Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway: progress updates

[bb21]

Can you explain this further - a 450 is often 2x4 car trains so why can’t they be compared?

Because you can run the 4s individually, or can run with defective ends boxed in, where needed. You cannot do that with the two 5s separately or reform them.

 

[adc82140]

I agree. The challenge there is that there are not perhaps enough alternative 10 car (approx) units to compare with.

So maybe we need to dream up a method to allow us to compare like with not like ?.

We could compare with the Cl 700s. 8 or 12 car fixed formation.

 

[Peter Sarf]

We could compare with the Cl 700s. 8 or 12 car fixed formation.

Actually thats good as it compares a different manufacturer from a slightly earlier design era.

Also, thinking further, I do not get the impression the 345s from the same manufacturer are anywhere near as problematic.
A very similar train will be 720s vs 701/5s.

I suspect the history of the 701 design and rollout will be a factor. Lots of time in storage.

 

[NCT]

Weren't the 345s very problematic when first introduced?

 

[Big Jumby 74]

To try (again) to clarify the suburban Traffic v Maintenance (CM&EE in old speak) allocation of units I will refer to the timetable as was in place in the last years of SWT, during the 10 car plan that they instituted.

It must be remembered that not all suburban trains were lengthened to 10 cars at that time. The following number of SX circuits remained as 8 cars;

3 x circuits/6 x unit diagrams, on the Reading line remained 8 car 450.

21 x circuits/42 x unit diagrams remained formed of 8 car 455.

Why were these not strengthened? Stabling capacity, or lack of, in essence, despite a lot of work to increase capacity at various locations by a lot of people. Ran out of further options at that time.

In addition to the remaining eight car services (above), ten car formations as diagrammed in the SX suburban area circa 2016/2017 were as follows;

20 x 10 car utilising 20 x 456 and 40 x 455.

15 x 10 car utilising 30 x 458/5.

13 x 10 car utilising 26 x 707.

Plus 1 x 5 car 707.

Overall, 48 x 10 car formations. I will ignore the odd 5 car 707 for this discussion (1935 Waterloo to Reading, some may remember it?).

Here's the crux of the matter.

If an uplifted Timetable in the near future is to bear some resemblance to that which applied in 2016/2017, and ALL suburban services were to be diagrammed to be 10 car formations, this would require 72 x 10 car sets.

If the 701 fleets are diagrammed to 95% traffic availability (the norm since I started in BR days for suburban units), the number of traffic 701's would equate to that which I have referred to in the past, namely;

56/60 x 701/0.

27/30 x 701/5.

Again, ignoring the odd 1 x 701/5 which balances out the odd 1 x 707, this amounts to 69 x 10 car formations.

What is to be made of this?

Since the advent of SWR (FG/MTR) Feltham depot has been brought on line, 10 x 10 car stabling roads, bringing the total 10 car stabling capacity up to 58 x 10 car over and above the SWT 10 car plan and the pre covid timetable, plus a sixth 10 car siding (#14 road) at Strawberry Hill (59 x 10 car) but this still leaves a shortfall of capacity on the Main suburban side (depot wise) to match where trains are required to be stabled to provide service every morning, without compromising Network Rail's over night possession requirements and increasing train crew establishment costs as a result of having to bring trains from further afield.

There are I am reliably informed, still a number of issues to be addressed at ground level, before the 701 roll out can be concluded (as some others on here have alluded to), and this may take some time, and so the optimum 10 car (701) service based on my assumptions (pre covid TT and associated number of 10 car diagrams wise) can not happen for some time, I would guess?

I have noted on the SWR website, included in the Leaf Fall period Carriage Working Notice (Sept to Dec), (select 'Diagrams' in the search box to locate same), that most of the former International platforms at Waterloo are now being used for 10 car 701 overnight stabling, which is a massive bonus, as those platforms could never accommodate splitting or detaching from inception, so they make an ideal location for fixed 10 car sets.

There is also a noticeable decrease in Westbound departures from Wimbledon Depot (no surprise there!), but I dread to think what this aspect has had on Train Crew diagramming.....

 

[Goldfish62]

Weren't the 345s very problematic when first introduced?

Yes, very - according to a friend who's worked on them from Day 1.

