Unsuitable Rolling Stock

[John55]

It is interesting how you use the class 421 4 CIG as the main basis of your point, but totally disregard the 4 CEP of which the construction of started in 1956, the exact same year they started bulding the Metro Cammell class 101 so being pedantic they early CEP's would have been the same age at withdrawl or older. Upon withdrawl there were a lot more CEP's taken out of service than the small pocket of 101's. You could indeed say it was a pointless comparison however there is a miss conception every time one of these threads come up that the south east always gets everything but the North gets the cast off's and rubbish The CEP's did have a poor ride quaility and the interior left a lot to be desired particularly towards the end the headrests seemed to fall off regularly the motor coach's would vibrate heavily with the heavy thump of the compressors when stood idle for too long at a station, & very stiff and hard to operate compartment doors both the handles and the tendency to come out their runners, and vinyl flooring covered in scratches, cuts, marks, & ridges. I don't disgaree that people wouldn't mind a pacer on a very short branch line but the post I quoted and replied to do not state that just generically said South East and did not specify branch lines or main lines. To further split hairs the Class 455's with SWT/Southern have Westinghouse brake gear from 4 SUB's units circa 1930's, & the wessex units with southern have traction motors from the 4 REP units which first hit the rails in 1966. Not forgetting the IOW tube stock from 1938!!

I am puzzled by your assertion that the Class 455s have brake gear from 4-SUBs from the 1930s. The class 455s have Westcode EP brakes while the 4-SUBs (presumably you refer to the 1940 version) had straight air brakes which are very different. The class 455 brakes were in fact so different to previous brakes used on the Southern (including the earlier EP brakes) that the drivers had some difficulty getting used to it.

Could you elaborate?

 

[tempests1]

I am puzzled by your assertion that the Class 455s have brake gear from 4-SUBs from the 1930s. The class 455s have Westcode EP brakes while the 4-SUBs (presumably you refer to the 1940 version) had straight air brakes which are very different. The class 455 brakes were in fact so different to previous brakes used on the Southern (including the earlier EP brakes) that the drivers had some difficulty getting used to it.

Could you elaborate?

The 455's have Reconditioned EE507 traction motors and DH25 compressors from withdrawn 4Sub and 2Hap units. The 4SUB's second build were introduced in 1946

 

[Schnellzug]

It is interesting how you use the class 421 4 CIG as the main basis of your point, but totally disregard the 4 CEP of which the construction of started in 1956, the exact same year they started bulding the Metro Cammell class 101 so being pedantic they early CEP's would have been the same age at withdrawl or older. Upon withdrawl there were a lot more CEP's taken out of service than the small pocket of 101's. You could indeed say it was a pointless comparison however there is a miss conception every time one of these threads come up that the south east always gets everything but the North gets the cast off's and rubbish The CEP's did have a poor ride quaility and the interior left a lot to be desired particularly towards the end the headrests seemed to fall off regularly the motor coach's would vibrate heavily with the heavy thump of the compressors when stood idle for too long at a station, & very stiff and hard to operate compartment doors both the handles and the tendency to come out their runners, and vinyl flooring covered in scratches, cuts, marks, & ridges. I don't disgaree that people wouldn't mind a pacer on a very short branch line but the post I quoted and replied to do not state that just generically said South East and did not specify branch lines or main lines. To further split hairs the Class 455's with SWT/Southern have Westinghouse brake gear from 4 SUB's units circa 1930's, & the wessex units with southern have traction motors from the 4 REP units which first hit the rails in 1966. Not forgetting the IOW tube stock from 1938!!

Oh (it may be OT slightly) I preferred the CEPs. They had much better Seats than VEPs or later CIGs (even had Armrests!), and VEPs and CIGs bounced horrendously if you were over the Bogie. Nothing much wrong with the riding of Commonewealth bogies, I thought.

 

[pemma]

Wikepedia claims there were only five at First North Western. Silverlink and ScotRail continued with slam door DMUs until around the Millenium too (not just the north west of England getting a rough deal). Slam door DMU operation continues today with ATW and Chiltern, of course.

Whereas the slam door EMUs in the South East were in much larger number, hence the need to tackle the problem.

If you look at the post I was replying to it was mentioning a couple of 421s being kept in service until 2005 in response to an earlier mention about Pacers. I was making the point the 101s were older when they were withdrawn, despite the 421s being EMUs which are supposed to have longer lives.

FNW had 6 class 101s in service after the 175s were introduced. They had much more slam door which was replaced directly and indirectly by the 175s. The 101s were not kept on short shuttle runs in the way the final 421s were. The Scotrail 101s actually got cascaded to FNW, presumably so the best ones could remain in service with spare parts available.

 

[AlanFry1]

Make that 378s or whatever their replacement is, and that makes more sense. Then they could withdraw the 31Xs entirely and send them somewhere else, plus having modern inner-suburban stock to work their inner-suburban routes.

