Was that before or after Tilbury Riverside closing?
-
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!
Are C2C Keeping Their 357 Units?
- Thread starter Inthewest
- Start date
- Status
Was that before or after Tilbury Riverside closing?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Kite159
Veteran Member
3+2 seating is good for the peak time crush loading (even if some commuters will prefer to stand than squeeze into a middle seat), but 2+2 is also popular with families, especially if you get tables for the kids to use to rest paper to draw on. Just have a look at how popular the table seats behind the cabs on the 357s are.
Whenever I stand on DLR Shadwell platform waiting for a connection I am always surprised at the random mix of 4, 8 and 12 car trains (not a lot of the latter) leaving Fenchurch Street at busy times. It really seems they consistently don't have enough units, and just periodically do a shuffle and announce longer trains without mentioning which ones have been shortened to provide this.
This is a separate issue to them running 4 car sets late evening or on Saturdays, which can be grossly oversubscribed while half the fleet seems sat in the sidings at East Ham and Shoeburyness.
357 LTSRail
Member
Absolutely agree - I'd say there's almost no service that can run now without having people standing and being 4 car anymore - how things have changed for the LTS. Again, it's why I feel the 6x 720s still won't be enough, even if they carry on with their current extremely high fleet utilisation
357 LTSRail
Member
That and the extremely positive feedback from people travelling on a 387 off peak for the first time (when they are occasionally used) suggests that for services going against the big crowds, 2+2, tables and nice carpets are very well appreciated by non commuter traffic. Longer distance also appreciate more leg room and tables for work etc... I think the LTS has become an operation where it could benefit from different stock for it's different uses - especially if the 357/3s are put back to 357/2s with 3+2 seating
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,845
The flaw is that you can't keep "luxury" stock just for these off peak services, especially when it's only a short line anyway - people will be taking longer journeys into London on the very basic Thameslink 700s!
I understand they have certain issues, the first is that the high frequency inner suburban operation introduced a few years ago diverted quite a proportion of traffic from the District Line - previously it was just a chance whether a main line train would stop, it became more of a certainty. I believe C2C didn't get an adequate share of revenue to compensate. Secondly new rolling stock contracts have moved on from charging a fixed amount per year, where off-peak usage had just a marginal cost, to charging based much more on actual miles run, which incentivises putting the stock into sidings at every opportunity. Franchises stipulate the number of trains and cars to be available, but not that they are actually used other than maybe the narrowly-defined with-peak flow.
samuelmorris
Established Member
I'll be honest, a big part of the problem with crowd levels on c2c are those going the one stop from West Ham to Barking, but how do you prevent that without inconveniencing those traveling to/from further afield to either of those two stations?
357 LTSRail
Member
Absolutely, unless they seriously inconvenience commuters into barking, west ham and limehouse, there's seemingly no alternative. It's not like the district line could feasibly rival the mainline services either - no semi-fasts and LU have their own overcrowding problems as is. More carriages is probably the only way, as going 24tph would be a serious challenge for fenchurch street and would arguably attract even more one stop hoppers. Hence, these 6x 720s feel like a drop in the ocean. Not ideal they may be, the 387s do at least have more seats than a 357/3 and better provision for standing.
samuelmorris
Established Member
Both Barking and Ilford have enormous loadings in the peaks, what that area really needs is a third route into London. One can dream... 
357 LTSRail
Member
Yes - another crossrail line through the east is probably in order! Hopefully crossrail and improved Greater Anglia services will reduce the load on the LTS. It might not be what c2c want to hear financially, but that line has arguably become a victim of its own success and now close to being at 100% utilisation in terms of both frequency and number of carriages. Maybe changing commuter trends will help.Both Barking and Ilford have enormous loadings in the peaks, what that area really needs is a third route into London. One can dream...
Last edited:
You could still increase the frequency and train length so you would need to increase carriage numbers by around 70% before you maxed out infrastructure (excluding depot and stabling). The Aventras on a net basis only fill about a fifth of that gap...
Last edited:
357 LTSRail
Member
True, but I'm assuming that frequencies on ockendon single can't change based on being a single line, and the dagenham dock line will be limited by future barking riverside and freight paths and that 24tph would be a hell of a challenge operationally for a 4 platform terminus. Carriages as well - there isn't the DOO equipment for 12 car services on the loops, nor is there any proposals for there to be, so I'm assuming there's a limit there too (although I'm sure an aventra can use it's own CCTV to dispatch itself). Considering that so many of the 12 car services are rammed as is, and people are still going to want to travel at those prime times, I'm saying that there's very little to do in terms of reducing overcrowding in the peak of the peak (where 12 car services are not able to be boarded by everyone who wants to use them, and so many can't get a seat, even for stations like basildon). I'm also assuming that they're going to want to reduce their nearly 100% 357 utilisation, which feels unsustainable and shows by how the 357s are starting to feel more and more tired by the day
Last edited:
22tph is the sensible limit I was thinking of...
357 LTSRail
Member
That's still only 2 more than current though, and considering how the population is expected to grow in South Essex (and the trend for GA passengers to migrate over if there's the capacity) and that to achieve that, they'd need to stop even more at london stations and therefore increase one stop hoppers who would then pile on even more, I feel like we'd end up back to square one just with a network that's got even less ability to recover from disruption than it already does. Maybe an all 720 fleet would help, and therefore the 357s not stay with c2c - but that seems very wasteful and even then, there's still a worry for the loops as they're so restricted on frequency and how many passengers you'd attract to the route by cutting overcrowding.
Last edited:
When my crayons get out of control they suggest moving the District and C2C platforms to the West of the Jubilee line, with extra C2C platforms that could add resilience and allow timetabled West Ham turnbacks effectively creating two more terminal platforms (not in the City but where a lot of passengers interchange for the Wharf and Stratford)
357 LTSRail
Member
Now that sounds like a dream upgrade to me - higher frequencies, ability to have faster journeys to fenchurch street on some services and reduce overcrowding by non - stopping and turn back ability for when the line west of west ham has issues. Would certainly aid the problems - maybe double track the ockendon single whilst they're at it, and add DOO equipment for 12 car sets for both loops!
They could also build a proper interchange whilst they are at it - West Ham gets so crowded and I have only ever been through on Saturdays!
Wivenswold
Established Member
Both. It was after Tilbury's closure but even before the station closed it was mainly withdrawn and unserviceable units that were stabled there. In the eighties LTS had some 100 units. 1991-1995 our fleet hovered around the 90 mark, after Privatisation it dropped down to about 80 until the introduction, withdrawal, then reintroduction of the 357s.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
Both Barking and Ilford have enormous loadings in the peaks, what that area really needs is a third route into London. One can dream...
Isn't it called the Central, H&C or District Lines?
samuelmorris
Established Member
The District/H&C is of course valid, sorry I perhaps should have said fourth! The central line stops are a slightly separate area as they're quite a way north.
Plus a couple more for longer trains north of Cambridge when Waterbeach/Littleport platforms, Ely North Jct and the power supply are sorted. OK, so maybe never.
Incidentally, on the subject of power in the area, Stagecoach have just put two battery-electric double deckers into service in Cambridge. I hear the National Grid objected to any more coming as their supply in the north of the city (the garage is close to the Milton feeder) couldn't safely support charging more than two...
- Status