Southeastern metro fleet replacement/improvement

[Goldfish62]

Is there a rough date for the winner of the bid to make the new trains for SE? Have they announced the classes like Northern did? I assume Northern are in a similar situation with their announcement?

From the current issue of Modern Railways (printed edition):

.. the hope is that an order can be placed this year.

... to design and build the trains takes approximately three years before delivery and acceptance.

Exactly what trains will be replaced will be determined by the business case but the remaining Class 465s and 466s will go.

The new rolling stock will feature low floors for level boarding and air conditioning up to 45 degrees.

There's no other details about the trains in the article.

 

[Kite159]

Do people think that these new units will have end-unit gang-ways, or not?

In my eyes it would be better for the replacement stock to be a mix of fixed formation 8 & 12 coach units. So no need for gangways and would allow passengers to spread out better

8 coach units mainly for the routes from Victoria. 12 coach units mainly for the routes from Cannon Street with the 376/707s focused on services from Charing Cross.

 

[Farigiraf]

In my eyes it would be better for the replacement stock to be a mix of fixed formation 8 & 12 coach units. So no need for gangways and would allow passengers to spread out better

8 coach units mainly for the routes from Victoria. 12 coach units mainly for the routes from Cannon Street with the 376/707s focused on services from Charing Cross.

Would still need something for the Bromley North shuttle and I doubt SE want a new microfleet.

 

[JonathanH]

In my eyes it would be better for the replacement stock to be a mix of fixed formation 8 & 12 coach units. So no need for gangways and would allow passengers to spread out better

Where are the 12 coach sidings on the Southeastern network? I think there is 12-coach capacity at Grove Park, but where else?

 

[RUK]

In my eyes it would be better for the replacement stock to be a mix of fixed formation 8 & 12 coach units. So no need for gangways and would allow passengers to spread out better

8 coach units mainly for the routes from Victoria. 12 coach units mainly for the routes from Cannon Street with the 376/707s focused on services from Charing Cross.

How about 8s, and the 4s left over to make them into 12, into twice the number of 2s instead, as they have now with the Class 466s? Then you can make 10s as well as 12s. Or 5s instead? Are they limited to 20-metre-long carriages?

 

[London Trains]

Would still need something for the Bromley North shuttle and I doubt SE want a new microfleet.

Couldn't it use a single 375/377?

 

[brad465]

In my eyes it would be better for the replacement stock to be a mix of fixed formation 8 & 12 coach units. So no need for gangways and would allow passengers to spread out better

8 coach units mainly for the routes from Victoria. 12 coach units mainly for the routes from Cannon Street with the 376/707s focused on services from Charing Cross.

Cannon St does not normally need 12-car metro services, whereas Charing X does (the current 12-car 465 diagrams are most Sevenoaks-CHX and a morning Dartford-CHX via Bexleyheath). I think 4-car is best for flexibility, I'm certainly hoping they don't go for 5-car as this leads to incompatible formations on the Victoria routes, and any 5 and 10-car formations required can be covered by 376/707s.

I also think the new fleet would be better for the Medway Valley line and Sheerness branch than the 375/3s on it currently. If some 4-car units are sent to these, the 375/3s could focus on mainline diagrams, potentially including some 10-11 car Tunbridge Wells' ones.

Couldn't it use a single 375/377?

That would be completely overblown for that branch, to the point a 376 or 707 would be better off doing it. Either that or complete the Bakerloo Line extension to Hayes, then have 5-8 car services running through from Bromley North-London on some of the freed up paths.

 

[bramling]

Cannon St does not normally need 12-car metro services, whereas Charing X does (the current 12-car 465 diagrams are most Sevenoaks-CHX and a morning Dartford-CHX via Bexleyheath). I think 4-car is best for flexibility, I'm certainly hoping they don't go for 5-car as this leads to incompatible formations on the Victoria routes, and any 5 and 10-car formations required can be covered by 376/707s.

I also think the new fleet would be better for the Medway Valley line and Sheerness branch than the 375/3s on it currently. If some 4-car units are sent to these, the 375/3s could focus on mainline diagrams, potentially including some 10-11 car Tunbridge Wells' ones.

That would be completely overblown for that branch, to the point a 376 or 707 would be better off doing it. Either that or complete the Bakerloo Line extension to Hayes, then have 5-8 car services running through from Bromley North-London on some of the freed up paths.

Out of interest, why are you of the view that the 375/3s are unsuitable for the branches? One thing that’s been mildly irritating ever since the Electrostars came in is the way you can have a 3-car unit randomly (*) appear on coast services, the resulting 3 or 7 car formation being more crowded in consequence. At least occupying a few units on the branches has reduced this.

(* I realise it’s not random in that they have their own booked diagrams, however from the end-user point of view it’s quite random in that you can turn up for something like a mid-morning service out of Victoria or Charing X and find it’s a 7-car).

Two things I would have done differently with the Electrostar fleet - firstly all 4-cars, and secondly I wouldn’t have had a subset with the higher capacity interior. An alternative solution should have been found for Tunbridge Wells, as it soon was anyway.

