SWR mainline stock replacement

[HamworthyGoods]

Ownership of the units and contracts. Just because something might seem logical from the point of view of a multiple unit stock book doesn't mean that it is appropriate when financial and operational factors are taken into account.

Both very valid reasons, alongside the fact WMT are currently spending a not inconsiderable amount of money refurbishing the 350/1s

 

[London Trains]

Guys I wondered why don't WMT consider retain 350/2s and move 350/1s to SWR to work with the existing 444s/450s knowing that 350/1s are MS units and their contact shoes are surplus in WMT

The 350/2s are very expensive to keep, and they have 3+2 seating so are not similar to the rest. However I would support the 350/1s going to SWR and being converted to 450s (obviously the pantographs would be kept though) and refurbished to match an SWR 450, with LNWR ordering more Aventras.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It's not the acceleration that is the concern, like you say that can easily be fixed. It's the distinct lack of roof mounted grab rails in the vestibules that prevent them from meeting the 4 passengers/sqm standing capacity

Ironically, with the need/aspiration for social distancing, that is not currently an issue !. And I do wonder if social distancing might remain a long term requirement if COVID-19 does not eventually go away but instead mutates into one after another contagious flu like illness. That would imply filling the tracks with the longest possible trains with operators/DaFT not being allowed to expect people to be packed in like sardines.

I would propose a mixed fleet of 3-car and 5-car bi modal units for the West of England routes. Services on the London route could be run as 3+5 or 5+5 with one portion detaching at Salisbury. The 5-car would continue beyond Salisbury but at quieter times a 3-car could be used. 3-car units would operate the Salisbury 6 (perhaps even then overcapacity?)

I would even suggest transferring the Bristol-Portsmouth route to SWR and have this route also use the same 3-car or 5-car units based at Salisbury but there are probably a number of reasons why this couldn't happen.

GA's FLIRTs look great, could an equivalent of these be a possibility?

For services West of Salisbury just electrify Basingstoke to Salisbury and let a diesel drag/propel one or two (of my beloved) 442s between Salisbury and Exeter. Simples .

Havn't seen that idea (for a while).

But seriously it is either bi-mode or an operation similar to 33+4TC.

 

[Stephen Lee]

The 350/2s are very expensive to keep, and they have 3+2 seating so are not similar to the rest. However I would support the 350/1s going to SWR and being converted to 450s (obviously the pantographs would be kept though) and refurbished to match an SWR 450, with LNWR ordering more Aventras.

Then i have no ideas where can 350/2s go when displaced. But I really afraid they will become graffiti walls if they have no homes.

 

[JonathanH]

Then i have no ideas where can 350/2s go when displaced. But I really afraid they will become graffiti walls if they have no homes.

Luckily that is Porterbrook's problem, not yours or mine. They are likely to go into secure storage rather than be left somewhere they will become graffiti walls.

 

[Energy]

Then i have no ideas where can 350/2s go when displaced. But I really afraid they will become graffiti walls if they have no homes.

What are you talking about? Many other homes have been suggested for the 350/2s such as to take over from 442s and flex 350s have been suggested for Northern and others, there are many other places for these trains to go and if they did go into storage you would think that Porterbrook would put some of their youngest units into secure storage.

Also, the 350/2s still have a couple years left with LNWR and looking at the 720s they will probably be staying longer.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Is it my imagination or are most BR era AC EMUs and far more modern Siemens EMUs rather unwanted ?. I guess that in the case of Siemens that it is higher leasing costs outweighing better reliability ?.

 

[Energy]

Is it my imagination or are most BR era AC EMUs and far more modern Siemens EMUs rather unwanted ?. I guess that in the case of Siemens that it is higher leasing costs outweighing better reliability ?.

Most BR EMUs are getting quite old so they are an easy target for replacement as they will be close to retirement age, the Siemens trains are just high leasing prices due to the high interest rates at the time they were ordered.

 

[Stephen Lee]

What are you talking about? Many other homes have been suggested for the 350/2s such as to take over from 442s and flex 350s have been suggested for Northern and others, there are many other places for these trains to go and if they did go into storage you would think that Porterbrook would put some of their youngest units into secure storage.

Also, the 350/2s still have a couple years left with LNWR and looking at the 720s they will probably be staying longer.

FLEX 350s? Do you mean 350/2s when they are converted into Battery-EMUs?

 

[Stephen Lee]

FLEX 350s? Do you mean 350/2s when they are converted into Battery-EMUs?

I bet if cascaded them to Northern they can deploy them into Windermere Branch and perhaps routes 769s are planning to operate?

 

[Energy]

FLEX 350s? Do you mean 350/2s when they are converted into Battery-EMUs?

Yes, Porterbrook call them BatteryFlex.

 

[3141]

I can't see anyone at Overton, Whitchurch or Grateley being happy about losing a fast service for operational convenience of sending the stopper to Salisbury.

Exactly.

Now is there demand? Probably not. In 10 to 20 years time could well be a different matter, especially if we are rapidly moving towards a more carbon economy with much more working from home making private car ownership less financial sense due to the high up front costs.

With regards to the three smaller stations chances are they could retain their peak direct services which would reduce a lot of the unhappiness. The other thing which would offset this would be getting 2tph rather than 1tph, which would massively improve travel for those going shorter distances. Even then you could have 0.333tph at each station (i.e. each off peak service calls at one of the three) which would still improve long distance journey times whilst still giving some faster journey options to London.

