SWR mainline stock replacement

[Domh245]

444s are hardly a microfleet when with the 450s.

At 45 units they're hardly a microfleet anyway! There are many fleets smaller than that..

 

[Mikey C]

The 444s are decent trains, and pretty unique in the railway until the 397s as an end door new generation EMU, I can't see them being replaced on the Weymouth run for a LONG time

 

[5920]

The unit fitted with AC traction motors last year was U.2416. Currently being rewired in Bournemouth Depot.

It was not 2416. It was 2419.

 

[5920]

Also known as the Explodey AC Traction...?

I still honestly don't see the point in re-tractioning something that only realistically has a lifespan of another 2 - 5 years.

The IGBTs have pressure switches now to prevent the chance of sending traction cases across the station

 

[samuelmorris]

If it were still SWT and the 707s had been kept, I'd have expected a 23m iteration of the Desiro City to bolster mainline capacity, since even if not a Desiro UK, there was proven use of Siemens kit and there'd be some cross-compatibility with the 707s.
As things stand, I expect it will largely depend how SWT come out of the supposed upcoming franchise reform. There may be a downturn in traffic big enough to simply not warrant any replacement of ageing stock at all. If the 442s are too problematic they might simply be done away with and not replaced with anything.

Long-term it makes sense to replace the 159s and 442s (if they're still around) with a bi-mode longer distance unit that can be used on essentially any route on the network, if there is reason to invest in such a thing.

 

[Energy]

If it were still SWT and the 707s had been kept, I'd have expected a 23m iteration of the Desiro City to bolster mainline capacity, since even if not a Desiro UK, there was proven use of Siemens kit and there'd be some cross-compatibility with the 707s.
As things stand, I expect it will largely depend how SWT come out of the supposed upcoming franchise reform. There may be a downturn in traffic big enough to simply not warrant any replacement of ageing stock at all. If the 442s are too problematic they might simply be done away with and not replaced with anything.

Long-term it makes sense to replace the 159s and 442s (if they're still around) with a bi-mode longer distance unit that can be used on essentially any route on the network, if there is reason to invest in such a thing.

The Desiro Verve is the answer to replacing the 442s IMO. If SWT won then we probably would have seen a similar thing to SWR but no 442s and many more 707s to replace the rest of the metro fleet.

 

[Domh245]

Why the assumption that SWT would have gone with 707s? They would have been just as non-compliant with the bid specification if SWT had proposed them - indeed the only reason that they did get them to begin with is because it was the only metro stock that was actually available.

 

[Energy]

Why the assumption that SWT would have gone with 707s? They would have been just as non-compliant with the bid specification if SWT had proposed them - indeed the only reason that they did get them to begin with is because it was the only metro stock that was actually available.

Maybe, there is always the possibility that Siemens could have upped the acceleration.

 

[Domh245]

Maybe, there is always the possibility that Siemens could have upped the acceleration.

It's not the acceleration that is the concern, like you say that can easily be fixed. It's the distinct lack of roof mounted grab rails in the vestibules that prevent them from meeting the 4 passengers/sqm standing capacity

 

[Energy]

It's not the acceleration that is the concern, like you say that can easily be fixed. It's the distinct lack of roof mounted grab rails in the vestibules that prevent them from meeting the 4 passengers/sqm standing capacity

Surely roof mounted grab rails wouldn't be that hard to fit?

 

[Domh245]

Surely roof mounted grab rails wouldn't be that hard to fit?

Famously impossible on Desiro cities because of the way the ceiling is built (in effect a false ceiling which won't bear much weight, swings open for maintenance, and has all manner of cables running across it)

 

[The Ham]

From another thread:

There's an argument that in 5-10 years time SWR could ditch the 442's, 444's and 158/159's to then create a new bimodal train for all their long distance services. With then the 450's replaced 10-15 years after that.

One other thing to consider is that with Crossrail 2 allowing more services to run out of Waterloo to places beyond Woking then there's likely to require extra units. If that's the case then the replacement of the 444's (rather than keeping them as a micro fleet for 10-15 years) could make sense.

Such a "replacement" could mean more 444's being used instead of 450's on some of the middle distance services which would be able to use either unit type.

A follow on point, the 45 x 444's could fairly easily fill the 7 extra paths each hour out of Waterloo created by Crossrail 2 for middle distance services which are currently run by pairs of 450's.

That would then allow a order for ~100 x 5 coach bimodal units to replace the current services run by 442's, 444's and 158/159's (in reality that's a bit of an over simplification in that there's likely to be 444's running services which they currently do and there'll be new bimodal trains running new services following the opening of Crossrail 2).

