Southeastern metro fleet replacement/improvement

[Mikey C]

Interesting that Labour have rejected the London Overground, and indeed Tram, DLR and Elizabeth Line models, as not being "nationalised enough".

What does this mean for TfL's private run routes? As the contracts run out, will they to be rolled in GBR or will TfL be expected to run the trains themselves?

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Interesting that Labour have rejected the London Overground, and indeed Tram, DLR and Elizabeth Line models, as not being "nationalised enough".

What does this mean for TfL's private run routes? As the contracts run out, will they to be rolled in GBR or will TfL be expected to run the trains themselves?

I belive the later, although I'm gonna say that without evidence these posts might be better in speculative discussion without actual facts behind them

 

[Busman]

In the FT, Labour have apparently rejected TfL proposals for a take over of Southeastern & Great Northern suburbans, partly because it wouldn't be nationalisation (unless TfL stops contracting out). So I don't imagine an expansion of longitudinal seating anytime soon in London.

This is fantastic news, nobody wants longitudal seating. Couldn't care less about more capacity and all that shizz, it's about travelling in comfort and basic mid-level back seating travelling sideways is not welcome.

Stick with the tubes and leave the mainline alone.

 

[jojoseph72]

This is fantastic news, nobody wants longitudal seating. Couldn't care less about more capacity and all that shizz, it's about travelling in comfort and basic mid-level back seating travelling sideways is not welcome.

Stick with the tubes and leave the mainline alone.

This would apply to just the metro routes which at best are around an hour in length - longitude seating for that duration is fine. To put it in some perspective there are some TfL journeys on the Underground and Overground which are around the same duration using longitudinal seating and everyone copes fine.

On a side note - people really don’t mind/care about longitudinal seating when it comes to short trips. What they do care though is whether they can get on the train or not and if it going to be overcrowded.
There’s only so many trains you can run and how long you can make them, eventually you’ll have to look at the seating layout to boost capacity.

Just because you personally don’t want to see longitudinal seating doesn’t mean nobody doesn’t want it.

 

[LLivery]

This would apply to just the metro routes which at best are around an hour in length - longitude seating for that duration is fine. To put it in some perspective there are some TfL journeys on the Underground and Overground which are around the same duration using longitudinal seating and everyone copes fine.

On a side note - people really don’t mind/care about longitudinal seating when it comes to short trips. What they do care though is whether they can get on the train or not and if it going to be overcrowded.
There’s only so many trains you can run and how long you can make them, eventually you’ll have to look at the seating layout to boost capacity.

Just because you personally don’t want to see longitudinal seating doesn’t mean nobody doesn’t want it.

I agree to an extent, but having commuted by London Overground for a few years, I don't think you could pay me enough to do it again. The ELL can really ruin your morning, but I would say that's more down to 5 car trains than longitudinal. Having said that, having a seat in the morning and at the end of a long day, and not having people stand right over you is underrated, even if you're only going 20 - 30 mins.

Interesting that Labour have rejected the London Overground, and indeed Tram, DLR and Elizabeth Line models, as not being "nationalised enough".

What does this mean for TfL's private run routes? As the contracts run out, will they to be rolled in GBR or will TfL be expected to run the trains themselves?

Without going too off topic, RATP contracts some routes to SNCF...

 

[gmaguire]

Longitudinal seats on Southeastern metro would push me one step closer to getting a car. The 376s are already bad enough with their awful seats, let alone having to stand in everyone’s way when you can’t get one.

 

[Mikey C]

This would apply to just the metro routes which at best are around an hour in length - longitude seating for that duration is fine. To put it in some perspective there are some TfL journeys on the Underground and Overground which are around the same duration using longitudinal seating and everyone copes fine.

On a side note - people really don’t mind/care about longitudinal seating when it comes to short trips. What they do care though is whether they can get on the train or not and if it going to be overcrowded.
There’s only so many trains you can run and how long you can make them, eventually you’ll have to look at the seating layout to boost capacity.

Just because you personally don’t want to see longitudinal seating doesn’t mean nobody doesn’t want it.

Southeastern Metro is running fewer trains than before the pandemic. Lots of platforms have been extended to be 12 cars long, when hardly any 12 trains run, there are lots of ways to increase capacity without drastically reducing the number of seats.

 

[PGAT]

Nowhere does TfL state they would use longitudinal seating if they were to hypothetically take over the metro services

 

[778]

This would apply to just the metro routes which at best are around an hour in length - longitude seating for that duration is fine. To put it in some perspective there are some TfL journeys on the Underground and Overground which are around the same duration using longitudinal seating and everyone copes fine.

I dont think many people do hour long journeys on the Underground or Overground.

