442 - Where now?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Another interesting item in January's Modern Railways - Govia have ordered some more Class 387 units from Bombardier for Gatwick Express services.

 

Well, that is not such a surprise. No need for a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to know that the 442 is not the ideal train for a high frequency service for passengers with luggage.

 

So  who gets the 442s now? Is it reasonable to suppose that the ancient ex-4 REP traction motors are scrapped and the units become a 5TC propelled by Class 67 or Class 68? Mainline to Exeter (please!) or TransPennine? Somewhere else?

 

Must be lots of possibilities which would free up some DMUs that are much needed in various places, Pacer replacement etc.

[ess1uk]

Could they be motored with new traction units?

I thought they were great when first introduced.

[Xerces Fobe2]

A 3 Phase traction package and a pantograph would make these units very useful - a latter day Class 309

 

XF

[Joseph_Pestell]

A 3 Phase traction package and a pantograph would make these units very useful - a latter day Class 309

 

XF

 

I can see that. Perhaps a good option for East Anglia?

[lmsforever]

Think they will probably be scrapped as not many TOC,s would want to to take them on even if they came cheap as they are non standard and can only sensibly work on the southern lines.But possibly they could work services were no sliding doors mattered ,Coastway and maybe Marshlink if electrified but otherwise not many routes for them.I don't know how faded the interiors are but if a refurb is needed that will count against them and using them as loco hauled again TOC,s not keen due to costs with locos and the hiring of them.The plastic Pigs were a wonderful unit when introduced on the Wessex services but fancy they were not I travelled to Weymouth on one and was not impressed with the comfort speed wise to Waterloo they were brilliant but bouncy after all they are only a mark 2 coach with motors so who wants to run old tech that's probably corroded to hell.

[Bomag]

The plastic Pigs were a wonderful unit when introduced on the Wessex services but fancy they were not I travelled to Weymouth on one and was not impressed with the comfort speed wise to Waterloo they were brilliant but bouncy after all they are only a mark 2 coach with motors so who wants to run old tech that's probably corroded to hell.

 

Personally they look like Mk3s.

 

Given that 40 year old Mk3s are still perfectly OK then 30 year old one should be OK - although the MBSRM may be a bit of a problem. The Irish Mk3s did have issues but this was down to Derby not putting the same care into the product or Inchcore not being competent (delete as appropriate depending on position). As for the traction package, it was designed in the period before 'designing to a price'. I would expect to to outlast the first gen AC system in the 465s; however, I am not a mechanical engineer.

 

Southern region track has never been the smoothest; have tried working on the Anglia 3rd rail sections in the late 80's I am not surprised.

[phil-b259]

Destined for the scrapheap is where they will be going for the following reasons

 

(1) They are in need of a serious overhaul inside and out.

 

(2) Every single unit seems to have bespoke wiring and mods (and thats from the day they were built by the way - the people putting them together seemingly didn't work to a coherent plan for the entire fleet - as long as the right bits of kit were linked , how it was done was left up to them) -I know this thanks to friend who is a fitter trying to keep them going at Stewards lane.

 

(3) They are not fitted out for push pull working - the high level jumpers and associated control equipment are only there to allow two units to operate together and it would be very costly to fit a loco based push pull system. (Note although any air braked buckeyed loco can haul them without a 33/1 or a 3rd rail there is no power available for the doors, internal lighting, air con etc.

 

(4) Major surgery is required to fit a pantograph well etc to the body (All AC fitted EMUs use the 20m bodyshell variant and the necessary strengthening etc was built into the design stage). Similarly the underframe requires significant redesign to accommodate the necessary AC traction gear plus transformer.

 

(5) The 1960s DC traction kit is life expired having been recycled in the 1980s and fitting new kit will be an expensive exercise

 

(6) Spare parts are very difficult to obtain for things like the door systems, air con modules etc as they have been obsolete for decades now - again replacing them won't come cheap.

