Class 444

[starrymarkb]

There is one other problem with the idea of extending these trains to 6 cars - cost. Since Siemens scrapped the molds(?) for the class they'd need to produce new ones, which I'm led to believe would be rather expensive.

Not really - Place a big enough order and they'll make new jigs. If Norwich to London goes EMU then something like the 444 would be ideal, and for a build of say 100 vehs for GEML and 45 sixth cars, Herr Siemens would have the line open before you could say Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz

 

[thefab444]

Looks really sensible to me ; which probably means it won't happen!! It would provide a much better service in that area. I reckon you could run Poole-SOU with 3 units not 4; it might even save a 450 for use elsewhere!

Is there likely to be any issue with freight paths?

Yes, 3 units would be required rather than 4 (e.g. the 1157 departure from Southampton would return to form the 1457).

I did look at swapping the up semi-fast and fast paths around whilst maintaining the stopping path so that xx00 off SOU would be the fast and xx30 the semi-fast, providing 2tph from places like New Milton to London, matching the down service. However, the paths clash between Moreton and Dorchester South.

 

[Nym]

There is one other problem with the idea of extending these trains to 6 cars - cost. Since Siemens scrapped the molds(?) for the class they'd need to produce new ones, which I'm led to believe would be rather expensive.

Means nothing, Jigs are easy to make, especially with the modular bodyshells of the 444s, and lest not forget the're pretty much the same as the 350, 360, 450 and 185 jigs

 

[MCR247]

Means nothing, Jigs are easy to make, especially with the modular bodyshells of the 444s, and lest not forget the're pretty much the same as the 350, 360, 450 and 185 jigs

Except from the minor fact that all of the ones you listed are 20m

 

[thefab444]

Class 185s are 23m I believe.

 

[ainsworth74]

Class 185s are 23m I believe.

23.763m if we're being precise

It an interesting thought what about extending the 185s to 4 cars + building 9 new 4 car units (87 vehicles) as well as extending the 444s to 6 cars (45 vehicles) making a total order of 132 vehicles by itself. I'm sure we can find somewhere to order some more Desiros for (perhaps the GEML?) and with an order for that number of vehicles might Siemens be interested?

 

[anthony263]

Just wondering i am looking to get a trip on a class 444 from Weymouth to Southampton Central next wednesday are all of the services worked by class 444's or are some worked by class 450's and if so which services are most likely to be worked by class 450's s i can avoid them.

 

[swt_passenger]

0725 Weymouth - Brockenhurst
0820 Weymouth - Waterloo

Those are the only weekday up services diagrammed 450

 

[Nym]

Except from the minor fact that all of the ones you listed are 20m

Two words, MODULAR BODYSHELL.... the modules are the same...

 

[DavidBusDriver]

Also - aren't the Class 380's a 23m body-shell, with new features intended for the Desiro City Thameslink bid, so you already have jigs ready for a 23m build, that could be modified to a Class 444 style door configuration?

 

[Helvellyn]

Why go back to the 444? I like the trains, and wish more had been built (including an a.c. version). However, building more now that the 380 is here, and Desiro City on the drawing board, would be a bit like BR in the 1970s having Mark 2Fs on order, but getting a top up order of Mark 2Cs.

 

[WestCountry]

Why go back to the 444?

Because they're the only end-door EMUs with corridor connections that we've had in a while?
An end-door 380-style EMU would be nice though.

 

[Helvellyn]

Because they're the only end-door EMUs with corridor connections that we've had in a while?
An end-door 380-style EMU would be nice though.

That's would you'd go for then surely! The 444 jigs are no more, so why rebuld them? Better to get a 380 with a 444 style door layout. With all the weight benefits of the Desiro City technology.

 

[Aictos]

I wouldn't mind seeing a 5 coach/6 coach Class 380 but with a Class 444 specification which would be perfect on the existing North West to Scotland TPE services meaning TPE can use the 185s to strengthen their other services.

 

[MCR247]

deleted

 

[Rhydgaled]

I wouldn't mind seeing a 5 coach/6 coach Class 380 but with a Class 444 specification which would be perfect on the existing North West to Scotland TPE services meaning TPE can use the 185s to strengthen their other services.

Yeah, a lighter, updated, version of the 444 sounds like a good idea for Manchester - Scotland, although perhaps a 6-car or 7-car Pendo order would be better, as they could also be used to get the Voyagers off Birmingham - Scotland.

 

[MCR247]

A pendo isn't needed, even if it is 6/7 coaches

 

[Rhydgaled]

A pendo isn't needed, even if it is 6/7 coaches

Somebody who commented on this page seems to think Pendolinos are needed.

 

[MCR247]

With your point being?

 

[Rhydgaled]

With your point being?

That maybe Pendolinios are needed, you say they aren't, sombody else says they are.

I don't know who is right, but my opinion is DMUs need to be got off both the Birmingham and Manchester to Edinbourgh and Glasgow services, and provided they are similar services with similar calling patterns it would make sence to order the same stock for them both, and it might be helpful to the WCML operator (asuming TPE don't retain control of Manchester - Scotland) to have a uniform EMU fleet. Then again 444-like stock might be more suitable on both routes.

 

[MCR247]

So if I said that railways should be free, does this mean it should be?

 

[Nym]

The stock thats best for the route (Manchester - Scotland) depends on the operator and calling pattern

If it ends up with ICWC it would be best being another follow on of 390s to combine with a Crewe - Chester electrification and/or Electro-dieselification of the 221 fleet.

If it stays with TPE, that could be appropriate, (as they would operate all express off airport services, and the path could be used to combine for additional BPN services as is already done) It would also alow, if with TPE and using 5 car 380/444 type stock, joining/splitting at Preston/Wigan for Liverpool - Scotland.

Also, if Manchester / Liverpool - Scotland is to be an all stops service, hourly, it would allow the other ICWC services to be sped up. It all depends really...

 

[NXEA!]

So if I said that railways should be free, does this mean it should be?

That is a really poor comparison. You believe 100 mph EMU's are suitable, Rhydgaled believes 125 mph EMU's are suitable, which are both feasible options. Comparing your differing opinions to if you thought the railways should be free is silly, because as nice as it is, if the railways were free, there would be no money being pumped into the railways to fund improvements and maintain it etc etc which of course isn't feasible. Don't want to disagree further, but I would actually further advocate Rhydgaled's opinion on Pendolino's being used. They can tilt, run at 125 mph, and have relatively quick acceleration, so therefore can obtain much better, faster paths which cuts down the journey time, which is surely a step in the right direction? Of course, this is only if they were to be limited stop. If they were going to be a mainly all-shacks service, I would agree that 100mph stock with quick acceleration would be better.