SWR Class 458 to be retained

[LUYMun]

That was nothing to do with the brakes.

"Dragging brakes" reported on a 458/4 unit leading to it being sent to depot early sounds like a brake issue to me.

 

[WarrenTManager]

"Dragging brakes" reported on a 458/4 unit leading to it being sent to depot early sounds like a brake issue to me.

looks like I sent a completely unrelated component away for nothing then

 

[DelW]

And if SWR does pursue to not renew the same number of 450s for the sake of keeping 458s then it goes to uphold my belief that the management have a tightwad attitude, sacrificing fleet homogeneity and long-term security for short-term cost cutting, alongside choosing 701s over 707s, binning 456s, and opting 442s in the first place.

Surely it will be DfT that makes these decisions now - he who pays the piper calls the tune ... ? Though some of those earlier choices may have been SWR's.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Just because the 450s are expensive to lease/maintain now doesn’t mean the renewal bid won’t be a bit more competitive.

And the renewal bid will be more competitive if there is perceived to be competition in the form of 458/4s.

Post 3364 and 3365 would be of interest, just to name one of several instances of the units having dragging brake issues.

2+2 seating are the sole issue with 450s among members on this thread, so they could've gone for a refresh to get those at cheaper long-term cost than retaining a microfleet. There is literally nothing else but that.

And if SWR does pursue to not renew the same number of 450s for the sake of keeping 458s then it goes to uphold my belief that the management have a tightwad attitude, sacrificing fleet homogeneity and long-term security for short-term cost cutting, alongside choosing 701s over 707s, binning 456s, and opting 442s in the first place.

When does the lease on the 458/4s finish ?. Not going to save much on 450s if SWR are still having to pay a lease on 458/4s !.

 

[WarrenTManager]

Porterbrook, the rolling stock owner and asset manager, today announced that it had signed a £25m contract with Alstom to upgrade one of its most versatile electric train fleets.

The announcement follows the decision by South Western Railway (SWR) to extend the leases on Porterbrook’s award-winning Class 458 fleet until 2027.

Porterbrook awards Alstom £25m fleet upgrade contract · Porterbrook

www.porterbrook.co.uk

 

[TRAX]

Porterbrook, the rolling stock owner and asset manager, today announced that it had signed a £25m contract with Alstom to upgrade one of its most versatile electric train fleets.

The announcement follows the decision by South Western Railway (SWR) to extend the leases on Porterbrook’s award-winning Class 458 fleet until 2027.

Porterbrook awards Alstom £25m fleet upgrade contract · Porterbrook

www.porterbrook.co.uk

That’s from April 2021

 

[DelW]

That’s from April 2021

But it provides the answer to the question in the previous post (3512) - the lease is until 2027.

 

[43096]

But it provides the answer to the question in the previous post (3512) - the lease is until 2027.

Which was what I said in post 3508.

 

[WarrenTManager]

That’s from April 2021

It is. But it answered the question with a document in the public domain rather than posting something that is only in a contract that shouldn’t be disclosed.

 

[Goldfish62]

2+2 seating are the sole issue with 450s among members on this thread, so they could've gone for a refresh to get those at cheaper long-term cost than retaining a microfleet. There is literally nothing else but that.

And if SWR does pursue to not renew the same number of 450s for the sake of keeping 458s then it goes to uphold my belief that the management have a tightwad attitude, sacrificing fleet homogeneity and long-term security for short-term cost cutting, alongside choosing 701s over 707s, binning 456s, and opting 442s in the first place.

I know this forum's dislike of microfleets, but I wouldn't really call 28 units a microfleet.

As for fleet homogeneity isn't that exactly what SWR are doing? 455, 456, 707 all going or gone and replaced by 701, plus initially planned 442 instead replaced by 458/4.

 

[LUYMun]

No, it shows a sensible approach to cost. Why pay two years of lease charges for trains you don't need?

How is it a sensible approach to continue leasing a decrepit fleet of trains to meet the sole objective of having 2+2 seats for Pompey Direct passengers?

I know this forum's dislike of microfleets, but I wouldn't really call 28 units a microfleet.

With a total of 172 trains shared between the Class 444 and 450s, the 458 are indeed a microfleet.

 

[43096]

How is it a sensible approach to continue leasing a decrepit fleet of trains to meet the sole objective of having 2+2 seats for Pompey Direct passengers?

You do realise that SWR have to lease the 458s to 2027? It’s not optional - they have signed a contract.

So to replay it again… how is it sensible to lease two fleets of trains for the same work?

 

[Goldfish62]

How is it a sensible approach to continue leasing a decrepit fleet of trains to meet the sole objective of having 2+2 seats for Pompey Direct passengers?

With a total of 172 trains shared between the Class 444 and 450s, the 458 are indeed a microfleet.

If 28 is a microfleet there's a lot of such fleets all over the country which seem to manage just fine. I presume that the 444 fleet at just 45 units is also a microfleet?

 

[mullinsj08]

I presume that the 444 fleet at just 45 units is also a microfleet?

Anything less than 75 units is a microfleet and should be scrapped immediately!

(Sarcasm, obviously)

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

How is it a sensible approach to continue leasing a decrepit fleet of trains to meet the sole objective of having 2+2 seats for Pompey Direct passengers?

With a total of 172 trains shared between the Class 444 and 450s, the 458 are indeed a microfleet.

