SWR had business case to replace everything. Southeastern don’t at the moment so are taking what is availableA sensible short term measure, Southeastern needs more capacity urgently and the 707s are the obvious short term solution
It does look slightly inconsistent though, with the 707s being rejected by SWR due to issues like this and the poor acceleration (and which then gets a common fleet to replace a range of units) but then get passed over to another franchise
It does look slightly inconsistent though, with the 707s being rejected by SWR due to issues like this and the poor acceleration (and which then gets a common fleet to replace a range of units) but then get passed over to another franchise
I’m truly astonished that Rail would be considered a reliable source. Not known as “Liar” for nothing!I've always thought RAIL was a reliable source, although I'd trust Today's Railways more than this.
I’d like to see the evidence that “poor acceleration” was a factor in First MTR deciding not to keep them. They were designed to meet the existing inner suburban performance, and SWR staff have posted before that performance is OK.A sensible short term measure, Southeastern needs more capacity urgently and the 707s are the obvious short term solution
It does look slightly inconsistent though, with the 707s being rejected by SWR due to issues like this and the poor acceleration (and which then gets a common fleet to replace a range of units) but then get passed over to another franchise
Ah, ok. But then I'm confused. I thought there was a problem with running trains without toilets on the Hayes line. How can they continue running trains without toilets on longer routes, e.g. Charing Cross to Orpington?
Quite, and the transfer to using them to Shepperton from the December timetable change was because of their superior performance to the rest of the fleet.I’d like to see the evidence that “poor acceleration” was a factor in First MTR deciding not to keep them. They were designed to meet the existing inner suburban performance, and SWR staff have posted before that performance is OK.
Yes, they are underpowered with respect to 700s, but the latter had a different specification requirement for degraded operation with only half the train powered up.
What makes you think there's a problem with running trains without toilets on the Hayes line? 376's have run the route from introduction
Maybe I'm getting confused with disability access?
With the 707s arriving that will be far more 2car 466s than SE can actually use and they aren't fully PRM'd.376s don't have toilets.
There are 30 total 707s (150 vehicles) - there are a total of 147 465s built and 43 466s but it's worth noting that there are 150 vehicles between the 465/2 and 466 fleet - both of which are owned by Angel, who happen to also own the 707s. But that's speculation as there's nothing officially confirming this, let alone what routes they'll be working or any other details
One backed by the DfT I'd suggest!
No huge barriers to 12 car Hayes services apart for lack of stock making it a bit chicken and egg!Maybe 12 car services? They cannot run on Hayes and Woolwich lines I believe, nor rounders or use some CX platforms.
More 10 car trains via 707 is good but doesn't address the 12 car issue and utilising platforms such as Woolwich Dockyard and Charing Cross.
Great news about the 707s going to Southeastern. As there is talk of new trains replacing the Networker fleet also possibly the older Electrostars so the 707s could be a temporary measure that they probably need a more permanent home in the future if it is not with Southeastern.
Before this announcement I believed the 707s may go to Southern for the 455 operated routes or coastway services, with upgraded interiors, replacing the 313s.
No huge barriers to 12 car Hayes services apart for lack of stock making it a bit chicken and egg!
plenty of networker services could be run longer than they are now.
The acceleration on a 707 is hardly 'poor'.A sensible short term measure, Southeastern needs more capacity urgently and the 707s are the obvious short term solution
It does look slightly inconsistent though, with the 707s being rejected by SWR due to issues like this and the poor acceleration (and which then gets a common fleet to replace a range of units) but then get passed over to another franchise
They Hayes line sees a 12 car 465 once a day currently, the entire metro except for Woolwich Dockyard can take a 12 car.I'm not sure if every station on the Hayes line can accommodate 12-car trains
They Hayes line sees a 12 car 465 once a day currently, the entire metro except for Woolwich Dockyard can take a 12 car.
Was referring to the London Bridge Metro, The Victoria side stuff is irrelevant given 707s wont being going near it!Chatham mainline is 8, so is the Catford Loop.
ive heard they are being used for Victoria-Bromley/Orpington runs and Victoria-Gravesend runsWas referring to the London Bridge Metro, The Victoria side stuff is irrelevant given 707s wont being going near it!
ive heard they are being used for VIC-BMS/ORP runs and VIC-GRV runs
that seems a lot more sensible, quicker introduction into serviceThese would be nice, self-contained diagrams and as mentioned upthread, some Orpy drivers sign them
IF there's siding space, surely it would make sense to keep all the 465s, and just use them less intensively? Part of the reason they look so tired is the hard life they've had.With the 707s arriving that will be far more 2car 466s than SE can actually use and they aren't fully PRM'd.
Soem 4car 465 could also be displaced but probably more than could be use to lengthen services all the possible Networker services to 12 car so some 465s being displaced is probably on the cards might help. I wouldn't expect 150car to leave...
The /2s and 466s have the worst reliability in the networker fleet