The 701s, while not exactly high flyers, are far surpassing the reliability of the 345s at this stage since service entry. Source - Modern Railways monthly reliability stats.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 16:46 ==

To try (again) to clarify the suburban Traffic v Maintenance (CM&EE in old speak) allocation of units I will refer to the timetable as was in place in the last years of SWT, during the 10 car plan that they instituted.

It must be remembered that not all suburban trains were lengthened to 10 cars at that time. The following number of SX circuits remained as 8 cars;

3 x circuits/6 x unit diagrams, on the Reading line remained 8 car 450.

21 x circuits/42 x unit diagrams remained formed of 8 car 455.

Why were these not strengthened? Stabling capacity, or lack of, in essence, despite a lot of work to increase capacity at various locations by a lot of people. Ran out of further options at that time.

In addition to the remaining eight car services (above), ten car formations as diagrammed in the SX suburban area circa 2016/2017 were as follows;

20 x 10 car utilising 20 x 456 and 40 x 455.

15 x 10 car utilising 30 x 458/5.

13 x 10 car utilising 26 x 707.

Plus 1 x 5 car 707.

Overall, 48 x 10 car formations. I will ignore the odd 5 car 707 for this discussion (1935 Waterloo to Reading, some may remember it?).

Here's the crux of the matter.

If an uplifted Timetable in the near future is to bear some resemblance to that which applied in 2016/2017, and ALL suburban services were to be diagrammed to be 10 car formations, this would require 72 x 10 car sets.

If the 701 fleets are diagrammed to 95% traffic availability (the norm since I started in BR days for suburban units), the number of traffic 701's would equate to that which I have referred to in the past, namely;

56/60 x 701/0.

27/30 x 701/5.

Again, ignoring the odd 1 x 701/5 which balances out the odd 1 x 707, this amounts to 69 x 10 car formations.

What is to be made of this?

Since the advent of SWR (FG/MTR) Feltham depot has been brought on line, 10 x 10 car stabling roads, bringing the total 10 car stabling capacity up to 58 x 10 car over and above the SWT 10 car plan and the pre covid timetable, plus a sixth 10 car siding (#14 road) at Strawberry Hill (59 x 10 car) but this still leaves a shortfall of capacity on the Main suburban side (depot wise) to match where trains are required to be stabled to provide service every morning, without compromising Network Rail's over night possession requirements and increasing train crew establishment costs as a result of having to bring trains from further afield.

There are I am reliably informed, still a number of issues to be addressed at ground level, before the 701 roll out can be concluded (as some others on here have alluded to), and this may take some time, and so the optimum 10 car (701) service based on my assumptions (pre covid TT and associated number of 10 car diagrams wise) can not happen for some time, I would guess?

I have noted on the SWR website, included in the Leaf Fall period Carriage Working Notice (Sept to Dec), (select 'Diagrams' in the search box to locate same), that most of the former International platforms at Waterloo are now being used for 10 car 701 overnight stabling, which is a massive bonus, as those platforms could never accommodate splitting or detaching from inception, so they make an ideal location for fixed 10 car sets.

There is also a noticeable decrease in Westbound departures from Wimbledon Depot (no surprise there!), but I dread to think what this aspect has had on Train Crew diagramming.....

Very insightful - thanks for posting this!

 

[Peter Sarf]

To try (again) to clarify the suburban Traffic v Maintenance (CM&EE in old speak) allocation of units I will refer to the timetable as was in place in the last years of SWT, during the 10 car plan that they instituted.

It must be remembered that not all suburban trains were lengthened to 10 cars at that time. The following number of SX circuits remained as 8 cars;

3 x circuits/6 x unit diagrams, on the Reading line remained 8 car 450.

21 x circuits/42 x unit diagrams remained formed of 8 car 455.

Why were these not strengthened? Stabling capacity, or lack of, in essence, despite a lot of work to increase capacity at various locations by a lot of people. Ran out of further options at that time.

In addition to the remaining eight car services (above), ten car formations as diagrammed in the SX suburban area circa 2016/2017 were as follows;

20 x 10 car utilising 20 x 456 and 40 x 455.

15 x 10 car utilising 30 x 458/5.

13 x 10 car utilising 26 x 707.

