Cl.442 replacement?

[tbtc]

To be fair, the 142's used to do a fair amount of stopping west of Southampton even in their flagship days, so I doubt stopping on the Hastings route would be too much of a problem.

You're going to get a lot of people excited about the idea of NSE operating Pacers, you know...

 

[yorksrob]

You're going to get a lot of people excited about the idea of NSE operating Pacers, you know...

Oops - freudian slip

 

[IanXC]

I think that IEP will be good for the UK, but I think it'd be overspecced for the SWT routes we are talking about here (125mph so requiring crumple zones etc).

(and that's assuming that the line is converted to AC all the way to Waterloo)

I seem to recall reading that the linespeeds could be increased on the route, other than for the limitation of 3rd rail. So perhaps its not that crazy!

 

[tbtc]

I seem to recall reading that the linespeeds could be increased on the route, other than for the limitation of 3rd rail. So perhaps its not that crazy!

Fair enough, if possible - given the limitations of DC I've always assumed that there's no point in getting excited about anything over 100mph on the Southern Region.

If converted to AC then maybe the Waterloo route could compete better with the Paddington route timewise for Exeter passengers.

 

[Eagle]

Yeah, the SWML around Basingstoke and southwards should be fairly easy to get to 110-115 with minimal work. Wouldn't be surprised if it happened at reelectrification (and it would benefit XC as well as SWT, of course).

 

[Fincra5]

That would be the point of a Gatwick Connect Service, it would create extra trains between Victoria and East Croydon - currently significantly overcrowded both Peak and Off-peak as is much of SE commuter routes whilst the Gatwick Express carries air mostly. So you would need a 12 coach train to cover the loads between East Croydon and Victoria and a 442 would be unsuitable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The 442's are not suited to the Brighton Expresses as these trains call at Clapham Junction and East Croydon and the delays caused at these stations as commuters get on and off the "Express" trains are significant. They are non-stop from East Croydon to Brighton only - where the 442 would cause no delays.

Well I disagree with that... they are timed for a little extra dwell at ECR and CLJ... given they are GateX in the morning they dont have 'commuters' getting on or off at ECR or CLJ as they run fast from GTW-VIC.. the two exceptions being the 0723- btn-lbg and 0714 ebn-lbg BUT these do not call at CLJ obviously. So i'd say they are suited to the Brighton expresses out of all of the Southern services.

 

[Minstral25]

Well I disagree with that... they are timed for a little extra dwell at ECR and CLJ... given they are GateX in the morning they dont have 'commuters' getting on or off at ECR or CLJ as they run fast from GTW-VIC.. the two exceptions being the 0723- btn-lbg and 0714 ebn-lbg BUT these do not call at CLJ obviously. So i'd say they are suited to the Brighton expresses out of all of the Southern services.

I know they run fast on the extended Gatwick Empties Services in the peak, but during the day and evening they stop, 2 trains per hour extra dwell, what could that be used for to assist the overcrowded outer suburban services at East Croydon.

They are not jammed with commuters/passengers on those off peak as they could be because they run just 4 minutes behind a Bognor Service which is standing room only past East Croydon peak and off-peak all day.

 

[Fincra5]

In my time working with 442s as part of the fleet I haven;t seen a major problem with their dwell times at ECR or CLJ nor have I seen the service overcrowded off-peak, bar Saturdays or special events... a 10car is more useful as DOO then a 10car 377. AS most 377s DOO are 8 Car on BTN expresses you are getting more seats. 377s are far more useful for strengthening other services.... is there a particular off-peak bognor service you travel on, I can walk freely through most Down splitters, via the arun or HHE, basicaly all the time off-peak so I don't know where that is coming from. Services between ECR-VIC are busy most of the time I agree but theres a train every few minutes.. and you'd be standing for mabye 20mins.

 

[RobShipway]

In my time working with 442s as part of the fleet I haven;t seen a major problem with their dwell times at ECR or CLJ nor have I seen the service overcrowded off-peak, bar Saturdays or special events... a 10car is more useful as DOO then a 10car 377. AS most 377s DOO are 8 Car on BTN expresses you are getting more seats. 377s are far more useful for strengthening other services.... is there a particular off-peak bognor service you travel on, I can walk freely through most Down splitters, via the arun or HHE, basicaly all the time off-peak so I don't know where that is coming from. Services between ECR-VIC are busy most of the time I agree but theres a train every few minutes.. and you'd be standing for mabye 20mins.

