444's and 450's to be replaced? (answer: no)

[northwichcat]

Huh? There would have to be if this Electric Spine OHLE plan proceeds. They provide the majority of the service through Basingstoke to Southampton.

Unless you think Waterloo to Weymouth should become solely 450 operated?

What I've heard is Siemens quoted an estimate for making the 450s capable of running on AC overheads (already a tried and tested method) and that's what DfT used in the business case for AC OHE to Southampton.

Remember the OHE to Southampton is an experiment to see how well replacing 3rd rail with OHEs works so I would be surprised if a lot of SWT's Desiros get pantographs fitted unless more of the same type of work is confirmed for CP6.

 

[jopsuk]

I really reckon you're wrong. It would very, very surprising if the 444s (as well as the entire 450 fleet) aren't fitted out ahead of Basingstoke-Southampton wires going up. They simply are not going to run the Weymouth route using just 450s.

 

[northwichcat]

I really reckon you're wrong. It would very, very surprising if the 444s (as well as the entire 450 fleet) aren't fitted out ahead of Basingstoke-Southampton wires going up. They simply are not going to run the Weymouth route using just 450s.

172 trains converted for less than 30 miles of new AC OHEs? That sounds a bit pie in the sky to me but as the franchise is in the South maybe DfT will agree to it.

 

[jopsuk]

It is perhaps possible that only part of the 450 fleet will be converted- after all Southern cheerfully manage a mixed DV/DC fleet- but all the 444s will need to be done. It's the fleet's main route, especially at peak time.

 

[swt_passenger]

What I've heard is Siemens quoted an estimate for making the 450s capable of running on AC overheads (already a tried and tested method) and that's what DfT used in the business case for AC OHE to Southampton.

Whatever, but why would the estimate for making the 444 capable be any different? They have the same traction as 450s, and the same pantograph well and existing 'fit to receive AC' wiring.

As a few of us have said it would be completely unacceptable operationally not to do all the 444s. They would get away with a subfleet of the 450s remaining DC though.

 

[joeykins82]

It's Stagecoach: my guess is that all of the 444 and 450 trains will be converted to dual DC/AC but they'll make the DfT pay for it. Which in this case is fair enough. NR's own assessments of DC vs AC is that AC is cheaper to maintain overall because of the significant reduction in costs associated with doing track maintenance (mainly around safety).

 

[northwichcat]

It's Stagecoach:

Have Stagecoach taken the option to extend the franchise from a 2017 end date to a 2019 end date? When Patrick McLoughlin announced the start dates for the next franchises being later than the current end dates it didn't mean franchise extensions had been agreed, it meant the current franchises would be given the option of extending to that date if terms could be agreed and if not DOR would operate the franchise in the interim.

all of the 444 and 450 trains will be converted to dual DC/AC but they'll make the DfT pay for it.

Unless there's a signed and sealed deal with Siemens then nothing is confirmed for certain. If it's decided extra rolling stock is required for SWT then maybe it will be easier for them to obtain additional stock which is dual voltage opposed to converting single voltage trains?

Which in this case is fair enough. NR's own assessments of DC vs AC is that AC is cheaper to maintain overall because of the significant reduction in costs associated with doing track maintenance (mainly around safety).

Network Rail aren't investing in new DC electrification. However, changing Basingstoke to Southampton from DC to AC is to:

test the business case for the wider conversion of the third rail network south of the Thames'.

 

[joeykins82]

Sorry, wasn't clear that the first part of my post was speculation/theory. I know that the AC conversion here is renewal-driven, just threw in that even with the increased cost of installing and maintaining the OHLE gantries in isolation when compared to the 3rd rail infrastructure, overall it works out cheaper to maintain.

 

[yummy125]

SWT 444 & 450's wont be replaced yet as they are too new, they have space for the pantagraph to fit, seems such a waste of money to add the "wires" (will 86, 90, 91 & 92 be seen below Eastleigh) then remove the 3rd rail, can't both run at the same time so the trains have the option.

