SWR Class 458 to be retained

[hhsquidward]

I can imagine 458/4s starting Reading diagrams in the near future especially considering the /0s were very much the flagship traction of the line back in the 2010s and the /5s running on the line until the bitter end.

 

[I_am_Nobody]

Oh gods, a large part of me hopes not. I had my first experience of an utterly dead unit approaching Wokingham from Reading on a 458/5… xD

 

[TEW]

458/4 PTI testing Byfleet & New Haw to Guildford tomorrow.

Realtime Trains | 5Q93 1141 London Waterloo to London Waterloo | 18/02/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q93 1141 departure from London Waterloo to London Waterloo on 18/02/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Then Virginia Water to Reading on Wednesday.

Realtime Trains | 5Q93 0942 London Waterloo to Reading | 19/02/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q93 0942 departure from London Waterloo to Reading on 19/02/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 5Q96 1348 Reading to London Waterloo | 19/02/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q96 1348 departure from Reading to London Waterloo on 19/02/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Goldfish62]

I can imagine 458/4s starting Reading diagrams in the near future especially considering the /0s were very much the flagship traction of the line back in the 2010s and the /5s running on the line until the bitter end.

Hopefully to see off the 455s!

 

[Brent Goose]

Imagine the disruption that would cause! But then again it's crazy enough to be an SWR idea!

I had the misfortune to experience this (starting a Portsmouth harbour train from one the former international platforms) a few years back. Most likely either the 17:30 or 18:00.

It lost enough time for delay repay to become payable.

 

[Goldfish62]

Oh gods, a large part of me hopes not. I had my first experience of an utterly dead unit approaching Wokingham from Reading on a 458/5… xD

Was this a weekday? Very unusual to find a 458/5 on Reading services on weekdays.

And surely a faulty 458/5 is hardly a reason for not wanting the extensively refurbished 458/4s on the line, especially if they replace the rancid 455s.

 

[SWT_USER]

Was this a weekday? Very unusual to find a 458/5 on Reading services on weekdays.

And surely a faulty 458/5 is hardly a reason for not wanting the extensively refurbished 458/4s on the line, especially if they replace the rancid 455s.

Agreed, much more suitable than the 455's. It seems unlikely though as SWR haven't even bothered testing them to Reading yet?

 

[Snow1964]

Agreed, much more suitable than the 455's. It seems unlikely though as SWR haven't even bothered testing them to Reading yet?

See post #3963, testing to Reading on 19th Feb

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I had the misfortune to experience this (starting a Portsmouth harbour train from one the former international platforms) a few years back. Most likely either the 17:30 or 18:00.

One would hope that was a one off, due to disruption perhaps? Whilst the route in question is perfectly legal and acceptable during engineering works or disruption, no decent planner would ever suggest that route be used (for such services) on a day to day permanent basis. The risk to performance and knock-on delay (planned or otherwise) to other Main Fast services would be a disaster waiting to happen, not to mention that with any interworking between Windsor lines and Main Fast lines at Waterloo involves two panels liaising at Wimbledon Signalling Centre. If they then had to liaise further in relation to regular crossing moves at Queens Road, I don't think they'd appreciate that one bit...!

 

[I_am_Nobody]

Was this a weekday? Very unusual to find a 458/5 on Reading services on weekdays.

The incident I describe was several years ago. I’ve avoided them since.

 

[Brent Goose]

One would hope that was a one off, due to disruption perhaps? Whilst the route in question is perfectly legal and acceptable during engineering works or disruption, no decent planner would ever suggest that route be used (for such services) on a day to day permanent basis. The risk to performance and knock-on delay (planned or otherwise) to other Main Fast services would be a disaster waiting to happen, not to mention that with any interworking between Windsor lines and Main Fast lines at Waterloo involves two panels liaising at Wimbledon Signalling Centre. If they then had to liaise further in relation to regular crossing moves at Queens Road, I don't think they'd appreciate that one bit...!

It was the only time in a decade or so of travelling on that line so I assume there was some reason behind it.