 

(7) The fleet size is small - only 24 units which means that unlike other EMUs the costs of designing and installing a new traction package cannot be applied elsewhere (e.g. a package for the 319s can also be applied to the 317s, 320s, 321 etc)

 

 

 

I can see that. Perhaps a good option for East Anglia?

 

No they are not a good option for Anglia.

 

Yes I agree that the GEML could certainly do with a EMU based solution so as to get rid of the Loco & DVT combo and replace them with passenger carrying vhicles

 

However that should be done as part of a new fleet - I have said it before and i will say it again, something similar to the Siemens 444s opperated by SWT would fit the bill.

 

Why?

 

For starters even though they are the same length as the 442 units, by moving the doorways away from the carriage ends the vestibules can be made wider and the door mechanisms simpler.

 

Secondly a new unit will benefit from the most up to date technology and be designed around fast replacement of components - something the 442 fleet has always struggled with because of how they were built in the first place.

 

Thirdly even if you did overhaul them and fit a new traction package - give it another 20 years and history will be repeating itself - the bodies will be life expired way before the traction kit and manufacturers are not in the business of supplying bodies any more - they supply complete trains.

 

 

I'm sorry but there is far to much rose tinted spectacles going on here with the 442s. People need to face facts and stop romanticising. They are knackered, need replacing and as far as the railway industry is concerned it is far to costly to do anything to them than send them for scrap. Get over it.

[wombatofludham]

If the bodywork is OK, I wonder if refitting them with new electric motors and control system (as was done for the Networkers), fitting them for AC overhead collection, and refitting the buffet car on half the sets as passenger accommodation, might give them a new lease of life on the Norwich run?  If the bogies could be rated for 110 mph, and the gearing reworked as part of the re-engineering, they might offer some useful timing benefits on the route, and if some of the buffets can be reasonably modified into passenger accommodation, a ten car Piggy might offer some useful capacity uplift as well within the platform constraints.  In terms of passenger appeal they would be identical to the existing stock, operationally though they would offer some flexibility off peak.

 

[edit] overtaken by the last posting, although given the options the leasing company have been indicating for the loco hauled stock in terms of rebuilding them for further use there seems to be a willingness to keep the loco-hauled Mk3 in service, including retrofitting new power doors based on either the IE/Class 442 design or the Chiltern rebuild, so who knows.

[roythebus]

Got to agree with phil b above. I know one of the engineers who helped design the trains in the first place, and my son is the man charged with keeping the things going today. they may have been good trains when they were built TO A PRICE, but they are now life-expired.

 

As others have said, the door gear has been obsolete for years, the company making the parts having been phoenixed many times in the last 20 years; the traction gear was 2nd hand when installed (down to a price again) and the bodies are corroded. My son's professional view, burn them! They seem to have a habit of self-ignition in certain conditions. For goodness sake let's get rid of the old unreliable stuff and INVEST in the future.

[phil-b259]

Personally they look like Mk3s.

 

Given that 40 year old Mk3s are still perfectly OK then 30 year old one should be OK - although the MBSRM may be a bit of a problem. The Irish Mk3s did have issues but this was down to Derby not putting the same care into the product or Inchcore not being competent (delete as appropriate depending on position). As for the traction package, it was designed in the period before 'designing to a price'. I would expect to to outlast the first gen AC system in the 465s; however, I am not a mechanical engineer.

 

Southern region track has never been the smoothest; have tried working on the Anglia 3rd rail sections in the late 80's I am not surprised.

 

Yes they are Mk3s not Mk2s and yes they borrowed heavily from the MK3s built for Ireland, which showed that

 

(1) it was possible to alter the design so as to include power operated doors (albut in the same place and to the same dimensions as manual ones - hence all the problems with small vestibules, and awkward corners to get into the saloon for wheelchairs, buggies, suitcases, etc

(2) it was possible to tweak the design to accommodate a heavy generator inside (or hang heavy traction equipment from it).

