Class 442 - HST sets

[The Ham]

Also not all the jokes were star trek related. They only started once someone realised how big space was and that the distance to the local shop was peanuts compared to space and that a faster than light drive would be rather helpful.

 

[Steve14]

I have been itching to write on this forum as I am an undercover rail enthusiast. Been watching HSTs pass my house everyday for my whole life and I love them! It will be extremely sad to see a minimal amount passing through; I wish more was done to keep them going on the GWML. Or even make the new IEPs have a power car at each end and have the carriages near enough the same length as the MK3s. I sat on the 16.49 to Oxford from PAD on my way home from work and it still amazes me and makes me smile every time I have the privilege of riding on a set.

Anyway turning to the 442s. I have never seen them in action before but from what they look like and how they move watching them on youtube, it wouldn't be a bad move adding them into the equation of the MK3 carriage pool. I can see FGW currently planning to undergo a rebranding with the new GWR livery and image for customers to get familiar with. The remaining HSTs would look immaculate with that livery. In order for the remaining HSTs to function, they would have to comply with blah blah rules which include making the doors on the carriages same as to what chiltern currently have. Now with modifications of their door width and making them identical to the current MK3s, the 442 carriages would cost near enough the same. They could be used to lengthen the HSTs that FGW will have to make them a 9 car set like VTEC.

The HSTs are defo going to Scotrail, I'd say atleast 25 sets would be placed for their use. the carriages from the 442s could also be used on that route on the HST sets.

 

[GearJammer]

Can/could the 442 driving coaches be used on Chiltern loco hauled services replacing the DVTs currently used, it would increase capacity with out increasing the number of vehicles in a train which I believe I read somewhere was an issue with increasing train lengths for that operator?

 

[CosherB]

Can/could the 442 driving coaches be used on Chiltern loco hauled services replacing the DVTs currently used, it would increase capacity with out increasing the number of vehicles in a train which I believe I read somewhere was an issue with increasing train lengths for that operator?

i suggest you read post #146

 

[RobShipway]

i suggest you read post #146

I don't believe that the cost of conversion of the class 442 coaches would be any different than converting the existing HST coaches and I actually expect that it would be less to be honest.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I don't believe that the cost of conversion of the class 442 coaches would be any different than converting the existing HST coaches and I actually expect that it would be less to be honest.

It has been pointed out that there is a lot that is different. All of which would need to be altered to make these coaches compatible with HSTs. None of which have been done before, so the cost would be unknown. With Doreen (2016 - and yes I know she has been denamed but she carried that name for many years) having unique air conditioning that is powered directly from the 750V bus, there would be even more modification to make it compatible with 415V 3 phase AC. This is on top of a general refurb.

Existing HST coaches would possibly need the door mods to Chiltern spec (it is not essential as adapting the current doors is feasible under PRM-TSI) and a general refurb. All of which are now known in terms of cost and labour.

I strongly suspect that it would be a lot cheaper to modify HST coaches to the new spec. There will be many released when HSTs transfer to Scotrail, so they would have plenty to choose the best from.

My last point. 25 2+5 sets would give a problem. There are only 24 5 car sets of 442s. Meaning there would be an odd set. The last thing any rail operator would want.

 

[CosherB]

I don't believe that the cost of conversion of the class 442 coaches would be any different than converting the existing HST coaches and I actually expect that it would be less to be honest.

Costs for 'metal bashing' modifications to the Mk3s are a known quantity for 'Chilternising' them - as others have said, changes to power cabling and complex electronics is not a known quantity at this time, neither is the chances of success and long term benefits.

If you can make a business case for rebuilding 25 year old stock to meet contemporary standards, fantastic. My gut feeling, however, is that there isn't a case, will or desire to do it by any TOC. As I've said before, if modest investment can convert the basic 442 sets into LHCS (e.g. for use on Fife circle diagrams or similar), there maybe a future use. Otherwise, its Booths .....

 

[RobShipway]

It has been pointed out that there is a lot that is different. All of which would need to be altered to make these coaches compatible with HSTs. None of which have been done before, so the cost would be unknown. With Doreen (2016 - and yes I know she has been denamed but she carried that name for many years) having unique air conditioning that is powered directly from the 750V bus, there would be even more modification to make it compatible with 415V 3 phase AC. This is on top of a general refurb.

Existing HST coaches would possibly need the door mods to Chiltern spec (it is not essential as adapting the current doors is feasible under PRM-TSI) and a general refurb. All of which are now known in terms of cost and labour.

