On Apr 10, 8:52*pm, D7666 wrote:

Of course, all this may result in 6car trains as well ... where a
10car splits into 4 + 6.

And even that assumes 455 and 456 will still be 4car and 2car units.

As they appear to be throwing 458s and 460s up in the air and forming
5car units out of where they land, and some left over, they may have a
similar idea about making 5car 455/456 out of 455s and 456s.

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:

But surely not all SWT will automatically be 10car ?

I think its right to say all routes will be 10car capable, but this
does not imply all trains all day have to be 10car, there will still
be 8car even 4car trains that won't need 456s.

Of course, all this may result in 6car trains as well ... where a
10car splits into 4 + 6.

I'm not at all sure - SWT are keeping very quiet aren't they, indeed if you
relied on their announcements you'd assume nothing was happening.

The NR enhancement plan (another revised edition issued last week) clearly
shows every SWT 'inner suburban' route as being operated by 10 car trains by
2014. If 'operated by 10 car trains', means throughout the morning and
evening peaks, and running in both directions for the 3 hours, that's a lot
of extra carriages - 140 is the number shown. If as I suspect around 85 455s
are in use during the peaks, there's surely 85 extra '455 compatible'
carriages needed?

Paul S

D7666 wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:52 pm, D7666 wrote:

Of course, all this may result in 6car trains as well ... where a
10car splits into 4 + 6.

And even that assumes 455 and 456 will still be 4car and 2car units.

As they appear to be throwing 458s and 460s up in the air and forming
5car units out of where they land, and some left over, they may have a
similar idea about making 5car 455/456 out of 455s and 456s.

Undoubtedly.

(btw that crossed with my other reply unfortunately).

Paul S

Andy wrote:

But the SWT webchat from February (http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/
archive.aspx?p=3) implies than only some of the suburban services will
be lengthened (see below). The longest trains are unlikely to run for
the full peak, just the busiest trains.

Question: 132

Can you tell us anything about planned increases in the train fleet to
allow for suburban train lengthening, to make use of Network Rail's
platform lengthening over the next few years? (The latter project is
documented quite thoroughly in NR's December update to the CP4
enhancement plan.)

Answer:

We are in discussion with the Department for Transport about
lengthening of some of our services from 8 to 10 cars. This is a
confidential negotiation and we are sorry that we cannot give any
details in the moment.

Funnily enough, I knew that - it was my question - and the answer was
basically as expected, and the same as earlier webchats!

But going by the NR Mar 2010 enhancement plan - which is much more detailed
than the webchat response, as I intended to point out...

"10-car operation on all suburban services
Additional vehicles involved 140
0700 - 0959 capacity impact 19,200
0800 - 0859 capacity impact 7,300

That implies extended trains right across the peak 3 hour period, with a
slight increase in the 8-9 period. I can't see a practical way of running
the inner suburban routes at max length in the peak flow direction only?

Paul S

On Apr 11, 12:05*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Andy wrote:
But the SWT webchat from February (http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/
archive.aspx?p=3) implies than only some of the suburban services will
be lengthened (see below). The longest trains are unlikely to run for
the full peak, just the busiest trains.
Question: 132

Can you tell us anything about planned increases in the train fleet to
allow for suburban train lengthening, to make use of Network Rail's
platform lengthening over the next few years? (The latter project is
documented quite thoroughly in NR's December update to the CP4
enhancement plan.)

Answer:

We are in discussion with the Department for Transport about
lengthening of some of our services from 8 to 10 cars. This is a
confidential negotiation and we are sorry that we cannot give any
details in the moment.

Funnily enough, I knew that - it was my question - and the answer was
basically as expected, and the same as earlier webchats!

But going by the NR Mar 2010 enhancement plan - which is much more detailed
than the webchat response, as I intended to point out...

"10-car operation on all suburban services
Additional vehicles involved 140
0700 - 0959 capacity impact 19,200
0800 - 0859 capacity impact 7,300

That implies extended trains right across the peak 3 hour period, with a
slight increase in the 8-9 period. *I can't see a practical way of running
the inner suburban routes at max length in the peak flow direction only?


But this is the Network Rail plan, which doesn't consider how the
trains will actually be sourced. All it is saying that running with
the extra 140 vehicle will give the capacities concerned and that they
will provide the infrastructure for this.

DfT have indicated that they are willing to accept less than 140
vehicles, if it involves use of existing stock. The planned 458/460
rebuild would provide 54 extra vehicles and the 456s an extra 48 to
give a total of 102. Making up the shortfall of 38 (about 27% of the
planned vehicles) would have to depend on new build. (This was all
covered in the February Modern Railways).

With regards to running the trains at maximum length, in peak
direction, it would be easy to diagram the 10 car trains to be
arriving in Waterloo in the 08.00-08.59 'main' hour, with the 8 cars
running the other services and / or those on the less busy branches. I
would say it is impossible/very expensive to convert the whole 455
fleet to 10 car operation (along with consistent power per unit when
running in shorter formations). Of course, in the future, 12 car will
be easy.

