30 new Desiros for SWT

[AM9]

Basically because the extra capacity they have is needed towards the London end of the Portsmouth route. A 12.450 carries significantly more passengers than a 10.444 - around 200 more if you include standees (even though there shouldn't be any on a longer distance service). That's what the whole argument has been about these last few years, and frankly it's getting boring now, and the local MP should know this.

There is an easy solution to the capacity problem though isn't there. Stop calling at Guildford...

Or how about moving Guildford so that it is on the Southampton/Weymouth route? Problem is we have the network that the Victorians thought we needed at the time...

I agree that standing on a longer distance train shouldn't happen as a matter of course, but the according to the timetable, the last stop is about 20 minutes from WAT on the semis, and less than 50 minutes on the fasts. At peak times, there are trains all over the country where passengers have to stand for longer than that and on stock much older than the 450s.
one solution would be to make the up Guildford fasts set down only which I would assume makes a GLD to LON ticket invalid. Maybe SWT hasn't got the guts to take on the Guildford lot.

 

[infobleep]

Only in one carriage do they have plug sockets, it really ought to have plug sockets for all seats but I guess that would mean having to upgrade the DC network to supply the extra power needed maybe?

Well given the other train models vary from only plug sockets in first class to absolutely none in any carriage, it's better than nothing.

I wonder if any of the new trains or refurbished trains will have plug sockets. Given the amount of gadgets these days I think they are useful. However South West Trains might not think that to be that important. I still can't believe they out plug sockets in standard class on the 444s.

 

[infobleep]

Basically because the extra capacity they have is needed towards the London end of the Portsmouth route. A 12.450 carries significantly more passengers than a 10.444 - around 200 more if you include standees (even though there shouldn't be any on a longer distance service). That's what the whole argument has been about these last few years, and frankly it's getting boring now, and the local MP should know this.

There is an easy solution to the capacity problem though isn't there. Stop calling at Guildford...

Or how about moving Guildford so that it is on the Southampton/Weymouth route? Problem is we have the network that the Victorians thought we needed at the time...

Hint: neither of these suggestions are in any way serious, so no need to dissect them..

What's the difference between a 450 and 444 without people standing? I know of 444 services that regularly have people standing on the coaches furthest from the London Waterloo end. These tend to be services formed of 5 coaches.

Of course some 450 services are not much longer in time than some of the metro services so one can't exactly class them as long distance. I'm thinking of the Basingstoke stopping services from London and to London outside the morning peak.

 

[swt_passenger]

10.444 = 660 seats

12.450 = 770 seats - but vastly more standing room than a 10.444 in the 24 double door vestibules

 

[infobleep]

I agree that standing on a longer distance train shouldn't happen as a matter of course, but the according to the timetable, the last stop is about 20 minutes from WAT on the semis, and less than 50 minutes on the fasts. At peak times, there are trains all over the country where passengers have to stand for longer than that and on stock much older than the 450s.
one solution would be to make the up Guildford fasts set down only which I would assume makes a GLD to LON ticket invalid. Maybe SWT hasn't got the guts to take on the Guildford lot.

The problem with that is where do the Guildford passengers go. I guess you could make them all travel on the Cobham services. After all that would be no different to what passengers for Clapham Junction have to do. The trains start at Guildford so you plenty of space. Who cares how long it takes.

There are also an extra 2 trains that run fast from Surbiton, so that would save them sometime. Clearly passengers needibg to go to Woking would be disadvantaged. I believe passengers don't have to stand on the 6.53 Guildford to Waterloo via Woking so would be OK. After that they might be standing but their is an 8.20 and 8.46, which start at Guildford. If being generous, might allow the 7.34 departure [which starts at Haslemere] to pick up at Guildford. That has some standing though.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Basically because the extra capacity they have is needed towards the London end of the Portsmouth route. A 12.450 carries significantly more passengers than a 10.444 - around 200 more if you include standees (even though there shouldn't be any on a longer distance service). That's what the whole argument has been about these last few years, and frankly it's getting boring now, and the local MP should know this.

There is an easy solution to the capacity problem though isn't there. Stop calling at Guildford...

Or how about moving Guildford so that it is on the Southampton/Weymouth route? Problem is we have the network that the Victorians thought we needed at the time...

Hint: neither of these suggestions are in any way serious, so no need to dissect them..

Ah, but if you care to remember there used to be 2 non stop services from Portsmouth & Waterloo.

