New use for the class 442's

[HarleyDavidson]

I do discos.....

Could do with some more bookings.....

Are you a train planner, because you could always say discos here and discos dere and dat goes somewhere else.

 

[Blaahh]

Replace the 450s?

 

[swt_passenger]

Replace the 450s?

They'll need to be stretched to form 127 units... They'll have to stick loads of bits of HSTs in them.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

IIRC not permitted for gauge on the Hastings line or to Charing Cross or Cannon St.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Are you a train planner?

Err, no!

<------ my tag here is a bit of a clue.......

IIRC not permitted for gauge on the Hastings line or to Charing Cross or Cannon St.

Didnt singling of the problematic tunnels during electrification solve the gaguing issues?

 

[JamesRowden]

IIRC not permitted for gauge on the Hastings line or to Charing Cross or Cannon St.

Err, no!

<------ my tag here is a bit of a clue.......







Didnt singling of the problematic tunnels during electrification solve the gaguing issues?

This Porterbrook document shows Mark 3s to be cleared to operate between Tonbridge and Hastings via Tunbridge Wells. Therefore it would seem reasonable to conclude that 442s would also be cleared.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

That being the case the only restriction the will be the bogies, but thats only with HST and mk3 lhcs, as the 442's use the same bogies as 319/455/mk3DVT

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Err, no!

<------ my tag here is a bit of a clue.......







Didnt singling of the problematic tunnels during electrification solve the gaguing issues?

You're an avatar or icon?

 

[talldave]

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?

Hmmm that reminds me of another unpleasant 442 journey where the heating in one coach was stuck on max. I threatened to take my clothes off but even that didn't worry the on train staff (yes long time ago! ) into disabling it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You're an avatar or icon?

Assuming that he is not of a blue hue with a tail, I think that he is most certainly "iconic"...

 

[Bald Rick]

This Porterbrook document shows Mark 3s to be cleared to operate between Tonbridge and Hastings via Tunbridge Wells. Therefore it would seem reasonable to conclude that 442s would also be cleared.

Ahh, salesmen. The brochure for my Golf diesel said it was great for low NOx emissions. Note the map is a little sketchy on how Mark 3a loco hauled coaches could actually reach the line.

Meanwhile, the sectional appendix for the Tonbridge to Hastings line (Google Network Rail Sectional Appendix Kent) (page 854) shows 442s as not cleared.

I know which document I trust more.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

You're an avatar or icon?

Within my company I am certainly an icon! Wether thats a good or bad reputation depends on your point of view.....

 

[AngusH]

Is it my imagination, or does that mk3 brochure suggest that they are not cleared to be used on a future expansion of the Scottish Borders railway?

The map appears to show a route between Berwick and Carlisle which I think must be the southern half of the old borders railway routes. The bit between Edinburgh and (I guess) Melrose has been removed, but the southern bit remains.

Given that the borders route is apparently already suffering overcrowding, I find it sad that the mk3 and presumably 442s can't be used here.

Presumably the route clearance work, and of course the trivial construction of the Berwick - Melrose - Carlisle bits, could easily be done.


Unless the dotted line means something else, in which case not all hope is yet lost...



(Edited on further thought)
Actually I think it shows a number of now closed routes, although I'm not clear why.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

It's the bus connections from the NRTT map.

 

[The Ham]

Ahh, salesmen. The brochure for my Golf diesel said it was great for low NOx emissions. Note the map is a little sketchy on how Mark 3a loco hauled coaches could actually reach the line.

Meanwhile, the sectional appendix for the Tonbridge to Hastings line (Google Network Rail Sectional Appendix Kent) (page 854) shows 442s as not cleared.

I know which document I trust more.

The sectional appendix probably also shows that the 442's are not cleared for route over which TPE could be wanting to use them, predominately I would argue as those lines are unlikely to have third rails so they couldn't get there.

That doesn't mean that they can not easily be cleared. As an example the line between Guildford and Redhill is show as not cleared for use by mark 3 coaches, yet has 165's and 166's use it; which may would argue are unable to get some of the places which a Mark 3 can. Meaning that if you follow the logic that what as been cleared as what can use that route as what can only ever use that route you can end up with some clearly stupid results.

As such, just because there has been no need for a unit to be cleared to use a line it doesn't mean that it can not be cleared to use that line without undertaking any clearance works.

