Class 444

[wowbagger]

My journey yesterday morning from SOA to WAT involved my sitting on the floor next to the buffet point on a class 444.

I seem to suffer this fate every few months when the Gods conspire to prevent me from getting a seat at SOA or WIN.

Got talking to some fellow passengers, one of whom suggested that it was possible for the Class 444 to be formed in to a 6-car unit.

Is this technically possible?

I can understand that the reason for not doing it is a lack of extra available carriages/money, but beyond that are there any technical or infrastructure reasons for not being able to do it?

Wow.

 

[jopsuk]

Not sure there's many stations would be able to cope then with double formations- 12x 23m is 276m, as compared to 230m for the ten car formation (or 240m for a 12x450 formation). Better than additional cars for existing units would be additional units (assuming it was a five car, single unit formation?)

 

[GospelOak117]

My heart sinks when I see a 5-car 444 pulling into the station rather than an 8-car 450, for this reason, they quite often operate as single 5-car sets and as a result are always so busy. As well as the extra space, IMO a 450 is far more comfortable, my legs are too long for airline-style seats!

Surely, reformation into 6-car sets would leave a number of odd 4-car sets or wasted driving coaches, and even less chance of doubled-up formations? I don't quite know why they felt 5-car sets were needed in the first place. 4-car units are surely simpler to work with and with SDO can work in maximum 12-car formation in the peak. If I had designed the 444 I would have made it a DC version of the 350/1, in terms of interior configuration.

 

[TomJ93]

I say we get more 444s, then we can provide more services in the off-peak and run longer trains in the peak, as well as displacing a 450 to the Lymington branch, which in turn will free up a valuable 159- more Desiros for everyone would be great for the country, more 350s, more 185s and more 444s/450s!

 

[jopsuk]

I don't quite know why they felt 5-car sets were needed in the first place.

Because they were a like-for-like (though double the number) replacement for the 442- so you need to go further back- why were five car 442s specified to replace 4 car 4REP and 4TC sets?

As ever though, as with so many modern fleets, SWT (or rather, the ROSCO) should have got a bigger fleet at the time- remember, the 350s were originally going to be the solution for 10 car trains on the inner suburbans. Ideally, by this stage, SWT would have an entirely Desiro electric fleet, with four and five car 450HC (presumably without 1st class) running on inner suburban routes, the "normal" 450s on outer suburban and a larger fleet of 444s on the "Long Distance" services.

 

[MCR247]

Because they were a like-for-like (though double the number) replacement for the 442- so you need to go further back- why were five car 442s specified to replace 4 car 4REP and 4TC sets?

As ever though, as with so many modern fleets, SWT (or rather, the ROSCO) should have got a bigger fleet at the time- remember, the 350s were originally going to be the solution for 10 car trains on the inner suburbans. Ideally, by this stage, SWT would have an entirely Desiro electric fleet, with four and five car 450HC (presumably without 1st class) running on inner suburban routes, the "normal" 450s on outer suburban and a larger fleet of 444s on the "Long Distance" services.

What about Exeter?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I say we get more 444s, then we can provide more services in the off-peak and run longer trains in the peak, as well as displacing a 450 to the Lymington branch, which in turn will free up a valuable 159- more Desiros for everyone would be great for the country, more 350s, more 185s and more 444s/450s!

Its actually a 158, and I'm not sure about much needed

 

[thefab444]

Because they were a like-for-like (though double the number) replacement for the 442

They were really intended to replace the CIG and CEP units, but I guess it was decided to standardise on 23m units for long distance (159, 442, 444) and 20m units for suburban workings (450, 455, 458).

If I had designed the 444 I would have made it a DC version of the 350/1, in terms of interior configuration.

Which is what it already is! In fact, 444s have more legroom than 350/1s do, as well as far better first class. As for preferring 450s, they have more upright seats with no armrests, the only seats with tables have hardly any legroom at all, less cycle and luggage provision, and rubbish first class. They're okay when empty but I'd much rather be on a busy 444 than a busy 450.

A better idea with the Lymington service would be to run it through from Salisbury via Eastleigh, which could easily be done with four units which is the same as the current Salisbury 6 + Lymington requirement.

 

[yorksrob]

I can remember reading some time ago that one of the reasons for the WES units being built with 5 carriages was for extra flexibility due to a lack of 12 carriage platforms at Waterloo (which could also explain the 444's). The change from all facing seating in the Mk1's to some airline would have allowed a greater density of seating.

