Atomic Systems

I imagine new larger "franchises" would look much like FGW and NXEA, though the southern one would be more like the 1923-1949 Southern Railway than anything else.

And like it or not, I can't forsee a situation where we have anything other than a Conservative government this time next year.

All of which has nothing to do with 3CIGs on the lymington branch.

it was a response to energize post actually if you read it properly.

Making larger franchises wont work. A becuase at the end of it if the winner of that particular franchise hits trouble and the goverment take it on we pay more Tax, any goverment with half a brain would know that increasing tax would surely secure defeat in an election.

SWT had a chance to built 3 car 450's when it reopened production during the 450/2 building. Resorting to Diesel power on the Lymington branch to me is the death of the line as the use of the 3CIGs has generated alot of passengers during its use alone. If it wasnt for the 3CIGs the only people that would really go to Lymington are the people that live there or the Old and Retired or people who like little places like lymington, most of whom drive may i add.

Putting a 158 on the branch may increase comfort and reliability it also increases the amount SWT have to pay the run ie Diesel fuel & track access charges with extended charges for Daily ECS moves to and from depots. The nearest Diesel refuelling points on the line now are Southampton and Eastleigh since Bournmouths Closure which would mean the 158 Doing a Trip to Southampton or Eastleigh every night and even then they'll need a seperate end to the Fuel nozzle as you cant refill a 158 with the same nozzle used for a Loco whereas the 3CIGs could be left at Brokenhurst or Bournmouth Station sidings.

i think a fleet of ten 3 car and ten 5 car 450's would have been useful to SWT, for the three car ones could be used on the solent shuttle and 5 car ones on the Portsmouth direct.

anyway why can't they take coaches out of sets, like they do with FGW 158 anyway and mix and match?

Pompeyfan wrote:
anyway why can't they take coaches out of sets, like they do with FGW 158 anyway and mix and match?

for one thing the computer wont like it an would have to be reprogrammed and secondly the 450's are permantly couple and would take morn than just a shunt to get then apart. so you see if one coach needs working on the entire 450 comes off the line.

salopiangrowler wrote:SWT had a chance to built 3 car 450's when it reopened production during the 450/2 building. Resorting to Diesel power on the Lymington branch to me is the death of the line as the use of the 3CIGs has generated alot of passengers during its use alone. If it wasnt for the 3CIGs the only people that would really go to Lymington are the people that live there or the Old and Retired or people who like little places like lymington, most of whom drive may i add.

Excuse me but me and my family enjoyed going to Lymington on holidays. I am 20 years old, and we did use the trains on a fair few visits. Lymington is a very busy town, specially in the holiday months/half terms. The mode of transport WILL NOT affect the branch directly, why would it it exactly? Take away the heritage units, you lose the enthusiasts travelling on it. But you do not lose the people wishing to travel to the IoW/Lymington from the New Forest, i would have thought the locals in Brockenhurst & Sway use it often aswell to get to Lymington as it's a far bigger town.

The branch somehow managed to stay open during the brief period between 1963 and 2004 (or whenever it was) when you could travel on a CIG anywhere on the southern region. I somewhat doubt that since then the balance has shifted such that the (minimal) enthusiast traffic is the only thing keeping it from closing.

Apparently it takes a long time to split a 450, but it can and has been done (look round the back of the London end of Wimbledon depot, there's been a split 450 round there for ages).

I would argue that having a homogeneous fleet of 4-cars is operationally beneficial as against having some 3s & 5s, but there is that "High capacity" subfleet (numbered 450/5) to prove that that isn't that important. I suspect the problem is more that there would be much more requirement for 5-car units than there is for 3-car units. If you put 3-cars on the Portsmouth - Sotons and the Lymington branch, you probably only need about 5 units. Maybe the Ascot - Guildfords would justify some more 3-cars, which might take you to 10 units worth of diagrams.

It would probably be better if the whole 450 fleet was 3-car, but that chance was missed a long time ago...

Would it not be cheaper to extend the platform at Lymington town as its the only sation incapable of 4 car use.

