SWT planning an EMU order

[hwl]

I can see this being achieved by a potential mix of new and cascaded units.
The 3-5 car units also raised various question: are they planning to use a small batch of 3 car units on quieter lines (Lymington etc.) to released 4 car units and DMUs?
The order seems to imply significant internal cascades in SWT.

There have been questions raised over Southern's 455s long term future (especially when SWT announced the AC traction package upgrade) as the 455s lack of SDO is a big issue in getting many metro services beyond 8 cars as some stations would be horrifically expensive to rebuild to take longer trains. (Especially London Bridge via Tulse Hill "metro" routes.)
There aren't really any opportunities to run 12 car 455 services on southern and this leaves stations with 12 capability under utilised (East Croydon and London Bridge etc.) Southern have 46 455 units (184 cars)

The number of 5 car 377/6 &/7s ordered is largely a function of making sure all the 455 are still used so there will be a limited number of 10 car services. More 10 car services effectively means saying good bye to some 455s (unless they replace 313s on the coastway services).
If southern could loose some or all of their 455 and retain the new "gap filler" 377/8 ex Thameslink then this could make sense (southern would get 377/2 and /5s back earlier than /8s.

The number of units and cost combinations could see a mix of new and old The max price and number of units would seem to cover being all desiro city but plenty of other possibilities.
i.e. 5 car desiro city for some (10 car) routes with 4 car 455 supplementing existing units on 12 car routes where there isn't enough stock to run all 12 cars services in peaks?

 

[387star]

amazing how swt always seem to benefit from new units

 

[swt_passenger]

amazing how swt always seem to benefit from new units

That statement doesn't actually fit the facts though does it?

Outside of the stock required for the Mk1 replacement programme, which was central government policy and applicable to every TOC across the country, they have really had only 17 units of additional new stock, the follow on 450 order. Other fleet expansion so far has used cascaded two and three car 158s, and a yet to be delivered merger of cascaded 460s into their 458s. The 456s (also yet to arrive) are not new, and there is no guarantee yet that the latest order will actually be met by new stock either.

 

[jopsuk]

amazing how swt always seem to benefit from new units

At privitisation they had one of the oldest fleets- they had a massive fleet of slam door trains. Of the pre-privistation fleet they kept on, the 455s are some of the oldest EMUs now in service, older than Sprinters and Pacers. The 458s were some of the first post-privitisation stock delivered. They've also got a load of class 456s coming across to them- hardly new.

I reckon Southern might have an on-average newer fleet than SWT? Southeastern are a bit older as they have a large fleet of Networkers.

 

[Eagle]

I reckon Southern might have an on-average newer fleet than SWT? Southeastern are a bit older as they have a large fleet of Networkers.

This report shows that Southern's fleet is, on average, 1.8 years newer than SWT's. (And that gap will probably increase when the newest lot of 377/6s appear.)


Surprisingly, Southeastern's are even newer (1.6 years newer than Southern). Must be the large number of 395s that's kept the average age down down.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Though I assume the 'average age' of SWT's fleet is skewed by the Island Line 483s...?

 

[Eagle]

There only five of those, so probably not that big of an effect.

Also it depends what they count as the age of those units: when they were originally built (1938-39) or when they were reconfigured for use on the mainline (1989-92)?

 

[LexyBoy]

Surprisingly, Southeastern's are even newer (1.6 years newer than Southern). Must be the large number of 395s that's kept the average age down down.

Also Southeastern don't have any really old stock; Southern have quite a few 455s and 313s whereas Southeastern's oldest stock is the 465 fleet which is only about 20 years old.

 

[transmanche]

Also it depends what they count as the age of those units: when they were originally built (1938-39) or when they were reconfigured for use on the mainline (1989-92)?

I imagine they use the same age that they used when Island Line was listed separately; i.e.about 75 years old.

 

[Kettledrum]

The Reading line is likely to become 10 car within the next 5-6 years. Unless it's going to have a downgrade of rolling stock it will need 10 car trains with toilets, 2+3 seating and 1st class.

