Future of Class 707

[dgl]

And having more siemens units would mean (at least for the rare time a unit breaks down) compatibility and, of course, having pretty much all of your electric fleet from the same manufacturer must have it's benefits.
Also siemens have a proven reliability record and would not involve units which are bothe unfamiliar to the UK and to power via 3rd rail.

 

[Goldfish62]

The First/MTR press release:



No mention of 458s within "all other mainland trains" - nor 707s - hence the fairly well-founded speculation that both are going.

BUT

New Suburban trains have to be tendered for, so they can't at this stage say why they will be until the tender process has been included.

I'm not a bettting man, but if I were I'd wager heavily that the outcome of that tender will be an order of 60 x 10 car Siemens Desiro City units, plus some kind of deal to refit/retrofit the existing 707s to First/MTR's new spec (including toilets, charging sockets, etc).

The 707s already have charging sockets.

 

[Ianno87]

I think the 707s will enter service with FSW, but will be replaced once the new new trains are delivered in a couple of years.

I believe that their introduction this year is quite integral to the plan to run 10-car trains on the Main Suburban service from December this year (following the remodelling works at Waterloo this August), through the associated fleet cascade.

 

[HH]

Are those numbers correct?

By my reckoning:
455s - 91 units, 364 vehicles
456s - 24 units, 48 vehicles
458s - 36 units, 180 vehicles
707s - 30 units, 150 vehicles
which gives 181 units, 742 vehicles

Which will become
30x5 car (150 vehicles)
60x10 car (600 vehicles), so 750 vehicles

with the 442s as well (18x5 car) that gives 840 vehicles, so a net gain of at least 98 vehicles, and I don't think anything has been said about the 458s going other than in the BBC report - this part of the strategy is the main thing that needs clarifying in my mind, i.e. will Reading be worked by the new suburban stock, a cascade from the Portsmouth line as a result of the 442s, or the 458s as per the original Stagecoach plan etc.

These numbers are correct. And 98 is the real increase over what was already happening. What happens with the rolling stock to be cascaded is primarily in the hands of the ROSCOs, who have said, and are likely to say, nothing.

As to the new RS, no order has yet been placed and will not be until a while after the standstill period finishes. Siemens trains are still a possibility.

 

[DerekC]

I believe that the spec was drawn up by civil servants at the DfT. Yet again this government department is shown to have no grip on tne reality of railway operations.

I think you are mixing them up with the Class 700.

 

[Suraggu]

I believe that their introduction this year is quite integral to the plan to run 10-car trains on the Main Suburban service from December this year (following the remodelling works at Waterloo this August), through the associated fleet cascade.

And dont forget platforms on the Reading line are being upgraded for 10 car services.
10 cars whether a mixture of 10 car or 5 car new build EMU's seems the logical way forward.

 

[DarloRich]

so let me get this straight:

• new trains ordered
• franchise changes hands
• new franchisee doesn't like new trains
• dumps them
• replaces with more new trains
• passenger benefits delayed ( FIRST SWT apologises)

The new trains, while dual voltage capable are provision to run third rail only meaning they need more work to install 25kv gear AND toilets. Oh and they dont have a home. Madness.

Can I tempt you with a slightly used train, one previous disinterested owner, full service history, slight remedial work needed..................

 

[43096]

That could make sense, in that the current configuration isn't good enough, so it could be that the current stock "goes back" and new stock is then provided. The new stock could still use whole carriages from the original order (maybe with some tweeks).



If that is correct, then the rolling stock company isn't it of pocket, in fact could have a much bigger fleet that they are leasing out.

Make sense?

I'm sorry, but taking brand new trains out of service because DfT want a press release saying "we're building xx new trains" is anything but sense. It shows just what a screwed-up, wasteful, useless, degenerate operation the railway is.

 

[47802]

so let me get this straight:

• new trains ordered
• franchise changes hands
• new franchisee doesn't like new trains
• dumps them
• replaces with more new trains
• passenger benefits delayed ( FIRST SWT apologises)

The new trains, while dual voltage capable are provision to run third rail only meaning they need more work to install 25kv gear AND toilets. Oh and they dont have a home. Madness.

Can I tempt you with a slightly used train, one previous disinterested owner, full service history, slight remedial work needed..................

Totally disagree It would seem to me the problem is buying the trains well into the franchise when most are bought at the beginning and hence are usually required for at least until the end of the franchise. If these trains were bought on a very short lease period and then the new operator comes along with a bigger order at a better price who can blame them for dumping the new trains. Its really tough luck for the leasing company and if it potentially brings in some competition with regard to leasing stock charges then maybe thats a good thing.

 

[HH]

so let me get this straight:

• new trains ordered
• franchise changes hands
• new franchisee doesn't like new trains
• dumps them
• replaces with more new trains
• passenger benefits delayed ( FIRST SWT apologises)

The new trains, while dual voltage capable are provision to run third rail only meaning they need more work to install 25kv gear AND toilets. Oh and they dont have a home. Madness.

Let's put one thing straight. Passenger benefits are not delayed. The Class 707s will still be delivered as per the original order; it's just that they will be replaced with even newer, and better specified, trains in 2020. From the passenger's point of view it's a win.

