• 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!

Class 466 refurbishment

Status
Not open for further replies.

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
So as things stand four class 466 on branch lines will need to be operated by 377s or 465s come December meaning lost capacity on the London commuter lines. That'll be fun.
It will be interesting to see what gets to do their lone workings - the Bromley North branch will almost certainly be a 465, history suggests the Medway Valley line shuttle will return to 3 car 375, but I have no idea how the Sheerness branch will play out, I have been on a 465 shuttle in the past, but 375s may also have been there. I reckon it will come down to whether capacity on metro or mainline services is most at risk of the respective class going on the branches. :idea:
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
It will be interesting to see what gets to do their lone workings - the Bromley North branch will almost certainly be a 465, history suggests the Medway Valley line shuttle will return to 3 car 375, but I have no idea how the Sheerness branch will play out, I have been on a 465 shuttle in the past, but 375s may also have been there. I reckon it will come down to whether capacity on metro or mainline services is most at risk of the respective class going on the branches. :idea:
I wonder if the increase in capacity on the Bromley North branch will lead to the frequency being reduced back & losing the labour intensive peak dual manning.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
I wonder if the increase in capacity on the Bromley North branch will lead to the frequency being reduced back & losing the labour intensive peak dual manning.
Yes that would be an upside for a "rolling stock-swap", given the 2 minute turnaround at each end for a 4tph peak frequency. Looking at the passenger usage such a swap and frequency reduction won't be an issue for the branch, as long as connections to/from London are still possible/improved, but ultimately choosing the services that will have a net loss of 2 carriages as a result could have more bearing if it makes life harder for SE's complaints' team.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Today I was on a service with 466026 in the formation, which has had its modifications, and amusingly one of the doors wasn't painted properly from its previous livery it seems, as shown in the photos attached:20190527_155238.jpg 20190527_155249.jpg 20190527_164638.jpg
 

urpert

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Messages
1,164
Location
Essendine or between Étaples and Rang-du-Fliers

Class 466

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,408
Retro!

Obviously the toilet won't have been changed, but have they had the seating mods to create the wheelchair area like the 465s?
Nope- as that’s part of the reason why they won’t be running around on their own from December. Also 466026 had some kind of door fault recently - hence the replacement with the wrong letter!
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Nope- as that’s part of the reason why they won’t be running around on their own from December. Also 466026 had some kind of door fault recently - hence the replacement with the wrong letter!

Oh right, so they managed to source a spare part to fix it. Is the "botch-job" a requirement of the PRM exemption 466s will get? I can't otherwise see what the point is of doing just the doors and other handles, instead of "all or nothing" :s
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Oh right, so they managed to source a spare part to fix it. Is the "botch-job" a requirement of the PRM exemption 466s will get? I can't otherwise see what the point is of doing just the doors and other handles, instead of "all or nothing" :s
Yes. They are getting all the non wheel chair specific stuff. Hence the future pairing with 465 to address that. Less than 1% of disabled rail users are wheelchair users and the mods improve things for those with visual and aural problems and those with mobility issues who are ambulatory.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Just seen 466016 & another unit being hauled through Wandsworth road, presumably on their way to get their mods done. Does anyone know how many are left to modify?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Trying to piece numbers of 466s so far:
  • 466005
  • 466006
  • 466013
  • 466014
  • 466019
  • 466021
  • 466022
  • 466023
  • 466026
  • 466027
  • 466029
  • 466030
  • 466032
  • 466034
  • 466035
  • 466038
  • 466040
  • 466042
Note: Searches undertaken on Flickr for moves from Slade Green to Ilford (5X91), and for moves from Tonbridge West Yard to Slade Green (5X49). The Ilford - Tonbridge transfer (5X85) is done overnight.
 

Doomotron

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2018
Messages
1,173
Location
Kent
What's the latest with branch line working from Dec?
Just a thought, but getting rid of Charing Cross to Dover services (and adding stops at Sandling and Westenhanger for St Pancras trains) could allow Electrostars to be used on branch lines.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,153
Location
West of Andover
Just a thought, but getting rid of Charing Cross to Dover services (and adding stops at Sandling and Westenhanger for St Pancras trains) could allow Electrostars to be used on branch lines.

Turning the existing services round at Ashford instead?
 

Doomotron

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2018
Messages
1,173
Location
Kent
Turning the existing services round at Ashford instead?
That would require the same amount of units though, the services just would end sooner. If the Dover Trains still terminated at Ramsgate, that would be about an hour difference (and theoretically could cut down on units) but Ashford to Dover is around 30 minutes. At best one or two units could be taken off of the diagrams if the trains terminated at Ashford.

