Speculation: BR Class 442 - Northern Franchise

[Waddon]

I agree this is a ridiculous idea, but the idea itself may serve a purpose, much like the idea of using old district line trains through harrogate did - that idea stimulated the debate on improving that line and got the idea of proper electrification moved further up the agenda, so maybe this suggestion,impossible as it might be, may give more momentum to the debate on better rolling stock for the north.

We all know newspapers and MPs have no idea of the technicalities involved, but, if in a few years time there are news articles stating something along the lines of 'Northern passengers still crammed into pacers while perfectly good trains from the south go to the scrapyard' then this might help kick some government ministers up the backside about getting proper replacements?

 

[cjmillsnun]

To recap:
Even to use the four cars as hauled stock, you'd need to replace the doors with wider accessible ones, rewire with "hotel services" (aircon, lighting, heating) and fully replace the control systems.

To use them as AC EMUs, you'd have to do all that, replace the traction system and fit a pantograph.

Actually the current doors would be OK.

They are being offered by Porterbrook as one way of making the Mk3 compliant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The doors aren't good past 2020 due to access issues (too narrow)

Page 21... http://www.porterbrook.com/downloads/brochures/Mk3 Brochure.pdf

The exterior doors of the Mk3 coach are of the traditional “slam” design, with a handle on the outside only. While this has been adequate for many years of service it is not possible to comply with the TSI-PRM with an arrangement where a passenger inside the train has to drop a window to reach the door handle. It is therefore essential to improve this arrangement for operation in 2020 and beyond when compliance becomes mandatory.
There are three possible solutions to this, which are to fit:
• An interior handle with new safety interlocks
• A swing plug power door based on the Class 442
• A power door of a new design offering a larger
opening
Interior Handle
The existing Central Door Locking (CDL) system on the train does not have sufficient safety integrity to allow the fitting of an interior handle without substantial changes. Fitting an interior handle requires the addition of three interlocks per door to ensure the door is safely closed and locked before the train can move.
The CDL system has to be modified to work with the new arrangement which means unmodified vehicles cannot work with modified ones; hence sets must be modified together. The new arrangement has been tested and the required interlocking circuits designed.
Toilet
Swing Plug Power Door
Although not yet fitted as a modification, this design of door was fitted to the Mk3 based Class 442 units and the Mk3 coaches built for Irish Railways. This is the most economical means of providing a powered door on the vehicles and has the advantage of long service experience on this type of vehicle.
A pillar is installed next to the door which acts as a pivot to swing the door clear of the vehicle side. While not offering as wide an aperture as the option below the design is compliant to the requirements of the TSI- PRM and carries the same benefits in terms of safety, passenger convenience and reduced station dwell times.
New Design Power Door
Chiltern Railways have fitted a new power door to Mk3 coaches which is compliant to TSI-PRM and offers a wider aperture with no intrusion into the passenger vestibule.
Porterbrook can offer this design of door at refurbishment, although the structural changes necessary result in a slightly shorter passenger compartment. Consequently this option is the most expensive solution although it does provide a door of a similar design and performance as would be found on a new train.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Without making any comment on the actual likelihood of this happening...



You mean like this thing that's never been done and isn't an already approved design?

(Design carried out by Delta Rail about 8 years ago for NR)

It's never run in passenger service. Only as part of a departmental train. Would it be approved for passenger service??

 

[59CosG95]

Actually the current doors would be OK.

They are being offered by Porterbrook as one way of making the Mk3 compliant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Page 21... http://www.porterbrook.com/downloads/brochures/Mk3 Brochure.pdf


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It's never run in passenger service. Only as part of a departmental train. Would it be approved for passenger service??

Well, does the NMT pan car have a transformer fitted? That of course would need to hook up to the pigs' traction motors, which probably need replacing. All we need now is some new motors!

 

[Murph]

Well, does the NMT pan car have a transformer fitted? That of course would need to hook up to the pigs' traction motors, which probably need replacing. All we need now is some new motors!

It may well have a transformer, but probably not one rated for traction levels of power (therefore could easily be much lighter than for a traction conversion).

