Lymington flyer to be a 450 at last? Spare 158 use?

[swt_passenger]

I’ve checked for evidence of this before without it ever happening, but the Lymington flyer seems booked for an EMU all week from the December timetable change date. ECS from Bournemouth every day, no sign of any ECS DMU paths from Salisbury. Another 158 to be used on a more appropriate service...

Been a few false dawns on this though.

 

[TEW]

It's been a 450 in practice a lot recently due to the severe shortages of DMU stock SWR have been experiencing. Would not surprise me if it were to actually go over to 450 once for all in December. As you say though, there have been a lot of false dawns.

 

[moley]

An updated Track Access application has been proposed which includes a Class 450 daily.

 

[swt_passenger]

An updated Track Access application has been proposed which includes a Class 450 daily.

Yes, I also looked that up after my earlier post. I don’t think they’ve done that for a while, so must be a good sign...

 

[bb21]

Yes, hence the berth offsets on the Lymy were recently recalibrated using a 450 as opposed to 15x.

 

[Crossover]

Yes, hence the berth offsets on the Lymy were recently recalibrated using a 450 as opposed to 15x.

What do you mean by this?

 

[bb21]

Berth offsets? The offsets used to calculate the arrival/departure times from/to the nearest point recorded by infrastructure.

 

[Crossover]

Berth offsets? The offsets used to calculate the arrival/departure times from/to the nearest point recorded by infrastructure.

Thanks. Yeah, the berth offsets. I presume this is because the 450 is longer?

 

[bb21]

Partly. They are just best done with whatever the most suitable stock replicating operating conditions is.

 

[swt_passenger]

To save a separate thread, in addition to this 450 on Lymingtons making a 158 available, the November Modern Railways magazine forecasts that the daily hire-in with GWR will also cease (date not stated).

So where does the team think SWR will be able to usefully employ a couple of 158s? Another Waterloo 10 car perhaps?

Another minor point I noticed. In the last couple of years the Lymington unit has run empty to Eastleigh at end of branch service and then formed the 0030 Eastleigh to Portsmouth Harbour (2T75?). In December, they seem to be running an empty 159 down from Salisbury to form this latter service. Isn’t there a more economical way to operate this?

 

[Aictos]

To save a separate thread, in addition to this 450 on Lymingtons making a 158 available, the November Modern Railways magazine forecasts that the daily hire-in with GWR will also cease (date not stated).

So where does the team think SWR will be able to usefully employ a couple of 158s? Another Waterloo 10 car perhaps?

Another minor point I noticed. In the last couple of years the Lymington unit has run empty to Eastleigh at end of branch service and then formed the 0030 Eastleigh to Portsmouth Harbour (2T75?). In December, they seem to be running an empty 159 down from Salisbury to form this latter service. Isn’t there a more economical way to operate this?

The stock that seems to form 5T74 23:13 Salisbury to Eastleigh which then forms 2T75 00:30 Eastleigh to Portsmouth Harbour as @swt_passenger actually arrives at Salisbury as 2S67 21:07 Romsey to Salisbury at 22:15 so sits at Salisbury for a good hour.

Now I have four alternative uses which I believe are more economical ways of getting the unit concerned from Salisbury to Eastleigh which are:

1. 1L69 21:20 London Waterloo to Yeovil Junction runs with two portions dividing at Salisbury with one portion continuing onto Yeovil Junction and the other portion continuing onto Portsmouth Harbour via Eastleigh.

Now 1L69 is booked to arrive at Salisbury at 22:55 and depart at 23:03 so is enough time to effect the split of units here.

2. 2T75 00:30 Eastleigh to Portsmouth Harbour is rediagrammed to start back from Salisbury using nearly the same timings as 5T74 23:13 Salisbury to Eastleigh.

The paths are already there, it's just instead of running it ECS you are running it in passenger service which means more revenue opportunities.

3. Use the unit off the Lymington branch say 450084 which terminates at Brockenhurst as 1J66 22:36 Lymington Pier to Brockenhurst why not either extend that working to Southampton Central or run it ECS to Southampton Central and instead run a Southampton to Portsmouth Harbour via Eastleigh service.

This isn't perfect but means you are not operating a DMU over a purely 3rd rail route.

4. 1B77 23:05 London Waterloo to Poole runs with two portions dividing at Eastleigh with one portion continuing onto Poole and the other portion continuing onto Portsmouth Harbour.

Now 1B77 arrives at Eastleigh at 00:22 and departs at 00:23 so by retiming this service to have a longer dwell time at Eastleigh you could operate both 1B77 and 2T75 as EMUs.

