Class 710 LO

[Emblematic]

Yes, as a result it also seems odd to me that the trains into Euston have only longitudinal seats, whereas the S8, which continues around the inner circle, has some transverse ones

But no-one would use the Euston Overground service for the whole 50+ minutes journey from Watford, when LM do it in under half the time. Most passengers are just going a few stops to an interchange with faster services, including those very same S8 trains at Wembley. Some of the frequent (rather than theoretical) journeys on the Met are over an hour on one train.

 

[samuelmorris]

Yes, as a result it also seems odd to me that the trains into Euston have only longitudinal seats, whereas the S8, which continues around the inner circle, has some transverse ones

The S8 doesn't see much of the Circle, only from Baker Street to Aldgate - the rest is S7s i.e. fully longitudinal.

Also agreed, the furthest anyone is likely to use LO from Euston is Watford High Street, so 42 minutes. Possibly less than that in practice if they change and go back the other way. Generally speaking I think I've seen it discussed that 50 minutes or less is appropriate for longitudinal seating.

 

[AM9]

The S8 doesn't see much of the Circle, only from Baker Street to Aldgate - the rest is S7s i.e. fully longitudinal.

Also agreed, the furthest anyone is likely to use LO from Euston is Watford High Street, so 42 minutes. Possibly less than that in practice if they change and go back the other way. Generally speaking I think I've seen it discussed that 50 minutes or less is appropriate for longitudinal seating.

Which ties in with the outer reaches of the Central Line (West Ruislip/Epping to Holborn/Tottenham Court Road, and other line end to central London journeys.

 

[plcd1]

TfL are seeking authority to order 9 more Class 710 units to cover the Barking Riverside extension and also to allow a fleet shuffle to increase services on the East London Line to 20 tph.

A paper goes to the TfL Programmes and Investment Cttee next week.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20171013-agenda-item11.pdf

I haven't quoted the entire paper - just the relevent preferred option below. I trust the mods are content with this as the paper is several pages long.

Paper to next week's Programmes and Investment Cttee is seeking approval for extra class 710 EMUs. TfL want to order 9 more units to cover the extras needed for the Riverside Extension plus more to allow the ELL service to increase to 20 tph. There would be 3 extra 4 car units for GOBLIN and 6 5 car units for the NLL / WLL to release 378s to the ELL.

The order has to be placed by 26 Oct to ensure best price and leasing terms. The paper even talks about the trains being "spot hired" in the short term to other operators given they won't be needed immediately (assuming they turn up in 2019) or to use on a supplementary service on the WLL. Looks like TfL are bidding for extra funding to allow signalling and infrastructure improvements at Norwood Junction and elsewhere.

The preferred option in the paper involves some juggling of existing and new stock.

Do something - an option for nine additional trains would be exercised (six 5-car units and three 4-car units making 42 vehicles in total) to enable delivery of the ELL 20 tph and BRE services. One additional Class 315 train would be retained within the broader rolling stock fleet under this option to enable the provision of the planned service level. The steps required to deliver the enhanced services on the BRE and the ELL under this option are described below:

(i) the six additional 5-car units ordered would be used to deliver the NLL/WLL service, releasing six 5-car Class 378 units to deliver the enhanced service level of 20 tph on the ELL;

(ii) one of the additional 4-car units ordered would be used to deliver the Watford to Euston service. Another 4-car unit would be released for use on the same service by leasing an additional unit to run the Romford to Upminster service. A further two 5-car Class 378 units could then be released to deliver the enhanced service level of 20 tph on the ELL;

(iii) eight additional 5-car Class 378 units would therefore be released to the ELL, enabling the 20 tph service enhancement to be operated. This enhancement has to be run using Class 378 units due to the operational and safety constraints imposed by operation through the ELL Core; and

(iv)the remaining two additional 4-car units would be used to deliver the BRE service. The unit availability required under this option would be underpinned by the withdrawal of the additional peak service on the Gospel Oak to Barking route that is referred to above.

During the period prior to the introduction of the enhanced service on the ELL and the BRE the trains could be used on the WLL and potentially elsewhere on the network to help defray any sunk leasing or maintenance costs.

