Southern 458/707?

[Prestige15]

Would it be ideal if Southern takes both class 707 and 458's?

The 458 could be used on the Coastway line replacing the 313's and releasing a number of 377's to join with the rest of them allowing extra capacity.

The 707 can be used around the London service along with the 377's replacing those pigface 455's.

 

[MatthewRead]

Would it be ideal if Southern takes both class 707 and 458's?

The 458 could be used on the Coastway line replacing the 313's and releasing a number of 377's to join with the rest of them allowing extra capacity.

The 707 can be used around the London service along with the 377's replacing those pigface 455's.

Good idea

 

[Class455]

Would it be ideal if Southern takes both class 707 and 458's?

The 458 could be used on the Coastway line replacing the 313's and releasing a number of 377's to join with the rest of them allowing extra capacity.

The 707 can be used around the London service along with the 377's replacing those pigface 455's.

No thanks

 

[Juniper Driver]

Get yer hands awf our 458's.:-P

 

[LA50041]

Would it be ideal if Southern takes both class 707 and 458's?

The 458 could be used on the Coastway line replacing the 313's and releasing a number of 377's to join with the rest of them allowing extra capacity.

The 707 can be used around the London service along with the 377's replacing those pigface 455's.

The last thing southern needs is more 5 car units, stabling space is at a premium as it is and most sidings are configtowards multiples of 4

 

[Minstral25]

The last thing southern needs is more 5 car units, stabling space is at a premium as it is and most sidings are configtowards multiples of 4

Surely the fixes are things that should be worked out anyway.

Tulse Hill extended to take 10 car trains then standardise Southern Metro with 10 car trains and introduce 707's (however much I hate the seats) to replace 455's

Additional stabling created - for example at Redhill there is enough space in fully surrounded Railway lad to put 7/8 long sidings (at least 4 big enough for 12 coaches) - similar spaces at Salfords and Gatwick

South Coast - all trains extended to 5 car minimum - some platform extensions and more stabling (plenty of Railway land along the coast that new sidings could be put)

These things cost money obviously but they are investment that is required by passenger numbers increasing and other than Tulse Hill probably relatively cheap quick fixes to use existing stock that is looking for a new home.

So overall probably not a bad idea.

 

[LA50041]

Surely the fixes are things that should be worked out anyway.

These things cost money obviously but they are investment that is required by passenger numbers increasing and other than Tulse Hill probably relatively cheap quick fixes to use existing stock that is looking for a new home.

So overall probably not a bad idea.

Not a particularly good idea either though, it would be a huge expense and Who's going to pay for it?

Redhill there is probably some spare land after platform 0 is built, but I believe there is going to be Thameslink stabling there.
Gatwick sidings are regularly used already by Thameslink/GWR/Southern.

Salfords is used by freight isn't it?

If any new sidings were to be built then something at Norwood would be far more beneficial, although NR have apparently ruled this out on cost/Benefit

 

[physics34]

Surely the fixes are things that should be worked out anyway.

Tulse Hill extended to take 10 car trains then standardise Southern Metro with 10 car trains and introduce 707's (however much I hate the seats) to replace 455's

Additional stabling created - for example at Redhill there is enough space in fully surrounded Railway lad to put 7/8 long sidings (at least 4 big enough for 12 coaches) - similar spaces at Salfords and Gatwick

South Coast - all trains extended to 5 car minimum - some platform extensions and more stabling (plenty of Railway land along the coast that new sidings could be put)

These things cost money obviously but they are investment that is required by passenger numbers increasing and other than Tulse Hill probably relatively cheap quick fixes to use existing stock that is looking for a new home.

So overall probably not a bad idea.

Tulse Hill and Peckham Rye would have big issues extending to 10 car.....its not likely to happen in the near future.....and it doesnt actually suffer severe over crowding as much as the palace/norbury/forest hill lines.

