New SWT stock order.

[Rational Plan]

According to Modern Rail, SWT is looking at ordering another 100 carriages to cover platform lengthening for trains towards Reading and along the main line, where a timetable for platform lengthening has been agreed.

 

[jopsuk]

I wonder, with the 350 orders for LM/TPE, whether they're able to get additional 450s? Would be best for compatability.

In number, that sounds rather close to the number of carriages that got turned into the original class 350/1 order (120 carriages)- I wonder if the 100 will be 25x4 car or 20x5 car?

 

[Surreyman]

I wonder, with the 350 orders for LM/TPE, whether they're able to get additional 450s? Would be best for compatability.

In number, that sounds rather close to the number of carriages that got turned into the original class 350/1 order (120 carriages)- I wonder if the 100 will be 25x4 car or 20x5 car?

A better idea would be to order new trains for Gatwick Express and cascade the 442s back to SWT, then cascade 450s.

 

[Matt Taylor]

The mainline platform lengthening is for the routes currently operated by 455s which are to be supplemented by the transfer of 456s from SN. A new order for more 450s is badly needed to cater for current peak demand and off peak growth but it would surely be cheaper to give back the 442s and just build more 377s as suggested earlier. This would allow the 450s to concentrate on outer suburban work and allow the Portsmouth line to go back to 444 or 442 operation.

 

[tbtc]

In number, that sounds rather close to the number of carriages that got turned into the original class 350/1 order (120 carriages)

Excuse my ignorance, but what did SWT "gain" (if anything) when part of the 450 order was diverted to the Euston - Northampton corridor?

 

[jopsuk]

At the time, were the 458s sitting out of use? Or does that not match up? I think a big part of the answer is "nothing"- with services as a resulkt formed of less carriages than desired and the platform lengthening pushed back. Most of that order was supposed to be for HC-configuration 5 car units.

 

[317666]

Excuse my ignorance, but what did SWT "gain" (if anything) when part of the 450 order was diverted to the Euston - Northampton corridor?

They didn't, the order had to be cancelled because the SRA said no to them having 5/10-car trains as the platform extension work etc. would be too costly. Funnily enough, ten years later...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Going slightly off-topic for a moment, what's the current status of the 458/460 merger? Porterbrook initially had 'Spring 2013' as a release date for the first rebuilt sets, so presumably some are currently being worked on. Is there enough slack in SWT's fleet to cover this or are some services running short-formed?

 

[wintonian]

This would allow the 450s to concentrate on outer suburban work and allow the Portsmouth line to go back to 444 or 442 operation.

Much to the delight of the picky Portsmouth commuters.who would rather we suffered with their nasty uncomfortable trains. :-x

 

[fgwrich]

Much to the delight of the picky Portsmouth commuters.who would rather we suffered with their nasty uncomfortable trains. :-x

To be fair, as much as i'd love to see a return of the 442s - I can't see it. And since Southern touched them with their awful Gat Ex refurbishment, there not the same as they used to be. Mind you, there interior layout would probably be prefered (without the compartments) these days.

 

[jopsuk]

Going slightly off-topic for a moment, what's the current status of the 458/460 merger? Porterbrook initially had 'Spring 2013' as a release date for the first rebuilt sets, so presumably some are currently being worked on. Is there enough slack in SWT's fleet to cover this or are some services running short-formed?

I'd guess first out will be the sets formed entirely of ex 460 vehicles?

 

[sprinterguy]

I'd guess first out will be the sets formed entirely of ex 460 vehicles?

I believe that to be the case. 460004 has been at Wabtec Doncaster since round about September/October time.

Introducing the converted 460s first will give South West Trains six additional trains to cover services while the 458s are lengthened with the remaining 460 vehicles.

 

[corfield]

AFAIK, the 450s mostly run in 8 car formations, so this could be a lengthening of sets to 5 car. There are 127 450s, of which 99 are in the 450/1 original config, so the 100 new vehicles could be to extend all those to 5 car ?

Although since the other 28 are the High Density config logically it would be those services that would go to 10 car ops first ?

Given Southern operate 12 car Electrostars, I assume loadings on SWT are lower such that going upto 10 is sufficient growth ?, or will we see further in future? I guess what I'm getting at is that a bunch of extra 4 car sets would permit easier/more flexible 12 car formations in future rather than starting from a bunch of 5 car sets (and presumably going to 6 car sets).

