Class 442 the future.

[paul1609]

They won't, because it would reduce passenger capacity (seat numbers), in contravention of the DfT's franchise spec.



The 450s and 444s are equally straightforward to convert to dual voltage or AC, they are both wired for it.

Has this been costed recently though? It was thought that it would be relatively straightforward to convert some 375s to dual voltage but obsolescence issues with the original equipment meant that it was not deemed economically viable only 5 years after the stock came in to use.

 

[Chris125]

Then is the replacement of the traction kit in 455 units a bad idea? They are Mk3 based stock and are older than 442s.

No, as they are completely different situations.

The development costs for re-equipping the 455 fleet are spread out amongst a far larger fleet, with much greater benefits from regenerative braking and reduced maintenance, the latter helping the business case for further units without the expense of new or larger depots. There is also much more certainty that the cost can be recouped in their remaining lifetime, unlike the long distance 442s whose usefulness is very limited due to the door layout and 23m carriages.

Chris

 

[Yew]

No, as they are completely different situations.

The development costs for re-equipping the 455 fleet are spread out amongst a far larger fleet, with much greater benefits from regenerative braking and reduced maintenance, the latter helping the business case for further units without the expense of new or larger depots. There is also much more certainty that the cost can be recouped in their remaining lifetime, unlike the long distance 442s whose usefulness is very limited due to the door layout and 23m carriages.

Chris

I would say that there is nothing wrong with 23m carriages and end doors, but as they are 23m with end doors and third rail DC units. The layout isnt suitable for most of the third rail commuter routes, and they cant run on Unelectrified/AC routes.

 

[Chris125]

I would say that there is nothing wrong with 23m carriages and end doors, but as they are 23m with end doors and third rail DC units. The layout isnt suitable for most of the third rail commuter routes, and they cant run on Unelectrified/AC routes.

That's exactly what I mean, their layout just isn't suitable for the vast majority of 3rd rail services and there are enough 444s for the few that are - that such services may well need dual voltage stock in the not too distant future doesn't help their case either.

Chris

 

[bangor-toad]

There's a possible solution by just conceptually turning back the clock and repeating / reversing what was already done...

Each 442 has 1600hp available to it. So, it's fair to assume that if you can provide 1600hp it's good enough to run each unit.

The "new" Class 73/9's are being completed. These each develop the required 1600hp.
So, just get one 73/9 per 442 set and you're good to go.


The historic reference is that 442's were built with the reaction motors of the original 4-Reps (each 442 got 1/2 a 4-REP's worth) which were used to move 4-TC units. Due to the way the SR used to be, these 4-TC units could be moved by the class 73's (or class 33's). It'd get back to the old tractor concept used by the SR for many, many years!


The interesting upshot of history is that the systems on the 442's and the 73's are compatible. You can use the existing driving cabs for push-pull operation.
There's a cheap and easy way for a 5 car unit that doesn't need the 3rd rail. It seems like quite a good contender for cross country type routes - perhaps Portsmouth-Cardiff, Cardiff-Nottingham, maybe even Leeds-Settle-Carlisle!

(Of course, this overlooks minor issues of who owns the 73/9's, that there is a rather limited supply of the things and that I don't know the details of the 73/9 refurb which could have removed the old compatibility with old SR stock...)

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[158722]

There's a possible solution by just conceptually turning back the clock and repeating / reversing what was already done...

Each 442 has 1600hp available to it. So, it's fair to assume that if you can provide 1600hp it's good enough to run each unit.

The "new" Class 73/9's are being completed. These each develop the required 1600hp.
So, just get one 73/9 per 442 set and you're good to go.


The historic reference is that 442's were built with the reaction motors of the original 4-Reps (each 442 got 1/2 a 4-REP's worth) which were used to move 4-TC units. Due to the way the SR used to be, these 4-TC units could be moved by the class 73's (or class 33's). It'd get back to the old tractor concept used by the SR for many, many years!


