Why so many rolling stock changes?

[edwin_m]

What would be a rough guess at the cost of rebuilding the cabs (per cab) with corridor connections (including replacement cabs for any 350, 444, 450 - iirc there's about half a dozen busted cabs between them classes).

This would be a huge cost - strip out all the complex wiring in the cab area, cut out the heavy structural pillar between the two windows and weld in two replacements in the correct places for the gangway. Insert a totally new control desk and put all the wiring back. Most seriously it would probably trigger compliance to various standards that have come in since the 360s were built.

More likely they would just continue to operate in non-gangwayed form. I wonder if they could be used on somewhere like the Chase Line where multiple operation would be unlikely and the commonality with the 350s would save the operator some cost in maintenance and crew training.

On the other hand maybe Bangkok airport rail link, which runs class 360 clones, could do with a few more?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

This would be a huge cost - strip out all the complex wiring in the cab area, cut out the heavy structural pillar between the two windows and weld in two replacements in the correct places for the gangway. Insert a totally new control desk and put all the wiring back. Most seriously it would probably trigger compliance to various standards that have come in since the 360s were built.

More likely they would just continue to operate in non-gangwayed form. I wonder if they could be used on somewhere like the Chase Line where multiple operation would be unlikely and the commonality with the 350s would save the operator some cost in maintenance and crew training.

On the other hand maybe Bangkok airport rail link, which runs class 360 clones, could do with a few more?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2355957&postcount=48

The photo in that post shows the construction of the body, the left and right appear to be standard panels, so it might depend on the construction of the middle panel of one that has a corridor connection. Just had a quick look on google, couldn't find any photo showing the middle panel on either a 350, 450 or 444

 

[swt_passenger]

I remember to have read that one of the main reasons why the SWT 170s were withdrawn were because they had no corridor connection, hence not allowing the guard or catering trolley to get through.

Correct as far as what they announced at the time, but that 'preference' for the specific West of England route doesn't make it a show stopper as SpacePhoenix seems to be thinking in his earlier posts. It never applied on 455 or 458 operated routes, and still doesn't. It wouldn't have applied to the 707s either.

 

[swt_passenger]

There was a rumour back in 2005 that the Desiros on NXEA were going to be swapped with the LM 321s so I think it's possible they will end up somewhere on th WCML.

How about just sticking them on local services in the west midlands that can (or do) already operate mostly as four cars. Then recover the other earlier LM variants to Euston routes where they can make better use of their gangways?

 

[F Great Eastern]

There are many trains that have operated their whole lives on busy routes without corridor connections and frequently in multiples. Just look at the 321s for instance and how many of them there are having touched many areas of the UK since they are built.

Also I understand what people are saying in relation to the 170s that were withdrawn because of the fact they had no corridor connections, but the 360s are 4/5 cars rather than 2/3 cars so it's not such a limitation rather than the Turbostars.

As for the plan of swapping 321s for 360s just a couple of years after the 360s were delivered, that's typical of the kind of regime that there was in East Anglia under National Express at a time where the SRA simply accepted bids on a price basis and very little else

That franchise was the ultimate in the "invest nothing" franchise, they gave up cleaning and maintaining stations, trains were frequently dirty, trains sat out of use long periods because they were too expensive to repair etc and all the good work on the Great Eastern side by First and Anglia was flushed down the drain pretty quick.

 

[Wivenswold]

I think the idea of using the 360s on WCML branches is a good one. Though my lack of knowledge of that line North of Bletchley prevents me from having any detailed good ideas. Might fire up my TS Trent Valley sim tonight and get learning.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I can't remember what is where, I haven't been in one or seen one for many a year, but it curves just after the middle of the front of it, so there's no chance of putting a corridor connection in.

I disagree, as some of the 360s are rebuilt 350s. it would need a new driving desk however.

 

[F Great Eastern]

I disagree, as some of the 360s are rebuilt 350s. it would need a new driving desk however.

I'm not talking about the 360/2 batch, I'm talking about the 360/1 order that was always intended to be 360s and were not a converted order. I can tell you the curve is there for certain however since I've been in one several times.

