Class 707 - SWT: Introduction into service

[Monty]

Is there likely to be a need to send them to Bournemouth depot or elsewhere for some maintenance jobs? I presume the acceptance testing will be done towards Weymouth like the 458/5s? That'll need a fair bit of route clearance outside their normal stamping ground.

That said, if any similar units were ordered with toilets and a different seating layout it would mean they could be used on longer distance services with no issues.

 

[Class377/5]

What's SWT's current policy on route clearing of classes? Are all 444s, 450s and 458s cleared for any electrified section of track (inc sidings and depots) throughout SWT's network (except obviously Island Line)? Are the 158s/159s cleared for the whole of the SWT's network (again excluding Island Line)? Are the 455s & 456s cleared for all red routes and selected blue routes?

If XRail did kick SWTs out of Wimbledon, could the knock-on affect of a maintenance location reshuffle increase what works can/would get done at Bournemouth? Would the 455s and 456s even be around by then anyway?

The 455/456 fleets will be gone by the end of the next franchise as the DfT have written the franchise agreement requiring stock with standards/passenger loadings the 455/456 Fleet cannot achieve.

So route clearing for Desiro Cities maybe very useful going forward, especially for Stagecoach's bid. Proven design that route cleared will help keep costs down.

 

[Suraggu]

The 455/456 fleets will be gone by the end of the next franchise as the DfT have written the franchise agreement requiring stock with standards/passenger loadings the 455/456 Fleet cannot achieve.

So route clearing for Desiro Cities maybe very useful going forward, especially for Stagecoach's bid. Proven design that route cleared will help keep costs down.

And that could make all the offered. The more coffers in the DfT transport the better. Plus using a proven design which is still being delivered could mean cheaper build and lease costs if an extended 707 fleet was ordered.

 

[Class377/5]

And that could make all the offered. The more coffers in the DfT transport the better. Plus using a proven design which is still being delivered could mean cheaper build and lease costs if an extended 707 fleet was ordered.

The 707 order will be finished around the same time as the winner bidder is announced. It cannot continue onto any more 707s (or a four car version) as it'll be busy building the class 717s.

That said would mean any future SWT order could be accommodated in Spring 2018 as the 700 order tails off and the 717 finishes too. Siemens should be able to build around 10 coaches a week on its Desiro City production lines at peak.

Also found this on the SWT site re 707 capacity vs other stock

https://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/travelling-with-us/our-trains/class-4505-high-capacity-desiro/

Capacity (per 5 car unit):
- Seats: 275
- Standing: 533
- Total: 808
An increase of 15% compared to a 5-car Class 458/5
An increase of 31% compared to a 4-car Class 455

That's Web address is curious tho.

 

[43096]

The 707 order will be finished around the same time as the winner bidder is announced. It cannot continue onto any more 707s (or a four car version) as it'll be busy building the class 717s.

That said would mean any future SWT order could be accommodated in Spring 2018 as the 700 order tails off and the 717 finishes too. Siemens should be able to build around 10 coaches a week on its Desiro City production lines at peak.

Given the need to replace the 455/456 fleet (which is a scandalous waste of resources - but that's another issue), I would expect an order for around 100-120 more Class 707s to replace them and to resource the additional service requirement in the ITT on the Windsor side.

 

[D365]

Given the need to replace the 455/456 fleet (which is a scandalous waste of resources - but that's another issue)

Why do you reckon? The Class 455s, once the remaining PEP-based units are withdrawn, will be among the oldest MUs on the network. I believe that fleet replacement will tie in to the planning for Crossrail 2, indeed it may well be possible that the Class 707s are used.

 

[Class377/5]

Given the need to replace the 455/456 fleet (which is a scandalous waste of resources - but that's another issue), I would expect an order for around 100-120 more Class 707s to replace them and to resource the additional service requirement in the ITT on the Windsor side.

