171s leaving Southern

[Wolfie]

The difference is that nobody has started a fantasy thread to propose rebuilding S Stock units.

Yet.....


Could convert some surplus D Stock of course.

 

[A0]

Uckfield has pretty much been proven to be too long a round trip on the batteries.

Bombardier won’t fit batteries to an electrostar unit, the 379 which was fitted for a trial was far from successful and Bombardier is very concerned that trying to fit alternative traction to what is effectively a 20 year old design of train could have the potential to be a class 769 saga mk2. The same goes for all varieties, even 387s might be a physically young train but it’s design dates from the 375s in the early 2000s.

Batteries under Electrostars might sound a simple solution but you can only buy what the manufacturer will sell and a Battery Electrostar isn’t one that’s available!

Not at all - the latest Stadler units which DB are taking would appear to be capable of covering Hurst Green to Uckfield on their batteries amd using electric for the rest of their journey.

 

[zwk500]

I take your point that the effect would not not be immediate but 15-20 years?
As it happens I'm currently reading "Alfred Raworth's Electric Southern Railway" where the speed of conversion to 3rd rail electrification is extraordinary.
Even allowing for the effects of modern health and safety regulations I feel your time frame is unduly pessimistic.

Maybe with political weight it could come down a little. But I'd be very surprised if even with an unlimited budget the railway and national grid had enough resources and suitable opportunities to access both networks that you could do it in less than 10 years. @Bald Rick may be able to give a better finger-in-the-air timescale.

 

[43074]

Sticking batteries under some of the 377/3s and making some further cuts to formations and services on the Southern network is the answer for both Uckfield and Marshlink.

The 377 fleet is as of today stretched further to the point of running an all 5-car railway via Tulse Hill and all day 4 cars on the West London line to cover for the loss of 455s. Further service cuts would deteriorate the service to customers even further and traincrew route knowledge is becoming an issue in places where fewer opportunities exist for crew to retain their route knowledge.

As of September there's not much more that can be cut anyway, and you would need to find stock to displace the 377/3s off their current duties (at least 7 units to cover a very basic service on both Marshlink and Uckfield, and that's without the ability to reinstate things like the Rye shuttles or as demand is returning extra peak services from Uckfield to London Bridge)

 

[Chrisgr31]

My own thoughts are that the ideal solution would be something that allows a return to the pre-1987 practice of trains dividing/joining at Oxted. This would
- reduce the number of paths required through East Croydon
- enable a through service to Victoria
- avoid running large amounts of air between Oxted and Uckfield.

Options might include:

- a hauled MU with an electro-diesel (73/?) on one end that can operate with an EMU used for the East Grinstead service.
- a bi-mode unit that can operate with an EMU as above.

Battery power could be substituted for diesel if it can be made to work.

Whatever option is chosen would, ideally, also be suitable for Marshlink and the North Downs line. The benefit for Marshlink would be that the unit could be run as a portion of a longer train (joining/dividing at Hastings, Ore, or maybe Eastbourne) in order to provide a through service between Ashford and Lewes/Brighton.

I think we're probably stuck with the existing setup until a major new build of rolling stock comes along. This will be due to one or more of a substantial increase in demand, or when some of the existing stock reaches its end of life.

Splitting and joining at Oxted creates uncertainty for passengers who have very long memories. There are still regular comments about the reliability of the service, that every train is late etc, whereas the reality I find is that whilst the evening peaks are usually later ti Crowborough its only 5 minutes (why not change the timetable!). In the days of splitting or changing at Oxted you'd regularly get there and find no train and/or crew to take you onward. Once at Oxted there is no sensible alternative either.

The peak services are busy even now and I estimate over 75% of seats are occupied at Edenbridge and around 50 or 60% at Crowborough. The issue is off-peak, However the off-peak service is slow, infrequent and expensive compared to the alternative at Tunbridge Wells for where you can get advance tickets. I think the off-peak service needs to be improved in order to grow the passenger numbers.

Uckfield has pretty much been proven to be too long a round trip on the batteries.

Bombardier won’t fit batteries to an electrostar unit, the 379 which was fitted for a trial was far from successful and Bombardier is very concerned that trying to fit alternative traction to what is effectively a 20 year old design of train could have the potential to be a class 769 saga mk2. The same goes for all varieties, even 387s might be a physically young train but it’s design dates from the 375s in the early 2000s.

Batteries under Electrostars might sound a simple solution but you can only buy what the manufacturer will sell and a Battery Electrostar isn’t one that’s available!

Maybe with political weight it could come down a little. But I'd be very surprised if even with an unlimited budget the railway and national grid had enough resources and suitable opportunities to access both networks that you could do it in less than 10 years. @Bald Rick may be able to give a better finger-in-the-air timescale.

Rumour has it that work on surveys for 3rd rail electrification have already been undertaken. The line has had a number of weekend closures over the last year or so mainly to do with new footbridges at Crowborough and Eridge and it has been suggested that those have been used as a time to survey the line. On the National Grid I guess the question is whether the solar farms that have appeared in the area have lead to enhancement of the National Grid in the area.

The 377 fleet is as of today stretched further to the point of running an all 5-car railway via Tulse Hill and all day 4 cars on the West London line to cover for the loss of 455s. Further service cuts would deteriorate the service to customers even further and traincrew route knowledge is becoming an issue in places where fewer opportunities exist for crew to retain their route knowledge.

