New SWT stock order.

[D365]

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.

Extra carriages are not needed to add OHLE pickup. All that is needed is a pantograph and related electric equipment. 450/350/360 classes are identical mechanically and are capable of 25kV AC and 750v DC.

TOPs won't fill up for a while yet.

 

[Class377/5]

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:

Funny what comes out when you merge the TOC with NR. Seems they both understand. However signalling work as well as platform extensions allow was costed nearer £1bn. Not cheap and the loss of capacity as units take long to cross points.

Extra carriages are not needed to add OHLE pickup. All that is needed is a pantograph and related electric equipment. 450/350/360 classes are identical mechanically and are capable of 25kV AC and 750v DC.

TOPs won't fill up for a while yet.

You misunderstand. 100 carriages are be looked at to be ordered. The carriages are simply that as we don't know (sorry my MR not come as not seen article yet) what length the carriages in so to suggest the extra carriages are in part needed for AC converastion could be correct. We simply don't know for sure yet.

 

[jopsuk]

At some (for now, far flung) point the South Western division is going to need to replace 412 carriages (91 455s plus the 24 456s they'll be getting) with something that'll run AC, as wires WILL come to Waterloo eventually. Of course, part of that may be taken up, in the time frame required, by Crossrail 2, if it happens and if it takes South Western services.

 

[Lrd]

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.

I'm guessing all the Desiro's will need converting to dual voltage if they are likely to be going home to Northam every now and then.

 

[Minstral25]

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

Even better idea - scrap the Gatwick Express - Empty trains running on an overcrowded line!!

Gatwick Connect - VIC - CLJ - ECR - GAT using 12 coach 377's every 15 minutes

Then the 442's could be split between Brighton Expresses and SWT - allow Portsmouth to have more 2+2 trains

 

[GatwickDepress]

Even better idea - scrap the Gatwick Express - Empty trains running on an overcrowded line!!

Gatwick Connect - VIC - CLJ - ECR - GAT using 12 coach 377's every 15 minutes

Then the 442's could be split between Brighton Expresses and SWT - allow Portsmouth to have more 2+2 trains

12 coach? If empty trains are running, wouldn't 4 or 6 car formations make more economical sense, especially during off-peak hours.

I agree with splitting them between TOCs though, they really seem to earn their bread on the Portsmouth and Brighton lines. Get Southern to tart the livery up, give the Brighton Expresses a fancy name like the "Southern Belle" or "Brighton Flyer", and promote it like hell.

 

[krus_aragon]

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...

They're now planning to allocate the 6XX,7XX,8XX ranges for DMU, EMU and high speed units. See page 18 of this document. That'll keep things going for a while yet.

 

[jopsuk]

One thing that document does demonstrate is the tidy way that the existing TOPS number have been able to be neatly dropped into the pan-European numbering system.

 

[swt_passenger]

12 coach?
I agree with splitting them between TOCs though, they really seem to earn their bread on the Portsmouth and Brighton lines. Get Southern to tart the livery up, give the Brighton Expresses a fancy name like the "Southern Belle" or "Brighton Flyer", and promote it like hell.

There aren't really enough to share them between two lines. 24 units, which is about 20 in service, only allows for 10 diagrams, assuming you still want 10 car trains?

Still doesn't get over the DfT's seat number requirements for the Portsmouth direct either, as noted above. (Whether people prefer 2+2 or 2+3 is irrelevant to the decision makers, unfortunately.)

 

[Minstral25]

12 coach? If empty trains are running, wouldn't 4 or 6 car formations make more economical sense, especially during off-peak hours.

I agree with splitting them between TOCs though, they really seem to earn their bread on the Portsmouth and Brighton lines. Get Southern to tart the livery up, give the Brighton Expresses a fancy name like the "Southern Belle" or "Brighton Flyer", and promote it like hell.

They won't be empty between Victoria and East Croydon as they will be stopping at these stations. The Airport service becomes an add on to a much needed commuter relief on the section.

Currently the longer distance outer-suburban trains are totally rammed all through the day on this section (not just peak - especially after 9pm when trains are rarer and shorter but Gat-Ex still runs every 15 minutes), which means at Clapham Junction you sometimes cannot get on your train for stations past East Croydon due to Severe overcrowding part of which is caused by passengers for East Croydon from Victoria.

