Would an OHL version of a class 444 been a good idea?

[778]

It is not going to happen now but would a class 444 with OHL instead of 3rd rail equipment been useful for some long distance services. I think they would have been a very good train for the longer distance London Midland/LNWR services. The 350s would have still been used for outer surburban trains from Euston to Tring/Milton Keynes/Northampton and the OHL 444s (344?) could have been given the longer distance London - Birmingham/Crewe services?

They could also have been good trains for Liverpool Street - Norwich (maybe with a few more coaches added), and a dual voltage version of a 444 could have been very good for Bedford - Brighton.

Was this a missed oppurtunatey? If it had happened, maybe London Midland would not have lost thier franchise?

 

[JonathanH]

I think they would have been a very good train for the longer distance London Midland/LNWR services. The 350s would have still been used for outer surburban trains from Euston to Tring/Milton Keynes/Northampton and the OHL 444s (344?) could have been given the longer distance London - Birmingham/Crewe services?

This is what is known on this forum as 'door position prejudice'. There is no objective difference between the passenger comfort on a 350/1 and a 444. Same seats, same tables, same toilets etc, just a different door layout.

Was this a missed oppurtunatey? If it had happened, maybe London Midland would not have lost thier franchise?

No, not really. It would have had no bearing on the London Midland franchise.

a dual voltage version of a 444 could have been very good for Bedford - Brighton

Not really appropriate for long term operation on the Thameslink route, where let's not forget there are significant flows from St Albans and East Croydon into London on which a 444-style unit would be totally inappropriate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it would have been a good thing, yes. It basically exists, too - the 80x and the 397.

Probably not good for the LM franchise, though, other than maybe the Crewe, due to high loadings doors at thirds work better.

 

[Halish Railway]

I think had the franchise maps been different to how they were when all these Desiros were ordered we may well have seen a hypothetical ‘344’ ordered.

Had the Greater Anglia franchise existed as it does now I think it would have been entirely logical to order such a train for Norwich to Liverpool Street services, making the 360s less of a micro fleet. This could have facilitated the ex-Virgin 90/Mk3s to go to GNER to increase frequencies instead of HSTs.

LNWR/LM is an interesting one; As the (London) Northampton to Birmingham services were forced to pick up the calls between Coventry and Birmingham it made wide doors a necessity. Had that not been the case I think they would have been fantastic on the London to Crewe via Trent Valley, London to Birmingham via Northampton services and Birmingham to Liverpool services.

 

[JonathanH]

I think it would have been a good thing, yes. It basically exists, too - the 80x and the 397.

Those have pointy noses though.

The 444 layout is good, simple, and space efficient for the work they do on SWR. As you say, the 80x and 397 interiors are in the same mould, for journeys that have relatively limited stops.

 

[ScottGallagher]

I vaguely recall that First had apparently proposed this as part of their Greater.Anglia franchise bid in 2004 for replacement of the mk2 carriages on the Norwich route.

 

[Bald Rick]

I vaguely recall that First had apparently proposed this as part of their Greater.Anglia franchise bid in 2004 for replacement of the mk2 carriages on the Norwich route.

If Stagecoach had won the InterCity West Coast franchise first time around, it’s likely this is what would have been provided.

 

[JonathanH]

If Stagecoach had won the InterCity West Coast franchise first time around, it’s likely this is what would have been provided.

That is interesting. Was their plan to keep the West Coast at 110mph?

If a 444-type unit from Siemens, on the Desiro platform, was available as an option in 1997, why did SWT initially go to Alstom for fleet replacement? Did they not only turn to Siemens in 2001 because of the failure of the 458 fleet to corner the market?

 

[aar0]

This could have facilitated the ex-Virgin 90/Mk3s to go to GNER to increase frequencies instead of HSTs.

Would they not have been too slow against the 225s?

 

[JonathanH]

Would they not have been too slow against the 225s?

No, 90+Mk3 would have been adequate on Leeds services, on which 90s ran for a while. The better acceleration of a 90 with frequent stops counterbalanced the higher top speed of a 91.

The '344' may have been better than 90+Mk3 on Anglia.

 

[Bald Rick]

That is interesting. Was their plan to keep the West Coast at 110mph?

That was their preference.

If a 444-type unit from Siemens, on the Desiro platform, was available as an option in 1997, why did SWT initially go to Alstom for fleet replacement? Did they not only turn to Siemens in 2001 because of the failure of the 458 fleet to corner the market?

Ah, well, I have got ahead of myself. AIUI the proposal was for 23m EMUs with end doors. Whether they’d have gone for Siemens or not I don’t know.

 

[Halish Railway]

Ah, well, I have got ahead of myself. AIUI the proposal was for 23m EMUs with end doors. Whether they’d have gone for Siemens or not I don’t know.

Would have that necessarily been a Desiro-derivative or based on the 332/333 design? One of them with end doors would have been fantastic.

 

[Mikey C]

That was their preference.



Ah, well, I have got ahead of myself. AIUI the proposal was for 23m EMUs with end doors. Whether they’d have gone for Siemens or not I don’t know.

Which could easily have been an Alstom EMU, a cross between a Class 170/180 and a Juniper, seeing that Stagecoach ordered the Alstom 458s and Alstom already had the end door bodyshell design.

 

[Towers]

Those have pointy noses though.

The 444 layout is good, simple, and space efficient for the work they do on SWR. As you say, the 80x and 397 interiors are in the same mould, for journeys that have relatively limited stops.