The 378s have a lack of seats, they should have done them as a 2+2
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

317s/321s have 4 large electric motors and are geared for 100mph, therefore having poor acceleration. 315s have 8 small electric motors and are geared for 75mph, therefore having better acceleration.

This means that 321s/317s cannot work 315 diagrams and vice-versa, because of the performance differential.

I agree, but I have seen some 317s do routes normally done by 315s on the West Anglian Lines and they seem fine, plus they were much better then those 315s

 

[ert47]

The 378s have a lack of seats, they should have done them as a 2+2

IMHO, the 378s would have been horrible if they were 2+2, the East London Line would have been unbearable!

 

[AlanFry1]

IMHO, the 378s would have been horrible if they were 2+2, the East London Line would have been unbearable!

Not if they had more than 4 cars per train

Also they have this on the Gospal Pak-Barking LO line, over there they need to extend the trains from 2 car to 4 car

 

[ert47]

Not if they had more than 4 cars per train

Also they have this on the Gospal Pak-Barking LO line, over there they need to extend the trains from 2 car to 4 car

The 5th cars will be coming at some point, but a number of stations will be needing SDO due to short platforms.

The 172s on the Goblin Line were designed as such so that they can be easily cascaded when/if the line is electrified.

 

[AlanFry1]

The 5th cars will be coming at some point, but a number of stations will be needing SDO due to short platforms.

The 172s on the Goblin Line were designed as such so that they can be easily cascaded when/if the line is electrified.

Until then can LO make the 172s on the Goblin Line longer (from 2-car to 4-car), because at peak times it can get overcrowded. Also the platforms on the Goblin Line are long enough for 4-car trains

 

[yorksrob]

The CEP's did have a poor ride quaility and the interior left a lot to be desired particularly towards the end the headrests seemed to fall off regularly the motor coach's would vibrate heavily with the heavy thump of the compressors when stood idle for too long at a station, & very stiff and hard to operate compartment doors both the handles and the tendency to come out their runners, and vinyl flooring covered in scratches, cuts, marks, & ridges.

The 101's were fairly basic interior wise though. The CEP's might have been contemporary with them but they were a world away in terms of comfort, even though some TOC's (mentioning no names Connex) allowed them to get into a worse state than others.

 

[Schnellzug]

The 101's were fairly basic interior wise though. The CEP's might have been contemporary with them but they were a world away in terms of comfort, even though some TOC's (mentioning no names Connex) allowed them to get into a worse state than others.

the CEPs were fairly substantially refurbished in the 70s, of coruse, with new seats, lighting, panelling, & new bogies. If we're reminiscing about SR rolling stock, I always thought that the Series I CIGs were very comfortable, with nice well sprung Seats.

 

[LE Greys]

the CEPs were fairly substantially refurbished in the 70s, of coruse, with new seats, lighting, panelling, & new bogies. If we're reminiscing about SR rolling stock, I always thought that the Series I CIGs were very comfortable, with nice well sprung Seats.

The bogies were also replacement for original MkI leaf spring bogies, which you sometimes see on preserved lines. These were designed for steam-hauled coaches, and simply could not cope with high speed, Commonwealths, and later B4s, were a good replacement. Such is the flexibility of a loco-hauled coach that it was very easy to do, just a standard bogie replacement with no need to worry about motor connections or traction pickups.

And I agree about the CIGs, best seats I've travelled on on the national network.

 

[aylesbury]

I could proberbly come up with a few more if we're permitting multiple working here...

Greenford - West Ealing (When it becomes a shuttle)
Slough - Windsor & Eaton Central

Come to think of it, any of the GW Branches, since they'll soon be run in isolation, less safety issues.

Alesbury - Princess Raisbrough
Alesbury - Watford Junction (Post Croxley Rail Link) although 508s or 313s might be better for that, since it is DC Electrified.

We have a comfortable 121 for Aylesbury Risborough and Aylesbury Watford a 165 will do nicely,keep your Pacers up north ,thanks.

 

[AlanFry1]

We have a comfortable 121 for Aylesbury Risborough and Aylesbury Watford a 165 will do nicely,keep your Pacers up north ,thanks.

A 172 will be better in all those cases

 

[Nym]

Better than LU 'S' Stock or Cl 378s that wouldn't burn Diesel between Alyesbury and Watford?

 

[yorksrob]

the CEPs were fairly substantially refurbished in the 70s, of coruse, with new seats, lighting, panelling, & new bogies. If we're reminiscing about SR rolling stock, I always thought that the Series I CIGs were very comfortable, with nice well sprung Seats.

Indeed, the CEP's before refurbishment were (by the looks of things) fairly similar in terms of seating type to the phase 1 CIG's. My preference would be for a phase 1 CIG over a refurbed CEP anyday, although the CEP refurbs were comfortable enough for longer distance travel.

