I’m not sure how relevant that is as they wouldn’t be used for the same routes anyway. And I’d bet my life on 350/2s never getting shoes. I’m so so bored of that suggestion.
Yeah it was basically a pointless project.
It was allowed to go ahead because it was a perfectly sensible project, based on providing 2+2 seating into London from places like Portsmouth.
Where's the provision of 2+2 seating from Cardiff to Portsmouth, a journey of nearly double the length of London to Portsmouth? Instead of the 165/166s that run with uncomfortable seats in a 3+2 layout, sometimes in 2 car formations.
21 August 2027.
I find it odd that there seems to be significant clamour to bin Networkers and 323s, but not the 458s, despite the fact that the 458s are probably as unloved as either of the other fleets.
The 458s have AC which occasionally works
These trains have been shambolic since introduction, their 25 years old why not just scrap them? SWR simply don’t require them anymore. The Class 350/2 is another story, such a highly reliable EMU must be able to find a good new home somewhere? The is simply no reason as to why Class 350/2 should find no work!
Given the intention was to run them as 12 coach trains this was never, at any stage, a sensible project and this should have been known prior to spending millions of pounds of taxpayers cash on a pointless refurb.
They have not been shambolic since introduction. For quite some time under SWT they were very reliable - the most reliable trains in the country, in fact. How is that “shambolic”?
Once the 175s enter service this should help as more 15Xs will be moved east therefore allowing more 158 diagrams on Portsmouth to Cardiff workings.
Couldn’t SWR have refurbished some of the 450s to 2+2 seating instead of trying to reinvent the wheel unsuccessfully with the 442s and latterly, the 458s.
Some of the 458s are only 4 years older than the 465s. It would make sense to have an interim train as they slowly scrap the 465/9s but I can't see them taking something so old. (and also of a completely different train family)
To be fair the 456 was an SWT conversion/update after leaving Southern. SWR's mistake with hindsight perhaps, was off loading them too soon, before the 701's had been made ready, so in many cases what had been 10 car 455/456 reverted to 8 car 455.
In a general sense at some locations the sighting issue has been/can be addressed by placing co-acting signals ahead of the main signal aspect, but in a position that any driver of a longer formation can clearly see, be that on the ground or perhaps lower down on a gantry post. Platforms 11 & 8 at Waterloo being two examples, these both being in relation to 12 car 450 formations - so it can be understood why 12 car 458 (being longer) creates a greater problem.
If 12 car Class 458 consists are problematic… what exactly was the point in reverting them to being four car units?
Given the 458 reliability problems, I doubt SE would want the extra hassle of crew and maintenance learning on another fleet, only to get no decent return in service.