Even if works maybe required it could be that (given that it opens up that line to other units in the future) it is worth undertaking those works as the are likely to be fairly minimal anyway (assuming that they hadn't been included in other works already carried out such as re-signaling and/or track renewals).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The sectional appendix probably also shows that the 442's are not cleared for route over which TPE could be wanting to use them, predominately I would argue as those lines are unlikely to have third rails so they couldn't get there.

That doesn't mean that they can not easily be cleared. As an example the line between Guildford and Redhill is show as not cleared for use by mark 3 coaches, yet has 165's and 166's use it; which may would argue are unable to get some of the places which a Mark 3 can. Meaning that if you follow the logic that what as been cleared as what can use that route as what can only ever use that route you can end up with some clearly stupid results.

As such, just because there has been no need for a unit to be cleared to use a line it doesn't mean that it can not be cleared to use that line without undertaking any clearance works.

Even if works maybe required it could be that (given that it opens up that line to other units in the future) it is worth undertaking those works as the are likely to be fairly minimal anyway (assuming that they hadn't been included in other works already carried out such as re-signaling and/or track renewals).

As far as I know HSTs or LH Mk3s are passed on all current TPE routes (Hull and Scarborough are served by HSTs, and there used to be a regular Virgin XC ECS move from Manchester to Leeds via Huddersfield) so I'd have thought getting 442s passed on those routes would simply be a paperwork exercise. As I said before though, South TPE would seem more suitable as the frequency of the Huddersfield route would mean narrow end doors would be an issue, even if only used on Liverpool to Newcastle.

 

[Bald Rick]

The sectional appendix probably also shows that the 442's are not cleared for route over which TPE could be wanting to use them, predominately I would argue as those lines are unlikely to have third rails so they couldn't get there.

Well you've answered your own statement there. There would never have been a need to clear 442s on Transpennine routes, and I'm willing to bet they don't even appear in the relevant Sectional Appendices.

However, in DC land south of London, it is quite feasible that a 442 could get to Hastings - it's not too far from Eastbourne where they run every day*. The fact that they are not clear rather suggests it has been considered and as such they are prohibited. Besides some of the tunnel clearances down there are very tight, as not all of the problem tunnels were singled in the mid 80s, at least one was slabbed and some were left as they were just clear.

* just getting the 442s to Eastbourne and London Bridge via Norwood Jn was enough to cause a couple of gauging engineers to go grey.

 

[Rick1984]

Interestingly the document above for the Mkiii's seems to show a TRAXX with Class 442 carriages.

 

[aylesbury]

Surely these units are life expired and not suited to any use by any TOC in the UK?

It's better to acquire units that have ease of access and room for as many passengers as possible.

Corrosion will also start to be a problem and many components will be non-standard, so send a unit to a home on a preserved line and scrap the rest.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Traxx is only a suggestion. Porterbrooks own mk3 brochure puts siemens locos as well as cl90's, 67's as other suitable haulage traction. This references loco hauled mk3 tho, not 442 EMU.

Bear in mind 442's are the only EMU stock that is fully compatible with conventional loco hauled, which compares favourably with the 4-TC's which were fully compatible with SR EMU along with 33/1 and 73/1 but needed adaptors to use other locos, especially 50's which they were often paired with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interestingly the document above for the Mkiii's seems to show a TRAXX with Class 442 carriages.

There has been serious discussion between TPE management and DRS as to providing 68's for haulage.

However, the observations from this particular individual (me) suggests there are far more 67's sitting around with little to do especially after several 67 diagrams have been replaced by 68's, and with 6 67's allocated to ECML thunderbird duties leaves 24 67's. They can do 125mph. conveniently there are 24 442's theoretically capable of 110mph on the ECML.......


Mere speculation on my part tho.......

 

[Steve14]

However, the observations from this particular individual (me) suggests there are far more 67's sitting around with little to do especially after several 67 diagrams have been replaced by 68's, and with 6 67's allocated to ECML thunderbird duties leaves 24 67's. They can do 125mph. conveniently there are 24 442's theoretically capable of 110mph on the ECML.......


Mere speculation on my part tho.......