 

THE 442 TRACTION PACKAGE WAS DESIGNED IN 1966! While the body may look modern the traction motors and control gear is now approaching 50 years old. (The main reason the Weymouth line got new trains was that apart from the motor coaches, all he REP and TC fleet were converted from loco hauled MK1s and by the mid 80s it was clear that thanks to decades of corrosion etc. they simply wouldn't last another 10, let alone another 20)

[phil-b259]

 

[edit] overtaken by the last posting, although given the options the leasing company have been indicating for the loco hauled stock in terms of rebuilding them for further use there seems to be a willingness to keep the loco-hauled Mk3 in service, including retrofitting new power doors based on either the IE/Class 442 design or the Chiltern rebuild, so who knows.

 

Rebuilding loco hauled Mk3s is a far more cost effective one because they have no traction package to worry about and the new door system will take advantage of the most up to date components etc. The payback on doing such mods means that if they get scrapped in 15 or 20 years time then it doesn't matter. New traction packages PLUS complete replacement of everything on board, which is what would have to happen with the 442s, simply doesn't stack up financially.

[Xerces Fobe2]

All in all done on the cheap in the first place and I do recall the issues with the wiring etc.  To many problems top sort out and that would be non standard unless that nice Mr Shooter can do something with them?

 

XF

[Spannerman]

Is it the time to start a Wessex 442 rescue group?

Would anywhere be able to house and run one?

Maybe possible to run a farewell tour!

 

Just a few thoughts.

 

Atb

 

Nik

[Bomag]

Yes they are Mk3s not Mk2s and yes they borrowed heavily from the MK3s built for Ireland, which showed that

 

(1) it was possible to alter the design so as to include power operated doors (albut in the same place and to the same dimensions as manual ones - hence all the problems with small vestibules, and awkward corners to get into the saloon for wheelchairs, buggies, suitcases, etc

(2) it was possible to tweak the design to accommodate a heavy generator inside (or hang heavy traction equipment from it).

 

THE 442 TRACTION PACKAGE WAS DESIGNED IN 1966! While the body may look modern the traction motors and control gear is now approaching 50 years old. (The main reason the Weymouth line got new trains was that apart from the motor coaches, all he REP and TC fleet were converted from loco hauled MK1s and by the mid 80s it was clear that thanks to decades of corrosion etc. they simply wouldn't last another 10, let alone another 20)

 

1. Consider replacing door system with that on Chiltern Mk3s,

2. The main problem with something electrical designed in the 60 is that it is heavy and not as efficient and modern equipment; on past performance it is; however, likely to be more reliable and less likely to degrade.

 

There is an option of replacing the MBSRM with 24 power cars with disabled access and modern AC traction equipment. I assume that as with other Mk3 bogies the ones on the 442s can be modified to 110mph/125mph. Forget Anglia (to the dismay of my Suffolk cousins) and send them up with the 319s to TPE for the longer distance services. How about Leeds to Leeds via York, Edinburgh, Preston and Manchester.  Given that the 319s are supposed to have a complete refurbishment inside and out for another 15 years life (ho ho ho!), the 442s are only a couple of years older so you could justify similar costs.

[phil-b259]

Is it the time to start a Wessex 442 rescue group?

Would anywhere be able to house and run one?

Maybe possible to run a farewell tour!

 

Just a few thoughts.

 

Atb

 

Nik

 

If people want to preserve one then yes, they need to start the ball rolling now.

 

Well a complete unit is 5x23m coaches (for comparison a CEP / GIG / VEP is 4x20m) so storage is a problem. To run it you need 3rd rail (which means the mainline) or possibly obtain the services of a 33/1 (they did drag the 442s on diversions via Salisbury with passengers on occasions). Anything else will require significant alterations to the unit so as to allow it to receive ETS (as with most other EMUs the 442s were designed to only get their auxiliary supply for the doors etc from the 3rd rail). If you are lucky the NRM might be persuaded to preserve one vehicle due to their interesting history and to continue the "Express EMU" story (think the 4COR vehicle they have got here) but they won't be interested in a full set.