 

[astock5000]

According to that, two of the 4-cars will be for GOBLIN while the other, and a unit intended for Romford - Upminster (which will now have to be dual-voltage) will be for the DC line to release a further two 378s. I'm a bit confused by that as I had thought the plan was for all DC line services to be operated by 6 of the 14 dual voltage 710s already ordered (with the other 6 for GOBLIN and two spare - though both spares seem to always be stated as for GOBLIN and presumably all 14 would have been mixed in practice). I've probably missed something but I don't understand how this will free up a pair of 378s.

 

[samuelmorris]

I am struggling to understand this document.
Replacing six of the 378s on North/West London with 5-car 710s so that those units can add to the East London fleet makes sense, got that.
Two 4-car 710s added to the Goblin order for the Barking Riverside extension also makes sense.

The two 4-car 710s at Euston displacing two additional 378s though, I thought there were 6 4-car 710s displacing all of those units to East London already? Is the intention now to run 12 units on this line? (The 6 710s already announced + The 6 already there, two of which would now be 710s and the remaining four 378s). Is there either the platform space or diagramming space to have more trains in service or longer trains? It also seems a bit messy to have different classes of unit (therefore different lengths of train) operate the same service.

The document also refers to retaining a 315, but why? Apart from the idea of keeping one solitary 315 in service after all others are withdrawn being a fleet commonality nightmare, I can't see why it's needed.

 

[delticdave]

Well, there's 305s, 307s, 308s, 309s, 319s for starters...

I don't quite understand, the slam-door units were all quite old & probably had to be replaced & at least some of the 319s have or will be used elsewhere.
(307s built in 1956, 305s in 1959/60, 308s & 9s in '61/62.)

DC

 

[greatkingrat]

I am struggling to understand this document.
Replacing six of the 378s on North/West London with 5-car 710s so that those units can add to the East London fleet makes sense, got that.
Two 4-car 710s added to the Goblin order for the Barking Riverside extension also makes sense.

The two 4-car 710s at Euston displacing two additional 378s though, I thought there were 6 4-car 710s displacing all of those units to East London already? Is the intention now to run 12 units on this line? (The 6 710s already announced + The 6 already there, two of which would now be 710s and the remaining four 378s). Is there either the platform space or diagramming space to have more trains in service or longer trains? It also seems a bit messy to have different classes of unit (therefore different lengths of train) operate the same service.

The document also refers to retaining a 315, but why? Apart from the idea of keeping one solitary 315 in service after all others are withdrawn being a fleet commonality nightmare, I can't see why it's needed.

The document isn't very clear, but I believe the intention is to increase the DC line to 4tph which would require 8 units rather than the current 6. This could be done with 6x710 + 2x378, but by ordering the new trains they can keep the DC line all 710 and free up the 2 class 378s for somewhere else.

As for the class 315, I presume this is to operate Romford-Upminster?

 

[class387]

The document isn't very clear, but I believe the intention is to increase the DC line to 4tph which would require 8 units rather than the current 6. This could be done with 6x710 + 2x378, but by ordering the new trains they can keep the DC line all 710 and free up the 2 class 278s for somewhere else.

As for the class 315, I presume this is to operate Romford-Upminster?

Keeping just one 315 doesn't make sense. If only the 315s can run Romford to Upminster, what would happen if the 315 fails? It would be more sensible to have a LM 321/319 style microfleet, primarily for the branch but also available to strenghen other services or as spares. If the 710s can do Romford to Upminster then I don't see the point of keeping any.

 

[southern442]

Keeping just one 315 doesn't make sense. If only the 315s can run Romford to Upminster, what would happen if the 315 fails? It would be more sensible to have a LM 321/319 style microfleet, primarily for the branch but also available to strenghen other services or as spares. If the 710s can do Romford to Upminster then I don't see the point of keeping any.

Forgive me for verging off-topic slighty but surely it would make more sense to add on a train to the c2c new stock order and have c2c run the shuttle instead?

 

[cactustwirly]

Forgive me for verging off-topic slighty but surely it would make more sense to add on a train to the c2c new stock order and have c2c run the shuttle instead?

