Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
There are three 458/5s still in service and they're not being converted. All three are usually in service daily Mon-Fri.
Suggestions in previous posts are that they'll continue until they need overhauls, have a significant failure, or simply won't be required anymore. Either way, I'd think not much into next year, but what do I know?!
Real-time train running information for 5X95 1217 departure from Wimbledon Park Depot Sdgs to Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D on 31/10/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.
Real-time train running information for 5X95 1217 departure from Wimbledon Park Depot Sdgs to Bournemouth T&R.S.M.D on 31/10/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.
if RTT is right, then 535 is now running single as the only /5 out today... must be fun for the passengers (the pair has been downgraded to a 455 pair)
if RTT is right, then 535 is now running single as the only /5 out today... must be fun for the passengers (the pair has been downgraded to a 455 pair)
That single 458/5 is diagrammed, has been since May. Reading in the mornings, Hounslow / Weybridge in the afternoon/evenings. And yes, it's cosy! Not as bad as when it's substituted with a single 455 though...
That single 458/5 is diagrammed, has been since May. Reading in the mornings, Hounslow / Weybridge in the afternoon/evenings. And yes, it's cosy! Not as bad as when it's substituted with a single 455 though...
535 is the only one out again today, went on it today, it is quite cosy! I do wonder, what is happening with 530/533, today 5709/5852 ran their diagram.
535 is the only one out again today, went on it today, it is quite cosy! I do wonder, what is happening with 530/533, today 5709/5852 ran their diagram.
No, there are inherent issues with 12 car clearances for signals apparently. Running as 8 car formations seems futile as units would be diagram restricted. It’s a bloody shame that (if the clearance issues are true) due diligence wasn’t carried out before the retractioned 442s were withdrawn with no credible replacement plan to ensure the Portsmouth Direct gets a suitable mode of traction. Personally I don’t see why the 450s have such a bad press, after all the VEPs operated a large number of WAT to PMH trains, but the issue was raised years ago re 3 by 2 seating and SWT/SWR have been reluctant to tell the commuter to effectively shut up moaning about it (which IMO they should, the Ports direct has never been and never will be in the same intercity league as the Weymouth fasts)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Had SWR or more likely the DfT decided to keep the 458s as 458/5s and had some sort of miracle “greyhounding” them to 90mph running, I suspect they would have had a slimmer chance of appearing on the Portsmouth services. Better to keep hold of the 458/4s dedicated to Windsor/Reading trains and possibly overspill for shorter formation Arterio substitute trains. They’re good units it would be a shame to see the back of them. But the Arterio project is far more wide ranging than a 455 replacement. So the future looks bleak for these “cats”. I call them that as they seem to have nine lives
The VEPs were used predominantly on Portsmouth semi-fasts and stoppers 82-83 headcodes. The booked stock for Portsmouth fasts 81 headcode was CIG and BEP stock. I used to be involved in ensuring the correct stock was on each service.
The easiest and quickest solution to the Portsmouth line dilemma, in my opinion, would be to reseat 450100-127 (28 units) with 2x2 seating specifically for the Fast services on that route. This could be a sub-class and used on other services between peaks.
No, there are inherent issues with 12 car clearances for signals apparently. Running as 8 car formations seems futile as units would be diagram restricted. It’s a bloody shame that (if the clearance issues are true) due diligence wasn’t carried out before the retractioned 442s were withdrawn with no credible replacement plan to ensure the Portsmouth Direct gets a suitable mode of traction. Personally I don’t see why the 450s have such a bad press, after all the VEPs operated a large number of WAT to PMH trains, but the issue was raised years ago re 3 by 2 seating and SWT/SWR have been reluctant to tell the commuter to effectively shut up moaning about it (which IMO they should, the Ports direct has never been and never will be in the same intercity league as the Weymouth fasts)
The whole “Portsmouth line passengers don’t like 450s” has been going on for years, in fact since the 442s were removed from SWT. They were essentially told to shut up and stop moaning at the time, but the discontent rumbled on.
I don’t get why they don’t just make a 2+2 pool of 450s and use them on the route, which would seem to keep everyone happy.
I can get the fuss being made, as 6 people in a bay of 6 isn’t fun, especially on a fairly long journey. Wasn’t the issue at the time that the seats were needed to cater for people from Guildford?
I'm on a 450 heading to Portsmouth now. The 3+2 seating is tolerable but inappropriate. Much worse is the absence of even a vestigial table in the bays.
