SouthEastern fleet replacement updates

[brad465]

Plus there are Met Camm 465/2s and 466s which didn't benefit from the 465/9 work

Which will be why the 2s are in storage with the prospect of a return to service unlikely.

 

[Mikey C]

Which will be why the 2s are in storage with the prospect of a return to service unlikely.

They've not been permanently withdrawn though. When the 377s return to Southern, and 465/9s start wandering out into deepest Kent, they may well be needed, especially if SWR can't spare all the 707s.

I was on an 8 car train the other day made up of a 465 and two 466s.

 

[brad465]

465s still work to Ashford via Maidstone East (weekdays) and to Dover via Faversham (Sundays) from December. As well as some of the 1G's on weekdays from Faversham to Cannon St.

Do you know what diagrams these will be? The Frequently Requested Diagrams thread used to detail the 465 Dover diagrams pre-covid so maybe worth adding to it from December. I'm assuming the Faversham (and Gillingham)-CST diagrams are the same as the current ones as the timings don't appear to have changed.

 

[SolomonSouth]

Internally the /9s are by far the best for passengers after their 2005 revamp even excluding the first class. Brighter colours and less filthy. The rest are pretty awful inside - though underneath should be much better.

Actually /9s are more reliable - see an earlier post of mine with a screenshot. They were always more reliable anyways otherwise they would’ve been fitted with Hitachi back in 2009. But they weren’t- meaning that they must have simply been better.

 

[SolomonSouth]

Plus there are Met Camm 465/2s and 466s which didn't benefit from the 465/9 work

All 465/2s have been stored for a long time already

 

[urpert]

Actually /9s are more reliable - see an earlier post of mine with a screenshot. They were always more reliable anyways otherwise they would’ve been fitted with Hitachi back in 2009. But they weren’t- meaning that they must have simply been better.

I remember reading that the Met-Camm Networkers were much more reliable in traction terms, but the doors were more fragile (they are a significantly different design) which balanced things out!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

but the doors were more fragile (they are a significantly different design) which balanced things out!

Probably explains why they close very softly, whereas the 465/0/1 doors slam shut very quickly and clumsily.

 

[43066]

Actually /9s are more reliable - see an earlier post of mine with a screenshot. They were always more reliable anyways otherwise they would’ve been fitted with Hitachi back in 2009. But they weren’t- meaning that they must have simply been better.

That was indeed the case originally but I’m sure I remember hearing the Hitachi equipped BRELs bettered the Metcams for reliability. Not sure if there are any stats publicly available to prove this either way, though.

 

[gmaguire]

Actually /9s are more reliable - see an earlier post of mine with a screenshot. They were always more reliable anyways otherwise they would’ve been fitted with Hitachi back in 2009. But they weren’t- meaning that they must have simply been better.

I read on here that Hitachi were interested in upgrading the 365s, which of course had very similar traction equipment to the Metro Cammell 465s. Apparently Hitachi needed detailed technical info on how the GEC system worked, which Alstom had but were unwilling to share with Hitachi. Otherwise the Met Cam 465s may have received the Hitachi equipment as well, and that would have enabled regenerative braking.

I remember reading that the Met-Camm Networkers were much more reliable in traction terms, but the doors were more fragile (they are a significantly different design) which balanced things out!

Are they Faiveley doors, like on the 458s, which have also suffered door problems?

 

[SolomonSouth]

I read on here that Hitachi were interested in upgrading the 365s, which of course had very similar traction equipment to the Metro Cammell 465s. Apparently Hitachi needed detailed technical info on how the GEC system worked, which Alstom had but were unwilling to share with Hitachi. Otherwise the Met Cam 465s may have received the Hitachi equipment as well, and that would have enabled regenerative braking.

Maybe but I have heard multiple times that the reason they weren't retractioned is because they were simply more reliable than the BREL units

 

[hwl]

Maybe but I have heard multiple times that the reason they weren't retractioned is because they were simply more reliable than the BREL units

I read on here that Hitachi were interested in upgrading the 365s, which of course had very similar traction equipment to the Metro Cammell 465s. Apparently Hitachi needed detailed technical info on how the GEC system worked, which Alstom had but were unwilling to share with Hitachi. Otherwise the Met Cam 465s may have received the Hitachi equipment as well, and that would have enabled regenerative braking.