Can see 4 car 377s taking over from 455s eventually, considering i still think southern are getting the other 377/5s back soon.

 

[physics34]

Would it be ideal if Southern takes both class 707 and 458's?

The 458 could be used on the Coastway line replacing the 313's and releasing a number of 377's to join with the rest of them allowing extra capacity.

The 707 can be used around the London service along with the 377's replacing those pigface 455's.

youve also potentionally got 20x 365s and a few unallocated 319s available too... you could even say SWTs 1985/1990 bult 455/9s and 456s will also be available.

Southern have got the 455s til at least 2021, unless they do something with the lease....i think the 313s are leased until 2021 too.

..but i do smell that something will change. The 707s and 458s wont be allowed to sit and rot.

 

[MCR247]

Build a sixth carriage with a disabled loo, again assuming space could be found for them

 

[Minstral25]

Not a particularly good idea either though, it would be a huge expense and Who's going to pay for it?

Redhill there is probably some spare land after platform 0 is built, but I believe there is going to be Thameslink stabling there.
Gatwick sidings are regularly used already by Thameslink/GWR/Southern.

Salfords is used by freight isn't it?

If any new sidings were to be built then something at Norwood would be far more beneficial, although NR have apparently ruled this out on cost/Benefit

Rather negative response. I said extending Tulse Hill would be expensive and it has been subject to many comments on here about impossibility.

However additional length for trains by providing extra sidings is vital due to the overcrowding all over Southern's network. It's worse for South Eastern but Southern also have a problem of where to put any additional stock. Money comes from providing adequate capacity on cost benefit basis.

I gave examples of potential sites. Redhill platform 0 isn't beneficial as there is no space on that side of the station. There is already a depot/sidings where GWR store 165's in the fork of the Tonbridge lines and there is much Railway owned land there that additional sidings could be put on. Southern already stable stock overnight there on the goods loop and a few extra sidings is not going to cost a fortune but enable the Railway to have more units overall.

Salfords also has much railway land that is not used well but AFAIK there is little spare Railway land at Norwood unless you actually move the main lines.

I am sure there are many other potential examples of Railway land where sidings could be put for additional units around Southern.

 

[LA50041]

Rather negative response. I said extending Tulse Hill would be expensive and it has been subject to many comments on here about impossibility.

However additional length for trains by providing extra sidings is vital due to the overcrowding all over Southern's network. It's worse for South Eastern but Southern also have a problem of where to put any additional stock. Money comes from providing adequate capacity on cost benefit basis.

I gave examples of potential sites. Redhill platform 0 isn't beneficial as there is no space on that side of the station. There is already a depot/sidings where GWR store 165's in the fork of the Tonbridge lines and there is much Railway owned land there that additional sidings could be put on. Southern already stable stock overnight there on the goods loop and a few extra sidings is not going to cost a fortune but enable the Railway to have more units overall.

Salfords also has much railway land that is not used well but AFAIK there is little spare Railway land at Norwood unless you actually move the main lines.

I am sure there are many other potential examples of Railway land where sidings could be put for additional units around Southern.

I'm sorry that you feel I gave a negative response, but I was disagreeing with your statement that forcing unsuitable trains onto an operator that doesn't need them is a good idea.

You still haven't answered who is going to pay for all the additional sidings that you are proposing

 

[phil281]

Any technical reason why the 707/458 units could be reduced to four car units to serve the tulse hill lines and replace 455's?

Or indeed in the 707s case extend them to 8 car units?

 

[D365]

Massive embarrassment on the DfT's part.

 

[AlexNL]

Any technical reason why the 707/458 units could be reduced to four car units to serve the tulse hill lines and replace 455's?

Technically it should be possible to take out a coach, as the Desiro City platform is built according to the "single car concept".

What are you going to do with the coaches that are taken out of the five car consists? Send them off for scrapping?
Order an additional 90 cars to form 30 more 707 units? I am sure that Siemens would be happy to build them... but who's going to use them?