Plus 1 x 5 car 707.

Overall, 48 x 10 car formations. I will ignore the odd 5 car 707 for this discussion (1935 Waterloo to Reading, some may remember it?).

Here's the crux of the matter.

If an uplifted Timetable in the near future is to bear some resemblance to that which applied in 2016/2017, and ALL suburban services were to be diagrammed to be 10 car formations, this would require 72 x 10 car sets.

If the 701 fleets are diagrammed to 95% traffic availability (the norm since I started in BR days for suburban units), the number of traffic 701's would equate to that which I have referred to in the past, namely;

56/60 x 701/0.

27/30 x 701/5.

Again, ignoring the odd 1 x 701/5 which balances out the odd 1 x 707, this amounts to 69 x 10 car formations.

What is to be made of this?

Since the advent of SWR (FG/MTR) Feltham depot has been brought on line, 10 x 10 car stabling roads, bringing the total 10 car stabling capacity up to 58 x 10 car over and above the SWT 10 car plan and the pre covid timetable, plus a sixth 10 car siding (#14 road) at Strawberry Hill (59 x 10 car) but this still leaves a shortfall of capacity on the Main suburban side (depot wise) to match where trains are required to be stabled to provide service every morning, without compromising Network Rail's over night possession requirements and increasing train crew establishment costs as a result of having to bring trains from further afield.

There are I am reliably informed, still a number of issues to be addressed at ground level, before the 701 roll out can be concluded (as some others on here have alluded to), and this may take some time, and so the optimum 10 car (701) service based on my assumptions (pre covid TT and associated number of 10 car diagrams wise) can not happen for some time, I would guess?

I have noted on the SWR website, included in the Leaf Fall period Carriage Working Notice (Sept to Dec), (select 'Diagrams' in the search box to locate same), that most of the former International platforms at Waterloo are now being used for 10 car 701 overnight stabling, which is a massive bonus, as those platforms could never accommodate splitting or detaching from inception, so they make an ideal location for fixed 10 car sets.

There is also a noticeable decrease in Westbound departures from Wimbledon Depot (no surprise there!), but I dread to think what this aspect has had on Train Crew diagramming.....

Thanks for illuminating.

When I read that, in SWT days, 48 x 10car working were catered for I immediately thought - well we are only just over running 48 now - coincidence ?. But that is including some (how many ?) that were needing forming up from short sidings each morning. How many ?.

As you say 11 more 10car sidings added since SWT days by Feltham (10) and Strawberry Hill (1). So total 59. But that will only soak up some 701/5 pairs if any BUT it does free up locations with existing short sidings to do ll fewer train formation set ups. That is still presumably 10 extra sets of shunting needed (69 available 10car formations minus 59 10car sidings for them). But more than 10 if some of the 59 still involve splitting/joining.

So minimum 10 extra splitting/joining excercises every morning and night involving 20 x 701/5. Lots to get ready and capable for each day !.

Then you go on to remind us that more work is yet to be done on coping with more 10car trains. At beginning and end of day when they come out of (and into at end of day) sidings that cannot accommodate 10car trains (so need two sidings for two 701/5s for one 10car service). Many of those sidings could accommodate a pair of 4car units formed up and ready to go but cannot now. A lot of manoeuvres.

I hoped for the sake of operational simplicity that a lot of what is being done makes splitting and joining less likely BUT then I realise fewer 701/5s would have been ordered and more 10car 701/0s !.

Put another way the 11 new 10 car sidings means 11 existing 8car sidings can now be used for 5car 701/5s for effectively capacity for 11 more 10car formations made up from two sidings each - assuming there are 11 other 8car sidings in the vicininty. BUT it is more forming and un forming DAILY than in the 8car era.

 

[norbitonflyer]

To try (again) to clarify the suburban Traffic v Maintenance (CM&EE in old speak) allocation of units I will refer to the timetable as was in place in the last years of SWT, during the 10 car plan that they instituted.

It must be remembered that not all suburban trains were lengthened to 10 cars at that time. The following number of SX circuits remained as 8 cars;

3 x circuits/6 x unit diagrams, on the Reading line remained 8 car 450.

21 x circuits/42 x unit diagrams remained formed of 8 car 455.

