700/0s to Southern

[rmHawk765]

Recently I have been thinking about the transfer of GN's 387s to Southern. The purpose was, as I understand it, to prevent overcrowding on long-distance SN services which are very commonly only formed of 8 coaches instead of 12 due to a lack of 377s. However the change from 387s to 700s on many King's Cross-Cambridge trains has not been taken particularly well, and Southern currently operates 377s on metro routes they are arguably unsuitable for (even refurbished 2+2 only units). The reverse is a better approach from a long-term perspective - the 387s are optimised for seating and regional routes, and the 700/0s are much better metro trains.

Obviously the reason the 387s were transferred was cost - it is much cheaper for SN to operate very similar stock to what they already have. Introducing the 700s would mean driver retraining but I'd argue the long term benefit would justify it. Yes, the flexibility of using any unit on any SN service will be lost but having a separate metro fleet isn't exactly new in the southeast. As I see it, a high frequency route is better off with a dedicated fleet anyway to maximise reliability.

The questions I'm not sure about are whether a) a 700/0 has more or less seating capacity (undeniably more standing) than 2x4 or 2x5 refurbished 377s, and b) how many 700/0s the Rainham, Orpington, Sevenoaks & Sutton TL routes require. But I thought I'd make a thread about this because it's not a completely outrageous idea and would have benefits beyond just preventing overcrowding on long distance trains. There are other ways to tackle that issue which have been discussed on here before, such as making GX cheaper to make it a bit less of a fresh air carrier (especially with the planned return to 4tph in December!).

And finally I appreciate there are some oddities like Caterham/Tattenham, and that not every SN metro route can be covered by a 700 because they're needed for TL.

 

[bramling]

Recently I have been thinking about the transfer of GN's 387s to Southern. The purpose was, as I understand it, to prevent overcrowding on long-distance SN services which are very commonly only formed of 8 coaches instead of 12 due to a lack of 377s. However the change from 387s to 700s on many King's Cross-Cambridge trains has not been taken particularly well, and Southern currently operates 377s on metro routes they are arguably unsuitable for (even refurbished 2+2 only units). The reverse is a better approach from a long-term perspective - the 387s are optimised for seating and regional routes, and the 700/0s are much better metro trains.

Obviously the reason the 387s were transferred was cost - it is much cheaper for SN to operate very similar stock to what they already have. Introducing the 700s would mean driver retraining but I'd argue the long term benefit would justify it. Yes, the flexibility of using any unit on any SN service will be lost but having a separate metro fleet isn't exactly new in the southeast. As I see it, a high frequency route is better off with a dedicated fleet anyway to maximise reliability.

The questions I'm not sure about are whether a) a 700/0 has more or less seating capacity (undeniably more standing) than 2x4 or 2x5 refurbished 377s, and b) how many 700/0s the Rainham, Orpington, Sevenoaks & Sutton TL routes require. But I thought I'd make a thread about this because it's not a completely outrageous idea and would have benefits beyond just preventing overcrowding on long distance trains. There are other ways to tackle that issue which have been discussed on here before, such as making GX cheaper to make it a bit less of a fresh air carrier (especially with the planned return to 4tph in December!).

And finally I appreciate there are some oddities like Caterham/Tattenham, and that not every SN metro route can be covered by a 700 because they're needed for TL.

From a numbers point of view this would actually work. Returning 16x 387 (the remainder of the 387/1 fleet) to GN would release 8x 700/0, which is essentially the number of GN-only diagrams. This would leave the only 700/0 on GN as Welwyn-Sevenoaks plus the occasional substitution for 700/1s.

There’s a snag though, which is that Hornsey Siemens depot is a maintenance location for the class 700 fleet. If you had 8 units working on Southern, how are they going to be maintained? Would Three Bridges have capacity to do it? Likewise, does Hornsey GN have the capacity to take on a extra 16 units?

(In theory the latter should be yes, given that they maintained 65x 317/321/365, which is still more than 59x 387/379, and in theory Electrostars should require less maintenance).

 

[zwk500]

Are you proposing removing services from the core (reducing capacity), transferring spare 700s (there aren't any), or operating 377s/387s through the core in place of the 700s?

