Class 442s - Now at the end of the road and to be withdrawn permanently

[spark001uk]

Are they full PRM compliant now, or is there an ongoing exemption?

Derogation until 18 Aug 2024.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/865077/SWR_442s_dispensation_letter.pdf

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Derogation until 18 Aug 2024.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/865077/SWR_442s_dispensation_letter.pdf

Which is less than 3.5 years away!!

 

[DB]

Which is less then 3.5 years away....!!

But another one would almost certainly be granted at that point. The issues aren't major ones which the DfT is determined to eliminate as far as possible (such as slam doors).

 

[northernbelle]

The issues were as much long dwell times because of the slow and narrow doors.

I hope the days of trying to repeatedly re-purpose life expired rolling stock are coming to an end.

There is a hint of the return of the 442s being rooted in rose-tinted nostalgia for what people remembered as good trains - rather than practicality or financial sense - quite similar to the Scotrail HST plan which is just reaching its conclusion just over 2 years later than planned. It is being proven repeatedly that the reuse of such older stock isn't actually as viable as it first seems with some pretty serious corrosion issues having to be overcome along with a compromise in accessibility, future fleet lifespan and ongoing reliability and maintenance costs.

Added to the total inflexibility of 442s with the dominant 'Desiro' fleet - being unable to split/join without a shunter present, inability to couple to anything but themselves, the additional crew training/competency management, route clearance - if it were my fleet I'd be looking for any opportunity to cut my losses now that the primary aim of providing maximum seat numbers has probably vanished.

 

[Journeyman]

I hope the days of trying to repeatedly re-purpose life expired rolling stock are coming to an end.

There is a hint of the return of the 442s being rooted in rose-tinted nostalgia for what people remembered as good trains - rather than practicality or financial sense - quite similar to the Scotrail HST plan which is just reaching its conclusion just over 2 years later than planned. It is being proven repeatedly that the reuse of such older stock isn't actually as viable as it first seems with some pretty serious corrosion issues having to be overcome along with a compromise in accessibility, future fleet lifespan and ongoing reliability and maintenance costs.

Added to the total inflexibility of 442s with the dominant 'Desiro' fleet - being unable to split/join without a shunter present, inability to couple to anything but themselves, the additional crew training/competency management, route clearance - if it were my fleet I'd be looking for any opportunity to cut my losses now that the primary aim of providing maximum seat numbers has probably vanished.

Absolutely right. ScotRail made a massive mistake with the HSTs and should have built new. I suppose you could argue the 442s didn't need such extensive work and the 455 retractioning was successful, but there are, as you say, still a whole heap of problems, and they really should go. People fondly remember them in their original configuration, and they were great, but it isn't 1988 any more.

If SWR decide not to use them, brace yourself for endless ridiculous suggestions for re-use, many of which will be technically impossible.

 

[TEW]

455 retractioning achieved its main aim of freeing up maintenance capacity at Wimbledon, but that project was heavily delayed.

 

[spark001uk]

Does anyone know if the new desks have actually begun to be fitted yet?

 

[Nym]

Does anyone know if the new desks have actually begun to be fitted yet?

They have.

 

[infobleep]

If 2+2 seating is considered a priority on fast services to Portsmouth I am sure the diagrams could be shuffled around a bit to provide more 444s at the expense of other routes such as Portsmouth via Basingstoke. The use of 12-450 formations at peak times was as much about maximising capacity as anything else.

The 442s were far from universally popular for the short periods they did manage in service. Commuters from Guildford and Godalming weren't too impressed for example as it reduced their chances of getting a seat. Nobody was really happy with the atrocious time keeping which meant late running was the norm. And they were a complete nightmare for anyone with mobility issues, with narrow doorways and big steps up.

Getting a seat on the trains from Guildford prior to the 442 reintroduction wasn't always easy.

If social distancing is going to be required on trains in the future and there are enough people travelling whilst that is needed, additional services my still be needed. Either that or they just do away with social distancing requirements or turn a blind eye.

Discussing social distancing is for another thread but I do feel the fate of the 442z may rest on the number of services that needs to be run vers how many they want on the train in relation to social distancing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolutely right. ScotRail made a massive mistake with the HSTs and should have built new.

Slightly OT, but relevant - had Scotrail built new, the case for the rolling programme of electrification would have been significantly weaker. As it is, with expensive and thirsty HSTs running around, with less than a decade left in them, the case for taking the wires to Aberdeen and even Inverness looks much better.

