What Rolling Stock for Uckfield Line?

[Chrisgr31]

According to posts in the East Midlands thread the ex Scotrail 170s now formed in to 171s are going to East Midlands in September and the remainder of the 171s are being converted to 3 car units. This will benefit the Marshlink as they will then get 3 car units.

However it only leaves 8 or so spare carriages to provide either longer trains or additional services on the Uckfield line - but in an additional rumour the 171s will only go as far as East Croydon, so maybe the same number of units isn’t required. However changing at East Croydon in peak hours will be a nightmare.

On the positive side the report from the RSSB on electrification infill is eagerly awaited. That could lead to Uckfield being electrified with 3rd rail. However if that happens what stock would run down to Uckfield? Southern are losing one electric fleet this coming weekend. Will they have enough electric stock to serve Uckfield?

 

[king_walnut]

If the DfT signed off today on electrifying the Uckfield route, it would probably be 20 years before work even began, so speculation on rolling stock for the year 2042 is redundant.

 

[Class 466]

According to posts in the East Midlands thread the ex Scotrail 170s now formed in to 171s are going to East Midlands in September and the remainder of the 171s are being converted to 3 car units. This will benefit the Marshlink as they will then get 3 car units.

However it only leaves 8 or so spare carriages to provide either longer trains or additional services on the Uckfield line - but in an additional rumour the 171s will only go as far as East Croydon, so maybe the same number of units isn’t required. However changing at East Croydon in peak hours will be a nightmare.

On the positive side the report from the RSSB on electrification infill is eagerly awaited. That could lead to Uckfield being electrified with 3rd rail. However if that happens what stock would run down to Uckfield? Southern are losing one electric fleet this coming weekend. Will they have enough electric stock to serve Uckfield?

From what I've been told, the 6 4 car 171/8s will lose a coach that'll go into 6 of the 10 2 cars leaving a fleet of 12x 3 cars & 4 x 2 cars. This is actually a reduction on capacity for the Marshlink which has had 4 car 171s since March 2020, but will be better over all as the chance of a short formation will become far less likely. The Ex Scotrail units are indeed off to EMR.

 

[Chrisgr31]

If the DfT signed off today on electrifying the Uckfield route, it would probably be 20 years before work even began, so speculation on rolling stock for the year 2042 is redundant.

That thought had occurred to me! However I was being optimistic - I know that’s a daft idea where the DfT is involved.

What is the anticipated life of the 171s? With the “ban” on new diesel stock any electrification needs to happen before then

 

[bramling]

According to posts in the East Midlands thread the ex Scotrail 170s now formed in to 171s are going to East Midlands in September and the remainder of the 171s are being converted to 3 car units. This will benefit the Marshlink as they will then get 3 car units.

However it only leaves 8 or so spare carriages to provide either longer trains or additional services on the Uckfield line - but in an additional rumour the 171s will only go as far as East Croydon, so maybe the same number of units isn’t required. However changing at East Croydon in peak hours will be a nightmare.

On the positive side the report from the RSSB on electrification infill is eagerly awaited. That could lead to Uckfield being electrified with 3rd rail. However if that happens what stock would run down to Uckfield? Southern are losing one electric fleet this coming weekend. Will they have enough electric stock to serve Uckfield?

The obvious answer to the question is 379s. But in practice this will depend on what extent GTR find they have stretched their fleet as a result of getting rid of the 365s and 455s. If they find themselves short over the next year or two, the 379s will find themselves spoken for.

The only other spare stock to initiate a movement of Electrostars is the 465/2s, but with every day that passes the chances of these returning diminishes - and by the time Uckfield is ever electrified that boat will have long sailed.

A wild card option is 350/2 to GN and 387/1s to SN I suppose.

 

[physics34]

There might be some meat on the bone of 171s terminating at east croydon because of a stupid london emissions target. Forgotten the details. Would cause a bit of uproar.

 

[bramling]

There might be some meat on the bone of 171s terminating at east croydon because of a stupid london emissions target. Forgotten the details. Would cause a bit of uproar.

They could get away with it off-peak I suspect, a decent connection at Oxted would be fine, especially if they could do something clever like introduce a semi-fast East Grinstead electric service. But I don’t see the peak commuters standing for it.

The route really should have already been electrified.

 

[A0wen]

The obvious answer to the question is 379s. But in practice this will depend on what extent GTR find they have stretched their fleet as a result of getting rid of the 365s and 455s. If they find themselves short over the next year or two, the 379s will find themselves spoken for.

The only other spare stock to initiate a movement of Electrostars is the 465/2s, but with every day that passes the chances of these returning diminishes - and by the time Uckfield is ever electrified that boat will have long sailed.