 

I'm sure that as with the demise of the slammers, there are people within Southern, etc that will be demanding some form of send-off / farewell railtour, probably involving SWT territory too.

[phil-b259]

1. Consider replacing door system with that on Chiltern Mk3s,

2. The main problem with something electrical designed in the 60 is that it is heavy and not as efficient and modern equipment; on past performance it is; however, likely to be more reliable and less likely to degrade.

 

There is an option of replacing the MBSRM with 24 power cars with disabled access and modern AC traction equipment. I assume that as with other Mk3 bogies the ones on the 442s can be modified to 110mph/125mph. Forget Anglia (to the dismay of my Suffolk cousins) and send them up with the 319s to TPE for the longer distance services. How about Leeds to Leeds via York, Edinburgh, Preston and Manchester.  Given that the 319s are supposed to have a complete refurbishment inside and out for another 15 years (ho ho ho!), the 442s are only a couple of years older so you could justify similar costs.

 

You missed the bit where I was commenting on volumes of scale. There are 86 units in the class 319 fleet (versus 24 in the 442 fleet) and with a body length of 20m as opposed to 23m they are far more "route friendly". Furthermore the leasing companies are on record as saying that any replacement traction package for the 319 fleet can also be used on the pretty much identical 318, 317, 320, 321, & 322 fleets all of which run to 21, 72, 22, 117 and 5 units respectively which is what makes the whole thing a viable proposition on units even if they only have another 25 - 30 years of life left.

 

You also conveniently ignore the fact that Mk3 doors and vestibules - powered or not are totally unsuitable in places where high passenger numbers combine with the need to keep dwell time to a minimum. Platform space at the key hubs of Manchester and Leeds is already at a Premium and if anything the use of 442s on the Gatwick run has shown just how unsuitable they these days for busy trans-pennine routes.

 

As for replacing the MBSO - look how many times do I have to say this NO MAUNFACTURER IS GOING TO BUILD A ONE OFF FLEET OF 24 MOTORED CARS FOR A TRAIN DESIGNED OVER TWO DECADES AGO. Yes Bombardier will provide extra Electrostar cars to be inserted into existing units for example - but that is only because they built them in the first place and even then you are more or less limited to ordering them within a 10 year time frame before the manufacturers product range moves on and they refuse to do so. In any case even if you did build a new MBSO then 20 years down he line you are going to run into the issue of having the rest of the unit being life expired - yet have a fleet of 24 MBSO vehicles looking for a new use.

 

Look I know people may like the idea of finding a new use for them but with the greatest respect said contributors have no clue about just how the rolling stock industry works theses days. It simply doesn't work like it did in the "old days" where BR would try its best to reuse / recycle old assets - todays model of leasing companies, franchises and DfT meddling simply doesn't let that happen.

 

The 442s are only fit for scrap / preservation when they come out of service. GET OVER IT and use the remaining time they have left in service to enjoy / celebrate the good service they have put in since they were built by BR.

[Cornish Triang Paul]

Maybe a driving car could be used as a push pull with loco stock otherwise its byebye time !

[eastwestdivide]

While the traction motors may be old, they're essentially the same as in the class 73 locos, which still appear to have a future.

However, the other problems outlined in posts above count against reconfiguration of the units. Any sensible re-use of the units when they're replaced on the Gatwick runs would surely be only elsewhere on the 3rd-rail network.

[Joseph_Pestell]

In my original post I commented on the probability that the traction gear would not be viable to continue. From that, one can probably infer that the MBS does not have much future (unless bodywork strong enough for conversion D78-style into a DEMU).

 

I knew also that the present control gear is not compatible with that on DVTs for push-pull work but than can be fairly easily sorted as it was for the Glasgow-Edinburgh push-pulls.

 

It just seems a mighty shame that some decent Mk3 stock (96 coaches) with power-operated doors should be let go to the scrapheap when it could be used to free up some badly needed DMUs. I felt the same way about the CIE coaches.