[In peak max effort this is, I assume smaller off peak]


If the Scotrail 110/125mph EMU goes ahead, which logically would be a "384/5" based on the newer 380, could SWT benefit from some additional AC IC types (once some wiring is up) ? A large order to cover Scotrail, SWT, TPE and perhaps also XC could be a goer?

 

[bronzeonion]

a better idea would be to order new trains for gatwick express and cascade the 442s back to swt, then cascade 450s.

+1 !!!!!!

 

[jopsuk]

SWT do run quite a few 12x450 formations. The 450/5s will be reverted to 450/1s when the 458s are converted.

 

[TEW]

The majority of peak services on the mainline are 12 carriage 450s or 10 carriage 444s, the maximum possible. The article also mentioned the possibility of platform extensions to allow 16 carriage trains on the mainline in the long term.

 

[swt_passenger]

At the time, were the 458s sitting out of use? Or does that not match up? I think a big part of the answer is "nothing"- with services as a resulkt formed of less carriages than desired and the platform lengthening pushed back. Most of that order was supposed to be for HC-configuration 5 car units.

Originally they should have had 100 x 4 car 450/0 and the 32 x 5 car 450/2s that turned into 110 four car 450 for SWT and 30 x 4 car 350 for Central/Silverlink, using the same total number of vehicles, although more cabs were needed.

At the start of the 2007 franchise SWT were also allowed a small growth order (that received relatively little publicity) of a further 17 x 4 car 450s - that took the 450 fleet to 127 units, almost the 132 originally asked for, but all 4 car.

IIRC the decision to off lease the 442s, was made possible by the decision to keep the 458s, and this decision actually had nothing to do with 450 availability as such, it was because they wanted an overall increase in the ratio of trains with 2+3 seating.

Whenver it is suggested in this forum that SWT should take the 442s back, the author almost invariably ignores the different seating capacity of a 12.450 over a 10.442, and that's the reason it won't happen.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The majority of peak services on the mainline are 12 carriage 450s or 10 carriage 444s, the maximum possible. The article also mentioned the possibility of platform extensions to allow 16 carriage trains on the mainline in the long term.

The 16 car bit in that article is quite surprising, because a number of NR publications such as the London and SE RUS (option F3) reckon that isn't going to happen:

Detailed analysis has indicated that only a limited number of 16-car trains would be viable, even with major infrastructure works in the Clapham Junction area for a grade-separated junction from the main SWML tracks into the former London Waterloo International Platforms. The additional capacity provided would therefore be insufficient to resolve the gap.
This option is therefore not recommended due to high cost and not providing sufficient additional capacity.

 

[TEW]

IIRC the decision to off lease the 442s, was made possible by the decision to keep the 458s, and this decision actually had nothing to do with 450 availability as such, it was because they wanted an overall increase in the ratio of trains with 2+3 seating.

Whenver it is suggested in this forum that SWT should take the 442s back, the author almost invariably ignores the different seating capacity of a 12.450 over a 10.442, and that's the reason it won't happen.

It was also about money. SWT were able to get a very cheap lease on the 458s because they were sat idle and had a bad reliability record. The lease for the 442s would have been more expensive. SWT chose to lease the 458s rather than the 442s which led to the cascade of 450s from Reading to Portsmouth services and 444s from Portsmouth to Weymouth services. The capacity argument is of course flawed because the 3+2 seating in 450s just isn't fully used because it would be so uncomfortable. With 2+2 seating not only is it more likely to be fully occupied but the wider aisles also allow for more standing room.

 

[455driver]

The capacity argument is of course flawed because the 3+2 seating in 450s just isn't fully used because it would be so uncomfortable. With 2+2 seating not only is it more likely to be fully occupied but the wider aisles also allow for more standing room.

Your argument is flawed because the Government/DaFT dictate that the TOCs will supply xxx(number) of seats between <a station> and Waterloo between 0700-0900 etc, this can only be accomplished by using the 3+2 seated 450s in 12 coach rakes, it would be impossible to do it using 444 or 442s.

Of course a 444 is better than a 450 but would you rather stand on a 444 or sit on a 450, that is what would happen to several hundred people if the stock was changed, the 3+2 seats are normally all filled between Guildford/ Woking and Waterloo.