The bigger issue would be does the NMT pan car come even remotely close to meeting the safety case for mark 3 passenger use. Cutting a hole that large into the roof will have significantly weakened the mark 3's normal strength and crash safety. It's a big enough change that you'd need to start from scratch with the structural engineering calculations and add significant replacement structural components to compensate for the missing roof, and possibly the weight of a traction transformer (if it exceeds the design specs for max weight of interior fittings).

It's possible that the tray used to hold the pan on the NMT already has the necessary structure, but equally they might not have needed to rebuild it to passenger safety standards. The certainty is that cutting that much arched roof out of a monocoque is highly significant to the strength of the entire vehicle.

 

[47802]

It may well have a transformer, but probably not one rated for traction levels of power (therefore could easily be much lighter than for a traction conversion).

The bigger issue would be does the NMT pan car come even remotely close to meeting the safety case for mark 3 passenger use. Cutting a hole that large into the roof will have significantly weakened the mark 3's normal strength and crash safety. It's a big enough change that you'd need to start from scratch with the structural engineering calculations and add significant replacement structural components to compensate for the missing roof, and possibly the weight of a traction transformer (if it exceeds the design specs for max weight of interior fittings).

It's possible that the tray used to hold the pan on the NMT already has the necessary structure, but equally they might not have needed to rebuild it to passenger safety standards. The certainty is that cutting that much arched roof out of a monocoque is highly significant to the strength of the entire vehicle.

Well either way its not going to be a cheap exercise to turn these units to AC for trains that are nearly 30 years old, OK if someone can make a good business case for that and a suitable route for their usage then I guess it could happen but that's a big if.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well either its not going to be a cheap exercise to turn these units to AC for trains that are nearly 30 years old, OK if someone can make a good business case for that and a suitable route for their usage then I guess it could happen but that's a big if.

I think depowering them, converting the cab at one end to control Class 67 or 68 locomotives, and using them to substitute for DMUs would be a better use. If appropriate the D-lok could later be replaced by an E-lok with the same control systems.

Neil

 

[Murph]

I think depowering them, converting the cab at one end to control Class 67 or 68 locomotives, and using them to substitute for DMUs would be a better use. If appropriate the D-lok could later be replaced by an E-lok with the same control systems.

Drop a baby MTU or Valenta into the motor coach and call them a class 211 DEMU?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well. The 442s are among the oldest 3rd rail only EMUs in the UK so unfortunately they must be at the front of the queue (for conversion to razor blades).

If the 442s are going to be re-used then I would have thought somewhere that uses third rail for power is the most likely. What is wrong with Waterloo to Weymouth ?.

Next is push pull with some diesel loco off the end of the 3rd rail. Ideally something like Waterloo to Exeter with a loco waiting at Basingstoke or preferably Salisbury. There is not a lot of choice though.

Next is push pull completely off the 3rd rail but that is not really economic on any scale. Same problem with re-use of the HSTs.

In a nutshell the Mark3 coach either as a 442 or HST sadly has no future as it needs a loco and so it is being priced off the rails.

I wonder if an entire extra vehicle inserted in the middle with pantograph and traction eqiupment is a feasible way of converting them. Has to be without the track access charges being too high for the what might be seen as a loco with a corridor plus maybe some seats. I can see that working for Manchester to Scotland.

 

[northwichcat]

Well. The 442s are among the oldest 3rd rail only EMUs in the UK so unfortunately they must be at the front of the queue (for conversion to razor blades).

They have the oldest motors (as they got refurbished motors instead of new when they were built) but the actual trains are over 10 years newer than the 313s, 507s and 508s still in use.

 

[Peter Sarf]

They have the oldest motors (as they got refurbished motors instead of new when they were built) but the actual trains are over 10 years newer than the 313s, 507s and 508s still in use.

Of course the PEPs are the oldest EMUs . Of those the 313s are dual voltage so have more chance of a future I reckon. The 3rd rail only 507s and 508s might be more useful with their suburban layout (1/3 & 2/3 door positions). Additionally Merseyrail no longer seem to be as keen as they were to replace them.

Daft idea - perhaps extend 3rd rail to Chester from the Liverpool loop and then the 442s could eke out their last years as a Chester to Liverpool express !.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Next is push pull completely off the 3rd rail but that is not really economic on any scale. Same problem with re-use of the HSTs.

