Cl.442 replacement?

[Manchester77]

TPE is indeed more suited to commuter style doors. What I've always thought would happen is that once the 700s have been delivered the 377s which have recently been ordered would be sent to TPE. This would allow the 10 350/4s to go to LM and allow them to maybe get rid of their final 321s so they could go to increase capacity on GA. You could than displace the 185s to Scotrail for use on highland services allowing 158s and 156s to come down. You could then give some 158s to FGW for some capacity increases and maybe even to ATW so that they have a few extra 158s. The 156s could go to northern, so for example they could be used on the Buxton Line to release some 150s.

 

[tbtc]

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

Commuter doors would be handy on the Manchester - Leeds "core", but the TPE routes are funny buggers - they are the slowest service (but require long distance features) on the route north of York and on the route north of Preston, but they are the fastest service (but require "commuter" features on the routes through Bolton and Huddersfield.

Trying to find a "one size fits all" unit is going to create a "camel" of a train.

The 350/4s are only for the "Scottish" services and only for the shortish term - something different (and more plentiful) will be required for the Leeds route.

 

[AndyLandy]

TPE is indeed more suited to commuter style doors. What I've always thought would happen is that once the 700s have been delivered the 377s which have recently been ordered would be sent to TPE. This would allow the 10 350/4s to go to LM and allow them to maybe get rid of their final 321s so they could go to increase capacity on GA. You could than displace the 185s to Scotrail for use on highland services allowing 158s and 156s to come down. You could then give some 158s to FGW for some capacity increases and maybe even to ATW so that they have a few extra 158s. The 156s could go to northern, so for example they could be used on the Buxton Line to release some 150s.

Blimey. That's a rather long-winded solution to the problem! It does sound like a reasonable stock cascade, as long as the costs associated with so many levels doesn't make it too expensive to justify.

Commuter doors would be handy on the Manchester - Leeds "core", but the TPE routes are funny buggers - they are the slowest service (but require long distance features) on the route north of York and on the route north of Preston, but they are the fastest service (but require "commuter" features on the routes through Bolton and Huddersfield.

Trying to find a "one size fits all" unit is going to create a "camel" of a train.

The 350/4s are only for the "Scottish" services and only for the shortish term - something different (and more plentiful) will be required for the Leeds route.

Indeed. TPE is definitely a weird one. It makes sense to me that when Liverpool-York is all wired, you might well procure new stock to cascade the 350s at the same time as the 185s, giving TPE a unified fleet of some new EMU design, and possibly the 185s for anything that's still unelectrified.

As for what a new TPE EMU should look like, that's an interesting question. I suspect the 185 layout is probably the closest thing to appropriate. Commuter doors, but with 2+2 express seating, probably using 23m vehicles.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed. TPE is definitely a weird one. It makes sense to me that when Liverpool-York is all wired, you might well procure new stock to cascade the 350s at the same time as the 185s, giving TPE a unified fleet of some new EMU design, and possibly the 185s for anything that's still unelectrified.

As for what a new TPE EMU should look like, that's an interesting question. I suspect the 185 layout is probably the closest thing to appropriate. Commuter doors, but with 2+2 express seating, probably using 23m vehicles.

A lot depends on what we do with the Scarborough/ Middlesbrough/ Hull portions I suppose - are they high up the "CP6 Shopping List"?

Or do they get their Manchester service diverted via the Calder Valley route (to retain some longer distance link, whilst concentrating EMUs on the Huddersfield route)?

Or do we bite the bullet and cut their long distance links (as happened to Sunderland a few years ago when it lost its TransPennine links - before GC)?

But this is me talking about the "desolate north" and this thread is about the 442s, so I'll shut up.

 

[RobShipway]

It is a shame that the CL442's cannot be made into EDMU trains with placing diesel engines below each carriage in the same way that Voyagers have diesel engines, as I think 5 coach EDMU trains would be useful on the network.

 

[AndyLandy]

It is a shame that the CL442's cannot be made into EDMU trains with placing diesel engines below each carriage in the same way that Voyagers have diesel engines, as I think 5 coach EDMU trains would be useful on the network.

That seems like a particularly bizarre solution, and I'm not even sure what problem it's solving... A fleet of 100mph EDMUs for the Exeter-Waterloo services might be useful, I guess?

 

[RobShipway]

That seems like a particularly bizarre solution, and I'm not even sure what problem it's solving... A fleet of 100mph EDMUs for the Exeter-Waterloo services might be useful, I guess?

I was actually thinking of them having pantographs added as well as the Diesel engines if possible, then maybe being used either by GA or XC.

