Sutton in Ant
Member
I agree on that 1. I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .I happen to agree with you, but comparing fleet sizes alone can't be that useful.
I agree on that 1. I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .I happen to agree with you, but comparing fleet sizes alone can't be that useful.
Which simply won't work as every rail franchise is different in terms of the area covered and number of trains they operate daily.I agree on that 1. I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .
Plus huge differences in clientele and travel purpose, not to mention travel trends (drop in business/commuter travel, with more leisure travel).Which simply won't work as every rail franchise is different in terms of the area covered and number of trains they operate daily.
The point of view that I take issue with is that Southern needs more rolling stock, just because it lost 46 455s and 19 313s. Passenger numbers have taken a nosedive and are recovering somewhat, and there may be some challenges during that recovery, but Southern may never need a fleet as large as it had in February 2020. The cut in passenger numbers is broadly equivalent to the cut in fleet size, which suggests it isn't unreasonable.I just think it is nonsense that people on this website are saying that Southern Railway doesn't need any more rolling stock.
That is completely ridiculous.I agree on that 1. I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .
Southern Railway has lost 46 455s which has not been replaced and lost 19 313s which has not been replaced.
Railway travel has been going up since COVID-19. I will say that it is Southern that needs more Rolling Stock. I just think it is nonsense that people on this website are saying that Southern Railway doesn't need any more rolling stock. Southern saying that their services are increasing. That is where additional rolling stock is needed.
Yes and comparing unit numbers doesn't account for overall capacity: 700s come in 8 and 12 car lengths, equal to 2 or 3 4-car units.12 car Thameslink services now operate over many "traditional" Southern routes anyway, which complicates direct comparisons.
12 car Thameslink services now operate over many "traditional" Southern routes anyway, which complicates direct comparisons.
Which is a shame really* Forget Littlehampton as that is finished and back to Southern
Just looking at the current timetable, the Charing Cross - Maidstone service does actaully match up to a degree with the London - Cambridge services. Surely if they actually implement Maidstone - Cambridge that is some extra SE units to use elsewhere? (Along with reduce the 379 / 387 requirements north of the river)
It is a shame that the 700s are not reliable enough for this to happen.
12 car Thameslink services now operate over many "traditional" Southern routes anyway, which complicates direct comparisons.
This is an interesting point. If one thinks about the 2018 Thameslink changes, we now have
* Horsham to Peterborough replaces Victoria to Horsham
* Arguably Cambridge to Brighton seems to have replaced Victoria to Brighton, though this doesn’t seem to have been the original plan?
* Bedford to East Grinstead replaces some London Bridge to East Grinstead services, though the comparison is complicated by Covid
* Forget Littlehampton as that is finished and back to Southern
Luton to Rainham / Orpington are both replacing Southeastern services, as is Welwyn to Sevenoaks, and would have been Cambridge to Maidstone.
When one looks at the above, this doesn’t actually replace that much Southern. If anything more Southeastern stock seems to have been freed up. They also benefited from the 395s as well. So on balance it’s probably reasonably for Southern to be seen to have the greater need. Not that passenger need seems to come in to it, the current priority seems to be binning the 465/2 fleet; and seemingly the rest of the Met-Camm units too.
I’ve ignored Sutton and Bedford to Brighton as they have both been Thameslink for many many years.
Have I missed anything?
This is nonsense. I did not suggest that C2C and LNER should quadruple in fleet size. What I was suggesting is that no rail company should be short of rolling stock.That is completely ridiculous.
Based on that logic, you're suggesting C2C needs to quadruple their fleet size.
Similar for LNER.
Just because a commuter TOC has 300-odd units that often run in multiple.
Also Southern and Southeastern are similar operators with similar needs in terms of fleetThis is nonsense. I did not suggest that C2C and LNER should quadruple in fleet size. What I was suggesting is that no rail company should be short of rolling stock.
That is totally true.Also Southern and Southeastern are similar operators with similar needs in terms of fleet
When COVID hit in 2020 - Southern services had already been reconfigured for two years based on Thameslink taking over many services. So when Southern withdrew the 455s and 313s these were separate changes to Thameslink taking over services.
Horsham to Peterborough Services replaced the half-hourly London Bridge to Horsham via Redhill services, not the Victoria services.
Bedford to Three Bridges (via Redhill) replaced the half hourly London Bridge to Tonbridge/Reigate services, the Reigate services were replaced by the new London Victoria to Reigate semi fast service, which in turn replaced the Redhill call on the Arun Valley (Bognor/Portsmouth/Southampton) fast Horsham trains from Victoria.
Again all these changes were at the 2018 timetable change, which was 2 years before COVID and the withdrawal of 455 & 313s, so not a reason for withdrawal.
