• 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

I

Invincible

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2022
Messages
422
Location
Surrey
pompeyfan said:
Essentially the general understanding is that when the contracts were drawn up, it was expected that the Portsmouth lines would recover better than they have after Covid. The cancellation of the contract is believed to have been more expensive than completing the project.

The units after completion could in theory go back on any number of service groups, however the cost of crew training may exclude certain routes, and their layout would mean they’re less suitable for some work than other work.
Click to expand...
So for some reason the Portsmouth lines have not recovered as much as peak SWR services in inner and outer London?

Hence the refurbished 12 car 2+2 seating 458s are not needed on the Portsmouth line?.

But to bring them into use will release some 450s with 2+3 seating for outer London, Surrey and Hampshire use to relieve over crowding, and accelerate retirement of 455s (as the 701s are still being rolled out).
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

G

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
10,081
pompeyfan said:
Would they? They’re only 8 or so years younger.

I’m reluctant to make this into speculative discussion so I won’t continue, but I am interested as to what features the 458/4s have that would make them suitable to replace the longer distance 465s, and why other potentially available fleets (350/2s after DC conversation) would not be better.
Click to expand...
Compared with 465:
Just refurbished, 2+2 seating with armrests, tables, carpets, air conditioning, 100mph top speed, better traction equipment.

Compared with 350:
Just refurbished and ready to be used - no need for DC conversion.

Invincible said:
Hence the refurbished 10 car 458s are not needed on the Portsmouth line?.
Click to expand...
The refurbished units are 4 car so it would 4/8/12 car formations.
 
DelW

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,885
Invincible said:
So for some reason the Portsmouth lines have not recovered as much as peak SWR services in inner and outer London?

Hence the refurbished 10 car 458s are not needed on the Portsmouth line?.

But to bring them into use will release some 450s for outer London use to relieve over crowding?
Click to expand...
The refurbished 458s have reverted to 4 car sets.

They would and should enable the reduction or elimination of 450s from the Direct, so allowing the 450s released to alleviate short forms on suburban routes and to eliminate unsuitable stock like 455s on Reading services.

Unfortunately SWR and/or DfT would rather let them rot in sidings for four years then scrap them, entirely wasting the public money that is still being spent on rebuilding them.
 
S

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,260
Location
West Wiltshire
pompeyfan said:
Yes but you’re comparing apples and oranges, the 701 introduction is not relevant to the 458 reintroduction. If anything they would probably abstract from each other, so do you push on with the 701s or do you pause the 701s to reintroduce the 458s on some lines? Or do you P-code passenger services (probably Windsor and suburban services) to provide enough drivers for both projects? I can’t see SE OLR taking on either fleet. The 701s are not going anywhere other than the South Western contract. The 458s could potentially go to SE but why would they want them?
Click to expand...

Yes, I get what you are saying, but realistically the minute the 701 and 458 projects were signed, someone in management/ HR / Training should have worked out how to resource the training without cancelling service trains. They have clearly failed miserably to do their job.
 
G

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
10,081
DelW said:
The refurbished 458s have reverted to 4 car sets.

They would and should enable the reduction or elimination of 450s from the Direct, so allowing the 450s released to alleviate short forms on suburban routes and to eliminate unsuitable stock like 455s on Reading services.

Unfortunately SWR and/or DfT would rather let them rot in sidings for four years then scrap them, entirely wasting the public money that is still being spent on rebuilding them.
Click to expand...
There's also the issue that according to some posters drivers are refusing to drive them (and the 701s).

With a 458/5 being withdrawn every few weeks SWR will soon be unable to provide enough trains for current service levels, so something will have to give if service cuts and/ or bustitution are to be avoided.
 
P

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,192
Goldfish62 said:
There's also the issue that according to some posters drivers are refusing to drive them (and the 701s).
Click to expand...

from my understanding it has been agreed between SWR / ASLEF that the cabs would need some attention before they renter passenger service, which requires more money being released from the DfT, and extra works. Potentially this was poor scoping from SWR / Porterbrook not to include cab refurbishment in the main contract, but we are where we are.

