Future for stored 508s

[Drsatan]

I also don't see why they don't use 313/508s on the Lymington branch, and the non-standard fleet excuse doesn't really work

If SWT were to hire two 508s for the Lymington branch, it would not be cost-effective to train all Bournemouth drivers on them.

Someone mentioned the possibility of using a 455 on the Lymington branch but AFAIK only two Bournemouth drivers are signed for them. Again it wouldn't be cost effective to train all Bournemouth drivers for one diagram.

 

[Fincra5]

What about those drivers who drove the CIGs, from what i have seen the cabs aren't vastly different.

 

[Mr Spock]

Unfortunately it does not matter what we think should happen as no TOC appears to want the 508's at the moment so they will just stay in storage until further notice.

 

[swt_passenger]

You may well be right; I had a memory of someone discussing 158 trips on electrified lines, but this was probably either due to EMU shortages or on a duty that involved at least some unelectrified track at some stage in the day

Still, even if it only saves the one 158 on the branch, it'd be worth it

I found a list I'd made up a while ago to illustrate how many services are run over third rail, but as you suggest, some are only parts of diagrams. But it gives an idea how many could be run by EMU if fleet numbers were no object...

SWT 158 services (other than Brock - Lym) over third rail
0702 Eastleigh - Ports Hbr 0748
0805 Ports Hbr - Basingstoke 0919
1638 Winchester - Totton 1711 (that needs to be a DMU only because it shunts in Totton Yard)
1703 Ports Hbr - Fareham 1730
2221 Basingstoke - Ports Hbr 2340
0030 Eastleigh - Ports Hbr 0112

SWT 159 services fully over third rail
0500 Ports Hbr - Waterloo 0739
0542 Southampton - Eastleigh 0556
0655 Basingstoke - Southampton 0741
0751 Southampton - Ports Hbr 0858
0933 Ports Hbr - Southampton 1038
1624 Basingstoke - Ports Hbr 1740
1724 Basingstoke - Southampton 1810
1817 Southampton -Winchester 1841
1905 Winchester - Southampton 1931

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

What about those drivers who drove the CIGs, from what i have seen the cabs aren't vastly different.

Cost effectiveness of driver training isn't really a reason, I agree. Otherwise they wouldn't have just trained Bounemouth drivers on 158s from scratch...

I don't go along with the theory that certain SWT diesel services such as the Southampton to Portsmouth are there especially to keep Fratton drivers trained on the class either, that could easily be achieved by the drivers working any of the other services I lsisted above. I'm fairly sure that if they had enough EMUs, Fratton drivers would just cease to sign 158/9 at all.

 

[tbtc]

I found a list I'd made up a while ago to illustrate how many services are run over third rail, but as you suggest, some are only parts of diagrams. But it gives an idea how many could be run by EMU if fleet numbers were no object...

That's brilliant; exactly what I was looking for

 

[Drsatan]

I found a list I'd made up a while ago to illustrate how many services are run over third rail, but as you suggest, some are only parts of diagrams. But it gives an idea how many could be run by EMU if fleet numbers were no object...


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


Cost effectiveness of driver training isn't really a reason, I agree. Otherwise they wouldn't have just trained Bounemouth drivers on 158s from scratch...

I don't go along with the theory that certain SWT diesel services such as the Southampton to Portsmouth are there especially to keep Fratton drivers trained on the class either, that could easily be achieved by the drivers working any of the other services I lsisted above. I'm fairly sure that if they had enough EMUs, Fratton drivers would just cease to sign 158/9 at all.

That's quite an interesting list swtpassenger. It shows that SWT have a shortage of EMUs if it is necessary to use 158s and 159s on the above services, with the exception of the 1638 Winchester - Totton.

If SWT decided to lease the 508s, which services could they be used on? Use on surburban routes would be restricted by the inability to work in multiple with 455s (unless whichever Rosco owns SWTs 455s was prepared to pay to upgrade their Tightlock couplers), and because they don't have toilets they could not be used on SWML services. However, assuming Fratton drivers were signed on them, 508s working in multiple could be used on Portsmouth Harbour - Southampton Central diagrams; the end to end journey time is one hour five minutes, over the one hour maximum journey time for units without toilets.

 

[yorksrob]

That's interesting. So there are quite a few 158's used on all electric lines. Perhaps SWT could use the 508's to colonise one or two suburban branchlines, such as the Chessington line for example, whilst keeping them all together for coupling services. The other classes could then be moved outwards to displace the 158's.

