New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[HarleyDavidson]

Without a nose end door, this could spell chaos, especially if you get 2x5 cars and some numpty operates a passcom or egress between Clapham & Waterloo, with no easy way to get through it'll mean line blocks and even more delays, anyone who designs commuter trains like this should be taken to the nearest firing range and shot.

 

[3141]

Or even a "peek". And if it's official, what sneaky about it?

 

[Goldfish62]

Or even a "peek". And if it's official, what sneaky about it?

Indeed. It's been in the public domain for months.

 

[randompixel]

Without a nose end door, this could spell chaos, especially if you get 2x5 cars and some numpty operates a passcom or egress between Clapham & Waterloo, with no easy way to get through it'll mean line blocks and even more delays, anyone who designs commuter trains like this should be taken to the nearest firing range and shot.

So technically, if these went DOO you could be in the back 5 coaches and no staff could get to you without hopping down onto the tracks?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Without a nose end door, this could spell chaos, especially if you get 2x5 cars and some numpty operates a passcom or egress between Clapham & Waterloo, with no easy way to get through it'll mean line blocks and even more delays, anyone who designs commuter trains like this should be taken to the nearest firing range and shot.

Would they have been better off ordering 10 or 12 car units?

 

[TheManBehind]

So technically, if these went DOO you could be in the back 5 coaches and no staff could get to you without hopping down onto the tracks?

No different to an 8-car formed of 455-456-456, or a 707 10-car arriving at Chertsey, or a 456+456 on the Ascot line where the guard is in the front unit checking tickets. All these situations are managed with crews going lineside (which, ultimately, they are trained to do safely), and will continue to do so even if SWR went DOO (which by all accounts they don't actually plan to unless the service is entirely up the spout, and at 80% full crew working so far would see extremely little need to when it came to it).

 

[Monty]

Would they have been better off ordering 10 or 12 car units?

I assume they need the 5 cars for a number of services that will still join/divide at certain times of the day. Even so the new units ordered for the LM franchise have end unit gangways so there is no reason why the 5 car units for SWR couldn't.

 

[TEW]

No different to an 8-car formed of 455-456-456, or a 707 10-car arriving at Chertsey, or a 456+456 on the Ascot line where the guard is in the front unit checking tickets. All these situations are managed with crews going lineside (which, ultimately, they are trained to do safely), and will continue to do so even if SWR went DOO (which by all accounts they don't actually plan to unless the service is entirely up the spout, and at 80% full crew working so far would see extremely little need to when it came to it).

455+456+456 formations finish in December. Chertsey has had platform extensions so now takes a 10-car 707, there are no platforms shorter than 6 coaches in length now. 456+456 formations on the Ascot line should be finished by the end of the month.

 

[Kite159]

455+456+456 formations finish in December. Chertsey has had platform extensions so now takes a 10-car 707, there are no platforms shorter than 6 coaches in length now. 456+456 formations on the Ascot line should be finished by the end of the month.

However isn't there a plan to involve more 455+455+456 formations making use of the extended platforms at Waterloo?

 

[TEW]

However isn't there a plan to involve more 455+455+456 formations making use of the extended platforms at Waterloo?

There are. But it possible for such a formation to have a member of staff in each portion, unlike the other examples given.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would they have been better off ordering 10 or 12 car units?

Bit daft to order 12 car units for the "all 10 car" inner suburban and Reading line infrastructure that has just been finished?

 

[swt_passenger]

So technically, if these went DOO you could be in the back 5 coaches and no staff could get to you without hopping down onto the tracks?

No different to the situation on a number of other TOCs already operating non-gangwayed units in multiple with DOO.

 

[Goldfish62]

No different to the situation on a number of other TOCs already operating non-gangwayed units in multiple with DOO.

C2C, ScotRail, Southeastern, Southern, Great Northern, GWR, Chiltern, Greater Anglia, London Overground.

 

[3141]

C2C, ScotRail, Southeastern, Southern, Great Northern, GWR, Chiltern, Greater Anglia, London Overground.

And that illustrates a point which is frequently, but quite unnecessarily, controversial. There might be a problem with non-gangwayed units operating in DOO, but it's apparently so infrequent that they actually operate entirely satisfactorily. Therefore there is no need either for the extra expense of providing gangways, unless the TOC that will use the units wants them, or for the limitations to the driver's view that they may cause. But people find it very hard to make that sort of assessment, and instead they say "But there might one day be a problem, so we must make this provision, even though it's almost never needed, just so that it will be available." A comparable example is the additional clearance for 25kv OHLE installations. I could give a further example, but I'll refrain.

 

[samuelmorris]

Indeed, this is my thought on the matter too. Many of the services I most commonly use during peak times are 321s or 357s, non-gangwayed units operating in DOO, in the case of the former, even when in 12-car formation. No gangway gives the driver a better view, the train a better aerodynamic profile, less technically to go wrong (as evidenced by the 458/0 issues) and in practice is a minor annoyance at most. Never mind the fact that all too often nowadays fixed-formation units are being specified rendering the issue void - SWR a prime example.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Indeed, this is my thought on the matter too. Many of the services I most commonly use during peak times are 321s or 357s, non-gangwayed units operating in DOO, in the case of the former, even when in 12-car formation. No gangway gives the driver a better view, the train a better aerodynamic profile, less technically to go wrong (as evidenced by the 458/0 issues) and in practice is a minor annoyance at most. Never mind the fact that all too often nowadays fixed-formation units are being specified rendering the issue void - SWR a prime example.