Would you not be better off running a 12 car 377, than a 10 car 442?

 

[Class377/5]

You could argue the 377 are better for boarding with 24 doors over 240m vs 20 doors over 230m on the 442's. This without looking at the positioning of the doors affecting the flow.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yeah, the SWML around Basingstoke and southwards should be fairly easy to get to 110-115 with minimal work. Wouldn't be surprised if it happened at reelectrification (and it would benefit XC as well as SWT, of course).

There's no point, cos they'll just run into the back of the freight in front that much sooner. While it remains a predominantly 2 track mixed traffic railway between Basingstoke and the docks any attempt to speed up SWT and XC will seriously reduce capacity.

 

[RobShipway]

You could argue the 377 are better for boarding with 24 doors over 240m vs 20 doors over 230m on the 442's. This without looking at the positioning of the doors affecting the flow.

I guess that is only really useful to use the 377's in the peak times though, off peak you could quite easily use the 442's on the BN - Vic expresses.

 

[AndyLandy]

tl;dr: Replace the GatEx 442s by asking Bombardier to build you an IC-layout-style version of the Electrostar. Ask Siemens for some more 444-alikes for the SWML and cascade 450s to increase outer suburban services.

The 444s weren't just ordered to replace 442s! The 444s and the 450s were both originally ordered to replace the old 42x Mk1 slammers in the SWT fleet. But if you've replaced a large train fleet with two train designs which are largely the same thing, having 22 oddball trains left over isn't exactly ideal. The logic is probably the same reason that IEPs are being ordered to replace the IC225s on the ECML, might as well finish the job properly and provide a unified fleet.

So, we end up with a consistent fleet of Desiros on the SWML. 444s and 450s are inter-compatible, to the point where I'm led to believe they're even considered the same traction for driver signing. They can certainly work in multiple with each other.

What the SWML needs is some more 444s. There are still 450s diagrammed for Weymouth-Waterloo semi-fasts, which isn't great, and Portsmouth always seems to get a raw deal with 450s instead of 444s.

A similar 23m end doored unit to a 444, probably based on the 380 bodyshell, would be available if they were needed. Siemens would build whatever they were asked for.

Please don't repeat the rubbish that a reputable manufacturer doesn't keep the drawings for an existing product, and can't make compatible add on quantities of stock only ten years on, even if they have to conform to revised crash worthiness standards...

Quoted for truth. It may not be possible to simply "crank the handle" on some more 444s, but I have no doubt that if you put out a tender for some express passenger-layout DC EMUs, one of the big manufacturers would oblige you with a quote. The Siemens Desiro platform already gave us the 444. Alstom's Coradia platform can do express passenger layouts (Class 175, 180) and they can build DC EMU traction (Class 458), so I'm sure they could knock something up. I'm equally sure Bombardier's platform could rustle something up too.

So, in answer to the OP, when it comes to replacing the 442s from GatEx, I'd expect a tender to go out specifying Intercity-style DC EMUs with the ability to retrofit pantographs and transformers for AC operation in future.

As for the 442s themselves, I don't really think they have much future left in them. I've heard suggestions about converting them to LHCS, possibly for GEML, but I don't believe there are enough vehicles. Somewhere in the SouthEastern region might be a nice place for them to live out until all the SR 3rd rail is gone.

 

[387star]

Southern's refurb was shockingly cheap and cheerful...

I get that it was done to a tight timescale

but now would be a nice time to rethink the interior...

install FGW HST style seating ad your on to a winner

the backs of FC seats are terrible scratched too not sure why

the interiors are dark so new lightning wouldn't go amiss

The colour scheme looks incredibly dated
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

319s? Crikey, after First Capital Connect's neglect of them, you'd be better off salvaging stock from the Electric Railway Museum!