I completely get a lot of the arguments and dissatisfaction but from here I don’t know the best (most efficient) way to proceed, as a lot of the suggestions now require extra work and money being spent, and potentially further delay 701s into traffic. Maybe the most sensible option would be to offload the 458/4s onto another TOC, but that still temporarily shafts the passengers.

Realistically there are 4 options that I can see, I’ve added pros and cons, feel free to add your own.

1) SWR continue to pay warm storage fees for the fleet, however they do not enter service and then the lease expires on them in 2027

Pro: No crew training costs or cab refurbishment cost

Con: does not address the current lack of rolling stock that’s significantly affecting passengers

2) SWR (DfT) pay up to end the lease early to enable the fleet to move on to another TOC / scrap
Pro: no warm storage fees and potentially replaces an older fleet on a different TOC, no cab rebuild costs or crew training cost.

Con: possibly large outlay to terminate the lease early, significant PR damage after wasting the refurbishment, does not address the current shortage of rolling stock on SWR.

3) cabs are refurbished and the stock enters on the Windsor and Inner service

Pros: provides relief for passengers, only a conversion course would be required for many.

Cons: may hamper introduction of 701s, the company and the DFT incur the cost of cab refurbishment and conversion course for crew

4) cabs are refurbished and the stock enters on the Portsmouth Direct / Basingstoke / Bournemouth lines

Pros: enables an internal fleet cascade, helping passengers, shouldn’t interfere with the 701 introduction.

Cons: the company and the DFT incur the cost of cab refurbishment and full course for crew at a large number of depots.
 
Last edited:
43096

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,317
pompeyfan said:
from my understanding it has been agreed between SWR / ASLEF that the cabs would need some attention before they renter passenger service, which requires more money being released from the DfT, and extra works. Potentially this was poor scoping from SWR / Porterbrook not to include cab refurbishment in the main contract, but we are where we are.

I completely get a lot of the arguments and dissatisfaction but from here I don’t know the best (most efficient) way to proceed, as a lot of the suggestions now require extra work and money being spent, and potentially further delay 701s into traffic. Maybe the most sensible option would be to offload the 458/4s onto another TOC, but that still temporarily shafts the passengers.

Realistically there are 4 options that I can see, I’ve added pros and cons, feel free to add your own.

1) SWR continue to pay warm storage fees for the fleet, however they do not enter service and then the lease expires on them in 2027

Pro: No crew training costs or cab refurbishment cost

Con: does not address the current lack of rolling stock that’s significantly affecting passengers

2) SWR (DfT) pay up to end the lease early to enable the fleet to move on to another TOC / scrap
Pro: no warm storage fees and potentially replaces an older fleet on a different TOC, no cab rebuild costs or crew training cost.

Con: possibly large outlay to terminate the lease early, significant PR damage after wasting the refurbishment, does not address the current shortage of rolling stock on SWR.

3) cabs are refurbished and the stock enters on the Windsor and Inner service

Pros: provides relief for passengers, only a conversion course would be required for many.

Cons: may hamper introduction of 701s, the company and the DFT incur the cost of cab refurbishment and conversion course for crew

4) cabs are refurbished and the stock enters on the Portsmouth Direct / Basingstoke / Bournemouth lines

Pros: enables an internal fleet cascade, helping passengers, shouldn’t interfere with the 701 introduction.

Cons: the company and the DFT incur the cost of cab refurbishment and full course for crew at a large number of depots.
Click to expand...
5) Get the 458/4s into service on the Reading line to alleviate the train shortage

6) Bite the bullet and get the 458/4s into service as intended. Then off-lease some of the (more expensive) 450s once their Section 54 agreement expires next year.
 
G

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
10,081
pompeyfan said:
from my understanding it has been agreed between SWR / ASLEF that the cabs would need some attention before they renter passenger service, which requires more money being released from the DfT, and extra works. Potentially this was poor scoping from SWR / Porterbrook not to include cab refurbishment in the main contract, but we are where we are.
Click to expand...
And that will inevitably cost more than if it had been part of the main refurb contract.
 
P

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,192
43096 said:
5) Get the 458/4s into service on the Reading line to alleviate the train shortage

6) Bite the bullet and get the 458/4s into service as intended. Then off-lease some of the (more expensive) 450s once their Section 54 agreement expires next year.
Click to expand...

