Class 442s - Now at the end of the road and to be withdrawn permanently

[hwl]

I wonder if the same leading unit has been involved in each COA.

I can envisage the 442 being withdawn from peak services services unless NR and fleet can solve the electrical interference issues.

Headways are already extremely tight London bound in the am peak, it's just not sustainable to have a train sit down for 5-10 mins while the issue is processed between driver and signaller essentially blocking the Up Fast.

The same sort of electrical interference issues cropped up on GatEx services with 442s but NR were every quite able to definitively blame it on the 442s as there wasn't the required monitoring equipment in place.

The GatEx era issue is that the 3rd rail picks are on the end cars and the traction current return is all on the centre motor car and the return currents are much larger than other stock + a significant distance from the pick up that can cause problems for older type impedance bonds in certain locations especially near point work as the there can be a greater difference between return current through each rail through points and older impedance bond don't agree well with return current mismatches between running rails...

 

[Thumper1127]

I should imagine that the primary cost is for First Group; my understanding is that they have made a £100m+ provision in their accounts for the impact of a whole host of issues, including 442s on the financial impact of the SWR franchise. That is not to say there won't be other industry costs of course.

 

[aleggatta]

The same sort of electrical interference issues cropped up on GatEx services with 442s but NR were every quite able to definitively blame it on the 442s as there wasn't the required monitoring equipment in place.

The GatEx era issue is that the 3rd rail picks are on the end cars and the traction current return is all on the centre motor car and the return currents are much larger than other stock + a significant distance from the pick up that can cause problems for older type impedance bonds in certain locations especially near point work as the there can be a greater difference between return current through each rail through points and older impedance bond don't agree well with return current mismatches between running rails...

That is quite informative, thank you for the explanation!

 

[samuelmorris]

It does make sense, but how was this problem dealt with in the units' original operation on SWT? Is it only affected the previously unused Portsmouth route or is it causing trouble on the mainline as well? If the latter, what has changed in the decade or so since their last use at SWT to cause such issues to be more problematic now than before, or did the problem always exist there too? I find it difficult to believe that such a state of affairs would have been going on for nearly 20 years.

 

[hwl]

W148 is effectively the platform end signal on the Up Fast at Earlsfield (if the platform existed!).
Retractioning isn't going to solve the GatEx era problem, significant rewiring would be needed.
It may well be the case in the original BR / SWT 442 era that COAs and other problems were happening and were part of the reason SWT were so keen to be shot of them...
Angel and First groups bid team not getting that memo.

 

[theironroad]

That is quite informative, thank you for the explanation!

+1 to hwl

 

[piresistable]

Guess which service received another change of aspect at W148 signal this morning....

I think it just happened again at the same signal this morning. Not sure what was on the service on Tuesday, but I was on 2403/2410 on Wednesday and I’m on 2408/2420 this morning.

 

[theironroad]

I think it just happened again at the same signal this morning. Not sure what was on the service on Tuesday, but I was on 2403/2410 on Wednesday and I’m on 2408/2420 this morning.

Certainly looks like that as the time lost between earlsfield and clj is similar to when it's happened before, the train ahead seemed to be fine.

 

[pompeyfan]

Certainly looks like that as the time lost between earlsfield and clj is similar to when it's happened before, the train ahead seemed to be fine.

Not seen anything to say it was

 

[swt_passenger]

Any chance someone could explain how a train causing track circuit interference can alter a signal ahead of itself? Or have I misinterpreted an earlier post?

 

[aleggatta]

Any chance someone could explain how a train causing track circuit interference can alter a signal ahead of itself? Or have I misinterpreted an earlier post?

There is very little way to explain in this specific circumstance, but I would take a guess that its a back EMF being created by the traction electronics that is being transmitted into the track circuits by way of the older type impedance bonds listed above, in this case it seems to be triggering the track circuit forward of the unit location, and could be a simple fix requiring a cable change for a screened type of cable, or something bigger and unit based to block the back EMF from leaving the unit.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is very little way to explain in this specific circumstance, but I would take a guess that its a back EMF being created by the traction electronics that is being transmitted into the track circuits by way of the older type impedance bonds listed above, in this case it seems to be triggering the track circuit forward of the unit location, and could be a simple fix requiring a cable change for a screened type of cable, or something bigger and unit based to block the back EMF from leaving the unit.

Can that be summarised as electrical noise getting past the impedance bond into the block ahead?

 

[aleggatta]

Can that be summarised as electrical noise getting past the impedance bond into the block ahead?

into the block via the impedance bond, or straight into the signalling system, and the noise operating other track circuits through parallel cable paths, so this could simply be an issue of cable screening, but might more likely failure of the impedance bond or the 442s simply operating with excessive EMF interference

 

[swt_passenger]

into the block via the impedance bond, or straight into the signalling system, and the noise operating other track circuits through parallel cable paths, so this could simply be an issue of cable screening, but might more likely failure of the impedance bond or the 442s simply operating with excessive EMF interference

Thanks for the extra info. Not the easiest thing to track down and fix I expect? In a previous life the expression used was “random component changing”...

