Class 456 for Ascot-Guildford line

[evergreenadam]

Reported in Modern Railways that the service will be operated by Class 456 units once they are transferred to SWT. Presumably through services to/from Waterloo via Richmond will end with those services starting and terminating at Reading instead. Will two cars be enough for usual demand?

 

[swt_passenger]

Using 456s on the normal Ascot to Guildford part of the service doesn't necessarily mean that the through services won't still run using other stock such as 450s.

Aren't the morning peak extra Waterloo trains overlaid on top of the normal service anyway?

 

[455driver]

The through trains are on seperate diagrams so wont be affected!

 

[TheWalrus]

Shouldn't a 456 go on the Lymington branch displacing the 158 elsewhere?

 

[455driver]

Shouldn't a 456 go on the Lymington branch displacing the 158 elsewhere?

So you want all the crews and fitters to be trained up on another type of unit?

SWT have spare 158s so they use them on the branch during the week, what happens up Country is nothing to do with them, oh they also have various 158/159s parked up at Basingstoke, Exeter, Clapham jn and Salisbury all day; should they be given to other operators as well?

 

[TheWalrus]

Yeah it makes sense to put them on the Lymington as it's a 2-car EMU opposed to a DMU in a national shortage of DMUs.

Also the crews and fitters are going to have to learn a new type anyway unless they are that similar to 455s or they get Southern to do them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In regards to 159s parked up all day don't they need them for busy peak time trains on the Waterloo-Exeter corridor as they need 10 carriages during the peak?

 

[Lrd]

Also the crews and fitters are going to have to learn a new type anyway unless they are that similar to 455s or they get Southern to do them.

The crews that work the Lymington route won't sign 455s/456s.

 

[TheWalrus]

No but the depots in London will have to sign them.

 

[Lrd]

No but the depots in London will have to sign them.

Lymington wasn't in London last time I checked.

I suppose there is a possibility of running them back to Wimbledon for maintenance but that is a lot of dead mileage.

 

[swt_passenger]

The crews that work the Lymington route won't sign 455s/456s.

I don't agree with putting a 456 on the branch either, but train crew knowledge is hardly the main issue surely? It didn't seem to be a problem when they were the only staff in the region still signing the two slammers. I doubt they signed 158s until they had to either...

 

[ushawk]

A 456 on the Lymington line also would be a headache if a unit was to fail, with the other 456s being up on the Ascot - Guildford line and due to the couplers being different, a rescue unit would have to come from Wimbledon (probably a 455).

Since the 158 depot is closer at Salisbury, a rescue is easier. Either way, theres pretty much no difference - the 158 freed up would be sitting idle during the day anyway.

 

[455driver]

Since the 158 depot is closer at Salisbury, a rescue is easier. Either way, theres pretty much no difference - the 158 freed up would be sitting idle during the day anyway.

EvergreenAdam is on about permanently sending the 158 (off the lymmie) up to Northern to help them out so it wouldnt be sitting idle.

It is a very expensive way to gain a 2 coach train though.

 

[TheWalrus]

The crews that work the Lymington route won't sign 455s/456s.

I don't agree with putting a 456 on the branch either, but train crew knowledge is hardly the main issue surely? It didn't seem to be a problem when they were the only staff in the region still signing the two slammers. I doubt they signed 158s until they had to either...

Exactly.

To me it makes more sense to put an EMU on an already electrified line than a DMU which could be used elsewhere. It should also be cheaper to run. How would having a 456 down there be different to when they had the slam-door EMU on the Lymington just out of interest?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No but the depots in London will have to sign them.

Lymington wasn't in London last time I checked.

I suppose there is a possibility of running them back to Wimbledon for maintenance but that is a lot of dead mileage.

Where did I say it was? You say Bournemouth would have to learn 456s but so will Wimbledon if they have to sign them!

