SouthEastern fleet replacement updates

[Domh245]

And weren't there ceiling handrail/grabrail issues with the 707s which made them non compliant with the latest guidance?

It made them non-compliant with DfTs requirements for achieving crush loads of 0.25sqm/pax (instead adjudged to be 0.35 sqm/pax) - something that was required to meet projected future demands on the clapham junction corridor. Post Covid (and on what was historically a less busy network than SW) I think that it won't pose a massive issue

 

[Stephen42]

It made them non-compliant with DfTs requirements for achieving crush loads of 0.25sqm/pax (instead adjudged to be 0.35 sqm/pax) - something that was required to meet projected future demands on the clapham junction corridor. Post Covid (and on what was historically a less busy network than SW) I think that it won't pose a massive issue

The trains are meant to last until 2062 when demand will have gone up again. It's probably not a deal breaker, but would lower the business case value from requiring more trains/vehicles to cope with demand later in their life.

 

[theageofthetra]

The trains are meant to last until 2062 when demand will have gone up again. It's probably not a deal breaker, but would lower the business case value from requiring more trains/vehicles to cope with demand later in their life.

Am important point regarding any new stock and cost saving will be that they have in cab monitors.

The cost of maintenance, cleaning and replacement of the hundreds of monitors would be removed if a complete metro stock replacement was to happen.

The DFT would surely also be attracted to reduced staffing costs as no dispatch staff would be required at say Dartford or other stations entirely served by metro stock and greatly reduced elsewhere.

 

[XAM2175]

I can't see much reason why they cannot fix the grabrail/handrail issue, as I would imagine Siemens would be willing to redesign/fix that for such a large order, and the toilet issue has already been solved in the form of the 700 - Is there any reason same can't be done for the 707? Nothing to stop them putting in more comfortable seats with tables either, though I doubt it will happen with the DfT involved.

I'm sure I recall seeing reference that the 707s could be retrofitted with toilets and I imagine that's what might happen.

As @Domh245 notes, the handrail "issue" has only arisen because of some specific DfT requirements relating to crush-load capacity in the South Western franchise requirements. Effectively Siemens gambled on the Thameslink spec being pretty close to the "ideal standard" for high-capacity metro trains in Britain for many years to come and were caught out when the DfT moved the goalposts around a bit and started to require ceiling-fixed grabrails in the exact places that Siemens had chosen to put wiring harnesses and other bits of electrical kit. It's not a defect or anything like that, just a small limitation on flexibility when it comes to the saloon layout.

The toilet thing isn't an "issue" at all - the Desiro City design is perfectly capable of accepting toilets, as the 700s show. It's very simply the case that SWT decided that they didn't need them in the 707s, and SE have now decided that they can't be bothered paying to retrofit them. There is absolutely nothing stopping Siemens from tendering a Desiro City design that's absolutely bristling with them should that be what SE want.

 

[Mikey C]

The trains are meant to last until 2062 when demand will have gone up again. It's probably not a deal breaker, but would lower the business case value from requiring more trains/vehicles to cope with demand later in their life.

And SE London/NW Kent has some of the highest population growth in the country.

 

[SolomonSouth]

Like many are saying, I think all the 465/466 will be going in 2027 when the new trains come in, though we do land around 30 carriages short. Maybe they'll keep a few /9s (since they actually had interior refurbishment unlike the BRELS) but I think that extremely unlikely.

A partial replacement of the Networkers would be interesting. I wonder what they’d keep, how many, and for how long. I’m guessing the BREL 465s, but of course that would limit workings to 4, 8 and 12 cars unless they kept enough 466s. But then those are less reliable, require different spares and knowledge and are owned by a different company.

As of 2020, modern railways said that 465/9s and 466s are more reliable than 465 BRELS (see the screenshot). Though in 2022 it may be different.

The 707s will also potentially be going if they can find good value for the new fleet, as they said. The reason I think 376s are safe is that they are getting an upgrade whereas 707s and networkers are not - that makes them both a liability. Granted, I realize there isn't much case to replace the 707s right now, save for the lack of toilets, but South Western did without much case. We'll just need to see if Southeastern do the same. Hopefully not. But time will tell.

