py_megapixel
Established Member
Uckfield? (That's what this entire thread is about, after all)Not much point converting 376s to battery as they are suburban trains and everywhere they would work is electrified.
Uckfield? (That's what this entire thread is about, after all)Not much point converting 376s to battery as they are suburban trains and everywhere they would work is electrified.
Uckfield? (That's what this entire thread is about, after all)
I think the idea is that they would get a substantial upgrade, not just be put in service in their current suburban form. (Clearly there have been examples in the past where the refurbishment has been delayed - eg 360s for East Midlands).It's a route with predominantly commuter traffic to London, but it's hardly suburban. The well-heeled outcry over downgrading it to something like 376s would drown out the complaints over 450s on the Portsmouth line.
The 376 units though, would need upgrade to 2+2 seating from 3+2 that exist within them currently.I think the idea is that they would get a substantial upgrade, not just be put in service in their current suburban form. (Clearly there have been examples in the past where the refurbishment has been delayed - eg 360s for East Midlands).
The 376 units though, would need upgrade to 2+2 seating from 3+2 that exist within them currently.
Are 376s fitted with cctv for DOO operation and Adso? I cant really think of any Southern service they could operate without either?Official source. The OP of your linked thread acknowledges that it isn't officially confirmed.
They would be fitted with it if necessary. The whole point is that they can be repurposed for use with Sutton with a new interior, DOO cameras etc, ASDO etc. Victoria to Epsom, Victoria to London Bridge, Victoria to Sutton, Victoria to West Croydon would all be perfectly fine for 376 operation once upgraded, even Dorking and Caterham / Tattenham Corner wouldn't be that inappropriate. The interior wouldn't actually need to change much for use on those routes.Are 376s fitted with cctv for DOO operation and Adso? I cant really think of any Southern service they could operate without either?
Really? Where?376's are now confirmed to be heading to Southern could they be converted to battery power as has been suggested in the past?
Absolutely. Rumour-reinforced rumour is not confirmation.Official source. The OP of your linked thread acknowledges that it isn't officially confirmed.
They would be fitted with it if necessary. The whole point is that they can be repurposed for use with Sutton with a new interior, DOO cameras etc, ASDO etc. Victoria to Epsom, Victoria to London Bridge, Victoria to Sutton, Victoria to West Croydon would all be perfectly fine for 376 operation once upgraded, even Dorking and Caterham / Tattenham Corner wouldn't be that inappropriate. The interior wouldn't actually need to change much for use on those routes.
Ultimately they are just Electrostars with no cab end gangway and a slightly different door arrangement.
Is it possible to use Hitachi AT300 for using HS1 services from London St Pancras via Ashford to Hastings /BexhilCan I suggest those saying about electrifying the Marshlink line read the High Speed rail Report from East Sussex county council dated 2015 (https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/5343/high-speed-rail-report.pdf).
Within this report it states the following:
"Mott MacDonald was appointed by East Sussex County Council in conjunction with Rother District Council and Hastings Borough Council to develop a strategic economic case for running high speed rail services from London St Pancras via Ashford along the Marshlink line to Hastings and Bexhill. The study has been undertaken by Mott MacDonald’s Economic & Social Development Team with specialist input from Mott MacDonald’s transport modellers using the Wider Impact of Transport Appraisal (WITA) model. The team has also been supported by Dr James Laird, a specialist in the wider economic benefits assessment of transport schemes."
It then goes on to state:
"Currently, there are three rail services between Hastings and London; the East Coastway line, Hastings – Tonbridge line and the Marshlink line. Network Rail undertook a rail connectivity study4 for Hastings to investigate how rail services could be improved, focusing on journey times to London, Ashford and Brighton (feeding into the Kent Route Strategy currently being developed). The work identified that improvement options on the Tonbridge line had too high a cost for minimal benefit therefore the focus has been on the Marshlink line. The study found that a combined enhancement package, of sending HS1 services (the Javelin trains) from Ashford along a faster Marshlink to Hastings and Bexhill with electrification has a strong business case given substantial journey time savings (see Table 1.1 below) and the improved appeal to passengers and commuters. The total journey time from Hastings to London would
fall from over 90 minutes currently to 68 minutes if the Javelin trains were to travel to Hastings and Bexhill."
Table 1.1: Journey time savings from using HS1 services from London St Pancras via Ashford to Hastings /Bexhill
Journey Journey time savings
London St Pancras-Rye 72-85 minutes to 55 minutes
London St Pancras-Hastings 91-100 minutes to 68 minutes
London St Pancras-Bexhill 101-112 minutes to 78 minutes
The track layout at Ashford is reportedly not set up for that.Is it possible to use Hitachi AT300 for using HS1 services from London St Pancras via Ashford to Hastings /Bexhil
Could they not be used to replace the class 313's on coastway services, if the 376's are coming to Southern?Yes, I think it's fair to say that if they end up moving anywhere, 376s would just replace 455s on their existing Southern routes. There's nowhere else they're really suited to.