A wild card option is 350/2 to GN and 387/1s to SN I suppose.

Not for the first time - battery would be a better solution for Uckfield.

That said the current timetable means that there are only 4 diagrams to run an hourly timetable from Uckfield - London Bridge, so that's 8 units (to allow for 8 car). I suspect Southern may have the capacity within their fleet to cover this without transfers.

 

[bramling]

Not for the first time - battery would be a better solution for Uckfield.

That said the current timetable means that there are only 4 diagrams to run an hourly timetable from Uckfield - London Bridge, so that's 8 units (to allow for 8 car). I suspect Southern may have the capacity within their fleet to cover this without transfers.

The magic Electrostar tree must be starting to get very bare now though. They’ve already pruned the edges like Guildford and Milton Keynes, cut stuff like the Coastway to the bone, binned over 60 units, and possibly yet will be covering the 313s too. I can’t see they can do much more, without the 379s at any rate.

I suppose the 379s could be made to cover several needs, but as Uckfield won’t be electrified for several years even if authorised now, they would have to be gainfully employed in the meantime. It’s in no one’s interest to store them for that length of time.

 

[Bikeman78]

They could get away with it off-peak I suspect, a decent connection at Oxted would be fine, especially if they could do something clever like introduce a semi-fast East Grinstead electric service. But I don’t see the peak commuters standing for it.

The route really should have already been electrified.

It should have been done in 1987, or soon after. Would have required a handful of extra VEPs and removed a diesel island. Might have required a few more HAPs to be stripped of asbestos and kept on for a few years but then the DEMUs need that work doing so it's a moot point. I can think of plenty of lightly used branch lines in Europe that have been electrified. Never understood the hesitation in the UK.

The magic Electrostar tree must be starting to get very bare now though. They’ve already pruned the edges like Guildford and Milton Keynes, cut stuff like the Coastway to the bone, binned over 60 units, and possibly yet will be covering the 313s too. I can’t see they can do much more, without the 379s at any rate.

Quite. I hope they aren't going to cut a lot of main line formations to cover this. I went on cosy 12 car trains in 2020 and 2021, so with commuting ramping up again, they must be even fuller.

 

[A0wen]

I suppose the 379s could be made to cover several needs, but as Uckfield won’t be electrified for several years even if authorised now, they would have to be gainfully employed in the meantime. It’s in no one’s interest to store them for that length of time.

Wrong - the only loser whilst they are stored is the leasing company who have an asset which isn't generating any revenue.

It makes precisely no difference to anyone else, bar a few obsessives on these boards.

 

[physics34]

Not for the first time - battery would be a better solution for Uckfield.

That said the current timetable means that there are only 4 diagrams to run an hourly timetable from Uckfield - London Bridge, so that's 8 units (to allow for 8 car). I suspect Southern may have the capacity within their fleet to cover this without transfers.

I hear the problem with battery units is having them in multiple. Im not sure exactly why. . I might be to do with differing voltages etc as the baterries get weaker? Not what we need.

Just blooming electrify the flipping lines!

 

[Deepgreen]

Wrong - the only loser whilst they are stored is the leasing company who have an asset which isn't generating any revenue.

It makes precisely no difference to anyone else, bar a few obsessives on these boards.

Wrong - the stock will continue to deteriorate even if well-kept, thus incurring costs later on for whomever acquires them, and the storage space is of value/cost for the railway in itself.

 

[A0wen]

I hear the problem with battery units is having them in multiple. Im not sure exactly why. . I might be to do with differing voltages etc as the baterries get weaker? Not what we need.

You'll need to provide some evidence of these "problems" because battery units are already in use in other places.

Just blooming electrify the flipping lines!

Using a system which dates back to Edwardian times, was never designed to be used in the way it is being used and fails to meet basic 21st century safety criteria ? You wouldn't be so accepting of such lax standards with road or air transport so why should rail get a "free pass" ?

Wrong - the stock will continue to deteriorate even if well-kept, thus incurring costs later on for whomever acquires them, and the storage space is of value/cost for the railway in itself.

If they're leased, those costs are ones which are the leasing company's problem - not the operators.

 

[bramling]

Wrong - the only loser whilst they are stored is the leasing company who have an asset which isn't generating any revenue.

It makes precisely no difference to anyone else, bar a few obsessives on these boards.

What I meant was if the units sit in cold storage (as is likely to happen), deteriorate in the process, and are then unreliable or in a poor state once reactivated. Whilst it may be the leasing company’s problem from a financial perspective, if the units emerge from store with issues then it becomes the end user’s problem.