 

[brad465]

Like many are saying, I think all the 465/466 will be going in 2027 when the new trains come in, though we do land around 30 carriages short. Maybe they'll keep a few /9s (since they actually had interior refurbishment unlike the BRELS) but I think that extremely unlikely.

I think Southeastern will be hoping to get away with a smaller fleet overall, like Southern are after binning all their 455s and only bringing back 2x 377s from SE to compensate.

 

[MattRat]

Huh? You can't compel the rolling stock companies to make a loss on their investments. Do we make the owners of office blocks lease their buildings out to the public sector on artificial terms?

They can try. Like they tried getting money from the energy companies, who then raised their prices in response....

I don't know what the ROSCOs would do themselves, but I can tell you, it won't be pretty.

 

[4BEP]

Unless something has changed in the last few years, it’s definitely 1-3 only for 12 car networkers at Ch+. The country end of p6 isn’t wide enough to be deemed safe (it’s just board extensions from memory).

Ten years ago, when I was still working, there was a Tun Wells stopper from CHX p6 formed from 3x 465/9 immediately before my 17:39 12 car Kent Coast semi from the same platform. P6 was the only platform where you could enter or alight from all doors on 375s or 465s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2022 ==

Talgo have an EMU platform for the UK CAF and Hitachi are yet to produce a 20m 3rd rail train (at least in the UK) either.

Given the 701s current status I'd be surprised if Alstom got the contract for effectively more of them, both Hitachi and Alstom are busy anyway with HS2 rolling stock while Goole isn't too busy at the moment now that TfL is less well financially.

Hitachi 395s spend most of their time running 3rd tail.

 

[WizCastro197]

Like many are saying, I think all the 465/466 will be going in 2027 when the new trains come in, though we do land around 30 carriages short. Maybe they'll keep a few /9s (since they actually had interior refurbishment unlike the BRELS) but I think that extremely unlikely.

As of 2020, modern railways said that 465/9s and 466s are more reliable than 465 BRELS (see the screenshot). Though in 2022 it may be different.

The 707s will also potentially be going if they can find good value for the new fleet, as they said. The reason I think 376s are safe is that they are getting an upgrade whereas 707s and networkers are not - that makes them both a liability. Granted, I realize there isn't much case to replace the 707s right now, save for the lack of toilets, but South Western did without much case. We'll just need to see if Southeastern do the same. Hopefully not. But time will tell.

Why would 707s be replaced? They’ve just entered service and Southeasteen are still hoping to get more. In addition they’ve just been refurbished.

The replacement well may be more 707s as they could be easier to incorporate in but alas nothing is confirmed and it’s all speculation. Both tenders close in 2 and a half weeks. I highly suspect the existing rolling stock tender will be unsuccessful purely based on the fact there are loads of vehicles that specifically match Southeastern request that Train operating companies are willing to give up.

 

[JonathanH]

Why would 707s be replaced? They’ve just entered service and Southeasteen are still hoping to get more. In addition they’ve just been refurbished.

Unfortunately, as with everything else, releasing 707s at the end of a lease would save money.

Have they been refurbished or just had seat coverings changed?

 

[Busman]

Says who? You, who perhaps doesn’t mind them? You don’t have to hate them but I’ve had far too much a horrible journey with my trainers stuck to the p^ss soaked floor to not hate them, so let me hate

You must be desperately unlucky then, I use them every weekday and a fair amount at weekends and experienced that about twice in 20 odd years and that's to be expected if there is a fault. I've seen more 'toilet issues' on a 321s, 458s and 317s.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

You must be desperately unlucky then, I use them every weekday and a fair amount at weekends and experienced that about twice in 20 odd years and that's to be expected if there is a fault. I've seen more 'toilet issues' on a 321s, 458s and 317s.

I've been on all 147 and had that experience or something similarly unpleasant on almost all, I'd say at least two thirds, but fair enough
(An honour to be tagged in your first ever post here btw )

 

[WizCastro197]

Unfortunately, as with everything else, releasing 707s at the end of a lease would save money.