The interesting upshot of history is that the systems on the 442's and the 73's are compatible. You can use the existing driving cabs for push-pull operation.
There's a cheap and easy way for a 5 car unit that doesn't need the 3rd rail. It seems like quite a good contender for cross country type routes - perhaps Portsmouth-Cardiff, Cardiff-Nottingham, maybe even Leeds-Settle-Carlisle!

(Of course, this overlooks minor issues of who owns the 73/9's, that there is a rather limited supply of the things and that I don't know the details of the 73/9 refurb which could have removed the old compatibility with old SR stock...)

Cheers,
Mr Toad

Interesting thoughts. Perhaps closer to their current home, 73/9 and 442 combo on a couple of peak hour Uckfield services to allow a couple of 171 10-car formations, which appear to be a franchise commitment under the new TSGN/Southern deal.

 

[Techniquest]

I'm gonna buy them and convert them into Student Accommodation...if they can turn shipping containers into them, well then.....

I'll take one of them! Just the inside though, leave the outside as it is (well, weatherproof it at least!), and I'll park it up on the HST siding at Hereford. The one set that does use the siding on Sunday evenings currently can use platform 1 instead, like they normally do.

Imagine that though, a 442 at Hereford! I'd have to let rooms out for cranks to come and stay

As for what to do with 442s, well if it's possible to convert them to DMUs we'll happily have them over here on the Marches for capacity. 5 carriage trains would happily sort out capacity problems and have enough left over for events at the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff. While we're at it, shove some ERTMS equipment in some of them and shove those sets on the Cambrian. Would make things better for capacity for sure, although 5 car trains to Pwllheli might be overkill The 442s-come-DMUs would be quite welcome on Manchester to North Wales trains I'd imagine too, again for capacity reasons.

Quite, if they were converted to DMUs there's a lot of places where they could happily be used I'm sure.

If they had to be kept as 3rd rail EMUs, I can only see several trips for 66s coming down to Stewarts Lane to bang onto the 442s and drag them up north. Possibly west as well, if that scrapyard near Caldicot is still going (slammers went there in 2005 IIRC)?

 

[samuelmorris]

I'd ordinarily be greatly in favour of turning the 442s into some extra Mk3s for locos to haul around as they're clearly well sought after. However, given the impending demise of a large number of HSTs, we'll no doubt soon end up with a surfit of Mk3s, so given that there will be a big pile of Mk3s already configured such sitting around within 5 years, I can't imagine carrying out whatever work would be needed on the 442s being cost-effective. I think re-tractioning is the only idea that has much merit - on the DMU side, given the current anti-DMU climate, is that idea really that likely to be considered?

While re-tractioning and running similar workings to the 444 fleet again might work out from a passenger's perspective, I'm not sure really how many such units there'd be room for, given the considerable expense involved with starting a re-tractioning project. All told, the most likely outcome to me seems to be them being scrapped once the new GatEx units arrive.

 

[Techniquest]

on the DMU side, given the current anti-DMU climate, is that idea really that likely to be considered?

Capacity issues need tackling yesterday, not tomorrow. With passenger numbers the way they are now and the way they're still growing, 2-car DMUs are just not good enough. Don't forget, a lot of us won't be seeing wires being put up for a long time if ever, so things need sorting out pretty sharpish. Future proofing and planning shouldn't be left until the last minute, after all ATW have a lot of DMUs that are starting to come of age (158s for one, and although not there yet it'll only be a few more years until 175s get to their halfway point), let's not forget the need to replace 142s, 143s, 150s and 153s that they use too sometime.

Yes I know there's still some years to go yet until things really need to get sorted out, but having proper amounts of capacity on busy routes really wouldn't hurt. Would be a lot less scrambling at Manchester Piccadilly and Cardiff Central for instance.