Why is replacing a train at the end of its design life a scandalous waste? EMU are built to last 40 years. The 455 came into service in 1982, so are at the 35 year Mark. Considering thier replacements would be arriving in 2019-2022 time frame, the units will be 37-39 years old.

I'd call that sensible planning.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also found this on the SWT site re 707 capacity vs other stock

https://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/travelling-with-us/our-trains/class-4505-high-capacity-desiro/

That's Web address is curious tho.

Probably the web author recycling the page they used to have for the 450/5s when they ran around with the first class removed.

The standing capacity figures SWT are using on their own website are vastly in excess of the figures in the franchise ITT, out by around 200. I think it shows how this sort of PR stuff should be treated with suspicion, direct comparison becomes difficult. I assume this might be the theoretical crush load, and DfT's figure is perhaps based on their own (revised) standing density calculations as explained in the ITT.

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

What's SWT's current policy on route clearing of classes? Are all 444s, 450s and 458s cleared for any electrified section of track (inc sidings and depots) throughout SWT's network (except obviously Island Line)? Are the 158s/159s cleared for the whole of the SWT's network (again excluding Island Line)? Are the 455s & 456s cleared for all red routes and selected blue routes?

The NR statement can be found tabulated in the sectional appendix, available in the public domain here: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...dix/kent sussex wessex sectional appendix.pdf
Route clearance tables for Wessex route are right at the back, and for 444, 450, 458 etc really cannot be summed up in a few sentences; it is far more detailed than that.

 

[43096]

Why is replacing a train at the end of its design life a scandalous waste? EMU are built to last 40 years. The 455 came into service in 1982, so are at the 35 year Mark. Considering thier replacements would be arriving in 2019-2022 time frame, the units will be 37-39 years old.

I'd call that sensible planning.

They are clearly not at the end of their design life. Companies do not spend £40M on new traction equipment for trains at the end of their life - such a spend is designed for a 10-15 year life.

 

[D365]

They are clearly not at the end of their design life. Companies do not spend £40M on new traction equipment for trains at the end of their life - such a spend is designed for a 10-15 year life.

The new traction equipment came about as part of the Class 707 order in order to free up depot time at Wimbledon. If the 30 units hadn't been ordered then the retraction would not have taken place.

 

[43096]

The new traction equipment came about as part of the Class 707 order in order to free up depot time at Wimbledon. If the 30 units hadn't been ordered then the retraction would not have taken place.

True - the need for another depot if it hadn't been done was the tipping point in the business case. It doesn't change the fact that you don't spend £40M on life-expired assets.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Why is replacing a train at the end of its design life a scandalous waste? EMU are built to last 40 years. The 455 came into service in 1982, so are at the 35 year Mark. Considering thier replacements would be arriving in 2019-2022 time frame, the units will be 37-39 years old.

I'd call that sensible planning.

But the traction equipment will be virtually new.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

True - the need for another depot if it hadn't been done was the tipping point in the business case. It doesn't change the fact that you don't spend £40M on life-expired assets.

Agreed.

 

[Roast Veg]

If the 455s really are unsuitable for the new franchise (and I have not read it so cannot say whether they are or not for certain), then it seems likely that the ROSCO thinks that the units have other homes in the future, though exactly where is hard to say. Where in the country needs 3rd rail metro units but cannot afford new build? Perhaps they may move to southern (back to southern in the case of some)?

Or perhaps is it that only the motor cars will survive? If they're compatible with other Mk3 units that are in need of a traction overhaul, could they be recycled for that?

 

[urpert]

They could combine retractioned 455 under frames with shortened 442 bodies.

Sorry.

 

[43074]

If the 455s really are unsuitable for the new franchise (and I have not read it so cannot say whether they are or not for certain), then it seems likely that the ROSCO thinks that the units have other homes in the future, though exactly where is hard to say. Where in the country needs 3rd rail metro units but cannot afford new build? Perhaps they may move to southern (back to southern in the case of some)?

Or perhaps is it that only the motor cars will survive? If they're compatible with other Mk3 units that are in need of a traction overhaul, could they be recycled for that?