Are they Faiveley doors, like on the 458s, which have also suffered door problems?

A few points:

• The BREL 465 0/ & /1 (and ABB-GEC tractioned 365s) units are (were) owned by Eversholt, the GEC-Alsthom 465 2/& /9 & 466 units are owned by Angel. Ownership is the biggest factor on something being done or not here. (Angel are the least likely of the original three ROSCOs to actually do anything)
• The BREL units had one common failure mode in the traction equipment and replacing that particular bit of Brush equipment, made them more reliable than the GEC-Alstom units in the pre-Covid decade.
• The 465 retractioning by Hitachi was very cheap because Hitachi wanted to gain expertise with British 3rd rail inorder to bid for the HS1 compatible rolling stock contract (with Eversholt), which they won with the 395s. Any subsequent orders probably wouldn't have been so competitively priced.
• Eversholt have been the most pro-retractioning ROSCO over the years e.g. Renatus 321, hydrogen trials, battery Renatus. Contrast with Angel's 442 nightmares.
• The GEC-Alstom electrical equipment on the 365, some 465, 466s isn't compliant with current EMC directives and other certification requirements for new stock.
• Alstom largely closed the office and plant responsible for the Networker equipment. Lots of info is MIA.
• GEC-Alstom regen on 465s doesn't work this leaves SE with higher operating costs for the 465/2 /9 and 466, this plays into the total cost of ownership assessment vs new stock.

The 465 that have been store are largely the known lemon units or those with high mileages needing a major overhaul. They also happen to be mostly GEC-Alsthom units, if you remove the known worst units from the 465/2, /9 and 466 fleets, then the average for the remainder should improve.

 

[SolomonSouth]

A few points:

• The BREL 465 0/ & /1 (and ABB-GEC tractioned 365s) units are (were) owned by Eversholt, the GEC-Alsthom 465 2/& /9 & 466 units are owned by Angel. Ownership is the biggest factor on something being done or not here. (Angel are the least likely of the original three ROSCOs to actually do anything)
• The BREL units had one common failure mode in the traction equipment and replacing that particular bit of Brush equipment, made them more reliable than the GEC-Alstom units in the pre-Covid decade.
• The 465 retractioning by Hitachi was very cheap because Hitachi wanted to gain expertise with British 3rd rail inorder to bid for the HS1 compatible rolling stock contract (with Eversholt), which they won with the 395s. Any subsequent orders probably wouldn't have been so competitively priced.
• Eversholt have been the most pro-retractioning ROSCO over the years e.g. Renatus 321, hydrogen trials, battery Renatus. Contrast with Angel's 442 nightmares.
• The GEC-Alstom electrical equipment on the 365, some 465, 466s isn't compliant with current EMC directives and other certification requirements for new stock.
• Alstom largely closed the office and plant responsible for the Networker equipment. Lots of info is MIA.
• GEC-Alstom regen on 465s doesn't work this leaves SE with higher operating costs for the 465/2 /9 and 466, this plays into the total cost of ownership assessment vs new stock.

The 465 that have been store are largely the known lemon units or those with high mileages needing a major overhaul. They also happen to be mostly GEC-Alsthom units, if you remove the known worst units from the 465/2, /9 and 466 fleets, then the average for the remainder should improve.

All 465/2s are stored, and a couple of 466s, though I don't think any /9s are at present.

 

[gmaguire]

A few points:

