Class 465 and 466 set for storage/scrap: possible uses for them in future?

[Journeyman]

They already have poor reliability and storage for years isn't going to help that.

They also serve an area of the country with the highest housebuilding in the country.

Far better for a uniform new order to make use of 12-car infrastructure Network Rail spent million to install on Metro routes.

If it wasn't for continual short term extensions since 2014 they'd likely be gone years ago.

It's quite likely some will never return from storage IMO

Oh, I quite agree.

They were a huge improvement on both the EPBs they replaced, and the Mark 3 based EMUs that came just before them, but they're far from ideal now, and a new fleet would bring a lot of benefits. It's just I'm sure we'll get lots of crayoning about ideas to reuse them.

 

[43066]

They already have poor reliability and storage for years isn't going to help that.

They also serve an area of the country with the highest housebuilding in the country.

Far better for a uniform new order to make use of 12-car infrastructure Network Rail spent million to install on Metro routes.

If it wasn't for continual short term extensions since 2014 they'd likely be gone years ago.

It's quite likely some will never return from storage IMO

Not that much of the SE metro network is fully 12 car ready (albeit decent SDO will help).

I wonder if the post Covid landscape will reduce the likelihood of a complete fleet replacement for a few more years. Probably an unknown at this stage, as with so much else.

 

[gallafent]

It's just I'm sure we'll get lots of crayoning about ideas to reuse them.

Definitely — particularly heady when combined with (ideally HyDrive … which has gone very quiet after being supposed to be delivered in 2019) class 165 and of course 365 vehicles, to produce quad-mode networkers that can run on OHLE, 3rd rail, diesel, or battery. I, for one, welcome our new all-purpose repurposed frankentrains!

Having said which, parts of that are not quite as crayonistic as they might at first sound, with reference for example to:

A reseated HyDrive 165 or 166 3 car with 2 x reseated 465 trailers, actually.

For reference, re the 2019 date is mentioned here in this government document dated October 2018:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/749501/rolling-stock-perspective-4th-edition.pdf

We are pleased to see that some innovative ideas are starting to become reality with Alstom
working with Eversholt on the conversion of class 321 units to bi-modes using hydrogen fuel
cells, Viva rail breathing new life into its class 230 trains with a hybrid power pack option,
Angel trains working with Chiltern to introduce hybrid class 165 HyDrive trains in 2019, and
Transport Design International making good progress on building their Very Light Rail (VLR)
manufacturing and test facility in Dudley.

… but the most recent news is from six months after that deadline, and now more than a year ago, on May 4th 2020:

Milestone in conversion of a DMU to a low emission hybrid drive unit | RailBusinessDaily

Angel Trains Limited says it has marked an important milestone in the £4 million HyDrive project with Chiltern Railways and Magtec. The project aims to

news.railbusinessdaily.com

Following successful modelling, design and rig testing, a Chiltern Railways Class 165 unit has arrived at Loram UK in Derby ready to be fitted with the Magtec traction motors, range extender engines and traction batteries.

The next phase of the project will be to fit out the unit, followed by slow and line-speed testing to prove the system performance and ensure safe operation.

I'm looking forward to my first journey on an innovative idea (which has started to become reality), I imagine the ride quality will be excellent. I wonder when the trains which correspond to the ideas will start to become reality …

 

[Roger B]

Definitely — particularly heady when combined with (ideally HyDrive … which has gone very quiet after being supposed to be delivered in 2019) class 165 and of course 365 vehicles, to produce quad-mode networkers that can run on OHLE, 3rd rail, diesel, or battery. I, for one, welcome our new all-purpose repurposed frankentrains!

Having said which, parts of that are not quite as crayonistic as they might at first sound, with reference for example to:



For reference, re the 2019 date is mentioned here in this government document dated October 2018:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/749501/rolling-stock-perspective-4th-edition.pdf

… but the most recent news is from six months after that deadline, and now more than a year ago, on May 4th 2020:

Milestone in conversion of a DMU to a low emission hybrid drive unit | RailBusinessDaily

Angel Trains Limited says it has marked an important milestone in the £4 million HyDrive project with Chiltern Railways and Magtec. The project aims to

news.railbusinessdaily.com

I'm looking forward to my first journey on an innovative idea (which has started to become reality), I imagine the ride quality will be excellent. I wonder when the trains which correspond to the ideas will start to become reality …

Interesting. I saw 58804 (of 165004) outside RTC last Wednesday - thought it was a strange sight. Perhaps related to this project?

 

[RealTrains07]

Are the 465s and 466s going to turn into another class that must be saved at all costs?

They've already lasted longer than a lot of SUBs and EPBs.

They already have poor reliability and storage for years isn't going to help that.

They also serve an area of the country with the highest housebuilding in the country.

Far better for a uniform new order to make use of 12-car infrastructure Network Rail spent million to install on Metro routes.

If it wasn't for continual short term extensions since 2014 they'd likely be gone years ago.

It's quite likely some will never return from storage IMO

Dosent mean they have to go now. 30 years is not old. If 30 years is old then why are fleets much older than networkers still around.