 

[brad465]

Out of interest, why are you of the view that the 375/3s are unsuitable for the branches? One thing that’s been mildly irritating ever since the Electrostars came in is the way you can have a 3-car unit randomly (*) appear on coast services, the resulting 3 or 7 car formation being more crowded in consequence. At least occupying a few units on the branches has reduced this.

(* I realise it’s not random in that they have their own booked diagrams, however from the end-user point of view it’s quite random in that you can turn up for something like a mid-morning service out of Victoria or Charing X and find it’s a 7-car).

Two things I would have done differently with the Electrostar fleet - firstly all 4-cars, and secondly I wouldn’t have had a subset with the higher capacity interior. An alternative solution should have been found for Tunbridge Wells, as it soon was anyway.

The branches are relatively short journeys with a line speed no more than 70mph (except Paddock Wood-Tonbridge for the handful of services that still do this). The 375/3s have relatively poor acceleration, which on a frequent calling pattern is not ideal, and while they might have better comfort, it's not like the passengers are on them for very long (19 mins max on the Sheerness branch, 47 mins max on the MVL, although many passengers will not be doing the latter's full length).

The only real reasons that 375/3s got the branches is that they happen to be the only fleet of 3-car length. They rarely run in 3-car form on mainline services, usually a couple of very early/late services where demand is low so I wouldn't worry about SE having them on their own for higher demand services.

 

[JonathanH]

The only real reasons that 375/3s got the branches is that they happen to be the only fleet of 3-car length. They rarely run in 3-car form on mainline services, usually a couple of very early/late services where demand is low so I wouldn't worry about SE having them on their own for higher demand services.

I'm not convinced that Southeastern and its predecessors have ever actually worked out what the ten 375/3s were acquired for. They have never seemingly been used long-term for the Tunbridge Wells issue, and I am not sure what else really needs a 3-car set. Historically, I think there was a weekday peak service from Victoria that was 10-car length splitting at Faversham, but that wouldn't necessarily be so.

As an aside, the 1704 from Charing Cross to Ramsgate has been formed 11 / 12 / 8 / 10 / 8 coaches on the five days in the last week.

 

[London Trains]

That would be completely overblown for that branch, to the point a 376 or 707 would be better off doing it. Either that or complete the Bakerloo Line extension to Hayes, then have 5-8 car services running through from Bromley North-London on some of the freed up paths.

I agree, I was just thinking of units that are the same length as the 4-coach 465s currently used on the Bromley North branch - a 376 or 707 would probably be better as you say despite being longer, my point was more that the branch should not have any impact on what is ordered, particularly as I think fixed formation units would be preferable.

 

[Mikey C]

I was on a very squeaky 465/9 yesterday. Nice to be in the comfortable first class seats though.

Cannon St does not normally need 12-car metro services, whereas Charing X does (the current 12-car 465 diagrams are most Sevenoaks-CHX and a morning Dartford-CHX via Bexleyheath). I think 4-car is best for flexibility, I'm certainly hoping they don't go for 5-car as this leads to incompatible formations on the Victoria routes, and any 5 and 10-car formations required can be covered by 376/707s.

The Greenwich line could do with 12 car trains for many of the services, especially with all the new flats being built along the river.

 

[London Trains]

I'm not convinced that Southeastern and its predecessors have ever actually worked out what the ten 375/3s were acquired for. They have never seemingly been used long-term for the Tunbridge Wells issue, and I am not sure what else really needs a 3-car set. Historically, I think there was a weekday peak service from Victoria that was 10-car length splitting at Faversham, but that wouldn't necessarily be so.

As an aside, the 1704 from Charing Cross to Ramsgate has been formed 11 / 12 / 8 / 10 / 8 coaches on the five days in the last week.

Given they use 2 375/3s on Sheerness services and 4 375/3s on Paddock Wood to Strood services, leaving 2 units (assuming 8/10 are diagrammed), it would potentially make sense for Southeastern to take over the Redhill to Tonbridge services using those two 375/3s, particularly given (I believe) these services are already crewed by Southeastern staff.

I assume the Tunbridge Wells services will use the new units given they currently use Networkers.

 

[JonathanH]

I assume the Tunbridge Wells services will use the new units given they currently use Networkers.

Given the Networker replacement is likely to have a whole lot less seats than the Networkers, I sense that they may not be as suitable as the current arrangements to use Metro stock to Tunbridge Wells.

Granted that a 701 in SWR confuguration would be fine for Tunbridge Wells, but something like a 345 with a mix of longitudinal and facing seats less so.

 

[Kite159]

...

Given the Networker replacement is likely to have a whole lot less seats than the Networkers, I sense that they may not be as suitable as the current arrangements to use Metro stock to Tunbridge Wells.

Granted that a 701 in SWR confuguration would be fine for Tunbridge Wells, but something like a 345 with a mix of longitudinal and facing seats less so.

I would imagine the seating layout will be similar to the 730/0s, I would be surprised if they went for all 3+2 seating similar to the Greater Anglia 720s.

 

[JonathanH]

I would imagine the seating layout will be similar to the 730/0s, I would be surprised if they went for all 3+2 seating similar to the Greater Anglia 720s.

Absolutely not a 720 like interior. 730/0 interior seems possible, but in a 20-metre vehicle that still reduces the seating capacity somewhat.