It's also worth pointing out the Anglo-Scottish TPX services have gone from 3 to 4 car trains in recent months, but they're still not even close to the capacity required. I joined 350406 for a short trip last Monday, although as I was standing I couldn't comment at all on the on-board facilities, seats or anything else. Next time maybe, we'll see. Should have seen the problems being encountered on the 1200 MIA-EDB, started from MAN last Monday, the crowds were absolutely insane, and that was just those trying to get on let alone those getting off, on the outrageously narrow platforms of 13 and 14 (the sooner this is sorted the better!)...My point being that a route of high popularity and passenger numbers should have enough capacity to cope, however those TPX services don't have enough capacity to manage comfortably day to day, which stinks of poor planning for the future.

Mind you, I'd be happier with the wiring of the Marches being announced, but in the meantime can we please have some extra capacity!

 

[Bishopstone]

I use the 442s a few times a week on the Eastbourne trains, and sometimes GatEx:

They lose time on runs with a few station calls.

When the rails are greasy in the autumn, they slip and slide badly.

The public address system is inaudible.

The air con can't cope with temperatures much above 20 celsius.

The power doors between vestibule and saloon close upon queues of passengers waiting to get off.

They are unsuitable for wheelchairs.

They have a large guard's van which serves no practical purpose, these days, and wastes space.

The Southern refurbishment left the 442s comfortable, but also dark and dull inside.

First Class customers get treated (?) to noisy motor sounds, and associated jolting if rail conditions are bad or the driver a bit clumsy on the controls.

Dwell time at busy stations is overly extended, due to the door arrangements, and the doors are slow to open once released.

The 442 failure rate remains too high.

****

If I were travelling as an enthusiast under no time constraints, and particularly in First Class, I would prefer a 442 over a 377.

However, in the real world, I need to get to and from work at something close to the published timetable, without a load of 'incidents' and the increased risk of a cancellation due to train failure. My patience with the 442s has worn thin over the last few years, and I'm pleased they have little time left on the Southern network.

I'm sure that some of the enthusiasts mourning the 442s now, and devising fantastical plans to re-deploy them, were amongst those back in 1988 who derided them as 'Plastic Pigs'. Just as, when the Pacers become threatened, I guarantee a large chunk of the enthusiast community will start mourning again - having slagged them off constantly for 30 years.

Nostalgia aside, the 442s are best turned into baked bean cans.

 

[IanXC]

An extension of 3rd rail to Salisbury with the 442s replacing all DMUs Waterloo-Salisbury. Services continuing to Exeter could then be hauled by a diesel in push-pull mode. Realistically 25kv electrification Salisbury-Exeter is not going to happen anytime soon and this would provide a solution to removing the last diesels from Waterloo as well as releasing a large number of much needed quality DMU stock for expansion and allowing the withdrawl of the worst units on the network.

How do the numbers work out for this kind of set up?

There's 24 442s, and SWT have 11 2 car and 30 3 car, would a 10 car 442 formation match peak capacity into Waterloo with SWTs current arrangements? How many DMUs could be released, and how many would SWT need to keep for the 6 (I think that's all the DMU requirement would be?).

 

[bangor-toad]

An extension of 3rd rail to Salisbury with the 442s replacing all DMUs Waterloo-Salisbury. Services continuing to Exeter could then be hauled by a diesel in push-pull mode. Realistically 25kv electrification Salisbury-Exeter is not going to happen anytime soon and this would provide a solution to removing the last diesels from Waterloo as well as releasing a large number of much needed quality DMU stock for expansion and allowing the withdrawl of the worst units on the network.

Oooh, I missed this.
Have a look at my earlier post (above) about using a 73/9+442 combo as a coupled unit.

That could work really nicely on the Waterloo - Exeter run. The 73 could use the 3rd rail from Waterloo to Basingstoke then switch over to diesel for the trip to Salisbury and beyond. No need for any further wiring infrastructure and it'd release a number of 159's.

I suppose that there could be a problem with fitting 73+442+73+442 into some platforms though.



Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[Techniquest]

I'm sure that some of the enthusiasts mourning the 442s now, and devising fantastical plans to re-deploy them, were amongst those back in 1988 who derided them as 'Plastic Pigs'. Just as, when the Pacers become threatened, I guarantee a large chunk of the enthusiast community will start mourning again - having slagged them off constantly for 30 years.