Erm, you know Abellio ScotRail has decided that that *is* economic, right?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Daft idea - perhaps extend 3rd rail to Chester from the Liverpool loop and then the 442s could eke out their last years as a Chester to Liverpool express !.

There already is third rail from the Liverpool loop to Chester! Has been since about 1992.

However, 23m vehicles (or indeed some 20m vehicles, e.g. 455s) won't fit in the tunnels.

Neil

 

[SeanG]

Why don't we electrify the whole network with 3rd rail and change all of the gauge clearance issues to suit 442s and then the whole of RailUK Forum will be placated?

 

[AM9]

Why don't we electrify the whole network with 3rd rail and change all of the gauge clearance issues to suit 442s and then the whole of RailUK Forum will be placated?

But is their seat alignment with the windows up to RUK standards?

 

[cjmillsnun]

They have the oldest motors (as they got refurbished motors instead of new when they were built) but the actual trains are over 10 years newer than the 313s, 507s and 508s still in use.

I thought 455s had older motors
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think depowering them, converting the cab at one end to control Class 67 or 68 locomotives, and using them to substitute for DMUs would be a better use. If appropriate the D-lok could later be replaced by an E-lok with the same control systems.

Neil

It would be much harder work than you think. Everything would need stripping out as nothing is standard.

The brakes are the old Southern railway EP system, the electrics are completely non standard, so much so that an ETS jumper that was originally fitted to them never worked and was removed by SWT.

For what will be 27 year old trains by this point with traction from the 60s, I think the decision will be made to scrap them.

 

[physics34]

They have the oldest motors (as they got refurbished motors instead of new when they were built) but the actual trains are over 10 years newer than the 313s, 507s and 508s still in use.

and newer than 455s!

Im convinced they won't want to scrap 120 useful coaches.....

 

[Peter Sarf]

Erm, you know Abellio ScotRail has decided that that *is* economic, right?

Neil

I know about the 27 HSTs for Scotrail and I have read the debate on another thread regarding the track access charges. I hope Scotrail does stick with this but the track access charges are a consideration. Its fair to say that the cost of a "locomotive" (or two) is what makes the track access charges for traditional coaches a problem.

 

[dosxuk]

Why don't we electrify the whole network with 3rd rail and change all of the gauge clearance issues to suit 442s and then the whole of RailUK Forum will be placated?

But then what would we do with all the AC versions of the 444? hock:

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Best place for the 442s tbf is the scrapyard

 

[deltic08]

Best place for the 442s tbf is the scrapyard

I totally disagree. Nobody can say without stripping out a couple of coaches to check on corrosion. Totally rebuilding a Mark3 is a quarter of the cost of new and even if the cost of conversion of a power coach to ac is expensive, it would be no more expensive than new with much greater installed hp (2000) than dc.

Track access would be for an EMU so cheaper to operate than Scotrails shortened HST sets

Conversion to ac would be ideal for TPE on Liverpool/Manchester-Scotland and Liverpool-Newcastle possibly extended to Edinburgh post electrification where IC standard is required on such long journeys not being provided by stop-gap 350/4s.

Bogies and bodies are capable of 125mph and this would fit in better with other passenger stock east of Leeds and north of York. Would still be nippy between Manchester and Leeds where linespeed is unlikely to be higher than 90mph post electrification.

Enough coaches to make it worthwhile.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nobody can say without stripping out a couple of coaches to check on corrosion. Totally rebuilding a Mark3 is a quarter of the cost of new and even if the cost of conversion of a power coach to ac is expensive, it would be no more expensive than new with much greater installed hp (2000) than dc.

I thought that corrosion was now seen as an essential part of unit status quo on those units with Northern Rail. It is said in certain quarters that "Newton Heath's Finest" are now seen to be the industry benchmark for continued incorporation of this well-loved natural happening....

 

[The Ham]

Im convinced they won't want to scrap 120 useful coaches.....

Given that the central coach is of limited use (other than providing the power in their current form), it may only be 96 coaches.

Bearing in mind that (depending on which option is gone for) there could be some fairly high costs in providing new power (either in the form of a loco or new traction in the central coach) and the costs associated with maintaining smaller fleets it could be better value to scrap them and have new units.

