xx39 services out of Waterloo

[nw1]

I even saw a 707 https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:Y01653/2023-12-21#allox_id=0

For a route that was boring stock wise for decades it’s now interesting with SWR seeming to throw everything they have on it ! We just need a 444 or a 159 next (although the latter isn’t cleared)

Well a CIG had a booked working down the Chessington South line in 1982/83, so why not a 444 to Guildford via Epsom?

 

[JonathanH]

Well a CIG had a booked working down the Chessington South line in 1982/83, so why not a 444 to Guildford via Epsom?

Clearly there are better places to use 444s. They have however been via Epsom when engineering work leads to diversions that way.

 

[ollie_hunt1660]

Well a CIG had a booked working down the Chessington South line in 1982/83, so why not a 444 to Guildford via Epsom?

The single doors at each end may cause problems with lots of passengers on busy commuter routes

 

[TEW]

Clearly there are better places to use 444s. They have however been via Epsom when engineering work leads to diversions that way.

Even worked a stopping service a few years back when IIRC there was a derailment at Clapham Yard trapping a lot of stock in. Epsom is usually limited to unplanned diversions rather than due to engineering work.

 

[JonathanH]

Even worked a stopping service a few years back when IIRC there was a derailment at Clapham Yard trapping a lot of stock in. Epsom is usually limited to unplanned diversions rather than due to engineering work.

Yes, it was in April 2005 that I travelled in a 444 from Guildford to Clapham Junction via Epsom on a Sunday morning due to engineering work. As you say, it is rare for diversions that way.

 

[nw1]

Clearly there are better places to use 444s. They have however been via Epsom when engineering work leads to diversions that way.

Was just comparing with the Chessington example in the 80s; there may be a diagramming reason why a 444 could end up on such a route, in theory.

I wasn't suggesting that the 444 should become the standard stock for Guildford via Epsom!

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I wasn't suggesting that the 444 should become the standard stock for Guildford via Epsom!

If my memory is correct there were several restrictions on 444's when running via L'head, most notable if my memory is correct(?) was that they had to driven 'in series' (power supply?), so even for E/W scenarios they were not sent that way unless the overall plan for day concerned left no other choice. Thinking back, if via L'head was a diversionary necessity for Pompey trains, it became the 'rule' that such trains should be formed of 450's. Via Cobham was the norm for diversions in that area (with 444's) as were of course a limited number of base plan trains, which were a mix of relieving congestion at Woking Junction and maintaining Fratton crew route knowledge of the New Line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2024 ==

Was just comparing with the Chessington example in the 80s

Seem to recall you mentioning before that the instance of the 8 CIG going down to the zoo, was off peak and a one-off return journey, so there would have been no problem with dwell times v number of doors, as someone above touched on I believe.

 

[nw1]

If my memory is correct there were several restrictions on 444's when running via L'head, most notable if my memory is correct(?) was that they had to driven 'in series' (power supply?), so even for E/W scenarios they were not sent that way unless the overall plan for day concerned left no other choice. Thinking back, if via L'head was a diversionary necessity for Pompey trains, it became the 'rule' that such trains should be formed of 450's. Via Cobham was the norm for diversions in that area (with 444's) as were of course a limited number of base plan trains, which were a mix of relieving congestion at Woking Junction and maintaining Fratton crew route knowledge of the New Line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2024 ==


Seem to recall you mentioning before that the instance of the 8 CIG going down to the zoo, was off peak and a one-off return journey, so there would have been no problem with dwell times v number of doors, as someone above touched on I believe.

True. For avoidance of doubt it was a 4CIG, off the 1029 Portsmouth-Waterloo '83' and later formed part of the 1630 Waterloo-PSS '74'. Ran in 1981 and 1982, I'd guess it disappeared in 1983 when the first batch of 455s were introduced? ISTR the 1029 up, still a single CIG, formed the 1318 '82' down in 1983. ISTR also in 1983 that the equivalent CIG on the 1630 '74' now did Cobhams during the middle part of the day.

There was also an 8CIG which came out of Wimbledon or Clapham to form a Shepperton return trip in 1981 (around 1600, can look up if you'd like) before forming the 1758 Alton. In 1982 they swapped the diagrams so that the CIGs came out on the 1318 '82' instead (which had been a VEP/EPB combo off the Waterloo sidings in 1981) while the former 1318 stock (now HAP/EPB) formed the Shepperton formerly formed of the CIGs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2024 ==


New subject:

Looking at RTT I'm getting quite a clear idea of current stock allocations, to answer a few questions earlier in the thread; didn't realise RTT showed the exact stock allocated to a service.

The xx09 to Portsmouth via Eastleigh is mostly 8 450 but there are some exceptions: 1009 (5 444), 1109 (4 450, a rare 4-car service), 1209 (12 450) and 1709 (10 444). Looked at the 0909 to 1709 inclusive.

The Portsmouth fasts look like they're mostly 444 but still a fair few 450s, while the Haslemere terminators are mostly 450 but there is one 444. There appear to be several 9-car 444/450 combos diagrammed (looked over several days and it was consistently showing) including one diagram that appears to go up and down the line most of the day.

Not many single 450s out on Waterloo services these days, while in SWT's heyday there were a good few.