I covered that in points 3 and 4?
 
B

Big Jumby 74

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2022
Messages
1,063
Location
UK
3) makes most sense for the passengers, and based (perhaps?) on an agreement between industry/DfT & unions, that their re-introduction on Windsor side diagrams, to relieve present stock shortages, would only be a temporary affair (pending full 701 intro') and therefore the cab refurb might be put aside, and once displaced by 701s they would head West and in to the history books?
 
S

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,260
Location
West Wiltshire
pompeyfan said:
from my understanding it has been agreed between SWR / ASLEF that the cabs would need some attention before they renter passenger service, which requires more money being released from the DfT, and extra works. Potentially this was poor scoping from SWR / Porterbrook not to include cab refurbishment in the main contract
Click to expand...

Not the brightest decision to agree not to use a cab that was in identical condition to when the train was last used in service just before refurb. Except cab probably had heavy clean so probably better than when it was stopped

I would query the bad scoping, more the mixed standards of not accepting a cab that was probably made grubby by drivers.
 
O

OneTrackMinded

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2023
Messages
186
Location
Richmond
Snow1964 said:
Not the brightest decision to agree not to use a cab that was in identical condition to when the train was last used in service just before refurb. Except cab probably had heavy clean so probably better than when it was stopped

I would query the bad scoping, more the mixed standards of not accepting a cab that was probably made grubby by drivers.
Click to expand...
I've heard from around the place that the union doesn't like the cab layout, might be something to do with the size
 
G

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
10,081
OneTrackMinded said:
I've heard from around the place that the union doesn't like the cab layout, might be something to do with the size
Click to expand...
Strange that the union should suddenly unaccept a cab layout that's been in use for the past 24 years and is plying up and down the Windsor lines right this minute.
 
S

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,260
Location
West Wiltshire
Goldfish62 said:
Maybe just a bit of stirring with no basis in reality. Otherwise, let's hope they don't unaccept the cab layouts of the 455s and Desiros, because that would create more than a few problems!
Click to expand...
Or you could end up with silly situation where the desiros don't get a mid life refurbishment, simply because there is (apparently) now a precedent for refusing to work cabs of units that get refurbished.

I sometimes think the union goes out of its way to stuff the customers and make itself a public enemy
 
G

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
10,081
Snow1964 said:
Or you could end up with silly situation where the desiros don't get a mid life refurbishment, simply because there is (apparently) now a precedent for refusing to work cabs of units that get refurbished.

I sometimes think the union goes out of its way to stuff the customers and make itself a public enemy
Click to expand...
I understand where they're coming from with the 458 cabs in terms of condition. What I wouldn't understand would be if they suddenly objected to the actual cab layout that has been in use for 24 years.
 
N

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
2,407
Location
SW London
Goldfish62 said:
Strange that the union should suddenly unaccept a cab layout that's been in use for the past 24 years and is plying up and down the Windsor lines right this minute.
Click to expand...
The 5-car rebuild, which included a drastically modified cab, was only ten years ago.

Before (458001-30)
800px-Hugh_llewelyn_%2845%298021_%286336760961%29.jpg

Before (class 460 units, converted to 458531-36)
1024px-Hugh_llewelyn_%28460_0%29_04_%286390134977%29_adjusted.jpg


After
1024px-South_West_Trains_458531_%2B_45853x%2C_Clapham_Junction_%2815464909774%29_crop.jpg
 
G

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
10,081
norbitonflyer said:
The 5-car rebuild, which included a drastically modified cab, was only ten years ago.

Before (458001-30)
800px-Hugh_llewelyn_%2845%298021_%286336760961%29.jpg

Before (class 460 units, converted to 458531-36)
1024px-Hugh_llewelyn_%28460_0%29_04_%286390134977%29_adjusted.jpg


After
1024px-South_West_Trains_458531_%2B_45853x%2C_Clapham_Junction_%2815464909774%29_crop.jpg
Click to expand...
It's only the gangway that's changed! Others will be able to confirm but the cab is otherwise unchanged.
 