I believe the old South Western division had to use similar tactics in the past to keep SUB's away from the EPB's etc which were incompatible.

 

[MCR247]

That's interesting. So there are quite a few 158's used on all electric lines. Perhaps SWT could use the 508's to colonise one or two suburban branchlines, such as the Chessington line for example, whilst keeping them all together for coupling services. The other classes could then be moved outwards to displace the 158's.

I believe the old South Western division had to use similar tactics in the past to keep SUB's away from the EPB's etc which were incompatible.

Did you not read that they are only part of diagrams and that they are needed to keep up route knowledge? And by having 508s you are once again losing a lot of flexibility which TBH is needed, and do you know for a fact that the Chessington trains are self contained?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Living in Epsom I can tell you they aren't; the diagrams rotate at Waterloo.

They used to use shuttle diagrams on most of the Waterloo suburbans for a while a few years back but as I understand it, it was found to be too inflexible and they went back to the rotation system after a year or two.

 

[yorksrob]

Did you not read that they are only part of diagrams and that they are needed to keep up route knowledge? And by having 508s you are once again losing a lot of flexibility which TBH is needed, and do you know for a fact that the Chessington trains are self contained?

Er, if you read SWT passengers post properly you'll see that there is a section entitled "159 services fully over third rail" with the note that some are only part of diagrams.

Flexibility is great but it isn't the be-all and end-all. Perhaps with some shuffling of diagrams........

 

[tbtc]

Are there any self contained branchlines on Third Rail lines? (beyond a token daily service into London)

The only ones I can think of in "Network South East" area (apart from Lymington) are the Thames Valley FGW ones

Is Ascot - Alton - Guilford self contained?

Strood - Tonbridge?

Somewhere to use 508s whilst freeing up other EMUs to provide additional capacity for main line work

 

[yorksrob]

It's not very long but Sundridge Park - Bromley North is I think. You'd only release a 2-car unit though. Does the Sheerness branch have many through trains these days?

 

[MCR247]

Er, if you read SWT passengers post properly you'll see that there is a section entitled "159 services fully over third rail" with the note that some are only part of diagrams.

Flexibility is great but it isn't the be-all and end-all. Perhaps with some shuffling of diagrams........

So that is one diagram then....?

 

[tbtc]

It's not very long but Sundridge Park - Bromley North is I think. You'd only release a 2-car unit though. Does the Sheerness branch have many through trains these days?

If its self contained, the issue of "coupling" shouldn't come into it, and the lack of toilets shouldn't matter so much on such a short line.

Even releasing two coaches might help in the peaks elsewhere

 

[Dreadnought]

Cost effectiveness of driver training isn't really a reason, I agree. Otherwise they wouldn't have just trained Bounemouth drivers on 158s from scratch...

But it is far easier to use a fleet of units, including the crew training aspect, to which you are already committed to leasing.

As stated previously somebody would have to fund the leasing of a new fleet of units and the TOCs won't if there is no financial benefit and the DfT is unlikely to be interested either for the same reason especially in the current situation the country is in.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Begging your pardon chaps, but it's Grove Park to Bromley North.

Sundridge Park is the intermediate station.

 

[yorksrob]

Begging your pardon chaps, but it's Grove Park to Bromley North.

Sundridge Park is the intermediate station.

Ha ha yes, been a long time since I travelled it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As stated previously somebody would have to fund the leasing of a new fleet of units and the TOCs won't if there is no financial benefit and the DfT is unlikely to be interested either for the same reason especially in the current situation the country is in.

You never know. When you're living in a rolling stock drought with a nationwide DMU shortage, it might provide incentive - to DfT anyway if not SWT.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

To the person that suggested 3rd Rail Kirkby-Wigan i think it would be more of an inconvienance than a good thing as hardly anyone goes in the Direction of Kirkby from Wigan and most people that do go to liverpool travel to Garswood or Wigan northwestern for the Diesal Service. Everyone uses the line to head to Wigan/Manchester and Bolton. Check the stats out if you dont believe me a 153 could cope with the Loadings Kirkby bound if they where not banned from Wigan Wallgate. yet Manchester bound could be 4 Carriages infact some workings are.

 

[First class]

To the person that suggested 3rd Rail Kirkby-Wigan i think it would be more of an inconvienance than a good thing as hardly anyone goes in the Direction of Kirkby from Wigan and most people that do go to liverpool travel to Garswood or Wigan northwestern for the Diesal Service. Everyone uses the line to head to Wigan/Manchester and Bolton. Check the stats out if you dont believe me a 153 could cope with the Loadings Kirkby bound if they where not banned from Wigan Wallgate. yet Manchester bound could be 4 Carriages infact some workings are.