There is little excuse to waste money on a new train fleet which could be surplus to requirement if the passenger numbers dont return.

Lets just see what happens next after the units going to storage are in storage

 

[bramling]

Are the 465s and 466s going to turn into another class that must be saved at all costs?

They've already lasted longer than a lot of SUBs and EPBs.

For me, kind of. From an end-user perspective I like Networkers, and they are essentially only just past mid-life.

 

[Wolfie]

For me, kind of. From an end-user perspective I like Networkers, and they are essentially only just past mid-life.

Technology is evolving fast. They were state of the art when built but now....

 

[Journeyman]

Technology is evolving fast. They were state of the art when built but now....

Yeah, they're a lot like the 92 Stock. The technology hasn't proved to be very reliable, and units that came just a few years later have proven to be much better.

 

[Wolfie]

Yeah, they're a lot like the 92 Stock. The technology hasn't proved to be very reliable, and units that came just a few years later have proven to be much better.

I suspect that a midlife technology refresh wouldn't be economically viable.

 

[Journeyman]

I suspect that a midlife technology refresh wouldn't be economically viable.

Some have been done already, of course, but probably not as far as the others are concerned. New stock is very cheap at the moment.

 

[Wolfie]

Some have been done already, of course, but probably not as far as the others are concerned. New stock is very cheap at the moment.

Exactly. A big fleet to be replaced though.

 

[43066]

I suspect that a midlife technology refresh wouldn't be economically viable.

In defence of the networkers:

Their reliability is much improved, based on the last “golden spanner” awards I read.

I have commuted on them pretty much every day since the late 90s, up to and including now. I drove them for three years. In all that time, which must amount to many, many thousands of journeys, I’ve never been left stranded by one.

They don’t do a bad job at all. Do we really need yet another multi million pound rolling stock fleet? I hope they soldier on for a few more years.

 

[Roger B]

Exactly. A big fleet to be replaced though.

674 vehicles! Would loading gauge / curvature of SE platforms be issues in replacing 12-car Networkers with 10-car (or 2 X 5 car) trains of the same overall length but with longer carriages? Whilst I agree that Networkers aren't life-expired, early replacement could have advantages:

• low interest rates (for how long, as inflation starts to pick up?),
• greater capacity (less space lost between carriages and units, better internal layouts),
• less power consumption (lighter construction, more efficient electronics and transmissions, enhanced regenerative dynamic braking),
• more route flexibility (less 'noisy' and so don't require same levels of signal immunisation).

And probably others as well (eg better MTINS, greater time/mileage between inspections, etc) - arising from technology improvements in the 30-odd years since the Networkers were devised.
Much may depend on accounting procedures - how capital cost of the Networkers has been amortized over time, and the current book value of the Networkers. If they've little residual value (either now, or when replacements could conceivably be delivered), then early replacement is probably even more advantageous.

 

[Journeyman]

674 vehicles! Would loading gauge / curvature of SE platforms be issues in replacing 12-car Networkers with 10-car (or 2 X 5 car) trains of the same overall length but with longer carriages?

This is potentially a problem - the loading gauge in Networker territory is extremely tight in places, and a lot of clearance improvements were needed when they were introduced. At the time this led to a lot of hysterical NEW TRAINS ARE TOO BIG FOR TRACKS!!! headlines.

It's largely a legacy of the LCDR and SER being perennially skint, and building bridges and tunnels to the lowest standards they could get away with (see Hastings line...)

Whilst I agree that Networkers aren't life-expired, early replacement could have advantages:

• low interest rates (for how long, as inflation starts to pick up?)

Not necessarily a problem if you agree a long-term finance deal now. In fact, you'd be laughing all the way to the bank if you did.

 

[Roger B]

Not necessarily a problem if you agree a long-term finance deal now. In fact, you'd be laughing all the way to the bank if you did.

Yes, that's what I was driving at - if you leave starting the finance until later, if inflation's picked-up, you could end up paying a lot more for the finance.

 

[Wolfie]

In defence of the networkers:

Their reliability is much improved, based on the last “golden spanner” awards I read.

I have commuted on them pretty much every day since the late 90s, up to and including now. I drove them for three years. In all that time, which must amount to many, many thousands of journeys, I’ve never been left stranded by one.

They don’t do a bad job at all. Do we really need yet another multi million pound rolling stock fleet? I hope they soldier on for a few more years.

Certainly replacing them wouldn't be top of my priority list. If they'd ever had a decent refurb people might love them more...

 

[ScotGG]

Not that much of the SE metro network is fully 12 car ready (albeit decent SDO will help).

I wonder if the post Covid landscape will reduce the likelihood of a complete fleet replacement for a few more years. Probably an unknown at this stage, as with so much else.

On the Dartford lines Network Rail extended every platform for 12 car. The only exceptions are Woolwich Dockyard and certain Charing Cross platforms which require SDO = new trains needed.

The time for a thorough internal and external refurb was around 2006 given they were 15 years old then. Unless we're going for 60 years lifespan, they're now 30 years old (first units built around '91 and entering service in '92).

