was reported on a previous page that Stadler apparently won't do end gangways. Do you know who has experience with bi-modes, 3rd rail and will offer end gangways no questions asked? Siemens, Alstombardier and Hitachi.
I recall when introduced 159s were the fastest accelerating stock on south western trains. The 4REPS having gone with their motors being used to power the 442s.
But different times of day will have different loading. Does it really make sense to cart around fresh air, rather than just running longer stock at busy times?
Surely, this is where it would be best to order both 6-car and 4-car units, both plus power pack car. For London Waterloo - Salisbury you would have a 6-car unit working with a 4-car unit, with the 4 car unit going on to Exeter St David's.
Would probably need the 6-car unit for the Exeter portion as I have been on trains consisting of 2x3 car class 159's between Exeter and Salisbury which have been full before reaching Salisbury
But different times of day will have different loading. Does it really make sense to cart around fresh air, rather than just running longer stock at busy times?
Yeah, but in reality you can't just leave carriages blocking up platforms at Waterloo/Exeter. Plus the loadings are going to be a little more consistent on longer distance routes and you need to make sure the right trains are in the right places for those peak periods.
Plus, quiet periods means you should be selling lots of cheap advances to keep the trains full-ish throughout the day.
Yeah, but in reality you can't just leave carriages blocking up platforms at Waterloo/Exeter. Plus the loadings are going to be a little more consistent on longer distance routes and you need to make sure the right trains are in the right places for those peak periods.
The answer to your question is quite simply, there are stations in some places that would only be able to offer six cars in a station of say a nine coach train. Now, yes passengers should make sure that they are in the 6 coaches for the station that they require, however you do have days such as when say football matches are on that the six cars for the required station are full at the time a passenger wants to or needs to travel. With the trains having a gangway between units, it then make sit easier for a passenger to walk through the train to get off the station they require, if they are not in the first 6 cars.
The West of England line has a real variety of platform lengths, and with some stations only using one platform would be a good candidate to sort out and lengthen few others.
Some are full intercity length (about 900 feet or 275m)
Others nearer 800 feet (about 245m)
Others nearer 500 feet (about 150m)
It is a hangover from days of steam locos and 12-14 coach holiday trains at the junction stations, and shorter local trains at intermediate stops.
Surely, this is where it would be best to order both 6-car and 4-car units, both plus power pack car. For London Waterloo - Salisbury you would have a 6-car unit working with a 4-car unit, with the 4 car unit going on to Exeter St David's.
Having a mix of 4car and 6car units is obviously more complicated to diagram than identical fleet of 5car units. But I get the idea of flexibility, but a train doing a 6 hour round trip is not easy to categorise as peak or off-peak so ideal number of cars rarely suits whole route.
However the current configuration means trains from Salisbury to Waterloo are often 9x23m =207m (680feet) which on the busy peak hour main line into Waterloo wastes line capacity as others are 243m (800 feet)
The West of England line has a real variety of platform lengths, and with some stations only using one platform would be a good candidate to sort out and lengthen few others.
Some are full intercity length (about 900 feet or 275m)
Others nearer 800 feet (about 245m)
Others nearer 500 feet (about 150m)
It is a hangover from days of steam locos and 12-14 coach holiday trains at the junction stations, and shorter local trains at intermediate stops.
Having a mix of 4car and 6car units is obviously more complicated to diagram than identical fleet of 5car units. But I get the idea of flexibility, but a train doing a 6 hour round trip is not easy to categorise as peak or off-peak so ideal number of cars rarely suits whole route.
However the current configuration means trains from Salisbury to Waterloo are often 9x23m =207m (680feet) which on the busy peak hour main line into Waterloo wastes line capacity as others are 243m (800 feet)
Didn't SWT used to run some 10-car formations (159+159+158+158) between Salisbury and Waterloo? That's basically the same length as a double 442 or 444.
Would probably need the 6-car unit for the Exeter portion as I have been on trains consisting of 2x3 car class 159's between Exeter and Salisbury which have been full before reaching Salisbury
Definitely! I heard that swr were considering shortening their units to Exeter a while ago. Back in December, I got a 2 coach 158890 from London - Exeter St David's. Packed.
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.