Doomotron

Doomotron

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2018
Messages
1,187
Location
Kent
Bikeman78 said:
Stop converting them from usable five cars to useless four cars.
Click to expand...
Eh? The point of having them as four coaches (for the originally intended PDL services) was so they could be coupled together for 12 coach formations. I'm not sure why you're complaining about that.
 
spark001uk

spark001uk

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Messages
2,325
pompeyfan said:
Out of interest have you read any of this thread? I know there’s 82 pages so a lot to read if you’ve not watched this topic progress.

Essentially the general understanding is that when the contracts were drawn up, it was expected that the Portsmouth lines would recover better than they have after Covid. The cancellation of the contract is believed to have been more expensive than completing the project.

The units after completion could in theory go back on any number of service groups, however the cost of crew training may exclude certain routes, and their layout would mean they’re less suitable for some work than other work.
Click to expand...
Agree the PDL numbers haven't recovered as expected, but wasn't another objective of the 458 project to be to replace 450s on the line, for their more long-distance friendly 2+2 seating? Is this not still the case?
 
S

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,448
spark001uk said:
Agree the PDL numbers haven't recovered as expected, but wasn't another objective of the 458 project to be to replace 450s on the line, for their more long-distance friendly 2+2 seating? Is this not still the case?
Click to expand...
It was basically to operate the 2 tph 12 car fast services on the line. There would still have been plenty of 450s on the slower services, and from earlier discussions some 10.444 as well. But that was intended for a 4 tph standard pattern all day, with additional services taking the route up to 6 tph in the peak. It’s the lack of any service enhancements that has meant the 2019 proposed total train numbers on the route have been all but abandoned.
 
DelW

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,885
Doomotron said:
Eh? The point of having them as four coaches (for the originally intended PDL services) was so they could be coupled together for 12 coach formations. I'm not sure why you're complaining about that.
Click to expand...
It's not the conversion that the cause of complaints, it's the fact that the refurbished trains aren't being introduced into service, now or possibly ever.
spark001uk said:
Agree the PDL numbers haven't recovered as expected, but wasn't another objective of the 458 project to be to replace 450s on the line, for their more long-distance friendly 2+2 seating? Is this not still the case?
Click to expand...
Yes it was, but sadly there's no sign of it ever happening, despite the expensive conversion process still continuing.
swt_passenger said:
It was basically to operate the 2 tph 12 car fast services on the line. There would still have been plenty of 450s on the slower services, and from earlier discussions some 10.444 as well. But that was intended for a 4 tph standard pattern all day, with additional services taking the route up to 6 tph in the peak. It’s the lack of any service enhancements that has meant the 2019 proposed total train numbers on the route have been all but abandoned.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it would be a big improvement even to get back to the 3tph (2 semifast and one stopper) south of Haslemere that we had in 2019, never mind the once-proposed 4tph which is not going to happen for a long time if ever. The current 2tph is more like one and a bit since the stopper is almost uselessly slow for through journeys.
 
C

cav1975

Member
Joined
24 Sep 2010
Messages
366
Doomotron said:
Eh? The point of having them as four coaches (for the originally intended PDL services) was so they could be coupled together for 12 coach formations. I'm not sure why you're complaining about that.
Click to expand...
Maybe one of thge reason for the lesser recovery on the Portsmouth Direct is the terrible seats in the 450 trains.
 
B

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,566
Doomotron said:
Eh? The point of having them as four coaches (for the originally intended PDL services) was so they could be coupled together for 12 coach formations. I'm not sure why you're complaining about that.
Click to expand...
They aren't being used as four cars. Meanwhile the five cars are gradually being taken out of service leaving fewer and fewer trains for Reading and Windsor without any replacements.
 
N

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
2,407
Location
SW London
WarrenTManager said:
That’s the exterior. I’ve yet to see a driver sit outside!
Click to expand...
I thought I read at the time that the cabs had been completely rebuilt, as the new gangways required structural changes. Certainly the ex-class 460 ones were rebuilt, as a gangway had to be installed and the drivers desk modified to accomodate it.

The original gangways, it was soon discovered, could not be disconnected in service, so splitting and joining trains en route was out of the question. It has been suggested that this came as a surprise to SWT - and it came as a surprise to Adtranz that SWT had expected to be able to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top