SWR Class 458 to be retained

[Invincible]

But haven't we already established that these refurbs were initiated by the ROSCOs rather than the TOCs?

Thanks Pompeyfan for the update.

Looking back and rereading the Railadvent article.
Originally SWR and Angel were to refurbish the 422s for the Portsmouth line to release 450s for fast outer London suburban routes. But the 422s had major problems which included updating the cab.

As SWR were to replace 458s with 701s and return 458s to Porterbrook for scrapping or another operator, they seemed both together to decide the reliable 458s could run as expresses and operate the Portsmouth line, and therefore scrap the 422s.

As the 458 cab was already in use SWR and Porterbrook probably felt the cabs did not need updating.

Seems the drivers and ASLEF were kept out of the plan until the trains are ready for testing. In Europe work/management councils means employees and unions tend to be consulted in plans more earlier.

Presume ASLEF member drivers will be doing the first 3 refurbished 458 units night testing to see if they are suitable as Portsmouth expresses alongside 444s, and allow 450s to be released to other parts of the SWR network?.

But if DfT predicts future lower demand means large numbers of 701s and 450/444s may not be needed SWR could have too many EMU trains, and Porterbrook and Alstom have signed a contract for the 458s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

422s?! Did they find a flux capacitor in the back of Bournemouth depot?

 

[swr444]

There’s talk of the refurbed units returning to the suburban network to fill the gap of the 707s

 

[pompeyfan]

There’s talk of the refurbed units returning to the suburban network to fill the gap of the 707s

I can’t see that happening as the cabs would need a refurbishment for ASLEF to agree to drive them. That involves money that the DfT need to release.

The lack of 707s is actually accounted for, as the 458s only had something like 12 diagrams. Their work intensity has gone up to something like 20 diagrams for 30 units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2023 ==

Presume ASLEF member drivers will be doing the first 3 refurbished 458 units night testing to see if they are suitable as Portsmouth expresses alongside 444s, and allow 450s to be released to other parts of the SWR network?.

But if DfT predicts future lower demand means large numbers of 701s and 450/444s may not be needed SWR could have too many EMU trains, and Porterbrook and Alstom have signed a contract for the 458s.

ASLEF drivers, as well as various managers with the relevant competencies will be doing the FFR, but it will not be to evaluate them, it’ll be to stretch their legs (wheels), tick a box to say they achieved x amount of miles fault free, then back into storage. As it stands the DfT believe the Pompey direct doesn’t warrant 3 tph (as was pre Covid) let alone 4 tph which is what the 442s were planned for.

With various suburban and Windsor services not returning since Covid, I wouldn’t be surprised if 701s eventually worked some Alton and Basingstoke services to free up 450s (this last bit is pure speculation on my behalf)

 

[Goldfish62]

I can’t see that happening as the cabs would need a refurbishment for ASLEF to agree to drive them. That involves money that the DfT need to release.

So we'd potentially have the bizarre situation of drivers driving 458/5s but refusing to drive 458/4s with identical cabs on the same routes and same services.

Sometimes I wonder how the railways manage to get any trains at all out into service each day.

 

[43096]

So we'd potentially have the bizarre situation of drivers driving 458/5s but refusing to drive 458/4s with identical cabs on the same routes and same services.

Sometimes I wonder how the railways manage to get any trains at all out into service each day.

More evidence that the railway just keeps disappearing further up its own fundamental orifice. It frankly doesn’t deserve to exist if this sort of barmy nonsense carries on.

 

[pompeyfan]

So we'd potentially have the bizarre situation of drivers driving 458/5s but refusing to drive 458/4s with identical cabs on the same routes and same services.

Sometimes I wonder how the railways manage to get any trains at all out into service each day.

That is a possibility but where 458/4s are classed as “new” trains, ASLEF can insist on cab work. It’s the TUs mandate to insist on better conditions for its members, that potentially includes trains that now don’t meet their current requirements. I agree on the face of it, it is bonkers, but I get the principles behind it.

On a side note, but related, had SWR received the 350s and converted them to make the cab identical to the 444/450, I wonder whether they would have been accepted or if the same issue would occur?

 

[cav1975]

As a mere passenger I can't understand why SWR are persisting with using inner suburban seated 450s on Portsmouth express services. Yesterday I travelled from Rainham (Kent) to Portsmouth and back. The journey out was using SouthEastern 375, Southern 377 & SWR 450s. On the way back using Southern 377 & SouthEastern 375. Both the Southern & SouthEastern trains have comfortable 2+2 seating with tables while SWR can't be bothered to provide arm rests, comfortable seats or tables. from my point of view improved London-Portsmouth trains can't come soon enough but then I'm only a fare paying passenger so my views don't count.

