New use for the class 442's

[HarleyDavidson]

Surely the 442s are old enough to have oil based heating and lighting?

You are taking the proverbial aren't you?

 

[gazthomas]

You are taking the proverbial aren't you?

Most definitely

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Most definitely

No offence, but with some of the weirdos that post here, some are rather worryingly quite serious. :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

The electric buses operating in Milton Keynes have diesel heaters!

 

[HarleyDavidson]

See what I mean gaz!

 

[Nym]

Watford DC Lines?

 

[gazthomas]

See what I mean gaz!

I do!

 

[RobShipway]

Brighton had an active traincrew depot until 2006. The brighton services were axed after Arriva took over the franchise and the map was redrawn to add stanstead-cardiff and removed the West coast work to a mix of virgin and TPE. Pompeii line services and Poole were axed upon introduction of operation flickup, err... Princess! Along with the Ramsgate and weymouth summer saturday trains. When the timetable couldnt be sustained thats when Liverpool was axed along with BPN-BHI workings and the HST's were handed over to Midland Mainline for project rio. Solihull a
So lost its station stop. It was also around this time BMH and west country-WCML scotland services were split at MAN in order to build robustness in the schedules. Ironically reliability improved meaning the terminator on 5-6 often got in with time to spare before the scottish service departed 14. Its this bit that TPE now run.

1O31 19:46ish LIV-GTW was never on time and was rarely less than an hour late bu the time it reached BHM (scheduled 21:33 departure) when the Reading based crew would take over with Brighton taking over at Reading for the stint to Gatwick often departing after midnight. The brighton crew passed from brighton to reading and waited for the back working on that late diagram. This service was eventually axed when Liverpool was given up leaving 1V96 16:04 GLC-PAD (d BHM 21:03) as the last thames valley service. Paddington was also subsequently axed as a destination but remained a traincrew boarding point for a couple of services (1M07 07:03 PAD-MAN still ran ecs from PAD to form 07:33 @RDG which required the train crew to book on at 04:30 for an all stations thames/FGW link turbo to PAD. That was a eye watering shift! 09:03 PAD-MAN reversed in PAD but traincrew boarded at RDG to form 1M11 @09:33. This was a HST, but utilised a west coast 8 car set on a Saturday but still stopped at Solihull until the HSTs were withdrawn hen it switched to a 4 car voyager)

The start in the drop of the services from Brighton started in 2002, where there was at least 4 or 5 trains a day, after Operation Princess it went down to 2 trains a day and Brighton hardly got mentioned on any train literature from Virgin Cross Country. Yes, Arriva had the final nail in the coffin for the services from Brighton, VCC started the nail in the coffin. But that is just my point of view as I used to use the services quite often between Brighton & Solihull. Then when I moved to Martins Heron in 2001, it used to be useful as all I had to do was get a train to Wokingham and change trains for the service to take me northwards to the Midlands. Yes, I can still do that now by changing at Reading, but it is not quite the same.

 

[TheEdge]

Rebuild them for use on the Cambridge Busway to prove trains were always the way forward.

 

[tbtc]

I think 442s working push-pull from Oxted to Uckfield makes sense - nice use for a 68. Then Uckfield passengers could go back to having a through Victoria service !. I am sure the 171s could EASILY find use elsewhere thus adding to the attractiveness of the 442 option.

[/end brainstorm][wake-up].

I realise that this thread probably isn't the place for serious discussion, but I'm wondering why this idea hasn't been raised on the Forum before (as far as I've noticed?).

It combines "freeing up DMUs", "bringing back loco-hauled services", "finding a use for 442s" and "going back to old fashioned BR ideas"... surely that ticks several boxes for enthusiasts?

Given the relative success of 33s on dragging London - Bournemouth EMUs from Bournemouth to Weymouth and back (before the EMU headed back to London on its own power), I'm not sure why I'd not noticed more people suggest it for Uckfield (i.e. something like a 377 runs from central London to Oxted/ Hurst Green as an EMU then gets dragged to Uckfield by a loco...

...okay, it's not a *long* journey (to warrant coupling up a loco), but roughly forty five minutes... not too shabby though.

Or is it because "loco plus EMU" would foul a few platforms? Or am I just not paying attention, and it gets suggested all the time?