An alternate idea could be to sublease Electrostars from Southern or GN or nab SOME from Victoria to Ashford trains.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Surely the easiest solution is to do the PRM changes on ALL the 466s? Or just take out the toilets on certain units and confine them to the short shuttle type routes
 

KingJ

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2012
Messages
197
I had a chance to speak with representatives from SE about this earlier in the week. They confirmed that whilst PRM mods across the fleet are on track, there are no further works planned for the 466 fleet (i.e. with the exception of the few units in @59CosG95 's post, there are no further mods planned for the 466s). They're trying to plan how to shuffle things around, but there 'may' be some 'slight' impacts on capacity. Details of what this entails will supposedly follow in the next few months. DOO equipment/platform lengths were given as a complicating factor for some of the plans, but i'm unsure of specific instances where that might apply?
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
Other routes really could do without reductions in capacity. This seems crazy. Lock the doors out or complete work.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,397
Location
UK
They're trying to plan how to shuffle things around, but there 'may' be some 'slight' impacts on capacity. Details of what this entails will supposedly follow in the next few months. DOO equipment/platform lengths were given as a complicating factor for some of the plans, but i'm unsure of specific instances where that might apply?

If 2-Cars need to be attached at all times then you have an issue with minimum train lengths. If you take the minimum length where you create more 6-Cars then you start to reduce the capacity for Permissive working. You also create problems for unit storage. You have a choice between keeping the units attached or introducing more shunting movements.

What may also happen (I'm no where clued up on the specifics) is that you might create issues with unit mileage. If you are always running the 2-Cars in service and they are always attached then you are increasing mileage and potentially having more units requiring maintenance at the same time. The other option is to leave the units in the sidings all day. With capacity at a premium you are reducing your storage and reducing passenger capacity at the same time.

Another problem is that you can't run 2-Cars in 12-Car formations. They are too long. If your creating 10's then your again, reducing permissive working and siding capacity and if your reducing 8s to make 6s then what happens to the 4 you pulled off. DO you make more 12s or more 8s ?

DOO specifics.... The first rule of DOO is not to talk about DOO :/
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
I don't think the toilets are the only issue, I believe the fact there will be no disabled seating area is a big issue, so even if toilets are locked out the whole thing isn't solved. That said fitting such areas cannot be much more difficult than the "botch-job" features they have been getting, and certainly easier than a complete toilet makeover/refitting.

They're trying to plan how to shuffle things around, but there 'may' be some 'slight' impacts on capacity. Details of what this entails will supposedly follow in the next few months. DOO equipment/platform lengths were given as a complicating factor for some of the plans, but i'm unsure of specific instances where that might apply?
Apparently from elsewhere on the forum 465s or 2x466s cannot run down the Medway Valley line in passenger service anymore - not 100% sure why but 4 car 375s have had SDO activated at Beltring so that might be the/one reason. While 3-car 375s dominate the line anyway (bar the current 466 shuttle on it), as there are only 10 3-car units there isn't much cushion in the event they're all occupied elsewhere.

Presumably another issue with this derogation is every station where Networker formations operate will have to have signage and/or announcements stating which part of the train has no PRM facilitation (i.e. where 466s are positioned in a given formation). In the case of the former that would mean all formations would have to be fixed and signage used. While this works with Intercity train carriage signs, it would be very complicated on the SE Metro area. Having to make announcements on the issue would add complication and length to what passengers hear at stations, if all this makes sense.
 

KingJ

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2012
Messages
197
If 2-Cars need to be attached at all times then you have an issue with minimum train lengths. If you take the minimum length where you create more 6-Cars then you start to reduce the capacity for Permissive working. You also create problems for unit storage. You have a choice between keeping the units attached or introducing more shunting movements.

What may also happen (I'm no where clued up on the specifics) is that you might create issues with unit mileage. If you are always running the 2-Cars in service and they are always attached then you are increasing mileage and potentially having more units requiring maintenance at the same time. The other option is to leave the units in the sidings all day. With capacity at a premium you are reducing your storage and reducing passenger capacity at the same time.

Another problem is that you can't run 2-Cars in 12-Car formations. They are too long. If your creating 10's then your again, reducing permissive working and siding capacity and if your reducing 8s to make 6s then what happens to the 4 you pulled off. DO you make more 12s or more 8s ?

