-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Could the 701/5s go elsewhere?
- Thread starter London Trains
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
norbitonflyer
Established Member
There are thirty 701/5s. Like the 707s, they were designed for easy conversion to AC so not limited to DC land.
Southeastern have a large fleet of aging and knackered networkers which they want to replace sooner than later.
I could see the 701/5s displacing some of the more knackered networkers for scrap if they aren't needed.
But as others have said, I sure that Southeastern doesn't need another small fleet of non-compatible suburban units, as it already has the 376s (x36), and the 707s (x30) as well as the 465s & 466s.
I would hate to be the person who is responsible for the spares store at Slade Green, if SE gets the 701/5s (x30) as well, the spares store at SG would be larger than the depot.
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
Again, while it's true Southeastern really shouldn't add yet another incompatible fleet into the mix, thirty is NOT a small fleet.
No. SE don’t need to complicate their fleet further. SWR will keep them for future service increases. There have been talks of a full timetable recast, which will see more services added, therefore making the 701/5s needed
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
People need to stop saying SE should get the 701/5s, that is not happening at all. If they need more trains to replace the networkers in the short term whilst they wait for their new trains to arrive, they’ll most likely borrow some 377s from SN.
Mgameing123
Member
Well when GBR becomes a thing then fleets will probably be interchanged on a more frequent basis.
So when you say future increases, they’re not going to utilise them for the foreseeable?
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,170
No, it won’t be more frequent. Train fleets are tied into service and maintenance contracts. Not to mention that staff on the ground require traction-specific training.
SWR have signed a lease and maintenance agreement for all the 701s. With the current timetable if all the 458s and 450s on Arterio service groups are off-leased or redeployed there would be 63 weekday 10-car 701 diagrams. That can't be covered with 60 10-car 701/0s and would need the 701/5s. The 701 fleet wouldn't have particularly high utilisation until a timetable rewrite or more peak trains are added back into the timetable.
The above would leave 28 450s to redeploy compared to before Christmas. 4 are already redeployed in the long term plan diagrams and several others could be used to increase longer distance formations. That would leave some 450s not used until the requirement increases.
I'd guess that this might be a case where SWR don't want to communicate a date or plan that they miss rather than no intention to use the 701/5s. As others have stated train crew training doesn't cover 701/5s in passenger service so any training programme needs to be agreed with unions and then scheduled alongside all the commission/clearance activities which together will make providing a date with high certainty of being met difficult.
Farnborough
Member
The Ascot-Aldershot shuttle is pretty underused as it is, with a four-car... I see no advantages of the extra coach!
Southern Dvr
Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 988
what’s the plan for 701/5 units? It seems like they aren’t needed.
Invincible
Member
The 458's leases are till 2027, so do we know if they will be returned to Porterbrook? (or under speculation, extended and used as 2x2 seating express trains on the PDL as originally planned, if the line gets updated signalling?)
Sorry, have I missed something here? Is it confirmed news that SWR are not accepting the 701/5s?
Is this answering the question/is this whole thread speculative?
Is this advice for SE/just your opinion, or is it fact they will take 377s (dont SN need them)?
If this is merely advice the SE shouldn't further diversify their fleet, theres plenty of ways and means to make this not a terrible idea (eg: base the units out of Wimbledon on a sub-lease from SWR or use the existing maintenance contract etc).
This whole forum is awfully confusing when news/opinion/speculation all get swirled into a topic!
It's unfortunate that the 701/5s are considered surplus to SWR's needs.
Essentially SWR is still running a post-Covid "timetable with holes" (as in the 2004-19 timetable with services deleted) - does this indicate that there is little prospect of any desire to restore some of the removed pre-Covid services, even off-peak where demand has supposedly sprung back, and we're stuck with the current timetable potentially long-term?
No prospect of a recast to make a better timetable out of limited resources, as some other TOCs (Chiltern, LNWR, South Eastern and Greater Anglia) have done?
Essentially SWR is still running a post-Covid "timetable with holes" (as in the 2004-19 timetable with services deleted) - does this indicate that there is little prospect of any desire to restore some of the removed pre-Covid services, even off-peak where demand has supposedly sprung back, and we're stuck with the current timetable potentially long-term?
No prospect of a recast to make a better timetable out of limited resources, as some other TOCs (Chiltern, LNWR, South Eastern and Greater Anglia) have done?
Last edited:
Big Jumby 74
Established Member
They are not (no offence nw1), unless an official source can say otherwise!
