SWT planning an EMU order

[swt_passenger]

Given that sections of the SWT network are likely to be converted to OHLE AC in the next decade I don't think that they're going to want to take on a set of EMUs that don't have a pantograph well.

I think they could, because the 455s would not be a long term solution, they would only last another 10-12 years? They'd be replaced before OHLE ever got anywhere near the inner suburban area.

They are giving the existing 455 fleet new traction equipment that is justified by its expected life - and that fleet has no pantograph well either...

There's also the possibility that the next major change of stock will be planned to coincide with Crossrail 2, in which case a relatively short term solution makes even more sense.

 

[hwl]

Given that sections of the SWT network are likely to be converted to OHLE AC in the next decade I don't think that they're going to want to take on a set of EMUs that don't have a pantograph well.

The new/extra stock isn't for areas likely to be OHLE electrified in the next decade.

Only 21 of Southerns 46 455s would likely be returned to ROSCO under the tender spec. (i.e. southern retain enough to operate the London Bridge via Tulse Hill services which are likely to remain 8 car for a long time, but no more)

Also if CR2 goes ahead (along with presumable OHLE installation on the CR2 routes) all the 455s would be life expired (40years) at that point when CR2 opens and new stock is needed...

 

[joeykins82]

But the 442 are longer distance stock (end carriage doors, 23m cars, max 2+2 seating) which is not what SWT need to strengthen (see other threads on 444 vs 450). The only reason that transferring the 442s to SWT would make any sense would be if SWT electrification was extended to Exeter; even an extension that only went as far as Salisbury would make more sense to operate with shorter distance commuter stock

 

[The Ham]

But the 442 are longer distance stock (end carriage doors, 23m cars, max 2+2 seating) which is not what SWT need to strengthen (see other threads on 444 vs 450). The only reason that transferring the 442s to SWT would make any sense would be if SWT electrification was extended to Exeter; even an extension that only went as far as Salisbury would make more sense to operate with shorter distance commuter stock

A doubled up 442 (using Gatwick Express capacity) would be 692 seats (of which 48 are first class), compared with a 9 coach train formed of 3x159's would be 588 (of which 72 are first class). Even using the SWT's set up for the 442'swould be 632 seats (of which 100 are first class). Either way that would be a small increase in the number of seats per train into Waterloo (although a 10 coach train formed of 159's and 158's would be a bit higher than the SWT's capacity but lower than Gatwick Express').

Looking at journey times, it would be possible to run the 442's doubled up to Salisbury (2tph) and then run a single set to Exeter (1tph), as that would be 18 of the 24 sets. Unless journey times fall, then running a half hourly service to Exeter which would be require 22 of 24 sets would not be a sensible option.

Whilst running the sets London, Salisbury (split), Southampton, Romsey (Exeter) once an hour and the other service each hour running out only as far as Salisbury would require 21 of the sets, which again is probably not a great idea.

However if the line was only electrified as far as Salisbury then there would only be a need for 14 of the 24 sets (or 17 if one set from half the services ran the Salisbury 6 service). However that would mean that everyone west of Salisbury would have to change and that will not go down well.

 

[JamesRowden]

What would happen if South West Trains were to ask if they could make use of some of the soon to be available additional capacity on the Great Western Mainline through Reading by rerouting some/all of their Exeter/Salisbury to Waterloo services to Paddington using bi-mode Super Express Trains (IEP) so that they can run additional electric services to Waterloo via Woking in their place?

 

[swt_passenger]

However if the line was only electrified as far as Salisbury...

I really doubt if the 442s would ever be relevant because the new electrification would be with 25kV OHLE, and the 442s being nigh on 50 year old DC technology would be difficult to adapt cost effectively...

 

[Eagle]

Given that sections of the SWT network are likely to be converted to OHLE AC in the next decade I don't think that they're going to want to take on a set of EMUs that don't have a pantograph well.

It's only long-distance services (south of Basingstoke) that will require a pantograph.

They could acquire 455s and use them to displace 450s from suburban duties to long-distance.

 

[DXMachina]

Given that EMUs related to the 442s in bodywork terms (319,321) are getting all new traction packs, I wonder whether the extra cost of putting a roof well and transformer in is really that significant? They could be made into a luxury version of the 319 with the same capabilities and capable of multiple working with them.

The 1980s vehicle body / frames will be good for 20 years more.

 

[Eagle]

What would happen if South West Trains were to ask if they could make use of some of the soon to be available additional capacity on the Great Western Mainline through Reading by rerouting some/all of their Exeter/Salisbury to Waterloo services to Paddington using bi-mode Super Express Trains (IEP) so that they can run additional electric services to Waterloo via Woking in their place?

What additional capacity? Most of the new capacity on the GWML will be used up by the time electrification is complete (e.g. extra Bristol services).

