2EPBs, 456s and 466s - mileage

[nw1]

A thought has occurred to me recently about the above units, all of which are of course 2-car suburban.

The most important usage of all of these was presumably to boost capacity in the peak or shoulder-peak, working with 4EPBs, 455s and 465s respectively, so that 4-cars could become 6 and 8-cars could become 10.

Was there, thus, an issue whereby these classes accumulated lower mileage than their corresponding 4-car equivalent?

Or were the diagrams designed to ensure that all were kept out off-peak?

In some cases, did this lead to some services being longer than required (e.g. some 6-cars running round all day when a 4-car could have sufficed) in order to keep the mileage up?

Or was there some clever diagramming by which, and by design, pairs of 2EPBs, 456s and 466s ran around all day? Haven't seen any 466 pairs though I have seen pairs of the other two.

Or was it just accepted that these classes would accumulate lower mileage?

In all cases I'm thinking of the eras when the units were still relatively new or mid-life (or at least not under threat of withdrawal), so thinking of say the 1960s-80s for the EPBs and 1990s-00s for the 456s and 466s.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Can only comment on my experience of 2EPB and 456;

Was there, thus, an issue whereby these classes accumulated lower mileage than their corresponding 4-car equivalent?

No issues. In general terms the 2 car unit's when working with a 4 car/8 car, would stay with those units for the day, both back in EPB days and more recently (455+456).

Or were the diagrams designed to ensure that all were kept out off-peak?

Not specifically. Back in EPB days formations were largely driven from knowing how trains loaded (passenger counts etc) and the availability of stock (of each type) to cover the overall service. Many such 2 car diagrams (back then) supplementing main line formations (for the peaks) found themselves on depot between the peaks, but still attached to their main line partners. What you might loosly refer to today as peak additional's.
In more recent times the 2 car 456's stayed with their 455's all day, as the plan was designed to be an 8 car/10 car railway (SW area). Some such formations, as above, did only work in the peaks, as the timetable dictated, but the formation was treated 'as one train'.

In some cases, did this lead to some services being longer than required (e.g. some 6-cars running round all day when a 4-car could have sufficed) in order to keep the mileage up?

Possibly, your first point, but not to keep mileage up. From a diagram basis units had to be balanced (location wise) each night, the same as any other type, and operated on services that they were needed on (capacity). They were not treated any differently operationally. The only reason mileages may have been slightly lower (for some 2 car units) is as above, in EPB days many were off road between the peaks, but that applied to the main line units attached to them also. Also at weekends (SW), 2 car units were very rarely used (in my time) and sat spare, the only movements required being to 'position' the odd 2 car at the end of a Sunday night, ready for the start of the SX week.
In more recent times, when 'mileage based maintenance' came to the fore, mileages worked had to be kept within certain margins, but these margins will have been based on the timetable requirements (what was in the plan) in the first instant, and could always be renegotiated should the TT require to change drastically.

Or was there some clever diagramming by which, and by design, pairs of 2EPBs, 456s and 466s ran around all day?

Not particularly. If all available stock of another type (suitable for the services being operated) had been exhausted, then certain services might have been formed of all 2 car units. The only 'clever' diagramming, not that I would call it that, is that the peaks took priority, and so some off peak workings (formations) could well have been a result of peak time requirements (EPB days).

Or was it just accepted that these classes would accumulate lower mileage?

Reference my comments above (weekend working). They didn't necessarily work less mileage on a day by day SX basis, but taking the annual mileage in to account, then yes, the figures would have been less overall (for the type) than for other main line stock types.

 

[CarrotPie]

In some cases, did this lead to some services being longer than required (e.g. some 6-cars running round all day when a 4-car could have sufficed) in order to keep the mileage up?

Or was there some clever diagramming by which, and by design, pairs of 2EPBs, 456s and 466s ran around all day? Haven't seen any 466 pairs though I have seen pairs of the other two.

I know Southeastern has some 465+466+466 services and lots of 465+466 metro services off-peak.

 

[Rescars]

A thought has occurred to me recently about the above units, all of which are of course 2-car suburban.

The most important usage of all of these was presumably to boost capacity in the peak or shoulder-peak, working with 4EPBs, 455s and 465s respectively, so that 4-cars could become 6 and 8-cars could become 10.

