Jump to content
 

Where next for the Class 442s?


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

The discussion of only 33/1's able to work with these is a misnomer. Extentions to the brake piping is readily available for low piped traction.

Further, the DEMU's and other slam door stock was sold off to preservationists for a quid a pop. If these 442's are as useless to the leasing company as suggested, if they cannot garner monetary gain via the scrapman, the same may well happen again.

 

C6T.

 

Not so - it all depends on whether you are talking about using them as hauled stock or push pull style working. With the former, yes extension pipes would enable any diesel to drag them about but to P/P them you need a 73 or a 33/1

 

As for selling redundant units off to preservationists for £1, yes that has happened - mainly because it saved the leasing company a LOT of trouble and quite a bit of cash in arranging for disposal (environmental / recycling / harmful waste regs mean its not quite as simple these days as just cutting them into bits) - particularly if scrap prices are low. Also buying a unit for £1 is all fine and dandy - but onward transport by road is going to cost, plus finding somewhere to store them, plus paying rent etc..... A 2 / 3 car DMU / DEMU is a very different proposition to a 5 x 23m car electric unit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Another point re. preservation is that previous generations of 57' / 63' / 20m (or thereabouts) stock fit on existing low loaders.  Does a 23m vehicle also fit being much longer?  If not then moving around the countryside is going to be very hard indeed.  

I agree with comments on push-pull operation.  In order to control a remote locomotive from a leading EMU cab that locomotive must be of class 33/1, 73/1 or 73/2.  The only other class which could have done so, class 74, does not survive.  Anything can haul them and if one had run-rounds at either end of a line then that poses no problem.  But which line?  Many are already full to overflowing.  At least one in the south is actively pursuing removal of items which will not be of revenue-earning use nor enhance the visitor experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was possible to work them push-pull with a locomotive, surely a better proposition would be to wire them for Blue Star/AAR/whatever the new CAF stock is getting, removing the slidey rail/traction equipment and actually use them in revenue service elsewhere in the country.

 

Cheers

David

Edited by DavidB-AU
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was possible to work them push-pull with a locomotive, surely a better proposition would be to wire them for Blue Star/AAR/whatever the new CAF stock is getting, removing the slidey rail/traction equipment and actually use them in revenue service elsewhere in the country.

 

Cheers

David

That was looked at for Transpennine express and great western and ruled out for both as not economically viable or practical.

With the surplus of HST, DMU and EMU that come free over the next few years, no one is going to invest the large sums needed no matter what we enthusiasts think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mid-Norfolk has a 73 (73212 from memory)  based there which I assume could operate in push/pull mode (on diesel??) with a 442.

 

Sadly I doubt they'd have the space to accommodate that length of unit though. Am also not sure of the status of the 73 either. It's condition seemed to

have slipped from it's previous good state the last time I was there, though that could of course just be cosmetics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't have to be a 33 - if anything the newly rebuilt 73s with their more reliable diesel engines (even if they have to be paired up) would be a better solution

Only the GBRF ones - the NR ones appear to have been stripped of their SR MU equipment. The better route might be (after removing the motored carriage) to fit AAR compatible controls in the driving cabs (has been done to a whole bunch of 37s and 47s[edit] nope, I'm wrong on this...) and reuse the existing 27 way cabling bus (AAR is 27 way too) internally and suddenly you have a whole bunch more locos you could use to haul them.

Edited by frobisher
Link to post
Share on other sites

The GBRf 73/9s for Caledonian Sleeper services have a different arrangement for the high level connections.

They don't have the high level air pipes (presumably extension pipes will be used when required), but they do retain the MU socket in its original position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the GBRF ones - the NR ones appear to have been stripped of their SR MU equipment. The better route might be (after removing the motored carriage) to fit AAR compatible controls in the driving cabs (has been done to a whole bunch of 37s and 47s) and reuse the existing 27 way cabling bus (AAR is 27 way too) internally and suddenly you have a whole bunch more locos you could use to haul them.

No 37s or 47s have AAR. DRS have a modified Blue star system in their fleet which has a cab front socket. Most 47s are fitted with green spot multiple control.

 

For push pull, you need either Blue star (20/31/37), TDM 86/87/90/91) or AAR (66/67/68) or Southern Region high level pipe work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

You are forgetting the effect of the Anglia franchise announcement. Dual voltage EMUs like the 379s, AC EMUs like the 360s plus the entire fleet of Sprinters and Turbostar DMUs will all be looking for a new home in the next five years so why would any leasing company spend money on an assert like the 442s.

