456 - swt

[Monty]

Bit of an odd question but do you know why this policy seems to be in place on SWTs 455s only?

Not just the 455s, the 458's gangways are currently not accessible to the public either . As for the reason for policy I would say it's because the cabs cannot be properly secured, the driver's side can be. But the secondman's side still has sensitive equipment that could be interfered with if the gangway were open for public use.

 

[ert47]

Bit of an odd question but do you know why this policy seems to be in place on SWTs 455s only?

When they had them, the 455s on the South Central didn't have them in use. Dont think many of the non-DMU MK3 derived stock actually had them in use

 

[ryan125hst]

Not just the 455s, the 458's gangways are currently not accessible to the public either . As for the reason for policy I would say it's because the cabs cannot be properly secured, the driver's side can be. But the secondman's side still has sensitive equipment that could be interfered with if the gangway were open for public use.

When they had them, the 455s on the South Central didn't have them in use. Dont think many of the non-DMU MK3 derived stock actually had them in use

How come the public can use the gangways on the class 150, 153, 155 and 156 Sprinters? I know that only the class 150's are Mark 3 derived, but the others listed are also similar.

 

[TEW]

On 15x units the Secondmans side is secured. One side of the cab is secured by the inward opening gangway and the other by the inward opening cab door. On 455s the Secondmans side is not secured.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When they had them, the 455s on the South Central didn't have them in use. Dont think many of the non-DMU MK3 derived stock actually had them in use

317s have them in use, I'm not sure if anything else does.

 

[fgwrich]

On 15x units the Secondmans side is secured. One side of the cab is secured by the inward opening gangway and the other by the inward opening cab door. On 455s the Secondmans side is not secured.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


317s have them in use, I'm not sure if anything else does.

Ah, thanks Monty and TEW. I knew that the 'PEP' Derived units are certainly unsecured on the secondmans side but didn't realise that the majority of the Mk3 derived EMUs were similar.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

When the 455s were first introduced the gangways were in use; right up until I moved into Epsom and was able to walk to work instead of getting the train there I was able to walk through the paired 455s between there and Stoneleigh. That was up to 1993 at least, therefore.

 

[wimbledonpete]

When the 455s were first introduced the gangways were in use; right up until I moved into Epsom and was able to walk to work instead of getting the train there I was able to walk through the paired 455s between there and Stoneleigh. That was up to 1993 at least, therefore.

Were they? Have to say I can't remember them ever in use. Interesting.

 

[Goldfish62]

Were they? Have to say I can't remember them ever in use. Interesting.

Yes, I remember using them.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Just backing my colleagues on the matter of the 455s, I no longer sign them but the reason people cannot walk from one unit to another is precisely due to the lack of security on the secondmans side-notwithstanding the poor state of the locks on the drivers side too.

 

[Uzair]

If you look at the list of strengthened services, one of those being strengthened is a Portsmouth-Basingstoke-London train, going from 6 to 8 carriages. It's currently a 6 car 159, presumably going to an 8 car 450. 450s are being freed up because 456s will be used on Guildford-Ascot services instead of 450s.

Don't 458s do the Ascot - Guildford route?

 

[causton]

Just backing my colleagues on the matter of the 455s, I no longer sign them but the reason people cannot walk from one unit to another is precisely due to the lack of security on the secondmans side-notwithstanding the poor state of the locks on the drivers side too.

Regarding this and the 317 comment above: I presume 317s aren't actually walk through? As I was on one the other day, a passenger gave a couple of tugs to the driver's door inside the carriage and something sounded like it snapped and the door slid open, the passenger then went "can't even get through!" and walked away!

 

[Royston Vasey]

Regarding this and the 317 comment above: I presume 317s aren't actually walk through? As I was on one the other day, a passenger gave a couple of tugs to the driver's door inside the carriage and something sounded like it snapped and the door slid open, the passenger then went "can't even get through!" and walked away!

I've definitely walked through the gangway between two FCC 317s. Nice view of the cab controls

 

[causton]

I've definitely walked through the gangway between two FCC 317s. Nice view of the cab controls

Ah ok, I was sitting adjacent to the cab door and the guy looked a bit dodgy - don't think he'd take kindly to me staring at what he was doing! Must have been too stupid to find out how to walk through then, or perhaps GA do it differently *shrug*

 

[swt_passenger]

Don't 458s do the Ascot - Guildford route?

Well of course they do now, it's a mix of 458 and 450 on weekdays at least, but they won't once they are converted to 458/5s. As mentioned in a few threads, there are to be 36 458/5s, but once they've taken over routes operated by the 29 450/5s there will be some left to internally cascade other 450s and/or 455s.

There are two relevant press releases that list affected routes and services, but taken together the output from the 108 additional vehicles, (60 ex 460 and 48 x 456s), is felt mostly at mainline destinations, they are strengthening services as far as Salisbury, Exeter, Portsmouth, Southampton, Alton, Haslemere.