Whilst it's true that TfL don't have a lot of money; I suspect that given that something will need to be done in terms of capacity for the SWML as there's not a whole load of other options which could be built.

Even if Crossrail 2 is delayed beyond where it is a consideration, then there's the possibility for the 444's to be used running Paddington, Heathrow, Woking and either Guildford or Basingstoke to provide the rolling stock for the Southern Approach to Heathrow services.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Class 444s and 450s have a section 54 agreement keeping them on lease to the SWR (and any successor franchises) to latter part of this decade.

 

[Domh245]

Even if Crossrail 2 is delayed beyond where it is a consideration, then there's the possibility for the 444's to be used running Paddington, Heathrow, Woking and either Guildford or Basingstoke to provide the rolling stock for the Southern Approach to Heathrow services.

I'd be wary of suggesting fitting them with 25kV AC, either purely or as a dual voltage operation. They'd be over 30 years old and from a few posts on here recently, the conversion isn't quite as straight forward as may have initially been thought!

 

[JonathanH]

That would then allow a order for ~100 x 5 coach bimodal units to replace the current services run by 442's, 444's and 158/159's

What does the operator of services from Waterloo need 100 bimodal 5 car units for? There is only one non-electrified route and the timetable would almost certainly be written around keeping units self contained to a particular route. Even if 100 units were justified, the majority would be straight electrics and 5-car units aren't a good replacement for 2 3-car units. Does demand on the Salisbury to Southampton service justify 5-car units?

 

[The Ham]

Class 444s and 450s have a section 54 agreement keeping them on lease to the SWR (and any successor franchises) to latter part of this decade.

Sorry I didn't mention this as within the other thread it was clear that we were talking about that sort of timeframe.

 

[swt_passenger]

What does the operator of services from Waterloo need 100 bimodal 5 car units for? There is only one non-electrified route and the timetable would almost certainly be written around keeping units self contained to a particular route. Even if 100 units were justified, the majority would be straight electrics and 5-car units aren't a good replacement for 2 3-car units. Does demand on the Salisbury to Southampton service justify 5-car units?

Precisely. By all means suggest a similar individual vehicle design that is the same for both the west of England and mainline, but the balance of third rail to diesel routes will never require the whole combined fleet to have bimode traction. It would be an utter waste of money.

...however some forum members are probably already dreaming of allowing for extensions to Plymouth via Oakhampton...

 

[The Ham]

What does the operator of services from Waterloo need 100 bimodal 5 car units for? There is only one non-electrified route and the timetable would almost certainly be written around keeping units self contained to a particular route. Even if 100 units were justified, the majority would be straight electrics and 5-car units aren't a good replacement for 2 3-car units. Does demand on the Salisbury to Southampton service justify 5-car units?

Southampton to Salisbury on its own currently probably not, but if you're replacing the fleet anyway for a note uniform fleet you probably wouldn't bother with a few units of a sub standard length. In the same way that 450's are overkill for the Lymington Branch.

Having said that you could run a Southampton to Waterloo service via Salisbury which although would be significantly slower than the direct service wouldn't be aimed at those travelers anyway. Rather it would be aimed more at the likes of Romsey to Basingstoke or Southampton to Andover, does which can be done but are a bit of a passion to do.

Again that wouldn't be enough in its own right to justify longer trains, which is where rail growth is likely to be enough to tip the maths in favour of doing so. As an example a train which currently is 3 coaches with 30% growth (over 10+ years, as you wouldn't want a train which only just had enough capacity when it was then going to be in service for 20+ years in the same route) would then justify a 4 coach unit.

Whilst there's a lot of straight electric routes currently that's just because that's the way the fleet is. It would be possible to run a semi fast service to Weymouth via Yeovil which wouldn't take much less time than the current slow service from Weymouth. Again you would see many London to Weymouth passengers, but you could see a fair number from Basingstoke or Salisbury.

Alternatively you could run the Basingstoke Stoppers to Salisbury to increase the frequency along the line between Basingstoke and Salisbury, however to do so would currently require bimodal trains. Again few would use it to go all the way to London (due to the speed) however it does create links which otherwise are now difficult than currently are possible. It also removes some of the flat movements at Basingstoke.

You could also increase the frequency of the SWR services to Bristol, which could also help with capacity on the Portsmouth/Cardiff services.

I'm sure that there's other services which people could develop which wouldn't be possible currently.

 

[The Ham]

Precisely. By all means suggest a similar individual vehicle design that is the same for both the west of England and mainline, but the balance of third rail to diesel routes will never require the whole combined fleet to have bimode traction. It would be an utter waste of money.

...however some forum members are probably already dreaming of allowing for extensions to Plymouth via Oakhampton...