 

[TEW]

The use of 456s on Guildford-Ascot is actually going to free up some 158s/159s anyway. The displaced 450s will take over some of the other current 158/159 worked services on electrified lines, including the an early Portsmouth-Basingstoke-London working. This allows the strengthening of some peak services between Salisbury and London.

 

[Deepgreen]

All this still hasn't resolved the basic nonsense of an electrified line being diesel-operated most of the time.

 

[Eagle]

All this still hasn't resolved the basic nonsense of an electrified line being diesel-operated most of the time.

This is only a problem for enthusiasts, it seems.

I don't know why a few people are so offended by the fact that there is nothing more suitable to the Lymington Branch at the moment. As TEW has pointed out, there are actually quite a lot of services in Hampshire that are run by DMUs over wholly electric lines; this is just one of many. In fact, the arrival of the 456s will reduce these services, indirectly, by releasing 450s (which are already signed by crews down here so it's a lot simpler than sending some 456s). Perhaps we could release a 450 onto the Lymington branch, but to me that seems like a bit of a waste of capacity.

And before anyone in the north starts eyeing up the 158s and 159s that might be released by the 450s taking over the electric services, no you can't have them just now, SWT has already decided to allocate them for strengthening on the Salisbury line.

 

[TheWalrus]

Well it doesn't make sense to electrify a line then use a DMU! However maybe at the moment a 158 is sensible. In the long run I think a 2-car EMU would be more appropriate.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well it doesn't make sense to electrify a line then use a DMU! However maybe at the moment a 158 is sensible. In the long run I think a 2-car EMU would be more appropriate.

Perhaps a 4 car EMU would be more appropriate, which is after all why they spent a few hundred thousand lengthening the platforms at Lymington Town. They probably wouldn't have bothered if the long term plan was for two car trains...

 

[Eagle]

Well it doesn't make sense to electrify a line then use a DMU!

Be fair, the line was electrified in the 1960s and it's only been in the last couple of years that it's been operated by a DMU. I'm sure it's just for the short term. There will probably be some electric trains on the route in the future; it's just that Wimbledon-based 456s is not a viable option.

Perhaps a 4 car EMU would be more appropriate, which is after all why they spent a few hundred thousand lengthening the platforms at Lymington Town...

Passenger numbers don't really warrant four cars during the week. On Saturdays there are more leisure passengers for the island, and on those days a 450 is used, hence the need for platform extensions (also unlike on weekdays there are actually spare 450s that can be used... although as I said the introduction of 456s might make a 450 or two available during the week too).

 

[Pumbaa]

This is only a problem for enthusiasts, it seems.

I don't know why a few people are so offended by the fact that there is nothing more suitable to the Lymington Branch at the moment. As TEW has pointed out, there are actually quite a lot of services in Hampshire that are run by DMUs over wholly electric lines; this is just one of many. In fact, the arrival of the 456s will reduce these services, indirectly, by releasing 450s (which are already signed by crews down here so it's a lot simpler than sending some 456s). Perhaps we could release a 450 onto the Lymington branch, but to me that seems like a bit of a waste of capacity.

And before anyone in the north starts eyeing up the 158s and 159s that might be released by the 450s taking over the electric services, no you can't have them just now, SWT has already decided to allocate them for strengthening on the Salisbury line.

They really should release some IMO. Woefully under utilised and greater capacity crises elsewhere.

 

[Eagle]

They really should release some IMO. Woefully under utilised and greater capacity crises elsewhere.

I agree, SWT are almost as bad for hoarding units as Scotrail...

 

[TEW]

They already hire 1 unit to FGW everyday, so I don't think they're actually that underused at the moment. There are units which stable between the peak, but that's the nature of London commuter operations.

 

[TheGrew]

Perhaps the solution 'could be' to extend the Southern Southampton Terminator (from Brighton) to Lymington and scrap running it as a shuttle all together. It would open up connectivity and appease those who can't believe a DMU is running on an electrified line. It is typically run by a 3 car 377 isn't it? So it wouldn't be as wasteful on capacity as a 450.
This of course creates a few problems, namely where does southern get the extra one (or even 2) units it would need and how would they be pathed.

