SWR Class 458 to be retained

[Siemens Staines]

Seems there’s a 5Q95 1833 Eastleigh to Widnes Transport Tech Departing on 10th September 2024, anyone have clues? Thank you

I see that this train was cancelled, but a new set of paths is now on RTT with the accompanying loco moves so perhaps the following transfer is more likely to run. I notice that 5B39 from Wimbledon Park to Bournemouth ran yesterday which may or may not be related?

Thursday 12th September 2024
5O45 0521 Leicester L.I.P. to Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D

Realtime Trains | 5O45 0521 Leicester L.I.P. to Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D | 12/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 5O45 0521 departure from Leicester L.I.P. to Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D on 12/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

5Z66 1937 Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D to Eastleigh

Realtime Trains | 5Z66 1937 Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D to Eastleigh | 12/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 5Z66 1937 departure from Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D to Eastleigh on 12/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

5Q99 2146 Eastleigh to Widnes Transport Tech

Realtime Trains | 5Q99 2146 Eastleigh to Widnes Transport Tech | 12/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 5Q99 2146 departure from Eastleigh to Widnes Transport Tech on 12/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Friday 13th September 2024
5M95 0916 Widnes Transport Tech to Leicester L.I.P.

Realtime Trains | 5M95 0916 Widnes Transport Tech to Leicester L.I.P. | 13/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 5M95 0916 departure from Widnes Transport Tech to Leicester L.I.P. on 13/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

I would have expected 458406 to be delivered from Widnes this week, but for whatever reason that does not appear to be happening.

 

[markle]

Deleted

 

[davews]

They spent millions extending platforms for 10 car trains and now have none of them running.... 701s now look unlikely on the Readings as well.

 

[Goldfish62]

They spent millions extending platforms for 10 car trains and now have none of them running.... 701s now look unlikely on the Readings as well.

There's a separate thread to discuss Class 701s. There you'll see that driver training started several weeks ago and that PTI testing is ongoing.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Apologies for not wading through all 117 pages, but what passenger benefit is the refurb delivering?

I understand the rationale for moving from 5 to 4 cars was to enable 12 car services to Pompey... which will now not happen.

So to this relatively lay person it feels the outcome is that 20% of train capacity is being lost, at a time when frankly we could do with as much capacity as we can get.

What are the benefits that make the 20% loss in capacity worthwhile?

I understand that SWR already had a refurbished contract in place, but it feels that the refurb is actively harmful and it may have been better for SWR to not fall for the sunk cost fallacy.

No passenger benefit at all, but it would cost SWR a lot to cancel the contract. There is a penalty clause for cancelling the refurbishment contract, so it is not a sunk cost.
(Such penalty clauses are not unusual, they are to cover the builders against the customer pulling out, after the builder has spent money tooling up the factory and taking on employees).

And the use of the 458/4s on these services is intended to be a temporary measure to cover the ever-increasing gap between the departure of the 707s (and some 455s) and the eventual arrival of the 701s.

 

[markle]

Deleted

 

[Goldfish62]

A better question may be: "is the exit penalty greater or less than the cost of completing the refurbishment?"

I suspect none of us know the answer to this but I wouldn't normally be satisfied with "we can't stop the work because of exit penalties" until the answer to that question is clear.

Even better would be amending the contract to retain all 5 cars in the refurb.

Whatever the answer it would be a great shame if these trains don't find a long term use as they are really comfortable to travel on.

 

[sp503]

A better question may be: "is the exit penalty greater or less than the cost of completing the refurbishment?"

I suspect none of us know the answer to this but I wouldn't normally be satisfied with "we can't stop the work because of exit penalties" until the answer to that question is clear.

Even better would be amending the contract to retain all 5 cars in the refurb.

I’m sure no contract is non-negotiable. Even a ‘non-negotiable’ contract can be superseded by a new one if all parties are so determined.

There are actually four parties involved here: SWR, Porterbrook, the contractor doing the refurbishment, and DfT. We can only guess what their positions were, but my guess would be that Porterbrook would be leaning towards having the refurbishment done so as to extend the asset life, regardless whether SWR is the one ended up using it (or can keep persuading SWR to take the units like now). The contractor doing the refurbishment would likely not mind if it’s cancelled but would need compensation for the cost it has incurred, and wouldn’t be an easy party to negotiate with. DfT is probably the one who’s against the deal going forward as on paper they think SWR wouldn’t need the units (similar to HST and 769s for GWR a year or two back).

