Future of the Class 455 at Southern

[Ministry]

Simple solution - give Southern more 171s and let them run the North Downs line - that way all Southern region diesel islands will belong to one franchise and they can run through services.

 

[MCR247]

And that would help anything how...? A through service from Uckfield to Reading. Reversing at East Croydon?!

 

[Class377/5]

And that would help anything how...? A through service from Uckfield to Reading. Reversing at East Croydon?!

I thought he was suggesting a Ashford link up as well. Madness. Put the 3rd down, get a few more 377's in and let the 171's go somewhere that needs them.

 

[Ministry]

And that would help anything how...? A through service from Uckfield to Reading. Reversing at East Croydon?!

Sorry - I should have been clearer. I was making two seperate points - give Southern all the diesel islands for the sake of having one franchise operating all the non-electrified routes, which would also enable through services from Reading/Guildford to London Bridge/Victoria via Reigate and Redhill, thus providing greater flexibility for timetabling (as presumably this is easier to do when it's one franchise co-ordinating its own services rather than sharing line capacity with another, as they currently do with FGW) and maintaining services from Reigate to London without the need for shuttles on the limited stretch of electrified 3rd rail between Redhill and Reigate.

I'm fully aware of the pointlessness and complete impracticality of trying to link the Marshlink, Uckfield and North Downs services into some sort of bizzare through service!!

 

[Eagle]

...(as presumably this is easier to do when it's one franchise co-ordinating its own services rather than sharing line capacity with another, as they currently do with FGW)...

About 30% of the NDL it would still share with SWT though... :roll:
TOCs already coordinate and interwork their timetables, being as Network Rail has the final say on timetabling anyway.

Anyway, why would a through service from Reading to London via Redhill be any use at all? Most places on the route already have access to a much more direct London route; and of course the longer the route the less reliable it'll become, that's as a rule. I'd say a through service from Banbury to Gatwick would be far more useful than Reading to London (even though it can't happen at the moment due to GWML capacity constraints).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...give Southern all the diesel islands for the sake of having one franchise operating all the non-electrified routes...

What about the Salisbury line? That's an unelectrified southern region route, probably the most major one in fact.

 

[Ministry]

Anyway, why would a through service from Reading to London via Redhill be any use at all? Most places on the route already have access to a much more direct London route; and of course the longer the route the less reliable it'll become, that's as a rule. I'd say a through service from Banbury to Gatwick would be far more useful than Reading to London (even though it can't happen at the moment due to GWML capacity constraints).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What about the Salisbury line? That's an unelectrified southern region route, probably the most major one in fact.

I don't think the route from Reading to Victoria would hold much appeal to London bound commuters but it would maintain a service for passengers travelling to Gatwick Airport (changing at Redhill instead of waiting for the service to reverse down the line as it does at present). Southern already have paths from Guildford to Victoria/London Bridge via Sutton/West Croydon, so presumably there'd also be scope for services that way as well. I was also thinking about diesel islands in the South rather than all unelectrified lines which is why I excluded the Salisbury line.

I suppose underneath it all I just loathe FGW and the atrocious service I've endured with them along the NDL, so as far as I'm concerned anything that gets them booted from services I use is just fine by me.

 

[Eagle]

I suppose underneath it all I just loathe FGW and the atrocious service I've endured with them along the NDL, so as far as I'm concerned anything that gets them booted from services I use is just fine by me.

Why not SWT then? They already run Reading–Wokingham and Ash–Guildford on this line. Would make more sense than FGW running it.

 

[Ministry]

Why not SWT then? They already run Reading–Wokingham and Ash–Guildford on this line. Would make more sense than FGW running it.

I like SWT and think they provide an excellent service, but their diesel stock of 158s and 159s isn't really suited to the line. 171s seem like a better fit and Southern already maintain a fleet of them so it would just mean expanding their fleet, possibly achieved by cascading some of FGW's 166/165 fleet (e.g. send them to run the Portsmouth-Cardiff route, send the spare FGW 158s to First ScotRail and send some of their 170s down South for conversion).

 

[MCR247]

Sorry but what makes you think that if southern ran it that 171s would be used and if SWT ran it 158s would be used? It would be the same 165/166s based at the same depot, but in a different livery. Pretty pointless huh?

 

[Ministry]

Sorry but what makes you think that if southern ran it that 171s would be used and if SWT ran it 158s would be used? It would be the same 165/166s based at the same depot, but in a different livery. Pretty pointless huh?

Being a layman with regards to the specifics of ROSCOs and fleet leasing arrangements I can only assume that basic economic arguments would come into play. Why would either SWT or Southern want to take on a small sub-fleet of non-standard vehicles to run a line that crosses through some of their major routes and forgo the economies of scale available from running fleets that require standardised spare parts and maintenance? And why wouldn't the respective companies who lease the 158s/9s to SWT and the 171s to Southern not want to increase business by trying to offer some form of favourable offer to take on more of the same vehicles?

 

[A-driver]

Wouldn't be the hardest thing for southern to take over from FGW-most services are already worked by Southern drivers.

 

[JonathanH]

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration - 2 units reside at Redhill overnight so one assumes that they have Southern drivers. I suspect that some FGW crews have PNB at Redhill which are relieved by Southern drivers but FGW drivers work the five trains that originate from Reading depot.

The fact that most of the service logically originates at the Reading end suggests to me that it sits best with FGW.

 

[tbtc]

Why not SWT then? They already run Reading–Wokingham and Ash–Guildford on this line. Would make more sense than FGW running it.

Completely agree. If it weren't for the lack of electrification, I think that the North Downs Line would have been included in SWT from day one.

Its only the requirement for DMUs that made it a natural fit with Thames Trains (and now part of the FGW franchise)

 

[swt_passenger]

Being a layman with regards to the specifics of ROSCOs and fleet leasing arrangements I can only assume that basic economic arguments would come into play. Why would either SWT or Southern want to take on a small sub-fleet of non-standard vehicles to run a line that crosses through some of their major routes and forgo the economies of scale available from running fleets that require standardised spare parts and maintenance? And why wouldn't the respective companies who lease the 158s/9s to SWT and the 171s to Southern not want to increase business by trying to offer some form of favourable offer to take on more of the same vehicles?

To do that you'd need a pool of spare stock though. The respective Roscos don't have an option of offering more of the same, because it is all in use elsewhere. Although it is theoretically possible that GWML electrification would change things, with the 165 and 166 mostly transferring to the Bristol area. (No need for another gauge clearance debate at this point though thanks.)

This could then allow a swap of FGW 165/166 and FGW 158s and that would then make a straightforward transfer of the route to SWT possible, but I don't think Salisbury would be a good operating depot, it's a bit too remote.

 

[A-driver]

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration - 2 units reside at Redhill overnight so one assumes that they have Southern drivers. I suspect that some FGW crews have PNB at Redhill which are relieved by Southern drivers but FGW drivers work the five trains that originate from Reading depot.

The fact that most of the service logically originates at the Reading end suggests to me that it sits best with FGW.

Actually there is a link of southern redhill drivers who pretty much only ever do Thames turbo work. Same as all the southern London bridge to tonbridge via redhill services use southeastern crews.