No, there are inherent issues with 12 car clearances for signals apparently. Running as 8 car formations seems futile as units would be diagram restricted. It’s a bloody shame that (if the clearance issues are true) due diligence wasn’t carried out before the retractioned 442s were withdrawn with no credible replacement plan to ensure the Portsmouth Direct gets a suitable mode of traction. Personally I don’t see why the 450s have such a bad press, after all the VEPs operated a large number of WAT to PMH trains, but the issue was raised years ago re 3 by 2 seating and SWT/SWR have been reluctant to tell the commuter to effectively shut up moaning about it (which IMO they should, the Ports direct has never been and never will be in the same intercity league as the Weymouth fasts)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Had SWR or more likely the DfT decided to keep the 458s as 458/5s and had some sort of miracle “greyhounding” them to 90mph running, I suspect they would have had a slimmer chance of appearing on the Portsmouth services. Better to keep hold of the 458/4s dedicated to Windsor/Reading trains and possibly overspill for shorter formation Arterio substitute trains. They’re good units it would be a shame to see the back of them. But the Arterio project is far more wide ranging than a 455 replacement. So the future looks bleak for these “cats”. I call them that as they seem to have nine lives
So options are.
1.ReSignal (should have been picked up before the 458s were refurbished.
2. Reseat some 450s as 2+2.
3. Portsmouth line users continue to put up with 3+2 seating on 450s.
A lot may depend if battery 450s or 458s become replacements for the 158s and 159s some of which are 35 years old and nearing end of life? Seems might be easier to fit batteries to 450s?
8533 is back on the Shepperton diagram this morning, paired with 8535, which had been the Reading / Weybridge diagram regular over the past week or so.
The Reading / Weybridge diagram is a single 455 diagram today. One to avoid in the peaks!
8533 is back on the Shepperton diagram this morning, paired with 8535, which had been the Reading / Weybridge diagram regular over the past week or so.
The Reading / Weybridge diagram is a single 455 diagram today. One to avoid in the peaks!
Would it have been that easy today? One the Wimbledon start 2*455 diagrams (2F03) ended up with a single 450 this morning "due to a problem with the traction equipment" at Wimbledon Park, so they may not have been that flush with spare 455s (and two other pairs covering for 701s), but there may have been other factors to add in to the mix.
Would it have been that easy today? One the Wimbledon start 2*455 diagrams (2F03) ended up with a single 450 this morning "due to a problem with the traction equipment" at Wimbledon Park, so they may not have been that flush with spare 455s (and two other pairs covering for 701s), but there may have been other factors to add in to the mix.
When it's swapped from 458 to 455 it's unfortunately always a single unit, undoubtedly due to those Weybridge journeys (which in the PM peak I'm reliably informed leave passengers behind).
Perhaps that pair of 450s displaced off a Reading diagram by a 701 from next week could move to this Reading / Weybridge diagram. Just a thought.
Personally I don’t see why the 450s have such a bad press, after all the VEPs operated a large number of WAT to PMH trains, but the issue was raised years ago re 3 by 2 seating and SWT/SWR have been reluctant to tell the commuter to effectively shut up moaning about it (which IMO they should, the Ports direct has never been and never will be in the same intercity league as the Weymouth fasts)
It's obviously a long while since I was last in a VEP, but IIRC they had solid armrests on the aisle end of the seats. The 450's seats have no lateral restraint, even the seat cushions are flat, so in aisle or middle seats you end up constantly having to brace yourself sideways every time the train sways. That's okay for a short while but tiring on trips of up to two hours to/from Pompey. The other problem is the floor level heating duct, which means window-seat pax have to sit at an angle, which is worsened by the narrowness of the seat.
The 2+2 458/4s would have been a significant improvement IMO.
I can get the fuss being made, as 6 people in a bay of 6 isn’t fun, especially on a fairly long journey. Wasn’t the issue at the time that the seats were needed to cater for people from Guildford?
Which may matter less now that we're told commuting numbers have collapsed, as justification for keeping the Covid timetable cuts in place five years on.
When it's swapped from 458 to 455 it's unfortunately always a single unit, undoubtedly due to those Weybridge journeys (which in the PM peak I'm reliably informed leave passengers behind).
Perhaps that pair of 450s displaced off a Reading diagram by a 701 from next week could move to this Reading / Weybridge diagram. Just a thought.
Excessive arcing, which could have been a supply issue on the network or down to a short circuit on the unit somewhere, often a hanging cable or other component. This then causes excessive heat and can melt metal causing components to be welded up, or issues on the power supply circuits onboard.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Would it have been that easy today? One the Wimbledon start 2*455 diagrams (2F03) ended up with a single 450 this morning "due to a problem with the traction equipment" at Wimbledon Park, so they may not have been that flush with spare 455s (and two other pairs covering for 701s), but there may have been other factors to add in to the mix.
There are 455s available however due to the booked Weybridge turns on that diagram you cannot run a double, or you have to skip Virginia Water on the up.
There are 455s available however due to the booked Weybridge turns on that diagram you cannot run a double, or you have to skip Virginia Water on the up.
Thank you. I guess the 455s were not available at the time 5F03 was due to leave Wimbledon Park, or they were but were not in a convenient location on the depot or sufficient time available for them to prepped.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.