On a side note - people really don’t mind/care about longitudinal seating when it comes to short trips. What they do care though is whether they can get on the train or not and if it going to be overcrowded.
There’s only so many trains you can run and how long you can make them, eventually you’ll have to look at the seating layout to boost capacity.

Southeastern Metro services would not just be short trips though. It is ok for Underground and Overground services (maybe not the Lea Valley lines), but not for journeys to places like Sevenoaks and Dartford. A mixed layout with some transverse and some longitudinal seating would be ok like the Metropolitan or Crossrail trains seating layouts (although I think the 345s could have a few more seating bays).

Nowhere does TfL state they would use longitudinal seating if they were to hypothetically take over the metro services

I bet they would. They said the 710s for the Lea Valley services would have some transverse seating, but they went back on that.

 

[brad465]

Southeastern Metro services would not just be short trips though. It is ok for Underground and Overground services (maybe not the Lea Valley lines), but not for journeys to places like Sevenoaks and Dartford. A mixed layout with some transverse and some longitudinal seating would be ok like the Metropolitan or Crossrail trains seating layouts (although I think the 345s could have a few more seating bays).

Also the Networker stock that is what a new fleet would primarily replace goes further than that, to Tunbridge Wells, Gillingham and to a lesser extent Dover and Ashford. Even if the latter 2 are not part of the new fleet's route allocations, there are not enough 375s and 377s currently to take on the longer distance work Networkers still do, and these routes are far from suitable for longitudinal seating.

 

[Busman]

Nowhere does TfL state they would use longitudinal seating if they were to hypothetically take over the metro services

We can use services out of Liverpool Street as an example of using longitudinal seating.

We can also use the Goblin as another example.

And to be really pedantic, you can also throw in the East London line too.

So yeah, should they take it over (and I really hope to hell they don't) then expect awful longitudinal seating.

 

[whoosh]

Interesting that Labour have rejected the London Overground, and indeed Tram, DLR and Elizabeth Line models, as not being "nationalised enough".

What does this mean for TfL's private run routes? As the contracts run out, will they to be rolled in GBR or will TfL be expected to run the trains themselves?

Khan was pledging to create a 'London Bus Company' - a publically owned body - to take back bus routes as franchises expired.

 

[SEtrains]

It seems as though 465235 could be the first of the 465 fleet to be sent for scrap as 465235 served as a parts donor at Doncaster works for just over a year and a recent photo shows what is left of the unfortunate unit.
Photo on left is 2024 and photo on right is 2023

 

[brad465]

Another possible advantage I can think of that a fleet with battery capability is this would bring is better utilisation of existing stabling space. The main example that comes to mind is one of the carriage sidings at Dartford has been out of action for years due to safety around third rail layouts there. If sidings had 3rd rail removed, with battery charge blocks similar to the Greenford branch fitted in place, then that siding (worth 16 carriages; 4x4 car units) would presumably be usable again, plus maybe other depot/yard layouts elsewhere can be improved to more efficiently use existing space.

It seems as though 465235 could be the first of the 465 fleet to be sent for scrap as 465235 served as a parts donor at Doncaster works for just over a year and a recent photo shows what is left of the unfortunate unit.
Photo on left is 2024 and photo on right is 2023

Presumably that will have to go by road?

 

[NSEWonderer]

First of the /2 to be refurbished and possibly the first to be scrapped will be interesting.

 

[Busman]

This would apply to just the metro routes which at best are around an hour in length - longitude seating for that duration is fine. To put it in some perspective there are some TfL journeys on the Underground and Overground which are around the same duration using longitudinal seating and everyone copes fine.

On a side note - people really don’t mind/care about longitudinal seating when it comes to short trips. What they do care though is whether they can get on the train or not and if it going to be overcrowded.
There’s only so many trains you can run and how long you can make them, eventually you’ll have to look at the seating layout to boost capacity.

Just because you personally don’t want to see longitudinal seating doesn’t mean nobody doesn’t want it.

I think you'll find, given the choice, the majority would not want to sit sideways.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you'll find, given the choice, the majority would not want to sit sideways.

Interestingly the people of Tyne and Wear were surveyed with regard to their new stock and did favour that layout - that's why the 555s and 777s look very different despite both being Stadler METRO units. I think that sort of layout is the norm now for very short distance metro-type operation.