The ROSCO that owns them must see a future as they ARE spending money on them. They have been placed in warm storage so will be powered up to run the AC/heating to keep the interiors nice. They'll be moved to stop them seizing up. I think (but I'm not sure) that they'll be towed south from Ely every now and then for a run on the third rail to keep them working. This all costs money. If the ROSCO didn't see a future for them they'd just be cold stored, I.e just dumped in a siding to await scrapping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I may have mentioned before, certainly in a Deltic forum either on here or Facebook, we simply cannot preserve everything. someone said "they" should have kept all the Deltics; someone on a bus forum said "they should have kept the Routemasters". Maybe we should never have scrapped the morris minor or the typical double deck tram.

 

The 442 were built for a purpose and down to a price, and as far as I am aware they fulfilled their original purpose very well. The equipment was nearly life-expired when they were built, and certainly the door gear has been obsolete for a number of years. I personally know someone who was involved in their design in York, and my son as "curator" of the former BR fleet for the Govia lot has his work cut out trying to keep the historic fleet of 313/455/442 etc going as long as he can. The 442s can no longer fulfill their purpose; they were in effect the 3rd rail version of the Deltic, designed for high speed running with few station stops.

 

I can't see what possible use they would be on a heritage railway, no 3rd rail, lack of diesels to pull them, and steam is almost certainly out of the question as few railways have steam locos with air brakes apart from the main-line certified locos. Besides, you can't look out of the windows so would lose the aura of steam haulage on heritage lines. That one car could be kept in the national collection is a bonus as it probably represents the last design of BR 3rd rail electric stock. I don't see the air pipes being high level would cause any problems, multiple working for push-pull would!

 

As for placement on a heritage railway, as others have said, transport and storage costs would be prohibitive, as well as having the compatibility problems. I was recently involved in trying to locate a home for the former Met Railway T stock, but no railway was interested. The SR double deck group is struggling to find support and decent undercover storage for their coach in Kent. There's an increasing number of "things that ought to be saved" that in realistic terms would be competing with limited funds with "things that have already been saved" and have been left rotting by steam railways around the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be an increasing problem, as history gets bigger but museum funding probably won't...

 

You can definitely lose the 'probably', if only because the number of museums of various kinds is generally on the up. From a technical perspective, the logical part of a 442 to preserve would be one of the motor bogies as the last example of the pragmatic and traditional Southern approach; the recycling of running gear and traction components. Whether one might then stretch to a whole driving car is another question. That's probably the most you'll end up with and, broadly, that's probably a reasonable compromise, in my view, which is all it is. Much as we might like there to be a further use for at least the non-motor cars of the 442, I doubt we'll see it. Pity.

 

As an aside, one of the great benefits of HLF funding for preservation projects is the greater heritage and historic awareness (for things that aren't locos) on the part of the preservation movement and, I should add, the HLF's insistence that what they fund should be sustainable: witness the North Norfolk's Quad Art shed as an example of how some things have been better looked after in recent years.

 

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The ROSCO that owns them must see a future as they ARE spending money on them. They have been placed in warm storage so will be powered up to run the AC/heating to keep the interiors nice. They'll be moved to stop them seizing up. I think (but I'm not sure) that they'll be towed south from Ely every now and then for a run on the third rail to keep them working. This all costs money. If the ROSCO didn't see a future for them they'd just be cold stored, I.e just dumped in a siding to await scrapping.

 

The money they are spending on them is a drop in the ocean compared to what would be needed to be spent on them if the 442s were to be retained long term. The main reason they are being kept in warm storage and given test runs is that the relevant rolling stock cascades which make them redundant haven't been completed yet - and as such there could be a need for Southern to take a couple on short term hire. Also my understanding is that due to the aforementioned delays in unit cascades, there is a need to hang on to a few units for peak time Eastbourne services. Were one of these units to suffer a serious failure then it could be swapped for one of the units in 'warm storage'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Some form of 'operation undercover' for all the rolling stock that is currently under tarpaulins, or worse fully out in the open, is probably where much funding could do with being directed. There are many unique vehicles that are of historic importance that need protecting, preserving and put back into running order, but that probably won't ever be particularly of interest to the general railway enthusiast let alone the general public.

 

Where a 442 might fit into that I don't know (maybe it doesn't), but I'd still like to see a whole one saved somehow. I'm not holding my breath though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the consensus appears that the Class 442s are for the "chop" and that preservation of a whole unit is impractical, then I'd be inclined to save:

 

One of the P7 motor bogies (with REP motors)

post-6880-0-77922700-1472983695.jpg

 

and either a whole DTF vehicle or at least the distinctive cab end

post-6880-0-87975500-1472983743.jpg

 

I do feel it's worth saving something of these units, otherwise we'd have a Blue Pullman sceniaro where virtually nothing of them exists.