 

[Bikeman78]

455 retractioning achieved its main aim of freeing up maintenance capacity at Wimbledon, but that project was heavily delayed.

Ironically they are also less reliable than the remaining DC units. Although they are still in the high 20,000s so no one will really notice.

People fondly remember them in their original configuration, and they were great, but it isn't 1988 any more.

I don't think they should have left SWT the first time around. They were suited to the Bournemouth line and they had a decent MTIN of about 25,000 miles. They've never been as good since.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I don't think they should have left SWT the first time around. They were suited to the Bournemouth line and they had a decent MTIN of about 25,000 miles. They've never been as good since

There also weren’t enough of them built to operate 2tph to Weymouth. With all the splitting/joining at Bournemouth it’s impossible to run the service with a mixed fleets.

 

[Bikeman78]

There also weren’t enough of them built to operate 2tph to Weymouth. With all the splitting/joining at Bournemouth it’s impossible to run the service with a mixed fleets.

Yes, looking at the 2011 timetable, it looks like 14 units required for Weymouth and 10 to strengthen, assuming 45 minute turnrounds at Waterloo and everything 10 car east of Bournemouth. I suppose they could have run half the Weymouths with 442 and put the other eight diagrams on Poole or Portsmouth workings. Was half hourly to Weymouth already in the pipeline when the 442s went?

 

[fgwrich]

Slightly OT, but relevant - had Scotrail built new, the case for the rolling programme of electrification would have been significantly weaker. As it is, with expensive and thirsty HSTs running around, with less than a decade left in them, the case for taking the wires to Aberdeen and even Inverness looks much better.

There is that, and it will provide a much stronger case for widespread Scottish Electrification than if a fleet of Bi-Modes had been ordered, but certain members seem to insist that everything must be shiny and new and we must not rebuild or re-use other older stock elsewhere (and then offer up solutions to rebuild other DMU fleets elsewhere). Anyway, this is rather diverging the thread somewhat and perhaps it's time to open up another thread, in the same vein of the should have taken up HSTs or ordered new thread.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Yes, looking at the 2011 timetable, it looks like 14 units required for Weymouth and 10 to strengthen, assuming 45 minute turnrounds at Waterloo and everything 10 car east of Bournemouth. I suppose they could have run half the Weymouths with 442 and put the other eight diagrams on Poole or Portsmouth workings. Was half hourly to Weymouth already in the pipeline when the 442s went?

It was in the pipeline and performance actually improved on the Bournemouth line when the 442s were removed in 2007.

Having a mixed fleet just really wouldn’t have been robust - some of the turnarounds at Waterloo due to platform availability step up to 15 minutes. It would be very difficult to keep the small fleet isolated.

Virtually everything is planned to be 10 car East of Bournemouth - one of the genuine improvements the franchise change did deliver.

 

[WarrenTManager]

Plenty. But it's all commercially sensitive information.

Companies like new northern have a company wide image being "refurbished" onto their fleet that is across 3 or 4 ROSCOs for example.

If the stock is on the most basic dry lease, the TOC would pick up all maintenance costs, level 1-5 maintenance. Soggy lease, the TOC pays for level 1-4 maintenance and the ROSCO pays for level 5 overhauls. Wet lease and the ROSCO pays all costs.

back in SWT days we used soggy leases for the Porterbrook fleets.

 

[northernbelle]

There is that, and it will provide a much stronger case for widespread Scottish Electrification than if a fleet of Bi-Modes had been ordered, but certain members seem to insist that everything must be shiny and new and we must not rebuild or re-use other older stock elsewhere (and then offer up solutions to rebuild other DMU fleets elsewhere). Anyway, this is rather diverging the thread somewhat and perhaps it's time to open up another thread, in the same vein of the should have taken up HSTs or ordered new thread.

I don't think the HSTs were ordered to 'help' the case for electrification - more a case of 'people like these trains, there'll be plenty kicking around and they'll be available soon'. Never mind the reality of the cost of rebuilding and operating them. But, as you say, totally off topic here.

It's totally foolish to write-off the benefits of reusing older types - there are many examples of perfectly good second hand traction out there such as 170s or 365s. But experience has shown that some older fleets (including the 442s and aforementioned HSTs) are a far less viable proposition than they seem at first glance. The rebuild of Porterbrook's GWR 150s is another example of something that turned into a hugely more protracted and expensive exercise then anybody had envisaged, while nominally only providing another 8-10 years lifespan and a compromise in aspects such as disabled access, capacity and speed over, say, a 195.

