TsAs
New Member
What will be the replacement for the 171’s when they get transferred over to EMR because I’m thinking spending money on installing 3rd rail tracks on the Uckfield line so that EMUs can have access or GTR ordering bi-modes
How much are you thinking of spending? What's your budget?What will be the replacement for the 171’s when they get transferred over to EMR because I’m thinking spending money on installing 3rd rail tracks on the Uckfield line
Surely not? Swapping (relatively comfy) 171s with old, draughty 156s from ‘up north’ is going to go down like a lead balloon!Swapping with a few EMR class 156 stock is a possibility as line not needed above 75mph I assume
Northern taking 15 i think with the remaining possible going to Southern
Southern 171s use their 80/90 mph capability mixing it with EMUs on the main Brighton Line into London Bridge. That‘s a non starter. I think running as 10 car formations is unlikely for 156s as well.Swapping with a few EMR class 156 stock is a possibility as line not needed above 75mph I assume
Northern taking 15 i think with the remaining possible going to Southern
I'd agree with this, there's no way that this would be acceptable in terms of passenger comfort, number of toilets, train length, pollution levels (do the 171s still run into Central London?), lack of air conditioning, noise levels, etc etc.Surely not? Swapping (relatively comfy) 171s with old, draughty 156s from ‘up north’ is going to go down like a lead balloon!
Tom
Who has it got to be acceptable to? What is going to happen if it isn't acceptable to them?I'd agree with this, there's no way that this would be acceptable in terms of passenger comfort, number of toilets, train length, pollution levels (do the 171s still run into Central London?), lack of air conditioning, noise levels, etc etc.
No faster than 70 most of the way from London Bridge to Uckfield - 85 on the up between just north of Woldingham and Sanderstead though.Southern 171s use their 80/90 mph capability mixing it with EMUs on the main Brighton Line into London Bridge. That‘s a non starter. I think running as 10 car formations is unlikely for 156s as well.
Surely not? Swapping (relatively comfy) 171s with old, draughty 156s from ‘up north’ is going to go down like a lead balloon!
Tom
Yes but it’s about acceleration as well? Can’t see 156s overall performance or length being adequate anyway, as you say it would never be considered anyway…Who has it got to be acceptable to? What is going to happen if it isn't acceptable to them?
No faster than 70 most of the way from London Bridge to Uckfield - 85 on the up between just north of Woldingham and Sanderstead though.
Mind you, I don't think we are going to be seeing 156s.
The GTR franchise contract (not that relevant any more!) specified that 171s could only be replaced with newer and /or higher specification rolling stock.Swapping with a few EMR class 156 stock is a possibility as line not needed above 75mph I assume
Northern taking 15 i think with the remaining possible going to Southern
Look at fare levels and subsidies....Doesn't seem to be an issue to send clapped out old junk the other way though!
Personally, I would say that it is more important to replace the class 313's than it is either the electrostars or class 171's.3rd rail would be the ultimate solution. But batteries on the electrostars is another one often mentioned. Not aware of any plans to convert a demonstration unit yet which says a lot. Considering the age of the electrostars new stock my be the best solution.
Failed Unit never said anything about replacing the Electrostars…Personally, I would say that it is more important to replace the class 313's than it is either the electrostars or class 171's.
Swapping with a few EMR class 156 stock is a possibility as line not needed above 75mph I assume
Northern taking 15 i think with the remaining possible going to Southern
Southern 171s use their 80/90 mph capability mixing it with EMUs on the main Brighton Line into London Bridge. That‘s a non starter. I think running as 10 car formations is unlikely for 156s as well.