The only mystery is SWR. I tend to think that as the operator they would never say never, since they should know better than anyone how stretched their fleet was. I think their public stance of ‘having no plans to put the refurbished units into service’ was merely paying lip services to both DfT who was looking at the ledgers with eagle eyes, and the unions who had previously expressed dissatisfaction to how the units were refurbished.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

No passenger benefit at all, but it would cost SWR a lot to cancel the contract. There is a penalty clause for cancelling the refurbishment contract, so it is not a sunk cost.
(Such penalty clauses are not unusual, they are to cover the builders against the customer pulling out, after the builder has spent money tooling up the factory and taking on employees).

And the use of the 458/4s on these services is intended to be a temporary measure to cover the ever-increasing gap between the departure of the 707s (and some 455s) and the eventual arrival of the 701s.

It's only no passenger benefits if you neglect passenger comfort. Do you work for SWR by any chance as they seem to have no interest in passenger comfort. I have found them very pleasant to travel on.

 

[DelW]

I understand the rationale for moving from 5 to 4 cars was to enable 12 car services to Pompey... which will now not happen.

The other part of that purpose was to reduce or eliminate use of 450s on Pompey trains. Their cramped 3+2 seating is unsuitable for 2-hour long services and has been the cause of much complaint for many years. Unfortunately SWR has now reneged on that commitment despite eventually conceding that they couldn't avoid using the refurbished versions (for a long while they proposed to store them until the lease ran out then scrap them unused).

 

[markle]

Deleted

 

[Goldfish62]

Personally I would find 20% shorter trains to provide less passenger comfort, as there's the same number of people crowding into a smaller space. Even if the seats themselves are comfier.

However if travelling off-peak where there's the luxury of plenty of available seats then I'm willing to believe that they could provide more comfort than a 458/5.

I doubt if anyone is suggesting that they should stay on inner suburban services permanently.

 

[A60stock]

Plus SWR had apparently signed up to a refurbishment contract with extremely onerous cancellation clauses. At one stage when there was no perceived need for the /4s, it looked as though the newly refurbished trains would be stored for the minimum duration of their lease, then scrapped unused.

Long term, are we saying once the 701s are in service in full, these will have no further use?

 

[DelW]

Long term, are we saying once the 701s are in service in full, these will have no further use?

I don't think anything definitive has been made public so far, if indeed anything has even been decided yet. Plans have changed frequently in recent years.

By the time the 701s are in service in full, the 458/4s may be life expired anyway .

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't think anything definitive has been made public so far, if indeed anything has even been decided yet. Plans have changed frequently in recent years.

By the time the 701s are in service in full, the 458/4s may be life expired anyway .

If there are still not enough 444s to cover the Portsmouth route on top of their current routes then I see the 458/4s having a future there.

Now if demand on SWR is so low that once all 701s are in service and SWR is awash with spare 450s the question will be is it cheaper to run a 458 or run a 450 and put up with the complaints.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Just went past Wimbledon depot and spotted a 460 variant 458 (the ones not being refurbished) connected to a few blue porterbrook translator carriages and a ROG class 37. Any clue what this might be? Could this be the start of the scraps?

 

[SEtrains]

I see that this train was cancelled, but a new set of paths is now on RTT with the accompanying loco moves so perhaps the following transfer is more likely to run. I notice that 5B39 from Wimbledon Park to Bournemouth ran yesterday which may or may not be related?

Thursday 12th September 2024
5O45 0521 Leicester L.I.P. to Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D

Realtime Trains | 5O45 0521 Leicester L.I.P. to Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D | 12/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 5O45 0521 departure from Leicester L.I.P. to Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D on 12/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

5Z66 1937 Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D to Eastleigh

Realtime Trains | 5Z66 1937 Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D to Eastleigh | 12/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 5Z66 1937 departure from Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D to Eastleigh on 12/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

These paths have now been cancelled so i assume 45850? Will no longer be transferring to Widnes today.

Just went past Wimbledon depot and spotted a 460 variant 458 (the ones not being refurbished) connected to a few blue porterbrook translator carriages and a ROG class 37. Any clue what this might be? Could this be the start of the scraps?

This is 458534 getting dragged to long marston for storage by top and tail 37s (37510 and 37884)

Realtime Trains | 5Q94 0626 Wimbledon Park C.S.D. to Long Marston | 13/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 5Q94 0626 departure from Wimbledon Park C.S.D. to Long Marston on 13/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[DelW]

If there are still not enough 444s to cover the Portsmouth route on top of their current routes then I see the 458/4s having a future there.

