Nah, the 458/5s will run out of miles before the 455s. They'll come up to their C6 and they'll be binned to Long Marston. They'll be gone by Early-Mid 2026, 455s(the ones in the best condition), will be retained until the Arterios are all in service which could be by 2027, so. Make of that what you will.
I haven't really travelled on a 458/5 but am perfectly happy with 444s to Portsmouth thanks :
I presume they cost more to run than the 701s, also probably more in maintenance after the re-geared motors.
Again, do you have a source for this, because the last we’ve been told by reputable forumers who work for SWR is that every effort is being made for enough 701s to enter service for the 455s to be gone for the December timetable change? I’m suspicious as to what is fact here, and what might be something you’ve seen on a Facebook group or the like.
I'm pretty sure his sources are made up, he's done this stuff in many discord servers and most people just started ignoring him as hes essentially spouting garbage.
Yes, it’s starting to get tedious.
As a quick recap of stuff in the public domain from more official sources - though not particularly recent. The lease on the 458/4s was until August 2027 from the First MTR contract agreement, the DfT operator hasn't published a new contract for the 458s so very likely it has inherited the contract from its predecessor. All other fleets have been extended in full until at least 2028 by the new operator.Really there's so much baseless speculation on this thread that I wouldn't be shocked if it was in the speculative discussion subforum.
In all seriousness, it would be helpful if we could give sources, even if they're not necessarily reliable. I don't think it's just me who'd rather read "I heard it from a guard I know" or something like that.
My uncle is a driver at SWR who is signed on 458s; he says he believes that they'll either end up being based at Fratton (presumably for PDL work) or scrapped. Whether or not that's up to date knowledge, I don't know.
They didn't wait 18 months to cut the services after Covid started, and the timetable is not fundamentally different to that in place Dec2019.
Although it's been stated by both Hendy and Haines that the recast is happening there are those on these forums who with what appears to be inside knowledge claim that it's not happening.
ASDO is fine at smaller stops, but terminals, stations with pointwork shortly before/after the platforms, stations where the trains where may need to reverse and probably others that pose problems. So it is more than just Waterloo that would be a showstopper. I’m sure they did look into it, albeit too late really
It's at the terminus that problems occur. The Southern Railway rebuilt some stations with 820 feet platforms (when joining units was likely), but some were bit more cramped and were nearer 800 feet. Fine for triple 4COR units 3x265=795 feet
The potential issue of 12 car 458 is not about platform lengths/passenger door operation in the context you mention. It's about signal sighting for the driver of any such formation at Waterloo and Portsmouth Harbour. There are only three platforms at Waterloo, and two at Portsmouth Harbour that can accommodate such a formation, and allow the driver to see the departure signal aspect from his/her seated position in the cab. At all other platforms the signal will be so close to, and above the train, that the driver can not see it.
The 450s replaced some of the 442s but have been recently refurbished with 2+3 seating.
450s always had 2+3 seating. The "refurbishment" was just new seat covers and a few other bits of cosmetic work
So they could have changed the seats in the 450s, but presume did not as the use of 458s was expected?
There was never any plan to convert the 450s to 2+2 seating irrespective of the 458s. The refurbishment was new seat cushions and covers, plus carpets, and relocating and reducing the 1st Class area. The 127 450s are used right across the SWR network, mainly on outer suburban services.
This is not the only place that such material is 'shared'.
The 5 car conversion changed their gearing and maximum speed to 75mph, which wouldn't work on the Pompey Direct services, this was the whole reason they were reduced back to 4 in the first place: to allow a 90-100mph top speed again.
While that's true, one thing that has changed is that there's now only one 1Pxx per hour, instead of every half hour as previously, so the 2Pxx's are now 50% of the service (although timings will tend to push through passengers onto the class 1s).
Would have thought this would be part of the risk assessment before the 458 refurbishment was given the go ahead.!!!
It’s the same organisation that came up with the 442 fiasco. You weren’t expecting a different outcome were you?!
That is so currently, but one would hope 2 x 1P p/h would resume at some stage, but as Stephen42 has mentioned up thread, it would seem SWR are 'watching this space' as to loadings etc going forward before making a decision. May be a lesson learnt perhaps?
Not so much my expectations, rather just experience of planning matters in past times and what were certain ideals and disciplines (in addition to laid down rules) that formed the structure(s) of a robust timetable. PS: I always believed (still do) that a passenger's first priority when using a train, is its punctuality, and that only comes about if the TT is a robust one, with a minimum of risk built in.
There is a system called PRojects IN Controlled Environments (Prince2) which the DfT ( or interim GBR) should get all involved to follow.It’s the same organisation that came up with the 442 fiasco. You weren’t expecting a different outcome were you?!
