Is the end is nigh for class 442*

[phil beard]

I was at hassocks today and I saw two bright red class 387 with red seats and Gary doors on trial runs,
I'm guessing this will be the end for the "flying pigs" over the coming months,
I would much prefer to see the continued use of the 442's to free up 377's to see the end of the 313's, but southern has just released the 313,s for £1 per month per train, hahahaha, What's people's thoughts?

What are "Gary" doors? Can only people called Gary use them? I feel concerned that to personalise doors like this is asking for trouble. :-x

 

[Clip]

Having not travelled on a delightful 442, what are they really like?......

Was on one the other day down south and it was alright really.

 

[colchesterken]

Re gig the wiring to run with a class 90 and use them on Ipswich/Norwich runs save carting the bicycle carrier DVT empty all day

 

[bramling]

Having not travelled on a delightful 442, what are they really like?......

Must admit I was never really over-keen on them when they were with SWT. I always found the seating a bit cramped for long journeys. Adequate, but nothing special. I would add that I'm not over keen on the 444 either, I prefer Electrostars.

The Southern refurbishment took them back further, and this is the point when the unreliability also seemed to start.

*However*, a fully-refurbished interior with good seat pitch would be fine for further use, presumably in a loco-hauled format. Not as good as other trains, but in my view acceptable as an alternative to overcrowding. Of course the narrow end doors would cause issues - but any train is better than no train.

 

[Kentish Paul]

Having not travelled on a delightful 442, what are they really like?......

Travelled on them 4 times back in the day (2 return journeys). One was a trip to Weymouth with vouchers from a magazine and the other was the closure of RNAS Portland.

Sorry to say to some posters I found them very quiet and comfortable as well as pretty quick once they got going.

Unfortunately cannot remember the dates.

 

[AndrewE]

This is getting interesting...

Would the "new build is the only stock worth considering" crowd like to justify their reasoning, or explain their routine abuse of the people who think that refurbishing an established bodyshell and bogies and finding a loco and driving cab to go with it might be a worthwhile option?

I would accept "it would take longer than buying a new train" but if the price is anything like comparable and it might be quicker, then bring it on!
A

 

[onlinespotting]

As I not you are a new member, let me give you a heads-up: future uses for the 442 fleet has been a recurring topic on this board, sometimes with a lot of tongue-in-cheek. You may know that the Invitation to Tender for the new Transpennine franchise suggested that they could be converted to loco-hauled use, but the winning bidder has decided not to use them.

So that means they're still available for any other poster's mad ideas...!

I thought the dft stated in the tender specifically 'not 442's - it does in the Northern one at least

 

[southern442]

WHAT, NOOOO! Not the end of the 442's, what will be able to talk about on here if everyone's favourite unit for improving to fit the problem is no longer an option?

Thank goodness for the D stock! Haven't you heard that TPE are getting some for their new Nottingham to Glasgow service? They will be of course modified to run in multiple with the 442's though so don't worry.

 

[Steve14]

Give them to TPE to strengthen their express routes north of Manchester, complete overhaul of the interior by giving them the same layout as GWR MK3s to maximise comfort and space, overhaul class 67s both mechanically and technically to run with 442s attached to them, use a push-pull style if there aren't any DVTs available. OR give them to XC and do the above but use Class 68s from Cardiff to Nottingham.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

This is getting interesting...

Would the "new build is the only stock worth considering" crowd like to justify their reasoning, or explain their routine abuse of the people who think that refurbishing an established bodyshell and bogies and finding a loco and driving cab to go with it might be a worthwhile option?

I would accept "it would take longer than buying a new train" but if the price is anything like comparable and it might be quicker, then bring it on!
A

It's all down to cost.

There's all sorts of paperwork and vehicle acceptance issues involved in converting a Class 442 EMU into a Mark 3 locomotive hauled vehicle by splitting the sets, removing the defunct power cars, converting the driving cars to be compatible with a propelling locomotive, gauge clearing the stock (for it's not a standard Mark 3 - different bogies, doors and overall profile) and so on.

You only have 96 vehicles available by the time the central power car is removed, which it sort of needs to be as it's so heavy and as such, a really costly vehicle in terms of track access charges. It could be reworked into a regular vehicle, but that would be enormously complex in terms of either vehicle acceptance or engineering works.