Why were these not strengthened? Stabling capacity, or lack of, in essence, despite a lot of work to increase capacity at various locations by a lot of people. Ran out of further options at that time.

Nothing to do with stabling capacity, and all to do with arithmetic. There were no 2-car units that could work with 450s, and only 24 456s to work with the 91 class 455s. So with twenty ten-car 455/456 diagrams, there were over forty 455s left over. Ten cars was the maximum most stations could take, but if you only have 4-car units available you cannot form a ten-car train.
Likewise, as Class 450s are 4-car, you can't make a ten car train out of them.
Well, you can make the equivalent. A 444 has longer carriages than a 450 (1), and a 5 car set is the same length as six carriages of class 450, so a 444 + 450 formation is the same length as a normal 10-car train. But there were no 444s to spare

(1) this goes back a long way. The 442s usded statndard Mark 3 bodyshells, which were longer than the Mark 1 bodies of the REP/TC units they replaced. In order to fit the same platforms a full 442 had to be the same length as a 12 car REP/TC, which meant they had to be ten cars long.
Each power car was to have the power equipment salvaged from the REPs. A REP, and therefore a REP/TC twelve car train, had two motor coaches, so the new trains could only have two motor coaches. The easiest way to do this was to form them as 5-car trains. (an additional consideration wwas that west of Bournemeth the electrification could only cope with one power car(two power bogies) at a time, so the trains had to be divisible).
Hence the - unique in 1988 - formation of 5 cars. The 444s are, in terms of units, like for like replacements - the constraints west of Bournementh are still there so five cars is still the max, and 4 cars not considered enough.
Five cars is now quite common - classes 376 (2004), 377/6 and /7 (2012), 458/5 (augmented in 2015), 378 (augmented in 2014), 707 (2015), 397 (2017), 720 (2018), 701 and 710/3 (2019), 730/2 (2020), 555 (2021), and all IEPs except class 807, are either 5-car or 10-car

 

[NSEWonderer]

Weren't the 345s very problematic when first introduced?

Extremely poor, used to cause half day shut downs at times and was quite a bit of an issue that the media would pick up on it, often the issues would arrive right after a Software upgrade to train or signalling. Took about 1 year and a half to really knuckle down the major issues.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Extremely poor, used to cause half day shut downs at times and was quite a bit of an issue that the media would pick up on it, often the issues would arrive right after a Software upgrade to train or signalling. Took about 1 year and a half to really knuckle down the major issues.

Oh how we forget !.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Thanks for illuminating.

Thank you Peter. I will respond in detail in due course, as being a suburban person you clearly understand the issues involved, and my response will need further composure before replying.

Nothing to do with stabling capacity, and all to do with arithmetic

Your response as a regular contributor saddens me in a way. I had thought you had a better understanding of matters relating to the SWR network.

Have you in a professional mode, ever had input in to measuring every siding (in feet and inches) at the Depots at Wimbledon, Clapham Yard, Strawberry Hill, Staines, Strawberry Hill (I could go on) to ascertain the actual stabling capacity as existed in 2012/2013 in relation to that which was required for the proposed 10 car plan of 2016/2017, in association with the timetable in place at the time?

Don't bother answering that, as I know very well the one other person who undertook the said exercise concerned with me.

You seem to be referring to 10 car platform (capacity) at stations within the SWR network. That was a work in progress at the time, and was largely successful, with a few exceptions, but without overnight depot stabling capacity to match the number of 10 car units required to provide service each day, that service will suffer short forms, end of.

For the record, it would be suicidal (for the train service) for a depot such as Wimbledon to have to undertake shunting and reforming moves during the period of peak hour departures every morning. In fact there were no slots for shunting moves from siding to siding within Wimbledon depot during those hours, the departure services being too intense/frequent for any other add hoc shunting moves to take place.

Given my comments above about 10 car 701's now being stabled at and within the old Waterloo International platforms en-mass, and an obvious associated decline in the number of Westbound departures from Wimbledon (Top Yard) depot, which then (might) throw up shunting slots within the Top Yard to combine 2 x 5 car 701's, I now am wondering whom I am talking to? Feel 3-2-PM-me!

 

[norbitonflyer]

Your response as a regular contributor saddens me in a way. I had thought you had a better understanding of matters relating to the SWR network.