Not being aware of the intricacies at the time I did wonder why it took so long to get on the down fast

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Not being aware of the intricacies at the time I did wonder why it took so long to get on the down fast

Firstly, apologies to the mods if this is going OT, but in relation to the proposed future long term use of 458/4, comments above are perhaps(?) still of relevance. Your decision at the end of the day and I will abide by that.

Brent Goose: as I mentioned, the route in question has negative implications for Main Fast line trains (Down direction in particular), and whilst your own experience may have been extreme in delay time, due to it being a case of disruption or some other out of course working, there are still potential negative implications for any base plan workings in that regard, and that is for the present industry to judge when it comes to performance risk etc. I only speak from a past tense scenario.

If one takes a blank piece of timetable paper and working to the laid down NR rules (as they were in my time/SWT days - and assuming there are no other trains timetabled to conflict) any Down Main Fast train running via Down Windsor Fast line (having started from the old Waterloo International platforms) and wanting to cross to the Down Main Fast line at Queens Road will in the first instant be subject to an approach control restrictive signal aspect (the Down starter at Queens Road platform) which in real terms means the driver will be preparing to stop (if needs be) at Queens Road platform by the time their train has passed Nine Elms Junction (the point where the Down Windsor Fast and Slow lines merge in to one) at the point where the old Eurostar viaduct commences to rise.

Therefore said train is now losing time, as against any Down main fast train running at maximum optimal line speed on the Down Main Fast itself. To facilitate a clear run from the Down Windsor Line (Queens Road platform) to the Down Main Fast is via a 20 mph single lead ladder, which when a 10/12 car train is taken into account this move will require (in my past experience) a five minute clear window to make that crossing move. In plain speak, there must be no movements South of Nine Elms Junction on the Down Main Fast and similarly on the Up Main Fast North of Clapham Junction's Advance starter (West London Junction), but likely in reality in todays ultra safety world, Clapham Junction itself (I don't know, can't comment on todays signalling rules in this regard).

When one has grasped that, and I completely concur it's not a subject that everyone can grasp, so no offence meant in any way, the result is that for every Down train move that is required to run from Down Windsor to Down Main Fast at Queens Road, there must be a 5 min clear window on both the Down Main Fast and Up Main Fast (at the same time) for every such movement.

To put that in to perspective:

In the peak hours (pre Covid) in both peak hours, real train as was Main Fast Line frequency, both UP and DOWN between Clapham Junction and Waterloo, was every 2 or 2.5 minutes, with the very occasional 3 minute window designed to give some small degree of flexibility.

To sum up:

The 458/4 in 12 car mode are longer than a 12 car 450, and therefore were limited to (in my time, due to signal sighting issues for the outgoing driver of same) 3 platforms at Waterloo (excluding International platforms) and 2 at Pompey Harbour. Waterloo is by now known to be a complex beast, particularly in the peak hours. For some it may come as a surprise that Pompey Harbour is no less complex at certain times of the day (or I should say, it was in my time - having worked with those employed in such matters at Portsmouth).

Todays industry needs to decide that in running 12 car 458/4s with the associated minimal terminal platform capacity at both intended terminal locations, is that a risk they are prepared to take. Think service disruption/terminal location point failures/platform closures v trains already en route/in section.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Firstly, apologies to the mods if this is going OT, but in relation to the proposed future long term use of 458/4, comments above are perhaps(?) still of relevance. Your decision at the end of the day and I will abide by that.

Brent Goose: as I mentioned, the route in question has negative implications for Main Fast line trains (Down direction in particular), and whilst your own experience may have been extreme in delay time, due to it being a case of disruption or some other out of course working, there are still potential negative implications for any base plan workings in that regard, and that is for the present industry to judge when it comes to performance risk etc. I only speak from a past tense scenario.