I imagine the latter is a non-starter. Although the units will need to be fitted with ETCS at some point, there's no plans or need for them to be fitted with ATO, a 377 doesn't match the performance of a 700 (not sure about a 387), and I'm fairly sure neither electrostar would match the dwell times.

There’s a snag though, which is that Hornsey Siemens depot is a maintenance location for the class 700 fleet. If you had 8 units working on Southern, how are they going to be maintained? Would Three Bridges have capacity to do it?

Three bridges is already a class 700 maintenance depot.

 

[JonathanH]

Are you proposing removing services from the core (reducing capacity), transferring spare 700s (there aren't any), or operating 377s/387s through the core in place of the 700s?

I think the idea is 387s working captive GN workings that don't go anywhere near the Thameslink core, with 700s working some captive Southern suburban services instead and displaced 377s working Coastway duties in place of 387s.

 

[MatthewE707]

The questions I'm not sure about are whether a) a 700/0 has more or less seating capacity (undeniably more standing) than 2x4 or 2x5 refurbished 377s, and b) how many 700/0s the Rainham, Orpington, Sevenoaks & Sutton TL routes require.

(a) Including tip-up seats:

• A 700/0 has 52 first class and 381 standard class (8 car)
• A 2x377/4 has 40 first class and 442 standard class (8 car)
• A 2x377/6 has 48 first class and 552 standard class (10 car)

There are some differences depending on the exact units but approximately correct

 

[rmHawk765]

Are you proposing removing services from the core (reducing capacity), transferring spare 700s (there aren't any), or operating 377s/387s through the core in place of the 700s?

None , I am proposing returning the captive GN services into King's Cross to a full 387/379 operation, with the 700/0s replacing the moved 387s on certain Southern diagrams instead.

Returning 16x 387 (the remainder of the 387/1 fleet) to GN would release 8x 700/0, which is essentially the number of GN-only diagrams.

In addition to this it would be necessary to know how many units are currently needed for TL including spares stabled at various locations. I highly doubt all the units are needed, there's a whole 60 of them.

There’s a snag though, which is that Hornsey Siemens depot is a maintenance location for the class 700 fleet. If you had 8 units working on Southern, how are they going to be maintained? Would Three Bridges have capacity to do it? Likewise, does Hornsey GN have the capacity to take on a extra 16 units?

This comes down to whether Three Bridges can take on extra units really, and also whether it is feasible to store them if necessary at Selhurst & Norwood (though admittedly I am not very familiar with what is done at those depots).

 

[Mikey C]

Also, aren't the 700s 100mph units, and the 387s 110mph units, so could the extra speed be usuful on Kings X to Cambridge services, at least on the ECML to catch up on late running for example?

 

[rmHawk765]

Also, aren't the 700s 100mph units, and the 387s 110mph units, so could the extra speed be usuful on Kings X to Cambridge services, at least on the ECML to catch up on late running for example?

The 387s are limited to 100 on GN as the OHLE cannot take a train doing 110 with its pantographs so close together. Sounds bizzare, I know.

 

[Bayum]

The 387s are limited to 100 on GN as the OHLE cannot take a train doing 110 with its pantographs so close together. Sounds bizzare, I know.

Considering Eurostar was unable to reach top speed on the ECML due to using two pantographs, this doesn’t surprise me even if it is ridiculous. The 80x can do 125mph though when in double?

 

[Zomboid]

Considering Eurostar was unable to reach top speed on the ECML due to using two pantographs, this doesn’t surprise me even if it is ridiculous. The 80x can do 125mph though when in double?

The OLE has been upgraded since the 373s, I believe. And 800s with the outer pans up have 8 26m carriage lengths between them, but 4 car electrostars only have 4x 20m between pans, quite a big difference.

 

[bramling]

The issue is pantograph compatibility with the Fen Line, not the ECML.

The KX to Cambridge stopping service wouldn’t really benefit from 110mph as under normal circumstances there’s nowhere on the route where this is even close to being attainable. Only during disruption when services occasionally get routed on the fast lines missing out stops.