You seem to be referring to 10 car platform (capacity) at stations within the SWR network. That was a work in progress at the time, and was largely successful, with a few exceptions, but without overnight depot stabling capacity to match the number of 10 car units required to provide service each day, that service will suffer short forms, end of.

Oh, I appreciate that there wasn't sufficent stabling capacity, but my point was that until the withdrawal of the 455s it was not possible to run a full 10-car service anyway. There had to be some 8-car trains

 

[Roger B]

Thank you Peter. I will respond in detail in due course, as being a suburban person you clearly understand the issues involved, and my response will need further composure before replying.

Your response as a regular contributor saddens me in a way. I had thought you had a better understanding of matters relating to the SWR network.

Have you in a professional mode, ever had input in to measuring every siding (in feet and inches) at the Depots at Wimbledon, Clapham Yard, Strawberry Hill, Staines, Strawberry Hill (I could go on) to ascertain the actual stabling capacity as existed in 2012/2013 in relation to that which was required for the proposed 10 car plan of 2016/2017, in association with the timetable in place at the time?

Don't bother answering that, as I know very well the one other person who undertook the said exercise concerned with me.

You seem to be referring to 10 car platform (capacity) at stations within the SWR network. That was a work in progress at the time, and was largely successful, with a few exceptions, but without overnight depot stabling capacity to match the number of 10 car units required to provide service each day, that service will suffer short forms, end of.

For the record, it would be suicidal (for the train service) for a depot such as Wimbledon to have to undertake shunting and reforming moves during the period of peak hour departures every morning. In fact there were no slots for shunting moves from siding to siding within Wimbledon depot during those hours, the departure services being too intense/frequent for any other add hoc shunting moves to take place.

Given my comments above about 10 car 701's now being stabled at and within the old Waterloo International platforms en-mass, and an obvious associated decline in the number of Westbound departures from Wimbledon (Top Yard) depot, which then (might) throw up shunting slots within the Top Yard to combine 2 x 5 car 701's, I now am wondering whom I am talking to? Feel 3-2-PM-me!

I'm finding this converstaion fascinating - thank-you to everyone for their contributions.

One thing puzzles me ..... how does stabling 701s in the former international platforms at Waterloo reduce westbound departures from Wimbledon Top Yard depot - as Waterloo is east (well north east) of Wimbledon? Or is it the case that some westbound departures from Top Yard are replaced by corresponding westbound departures from the international platforms? Does this simplify the departures from Wimbledon and make the sequence more robust?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'm finding this converstaion fascinating - thank-you to everyone for their contributions.

One thing puzzles me ..... how does stabling 701s in the former international platforms at Waterloo reduce westbound departures from Wimbledon Top Yard depot - as Waterloo is east (well north east) of Wimbledon? Or is it the case that some westbound departures from Top Yard are replaced by corresponding westbound departures from the international platforms? Does this simplify the departures from Wimbledon and make the sequence more robust?

Yes.

As I understand it.

Stabling at Waterloo gives Wimbledon less to get congested with especially if some pairs of 701/5s need to be formed up in the depot throat so to speak. It uses up a lot of time and track capacity. Down side is that if Network Rail want to do engineering work on those tracks at Waterloo - obviously overnight - then those 701s are homeless so to speak. Same can happen at other stations around the network that can hold a formed up (ie 10car) train overnight. Obviously these trains do not get much, if any, servicing done on tem. So in those cases SWR end up having to play musical chairs so Network Rail can get their job done - likely relying on drivers doing overtime in the wee hours.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I'm finding this converstaion fascinating - thank-you to everyone for their contributions.

Good morning (all). Firstly I must apologise to norbitonflyer in particular for the tone of my earlier post (18,641). I was a little worse the wear, but that doesn't excuse the way it now comes across to me on re-reading it, so sorry .

Or is it the case that some westbound departures from Top Yard are replaced by corresponding westbound departures from the international platforms?

In very basic terms, yes, you are thinking along the correct lines, but in reality many diagrams will be reworked to match the passenger timetable, which would also involve other locations various. It is never as simple as eg; a Wimbledon depot to Dorking empty move, just starting back from Waterloo, as this could involve additional cost (driver/crew), as the driver booked to work from Wimbledon depot would need to 'pass' via Wimbledon station and up to Waterloo far earlier in the early a.m. than they would if signing on at Wimbledon depot.

