Class 455 to be converted to DEMU?

[MatthewRead]

Just read the latest issue of RAIL the class 455's are now to be fitted with diesel engines where could they go?

 

[D365]

Really?

Let's wait and see how the "D319s" turn out first, shall we.

 

[birchesgreen]

I think thats the plan, if the 319 Flex works they'll need more "bodies" eventually and the 455 will be ideal

 

[lewisf]

Sounds like a class 210 to me

 

[Parallel]

I don't know much about the mechanical side but if this is possible then it could be a very good idea. I could see these trains being good for the valley lines, and ATW's pacers could be retired.

 

[superalbs]

Sounds like a class 210 to me

There would be some irony in the original Class 210 trailers (which live on in SWT Class 455s) becoming diesel once again.

 

[broadgage]

Just read the latest issue of RAIL the class 455's are now to be fitted with diesel engines where could they go?

Is the proposal to turn them into pure diesel units, for use on non electrified routes, or is the plan to retain the DC traction equipment in addition to diesel power for use on routes that are largely DC but not electrified throughout.

 

[Feathers44]

Just read the latest issue of RAIL the class 455's are now to be fitted with diesel engines where could they go?

Presumably Diesel engines to power the new electrical traction just fitted rather than rip out and replace?

 

[dgl]

Sensible idea in a lot of ways especially as it looks like Wales will need a lot of accessible DMU's quickly.

Plus given the rather nice overhaul done by SWT (assuming SWT's 455's are the donor vehicles) and the millions spent on new traction equipment it gives a train that has been recently life extended seemly pointlessly in the end a new home hopefully meaning that the ROSCO might actually make their money back.

 

[Helvellyn]

455/7s might be a good choice - ditch the ex-Class 508 trailers and you have a three car DEMU. Who might fancy 43 3-car DEMUs?

 

[Monty]

Rather ironic considering NIR (Northern Ireland Railways) got rid of their Class 450 DEMUs many years ago and they were more a less a Class 210 on a Mk1 underframe.

 

[edwin_m]

Adhesion might be a bit poor for the Valleys with only one car out of the four motored and diesel engines under two of the non-motored cars (assuming the same configuration as the 319 Flex). Can the non-motored centre car be removed from a 455 without taking away any essential bits of equipment?

The other problem for the Valleys and any other 2020-sensitive routes might be timescales. Will LSWR have enough new units to cascade enough 455s by then, also allowing time for fitting the engines?

 

[physics34]

have also heard some of SWTs 455 may go to southern......

 

[MCR247]

So could the announcement that First/MTR are replacing the 455s turn out not to be as bad and wasteful as first thought?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So could the announcement that First/MTR are replacing the 455s turn out not to be as bad and wasteful as first thought?

I don't think any replacement of 455s is wasteful, they're 30 years old. If we can reuse them, all the better.

 

[43096]

I don't think any replacement of 455s is wasteful, they're 30 years old. If we can reuse them, all the better.

What is wasteful is replacing the traction equipment with brand new and then ditching them. Only in the DfT's dysfunctional world is that even remotely sensible.

 

[keith1879]

What is wasteful is replacing the traction equipment with brand new and then ditching them. Only in the DfT's dysfunctional world is that even remotely sensible.

It's a sunk cost. Youmake a decision that is correct at the time ....but two or three years later it turns out that something has changed and it may be the case that the correct thing to do then is to write off the earlier spend. the "mistake" (if there was one) was the original decision to retraction the units - but you can't recoup the money already spent.

 

[Suraggu]

Porterbrook said they were looking into a feasibility study about a 455 Flex if the project for a 319 Flex is deemed suitable.

No point sinking money into an entire fleet if the base project is deemed not suitable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a sunk cost. Youmake a decision that is correct at the time ....but two or three years later it turns out that something has changed and it may be the case that the correct thing to do then is to write off the earlier spend. the "mistake" (if there was one) was the original decision to retraction the units - but you can't recoup the money already spent.

So you make use of them, say, by swapping them with other TOCs continuing to use 455s but with original traction equipment.

 

[keith1879]

So you make use of them, say, by swapping them with other TOCs continuing to use 455s but with original traction equipment.