There would be a small benefit on the Peterborough peak services which generally do use the fast lines for some of their journey, however with a constant 4tph of class 700s which are 100mph it really isn’t going to make a massive difference. Any time saving essentially amounts to small change in the grand scheme of things.

I don’t think the idea of 387 vice 700/0 on GN is a bad one in principle though. With these services seemingly now highly unlikely to ever run through the core, there is no justification for the 700 layout on GN-only services. A class 387 is more suitable.

 

[London Trains]

Maybe the London Bridge to East Croydon/Beckenham Junction services would be a good location for the 700s theoretically freed up from GN?

There are only 7 diagrams, nearly a perfect fit for the number of 700s freed up from GN, and these diagrams are nearly self-contained (and it wouldn't be difficult to make them fully self-contained). These services are also restricted to 8 coaches, unlike the rest of the Southern Metro which can take 10 coaches, so it wouldn't result in shorter trains - in fact, it would actually increase train lengths on the line because of the very poor decision to reduce these services to 6 coaches.

700s on any of the other Southern metro routes would be a hard no, but in my opinion they would make sense to be used on these services in isolation.

Edit - maybe Watford Junction to East Croydon is another possibility?

 

[Bald Rick]

In addition to this it would be necessary to know how many units are currently needed for TL including spares stabled at various locations. I highly doubt all the units are needed, there's a whole 60 of them.

All of them, there’s none spare. A couple work Bedford - Brighton line diagrams too.

I forget what the availability from Siemens is, but its something like 94 of the 115 units each day. And sometimes they dont make that.

 

[London Trains]

All of them, there’s none spare. A couple work Bedford - Brighton line diagrams too.

I forget what the availability from Siemens is, but its something like 94 of the 115 units each day. And sometimes they dont make that.

That's shockingly poor unit availability.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's shockingly poor unit availability.

I think they have 2 out at a time currently for ‘polishing’. But even so, yes.

 

[rmHawk765]

I forget what the availability from Siemens is, but its something like 94 of the 115 units each day. And sometimes they dont make that.

Do you know the availability per subclass is? That is very low for a fleet which is supposed to be one of the most reliable in the country...

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you know the availability per subclass is? That is very low for a fleet which is supposed to be one of the most reliable in the country...

Well one of the reasons it’s low is that a lot of them are in the garage! See also GA 720.
(and no, I don’t know the subclass numbers, bt a reasonable assumption would be in % proportion)

 

[bramling]

Well one of the reasons it’s low is that a lot of them are in the garage! See also GA 720.
(and no, I don’t know the subclass numbers, bt a reasonable assumption would be in % proportion)

I’ve certainly noticed recently that on the GN side there seem to be a lot of 700/0 substituting for 700/1s. Seemingly virtually every day over the last couple of weeks.

 

[brad465]

The 387s are limited to 100 on GN as the OHLE cannot take a train doing 110 with its pantographs so close together. Sounds bizzare, I know.

Does this also apply to GWR 387s on the GWML, or this just a ECML-only issue?

I think they have 2 out at a time currently for ‘polishing’. But even so, yes.

I'm guessing it's something that, unlike their seats, can't just be "ironed out"

(Runs for cover)

 

[Bald Rick]

(Runs for cover)

An ironing board cover, presumably.

 

[rmHawk765]

Does this also apply to GWR 387s on the GWML, or this just a ECML-only issue?

No, the GWML has the most over-engineered OHLE in the country so they can do 110 over there

Well one of the reasons it’s low is that a lot of them are in the garage! See also GA 720.

But with GA's 720s they're held for use in disruption (presumably). I don't think it's the same with the 700s (for the obvious crewing reasons)?

I’ve certainly noticed recently that on the GN side there seem to be a lot of 700/0 substituting for 700/1s. Seemingly virtually every day over the last couple of weeks.

AIUI, 700/1 availability is currently low because many units were running with one non-functional pantograph due to the heatwaves (hence half the power and harder to keep to the timetable), and I would understand if now that the heat has somewhat died down the opportunity has been taken to repair all those units.