 

[swt_passenger]

I can remember reading some time ago that one of the reasons for the WES units being built with 5 carriages was for extra flexibility due to a lack of 12 carriage platforms at Waterloo (which could also explain the 444's). The change from all facing seating in the Mk1's to some airline would have allowed a greater density of seating.

One of the main reasons for the 442s (and 444s which replaced them) having 5 cars was simply that the infrastructure on the Weymouth and Portsmouth lines was good enough for 23m vehicles - much of the rest of the SR is limited to 20m vehicles.

2 x 5 x 23m units (230m) has at least as much interior space as 3 x 4 x 20m units (at 240m) because there are two less cabs. Also, the longer distance nature of the route allows for a 'long distance' rather than suburban door layout, which also allows more seated area to be installed.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My heart sinks when I see a 5-car 444 pulling into the station rather than an 8-car 450, for this reason, they quite often operate as single 5-car sets and as a result are always so busy.

When and where do you travel to/from?

I guess it can't possibly be anywhere on the Portsmouth line, because I reckon you'd be instantly banished for preferring a pair of 450s to a 444...

 

[TomJ93]

What about Exeter?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Its actually a 158, and I'm not sure about much needed

Tomatoe (retention tank fitted) tomato

Their diesel fleet is smaller, wasting this train on a DC route is just silly. I say 460s coachs go into to rest of the Juniper fleet (458s I think) then the two cab ends join together to form a Lymington branch train

 

[MCR247]

You don't get it do you? They have enough stock to run Lymington with 450s, but its easier to run it with 158s for them

 

[TomJ93]

I just don't see the reasoning behind a 158/9 on the Lymington branch!

Why not use their 450s if they have them?

 

[GospelOak117]

[QUOTE
When and where do you travel to/from?

I guess it can't possibly be anywhere on the Portsmouth line, because I reckon you'd be instantly banished for preferring a pair of 450s to a 444... [/QUOTE]

I regularly travel between the following stations:
Waterloo-Guildford-Witley-Haslemere (yes, the Portsmouth line )
and Waterloo-Winchester-Southampton-Bournemouth (used to commute on this route everyday).

At least the Haslemere stoppers are long 450's more often than not. My trouble with the 444's thin airline seats is I spend the journey trying not to knee the seat in front, while being kicked, bashed and coughed on by the person behind......who is always eating crisps. However, if your lucky enough to be one of the first people on the train, the 444's have that nice hidden area with 2 table bays behind the toilet near the middle

 

[Train wasp]

I just don't see the reasoning behind a 158/9 on the Lymington branch!

Why not use their 450s if they have them?

Maybe the track access charge is cheaper for 158/9 on the Lymington branch

 

[Helvellyn]

SWT don't have a spare 450 to use on the Lymington branch during the week. It's the same reason you have a diesel unit running on the line in the morning, plus why the 06:55 BSK-SOU is a 159 (used to be a 450).

There is some spare capacity in the diesel fleet, as anticipated growth figures on the WoE line haven't happened (yet) due to the recession hitting overall passenger numbers. However, from the new timetable the 16:20 and 17:20 Waterloo-Exeter will both run as 8-cars on a Thursday and Friday (although the 16:20 drops back to a 6-car Monday-Wednesday).

 

[MCR247]

There is some spare capacity in the diesel fleet, as anticipated growth figures on the WoE line haven't happened (yet) due to the recession hitting overall passenger numbers. However, from the new timetable the 16:20 and 17:20 Waterloo-Exeter will both run as 8-cars on a Thursday and Friday (although the 16:20 drops back to a 6-car Monday-Wednesday).

So then why can't they give the 'slack' to other TOCs, even just for a while until there is growth?

 

[swt_passenger]

So then why can't they give the 'slack' to other TOCs, even just for a while until there is growth?

With those two services increased to 8 car from 6 there isn't any slack. By my reckoning that needs 10 of the 11 158s in service.

The fact that they aren't in use all day (or all week) isn't a situation peculiar to SWT.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Its actually a 158, and I'm not sure about much needed

Extra 158s would be very much appreciated here in Wales. Carmarthen and Pembrokeshire have no regular service to Cardiff on the fast route (the Swansea District Line), 3 158s would give us a train every 2 hours from Fishguard to Cardiff over that express route. Fishguard currently has only 1 train per day (if you don't count the one at around 1am). That is supposed to be sorted in September but will probably be a 153 and won't get as far as Cardiff, that's if it actually happens (a consultation was supposed to start in April, last I heard it was begining of May but things seem to have gone quiet). Alternativly, extra 158s would be very useful on the Cambrian line, allowing the odd workings that are 2-car rather than the normal 4-car to be strengthened and maybe even the hourly service that was promised 'by 2011' but has so far failed to materialise (lack of 158s and funding now being the only things standing in the way since the new and/or improved passing loops are now all operational I think).