Now if demand on SWR is so low that once all 701s are in service and SWR is awash with spare 450s the question will be is it cheaper to run a 458 or run a 450 and put up with the complaints.

That's a good point. I think I've read recently that the 450 lease expires before long, and I believe they're quite expensive. They're well built trains, but they just don't have suitable seating for long journeys. The 458/4s have 2+2 and have been praised for seat comfort on here, so I'd take them on the Direct!

 

[Peter Sarf]

That's a good point. I think I've read recently that the 450 lease expires before long, and I believe they're quite expensive. They're well built trains, but they just don't have suitable seating for long journeys. The 458/4s have 2+2 and have been praised for seat comfort on here, so I'd take them on the Direct!

Exactly. Desiros might be worth the price for reliability but that will not be a significant factor as far as DfT are concerned.

 

[LUYMun]

That's a good point. I think I've read recently that the 450 lease expires before long, and I believe they're quite expensive. They're well built trains, but they just don't have suitable seating for long journeys. The 458/4s have 2+2 and have been praised for seat comfort on here, so I'd take them on the Direct!

Why sacrifice a proportion of the 450s for a microfleet that is corroded, had a half-arsed refurb and still has brake issues?

 

[Siemens Staines]

These paths have now been cancelled so i assume 45850? Will no longer be transferring to Widnes today.

Interestingly, 69009 did do 5O45 as far as Eastleigh, so it looks like a late change of plans?

Realtime Trains | 5O45 0521 Leicester L.I.P. to Eastleigh East Yard | 12/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 5O45 0521 departure from Leicester L.I.P. to Eastleigh East Yard on 12/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[DelW]

Why sacrifice a proportion of the 450s for a microfleet that is corroded, had a half-arsed refurb and still has brake issues?

In my opinion, to get 2+2 seats - but don't worry, no-one will take the least notice of my opinion . I suspect cost will feature much more for those actually making such decisions though.

 

[swr444]

Why sacrifice a proportion of the 450s for a microfleet that is corroded, had a half-arsed refurb and still has brake issues?

They could just refresh some 450s to 2+2 seating and put them into a subclass. Or just remove all 3+2 seating as everyone hates it

 

[43096]

Why sacrifice a proportion of the 450s for a microfleet that is corroded, had a half-arsed refurb and still has brake issues?

Cost.

 

[Meerkat]

Cost.

Just because the 450s are expensive to lease/maintain now doesn’t mean the renewal bid won’t be a bit more competitive.

 

[WarrenTManager]

Why sacrifice a proportion of the 450s for a microfleet that is corroded, had a half-arsed refurb and still has brake issues?

Please enlighten me what the brake issues are!

 

[LUYMun]

Please enlighten me what the brake issues are!

Post 3364 and 3365 would be of interest, just to name one of several instances of the units having dragging brake issues.

Just because the 450s are expensive to lease/maintain now doesn’t mean the renewal bid won’t be a bit more competitive.

2+2 seating are the sole issue with 450s among members on this thread, so they could've gone for a refresh to get those at cheaper long-term cost than retaining a microfleet. There is literally nothing else but that.

And if SWR does pursue to not renew the same number of 450s for the sake of keeping 458s then it goes to uphold my belief that the management have a tightwad attitude, sacrificing fleet homogeneity and long-term security for short-term cost cutting, alongside choosing 701s over 707s, binning 456s, and opting 442s in the first place.

 

[43096]

Just because the 450s are expensive to lease/maintain now doesn’t mean the renewal bid won’t be a bit more competitive.

There might not be a renewal bid. The 458/4s are on lease to August 2027, the 450s are on a Section 54 to 2025. If you're going to end up paying for two sets of trains when you don't need both, then the one that has lease expiry first will go.

 

[43096]

And if SWR does pursue to not renew the same number of 450s for the sake of keeping 458s then it goes to uphold my belief that the management have a tightwad attitude, sacrificing fleet homogeneity and long-term security for short-term cost cutting, alongside choosing 701s over 707s, binning 456s, and opting 442s in the first place.

No, it shows a sensible approach to cost. Why pay two years of lease charges for trains you don't need?

 

[WarrenTManager]

Post 3364 and 3365 would be of interest, just to name one of several instances of the units having dragging brake issues.

That was nothing to do with the brakes.