Jump to content

Ron Ron Ron

Class 442 - Finally back in service on the LSWR.

Recommended Posts

Just now, stovepipe said:

Apparently they have a new AC traction package, so not sure if all that stuff upthread actually applies?

 

 

 

Not yet they don't.  Still camshafts and EE546 motors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

For comparison, the fasts on the Bournemouth line stop at Woking or Basingstoke (both on Sundays), Winchester, Southampton Airport and Southampton Central over the same kind of distance. Things slow down a bit after Southampton, and they're essentially all stations after Poole, but still a lot more high speed weak field running.

 

They have pretty poor acceleration too - even compared to how I remember the old MK1 units, and certainly of measured against a 450/ 444. It'll be interesting to see how they do at maintaining schedules on the Portsmouth line.

 

442s will go if you give them their head and they still hold a number of the records for the fastest times between station pairs regularly served by 444s and 450s on both the Bournemouth and Portsmouth lines. 

 

Having said that it's very difficult to compare eras.  The line speed profile has changed, the number and capacity of substations has increased, the traction power requirements of 450/444 are radically different to a camshaft unit, braking characteristics are different etc etc.  Driving has changed radically over the years too. 

Edited by DY444
Typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

It strikes as a non informed non local observer, that the benefit of having some trains to run extra services provided fairly cheaply is a complete waste of time due to all the foregoing massive problems that have been mentioned. As the option would seem to be no trains or extra services, I think this is most peoples preferred option?

 

Mike.

The idea wasn't fundamentally a bad one, but the reality has been that they're late and the traction kit renewal hasn't happened. Consequently it's unlikely that their reliability is going to set any records.

 

It's odd that SWR is simultaneously bringing back 30 year old trains (with 50 year old traction equipment) whilst ditching some brand new and relatively new trains (707s and 458s).

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

The idea wasn't fundamentally a bad one, but the reality has been that they're late and the traction kit renewal hasn't happened. Consequently it's unlikely that their reliability is going to set any records.

 

It's odd that SWR is simultaneously bringing back 30 year old trains (with 50 year old traction equipment) whilst ditching some brand new and relatively new trains (707s and 458s).

Like Trigger's broom, the design of the traction equipment may be 50 years old, in fact longer, as the EE camshaft equipment predated the Bournemouth electrification, but its components are all replaceable. Apart from that, EE equipment was very traditional in its engineering and anything but delicate in its construction. One reason why the class 37 is something of the railway equivalent of the DC3. 

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The significance of longer loading times depends on the time available before the next train requires that platform. Neither Woking nor Guildford are exactly two platform stations, and there is probably not a lot of difference between the loading times for a 158 and a 442, or a 444 for that matter. They all have relatively narrow doorways, two to a carriage. The busiest of all of the stops, in terms of headways and platform occupation times is going to be Woking.

 

Jim

 

While the 444 units may share a ‘2 single leaf doors per carrage’ Setup the comparison ends there!

 

The actual doors on the 444s are wider and the vestibules inside the train are bigger - helped by the doors not being right at the end of the coach but set back  a bit (roughly half way between the the carrage end and the 1/3rd position used  on the 450s).

 

While I am not that familiar with the 159s, they too don’t have their doors right at the ends of the carrage thus potentially allowing bigger internal vestibules.

 

As I have noted the speeds the doors open and close on the 442s compare very poorly to every post privatisation EMU (or indeed the 455 fleet). Again not too sure about door sizes but opening times are not too bad by virtue of the lighter double door setup used which puts less strain on the mechanisms.

 

Ultimately you carn’t get away from the fact that in their current condition, the 442s are sub-standard by today’s benchmarks and will cause significant opperational problems. Yes when first introduced back in the late 80s they were a revalation in comfort for SR commuters used to slam door stock - but 30 years on its time to ditch the rose tinted glasses and judge them based on current best practice - not what folk remember from the past.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, they weren't greeted with universal enthusiasm when they were first introduced, because the long-distance commuters perceived them to be plasticky, 'cold' etc, in comparison with the trains that went before ........ a conservative bunch, some of whom probably started their commuting careers in Bulleid stock. there was an issue about cooked breakfasts too, IIRC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick 'em back on the route they were intended for;Waterloo - Weymouth.

 

(Sorry, just my 5 pence worth!)

 

Stu

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. This does not tally with my experience, albeit limited of the 442.

 

When I was a trainee, I was involved in networker commissioning. Part of this was mileage accumulation, which basically was running the units at 75mph all day long to get the miles on them as quickly as possible. Aside from the fallacy of this method, on one occasion we ran alongside a 442 which was making frequent station stops.  It would be pulling away from the station as we passed, overtake us shortly after, and then not long after that slow for the next station. The station stops were sufficiently frequent that the 442 did not get out of sight before slowing for the next station.

