Actually that map is odd in that it seems to show 701s running on the PDL to Milford but not beyond, which doesn't make any sense.
That map has been there for a few years now and isn't perfect. It cuts off at Milford which doesn't really make sense, so I assume that should either stretch all the way to Haslemere or be cut short at Guildford. Same goes for Farnborough. Not all of those routes will be exclusively 701 either; it is likely that routes like Alton to Waterloo and Farnham to Guildford which are 450 operated right now will remain that way for the most part.
701047 seen tonight at 17:30 nearest main line platforms (was on train to Salisbury)….
Thank you
Wasn't under SWRs original plan the 442s were to provide fast services with 2+2 seating on the PDL (which is the preferred seating by the long distance passengers on the PDL), with 450s released to provide some outer suburban semi fast services with 3+2 seating alongside the 701s on some routes. (Where outer suburban commuters will have the best chance of getting seats peaktimes).The basic plan can be covered as follows:
The Reading's and all inner sub network in it's entirety, ie: Guildford stoppers (all routes), Woking (stoppers), Windsor's, Waterloo Rounders (via Kingston and Brentford), Hampton Court's, Chessy's, Sheppy's, Epsom's, etc., all 701.
All other electric routes: 450/444.
Salisbury/Exeter: 159/158 (or whatever comes to replace them in due course?)
With all 701's in service, that was always (and still is AFAIK) the plan. That basic idea was part of the plan in SWT days, in that all Desiro work would be either outer sub or main line based (which also simplified maintenance regimes). It was only the DfT option/decision to finance the plan for 30 x 707 (instead of the 36 x 707) option, that left 3 x 8 car 450 on the Reading road.
But since CV19, I get the impression that the whole plan went out the window and a new set of rules/objectives now apply, to which I am not party to (and don't want to be either....)
Bold: forgot to include in OP. Sorry. But remainder still applies.
Nothing seems to have changed in last few weeks with charges at Rock Rail, so why SWR think they have 24 trains, but only 19 have registered charges is still not 100% clear
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
Thank you
rock rail addedNothing seems to have changed in last few weeks with charges at Rock Rail, so why SWR think they have 24 trains, but only 19 have registered charges is still not 100% clear
Not sure which units have moved to Marchwood, so don't know if it is SWR or Alsthom that are storing them there
Charges 2-4, 6-9, 11-22 cover following 19 units :
004, 006, 011, 012, 016, 017, 019, 023, 025, 029, 031, 032, 034, 035, 037, 042, 044, 047, 048
charges : 1 (general), 5 (simulators), 10 (spare parts) also exist, hence 22 charges, but only 19 trains.
ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC charges - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
Thanks for update, these weren't there 2 days ago
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
Been like that for a long time.
Interesting to see that the shorties are now following the 10 cars out and about a bit more.
It’s all very quiet internally so who even knows.
If DfT are having to pay leasing charges on top of existing fleet im sure pressure will be bought to bare on SWR to get the show on the road pronto
Does it not need to brought to bare on the manufacturer to get them to work, first?!
Not if they’re not accepted, they won’t be paying leasing charges.
Mixed messaging on that though with Rock Rail seemingly accepting the units as they've charged them as assets against the loans they have in place to purchase the units - why would they do that with Alstom if their customer doesn't want them? Suspect a lot is being suppressed in the background as Rock Rail is at risk of not being able to service its debts if its has no lease income and will have to declare itself insolvent. I find it pretty bizarre that none of the dozens of MPs across SWRs service area aren't kicking up a fuss. Perhaps they rather like their 455's!!
Well I guess it depends on contractual obligations between the manufacturer and the leasee. DFT may have had different acceptance than the ROSCO and was put into the contract. Hopefully!
Ours has bigger fish to fry, like the ULEZ expansion, the reductions in bus services in this part of London, and the reduction in service levels on some lines from 4tph to 2tph - despite off peak travel elsewhere now getting back to pre COVID levels, SWR seem to be trying to suppress demand by not restoring services to pre-COVID levels. As the 455s (and 707s) still work, and any extra costs of storing the 701s are not being paid for by local authorities (it is either SWR or national taxation) it is not yet a local issue.
What have local authories got to do with storing of units?
It's not so much SWR who are not restoring services, it's the Treasury that won't let them.
If this did happen, which hopefully it won't, would the administrators have to (in the interests of the creditors) freeze assets, including the 701s?
AND that makes me wonder what would happen about the 701s not yet built (if any) ?.If this did happen, which hopefully it won't, would the administrators have to (in the interests of the creditors) freeze assets, including the 701s?
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more farcical...
Nothing in this case. But it would be if e.g TfL or Merseyrail was the owner.
!