On Apr 11, 1:16*pm, Andy wrote:

The planned 458/460
rebuild would provide 54 extra vehicles and the 456s an extra 48 to
give a total of 102. Making up the shortfall of 38


508201-508212 = 12 3car units = 36 cars.

I am not suggesting these go to SWT , however I think they could
contribute to the cascade calculation and we do not know all the
pieces of the jigsaw puzzle yet.

I know there are various suggestions and proposals about where these
508s go, and IIRC none involve SE England, and AFAIK pre-date any of
the NR/DfT electrification plans. Cascades must have or may have
altered, or need re-working. 12mo ago for example we did not have 319s
in any frame for cascade to GWML / NW ... so there is a precedent for
things changing.

For example, speculation, suggestion, discussion, 20 313s go to SN
under the current known plans. There are 28 3car 377s. Logic might
suggest once BTON has 313s it is but a small step for 508/2s, and
theres your cascade of 36 cars - 8x3 + (say) 3x4 377s BTON - SHST
and then (say) SN 455s - SWT.

would say it is impossible/very expensive to convert the whole 455
fleet to 10 car operation (along with consistent power per unit when
running in shorter formations). Of course, in the future, 12 car will
be easy.

On the subject of power per unit yes with 455s BoBo and 456s Bo2 motor
coaches it does not add up fully.

Again there may be more to this than we know - not just because of
that but presumably SWT might want the 456s to be of the same internal
specification as their 455s. That could mean a full refurblement (yes
I know 456s are just getting some kind of overhaul now - but that sort
of thing never stopped 442s getting overhauled for SWT stopped then
xferred to SN/GEx and refreshed again).

Add this to the recent suggestion from Informed Sources about possibly
ding a complete traction pack rebuild on 321s, the similar thyristor
contemporaneous 456s would seem to fit this program. Who knows, if
456s got a VVVF upgrade they might reform them at the same time and
that adds more fuel to the fire.

Lastly, I believe the Lymington line may come into the is SWT 140 cars
somehow. The 3Cigs go soon, yes we know SX is going to be covered by a
158. I suggest this is a temporary measure until SWT gets more EMU. It
make more sense to me for Lymington to be covered by a 456 if SWT get
them as 2car units. Depending on how you decide to do the sums,
releasing the 2car 158 foe Watelroo Salisbury releases the equivalent
of a 4car 450 ... you might have one more longer Salisbury train
serving Basingstoke in the peak traded off against a shorter Bomo line
train etc etc. As has been commented, SWT is keeping silent on their
plans, so no-one can dismiss this idea as there is nothing from SWT on
any of it.

--
Nick

On Apr 11, 4:14*pm, "John Clausen" wrote:

that mating a 313 and 315 does not work. Possible they fight each
other if notching up sequence within each unit are different - rather
like the diesel 25/1 and 25/2 issue ?

How do you mean 'fight each other'? The Belgians have coupled camshaft and
thyristor units in multi since the 1970s. It batters the couplings but they
are strong enough to take it.

I don't know what the specifics of 313+315 are.

Yes camshaft + chopper/thyristor works in principle - and we had in
the past SWD 455s for example with the chopper trials units.

There must be some other reason. Wheel damage ? Rail damage? If one
unit suddenly increases or decreases tractive effort while the other
one does not then one or other of the units may slip. I'm not saying
thats what takes place, its just a possibility.

All I know was I found a document, a local WAGN (as it was then)
document, says it was not allowed, in any circumstances, not even ECS.
Tractor moves yes, with one unit dead, thats all, which presumably
allows for emergency rescue missions such as push-out of section.

Or indeed it may be something else not connected with traction
controls.

I don't know what the cause is, all I know is there was a ''Thou Shalt
Not Multiply'' restriction in WAGN days.

--
Nick

On Apr 11, 2:12*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:16*pm, Andy wrote:

*The planned 458/460
rebuild would provide 54 extra vehicles and the 456s an extra 48 to
give a total of 102. Making up the shortfall of 38

508201-508212 = 12 3car units = 36 cars.

I am not suggesting these go to SWT , however I think they could
contribute to the cascade calculation and we do not know all the
pieces of the jigsaw puzzle yet.

Indeed, there is also the consideration of South Eastern's plans for
12 car trains on the inner suburban routes. The class 465/466 family
will be OK(ish), but the 376 fleet would need reformation into 4/6
car, or extra vehicles inserted. To lengthen all trains will need
extra stock. If extra Electrostar stock was to be ordered for SE, this
would allow extra vehicles to be ordered for Southern as well,
releasing 455s to SWT.


