• 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!

Is the end is nigh for class 442*

Status
Not open for further replies.
sprinterguy

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,060
Location
Macclesfield
gimmea50anyday said:
TPE's new services are supposed to be starting in less than a year. Something will be needed and pretty bloomin' soon.
Click to expand...
Which new TPE services are expected to start that soon?

Six trains an hour between Manchester and Leeds every hour with two trains per hour service to Newcastle in December 2017
New direct services from Liverpool to Glasgow from December 2018
Extension of TransPennine Express services beyond Newcastle to Edinburgh from December 2019

All of these service enhancements are based on the availability of the new trains that are being ordered, as swt_passenger has said.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Philip Phlopp

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
The Ham said:
The "problem" with comparing the 458/5 project with the 442's is that the former still had elements in service (i.e. the 458/0's) which means that the work has to be done in stages if the 442's are totally out of service then there is nothing stopping work from progressing in terms of needing to be in use.

It also depends on the level of work required. If the 442's are to be loco hauled then that is likely to be quicker than if there are works to enable them to be self powered.

There is also the numbers involved the 458/5's will have something like 180 coaches, whilst the 442's (assuming scrapping of the motor car) would have a maximum of just over half that number of 96 meaning that the total work time could well be significantly less.

Although a Mark 4 coach would require a lot less work!
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree, but the bulk of the delays with the 458/5 project have been caused by corrosion and other unforeseen remedial work issues, which will almost certainly hit the Class 442 fleet, possibly to a far greater extent given their age, so a healthy allowance for unplanned or time consuming work would need to be built into any contract.

The actual conversion into LHCS Mark 3 shouldn't be too difficult, once a design for rewiring and conversion or replacement of the parts incompatible with 1000V ETS is drawn up - most of the designs needed exist but a few new parts may need to be used to cover for limited availability of parts used on conventional Mark 3 LHCS.

The driving cab changes could take a little more time, as this will be a new modification which will only loosely follow the Mark 3 DVT conversion (assuming an AAR based conversion). The possibility of providing ETCS and the later versions of TPWS might also be an issue which takes time to solve even if it's not really insurmountable.

I think 2 years is probably reasonable and 3 could easily become a reality if things become more complicated than planned.
 
T

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,321
kevconnor said:
Not been on this thread in a few days but it does prove one of the immutable truths of any thread on rail forum. As any thread progresses it starts off with the facts, before progressing into some kind of fiction and if it progresses for long enough eventually winds up as science fiction.
Click to expand...

You mean like as I have suggested before:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2145568&post2145568
The 442's (may they live forever) are so saintly that no government will ever scrap them and will authorise many rebuilds until they ultimately form the basis of the interstellar ship which saves all humanity by taking them to earth 2.0.
Click to expand...

All we have to do now is work out the next rebuild which best takes them on towards their ultimate goal.
 
E

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
Philip Phlopp said:
I don't really disagree, but the bulk of the delays with the 458/5 project have been caused by corrosion and other unforeseen remedial work issues, which will almost certainly hit the Class 442 fleet, possibly to a far greater extent given their age, so a healthy allowance for unplanned or time consuming work would need to be built into any contract.

The actual conversion into LHCS Mark 3 shouldn't be too difficult, once a design for rewiring and conversion or replacement of the parts incompatible with 1000V ETS is drawn up - most of the designs needed exist but a few new parts may need to be used to cover for limited availability of parts used on conventional Mark 3 LHCS.

The driving cab changes could take a little more time, as this will be a new modification which will only loosely follow the Mark 3 DVT conversion (assuming an AAR based conversion). The possibility of providing ETCS and the later versions of TPWS might also be an issue which takes time to solve even if it's not really insurmountable.

I think 2 years is probably reasonable and 3 could easily become a reality if things become more complicated than planned.
Click to expand...
It's worth remembering that the 442s have been through a works refurbishment in the last decade, and there should be fewer surprises as a result. The corrosion issues on the Junipers were unanticipated as the units were relatively young, although storage will have done the 460s no favours - likewise the 442s, but they were in the works post storage, so any remediation work was likely already done. General corrosion performance of the Mk3 family is well understood, and the 442s should fall in the expected range of condition for their age (power cars excepted, they are non-standard and will likely not even be considered.)
The cab work would only be needed if the plan is to retain these as units or if the need is for more than 48 carriages, converting only the trailers might be all that's required to meet demand.
Until we see the rolling stock plans post 2020, in particular for Anglia, East Midlands and Cross Country, we don't really know what demand there might be. It's entirely possible that no conversions at all will be needed, if the Mk4s are not fully utilised.
 