 

[jopsuk]

No,- running rails are used for current return in both AC and DC, as well as track circuit signals. It's possible to set up short lengths where they can coexist, but this is much more complex than you think. Complicated is expensive, so it is kept to just changeover sections.

 

[Eagle]

Also the main part of the reason for converting to AC is it's cheaper to run and more efficient. Retaining the DC would completely and utterly defeat the object.

 

[Hophead]

Won't just be 444s & 450s affected though. If we assume that the AC/DC changeover is at St. Denys, Southern / "new franchise" will need a set of DV 377s to operate Victoria & Brighton services (and that's without taking into account the runs via Eastleigh).

Given the complex interworking throughout the day, they're going to need to convert a large number of EMUs to ensure the wrong sort of unit doesn't stray beyond Fareham. Or maybe these services are pencilled in for all these new Electrostars which keep getting ordered.

 

[Lrd]

They would get away with a subfleet of the 450s remaining DC though.

Wouldn't they need to visit Northam at some point?

 

[swt_passenger]

Wouldn't they need to visit Northam at some point?

They could go the long way round via Havant and St Denys. According to other posters it is believed that St Denys to Southampton would be dual electrified - probably for SN's purposes.

I'm not suggesting a partial conversion of the 450 fleet is likely though, just that it's possible.

The possibilty of a mile or two of dual supply sorts out most of the issues with SN, raised by PaulOfHorsham although they'd need dual voltage stock for those that run via Eastleigh, but that could be a limited number as it is normally only Brighton services that go that way. Depends if SN want maximum flexibility for diversions - in my experience if there are problems on the Netley line they normally cut short at Fareham.

If you look at the situation west of Southampton (in the absence of any announcements about further wiring so far) the AC/DC changeover for passenger stock would be most likely to be at Central anyway, with both supplies as far as Redbridge to cover the Freightliner headshunts...

 

[Muzer]

Won't just be 444s & 450s affected though. If we assume that the AC/DC changeover is at St. Denys, Southern / "new franchise" will need a set of DV 377s to operate Victoria & Brighton services (and that's without taking into account the runs via Eastleigh).

Given the complex interworking throughout the day, they're going to need to convert a large number of EMUs to ensure the wrong sort of unit doesn't stray beyond Fareham. Or maybe these services are pencilled in for all these new Electrostars which keep getting ordered.

Apparently it's going to be dual-voltage Redbridge to St Denys (can't remember where I read this). However, Southern will still need to fit out some units for diversions, unless they want more bustitutions.

 

[starrymarkb]

Will this see all services stopping at Basingstoke or will changeovers be done on the move?

 

[swt_passenger]

Will this see all services stopping at Basingstoke or will changeovers be done on the move?

No one knows yet. I think they'll decide based on the technical complexity of having a long enough changeover section to do it at speed. Given that it would only apply to some trains, especially in the offpeak when only one each way per hour is non stop, then I think they'll just change the timetable and have all trains calling. But that's just my opinion...

 

[joeykins82]

The IMECHE lecture that was linked here a while back did discuss whether an on the move changeover would be operationally feasible; if IEP can raise/lower the pantograph and start/stop the diesel generators at linespeed successfully then there should be no reason that a dual voltage EMU couldn't do the same except with DC pickup shoes instead of an engine

 

[swt_passenger]

Eurostars did AC/DC moving changeovers from their introduction - I don't think anyone has ever questioned the practicality or feasibility, and I can see no reason why IMechE would not already know that.

It just means you need a much longer section of dual power supply. It might not necessarily be justified given the existing balance of calling and non stop services.

 

[D365]

Eurostars did AC/DC moving changeovers from their introduction - I don't think anyone has ever questioned the practicality or feasibility, and I can see no reason why IMechE would not already know that.

It just means you need a much longer section of dual power supply. It might not necessarily be justified given the existing balance of calling and non stop services.

377s and 378s do this in regular service on WLL around North Pole, at about 20mph.

 

[joeykins82]

Eurostars did AC/DC moving changeovers from their introduction - I don't think anyone has ever questioned the practicality or feasibility, and I can see no reason why IMechE would not already know that.