Nostalgia aside, the 442s are best turned into baked bean cans.

It's fair to point out some years back I did despise the 442s. A less than pleasant experience on them in SWT days I blame that on,having since been on them again after refurbishment for Gatwick Express. Just over 5 years from my first experience of 442s, I gave them another go and got seats in the motor coach on The Ruby Rover. Most enjoyable experience all round, and this was repeated on a couple of Gatwick Express trips on my 2012 ALR.

I should add I've not had the problem with the PA, and this included while standing on a pair of 442s during this year's Southern Daysave trip (and FWIW, it was marked up as a Southern service at Hassocks for the trip to Preston Park and Brighton, before anyone asks) both inside the saloon and the vestibule.

I'd have only been 3 and a bit when 442s were introduced so certainly not one who's been deriding the 442s as 'Plastic Pigs' for years! I'm certainly no fan of 142s but I'm not sitting here with the cutter's torch However I suspect I'll be welcoming in their replacements with wide arms
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suppose that there could be a problem with fitting 73+442+73+442 into some platforms though.

There aren't many platforms that could accommodate a 12-vehicle formation on the West of England Main Line IIRC. Waterloo, Clapham Junction, Woking, Basingstoke, Salisbury and Exeter St Davids should be able to manage (not certain on the last two mind) but others would certainly struggle.

Certainly an interesting idea having it 73,442,73,442 mind. That sort of thing does happen on the continent though, certainly in Belgium at least. Makes for a very funky sight!

Would a 73/9 be able to manage 10 coaches on its own though? 1,600hp it may have, but is that on diesel? It's certainly potentially doable I'd imagine, and if you've got to have 2 73/9s then double-heading makes more sense in my eyes. Unless the idea is to split the formation halfway along the route?

 

[Drsatan]

Would a 73/9 be able to manage 10 coaches on its own though? 1,600hp it may have, but is that on diesel? It's certainly potentially doable I'd imagine, and if you've got to have 2 73/9s then double-heading makes more sense in my eyes. Unless the idea is to split the formation halfway along the route?

Yes, I would be sceptical as to whether a single 73 could manage a full and standing 442 on diesel power alone. Not to mention such a combination would result in a net reduction in seating capacity on many rush hour services (for instance, the 1820 to Exeter St Davids is typically formed of two 159s and a 158, and from experience is usually full and standing).

I'd support them being transferred to SWML services, however as others have mentioned this would result in a net reduction in seating capacity.

 

[Aictos]

Oooh, I missed this.
Have a look at my earlier post (above) about using a 73/9+442 combo as a coupled unit.

That could work really nicely on the Waterloo - Exeter run. The 73 could use the 3rd rail from Waterloo to Basingstoke then switch over to diesel for the trip to Salisbury and beyond. No need for any further wiring infrastructure and it'd release a number of 159's.

I suppose that there could be a problem with fitting 73+442+73+442 into some platforms though.



Cheers,
Mr Toad

Regarding this, would a formation formed of 73+442+442+73 be able to have the rear Class 73 provide power and be able to be controlled from the Leading Class 73?

 

[cjmillsnun]

If you left them as semi permanently coupled 10 coach sets then you'd only need 1 class 73.

Having said that, it still ignores the fact that the traction equipment is life expired.

 

[ac6000cw]

Would a 73/9 be able to manage 10 coaches on its own though? 1,600hp it may have, but is that on diesel?

Yes, they will have the same power on diesel as electric.

It would be able to haul 10 coaches of course, but the acceleration/top speed would be a bit lacking....

(many years ago all the cross-country (NE-SW) trains between Reading and Poole were hauled by a single 1550hp class 33 - with 8-10 heavy Mk1's hanging on the back 70-ish mph was about all they could manage on the LSWR 100 mph racetrack. But it was an excellent blast with the window open in the front coach - diesel volume control on 11 for sure )

But I agree with some of the other contributors - the likeliest fate for the 442's is a period of storage followed by scrapping. They are an awkward hybrid of obsolete traction equipment, Mk3 coach bodies with end doors and outer-suburban 100 mph bogies - not really an attractive prospect (unless you got them really cheap to compensate for the re-engineering costs).