There’s also the risk that the leasing company simply decides to cut their losses and sells them to someone like Sims. I can’t see the DFT wanting to get involved with leasing after the 365 debacle, and would another leasco want to take them on if there's the risk of them remaining redundant?

 

[Minstral25]

Not for the first time - battery would be a better solution for Uckfield.

That said the current timetable means that there are only 4 diagrams to run an hourly timetable from Uckfield - London Bridge, so that's 8 units (to allow for 8 car). I suspect Southern may have the capacity within their fleet to cover this without transfers.

If my maths is right there are three cycles on Marshlink and four on Uckfield. Assuming the 171 4 cars become 3 car as mentioned elsewhere, then if the Uckfield 4 services are all 6 car that requires 8 units and Marshlink all 3 car requires 3 more units. That takes 11 out 12 potential 3 car sets in use every day. The 4 2-car units can supplement some Uckfield services to make 8-car and some be placed as maintenance spares for the 3 cars. Seems to be enough but utilisation is going to need to increase which considering they haven't had this level of usage for a long time probably means a lot of short forms.

Presumably to make them three car units is going to mean out of service for a period too, which will add to a short term shortfall.

Of course when passenger numbers return they will be insufficient.

 

[RichJF]

The magic Electrostar tree must be starting to get very bare now though. They’ve already pruned the edges like Guildford and Milton Keynes, cut stuff like the Coastway to the bone, binned over 60 units, and possibly yet will be covering the 313s too. I can’t see they can do much more, without the 379s at any rate.

I suppose the 379s could be made to cover several needs, but as Uckfield won’t be electrified for several years even if authorised now, they would have to be gainfully employed in the meantime. It’s in no one’s interest to store them for that length of time.

I wonder if a class 700-related order gets put in to replace all metro Electrostars, which then move to Uckfield, Coastway. Creates a metro Desiro fleet & rest Bombardier fleet. Gettting into the realms of speculation now though.

There is a thread on the "Speculative Discussion" debating 3rd rail, in particular down to Uckfield. https://railforums.co.uk/threads/3r...-future-after-all….231359/page-5#post-5654111

 

[JohnElliott]

It should have been done in 1987, or soon after. Would have required a handful of extra VEPs and removed a diesel island. Might have required a few more HAPs to be stripped of asbestos and kept on for a few years but then the DEMUs need that work doing so it's a moot point. I can think of plenty of lightly used branch lines in Europe that have been electrified. Never understood the hesitation in the UK.

As I've heard it told, the problem was that too many DEMUs had already had the asbestos removed -- if someone had come up with the idea a bit earlier, that money could have been spent on electrifying Uckfield instead.

 

[A0wen]

I wonder if a class 700-related order gets put in to replace all metro Electrostars, which then move to Uckfield, Coastway. Creates a metro Desiro fleet & rest Bombardier fleet. Gettting into the realms of speculation now though.

There is a thread on the "Speculative Discussion" debating 3rd rail, in particular down to Uckfield. https://railforums.co.uk/threads/3rd-rail-infills-and-extensions-may-have-a-future-after-all….231359/page-5#post-5654111

Which would mean electrifying Uckfield - alternatively the option is to do as DB have and order some BEMUs - Stadler Flirt's in their case, which allows for partially electrified routes to stop using diesel.

FLIRT AKKUs For DB Regio

On 25 November 2021, Stadler was awarded a contract by DB Regio for delivery of 44 two-car FLIRT AKKU BEMUs.

www.railvolution.net

The battery range on those is at least 50 miles (Stadler has demonstrated over 100 miles), conveniently the distance of a Hurst Green - Uckfield round trip.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I hear the problem with battery units is having them in multiple. Im not sure exactly why. . I might be to do with differing voltages etc as the baterries get weaker? Not what we need.

Just blooming electrify the flipping lines!

Possibly a problem if recharging two at once would overlaod the supply?

 

[Bob Price]

There will be 9 ex TfW 769's available soon. Third rail into London and diesel to Uckfield. Not good on hills but would be an option. If TfW do introduce their 231's onto the Rhymney line then they will be available by the end of the year.

 

[JohnElliott]

There will be 9 ex TfW 769's available soon. Third rail into London and diesel to Uckfield. Not good on hills but would be an option. If TfW do introduce their 231's onto the Rhymney line then they will be available by the end of the year.

Unfortunately 769s wouldn't be allowed through Oxted Tunnel, because they have a Mk3 bodyshell and the clearances are too tight.

 

[sussexbythesea]

However it only leaves 8 or so spare carriages to provide either longer trains or additional services on the Uckfield line - but in an additional rumour the 171s will only go as far as East Croydon, so maybe the same number of units isn’t required. However changing at East Croydon in peak hours will be a nightmare.