 

[pemma]

Given there's a long term need for SWT to have AC stock following Southampton switching to AC would the extra carriages result in some 450s becoming dual voltage 350s?

 

[TEW]

Your argument is flawed because the Government/DaFT dictate that the TOCs will supply xxx(number) of seats between <a station> and Waterloo between 0700-0900 etc, this can only be accomplished by using the 3+2 seated 450s in 12 coach rakes, it would be impossible to do it using 444 or 442s.

Of course a 444 is better than a 450 but would you rather stand on a 444 or sit on a 450, that is what would happen to several hundred people if the stock was changed, the 3+2 seats are normally all filled between Guildford/ Woking and Waterloo.

The government specifies it, but everyone knows it's a load of rubbish, it should be specified in a different way. Whenever I'm on a peak train in to or out of London the 3+2 seating is underused, with people preferring to stand in the vestibules. Fitting 6 even small people in a bay of 6 is uncomfortable. At off-peak times the 450s are fine, if there is plenty of room they are perfectly comfortable. 598 standard class seats in a 10-44 and 699 in a 12-450. All those odd seats unoccupied add up, so the difference in capacity between the two isn't that great.

 

[D365]

Given there's a long term need for SWT to have AC stock following Southampton switching to AC would the extra carriages result in some 450s becoming dual voltage 350s?

Extra vehicles won't influence 450 DV conversion, all that is needed is OHLE equipment. Just noticed, if SW units were renumbered directly to 350, they would conflict with existing Midland 350/1 units... Would have to be moved to a different subclass.

 

[455driver]

Why would they renumber them?

A lot of aggro for zero gain.

 

[jopsuk]

Aye, given the 376s don't have pantographs, Class 70s are diesel, Thameslink will be 700 and IEP appears to be going for 800/801 according to Network Rail recently, the systematic approach to class numbering seems to be dead...

 

[Manchester77]

Aye, given the 376s don't have pantographs, Class 70s are diesel, Thameslink will be 700 and IEP appears to be going for 800/801 according to Network Rail recently, the systematic approach to class numbering seems to be dead...

Post privatisation TOPS seems to have gone a bit haywire! Electrostars covering most of the 37Xs wiphich were used for high speed EMUs under BR (370,373s)
I have wondered what will happen when TOPS becomes full...

 

[wintonian]

To be fair, as much as i'd love to see a return of the 442s - I can't see it. And since Southern touched them with their awful Gat Ex refurbishment, there not the same as they used to be. Mind you, there interior layout would probably be prefered (without the compartments) these days.

Of course the real reason they don't want 450's is because we over at the other (perceived as better by some) end of the county have nice 2+2 1+2 seating where as they have to put up with 3+2 2+2 and I'm sure half of them would rather stand if it meet they could have better (or what they see as better) trains than us. If we had Pendolinos they would want them ,mind you it's funny how they don't seem to complain about the lack of Voyagers over there.

 

[The Ham]

As a slight aside the capacity per coach on a 444 and a 450 is virtually the same:

As a comparison the 20m class 450 (with 3+2 seating and 1/3 of a coach for first class) have an average 66 seats per coach, whilst the 23m class 444 (with 2+2 seating with 1 whole coach for first class) have an average of 66.8 seats per coach. There are of course other differences between the two, like the 444 has more cycle spaces (none of which take up seating space) which should mean that the number of seats would be lower.

 

[jopsuk]

I have wondered what will happen when TOPS becomes full...

As long as there's none left running, there's no problem with reusing numbers as I understand it.

However a comprehensive renumbering in a more systematic fashion would make sense for anyone a bit obsssed with neatness
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As a slight aside the capacity per coach on a 444 and a 450 is virtually the same:

Capacity per coach may be the same, but a 12-car 450 is only ten metres longer (half a carriage) than a 10-car 444.

 

[bronzeonion]

I agree with TEW here, with the UK loading gauge, 3+2 seating is just not right and I would definitely rather stand on a train than squeeze in between or be squashed against the wall on a 3+2 train.

 

[pemma]

Extra vehicles won't influence 450 DV conversion, all that is needed is OHLE equipment. Just noticed, if SW units were renumbered directly to 350, they would conflict with existing Midland 350/1 units... Would have to be moved to a different subclass.

Unless I'm mistaken converting some of the 450s to dual voltage is something that'll need doing anyway, so wouldn't it make sense to do it at the same time as an additional order of carriages.