• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 442s - Now at the end of the road and to be withdrawn permanently

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I just don't get it, what a bizarre decision. I've no enthusiastic nostalgia for the 442s, but they've had all that cash spent on them and are almost ready to go, and then they say "oh no let's ditch that, and spend another pile of cash we don't have, on the 458s". Makes no sense to me! We're told passenger numbers won't recover enough to need the 442s, so how come we suddenly need the 458s??
I would imagine that a key reason for using class 458 sets instead is that they'll be cheaper to maintain, more reliable and more accessible.

I agree that it's hugely frustrating that it wasn't realised much sooner that sinking such significant sums into the class 442s wasn't ever going to produce value for money. However, on a whole life (remaining) basis, even after these large sunk costs, with the further spending that 442s would need to bring them up to standard and the worse results they'd deliver, it seems unavoidable to conclude that the 458s will still offer better value.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
I would imagine that a key reason for using class 458 sets instead is that they'll be cheaper to maintain, more reliable and more accessible.

I agree that it's hugely frustrating that it wasn't realised much sooner that sinking such significant sums into the class 442s wasn't ever going to produce value for money. However, on a whole life (remaining) basis, even after these large sunk costs, with the further spending that 442s would need to bring them up to standard and the worse results they'd deliver, it seems unavoidable to conclude that the 458s will still offer better value.
This was always the case but SWR went off at tangent with the 442 vanity project meanwhile they have let the 458's deteriorate and now decide they are the future. You couldn't make it up and if only they had waited 24hrs at least you could have called it an April fool!

The waste of money is bad enough but if they just trash all the interiors and the new equipment thats pretty profligate.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
Having travelled on two or three between Brighton and Victoria.....I'm yet to discover what was so special about them. Unless cramped doorways and sluggish performance made them special.
On paper the Brighton fasts (when they ran non stop from East Croydon to Brighton) should have been good fun but the reality was delays caused by other late runners and infrastructure faults. It was rather soul destroying.
 

Sean Emmett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
496
will the world speed record (for a 3rd rail train) setting unit be preserved in some form?
IIRC the official record was 109 mph, but I recorded 117 mph at Shawford on a run which was 7 mins early arriving at Southampton Airport. Log published in Railway Performance Society's Milepost magazine.

I timed a couple of trips down to Portsmouth in early 2020, and glad I made the effort.

Would be interested to hear how the re-tractioned units performed on test?
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
Depending on the return of passenger numbers post-Covid, I'd actually do it differently: 707s first, then 455/456, then 458s for refurb. As the 458s are long-term leased now, might as well keep them in use longest and save on the other fleets' leases - depends on passenger numbers though.
On current plan, 707s are indeed going first, with provisional stop and release dates for all remaining units already penned in.

It has to be said that the whole 442 project has been an absolutely scandalous waste of money. The solution of using the 458s has been available from the start, given SWR's intention to ditch them. Instead they have literally wasted millions on leasing costs, repainting, refurbishing and re-tractioning the 442s for no purpose.

The railway's ability to p*** money up the wall is never ending. Is to be hoped the bill is picked up by First and MTR rather than DfT and taxpayers - their idea, their plan, their utter screw up, should be their cost.
I really hate to diss some people's efforts as I am sure many are only trying their best and fulfilling their brief but what a totally pointless and shameful waste of money the whole plan was. I have said that from the very beginning. Ridiculous vanity project, no other words.
 

spark001uk

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Messages
2,325
I really hate to diss some people's efforts as I am sure many are only trying their best and fulfilling their brief but what a totally pointless and shameful waste of money the whole plan was. I have said that from the very beginning. Ridiculous vanity project, no other words.
Which is why I'd have thought they would have given a couple of them even a short stint in service, to at least soften the impact of the ton of eggs on their faces a bit, rather than get them fully refreshed only to bin them without them even stepping one foot (wheel?) onto the live network; just seems such a travesty them never finding out how the new running gear etc fares?
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Which is why I'd have thought they would have given a couple of them even a short stint in service, to at least soften the impact of the ton of eggs on their faces a bit, rather than get them fully refreshed only to bin them without them even stepping one foot (wheel?) onto the live network; just seems such a travesty them never finding out how the new running gear etc fares?