I don't think there's a connection at Upminster to the c2c mainline

 

[Kite159]

I don't think there's a connection at Upminster to the c2c mainline

Correct, there is currently no connection at the Upminster end. The line is basically a long siding

 

[317 forever]

Correct, there is currently no connection at the Upminster end. The line is basically a long siding

Given that LO Romford - Upminster and CrossRail Shenfield - Romford - London Liverpool Street (and soon beyond) are both TfL franchises meeting at Romford, I think Romford - Upminster should join CrossRail.

 

[class387]

Given that LO Romford - Upminster and CrossRail Shenfield - Romford - London Liverpool Street (and soon beyond) are both TfL franchises meeting at Romford, I think Romford - Upminster should join CrossRail.

But then MTR Crossrail would have to order a 3-car 345 just so that they can run the line.

 

[southern442]

But then MTR Crossrail would have to order a 3-car 345 just so that they can run the line.

My initial thinking of c2c running the line was because of problems with a microfleet and/or the operational problem of having to keep one unit separated and far away from all the others. It's just a bit of a bummer that there's no LTS connection

 

[class387]

My initial thinking of c2c running the line was because of problems with a microfleet and/or the operational problem of having to keep one unit separated and far away from all the others. It's just a bit of a bummer that there's no LTS connection

I don't think there is a problem with LO running it, just that the idea af keeping one 315 is a bit ridiculous. Even a Renatus 321 or something would make more sense.

 

[prod_pep]

The wording implies that they plan to retain more than one 315: "One additional Class 315 train would be retained within the broader rolling stock fleet under this option to enable the provision of the planned service level." This sounds like keeping an extra 315 on top of what is already planned to be retained.

 

[class387]

The wording implies that they plan to retain more than one 315: "One additional Class 315 train would be retained within the broader rolling stock fleet under this option to enable the provision of the planned service level." This sounds like keeping an extra 315 on top of what is already planned to be retained.

What is actually already planned to be retained?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Somehow I doubt these will be in service before June...

 

[XCTurbostar]

Would a 4 car 360 be suitable for the Romford - Upminster Line?

Thanks,
Ross

 

[D365]

Would a 4 car 360 be suitable for the Romford - Upminster Line?

What would that solve? Exactly the same microfleet problem once the Class 720s are bought in.

 

[Wivenswold]

I'm no expert but the 315s are probably easy to maintain in warm storage than most modern units, TfL may even have their eyes set on a few renatus units.

 

[samuelmorris]

I'm no expert but the 315s are probably easy to maintain in warm storage than most modern units, TfL may even have their eyes set on a few renatus units.

I doubt that somehow, plug sockets and disabled toilets aren't really TfL specification units. I imagine they'd get a lower lease price to take one of the existing units. Realistically, the 315s are the most suitable to keep behind.

 

[Mikey C]

It's a bit of a Mickey Mouse branch line anyway, as long as the maintenance costs of keeping an old and unique fleet of Class 315s isn't too much of an issue, they seem well suited.

It can be a Pep heritage line

 

[XCTurbostar]

A unit was on test today at Derby - 4th November. These look so much better than the crossrail units.

 

[class387]

A unit was on test today at Derby - 4th November. These look so much better than the crossrail units.

These do look beautiful - it's suprising what difference a little black paint can do. Is the interior fitted?

 

[jopsuk]

Seeing that I sort of wish Crossrail had gone for the same livery, but purple

 

[ert47]

Im not sure about the orange front (im still too used to Yellow) - the Tango catchphrase springs to mind for some reason!

 

[Domh245]

If I am allowed to nitpick however, the fact that the interior of the light surround is still orange looks a bit rubbish. I think they'd also benefit from a strip of white above the windows (making the black a window band) as per the 378s, unless of course this is applied later as a vinyl, as I note that it is still devoid of the orange strip along the top of the blue bit.

Also interesting to see just how large the cab bulkhead appears to be, based on the distance between the window and the cab door, something that is masked quite well on the 345s.

 

[47802]

This paint scheme suits the front end much better it also looks to me as though the cab side window has been changed less angled at the bottom than the cross rail units.