 

[158722]

Yes, they will have the same power on diesel as electric.

It would be able to haul 10 coaches of course, but the acceleration/top speed would be a bit lacking....

(many years ago all the cross-country (NE-SW) trains between Reading and Poole were hauled by a single 1550hp class 33 - with 8-10 heavy Mk1's hanging on the back 70-ish mph was about all they could manage on the LSWR 100 mph racetrack. But it was an excellent blast with the window open in the front coach - diesel volume control on 11 for sure )

But I agree with some of the other contributors - the likeliest fate for the 442's is a period of storage followed by scrapping. They are an awkward hybrid of obsolete traction equipment, Mk3 coach bodies with end doors and outer-suburban 100 mph bogies - not really an attractive prospect (unless you got them really cheap to compensate for the re-engineering costs).

Remove the MBS from the 442s, this being the heaviest vehicle by far, provide whatever guard's and parking brake facilities in the other vehicles (if any mods are needed) so left with a fairly lightweight 4-car set. A pair of those sets with a single 73/9 provided to work on electric and diesel...

 

[cjmillsnun]

You can remove the MBC, but their appeal is still limited to regional express services.

In that respect there is still an issue. They have narrow end doors, unless used on middle - long distance express service, they're not suitable.

 

[ac6000cw]

Remove the MBS from the 442s, this being the heaviest vehicle by far, provide whatever guard's and parking brake facilities in the other vehicles (if any mods are needed) so left with a fairly lightweight 4-car set. A pair of those sets with a single 73/9 provided to work on electric and diesel...

OK, so the motor vehicles will almost certainly get scrapped (whatever happens).

Does anyone know if GBRf would actually be interested in hiring out their shiny 'new' 73/9's to be thrashed up and down the LSWR mainline (and what is maximum speed for a 73/9 anyway ?)

Maybe Chiltern would be interested in a few more loco-hauled sets (or just the driving trailers) ?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What state are they in mechanically, structurally and electrically (apart from the known fact that the traction motors are on borrowed time)?

 

[tbtc]

I use the 442s a few times a week on the Eastbourne trains, and sometimes GatEx:

They lose time on runs with a few station calls.

When the rails are greasy in the autumn, they slip and slide badly.

The public address system is inaudible.

The air con can't cope with temperatures much above 20 celsius.

The power doors between vestibule and saloon close upon queues of passengers waiting to get off.

They are unsuitable for wheelchairs.

They have a large guard's van which serves no practical purpose, these days, and wastes space.

The Southern refurbishment left the 442s comfortable, but also dark and dull inside.

First Class customers get treated (?) to noisy motor sounds, and associated jolting if rail conditions are bad or the driver a bit clumsy on the controls.

Dwell time at busy stations is overly extended, due to the door arrangements, and the doors are slow to open once released.

The 442 failure rate remains too high.

****

If I were travelling as an enthusiast under no time constraints, and particularly in First Class, I would prefer a 442 over a 377.

However, in the real world, I need to get to and from work at something close to the published timetable, without a load of 'incidents' and the increased risk of a cancellation due to train failure. My patience with the 442s has worn thin over the last few years, and I'm pleased they have little time left on the Southern network.

I'm sure that some of the enthusiasts mourning the 442s now, and devising fantastical plans to re-deploy them, were amongst those back in 1988 who derided them as 'Plastic Pigs'. Just as, when the Pacers become threatened, I guarantee a large chunk of the enthusiast community will start mourning again - having slagged them off constantly for 30 years.

Nostalgia aside, the 442s are best turned into baked bean cans.

TBH you could have closed the thread after the post that I’ve quoted – it sums everything up. Many of the other posts seem to be about trying to conjure up “problems” to which the solution is “442s”. But there really aren’t many problems that I can think of that these are going to be the answer to.