The 701/5's and all 701/0's (750 cars in total) have a full life use on SWR once the new revised TT is in place. I think too many posters on here are repeatedly equating the current reduced TT with what they perceive as an excess of stock, forgetting that the FG/MTR bid for the 701's (all) was based on the pre covid SWT/SWR TT in place at 2016/2017 etc., a timetable that was based on the 2004 recast.
The 701's were designed to replace 455, 456, 458 and 707 (742 cars in total), and that is what will very likely happen. The new timetable in the planning (the basis of which I have had in person from the MD) will be such, that my own interpretation of the stock situation that will apply to same, will involve all the the 701's as mentioned above, and the 458's will be binned. The 450's will all migrate/revert to outer suburban/main line work, as was always the intension even in SWT days, scuppered slightly due to lack of ££ which resulted in 3 x 8 car 450 remaining on the Reading road.
The 701 plan (in full) will allow the entire suburban area to be worked by one type (10 and 5 cars) with Desiro's taking care of the outer and main line areas.
Sorry - was just echoing other people's thoughts on here.
It is good to hear that they aren't surplus to requirements and there is a prospect of a new timetable at some point.
Big Jumby 74
Established Member
No apology needed. As said, no offence to yourself. We have had some intelligent and worthwhile conversations in the past, and I have noted you have only recently come back to this theme.
As said, I can not confirm the eventual outcome (stock wise), as things have a habit of changing due to unforeseen circumstances down the line, but I do know where the timetable is heading, but you will appreciate that is not something I can divulge.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The self contained Guildford/Farnham/Ascot route was never part of the 701 plan. The reason for 701 involvement at Farnham was simply on a one for one replacement basis of the 8 car 458 diagrams that operated from Farnham (depot) on the peak hour Waterloo services via Ascot.
Last edited:
Snow1964
Established Member
When the 701s were ordered 8.5 years ago (mid 2017), plan was to operate a faster suburban timetable from December 2020 (once last of 455, 456, 458 were gone), as new trains had better performance.
There were some problematic tight bits (almost unworkable) in the proposed timetable, but it never actually happened. The current timetable is over 20 years old (it is basically from 2004, although some minor changes, and some covid era thinning out took place, which has not been fully restored.
Actually the current timetable is very slow, it was based on slow station dwell times of crowded 455s which are sluggish by modern standards, and heavily padded for time. There are many stations in SW London, eg Kingston, Hampton Court etc that now take longer than in the 1916 LSWR electric timetable operated by 65mph 3car torpedo units. Yes slower than over 100 years ago.
There is a new timetable proposed from December 2026 (although if it happens or gets deferred remains to be seen). Nothing has been published yet, so if it is still slower than the LSWR managed, or actually restores enough services to intensely use majority of 701 fleet remains to be seen.
BR used to say improved journey time increased passengers, so in theory could make SW suburban more attractive again by some serious speeding up. It must be really embarrassing to some staff that their current service is slower than in First World War.
Of course under GBR it would not be hard to reallocate a couple of routes to better utilise stock, as an example (and this is not a prediction) could transfer Horsham via Dorking services to 701s freeing up 377s to restore Southern services (Southern lost coastway 313s and suburban 455s without replacement, except a token number of 387s. If SWR has excess stock and Southern a shortage then these sort of solutions might be explored.
There were some problematic tight bits (almost unworkable) in the proposed timetable, but it never actually happened. The current timetable is over 20 years old (it is basically from 2004, although some minor changes, and some covid era thinning out took place, which has not been fully restored.
Actually the current timetable is very slow, it was based on slow station dwell times of crowded 455s which are sluggish by modern standards, and heavily padded for time. There are many stations in SW London, eg Kingston, Hampton Court etc that now take longer than in the 1916 LSWR electric timetable operated by 65mph 3car torpedo units. Yes slower than over 100 years ago.
There is a new timetable proposed from December 2026 (although if it happens or gets deferred remains to be seen). Nothing has been published yet, so if it is still slower than the LSWR managed, or actually restores enough services to intensely use majority of 701 fleet remains to be seen.
BR used to say improved journey time increased passengers, so in theory could make SW suburban more attractive again by some serious speeding up. It must be really embarrassing to some staff that their current service is slower than in First World War.
Of course under GBR it would not be hard to reallocate a couple of routes to better utilise stock, as an example (and this is not a prediction) could transfer Horsham via Dorking services to 701s freeing up 377s to restore Southern services (Southern lost coastway 313s and suburban 455s without replacement, except a token number of 387s. If SWR has excess stock and Southern a shortage then these sort of solutions might be explored.