Class 73s probably aren't fast enough, but if they were I'd suggest fitting more mark3s with power-doors than is currently planned and using them with 73s and some sort of passenger-carrying driving trailer car on push-pull (Gatwick Express style) Portsmouth fast services to displace the 450s they hate so much. The released 450s would do Lymington services (and go anywhere else that's uses DMUs over entirly electrified 3rd rail routes). If there's any 450s left after that you could perhaps electrify some more routes to use them too (Reading - Gatwick?).

 

[wowbagger]

Not sure there's many stations would be able to cope then with double formations- 12x 23m is 276m, as compared to 230m for the ten car formation (or 240m for a 12x450 formation). Better than additional cars for existing units would be additional units (assuming it was a five car, single unit formation?)

No, it was a 10-car [as usual] formed of a 5-car from Weymouth & a 5-car from Bournemouth. They join at SOU and run as the 07:30 via SOA and WIN, then direct to WAT. Good service but always packed, especially from WIN.

 

[jopsuk]

well done for proposing a solution that would reduce capacity- many of the services where 450s are REALLLY moaned about are 12x450- the maximum length the infrastructure will take. Unless there's a spare 6m or so at the relevant stations, the maximum formation you could get would be (including driving car) 73+9 mrk3
Plus a maximum speed of 90mph and considerably slower acceleration.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, it was a 10-car [as usual] formed of a 5-car from Weymouth & a 5-car from Bournemouth. They join at SOU and run as the 07:30 via SOA and WIN, then direct to WAT. Good service but always packed, especially from WIN.

Ah, OK- then my point about platform lengths really does apply.

 

[wowbagger]

And if anyone wants the odd 158 they can have the ones they use through CFR on the ROM to SAL service.

I'd like the 170's back please

 

[thefab444]

No! Those things were awful - they only had about 4 standard class seats as the rest was taken up by toilets, cycle space, first class, wheelchair space etc. They were also unreliable and, from what I've heard, Salisbury Depot weren't keen on them. Makes much more sense to have a standard, reliable fleet.

11 TPE 158s replaced by 8 SWT 170s - I think we know who got the raw end of that deal.

No, it was a 10-car [as usual] formed of a 5-car from Weymouth & a 5-car from Bournemouth. They join at SOU and run as the 07:30 via SOA and WIN, then direct to WAT. Good service but always packed, especially from WIN.

Well that is the main commuter service of the day from SOU so it's hardly a suprise it's packed! I travel on the 0740 from ANF sometimes (0800 from SOU) and nearly always get a seat so you might want to try that, although it does call at BSK, WOK and CLJ as well.

 

[swt_passenger]

No, it was a 10-car [as usual] formed of a 5-car from Weymouth & a 5-car from Bournemouth. They join at SOU and run as the 07:30 via SOA and WIN, then direct to WAT. Good service but always packed, especially from WIN.

They could put up the price of the seasons. It isn't surprising the trains are so full given the low cost of travel on the route.

7 day season £103. Anytime return £57.70. Commuting daily cost 36% of walk up equivalent if used 5 days a week. Bargain.

 

[thefab444]

Generally if you're going to London more than once in one week you're better off with a weekly season!

 

[baza585]

A better idea with the Lymington service would be to run it through from Salisbury via Eastleigh, which could easily be done with four units which is the same as the current Salisbury 6 + Lymington requirement.

I absolutely agree. The current Salisbury 6 service is a waste of time and resource. Lymington to Salisbury runs would open up new journey opportunities, both long distance and local. Stops at Millbrook and Redbridge would be covered either by the new service or by the Poole stopper. If paths betwenn SOu and BCU are an issue, go back to the old setup of the Poole stopper terminating at SOU and restarting from BCU, but only if really necessary. The current long waits at SOU and BCU on the down Poole service may improve reliability but make it almost impossible to use on through journeys anyway. We might then be able to change the farcical situation that New Milton and Christchurch have two trains an hour to southampton about 10 minutes apart.

 

[thefab444]

The problem with the up timetable is that the XC is in the way of the preferred path for the Poole stopper e.g. so that it is overtaken by the Weymouth fast rather than the semi-fast.