 

[HH]

Make sense?

I'm sorry, but taking brand new trains out of service because DfT want a press release saying "we're building xx new trains" is anything but sense. It shows just what a screwed-up, wasteful, useless, degenerate operation the railway is.

In this case it's nothing to do with DfT; it's just that First/MTR could buy new, better-specced trains for less money. Are you telling me that if you order a car for £20k, and then you get an offer for a better-specced model for £18k you'd stick with the original order?

 

[Juniper Driver]

Platforms on the Reading line are only being extended to about 200 metres (other than Reading 4-6 and Wokingham down platform which are already longer). To maximise capacity 10-car (10x20m) trains need to be used. Cascaded 450s aren't ideal for that.

Why not? They only run as 8 anyway and with 4 trains an hour there shouldn't be too much problem with overcrowding....at least off peak.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who has said they aren't going to enter service on an interim basis until the other new stock arrives?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Make sense?

I'm sorry, but taking brand new trains out of service because DfT want a press release saying "we're building xx new trains" is anything but sense. It shows just what a screwed-up, wasteful, useless, degenerate operation the railway is.

Where do you get the idea from that they are being got rid of so the DfT can have a fancy press release? That is a ridiculous idea. I'm sure all will become apparent, but I suspect they are being got rid of because there is a cheaper option or a more effective one. What's the problem with that? They aren't going to be turned into razor blades - no doubt they will provide a cheap, cost-effective solution for another TOC.

Would people stop the whining about it if, for instance, they got pantographs and went to Northern and LM so operation of the terminally unreliable and old-fashioned 319s could cease?

 

[Deepgreen]

Are those numbers correct?

By my reckoning:
455s - 91 units, 364 vehicles
456s - 24 units, 48 vehicles
458s - 36 units, 180 vehicles
707s - 30 units, 150 vehicles
which gives 181 units, 742 vehicles

Which will become
30x5 car (150 vehicles)
60x10 car (600 vehicles), so 750 vehicles

with the 442s as well (18x5 car) that gives 840 vehicles, so a net gain of at least 98 vehicles, and I don't think anything has been said about the 458s going other than in the BBC report - this part of the strategy is the main thing that needs clarifying in my mind, i.e. will Reading be worked by the new suburban stock, a cascade from the Portsmouth line as a result of the 442s, or the 458s as per the original Stagecoach plan etc.

EDIT - the ''Windsor Lines'' (including Reading) are included in those routes which are getting the new trains on the DfT map, what isn't clear is whether or not they will run to Reading, and the First/MTR infographic only talks about the (already known) increase in services to 4tph.

Thanks. Two of my assumptions were wrong - the number of 455s (I omitted SWT's 455/8s) and that the new trains would be five car units: ten cars makes sense. The comparison of numbers now makes more sense, assuming any of it comes to fruition, which I recognise is speculation at present. BTW - what is the basis for there only being 18 442s?

 

[Deepgreen]

Where do you get the idea from that they are being got rid of so the DfT can have a fancy press release? That is a ridiculous idea. I'm sure all will become apparent, but I suspect they are being got rid of because there is a cheaper option or a more effective one. What's the problem with that? They aren't going to be turned into razor blades - no doubt they will provide a cheap, cost-effective solution for another TOC.

Would people stop the whining about it if, for instance, they got pantographs and went to Northern and LM so operation of the terminally unreliable and old-fashioned 319s could cease?

I suspect that they may see some FSW service, but there is a chance that they won't, if only from the BBC item (taking into account the likely flaws there). However, the underlying lack of coordination is concerning - a large fleet of trains is being delivered, having been painted in a specific livery, undergoing testing and training on a network that may not see them at all or for any significant time. This is very wasteful, whatever then happens to them. Of course, there was no guarantee that the franchise would remain with SWT, but the timing is everything - even having them built/delivered a little later to take into account the franchise review date, and having the generic white livery might have been far more sensible (and awaiting the decision before testing and training). I've no doubt a good home will be found for them, but the interim process is expensively flawed.

Then there is the expensive and refurbishment of the 456s - what will be their fate I wonder - back to Southern?!

We live in interesting times.

 

[DarloRich]

Totally disagree It would seem to me the problem is buying the trains well into the franchise when most are bought at the beginning and hence are usually required for at least until the end of the franchise. If these trains were bought on a very short lease period and then the new operator comes along with a bigger order at a better price who can blame them for dumping the new trains. Its really tough luck for the leasing company and if it potentially brings in some competition with regard to leasing stock charges then maybe thats a good thing.

I cant believe the lease allowed the TOC to bail out so easily. It also isnt good for the industry as a whole that an entire fleet of trains will have to be re provisioned ( having being rejected by a TOC) although it may allow for faster cascades elsewhere if they get converted to dual or 25kv only

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Who has said they aren't going to enter service on an interim basis until the other new stock arrives?

Call me cynical: I suspect they may well enter long-term service on SW(T/R) anyway. My guess is that this is a gambit by either DfT (no fan of ROSCOs) or First/MTR to reduce the lease cost. I doubt the toilet issue will be a deal-breaker if Angel can offer them at an attractive enough price.