In the main this is being done by re-diagramming the 444 and 450 fleets to lengthen existing trains, eg 8.450 replacing a 444, or 10.444 vice a single 444, or 12.450 replacing an 8.450 etc... As someone has already posted there's almost certainly an 8.450 set releasing a pair of 159s to the Salisbury route.

Whatever the details, it is certainly no longer the case that all the 456s will extend 455s to 10 car length, as most people originally expected. Indeed it seems the vast majority will not be running in ten car sets...

 

[JB25]

Do most SWTs have Tightlock couplers then?

 

[swt_passenger]

Do most SWTs have Tightlock couplers then?

Desiros and converted 458/5 will all be Dellner. Only 455 will be tightlock.

 

[JB25]

Desiros and converted 458/5 will all be Dellner. Only 455 will be tightlock.

I ask because 456s are Tightlock which surely limits what SWT can attach them to?

 

[swt_passenger]

I ask because 456s are Tightlock which surely limits what SWT can attach them to?

455s are the only possibility surely? They won't work with any post privatisation stock used in the area at all.

 

[JB25]

Which means most of the conversations about coupling them to other SWT fractions on this thread have been complete nonsense?!

 

[swt_passenger]

Which means most of the conversations about coupling them to other SWT fractions on this thread have been complete nonsense?!

No one has suggested coupling them to anything but 455s as far as I can see. Most other comments are about other stock being affected by their arrival, eg replaced by them in the case of the Guildford Ascot route...

 

[JB25]

No one has suggested coupling them to anything but 455s as far as I can see. Most other comments are about other stock being affected by their arrival, eg replaced by them in the case of the Guildford Ascot route...

Then clearly I am an ass.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Ah ok, I was sitting adjacent to the cab door and the guy looked a bit dodgy - don't think he'd take kindly to me staring at what he was doing! Must have been too stupid to find out how to walk through then, or perhaps GA do it differently *shrug*

I wonder if its just down to the preference of the driver/shunter as to whether the door is left open or not. With DOO trains there is less need for a thoroughfare.

Also, it was a few years ago now so things may have changed. Thinking back now, I think it was actually a pair of (then) NXEA 317s. It was at Cambridge where both operate.

 

[TEW]

Whatever the details, it is certainly no longer the case that all the 456s will extend 455s to 10 car length, as most people originally expected. Indeed it seems the vast majority will not be running in ten car sets...

In the short term it isn't, and never has been, possible for the 456s to be used to form many 10-car sets. The suburban platforms at Waterloo are limited to 8 carriages. It's only a few peak 455 service which use the mainline platforms which can run as 10-car sets for now.

 

[455driver]

The original press release mentions lengthening a couple of Exeter/Yeovil/Salisbury trains. For that you'd need to replace at least one 158/159 diagram with a 456. I think the only place you can do that (at least with any ease) is the Lymington branch, and I honestly thought that was one of the reasons SWT was getting the 456s at all...

The 456s will replace the 450s and 458s on the Guildford to Ascots, thoss displaced 450s will replace the 159s on the early morning Portsmouth harbour to Basingstoke, that is how the 456s will indirectly replace 159s.

 

[badassunicorn]

the 317's ordinarily have the walk through in use, however not at present, the nose doors are shut and locked.

 

[Helvellyn]

As someone has already posted there's almost certainly an 8.450 set releasing a pair of 159s to the Salisbury route

Yes, that's two that operate a Portsmouth Harbour - Basingstoke, then Basingstoke - Waterloo service in the morning. A further 159 will be released by a 450 from a Southampton - Portsmouth - Southampton service in the morning.

In the evening two 159s that operate (separately) Basingstoke - Portsmouth and Basingstoke - Southampton will be replaced by 450s.

That's three extra 159s available. That could see three extra 9-car trains in the morning peak, or some other juggling (e.g. a couple of 5car services become 6-car, and 6-car services become 8-car). Also the option for some peak Salisbury-Southampton-Romsey services to switch to 159 vice 158 (with the 158s strengthening Waterloo services).

 

[cjohnson]

Will SWT be replacing the horrible seats on the 456s? Admittedly they are softer than some other classes, but they just seem far too low down (which results in lots of awkward knee-knocking).

 

[swt_passenger]

Will SWT be replacing the horrible seats on the 456s? Admittedly they are softer than some other classes, but they just seem far too low down (which results in lots of awkward knee-knocking).

Yes. The initial announcement by SWT included the point that they'd get the same interior treatment as SWT's 455s.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes. The initial announcement by SWT included the point that they'd get the same interior treatment as SWT's 455s.

They're the same seats as on the 319s and 321s and are awful - really glad they're being replaced.

 

[Pumbaa]

458 gangways are non-accessible due to the step up into the gangway. The gangway buttons were illuminated and still worked when joined together, but I think a later mod has stopped this.