You then have a proposal which everybody is happy with, and an engineering team begin work, already having spent the equivalent of the cost of a new bodyshell on the designs and paperwork needed to turn a Class 442 into a loco hauled vehicle.

The engineering team set to work on what is a near 30 year old vehicle last significantly looked at almost 10 years ago and find significant rust problems, wiring issues and other unexpected works which weren't budgeted for. The metal after inspection from a metallurgist shows issues of weakness and some structural components are unlikely to see another 5 years of service without being replaced, suddenly you've spent 75% of the cost of a new LHCS vehicle with absolutely nothing but a big pile of rust on the floor of a depot to show for it.

It's easy to forget that British Rail Engineering was, at times, as bad as British Leyland at screwing things together, they used the same or similar raw materials as BL and Austin Rover - just think, the Class 442 is probably made out of the same steel as your long since rusted away Maestro, it was painted in much the same way too when it was new, so underneath and behind panels, BREL's 1980s products can be a bit ropey.

Why would you bother trying to save 96 to 120 vehicles when they're really worn out and pretty much ready for the scrapyard now ?

 

[antharro]

Oh look, it's another 442 thread.

They were great in NSE days (so I'm told), not bad at all in SWT days (1st hand experience!) but the Southern "refurb" was quite the opposite and has made them rather boring and bland and, imo, uncomfortable.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Oh look, it's another 442 thread.

They were great in NSE days (so I'm told), not bad at all in SWT days (1st hand experience!) but the Southern "refurb" was quite the opposite and has made them rather boring and bland and, imo, uncomfortable.

They were great in NSE days, but then again, aside from the running gear, they were new.

 

[AndrewE]

It's all down to cost.

There's all sorts of paperwork and vehicle acceptance issues involved in converting a Class 442 EMU into a Mark 3 locomotive hauled vehicle by splitting the sets, removing the defunct power cars, converting the driving cars to be compatible with a propelling locomotive, gauge clearing the stock (for it's not a standard Mark 3 - different bogies, doors and overall profile) and so on.

You only have 96 vehicles available by the time the central power car is removed, which it sort of needs to be as it's so heavy and as such, a really costly vehicle in terms of track access charges. It could be reworked into a regular vehicle, but that would be enormously complex in terms of either vehicle acceptance or engineering works.

You then have a proposal which everybody is happy with, and an engineering team begin work, already having spent the equivalent of the cost of a new bodyshell on the designs and paperwork needed to turn a Class 442 into a loco hauled vehicle.

The engineering team set to work on what is a near 30 year old vehicle last significantly looked at almost 10 years ago and find significant rust problems, wiring issues and other unexpected works which weren't budgeted for. The metal after inspection from a metallurgist shows issues of weakness and some structural components are unlikely to see another 5 years of service without being replaced, suddenly you've spent 75% of the cost of a new LHCS vehicle with absolutely nothing but a big pile of rust on the floor of a depot to show for it.

It's easy to forget that British Rail Engineering was, at times, as bad as British Leyland at screwing things together, they used the same or similar raw materials as BL and Austin Rover - just think, the Class 442 is probably made out of the same steel as your long since rusted away Maestro, it was painted in much the same way too when it was new, so underneath and behind panels, BREL's 1980s products can be a bit ropey.

Why would you bother trying to save 96 to 120 vehicles when they're really worn out and pretty much ready for the scrapyard now ?

Thank you. At last someone has actually explained why they think it would be more trouble than it's worth.
The non-rolling stock engineers amongst us would otherwise be thinking "if it's similar to a MkIII and is currently running, then how difficut can it be to drag it round a different bit of the network?"
Most of us have probably never been on a 442, but live in hope that some sort of stock can be cascaded to help out the bits of the country where a fleet of new units is unlikely ever to happen!

 

[6Gman]

The most comfy trains from Brighton to London by a long way.