 

[Bald Rick]

Given the relative success of 33s on dragging London - Bournemouth EMUs from Bournemouth to Weymouth and back (before the EMU headed back to London on its own power), I'm not sure why I'd not noticed more people suggest it for Uckfield (i.e. something like a 377 runs from central London to Oxted/ Hurst Green as an EMU then gets dragged to Uckfield by a loco...

...

Minor point, but the locos didn't drag / propel EMUs Bournemouth - Weymouth. They dragged / propelled unpowered trailer units, whilst the EMUs headed back to London.

I suspect that the economics of keeping a small fleet of DMUs (with several engines per train) is rather better than the economics of an even smaller fleet of locos (4?) with one engine per train.

 

[RichmondCommu]

As 61653 HTFAC has commented, such use of 442s was referenced in the ITT documents, so it can't be a surprise that bidders are taking on board this 'suggestion' by the DfT.

As you would imagine, I'm not prepared to say on a public forum as to where the comments have come from, but let's just say its not platform end wibble. Might turn out to be wibble, we'll know in December...

OK fair do's. Did the document specifically refer to class 442's or just rolling stock in general?

 

[Starmill]

I'm not convinced either of those stations are as important as providing a proper InterCity level of capacity and quality. I think there is suppressed demand, put off by severe overcrowding and the use of regional EMUs, however nice a regional EMU there may be.

While I agree that they aren't particularly suitable, replacing them with something that has worse acceleration would be a very bad idea.

More than that, why can't we aspire to at least 110mph stock for this route?

(OK... I know the 350/4 were supposed to be 110 capable, but unless they've begun doing so in the past fortnight, they errr... don't run at 110....)

 

[gimmea50anyday]

OK fair do's. Did the document specifically refer to class 442's or just rolling stock in general?

The ITT specifically mentions rolling stock of type 442

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ranspennine-express-invitation-to-tender.pdf]

5.4.2.24 Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the TPE Train Fleet:

i. The class 185 and class 350 multiple units that are currently comprised within the TPE Train Fleet (subject to the requirement to sub-lease Class 185 units to the Northern Franchise for an initial period until December 2017);

ii. Diesel multiple units that are not Class 14x, Class 15x or Class 17x and that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern franchisees, but that will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, either because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it;

iii. Up to four 2-car diesel multiple units of similar characteristics to TPE’s Class 170 units must be assumed for bid purposes to be leased until December 2017, as a proxy for the arrangements that the Department envisages will be put in place with the incumbent operator to mitigate the transfer of these units to the Chiltern Franchise with effect from February 2016;

iv. Vehicles of Class 442 following their release from the TSGN franchise

v. Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure.

Interestingly I have just spotted the ITT includes 2tph york - newcastle with one extended to Edinburgh......

More route learning for me then......

The 350's are still going to 110mph operation, the speed being introduced at the end of 2015. Its in the staff Autumn safety brief booklet

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As you would imagine, I'm not prepared to say on a public forum as to where the comments have come from, but let's just say its not platform end wibble. Might turn out to be wibble, we'll know in December...

As ever is the case, once a stated date for a pronouncement grows ever nearer the actual time, there are always the last frenetic posting submissions made by those on certain threads of this website who wish to give their conspiracy theories, etc, a final airing before the stated date.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The 4-TC's were hauled by 4-REP units on the juice which had the same EE546 traction motors as fitted to 73/1's with a power rating 3200hp equivalent to 2x73/1. the REP's stayed at the london end so the 33/1 would hook up to the TC's at the weymouth end. When in operation it was a very swiftly executed coupling proceedure and worked very well. When the TC and REP sets were reformed/disbanded to provide parts for the 442's a 73/1 had to be included in the consist of some sets to maintain the correct performance and power but this resulted in the loss of a coach worth of seats. This also caused gapping as there was no power or ETH bus between the remaining REP motor and the 73/1. TC's could be conventional loco hauled and were often used on the mule with 50's but this required adapter jumpers and were a pain so 33/1's were used where possible.

In comparison the EE507 motors used on the CEP/CIG/VEP produced 1000hp so a REP with 2xTC had slightly more power and an overall weight advantage with 2 sets of traction equipment vs a 12 car EMU set. The REP's were also the only EMU to provide ETH. Also due to the high traction index of 12 a REP could only work in multiple with a MLV or 2 car EPB or HAP, and not with any other EMU. A units traction index was based on the power draw of one EE507 being 1 and the maximum a unit could draw was 14, equivalent to a 12xCEP+MLV on the kent coast. If a REP had to work with any other traction this would require a set of motors to be isolated.

