brad465
Established Member
SE have enough different fleet varieties to worry about already, even if they could come in to get more Networkers into storage, there's not enough 458s to remove them all.
-
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!
SWR Class 458 to be retained
- Thread starter pompeyfan
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Yes i am going off thread probably but the stark facts are that there are more than enough EMU's that are either stored or imminently about to be stored that could easily see off the Networkers (all the AC ones can work on DC needing little more than shoegear being added).
pigs bay
Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 59
If the 458's are not used, well at least they will look smart going to Newport. Anyway First group will have scored a hattrick then, firstly there was the 442's, then came the 769's , and now the 458's. Well done First group!!!!!
slicedbread
Member
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 33
With the announcement for the 458 lease extension and conversion to 485/4 being the end of March 2021 I'd have hoped some thought to likely passanger numbers was factored in.
Around then around 80% of office workers where saying they wanted to return to the office with hybrid working.
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
What’s this supposed to mean? The 442s were used by SWR and gradually increasing but got killed off by the drop in demand post Covid (meaning they were unlikely to be needed for traffic again prior to the drop dead date for the derogations in 2024 of which SWR had been advised it wouldn’t be extended).
As for the 769s you may notice another operator TfW got shot of theirs very quickly as like the GWR ones there were problems. The GWR ones were almost ready to enter traffic but the lease wasn’t extended at the request of the DfT to save money.
You may have noticed a lot of operators were required to ditch fleets as leases came up for renewal, Southern with 455s and 313s also spring to mind.
Your post really makes little sense.
I think the post is meant to be a joke, playing on the fact that FirstGroup has had three fleets (in a row?) that either failed to enter squadron service, never entered service at all, or are unlikely to enter service with SWR.
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
Just seems an absolutely pointless post by the OP as there’s huge amounts of fleet in this country that has been taken off lease as the belt tightens post covid:
313s, 365s, 442s, 455s, 456s, 769s, XC HSTs
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 9,599
That is essentially what happened with the “Southern” class 377/5s for First Capital Connect (at the time)
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,307
They didn’t get killed off by the drop in demand. If they did, why was the announcement of their exit accompanied by the announcement that the 458s would replace them?
The OP does have a point about WorstGroup and botched fleet introductions. There’s been a lot of taxpayers’ money wasted by this company.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 3,881
I think the 769/9s and (potentially) 458/4s are unique in not being used in passenger service at all in their rebuilt form. The 442s saw limited use after the refurbishment, but (IIRC) weren't used in service after the AC traction installation.
That's three substantial expenditures (tens of millions of pounds?) completely wasted. And the 458/4 expenditure is still continuing despite SWR vowing never to use them.
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
Yes the 442s did get killed off by the drop in demand - it was realised they would not be needed again till around the time their derogation expired meaning there was no point carrying on.
A lot of people misunderstand the 458 deal, what really decided that was DfT wanted the capacity restored long term but as part of the deal the 458s would be off lease for a period of time after they were replaced by the 701s until they went for refurb in 2023.
That was a very attractive cost saving option to the DfT however due to the delayed introduction of 701s didn’t happen.
SWT_USER
Member
So what is the point of continuing with the 458 conversion then?
They aren't going to be used in service and they are needed now, in 10 car formation.
It really is incredible how badly SWR have mismanaged their rolling stock, presumably at huge cost to the taxpayer and to the detriment of passengers.
They aren't going to be used in service and they are needed now, in 10 car formation.
It really is incredible how badly SWR have mismanaged their rolling stock, presumably at huge cost to the taxpayer and to the detriment of passengers.
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
Because the contract to complete the conversion has already been agreed and the penalty clause of aborting the work is higher than completing it.
The agreed contact has dates units are to go off for the refurb, Porterbrook was asked to defer this but isn’t prepared to.
SWT_USER
Member
Which genius agreed to that contract?
Was the same not true of the 442 refurb contract which was aborted (and plagued with problems)?
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
DfT….
It’s fairly common for refurbishment contracts to run this way as it gets a lower price the lower amount of risk you put on the business doing the works of the job being aborted. To get any initial spend over the line with DfT it must be cheap.
Think back to October 2006 a number of 442 units went of for overhaul for SWT and Ilford and never ran for the TOC post overhaul. They were however able to negotiate their way out the contact for the last few units, something that has become harder/more expensive in a post Covid world.
Last edited:
SWT_USER
Member
Thanks for the response. I was referring the the more recent 442 refurb when they were being reintroduced to SWR.
It would be interesting to know how much more then penalty clause for cancelling the 458 refurb would have been compared to going ahead with it. It's a real struggle with service and capacity cuts on SWR and with no sign of the 701's entering full service I would suggest keeping the 458's as 10 car would have been a price worth paying. The cost of this would have been at least partially offset by SWR offloading the 456's, 442's and 707's - not to mention the huge service cuts post covid.
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
I understand Porterbrook are refusing to offer a cancellation clause despite SWR asking to defer the works.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
One problem SWR have is that, if I remember correctly, the lease charges on the 450s are higher than average. Furthermore the prices for using the 450s for extra miles is quite steep. I seem to recall way back in the past there was a need for more 444s. The 450s have been used to be cover for a number of ideally 444 tasks *. So I think there has long been a desire to reduce the monthly mileage on the 450s. The 458s would achieve that once the 701s were supposed to be in service.
