Should the SE 707s be shortened and should toilets (or any other mods) be installed?

[py_megapixel]

Just a simple one today...

On the thread about the transfer of the South Western 707s to Southeastern, it has been pointed out that the network is largely set up for workings in multiples of 4 cars rather than 5 (i.e. places where 10-car formations would foul junctions but 8-cars wouldn't)

Would it therefore make sense to simply remove the centremost carriage from the 707s, turning them into 4-car units, so that they fit in with the rest of the fleet better? If this was to happen, could anything be done with the removed vehicles?

I also note that the marketing thingy (don't know what it's called) for the 707 indicates that there is provision for the installation of a toilet (link https://web.archive.org/web/2016122...latform/brochure-desiro-city-class-707-en.pdf) - would it make sense for a toilet to be installed as well?

 

[Kite159]

In a crayonist world I would go the other way and extend to 6 coaches (to allow for 12 coach operation on the lines designed for it), with the extra coach having a toilet and be motored boosting the acceleration.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In a crayonist world I would go the other way and extend to 6 coaches (to allow for 12 coach operation on the lines designed for it), with the extra coach having a toilet and be motored boosting the acceleration.

One option would be to reduce half of them to 4 and increase the other half to 6 using the coaches removed from the 4s, if those are more useful lengths. Though if that coach is a trailer you'd get different performance, and they are known to be underpowered (which is why SWR doesn't like them).

 

[Bald Rick]

On the thread about the transfer of the South Western 707s to Southeastern, it has been pointed out that the network is largely set up for workings in multiples of 4 cars rather than 5 (i.e. places where 10-car formations would foul junctions but 8-cars wouldn't)

That’s odd, because as far as I’m aware the southeastern suburban Network is set up as a 10/12 car railway. I can’t think of many places where a 10 car fouls junctions that an 8 car does. At least, not important places.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

South Eastern was set up for 10 car operation and this was done at least as far back as EPBs, the Networker plan was to extend many of these to 12 cars although this has only relatively recently been realised and only on some routes.

The 8 car routes out of London Bridge is the Central division Tulse Hill corridor all the way down to Caterham.

 

[43096]

Just a simple one today...

On the thread about the transfer of the South Western 707s to Southeastern, it has been pointed out that the network is largely set up for workings in multiples of 4 cars rather than 5 (i.e. places where 10-car formations would foul junctions but 8-cars wouldn't)

Would it therefore make sense to simply remove the centremost carriage from the 707s, turning them into 4-car units, so that they fit in with the rest of the fleet better? If this was to happen, could anything be done with the removed vehicles?

I also note that the marketing thingy (don't know what it's called) for the 707 indicates that there is provision for the installation of a toilet (link https://web.archive.org/web/2016122...latform/brochure-desiro-city-class-707-en.pdf) - would it make sense for a toilet to be installed as well?

Given the presence of 43 2-car and 36 5-car units in the fleet already that form 10-car rakes, I’m not seeing what issue there is that this is trying to solve?

 

[Kite159]

That’s odd, because as far as I’m aware the southeastern suburban Network is set up as a 10/12 car railway. I can’t think of many places where a 10 car fouls junctions that an 8 car does. At least, not important places.

Route from Victoria towards Bromley spring to mind as being restricted to 8 coaches

 

[4-SUB 4732]

In a crayonist world I would go the other way and extend to 6 coaches (to allow for 12 coach operation on the lines designed for it), with the extra coach having a toilet and be motored boosting the acceleration.

No need. If they are used exclusively (or almost exclusively) on the Woolwich line, then it's a 10-car railway. It's also a big people mover, which the Woolwich line will need with Abbey Wood. More than good to just keep them exactly as they are.

No doubt they would then end up on Cannon Street services via Bexleyheath and Sidcup in the event if they are on "Rounder" duty. Those are only needing 5 car during the day, so you're not using many units. Plenty of maintenance spare in theory.