Or indeed in the 707s case extend them to 8 car units?

Technically it can probably be done by adding an additional motor car, but there are drawbacks.

You can no longer couple two units together for needed peak time capacity (for when you need 9 or more coaches), during off peak hours you're shuttling about fresh air, if something fails you have to take 8 coaches out of service, and where are you going to stable them overnight?

 

[Prestige15]

Surely the fixes are things that should be worked out anyway.

Tulse Hill extended to take 10 car trains then standardise Southern Metro with 10 car trains and introduce 707's (however much I hate the seats) to replace 455's

Additional stabling created - for example at Redhill there is enough space in fully surrounded Railway lad to put 7/8 long sidings (at least 4 big enough for 12 coaches) - similar spaces at Salfords and Gatwick

South Coast - all trains extended to 5 car minimum - some platform extensions and more stabling (plenty of Railway land along the coast that new sidings could be put)

These things cost money obviously but they are investment that is required by passenger numbers increasing and other than Tulse Hill probably relatively cheap quick fixes to use existing stock that is looking for a new home.

So overall probably not a bad idea.

Lets not forget, Southern already has a number of 5/10 coach 377's being used around london and i can't see why a 5/10 car 707 cant operate the same route.

If southern takes the 707, they can take over the 30 455's with 16 or more 4/5 class 377's or 458's being done up to make them more metro friendly. Kinda similar on what C2C is doing with their 357.

 

[43096]

Lets not forget, Southern already has a number of 5/10 coach 377's being used around london and i can't see why a 5/10 car 707 cant operate the same route.



If southern takes the 707, they can take over the 30 455's with 16 or more 4/5 class 377's or 458's being done up to make them more metro friendly. Kinda similar on what C2C is doing with their 357.

458s are metro friendly already!

Better option may be for Southern take all 66 458s and 707s to replace the 455s and cascade 377s back to the Coastway to allow the 313s to be binned.

 

[LA50041]

458s are metro friendly already!

Better option may be for Southern take all 66 458s and 707s to replace the 455s and cascade 377s back to the Coastway to allow the 313s to be binned.

I'm intrigued to know where the additional stabling space for 80+ additional cars in the London area?

This would also reduce capacity on services to Caterham/Tattenham which would all be reduced to 5 car max as neither terminal can accommodate 10 cars

 

[birchesgreen]

Wouldn't they be better off having some of the 455s which will be replaced by the new franchise as they already run the type?

 

[zn1]

Its amazing that with all the Units that are now becoming available during the current build climate north of the river that the cascades that used to happen have finished,

there is no money in metal at the moment scrap value is LOW, so vehicles cut for peanuts again..

 

[FOH]

This would also reduce capacity on services to Caterham/Tattenham which would all be reduced to 5 car max as neither terminal can accommodate 10 cars

IIRC from the phase 1 consultation that's what Southern are doing anyway. All Cat/Tat to be Purley splitters using 377/6s

 

[LLivery]

Wouldn't they be better off having some of the 455s which will be replaced by the new franchise as they already run the type?

GTR are planning to reduce the 455 workings before the end of the contract as they are getting on in age. Can't see the 455s going anywhere apart from scrap.

 

[Helvellyn]

458/5s could be a good 455 replacement for Southern. Is there anything to stop the fitting of ASDO beacons given that the fact every carriage has ASDO equipment fitted, so might be preferable for DOO use.

 

[Fincra5]

458/5s could be a good 455 replacement for Southern. Is there anything to stop the fitting of ASDO beacons given that the fact every carriage has ASDO equipment fitted, so might be preferable for DOO use.

Probably just the cost of fitting them.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

458s no. 376s now could be positive, with the existing 377/6s and 377/7s also doing 10-car Metro. Might free up just a couple of 4-car 377s for Southeastern.

 

[D365]

A thread for speculative discussion about the Class 458s can be found here.