I strongly suspect that it would be a lot cheaper to modify HST coaches to the new spec. There will be many released when HSTs transfer to Scotrail, so they would have plenty to choose the best from.

My last point. 25 2+5 sets would give a problem. There are only 24 5 car sets of 442s. Meaning there would be an odd set. The last thing any rail operator would want.

But I am not saying that you do not convert some of the existing HST carriages, what I am saying though is that project can surely begin with using the Mk3 carriages from the class 442's , as I suspect that the cost to convert and refurbish the 442's is not going to be different to the rebuilding work on the HST Mk3's to Chilternise them.

 

[najaB]

But I am not saying that you do not convert some of the existing HST carriages, what I am saying though is that project can surely begin with using the Mk3 carriages from the class 442's , as I suspect that the cost to convert and refurbish the 442's is not going to be different to the rebuilding work on the HST Mk3's to Chilternise them.

Not all Mk3's are built the same. (Some would say no two Mk3's are built the same! )

 

[cjmillsnun]

But I am not saying that you do not convert some of the existing HST carriages, what I am saying though is that project can surely begin with using the Mk3 carriages from the class 442's , as I suspect that the cost to convert and refurbish the 442's is not going to be different to the rebuilding work on the HST Mk3's to Chilternise them.

To make them compatible with HSTs, they will need.

A complete rewire, (2016 would also need a new air conditioning system.)

Complete braking system change from the SR EP/Westinghouse system to the standard system used on Mk3s

Possibly a bogie change to BT10s (certainly the MLC will require new bogies)

Removal of all old traction gear

New couplings throughout.

Potential for Chilternising the doors (necessary if they want to match to existing Mk3s if they have been converted.)

Full refurb to ASR standards.

Whereas HST stock will need

Door modifications (possibly Chiltern style, possibly revised slam door)

Full refurb to ASR standards.

I know for a fact which one is going to be a lot cheaper.

 

[CosherB]

To make them compatible with HSTs, they will need.

A complete rewire, (2016 would also need a new air conditioning system.)

Complete braking system change from the SR EP/Westinghouse system to the standard system used on Mk3s

Possibly a bogie change to BT10s (certainly the MLC will require new bogies)

Removal of all old traction gear

New couplings throughout.

Potential for Chilternising the doors (necessary if they want to match to existing Mk3s if they have been converted.)

Full refurb to ASR standards.

Whereas HST stock will need

Door modifications (possibly Chiltern style, possibly revised slam door)

Full refurb to ASR standards.

I know for a fact which one is going to be a lot cheaper.

Thanks cj - at long last, some informed opinion backed up by facts. Hopefully this will put the discussion to bed.

It won't of course! :-x

 

[jopsuk]

To make them compatible with HSTs, they will need..

in short, maybe the body shell itself can be reused...

 

[swt_passenger]

in short, maybe the body shell itself can be reused...

I'm still surprised we hardly ever get proposals to turn redundant HSTs into 442s.

Surely you'd just have to... /contd p94

 

[SprinterMan]

I'm still surprised we hardly ever get proposals to turn redundant HSTs into 442s.

Surely you'd just have to... /contd p94

Make sure all coaches are SSL, get rid of Power Cars, rewire to LHCS standard, DVT at one end, 92 or 73 at the other and away you go

Certainly easier than the other way :P

in short, maybe the body shell itself can be reused...

Why don't we just use the redundant Class 460 luggage vans while we are at it I am very glad people are now seeming to grasp how silly this whole thing is. If we are that desperate for new HST trailers just Chilternise the doors of the existing ones or ask CAF nicely to make some more of their sleeper stock but to a different spec. If you HAVE to find a use for the 442s, scrap the MCLs, stick a super 73 (or HEAVILY modified 67) on them and you end up with an equivalent of the old 4TCs. That would be better than any HST nonsense.

Also, I find the lack of Star Trek jokes in recent posts disturbing :P

Adam

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm still surprised we hardly ever get proposals to turn redundant HSTs into 442s.

Surely you'd just have to... /contd p94

Stop! No! It's bad enough we have 442s as the cure all for pretty much every single issue on the network we're not going the other way as well I forbid it!

 

[talldave]

Stop! No! It's bad enough we have 442s as the cure all for pretty much every single issue on the network we're not going the other way as well I forbid it!

Talking of going the other way, we haven't looked at the option of turning baked bean tins into 442s!!

 

[D365]

Talking of going the other way, we haven't looked at the option of turning baked bean tins into 442s!!