Another thing to consider is the ~3,000 homes being built at Manydown (Western edge of Basingstoke) a new station there could attract 500,000 new passengers to the railways. By being able to go to more than just towards London you could make it more attractive to more people.

I think the majority of the passengers at Overton, Whitchurch and Grateley will be travelling to and from London. The prospect of two trains an hour off-peak isn't going to make up for the peak-time journey taking half an hour longer.

Unfortunately the plans for the Manydown development do not include a new station. If there were one it would need to be in the area of Worting Junction so as to serve both the Southampton and WoE lines, and as far as I can tell from the plans the section of the development closest to the railway at that point will consist of housing. It's proposed that there should be a frequent bus service from Manydown into Basingstoke to enable rail travellers to get to the station there.

Where would the 500,000 new passengers you suggest come from? If that's the annual total of journeys, it means roughly 10,000 a week or 2,000 per day. (I'm crudely assuming they're Monday - Friday only.) 3,000 houses won't produce that number. If they did, there'd be a problem fitting them onto the trains.

Ironically, with the need/aspiration for social distancing, that is not currently an issue !. And I do wonder if social distancing might remain a long term requirement if COVID-19 does not eventually go away but instead mutates into one after another contagious flu like illness. That would imply filling the tracks with the longest possible trains with operators/DaFT not being allowed to expect people to be packed in like sardines.

For services West of Salisbury just electrify Basingstoke to Salisbury and let a diesel drag/propel one or two (of my beloved) 442s between Salisbury and Exeter. Simples .

Haven't seen that idea (for a while).

But seriously it is either bi-mode or an operation similar to 33+4TC.

Social distancing on trains means less than half the seats being occupied. If the number of passengers was small enough for everyone to have a seat they wouldn't be packed in like sardines but there wouldn't be social distancing. But I think we're discouraged from discussing here that social distancing and even half of the normal peak-hour passenger numbers are incompatible.

I think you're right about the realistic options for Basingstoke to Salisbury and what should happen west of Salisbury. Years ago (or so it seems), when there was discussion about what could be done with 442s and before SWR won the franchise, I suggested electrifying to just west of Battledown flyover and construction of a siding (or two) between the running lines. The 442s would pause there while the diesel loco waiting in the siding was attached to take them westwards on the unelectrified lines.

 

[The Ham]

I think the majority of the passengers at Overton, Whitchurch and Grateley will be travelling to and from London. The prospect of two trains an hour off-peak isn't going to make up for the peak-time journey taking half an hour longer.

In my post I specifically said that they would keep their existing peak hour services, mostly because the Basingstoke Stoppers (at least in the morning) start from beyond Basingstoke.

As I said, that would remove a lot of the unhappiness as, as you point out, it would cover most of the passengers.

Unfortunately the plans for the Manydown development do not include a new station. If there were one it would need to be in the area of Worting Junction so as to serve both the Southampton and WoE lines, and as far as I can tell from the plans the section of the development closest to the railway at that point will consist of housing. It's proposed that there should be a frequent bus service from Manydown into Basingstoke to enable rail travellers to get to the station there.

Where would the 500,000 new passengers you suggest come from? If that's the annual total of journeys, it means roughly 10,000 a week or 2,000 per day. (I'm crudely assuming they're Monday - Friday only.) 3,000 houses won't produce that number. If they did, there'd be a problem fitting them onto the trains.

Even if the station wasn't right at the centre of the development people would be willing to walk/cycle to get to a station over catching a bus to catch a train. The reason being is that it would be more reliable. However just as there's no plans currently for a station doesn't mean that one couldn't be provided at a later date. Anyway the frequent bus could just mean that people from Basingstoke between the stations then have a choice of which station to use (potentially opting for Manydown so as to be sure of a seat in the morning peak)

I'm not sure that a station would have to serve both lines, infact due to the cost of building a station which did it almost certainly wouldn't, as although doing so would attract more passengers the disadvantage of having to change at Basingstoke to go on the other line wouldn't be that great to justify the extra cost. Even if the station was between Oakley and the development and only served the WofE Line there would be a fair amount of people willing to use it, especially if it were well connected by cycle routes.

Given that the Manydown Masterplan document highlights that area is mostly under the ownership of HCC/BDBC there's little stopping them from building a station anywhere in that area.

Why wouldn't 3,000 homes produce 500,000 passengers a year? 3,000 homes is likely to be circa 7,200 people, add in the circa 5,300 from Oakley and you're not that different from the population of Hook and Odiham. Then look at Hook station which has circa 800,000 passengers a year. Now whilst that would reduce rail usage at Basingstoke a little, probably not all that much.

Alternatively Whitchurch had a population of circa 7,200, with few other settlements of note nearby, and produces 300,000 passengers a year. As such, even if I'm over estimating I'd suggest not by very much (especially with Oakley and parts off Basingstoke being so close).

2,000 passengers a day over a 15 hour day is likely to be up to 200 passengers an hour, however that's a two way flow and counts arrivals and departures so on any one train at any given time, even assuming 1tph, it's likely to be at most 150. With 2tph and allowing for some weekend traveling that's likely to fall to a maximum of 70 per train (mostly closer to the 20-30 range). That's about 1 coaches worth on peak hour trains which are likely to be at least 8 coaches long. I suspect that hardly going to cause significant problems. Especially given that there's the potential for several of those to change trains to other destinations (such as Reading).