 

Too many Royal coaches at the NRM, maybe chuck one of those out to make way for part of a Class 442..........

 

- Edited to correct nomenclature of power bogie -

Edited by Peter Kazmierczak
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago I was awarded a contract to restore a historic bus, a "unique survivor" of a particular company. the owning group, a charity, obtained HLF money for me to make secure the body frame and structure. The award and cost of that was around £100k, with a portion of that going toward the "educational" side of the HLF award. Phase 2 was supposed to be to complete the bodywork, but HLF have changed their minds, so we now have a new body frame on a partly restored chassis, and the bus has been in storage for about a year now. We are trying to get smaller grants to help complete the restoration but to try to estimate the costings is a nightmare. 

 

The chairman of this project is the chap who helped design the 442s coincidentally. 

 

I make these comments to make others aware of the difficulties in getting funding for such projects. The total cost for the bus job was estimated at about £260k. I hate to think what the coat of restoring a 442 would be. The bus group has free parking in a local operator's depot. It takes up the bay of one bus. A 442 would take up most of a siding on a railway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Mk 6 motor bogies (with REP motors)

The motor bogies aren't Mk 6 on the 442s (despite what some sources say, but that picture is NOT of a MK 6 bogie). The 4REPs had Mk 6 (as do the 73's...) and the bogies under the 442s were new build to a contemporary design, it was only the traction motors that were reused. Can't remember the type and every online resource I've hit so far has this wrong :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue for reuse is lack of work for them, certainly in third rail land or as loco hauled stock it would seem.

 

Where they might work would be on some longer distance routes but perhaps with a conversion to 25kV?

 

No wait, hear me out :)

 

Haven't at least some of the 313s been made DC only by equipment removal, though in any case the 313s are going to be would down in the not too distant future? Now the 313s (uniquely for the PEP derived AC units) have a 750V DC bus/power system fed from either third rail or their overhead equipment. You'd "merely" need to cannibalise the removed components from the 313's and do a reasonably minimal rebuild/modification on the motor carriage of the 442 (probably losing some passenger space to the equipment, plus obviously cutting in a pantograph well for the roof above said equipment). You might remove the existing third rail gear, but that should almost be it for the modifications needed.

 

Might make a cost effective unit for an open access operator.

 

Or probably more aerial pastry product.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The main issue for reuse is lack of work for them, certainly in third rail land or as loco hauled stock it would seem.Where they might work would be on some longer distance routes but perhaps with a conversion to 25kV?No wait, hear me out :)Haven't at least some of the 313s been made DC only by equipment removal, though in any case the 313s are going to be would down in the not too distant future? Now the 313s (uniquely for the PEP derived AC units) have a 750V DC bus/power system fed from either third rail or their overhead equipment. You'd "merely" need to cannibalise the removed components from the 313's and do a reasonably minimal rebuild/modification on the motor carriage of the 442 (probably losing some passenger space to the equipment, plus obviously cutting in a pantograph well for the roof above said equipment). You might remove the existing third rail gear, but that should almost be it for the modifications needed.Might make a cost effective unit for an open access operator.Or probably more aerial pastry product.

That's a very interesting idea. I like it a lot. Fits in with the British "make do and mend" approach, like the class 230 converted d stock Underground trains. I don't think it'll gain any traction (pun intended) as, due to the ECML IEPs, and the Anglia complete fleet renewal there are going to be a LOT of 25kv trains available. I think ROSCOs will be offering them at absolutely bargain rates to avoid the costs associated with proper disposal.

 

Maybe also charter operators will take the opportunity to upgrade their fleets and we'll end up with some nice smart rakes of MK3s, just as long as they're not blue and grey!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had thought about conversion to AC, but why would anybody go to that expense when there will be 317s surplus soon? I know they are older but no conversion is required. Although Angel Trains seems prepared to spend money on them (e.g. AC traction motors).

 

Cheers

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think that fair comments have been made here about lack of a long-term future for these units. But while there may be plenty of units in the pipeline due to the Anglia franchise commitments, a lot of services are overcrowded now. In that context, it seems very irresponsible not to use them somewhere in push-pull mode to free up DMUs to lengthen trains elsewhere.

 

Of course I am biased as I would like to have the 442s on our local service rather than 159s.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

313s are lightweight suburban trains and 442s are express/ intercity units. So even putting aside the madness of fitting the AC gear to a 442, chances are it won't be sufficiently rated to run the REP motors on the kinds of duty that the units would actually be any good at.

Re-tractioning them is hugely unlikely, but possibly not a completely bonkers idea, but if it were to happen it would use new equipment, not underpowered 30 year old stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...