Siemens had a go at it ten years ago - Class 444!

 

[dgl]

Just use the super 73's to power them (the ones that still have SR standard wiring) Top and tail and you would have quite a nice power to weight ratio.

 

[cjmillsnun]

None of you noticed my deliberate mistake. All 442s are 24XX so 2416 is Doreen which would need the new air con system.

 

[The Box Photter]

Bar couplings between coaches, smaller plug doors, no buffers on the inner ends, different bogies, triple valves instead of distributors, smaller plug doors, 27 way multiple working jumpers not AAR

thats just a few differences, they were built as a multiple unit and not as loco hauled stock. The conversion to loco hauled stock would probably be prohibitively expensive. However the conversion to razor blades or cat food cans would be very cheap indeed.

But they are already loco hauled stock, just so long as the loco is a class 33/1 or a class 73/0 or 73/1.

Where can we find some of those? Probably rotting in a siding somewhere in Scotland soon, once Serco see the error of their ways in butchering their 73s and making them do things they were never meant to do in a strange foreign land.

 

[CosherB]

But they are already loco hauled stock, just so long as the loco is a class 33/1 or a class 73/0 or 73/1.

Where can we find some of those? Probably rotting in a siding somewhere in Scotland soon, once Serco see the error of their ways in butchering their 73s and making them do things they were never meant to do in a strange foreign land.

Do you represent ASLEF? :roll:

 

[Peter Mugridge]

None of you noticed my deliberate mistake. All 442s are 24XX so 2416 is Doreen which would need the new air con system.

I noticed it but thought it was just a typo - once I'd worked out what it was ( as I always use the full six digit numbers ).

 

[The Box Photter]

Do you represent ASLEF? :roll:

No railway union affiliation I'm afraid, but I am a fully paid up member of the union of rail users who can't understand why each time new rolling stock is needed, it has to be slightly different and slightly more complicated electronically than the last lot, and why perfectly adequate stock is consigned to the scrapyard because the bean-counters at the leasing companies can't use them screw a quick buck out of the TOCs.

What we've ended up with are shoddily-built trains, using the cheapest specified parts the builders can get away with that in some cases look superficially identical, but can't work in multiple because of needless changes to the computer software and can't be rescued or hauled easily by a rescue locomotive without costly modification to the loco. This is most recently represented by the Class 170s relinquished by Scotrail to Southern that can't yet work in multiple with Southern's 170s because they have different couplings. What genius thought the random mish-mash of trains we have now was a good idea?

Take the 442s, add a class 33/1 at each end and run them over the S&C where tourists can enjoy the views through lovely big windows without the endless racket of a soulless diesel generator beneath each coach. The displaced 158s and 156s can then be used elsewhere. My suggestion would be to put the displaced Sprinters to good use on the London Bridge - Uckfield line, its about time the south got some cast-off trains.

 

[lewisf]

... its about time the south got some cast-off trains.

Like the 35 year old 313s on the East and West Coastway routes in Sussex?

 

[BestWestern]

No railway union affiliation I'm afraid, but I am a fully paid up member of the union of rail users who can't understand why each time new rolling stock is needed, it has to be slightly different and slightly more complicated electronically than the last lot, and why perfectly adequate stock is consigned to the scrapyard because the bean-counters at the leasing companies can't use them screw a quick buck out of the TOCs.

What we've ended up with are shoddily-built trains, using the cheapest specified parts the builders can get away with that in some cases look superficially identical, but can't work in multiple because of needless changes to the computer software and can't be rescued or hauled easily by a rescue locomotive without costly modification to the loco. This is most recently represented by the Class 170s relinquished by Scotrail to Southern that can't yet work in multiple with Southern's 170s because they have different couplings. What genius thought the random mish-mash of trains we have now was a good idea?

Take the 442s, add a class 33/1 at each end and run them over the S&C where tourists can enjoy the views through lovely big windows without the endless racket of a soulless diesel generator beneath each coach. The displaced 158s and 156s can then be used elsewhere. My suggestion would be to put the displaced Sprinters to good use on the London Bridge - Uckfield line, its about time the south got some cast-off trains.

Gotta agree with that.

 

[cjmillsnun]

No railway union affiliation I'm afraid, but I am a fully paid up member of the union of rail users who can't understand why each time new rolling stock is needed, it has to be slightly different and slightly more complicated electronically than the last lot, and why perfectly adequate stock is consigned to the scrapyard because the bean-counters at the leasing companies can't use them screw a quick buck out of the TOCs.

