Where next for the Class 442s?

[Ceptic]

Infotainment system?!?  Are the guards expected to start singing and reading out the weather reports over the P.A. now?

 

Who writes this rubbish?

 

Agreed. You can only but laugh.... Otherwise,.....It's enough to make you weep.

[Zomboid]

A rather ominous statement there. "It’s a good opportunity to increase seating capacity while these trains are being refurbished, so all the trains will reconfigured to provide additional standard class seating."

 

This obsession with seating capacity results in the dreadful 3x2 seating which seems to plague modern trains. I hope this isn't the plan, as they are cramped, uncomfortable and restricts room to move through the carriage (thereby slowing loading and unloading). But it makes a good headline to have more seats on trains, and there's mother DafT like more than a good headline...

I think it's more likely that they'll squeeze in a couple more rows by using those horrific ironing boards that are presently popular with the DfT and by making the legroom unsuitable for anyone over 5'7".

 

To be honest if they used the same seats and spacing as in the 444s they'll be fine, those are thinner than the old 442 seats but are still acceptably comfortable (IMO). [450 spacing is such that I can only fit into the priority seats where the legroom is actually big enough that my knees are not pressed against the seat in front, but then at a massive 6'1" I am essentially a giant so I shouldn't really expect to be catered for by 'normal' seats]

[John M Upton]

The seemingly usual pairing of 2404 and 2414 were at Fratton this morning, one in full SWR livery and the other in dealer stock white with black bits.

 

A few things struck me, the light grey/almost white is grubby already and there is no orange cantrail stripe on either unit.

 

Also work has begun on repainting Fratton and Havant stations. Please tell me that it it just at the primer stage and that two tone drab grey is not the new station building colour scheme?

Edited November 15, 2018 by John M Upton

[Zomboid]

Primer or not, SWR colours are decidedly uninspiring after Stagecoach's palette. It's extraordinary how every visible change they've made (that I can think of) has been for the worse.

[Foulounoux]

The seemingly usual pairing of 2404 and 2414 were at Fratton this morning, one in full SWR livery and the other in dealer stock white with black bits.

A few things struck me, the light grey/almost white is grubby already and there is no orange cantrail stripe on either unit.

Also work has begun on repainting Fratton and Havant stations. Please tell me that it it just at the primer stage and that two tone drab grey is not the new station building colour scheme?

 

As a Havant (& WATERLOOVILLE) resident we aspire to two tones of grey :-)

[Gwiwer]

SWR colours are decidedly drab and uninspiring as is their logo.  It has been reported that the senior management has found it necessary to open re-negotiation talks with the Gummint seeking to ease their financial burden in a scenario which sounds alarmingly familiar to anyone who has followed the ECML saga.  

 

There was uninformed chit-chat at the time the franchise was won suggesting First Group did not expect the win.  There has been anecdotal evidence ever since that there is no money behind this franchise.  It has taken far longer than almost any other change-over to re-brand even allowing for the fact that the suburban train fleet will not be re-liveried due to its short-term future.  To date, over a year from the start, only two electric units have been repainted and one of them has spent most of that year out of traffic.  Of the diesel units no two have been treated exactly the same (and none match either of the electric units) meaning there is indecision over livery and style and a complete lack of consistency in appearance.  Three units on a Waterloo - Salisbury / Exeter train now wear three quite different versions of SWR livery on an almost daily basis.

 

Today it was formally announced by posters on stations that the new class 701 units will start to enter traffic from an unspecified date next year.  This incidentally means the withdrawal of first class facilities on the Windsor and Reading lines as of 8th December much to the ire of regular first class customers.  These units will, one assumes, now arrive in the two-tone grey style of two-pack paint and not the metallic striped style of vinyl which has apparently been found too expensive and insufficiently durable.

 

The two 442s currently on test may indeed by showing a full livery application and a "cheap and cheerful" version to get them into traffic quickly.  It surely doesn't come much cheaper than a coat of plain light grey.  

 

I have yet to see any evidence of station re-branding.  Again this has taken an uncommon amount of time to even get started and again this could suggest both indecision as to style and an absence of financial backing within the franchise.  

 

Comparing apples with potatoes briefly I found absolutely the same issues when I worked as a driver for First Group's bus division some years ago.  No rush to improve appearance, no urgency or even interest in addressing inconsistent livery or uniform styles, definitely no money for anything which might have made buses look attractive and improve staff morale.  