If one takes a blank piece of timetable paper and working to the laid down NR rules (as they were in my time/SWT days - and assuming there are no other trains timetabled to conflict) any Down Main Fast train running via Down Windsor Fast line (having started from the old Waterloo International platforms) and wanting to cross to the Down Main Fast line at Queens Road will in the first instant be subject to an approach control restrictive signal aspect (the Down starter at Queens Road platform) which in real terms means the driver will be preparing to stop (if needs be) at Queens Road platform by the time their train has passed Nine Elms Junction (the point where the Down Windsor Fast and Slow lines merge in to one) at the point where the old Eurostar viaduct commences to rise.

Therefore said train is now losing time, as against any Down main fast train running at maximum optimal line speed on the Down Main Fast itself. To facilitate a clear run from the Down Windsor Line (Queens Road platform) to the Down Main Fast is via a 20 mph single lead ladder, which when a 10/12 car train is taken into account this move will require (in my past experience) a five minute clear window to make that crossing move. In plain speak, there must be no movements South of Nine Elms Junction on the Down Main Fast and similarly on the Up Main Fast North of Clapham Junction's Advance starter (West London Junction), but likely in reality in todays ultra safety world, Clapham Junction itself (I don't know, can't comment on todays signalling rules in this regard).

When one has grasped that, and I completely concur it's not a subject that everyone can grasp, so no offence meant in any way, the result is that for every Down train move that is required to run from Down Windsor to Down Main Fast at Queens Road, there must be a 5 min clear window on both the Down Main Fast and Up Main Fast (at the same time) for every such movement.

To put that in to perspective:

In the peak hours (pre Covid) in both peak hours, real train as was Main Fast Line frequency, both UP and DOWN between Clapham Junction and Waterloo, was every 2 or 2.5 minutes, with the very occasional 3 minute window designed to give some small degree of flexibility.

To sum up:

The 458/4 in 12 car mode are longer than a 12 car 450, and therefore were limited to (in my time, due to signal sighting issues for the outgoing driver of same) 3 platforms at Waterloo (excluding International platforms) and 2 at Pompey Harbour. Waterloo is by now known to be a complex beast, particularly in the peak hours. For some it may come as a surprise that Pompey Harbour is no less complex at certain times of the day (or I should say, it was in my time - having worked with those employed in such matters at Portsmouth).

Todays industry needs to decide that in running 12 car 458/4s with the associated minimal terminal platform capacity at both intended terminal locations, is that a risk they are prepared to take. Think service disruption/terminal location point failures/platform closures v trains already en route/in section.

A very interesting read..!

 

[Siemens Staines]

458407 is new to passenger service as a 458/4 today. 458507 last worked 23.09.21, nearly three and half years ago ironically with 458517.

Realtime Trains | 2S05 0522 London Waterloo to Weybridge | 28/02/2025

Real-time train running information for 2S05 0522 departure from London Waterloo to Weybridge on 28/02/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Invincible]

8 diagrams so 16 units, but there's still a few 450s on the 2Sxx. Probably changes slightly with the peak time hounslow rounders

Traveled yesterday on one for the first time, nice and comfortable. Guard was in a middle cab.
Guess it will not be too long till the Hounslow loop and Weybridge line is all 458s (and occasional 450). Then more 458s will be on the Reading lines.
Eventually as 701s roll out, the 458s could go to the Portsmouth main line as 12 car, if platform and signalling lights are worked on?

 

[mullinsj08]

the 458s could go to the Portsmouth main line as 12 car, if platform and signalling lights are worked on?

Further up the thread it was mentioned a 12 car formation of 458/4's are too long.

 

[Goldfish62]

Further up the thread it was mentioned a 12 car formation of 458/4's are too long.

Which would be why @Invincible mentioned platforms and signals.

 

[pompeyfan]

Which would be why @Invincible mentioned platforms and signals.

Personally I couldn’t see that ever getting past a cost/benefit review. I would suggest it’s nigh on impossible to lengthen Portsmouth Harbour for starters.

 

[73128]

458407 is new to passenger service as a 458/4 today. 458507 last worked 23.09.21, nearly three and half years ago ironically with 458517.

