Class 442s - Now at the end of the road and to be withdrawn permanently

[Starmill]

It’s brave to assume SWR will be back at 2019 levels of service in the peak any time soon.

I don't know what it is about particular sections of the industry, but even a year into a global pandemic, even with a very right-wing government, a very weak Secretary of State for Transport and an especially hawkish Chancellor, the viewpoint that the December 2019 level of service, and of custom, is likely to be returning at the end of 'lockdown' is very pervasive. Admittedly this could be because so far there's been scant pressure to cut costs exerted - but I would say this makes the upcoming risks greater, not lesser. Combined with a lack of progress on decarbonisation, I've been saying for a while we're in existential threat territory. Putting it another way, perhaps SWR will be fortunate to utilise all of their current fleet except for the class 442s.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I believe in May SWR are going back to their August 2020 timetable, so there will be no need for the 442s. This should see reintroduction of through Exeter and Weymouth services, but the Pompey line will still only have 1 fast and 1 stopper. The 2Bxx service group also loses out as they still only finish at Southampton. I’ve not had time to assess the suburban and Windsor groups.

The 2Bxx service groups operate between Bournemouth and Winchester in the May timetable.

2tph between Waterloo and Poole of which one continues to Weymouth.

 

[pompeyfan]

The 2Bxx service groups operate between Bournemouth and Winchester in the May timetable.

2tph between Waterloo and Poole of which one continues to Weymouth.

if the 2Bxx only go as far as Winchester where is the second Poole - Waterloo train?

I still can’t see the 442s being needed

 

[HamworthyGoods]

if the 2Bxx only go as far as Winchester where is the second Poole - Waterloo train?

I still can’t see the 442s being needed

The 2Bxx is running Winchester to Bournemouth only.

Two 1Bxx/1Wxx Waterloo to Poole services run per hour with one of these continuing to Weymouth.

 

[pompeyfan]

The 2Bxx is running Winchester to Bournemouth only.

Two 1Bxx/1Wxx Waterloo to Poole services run with one continuing to Weymouth.

ah I see thank you. Would you be able to discuss the rest of the SWR uplift in the timetable thread please?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

ah I see thank you. Would you be able to discuss the rest of the SWR uplift in the timetable thread please?

Im afraid I’ve only seen the Southampton area changes of which these are the main ones.

I would suspect the enhanced frequency on the 1Bxx/1Wxx is to avoid the problems that plagued Bournemouth on sunny days last year.

I understand end of this week / early next week should see the service published to downstream systems.

 

[southern442]

The 442s were needed to allow 450s to displace other stock so that the 455s, 458s, and 707s can be withdrawn after the 701s are introduced. Even without the extra services, I'd be surprised if they had enough to cover everything without needing to retain a micro-fleet of one of these. The 707s have already started leaving for Southeastern, so all things considered the 442s may be a good option now (even though they weren't back in 2017).

This is an interesting point, I doubted it at first but looking in terms of carriage numbers the 701 replacement isn't like-for-like, there would need to be a 450 cascade even without the extra services. Perhaps in this case it would be worth either keeping some 442s or keeping some 458s (the latter would probably be better)

EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot Southern existed!

 

[43096]

This is an interesting point, I doubted it at first but looking in terms of carriage numbers the 701 replacement isn't like-for-like, there would need to be a 450 cascade even without the extra services. Perhaps in this case it would be worth either keeping some 442s or keeping some 458s (the latter would probably be better)

That’s an idea. We will keep the 458s on the Reading line and the 100mph 2+2 seated Aventras displaced can go to the whinging Portsmouth lot. Excellent plan!

 

[southern442]

That’s an idea. We will keep the 458s on the Reading line and the 100mph 2+2 seated Aventras displaced can go to the whinging Portsmouth lot. Excellent plan!

More seriously, one of the things I was going to say but forgot is that the only think that the PDL commuters need to be kept happy and quiet (for now at least) is 2+2 intercity style seating. Whilst your suggestion was obviously tongue-in-cheek, it's worth saying that Aventra's wouldn't cut it because it's the comfort, rather than the layout, which is critical. By which I mean armrests and tables, like the 444s. At this stage if the 442s are going, I'd say just get a few 450s and stick 2+2 armrests and tables seating in them, and that should solve the problem.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is an interesting point, I doubted it at first but looking in terms of carriage numbers the 701 replacement isn't like-for-like, there would need to be a 450 cascade even without the extra services. Perhaps in this case it would be worth either keeping some 442s or keeping some 458s (the latter would probably be better)

vehicles in
750 (cl701)

Vehicles out
364 (cl 455)
48 (cl 456)
150 (cl 707)
180 (cl 458j

742?

 

[southern442]

vehicles in
750 (cl701)

Vehicles out
364 (cl 455)
48 (cl 456)
150 (cl 707)
180 (cl 458j

742?

Oh god I'm such an idiot, I just realised I counted the Southern 455's in there too!

 

[Nym]

So? That gives no indication of who is paying for it. I assume you mean the new seats, etc, rather than the sticky logos on the outside.

And it's all fairly minor anyway compared to the retractioning work on the 442s.

Like I said. Yes, ToCs pay for improvements. I do know this for a fact, and I can't say what, because it's commercially sensitive data.

 

[spark001uk]

Just a thought, are we certain SWR only intend to use the 442s again if they absolutely have to? Could it not be beyond the realms of possibility that they simply want to use them?

 

[Journeyman]

Just a thought, are we certain SWR only intend to use the 442s again if they absolutely have to? Could it not be beyond the realms of possibility that they simply want to use them?

There's no reason they'd want to if they didn't have to.

 

[Mainline421]

There's no reason they'd want to if they didn't have to.