It was in the pipeline and performance actually improved on the Bournemouth line when the 442s were removed in 2007.

Having a mixed fleet just really wouldn’t have been robust - some of the turnarounds at Waterloo due to platform availability step up to 15 minutes. It would be very difficult to keep the small fleet isolated.

Virtually everything is planned to be 10 car East of Bournemouth - one of the genuine improvements the franchise change did deliver.

The other issue with 442 operation on the Weymouth line these days is that, to perform the splitting/joining at Bournemouth, a full-time shunter is required. Not the end of the world but certainly a backwards step in efficiency and smooth operation. That's without considering the incompatibility of the two types when a 442 comes up from Weymouth and meets a nice 444 waiting in the platform!

 

[Monty]

The other issue with 442 operation on the Weymouth line these days is that, to perform the splitting/joining at Bournemouth, a full-time shunter is required. Not the end of the world but certainly a backwards step in efficiency and smooth operation. That's without considering the incompatibility of the two types when a 442 comes up from Weymouth and meets a nice 444 waiting in the platform!

The units will never travel further than Poole and most of the diagrammed work will be on the Portsmouth Direct so having staff available for attaching and dividing is a bit of a non issue. Again all of their booked work will be 10 car fixed formations, with no attachments or divisions to be made at stations.

 

[northernbelle]

The units will never travel further than Poole and most of the diagrammed work will be on the Portsmouth Direct so having staff available for attaching and dividing is a bit of a non issue. Again all of their booked work will be 10 car fixed formations, with no attachments or divisions to be made at stations.

Indeed, my comment was in regards to the suggestion that a mixed fleet of 442s and 444s could work Waterloo-Weymouth services.

 

[spark001uk]

...The other issue with 442 operation on the Weymouth line these days is that, to perform the splitting/joining at Bournemouth, a full-time shunter is required...

I remember when platform staff used to do all the splits and joins!

 

[DorkingMain]

I remember when platform staff used to do all the splits and joins!

Very few platform staff have split/join competency because it's used so rarely. Would still mean you'd need platform staff specially designated with the competency to do it

 

[spark001uk]

That's right, yes. I should have added I was going back a fair way, to the days the 442s were new in fact, when autocouplers were the rarity!

 

[theironroad]

That's right, yes. I should have added I was going back a fair way, to the days the 442s were new in fact, when autocouplers were the rarity!

They were still being split every day by platform staff rght till their last days on SWT around 2006/7

 

[Nym]

If the stock is on the most basic dry lease, the TOC would pick up all maintenance costs, level 1-5 maintenance. Soggy lease, the TOC pays for level 1-4 maintenance and the ROSCO pays for level 5 overhauls. Wet lease and the ROSCO pays all costs.

back in SWT days we used soggy leases for the Porterbrook fleets.

Not that it's relevant, but the 442s belong to Angel Trains.

Also, improvements do not fall under maintenance or overhauls. It's interesting to look at the difference between ToC specified equipment and ROSCO specified equipment. PIS being one of the best examples.

 

[4REP]

Indeed, my comment was in regards to the suggestion that a mixed fleet of 442s and 444s could work Waterloo-Weymouth services.

Diagr

Oh god I'm such an idiot, I just realised I counted the Southern 455's in there too!

No you haven't. There are 91 class 455s on SWR. 4X91=364

 

[Western Sunset]

Why not just run 'em as 10-cars Waterloo - Bournemouth. The SWR timetable seems to have almost permanently dropped Waterloo - Weymouth through trains at the moment anyway.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Why not just run 'em as 10-cars Waterloo - Bournemouth. The SWR timetable seems to have almost permanently dropped Waterloo - Weymouth through trains at the moment anyway.

Through workings resume with the May timetable change. Withdrawal of direct services to Weymouth I doubt would be popular.

 

[infobleep]

Through workings resume with the May timetable change. Withdrawal of direct services to Weymouth I doubt would be popular.

Bit like I guess some on the Portsmouth Direct Line not being happy if they mostly get 2x3 seating and not much 2x2 seating.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Bit like I guess some on the Portsmouth Direct Line not being happy if they mostly get 2x3 seating and not much 2x2 seating.

I don't know if less people are travelling two on a three seat is probably more comfortable with room for your bag or paper in between.

 

[infobleep]

I don't know if less people are travelling two on a three seat is probably more comfortable with room for your bag or paper in between.

It's a waiting game to see if there will be space in between to put ones bag, if the pre 442 introduction timetable is the one being used