Non-pointy fronts and through gangways being a distinct advantage, too!

 

[Energy]

If it had happened, maybe London Midland would not have lost thier franchise?

Abellio won the franchise by being able to provide a lot of seats on the 730s (effectively 720s). End door stock wouldn't be a consideration on the budget option on the WCML.

I vaguely recall that First had apparently proposed this as part of their Greater.Anglia franchise bid in 2004 for replacement of the mk2 carriages on the Norwich route.

They'd make sense for that route as part of a larger Desiro fleet. South West Trains could have done with a few more at the same time as well.

 

[RailWonderer]

This is what is known on this forum as 'door position prejudice'. There is no objective difference between the passenger comfort on a 350/1 and a 444. Same seats, same tables, same toilets etc, just a different door layout.

Sometimes this comes up when Scotrail's 170s are in question for having doors at thirds opening frequently making them too draughty in Scottish winters, hence the prefrence for 158s. There is some truth to that when I've been on trains near the doors stopping frequently in winter cold air keeps entering the coach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sometimes this comes up when Scotrail's 170s are in question for having doors at thirds opening frequently making them too draughty in Scottish winters, hence the prefrence for 158s. There is some truth to that when I've been on trains near the doors stopping frequently in winter cold air keeps entering the coach.

That is a potential issue in some very specific places, though I find auto-close deals with it almost as well. It isn't really in most of the country, and you can work around it by installing vestibule doors.

 

[nw1]

Non-pointy fronts and through gangways being a distinct advantage, too!

Incidentally are "pointy fronts" necessary for high top speed?

So would a 125mph unit, for example, require a "pointy front" or could a 444-type unit with through corridor connections theoretically achieve that speed? The fastest through corridor connection units that I know of seem to have a top speed of 110mph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Incidentally are "pointy fronts" necessary for high top speed?

So would a 125mph unit, for example, require a "pointy front" or could a 444-type unit with through corridor connections theoretically achieve that speed? The fastest through corridor connection units that I know of seem to have a top speed of 110mph.

You could physically run a flat fronted train at high speed, but the energy requirement would be much higher, as air resistance is the square of speed.

 

[Towers]

A class 387 can run at 110, I imagine an extra 15mph would be feasible from a similar vehicle profile with the required power output.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A class 387 can run at 110, I imagine an extra 15mph would be feasible from a similar vehicle profile with the required power output.

It's notable that we have few slab-fronted trains any more at any speed. There's usually some streamlining, even if there's a flat gangway in the middle. 196s and 197s for instance curve sideways away from it.

You'd also get noise issues from air leaking into the gangway at speed.

 

[Towers]

It's notable that we have few slab-fronted trains any more at any speed. There's usually some streamlining, even if there's a flat gangway in the middle. 196s and 197s for instance curve sideways away from it.

You'd also get noise issues from air leaking into the gangway at speed.

Plenty of drivers will tell you HST cabs were pretty whistly despite the streamlining!

 

[D365]

That is interesting. Was their plan to keep the West Coast at 110mph?

That was their preference.

With hindsight, I do wonder... [topic for another thread]

 

[Starmill]

It's notable that we have few slab-fronted trains any more at any speed. There's usually some streamlining, even if there's a flat gangway in the middle. 196s and 197s for instance curve sideways away from it.

You'd also get noise issues from air leaking into the gangway at speed.

Even the 75 mile / hour maximum 710s have the gentle Incline on the front, unlike the very flat-fronted 378.

 

[ScottGallagher]

180s to Holyhead And it's never built 9 or 10 car AC cousin!! A very real possibility!!

 

[D365]

Even the 75 mile / hour maximum 710s have the gentle Incline on the front, unlike the very flat-fronted 378.

The cab assembly is derived from the Class 345, after all.

 

[Irascible]

A diesel one might have had a place.

This is what is known on this forum as 'door position prejudice'. There is no objective difference between the passenger comfort on a 350/1 and a 444. Same seats, same tables, same toilets etc, just a different door layout.

What are the seating numbers like for each? assuming they're the same actual seats/tables/distances.

Sometimes this comes up when Scotrail's 170s are in question for having doors at thirds opening frequently making them too draughty in Scottish winters, hence the prefrence for 158s. There is some truth to that when I've been on trains near the doors stopping frequently in winter cold air keeps entering the coach.

Which you could mitigate by having doors into the seating areas, of course.

 

[zwk500]

What are the seating numbers like for each? assuming they're the same actual seats/tables/distances.

A 4-car Class 450 has 285 seats (71.25/car) as refurbed , a 5-car 444 has 359 (71.8/car)as refurbed, according to Wikipedia

 

[swt_passenger]

What are the seating numbers like for each? assuming they're the same actual seats/tables/distances.

I think a 2+2 444 does not easily compare with a 2+2 350/1, firstly because the former has 23m vehicles.

Secondly, they were able to use only the one intermediate coach to include all the space needed for the universal toilet, the wheelchair spaces, (and originally the micro-buffet as well). What this means is the other two intermediate coaches are very much “seats only” with only a few tables and therefore they and the standard class driving end car are all comparable to a Mk3 coach at 76 seats.

 

[RobShipway]

You have to remember what was London Midland now LNWR, was for the most part a commuter service, rather than an express service getting you from Station A to Station B. With being more of a commuter service, the correct fleet was acquired with the doors in their correct places.