Except the Portsmouth line and the DFT, who are both known to be extremely keen on them. If anything I could see SWR wanting to cancel the plan but ending up using them anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Except the Portsmouth line and the DFT, who are both known to be extremely keen on them. If anything I could see SWR wanting to cancel the plan but ending up using them anyway.

It would take a couple of months to get enough drivers trained up (at a significant cost); if the decision has been made not to use them that will be it other than perhaps a farewell special or two.

Also, if the decision has been taken, DfT will have taken it.

 

[swt_passenger]

It would take a couple of months to get enough drivers trained up (at a significant cost); if the decision has been made not to use them that will be it other than perhaps a farewell special or two.

Also, if the decision has been taken, DfT will have taken it.

I think people are getting far too hung up on 2+2 seating. A good idea at the time, but will DfT really be worried if it doesn’t happen?

 

[Journeyman]

I think people are getting far too hung up on 2+2 seating. A good idea at the time, but will DfT really be worried if it doesn’t happen?

Probably not, given the cash crisis facing the railway, and 3+2 with fewer passengers eases the situation anyway.

 

[southern442]

Probably not, given the cash crisis facing the railway, and 3+2 with fewer passengers eases the situation anyway.

I thought it was more to do with the DfT specifying it because PDL commuters keep going on about it? So simply forgetting about it, whilst in any other case would probably be alright, would in this case still leave a problem to be solved?

 

[northernbelle]

I think people are getting far too hung up on 2+2 seating. A good idea at the time, but will DfT really be worried if it doesn’t happen?

Yes, because stakeholder aspiration is generally what drives a lot of this stuff. There is a strong vocalisation on that line for more comfortable rolling stock. In theory, keeping 'the people' happy keeps the votes coming in and satisfaction scores up...

 

[DorkingMain]

750 (cl701)

Vehicles out
364 (cl 455)
48 (cl 456)
150 (cl 707)
180 (cl 458j

742?

455 / 456 aren't used at maximum availability either due to them having restrictions on the Windsor side.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2021 ==

I thought it was more to do with the DfT specifying it because PDL commuters keep going on about it? So simply forgetting about it, whilst in any other case would probably be alright, would in this case still leave a problem to be solved?

Perhaps in the long term, but in the short term the attitude is pretty much "Be thankful you have a train".

I don't know why the 450s weren't reconfigured to 2+2 in their refurbishment anyway given the majority of the work they do is middle-distance, but that's another matter.

Spending never ending amounts of cash on the 442 fleet because some people don't like the seats on a 450 is not really a worthwhile use of a limited pool of funds atm.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, because stakeholder aspiration is generally what drives a lot of this stuff. There is a strong vocalisation on that line for more comfortable rolling stock. In theory, keeping 'the people' happy keeps the votes coming in and satisfaction scores up...

2+3 seating hasn’t stopped the votes coming in in that area much so far has it?

 

[spark001uk]

Yes, because stakeholder aspiration is generally what drives a lot of this stuff. There is a strong vocalisation on that line for more comfortable rolling stock. In theory, keeping 'the people' happy keeps the votes coming in and satisfaction scores up...

Plus it'll be a promise swr has delivered upon, and they need some of those.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought it was more to do with the DfT specifying it because PDL commuters keep going on about it? So simply forgetting about it, whilst in any other case would probably be alright, would in this case still leave a problem to be solved?

That’s not how it works. Uually DfT only specifies rolling stock if it has procured it itself (Class 800s, Class 700s) or it is subject to special agreement with the lease company to roll on to the next franchise.

What normally happens is tha DfT specify the capacity required in terms of the minimum number of seats / passengers on a certain route in a given time period. This can be very detailed, and could include seat configuration on certain routes. Franchise bidders then respond to that requirement with proposals for certain types of train / formation / service level. The winning bidder then enacts it.

For in franchise* change, a franchisee won’t change anything that affects its contracted commitments unless the DfT asks it to. The franchisee may prompt the DfT to ask, but the DfT must still ask. Pure speculation here, but the DfT could have asked how SWR could save some cash at minimal impact to passengers, given forecast demand. SWR would then have replied with this as a proposal, perhaps on its own or in a ‘menu’ with others, all priced. DfT then instructs what it wants, taking into account costs vs benefits (not just financially, either). Decisions above a certain ‘size’ have to gain approval of the Secretary of State before being instructed.

* franchising is dead, but you know what I mean.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2021 ==

Plus it'll be a promise swr has delivered upon, and they need some of those.

Strictly speaking, a contractual requirement, that may have been rescinded.

 

[northernbelle]

2+3 seating hasn’t stopped the votes coming in in that area much so far has it?

I did say "in theory".

 

[TEW]

If 2+2 seating is considered a priority on fast services to Portsmouth I am sure the diagrams could be shuffled around a bit to provide more 444s at the expense of other routes such as Portsmouth via Basingstoke. The use of 12-450 formations at peak times was as much about maximising capacity as anything else.

The 442s were far from universally popular for the short periods they did manage in service. Commuters from Guildford and Godalming weren't too impressed for example as it reduced their chances of getting a seat. Nobody was really happy with the atrocious time keeping which meant late running was the norm. And they were a complete nightmare for anyone with mobility issues, with narrow doorways and big steps up.

 

[spark001uk]

To be fair, atrocious time keeping which retractioning was carried out to address. Hopefully.

 

[TEW]

To be fair, atrocious time keeping which retractioning was carried out to address. Hopefully.

The issues were as much long dwell times because of the slow and narrow doors.

 

[spark001uk]

The issues were as much long dwell times because of the slow and narrow doors.

Hopefully the better performance will help to make up for the dwell a bit though.

 

[Journeyman]

The issues were as much long dwell times because of the slow and narrow doors.

Are they full PRM compliant now, or is there an ongoing exemption?