158s are being realeased at a rate of around one every fortnight, so no issues there. On average, one 150 going in each week currently. The second 153 is off for PRM this weekend (320).
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Which TOCs will require derogations to continue running trains from 2020?
- Thread starter SC43090
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Late delivery of a replacement train is about the only valid reason to extend the operation of a non-compliant train. Perhaps also a train that is in the process of being adapted not yet being finished for reasons outside its control.
We've been preparing for so long now, and I've said from the start that there can't be extensions through lack of planning. If a TOC hasn't taken the steps to get stock ready, they should be banned from using the non-complaint stock and fined heavily.
If it was always clear that would happen, things would have been done on time. Instead, I get the feeling that the industry has dragged its heels in places with the view that they could just be late. I also feel that it has been the belief that nobody would dare ban stock from use, as it would punish rail users, and so the deadline was not to be taken seriously.
Fortunately, it seems that not everyone has thought like that and we're seeing some real improvements with new and modified rolling stock.
Last edited:
You worn get a derogation just because it costs too much. Thats the whole point of having a deadline. Either you make the stock compliant or you withdraw the stock.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,845
On the Bromley North shuttle they won't need a toilet anyway. Neither on the Sheerness shuttles really
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,268
I am getting really bored of saying to the hard of understanding, but the lack of compliance is down to DfT and its micro-(mis-)management of the industry. Every change to rolling stock within a franchise has to be agreed by them.
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,790
No they shouldn't be banned from using it. Why should passengers be punished because of the failings of the rail industry?
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
what stock is in which class as in A/B/C/D/E...?
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
158-832 is now in service with PRM mods, and thanks for letting me know about 153-320!
Some would be a start! But in terms of vehicles does GA have the largest number at by my calculation around 480 vehicles that aren’t compliant and that doesn’t include the 27 317s that are supposedly having work done by the end of the year?
It’s now going to be 323.
I think derogations will need to be granted by September when ToCs submit their pathing bids for December timetable change. They will need to know then how many trains they will have in service in January.
Surely the plan with that set is simply to take it out of service and shuffle the allocation of the unit fleet accordingly from 1 January. I can't see any reason to keep it in service. How much does withdrawal of one train set, albeit a capacituous one, that works two services a day matter?
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
thanks
The point is that no one has been overseeing the plan. It's been obvious for years that franchises which finish before 2020 had no interest in solving the problem. In some cases the new franchisee simply hasn't had enough time to do the mods.
If you go down the route of grounding units and/or dishing out fines the franchise holder might just walk away. Then DFT would have to clear up the mess.
Why not bin it now then?
johnnychips
Established Member
Because the timetable change is in December: it gives them time to work out a plan.
I'm fully aware of the concept of timetable and diagram changes. That hauled set is quite expensive to run. If they can get by without it then I'm surprised they haven't got rid of it at a previous timetable change.
Metal_gee_man
Member
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 669
I can see the 3 car 375s being utilised on these branches and some of the longer distance routes ending up with a 4 car 465 with a 2 car 466 in tow. Eugh...
Alteran Ancient
Member
This was the only solution I could think of - if you no longer have any 2-coach units available in your fleet, then you have to find the next-smallest. That would leave the 3-coach 375/3s. They won't like taking 375s away from the Medway Valley, but I can't see a better solution without subleasing and re-training the Grove Park drivers on different stock.
Aren't there something like only 4 2car only 466 diagrams? This isn't a big issue overall.
brad465
Established Member
A 375 on the Bromley North branch will look weird, even if it is the best solution. It will be interesting to see where on the mainline suddenly becomes a Networker train instead of 375 based. My money is the CHX-Tunbridge Wells 375 set(s), which would be the most suttle/logical for what options are available, but if not a peak only set that goes down the Maidstone East line (on top of 2 such 465/466 sets) or Ashford via Tonbridge.
It might not look like a big issue numerically but Southeastern do of course rely on all the rolling stock they have for all their train classes, which is the reason 12 car Metro trains are limited despite the numerous station upgrades to achieve their compatibility. Overcrowding is already an issue widely so SE will have to shift stock around very wisely to minimise an increase in overcrowding problems thanks to this 466 derogation.
brad465
Established Member
Technically they are midway through refurbishment (or in this case a "botch-job" to achieve what you've said), but yes hopefully all 43 will be done by December.
You could say the same about the Medway Valley line shuttle if it never goes to Tonbridge as SOO-MDW and SOO-PDW would be no longer than a 376s longest working. I think the problem might be there is no disabled seating area to be fitted, but why SE couldn't go to the expense of it I can't understand as it's not a big job.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,385
You can’t do it just by class. A post only a few days ago linked to a table showing that the various Mk3 & HST coaches were in almost as many different conditions as there were operators.
thealm
Member
Why does a Class 466 need a toilet it runs on commuter services like the Class 717 which doesn’t have a toilet.
Have you got a source for that? Cheers.
brad465
Established Member
It was probably a desirable feature in their early years, along with 465s having them. 466s having one prevents people who need to use the toilet mid-journey being unable to do so without changing parts of the train (when not working solo that is), given most railway users wouldn't be bothered about the difference between 465s and 466s. I agree that they're not essential as long as they work with 465s and the branch line services are typically shorter than those worked by 717s (and 376s), but the whole SE franchise mess has probably stopped Govia wanting to make 466s fully compliant, as for a long time there was/is no clarity on whether they would still be running the franchise when the legislation takes effect.
The toilet situation is not the main issue (if it is an issue); there are no disabled seating areas either fitted/being fitted to 466s (they should have them IMO), which they'll need if they are to ever work solo again in future.
- Status