 

[30907]

Route from Victoria towards Bromley spring to mind as being restricted to 8 coaches

And the junctions are Brixton and Herne Hill (mentioned in this thread #110)
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-707-to-southeastern-dates.208114/page-4#post-4896515
in fact Herne Hill looks OK for normal working where TL use the loops and Orpingtons use the mains). Platform lengths are more of an issue, though I think all of them could be extended with little difficulty.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

There is no good reason based on passenger numbers to use the 707s on the Chatham lines. The Metro routes in and out of Charing Cross and Cannon Street would give the biggest benefit based on the people-moving capacity.

 

[Aictos]

Another thing to consider is to extend the Class 707s to fixed 8 car formations like the Class 700s, you would do this by building more carriages then insert them into the current units with a equal mix of motors/trailers so performance isn't degraded.

Operating as fixed 8 cars means yes you lose the original pairs of Class 707s operating as 10 car trains but long term as each trainset would be 8 cars long then it's you get a increase of 3 cars per unit.

Plus you can always place a order to extend the fleet to fully retire the Networkers and cascade the Class 377s back to Southern.

 

[FR510]

I believe the 707s will be used out of CHX and CST on metro services and probably spell the end of some of the 466 fleet. Plus there is also talk of SE operating an off peak Maidstone East to Blackfriars service using 465s to fill the gap that Thameslink have left pulling the plug on the Maidstone East to Cambridge service.

 

[Dr_Paul]

... and they are known to be underpowered (which is why SWR doesn't like them).

That's come as a surprise to me. I've been on many 707s out of Waterloo and have been impressed by their acceleration. I was once on a 707 that was four minutes late at Twickenham and which managed to arrive a couple of minutes early at Kingston; the driver really pushed it in between stations.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

That's come as a surprise to me. I've been on many 707s out of Waterloo and have been impressed by their acceleration. I was once on a 707 that was four minutes late at Twickenham and which managed to arrive a couple of minutes early at Kingston; the driver really pushed it

It was suggested they can achieve

707 - 0.85 m/s2
(According to siemens statistics)

376 - 0.66m/s2
So faster than what they're replacing, in addition they also are capable of 100mph compared to 75mph for a 376

 

[Aictos]

I believe the 707s will be used out of CHX and CST on metro services and probably spell the end of some of the 466 fleet. Plus there is also talk of SE operating an off peak Maidstone East to Blackfriars service using 465s to fill the gap that Thameslink have left pulling the plug on the Maidstone East to Cambridge service.

Umm where has it been stated that the Cambridge to Maidstone East service has been pulled by Thameslink, do you have a verified source?

There is no good reason based on passenger numbers to use the 707s on the Chatham lines. The Metro routes in and out of Charing Cross and Cannon Street would give the biggest benefit based on the people-moving capacity.

Indeed, the people moving capacity of the units in itself is a prime reason to run them on the Metro services but also the dwell times would be improved over the Networkers which leads to a better journey for passengers.

 

[Mikey C]

Umm where has it been stated that the Cambridge to Maidstone East service has been pulled by Thameslink, do you have a verified source?



Indeed, the people moving capacity of the units in itself is a prime reason to run them on the Metro services but also the dwell times would be improved over the Networkers which leads to a better journey for passengers.

But then some of those routes have the 376s, which also have low dwell times

"Better journey" is subjective anyway, some might prefer the extra seating capacity of Networkers, from my experience people are happy to use the middle seats

 

[Aictos]

But then some of those routes have the 376s, which also have low dwell times

"Better journey" is subjective anyway, some might prefer the extra seating capacity of Networkers, from my experience people are happy to use the middle seats

A better journey is actually being able to board the train in the first place, there's first hand experiences here of passengers being unable to board Thameslink Class 319s as they struggled to cater for the numbers travelling especially in the peak which is a world away from today's Thameslink Class 700s which don't have this problem and can handle crowds far better.

Of course it's good to have a seat but it's more important in my view to actually be able to board the train.

 

[swt_passenger]

That's come as a surprise to me. I've been on many 707s out of Waterloo and have been impressed by their acceleration. I was once on a 707 that was four minutes late at Twickenham and which managed to arrive a couple of minutes early at Kingston; the driver really pushed it in between stations.

It’s all relative. SWT/SWR staff have said a few times that they’re perfectly acceptable for the job they do. But people compare them with 700s, which are specifically designed to allow for operations with half the train to be defective. You might as well say it’s them that are overpowered...