The units are only unsuitable as far as the DfT are concerned, who have specified 45 second dwell times for Metro services at Clapham Junction in the new franchise - this isn't possible on the 455s & 456s because the width of the doors and internal circulation space is insufficient to allow this. It's barmy really, especially as the retraction makes them fit for until Crossrail 2 (XR2) is proposed to open. A better policy would be replacement by a combination of the new XR2 units and a reduced South Western metro fleet, for those routes not proposed for transfer to XR2, in the late 2020s. But, alas this is the DfT we're talking about...

 

[Roast Veg]

At the end of the day, what the DfT says goes. I can understand their policy on the dwell times, with the impressive crush loading capability shown on the 700s what they really want is to achieve that in as many places around London as possible.

Speculatively, if both of the two bidders for the franchise didn't specify this standard in the bidding phase, would the DfT still opt for one or the other?

 

[TEW]

Regarding 707 route clearance; a number of stations on the Main Suburban routes (rather than the Windsor side) have started to receive new CCTV dispatch cameras for guards recently. Some are clearly for 10-car 455/456 formations based on where they are on the platform but others are clearly aimed at the middle cab of a 10-car train formed of 2 5-car units. I had seen draft diagrams which suggested there would be some 707 work on these routes and the installation of CCTV despatch equipment would seem to confirm preparations are being made for the operation of 707s on these routes.

 

[D365]

A better policy would be replacement by a combination of the new XR2 units and a reduced South Western metro fleet, for those routes not proposed for transfer to XR2, in the late 2020s. But, alas this is the DfT we're talking about...

Could it not be possible that the future Crossrail 2 fleet might consist of a number of Class 707s?

 

[Goldfish62]

Regarding 707 route clearance; a number of stations on the Main Suburban routes (rather than the Windsor side) have started to receive new CCTV dispatch cameras for guards recently. Some are clearly for 10-car 455/456 formations based on where they are on the platform but others are clearly aimed at the middle cab of a 10-car train formed of 2 5-car units. I had seen draft diagrams which suggested there would be some 707 work on these routes and the installation of CCTV despatch equipment would seem to confirm preparations are being made for the operation of 707s on these routes.

Except they won't be running on these lines. There's not going to be enough of them for the Windsor lines as it is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it 'a lot' of 2 + 1? The recent video (in the Get Surrey article) suggests it is a couple of short sections between gangway and first vestibule in different carriages..

However I did see the MR article, and it is quite justifiable, but it doesn't really affect the main point that the basic premise of the news article is flawed, because the seating and standing space in the 707 is generally in the same ball park as the trains that are already running.

Most of the driving cars of the units is 2+1 as I understand it and as photos appear to confirm. And not sure I understand your other point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there likely to be a need to send them to Bournemouth depot or elsewhere for some maintenance jobs? I presume the acceptance testing will be done towards Weymouth like the 458/5s? That'll need a fair bit of route clearance outside their normal stamping ground.

According to Today's Railways the acceptance testing will be between Staines and Reading, as per the 458/5s.

 

[43074]

Could it not be possible that the future Crossrail 2 fleet might consist of a number of Class 707s?

Who knows, it's years away yet but I can't imagine TfL/Crossrail 2 would want to gloat about a brand new £20billion railway whilst using 13 year old trains... of course we're basing this discussion on the assumption that the 455 & 456 units will be replaced in the new franchise and even that isn't a certainty yet.

 

[glbotu]

Could it not be possible that the future Crossrail 2 fleet might consist of a number of Class 707s?

I mean, unlikely. They could very well use some type of Desiro City, but they'll want a consistent fleet to keep up 30tph in the core (or whatever it's supposed to be). I guess it might be that the current stock configuration will be used up until Crossrail 2 happens, followed immediately by Crossrail 2 removing all the 455s/456s replacing them with whatever class of train Crossrail 2 orders.