 

[JamesRowden]

It is a shame that the CL442's cannot be made into EDMU trains with placing diesel engines below each carriage in the same way that Voyagers have diesel engines, as I think 5 coach EDMU trains would be useful on the network.

I wonder if it would be at all practical to modify the 442s by inserting a diesel generator behind one of the cabs (where seats presently are, like the 205/207 DEMUs) to convert them into electro-diesels? They might be useful for running across gaps in the present DC network such as:

• Ore-Ashford (Brighton-Ashford)
• Wokingham-Ash, Guildford-Reigate (Reading-Redhill/Gatwick)
• Basingstoke-Exeter/Bristol (Waterloo-Exeter/Bristol)
• Hurst Green-Uckfield (London Bridge-Uckfield)
• Bristol-Southampton (Bristol-Brighton)

 

[RobShipway]

I wonder if it would be at all practical to modify the 442s by inserting a diesel generator behind one of the cabs (where seats presently are, like the 205/207 DEMUs) to convert them into electro-diesels? They might be useful for running across gaps in the present DC network such as:

• Ore-Ashford (Brighton-Ashford)
• Wokingham-Ash, Guildford-Reigate (Reading-Redhill/Gatwick)
• Basingstoke-Exeter/Bristol (Waterloo-Exeter/Bristol)
• Hurst Green-Uckfield (London Bridge-Uckfield)
• Bristol-Southampton (Bristol-Brighton)

Not sure if it is still in existance, but these would be good for a Brighton - Cardiff service.

 

[JamesRowden]

Not sure if it is still in existance, but these would be good for a Brighton - Cardiff service.

In my suggestion I wasn't including AC power because of the fact that someone stated that the units had DC motors. They could run off AC if a pantagraph, transformer and rectifier were added.

 

[AndyLandy]

In my suggestion I wasn't including AC power because of the fact that someone stated that the units had DC motors. They could run off AC if a pantagraph, transformer and rectifier were added.

The problem is, you quickly get to the point where it's more cost effective to just buy more trains. The 442s are 25 years old now, they're a small fleet of trains that are operationally different to anything else on the railway. About the best use I can think of them is converting them to LHCS.

24 sets of 5-car trains? That's 120 carriages.
120 carriages? That could be 15 rakes of 8-car trains. Hmm, I wonder where those could be useful...

 

[hwl]

The problem is, you quickly get to the point where it's more cost effective to just buy more trains. The 442s are 25 years old now, they're a small fleet of trains that are operationally different to anything else on the railway. About the best use I can think of them is converting them to LHCS.

24 sets of 5-car trains? That's 120 carriages.
120 carriages? That could be 15 rakes of 8-car trains. Hmm, I wonder where those could be useful...

25 but the traction motors, electrical equipment and other bits are over 45 years old. Hence the reliability issues?

Southern only have 17 sets in service, with some of the others being raided for spares.

LHCS makes sense (as these should be the best mk3 bodyshells and have power doors) but with the (central) motor cars removed. AAR control fitting to allow push-pull operation?

 

[cjmillsnun]

25 but the traction motors, electrical equipment and other bits are over 45 years old. Hence the reliability issues?

Southern only have 17 sets in service, with some of the others being raided for spares.

LHCS makes sense (as these should be the best mk3 bodyshells and have power doors) but with the (central) motor cars removed. AAR control fitting to allow push-pull operation?

I thought that all 24 units were now in service (and have been since 13 May 2011). The original number leased was 17 but the others were brought into service when Govia retained Southern.

 

[AndyLandy]

25 but the traction motors, electrical equipment and other bits are over 45 years old. Hence the reliability issues?

Southern only have 17 sets in service, with some of the others being raided for spares.

LHCS makes sense (as these should be the best mk3 bodyshells and have power doors) but with the (central) motor cars removed. AAR control fitting to allow push-pull operation?

Indeed, the traction was recovered from some older EMUs, as I recall.

Regarding the 442s, if you remove the central motor cars, you're doing away with 20% of the vehicles. You'd be down to 96 trailers rather than 120. Again, it all comes down to cost, whether removing the intermediate doors and cutting new windows into the MLC vehicles is cost-effective.

 

[JamesRowden]

The problem is, you quickly get to the point where it's more cost effective to just buy more trains. The 442s are 25 years old now, they're a small fleet of trains that are operationally different to anything else on the railway. About the best use I can think of them is converting them to LHCS.

24 sets of 5-car trains? That's 120 carriages.
120 carriages? That could be 15 rakes of 8-car trains. Hmm, I wonder where those could be useful...

There would then be the issue of the slower potential acceleration of LHCS due to the lower proportion of the train weight being across drive wheels. Perhaps it is better to just build new electric and bi-mode trains?