 

[JamesRowden]

What additional capacity? Most of the new capacity on the GWML will be used up by the time electrification is complete (e.g. extra Bristol services).

The London and South East RUS recommended an increase from 11tph to 16tph during the peak on the fast lines between Reading and Paddington (from 15tph to 20tph if Heathrow Express is included).

 

[Eagle]

And as I've said, most to all of that extra capacity is already earmarked for more GW services.

 

[JamesRowden]

And as I've said, most to all of that extra capacity is already earmarked for more GW services.

Four of which are to serve the extra demand in the 'Thames Valley' which this service would.

 

[TheGrew]

*fantasy idea*
How about we refresh the 442s with new 25kv AC traction packages and pantos. Refresh the interior back to swt layout and then send them to GA to work Liverpool Street - Norwich in pairs that would probably not be a bad home for them

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Eagle]

*fantasy idea*
How about we refresh the 442s with new 25kv AC traction packages and pantos.

That would involve replacing, well, almost everything, wouldn't it?

It would certainly be cheaper to just build new 5-car EMUs.

 

[Jonny]

Given that EMUs related to the 442s in bodywork terms (319,321) are getting all new traction packs, I wonder whether the extra cost of putting a roof well and transformer in is really that significant? They could be made into a luxury version of the 319 with the same capabilities and capable of multiple working with them.

The 1980s vehicle body / frames will be good for 20 years more.

The best option to keep the 442s in service would be to turn them into loco-hauled coaching stock. Conversion to AC would be nice, but with the cabs suitably converted all that would be needed is an AC electric locomotive or even a diesel (classes 68/88, anyone?)

PS Feel free to split this off...

 

[jopsuk]

Given that EMUs related to the 442s in bodywork terms (319,321) are getting all new traction packs, I wonder whether the extra cost of putting a roof well and transformer in is really that significant? They could be made into a luxury version of the 319 with the same capabilities and capable of multiple working with them.

The 1980s vehicle body / frames will be good for 20 years more.

The Mk3-based MU body shell is quite different to the Mk3 carriage. Notably of course it is shorter and wider. The classes you mention are already built to take the transformer, the pantograph etc.
the 442 motor coach is a very different design, being much more closely related to carriage- and has no structure to take the pantograph, no space for a transformer.

 

[edwin_m]

You'd probably have to build a new pantograph/transformer car to convert a 442 to AC, or perhaps steal one from something like a 319.

 

[jopsuk]

it would be a bit awkward having a 20 x 2.8m bodied, 1/3 - 2/3rd doors coach in the middle of a 23m x 2.7 m bodied, end-doors, unit.

Once more, the 442s are very, very different to Class 150, 317-322, 325, 455, 456. Those classes have a body that used the mark 3's construction techiniques, but radically altered (different length and width, different door positions, different windows). The 442s, especially the two non-driving trailers, are much closer to mark 3 coaching stock.

 

[edwin_m]

it would be a bit awkward having a 20 x 2.8m bodied, 1/3 - 2/3rd doors coach in the middle of a 23m x 2.7 m bodied, end-doors, unit.

Once more, the 442s are very, very different to Class 150, 317-322, 325, 455, 456. Those classes have a body that used the mark 3's construction techiniques, but radically altered (different length and width, different door positions, different windows). The 442s, especially the two non-driving trailers, are much closer to mark 3 coaching stock.

I agree. And I have it on reliable authority (one of the people that designed the Tunnel sleeper generator vans) that the Mk3 roof is structural and adding a pantograph well would be very difficult. Mountings for a heavy transformer probably even more so.

 

[Surreyman]

Roger Fords article on CP5 rolling stock requirements in Januarys Modern Railways, mentions a 'nominal 30 5 car EMU' requirement (150 vehicles), 'new build or existing an existing fleet'.
He notes that one of the ROSCOs may have an 'interesting' proposal.
So are these trains (of whatever length/Age make up) going to be for; -
1. To provide additional 10 car trains on suburban routes (current 455/456 territory)?
2. To provide 10 car trains on the Reading line when that line is upgraded to 10 car operation sometime in CP5?
3. Dual Voltage units to displace/cascade 444s running between Basingstoke/Southampton/Bournemouth/Weymouth when Basingstoke - Southampton is re-electrified at 25kv?
So far the consensus is that they are additional inner suburban trains.
If the eventual plan is for an all 10 car suburban service, Platforms in the suburbs have now been lengthened but Waterloo P1-4 await rebuilding.
91 re-motored 455 units (= 40+ 8 car trains to marry up with up to 26 456 units i.e theoretical max no of 10 car trains = 26, suggesting that 8 car trains will continue to run (presumably on the less busy services), can current/future signalling cater for extra paths for an additional say 14, 10 car trains?