On some routes, the usage seemed to be the other way around. For a number of years most of the services to Tattenham Corner were 2-cars only (with 4-cars splitting at Purley and going to Caterham). For a while there was an additional 2-car shuttle between Purley and TC, which must have added some mileage to the units concerned! IIRC peak services to TC were either 4-car splitting at Purley or 6-car without a Caterham portion.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

The situation would change year to to year sometimes, depending on loadings, politics (costs etc) no doubt, but during my involvement down that way, the Caterham's were a minimum of 4 cars all day SX, mostly 455 (3 x diagrams), but the odd (one diagram) 4 car 456, with some 6's in the peaks on London Bridge services, but Tattenham did have a handful of 2 car workings (throughout), five in the Down direction from Vic, late morning to early afternoon, and three in the Up, again centred around the noon hour, all 456's. The Purley splitters/joiners being mostly peak times to a large degree.

 

[JonathanH]

Single 456 use certainly wasn't uncommon on the South Central division up to the end of the 2000s. Single 466s on the South Eastern (other than Sheerness, Medway Valley and Bromley North) were a different matter, but six and ten coach use much more common. Indeed, the 466s still have outer suburban workings as six and ten coach services.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

The major problem with 2 car working on SW was the risk of gapping, particularly in the Waterloo-Clapham/Wimbledon corridor, and this is still so (AFAIK) in relation to single 4 cars over a certain ladder crossing. The reason diagramming of single 2 cars was generally not done. The most common instance I remember of shunting 2 cars (on paper) was during weekend engineering works plans, when (to avoid using 2 car units - which were a pain in such instances to be honest), they needed to be shunted within certain depots (Farnham springs to mind) in order to release the 8 Vep or 8 Cig trapped in behind, and then of course a second shunt on Sunday nights to make the formation correct for the Monday starts.
When it came to the 10 car 455+456 railway, I made it a point of trying to plan the base workings (partly) so that during engineering works, my colleagues could make use of the 8 car 455's stabled here and there, without having to diagram shunts to get the single 456's out of the way, etc.
Thankfully, for the most part, this thinking (with perhaps one exception IIRC), did allow for the majority of 455+455+456 combo's to operate on the main suburban side with all the 2 cars at the same end, which was also a wish of mine for the benefit of platform staff etc primarily, to keep some sort of standard pattern. The odd 'pain in the plan' as I recall, was a certain diagram that went round the Kingston loop and finished on the Windsor side, but that was dealt with via a depot swap if memory is correct. Other than that all formation changes with 2 cars involved were left to those 'on depot', out of harms way.

 

[Taunton]

Was there, thus, an issue whereby these classes accumulated lower mileage than their corresponding 4-car equivalent?

Or were the diagrams designed to ensure that all were kept out off-peak?

My recollection from EPB days on the South-Eastern was somewhat opposite, that 10-car sets from the peak might drop a 4-car, to be 6-car off peak. Next day, drop the opposite 4-car, thus the 2-car ended up doing the most work.

Someone will have the diagrams, but it seemed to vary by year, as economies came in and off peak formations were cut back, from 8 to 6. Much of the off peak reductions seemed to be in frequency, sometimes down to half hourly. By the time a train actually arrived it could be well loaded.

It always seems strange to me that the best part of a century after the 3rd rail was put in there are still layouts which can gap types of train used. Particularly as the original installations were built around 3-car sets, the cars being shorter than nowadays.

 

[Bikeman78]

A thought has occurred to me recently about the above units, all of which are of course 2-car suburban.

The most important usage of all of these was presumably to boost capacity in the peak or shoulder-peak, working with 4EPBs, 455s and 465s respectively, so that 4-cars could become 6 and 8-cars could become 10.

Was there, thus, an issue whereby these classes accumulated lower mileage than their corresponding 4-car equivalent?

Or were the diagrams designed to ensure that all were kept out off-peak?

In some cases, did this lead to some services being longer than required (e.g. some 6-cars running round all day when a 4-car could have sufficed) in order to keep the mileage up?

Or was there some clever diagramming by which, and by design, pairs of 2EPBs, 456s and 466s ran around all day? Haven't seen any 466 pairs though I have seen pairs of the other two.

Or was it just accepted that these classes would accumulate lower mileage?

In all cases I'm thinking of the eras when the units were still relatively new or mid-life (or at least not under threat of withdrawal), so thinking of say the 1960s-80s for the EPBs and 1990s-00s for the 456s and 466s.

Thinking about the Central Division, 2EPBs were relatively rare to Horsham until around 1990. Most trains were four or eight, formed of 4EPBs, with only the odd six car peak train. The South London Line and Wimbledon to West Croydon required two units each day. I have no idea what the other 2EPBs did. Did any run solo off peak during the 1980s? By the late 1980s, around 10 diagrams were used for East Grinstead, peak time only.

For the 456s, there were plenty of solo off peak turns, mainly to Smitham and West Croydon, if I recall correctly. There was also a lot of splitting and joining at Victoria and London Bridge between the peaks to achieve the desired peak hour formations.