 

[RobShipway]

The only other way they could be used is with a Class 73 and I would suggest that it is a Class 73 with higher powered engines within, like the ones being rebuit currently.

 

[AndyLandy]

There would then be the issue of the slower potential acceleration of LHCS due to the lower proportion of the train weight being across drive wheels. Perhaps it is better to just build new electric and bi-mode trains?

That would be the ideal solution, yes.

 

[WestCountry]

Strip out and completely replace the drive system (it's far older than the bodyshells) and use on the GEML to replace the Norwich LHCS sets?
24x 5-car 442s is about the right number to replace 12 (or 13?) 9-car LHCS sets, especially with the ability to run short formations off-peak.

Would be a shame to see the DVTs and all that cycle space go though - keep the DVTs on the Norwich end, and rewire them and the 442s for AAR! This is obviously the most perfectly rational and practical scheme ever devised...

 

[TrainBoy98]

Strip out and completely replace the drive system (it's far older than the bodyshells) and use on the GEML to replace the Norwich LHCS sets?
24x 5-car 442s is about the right number to replace 12 (or 13?) 9-car LHCS sets, especially with the ability to run short formations off-peak.

Would be a shame to see the DVTs and all that cycle space go though - keep the DVTs on the Norwich end, and rewire them and the 442s for AAR! This is obviously the most perfectly rational and practical scheme ever devised...

That, actually, sounds like a great idea (well the first bit anyway). Then we'd have 90s and Mk3s spare or to use other places. And I believe that in the centre coach of the 442s there is spaces for cycles? Then you wouldn't need the DVTs either.

 

[cjmillsnun]

That, actually, sounds like a great idea (well the first bit anyway). Then we'd have 90s and Mk3s spare or to use other places. And I believe that in the centre coach of the 442s there is spaces for cycles? Then you wouldn't need the DVTs either.

Is it worth completely rewiring them for AC (including creating a pan well). They're a DC unit

 

[TrainBoy98]

Is it worth completely rewiring them for AC (including creating a pan well). They're a DC unit

Ah, forgot the GEML was AC

 

[swt_passenger]

Is it worth completely rewiring them for AC (including creating a pan well). They're a DC unit

Never say never.

SWT's relatively older 455s are getting AC traction equipment starting shortly - adding AC current collection wouldn't actually be impossible, but it would come at significant cost, making it rather unlikely...

 

[AndyLandy]

That, actually, sounds like a great idea (well the first bit anyway). Then we'd have 90s and Mk3s spare or to use other places. And I believe that in the centre coach of the 442s there is spaces for cycles? Then you wouldn't need the DVTs either.

I'd assume that if we LHCS-ify the 442s, they'd still be hauled by the 90s. Either with the existing Mk3 DVTs, or some of the 442 cabs wired up for push-pull by the 90.

What would happen to the Mk3 rakes is anyone's guess. The rationale behind this is whether it's cheaper to convert the 442s or to upgrade the existing Mk3s to provide DDA-compliant vehicles.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Never say never.

SWT's relatively older 455s are getting AC traction equipment starting shortly - adding AC current collection wouldn't actually be impossible, but it would come at significant cost, making it rather unlikely...

Nothing is impossible I agree, but when you're talking modifications to the roof of that nature, it starts to become cost prohibitive.

 

[WestCountry]

Is it worth completely rewiring them for AC (including creating a pan well). They're a DC unit

The existing DC kit is absolutely ancient, if they're going to stay in service much longer pretty much everything electrical will need replacing anyway. Cutting a notch in the roof shouldn't be too hard - Chiltern have carved up the ends of their Mk3s quite a bit, and FGW have been cutting windows into old buffets.

I can't see why you'd ever want to LHCSify the 442s - they're only a little younger (and the same general design) as the current GEML sets, and Chiltern have already shown that those could be upgraded quite substantially; there doesn't seem to be anywhere else on the network where LHCS is needed.

Another possible use for AC conversions - TPE Scottish services, plus the proposed Liverpool-Newcastle ones (after TPE North electrification of course). Again that comes out to about the right number of units and 5-car sets would be perfect for the Scottish runs, might be too long to double up across the Pennines though which could be a problem.

London-King's Lynn/Cambridge/Peterborough fasts and semifasts could also be an option after Thameslink takes over the stoppers and some semis. That would allow the entire 365 fleet to be cascaded away.

 

[TrainBoy98]

The existing DC kit is absolutely ancient, if they're going to stay in service much longer pretty much everything electrical will need replacing anyway. Cutting a notch in the roof shouldn't be too hard - Chiltern have carved up the ends of their Mk3s quite a bit, and FGW have been cutting windows into old buffets.