All are economical ways of getting a unit in position with both a decrease of DMU over 3rd rail mileage and a decrease of ECS mileage too.

 

[swt_passenger]

The stock that seems to form 5T74 23:13 Salisbury to Eastleigh which then forms 2T75 00:30 Eastleigh to Portsmouth Harbour as @swt_passenger actually arrives at Salisbury as 2S67 21:07 Romsey to Salisbury at 22:15 so sits at Salisbury for a good hour.

Now I have four alternative uses which I believe are more economical ways of getting the unit concerned from Salisbury to Eastleigh which are:

1. 1L69 21:20 London Waterloo to Yeovil Junction runs with two portions dividing at Salisbury with one portion continuing onto Yeovil Junction and the other portion continuing onto Portsmouth Harbour via Eastleigh.

Now 1L69 is booked to arrive at Salisbury at 22:55 and depart at 23:03 so is enough time to effect the split of units here.

2. 2T75 00:30 Eastleigh to Portsmouth Harbour is rediagrammed to start back from Salisbury using nearly the same timings as 5T74 23:13 Salisbury to Eastleigh.

The paths are already there, it's just instead of running it ECS you are running it in passenger service which means more revenue opportunities.

3. Use the unit off the Lymington branch say 450084 which terminates at Brockenhurst as 1J66 22:36 Lymington Pier to Brockenhurst why not either extend that working to Southampton Central or run it ECS to Southampton Central and instead run a Southampton to Portsmouth Harbour via Eastleigh service.

This isn't perfect but means you are not operating a DMU over a purely 3rd rail route.

4. 1B77 23:05 London Waterloo to Poole runs with two portions dividing at Eastleigh with one portion continuing onto Poole and the other portion continuing onto Portsmouth Harbour.

Now 1B77 arrives at Eastleigh at 00:22 and departs at 00:23 so by retiming this service to have a longer dwell time at Eastleigh you could operate both 1B77 and 2T75 as EMUs.

All are economical ways of getting a unit in position with both a decrease of DMU over 3rd rail mileage and a decrease of ECS mileage too.

All seems possible. What I’m now wondering is if they are effectively doing a 158 positioning move to provide the unit that runs empty from Fratton to Totton to kick off the early Romsey service. But then two things spring to mind about that as well, ie why does it have to start at Totton, and why can’t it just run from Salisbury anyway and start the normal Salisbury to Romsey pattern earlier. Is there possibly a lack of space at Salisbury?

 

[Aictos]

What I’m wondering is if they are effectively doing a 158 positioning move to provide the unit that runs empty from Fratton to Totton to kick off the early Romsey service. But then two things spring to mind about that as well, ie why does it have to start at Totton, and why can’t it just run from Salisbury anyway and start the normal Salisbury to Romsey pattern earlier. Is there possibly a lack of space at Salisbury?

I don't know but it sits around in Platform 6 at Salisbury for the good part of a hour which isn't very economical when it can be in revenue service hence my first suggestion of splitting a service at Salisbury.

Equally they could instead run the terminator onto the yard/CS there so it's out of the way then have it depart much closer to the time rather then block a platform for a unnecessary period of time.

 

[bb21]

It's just a single 158 (two taking into account the GW hire). Won't even plug the massive hole in fleet availability for current booked requirements, let alone any strengthening.

 

[richw]

2nd October it was a 450 when I went to Wight via Lymington

 

[TEW]

Been a 450 for a while now because of the DMU fleet shortages. Wouldn't surprise me if we have seen the last 158 on the line already, assuming the DMU shortages continue.

 

[Aictos]

Pardon me for asking but why are SWR currently struggling with DMU availability?

 

[swt_passenger]

It's just a single 158 (two taking into account the GW hire). Won't even plug the massive hole in fleet availability for current booked requirements, let alone any strengthening.

Yes, the question was highly theoretical and assumed we were back to normal availability...

 

[nw1]

The stock that seems to form 5T74 23:13 Salisbury to Eastleigh which then forms 2T75 00:30 Eastleigh to Portsmouth Harbour as @swt_passenger actually arrives at Salisbury as 2S67 21:07 Romsey to Salisbury at 22:15 so sits at Salisbury for a good hour.

Now I have four alternative uses which I believe are more economical ways of getting the unit concerned from Salisbury to Eastleigh which are:

1. 1L69 21:20 London Waterloo to Yeovil Junction runs with two portions dividing at Salisbury with one portion continuing onto Yeovil Junction and the other portion continuing onto Portsmouth Harbour via Eastleigh.

Now 1L69 is booked to arrive at Salisbury at 22:55 and depart at 23:03 so is enough time to effect the split of units here.