The ex Southern units are the worst... the 319/0s not surprising almost all remain in southern livery an embarrassement for southern no doubt... dingy rank as built interior

another being the 377/5s which I imagine are equally neglected

 

[yorksrob]

you'd be better off salvaging stock from the Electric Railway Museum!

I wouldn't mind a ride on the 4SUB again !

 

[transmanche]

What the SWML needs is some more 444s. There are still 450s diagrammed for Weymouth-Waterloo semi-fasts, which isn't great, and Portsmouth always seems to get a raw deal with 450s instead of 444s.

Spot on. 450s are best used on outer-suburban, not long distance regional services. Another batch of 444s [*] would allow the 450s to be used on strengthening the services they're suited for.

* Or 'units compatible with 444s', which I guess is how you 'work around; the procurement rules to get the units you want.

 

[Mikey C]

Spot on. 450s are best used on outer-suburban, not long distance regional services. Another batch of 444s [*] would allow the 450s to be used on strengthening the services they're suited for.

* Or 'units compatible with 444s', which I guess is how you 'work around; the procurement rules to get the units you want.

Couldn't they just have subset of 450s for longer distance routes with the 4 abreast seating of the 444? After all Electrostars have a mixture of 4 and 5 abreast seating.

 

[AndyLandy]

Couldn't they just have subset of 450s for longer distance routes with the 4 abreast seating of the 444? After all Electrostars have a mixture of 4 and 5 abreast seating.

That's certainly a possibility. It works well enough in London Midland's 350/1s. But that's only part of the puzzle. The 444s have 23m vehicles with end doors, whereas the 450s are 20m vehicles with commuter doors. Clearly for a long distance Intercity service (which Weymouth to Waterloo is) should have IC-style stock.

 

[tbtc]

Couldn't they just have subset of 450s for longer distance routes with the 4 abreast seating of the 444? After all Electrostars have a mixture of 4 and 5 abreast seating.

Like the 350/1s?

(units which SWT would have had if things had gone differently)

 

[Mikey C]

That's certainly a possibility. It works well enough in London Midland's 350/1s. But that's only part of the puzzle. The 444s have 23m vehicles with end doors, whereas the 450s are 20m vehicles with commuter doors. Clearly for a long distance Intercity service (which Weymouth to Waterloo is) should have IC-style stock.

But then similar vehicles (168s and 172s) run to Birmingham, and haven't 166s run to Worcester and beyond? Not as nice, but an easier fix than trying to build some more 444 style stock.

But then, won't SWT run into problems because they aren't offering enough seats on their trains to London?

 

[AndyLandy]

But then similar vehicles (168s and 172s) run to Birmingham, and haven't 166s run to Worcester and beyond? Not as nice, but an easier fix than trying to build some more 444 style stock.

How are more 450s an 'easier fix' than more 444s? If we had a surplus of 450s cluttering up the place, then converting some to 2+2 seating might be a sensible idea, but that isn't the case.

As for the Birmingham example, I thought the 168s and 172s tended to run stopping services. The Chiltern line has historically always been a commuter service, and now Chiltern have their big shiny 67+Mk3 sets for Intercity travel as well.

 

[Eagle]

As for the Birmingham example, I thought the 168s and 172s tended to run stopping services. The Chiltern line has historically always been a commuter service, and now Chiltern have their big shiny 67+Mk3 sets for Intercity travel as well.

The Silver sets run just seven services a day in each direction at the moment. The 168s make up the majority of Chiltern's fast mainline services, which have a calling pattern of MYB–BAN–LMS–WRP–SOL–BMO, and all of the semi-fast services.

172s and 165s seem to be more-or-less interchangeable. Although they mainly work London suburban services, about half of the Stratford to London services (which are really just extensions of Bicester to London services) are booked for a 165 or 172.

 

[anthony263]

But then similar vehicles (168s and 172s) run to Birmingham, and haven't 166s run to Worcester and beyond?

I am sure I have read somewhere about a class 166 turning up at Hereford covering for a failed HST

 

[AndyLandy]

The Silver sets run just seven services a day in each direction at the moment. The 168s make up the majority of Chiltern's fast mainline services, which have a calling pattern of MYB–BAN–LMS–WRP–SOL–BMO, and all of the semi-fast services.