 

Or to put it another way, the 442 was averaging about 75mph including dwell times with frequent stops. That does not strike me as too shabby.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These units will provide extra seats in a good inviroment don't think passengers will worry about how old they are as long as they arrive on time and they get a seat,Lets wait and see how things pan out.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Titan said:

Hmm. This does not tally with my experience, albeit limited of the 442.

 

When I was a trainee, I was involved in networker commissioning. Part of this was mileage accumulation, which basically was running the units at 75mph all day long to get the miles on them as quickly as possible. Aside from the fallacy of this method, on one occasion we ran alongside a 442 which was making frequent station stops.  It would be pulling away from the station as we passed, overtake us shortly after, and then not long after that slow for the next station. The station stops were sufficiently frequent that the 442 did not get out of sight before slowing for the next station.

 

Or to put it another way, the 442 was averaging about 75mph including dwell times with frequent stops. That does not strike me as too shabby.

 

Indeed.  An often overlooked feature of those days which undoubtedly helped was the braking for stations.  Back in the day, on a dry, non-leaf coated rail, SR drivers often used to approach station stops at what would be considered ridiculous speeds today then throw in a big handful of EP brake and stop at the marker every time.  Obviously management attitudes to slight braking misjudgements were rather more relaxed back then than they are now.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

These units will provide extra seats in a good inviroment don't think passengers will worry about how old they are as long as they arrive on time and they get a seat,Lets wait and see how things pan out.

Arrive on time & get a seat? Nargh, that idea will never catch on!

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

Indeed.  An often overlooked feature of those days which undoubtedly helped was the braking for stations.  Back in the day, on a dry, non-leaf coated rail, SR drivers often used to approach station stops at what would be considered ridiculous speeds today then throw in a big handful of EP brake and stop at the marker every time.  Obviously management attitudes to slight braking misjudgements were rather more relaxed back then than they are now.

 

Not just SR, there were some very impressive stops at Witham with late running 309's braking from 100mph+ downhill...

Edited by Titan
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

....The actual doors on the 444s are wider and the vestibules inside the train are bigger - helped by the doors not being right at the end of the coach but set back  a bit (roughly half way between the the carrage end and the 1/3rd position used  on the 450s).......

 

 

The doors on the 444's are located at different positions for each coach in the formation.

4 doors are located at the ends of the coach and the others are inset from the ends.

Only one door is located at a 1/3 position and 3 doors are approximately at a midway position between the end and 1/3rd in.

The remaining 2 doors in a 5 car set are behind the end cabs, at the ends of the passenger compartments.

 

 

444011%20Southampton%20200808g-L.jpg

.

Edited by Ron Ron Ron
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

The doors on the 444's are located at different positions for each coach in the formation.

4 doors are located at the ends of the coach and the others are inset from the ends.

Only one door is located at a 1/3 position and 3 doors are approximately at a midway position between the end and 1/3rd in.

The remaining 2 doors in a 5 car set are behind the end cabs, at the ends of the passenger compartments.

 

 

https://photos.smugmug.com/Trips/2008/200808/i-pGQJg7Z/1/52c0fb4c/L/444011%20Southampton%20200808g-L.jpg

.

 

Firstly I did not say the doors on the 444s were at the 1rd position - I said they were located inwards of the ends but short of the 1/3rd position.

 

If you look at the 2nd coach in the photo then the rear door is quite clearly located closer to the 1/3rd position (note the use of the word closer please) than the end of the coach.

 

Secondly even those doors located at the ‘ends’ of the coach are in fact not literally so.The Mark 3 design used by the 442s in fact features doors that partially wrap round the end of the coach - i.e. there is zero space between the door and the coach end - but you can quite clearly see from the photo that is NOT the case with the 444s which have a door sized bit of bodyshell at the coach end.

 

Why does this matter - well it doesn’t take a genius to realise that on the 444s you can have larger vestibules to help with the flow of passengers boarding / alighting at stations thus preventing blockages and speeding the flow. On a Mk3 the vestibules are constrained by the toilet and coach end - fine for InterCity operations where station dwell times are measured in minutes - totally unsuible where dwell times are measured in seconds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

See below....

 

Phil - "Firstly I did not say the doors on the 444s were at the 1rd position"

Me - I didn’t say you did. say that.

 

Phil -  "I said they were located inwards of the ends but short of the 1/3rd position."

Me - Your blanket statement appeared to imply they were all in that position, when they are clearly in different positions on each coach.

 

Phil -  "If you look at the 2nd coach in the photo then the rear door is quite clearly located closer to the 1/3rd position (note the use of the word closer please) than the end of the coach."

Me - Read my post !

I detailed the rough positions for all the doors, including the only one in that position.

 

Phil -  "Secondly even those doors located at the ‘ends’ of the coach are in fact not literally so.

The Mark 3 design used by the 442s in fact features doors that partially wrap round the end of the coach - i.e. there is zero space between the door and the coach end - but you can quite clearly see from the photo that is NOT the case with the 444s which have a door sized bit of bodyshell at the coach end. -

Me - They are still at the end and not  set back a bit (roughly half way between the the carriage end and the 1/3rd position”.