Edited November 15, 2018 by Gwiwer

[mdvle]

Today it was formally announced by posters on stations that the new class 701 units will start to enter traffic from an unspecified date next year.  This incidentally means the withdrawal of first class facilities on the Windsor and Reading lines as of 8th December much to the ire of regular first class customers.  These units will, one assumes, now arrive in the two-tone grey style of two-pack paint and not the metallic striped style of vinyl which has apparently been found too expensive and insufficiently durable.

Perhaps this is an indication that it is time for the government to follow the Scottish lead and specify a branding for each of the franchises and thus eliminate this unnecessary cost from the process.

 

I have yet to see any evidence of station re-branding.  Again this has taken an uncommon amount of time to even get started and again this could suggest both indecision as to style and an absence of financial backing within the franchise.

And perhaps a simple standard branding for all stations regardless of franchise.

[phil-b259]

Perhaps this is an indication that it is time for the government to follow the Scottish lead and specify a branding for each of the franchises and thus eliminate this unnecessary cost from the process.

 

And perhaps a simple standard branding for all stations regardless of franchise.

 

Except that has far too much of a whiff of nationalisation about it!

 

Please remember the conservatives are ideologically opposed to having the state get involved in things unless it absolutely has to - they much prefer to let franchise winners do as they please with respect to branding to keep up the pretence that privatisation is a wonderful success.

 

I think it is SNP policy to nationalise the railways if they get the chance - unfortunately the DfT can block them doing that so instead they have tried to come up with something as close to it as they can get - hence the adoption of a Holyrood devised livery to be used regardless of operator and franchise terms that don't let the winner make much of a profit.

 

The Welsh Government have decided to follow a similar stance and the new franchise for the Wales & borders routes borrows quite a lot from what the Scots have been doing.

 

More recently the SNP have managed to persuade the DfT to let a public sector franchise bid for the franchise too - however hell will freeze over before the Conservatives let that happen in England. Instead we are getting some sort of  'partnership' thing bringing operations and infrastructure together - but firmly in the private sector of course to satisfy the blue partys political dogma of state = bad, private sector = absolutely wonderful in every way.

[Southernman46]

 No rush to improve appearance, no urgency or even interest in addressing inconsistent livery or uniform styles, definitely no money for anything which might have made buses look attractive and improve staff morale.  

The only thing SWR are rushing towards is to prove how much crappier than Stagecoach's SWT they can get in the shortest possible time .................... utter shite

[Dunsignalling]

The only thing SWR are rushing towards is to prove how much crappier than Stagecoach's SWT they can get in the shortest possible time .................... utter shite

I understand they've started cannibalising a Class 159 recently, presumably to avoid buying spares.

 

We've had more of those fall down on the job since SWR took over than I remember in the whole time I was working and they merrily let them run plastered in graffiti, too something that SWT very rarely allowed. 

 

John

['CHARD]

I understand they've started cannibalising a Class 159 recently, presumably to avoid buying spares.

 

At their own risk, then. Porterbrook will require the asset to be complete when it's handed back at franchise end.  I expect it's whilst spares or repaired components are awaited, rather than to avoid purchasing them.

[Gwiwer]

The number of short-formed West of England (i.e. diesel unit) trains has increased significantly of late. One unit at a time is away for relivery. That does not account for the regular appearance of 2-car Waterloo - Exeter trains which should be at least 6-car and which then leave passengers behind once full. 5-car instead of 9-car trains are also regular. If SWR is using a 159 for parts then something somewhere is seriously wrong and it probably isn’t with the units themselves.

 

The December timetable change was to have seen the replacement of 8-car class 450 workings on the Portsmouth Direct by 10-car class 442 sets but only one train might be ready and few if any crews will be trained in time. The intention was to have all Weymouth line trains formed of 10-car 444 stock east of Bournemouth but this will not now happen because the required units will remain on Portsmouth duties until enough 442s are back in traffic.

 

Quite what will happen to 127 class 450 units when they are no longer required for Portsmouth fasts, Poole stoppers and the Reading and Ascot - Guildford services has yet to be made public. They will remain on Portsmouth stoppers, Basingstoke and Alton services but that will not account for all of them by any means.

[Pete the Elaner]

The number of short-formed West of England (i.e. diesel unit) trains has increased significantly of late. One unit at a time is away for relivery. That does not account for the regular appearance of 2-car Waterloo - Exeter trains which should be at least 6-car and which then leave passengers behind once full. 5-car instead of 9-car trains are also regular. If SWR is using a 159 for parts then something somewhere is seriously wrong and it probably isn’t with the units themselves.

 

Drifting a bit off-topic a bit but...