 

[swt_passenger]

I presume the acceptance testing will be done towards Weymouth like the 458/5s? That'll need a fair bit of route clearance outside their normal stamping ground.

Only certain initial testing of the first few 458/5s was done at Weymouth, most was done on the Reading run once they got into the 'normal stuff'. I wondered at the time if the Weymouth work was something specific like regen braking trials or some sort of passing compatibility check with other stock?

 

[hwl]

Could it not be possible that the future Crossrail 2 fleet might consist of a number of Class 707s?

No. Given the number of residual services planed from the SWML branches into Waterloo etc. post CR2 opening (inc SWML resignalling improvements too), you could replace all the 455s & 456s and still utilise the all new replacement stock on services into Waterloo after CR2 opens. The main criteria for new SWML metro stock is that it would have similar performance specification to CR2 requirements (acceleration deceleration and low dwell times (door width and interior configurations)).

 

[TEW]

Except they won't be running on these lines. There's not going to be enough of them for the Windsor lines as it is.

But there's also too many 458/5s for Reading services. The latest I had seen suggested a fair number of 458/5s remaining on their current duties and limited 707 work on Main Suburban services.

 

[43096]

But there's also too many 458/5s for Reading services. The latest I had seen suggested a fair number of 458/5s remaining on their current duties and limited 707 work on Main Suburban services.

The weekday Reading timetable needs (I think) 26 sets. That would leave 6 sets available for use elsewhere, making up the 707 shortfall.

 

[Class377/5]

They are clearly not at the end of their design life. Companies do not spend £40M on new traction equipment for trains at the end of their life - such a spend is designed for a 10-15 year life.

No you've confused design life with life extension. The design life is what the builders intend where as life extension is to get the units beyond this. The 321 project is evidence of such work.

But are about the life span but two very different things.

But the traction equipment will be virtually new.

And? The ROSCO took a chance and it hasn't paid off. That's the thing with risk, it can go bad as well as good.

At the end of the day, what the DfT says goes. I can understand their policy on the dwell times, with the impressive crush loading capability shown on the 700s what they really want is to achieve that in as many places around London as possible.

Speculatively, if both of the two bidders for the franchise didn't specify this standard in the bidding phase, would the DfT still opt for one or the other?

The DfT could thro out both bids and run it with its operator of last resort.

However if your bidding for your company spending £10m or more, would you risk that investment in offering a sub standard bid? Especially with most of the recent bids being awarded to those who offer lots of new trains?

Who knows, it's years away yet but I can't imagine TfL/Crossrail 2 would want to gloat about a brand new £20billion railway whilst using 13 year old trains... of course we're basing this discussion on the assumption that the 455 & 456 units will be replaced in the new franchise and even that isn't a certainty yet.

Indeed. Crossrail 2 hasn't even got it route set yet so talking about rolling stock is way too early. Fact that Crossrail 1 took so long means the final Crossrail 2 stock may roll out as a replacement for the 455/456 stock!

 

[Goldfish62]

The weekday Reading timetable needs (I think) 26 sets. That would leave 6 sets available for use elsewhere, making up the 707 shortfall.

I think the combined Windsor/Hounslow/Weybridge services need around 40 units. This ties in with remarks either earlier in this thread or elsewhere that there are still going to be plenty of 450s on the Reading line due to the requirement for 458/5s to supplement the 707s.

While there are a fair number of services to/from Reading that really need extra capacity some shoulder-peak ones don't (eg the 0742 from Reading which does one trip in the AM peak only) and the resources are probably better used on the Hounslow loop, in particular.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

And? The ROSCO took a chance and it hasn't paid off. That's the thing with risk, it can go bad as well as good.

Are they owned by the same ROSCO as the 442s?

 

[D365]

Are they owned by the same ROSCO as the 442s?

No. The Class 455s are owned by Porterbrook, whilst the Class 442s are owned by Angel Trains.

 

[spark001uk]

No. The Class 455s are owned by Porterbrook, whilst the Class 455s are owned by Angel Trains.

I feel a small edit coming on!