I may have unwittingly tarnished the good name of IMechE: I saved a link to the presentation but it's gone now, and one of the pages had a design for how linespeed changeover would best work without risking damage to the pantograph and/or OHLE. Didn't mean to infer that they thought it was something new.

 

[AndyLandy]

172 trains converted for less than 30 miles of new AC OHEs? That sounds a bit pie in the sky to me but as the franchise is in the South maybe DfT will agree to it.

There's the big issue of Northam Traincare though. Sooner or later, every Desiro, 444 or 450 will have to trundle its way down to St. Denys for maintenance.

Won't just be 444s & 450s affected though. If we assume that the AC/DC changeover is at St. Denys, Southern / "new franchise" will need a set of DV 377s to operate Victoria & Brighton services (and that's without taking into account the runs via Eastleigh).

Given the complex interworking throughout the day, they're going to need to convert a large number of EMUs to ensure the wrong sort of unit doesn't stray beyond Fareham. Or maybe these services are pencilled in for all these new Electrostars which keep getting ordered.

Some of Southern's 377s are DV already, aren't they? I'd expect that Southampton Central through to Northam Jct will need to be OHLE and 3rd rail, with whatever magic is required to run both systems simultaneously.

As for the Eastleigh runs, I think they're for pathing FGW services to/from Brighton. It may be possible to swap round so the Southerns always go via St Denys, and the FGWs always go via Eastleigh. That'd save you the need for DV stock on the West Coastway services.

 

[Eagle]

There's the big issue of Northam Traincare though. Sooner or later, every Desiro, 444 or 450 will have to trundle its way down to St. Denys for maintenance.

As has been pointed out, the route via the Portsmouth Direct line and Fareham will remain DC.

 

[AndyLandy]

As has been pointed out, the route via the Portsmouth Direct line and Fareham will remain DC.

Of course! Sorry, I'd missed the significance of that statement. There's no reason a DC-only Desiro couldn't just use the PDL to get to Havant, then up through St Denys to Northam Traincare.

That suddenly makes more sense now. So, you could start by removing the 450/5s from the OHLE conversion. That's 28 fewer trains to convert.

 

[Eagle]

Given the current timetable, the only consistently 450-operated route that would require DV units would be the Poole stopper. (There's also the Portsmouth via Basingstoke services which seem to be a mix of 450 and 444.)

 

[Muzer]

There's also however many more you'd need for weekend diversions unless you want more bustitution.

I'd heard that some Southern services went via Eastleigh because they wanted to stop at Airport but didn't have enough paths to do it more regularly. I might be wrong - I can't remember where I read this.

 

[TEW]

Given the current timetable, the only consistently 450-operated route that would require DV units would be the Poole stopper. (There's also the Portsmouth via Basingstoke services which seem to be a mix of 450 and 444.)

The Poole's aren't consistently 450s either, both routes are a mix of 444s and 450s, and both are 100% 444s at weekends.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's also however many more you'd need for weekend diversions unless you want more bustitution.

I'd heard that some Southern services went via Eastleigh because they wanted to stop at Airport but didn't have enough paths to do it more regularly. I might be wrong - I can't remember where I read this.

I've explained it here in RailUK a couple of times before.

The current SN franchise originally included the requirement to run the Brighton service as an hourly loop round via the airport in one direction. At the same time XC had applied for their Southampton extensions, as per the GWML RUS, but both could not be pathed. It went to the industry deputes procedure and XC got the nod.

 

[RobShipway]

Given the current timetable, the only consistently 450-operated route that would require DV units would be the Poole stopper. (There's also the Portsmouth via Basingstoke services which seem to be a mix of 450 and 444.)

I would also add in that the Waterloo via Guildford to Portsmouth Service there which would come off the line before Basingstoke, these and the Class 450's that would be running the Waterloo - Reading route would still need to be DC current trains.

 

[Eagle]

Actually, I think it's possible to shuffle it round so that all the services which would need DV stock would be operated by 444s. (Not that that would please Portsmouth residents, but hey.)