Have they been refurbished or just had seat coverings changed?

Actually I think I’ve got my knowledge a bit out of order. You are completely correct, it’s just the seat coverings.

 

[4BEP]

As @Domh245 notes, the handrail "issue" has only arisen because of some specific DfT requirements relating to crush-load capacity in the South Western franchise requirements. Effectively Siemens gambled on the Thameslink spec being pretty close to the "ideal standard" for high-capacity metro trains in Britain for many years to come and were caught out when the DfT moved the goalposts around a bit and started to require ceiling-fixed grabrails in the exact places that Siemens had chosen to put wiring harnesses and other bits of electrical kit. It's not a defect or anything like that, just a small limitation on flexibility when it comes to the saloon layout.

The toilet thing isn't an "issue" at all - the Desiro City design is perfectly capable of accepting toilets, as the 700s show. It's very simply the case that SWT decided that they didn't need them in the 707s, and SE have now decided that they can't be bothered paying to retrofit them. There is absolutely nothing stopping Siemens from tendering a Desiro City design that's absolutely bristling with them should that be what SE want.

I used to work for a lsrge German company which among other things built trsins, key to all manufacturing activity be it trains or dishwashers was manufacturing agility, exemplified by the Velaro high speed train which at one time was being built to suit 3 different customers differing requirements. So a few minor adptons to sn existng product to suit SE or more correctly the OLR should not prove difficult.

 

[4BEP]

We seem to be going off track with this thread, the Invitation for Expressions of Interest is clear that the intention is to procure the supply and maintenance of new rolling stock.

 

[Trainbike46]

We seem to be going off track with this thread, the Invitation for Expressions of Interest is clear that the intention is to procure the supply and maintenance of new rolling stock.

There is two Invitations. One for new stock and one for second-hand stock. I'm guessing they're trying to keep their options open

 

[4BEP]

There is two Invitations. One for new stock and one for second-hand stock. I'm guessing they're trying to keep their options open

Oops, I had not seen the second invitation, as you say covering all options.

 

[Mag_seven]

We seem to be going off track with this thread, the Invitation for Expressions of Interest is clear that the intention is to procure the supply and maintenance of new rolling stock.

I have split off some speculative posts about using existing stock for the South Eastern Fleet to this thread:

Using existing fleets to achieve SouthEastern fleet replacement

Moderator note: split from How many 377s do Southern have? Could they be the answer with Southern getting a replacement fleet I wonder. Although I feel something along the 707 lines seems most likely.

www.railforums.co.uk

Discussion here should be confined to the actual tender for new stock.

thanks

 

[43066]

Ten years ago, when I was still working, there was a Tun Wells stopper from CHX p6 formed from 3x 465/9 immediately before my 17:39 12 car Kent Coast semi from the same platform. P6 was the only platform where you could enter or alight from all doors on 375s or 465s.

I suspect the standards have changed, hence why it’s no longer allowed now.

The Networkers also have a primitive form of SDO where the entire train apart from the first or last coach can be unlocked, again no longer allowed to be used.

 

[FR510]

Ten years ago, when I was still working, there was a Tun Wells stopper from CHX p6 formed from 3x 465/9 immediately before my 17:39 12 car Kent Coast semi from the same platform. P6 was the only platform where you could enter or alight from all doors on 375s or 465s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2022 ==


Hitachi 395s spend most of their time running 3rd tail.

Not so sure about that. Platforms 4,5 & 6 have only been able to take 10 car Networker formations due to the lack of SDO. More recently Platforms 1,2 & 3 have been altered to allow 12 car Networker formations. 12 & 11 car 375s are permitted in Platforms 4,5 & 6 due to being equipped with SDO.