Surely terminating services at East Croydon won't save a diagram? The location of the passing loops on the single track would dictate the timetable and as trains pass at Sanderstead (and Ashurst) wouldn't there just be a 171 sitting in East Croydon for 50 minutes? Why not run to London Bridge?

 

[A0wen]

Unfortunately 769s wouldn't be allowed through Oxted Tunnel, because they have a Mk3 bodyshell and the clearances are too tight.

In which case Electrostars might also have a problem:

319 vs 387

Length 19.83/19.21m vs 20.39m

Height 3.58m vs 3.77m

Width 2.82m vs 2.80m

The 171s are Length 23.62m, Height 3.77m and Width 2.69m which suggests if Mk3 stock can't go to Uckfield it's the width that's the problem and if clearances are *that* tight then Electrostars will also struggle being only 2 cm narrower - whereas the 171s are 11cm narrower than the 387s.

 

[JohnElliott]

In which case Electrostars might also have a problem:

Electrostars (and 700s) already use that tunnel on the way to East Grinstead, so their profile's sufficiently different from a Mk3 not to cause an issue.

 

[bramling]

In which case Electrostars might also have a problem:

319 vs 387

Length 19.83/19.21m vs 20.39m

Height 3.58m vs 3.77m

Width 2.82m vs 2.80m

The 171s are Length 23.62m, Height 3.77m and Width 2.69m which suggests if Mk3 stock can't go to Uckfield it's the width that's the problem and if clearances are *that* tight then Electrostars will also struggle being only 2 cm narrower - whereas the 171s are 11cm narrower than the 387s.

Electrostars have operated to East Grinstead for the last two decades, so no problem there.

One does wonder whether it’s a case that Mk3 *can’t* pass through the tunnel, as opposed to that they’ve been needed to so it has never been properly investigated. I recall in the 90s there was a thing about 207s passing through there, and it turned out this was merely due to lack of window bars.

 

[nw1]

They could get away with it off-peak I suspect, a decent connection at Oxted would be fine, especially if they could do something clever like introduce a semi-fast East Grinstead electric service. But I don’t see the peak commuters standing for it.

The route really should have already been electrified.

East Croydon seems a crazy place to turn around - must be very difficult to do it without conflict, and if you're going all the way there you may as well carry on another 15 mins to London Bridge. Oxted as a terminus I could understand off peak, that's what they always did in the days of electric stock to East Grinstead and Thumpers to Uckfield.

I'd have thought the natural time to have electrified Uckfield was around the time when the Thumpers finished their service and the 377s came in. They could just then have ordered more 377s. Doing it in 1987 on the other hand with East Grinstead was presumably difficult as there were insufficient CIGs and VEPs to cover both branches. (Incidentally, and admittedly OT, where did they get the CIGs and VEPs from to cover the 1987 East Grinstead electrification? Some were released in 1988 with the introduction of Thameslink, but that leaves the Sep 87 - May 88 period unaccounted for).

 

[4SubAsociation]

East Croydon seems a crazy place to turn around - must be very difficult to do it without conflict, and if you're going all the way there you may as well carry on another 15 mins to London Bridge. Oxted as a terminus I could understand off peak, that's what they always did in the days of electric stock to East Grinstead and Thumpers to Uckfield.

I'd have thought the natural time to have electrified Uckfield was around the time when the Thumpers finished their service and the 377s came in. They could just then have ordered more 377s. Doing it in 1987 on the other hand with East Grinstead was presumably difficult as there were insufficient CIGs and VEPs to cover both branches. (Incidentally, and admittedly OT, where did they get the CIGs and VEPs from to cover the 1987 East Grinstead electrification? Some were released in 1988 with the introduction of Thameslink, but that leaves the Sep 87 - May 88 period unaccounted for).

Regarding insufficient CIGs and VEPs. It might not of been as bad due to Dover Western Docks was dying out at the time and by 1994 was shut due to the Euro Tunnel with folkestone harbour going by 2001.

With regards to the Uckfield line. I would be interested to see what happens at Eridge as that is shared with the Spa Valley railway. I know the Spa want to put a run round loop in. So maybe the Spa Valley trains go onto the curved side platform and then run round? At present its top and tailed.

I know i have gone slight OT. But it would be interesting.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

Could something like the Flirt intermediate powercar be created to run between a 377 formation?

 

[A0wen]

Could something like the Flirt intermediate powercar be created to run between a 377 formation?

It'd be easier just to order some Flirt hybrids - be it diesel or battery.