Extending platforms is expensive. We've got to remember that SWT will have made their desision based on their commercial interests, I.E what is most profitable to them. If it was cheaper to extend the platforms and use 450s, or to reform 450s as 3 car, or to get some 3 car units from elsewhere, or to keep the CIGs, they would do it. When it comes to the latter, remember they've spent a fair amount of money on that pair, so it's not that easy a desision. If using diesels under the wires (or on third rail) was as commerically bad, it wouldn't be done. In the past when performance and reliability of diesels was much lower than electrics, then it was almost unheard of (Waterloo to Exeter and Kings Cross to Aberdeen/Inverness were the only regular services with significant running of diesels on electrified lines, in other cases either the electrified portion has been fairly short, or it's been a low frequency service), but now Diesels can be and often are more reliable that Electrics, and can often outperform them (especially comparing a modern DMU to an older EMU), so there is less if any commerical penalty to using Diesels in place of Electrics. When it comes to operating costs, Electrics arn't always cheaper, infact the reason some TOCs have given for using diesels more than electrics is cheaper operating costs. One important point is that diesel cost fluctuates, wheras the Electric cost is likely to be fairly stable. This means that when Diesel is cheap, it can be more economical than Electric. When enevitably diesel prices rise again, there may come a point where the savings from switching to Electric would outweight the cost, in which case TOCs will very likely consider switching to more Electrics. Even from an environmental point of view, Electric might be clean at source, but it's still got to be generated, and most electricity is generated using fossil fuels. Based on unit weight, plus all the auxilliary loads, a 4 car Desiro will use more energy per run than a 3 car 158, and much more than a 3CIG, so the environmental argument is weak.

i hope SWT have put this proposal towards the Foresty commision i fear the use of a 158 on the branch will be short lived once the residents smell the diesel fumes. 158's arent exactly what you call the cleanest of engines.

chriscooper wrote:Extending platforms is expensive.

What's the situation at Lymington Town though, does the platform physically need extending or is it a question of rehabilitating disused parts of the platform? Surely it would've been suitable for 4car operation at some point because wasn't the line operated by VEPs at one point?

And wasn't Laing, who used to own Chiltern, developing a modular platform extension kit?

SWT have no need to report to the forestry commission, the railway was there long before the NF became a national park, and all DMU's throw out a bit of clag, but the 158 will be driven with a relaxed manor, the top speed on the route is 50mph with slack timings, so if notched up at a reasonable rate and not thrown straight into notch 7 then there is no reason that 158s will be more or less of an issue to the local area.

okay then, let's turn the tables. your in control of SWT, what would you do about the lymington branch?

i'd also love to ask the LRA about what their perfect outcome with the W class ferry would be, what they actually want to happen.

If it were up to me, I'd extend the Salisbury - Romsey via Eastleigh service to Lymington (at the cost of the Redbridge - Romsey direct bit). Maybe also extending the Portsmouth - Southamptons to Lymington to retain the 1/2 hourly service. Can you imagine that - a train service from Lymington that actually goes somewhere!

That's a bit ideal worldish as I have no idea if there's space on the line between Redbridge & Brockenhurst for 2 more trains per hour.

not a bad idea, turn the figure of 6 route into a Salisbury-Lymington Peir job 4 car 158 to Brokenhurst 2 cars forward to lymington 3 in summer.

its sad to see the slammers go.

but.

why are we all moaning about a 158 ? it seems like a good soloution to me. Staff at depots are probably trained to service them, they are 2 cars, sutitable for the line, and will provide a good service.

desiro5 wrote:why are we all moaning about a 158 ?

Ali, nowadays everyone seems to be going on about Global Warming, cutting emissions, yada yada ya...
TOCs are apparently suppose to be cutting emissions more and more, so why have SWT decided to use a DMU on an Electrified line?
It doesn't make sense. It just seems they are taking the easy option now; getting rid of the slammers.

And before anyone steps in, no I don't really care much about global warming, you've only to look at my avatar to know that.