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Class 442s - Now at the end of the road and to be withdrawn permanently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

dorsetdesiro

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
581
Realistically the 442/158/159 replacement will probably be based on something very similar to Anglia or LNR's 5car 24m Aventras so around 425-430seats with 2+2 seating + similar wheelchair and UAT provision.

GA spec Stadler FLIRTS would be wonderful for the SWML but as it's FirstGroup or the scrimping DfT (if SWR gets nationalised), I expect to see as you say LNR spec 24m Aventras or something like third-rail 800s with 385-like end gangways from Hitachi.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
I’m probably going to need to turn my notifications off for this, but...

The race to the bottom attitude of some on here absolutely stink, commuters on the Pompey line should apparently be grateful to SWR for introducing a narrow, inaccessible, slow, unsuitable set of rolling stock that belongs on the scrap heap. Just because you’ve got it crap, doesn’t mean everyone else should also have to put up with extra obstacles that weren’t there before.

First have done a reasonable job refurbishing them, and that should be applauded.

I’ve actually seen the issues first hand these are causing for both leisure and commuter travellers, mothers panicking because their standard size (by modern examples) pushchair won’t fit through the door.

Wheelchair users turned away because the ride height is too high such that it’s deemed unsafe to deploy the ramp because of the angle the ramp sits at.

has the First (or stagecoach) bid team had a crystal ball we all know that refurbishing the 350/2s into 451s (low density 450s) would have been the better option all round.

Some people need to remember that railways are built to move vast amounts of people from A-B safely, ideally to time and ideally comfortably.

It's not ideal, but that's the only stock that's available to increase capacity on other services. Which is the whole game plan.
A narrow old 442 and longer 450 services is better than nothing.
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
Well they managed on the Gatwick Express somehow with frightening gaps at Brighton
AFAIK they ran DOO but with manned station dispatch
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
Why do the 442s seemingly have accessibility issues when other Mk 3s used elsewhere don't?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Why do the 442s seemingly have accessibility issues when other Mk 3s used elsewhere don't?
1980s - BR Automated doors + original interiors at the vehicle ends. The Chiltern and Wabtec (GWR/Scotrail/XC) coaches with retrofitted automatic doors also had the interiors modified too.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
GA spec Stadler FLIRTS would be wonderful for the SWML but as it's FirstGroup or the scrimping DfT (if SWR gets nationalised), I expect to see as you say LNR spec 24m Aventras or something like third-rail 800s with 385-like end gangways from Hitachi.
I suspect the Flirts would actually be cheaper but you would lose valuable floor space on board. This doesn't matter for GA on the Norwich EMUs as they have got rid of the loco and DVT and can utilise that space so don't need to be efficient and for the Bi-modes they are increasing unit length
On the SW routes platform space is maxed out and Stadler bimode units waste lots floor space so the number of seats overall would be less (i.e. complete bid losing non starter). For any electric only ones would you go single units (and leave 444s for split + join services) or splitable. The Stadler EMUs are 234m (and no easy way to make longer) where as I can see the replacement stock being 240m to match 12car 450 and Waterloo platform length issues.

Abellio worked out they didn't need more expensive Aventras on Norwich as they had plenty of space to play with.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Well they managed on the Gatwick Express somehow ...
The performance and dwell times on the Extended GatEx were bad (very similar to the delays before Guildford discussed above] and GTR got rid of them in earlier than originally planned as they were a performance blight.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
Why do the 442s seemingly have accessibility issues when other Mk 3s used elsewhere don't?
Largely to do with what people are used to? Unmodified mk3s were running regularly on a number of routes until very recently but people using Portsmouth services won't have encountered them for some time.

I don't quite understand how the issue with the wheelchair access ramp has arisen though - these ramps have been used with mk3s all over the country for years, have they not? Or are the ramps now provided on the SWR network shorter? In that case it's a bit of an oversight.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
has the First (or stagecoach) bid team had a crystal ball we all know that refurbishing the 350/2s into 451s (low density 450s) would have been the better option all round.
That couldn't have been predicted though. Reintroducing the 442s does at least release 450s to strengthen other services, so other services benefit as well
 
Last edited:

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,771
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
It is very possible they could get removed in the next SW franchise as it has been speculated about the 158/9s being replaced by new bi-mode stock. Then the 442s could also be set for the chop, making way for new intercity stock for the Weymouth line, then the 444s could get shifted over to the PDL like the 442s are now..

Yes, new bimodes to replace the 159s and also to replace 444s on the Waterloo - Weymouth services, thus resolving the power supply problems west of Poole. [The last bit may be tongue-in-cheek.]
 