2. 2T75 00:30 Eastleigh to Portsmouth Harbour is rediagrammed to start back from Salisbury using nearly the same timings as 5T74 23:13 Salisbury to Eastleigh.

The paths are already there, it's just instead of running it ECS you are running it in passenger service which means more revenue opportunities.

3. Use the unit off the Lymington branch say 450084 which terminates at Brockenhurst as 1J66 22:36 Lymington Pier to Brockenhurst why not either extend that working to Southampton Central or run it ECS to Southampton Central and instead run a Southampton to Portsmouth Harbour via Eastleigh service.

This isn't perfect but means you are not operating a DMU over a purely 3rd rail route.

4. 1B77 23:05 London Waterloo to Poole runs with two portions dividing at Eastleigh with one portion continuing onto Poole and the other portion continuing onto Portsmouth Harbour.

Now 1B77 arrives at Eastleigh at 00:22 and departs at 00:23 so by retiming this service to have a longer dwell time at Eastleigh you could operate both 1B77 and 2T75 as EMUs.

All are economical ways of getting a unit in position with both a decrease of DMU over 3rd rail mileage and a decrease of ECS mileage too.

What happens to the Weymouth to Eastleigh service which arrives Eastleigh 0010 or so?
Could this not form the 0030 Eastleigh to Portsmouth?

 

[swt_passenger]

What happens to the Weymouth to Eastleigh service which arrives Eastleigh 0010 or so?
Could this not form the 0030 Eastleigh to Portsmouth?

It's a 444 that currently goes onto Northam Depot, presumably for maintenance? Unusually it terminates in P1 then the ECS runs up to Allbrook Junctions to return through Eastleigh on the way to Northam. I suspect if it ran on to Portsmouth something else would have to run to Northam instead.

 

[geoffk]

To save a separate thread, in addition to this 450 on Lymingtons making a 158 available, the November Modern Railways magazine forecasts that the daily hire-in with GWR will also cease (date not stated).

So where does the team think SWR will be able to usefully employ a couple of 158s? Another Waterloo 10 car perhaps?

Several other TOCs could use an extra 158 _Transport for Wales, EMT, Northern................

 

[swt_passenger]

Several other TOCs could use an extra 158 _Transport for Wales, EMT, Northern................

Undoubtedly, and if SWR dont find a use for them they should go. Having said that the SWR ITT was written on the basis that the GWR daily hire unit could be permanently transferred to GWR via the ROSCO. So SWR had probably not planned on that one being required...

 

[pompeyfan]

Currently the 0030 is formed off of a 4 car that arrives into platform 2 at Fareham around 2030, so the same number of units arrive where they’re supposed to. The morning Totton job comes from Salisbury and the diesel that forms the 0455 from the harbour to Basingstoke is currently a 158. If I recall correctly the evening 2120 from Waterloo now splits at Basingstoke with 3 for Yeovil and 2 for Portsmouth. This means currently there is only a 158 on Fratton overnight instead of a 158 and 159.

 

[swt_passenger]

Currently the 0030 is formed off of a 4 car that arrives into platform 2 at Fareham around 2030, so the same number of units arrive where they’re supposed to. The morning Totton job comes from Salisbury and the diesel that forms the 0455 from the harbour to Basingstoke is currently a 158. If I recall correctly the evening 2120 from Waterloo now splits at Basingstoke with 3 for Yeovil and 2 for Portsmouth. This means currently there is only a 158 on Fratton overnight instead of a 158 and 159.

Interesting, that seems a bit more like we were discussing earlier that ought to change. So it could yet be carried forward and perhaps RTT will be showing different moves by the time the December timetable starts.

However it seems having checked on RTT that change is only dated for this week. Could be a false alarm...

 

[pompeyfan]

Looking at this week according to RTT there are no diesels in Portsmouth at all, the regular diesel services are shown to be times for 100mph EMUs. I know that’s not definitive but it’s usually a good guide.

 

[TEW]

Interesting, that seems a bit more like we were discussing earlier that ought to change. So it could yet be carried forward and perhaps RTT will be showing different moves by the time the December timetable starts.

However it seems having checked on RTT that change is only dated for this week. Could be a false alarm...

There are some changes shown in RTT from December compared to the current WTT.
2B91, 1638 Winchester to Totton appears to become formed 4-450 rather than 3-159. It comes empty from Fratton Depot rather than Salisbury Depot and upon arrival at Totton runs ECS to Bournemouth rather than Basingstoke Barton Mill.
The 3-159 for 2T69, 2221 Basingstoke to Portsmouth Harbour runs ECS from Salisbury, after detaching off 1L59, 1850 London Waterloo to Westbury.