Stick 1st class back in the 458/5s and use all those spare Compin seats they'll have lying around to convert back to 2+3. Put the new inner suburban stock on the Hounslow loop/Windsor/Weybridge.

That's my suggestion for what it's worth...

2+3 seating?

There is a school of thought that says 2+2 with more standing space is better. What makes you think there will be more 2+3?

 

[starrymarkb]

DfT wants High Density configurations so they can say xx extra seats per day. It's why FGW couldn't convert their ex LO/LM 150s to 2+2 to match the native fleet

 

[edwin_m]

For trains carrying a mixture of longish and short commuter journeys, 2+2 with a wide aisle is probably the best configuration. If the numbers are right there will be enough seating for the long distance passengers but the short distance ones will have to stand for less than the 20min limit. The total capacity of the train is greater, dwell times might be a bit less due to easier circulation on board, and many people would rather stand than sit in a middle seat of three anyway.

 

[transmanche]

There is a school of thought that says 2+2 with more standing space is better.

Certainly for inner suburban 'metro' type routes. But for outer suburban routes where there will be a lot of 30min+ journeys, 2+3 seating allows more people to get a seat. (Compare the SWT-refurbished 455s with the 458s currently on the Reading route.)

 

[swt_passenger]

For trains carrying a mixture of longish and short commuter journeys, 2+2 with a wide aisle is probably the best configuration. If the numbers are right there will be enough seating for the long distance passengers but the short distance ones will have to stand for less than the 20min limit. The total capacity of the train is greater, dwell times might be a bit less due to easier circulation on board, and many people would rather stand than sit in a middle seat of three anyway.

You've hit the nail on the head. Look at the media 'false indignation' about the top ten overcrowded services when they're published every year. DfT go into all sorts of detail about the difference between standing allowances for short distance services, and longer distance services, but this is lost in the noise. The press just don't get their heads round the standing allowances as far as I can see - although they never expect everyone to get a seat on the underground, funny that...

But once this point is understood, then the case is clearly made for 2+2 with wide aisles and standback areas by the doors, exactly as seen on SWT 455s for inner suburban use, and it seems to be the intention for Thameslink, and probably Crossrail. Although even then there was much media criticism when SWT 'ripped the seats out' back at the time.

But going as far as removing the 5th seats from 2+3 layouts on trains used on longer routes (such as Portsmouth to Waterloo) is politically impossible, because the total capacity when used on those services would go down massively because no-one is supposed to be standing.

 

[Minstral25]

You've hit the nail on the head. Look at the media 'false indignation' about the top ten overcrowded services when they're published every year. DfT go into all sorts of detail about the difference between standing allowances for short distance services, and longer distance services, but this is lost in the noise. The press just don't get their heads round the standing allowances as far as I can see - although they never expect everyone to get a seat on the underground, funny that...

But once this point is understood, then the case is clearly made for 2+2 with wide aisles and standback areas by the doors, exactly as seen on SWT 455s for inner suburban use, and it seems to be the intention for Thameslink, and probably Crossrail. Although even then there was much media criticism when SWT 'ripped the seats out' back at the time.

But going as far as removing the 5th seats from 2+3 layouts on trains used on longer routes (such as Portsmouth to Waterloo) is politically impossible, because the total capacity when used on those services would go down massively because no-one is supposed to be standing.

Partially I agree but I think the indignation is false because it's seat widths and leg room that are the issue with 3+2 not the actual number of seats

My shoulders are 22" across but a seats in 3+2 layouts are often using what I think are 17" wide seats. Hence I will never fit on such a seat and if two people of similar stature sit next too each other they will be extremely uncomfortable. Similar issues exist with leg room, which is why I avoid airline seats as my knees invariably are squashed against the seat in front.