I know there are various suggestions and proposals about where these
508s go, and IIRC none involve SE England, and *AFAIK pre-date any of
the NR/DfT electrification plans. Cascades must have or may have
altered, or need re-working. 12mo ago for example we did not have 319s
in any frame for cascade to GWML / NW ... so there is a precedent for
things changing.


Definately!!

For example, speculation, suggestion, discussion, 20 313s go to SN
under the current known plans. There are 28 3car 377s. Logic might
suggest once BTON has 313s it is but a small step for 508/2s, and
theres your cascade of 36 cars - 8x3 + (say) 3x4 377s BTON - SHST
and then (say) SN 455s - SWT.


Extra 455s to SWT would make sense, maybe with temporary reduction to
3 car (10 cars = 4 + 3 + 3, similar to Southern's 377s) until the
later extensions to 12 cars.

would say it is impossible/very expensive to convert the whole 455
fleet to 10 car operation (along with consistent power per unit when
running in shorter formations). Of course, in the future, 12 car will
be easy.

On the subject of power per unit yes with 455s BoBo and 456s Bo2 motor
coaches it does not add up fully.

Again there may be more to this than we know - not just because of
that but presumably SWT might want the 456s to be of the same internal
specification as their 455s. That could mean a full refurblement (yes
I know 456s are just getting some kind of overhaul now - but that sort
of thing never stopped 442s getting overhauled for SWT stopped then
xferred to SN/GEx and refreshed again).


I'm sure SWT will want the 456s to be refurbished to a similar state
to the 455s.

Add this to the recent suggestion from Informed Sources about possibly
ding a complete traction pack rebuild on 321s, the similar thyristor
contemporaneous 456s would seem to fit this program. Who knows, if
456s got a VVVF upgrade they might reform them at the same time and
that adds more fuel to the fire.


Would a traction upgrade be possible in a short enough time scale,
especially if it also involves upgrading the 455s.

Lastly, I believe the Lymington line may come into the is SWT 140 cars
somehow. The 3Cigs go soon, yes we know SX is going to be covered by a
158. I suggest this is a temporary measure until SWT gets more EMU. It
make more sense to me for Lymington to be covered by a 456 if SWT get
them as 2car units. Depending on how you decide to do the sums,
releasing the 2car 158 foe Watelroo Salisbury releases the equivalent
of a 4car 450 ... you might have one more longer Salisbury train
serving Basingstoke in the peak traded off against a shorter Bomo line
train etc etc. As has been commented, SWT is keeping silent on their
plans, so no-one can dismiss this idea as there is nothing from SWT on
any of it.


I certainly agree that putting a 456 (or 508!!) on the Lymington
branch would make more sense than the current plans for using a 158.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 08:24:06 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Apr 11, 4:14*pm, "John Clausen" wrote:

that mating a 313 and 315 does not work. Possible they fight each
other if notching up sequence within each unit are different - rather
like the diesel 25/1 and 25/2 issue ?

How do you mean 'fight each other'? The Belgians have coupled camshaft and
thyristor units in multi since the 1970s. It batters the couplings but they
are strong enough to take it.

I don't know what the specifics of 313+315 are.

Possibly a variation on the consequences of coupling a DMMU to a DHMU
on the St Pancras line some years which resulted in the manual unit
being dragged at speed while still in first gear as the driver forgot
to use the (usually spare) gear change ? Are the electrical
differences of 313 v. others such that the presence of particular
error conditions are only revealed if the driver has to do or watch
for something that he would not have to under normal working ?

Yes camshaft + chopper/thyristor works in principle - and we had in
the past SWD 455s for example with the chopper trials units.

There must be some other reason. Wheel damage ? Rail damage? If one
unit suddenly increases or decreases tractive effort while the other
one does not then one or other of the units may slip. I'm not saying
thats what takes place, its just a possibility.

All I know was I found a document, a local WAGN (as it was then)
document, says it was not allowed, in any circumstances, not even ECS.
Tractor moves yes, with one unit dead, thats all, which presumably
allows for emergency rescue missions such as push-out of section.

Or indeed it may be something else not connected with traction
controls.

I don't know what the cause is, all I know is there was a ''Thou Shalt
Not Multiply'' restriction in WAGN days.

On Apr 12, 6:07*am, Charles Ellson wrote:

I don't know what the specifics of 313+315 are.

Possibly a variation on the consequences of coupling a DMMU to a DHMU
on the St Pancras line some years which resulted in the manual unit
being dragged at speed while still in first gear as the driver forgot
to use the (usually spare) gear change ? Are the electrical
differences of 313 v. others such that the presence of particular
error conditions are only revealed if the driver has to do or watch
for something that he would not have to under normal working ?

Something like that but as I said upthread I do not know the
specifics.

If it is different notching sequences and or different series/parallel
or weak field transition speeds then the units might fight each other.
AFAIK on EMU they are not indicated separately for each unit, there is
no equivalent to the DMU bank of blue lights.

Or :

Or indeed it may be something else not connected with traction
controls.

--
Nick