DOO specifics.... The first rule of DOO is not to talk about DOO :/

Apparently from elsewhere on the forum 465s or 2x466s cannot run down the Medway Valley line in passenger service anymore - not 100% sure why but 4 car 375s have had SDO activated at Beltring so that might be the/one reason. While 3-car 375s dominate the line anyway (bar the current 466 shuttle on it), as there are only 10 3-car units there isn't much cushion in the event they're all occupied elsewhere.

Presumably another issue with this derogation is every station where Networker formations operate will have to have signage and/or announcements stating which part of the train has no PRM facilitation (i.e. where 466s are positioned in a given formation). In the case of the former that would mean all formations would have to be fixed and signage used. While this works with Intercity train carriage signs, it would be very complicated on the SE Metro area. Having to make announcements on the issue would add complication and length to what passengers hear at stations, if all this makes sense.

Thank you both for your insight - I really don't envy what the planners are having to do right now, balancing both this and all of the regular challenges of planning on a network like SE's!
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
If 2-Cars need to be attached at all times then you have an issue with minimum train lengths. If you take the minimum length where you create more 6-Cars then you start to reduce the capacity for Permissive working. You also create problems for unit storage. You have a choice between keeping the units attached or introducing more shunting movements.

What may also happen (I'm no where clued up on the specifics) is that you might create issues with unit mileage. If you are always running the 2-Cars in service and they are always attached then you are increasing mileage and potentially having more units requiring maintenance at the same time. The other option is to leave the units in the sidings all day. With capacity at a premium you are reducing your storage and reducing passenger capacity at the same time.

Another problem is that you can't run 2-Cars in 12-Car formations. They are too long. If your creating 10's then your again, reducing permissive working and siding capacity and if your reducing 8s to make 6s then what happens to the 4 you pulled off. DO you make more 12s or more 8s ?

DOO specifics.... The first rule of DOO is not to talk about DOO :/
Will 466s still be able to do empty stock movements on their own and/or lone shunting? Surely lone operation cannot be an issue if no passengers are involved, which might make shunting manoeuvres easier? That said I agree unit mileage and putting them in the most useful train formations will be a challenge either way.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,397
Location
UK
Will 466s still be able to do empty stock movements on their own and/or lone shunting?

ECS shouldn't be an issue but increasing the number of movements creates various problems. At my depot a single train movement can be :

10 minutes 'walking time'
5 minutes 'PC (prep cab)'
4 minutes 'Shunting allowance'
2 minutes 'TC (trip cab)' or 4 minutes 'AP (attachment)'

That time has to come from somewhere. If its additional on a diagram, then your cutting down the productive time for a Driver. You can put this on a shunt turn but again, your creating potentially another diagram or two; which creates a need for more Drivers. For every shunt that happens you would also need a pathway. Even at my depot where a shunt takes 4 minutes, additional shunts always take an age because your waiting for platforms and passenger services.

Organizing stock movements is a big job. It's bad enough when you have units that are running around as multiple only. Now there will be an entire fleet that must run in multiple.
 

Terry Tait

Member
Joined
31 Jul 2019
Messages
196
I think that this whole PRM thing is a complete debacle, my father had mobility issues and when he was younger he would have been very glad to be on a 466 at all, he had to endure 302s on the Shoeburyness line.
 
Joined
4 May 2009
Messages
269
Why are they not modifying 466’s completely then? Why can’t they do it so a 466 can continue to run alone?
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
DfT being useless again. And it's SE - so ignored away from long distance routes. Metro and branch lines are afterthoughts
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
I doubt this will happen anytime soon, if ever, but now the derogation conditions are met for almost all units, the 466 operating issues could be solved by doing the now smaller job of completing the refurbishment to full PRM compliance for just 4 units at first, over a couple of months or something, to stick those on the branch lines. Once that's achieved, gradually refurbish more of them to allow the first 4 more flexibility, solving shunting and formation restrictions and any other issues in turn. Not ideal, but better than keeping the derogation long term.
 

Class 466

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
1,408
I doubt this will happen anytime soon, if ever, but now the derogation conditions are met for almost all units, the 466 operating issues could be solved by doing the now smaller job of completing the refurbishment to full PRM compliance for just 4 units at first, over a couple of months or something, to stick those on the branch lines. Once that's achieved, gradually refurbish more of them to allow the first 4 more flexibility, solving shunting and formation restrictions and any other issues in turn. Not ideal, but better than keeping the derogation long term.
As nice as an idea that is, someone has to pay for it. Any volunteers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top