2+2 with wide aisles uses as far as I am aware the same seats as 3+2 but with one seat missing, so the problem will remain

I thus think 2+2 with wide aisles will not be popular with longer distance travellers once they are in use. Which in an age, whether we like it or not, people are getting larger (both in height and girth) this policy is short sighted

 

[swt_passenger]

2+2 with wide aisles uses as far as I am aware the same seats as 3+2 but with one seat missing, so the problem will remain

Not necessarily. The SWT 455 conversions have the same seats as the 450s, but they are spaced further apart, ie it wasn't just a case of removing the third seat from the triples, as was done with the LO 150s for a short period.

eg 455: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Guildford_railway_station_MMB_16_455863.jpg

Possibly better (but smaller) picture here: http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/pics/sm_455-3.jpg

compare with 450/5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unit_450567_A_M_Standard_Class_Interior.JPG

The Modern Railways article about the 458/460 conversion also reported that the change from 3+2 to 2+2 would include spreading the seats further apart.

 

[Minstral25]

Not necessarily. The SWT 455 conversions have the same seats as the 450s, but they are spaced further apart, ie it wasn't just a case of removing the third seat from the triples, as was done with the LO 150s for a short period.

The Modern Railways article about the 458/460 conversion also reported that the change from 3+2 to 2+2 would include spreading the seats further apart.

The 455's are good for their purpose of inner suburban trains but still have similar narrowness issues, I've used them regularly from Waterloo or Vauxhall to Clapham Junction and they are great but I have a lot of personal space invasion issues as on 3+2 seats.

I'd hate to use them on a run of more than 20 minutes in a crowded train as they are so tightly packed. I know as trains get busier personal space will reduce but I think they have to find a better solution than cramming in smaller seats especially in outer suburban or greater distance trains.

 

[WatcherZero]

SWT have released a long press release on how they are going to deliver 15% extra seats by 2020, the order for 135 vehicles, lengthening Waterloo platforms 1-4 and recommmisioning Waterloo International platforms 21-24.

http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/capacity improvements.aspx

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting that they describe the 135 extra vehicles (the order being discussed in this thread) as only a first phase?

Would be good to see some more 'meat on the bones' of the platform 21-24 proposals though, or else people will just keep wibbling on about them being a great place to run sleeper services from... :roll:

 

[Monty]

Interesting that they describe the 135 extra vehicles (the order being discussed in this thread) as only a first phase?

Would be good to see some more 'meat on the bones' of the platform 21-24 proposals though, or else people will just keep wibbling on about them being a great place to run sleeper services from... :roll:

Short term I think you'll only see them get used to allow platforms 1-4 to be rebuilt, however hopefully in the long term it means trains may spend less time being held outside Waterloo waiting for a platform to become available. At the last safety day I attended one of the management did mention something about some of the floor space being converted to retail facilities.

 

[swt_passenger]

...At the last safety day I attended one of the management did mention something about some of the floor space being converted to retail facilities.

The main point here is separating plans for the international platforms and plans for the disused international terminal below. There's a huge amount of space underneath platform level that is irrelevant to the needs of a normal station, and that's presumably where any retail conversions are likely.

There have been many posts here (and in other forums) in the past that seem to have implied they'll be building shops where the platforms are, and although I may be tempting fate here I still don't think that has ever been likely at all...

 

[Monty]

I'm led to believe the speculated shops would be on the platform level, one idea I've heard is to board over or fill in a portion of the international platforms as they have more then enough space to accommodate 10 and 12 car trains. But I don't think anything concrete has been decided yet as the most pressing concern is increasing capacity as quickly as possible.

 

[jopsuk]

In five car formation, that's 27 units. Is that to work alongside the 458/5s on the same routes, the 455s and 456s on those routes, or to displace 458/5s onto longer routes?

 

[swt_passenger]

In five car formation, that's 27 units. Is that to work alongside the 458/5s on the same routes, the 455s and 456s on those routes, or to displace 458/5s onto longer routes?

Perhaps all 3. The main CP5 plan that's already announced is to run 10 car trains to Reading. That could be done in a few ways, eg by transferring some 5 car 458/5s back to that route, and putting brand new units on the Windsor side inners. That would also release about 24 x 450s, but then again they could also be extended, (which was apparently the original HLOS plan).