They’re a comparatively smaller fleet no doubt, but as I’ve said before, calling 28 trains a microfleet is ridiculous.

 

[Class15]

They’re a comparatively smaller fleet no doubt, but as I’ve said before, calling 28 trains a microfleet is ridiculous.

Exactly. Microfleets are 10 or less in my opinion. 28 is never a microfleet.

 

[LUYMun]

If 28 is a microfleet there's a lot of such fleets all over the country which seem to manage just fine. I presume that the 444 fleet at just 45 units is also a microfleet?

The 444s are part of the Desiro family, which can couple and operate trains with the 450s, hence I’ve bundled them. The 458s can’t do that with either in normal circumstances.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

How is it a sensible approach to continue leasing a decrepit fleet of trains to meet the sole objective of having 2+2 seats for Pompey Direct passengers?

Regrettably this goes back to the 2007 refranchise and a high level decision to remove the 442s from the SW network. The end result, despite some very professional re-diagramming at that time, resulted in SW Weymouth and PDL 444 operated services (as was) being ONE (YES, ONE only) 10 car (444) diagram short, to cover all Weymouth and PDL 1Pxx services as had existed prior to that time.
The result was that ONE morning peak (0713 Portsmouth to Waterloo) and ONE evening peak (1730 Waterloo to Portsmouth) service were rediagrammed to 12 car 450. Both were recorded by both the TOC and the DfT as being loaded well in excess of the legal loadings as laid down at the time. In unit diagram circles (those who understand same) there were a number of other services that were changed in order for the plan to work, but the above specified trains were at the route cause of what still seems be an issue for some. AND NO, I am not going to get in to a prolonged discussion about this after so many years. Some people just need to move on. The whole ball game has changed with Covid etc.

 

[TRAX]

It is. But it answered the question with a document in the public domain rather than posting something that is only in a contract that shouldn’t be disclosed.

Sorry, I wasn’t sure about your point

 

[moley]

Regrettably this goes back to the 2007 refranchise and a high level decision to remove the 442s from the SW network. The end result, despite some very professional re-diagramming at that time, resulted in SW Weymouth and PDL 444 operated services (as was) being ONE (YES, ONE only) 10 car (444) diagram short, to cover all Weymouth and PDL 1Pxx services as had existed prior to that time.
The result was that ONE morning peak (0713 Portsmouth to Waterloo) and ONE evening peak (1730 Waterloo to Portsmouth) service were rediagrammed to 12 car 450. Both were recorded by both the TOC and the DfT as being loaded well in excess of the legal loadings as laid down at the time. In unit diagram circles (those who understand same) there were a number of other services that were changed in order for the plan to work, but the above specified trains were at the route cause of what still seems be an issue for some. AND NO, I am not going to get in to a prolonged discussion about this after so many years. Some people just need to move on. The whole ball game has changed with Covid etc.

I take your point but what passengers got frustrated with was that within a short while, most 1P services were 12 car 450 under the guise of capacity increases. However it was a falisy as most middle seats were not taken and even some doubles only seated one larger passenger due to the missing armrests. Hence no increase in passengers seated but worse conditions for those who were.

 

[swtrains]

It was good to see that today, 3 whole sets of /5s were in use, shame it's so rare now.

503+530
519+533
535+536

The first set was doing the 707 diagram, so I presume they will only run 458/5s on that one on Fridays, when the Surbiton-Waterloo service isn't running.

 

[TEW]

The ex-707 diagram is booked 455 next week.

 

[mansonlo49]

It was good to see that today, 3 whole sets of /5s were in use, shame it's so rare now.

503+530
519+533
535+536

The first set was doing the 707 diagram, so I presume they will only run 458/5s on that one on Fridays, when the Surbiton-Waterloo service isn't running.

Please may I ask is it the next off to Widnes would be 4585??

 

[SWR_DRIVER]

"Dragging brakes" reported on a 458/4 unit leading to it being sent to depot early sounds like a brake issue to me.

I can also confirm it was nothing to do with the brakes. Complete forum speculation.

 

[pompeyfan]

I can also confirm it was nothing to do with the brakes. Complete forum speculation.

It’s RTT getting the cancellation cause confused.

When there was short formed diesel services, it was causing increased dwells. Some local services were cancelled to reduce congestion on the single lines and the reason RTT provided was “train being replaced by a slower train” or a variant of, which didn’t go down well on the passenger action (moaning) group.

 

[swr444]

Multiple 458/4 failures on the 2S services today. I presume it’s to do with severe overcrowding as 458s throw a strop when they’re too heavy. there’s an event on at Gunnersbury park, the district line and overground are closed for engineering works.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

I presume it’s to do with severe overcrowding as 458s throw a strop when they’re too heavy.

I noticed recently that when 458's breaks release, the carriage actually physically falls slightly. At least on this specific unit I was looking at

 

[Mike Machin]

Modify them to run on DC, fit them with the same seats as the 350/1s and sort the Portsmouth Direct line out once and for all.

It won’t happen of course!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2024 ==

Sorry wrong thread!

 

[Goldfish62]

I noticed recently that when 458's breaks release, the carriage actually physically falls slightly. At least on this specific unit I was looking at

Sometimes there's a big thud and a jolt, presumably binding brakes releasing.

 

[swtrains]

The ex-707 diagram is booked 455 next week.

Even Friday? Damn.