I have to say I've only used them once (Vic to Brighton) - one of the most comfortable trains I've travelled on.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Thank you. At last someone has actually explained why they think it would be more trouble than it's worth.
The non-rolling stock engineers amongst us would otherwise be thinking "if it's similar to a MkIII and is currently running, then how difficut can it be to drag it round a different bit of the network?"
Most of us have probably never been on a 442, but live in hope that some sort of stock can be cascaded to help out the bits of the country where a fleet of new units is unlikely ever to happen!

On another thread I went into detail as to why it would be cheaper and easier to refurb existing Mk3s (and do door mods) than convert 442 coaches (IIRC it was for the Edinburgh HST fleet of all things)

 

[BestWestern]

It's all down to cost.

There's all sorts of paperwork and vehicle acceptance issues involved in converting a Class 442 EMU into a Mark 3 locomotive hauled vehicle by splitting the sets, removing the defunct power cars, converting the driving cars to be compatible with a propelling locomotive, gauge clearing the stock (for it's not a standard Mark 3 - different bogies, doors and overall profile) and so on.

You only have 96 vehicles available by the time the central power car is removed, which it sort of needs to be as it's so heavy and as such, a really costly vehicle in terms of track access charges. It could be reworked into a regular vehicle, but that would be enormously complex in terms of either vehicle acceptance or engineering works.

You then have a proposal which everybody is happy with, and an engineering team begin work, already having spent the equivalent of the cost of a new bodyshell on the designs and paperwork needed to turn a Class 442 into a loco hauled vehicle.

The engineering team set to work on what is a near 30 year old vehicle last significantly looked at almost 10 years ago and find significant rust problems, wiring issues and other unexpected works which weren't budgeted for. The metal after inspection from a metallurgist shows issues of weakness and some structural components are unlikely to see another 5 years of service without being replaced, suddenly you've spent 75% of the cost of a new LHCS vehicle with absolutely nothing but a big pile of rust on the floor of a depot to show for it.

It's easy to forget that British Rail Engineering was, at times, as bad as British Leyland at screwing things together, they used the same or similar raw materials as BL and Austin Rover - just think, the Class 442 is probably made out of the same steel as your long since rusted away Maestro, it was painted in much the same way too when it was new, so underneath and behind panels, BREL's 1980s products can be a bit ropey.

Why would you bother trying to save 96 to 120 vehicles when they're really worn out and pretty much ready for the scrapyard now ?

A well written and sensible post. However, considering that we have HST trailers tanking around at 125mph, which are significantly older (GWR have some of the original prototype vehicles in everyday use), have sustained significantly more use and abuse, and have been able to withstand major structural works including conversion from full buffet spec into standard trailer spec; and considering the conversion of basic MK3s from one electrical system to another is a well-trodden route... I'd say, if there is an identifiable use for them, the initial feasibility studies are worth doing.

 

[Mikey C]

Having just seen the other thread, can't we convert the 442s to Nuclear Power. Then they'll be able to run anywhere

 

[t_star2001uk]

Talking of nuclear, can we have some more flask testing.......

i'll get me coat.....

 

[DerekC]

Must admit to having been quite fond of the 442s in SWT days - that's as long as you didn't sit in the power car. I like the concept of nuclear 442s as long as they run somewhere a long way from population centres. Even so the approval process might be a little over-long and I am not sure what ASLEF would think of the idea. Good piece of research for RSSB to do, though.

 

[Patchamboy1]

What are "Gary" doors? Can only people called Gary use them? I feel concerned that to personalise doors like this is asking for trouble. :-x

Hahaha:roll: the train would be huge if we had a door each, The joys of the I pad thinking it knows what you are going to say next and changing it automatically,
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Re gig the wiring to run with a class 90 and use them on Ipswich/Norwich runs save carting the bicycle carrier DVT empty all day

It would be a good idea but who ever owns greater Anglia's mark 3 coaches just forked out to fit power points and re trim the seats (badly) and carpets, as a stop gap till the inter city 225s become available in 2018 when virgin get there new trains,

I don't think anyone would put the money into the 442, on runs out of Liverpool street,

 

[colchesterken]

No no my point was a cheap solution for extra trains, if the 442 s could be wired for class 90 at minimal cost, you could make all trains up to 9 mk3 and use the 442 s to fill gaps and run as semi fast Ipswich to free up 321s to cover for shortages during refurb in hand

 

[sarahj]

From a staff members point of view, i like them. Ok, they are a bit slow to get going, but once they get going they are fine. You also get used to the bangs that come from them, but best of all, they have a brake van, and with fully pull down windows, so you can do a proper safe dispatch. Odd thing is, the nice bike racks in the brake van, which no passenger has access to!!!.