If only they weren’t restricted to DC electrification, if only they were more reliable, if only a lot of things, but (cliché alert) they are what they are, there’s not a lot of need for them on the Southern Region and not a lot of point in spending lots of money converting trains with 1960s components for use elsewhere in the UK.

In contrast, the 313s, whilst more basic/ older* / slower could be in a lot more demand because there are going to be lots of lines suited to three coach 75mph “go anywhere” EMUs with wide doors (and no major habit of setting themselves on fire).

If you want MK3 coaches to use on loco hauled services elsewhere in the UK (which some have suggested) then there are going to be plenty of Mk3 coaches freed up when IEP replaces dozens of HST rakes in a few years time.

Any “fast” services on South Eastern are going to be Javelin services to St Pancras, with the remaining (“classic”) routes from "Kent" into London in the hand of trains better suited to the “commuter” routes that these have effectively been downgraded to.

Putting them on Portsmouth services seems a step backwards (too many stops, too few seats).

The lack of paths in the Southern Region (esp into central London) means that inventing new services to suit a 442 seems a non-starter.

Southampton area services are generally in the hand of the superior 444s.

If we had amazing foresight and designed the 442s to be dual voltage (as is the case on more modern Third Rail stock) then there are a number of routes that I could suggest, but that doesn’t look feasible, so there’s little point in debating suitable routes.

(* - depending on which bits of the 442s you count, of course)

 

[talldave]

TBH you could have closed the thread after the post that I’ve quoted – it sums everything up. Many of the other posts seem to be about trying to conjure up “problems” to which the solution is “442s”. But there really aren’t many problems that I can think of that these are going to be the answer to.

My thoughts entirely....they're horrible things, so baked bean tins it is then!

And new airport rolling stock needs LOTS of luggage space - not just a token rack here and there in place of a couple of seats.

 

[ac6000cw]

Yep - a quick and cheap response from BR in 1988 to complaints about the state of the rolling stock on the 'premier' NSE route - RIP I think....

 

[TheWalrus]

How much does it cost to put trains in storage? As it would seem a waste of money to store them then scrap them. Either we need to refurbish them and put them back into service for 20 years or scrap them. At only 25 years old it would seem a waste and they probably have a few years of life left. Also with the shortage of units across the network it would seem silly to scrap them them have to order a new fleet a few years down the line. I would suggest a use is found for them on SWT or the Brighton fasts as a possibility to use EMUs elsewhere or strengthen other services.

 

[talldave]

The crap doors and the poor accessibility pointed out by Bishopstone makes them unfit for purpose as part of today's transport infrastructure. Surely the cost of botching them to make them suitable for today's needs is uneconomic?

It's a train - a crap old one at that. It's only when you've queued up trying to get off the damned thing whilst the interior door takes chunks out of every other passenger, that you realise just how horrible a thing it is - built for short people who don't mind being either heated or chilled to excess. It's pointless getting sentimental about them; sell them to a developing country or turn them into baked bean tins.

 

[Buttsy]

Send them, shortened as appropriate, to Merseyrail to run fast Chester & Southport services!!!!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Send them, shortened as appropriate, to Merseyrail to run fast Chester & Southport services!!!!

I know the suggestion wasn't serious, but whilst they'd be fine for Southport I think they'd get wedged in the Wirral line loop!

 

[Buttsy]

I know the suggestion wasn't serious, but whilst they'd be fine for Southport I think they'd get wedged in the Wirral line loop!

Part of the plan!

 

[samuelmorris]

I think people need to overlook the 'they're not that old' argument - mechanically, they're older than pretty much every other EMU on the network, and that's fundamentally what matters here. As long as there's not too much corrosion, old bodies/interiors can be tarted up easily enough to improve passenger comfort, but when you're losing punctuality to old traction equipment too expensive to justifiably replace, you have to consider the unit 'old' as a whole. Look back at the history of BR and scrapping units after 28 years is pretty good going compared to some of the travesties of the past. I wouldn't get too upset about it.