A through Wigan-Liverpool via Kirkby service would rob the diesel of most of the passengers. The journey time would be about 20 minutes quicker! It would also mean the Wigan - Liverpool stoppers could probably be reduced (or integrated into the Blackpool service) freeing up more diesel stock.

Personally, electrifying Southport-Wigan and Kirkby-Wigan would be a good way to start expanding Merseyrail and releasing more diesel units.

 

[YorkshireBear]

153's banned from wigan wallgate why?

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps Ormskirk - Preston might be easier to add on. Are there any through trains Northwards on that route currently?

 

[466.networkers]

It's not very long but Sundridge Park - Bromley North is I think. You'd only release a 2-car unit though. Does the Sheerness branch have many through trains these days?

The Sheerness Line has 2 through trains per day MF which are to/from GLM.

That's it, all the other services terminate at Sheerness/Sittingbourne.

 

[yorksrob]

The Sheerness Line has 2 through trains per day MF which are to/from GLM.

That's it, all the other services terminate at Sheerness/Sittingbourne.

Cheers for the info.

 

[Class 466]

Are there any self contained branchlines on Third Rail lines? (beyond a token daily service into London)

The only ones I can think of in "Network South East" area (apart from Lymington) are the Thames Valley FGW ones

Is Ascot - Alton - Guilford self contained?

Strood - Tonbridge?

Somewhere to use 508s whilst freeing up other EMUs to provide additional capacity for main line work

the 508s used to always operate strood to paddock wood so if SE refurbished them they would free up those much needed networkers...

 

[tbtc]

the 508s used to always operate strood to paddock wood so if SE refurbished them they would free up those much needed networkers...

Gets my vote. Its relatively self contained on there, and the Networkers would come in very handy elsewhere, as you say

 

[yorksrob]

Yep, tried and tested, I'd go for it.

 

[466.networkers]

Hang on chaps.

SET got rid of the 508s nearly 4 years ago as they were becoming legendarily unreliable.

Why on earth would they put them back on the branch lines from which they came?

They'd just be more unreliable after not being used for a couple of years.

The reason we have 466s on the branches is that there is enough stock to go round thanks to the Thameslink Project - we have FCC 319s running to Sevenoaks and 377/5s to Rochester amongst others.

It will be a step in the wrong direction, SET's punctuality figures are the worst they've been for a while now and the 508s will make the figures a lot worse.

 

[yorksrob]

Hang on chaps.

SET got rid of the 508s nearly 4 years ago as they were becoming legendarily unreliable.

Why on earth would they put them back on the branch lines from which they came?

They'd just be more unreliable after not being used for a couple of years.

The reason we have 466s on the branches is that there is enough stock to go round thanks to the Thameslink Project - we have FCC 319s running to Sevenoaks and 377/5s to Rochester amongst others.

It will be a step in the wrong direction, SET's punctuality figures are the worst they've been for a while now and the 508s will make the figures a lot worse.

Well, with a refurb, unreliability might be less of a problem but whilst there may not be a stock shortage on South Eastern, there is a stock shortage elsewhere.

Or is it back to square one - WE NEED MORE THIRD RAIL!!!!!

 

[mickey]

Or is it back to square one - WE NEED MORE THIRD RAIL!!!!!

What, just so we can use 30-year-old stock again? I don't think so. Perhaps for the odd branch, fill-in or short extension it's ok, but its poor efficiency and safety compared with OHLE means we should focus our energies elsewhere. Electrification is well overdue and definitely needed across most of the network, but not necessarily 3rd rail.

 

[yorksrob]

What, just so we can use 30-year-old stock again? I don't think so. Perhaps for the odd branch, fill-in or short extension it's ok, but its poor efficiency and safety compared with OHLE means we should focus our energies elsewhere. Electrification is well overdue and definitely needed across most of the network, but not necessarily 3rd rail.

Yes but quite, the fact is there are at least two routes on the southern which are diesel islands (Hurst Green - Uckfield and Ore - Ashford) plus probably more if you count Redhill - Reading which would simply not make sense on OLE, not to mention Ormskirk - Preston which is self contained and which would make more sense stuck on to Merseyrail. So whilst I agree with efficiency (although not so much safety - I've never heard of the third rail arking!), I would have to catagorically answer my own rhetorical question YES, WE DO NEED MORE THIRD RAIL!!!!!