Because they haven’t yet been fully refreshed - the testing wasn’t completed and none of the crew or engineers are trained on them so would have required all that operational expenditure.
 

30909

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
293
Being a conspiracy theorists here is a potential scenario; they stop throwing more money at the lost cause of 442s having announced yet another reconfiguration and refurbishment programme for the 458. The 458s move to the back of the queue for conversion by which time it may well be seen that additional rolling-stock is not required due to the changes in work and leisure travel post pandemic?
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,027
Location
West Wiltshire
So what do reckon £20m splurged on retractioning them plus some had been refurbished as well. Then they are going to spend another £5-10m on sorting out 458's.

Presumably all sanctioned by Dept of Transport.

Sometimes need to stand back, and take stock.

Yes there is a sunk cost (what you have already spent), but it is likely the costs to finish the project make no sense in current climate.

It not just the railways, British Airways were refitting some cabins on its 747s weeks before deciding that no longer any need and bringing withdrawal forward is only sensible economic outcome.

Like those 747s easily to strip out the seats from the 442s and reuse them in something else. I suspect those new traction packages can be reused by someone (even if they end up being sold to a railway operator in another country)

So it’s highly likely some of the money spent on new equipment can be recovered, and not continuing to spend more saves all the training (and let’s be honest, the 701 programme needs as much training time as it can get).

Commercial Reality and nostalgia don’t mix well.

I grew up in New Milton, and my parents were still there after I moved to London in 1988, so I have used them many times. I remember seeing my first one, 2401 in NSE silver and white which stopped at New Milton on a test run (with double guards van, and composite vehicle). But that was 33 or 34 years ago.

Yes they looked sleek when I first saw them, the covers over the end cables were down, and paintwork was gleaming on that first unit. (the REPs and TCs paint was bit tired by 1987) But that doesn’t mean 30+ years later they should still be patched up.

As for the 458s, when they were introduced I was living in Richmond so commuted on them, and they weren’t that reliable in early days. But I will miss the comfort of the 442s.

Finally should the 442 reuse project ever have started, with hindsight no, and whichever bean counter allowed them in SWR bid without understanding their condition, corrosion and required cost just got it wrong.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I just don't get it, what a bizarre decision.

Because it will be cheaper to refurb the 458s and have them in service than to continue with the 442s. Simples.

Of course it would have been cheaper still to decide on that 3 years ago, but there you are.
 

trentside

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,337
Location
Messroom
Finally should the 442 reuse project ever have started, with hindsight no, and whichever bean counter allowed them in SWR bid without understanding their condition, corrosion and required cost just got it wrong.

Not just their condition, the fact that people in larger wheelchairs can’t use them at all due to narrow doorways. This should’ve precluded their use at all. They got it very wrong indeed.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Of course it would have been cheaper still to decide on that 3 years ago, but there you are.
That’s OK then.... £45 million wasted that taxpayers will no doubt pick up the tab for. Once again the railway demonstrates zero grip on reality and thinks it has a bottomless pit of funding.
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,486
That’s OK then.... £45 million wasted that taxpayers will no doubt pick up the tab for. Once again the railway demonstrates zero grip on reality and thinks it has a bottomless pit of funding.
A mere drop in the Ocean for the Railway Purse.

Lets not forget. Back when 442s were taken by SWR, they were to fit a demand and boost their capacity... PDL Commuters (and others) have long made a fuss about 450's on the run to Portsmouth, which is fairly understandable (Awful interiors, no tables, armrests etc..). So SWR had a solution, there was some 3rd Rail, 2+2 Stock, going spare. It ticked boxes... added capacity and gave the PDL Passengers basically what they asked for but also, was planned to be a quicker introduction than a new train and in theory less problematic - Of course this didn't turn out to be the case.

In hindsight was the 442 program for SWR a good choice? Probably not... but at the time it fitted the needs for the business and passengers - not like a TOC or the DtF predicted a world-wide pandemic...