 

[John55]

The 455's have Reconditioned EE507 traction motors and DH25 compressors from withdrawn 4Sub and 2Hap units. The 4SUB's second build were introduced in 1946

Thank you for the clarification but the motors are not part of the brake gear and date from 1948 at the earliest and most probably later. The compressors are common equipment and I would not call them brake gear either.

 

[AlanFry1]

Better than LU 'S' Stock or Cl 378s that wouldn't burn Diesel between Alyesbury and Watford?

If it is electrified, then a Class 377/5 or 379

 

[Nym]

just sit down and ask yourself why a 379 wouldnt work between the met and watford junction...

 

[AlanFry1]

just sit down and ask yourself why a 379 wouldnt work between the met and watford junction...

Hence I would prefer a dual voltage 377/5

 

[Nym]

Again, why? You don't need that kind of capacity on that route.

The best kind of stock would be something like S4 stock (If Bombardier would build some) or a follow on order of 378s, try to keep some stock homoganation with other parts of the route.

 

[AlanFry1]

Again, why? You don't need that kind of capacity on that route.

The best kind of stock would be something like S4 stock (If Bombardier would build some) or a follow on order of 378s, try to keep some stock homoganation with other parts of the route.

When you mean S4, do you mean LU S-stock

For Crossrail 3, 378 or S-stock will not be right for Watford-Guilford services or South Bucks to Central London services, but the 377/5 might

 

[Class377/5]

When you mean S4, do you mean LU S-stock

For Crossrail 3, 378 or S-stock will not be right for Watford-Guilford services or South Bucks to Central London services, but the 377/5 might

Again, why? You don't need that kind of capacity on that route.

The best kind of stock would be something like S4 stock (If Bombardier would build some) or a follow on order of 378s, try to keep some stock homoganation with other parts of the route.

He means a 4 car version of the S stock, like how it's current S7 or S8 depending on train length.

The 377/5 are spoken for long term. They are needed for 8 car working Milton Keynes - Croydon. Current loadings require 8 cars soon than later.

 

[LE Greys]

Again, why? You don't need that kind of capacity on that route.

The best kind of stock would be something like S4 stock (If Bombardier would build some) or a follow on order of 378s, try to keep some stock homoganation with other parts of the route.

It's questionalble value doing the whole line to Aylesbury as d.c., when anything out in the Birmingham direction ought to be a.c. Would it be possible to fit pantographs to the S-Stock and pull up the conductor rails beyond Harrow with the exception of the Uxbridge branch? That way, there is a chance of the Met running to Aylesbury and better stock sharing with the Birmingham service. You could do it the other way, but that would mean two systems in Marylebone and no chance of the Met to Aylesbury.

 

[AlanFry1]

He means a 4 car version of the S stock, like how it's current S7 or S8 depending on train length.

The 377/5 are spoken for long term. They are needed for 8 car working Milton Keynes - Croydon. Current loadings require 8 cars soon than later.

For Chiltern services the S4 will not do, Class 350/379 will do

 

[Nym]

Kak, I ment Alesbury, not Ammersham...

 

[Class377/5]

For Chiltern services the S4 will not do, Class 350/379 will do

Why not?

If your talking about capacity, let's looks at that

S8 - 306 seats
'S4' - 153 seats

350/1 - 203 seats
350/2 - 227 seats
377/5 - 238 seats
379/0 - 185 seats.

If you consider that the layout of the S stock could be 2+2 the seating levels will shoot up.

Also note

375/6 - 242 seats
375/9 - 274 seats.

The S stock is a version of the Movia family from Bombarder. In India they use an AC version of the Movia family so there is no reason why there couldn't be an AC S4 stock if someone wanted it.

 

[AlanFry1]

Why not?

If your talking about capacity, let's looks at that

S8 - 306 seats
'S4' - 153 seats

350/1 - 203 seats
350/2 - 227 seats
377/5 - 238 seats
379/0 - 185 seats.

If you consider that the layout of the S stock could be 2+2 the seating levels will shoot up.

Also note

375/6 - 242 seats
375/9 - 274 seats.

The S stock is a version of the Movia family from Bombarder. In India they use an AC version of the Movia family so there is no reason why there couldn't be an AC S4 stock if someone wanted it.

Yes, but what if the 359/375/379 operated as a 2 x 4-car set, then they would have more seats than the S-stock

 

[Class377/5]

Yes, but what if the 359/375/379 operated as a 2 x 4-car set, then they would have more seats than the S-stock

And if you put 2+2 seats you'd get a better amount of seats on the S Stocks so there would be no better than an Electrostar.

 

[jopsuk]

an 8-car electrostar is longer than a 8-car s-stock, by quite some way (a bit like a 2-car 150 is longer than a 2-car Pacer)