 

[swt_passenger]

As a mere passenger I can't understand why SWR are persisting with using inner suburban seated 450s on Portsmouth express services. Yesterday I travelled from Rainham (Kent) to Portsmouth and back. The journey out was using SouthEastern 375, Southern 377 & SWR 450s. On the way back using Southern 377 & SouthEastern 375. Both the Southern & SouthEastern trains have comfortable 2+2 seating with tables while SWR can't be bothered to provide arm rests, comfortable seats or tables. from my point of view improved London-Portsmouth trains can't come soon enough but then I'm only a fare paying passenger so my views don't count.

It’s because in one of the franchise specs some years ago DFT insisted on a specific number of seats per service on the Portsmouth route that SWT proposed could only be achieved using 12 car 450s. DfT agreed with that proposal. The seating isn’t inner suburban, that would normally be 2+2 in the SW area, it’s probably considered outer suburban.

 

[pompeyfan]

As a mere passenger I can't understand why SWR are persisting with using inner suburban seated 450s on Portsmouth express services. Yesterday I travelled from Rainham (Kent) to Portsmouth and back. The journey out was using SouthEastern 375, Southern 377 & SWR 450s. On the way back using Southern 377 & SouthEastern 375. Both the Southern & SouthEastern trains have comfortable 2+2 seating with tables while SWR can't be bothered to provide arm rests, comfortable seats or tables. from my point of view improved London-Portsmouth trains can't come soon enough but then I'm only a fare paying passenger so my views don't count.

The DfT have been told before that seats are more important, especially from Haslemere upwards. In a hypothetical situation where 30 or so 450s are converted to a 2+2 or even hybrid with 2+2 on the outer vehicles, the number of lost seats would never be politically acceptable no matter who is in power.

 

[Goldfish62]

That is a possibility but where 458/4s are classed as “new” trains, ASLEF can insist on cab work. It’s the TUs mandate to insist on better conditions for its members, that potentially includes trains that now don’t meet their current requirements. I agree on the face of it, it is bonkers, but I get the principles behind it.

Likewise. I recognise that it's connected with ASLEF's quest for cabs to be upgraded at the same time as passenger saloons and I can't argue with that stance. It just seems to be poor old SWR that is continually in the firing line with so many issues that it feels like it's just getting left behind as an operation all the time.

 

[Mikey C]

Likewise. I recognise that it's connected with ASLEF's quest for cabs to be upgraded at the same time as passenger saloons and I can't argue with that stance. It just seems to be poor old SWR that is continually in the firing line with so many issues that it feels like it's just getting left behind as an operation all the time.

The public are paying to ride on the trains, the drivers are paid to drive the trains, a massive difference.

Maybe there needs to be an independent body to judge whether a cab is acceptable or not, to avoid these ridiculous situations.

 

[Kite159]

.

The public are paying to ride on the trains, the drivers are paid to drive the trains, a massive difference.

Maybe there needs to be an independent body to judge whether a cab is acceptable or not, to avoid these ridiculous situations.

Or a trip to the high court to determine why ASLEF have been happy for drivers to drive the 458/5s but all of a sudden the cab isn't suitable as a 4 coach unit.

Although no doubt any issues will magically disappear if they get extra money, but that's the way of the railway.

 

[Tynwald]

The hvac is soprano I believe

 

[pompeyfan]

.

Or a trip to the high court to determine why ASLEF have been happy for drivers to drive the 458/5s but all of a sudden the cab isn't suitable as a 4 coach unit.

Although no doubt any issues will magically disappear if they get extra money, but that's the way of the railway.

As I said, standards and requirements change. 159s, 455 and 458s are in regular traffic but if they were introduced now they’d never meet approval.

 

[Roast Veg]

This is not an uncommon occurrence - if the trains are refurbished the TU expectation is that the cabs should also receive some consideration.

 

[Goldfish62]

As I said, standards and requirements change. 159s, 455 and 458s are in regular traffic but if they were introduced now they’d never meet approval.

Degrees of reasonableness. I'm sure ASLEF wouldn't expect a 2023 cab/drivers desk on a train designed in 1997. However, something like a cab repaint, new driver's seat, overhauled cab aircon and any water leak repairs all sound reasonable asks to me.

 

[DennisM]

.

Or a trip to the high court to determine why ASLEF have been happy for drivers to drive the 458/5s but all of a sudden the cab isn't suitable as a 4 coach unit.

Although no doubt any issues will magically disappear if they get extra money, but that's the way of the railway.

In their current state the 458s are probably just a few years behind the 455s in terms of needing to be gotten rid of, noticeably tired and shabby compared to the 450s & 707s they work alongside on the Windsor lines. If the decision is made to throw money at these trains to add another 10 years of their life then why is it unreasonable that staff might expect improvements to their working areas too. Would you also insist that an office worker be expected to continue using their monitor from the year 2000 in 2023 because it was good enough back then?