0040 Salisbury
0052 Dean
0058 Dunbridge
0103 Romsey
0110 Chandler's Ford
0116 Eastleigh
0120 Southampton Apt
0122 Swaythling
0125 St Denys
0130-32 Southampton
0134 Millbrook
0138 Redbridge
0140 Totton
0145 Ashurst
0153-0210 Brockenhurst (slight retiming of down XC to meet headways)
0218 Lymington Town
0220-24 Lymington Pier
0226 Lymington Town
0235-40 Brockenhurst
0248 Lymington Town
0250 Lymington Pier

0254 Lymington Pier
0256 Lymington Town
0305 Brockenhurst
0312 Ashurst
0317 Totton
0319 Redbridge
0323 Millbrook
0325 - 0335 Southampton
0340 St Denys
0343 Swaythling
0346 Southampton Apt
0350 Eastleigh
0355 Chandler's Ford
0403 Romsey
0408 Dunbridge
0413 Dean
0426 Salisbury

The above would work except between Southampton and Brockenhurst where it clashes with the Waterloo to Poole service, and it does mean the two trains per hour from Salisbury to Southampton leave 8 minutes apart. The unit requirement would be for 4 158s which is the same as currently.

A solution to the Waterloo to Poole problem would be to split it back into Waterloo - Southampton and Southampton - Poole services, with the latter leaving Southampton at xx57 as it did during the Southampton tunnel works.

0057 Southampton 
0102 Totton
0107 Ashurst
0111 Beaulieu*
0118 Brockenhurst
0122 Sway
0127 New Milton
0131 Hinton Admiral
0136 Christchurch
0140 Pokesdown
0145 Bournemouth
0150 Branksome
0153 Parkstone
0157 Poole

0250 Poole
0255 Parkstone
0258 Branksome
0304 Bournemouth
0308 Pokesdown
0312 Christchurch
0317 Hinton Admiral
0321 New Milton
0326 Sway
0330 Brockenhurst
0335 Beaulieu*
0339 Ashurst
0344 Totton
0349 Southampton

This would require 4 450 units, along with about 4 for the Waterloo - Southampton portion (although these are interworked with the Waterloo - Portsmouth via Eastleigh services mostly).

The advantages of this are clear:

• Much better spread of services between Southampton and Bournemouth, no more 25 minute waits at Brockenhurst.
• New through journey opportunities for the New Forest to Salisbury.
• Good connections at Salisbury to and from the Cardiff and Exeter services.
• No additional Class 158 units required, and probably no additional Class 450 units although I'd have to look at this in more detail.
• Waterloo - Lymington Pier connections are maintained and new Ashurst/Totton - Waterloo connections are introduced.

I'm sure I've overlooked something though.

 

[thefab444]

Here's a PDF showing the above changes within the context of the rest of the service:

 

[MCR247]

Extra 158s would be very much appreciated here in Wales. Carmarthen and Pembrokeshire have no regular service to Cardiff on the fast route (the Swansea District Line), 3 158s would give us a train every 2 hours from Fishguard to Cardiff over that express route. Fishguard currently has only 1 train per day (if you don't count the one at around 1am). That is supposed to be sorted in September but will probably be a 153 and won't get as far as Cardiff, that's if it actually happens (a consultation was supposed to start in April, last I heard it was begining of May but things seem to have gone quiet). Alternativly, extra 158s would be very useful on the Cambrian line, allowing the odd workings that are 2-car rather than the normal 4-car to be strengthened and maybe even the hourly service that was promised 'by 2011' but has so far failed to materialise (lack of 158s and funding now being the only things standing in the way since the new and/or improved passing loops are now all operational I think).

Class 73s probably aren't fast enough, but if they were I'd suggest fitting more mark3s with power-doors than is currently planned and using them with 73s and some sort of passenger-carrying driving trailer car on push-pull (Gatwick Express style) Portsmouth fast services to displace the 450s they hate so much. The released 450s would do Lymington services (and go anywhere else that's uses DMUs over entirly electrified 3rd rail routes). If there's any 450s left after that you could perhaps electrify some more routes to use them too (Reading - Gatwick?).

As if you are suggesting starting a new route, when current routes are at capacity? Don't think commuters that can't get on trains around the country give a stuff about your journey :roll:

 

[Skimble19]

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.

 

[baza585]

Here's a PDF showing the above changes within the context of the rest of the service:

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?