I can't see why you'd ever want to LHCSify the 442s - they're only a little younger (and the same general design) as the current GEML sets, and Chiltern have already shown that those could be upgraded quite substantially; there doesn't seem to be anywhere else on the network where LHCS is needed.

Neither you nor I were talking about LHCS 442s WestCountry, they could and should run on their own. Hence the spare 90s AndyLandy; they wouldn't be needed. I think that the 442s could have a well fitted for cheaper than upgrading everything that is already there, and much cheaper than replacing it all. As the traction equipment is so old (4-REPs?) then it needs to be bettered anyway in some form of traction package then I cant see why it shouldn't be AC instead of the current DC (as West states above)

 

[AndyLandy]

Neither you nor I were talking about LHCS 442s WestCountry, they could and should run on their own. Hence the spare 90s AndyLandy; they wouldn't be needed. I think that the 442s could have a well fitted for cheaper than upgrading everything that is already there, and much cheaper than replacing it all. As the traction equipment is so old (4-REPs?) then it needs to be bettered anyway in some form of traction package then I cant see why it shouldn't be AC instead of the current DC (as West states above)

I don't imagine it'll be cost-effective to replace the traction in the 442s. By the time you've torn out all the existing traction, installed new AC traction, wedged a pan on the roof and re-wired the whole lot, you probably won't be that far short of the cost of just buying new trains.

Making the 442 vehicles into LHCS is probably more affordable. The question is whether it's cheaper than just fitting power doors to the existing Mk3s.

 

[WestCountry]

Making the 442 vehicles into LHCS is probably more affordable. The question is whether it's cheaper than just fitting power doors to the existing Mk3s.

That seems very unlikely - you'd still have to strip out all the electrical gear and fit through wiring for TDM and/or AAR. If the cabs were being kept, those would need refitting for one of those, and if not they waste space compared to the existing Mk3 LHCS sets.
The 442 doors aren't especially good anyway (I think they're too narrow or something for current disability regs), and replacing those with the shiny new sliding type would certainly push the cost above that for the existing LHCS stock, even if it wasn't before.

I can't see 442s being used to replace any existing LHCS - only situation where that might be needed is if Chiltern want many more sets before the GEML goes over to EMUs or the Mk4s become available; noother operators seem interested in LHCS or have the locos to run it.

The DC kit will be totally worn out in a few years anyway, so the options for the ROSCO are (a) Replace with more DC kit, (b) Replace it with AC (or dual) kit, (c) Pull it all out and find a use somewhere as LHCS or (d) scrap them. I suspect (d) is most likely, followed a fair way behind by (b); I've put my arguments against (c) in this post and (a) just makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[AndyLandy]

The DC kit will be totally worn out in a few years anyway, so the options for the ROSCO are (a) Replace with more DC kit, (b) Replace it with AC (or dual) kit, (c) Pull it all out and find a use somewhere as LHCS or (d) scrap them. I suspect (d) is most likely, followed a fair way behind by (b); I've put my arguments against (c) in this post and (a) just makes no sense whatsoever.

To be honest, I think you're right that (d) is probably the most likely outcome. Any arguments in favour of (c) are washed away when it looks like manually operated doors might not actually be a sticking point for accessibility legislation after all. Even (b) is unlikely, unless there's somewhere obvious to run them, and it's more cost-effective than just a new-build of something.

I like trains! Also old computers, military history, lasagne.

Trains and old computers? Are you sure you're not the same person as me? What old computers?

 

[RobShipway]

To be honest, I think you're right that (d) is probably the most likely outcome. Any arguments in favour of (c) are washed away when it looks like manually operated doors might not actually be a sticking point for accessibility legislation after all. Even (b) is unlikely, unless there's somewhere obvious to run them, and it's more cost-effective than just a new-build of something.



Trains and old computers? Are you sure you're not the same person as me? What old computers?

I presume by old computers, they are Acorn Electron, BBC Model B, Sinclair ZX81 Spectrum, Commodore 64 etc..... Or are we talking newer old computers than that?

Now, to get back on subject. I think D out of the options that WestCountry gave is probably the most likely as there will be a bean accountant weighing up the cost of rebuilding the CL442's and it would be a rebuild or buying new purpose built stock that is set to be DDI compliant standards. The bean accountant I believe would go for the new build each and every time on the grounds that there is more life expectancy with a new build train.

With regards to the MK3 coaches, you are going to have to be careful of hidden corrosion as has been found in the lot newer class 460(458/5) vehicles.