 

[Taunton]

I have no idea what the other 2EPBs did. Did any run solo off peak during the 1980s?

In 1985 2-EPBs, the Southern Railway type (ironically a bit newer build than the BR design) took over the new Richmond to North Woolwich operation, which occupied about half a dozen units. It's initially a bit bizarre thinking that just such two car units could then hold down a service which nowadays is at all of maximum frequency, formation length, and commonly overcrowded. But even more bizarrely, the initial number of seats was the same in both, 186 - in the two-car EPB and in the five-car 378.

 

[Snow1964]

The 2HAPs tended to work in multiple in their early years, although some branch and minor lines used them singularly, although as the 4VEPs came along about decade later they seemed to get reassigned to outer suburban work.

Odd ones did some strange workings, eg once a week one was sent down to Eastleigh and spent whole week doing Lymington branch before being swapped.

In later years many of them allowed 4SUBs to be withdrawn as they took over number of peak suburban workings (with downgraded first class as 2SAP). EPBs were never in big numbers on SW division. They certainly did lower mileages as often not used in evening or at all on weekends when 4VEPs seem to be preferred on anything but inner suburban area.

 

[Bikeman78]

In 1985 2-EPBs, the Southern Railway type (ironically a bit newer build than the BR design) took over the new Richmond to North Woolwich operation, which occupied about half a dozen units. It's initially a bit bizarre thinking that just such two car units could then hold down a service which nowadays is at all of maximum frequency, formation length, and commonly overcrowded. But even more bizarrely, the initial number of seats was the same in both, 186 - in the two-car EPB and in the five-car 378.

I forgot about that. So that's at least 10 Selhurst 2EPBs out all day in the mid to late 80s. The units off the NLL switched to East Grinstead. The timescales roughly tie up. When did Wimbledon to West Croydon drop to one unit?

Here is a video of a NLL run from Richmond, incorrectly labelled as a 501 but it's clearly an EPB.

 

[nw1]

Thanks for all the replies.

The 2HAPs tended to work in multiple in their early years, although some branch and minor lines used them singularly, although as the 4VEPs came along about decade later they seemed to get reassigned to outer suburban work.

Odd ones did some strange workings, eg once a week one was sent down to Eastleigh and spent whole week doing Lymington branch before being swapped.

I deliberately avoided the HAPs as they seemed to be mostly used peak/shouder-peak only, at least by the 80s, to boost VEP/CIG formations (whereas the three classes mentioned were generally or exclusively used with their 4-car close relatives).

However right up to the 1981 timetable there was a lot of pure-HAP workings on the Chatham lines in particular; that year the majority of the off-peak stoppers to Gillingham/Faversham and Maidstone East were formed of pure-HAP operations with few VEPs or CEPs. This changed in 1982 when most such workings went over to VEPs (with the odd CEP) though HAPs still formed plenty of peak services.

Further back in 1967 (according to the Waterloo CWN) HAP pairs were used for the Alton and Portsmouth and Southsea rear portions of the xx13 and xx43 SWML dividers (to Basingstoke and Bournemouth). So these would be formed 4VEP FP / 4HAP RP.

Also one of the 5 Saturday diagrams on the Cobham line in 1982/3 was formed 4HAP.

In later years many of them allowed 4SUBs to be withdrawn as they took over number of peak suburban workings (with downgraded first class as 2SAP). EPBs were never in big numbers on SW division. They certainly did lower mileages as often not used in evening or at all on weekends when 4VEPs seem to be preferred on anything but inner suburban area.

I remember units 5101-5132 were on the SWD in 1982/3 and 1983/4. I saw them regularly on the Cobham line, augmenting VEPs at peak or shoulder-peak times. According to the CWN there were some on inner-suburbans in 1982/3 but mixed with SUBs and 508s - so quite an eclectic mix!

For the 456s, there were plenty of solo off peak turns, mainly to Smitham and West Croydon, if I recall correctly. There was also a lot of splitting and joining at Victoria and London Bridge between the peaks to achieve the desired peak hour formations.

Interesting that there were 2-car workings out of London off-peak. (Though come to think of it I think this has come up before).

 

[30907]

Interesting that there were 2-car workings out of London off-peak. (Though come to think of it I think this has come up before).

On the SE, the Gillingham/Sheerness and Maidstone portions of the xx18/xx14 off Victoria, and the stopping Ashford portion of the xx10 Charing X, were routinely 2-car.
When the xx50 Gillingham stopper extra was introduced (early 70s?) this could produce a single 2-Hap.
ISTR that solo 2-EPBs were used on (eg) the Hayes line on Sundays around 1960, and similarly on Central services via Tulse Hill in the 70s (eg the Tulse Hill-C Palace-Selhurst-Streatham route on Sundays).