What other 3rd Rail units were going spare? It's not like 319s were any good for what SWR needed and passengers wanted...
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
Not just their condition, the fact that people in larger wheelchairs can’t use them at all due to narrow doorways. This should’ve precluded their use at all. They got it very wrong indeed.
That's only the start of the accessibility problems with them too. I'm amazed they were allowed in service at all on SWR given the restrictions they had on passengers in wheelchairs using them. And even if you weren't in a wheelchair, the narrow doorways and big step up were difficult for many people.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
A mere drop in the Ocean for the Railway Purse.

Lets not forget. Back when 442s were taken by SWR, they were to fit a demand and boost their capacity... PDL Commuters (and others) have long made a fuss about 450's on the run to Portsmouth, which is fairly understandable (Awful interiors, no tables, armrests etc..). So SWR had a solution, there was some 3rd Rail, 2+2 Stock, going spare. It ticked boxes... added capacity and gave the PDL Passengers basically what they asked for but also, was planned to be a quicker introduction than a new train and in theory less problematic - Of course this didn't turn out to be the case.

In hindsight was the 442 program for SWR a good choice? Probably not... but at the time it fitted the needs for the business and passengers - not like a TOC or the DtF predicted a world-wide pandemic...

What other 3rd Rail units were going spare? It's not like 319s were any good for what SWR needed and passengers wanted...
Actually, the solution they are going with now was available from the start. It’s not like the 458s have suddenly become available.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Actually, the solution they are going with now was available from the start. It’s not like the 458s have suddenly become available.

It wasn’t though - the 442s were planned to be in traffic in Dec 2018 (to meet the new franchise capacity targets) and even before any slippage of the 701 programme no 458s were due to be replaced by then.

Obviously this all got overtaken by events, but the 6 ex SN 442s (the last 6 in traffic) were billed by Angel as ready out the box and extra trains were deemed necessary to deal with perpetual growth before and of the suburban fleets were renewed. At the time much commentary was there wasn’t much other 3rd Rail stock ready, some years later there is.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
Its the analogy of fixing your old car, how far does the cost of repairs go before the cost becomes uneconomic, or after repair after repair after repair do you hit the point where you have to keep going in order to get the value of the repairs out of the remaining life of the vehicle?

Be a shame to see them go but if they don't have a purpose then theres not really a lot to be done with them. Glad I got my chance to ride them when i had the chance...
 

spark001uk

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Messages
2,325
I'm told the 442s will now be reduced to 4 cars and re-geared to 75mph, to replace the 458s while they go off to have their work done.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,423
I'm told the 442s will now be reduced to 4 cars and re-geared to 75mph, to replace the 458s while they go off to have their work done.
First of: happy April 1st. Secondly (assuming its April 2nd): That is almost definitely a no, the 442s have had their lease terminated, the end doors are totally unsuitable for what the 458s currently do and the 442s are barely moving so far.
I take it that's an April fool gag?
I think so.
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,771
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
I see some people furiously laying into First/MTR but ignoring the facts as they were when bids for the South Western franchise were being compiled and how much they have changed since then.

Back in 2016/17 the DfT required bidders to increase capacity, money was cheap (lots of previous posts about why First/MTR chose new 701s to replace 455/456/458/701), and refurbing 442s was a way of providing extra capacity on the Portsmouth line with 2+2 seating. Today it's clear that they don't need that extra capacity and most probably won't need it for several years and maybe never. So they don't need extra trains. So they decide how best to re-arrange their fleet. Posters such as Snow164 and Hamworthy Goods above have explained why it makes sense in these changed circumstances to ditch the 442s and reconfigure the 458s. It wasn't a waste of £45 million to plan to bring the 442s back four years ago. It would be a waste to go on spending the money now when they won't need them. I admire First/MTR for recognising that they need to take a new decision in the new circumstances; it's carrying on as before that would have been wrong. Possibly they are also under pressure from the DfT over the new future contract and this may be one way of responding to provide stock more suited to the requirements of the next 5 - 10 years.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
I see some people furiously laying into First/MTR but ignoring the facts as they were when bids for the South Western franchise were being compiled and how much they have changed since then.