* = I might be getting the charges etc for 450s and 444s transposed. But the argument is still the same - to reduce the mileage on one or both fleets of 444s & 450s.
The 458s only have a short life after refurb in terms of a contract. So with post Covid demand recovery lagging behind the national trend the 458s look to hardly be worthwhile as 444/450 support. The 458s unconverted are more use covering for the very late arrival of 701s. However, as others have said, Porterbrook appear to be unwilling to renegotiate the conversion project as this was negotiated as cheap as possible for the TOC (SWR).
I think Covid has made a nonsense of a lot of long term planning - especially on a TOC like SWR where it seems recovery since 2021 is way behind the national trend.
Last edited:
Big Jumby 74
Member
Both fleets, 444 & 450 had upper ANNUAL mileage limitations in relation to the Long Term Plan in SWT days, which if breeched could have cost the TOC quite dearly. This did cause a few hic-ups with the Long Term Plan, and there were always a small number of services that could have benefitted from extra capacity, if a re working of the plan could come up with that - never easy with limited resources, and a strict financial ceiling, not just on stock mileage I will add. It also had a knock-on to the Short Term Plan in that if the ongoing (real time, as opposed to planned LTP) 'annual' figure for any financial year was seen by the latter part of that period to be heading too far North, then the reigns were pulled in to a degree on STP work in some instances - minor in the greater scheme of things perhaps, but in essence the planners didn't necessarily have the free run to plan the ideal service in some instances, as they once did in BR days.
PS: I was led to believe by a very reliable source, that when FG/MTR/SWR took over the SW network, the mileage limitations as mentioned, were thrown out the window, and the planners were freed from those restrictions. True or not I do not know, and if so, did Siemens agree to that?
Agree. But it's also made a mockery of many things, UK wide, and it is a pity that 'some' are 'milking it' above and beyond.....but that always happens in any crisis situation...
Last edited:
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
I understand the bands were renegotiated which gave some increased headroom.
From memory a similar mileage cap caused problems on FCC with 365s and for a while saw increased 317 off peak and weekend use.
Basically the mileage caps work that if you exceed the agreed upper limit the mileage is charged at a premium rate, a bit like hire cars can come with daily mileage limits, you can exceed but it comes expensive.
Big Jumby 74
Member
That makes sense and is what I would have expected - guessing my source may have just been speaking in lose terms (out of despair perhaps!) shall we say. I remember trying to make the point we needed a 'buffer zone' of x miles for each class per annum, but in reality both were right up against the mark for the most part, the 444's being the worst, hovering just under/just over most of the time, with a reliance on engineering work (and/or Control) to keep them under by the end of the financial year.
Not that I'm part of it anymore, but if only! Remembering my care free days diagramming SUB's, EPB's and the rest....
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,470
What is your speculation based off? Not even SWR's staff are 100% sure what the 458/4s will/will not be doing.
Nym
Established Member
Also to note the work done at the 442s by Gemini caused several irreversible problems as they left Wolverton.
In addition to the numerous, very numerous, quality issues with the work done. This very much will have played into the DfT's decision.
In addition to the numerous, very numerous, quality issues with the work done. This very much will have played into the DfT's decision.
Wasn’t this why the 444s were parked up at Fratton all day on a Saturday whilst 8x450s ran up and down the PDL?That makes sense and is what I would have expected - guessing my source may have just been speaking in lose terms (out of despair perhaps!) shall we say. I remember trying to make the point we needed a 'buffer zone' of x miles for each class per annum, but in reality both were right up against the mark for the most part, the 444's being the worst, hovering just under/just over most of the time, with a reliance on engineering work (and/or Control) to keep them under by the end of the financial year.
Not that I'm part of it anymore, but if only! Remembering my care free days diagramming SUB's, EPB's and the rest....
The 450s got more respite between the peaks M-F due to most recent peak extras being 450s, whereas the 444s run all day.
Big Jumby 74
Member
It may have played a part, but the main reason was capacity on Saturdays. Mornings UP to London and later evening on return. There were not enough 444's to cover the entire service, as the loadings for some Sat services were far in excess of a single 444. There weren't enough units to double up to 10 car on all services, so that would have meant several circuits with 8 car 450 in the mix anyway. The latter formation was used to cater for the heavy loadings, and as a consequence kept a standard pattern throughout the day, as reforming at both Portsmouth and Waterloo to keep 10 car 444 on a limited number of circuits would have been costly (driver wise) and cause potential platforming problems at the termini.
PS: mind full this is going OT, so best leave this.
Last edited:
fgwrich
Established Member
That surprises me… not. Just what is it about Wolverton where quality control isn’t where it should be?!
Nym
Established Member
I have some ideas but they should not be made public.
What I will say, is that these are issues common within the industry for the last 10 - 15 years and aren't likely to go away any time soon.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Is running 450/444 combos possible as a compromise (length approx 5/6s of a 10car 444 or 12car 450)?
slicedbread
Member
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 33
It is and I expect the one I get home tonight (17:15 from Waterloo to Portsmouth) will be a 444/450