Only some of the fleet saw Hitachi changes, and internally no changes were made for improved vestibule space and perhaps 2x2 seating plus new materials to improve the dank interior many now have.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

They are too long in the tooth for a refurb to make them modern, the doors are still always going to be a pinch point even if you open up the vestibules, the computer system needs a complete overhaul, new seats and air con with the window hoppers removed all in all far far far too much money to achieve vs putting them in the bin. Don't bundle them off for diesel conversion, don't palm them off to Southern to replace the 313s just get rid end off.
Just lease new stock, 12 car walkthrough 2 + 2 seating, decent people eaters with wide-ish gangways...hmm these sound very much like the 700/707s and 701s that exist, no one likes them for comfort but they do their job very efficiently and are generally a nice environment (albeit a bit bright)

 

[ComUtoR]

the computer system needs a complete overhaul

Which computer system ?

 

[43066]

On the Dartford lines Network Rail extended every platform for 12 car. The only exceptions are Woolwich Dockyard and certain Charing Cross platforms which require SDO = new trains needed.

But not the stations of the Catford loop or Chatham mainline, which networkers are also used on interchangeably. Capacity is not an issue at the moment, and likely not for the foreseeable future. There really is no need to spend goodness knows how much on a new fleet

Certainly replacing them wouldn't be top of my priority list. If they'd ever had a decent refurb people might love them more...

Indeed. The 465/9s are so much better inside.

 

[BRblue33]

If i had a choice i'd go on a class 465 over a class 700 Cattle wagon .

 

[ComUtoR]

Capacity is not an issue at the moment, and likely not for the foreseeable future. There really is no need to spend goodness knows how much on a new fleet

Introducing a new fleet will take a few years. The process should be started so that when capacity is needed they are there to be introduced. We need to stop the can kicking for SE

 

[Meerkat]

Introducing a new fleet will take a few years. The process should be started so that when capacity is needed they are there to be introduced. We need to stop the can kicking for SE

Assuming you wouldn’t order 12 coach trains then you order low with options. By the time deliveries have got to the stage you have to decide on the options it will be a lot clearer what longer term demand will be.

 

[Class 466]

A mixture of both 6 and 4 car units would make sense if you ask me. Gives about the most flexibility you’re gonna get without any more dreaded 2 cars.

 

[Wolfie]

Assuming you wouldn’t order 12 coach trains then you order low with options. By the time deliveries have got to the stage you have to decide on the options it will be a lot clearer what longer term demand will be.

But unit price of low with options is likely to be higher than ordering more upfront. Your plan reduces risk for HMG but increases it for ROSCOs and train builders. Bids would doubtless reflect that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2021 ==

A mixture of both 6 and 4 car units would make sense if you ask me. Gives about the most flexibility you’re gonna get without any more dreaded 2 cars.

Serious question: is there anywhere (a branch l guess) on SE that a 4 car couldn't go?

 

[CarrotPie]

Serious question: is there anywhere (a branch l guess) on SE that a 4 car couldn't go?

Nope. All platforms can hold at least 4 cars. Cuxton is I think the tightest fit. Sheerness is all 8 car, Medway Valley is mainly 4 car, Bromley N is 10 car (8 Networker)

 

[D365]

Which computer system ?

I'm not electrically familiar with the 465 series but my vague recollection is that there is some kind of primitive computer system onboard. @millemille will more than likely have far better knowledge.

 

[millemille]

I'm not electrically familiar with the 465 series but my vague recollection is that there is some kind of primitive computer system onboard. @millemille will more than likely have far better knowledge.

There's no centralised Train Management System (TMS) on the 465/466's. There are stand alone "computers" for traction electronics control and diagnostics, OTMR, TPWS, PIS etc and Remote Condition Monitoring (RCM - which was retrofitted in the late 00's) but nothing that acts as a centralised TMS to tie it all together and be a single interface for drivers and maintainers as you'd have on more modern stock. It's all relays and contactors and wires with volts going down them on the Networker's.

 

[brad465]

Nope. All platforms can hold at least 4 cars. Cuxton is I think the tightest fit. Sheerness is all 8 car, Medway Valley is mainly 4 car, Bromley N is 10 car (8 Networker)

Apparently the Medway valley line doesn't permit 4-car Networkers anymore due to changes in safety protocol since they last ran passenger services on that line (although empty stock moves still happen on there, at least pre-Covid). Cuxton, and maybe also Halling, I heard would only fit a 4-car 465 if the rear cab was off the end of the platform, and Beltring station on a 4-car 375 has triggered automated announcements in the train about not alighting from the rear coach due to a short platform, suggesting that's even shorter.

 

[Roast Veg]

Nope. All platforms can hold at least 4 cars. Cuxton is I think the tightest fit. Sheerness is all 8 car, Medway Valley is mainly 4 car, Bromley N is 10 car (8 Networker)

This obviously rules out 5/10 car 23m stock, unless Medway Valley and Bromley North remain Electrostar only.