Big Jumby 74
Established Member
Agree. The basis of the faster dwell times associated with the new stock (701 as we now know it) was good thinking to get the basics of what was essentially a very sound (2004*) TT back on track (time wise) particularly in the suburban area, where usage (prior to covid) had outstripped capacity, hence the TT started to crumble, particularly towards the end of the a.m. peak inbound, and in the p.m outbound at stations Vauxhall downwards. Volume of people, end of!
* PS: some will say the 2004 TT was (over) padded out in some areas, I am aware of that. But at the time 'right time' performance was at the top of the (DfT) agenda, and one can only assume that the service prior to 2004 was already suffering from delays, particularly in the peaks, so something had to change. As someone who has had a long term interest in the SW electric suburban from its inception, operated by pairs of 3 SUB's etc., but has also been on the front line in that area, I can see both sides of the discussion.
There is, although when speaking to the MD myself a date was not suggested, but it will happen, provided (he and his team) are allowed to drive this forward without undue interference from those in HMG or others who are not best placed to advise!
If it pans out as I am led to believe there will be service levels equal to that pre covid, the benefit being that all those services will be 701 operated and should see a real capacity increase (in bodies carried per train) over old formations, be that 8 car 455 or 10 car 455+456.
Yes, agree again, in principle. But I suspect on finer investigation of the overall timetable, in recent years this is far more congested at certain critical places (although I have not done 'the detail' myself). But my point being, services on certain routes, or parts thereof, may well benefit from a speeding up, but often as not, this may also be negated by a lack of pathway elsewhere on the journey(s) concerned (in simple terms a faster service having caught up with a preceding movement/train/junction confliction), effectively wiping out any gain had in the earlier part of the journey. The devil will be in the detailed overall re-planning, which takes time.
I had input to one such provisional plan for a proposed scheme involving TfL who wished to cherry pick certain SW suburban routes operating from Waterloo many years ago. Back then the train service operating on the main suburban using (off peak) p1-4 at Waterloo, but also making odd use of p5 & 6 in the peaks, as a result of the additional peak time Epsom's etc, and was (to my mind) at the optimum for number of trains using p1-4 day to day.
But for this to work/dovetail in to the overall TT, very few services (at Waterloo turn round) were self contained, the only noticeable examples being the Shepperton's and Kingston rounders that used p4. This pattern did not fit in with TfL's desires, the result being a plan that saw other routes becoming self contained (at Waterloo), the result of which required an off peak use of 6 platforms on the main suburban side, increasing to seven in the peaks.
At that time we only had 19 platforms for the entire SW service, and consequently TfL's proposals were declined, less SW had to cancel a good number of ML services from their timetable to provide platform capacity for TfL's wishes.
Last edited:
DM352
Member
My unqualified thought it they should not go elsewhere as in BR days when transfers happened especially in a recession there was limited capacity to strengthen services when demand increased. An example I remember was some 321s transferred from the Northampton line and later on the route had a shortage in peak times.
Last edited:
GCarlos_18
Member
What chance an improvement to the off-peak services between Richmond and Waterloo (via Mortlake)? Hopefully once all the 701s are in service we might dream of seeing 4tph all day every day, instead of the 2tph we now have outside the peaks.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Reseat them to 2+2 with armrests and use instead of the Juniper units on the Pompey Direct? They're just a shorter version of the 730 body shell and the /2s are fine for that sort of purpose.
Or use them to replace 450s and reseat those to 2+2 with armrests and as above?
Send them up north to replace the 777s? (not an even slightly serious suggestion)
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,246
It always seems curious to me that Southern has no dedicated metro trains at all, whereas Southeastern already has the high density 376s and inherited 707s. Indeed it is a quirk that Thameslink service to the coast have way more standing space than Southern 377/6s operating south London metro style routes.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
Yes it is a bit weird. Although Southern’s Metro operation only seems particularly busy between Clapham Junction and Streatham Common/Norbury.
Of course, I’d like to think surplus stock in the South East will be a trigger for suburban electrification northwards. But the Treasury hasn’t been bulldozed yet.
Big Jumby 74
Established Member
That is something I would welcome also, and I may have a chance to speak with someone (not the MD) in the not too distant future, and see if /how things are progressing, although from a robust timetable angle (in my past experience) this will largely depend on a stable rolling stock situation.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well said !
Peter Sarf
Established Member
More chance of there being a need to Wibble about where 458s could go imo.
If SWR has a stock surplus 458s are an obvious microfleet to get rid of especially as it does not do anything the 450s cannot do. But, also, I think the 450s are relied upon for quite high usage iirc so could ease off there, how true is that still ?.
458s have no future and are not needed at SWR once the 701 rollout is complete, as far as I am aware
- Status