 

[swt_passenger]

They already hire 1 unit to FGW everyday, so I don't think they're actually that underused at the moment. There are units which stable between the peak, but that's the nature of London commuter operations.

They are also about to hire a second unit to FGW, to allow a couple of 153s to be internally cascaded for the Paignton and Melksham extra services. IIRC SWT already used 8 from 11 158s on their own diagrams, so that must take daily utilisation up to 10 from 11.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps the solution 'could be' to extend the Southern Southampton Terminator (from Brighton) to Lymington and scrap running it as a shuttle all together. It would open up connectivity and appease those who can't believe a DMU is running on an electrified line. It is typically run by a 3 car 377 isn't it? So it wouldn't be as wasteful on capacity as a 450.
This of course creates a few problems, namely where does southern get the extra one (or even 2) units it would need and how would they be pathed.

It's a half hourly service to Lymington though. SN haven't used a 377/3 on the Brighton route for a long time, they are invariably 4 cars nowadays. As you point out it is no easier for SN to find a spare unit as it is for SWT - and if they do find one it is better to use it for capacity reasons in the London area, which is the original reason there's a 158 on the branch. This point applies equally to 456s, they are there to allow (eventually) for 10 car London inner suburban trains.

 

[ushawk]

Perhaps the solution 'could be' to extend the Southern Southampton Terminator (from Brighton) to Lymington and scrap running it as a shuttle all together. It would open up connectivity and appease those who can't believe a DMU is running on an electrified line. It is typically run by a 3 car 377 isn't it? So it wouldn't be as wasteful on capacity as a 450.
This of course creates a few problems, namely where does southern get the extra one (or even 2) units it would need and how would they be pathed.

It would need an extra few 377 units to run the service - which Southern simply havent got at this time. Then there is the pathing issues and also chances are if a service is late running, it would just be turned at Brockenhurst or Southampton - leaving the branch with no service.

 

[TheGrew]

Perhaps some slightly more lateral thinking. The Lymington Branch could potentially be given the 'new stock' when the Island Line gets eventually gets 'new trains'. (Which I believe was mooted to be 73 stock when they are released??) The branch runs effectively isolated from the main network apart from ECS moves so it wouldn't necessarily need mainline crash worthiness, line speed is about the same as the island line, and you could once again make the branch a 'heritage line'. It also wouldn't be that difficult for a fitter to use the Yarmouth-Lymington Ferry
And finally you could use the 3rd Rail.

 

[Eagle]

The branch runs effectively isolated from the main network apart from ECS moves...

This is not true. The junction for the Lymington branch is about half a mile or so west of Brockenhurst station (it's called Brockenhurst Junction but it's actually nearer Setley). So that's quite a bit of mainline running.

 

[TheGrew]

This is not true. The junction for the Lymington branch is about half a mile or so west of Brockenhurst station (it's called Brockenhurst Junction but it's actually nearer Setley). So that's quite a bit of mainline running.

I think you will find on closer inspection of Google Maps satellite view, Open Street Map and Bing Maps birds eye view. That I am right on this occasion, there a 3 tracks as far as the junction where one diverges towards Lymington. As the service is a shuttle and effectively has it's own dedicated platform at Brokenhurst (platform 4) it is effectively isolated from the rest of the network for standard operation.

 

[Eagle]

Platform 4 is not dedicated, mainline services can use it too (even though they rarely do). And it's wrong to call it isolated when there are crossovers between the Lymington line and the Down Main west of Brockenhurst. Lymington services can, theoretically at least, terminate in any platform.

 

[TheGrew]

I think your miss understanding what I am trying to say. I am not saying that it is physically isolated as your are more than correct in pointing out that it isn't (crossovers for example do allow platform 4 for mainline use). However operationally this is rarely if ever used. There is also as I have pointed out an effectively dedicated line (my understanding is no other traffic is booked to regularly use this) to the junction from platform 4.