Pacerman99

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2019
Messages
73
Location
Third Rail Land
I'm currently on a 442 and have been sad enough to walk through and do a seat count, and I believe each unit seats significantly more than the 302 standard class seats quoted; unless I've miscounted they seat 330 standard. All that with more luggage space than a 444 and the guards van. Seriously impressive capacity; I can't see any future replacement trains of a similar length with a 2+2 arrangement seating much more than a 10 442.
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
I think they are lovely although the doors are very narrow and the non disabled toilet is a struggle to get into

Some inner doors are temperamental to open with some having original orange push buttons and some newer ones ?

Surprised tables haven't been updated

Air con makes an interesting noise like a ferry !

I'm in the motor coach to enjoy this pig

Guards van sealed off so you can't look in

Very smart refurbishment

InterCity style
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
I'm currently on a 442 and have been sad enough to walk through and do a seat count, and I believe each unit seats significantly more than the 302 standard class seats quoted; unless I've miscounted they seat 330 standard. All that with more luggage space than a 444 and the guards van. Seriously impressive capacity; I can't see any future replacement trains of a similar length with a 2+2 arrangement seating much more than a 10 442.
Where is 302 seats being quoted? Much earlier in this thread it turned out SWR staff were quoting unmodified 442 figures when asked...

The franchise agreement figures for the modified stock are:
10.442 676/64F
10.444 666/64F

But they’re 10x23.5m long, so for comparison you’d have to be looking at 12x20m, if hypothetical modified 350/2s running in 12 car form were given a 2+2 layout the seat numbers would need a third of the above in each unit, say 226/22F. I suggest that’s easily done.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
I don't quite understand how the issue with the wheelchair access ramp has arisen though - these ramps have been used with mk3s all over the country for years, have they not? Or are the ramps now provided on the SWR network shorter? In that case it's a bit of an oversight.
And I believe the step up into the Class 800s is higher than that into a Mk 3.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
I think they are lovely although the doors are very narrow and the non disabled toilet is a struggle to get into

Some inner doors are temperamental to open with some having original orange push buttons and some newer ones ?

Surprised tables haven't been updated

Air con makes an interesting noise like a ferry !

I'm in the motor coach to enjoy this pig

Guards van sealed off so you can't look in

Very smart refurbishment

InterCity style

the orange buttons are only the cab end doors. The rest are the green LED style.

I’m led to believe the tables weren’t modified due to crash regs and the extra paperwork this created.
 

Bigfoot

Member
Joined
2 Dec 2013
Messages
1,103
Interesting test run for the 442 this evening on 5Q99 Southsea - Fratton - Guildford - Haslemere - Woking - Eastleigh - Fareham - Harbour - Fratton depot.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,995
Had the First (or stagecoach) bid team had a crystal ball we all know that refurbishing the 350/2s into 451s (low density 450s) would have been the better option all round.

Some people need to remember that railways are built to move vast amounts of people from A-B safely, ideally to time and ideally comfortably.
Given the order for 701s a better option might have been to take 442s as a stop-gap fleet (like Abellio are doing with some traction on EMR) then have negotiated with Porterbrook to turn 458501-458530 back into four cars, with the seating fitted with armrests and first class reinstated. More modern trains that with the wider doors wouldn't have impacted dwell times.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,164
Given the order for 701s a better option might have been to take 442s as a stop-gap fleet (like Abellio are doing with some traction on EMR) then have negotiated with Porterbrook to turn 458501-458530 back into four cars, with the seating fitted with armrests and first class reinstated. More modern trains that with the wider doors wouldn't have impacted dwell times.
The 458s were re-geared for 75mph, though, which would be a severe handicap.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
I was a bit grumpy the other morning when I made my post, however I still stand by the fact that they Haemorrhage time and they don’t meet modern accessibility expectations from anyone that’s not entirely mobile. The ride and the onboard ambiance is quite pleasant (although the armrests are low). Give me a 159 any day of the week though from both a passenger and work perspective.
 

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,349
The 458s were re-geared for 75mph, though, which would be a severe handicap.

The 'regearing' is something that could be rectified with an update to the trains computer. However their yaw dampers were removed when the units were rebuilt into 5 car trains, this is what the main hurdle would be to put them on faster services. Plus the 458s aren't exactly spring chickens either being only 10 years younger than the 442s.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
The 'regearing' is something that could be rectified with an update to the trains computer. However their yaw dampers were removed when the units were rebuilt into 5 car trains, this is what the main hurdle would be to put them on faster services. Plus the 458s aren't exactly spring chickens either being only 10 years younger than the 442s.
No it will need physically changing the gears on the motor and axle back to the original 458 / 460 ones. (And then the software adjusted!)
Yaw dampers are needed for 75 mph +.
 