The rediagramming of units, particularly when it involves changes to driver/guard duties, is a very complex procedure, not helped when the planners are given very strict financial limits to work to, as was the case in past times (pre SWR). I suspect now that we have GBR, the finances may have once again been restrained - the public purse and all that.

As you say 11 more 10car sidings added since SWT days by Feltham (10) and Strawberry Hill (1). So total 59. But that will only soak up some 701/5 pairs if any BUT it does free up locations with existing short sidings to do ll fewer train formation set ups. That is still presumably 10 extra sets of shunting needed (69 available 10car formations minus 59 10car sidings for them). But more than 10 if some of the 59 still involve splitting/joining.

So minimum 10 extra splitting/joining excercises every morning and night involving 20 x 701/5. Lots to get ready and capable for each day !.

I can only base my assumptions on info in front of me, namely the latest CWN as mentioned, and my fast fading (in to the distance) knowledge of the old patch - which can be dangerous as I am not party to anything that is either ongoing or in the wings.

Therefore the following comments relating to ongoing/future events must not be taken as 'read', they are just my best guess. Past (pre 701) events are as they were, both planned and issued.

Should also be remembered that the current service level is reduced from that which applied in 2017. What the future timetable revamp (December 2027 as a guess?) will look like, we can only wait and see.

Wimbledon Depot Top Yard (for those unaware this is the Western part of the depot between Durnsford Road bridge and Wimbledon station, and is essentially for stabling and internal cleaning.

In the December 2017 CWN, issued under the SWR banner, but planned long before in SWT days, the above part of Wimbledon Depot included 15 departures, 10 out via Wimbledon station (head on run) and 5 that had to make a reversal move within depot limits, 4 of these going out to Waterloo via East Putney, and the last one going out via the exit at Durnsford Road (by the old staff Halt as was).

Of these 15 departures, 8 were diagrammed as 10 car. That matched exactly the number of stabling sidings that could (can) accommodate 10 car formations without fouling another siding.

By comparison, the latest (Leaf Fall) CWN for 2026 on the SWR website, indicates the total number of departures from this part of Wimbledon Depot has reduced to 6 trains, all of which are 10 car (701).

This has been helped by the reduced service to a small degree, but also aids flexibility within the overall depot for the need for storage space for a small number of 701/0 (total diagrammed is still 53), and the increasing number of 701/5's which will need to be on their home patch in the run up to passenger service introduction.
Whether any on the ground remodelling of some sidings is part of the ongoing plan (or not) I do not know, but there are possibilities in that regard which I have passed on to the appropriate people.

As said, it appears Waterloo International has now become an overnight stabling location, something it wasn't used for back pre covid. Can not now remember if this was considered in SWT days (in the planning sense), it may have been that NR's rules at that time, forbade stabling of trains overnight?

Overall, Waterloo platform stabling overnight has gone up from 10 platforms in December 2017, to 12 platforms as of now, including p21 to p24 inclusive. It should be remembered that NR take possession of approximately half of Waterloo most weekday nights for routine inspection and maintenance, hence the limit on stabling.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Good morning (all). Firstly I must apologise to norbitonflyer in particular for the tone of my earlier post (18,641). I was a little worse the wear, but that doesn't excuse the way it now comes across to me on re-reading it, so sorry .


In very basic terms, yes, you are thinking along the correct lines, but in reality many diagrams will be reworked to match the passenger timetable, which would also involve other locations various. It is never as simple as eg; a Wimbledon depot to Dorking empty move, just starting back from Waterloo, as this could involve additional cost (driver/crew), as the driver booked to work from Wimbledon depot would need to 'pass' via Wimbledon station and up to Waterloo far earlier in the early a.m. than they would if signing on at Wimbledon depot.

The rediagramming of units, particularly when it involves changes to driver/guard duties, is a very complex procedure, not helped when the planners are given very strict financial limits to work to, as was the case in past times (pre SWR). I suspect now that we have GBR, the finances may have once again been restrained - the public purse and all that.