What we've ended up with are shoddily-built trains, using the cheapest specified parts the builders can get away with that in some cases look superficially identical, but can't work in multiple because of needless changes to the computer software and can't be rescued or hauled easily by a rescue locomotive without costly modification to the loco. This is most recently represented by the Class 170s relinquished by Scotrail to Southern that can't yet work in multiple with Southern's 170s because they have different couplings. What genius thought the random mish-mash of trains we have now was a good idea?

Take the 442s, add a class 33/1 at each end and run them over the S&C where tourists can enjoy the views through lovely big windows without the endless racket of a soulless diesel generator beneath each coach. The displaced 158s and 156s can then be used elsewhere. My suggestion would be to put the displaced Sprinters to good use on the London Bridge - Uckfield line, its about time the south got some cast-off trains.

Can't argue with some of that, however incompatible coupling has been a feature of the railways since long before privatisation.

To give a couple of examples.

BR introduced the Pacers and Sprinters, which can only couple to Pacers and Sprinters, and not Networker Turbos, despite all of them having BSI couplers.

HSTs need emergency couplers to even connect to another pair of 43s, let alone a different loco.

 

[Clip]

Rather than having some Northern cast offs cant we just have the 442s stay?

some of us like them.

 

[LLivery]

If I was SWT I'd want some the 442s back and run them on the long distance services that the 450s currently run, like the Pole stopper and Portsmouth Direct. Move those 450s to the outer/inner suburbans to lengthen any trains that need being 12 cars. It could have been a stop gap until the 707s are delivered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No railway union affiliation I'm afraid, but I am a fully paid up member of the union of rail users who can't understand why each time new rolling stock is needed, it has to be slightly different and slightly more complicated electronically than the last lot, and why perfectly adequate stock is consigned to the scrapyard because the bean-counters at the leasing companies can't use them screw a quick buck out of the TOCs.

What we've ended up with are shoddily-built trains, using the cheapest specified parts the builders can get away with that in some cases look superficially identical, but can't work in multiple because of needless changes to the computer software and can't be rescued or hauled easily by a rescue locomotive without costly modification to the loco. This is most recently represented by the Class 170s relinquished by Scotrail to Southern that can't yet work in multiple with Southern's 170s because they have different couplings. What genius thought the random mish-mash of trains we have now was a good idea?

Take the 442s, add a class 33/1 at each end and run them over the S&C where tourists can enjoy the views through lovely big windows without the endless racket of a soulless diesel generator beneath each coach. The displaced 158s and 156s can then be used elsewhere. My suggestion would be to put the displaced Sprinters to good use on the London Bridge - Uckfield line, its about time the south got some cast-off trains.

Can't disagree either, especially with the Turbostar nonsense.

 

[cjmillsnun]

If I was SWT I'd want some the 442s back and run them on the long distance services that the 450s currently run, like the Pole stopper and Portsmouth Direct. Move those 450s to the outer/inner suburbans to lengthen any trains that need being 12 cars. It could have been a stop gap until the 707s are delivered.

SWT don't want anything to do with the Pigs.

 

[CosherB]

No railway union affiliation I'm afraid, but I am a fully paid up member of the union of rail users who can't understand why each time new rolling stock is needed, it has to be slightly different and slightly more complicated electronically than the last lot, and why perfectly adequate stock is consigned to the scrapyard because the bean-counters at the leasing companies can't use them screw a quick buck out of the TOCs.

What we've ended up with are shoddily-built trains, using the cheapest specified parts the builders can get away with that in some cases look superficially identical, but can't work in multiple because of needless changes to the computer software and can't be rescued or hauled easily by a rescue locomotive without costly modification to the loco. This is most recently represented by the Class 170s relinquished by Scotrail to Southern that can't yet work in multiple with Southern's 170s because they have different couplings. What genius thought the random mish-mash of trains we have now was a good idea?

Take the 442s, add a class 33/1 at each end and run them over the S&C where tourists can enjoy the views through lovely big windows without the endless racket of a soulless diesel generator beneath each coach. The displaced 158s and 156s can then be used elsewhere. My suggestion would be to put the displaced Sprinters to good use on the London Bridge - Uckfield line, its about time the south got some cast-off trains.

And where are we supposed to get a fleet of 33/1's from? East Lancashire Railway? Bodmin & Wenford Railway? I assume that you're not serious about engaging 27yr old EMUs that have an uncertain future with 53 yr old heritage diesel locos! I do think, however, that you are advocating sending the displaced DMUs to the 'south' .....