 

My local line is the WCML & I see none of this. Most trains are more or less on time, Cancellations or short trains are not very common.

I had heard complaints in other parts of the country but it was only when I took a Thameslink from Cambridge that I experiences it first hand: 1st & 3rd services were cancelled, 2nd one very late etc. I realised how different the services actually were.

 

A 2 coach unit replacing a busy 6 coach one is really horrendous. It is unlikely that the services here are frequent enough that another will be along in 15 minutes either. Are the TOCs obliged to provide taxis because it is their fault the train is short?

 

So while trains are running short in the South, 321s are robbed of a coach before being sent to Scotland as 320s & presumably the spare coach gets scrapped? 319s are being converted to bi-power units while there is a shortage of 3rd rail stock.

I understand that many Mk3As are now in store? If they are deemed too good to be scrapped (which I agree with), then why not get them re-built & get them in service?

 

This can hardly be described as a "working" railway. More like a dysfunctional one.

 

Since the 442s were very close to Mk3s anyway, can a Mk3A be converted for strengthening a 442 to 6 cars?

[phil-b259]

 

Since the 442s were very close to Mk3s anyway, can a Mk3A be converted for strengthening a 442 to 6 cars?

 

No, because:-

 

The only similarity with the Mk3 coach is the bodyshell - and even then because of the power worked door design the ends are different.

The internal wiring in each unit is actually bespoke and does not match the official drawings - effectively todays fitters and maintainers have to guess what was going through the minds of the builders over 30 years ago

The door system and air condition systems (3 different types across the fleet) are obsolete and differ from the loco hauled variant.

 

Now granted these are all solvable but would take a lot of time and money to fix. The real problem is however the maximum train length platforms on the SWML, particularly Waterloo (which cannot be lengthened) and indeed much of the signalling is designed round the use 12x 20m coaches (Mk1 length) or 10x 23m coaches (Mk3 length). A 5 + 6 car 442 formation is therefore for too long to fit.

 

 

The basic problems with the SWR franchise are:-

 

First Group overbid for the franchise - just like the East Coast debacle, they assumed passenger growth figures which were highly ambitious, that the 442s would be 'easy' to return to service and they could steamroller the Unions into submission over DOO.

 

The DfT / HM Treasury were once again far to interested in making money (oh and 'breaking the unions') than actually caring whether the franchise proposal from First group would work. Hence they ignored the warnings from Network Rail that the infrastructure, particularly the power supply side wasn't capable of delivering First Groups service proposals, or the well documented problems Southern had with the ageing 442 fleet  and the fact that thanks to a certain referendum held in 2016, the short term outlook for the UK economy - and by extension passenger numbers is very uncertain.

 

I have heard it said that SWTs bid was 'designed to fail' by Stagecoach as they could see the problems looming and didn't want to be the ones left carrying the can for the Governments screw ups. Alternatively it could simply have been that with 25 years experience of running the SWT franchise, Stagecoach knew what worked and what didn't and their bid reflected that. As usual with this Government though previous experience counts for little when the need to satisfy their city mates and mantra that constant change / competition is the only way to improve anything.

['CHARD]

As an oft-member of franchise bid teams, I frequently have diverging views from posters on here, based on 'bid-world' experience, but pretty much all of what Phil has described there rings pretty true.  

 

 

 

Cynical and battle-weary of Derby

['CHARD]

I would say that some of the ex 321 cars could be inserted into 319s or other 321s to create 5 car units

 

But to what end?  Negatively impacting the power-to-weight ratio, affecting sectional running times and therefore downgrading units' performance.  Also, as has been said, we operate a 'multiples of four' suburban railway.  Lengthening units from 80+ to 100+ metres has impacts on platform lengths, sidings, depots and so on... Believe me, franchise bid teams, and their operational counterparts are evaluating this stuff all the time.

[frobisher]

I would say that some of the ex 321 cars could be inserted into 319s or other 321s to create 5 car units

You then have sluggish 5 car units at best, and in the case of the 319's you have to rebuild the transplanted vehicle with a 750V DC power bus.

 

We're not exactly short of EMU stock that could be life extended that is heading scrapyards-ward, but the practicalities are another thing.

[DY444]

You then have sluggish 5 car units at best, and in the case of the 319's you have to rebuild the transplanted vehicle with a 750V DC power bus.

 

We're not exactly short of EMU stock that could be life extended that is heading scrapyards-ward, but the practicalities are another thing.