The 360s were supposed to have corridor connections and the first few units were even initially built with them whilst in production, however because of safety concerns they were rebuilt with a different, wider cab without corridor connections to get them to be approved for service use.

If they could be run with corridor connections and smaller cabs will reflect if they can overcome the issues which they had in the past and how they are going to be operated.

The 350 corridor cab is different to the original 360 corridor cab and some body changes were made to overcome the issues that were encountered with the 360 cab, but at the time the 360s were built it was deemed to sacrifice the corridor and get the trains out there quicker.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Whether or not the 360s get new cabs built, why (apart from passenger capacity) would FirstMTR gone for the 442s instead of the 360s (after conversion to 3rd rail only)? iirc passengers weren't allowed to use the corridor connections of the 458/0s so having a corridor connection probably isn't 100% mandatory for SWTs

First's Aventras for South Western won't have corridor connections.
The cost of cabs, let alone conversions, is prohibitive, with cab signalling in the design.
None of the new Northern/TPE/GA trains will have corridor connections.
The Merseyrail Stadlers will only have emergency access via the cab (like 319s).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

SWTs don't seem too concerned about corridor connections between units any more as they've had 455s and 456s coupled together and the 707s don't have corridor connections either.

Would SWTs need any extra 450s for the Portsmouth-Weymouth route when it starts? If they would and maybe they could use the 360s (after 3rd rail conversion) somewhere. Alternatively could GTR (Southern) make use of the 360s to replace their 313s?

 

[cjmillsnun]

SWTs don't seem too concerned about corridor connections between units any more as they've had 455s and 456s coupled together and the 707s don't have corridor connections either.

Would SWTs need any extra 450s for the Portsmouth-Weymouth route when it starts? If they would and maybe they could use the 360s (after 3rd rail conversion) somewhere. Alternatively could GTR (Southern) make use of the 360s to replace their 313s?

I would suspect they will end up with LM, as aside from the lack of corridor connections, they would fit in with the 350s.

 

[TheEdge]

There is no issue with a lack of corridors obviously. Its just would LM be interested in taking a small fleet of Desiros that would need careful diagramming and monitoring so they didn't end up in the middle of a 12 car 350 rake.

 

[F Great Eastern]

One thing that they would gain if they got all the 360s would be
5 Car Desiros
9 Car Desiros
10 Car Desiros

Which might be handy where they need a bit more than 4/8 carriages but not 8/12 carriages, it'll give them some way of increasing some train sizes without needing to have large amounts of wasted capacity.

Also there are currently 26x 323s (78 cars) and if they got all the 360s they'd have 26 (109 cars) which would be a nice capacity increase, more modern and reliable rolling stock, and there would be a lot of uniformity with the 350 fleet which would help with maintenance costs.

However on recent history, it's more like there will be yet more new stock ordered to replace the 323s instead.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would SWTs need any extra 450s for the Portsmouth-Weymouth route when it starts?

Surely "New SWT" will have already sized their fleet to allow for the new Portsmouth - Weymouths. If as is generally expected the Southampton - Weymouth leg is adapted from an existing service then how many extra units do you realistically think they might need? I reckon the Portsmouth leg will need two or at the most three units.

At the same time 18 x 442s will release a couple of dozen existing 450s for use elsewhere.

Yet again you seem to have thought of a solution to a non-existent problem...

 

[gsnedders]

How about Strathclyde and the North Clyde electrics, which for now are limited to 20m stock (well, if you want to run a six car train)? (Obviously I'm referring primarily to the 360s here, not the 4xxs!)

 

[jopsuk]

How about Strathclyde and the North Clyde electrics, which for now are limited to 20m stock (well, if you want to run a six car train)? (Obviously I'm referring primarily to the 360s here, not the 4xxs!)

458s with added pantographs would make more sense, they've already got a fleet of Junipers!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Surely "New SWT" will have already sized their fleet to allow for the new Portsmouth - Weymouths. If as is generally expected the Southampton - Weymouth leg is adapted from an existing service then how many extra units do you realistically think they might need? I reckon the Portsmouth leg will need two or at the most three units.