Should anyone wish to speculate on the benefits and disbenefits of this layout, here's a thread:

Seating layouts for metro type services

From the thread on Southeastern's Metro stock replacement: Interestingly the people of Tyne and Wear were surveyed with regard to their new stock and did favour that layout - that's why the 555s and 777s look very different despite both being Stadler METRO units. I think that sort of layout...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[ScotGG]

I doubt TfL would have gone solely with longitudinal seen on LO but instead similar to the subsequent Elizabeth line style. With LO it was mostly because it was 3, then 4 and now a max of 5 cars. SE can go to 12 pretty easily with new stock and SDO negating need for it. Not sure about the old anglian routes though.

Of course TfL could go the cheaper option eg 8 car on South Eastern Metro with all longitudinal. Personally I think it would have been a mix.

 

[MPW]

In the FT, Labour have apparently rejected TfL proposals for a take over of Southeastern & Great Northern suburbans, partly because it wouldn't be nationalisation (unless TfL stops contracting out). So I don't imagine an expansion of longitudinal seating anytime soon in London.

This makes sense if labour truly believe they can improve the funding model for railways.

If SE transferred to TFL Then any capital contributions would be going to the great evil that is London. Keeping it separate allows for capital flows which are arguably less optically london-based.

There's no reason a future british rail or whatever it is couldn't use the TFL model without their direct ownership. And TFL could still be more involved in planning etc than they are currently.

In the past the main reason I wanted TFL to take over SE was the belief that there would somehow be more funding available - that might not be true anymore.

 

[ScotGG]

It's true there's no reason why GBR or DfT or some other body couldn't improve South eastern metro - but nobody really has for 30 years and my faith in anyone doing so out of GBR or DafT is near zero. TfL have half a clue.

A future government could devolve greater powers to London for finance/tax and spend allowing revenue for improvements on suburban rail. I'd trust a London Mayor of any party really to do a better job of that that central government under either party.

 

[778]

It's true there's no reason why GBR or DfT or some other body couldn't improve South eastern metro - but nobody really has for 30 years and my faith in anyone doing so out of GBR or DafT is near zero. TfL have half a clue.

A future government could devolve greater powers to London for finance/tax and spend allowing revenue for improvements on suburban rail. I'd trust a London Mayor of any party really to do a better job of that that central government under either party.

If TFL did take over it might not be so easy for metro and mainline services to be separated. They are not self contained routes like the Watford DC line or the Lea valley lines.

 

[jojoseph72]

If TFL did take over it might not be so easy for metro and mainline services to be separated. They are not self contained routes like the Watford DC line or the Lea valley lines.

Depends how much metro service you handing over it would be pretty self contained if you transferred everything from London Bridge towards Gravesend and Sevenoaks including all the loops and Hayes branch. From London Victoria the Bromley/Oprington I would say you remove as much conflict as possible, obviously not everything but as much as possible.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

Don't give them ideas - there's longitudinal seating coming from Reading on EL and class 700s, really designed for commuter travel with basic interiors, now go as far to East Anglia or the Sussex coast with uncomfortable ironing boards. All which would have been inconceivable in the past.

If Southeastern gets something similar to class 701s with toilets & normal seating then these would be OK for metro/short distance like Orpington etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Depends how much metro service you handing over it would be pretty self contained if you transferred everything from London Bridge towards Gravesend and Sevenoaks including all the loops and Hayes branch. From London Victoria the Bromley/Oprington I would say you remove as much conflict as possible, obviously not everything but as much as possible.

Self contained isn‘t just about routes. It’s about rolling stock, drivers, depot maintenance staff, etc.

 

[brad465]

Self contained isn‘t just about routes. It’s about rolling stock, drivers, depot maintenance staff, etc.

Yes and Southeastern's metro routing and logistics stretch notably far out of Greater London; I believe Gillingham is the furthest depot for such operations, while Tunbridge Wells, Ashford and even Dover are reached by stock normally used on metro routes, even if sparsely.

 

[JonathanH]

Tunbridge Wells, Ashford and even Dover are reached by stock normally used on metro routes, even if sparsely.

That could be avoided if more longer distance rolling stock could be brought in (as has been alluded to in other threads). Networkers really only do outer work because 376s displaced them from Metro work.

 

[FR510]

Yes and Southeastern's metro routing and logistics stretch notably far out of Greater London; I believe Gillingham is the furthest depot for such operations, while Tunbridge Wells, Ashford and even Dover are reached by stock normally used on metro routes, even if sparsely.

And heavy maintenance on 376 units is undertaken at Ramsgate maintenance depot.

 

[JonathanH]

And heavy maintenance on 376 units is undertaken at Ramsgate maintenance depot.

They don't run in service there and back though

 

[FR510]

They don't run in service there and back though

No, but route knowledge and traction knowledge means currently only Gillingham depot drivers are able to perform these workings to and from Slade Green depot.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They don't run in service there and back though

I think there’d be a mutiny!