• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

171s leaving Southern

Status
Not open for further replies.

TsAs

New Member
Joined
6 Apr 2021
Messages
2
Location
Croydon, London
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
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Versa274

On Moderation
Joined
21 Jul 2020
Messages
44
Location
Bingley
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
 

littledude

Member
Joined
21 Nov 2011
Messages
74
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
Surely not? Swapping (relatively comfy) 171s with old, draughty 156s from ‘up north’ is going to go down like a lead balloon!

Tom
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,606
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.
 
Last edited:

computerSaysNo

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2018
Messages
1,405
Surely not? Swapping (relatively comfy) 171s with old, draughty 156s from ‘up north’ is going to go down like a lead balloon!

Tom
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.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
20,829
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.
Who has it got to be acceptable to? What is going to happen if it isn't acceptable to them?

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.
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.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,848
Location
Redcar
Surely not? Swapping (relatively comfy) 171s with old, draughty 156s from ‘up north’ is going to go down like a lead balloon!

Tom

Doesn't seem to be an issue to send clapped out old junk the other way though!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,606
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.
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…
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,585
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
The GTR franchise contract (not that relevant any more!) specified that 171s could only be replaced with newer and /or higher specification rolling stock.

Good luck getting a 156 thought the Oxted Tunnel which is one of the most gauge limiting features on the UK network (a pair of reverse curves in the middle as digging for either end didn't quite align). They can't even get 455s though it. The only DMUs that will fit are 168/170/171. The ROSCOs had forgotten about this when making promises to EMR and were then told nothing leaving till replacement stock sorted (and replacement suggestion like battery EMU proven to be reliable in practice).

EMR are picking up some 170s ex TfW (ex Anglia) instead.

The low dwell times required at East Croydon also mean end doors are not suitable.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,889
Doesn't seem to be an issue to send clapped out old junk the other way though!
Look at fare levels and subsidies....

Why would Southern want small numbers of pretty much life-expired trains with no current training or logistics in place? Leave the 156s where they are.
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
I thought the idea of Southern class 171's going to EMR had been cancelled, as the 12 class 170's from TFW where going instead?

It is cheaper to have the TFW class 170's, as you have to think about the cost of converting the class 171's from having Dellner Couplings to having BSI couplings so that they then could work with any of EMR's existing class 170 fleet if required.

With regards any replacement for the class 171, unless they are to go to another TOC other than Southern I think that any replacement is another 10 plus years off yet, given that the class 171's where manufactured in 2003 - 2004. If the class 171's where to be replaced, then I suspect it would be a bi-mode unit, rather than any existing diesel unit that would replace them.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
9,093
Location
Central Belt
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.
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
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.
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.

But as I said in my post above i would replace with bi-modes or as per thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...al-voltage-capability-can-it-be-built.218561/ Tri-mode unit with dual-voltage capability. The units could be both 3 and 4 car units, but with gangway connections at the ends which would help with replacing both the class 313 and class 171 units. But later, could go on to replace the earlier Electrostar units.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,945
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.
Failed Unit never said anything about replacing the Electrostars…
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
9,093
Location
Central Belt
Nope. But it will be an interesting debate now it is UK gov rail. The order could of course be large enough to replace other trains including the 769s.
Is the business case better to fill electricity gaps or have new technology on the trains. In my opinion if they go for battery trains they should at least have juice in the terminal station to charge the train if needed. However that is a heavy supply. Costs money might as well have electrified railway….

just concerned most routes with gaps the 171s run on are long routes. The Marshlink better as at least the terminating stations are live.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,732
Location
Ilfracombe
I have an idea produced considering the three following aspects:

1) I think that most of the Uckfield line stock is normally only used during the peak since off-peak it is an hourly 4-car service, and during the peak it is a half hourly up to 10 car service.

2) The Marshlink route, be that Ashford to Eastbourne or Ashford to Brighton, has more electrification which makes it easier to run battery trains on.

3) Charging batteries faster wears them out faster.

Perhaps only the number of 171s required for an hourly 4-Car London-Uckfield service be kept by Southern. The Marshlink and Uckfield Peak extras could be operated by battery trains which only need to be capable of running Marshlink services all day, and running London-Uckfield a few times a day with fast charging. The relatively low level of use that the batteries would have would reduce the effects of the costs of fast charging. The battery trains could also operate electrified services more economically than 171s, meaning that the battery trains could provide an efficient backup to the EMU fleet, meaning that fewer EMUs would be required by Southern.

Just an idea.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
My idea is: electrify both the Marshlink and Uckfield lines with 750 V DC third rail.

Let's assume the electrification cost is about £1 million per km or mile (someone like @Bald Rick or @59CosG95 can then give me the official figure for third rail electrification cost per km or mile). Marshlink line total length is 42 km, so the line being electrified should be £420 million (yes funny number I know). Uckfield Line's total length (from Hurst Green onwards) is 40 km, so the electrified cost should be £400 million. 400 + 420 = 820. Instead of spending money on a new non standard DMU or Bi-mode fleet, why not spend an extra £820 million on electrification but at least have Electrostars running on them.

Then, when both of the lines are electrified, the two lines should use some of the ex Great Northern 387s (with the Great Northern 387s replaced by ex Greater Anglia 379s), replacing all 171s.

sorry for the off topic a bit, but the other GN 387s, alongside c2c 387s (once the latter are replaced by the 720/6s), would then go onto replace the class 313 trains.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
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

Not a good idea. The 156s are much older than the 171s not to mention they are still DMUs so the issue with diesel islands remains.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
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.

Don't they run at 160 km/h??? (100 mph)
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,859
Location
Wittersham Kent
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.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
9,093
Location
Central Belt
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.
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.
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
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.
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.
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.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,889
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.
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.....
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,585
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.
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.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,889
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.
 

Turtle

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2013
Messages
376
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.

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.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,732
Location
Ilfracombe
Interwork the Uckfield to London Bridge services with a London Bridge to Ashford via Redhill service and an Ashford to Brighton service so that all the spare 3rd rail power between Redhill and Ashford can be used to recharge the battery trains :lol:
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
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.....
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.

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.
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.

There has been trackwork I believe on the routes that are served by the class 171's, why did that work not include implementing 3rd rail infill if it is the easy logical answer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top