To run 7tph (following the introduction of new services post Crossrail 2) you would need 14 units to run a single unit an average of hour away from London (including turn around times), if you are running pairs of units that's 28 units. However an average of an hour isn't very far. Even 90 minutes (which would require 42 units with no spares) isn't that far once you've added 20 minutes at each end for turn around times.

As such you're probably looking at an average of 1.5 to 1.8 units per service and an average journey time including turn around times of between 1.5 to 2.25 hours for the vast majority of services (range of between 32 to 58 units) hence the need for those 45 units (effectively the 444's) as that's a fairly reasonable mid point without working it out in more detail.

Another 18 to replace the 442's and another 30 to replace the 158/159's (assuming that you pair a 158+159 and replace that with a single unit, so that's 1/3 of the diesel fleet without any extra capacity, so an uplift in coaches by 40 out of a fleet of 110, but no extra capacity on the other fleets) and you've got to 93. 93 is about 100, you may wish to have a few extra for other things which may or may not include Southern Approach to Heathrow services, an extension via Okehampton, 2tph to Exeter or other projects. However even without those it's not a million miles adrift from the ~100 cited in my original post and with them you could be looking at a similar number above.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm sure that there's other services which people could develop which wouldn't be possible currently.

There are but they probably aren't as remunerative as the current services.

Waterloo to Weymouth via Yeovil needs some considerable work to make it feasible given the single track, the reversals at Yeovil (or Westbury). Is the demand from Weymouth (and maybe Dorchester) enough to justify a service without the loadings which the service gets at Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton and Winchester.

I can't see anyone at Overton, Whitchurch or Grateley being happy about losing a fast service for operational convenience of sending the stopper to Salisbury. It seems to miss the point that running 12-car trains to Basingstoke is justified but extending those full length stopping trains to Salisbury never would be.

 

[ge0m112]

I would propose a mixed fleet of 3-car and 5-car bi modal units for the West of England routes. Services on the London route could be run as 3+5 or 5+5 with one portion detaching at Salisbury. The 5-car would continue beyond Salisbury but at quieter times a 3-car could be used. 3-car units would operate the Salisbury 6 (perhaps even then overcapacity?)

I would even suggest transferring the Bristol-Portsmouth route to SWR and have this route also use the same 3-car or 5-car units based at Salisbury but there are probably a number of reasons why this couldn't happen.

GA's FLIRTs look great, could an equivalent of these be a possibility?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I would propose a mixed fleet of 3-car and 5-car bi modal units for the West of England routes. Services on the London route could be run as 3+5 or 5+5 with one portion detaching at Salisbury. The 5-car would continue beyond Salisbury but at quieter times a 3-car could be used. 3-car units would operate the Salisbury 6 (perhaps even then overcapacity?)

I would even suggest transferring the Bristol-Portsmouth route to SWR and have this route also use the same 3-car or 5-car units based at Salisbury but there are probably a number of reasons why this couldn't happen.

GA's FLIRTs look great, could an equivalent of these be a possibility?

you'd be struggling to maintain a diesel fleet of that size at Salisbury - the depot really struggles with maintenance capacity and there’s no remaining land to expand. (It was built to maintain 23x159 which got dropped to 22 in the end, but now has 30x159 and 11x158). You aren’t going to be basing quite a large fleet that works Cardiff to Pompey at Salisbury!

GA flirts nice trains but very heavy on the track, Wessex already has huge difficulties with track tonnage and probably wouldn’t be keen on heavy trains like those.

 

[JonathanH]

The 5-car would continue beyond Salisbury but at quieter times a 3-car could be used.

Thereby cutting capacity west of Salisbury.

 

[ge0m112]

Thereby cutting capacity west of Salisbury.

By replacing with a direct replacement of 3-car all round, there is a lot of wasted cabs which is why I made the suggestion of 3-car and 5-car allowing flexible formations.

In my limited experience (I live on this line) it has been quiet West of Salisbury outside of peak times so hence my suggestion for 5-car being adequate. Clearly I’m wrong. Have you used/frequented the line?

 

[JonathanH]

By replacing with a direct replacement of 3-car all round, there is a lot of wasted cabs which is why I made the suggestion of 3-car and 5-car allowing flexible formations.

In my limited experience (I live on this line) it has been quiet West of Salisbury outside of peak times so hence my suggestion for 5-car being adequate. Clearly I’m wrong. Have you used/frequented the line?

Yes, and I admit that I have been on comfortable 3-car services west of Salisbury. I have also been on full 6-cars, especially on Sunday evenings towards London which have been full and standing before Salisbury. You are right that there is wasted space in terms of cabs but the layout of a 159 is also one that provides a lot of passenger space that perhaps couldn't be replicated well in new build stock.