Back in 2016/17 the DfT required bidders to increase capacity, money was cheap (lots of previous posts about why First/MTR chose new 701s to replace 455/456/458/701), and refurbing 442s was a way of providing extra capacity on the Portsmouth line with 2+2 seating. Today it's clear that they don't need that extra capacity and most probably won't need it for several years and maybe never. So they don't need extra trains. So they decide how best to re-arrange their fleet. Posters such as Snow164 and Hamworthy Goods above have explained why it makes sense in these changed circumstances to ditch the 442s and reconfigure the 458s. It wasn't a waste of £45 million to plan to bring the 442s back four years ago. It would be a waste to go on spending the money now when they won't need them. I admire First/MTR for recognising that they need to take a new decision in the new circumstances; it's carrying on as before that would have been wrong. Possibly they are also under pressure from the DfT over the new future contract and this may be one way of responding to provide stock more suited to the requirements of the next 5 - 10 years.

Well said, in the past 4 years the world has changed so much!
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Well said, in the past 12 months the world has changed so much!

Fixed that for you.

People need to accept that pre-Covid peak demand will not be returning for some years at least; and sub-fleets like the 442s and 365s are the first on the chopping block, as they will simply not be necessary in the short to medium term..
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
It wasn’t though - the 442s were planned to be in traffic in Dec 2018 (to meet the new franchise capacity targets) and even before any slippage of the 701 programme no 458s were due to be replaced by then.

Obviously this all got overtaken by events, but the 6 ex SN 442s (the last 6 in traffic) were billed by Angel as ready out the box and extra trains were deemed necessary to deal with perpetual growth before and of the suburban fleets were renewed. At the time much commentary was there wasn’t much other 3rd Rail stock ready, some years later there is.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I agree that hindsight is a wonderful thing. My problem with it is that the fleet was not just a consideration as a least-worst option. There were politics involved (speed of change required, specs, good old nostalgia, political pressure, etc) and for that the DfT must shoulder some of the responsibility for this mess.

Rose-tinted specs is a funny thing, that those with it on usually don't realise it (not meaning you btw). On the grapevine I was led to believe that did have something to do with going for the 442s, but plenty of people even at the time were already forecasting what a total disaster they were likely to be, given the age, poor reliability, and accessibility issues with them. This was shown to be absolutely correct with the multitude of problems encountered during the project which was way before Covid hit. It is a shame Covid signed their eventual ignominious death warrant so much can be blamed on it. Had the project persisted who knows how much more it is going to cost and how much longer it will take before they can enter service reliably, and for most likely no more than a handful of years.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
I see some people furiously laying into First/MTR but ignoring the facts as they were when bids for the South Western franchise were being compiled and how much they have changed since then.

Back in 2016/17 the DfT required bidders to increase capacity, money was cheap (lots of previous posts about why First/MTR chose new 701s to replace 455/456/458/701), and refurbing 442s was a way of providing extra capacity on the Portsmouth line with 2+2 seating. Today it's clear that they don't need that extra capacity and most probably won't need it for several years and maybe never. So they don't need extra trains. So they decide how best to re-arrange their fleet. Posters such as Snow164 and Hamworthy Goods above have explained why it makes sense in these changed circumstances to ditch the 442s and reconfigure the 458s. It wasn't a waste of £45 million to plan to bring the 442s back four years ago. It would be a waste to go on spending the money now when they won't need them. I admire First/MTR for recognising that they need to take a new decision in the new circumstances; it's carrying on as before that would have been wrong. Possibly they are also under pressure from the DfT over the new future contract and this may be one way of responding to provide stock more suited to the requirements of the next 5 - 10 years.
I’m afraid your comments about capacity don’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

The 442s being replaced are 90 vehicles / 2,070m of train length.

The 458s replacing them (28 sets reported) are 112 cars / 2,240m train length.

So if anything, it’s a capacity increase, which makes a total mockery of comments about no longer needing the extra capacity of the 442s post Covid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top