Edit: It’s funny how unions are often accused of getting in the way of ‘progress’ and ‘modernisation’, but when they are the ones asking for these things it suddenly becomes militancy

 

[DelW]

Sorry to sound naive here, if SWR do not intend to put them in servivce, what is the point of repainting them into SWR colours

Your comment makes it sound like they are spending millions to turn them into ornaments parked in sidings

They almost certainly are - just like the retractioned, refurbished, repainted GWR 769s which are sitting rusting away in the weeds somewhere, never having carried a single passenger.

We are told that money is so short that services which are so overcrowded that they leave passengers behind on platforms cannot have extra stock. Yet millions are being wasted working on these trains which are never going to be of any use to anyone. It seems that no-one has the authority to pull the plug and end this charade.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The public are paying to ride on the trains, the drivers are paid to drive the trains, a massive difference.

Maybe there needs to be an independent body to judge whether a cab is acceptable or not, to avoid these ridiculous situations.

Very well said

 

[pompeyfan]

Degrees of reasonableness. I'm sure ASLEF wouldn't expect a 2023 cab/drivers desk on a train designed in 1997. However, something like a cab repaint, new driver's seat, overhauled cab aircon and any water leak repairs all sound reasonable asks to me.

Can’t disagree with any of that but not sure on how ASLEF would view it. I’m sure one of the many SWR drivers that frequent this forum could shed some light.

 

[The_Train]

Because the contracts were already signed and clearly the cancellation penalty was more than the value of the contract.

The money has already been spent, but the downturn in revenue (not passenger numbers) means the DfT don’t want to fund their introduction.

Night testing and FFR on the refurbished units begins within the next month. Mainly Bournemouth to Basingstoke and Bournemouth to Guildford.

So there is funding for this refurbishment but not to then actually introduce the refurbed units into service?

And on top of that, we are then sending the units out for testing/FFR despite the fact that nobody is going to use them in service.

You have to love this country (and by love, I mean absolutely despise)

 

[Goldfish62]

So there is funding for this refurbishment but not to then actually introduce the refurbed units into service?

And on top of that, we are then sending the units out for testing/FFR despite the fact that nobody is going to use them in service.

You have to love this country (and by love, I mean absolutely despise)

And it's not as if any other TOC is likely to be wanting to touch them with a barge pole.

 

[swr444]

So there is funding for this refurbishment but not to then actually introduce the refurbed units into service?

And on top of that, we are then sending the units out for testing/FFR despite the fact that nobody is going to use them in service.

You have to love this country (and by love, I mean absolutely despise)

Not to mention they’re being sent off whilst there’s no replacements in the current fleet, meaning services which had 10 coaches now only have 8. At a time where we need more 10 coach services

 

[lumitumey12345]

So all 36 SWR 458s are to be binned then?

 

[WarrenTManager]

The lack of 707s is actually accounted for, as the 458s only had something like 12 diagrams. Their work intensity has gone up to something like 20 diagrams for 30 units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2023 ==

Was 19. Now 25.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2023 ==

The hvac is soprano I believe

The HVAC is Air International with Soprano PLCs. Soprano went bust a few years ago so other companies had to step into the breach to repair them. The 334s changed to a Knorr-Bremse HVAC system with remote monitoring circa 2016.

 

[Bigfoot]

Degrees of reasonableness. I'm sure ASLEF wouldn't expect a 2023 cab/drivers desk on a train designed in 1997. However, something like a cab repaint, new driver's seat, overhauled cab aircon and any water leak repairs all sound reasonable asks to me.

This is essentially what is required. The cabs are barely changed/updated since their introduction in 1998 except for a few control modifications and repositioning.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This is essentially what is required. The cabs are barely changed/updated since their introduction in 1998 except for a few control modifications and repositioning.

SR EP stock was in use for best part of 40 years with same cabs! Anyhow underlying issue here is the chasm between management and unions such that they are only consulted after it’s too late. This is down to First to manage so if I was DfT I would withhold any fees to SWR for overseeing the 458 refurbishment until they were suitable for passenger use.

 

[Bigfoot]

SR EP stock was in use for best part of 40 years with same cabs!

It doesn't mean that it should have been. Those drivers could also smoke and drink, shall we allow that to occur now because it did historically because it was acceptable to that period of history?

 

[Goldfish62]

It doesn't mean that it should have been. Those drivers could also smoke and drink, shall we allow that to occur now because it did historically because it was acceptable to that period of history?

And the 4 SUBs didn't even have speedometers let alone AWS!