Realtime Trains | 2S05 0522 London Waterloo to Weybridge | 28/02/2025

Real-time train running information for 2S05 0522 departure from London Waterloo to Weybridge on 28/02/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

out again today (3 March) on 2S24 and other Weybridge via Hounslow trips diagram

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Personally I couldn’t see that ever getting past a cost/benefit review. I would suggest it’s nigh on impossible to lengthen Portsmouth Harbour for starters.

Whilst long out of the job, I would suggest that you are probably correct. In relation to Waterloo and the 2007 refranchise, certain changes had to be made (infrastructure wise) to accommodate the increased formations resulting from increased demand at the time. The train plan back then required the use of p11 at Waterloo for (in the first instant) just one a.m. peak train formed of 12 car 450. Every other option platform use wise, had been exhausted in the wider context. The result at some stage later, was a new ground level departure signal (co-acting signal) which replicated the main signal aspect, but also permitted any driver of an outbound train from p11 formed of 12 car 450, to have a clear view of the departure signal aspect from their seated (in cab) position. This was not the case in relation to the gantry mounted departure aspect, as the gantry itself was in effect almost right above the front of the cab and so not visible from the seated position of the driver. Having ridden up front (on an official basis) on a number of such 12 car 450's in relation to this and other (timing schedule) issues that had to be addressed, I came to understand the drivers POV far more than I might otherwise have done so.

In more recent times I have noticed a similar co-acting signal has been installed for departures from p8 at Waterloo, which comes as no surprise, this being a result of the 10 car suburban plan and its resulting platform length changes at that time (2017), which resulted in the reduction of the operational length of p8 from 12 to 10 cars, a situation which in itself would have rendered the Main Line train service peak arrivals unworkable (pre Covid timetable/formations to be clear).

As pompeyfan comments, given an apparent 'no spend' agenda in the current climate (DFT/TOC), which others in the know have also mentioned privately, would suggest that options are limited.

 

[TEW]

458422+458413 causing some disruption this evening due to a fire reported on the front of the train whilst working 2V51, the 1737 Hounslow Loop service.

Realtime Trains | 2V51 1737 London Waterloo to Wandsworth Town | 13/03/2025

Real-time train running information for 2V51 1737 departure from London Waterloo to Wandsworth Town on 13/03/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Bigfoot]

458422+458413 causing some disruption this evening due to a fire reported on the front of the train whilst working 2V51, the 1737 Hounslow Loop service.

Realtime Trains | 2V51 1737 London Waterloo to Wandsworth Town | 13/03/2025

Real-time train running information for 2V51 1737 departure from London Waterloo to Wandsworth Town on 13/03/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

It was the semi regular fault with the windscreen demist. Not the first time one has caught fire and won't be the last.

 

[Jturner98]

What’s happened to all the ex 460 carriages that were taken out? Are they all still stored together?

 

[adc82140]

Given the critical shortage of stock on SWR, what's holding up getting the rest of the /4s into service?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

What’s happened to all the ex 460 carriages that were taken out? Are they all still stored together?

Some have already been scrapped; there were pictures somewhere a few weeks ago showing that.

 

[Bumpkin]

Given the critical shortage of stock on SWR, what's holding up getting the rest of the /4s into service?

They can only currently run on services to Weybridge via Chertsey (via Hounslow or Twickenham) due to gauging restrictions. Hopefully this will expand soon though

 

[wickham]

February issue of the Railway Magazine reports 74401-08/12/21/22/24-28/31-38/41/42/51/52 "sold to SCD Middlewich for disposal", but it does not report that any have actually moved, although they might well have by now, bearing in mind that the printed "copy" for the magazine would have been produced, probably in early January.

 

[bnsf734]

The removed trailers are in Cockshute sidings just north of Stoke on Trent (Reid Transport?) visible from the main line.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Apparently only one pair of 458/5s is booked for next week, can someone confirm this please?

 

[wickham]

458419 noted in service today coupled to 458413, 1033 Weybridge to Waterloo via Staines. Is this the first day in service for 419?