• The BREL 465 0/ & /1 (and ABB-GEC tractioned 365s) units are (were) owned by Eversholt, the GEC-Alsthom 465 2/& /9 & 466 units are owned by Angel. Ownership is the biggest factor on something being done or not here. (Angel are the least likely of the original three ROSCOs to actually do anything)
• The BREL units had one common failure mode in the traction equipment and replacing that particular bit of Brush equipment, made them more reliable than the GEC-Alstom units in the pre-Covid decade.
• The 465 retractioning by Hitachi was very cheap because Hitachi wanted to gain expertise with British 3rd rail inorder to bid for the HS1 compatible rolling stock contract (with Eversholt), which they won with the 395s. Any subsequent orders probably wouldn't have been so competitively priced.
• Eversholt have been the most pro-retractioning ROSCO over the years e.g. Renatus 321, hydrogen trials, battery Renatus. Contrast with Angel's 442 nightmares.
• The GEC-Alstom electrical equipment on the 365, some 465, 466s isn't compliant with current EMC directives and other certification requirements for new stock.
• Alstom largely closed the office and plant responsible for the Networker equipment. Lots of info is MIA.
• GEC-Alstom regen on 465s doesn't work this leaves SE with higher operating costs for the 465/2 /9 and 466, this plays into the total cost of ownership assessment vs new stock.

The 465 that have been store are largely the known lemon units or those with high mileages needing a major overhaul. They also happen to be mostly GEC-Alsthom units, if you remove the known worst units from the 465/2, /9 and 466 fleets, then the average for the remainder should improve.

Thanks. I suppose it would have made little sense for Angel to upgrade their 465s and 466s when they were basically fine. I just thought that if Eversholt and Hitachi had done the hard bit of working out how to do the upgrade, Angel may have been interested for one or two of the reasons you outlined. Of course this was in the late 2000s, when these units may have had more of a future.

Also, Alstom simply losing the technical info on the GEC traction rather than having it and not being willing to share it does seem likely.

 

[hwl]

Thanks. I suppose it would have made little sense for Angel to upgrade their 465s and 466s when they were basically fine. I just thought that if Eversholt and Hitachi had done the hard bit of working out how to do the upgrade, Angel may have been interested for one or two of the reasons you outlined. Of course this was in the late 2000s, when these units may have had more of a future.

Also, Alstom simply losing the technical info on the GEC traction rather than having it and not being willing to share it does seem likely.

Eversholt have effectively ensured that their 465s are more likely to be retained long term with the retractioning.

 

[Mikey C]

A few points:

• The BREL 465 0/ & /1 (and ABB-GEC tractioned 365s) units are (were) owned by Eversholt, the GEC-Alsthom 465 2/& /9 & 466 units are owned by Angel. Ownership is the biggest factor on something being done or not here. (Angel are the least likely of the original three ROSCOs to actually do anything)
• The BREL units had one common failure mode in the traction equipment and replacing that particular bit of Brush equipment, made them more reliable than the GEC-Alstom units in the pre-Covid decade.
• The 465 retractioning by Hitachi was very cheap because Hitachi wanted to gain expertise with British 3rd rail inorder to bid for the HS1 compatible rolling stock contract (with Eversholt), which they won with the 395s. Any subsequent orders probably wouldn't have been so competitively priced.
• Eversholt have been the most pro-retractioning ROSCO over the years e.g. Renatus 321, hydrogen trials, battery Renatus. Contrast with Angel's 442 nightmares.
• The GEC-Alstom electrical equipment on the 365, some 465, 466s isn't compliant with current EMC directives and other certification requirements for new stock.
• Alstom largely closed the office and plant responsible for the Networker equipment. Lots of info is MIA.
• GEC-Alstom regen on 465s doesn't work this leaves SE with higher operating costs for the 465/2 /9 and 466, this plays into the total cost of ownership assessment vs new stock.

The 465 that have been store are largely the known lemon units or those with high mileages needing a major overhaul. They also happen to be mostly GEC-Alsthom units, if you remove the known worst units from the 465/2, /9 and 466 fleets, then the average for the remainder should improve.

Don't the Jubilee Line trains have similar electrical equipment to the Alstom Networkers, so it's not as if they're a completely orphan fleet?

 

[SolomonSouth]

Don't the Jubilee Line trains have similar electrical equipment to the Alstom Networkers, so it's not as if they're a completely orphan fleet?

Yes, as do the Northern Line 1995 stock (all 3 have GEC motors)

 

[Mikey C]

Yes, as do the Northern Line 1995 stock (all 3 have GEC motors)

The 1995 stock uses next generation ONIX equipment, hence they sound different!

