There were similar issues preventing the introduction of 8 car 777 trains at Southport. The solution there was to extend some of the platforms at their buffer stop end. Could a similar approach be taken at Waterloo?
Prince2 started with the UK Government to set a framework for large projects, and is slowly being taken up and adopted by several commercial industries.
That brings back memories (of off record discussions had) with colleagues 20 odd years ago. They (442's) had been subject to a number of mods over the years, and thus there were quite a few differences between units under the surface. Fine whilst those in the know at the time, were still responsible for their upkeep, but a potential minefield going forward. It is no secret now about the 442 v 458 decision in relation to the 2007 refranchise, but that said, I was already hearing (unofficially from some 'on the ground') that the 442's performance had by then peaked, and they were starting to decline in the reliability stakes, which would inevitably cause problems with overall TT performance going forward. So whilst some folk lamented their passing (off the SW at that time), I still believe from a performance stand point, it was the right decision. I'm sure this is a point many can/will argue over for years to come!
Not without major expense (£b's). It would mean cutting in to the concourse, primarily (given the line of route/service group under question is the PDL) in relation to platforms 8 to 15. The concourse struggles to cope on many occasions with the vast number of people, and whilst there are a number of retail units backing on to the buffers as such, which could in theory be done away with, the expense and disruption, including the work that would be involved with the under croft below track and concourse level, in relation to what is trying to be achieved would (as said before) never be sanctioned. Not in my life time anyway!
The reality is that the pre-Covid timetable simply did not work. The trains had become significantly longer since the re-write in 2004 and the additionals inserted since then had taken up available capacity which only existed on paper. Longer trains meant more time taken to clear track berths, which meant drivers behind are more likely to be going slower as they chase cautionary signal aspects, which in turn meant trains behind taking even longer and the cumulative effect is far greater than the summation of all the constituent contributary parts. There was virtually no resilience during peak periods and that was the main reason performance fell off a cliff edge in the few years prior to the pandemic. The hope at the time was that the faster acceleration of the 701s would help alleviate that problem, however to date no one knows whether that would actually cure it.
Correct. The a.m. peak started to struggle (at Waterloo) by around 0830-0900 and the evening peak after about 1800. I spent more hours/days than (it, as a subject) deserved, in the greater scheme of things, re working the peak hours at Waterloo, and it came to a head with some request or other from on high, the details of which escape me now, but the upshot was that by 1810 we ran out of platforms to run the advertised service. Think it had something to do with UP WoE train,
That would be an advantage in the Waterloo throat. The track layout outside p1-4 was prior to the 2017 rebuild, the optimum type of layout, all crossings just off the platform ends, and so any conflicting moves were reduced to the minimum amount of time possible to make. The re occupation time back then was 3 mins for most of my time and before, but this was (at our/SWT planning AFAIR) request extended to 4 mins with the 10 car / extended platform / revised track layout, which meant crossing moves inbound to p1 were made west of Westminster bridge for one, and although the plan for a common 4 min re occupation (except a very few 3 min examples) worked on paper, as you say, reality can be somewhat different. Just one part of the need for increased capacity sometimes being a part trade off with performance when the overall situation has already been virtually maxed out!
Couldn't have put it better myself. Well said.
Interesting, they're not permitted to run down the mainline in passenger service (seems ridiculous if they can run on it as ECS). They must have gotten special permission or someone may be in trouble
Says due to a “train fault” same with the return journey…
The return journey from Reading, 2C62, was cancelled 'Due to a Fault on the train"
It ran on the fast, I got bored and tracked it on a website, it ran clj down fast --> addlestone --> virginia water (left -2 from platform 3) --> shunted to the signal and reversed --> went out a few minutes late --> went to wokingham and sat there for 40 minutes --> 5c61 to reading --> 5c62 to waterloo --> waterloo p17 (probably still there)
Shows on Open Train Times map as still being there with next working 5Z91.
I mean it was only +8 (i think) at Wokingham, could probably have made that up? although, if the up line was blocked then that makes sense.
I mean it is a 458 after all so a fault could have been likely. trains have almost a 30 min turnaround at reading so 8 mins is not enough of a delay to warrant a turnaround a at WKM
Yeah true, also, do you know why the 458/4s are not permitted down the mainlines, especially considering the original idea was Portsmouh services?
That is not a permitted route for this stock in passenger service. The service should have been cancelled at Clapham Junction, then ECS onwards or into Wimbledon. I would imagine there will be serious investigations into what happened and the contributions various parties played in this process. 2C51 was subsequently cancelled due to door-related faults at Wokingham, which may or may not be related to this significant error. I am sure those involved in this process would have been mightily relieved when they found out what happened and be grateful it went on the fasts and not the slows.
Sorry but how on earth can an EMU, cleared for a route, not be cleared to carry passengers on it?
A fully loaded train naturally depresses the suspension therefore the body of the vehicles can fall foul of gauging clearance where an empty one does not. It is possible to clear a route for one but not the other. The altered profile of a fully loaded train can also result in specific restrictions on speed, movements on adjacent lines, operating instructions, etc. These 458/4 trains must be run under a 5X headcode when operating ECS via the mainline, which in this case also did not happen.
It can do but usually the secondary suspension is kept pumped up by the compressors, so it shouldn't drop that dramatically to foul a loading gauge.
No special permission can be given unfortunately. They are not route cleared for passenger service full stop therefore I would be extremely surprised if someone would have been brave enough to give that clearance.
True and true, but I guess there isn't really a pressing need to get them route cleared as the likelihood of requiring such a diversion is fairly small in the grand scheme of things. Useful but with other more pressing issues to resolve I imagine it just isn't high enough on the agenda list of those in charge.
I would have assumed they would have got the clearance before they even converted them to /4s, and anyway, what is so different between the /5s and the /4s that means they can't run on the mainline?
I believe 2S50 ran as 5X50 via the mainline when it got cancelled. 2C52 as 5X52 also.
Someone ought to be getting the sack then.
The suspensions are slightly different, but in any case I don't think you can route clear a rolling stock type until they have been produced, if new clearance is deemed necessary. Of course if no other work is involved, just simply a carriage removed, then new clearance is not likely required.
That is not for me to comment on, as I wouldn't be party to any investigation outcome, but the main objective of investigations would be to learn from an incident and putting forward measures to prevent it from occurring again.
Ah makes sense, did they not think about that before they decided they were going to run them to Portsmouth? (or maybe they haven't tested it yet?)
Having read this I did a rough calculation to provide some context: if 200 passengers were onboard weighing an average of 70kg each (chosen arbitrarily), that would add an extra 14 tonnes to a 4-car unit's weight (an additional near-10% of the 458's weight), so the fact a passenger load changes a unit's behaviour (beyond the obvious acceleration and deceleration potential) is certainly logical.
Well, it seems the route clearance test has just been performed! It has just been proven that the 458/4s can run on the mainline with passengers.
Not really, may have just got away with it, no one knows how close those yaw dampers were to causing issues with pax on. Especially if doing the tighter 20 turnout towards Addlestone from the mainline at Weybridge.Well, it seems the route clearance test has just been performed! It has just been proven that the 458/4s can run on the mainline with passengers.