Why would you have 67s hauling 442s on a line where we have 180s, HSTs and Mk4 sets with the future introduction of IEPS and potentially 390s by Alliance Rail and maybe 373s? Firstly:

- what route would they serve a useful purpose for given the traffic is high
- with electric trains running already and with more being planned to be introduced on the ECML, why on earth would porterbrook want to mod the 442 coaches for 125mph and have a 67 hauling it? It isn't like a HST where there is a power car on each end to allow the train to keep up with all the other stock on the line and given that the acceleration of 180s is pretty decent.

 

[krus_aragon]

However, the observations from this particular individual (me) suggests there are far more 67's sitting around with little to do especially after several 67 diagrams have been replaced by 68's, and with 6 67's allocated to ECML thunderbird duties leaves 24 67's. They can do 125mph. conveniently there are 24 442's theoretically capable of 110mph on the ECML.......

Mere speculation on my part tho.......

Pleasant speculation, but remember that there are also a few 67s in use in Wales.

 

[Bungle965]

Traxx is only a suggestion. Porterbrooks own mk3 brochure puts siemens locos as well as cl90's, 67's as other suitable haulage traction. This references loco hauled mk3 tho, not 442 EMU.

Bear in mind 442's are the only EMU stock that is fully compatible with conventional loco hauled, which compares favourably with the 4-TC's which were fully compatible with SR EMU along with 33/1 and 73/1 but needed adaptors to use other locos, especially 50's which they were often paired with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There has been serious discussion between TPE management and DRS as to providing 68's for haulage.

However, the observations from this particular individual (me) suggests there are far more 67's sitting around with little to do especially after several 67 diagrams have been replaced by 68's, and with 6 67's allocated to ECML thunderbird duties leaves 24 67's. They can do 125mph. conveniently there are 24 442's theoretically capable of 110mph on the ECML.......


Mere speculation on my part tho.......

The reason that tpe will be looking at 68s over 67s is that the acceleration is far superior compared to the 67s, also how many times do 67s actually go 125mph it is not often.
Sam

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would it be worth the 67s being re-geared to give better acceleration (which presumably sacrifice the 125mph top speed)?

 

[The Ham]

Well you've answered your own statement there. There would never have been a need to clear 442s on Transpennine routes, and I'm willing to bet they don't even appear in the relevant Sectional Appendices.

However, in DC land south of London, it is quite feasible that a 442 could get to Hastings - it's not too far from Eastbourne where they run every day*. The fact that they are not clear rather suggests it has been considered and as such they are prohibited. Besides some of the tunnel clearances down there are very tight, as not all of the problem tunnels were singled in the mid 80s, at least one was slabbed and some were left as they were just clear.

* just getting the 442s to Eastbourne and London Bridge via Norwood Jn was enough to cause a couple of gauging engineers to go grey.

The point I was making was that is just because a certain class of train isn't cleared for a route it doesn't mean that they couldn't be cleared for that route. In the case of the 442's they (as loco hauled coaches) could be used on any route cleared for pretty much any route which has Mark 3 coaches, HST's or any Mark 3 derived MU's. Probably the bigger limiting factor would be loco.

 

[D365]

Would it be worth the 67s being re-geared to give better acceleration (which presumably sacrifice the 125mph top speed)?

It doesn't really matter what happens, it's DBS/Angel Trains money which is going down the pan. If it makes the locos more attractive/competitive for lease, then sure. Plus I've never been aware of this 'top speed' having ever actually been made use of.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

They do have a damn good go at attaining this speed and will do it if the load is light enough. As they are typically used on thunderbird duties they have about as much pulling power as one hst power car. Pulling a rake of 9, dvt and dead 91 with full hotel power demand the have, no chance! A HST cant do 125 on just one power car there just isnt the power.

Regearing to a lower max speed would increase tractive effort at the sacrifice of the top end speed which as you say is rarely acheived, but that is like far too much common sense for the railway.....

 

[AM9]

.... could be used on any route cleared for pretty much any route which has Mark 3 coaches, HST's or any Mark 3 derived MU's. ...

Not quite. ISTR that all MKIII derived MUs are 20m long, so the 442s (like any MKIII LHCS) would need clearance because of their 23m length.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Pleasant speculation, but remember that there are also a few 67s in use in Wales.

Arent they also rumoured to switch to 68's soon?......

(Stress rumoured)

 

[SprinterMan]

Arent they also rumoured to switch to 68's soon?......

(Stress rumoured)

As far as I know, it was only rumoured because of Chiltern switching and 67s will remain for the foreseeable future.

Adam