Especially when viewed against the improvements in maintenance costs on modern EMU's where such things are designed into the units rather than being an after thought. So for instance the new Desiro City trains are likely to have a 20-30% reduction in maintenance costs over the original Desiro's (which are likely to be significantly cheaper to maintain than the 442's).

All in all, new builds can be cheaper than refurbishing older units with a lot less potential headaches (as SWT's have learnt).

See the following link for details of some of the maintenance savings:
http://www.globalrailnews.com/blog/2014/11/06/a-tale-of-two-desiros/

But there must be more to the ‘second generation’ statement than that. Ian Macleod explained: “The big difference for the operators is the cost of maintenance which is about 20-30% less. There is a new train control system which is integrated with passenger information and can be customised to show whatever the operator wishes.

“On the previous trains, we had all of the equipment in body-end cubicles. With the big open gangways, we don’t have those cubicles any more and all of the control equipment is in the ceiling behind the LED lighting panels.

“About six years ago, we had all of the engineers over from Germany and we created a 180-point list of improvements we wanted to make to the train – the things that take a long time to do during maintenance and could be improved. For example, to change a luggage rack takes two hours as we have to take part of the ceiling down. Now, on this new train, we can do it in 15 minutes. We don’t do it often, but it’s annoying when we do. So those are the kind of things we wanted improving next time around.

“We used to have body-side heater elements which needed cleaning every twelve months, and it was a very time-consuming thing to do. Now we just have empty ducts with blowers in the air conditioning systems in the roof, so we don’t have to do that job at all, saving more time.

“The doors are purely electric, there are no longer any pneumatics involved, and they will need only one overhaul in the life of the train, so that cost is substantially reduced as well.” Out of sight Ian is quite passionate about all of the systems that the passengers never see. “One of the most exciting features for me is behind the scenes and that’s the train control system. One of the biggest things we’ve got is distributed software loading. Previously, if we’d wanted to update the software that controls door closing, we’d have had to re-write the code and then go to each door unit and upload the software. Now, we can update all 48 doors from one central point using in-built parameters – which takes ten minutes rather than hours of work. So if the operator wants to make a change to the way doors close, it is now a simple change.”

The train also sends its own fault reports to the depot so that engineers can plan both routine and exceptional maintenance. There are almost 10,000 diagnostic codes from the various sub-systems which can all be used to notify the depot of exactly which fault has occurred. For example, there is a flood sensor in every toilet so if a toilet floods the driver knows immediately, the control centre knows immediately, and a cleaner can be dispatched to rectify matters. And because the system is counting every toilet flush, it also knows how much water may be needed and when it should be replenished.

That’s a tremendous level of detail, all available in real time to the control centre operators. So it’s the economy of operation and the ease of maintenance which makes this a second- generation train. Yes there are all the major technical improvements, the lighter bogies which The Rail Engineer has mentioned before for example, but it is all the wizardry behind the interior panels which really makes the difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only car manufacturers would think like that! They won't while maintenance is a profit centre...

Neil

 

[cjmillsnun]

I totally disagree. Nobody can say without stripping out a couple of coaches to check on corrosion. Totally rebuilding a Mark3 is a quarter of the cost of new and even if the cost of conversion of a power coach to ac is expensive, it would be no more expensive than new with much greater installed hp (2000) than dc.

Track access would be for an EMU so cheaper to operate than Scotrails shortened HST sets

Conversion to ac would be ideal for TPE on Liverpool/Manchester-Scotland and Liverpool-Newcastle possibly extended to Edinburgh post electrification where IC standard is required on such long journeys not being provided by stop-gap 350/4s.

Bogies and bodies are capable of 125mph and this would fit in better with other passenger stock east of Leeds and north of York. Would still be nippy between Manchester and Leeds where linespeed is unlikely to be higher than 90mph post electrification.

Enough coaches to make it worthwhile.

Bodies might be capable, but bogies are not BT10s

 

[NotATrainspott]

I totally disagree. Nobody can say without stripping out a couple of coaches to check on corrosion. Totally rebuilding a Mark3 is a quarter of the cost of new and even if the cost of conversion of a power coach to ac is expensive, it would be no more expensive than new with much greater installed hp (2000) than dc.

Track access would be for an EMU so cheaper to operate than Scotrails shortened HST sets

Conversion to ac would be ideal for TPE on Liverpool/Manchester-Scotland and Liverpool-Newcastle possibly extended to Edinburgh post electrification where IC standard is required on such long journeys not being provided by stop-gap 350/4s.