1P00 - 0615 Portsmouth - Waterloo (Last call Haslemere)
1P52 (IIRC) - 1752 Waterloo - Portsmouth (First call Haslemere).

Both were booked 442's and did we get hissy fits if a slammer substituted! :roll:

Sadly both no longer run,thanks to the "improved" timetable!

 

[Helvellyn]

Basically because the extra capacity they have is needed towards the London end of the Portsmouth route. A 12.450 carries significantly more passengers than a 10.444 - around 200 more if you include standees (even though there shouldn't be any on a longer distance service). That's what the whole argument has been about these last few years, and frankly it's getting boring now, and the local MP should know this.

There is an easy solution to the capacity problem though isn't there. Stop calling at Guildford...

Or how about moving Guildford so that it is on the Southampton/Weymouth route? Problem is we have the network that the Victorians thought we needed at the time...

Hint: neither of these suggestions are in any way serious, so no need to dissect them..

So I hope Penny Mordant is pushing for SWT/Network Rail to be given the funds to build the flyover that got away (Woking); that fifth line between Surbiton and Clapham Junction; and Crossrail 2 to take away some suburban services. All of these things would create mainline capacity and capacty into Waterloo so that SWT could run more mainline services.

You could then potentially give Portsmouth Harbour two fast services an hour, that skip-stopped Guildford/Woking; Portsmouth & Southsea two semi-fast services; and Haslemere two stopping services.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would there be enough stock (overall for SWT) with these new units for every service on the Wey-Wat line to be a 10 car 444, every service on the Ports-Wat line to be a 12 car 450? I know that SDO would be needed at some stations?

Had a quick look on wikipedia but couldn't spot the length of the two routes (buffer-stop to buffer-stop), the Wey-Wat must be longer

 

[MCR247]

Is it really needed?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So I hope Penny Mordant is pushing for SWT/Network Rail to be given the funds to build the flyover that got away (Woking); that fifth line between Surbiton and Clapham Junction; and Crossrail 2 to take away some suburban services. All of these things would create mainline capacity and capacty into Waterloo so that SWT could run more mainline services.

You could then potentially give Portsmouth Harbour two fast services an hour, that skip-stopped Guildford/Woking; Portsmouth & Southsea two semi-fast services; and Haslemere two stopping services.

All trains to Portsmouth have called at Guildford with the aforementioned exceptions SSuX services 1P00 & 1P52 and of course late runners.

Woking on the other hand has had a mixture of luck with Portsmouth direct services. Now everything stops there with the exception of a few AM/PM peak services which divert via Cobham.

The crux of the matter on the Portsmouth direct is that there's currently no fast service from Portsmouth Hbr for over an hour between 1515 & 1615,and 1615 & 1715, which is ridiculous. It should be a standard service all day, but DaFT dictates what goes where & when.

In the down direction,things are really stupid,because you get the (1Pxx) XX:30 from Waterloo, catch the 2Pxx (XX:15) up between Godalming & Haslemere, with the unavoidable crawl (and it is a crawl of around 15-20mph unless you hold back) all the way to Haslemere. This is a 13 minute journey, that takes ~20 minutes to achieve,I can do that with my car! :roll:

The XX:15 should wait at Guildford for the following XX:30 to overtake,as it did in the past and it will give passengers for local stations to leave Waterloo slightly later.

Still this is DaFT's doing,not SWT's AFAIA.

 

[455driver]

OK Thanks for telling me that. I assume that it is a software setting to prevent excessive draw on routes where multiple sets will be working on long power sections.

No problems, i do get annoyed with repeating it hence why I bit at you, sorry about that.

think I have heard that the 444s are speed restricted on the climb to Buriton and through the tunnel to reduce sway where the line has a reduced guage clearance. Is this true and does it affect the 20m 450s as well as the 23m 444s?

23 metre trains (in practice the 442s) were limited to 40 through the tunnel, because of the similarity of the 444 and 450 cabs (when they were introduced) it was decided that all trains would be limited to 40 through the tunnel so it is now a permanent speed restriction.

Then that is nothing to do with the stock type, - if anything the journeys could be slightly shorter with the 450s with their shorter dwell times, if there was space at each end for longer turnaround or other routes in the diagram.

But to keep the clockface timetable all the trains all need to have the same dwell times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah, but if you care to remember there used to be 2 non stop services from Portsmouth & Waterloo.