 

I actually like our 159s but they could be a valuable asset elsewhere to get rid of the Pacers. Use of Mk3s on SW main line would cause a few loading-time issues at locations such as Basingstoke and Woking - but no worse for that than the 159s. 3rd rail electrification to Salisbury (or use of 170s again on stopping trains) could allow peak-hour Exeter services to run through those stations without stopping.

 

Comments above about the way in which the current set-up of the rail industry does not favour such cascades are noted and agreed with. But what does that say about the way in which our rail industry is organised? Can we afford to let good assets be wasted when resources are tight?

[Fenman]

... I'm sorry but there is far to much rose tinted spectacles going on here with the 442s. People need to face facts and stop romanticising. They are knackered, need replacing and as far as the railway industry is concerned it is far to costly to do anything to them than send them for scrap. ...

 

I suspect you may be right.

 

But I also confess to seeing them through rose-tinted spectacles. Living in Southampton in the 1980s, the 442 "Wessex Electrics" represented the sudden appearance of the modern world; sleek, stylish, and a step-change in comfort compared to the units they were replacing (the reduced noise levels alone were extraordinary, to those of us used to the constant banging of compressors). They were always a most welcome sight. Though even at the time we knew they were largely fancy new clothes on an ancient body, with recycled traction equipment, they still performed admirably on this route for which they were designed.

 

When they were dumped by SWT to rot in sidings at Eastleigh, it was a sad sight indeed; made all the more annoying by the number of government ministers who regularly spouted the lie that they were sorry for the overcrowding but there were no spare trains sitting out of use...

 

The 442s strike me as wildly wrong for the Gatwick services, and the internal redesigns have done them no favours (they always seem rather cheap and Spartan to me when I travel on them now). But I am pleased to have happy memories of racing like a greyhound over Joseph Locke's alignment, on non-stoppers running from Waterloo to Southampton, the drivers really letting go. Happy times.

 

Paul

[Xerces Fobe2]

Modern Railways reported that the Class 442's are be used as coaching stock between 2 HST Power Cars on a the basis that they were newest MK3's and have plug doors.

 

Would make sense as ScotRail want  2+5 HST sets in the future

[Joseph_Pestell]

Modern Railways reported that the Class 442's are be used as coaching stock between 2 HST Power Cars on a the basis that they were newest MK3's and have plug doors.

 

Would make sense as ScotRail want  2+5 HST sets in the future

I missed that. Not yet read all of MR throroughly.

 

96 class 442 coaches seems rather a lot for Scotrail (equivalent to 18 2+5 HSTs).

[phil-b259]

Modern Railways reported that the Class 442's are be used as coaching stock between 2 HST Power Cars on a the basis that they were newest MK3's and have plug doors.

 

Would make sense as ScotRail want  2+5 HST sets in the future

 

Just because they are the newest and have power operated doors doesn't necessarily mean that they are the best option. IIRC Chiltern or did look at the Irish MK3s (which had plug doors like the 442s) and rejected them as requiring more work overall than gutting and rebuilding loco hauled MK3s. Thus if complete HST sets are going to be displaced then I would not be surprised if the decision was made to upgrade the existing HST trailers with new door systems etc.

[jonhall]

Anything else will require significant alterations to the unit so as to allow it to receive ETS (as with most other EMUs the 442s were designed to only get their auxiliary supply for the doors etc from the 3rd rail).

 

Phil, I'm not sure you are right there - I have the idea that the 442's as built had an ETH socket under the right hand buffer (as you look at the unit front from outside) I can't see a cable in any 'Gatwick' spec photos but the socket still seems to be in place.

 

Jon

[4630]

Phil, I'm not sure you are right there - I have the idea that the 442's as built had an ETH socket under the right hand buffer (as you look at the unit front from outside) I can't see a cable in any 'Gatwick' spec photos but the socket still seems to be in place.

 

Jon

 

They certainly had when built as shown in this photo from 1989.