I've had experience of 170s which I think have the one of the best views going, shame that the rest of the train underneath is so rubbish (to put it politely), but even they had their foibles when coupling & uncoupling to a 15x unit!

458's in their original guise were a right PITA and they were always going wrong, even when they were 4 cars, they still have issues when coupling up today as 5 cars, so the argument of not having or having a gangway making the difference doesn't really stand up there I'm afraid.

Desiros are generally very good when it comes to coupling & uncoupling, like the old stuff with buckeyes & tightlocks, you can get the odd one or two which won't couple up and it doesn't help when you don't notice the kamikaze pigeon or pheasant in the knuckle hole when you go to couple up and subsequently gets turned into mulch when you try, but if they don't or won't couple up, especially at the principal locations where it's done on a regular basis, just call a fitter or "phone a friend" and do what they say.

 

[Kite159]

I've had experience of 170s which I think have the one of the best views going, shame that the rest of the train underneath is so rubbish (to put it politely), but even they had their foibles when coupling & uncoupling to a 15x unit!

458's in their original guise were a right PITA and they were always going wrong, even when they were 4 cars, they still have issues when coupling up today as 5 cars, so the argument of not having or having a gangway making the difference doesn't really stand up there I'm afraid.

Desiros are generally very good when it comes to coupling & uncoupling, like the old stuff with buckeyes & tightlocks, you can get the odd one or two which won't couple up and it doesn't help when you don't notice the kamikaze pigeon or pheasant in the knuckle hole when you go to couple up and subsequently gets turned into mulch when you try, but if they don't or won't couple up, especially at the principal locations where it's done on a regular basis, just call a fitter or "phone a friend" and do what they say.

What do the drivers think of the 707s, in terms of driving position being in the centre of the train giving a better view compared to gangway stock? The cabs look a lot less cramped when you see them at Waterloo

 

[HarleyDavidson]

You'll have to ask someone who's trained on them, our depot hasn't been & isn't being trained on them.

I guess I'm the only one who's experienced this sort of view at my place.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

So all Ascot Guildford services soon to be all 450?

 

[TEW]

So all Ascot Guildford services soon to be all 450?

Should be by the end of the month.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Not he doesn't says which month though!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Just to let you know I have created a thread called “Class 701 Discussion” in the Traction and Rolling Stock Forum for any comments related to the SWR 701 - after all there is a 707 discussion! A link is here.

 

[superalbs]

Looks like the Class 444s are soon to be ruined with...2+3 seating!?
https://southwesttrains-newsroom.pr...nts-siemens-for-train-refurbishment-programme

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looks like the Class 444s are soon to be ruined with...2+3 seating!?
https://southwesttrains-newsroom.pr...nts-siemens-for-train-refurbishment-programme

At 2.68m wide (the narrowest stock in UK mainline service, common with the 185) there is no chance of doing that, they are simply too narrow. If you look, the picture is a zoomed version of the 450 interior picture. Almost certainly an error.

 

[James0804]

They've said on twitter it is an error.

 

[Dougal2345]

[Re:444] At 2.68m wide (the narrowest stock in UK mainline service, common with the 185) there is no chance of doing that, they are simply too narrow.

That really surprises me actually - of the five types of train I travel in fairly regularly (444, 450, Electrostar, Voyager, 158) the 444s seem much the most spacious width-wise... I wonder if that's just an optical illusion caused by the lighting, or ceiling height, or maybe the fact that the walls are (or seem to be) vertical and not sloping...

 

[swt_passenger]

That really surprises me actually - of the five types of train I travel in fairly regularly (444, 450, Electrostar, Voyager, 158) the 444s seem much the most spacious width-wise... I wonder if that's just an optical illusion caused by the lighting, or ceiling height, or maybe the fact that the walls are (or seem to be) vertical and not sloping...

If next time you see a 444 and 450 in proximity compare the width of the step boards. The 444 is significantly further away from the platform - and its narrow overall width can be confirmed on the carriage end data panels.
I'd agree they feel wider when you are in one though.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Saw 458515 with the new branding last night, unfortunately the colours don't quite match.https://www.flickr.com/photos/40172673@N03/38357365226/in/dateposted-friend/

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Saw 458515 with the new branding last night, unfortunately the colours don't quite match.https://www.flickr.com/photos/40172673@N03/38357365226/in/dateposted-friend/

Oh my god what a mess that train is!!!

Good quality photo though.

 

[SWT_USER]

Saw 458515 with the new branding last night, unfortunately the colours don't quite match.https://www.flickr.com/photos/40172673@N03/38357365226/in/dateposted-friend/

that is awful! Some marketing bod will be tearing their hair out, branding is everything!