1P00 - 0615 Portsmouth - Waterloo (Last call Haslemere)

Ah, the Tory express!

 

[infobleep]

All trains to Portsmouth have called at Guildford with the aforementioned exceptions SSuX services 1P00 & 1P52 and of course late runners.

Woking on the other hand has had a mixture of luck with Portsmouth direct services. Now everything stops there with the exception of a few AM/PM peak services which divert via Cobham.

The crux of the matter on the Portsmouth direct is that there's currently no fast service from Portsmouth Hbr for over an hour between 1515 & 1615,and 1615 & 1715, which is ridiculous. It should be a standard service all day, but DaFT dictates what goes where & when.

In the down direction,things are really stupid,because you get the (1Pxx) XX:30 from Waterloo, catch the 2Pxx (XX:15) up between Godalming & Haslemere, with the unavoidable crawl (and it is a crawl of around 15-20mph unless you hold back) all the way to Haslemere. This is a 13 minute journey, that takes ~20 minutes to achieve,I can do that with my car! :roll:

The XX:15 should wait at Guildford for the following XX:30 to overtake,as it did in the past and it will give passengers for local stations to leave Waterloo slightly later.

Still this is DaFT's doing,not SWT's AFAIA.

There is also a 18.00 service where the first stop is Guildford and it goes via Woking. That is the only one to go via Woking and not stop.

I use to sometimes get stuck on the slow services from Portsmouth and to Portsmouth. Tried to avoid them. If I was on a leisure journey I wouldn't mind but it wasn't leisure journeys I was making.

In contrast I believe there are no hours where not a single fast services runs between Guildford and Waterloo, with the exception of the 4.25, which doesn't stop at every station but might wait for a time at some as it takes 53 minutes.

In contrast, between Waterloo and Guildford, it isn't until 6.15am that you get a fast train to Guildford but then there are no hours when only slow services run until just after midnight the next day. Well excluding Monday mornings, which does have a fast service at 12.50am

 

[TEW]

The crux of the matter on the Portsmouth direct is that there's currently no fast service from Portsmouth Hbr for over an hour between 1515 & 1615,and 1615 & 1715, which is ridiculous. It should be a standard service all day, but DaFT dictates what goes where & when.

The afternoon timetable is odd from Portsmouth. The faster services do run, but one starts at Havant and the other at Fareham. Surely it must be possible to jig the timetable around so that Portsmouth maintains the half hourly fast service.

 

[455driver]

The afternoon timetable is odd from Portsmouth. The faster services do run, but one starts at Havant and the other at Fareham. Surely it must be possible to jig the timetable around so that Portsmouth maintains the half hourly fast service.

These 2 run ECS from Northam after the units have had maintenance carried out on them during the day.

 

[southern442]

Would there be enough stock (overall for SWT) with these new units for every service on the Wey-Wat line to be a 10 car 444, every service on the Ports-Wat line to be a 12 car 450? I know that SDO would be needed at some stations?

Had a quick look on wikipedia but couldn't spot the length of the two routes (buffer-stop to buffer-stop), the Wey-Wat must be longer

I do believe that the third rail equipment towards the end of the Weymouth line is very weak, so I'm not sure it would be able to take a 10-car 444, this is why all the 10-car trains on this line split at Bornemouth. But theoretically speaking, I'm sure there would be enough, so maybe all trains could be 10-car as far as Bornemouth.

I think that swt passenger's idea to omit stops at Guildford on the Portsmouth line is the best as far as solving overcrowding goes. Maybe there could be shuttles from Woking as a replacement?

 

[infobleep]

I do believe that the third rail equipment towards the end of the Weymouth line is very weak, so I'm not sure it would be able to take a 10-car 444, this is why all the 10-car trains on this line split at Bornemouth. But theoretically speaking, I'm sure there would be enough, so maybe all trains could be 10-car as far as Bornemouth.

I think that swt passenger's idea to omit stops at Guildford on the Portsmouth line is the best as far as solving overcrowding goes. Maybe there could be shuttles from Woking as a replacement?

I can't see shuffles being popular with commuters from London. After all it will add on at least 5 minutes to ones journey and they may even have to change platform at Woking. Imagine a late train to Portsmouth with loads of commuters rushing across the footbridge to platform 6 in the hope to catch a train listed on the CIS as being on time.