As of September there's not much more that can be cut anyway, and you would need to find stock to displace the 377/3s off their current duties (at least 7 units to cover a very basic service on both Marshlink and Uckfield, and that's without the ability to reinstate things like the Rye shuttles or as demand is returning extra peak services from Uckfield to London Bridge)

You need more than 9 units to run the Marshlink and Uckfield services. Marshlink I believe needs 3 units (currently either 2 or 4 each) and Uckfield needs 4 trains for the existing service which currently use 24 carriages I believe.

I was told early in March by the RSSB that their report on safety of 3rd rail infill would be published in the next month or so. It would appear to be slightly delayed. If I was a betting money I would money on Uckfield gaining 3rd rail electrification and Marshlink battery hybrid - but no idea of timescales!

 

[zwk500]

Rumour has it that work on surveys for 3rd rail electrification have already been undertaken. The line has had a number of weekend closures over the last year or so mainly to do with new footbridges at Crowborough and Eridge and it has been suggested that those have been used as a time to survey the line. On the National Grid I guess the question is whether the solar farms that have appeared in the area have lead to enhancement of the National Grid in the area.

Very, very basic surveys. A similar level of initial work has also been done on the timetable and power modelling side.

I was told early in March by the RSSB that their report on safety of 3rd rail infill would be published in the next month or so. It would appear to be slightly delayed. If I was a betting money I would money on Uckfield gaining 3rd rail electrification and Marshlink battery hybrid - but no idea of timescales!

I cant really see the RSSB changing their stance on 3rd tbh, and I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for the delay is that they have reported back and been told to go away and come up with one the politicians would prefer!

 

[Bald Rick]

Uckfield has pretty much been proven to be too long a round trip on the batteries.

it hasn’t. Quite the opposite.

Maybe with political weight it could come down a little. But I'd be very surprised if even with an unlimited budget the railway and national grid had enough resources and suitable opportunities to access both networks that you could do it in less than 10 years. @Bald Rick may be able to give a better finger-in-the-air timescale.

3-4 years tops, assuming you would only need a connection to the local Grid and not NG. Given the power demand, an NG connection would be unlikely.

 

[zwk500]

3-4 years tops, assuming you would only need a connection to the local Grid and not NG. Given the power demand, an NG connection would be unlikely.

Ah, fair enough my pessimism was unfounded!

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately this line is hardly the Clapham Junction-Waterloo stretch in power demand terms, and the nice thing about rectifiers is the load is perfectly balanced across phases and, with modern equipment, largely free of nasty harmonics.

It varies rapidly but is otherwise an almost perfect load for the grid system, this is why some BR-era 3rd rail substations were able to be connected as far down as the 11kV system.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Ultimately this line is hardly the Clapham Junction-Waterloo stretch in power demand terms, and the nice thing about rectifiers is the load is perfectly balanced across phases and, with modern equipment, largely free of nasty harmonics.

It varies rapidly but is otherwise an almost perfect load for the grid system, this is why some BR-era 3rd rail substations were able to be connected as far down as the 11kV system.

I don't think the power demand is the huge issues, given the numerous HV power supplies in the areas. It's more like the ORR and the RSSB getting in the way of a 3rd rail extension for both Marshlink and Uckfield.
I think the above idea for bi-mode battery/3rd rail Flirts with a small upgrade to power systems in Croydon and several battery chargers at both London Bridge/Uckfield/Ashford/Eastbourne/depots to minimise third rail is not a bad idea. Leasing costs for a fleet of 25 - 30 Flirts (existing units, plus provision for the North Downs Line when the 769s give up the ghost) should not be appalling. The 379s from GN can be used elsewhere on the GTR network.
Stadler have no issue with building smaller orders.

 

[MattRat]

Perhaps they could use the 777s from Merseyrail as they have large battery pack capability and aren't being used

 

[AlastairFraser]

Perhaps they could use the 777s from Merseyrail as they have large battery pack capability and aren't being used

Making some more 777s with a slightly different interior and slightly higher top speed is not a terrible idea tbf.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I asked my MP about the rumoured loss of these Units to East Midlands, and she in turn asked Southern. There response was

”We are still in negotiation with the Department for Transport and East Midlands Railway regarding the transfer of up to four Class 171 trains from Southern to East Midlands Railway. We are continuing to monitor our passenger numbers on the Uckfield Line and will make changes to our fleet in accordance to this.”

 

[43096]

I asked my MP about the rumoured loss of these Units to East Midlands, and she in turn asked Southern. There response was

”We are still in negotiation with the Department for Transport and East Midlands Railway regarding the transfer of up to four Class 171 trains from Southern to East Midlands Railway. We are continuing to monitor our passenger numbers on the Uckfield Line and will make changes to our fleet in accordance to this.”

It looks like the decision has basically been made, the four sets are now leased to EMR and sub-leased back to GTR, which gives a good clue as to what is to happen.

 

[swt_passenger]

I asked my MP about the rumoured loss of these Units to East Midlands, and she in turn asked Southern. There response was

”We are still in negotiation with the Department for Transport and East Midlands Railway regarding the transfer of up to four Class 171 trains from Southern to East Midlands Railway. We are continuing to monitor our passenger numbers on the Uckfield Line and will make changes to our fleet in accordance to this.”

Which just shows MPs have no more access to good gen than anyone else…