At the same time 18 x 442s will release a couple of dozen existing 450s for use elsewhere.

Yet again you seem to have thought of a solution to a non-existent problem...

Using 360s converted to 3rd rail instead of 442s would eliminate what in effect is a microfleet

 

[class387]

Correct as far as what they announced at the time, but that 'preference' for the specific West of England route doesn't make it a show stopper as SpacePhoenix seems to be thinking in his earlier posts. It never applied on 455 or 458 operated routes, and still doesn't. It wouldn't have applied to the 707s either.

There is no catering on Metro routes, but there could be on 442 routes.

 

[class387]

Using 360s converted to 3rd rail instead of 442s would eliminate what in effect is a microfleet

Surely 360s are a bit of a microfleet too? They will have to have separated diagrams and I'm not sure that they are compatible with the other Desiros

 

[swt_passenger]

Using 360s converted to 3rd rail instead of 442s would eliminate what in effect is a microfleet

That wasn't what you originally suggested. But for better or worse, First have decided to give the Portsmouth line passengers what they were screaming for. More 23m end-doored 2+2 seated trains. Good luck trying to reverse that decision, the 360s do not provide that at all.

New SWT will not need the 360s as part of the franchise changes, how about sticking with the TOCs that have a realistic prospect of using what are after all AC units.

 

[CosherB]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2355957&postcount=48

The photo in that post shows the construction of the body, the left and right appear to be standard panels, so it might depend on the construction of the middle panel of one that has a corridor connection. Just had a quick look on google, couldn't find any photo showing the middle panel on either a 350, 450 or 444

Using 360s converted to 3rd rail instead of 442s would eliminate what in effect is a microfleet

Let's face it pal, neither of these ideas will ever happen. As we all know, the 360 had a late design change at the behest of the HSE because they were not happy with the driver's visibility with the previous design's gangway cab for DOO. Nobody in their right mind will now burn money to try and back-engineer a 360 into some 350 clone for the sake of what is an unnecessary corridor connection.

And as for 3rd rail 360s ...... :roll:

What next? Corridor connections on 185s?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Let's face it pal, neither of these ideas will ever happen. As we all know, the 360 had a late design change at the behest of the HSE because they were not happy with the driver's visibility with the previous design's gangway cab for DOO. Nobody in their right mind will now burn money to try and back-engineer a 360 into some 350 clone for the sake of what is an unnecessary corridor connection.

And as for 3rd rail 360s ...... :roll:

What next? Corridor connections on 185s?

Conversion to 3rd rail shouldn't be too hard if needed, as afaik all modern units are equipped internally for either AC or DC, with just the required external stuff being bolted on, relevant switches installed in the cabs and probably a TMS update.

Not all TOCs require corridor connections

 

[swt_passenger]

Let's face it pal, neither of these ideas will ever happen. As we all know, the 360 had a late design change at the behest of the HSE because they were not happy with the driver's visibility with the previous design's gangway cab for DOO. Nobody in their right mind will now burn money to try and back-engineer a 360 into some 350 clone for the sake of what is an unnecessary corridor connection.

I just don't get these regular ideas for how to move more units onto "New SWT", when it has been pretty obvious for about 2 years that they were already getting to a state of more 450s available to diagram on outer suburban and longer distance routes anyway, what with the Stagecoach CP5 HLOS plans, and they are now getting even more 450s available for internal cascade due to the First decision to bring in the 18 x 442s.

In a general thread like this about stock changes around the country, I'd have thought the Southwestern franchise is well "sorted out" for rolling stock, but there must be many others who are not...

 

[CosherB]

Conversion to 3rd rail shouldn't be too hard if needed, as afaik all modern units are equipped internally for either AC or DC, with just the required external stuff being bolted on, relevant switches installed in the cabs and probably a TMS update.

Not all TOCs require corridor connections

If a 360 gets converted for 3rd rail land, I'll buy you beer for a whole year!

 

[3141]

Conversion to 3rd rail shouldn't be too hard if needed...

But it isn't needed for the incoming South Western franchise, and if they did need additional trains there are class 458s already equipped for DC, or to avoid another microfleet, they might just order a few more Aventras.