Hence the proposal to add an extra 4 12-car trains an hour to Victoria, Clapham Junction and East Croydon and then on to Gatwick. It means there is still an Airport service every 15 minutes but it takes 6 minutes longer and can be a bit crowded ex-Victoria but fine on arrival at Gatwick for airport passengers - plus airport passengers for ECR and CLJ don't have to use the local services

Win win all round

 

[ushawk]

Even better idea - scrap the Gatwick Express - Empty trains running on an overcrowded line!!

Gatwick Connect - VIC - CLJ - ECR - GAT using 12 coach 377's every 15 minutes

Then the 442's could be split between Brighton Expresses and SWT - allow Portsmouth to have more 2+2 trains

You may as well keep the GatEx and stop it at Clapham and Croydon, though then it would take the same amount of time so it may as well be integrated into Southern and rebranded the "Gatwick Flyer" and remove the silly fares.

I assume you would want to order extra 377s as well as there certainly won't be enough at present, even when FCC give Southern theirs and when the new order comes through !!

 

[starrymarkb]

One thing that document does demonstrate is the tidy way that the existing TOPS number have been able to be neatly dropped into the pan-European numbering system.

And still will be able to. UIC numbers are

XX-YY-ZZZZZZZ-C

XX = Type code (Loco/Unit/Waggon etc)
YY = Country Code
ZZZZZZZZ = Vehicle/unit number - freely assigned by National authorities (there are more digits then UK numbers)
C = Check Digit

I'd be interested to see what the UIC numbers on the new E320s are... Or even which country they are registered to...

The Swiss had a far bigger problem as their trains had Alphanumeric classifications. ie Re4/4 II 205, ABDe4/8 so in the mid 90s all stock was reclassified and renumbered

 

[Martin222002]

And still will be able to. UIC numbers are

XX-YY-ZZZZZZZ-C

XX = Type code (Loco/Unit/Waggon etc)
YY = Country Code
ZZZZZZZZ = Vehicle/unit number - freely assigned by National authorities (there are more digits then UK numbers)
C = Check Digit

I'd be interested to see what the UIC numbers on the new E320s are... Or even which country they are registered to...

It has been confirmed that the E320s will designated class 374, an obvious follow on from the current 373s, and in the February issue of Today's Railways it stated that one of the leading vehicels full 12 digit number was 80 70 37 40 001-7.

 

[starrymarkb]

It has been confirmed that the E320s will designated class 374, an obvious follow on from the current 373s, and in the February issue of Today's Railways it stated that one of the leading vehicels full 12 digit number was 80 70 37 40 001-7.

So they are UK registered 3740001 does give an extra digit so maybe they will be moving to 7 digits

 

[IanXC]

So they are UK registered 3740001 does give an extra digit so maybe they will be moving to 7 digits

They're now planning to allocate the 6XX,7XX,8XX ranges for DMU, EMU and high speed units. See page 18 of this document. That'll keep things going for a while yet.

From this document I got the impression that "core" numbers would remain 5 digit for locos, 6 for units, but 7 for vehicles.

It also lists 3730000-3740999 as the range for Eurostar vehicles.

 

[starrymarkb]

From this document I got the impression that "core" numbers would remain 5 digit for locos, 6 for units, but 7 for vehicles.

It also lists 3730000-3740999 as the range for Eurostar vehicles.

Thanks I'm guessing 700s are misclassed by not being 200km/h capable Interesting that it also states that HSTs ARE Units

 

[D365]

Thanks I'm guessing 700s are misclassed by not being 200km/h capable Interesting that it also states that HSTs ARE Units

What? The 7xx range is for EMUs, unless you're meaning something else... We still have a bunch of loose TOPS numbers scattered here and there though.

 

[starrymarkb]

What? The 7xx range is for EMUs, unless you're meaning something else... We still have a bunch of loose TOPS numbers scattered here and there though.

Re-reading I was confusing the Vehicle and Unit Ranges - Please disregard my earlier comment!

 

[RatMan]

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.

It's not about a choice - you're preference is not considered when 'the Management' have a tough problem to solve, "..let's keep those voting, commuters happy boys - without spending much too much of our lovely money!"
Let's not completely avoid the need for realism here.