Then there's the separate requirement to increase mainline side inner suburban to a fully 10 car operation - which is effectively a delayed CP4 project. That needs trains that can work with 455s, given that they are staying long term to justify the AC re-tractioning. It could also explain why the latest ITT asked for units of 3 - 5 car length, because you could make up 10 car 455 formations in a few different ways, not just 5+5, but also 4+3+3, or 4+4+2.

So I don't think there's a straightforward answer to your question - it's still too early to say...

 

[Chris125]

I'm led to believe the speculated shops would be on the platform level, one idea I've heard is to board over or fill in a portion of the international platforms as they have more then enough space to accommodate 10 and 12 car trains. But I don't think anything concrete has been decided yet as the most pressing concern is increasing capacity as quickly as possible.

Isn't that what happened at Victoria? The Brighton platforms, which originally allowed two trains in the same platform, were cut back at the concourse end to form an arcade of shops. This, plus the retail that could be accommodated underneath, would presumably help offset some of the costs involved in bringing these platforms back into use.

Chris

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn't that what happened at Victoria? The Brighton platforms, which originally allowed two trains in the same platform, were cut back at the concourse end to form an arcade of shops. This, plus the retail that could be accommodated underneath, would presumably help offset some of the costs involved in bringing these platforms back into use.

There's already going to be a significant space over what is known as the 'orchestra pit' between the main concourse and the international buffer stops, even if they weren't moved.

But even if they lose a few hundred feet to retail those platforms are still long enough for any foreseeable trains, although at first glance it doesn't make circulation any more logical. However it may give an advantage of being able to approach the Bakerloo/Northern underground station from the opposite direction (IYSWIM).

Going back to my earlier point though, there have been previous threads where people have seemed to assume that the international platforms would not be used at all because of retail development - and it's that point I've never agreed with.

 

[Electrostar]

I wish South West Trains would make their press releases mobile/iPhone compatible!

 

[RobShipway]

There's already going to be a significant space over what is known as the 'orchestra pit' between the main concourse and the international buffer stops, even if they weren't moved.

But even if they lose a few hundred feet to retail those platforms are still long enough for any foreseeable trains, although at first glance it doesn't make circulation any more logical. However it may give an advantage of being able to approach the Bakerloo/Northern underground station from the opposite direction (IYSWIM).

Going back to my earlier point though, there have been previous threads where people have seemed to assume that the international platforms would not be used at all because of retail development - and it's that point I've never agreed with.

I have to agree with your point and also do not think that the International platforms are the best place for the sleeper trains to Scotland, which really should be as they are now going from stations north of the City. A more ideal place for the sleeper trains I think would be either St Pancras or Kings Cross if capacity could be found for them.

Back, to the subject of this thread it will be interesting to see what SWT does with any trains being ordered. With regards to SWT using 458/5 trains, there needs to be a fair bit of platform extending done first such as at my local station Martins Heron or Bracknell as these stations can only just fit 8 car trains. This is why I believe that we will perhaps have the 450's on a long term basis on the Reading route as the majority of platforms on the Windsor route are all ready capable I believe in taking 12 car trains.

 

[Surreyman]

There's already going to be a significant space over what is known as the 'orchestra pit' between the main concourse and the international buffer stops, even if they weren't moved.

But even if they lose a few hundred feet to retail those platforms are still long enough for any foreseeable trains, although at first glance it doesn't make circulation any more logical. However it may give an advantage of being able to approach the Bakerloo/Northern underground station from the opposite direction (IYSWIM).

Going back to my earlier point though, there have been previous threads where people have seemed to assume that the international platforms would not be used at all because of retail development - and it's that point I've never agreed with.

Would I be right in saying that in order to make full use of platforms 21-24, they would need to demolish the Stewarts lane Flyover in order to reinstate track & maximise the number of paths available?

 

[The Ham]

IF (and it is only an assumption, given the press release is talking about lengthening platforms 1-4) SWT's lengthen all four platforms (1-4), would this be possible to partly be done by biting into the concourse behind those platforms? As that side of the station does seam to be quiter than the rest the times I've been there.