I can only base my assumptions on info in front of me, namely the latest CWN as mentioned, and my fast fading (in to the distance) knowledge of the old patch - which can be dangerous as I am not party to anything that is either ongoing or in the wings.

Therefore the following comments relating to ongoing/future events must not be taken as 'read', they are just my best guess. Past (pre 701) events are as they were, both planned and issued.

Should also be remembered that the current service level is reduced from that which applied in 2017. What the future timetable revamp (December 2027 as a guess?) will look like, we can only wait and see.

Wimbledon Depot Top Yard (for those unaware this is the Western part of the depot between Durnsford Road bridge and Wimbledon station, and is essentially for stabling and internal cleaning.

In the December 2017 CWN, issued under the SWR banner, but planned long before in SWT days, the above part of Wimbledon Depot included 15 departures, 10 out via Wimbledon station (head on run) and 5 that had to make a reversal move within depot limits, 4 of these going out to Waterloo via East Putney, and the last one going out via the exit at Durnsford Road (by the old staff Halt as was).

Of these 15 departures, 8 were diagrammed as 10 car. That matched exactly the number of stabling sidings that could (can) accommodate 10 car formations without fouling another siding.

By comparison, the latest (Leaf Fall) CWN for 2026 on the SWR website, indicates the total number of departures from this part of Wimbledon Depot has reduced to 6 trains, all of which are 10 car (701).

This has been helped by the reduced service to a small degree, but also aids flexibility within the overall depot for the need for storage space for a small number of 701/0 (total diagrammed is still 53), and the increasing number of 701/5's which will need to be on their home patch in the run up to passenger service introduction.
Whether any on the ground remodelling of some sidings is part of the ongoing plan (or not) I do not know, but there are possibilities in that regard which I have passed on to the appropriate people.

As said, it appears Waterloo International has now become an overnight stabling location, something it wasn't used for back pre covid. Can not now remember if this was considered in SWT days (in the planning sense), it may have been that NR's rules at that time, forbade stabling of trains overnight?

Overall, Waterloo platform stabling overnight has gone up from 10 platforms in December 2017, to 12 platforms as of now, including p21 to p24 inclusive. It should be remembered that NR take possession of approximately half of Waterloo most weekday nights for routine inspection and maintenance, hence the limit on stabling.

How many of those drivers signing on very early in the morning at Wimbledon depot and then having to work their train from Waterloo are going to be relying on a very thin service into Waterloo from Wimbledon ?.

That is after a reasonably long walk from Wimbledon depot to Wimbledon station !.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

How many of those drivers signing on very early in the morning at Wimbledon depot and then having to work their train from Waterloo are going to be relying on a very thin service into Waterloo from Wimbledon ?.

That is after a reasonably long walk from Wimbledon depot to Wimbledon station !.

That is why such simplistic scenario's just wouldn't happen. There are very strict agreed working practices in place for train crew diagramming and rostering.

As for passing to or from Wimbledon depot, ie; post a.m. peak (early turn signing off) and pre p.m. peak (late turn signing on) use was (is?) made where possible (time wise) of any ECS trains booked to run between Waterloo and the depot (or v v), but more often than not it would be a case of passing from/to Wimbledon Park LUL station (for the short walk to/from the depot) and Wimbledon main line station.

As you allude to, there needs to be both an LUL and main line (SWR) service available for such drivers/crews to make use of, otherwise the plan doesn't work!

It could be that over the last few years, there may have been some degree of re allocation of work between certain depots (ie: Wimbledon and Waterloo), but that is not something I am going to discuss on a public forum.

 

[adc82140]

Can I just add that I'm finding this discussion very educational. I'd guessed that Planning and rostering involved some quite complex formulae, but the amount of variables at play here are quite mindblowing. It's a testament to the skills of all those involved that the railway even remotely works.

I'd often wondered if my background in NHS rostering (amongst other things) would ever be a transferrable skill to the railways. I now know the answer: No!

 

[43096]

Because you can run the 4s individually, or can run with defective ends boxed in, where needed. You cannot do that with the two 5s separately or reform them.

Which is a self-imposed restriction that SWR decided to do.

 

[Siemens Staines]

I make it 52 701s in passenger service this morning. The one outstanding diagram is 2*450 (2F09)