I have also been on Saturday morning 444s towards Bournemouth when they are only formed of five coaches and again, there can be issues with five car not quite being enough but ten car being too much.

 

[The Ham]

There are but they probably aren't as remunerative as the current services.

Waterloo to Weymouth via Yeovil needs some considerable work to make it feasible given the single track, the reversals at Yeovil (or Westbury). Is the demand from Weymouth (and maybe Dorchester) enough to justify a service without the loadings which the service gets at Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton and Winchester.

I can't see anyone at Overton, Whitchurch or Grateley being happy about losing a fast service for operational convenience of sending the stopper to Salisbury. It seems to miss the point that running 12-car trains to Basingstoke is justified but extending those full length stopping trains to Salisbury never would be.

Now is there demand? Probably not. In 10 to 20 years time could well be a different matter, especially if we are rapidly moving towards a more carbon economy with much more working from home making private car ownership less financial sense due to the high up front costs.

With regards to the three smaller stations chances are they could retain their peak direct services which would reduce a lot of the unhappiness. The other thing which would offset this would be getting 2tph rather than 1tph, which would massively improve travel for those going shorter distances. Even then you could have 0.333tph at each station (i.e. each off peak service calls at one of the three) which would still improve long distance journey times whilst still giving some faster journey options to London.

The other thing to consider is that the urban area around Farnborough Main is of a comparable size to the likes of Milton Keynes or Plymouth and so the ability to travel between it and the stations West of Basingstoke would likely attract a fair number of extra passengers to a journey which is currently quite long with a change at Basingstoke.

It is typically that as many get off of services at Farnborough Main as get on there to head towards London in the morning peak. As although a lot of people do travel to London there's also a lot of more local travel.

That's not just true for into/out of Farnborough but loads of other places have significant inbound travel from nearby locations (even somewhere like Hook has inbound passengers). As an example the 2tph extended to serve stations West of Basingstoke would help Andover, Basingstoke and Salisbury attract inbound travelers. It could even attract inbound passengers for those other locations.

Another thing to consider is the ~3,000 homes being built at Manydown (Western edge of Basingstoke) a new station there could attract 500,000 new passengers to the railways. By being able to go to more than just towards London you could make it more attractive to more people.

In a similar vein there's plans for ~5,000 (and maybe up to 10,000) homes at Winchfield in the 2030's. Again that's going to mean that there'll be more wishing to head west of Basingstoke, which would change the current railway flows.

No one thing would justify the change, however combine them and it could well do so.[/QUOTE]

 

[Stephen Lee]

Siemens currently offer the Desiro Verve as a battery hybrid unit, but there is no off the shelf diesel bi-mode offering. Like Pompeyfan says though, offer them enough money...

Good idea, Porterbrook can consider converting the 350/2s into Battery-Hybrid-EMU instead of pure Battery EMU.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, and I admit that I have been on comfortable 3-car services west of Salisbury. I have also been on full 6-cars, especially on Sunday evenings towards London which have been full and standing before Salisbury. You are right that there is wasted space in terms of cabs but the layout of a 159 is also one that provides a lot of passenger space that perhaps couldn't be replicated well in new build stock.

I have also been on Saturday morning 444s towards Bournemouth when they are only formed of five coaches and again, there can be issues with five car not quite being enough but ten car being too much.

Something we need to be mindful of is that we're talking about trains which will be entering service in 10 years time and will probably be in service in 2070 or even 2080.

As such there's probably a good case for ordering enough to cope with future growth and just retire the older units if there's not the expected growth.

Now whilst there's going to be some services which will be quiet, regardless of the length of the unit, if the majority of services would justify 5 coach trains then there's often a good case for having a uniform fleet rather than having a mixed fleet due to the complications of ensuring that you've got the right units in the right place. Sometimes to ensure this you may well need to have more units, which then results in needing almost as many coaches as if you just had a uniform fleet.

 

[Stephen Lee]

Good idea, Porterbrook can consider converting the 350/2s into Battery-Hybrid-EMU instead of pure Battery EMU.

Guys I wondered why don't WMT consider retain 350/2s and move 350/1s to SWR to work with the existing 444s/450s knowing that 350/1s are MS units and their contact shoes are surplus in WMT

 

[JonathanH]

Guys I wondered why don't WMT consider retain 350/2s and move 350/1s to SWR to work with the existing 444s/450s knowing that 350/1s are MS units and their contact shoes are surplus in WMT

Ownership of the units and contracts. Just because something might seem logical from the point of view of a multiple unit stock book doesn't mean that it is appropriate when financial and operational factors are taken into account.