 

[rdlover777]

In regards to who should build the new stock, i was thinking, why not some variant of the 745 in fixed formations of 4 and 6 cars. So formations could be made up of;
4 Cars
6 Cars
8 Cars 4 + 4
10 Cars 6 + 4
12 Cars 6 + 6

Now, while im no expert in the logistics of how realistic this actually is, with the formations lists i've made, that would surely be able to cover nearly every Metro and Mainline diagrams that SE currently operate as

 

[JonathanH]

In regards to who should build the new stock, i was thinking, why not some variant of the 745 in fixed formations of 4 and 6 cars.

A 745 isn't exactly Metro stock. The raised floor at the end of each carriage would cause quite a lot of issues even if level boarding is a desirable feature.

 

[Class 466]

The reason mainline is mentioned in this is because of the work 465/9s do to Tunbridge Wells, Ashford & Gillingham/Faversham/Dover. They wouldn't replace 375s.

 

[rdlover777]

A 745 isn't exactly Metro stock. The raised floor at the end of each carriage would cause quite a lot of issues even if level boarding is a desirable feature.

oh, i know that the level floor is an issue for metro stock, i only picked the 745 for my example since its fully electric and coach lengths are within the range of the 20m set out in the tender

 

[Trainbike46]

oh, i know that the level floor is an issue for metro stock, i only picked the 745 for my example since its fully electric and coach lengths are within the range of the 20m set out in the tender

Why would the slightly higher floor near the ends, away from the doors, be an issue for Metro stock? It's effectively a standard feature in metro-style stock in multiple european countries and doesn't seem to cause any issues there.

 

[JonathanH]

Why would the slightly higher floor near the ends, away from the doors, be an issue for Metro stock? It's effectively a standard feature in metro-style stock in multiple european countries and doesn't seem to cause any issues there.

You need to have standing passengers along the whole coach. I'd say that a class 700 style flat floor and wide gangways is a pretty important feature in maximising capacity and moving passengers away from the door vestibules.

 

[4BEP]

The reason mainline is mentioned in this is because of the work 465/9s do to Tunbridge Wells, Ashford & Gillingham/Faversham/Dover. They wouldn't replace 375s.

Other than on Tun Wells and Gillingham services 465/9s are rare on Ashford and mainline services, likely become more rare when the heavily teduces setvices ststrt on 12 Dec.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2022 ==

No Requirement for Mainline replacement. 375s work fine and will continue to for the next 15 years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==


No.

No one according to BidStats has answered the tender. Speculation does include more 707s but they have to be suited to both metro and mainline and work on High Speed 1 for some reason. Although nothing has been confirmed officially yet.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==


I'd also recommend reading the last 6 pages to avoid any questions which have already been answered

HS1 is excluded from the requirement.

 

[Class 466]

Other than on Tun Wells and Gillingham services 465/9s are rare on Ashford and mainline services, likely become more rare when the heavily teduces setvices ststrt on 12 Dec.

465s still work to Ashford via Maidstone East (weekdays) and to Dover via Faversham (Sundays) from December. As well as some of the 1G's on weekdays from Faversham to Cannon St.

 

[4BEP]

465s still work to Ashford via Maidstone East (weekdays) and to Dover via Faversham (Sundays) from December. As well as some of the 1G's on weekdays from Faversham to Cannon St.

Just one diagram each weekday to Ashford and not even that is rostered this week. The Mid Kent and Chatham line services are being severely reduced from next month so the number of 465/9s required will be further reduced. That said my reading of the expressions of interest is that either metro or mainline stock could be replaced, goodness knows why but remember SE is now run by the DfT so anything is possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2022 ==

Just one diagram each weekday to Ashford and not even that is rostered this week. The Mid Kent and Chatham line services are being severely reduced from next month so the number of 465/9s required will be further reduced. That said my reading of the expressions of interest is that either metro or mainline stock could be replaced, goodness knows why but remember SE is now run by the DfT so anything is possible.

Sorry, just noticed the the 465/9 diagram is back in today, yesterday it was on a Maidstone / Blackfriars diagram. There is also a 7 car 375 pair on the Vic - Maidstone - Ramsgate today, like the Blackfriars service the Ramsgate service is being dropped next month leaving 1tph between AFK - MDE snd VIC and an hourly service from MDE to CHX.