You said:This is nonsense. I did not suggest that C2C and LNER should quadruple in fleet size. What I was suggesting is that no rail company should be short of rolling stock.
Which reads to me as if you thought there should be the same number of units at every TOC. I'm glad you agree that interpretation is nonsense!I feel there should be an equal amount of fleet sizes on every rail franchise .
Class 350/2 cannot operate on third rail. Only 350/1 are fitted.Surely the ex LNWR Class 350/2s when replaced and made redundant by the Class 730s they should undoubtedly be sent to GTR either to Southern, especially due to their recent reduction in rolling stock since the 455s and 313s were withdrawn? plus the Class 350/2s are owned by Porterbrook who now also owns the Class 379s, could they maybe finance a deal to lease both the trains as capacity enhancers on GTR? As in the late noughties London Midland 350/1s were temporarily utilised on Southern to provide cover for the 377/5s I believe.
[…]
Not all of the 387s are moving south of the river, some will remain with Great Northern.So if they are getting all 39 class 387's south of the river (by using 379's and some 700/717s North) they can afford to lose some 377's to SouthEastern, probably around 25, if so making a net gain of around 14 units.
That isn't really what you are suggesting though. Southern and GTR aren't short of rolling stock to operate the contracted service.What I was suggesting is that no rail company should be short of rolling stock.
The 395s aren't relevant as they've been in service since 2009. Many of Southern's 377s arrived after then.This is an interesting point. If one thinks about the 2018 Thameslink changes, we now have
* Horsham to Peterborough replaces Victoria to Horsham
* Arguably Cambridge to Brighton seems to have replaced Victoria to Brighton, though this doesn’t seem to have been the original plan?
* Bedford to East Grinstead replaces some London Bridge to East Grinstead services, though the comparison is complicated by Covid
* Forget Littlehampton as that is finished and back to Southern
Luton to Rainham / Orpington are both replacing Southeastern services, as is Welwyn to Sevenoaks, and would have been Cambridge to Maidstone.
When one looks at the above, this doesn’t actually replace that much Southern. If anything more Southeastern stock seems to have been freed up. They also benefited from the 395s as well. So on balance it’s probably reasonably for Southern to be seen to have the greater need. Not that passenger need seems to come in to it, the current priority seems to be binning the 465/2 fleet; and seemingly the rest of the Met-Camm units too.
I’ve ignored Sutton and Bedford to Brighton as they have both been Thameslink for many many years.
Have I missed anything?
Well. You may say that but what I am saying is that there is so much saying that the Southern network isn't short of any available rolling stock. While passenger services are recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and commuters are returning to traveling on the railways. There is a fact that train services will end up being full again. With rumors that Southern Network will be bringing more service? I would not think that it would be fair for commuters to be on a train for a long time when it is packed and the commuters which some of them will have issues with mobility to endure that type of service.That isn't really what you are suggesting though. Southern and GTR aren't short of rolling stock to operate the contracted service.
What you don't like is that the services and formations can't be increased from their current levels, which is a different thing, and effectively what the tender is about.
The 395s aren't relevant as they've been in service since 2009. Many of Southern's 377s arrived after then.
In reality, you'd need to do a deep analysis of each operator's routes and the levels of overcrowding. GTR south of the river has a slightly odd fleet, with high capacity 700s with lots of standing room operating express services from the coast, and lower density 377s operating inner suburban Southern routes! Southeastern has a more logical split between Metro and longer distance stock.
The main problem with them is their reliability, from the Southeastern joint performance strategy:All fair points, in particular Southern getting extra 377s - though they did lose the 456s and 442s. Perhaps the only conclusion we can draw is that it’s all very complex and difficult to make comparisons!
Agreed with how things have panned out with the 700s. You can get a 700/0 from Kings Lynn to London, yet on Southern suburban it’s the luxury of a 377! Quite incredible really.
What gets me is this constant desire to get rid of Networkers, that keeps seeming to emerge. There is little wrong with the 465/9s from a passenger point of view, and the last thing we need is GTR and/or SE making themselves short simply to allow Networkers to be removed from the books. Is there actually anything official that this is actually planned?
The repairs themselves are unlikely to be cheap, plausibly a good business case to replace when coupled with the likely additional costs of leasing only part of the 379 fleet. Taking the maximum of the "up to 17" class 377s and adding the final pair of 707s would feasibly be enough to remove the 465/9s from the picture entirely leaving the class 466s which there isn't an obvious replacement and less of a cracking problem.There have been ongoing issues throughout the year with the 465/9 fleet and bolster cracks. A quarter of the 465/9 fleet have had to be repaired at Doncaster over the year and while we are close to having very few trains out of service, a number are still being monitored and it’s expected at some point further units will need to be repaired