 

You don't need the DC power bus if you're not using the third rail supply or if it's not a 769.  In any event a 750V DC power bus is not exactly difficult.  1 length of cable and a couple of vehicle end jumpers (or 2 lengths of cable and 4 vehicle end jumpers if it's a 769).   Apart from train length the main issue is performance.  It would be pretty sluggish on AC, extremely sluggish on DC and plain diabolical on diesel (if it were a 769)

[justin1985]

The 321 to 320 conversions do seem a bit mad though. 

 

Are the Scotrail routes in question physically configured as a "multiples of three" railway in terms of platform and loop lengths etc? Or is it a question of better power to weight? (all of the mk3 EMUs only have a single power car per unit)

 

I can't help thinking SDO might have been a better solution if it was just platform lengths that were the issue?

 

But in general there will shortly be a very big surplus of EMUs, many of which can be configured for third rail (class 360 from GA and Heathrow Connect, as well as 345s from GN etc.) The shortage still seems to be DMUs

 

J

[cunningduck]

The 321 to 320 conversions do seem a bit mad though.

 

Are the Scotrail routes in question physically configured as a "multiples of three" railway in terms of platform and loop lengths etc? Or is it a question of better power to weight? (all of the mk3 EMUs only have a single power car per unit)

 

I can't help thinking SDO might have been a better solution if it was just platform lengths that were the issue?

 

J

Mostly yes, Scotrail is set up for units of 3, most DOO screens (on platforms) are spaced for 3 or 6 coaches. All electrics were 3 coaches until the 385s and 380s turned up with 4 coach sets in the order.

[Simon Bendall]

I would say that some of the ex 321 cars could be inserted into 319s or other 321s to create 5 car units

 

Most of the spare 321 trailers have been scrapped now.

[phil-b259]

Mostly yes, Scotrail is set up for units of 3, most DOO screens (on platforms) are spaced for 3 or 6 coaches. All electrics were 3 coaches until the 385s and 380s turned up with 4 coach sets in the order.

 

And the location of platform mounted DOO equipment is critical when we are talking about ex BR units. It would cost a lot of money to go round adding extra monitors to every station served by 4 car trains.

 

The new 385s and 380s feature train mounted cameras and monitors inside the drivers cabs Thus SDO so can operate from any length platform with no specialist kit required.

[Gwiwer]

And the location of platform mounted DOO equipment is critical when we are talking about ex BR units. It would cost a lot of money to go round adding extra monitors to every station served by 4 car trains.

 

 

 

This is being overcome in other ways.  Around SWR where, among other things, 442s are about to re-enter traffic there is no DOO but re-signalling and new works schemes are taking account of it being a future possibility.  In the short term many platforms have had their 8-car stop markers moved to the far end and re-designated 8-10 car stop marks.  This results in 8-car trains now drawing up well down the platform at some stations where the main buildings and shelter are to the rear and slightly delays trains as passengers then make their way to the rear coach which might be 40 metres or more farther along the platform than used to be the case.

 

Some locations also have bases and posts fitted apparently for DOO monitors though no monitors or mirrors yet exist. 

[mdvle]

The 321 to 320 conversions do seem a bit mad though. 

 

Are the Scotrail routes in question physically configured as a "multiples of three" railway in terms of platform and loop lengths etc? Or is it a question of better power to weight? (all of the mk3 EMUs only have a single power car per unit)

 

I can't help thinking SDO might have been a better solution if it was just platform lengths that were the issue?

 

 

Except SDO is not very customer friendly.  Nothing makes people hate any mode of transit more than finding it difficult to get off at your destination because the doors where you are don't open, and can lead to bad publicity if the media picks up on it.

[Gwiwer]

SDO should be customer-friendly.  In every instance I know of announcements are mare on platforms before departure and on trains before arrival at short platforms confirming which coaches will have doors opened / locked.  Additionally on-board announcements made by conductors are also both specific and helpful and allow for eventualities such as an HST running in reverse-formation meaning (for example) coaches A and B will remain locked instead of K and L.  

 

How else are we to manage when the level of demand requires longer trains than will fit into a few platforms and those platforms are, by and large, at locations where they either cannot be lengthened due to physical constraints or an extension is not warranted because of low patronage?  

 

Back in the days of slam-doors I recall any train stopping at Dilton Marsh required the guard and driver to be very wary indeed.  Most trains were six coaches, there was no PA in those days, the station os only a few minutes from its neighbours either side meaning it wasn't always possible for the guard to get through and remind anyone to travel next to his van.  The driver had to adjust his stopping position according to where the guards van was in the train and only that coach, which could in theory be anywhere from position 1 to 6,  would be platformed.  SDO is much safer and more customer-friendly than that.