Bogies and bodies are capable of 125mph and this would fit in better with other passenger stock east of Leeds and north of York. Would still be nippy between Manchester and Leeds where linespeed is unlikely to be higher than 90mph post electrification.

Enough coaches to make it worthwhile.

There's no real point in doing this if you can guarantee the new trains would have a full working service life ahead of them, which is the case for all new electric trains. You may well be able to rebuild the 442s to work but once they've eventually become life-expired, you're still going to need to build new electric rolling stock anyway.

This isn't similar to how a large number of electrification schemes involve cascaded rolling stock. Here, the rolling stock only needs a standard spruce up that would happen regardless of how they were operating in passenger service. For the 442s to be able to be cascaded beyond the third rail network, it would require a considerable investment which just is not worth it for the other compromises involved. This is especially problematic when those new traction components you would have to fit would outlive the bodyshells, and it cannot by any means be guaranteed that anyone would want to take them back out and fit them in another train. As a consequence, the cost of the new power technology would have to be amortised over the relatively few remaining years the 442s could remain in passenger service, increasing the year-to-year cost of financing them.

 

[cjmillsnun]

There's no real point in doing this if you can guarantee the new trains would have a full working service life ahead of them, which is the case for all new electric trains. You may well be able to rebuild the 442s to work but once they've eventually become life-expired, you're still going to need to build new electric rolling stock anyway.

This isn't similar to how a large number of electrification schemes involve cascaded rolling stock. Here, the rolling stock only needs a standard spruce up that would happen regardless of how they were operating in passenger service. For the 442s to be able to be cascaded beyond the third rail network, it would require a considerable investment which just is not worth it for the other compromises involved. This is especially problematic when those new traction components you would have to fit would outlive the bodyshells, and it cannot by any means be guaranteed that anyone would want to take them back out and fit them in another train. As a consequence, the cost of the new power technology would have to be amortised over the relatively few remaining years the 442s could remain in passenger service, increasing the year-to-year cost of financing them.

And to play devil's advocate. How much is being spent on Porterbrook's (SWT's) 455s?

A whole new traction package. OK not going beyond the third rail, but everything else is being spent, and it is very likely the traction package will outlive the body shells.

Although saying that, how old are the HSTs? Coming up for 40 years, and some will remain in service for some time to come.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

There is probably no chance of 442s getting AC capabilities as the roof probably forms part of the crash structure and installing a pan well would probably compromise the structure and I think it's been mention somewhere that a transformer needed for AC would be too heavy for the motor cars

 

[The Ham]

And to play devil's advocate. How much is being spent on Porterbrook's (SWT's) 455s?

I don't know, but that has hardly run smoothly and has been beset by delays.

 

[samuelmorris]

I didn't realise this was actually meriting serious consideration. As I think others have probably also said, my view is that the coaches themselves can very easily make for a nice express unit with a decent top speed. I honestly think a new traction pack is going to be needed though, the existing one is ancient and investing in converting it to AC operation just seems wasteful if by the time they enter service they'll be on 50-year old electrics at the DC side, especially when I think there is pretty compelling evidence to suggest their age is actually becoming a reliability problem. If they can justify the cost of retrofitting new traction motors and control gear, a transformer and a pantograph without breaking anything then I'm all for it, as the Mk3 can more than happily provide a pleasant 21st century travelling experience and 24 5-car units would make for a nice fleet boost to the area's express services. Can it really be justified though, for that many units? I just have a horrible feeling it'd be cripplingly expensive and offer minimal returns vs. simply tendering for new, tried and tested stock.

 

[jon0844]

But a lot of new stock is not tried and tested with loads of new problems. While currently used on totally inappropriate services, I agree that with a decent refurb they can be made to look every bit as good as other Intercity services given modern refits.

 

[northwichcat]

But a lot of new stock is not tried and tested with loads of new problems. While currently used on totally inappropriate services, I agree that with a decent refurb they can be made to look every bit as good as other Intercity services given modern refits.

Why is a non-stop service inappropriate for 442s? If the 442s are inappropriate for Gatwick Express then does that make the 156/8s inappropriate to be used on express services serving Airports?