D

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,717
Location
North
Philip Phlopp said:
Mark 3 coaches do not like being cut up and altered - GNER tried with SLEP conversions and found the integrity compromised, more recently, the New Measurement Train's pantograph vehicle took a lot of work to get right (though the engineers did have the Class 321 et al roof plans to look at).
Click to expand...

I was assuming that if a pan can be fitted to the NMT Mk3 then one could be fitted to any Mk3 and if a new traction package with AC motors could be fitted to class 317/319/321 as proposed then the same package could be fitted to a 442 concurrently to save on cost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HMS Ark Royal

HMS Ark Royal

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2015
Messages
2,807
Location
Hull
Philip Phlopp said:
Mark 3 coaches do not like being cut up and altered - GNER tried with SLEP conversions and found the integrity compromised, more recently, the New Measurement Train's pantograph vehicle took a lot of work to get right (though the engineers did have the Class 321 et al roof plans to look at).

It can all be done, as long as there are no major issues hiding that mandate scrapping of the vehicle(s) but it's a question of cost, and how long you can then keep the vehicles in revenue earning service to recoup that cost.

The other issue which is conveniently forgotten is just past the short termism of the Class 442, a flood of Mark 3 LHCS vehicles will be coming available when Greater Anglia does something about fleet renewal, and Mark 4 LHCS vehicles will be coming available when IEP lands on the ECML. The Mark 4 flood makes Class 442 life extension moot - supplied with matching driving vehicles, fitted with power doors, capable of working in hauled mode with any normal locomotive and in push-pull mode with only a small number of modifications to the DVT for which basic plans already exist, why would you bother with Class 442s ?
Click to expand...

SLEP? Is that the official term for it or is somebody using naval terminology here?
 
gimmea50anyday

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
R09 (4) until its decomissioning with prior stints on bulwark and hermes then when R07 (5) entered service pretty much until his retirement in 1990. Iirc his mess was Hotel 6 on ark5. It was the decomissioning of R09 that meant he dodged the bullet when the fleet was mobilised for Falklands.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I was also christened on R09 back in 1976. Growing up in the west country meant i have a particular connection with 50 035!
 
HMS Ark Royal

HMS Ark Royal

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2015
Messages
2,807
Location
Hull
gimmea50anyday said:
R09 (4) until its decomissioning with prior stints on bulwark and hermes then when R07 (5) entered service pretty much until his retirement in 1990. Iirc his mess was Hotel 6 on ark5. It was the decomissioning of R09 that meant he dodged the bullet when the fleet was mobilised for Falklands.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I was also christened on R09 back in 1976. Growing up in the west country meant i have a particular connection with 50 035!
Click to expand...

Then I am sure he met the infamous Wilf! *chuckles* My old man was a wavy-navy officer and did a few weeks on her on his annual duty time

Now, to get back on topic before yorkie glares in disapproval...

Could 442s be fitted with diesels a'la 230s?
 
gimmea50anyday

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
Not sure if you are opening pandoras box, a can of worms or the floodgates, but im gonna grab some popcorn, don a hard hat and keep watching!

Lol!!!
 
HMS Ark Royal

HMS Ark Royal

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2015
Messages
2,807
Location
Hull
gimmea50anyday said:
Not sure if you are opening pandoras box, a can of worms
Click to expand...

Neither of which Tom Wilkinson would let on his "war canoe" *chuckles*

Surely, from a technical point of view, it is not too hard to do?

Or, and this is a mad suggestion, could they be dragged up north / down south by a pair of locos to give a true North/South service
 
sprinterguy

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,060
Location
Macclesfield
gimmea50anyday said:
Internally December 2016 has been mentioned. But nothing concrete has been revealed yet so cant confirm or deny either way.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that the publicly announced dates would be fairly concrete. Why would they state one date but mean another?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
HMS Ark Royal said:
Or, and this is a mad suggestion, could they be dragged up north / down south by a pair of locos to give a true North/South service
Click to expand...
Fit diesel engines AND a pantograph, and then use them as Tri-mode units on a reinstated Manchester to Brighton service. :p
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
HMS Ark Royal said:
Surely, from a technical point of view, it is not too hard to do?
Click to expand...
On a serious note, I'm not sure that the load bearing structure of the frame of the motor car would support the weight of an engine, fuel tanks and exhaust system. The trailer vehicles already have all the auxiliary electrical gubbins taking up space beneath the solebar, and I'm fairly sure have less robust frames than the motor cars: A 5-car unit fitted with a single 700kW engine; about the largest that can currently fit under the floor within the UK loading gauge and no mean feat, either; would be woefully underpowed.