Some routes had a reduced traction index for cost purposes (theres an official name for it, cant remember what it is tho) Tunbridge wells-hastings was 8 iirc due to its 11kv feeders.

 

[RobShipway]

I still think that if the cabs within the class 442's can be converted to work with class 67 or class 68, that it would better than the loco having to work around the class 442, that way all the driver needs to do is just change the end of the train he is using.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I still think that if the cabs within the class 442's can be converted to work with class 67 or class 68, that it would better than the loco having to work around the class 442, that way all the driver needs to do is just change the end of the train he is using.

They'll not be used in any configuration that requires the locomotive running round the train. There simply isn't the infrastructure available, either physically or in terms of capacity, to manage this on a daily basis.

There will also be the start of engineering work for electrification once again to contend with on the TransPennine route, which will inevitably result in weekend possessions and services having to reverse at less than ideal locations where running around would be immensely impractical.

 

[Haydn1971]

More than that, why can't we aspire to at least 110mph stock for this route?

What ? That's heresy ! Aspiring to improved railway services, you need to go and sit in a dark room and think about what you've said haha

 

[talldave]

Surely the 442s are old enough to have oil based heating and lighting?

Having spent a couple of hours stuck on one in a cold tunnel without power that would have been appreciated!

 

[northwichcat]

Interestingly I have just spotted the ITT includes 2tph york - newcastle with one extended to Edinburgh......

Edinburgh from the ECML is an option which bidders don't have to include but should look in to. Services to Crewe is another option that was citied, as were Blackpool/Liverpool to Scotland services.

2tph Liverpool-Newcastle is expected from December 2017.

 

[AM9]

Surely the 442s are old enough to have oil based heating and lighting?

No they are not old, indeed apart from the 50-year old traction components, they are no older than 319s or 321s. They are of course though, obsolete.

 

[PHILIPE]

Nobody has suggested converting them to Steam yet !!!

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Wait long enough and some old boiler will.

 

[AM9]

Maybe the cheapest deployment would be to park them down the Stourbridge Town branch, all the way from the Town station to the Junction station.
56 coaches (that's 11 5-car set with one extra car all coupled up), would provide a weatherproof walkway between the two stations. If a 750VDC supply could be provided for the 'hotel services', there would be heating/cooling, lighting, seats, toilets and even some of the buffets could be re-instated.
At night, some of the coaches could be let out for entertainment, parties etc..
It wouldn't even be necessary to remove the old traction kit.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I do discos.....

Could do with some more bookings.....

 

[TheEdge]

Maybe the cheapest deployment would be to park them down the Stourbridge Town branch, all the way from the Town station to the Junction station.
56 coaches (that's 11 5-car set with one extra car all coupled up), would provide a weatherproof walkway between the two stations. If a 750VDC supply could be provided for the 'hotel services', there would be heating/cooling, lighting, seats, toilets and even some of the buffets could be re-instated.
At night, some of the coaches could be let out for entertainment, parties etc..
It wouldn't even be necessary to remove the old traction kit.

Suggest that to the DfT, at once!

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe the cheapest deployment would be to park them down the Stourbridge Town branch, all the way from the Town station to the Junction station.
56 coaches (that's 11 5-car set with one extra car all coupled up), would provide a weatherproof walkway between the two stations. If a 750VDC supply could be provided for the 'hotel services', there would be heating/cooling, lighting, seats, toilets and even some of the buffets could be re-instated.
At night, some of the coaches could be let out for entertainment, parties etc..
It wouldn't even be necessary to remove the old traction kit.

With another 7 ex 321 cars added the whole fleet could cover a 2.9 km branch. Is there one anywhere?

 

[Bishopstone]

Having spent a couple of hours stuck on one in a cold tunnel without power that would have been appreciated!

The 06.29 Brighton-Victoria was without heat this morning, as was the 18.23 Down Eastbourne on Monday.

Mind you, isn't non-heat traction the kind of thing which gets enthusiasts flailing, my lordz?

 

[ScotGG]

Any Southeastern coastal services with limited stops that could take them - third rail, less of an issue with small doors etc? Services like the Hastings expresses.