A Problem with 466 Networkers?

[whhistle]

I was reading in the SouthEastern thread where someone mentioned the 466s and how they won't be PRM compatible because they don't have any toilets.

I wonder whether one/both ends could be made into a middle coach by taking out the cabs and fitting toilets? They would obviously need a lot of work to fit toilets anyway but would give more space if taking out the driving cab area and remodelling the ends to be through coaches.

Would this be worth doing?
Could they be added to Turbo units?

Seems a waste to send them for scrap.

 

[a_c_skinner]

You don't need toilets for PRM I think. Look at busses for example. The loo issue is accessible toilets use a lot more space than old style train loos so you loose capacity.

It does seem unsatisfactory that we are withdrawing serviceable trains when almost everywhere is short of capacity.

Edit The wiki entry says DTOSL in one place and DTOS in another for the second vehicle. Is there a loo?

 

[chubs]

The 376's don't have toilets either do they?

Nobody would spend that much money on old stock.

 

[hwl]

You don't need toilets for PRM I think. Look at busses for example. The loo issue is accessible toilets use a lot more space than old style train loos so you loose capacity.

It does seem unsatisfactory that we are withdrawing serviceable trains when almost everywhere is short of capacity.

Edit The wiki entry says DTOSL in one place and DTOS in another for the second vehicle. Is there a loo?

Yes but not a "universally accessible toilet"* hence the need to couple to a 465 to provide a UAT (that has been retrofitted).

The seat /standing area loss in 2car metro unit given most are used in 6/10car combos rather than 2 car ~90% : 10% by current diagrams)

*DfT Lingo

 

[hwl]

The 376's don't have toilets either do they?

Nobody would spend that much money on old stock.

SWR /Angel have with the 442s!

 

[Doomotron]

There's already a thread on this. There is a derogation which means they can be operated without PRM modifications as long as it is connected to PRM-modified stock (465s). This is fine as they mostly operate connected to them, but the branch lines could have some problems.

 

[brad465]

As Doomotron said, all the discussion on this has been here:

 

[whhistle]

There's already a thread on this. There is a derogation which means they can be operated without PRM modifications as long as it is connected to PRM-modified stock (465s). This is fine as they mostly operate connected to them, but the branch lines could have some problems.

As Doomotron said, all the discussion on this has been here:

If you think this specific query belongs in a more general thread about (what I assume is) actual refurbishment (IE, not partial rebuild / diminishing the class), then did you report it?

I mean, if we're saying it's a good approach to have units coupled together nearly all the time, why didn't London Midland order 360s, or Scotrail order non-corridor door stock to save the hassle of not being able to see signals?
I'd suggest the answer is, because it's not ideal to run units coupled together.

Hence the suggestion about converting them to mid-coaches, not just a "refurbishment".

 

[Class 466]

If you think this specific query belongs in a more general thread about (what I assume is) actual refurbishment (IE, not partial rebuild / diminishing the class), then did you report it?

I mean, if we're saying it's a good approach to have units coupled together nearly all the time, why didn't London Midland order 360s, or Scotrail order non-corridor door stock to save the hassle of not being able to see signals?
I'd suggest the answer is, because it's not ideal to run units coupled together.

Hence the suggestion about converting them to mid-coaches, not just a "refurbishment".

Given they already spend most of the time attached to 465s it doesn’t really make much difference.