Thumper1127

Member
Joined
19 Jan 2019
Messages
167
A bit later posting this than planned but....

I travelled on the 1445 Ports Hbr to Waterloo on Monday, picking it up at Havant. Here are my notes, pretty much verbatim, taken at the time, together with some timings.

Train reverse formed, 2417 leading, 2313 on the rear, first class in coaches 5 and 10. Joined front coach of rear 5.

First impression - Modern, airy, clean and warm - a bit too warm. Seats a bit firm but not ironing boards at least! Central armrest too low (but looking around, perhaps not all the same - seems similar to some GWR 158, where often the ventral armrest is lower than the others).

Timings:

Havant to Petersfield - Run 13:58, dwell start to stop @ Petersfield, 01:22
Petersfield to Haslemere - Run 12:52, dwell 01:49 (but doors closed about 30 seconds earlier)
Haslemere to Godalming - Run 10:00 precisely, dwell 01:06
Godalming to Guildford - Run 06:30, dwell 01:16

Distracted after Guildford so no run time but was checked at Woking Junction in any case so would not have been representative. Dwell time at Woking 02:11.

No further timings taken.

Noted good use of whistles at Haslemere and Guildford.

Quite a bit of bogie noise - perhaps minor flats?

Noticeably slower off the mark but got a good lick on in the Liss/Liphook area.

Air con nice and quiet, unlike 444/450 - no blasting. Definitely a bit on the warm side for me.

A bit of panel or luggage rattle at points - in original service the latter was always an issue and the "low tech" solution was to roll up a discarded newspaper and jam it in between the wall and the rack.

Internal door at the front of the carriage (next to the cab) was open all the way - not sure if it was working or had been locked open but this contributed to noise from the vestibule, but not really off putting.

Noticed about 30 mins into the run that although the base of the seat seems a bit firm, the lumbar support was very good - but this will depend on your height I suppose (I'm 6 ft 1).

Unit letter sign (unit J) was at the end of the coach - would benefit from being repeated on the glass panel half way down the coach for better identification by passengers.

Other impression - not exactly claustrophobic but the return of standard MK3 windows made me appreciate the benefits of the deeper windows the 444s (and 450s) brought.

Accessible toilet - nice and airy, clean and bright but signage all wrong:

"Push handle down to flush" sign above WC - bit it's a button!

"Push button for Water" - it's the soap dispenser! Water is by motion sensor but no indication. Signage needs to be on the strip at the bottom of the mirror and in the correct place.

Verdict for an off peak journey? - not as good as a 444 of course but, on balance, better than a 450. Setting aside commuting, for years the off peak offering has been inconsistent and their introduction at least squares this to a degree. SWR (or successor) will have plenty of off peak seats to sell so, from a marketing aspect, perhaps in the spring a promotion of "Lunch out" tickets could be pushed (out after 10:00, return by 16:00) targeting Guildford and Portsmouth?

I was going to aim for 1700, 1715 or 1730 out of Waterloo on my return on Thursday but finished early so cannot comment on a peak commuting experience ( I wanted to see what the May timetable had done for loading, given that the 1715 in now accelerated and the additional 1718 Waterloo to Haslemere). Any regulars able to shed any light?

Will post some other thoughts in due course but wanted to document first experience without getting into a debate about whether they should/should not have been brought back (yes I do have views on this but that's another post!).
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,164
No it will need physically changing the gears on the motor and axle back to the original 458 / 460 ones. (And then the software adjusted!)
Yaw dampers are needed for 75 mph +.
The 460s were actually geared for 125mph when built!
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I was a bit grumpy the other morning when I made my post, however I still stand by the fact that they Haemorrhage time and they don’t meet modern accessibility expectations from anyone that’s not entirely mobile. The ride and the onboard ambiance is quite pleasant (although the armrests are low). Give me a 159 any day of the week though from both a passenger and work perspective.
That isn't being grumpy that is reality - they had exactly the same issues with "Southern" on both the Brighton extended GatEx and the Littlehampton peak extras into LBG. e.g the ex-Brightons would be 5minutes late at Gatwick every morning having lost a minute per stop because of narrow door dwell time issues and poor acceleration. The 0830 ish (0850+ in reality) arrival at Victoria often managed 0%ppm over year. Replacement by 387/2 saw an instant improvement.
On a bad day the north bound am peak would see Earlfield (or worse*) type track circuit issues going past Lovers / Three Bridge Up sidings / LBG approaches leaving a trail of destruction after 442s...

*cooked impedance bonds

Deja Vue:'(

Binning them early saw GTR's ppm go up noticeably!

A "slight" due diligence failure by First bid team /advisors
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top