Also, remember that the oldest part of a class 442, by a long chalk, is the traction motors. This seems like a very complex and unnecessary conversion. Mind you, in an alternate reality I would have liked to have seen British Rail build a new fleet of 442-alike DEMUs in the late eighties, in 5 and 7-car formations to replace the class 47s and HSTs on Crosscountry services...
 
Last edited:
S

Stats

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2009
Messages
943
sprinterguy said:
I would have thought that the publicly announced dates would be fairly concrete. Why would they state one date but mean another?
Click to expand...
Gimme50anyday may be confusing a timetable change with extra services. TPE have said the Newcastle to Manchester Airport trains will be reinstated in December 2016. This is probably what the internal information he says is referring to. However, a new timetable with 2 tph to Newcastle and extra capacity throughout the TPE franchise, including 6tph thru the 'core' won't be introduced until December 2017.
 
R

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
sprinterguy said:
Mind you, in an alternate reality I would have liked to have seen British Rail build a new fleet of 442-alike DEMUs in the late eighties, in 5 and 7-car formations to replace the class 47s and HSTs on Crosscountry services...
Click to expand...

A 5 car 158 or air-conditioned 156 with inter-city seating would have done the job.
 
J

jackdilligaf

New Member
Joined
14 Oct 2014
Messages
2
travelled on one from GTW to CLJ last night, horrible, dark, dank, smelt of damp, and it takes ages to get on/off the poxy things due to the doors only being a bit bigger then the average suitcase, the sooner they scrap the things the better
 
Mikey C

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,845
How do the doors on the 444s compare with the 442s, as they don't look much bigger?

I.e. isn't the issue with the doors the routes they are now operating on, rather than the trains themselves.
 
S

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Mikey C said:
How do the doors on the 444s compare with the 442s, as they don't look much bigger?

I.e. isn't the issue with the doors the routes they are now operating on, rather than the trains themselves.
Click to expand...

Just had a quick look at photos of 442s and 444s and I think the doors are noticeably wider on the 444s
 
S

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,197
Location
Surrey
Mikey C said:
I.e. isn't the issue with the doors the routes they are now operating on, rather than the trains themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, the doors are no narrower than an HST's doors, but as it is GatEx, the doors should preferably be wide to allow for lots of luggage.
 
J

JohnElliott

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2014
Messages
230
sprinterguy said:
Also, remember that the oldest part of a class 442, by a long chalk, is the traction motors.
Click to expand...

Don't the class 73s have traction motors of a similar vintage? If so, whatever's being used to keep the 73s running could presumably be done to the 442s.

As for fitting pantographs: Obviously the thing to do is take the pantograph trailers out of the Moorgate class 313s as they get withdrawn, and replace one intermediate trailer in each 442 with a 313 pantograph trailer. Voila! AC class 442. :p
 
E

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
JohnElliott said:
Don't the class 73s have traction motors of a similar vintage? If so, whatever's being used to keep the 73s running could presumably be done to the 442s.

As for fitting pantographs: Obviously the thing to do is take the pantograph trailers out of the Moorgate class 313s as they get withdrawn, and replace one intermediate trailer in each 442 with a 313 pantograph trailer. Voila! AC class 442. :p
Click to expand...

More than similar vintage, they use variants of the same motor, the EE546. Principle difference is the EMU motor has integral cooling fans, the locomotive uses external blowers. And yes, you can rebuild these straightforward machines almost without limit, but they are still high maintenance by modern standards.

As to your 313 bodge suggestion, that transformer & rectifier are only sized for 658kW of traction, not the 1200 on board the 442. Add five carriages of AC too, or is it six now? It's either going to go very very slowly, or go bang really quickly :D
 
fowler9

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
I vote that we stick a 313 pantograph trailer in as well. Stick half a 142 at one end for last mile power as well. Ha ha.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top