 

[7209]

Just a note re. the 20-mile battery capability spec - from memory this was a recommendation from the investigation into the St Johns/Lewisham incident when 2 separate 8 car formations got stuck in the snow. I believe one of them gapped the 3rd rail, whilst the other simply couldn't pick up current in the show. This led to both being stranded for at least an hour and passengers then forced the doors open and alighted onto the tracks. Cue BTP, Met, ambulance, fire brigade and any SE member of staff in the area all attending.

So, whilst it may come in handy for stabling purposes (or any services over non-3rd rail track), that will simply be a bonus.

 

[gmaguire]

Just a note re. the 20-mile battery capability spec - from memory this was a recommendation from the investigation into the St Johns/Lewisham incident when 2 separate 8 car formations got stuck in the snow. I believe one of them gapped the 3rd rail, whilst the other simply couldn't pick up current in the show. This led to both being stranded for at least an hour and passengers then forced the doors open and alighted onto the tracks. Cue BTP, Met, ambulance, fire brigade and any SE member of staff in the area all attending.

So, whilst it may come in handy for stabling purposes (or any services over non-3rd rail track), that will simply be a bonus.

The battery power will definitely come in handy when the power fails. A few years ago I was on a Bexleyheath train from Victoria, which had to be diverted to Bromley South because the power failed around Lewisham. I bailed at Catford Bridge and got a bus the rest of the way.

I’m assuming they can’t run trains on battery power through an area where there is a trespasser on the track.

 

[SolomonSouth]

The 1995 stock uses next generation ONIX equipment, hence they sound different!

They use ONIX IGBTs but have 3-phase GEC motors, according to Wikipedia

 

[Busman]

No. Single 465s now due to 466s not having a universal toilet.



Not that I’ve heard of.



Has closure/conversion to a busway ever been seriously suggested? More than likely it’ll continue as now with a single unit of new stock.

I'd imagine it would be treated the same as the Rominster line.

 

[brad465]

So the deadline has passed for responding to the tender notice, now the wait begins to find out what results. The invitation to negotiate is meant to be decided before the end of next year, though I presume if a new fleet is approved they'll want it sorted sooner rather than later to try and meet this October 2027 deadline.

 

[ScotGG]

I'm guessing no new stock will arrive by 2027 and Networkers will be around until 2030-2032 but refurbished.

 

[Class 466]

Worth remebering this is only an exercise to see if it offers value for money, nothing could come of it! Judging by the happenings on the 458 thread, I woudn't be surprised if nothing substantial happened at all.

 

[43066]

I'm guessing no new stock will arrive by 2027 and Networkers will be around until 2030-2032 but refurbished.

Here’s hoping!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Here’s hoping!

Why would you hope for that?

 

[Mikey C]

Personally, unless there are major mechanical or structural issues with the Networkers, I don't see the urgency to replace them.

They desperately need refurbishment though, and surely the 707s and Covid/WFH downturn will give the slack to do that.

 

[cactustwirly]

Why would you hope for that?

The Networkers are decent trains, just need a bit of TLC

They have the smoothest ride of all the EMUs, comfortable seats and are really warm

 

[43066]

Why would you hope for that?

They’re perfectly decent trains, and would be completely transformed with a decent refresh, which is long overdue. There’s some historical interest to them being amongst the dwindling number of ex BR trains still plying the network, then you have the differences between the BREL/METCAM subclasses.

They also add a bit of character to an increasingly bland railway. Pretty much everything else on the southern region third rail network is an Electrostar or Desiro derivative.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Dec 2022 ==

and are really warm

Like furnaces! A little too warm for me, I must admit, even when it’s as cold out as it is today.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They’re perfectly decent trains, and would be completely transformed with a decent refresh, which is long overdue. There’s some historical interest to them being amongst the dwindling number of ex BR trains still plying the network, then you have the differences between the BREL/METCAM subclasses.

They also add a bit of character to an increasingly bland railway. Pretty much everything else on the southern region third rail network is an Electrostar or Desiro derivative.

I don't particularly like them, but I do think Southeastern would be rather boring without them.

Like furnaces! A little too warm for me, I must admit, even when it’s as cold out as it is today.

I haven't noticed this myself but have on the Pendolinos which often tend to be very stuffy.