Is that working on the basis of the class 8xx AT300's or the class 395/810 AT300's?The track layout at Ashford is reportedly not set up for that.
See https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...er-marshlink-electrified.217681/#post-5147180
Isn't the point that the 376s release 3-car 377s from the metro area to go to the coast and 4-car 377s to start removal of 455s?Could they not be used to replace the class 313's on coastway services, if the 376's are coming to Southern?
Isn't the point that the 376s release 3-car 377s from the metro area to go to the coast and 4-car 377s to start removal of 455s?
That's working on the basis that trains to/from the Hastings branch cannot physically access HS1 without reversing at least twice.Is that working on the basis of the class 8xx AT300's or the class 395/810 AT300's?
I was not sure if the issue was with the length of the carriages, with class 8xx being 26M and class 395/810 being 20 - 24M going over the points at Ashford International to be joining the route to Rye and Hastings.That's working on the basis that trains to/from the Hastings branch cannot physically access HS1 without reversing at least twice.
Not sure why you're grouping random Hitachi classes together.
I know that wiki is not always correct, but the wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_International_railway_station) for Ashford International states "Because Ashford International connects High Speed 1 to the Marshlink line, it creates potential for a fast service from St Pancras to Hastings and Eastbourne. In November 2017, the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling, proposed a modification of the track layout at Ashford International to accommodate such a service. The scheme was supported by Amber Rudd, a former Hastings MP.
Is the rebuilding of Ashford International taking place as per the above details?
The Kent Route Study included the alternative option of making platform 3 a domestic platform and providing a connection from it to the Marshlink.It is very difficult. It needs the whole of Ashford west to be rebuilt,
The whole 376 to Southern thing seems a hot topic on here. Until Southeastern order and receive a replacement metro fleet for the rest of their 465s - 376s won’t be going anywhere.Isn't the point that the 376s release 3-car 377s from the metro area to go to the coast and 4-car 377s to start removal of 455s?
The Kent Route Study included the alternative option of making platform 3 a domestic platform and providing a connection from it to the Marshlink.
How are the doors different? I've not noticed anything myself, but admittedly I don't frequent electrostars of any variety; indeed, I think I've only ever had two trips on a class 376!Ultimately they are just Electrostars with no cab end gangway and a slightly different door arrangement.
376s have sliding doors which go into a pocket like a 378 instead of the plug doors fitted to 375s, 377s, 379s and 387s. This means that where the door pocket and set back area, the cross section of the interior is more narrow.How are the doors different? I've not noticed anything myself, but admittedly I don't frequent electrostars of any variety; indeed, I think I've only ever had two trips on a class 376!
Ah right, thanks376s have sliding doors which go into a pocket like a 378 instead of the plug doors fitted to 375s, 377s, 379s and 387s. This means that where the door pocket and set back area, the cross section of the interior is more narrow.
Getting the thread back on topic, in an ideal world you would have the routes that the class 171 units serve currently to be electrified. But like some routes where bi-mode trains are being used, possibly pre - electrification of those routes would any of the following ideas for trains be of any use on the class 171 routes:
1) Use Stadler flirt trains similar to class 755/756, but with gangways at the front of the end units.
2) If the class 171's are to stay, then adapt them to be full DEMU units such that they can either be operated in diesel mode or from getting supply from third rail.
3) Use a version of Bombardier(Alstom) Aventra that can operate on either 3rd rail, OHLE and with battery power or similar train from other manufacturers.
4) Replace with loco hauled coaches that also has a driving car similar to Nova 3..... Loco? Traxx or class 93? Possibly too wide for the Uckfield line?
5) Have trains similar to the class 230's, but based on S Stock.
Point 5 is class 230 battery/Diesel train, but rather than using ex - underground D Stock, use any available S Stock instead.1) Yup, it is very unfortunate 171s weren't built with gangways.
2) Sounds ambitious. Has that ever been done before? And very slow, you'd have to do one at a time. Better just to do a new build then release the 171s for use somewhere else - loads of places could do with them.
3) Realistically I can't see Uckfield ever being electrified, however perhaps more OHLE equipped dual voltage EMUs would be useful - e.g. a post-HS2 WCML with more cross-London services.
4) You could make them narrower if it was a problem, but length is an issue. I can't see anyone going for locos and reducing passenger compartment size.
5) Not really sure what this means to be honest, sorry!
What makes you believe that there are any available S stock? LU is hardly about to release it's current rolling stock without replacement.Point 5 is class 230 battery/Diesel train, but rather than using ex - underground D Stock, use any available S Stock instead.
What available S Stock?Point 5 is class 230 battery/Diesel train, but rather than using ex - underground D Stock, use any available S Stock instead.