 

[thomson787]

It's quite silly that new stock is being rejected, although I do hope South Eastern receives some

 

[Bletchleyite]

Call me cynical: I suspect they may well enter long-term service on SW(T/R) anyway. My guess is that this is a gambit by either DfT (no fan of ROSCOs) or First/MTR to reduce the lease cost. I doubt the toilet issue will be a deal-breaker if Angel can offer them at an attractive enough price.

Could well be the case.

As for livery, that they are painted red is neither here nor there. The new TOC may choose red as its base, of course. If it doesn't, there's always vinyls - the old FGW Dynamic Lines was overall vinyl, so it wouldn't make any odds what colour the base was.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I cant believe the lease allowed the TOC to bail out so easily. It also isnt good for the industry as a whole that an entire fleet of trains will have to be re provisioned ( having being rejected by a TOC) although it may allow for faster cascades elsewhere if they get converted to dual or 25kv only

Why's it not good? Another TOC could get a spectacular deal out of it. It might not be good for the ROSCO, but why of a sudden do we care for big banks and investors when we never really have before?

It might also teach a lesson - everything new should be third rail and 25kV (even if the pantographs and transformers are stored) for flexibility of deployment.

Any room on the underframe for bolt-on diesel generators?

As for bogs, they are not an issue. The units have the pipework needed, just fit them.

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe that their introduction this year is quite integral to the plan to run 10-car trains on the Main Suburban service from December this year (following the remodelling works at Waterloo this August), through the associated fleet cascade.

It isn't at all, actually.

On current (SWT) plans they are definitely for the Windsor side to release the 458s to provide the 10 car service to Reading.

The 10 car service on the main suburban (via Wimbledon) routes is to be provided by more 455+455+456 10 car sets, the 456s will be taken off the Ascot - Guildford route and replaced by 450s there.

 

[Deepgreen]

Why's it not good? Another TOC could get a spectacular deal out of it. It might not be good for the ROSCO, but why of a sudden do we care for big banks and investors when we never really have before?

It might also teach a lesson - everything new should be third rail and 25kV (even if the pantographs and transformers are stored) for flexibility of deployment.

Any room on the underframe for bolt-on diesel generators?

As for bogs, they are not an issue. The units have the pipework needed, just fit them.

However it is viewed, it is an inefficient use of resources, no matter who the financial losers are - just another example of the fractured strategy on the railways today.

 

[swt_passenger]

BTW - what is the basis for there only being 18 442s?

An explicit statement on the First Group press release last Monday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However it is viewed, it is an inefficient use of resources, no matter who the financial losers are - just another example of the fractured strategy on the railways today.

If they go to another TOC in need of units, which they will, I don't see what's inefficient about it. The 1980s Mk3 EMUs are getting old and there are a lot of them about. There are even still TOCs operating PEP units which really are getting on a bit.

At worst it is *slightly* poor planning.

 

[swt_passenger]

Who has said they aren't going to enter service on an interim basis until the other new stock arrives?

People who've been taken in by Paul Clifton's BBC wibble implying they won't enter service? He's never been too accurate in his supposedly specialist reporting in my experience.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People who've been taken in by Paul Clifton's BBC wibble implying they won't enter service? He's never been too accurate in his supposedly specialist reporting in my experience.

Indeed, I would reiterate my view that that report was of extremely poor quality overall. I've not heard one of his reports before not being in that BBC local area, but if they are all that bad I'm surprised he still has a job with the BBC; it was the kind of low-quality, poorly-researched and terribly-presented reporting I would expect from a local free rag, not the BBC.

 

[DarloRich]

However it is viewed, it is an inefficient use of resources, no matter who the financial losers are - just another example of the fractured strategy on the railways today.

we have a winner!

If they go to another TOC in need of units, which they will, I don't see what's inefficient about it. The 1980s Mk3 EMUs are getting old and there are a lot of them about. There are even still TOCs operating PEP units which really are getting on a bit.

At worst it is *slightly* poor planning.

we as tax payers will simply end up paying for the changes and the delays. Any resources the ROSCO expend will be passed on, pipework or no pipework!

No problems with cascading the units where needed but it could have been done in a slightly less cack handed fashion

 

[Bletchleyite]

No problems with cascading the units where needed but it could have been done in a slightly less cack handed fashion

It was a little cack-handed. That's about as far as I would go with it.

Here's an idea, if BBC South are whining that much about new trains, send them all somewhere where they'll be appreciated and let them carry on with their 455s and 458s if they like them so much.

 

[Deepgreen]

If they go to another TOC in need of units, which they will, I don't see what's inefficient about it. The 1980s Mk3 EMUs are getting old and there are a lot of them about. There are even still TOCs operating PEP units which really are getting on a bit.

At worst it is *slightly* poor planning.

The repainting into another livery so soon after delivery, the abortive training for SWT/FSW, etc. My view is that it is far more than "slightly poor planning" - it is symptomatic of the fractured strategic view, when there should be planning and ordering of stock on a long-term basis, rather than juggling it around to suit the whims of TOCS.