Seating wise, decent seats, no ironing boards and first class seats are proper first class seats. Leg room a bit tight in standard, but better than in many 377's. Just a lot more airline seating, so it shows a lot.

Downside. the time it takes to get folks off. Not helped by folks all leaving by one door. (Burgess Hill folks, I'm looking at you), and the Gatwick punters from Vic all being in coach 10 with all their bags, so that takes time as well.
Also, I did like the snug that was there when we first got them. Plus the BR branded microwave in the kitchen and the instructions on how to make cup-a-soup.

Fault wise. I've not had any fail on me for a while. The 377's are showing their age more, and more and more faults on them than ever.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No no my point was a cheap solution for extra trains, if the 442 s could be wired for class 90 at minimal cost

Except they can't be and they won't be.

 

[physics34]

would be ridiculous to not find a use for the trailers....

now with the transpennine express franchise not intending to use them i fear though there is not much call for them.

 

[NSEFAN]

No no my point was a cheap solution for extra trains, if the 442 s could be wired for class 90 at minimal cost, you could make all trains up to 9 mk3 and use the 442 s to fill gaps and run as semi fast Ipswich to free up 321s to cover for shortages during refurb in hand

They could be, but they won't be. Why on earth would you go to such lengths to cover odd units? Reworking the entire 442 fleet for a longer deployment somewhere on an intercity/regional express route I could understand, but no TOC in their right mind is going to pay for a 3rd rail EMU to be hacked into a push-pull rake for class 90s for only a couple of year's usage.

The only sensible place to use 442s now would probably on the route they originally started out on. SWT however is clearly in no hurry to do this, as they have their own plans for their fleet of trains which revolves more around suburban than intercity stock.

 

[ScotGG]

I know the 442 subject has been done to death but being third rail, why does no one ever suggest running them on certain Southeastern routes? Possibly on long distance routes without many stops so the door issue is less pronounced. Maybe fasts for Hastings or Thanet resorts? Would that then free up some 375s for longer trains elsewhere?

 

[swt_passenger]

I know the 442 subject has been done to death but being third rail, why does no one ever suggest running them on certain Southeastern routes? Possibly on long distance routes without many stops so the door issue is less pronounced. Maybe fasts for Hastings or Thanet resorts? Would that then free up some 375s for longer trains elsewhere?

They might be out of gauge for some Southeastern routes. They were the only 23m EMUs around the 'SR' for a quite a while, they were not necessarily 'go anywhere' trains...

 

[306024]

This thread is beginning to remind me of the dead parrot sketch, with all the enthusiasts playing the part of Michael Palin trying to persuade the railway professionals, played by John Cleese, that the 442s are not dead, merely pining for further use.

Good units once, unfortunately my recent experiences of them are that they are lumbering beasts compared to the newer more nifty units. On a railway where capacity is everything sorry to say it seems they've had their day.

......dons suit of armour.

 

[BestWestern]

Fault wise. I've not had any fail on me for a while. The 377's are showing their age more, and more and more faults on them than ever.

This is an interesting point. The mantra of 'new trains reliable, old trains unreliable' begins to fall down when those new trains reach a certain age and the plethora of complex electronics and computer gizmos begin to creak. A 442 might be at best old, and at worse (traction motors) ancient, but I'd wager the faults they do have are considerably easier to identify than an ageing 'modern' unit with ill-tempered TMS software generating some vague 'fault' that may or may not exist.

It's also worth pointing out, once again, the widely acknowledged point that the 442s seemed to suddenly become drastically less reliable the moment somebody stuck Gatwick Express on the side of them...

 

[gtr driver]

It's also worth pointing out, once again, the widely acknowledged point that the 442s seemed to suddenly become drastically less reliable the moment somebody stuck Gatwick Express on the side of them...

Don't forget they had not been touched since SWT finished with them. Apparently they had not even been cleaned, newspapers etc from the last day in service were still strewn inside.