 

[trainmania100]

Currently the following are already in service

• 10/06/19 – 442410 + 442420 (9B88)
• 24/06/19 – 442403 + 442408 (9B88)

Have any more units entered service yet or still those 4 being rotated? Thanks

 

[winks]

Piggies look really good here in the evening ? Question is what service was this ?

 

[Train Boy]

Piggies look really good here in the evening ? Question is what service was this ?

1848 Waterloo to Poole

 

[winks]

Nice. Hoping to catch one if there’s a weekend service eventually!

 

[Thumper1127]

Out of interest are there any regular travellers here who take the 0628 (9B88) or 0638 (1B90) from SOA? Just wondering what the loadings are like from Winchester, i.e., has the former significantly relieved the latter? Any observations welcome.

 

[RichSwitch]

The class 442 issues are beyond a joke now. Passengers were promised their reintroduction on the Portsmouth line back in about 1841. OK, not quite that far back but... far enough. It’s got to the stage where my own view is that some very senior heads indeed should now be rolling over the decision to take these vehicles. Of course they won’t because that level of management never take responsibility for debacles such as this one. Especially in the railway industry. I would welcome some kind of investigation/inquiry into what’s gone wrong, the results of which should be available publicly.

While I’m not opposed to the 442 per se, I still say “Give Us New, Not The 442”.

 

[SWRtrain_fan]

The class 442 issues are beyond a joke now. Passengers were promised their reintroduction on the Portsmouth line back in about 1841. OK, not quite that far back but... far enough. It’s got to the stage where my own view is that some very senior heads indeed should now be rolling over the decision to take these vehicles. Of course they won’t because that level of management never take responsibility for debacles such as this one. Especially in the railway industry. I would welcome some kind of investigation/inquiry into what’s gone wrong, the results of which should be available publicly.

While I’m not opposed to the 442 per se, I still say “Give Us New, Not The 442”.

I agree, it would've been so much easier to just buy new trains. The 442s are around 30 years old - no wonder the door safety issue has been around for so long now...

 

[43096]

I agree, it would have been so much easier to just buy new trains. The 442s are 30 years old - no wonder the door safety issue has been around for so long now...

Given that the SWR Aventras that were ordered at the start of the franchise aren’t even close to service, I fail to see how that would have been quicker?

 

[SWRtrain_fan]

Given that the SWR Aventras that were ordered at the start of the franchise aren’t even close to service, I fail to see how that would have been quicker?

Oh yeah that's true, didn't think about that.

 

[samuelmorris]

I agree, it would've been so much easier to just buy new trains. The 442s are around 30 years old - no wonder the door safety issue has been around for so long now...

Kept track of many new fleet introductions lately? I'm not saying new stock wouldn't have been a better idea, but a new fleet would certainly have experienced a similar delay.

 

[TEW]

The latest I heard on 442s does not sound positive for extra units in service any time soon. The project has certainly encountered a lot of problems.

 

[pompeyfan]

Is there any manufacturer that could have produced 23m end door intercity 3rd rail EMUs in a quicker time? Siemens possibly but that’s about it.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I agree, it would've been so much easier to just buy new trains. The 442s are around 30 years old - no wonder the door safety issue has been around for so long now...

I’m afraid it wouldn’t. The issues with the 442s is more around gauging ‘new’ 23m stock nothing to do with the actual 442s.

As these have been classed as a ‘new train’ it has thrown up a huge number of historic and paperwork issues with gauge clearance which would have happened with any new train introduced on Wessex.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Kept track of many new fleet introductions lately? I'm not saying new stock wouldn't have been a better idea, but a new fleet would certainly have experienced a similar delay.

Exactly the issues have not been old v new fleet it’s about gauge clearance for 23m C3 stock on South Western Division (159s and 444s have grandfather rights, nothing else does).

 

[mchd2000]

I’m afraid it wouldn’t. The issues with the 442s is more around gauging ‘new’ 23m stock nothing to do with the actual 442s.

As these have been classed as a ‘new train’ it has thrown up a huge number of historic and paperwork issues with gauge clearance which would have happened with any new train introduced on Wessex.

Do you know what the key clearance issues are? Presumably NR will be very slow to act...

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The class 442 issues are beyond a joke now. Passengers were promised their reintroduction on the Portsmouth line back in about 1841. OK, not quite that far back but... far enough. It’s got to the stage where my own view is that some very senior heads indeed should now be rolling over the decision to take these vehicles. Of course they won’t because that level of management never take responsibility for debacles such as this one. Especially in the railway industry. I would welcome some kind of investigation/inquiry into what’s gone wrong, the results of which should be available publicly.

While I’m not opposed to the 442 per se, I still say “Give Us New, Not The 442”.

New stock would still have the gauging issues that have come to light and preventing the 442s entering traffic en masse (the units are fit for traffic, it’s just the NR restrictions which require 2 drivers makes it unrealistic to plan more into traffic)