 

[Class377/5]

According to Modern Railways the new SWT Desiro City are Class 707s.

 

[AM9]

According to Modern Railways the new SWT Desiro City are Class 707s.

That's good that they will be delivered dual voltage so the directive is being upheld for metro stock. They won't be used as an excuse for Basingstoke to Soton to remain DC.

The photoshop publicity picture shows them as having plain roofs so that will change.

 

[Class377/5]

That's good that they will be delivered dual voltage so the directive is being upheld for metro stock. They won't be used as an excuse for Basingstoke to Soton to remain DC.

The photoshop publicity picture shows them as having plain roofs so that will change.

They are DC only units but like most other recent new build they can be converted. 7xx classification doesn't mean dual voltage but IIRC fixed formation.

 

[fusionblue]

Why 707? What's being used between 702-706?

 

[swt_passenger]

... 7xx classification doesn't mean dual voltage but IIRC fixed formation.

However according to the railway group standard, MU classes 700-799 have the same definition as existing classes 300-399, just "a.c. and a.c. / d.c. electric multiple unit sets".

Table A.5 in GM/RT2453 introduced the new unit number ranges, basically 600s, 700s and 800s were added to the existing classes to give more overall class numbers, being for DMUs, EMUs and IEPs respectively.

I guess 600 series DMUs will be pretty rare...

 

[Class377/5]

However according to the railway group standard, MU classes 700-799 have the same definition as existing classes 300-399, just "a.c. and a.c. / d.c. electric multiple unit sets".

Table A.5 in GM/RT2453 introduced the new unit number ranges, basically 600s, 700s and 800s were added to the existing classes to give more overall class numbers, being for DMUs, EMUs and IEPs respectively.

I guess 600 series DMUs will be pretty rare...

Or 700-799 are also DC with future AC capability like the 707s.

 

[59CosG95]

Why 707? What's being used between 702-706?

Don't you mean 701-706? (The 8-car 700s are Class 700/0, while the 12-car ones are Class 700/1, so Class 701 is still free)

 

[Mikey C]

Why 707? What's being used between 702-706?

Perhaps an airliner fan numbered them...

 

[AM9]

OK whether they will be AC from the start or 'AC ready', they will need a roof well and transformer mountings together with the structural and suspension rating that they imply.
So when the 455s are retired, all SWT mainland stock will be ready for conversion or already capable.
For once it seems that the stipulation (by DfT?) of AC design-in on new stock was a sensible thing.

 

[swt_passenger]

Or 700-799 are also DC with future AC capability like the 707s.

Well yes. But all I was aiming to point out was that '7XX' doesn't actually mean 'fixed formation'.

 

[fusionblue]

Don't you mean 701-706? (The 8-car 700s are Class 700/0, while the 12-car ones are Class 700/1, so Class 701 is still free)

Yes technically, but if i were to apply logic (dangerous ground here....) 701 would be a improved/refined version of the 700s.

Exactly like the 376 to the 378. Oh wait

 

[Class377/5]

Well yes. But all I was aiming to point out was that '7XX' doesn't actually mean 'fixed formation'.

Ah ok.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

You won't get anything miss out Guildford as it's the county town & very shortly a "major government department" called the UK Higways Agency, will be moving into Bridge House,which is directly outside the station,so that will pretty much ensure that, can't have government department minions waiting too long now can we?

The only times things go straight through Guildford are if they're exceptionally late, diverted from the Southampton mainline due to a major problem between Blazingsmoke & Winchester, when you get the 1Wxx & AXC services (subject to crew route knowledge) sent via Netley/Botley through to Fareham/Havant & Guildford to rejoin the mainline at Woking or Reading respectively.

 

[infobleep]

You won't get anything miss out Guildford as it's the county town & very shortly a "major government department" called the UK Higways Agency, will be moving into Bridge House,which is directly outside the station,so that will pretty much ensure that, can't have government department minions waiting too long now can we?

The only times things go straight through Guildford are if they're exceptionally late, diverted from the Southampton mainline due to a major problem between Blazingsmoke & Winchester, when you get the 1Wxx & AXC services (subject to crew route knowledge) sent via Netley/Botley through to Fareham/Havant & Guildford to rejoin the mainline at Woking or Reading respectively.

Woking gets more services to London during the peak so I guess they can afford to miss it out. Guildford doesn't, ensuring the slow services, so less of a case to miss it out.