 

 

Phil - "Why does this matter - well it doesn’t take a genius to realise that on the 444s you can have larger vestibules to help with the flow of passengers boarding / alighting at stations thus preventing blockages and speeding the flow.

On a Mk3 the vestibules are constrained by the toilet and coach end - fine for InterCity operations where station dwell times are measured in minutes - totally unsuitable where dwell times are measured in seconds."

Me - I’m not even remotely disputing what you’ve said there Phil.

The 444's are OK in this respect.

The 442's not.

The doors and vestibules were one of several very poor features of the otherwise excellent mk3 coach (in LHCS & HST form).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wonderful thing about the 442 is that they demonstrate that, contrary to modern belief, it is in fact possible to build a train with a comfortable ride quality and which doesn't try to simulate a thrill ride at a theme park:diablo_mini::mocking_mini:

  • Like 5
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The actual doors on the 444s are wider and the vestibules inside the train are bigger - helped by the doors not being right at the end of the coach but set back  a bit (roughly half way between the the carrage end and the 1/3rd position used  on the 450s).

 

While I am not that familiar with the 159s, they too don’t have their doors right at the ends of the carrage thus potentially allowing bigger internal vestibules.

As we learned, the hard way, on London Underground, the actual door width and the effective width when passengers are alighting or boarding are two different things, and it doesn't really make any substantial difference until you get to full width double leaf doors. The value of any internal vestibule is limited by the extent to which they fill up with standing passengers, which in tuen is related to the width of the aisle between the seats. 3+2 seating is a pretty well guaranteed way to block the vestibules and extend dwell times, and it only takes one slow doorway to slow the whole train down. To be of any practical use, stock desigbed for high peak loadings needs to have a combination of over-size vestibules and wide aisles, or even longitudinal seating only with a very wide aisle, as in SWR's 455s, or most modern LUL/Overground stocks.

 

Jim

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In London - particularly on the east end of the Jubilee & the DLR it matters not a jot how wide the doors are - everyone piles on & off at the same time gazing intently at their damn phones regardless because everyone is so blo*ody rude ...........................

 

Anyway nice to see some heritage traction back in service regardless of it's suitability ................ :good:

Edited by Southernman46
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Not yet they don't.  Still camshafts and EE546 motors

 

So the two refurbished units now in service haven't had the new traction package fitted? 

 

Why would they do that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there are technical or commercial issues getting in the way, there is nothing technically wrong with the original equipment and it defers any issues that may arise from getting the new equipment past approval from Network Rail's signalling people?

 

Jim 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stovepipe said:

 

So the two refurbished units now in service haven't had the new traction package fitted?

 

 

Correct

 

31 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Because there are technical or commercial issues getting in the way, there is nothing technically wrong with the original equipment and it defers any issues that may arise from getting the new equipment past approval from Network Rail's signalling people?

 

Jim 

 

That's about the size of it as I understand things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - some may remember the HOOPS that the original Junipers had to get through to get operational certification on the SWML in the mad, mad, days of the early re-privatised railway ..........................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What commuters really need to help egress and access is a hinged door to every seating bay or compartment,,,,,,,,,,,,,oh, wait!

 

Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

As we learned, the hard way, on London Underground, the actual door width and the effective width when passengers are alighting or boarding are two different things, and it doesn't really make any substantial difference until you get to full width double leaf doors. The value of any internal vestibule is limited by the extent to which they fill up with standing passengers, which in tuen is related to the width of the aisle between the seats. 3+2 seating is a pretty well guaranteed way to block the vestibules and extend dwell times, and it only takes one slow doorway to slow the whole train down. To be of any practical use, stock desigbed for high peak loadings needs to have a combination of over-size vestibules and wide aisles, or even longitudinal seating only with a very wide aisle, as in SWR's 455s, or most modern LUL/Overground stocks.

 

Jim

 

The 444s have 2+2 seating in standard (and used to have 2+1 in first IIRC) This plus the door arangement strikes me as a sensible compromise between trying to provide an InterCity layout in a form that can cope with lots of long distance commuters and consequently high footfall at stations.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The 444s have 2+2 seating in standard (and used to have 2+1 in first IIRC) This plus the door arangement strikes me as a sensible compromise between trying to provide an InterCity layout in a form that can cope with lots of long distance commuters and consequently high footfall at stations.

 

 

It probably is, and it is notable that there is a general move away from 3+2 seating. 

 

The 442s were designed as InterCity units, for runs that had few stops in the congested areas of the South-Western route, and that will still be generally true on the Portsmouth run, even if that isn't the route for which they were designed. Once away from the area of really close headway working, dwell time at stations is not the most important issue. It's the ability to maintain the overall run times set for them without becoming progressively late.

Just for comparison, the HSTs were probably as bad for dwell times, especially given the number of passengers who didn't close doors behind them, but maintained their timetabled run times.

 

Jim

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.