Ahh, so the calling pattern probably is pretty comparable to WEY-WAT fasts. Although, we can't really just place an order for a bunch of IC-style DMUs for that route, even if we wanted to. I wonder if there are any more 67s and Mk3s that could be utilised?

 

[anthony263]

Ahh, so the calling pattern probably is pretty comparable to WEY-WAT fasts. Although, we can't really just place an order for a bunch of IC-style DMUs for that route, even if we wanted to. I wonder if there are any more 67s and Mk3s that could be utilised?

Well ATW have two mark3 rakes with 67's and possibly FGW are looking at a return to loco hauled operation so I think you may be hard pressed trying to get hold of some 67's and I think the majority of the Mark3 carriages are already spoken for.

 

[AndyLandy]

Well ATW have two mark3 rakes with 67's and possibly FGW are looking at a return to loco hauled operation so I think you may be hard pressed trying to get hold of some 67's and I think the majority of the Mark3 carriages are already spoken for.

Pretty much what I'd expected, to be honest. I imagine if more were available, Chiltern would have taken them...

 

[tbtc]

Ahh, so the calling pattern probably is pretty comparable to WEY-WAT fasts. Although, we can't really just place an order for a bunch of IC-style DMUs for that route, even if we wanted to. I wonder if there are any more 67s and Mk3s that could be utilised?

We are going to need some fast/ long distance EMUs for routes like Liverpool - Newcastle, Manchester - Glasgow etc before long*.

Maybe even Bristol - Swansea or London - Norwich or London - Hull (if HT pay for electrification east of Selby).

If we do see tenders for that kind of EMU then it may make it easier to build a Third Rail version compatible/ comparable with a 444?

(* - assuming that the 350/4s are only a temporary measure)

 

[mr_jrt]

We are going to need some fast/ long distance EMUs for routes like Liverpool - Newcastle, Manchester - Glasgow etc before long*.

Maybe even Bristol - Swansea or London - Norwich or London - Hull (if HT pay for electrification east of Selby).

If we do see tenders for that kind of EMU then it may make it easier to build a Third Rail version compatible/ comparable with a 444?

(* - assuming that the 350/4s are only a temporary measure)

I guess having it dual voltage will help with the DC->AC conversion programme.

 

[AndyLandy]

We are going to need some fast/ long distance EMUs for routes like Liverpool - Newcastle, Manchester - Glasgow etc before long*.

Maybe even Bristol - Swansea or London - Norwich or London - Hull (if HT pay for electrification east of Selby).

If we do see tenders for that kind of EMU then it may make it easier to build a Third Rail version compatible/ comparable with a 444?

(* - assuming that the 350/4s are only a temporary measure)

Certainly if we're going to be procuring non-IEP express EMUs for XC, TPE or the GEML, it would be plausible to order a batch for the SWML as well. Even better if Siemens win the tender, so we can make them interoperable with the existing 444s and 450s.

Although, for TPE at least, I was under the impression that the commuter-style doors were more suited to the usage patterns of the service, I'd be surprised if the 350s are only a stopgap.

As for the Chiltern services, they're a completely different kettle of fish due to the lack of electrification. Of course, the Electric Spine will cover some of the route, at least Kings Sutton to Leamington Spa, possibly to Tyseley? (Do we know which way the wires will run? Presumably they'll do both routes between LMS and BHM.)

I guess having it dual voltage will help with the DC->AC conversion programme.

It's unlikely that we'd procure AC EMUs for use exclusively under the wires with DC compatibility, however any DC traction ordered must be convertible to AC, which is why all the third rail Desiros and Electrostars all have pantograph wells.

 

[JamesRowden]

As for the Chiltern services, they're a completely different kettle of fish due to the lack of electrification. Of course, the Electric Spine will cover some of the route, at least Kings Sutton to Leamington Spa, possibly to Tyseley? (Do we know which way the wires will run? Presumably they'll do both routes between LMS and BHM.)

In the HLOS it stated that only the Coventry route was being electrified and that more of the Leamington Spa to Coventry line would be double tracked to allow Cross Country to run 2tph via that route:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3644/map-all-schemes.pdf