 

[The Ham]

It's not about a choice - you're preference is not considered when 'the Management' have a tough problem to solve, "..let's keep those voting, commuters happy boys - without spending much too much of our lovely money!"
Let's not completely avoid the need for realism here.

OK, how do you propose that SWT's make it possible to run enough 444's into Waterloo during the peak hours without going bust?

From May 2010 to April 2011 the Stagecoach Group as whole made pre tax profits of £191.2m. Given NR are talking about a fifth line into Waterloo costing £1bn that would wipe out of their profits for five years and still not totally solve to problem as there would be other capacity constraints at other point on the route (such as the flat junction at Woking).

Or am I too wandering into the reams of fantasy?

 

[RobShipway]

OK, how do you propose that SWT's make it possible to run enough 444's into Waterloo during the peak hours without going bust?

From May 2010 to April 2011 the Stagecoach Group as whole made pre tax profits of £191.2m. Given NR are talking about a fifth line into Waterloo costing £1bn that would wipe out of their profits for five years and still not totally solve to problem as there would be other capacity constraints at other point on the route (such as the flat junction at Woking).

Or am I too wandering into the reams of fantasy?

But surely it would be NR paying the cost of the £1BN, with Stagecoach paying this cost in rental charges over a few years, so as long as the passengers upkeep keeps working then cost would be paid?

 

[The Ham]

But surely it would be NR paying the cost of the £1BN, with Stagecoach paying this cost in rental charges over a few years, so as long as the passengers upkeep keeps working then cost would be paid?

The point I was making was that SWT (which is only one part of the Stagecoach Group) are hardly likely to go around spending a lot of money on infrastructure projects (even if it is just lease costs) when they could just use different trains which are not as well liked as the trains they replace.

 

[RobShipway]

The point I was making was that SWT (which is only one part of the Stagecoach Group) are hardly likely to go around spending a lot of money on infrastructure projects (even if it is just lease costs) when they could just use different trains which are not as well liked as the trains they replace.

True, like using the class 455's as they are doing today on the Waterloo - Reading route. Although personally, I actually prefer the class 455's to the 458's....

 

[Mikey C]

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.

On the SE lines, people do use all the 3+2 seating on Networkers, even the squashed middle seat, are the Waterloo commuters pickier or fatter

 

[phil281]

On the SE lines, people do use all the 3+2 seating on Networkers, even the squashed middle seat, are the Waterloo commuters pickier or fatter

I think the Networkers are wider then the 450's, hence wider seats. 450's are nasty horrible units when its busy, I prefer to stand then sit in those miniscule rock hard seats when its busy.

 

[Monty]

I think the Networkers are wider then the 450's, hence wider seats. 450's are nasty horrible units when its busy, I prefer to stand then sit in those miniscule rock hard seats when its busy.

There is less than an inch difference in width between a Class 450 and Class 465, hardly noticeable. I know the seats arn't great on a 450, but they do their job for what they were designed for very well.

 

[asylumxl]

I think the Networkers are wider then the 450's, hence wider seats. 450's are nasty horrible units when its busy, I prefer to stand then sit in those miniscule rock hard seats when its busy.

One more seat for somebody else then :P.

 

[phil281]

There is less than an inch difference in width between a Class 450 and Class 465, hardly noticeable. I know the seats arn't great on a 450, but they do their job for what they were designed for very well.

If they could just change the seating to somthing like the 455 interior on the HC ones and like the 350/1's on the ones that go to Portsmouth/Alton etc they'd be alright.

 

[TEW]

The HC 450s will be replaced by the 458/5s soon anyway, and they will have 2+2 seating with an interior similar to the 455s.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is less than an inch difference in width between a Class 450 and Class 465, hardly noticeable. I know the seats arn't great on a 450, but they do their job for what they were designed for very well.

A problem with these 'width debates' (and there's another one going on as well at the moment) is that the exterior dimensions are often pretty much irrelevant to what is available inside. 450s and 444s both have much 'thinner' body side structures than some older stock, as well as being 'squarer' in overall shape. I've measured a 444 internally to the accuracy of one of those laser gizmos, (say +/- a cm) and it is just as wide as a normal Mk3 vehicle at shoulder height when seated, notwithstanding the coach end label suggesting it's much narrower overall than a Mk3.

What we could actually do with for an accurate comparison is fully dimensioned interior cross sections...