 

[starrymarkb]

The Mk3-based MU body shell is quite different to the Mk3 carriage. Notably of course it is shorter and wider. The classes you mention are already built to take the transformer, the pantograph etc.
the 442 motor coach is a very different design, being much more closely related to carriage- and has no structure to take the pantograph, no space for a transformer.

Am I right in thinking the 442 motor coach was based on an IE Generator coach in order to take the weight of the REP traction gear

 

[swt_passenger]

However '10 car suburban services' hasn't really ever meant every train, everywhere, at all times of the day - although that has been regularly assumed. So I don't think there's much point in trying to fit the new stock to a single discrete purpose.

(Certainly the equivalent 10 car project on the Southern side hasn't meant 100% lengthening - it just provides the necessary infrastructure for use as required.)

I also agree the range of numbers involved in the tender (135 - 250) doesn't necessarily mean it must be 30 x 5 car. Of course Roger Ford may have been given some insider info that wasn't considered necessary for the OJEU purposes...

 

[WatcherZero]

When he did his figures for CP5 didnt he fail to account for the requirements of TPE North?

 

[swt_passenger]

When he did his figures for CP5 didnt he fail to account for the requirements of TPE North?

I wonder if that's because he's only going by published info that can be substantiated?

Is anyone aware of any official estimates of the needs for TPE North - in the likes of a route plan, RUS or DfT franchise info? Perhaps if there is a plan somewhere it will surface when the next TPE ITT comes out, and make sense of all the guessing in a similar way to the TSGN ITT?

 

[hwl]

He notes that one of the ROSCOs may have an 'interesting' proposal.

21x 455/8 ex lease from Southern/TSGN in a few years for bargain price? They would struggle to find a home otherwise and would need a big refurb about the time they might end up at SWT (84 cars total) combined with some new 5 car units for the balance of the order (10-33 units)?

The forth coming SWT AC traction package modifications are £440k per 455 which is relatively cheap compared to a new unit but with about 1/3 of the expected life span and lower running costs it makes sense.

 

[Katada]

Why were the overground 508s scrapped when they need new EMUs?

 

[Eagle]

Why were the overground 508s scrapped when they need new EMUs?

You answered that with the penultimate word. New.

Those 508s were life-expired (they hadn't been treated as well as Merseyrail's ones), and additionally a few years in storage had meant they'd decayed to the point that they were unsalvageable.

 

[Monty]

Why were the overground 508s scrapped when they need new EMUs?

London Overground did look at the option of taking back some 508s after a heavy refurbishment, but decided against it because they were that knackered..

 

[Helvellyn]

Roger Fords article on CP5 rolling stock requirements in Januarys Modern Railways, mentions a 'nominal 30 5 car EMU' requirement (150 vehicles), 'new build or existing an existing fleet'.
He notes that one of the ROSCOs may have an 'interesting' proposal.
So are these trains (of whatever length/Age make up) going to be for; -
1. To provide additional 10 car trains on suburban routes (current 455/456 territory)?
2. To provide 10 car trains on the Reading line when that line is upgraded to 10 car operation sometime in CP5?
3. Dual Voltage units to displace/cascade 444s running between Basingstoke/Southampton/Bournemouth/Weymouth when Basingstoke - Southampton is re-electrified at 25kv?
So far the consensus is that they are additional inner suburban trains.
If the eventual plan is for an all 10 car suburban service, Platforms in the suburbs have now been lengthened but Waterloo P1-4 await rebuilding.
91 re-motored 455 units (= 40+ 8 car trains to marry up with up to 26 456 units i.e theoretical max no of 10 car trains = 26, suggesting that 8 car trains will continue to run (presumably on the less busy services), can current/future signalling cater for extra paths for an additional say 14, 10 car trains?

Some suggestions that these additional units will actually displace the 458/5 from the Windsor side suburban services back onto Reading services! This is one of the reasons given as to why the units have been painted in outer suburban blue rather than inner suburban red.

This would allow the 450s that are going to go back on the Reading services to be put on the Mainline to further strengthen services there.

Another reason why the 458/5 cascade rumour persists is that Siemens use images of the Desiro city in SWT inner suburban red in various publicity. Now while that doesn't guarantee anything, Siemens had been favourite for the order when it was for new stock. However, as the Roger Ford article mentions, the invitation to tender was withdrawn and there would seem to be option to take some BR-era traction (SN 455/8s or TL 319s), most likely with a new traction package.

Guess we'll have to wait and see...

 

[Pumbaa]

Some suggestions that these additional units will actually displace the 458/5 from the Windsor side suburban services back onto Reading services! This is one of the reasons given as to why the units have been painted in outer suburban blue rather than inner suburban red.

This would allow the 450s that are going to go back on the Reading services to be put on the Mainline to further strengthen services there.

That is the long term plan I believe; the ability to easily and quickly re-instate FC (read; for little £) was specced into the rebuild for this end.