Thanks for confirming. I expect when you cost in design of a new train. Some infills to help keep it charged etc you might as well just electrify the whole route(s). I can see it working with batteries in short gaps such as if the MML was electric to Sheffield using battery to get to Doncaster / Wakefield. But long branches which this is are a huge risk with current technology. Especially when you consider in disruption the auxiliary loads will still be draining the battery.All the calculations that have been done by Southern suggest that Battery trains can't run on the routes currently operated by the 171s because there is insufficient power supply on the South Croydon to Hurst Green and Eastbourne to Ore sections to support the charging rate the batteries require to operate on the non electrified stations. When the embarrassing electrostar introduction shortcomings were identified, the dc on these rural routes was only enhanced by the absolute minimum for the current service.
All the calculations that have been done by Southern suggest that Battery trains can't run on the routes currently operated by the 171s because there is insufficient power supply on the South Croydon to Hurst Green and Eastbourne to Ore sections to support the charging rate the batteries require to operate on the non electrified stations. When the embarrassing electrostar introduction shortcomings were identified, the dc on these rural routes was only enhanced by the absolute minimum for the current service.
This is where if the line is not electrified, I think you need Tri-mode train with dual voltage capability. The battery could not only be charged from 3rd rail, but also by the diesel generator with battery/diesel power working in conjunction away from either 3rd rail or OHLE.Thanks for confirming. I expect when you cost in design of a new train. Some infills to help keep it charged etc you might as well just electrify the whole route(s). I can see it working with batteries in short gaps such as if the MML was electric to Sheffield using battery to get to Doncaster / Wakefield. But long branches which this is are a huge risk with current technology. Especially when you consider in disruption the auxiliary loads will still be draining the battery.
Fitting a diesel generator effectively undermines the green credentials to a substantial degree though. What makes you think, in the mid-long term, that will be any more acceptable than pure diesel? It's an obvious next target.....This is where if the line is not electrified, I think you need Tri-mode train with dual voltage capability. The battery could not only be charged from 3rd rail, but also by the diesel generator with battery/diesel power working in conjunction away from either 3rd rail or OHLE.
The general safety case for (mostly rural, e.g. MarshLink, Uckfield, North Downs) 3rd rail infill is currently being re-assessed so best to hold fire for the time being as the simplest solution might be 3rd rail infill and a more uniform and flexible fleet than currently or with battery.Thanks for confirming. I expect when you cost in design of a new train. Some infills to help keep it charged etc you might as well just electrify the whole route(s). I can see it working with batteries in short gaps such as if the MML was electric to Sheffield using battery to get to Doncaster / Wakefield. But long branches which this is are a huge risk with current technology. Especially when you consider in disruption the auxiliary loads will still be draining the battery.
That would seem to be the most pragmatic solution. Given the extent of use of third rail currently a few small infills should hardly represent a massive change in safety risk.The general safety case for (mostly rural, e.g. MarshLink, Uckfield, North Downs) 3rd rail infill is currently being re-assessed so best to hold fire for the time being as the simplest solution might be 3rd rail infill and a more uniform and flexible fleet than currently or with battery.
That would seem to be the most pragmatic solution. Given the extent of use of third rail currently a few small infills should hardly represent a massive change in safety risk.
It's the only sensible solution in both the short and long term. I'm not holding my breath though.That would seem to be the most pragmatic solution. Given the extent of use of third rail currently a few small infills should hardly represent a massive change in safety risk.
It is easier in the future to replace a diesel generator, than a pure diesel with hydrogen power in the future, once that technology has been proved.Fitting a diesel generator effectively undermines the green credentials to a substantial degree though. What makes you think, in the mid-long term, that will be any more acceptable than pure diesel? It's an obvious next target.....
The general safety case for (mostly rural, e.g. MarshLink, Uckfield, North Downs) 3rd rail infill is currently being re-assessed so best to hold fire for the time being as the simplest solution might be 3rd rail infill and a more uniform and flexible fleet than currently or with battery.
You maybe be surprised. Without seeming like being devil's advocate, as much as yes infilling 3rd rail would be the logical answer, for me there has to be some reason why it has not been done in the last 30 - 50 years other than cost.That would seem to be the most pragmatic solution. Given the extent of use of third rail currently a few small infills should hardly represent a massive change in safety risk.