 

[nw1]

On the SE, the Gillingham/Sheerness and Maidstone portions of the xx18/xx14 off Victoria, and the stopping Ashford portion of the xx10 Charing X, were routinely 2-car.
When the xx50 Gillingham stopper extra was introduced (early 70s?) this could produce a single 2-Hap.
ISTR that solo 2-EPBs were used on (eg) the Hayes line on Sundays around 1960, and similarly on Central services via Tulse Hill in the 70s (eg the Tulse Hill-C Palace-Selhurst-Streatham route on Sundays).

Not sure what era that was but I have the CWN for 1981.

The 1981 pattern was a bit "quirky", as in, not very clockface except for the fast trains.

It consisted of :

xx09 and xx39 Ramsgate/Dover dividers (semi-fast or fast): mix of CEPs and VEPs
xx13 Maidstone East and Faversham divider: mostly HAPs (both portions) though the occasional VEP or CEP
xx49 Gillingham: mostly HAPs (including solo 2-car examples) but the occasional VEP
xx54 Margate via Maidstone East/Ashford: mostly VEPs with the occasional CEP

Furthermore the timetable was asymmetric with the Gillingham, not the Faversham, combining with the Maidstone East in the up direction.

It changed in 1982 to the classic 80s/90s pattern of two fasts and two slows immediately behind the fasts on a clockface pattern, and the fasts and slows alternating Ramsgate/Dover, with connections between the two at Faversham with the slow being overtaken by the following fast. Plus Maidstone services moved to a half-hourly clockface pattern with departures arranged to give an even-interval (more or less) service to Bromley South. In 1982, the HAPs were largely peak-only though some shoulder-peak fasts (unusually) were multiple-HAP formations.

 

[30907]

Not sure what era that was but I have the CWN for 1981

The 1981 pattern was a bit "quirky", as in, not very clockface except for the fast trains.

It consisted of :

xx09 and xx39 Ramsgate/Dover dividers (semi-fast or fast): mix of CEPs and VEPs
xx13 Maidstone East and Faversham divider: mostly HAPs (both portions) though the occasional VEP or CEP
xx49 Gillingham: mostly HAPs (including solo 2-car examples) but the occasional VEP
xx54 Margate via Maidstone East/Ashford: mostly VEPs with the occasional CEP

Furthermore the timetable was asymmetric with the Gillingham, not the Faversham, combining with the Maidstone East in the up direction.

That's exactly the same as mine (mid 70s), except for leaving Vic a minute earlier.
I don't remember when the Sheerness workings were diverted to Faversham, but it was pre1978. The 78 WTT is also asymmetric, which I had never noticed.

 

[Bikeman78]

The 2HAPs tended to work in multiple in their early years, although some branch and minor lines used them singularly, although as the 4VEPs came along about decade later they seemed to get reassigned to outer suburban work.

Odd ones did some strange workings, eg once a week one was sent down to Eastleigh and spent whole week doing Lymington branch before being swapped.

In later years many of them allowed 4SUBs to be withdrawn as they took over number of peak suburban workings (with downgraded first class as 2SAP). EPBs were never in big numbers on SW division. They certainly did lower mileages as often not used in evening or at all on weekends when 4VEPs seem to be preferred on anything but inner suburban area.

I found another video which proves that there was a significant overlap between NLL and East Grinstead. By 1989, all the 2EPBs had bars so any of them could run to North Woolwich, as seen on this video. Originally only 6313 to 6327 had bars. Why they chose to put bars on units in the middle of the series is anyone's guess.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Originally only 6313 to 6327 had bars. Why they chose to put bars on units in the middle of the series is anyone's guess.

Wasn't the facelift project for these still ongoing during 1985? May have just been a case of which units were in works/due exams, at the time it was decided to transfer some to NLL? Either that or the process of making/procuring the bars themselves coincided with 6313 and later units in the programme, although that is perhaps a tad flimsy argument, as stock rarely goes through works in a 'painted number' chronological order, more usually by exam due date!

 

[Bikeman78]

Wasn't the facelift project for these still ongoing during 1985? May have just been a case of which units were in works/due exams, at the time it was decided to transfer some to NLL? Either that or the process of making/procuring the bars themselves coincided with 6313 and later units in the programme, although that is perhaps a tad flimsy argument, as stock rarely goes through works in a 'painted number' chronological order, more usually by exam due date!

The same thought occurred to me but, according to the very helpful blood and custard website, the 2EPBs were refurbished between January 1982 and May 1985. 6313 was done in March 1984 which is too early for the NLL. The units were repainted into NSE more or less in number order albeit starting at 6308. Presumably that was the order in which bodywork overhauls became due.