Absolutely. But the limitations of the franchising process may stop this happening. If every 3rd rail operator finds it more sensible to replace 30 year old units completely (and it looks quite possible) then putting diesel engines in them may be a great idea. And this touches on the 230 notion also. Rebuilding the D stock as diesel units made sense two or three years ago but if there is a sudden influx of new Mark 3 based diesel electric units available then maybe the future of the 230s is less assured. Personally I think that the lightweight aluminium construction makes them more attractive for some applications than the relatively hefty steel EMUs. But I'm no expert.

 

[physics34]

Porterbrook said they were looking into a feasibility study about a 455 Flex if the project for a 319 Flex is deemed suitable.

No point sinking money into an entire fleet if the base project is deemed not suitable.

they would be good on Reading to Gatwicks or Ashford to Hastings..... a 3rd rail/Diesel Flex.

WOuld need a toilet fitted and maybe some first class !!!!!

Uckfields would be a problem with good old Oxted tunnel being an obstacle for mk3s.

 

[edwin_m]

It's a sunk cost.

However, as Ian Walmsley points out in his latest column, after recent events it will be impossible to get a ROSCO to fund any sort of upgrade unless you give them a long lease contract.

 

[keith1879]

However, as Ian Walmsley points out in his latest column, after recent events it will be impossible to get a ROSCO to fund any sort of upgrade unless you give them a long lease contract.

And why would they? The Roscos as a whole still have some money coming in because the new units will need financing - of course the ROSCO who funded the upgrade may not get the benefit of supplying the new trains but it's all just commercial risk and reward. I'm starting to sound like an enthusiast for privatisation - I'm not. The point I was trying to make several posts earlier is simply this. Because you spent money 3 years ago on retractioning the units does not mean that you have to keep using them. there may be a better option right now. Yes - you wasted the money - but there may still be a better option right now. Shrug your shoulders and scrap the units if that's what you have to do. hock:

 

[Silverlink]

455/7s might be a good choice - ditch the ex-Class 508 trailers and you have a three car DEMU. Who might fancy 43 3-car DEMUs?

Or they could replace 7 of them with the 7 class 321 trailers in storage.

 

[Deepgreen]

Is the proposal to turn them into pure diesel units, for use on non electrified routes, or is the plan to retain the DC traction equipment in addition to diesel power for use on routes that are largely DC but not electrified throughout.

Oh, I hope not - the North Downs line would seem a candidate - I think I would move if we had 455'Duals' to contend with! They make the 165s and 166s seem OK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd rather a 455 than a 166, at least you don't bake alive or get poisoned by diesel fumes.

 

[Deepgreen]

It's a sunk cost. Youmake a decision that is correct at the time ....but two or three years later it turns out that something has changed and it may be the case that the correct thing to do then is to write off the earlier spend. the "mistake" (if there was one) was the original decision to retraction the units - but you can't recoup the money already spent.

In the SWT 455s' case, nothing has materially changed - it's just that the new franchisee doesn't want them. The change of franchise was known about when the re-tractioning was approved, and the risk of abortive spend was also therefore known about. If the 455s that have been AC fitted continue in dual-power mode use for many years, then the investment may not have been entirely wasted, but I have my doubts whether that will happen.

 

[NSEFAN]

they would be good on Reading to Gatwicks or Ashford to Hastings..... a 3rd rail/Diesel Flex.

WOuld need a toilet fitted and maybe some first class !!!!!

Uckfields would be a problem with good old Oxted tunnel being an obstacle for mk3s.

Whilst the class 455 vehicles may be mk3 based, they are only 20m long, compared to 23m on a mk3 carriage. Does that satisfy the requirements for the tunnel?

 

[Deepgreen]

I'd rather a 455 than a 166, at least you don't bake alive or get poisoned by diesel fumes.

Until the 455s have their diesel engines, and the windows are sealed!

 

[Deepgreen]

they would be good on Reading to Gatwicks or Ashford to Hastings..... a 3rd rail/Diesel Flex.

WOuld need a toilet fitted and maybe some first class !!!!!

Uckfields would be a problem with good old Oxted tunnel being an obstacle for mk3s.

Surely the 170s' vehicles are longer than the 455s'?