• 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!

Bromley North - Grove Park

Status
Not open for further replies.

Southof1E

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2017
Messages
20
did my first trip along the Bromley North branch for many years yesterday. Suprised it was 465045 rather than a 2 car 466. Is this a Covid thing or is a 4 car the usual power along this top branch?

cheers

NR

https://leightonlists.com/
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,754
did my first trip along the Bromley North branch for many years yesterday. Suprised it was 465045 rather than a 2 car 466. Is this a Covid thing or is a 4 car the usual power along this top branch?

cheers

NR

https://leightonlists.com/

I don't think the 466s have had their Persons of Reduced Mobility modifications done so they can no longer work on their lonesome - they have to be coupled to one or more 465s.
 

warwickshire

On Moderation
Joined
6 Feb 2020
Messages
2,007
Location
leamingtonspa
I don't think the 466s have had their Persons of Reduced Mobility modifications done so they can no longer work on their lonesome - they have to be coupled to one or more 465s.
Yes that is correct 466 two car cannot run solo only ecs ie empty.
Also still the old original toilet in them hence this.
Can only run coupled to a 465 etc.
Yes no prm dispensation has been agreed.
Also as mentioned last year on another thread to accommodate this the doo driver only platform equipment was extended and all platforms extended where required to accommodate the extra coaches.
Instead off being only suitable for two coaches.
 

Doomotron

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2018
Messages
1,220
Location
Kent
A special derogation was given to the 466s which allowed them to work alone on the Bromley North line, so I'm not sure why a 465 was used.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,344
A special derogation was given to the 466s which allowed them to work alone on the Bromley North line, so I'm not sure why a 465 was used.

Did the derogation expire? Are the Persons of Reduced Mobility modifications solely related to disabled access toilets or are there other things as well?
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,468
Location
Glasgow
Are the Persons of Reduced Mobility modifications solely related to disabled access toilets or are there other things as well?
No, the PRM TSI requirements also cover access throughout the vehicle (widths of doors and aisles, force required to open manual doors, position of buttons, etc etc) for all passengers (not just wheelchair users), as well as accommodations for people with vision and/or hearing impairments.

There is a brief overview here:
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,349
Location
Taunton or Kent
A special derogation was given to the 466s which allowed them to work alone on the Bromley North line, so I'm not sure why a 465 was used.
My understanding was it was granted for a year, so expired in Dec 2020. When I last used the branch in August 2020 it was a 466, but passing through Grove Park more recenlty I've seen a 465 in the platform for the branch.

I believe there were problems with DOO operation for anything longer than a 2 car unit that led to 466s getting the one year derogation while the issue was sorted out, as literally no other passenger rolling stock was allowed to operate on the line.

I don't think the 466s have had their Persons of Reduced Mobility modifications done so they can no longer work on their lonesome - they have to be coupled to one or more 465s.
They had some changes made, including door buttons + sounds and changing the handles/handrails, but I can't recall anything else being done, presumably because fitting a new toilet and/or disabled seating area would have cost more time, money and physical space than was worth getting back just to keep single unit operations going.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top