As I see it, the main problem with 442s is timing.
Each 442 comprises five cars; four are "normal" integral Mk llls, and the fifth - the power car - is a heavy underframe vehicle which looks like a Mk lll (and as has been pointed out) is based upon the generator cars built by BREL for Ireland. The four non-powered cars are mounted on Series 3 trailer bogies, the power cars on the motorised version as found on the "short Mk lll" and 'Networker' EMUs built at York during the 1980s and first half of the 1990s; later versions of these bogies are still being fitted to 'Electrostars' currently in build at Derby.
British Rail had to work within financial parameters set by government; consequently, an "innovative" approach often had to be taken to get projects through the appraisal/approval process. When the route through to Bournemouth was electrified in the 1960s, much of the rolling stock procured wasn't new; some completely new VEPS were built for stopping services, but the TCs were formed from older Mk ls, some of which dated back to the early 1950s (if I remember correctly); the REPs were a mixture of new driving power cars and older trailers.
Move on twenty years. The REPs/TCs were knackered and the 33s used for Bournemouth - Weymouth were also getting old in the tooth, so something drastic was needed; the end result was the Bournemouth - Weymouth electrification scheme, and the procurement of the class 442s to go with it.
And once more, to get the project through the the appraisal/approval process, some innovation was required; the direct consequence of this was the fitting of traction equipment recovered from the REPs.
This was a sensible way forward; the traction equipment performed well so contiued use was low risk, EE traction equipment was noted for its long life, passengers got new trains - and BR got the project through the appraisal/approval process.
Remember also that three-phase traction systems were then in their infancy; as this was before the instruction was issued by the BRB that all future builds of rolling stock were to be specified so that they were suitable for use on either AC or DC, if BR had purchased new it would probably have been chopper controlled (maybe a DC only version of that fitted to class 319s), so that would also have added risk. But by reusing the REP equipment, if maintenance costs became to high before bodies and bogies became life expired, the option of jumping to three-phase could be considered.
The Mk lll bodyshell seems to have been so well designed (or over engineered!) that it will go on well beyond the normal life expectancy of a coach of about 30/35 years; I think it's fair to assume that this must be the case or various ROSCOs/TOCs (and Chiltern in particular) wouldn't have invested the sums of money in them that they have. Therefore, unless the 442s are unusual among Mk llls in having a lot of corrosion, they too can go on for, say, another twenty years or so.
In later years, BR had a policy of doing 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 life refurbishments of coaching stock; Mk llls fitted well with this as they all came apart inside, and so when one went in works for one of these refurbishments they would emerge looking very different. Older contributors/readers will remember the original blue and orange flat cloth upholstery being replaced by more subtle shades of moquette! In recent years, changes have been more substantial and many now have new seats; by adopting a "pick-and-mix" approach from Mk llls currently in use, it's possible to create a very attractive interior in one's mind.
So if we consider what's been done elsewhere with Mk llls (some of which are over 10 years older than the 442s), it's possible to see how the interiors could be upgraded; a very attractive vehicle environment would be possible. Moreover, a DC re-tractioning should be possible at reasonable cost; costs published for the class 455 re-tractioning average out at less than £450k per set.
But the problem is - as so many contributors have pointed out - were could they be used on DC lines? The consensus seems to be nowhere.
So if we consider conversion to AC, firstly would this be possible, and secondly would it be economic?
As mentioned earlier, the power car isn't a conventional Mk lll; consequently, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the successful creation of a pantograph well without seriously weakening the vehicle's structure must be possible. But would it be able to take the weight of a transformer as well as a new traction package? Don't know!
A weakness of the existing power car design is the poor seat/window arrangement; therefore, could a lesson be learned from the original procurement exercise by mixing new with old and building a new power car body/underframe with better window spacings, a pantograph well, and of sufficient strength to take the new traction package? This would then be mounted on the existing power car bogies, and have seats/etc removed from the displaced vehicles.
Of course, this would increase the cost considerably but wouldn't be of significant risk (if an established refurbishment facility like Doncaster or Wolverton couldn't build the bodies, Qualter Hall of Barnsley constructed them for the class 325s, and class 156 bodies were built by a number of suppliers - some, possibly all - of which no longer exist, so there is a precedent for outsourcing steel bodies for rolling stock here in the UK); but at the end of the day the heavily refurbished/modified class 442 could be an attractive proposition for a ROSCO/TOC because it would be considerebly cheaper than a brand new train. But to the passenger, they would think it to be new.
Re-tractioning of the 455s works out at about £450k, and a transformer would also be required for AC use; if a new bodyshell is procured, it could perhaps cost about £2m per set to make a 442 suitable for further use north of the Thames. But if something like a 444 were to be purchased, the cost would be about £7m/£8m per set.
So using simple maths, if we assume the £8m cost for a 444 clone and a forty year life, that equates to £200k per year; £2m for a refurbished 442 for a twenty year life works out at £100k per year. Obviously, this is an over simplification and the ball-park figures used might be wrong, but it gets the messege accross; major investment in a 442 for further use on AC electrified lines MIGHT be worth considering.
But the problem is, where could they be used if they were so modified?
It's my understanding that the plan is to replace the 442s on the Gatwick Express services from 2016; let's assume, therefore, that they would be available for use on AC lines from 2017 onwards. And this is were the problem arises as it effectively means looking at lines which are either already electrified, or else scheduled for electrification during the current Network Rail Control Period; even though it's a big area, it's still difficult to see where they could be used.
Govia are committed to using air conditioned stock on King's Cross - Cambridge -Ely - King's Lynn services in place of 365s; could they be used there?
If they could be made suitable as part of their refurbish for operation at 110mph, could they be used on services out of Paddington?
I guess Midland Main Line is a non-starter; 125mph trains will be required for the long distance services, and it has been reported that class 387s (in twelve car formations at peak periods) will be used on those to Corby. And I can't think of any uses on the Great Eastern or WCML.
So could they be used in Northern England? With their end doors and 23m length they are similar - and I emphasise similar - to class 153s/155s/156s/ 158s already used in the area, so passengers are familar with this particular vehicle layout (they've also had 180s); so could a combination of refurbished 319s and 442s be better for Northern England than just having 319s, as presently proposed? Simple answer is, "I don't know".
We don't know what will happen regarding electrification during the next control period, but there have been suggestions that now it's started, more will follow; Selby - Hull has been mentioned regularly, and there have also been suggestions that Sheffield will be connected to Doncaster and Moorthorpe, and then the NE/SW line be electrified between Derby and Bristol Parkway. If this happens, class 442s would be good for the Nottingham - Cardiff service if it was diverted to run via Parkway (assuming that the Gloucester - Severn Tunnel Junction line wasn;'t electrified as part of such a scheme); but if that happens, it's going to be sometime after 2020.
Putting them into store for five years or so? I don't think so.
So unless some work can be found for all or some of them in Northern England, I fear a one way trip to the scrap yard is the most likely option.
Shame!
