Class 442s - Now at the end of the road and to be withdrawn permanently

[Western Sunset]

I'm afraid that lessons are seldom (if ever) learned.

 

[southern442]

Nothing *has to* be done. 450s get the passengers to the destination. People grumble about them but they do the job and have done for almost 15 years.

Passengers "going on and on" about 2+2 stock doesn't mean the operators have to provide it.

Of course they don't HAVE to keep the passengers happy but there is still a desire for an improved service. Why does any rail operator do anything otherwise?
Perhaps it would have been better for SWT to specify the 450s in the same way as Southern did with the 377s, given that SWT also ran CIG/VEP combinations.

 

[Goldfish62]

Nothing *has to* be done. 450s get the passengers to the destination. People grumble about them but they do the job and have done for almost 15 years.

Passengers "going on and on" about 2+2 stock doesn't mean the operators have to provide it.

Except now the railways have got to fight for every single passenger.

"It'll do, because however uncomfortable we make the trains the punters will still keep coming" no longer applies.

On current plan, 707s are indeed going first, with provisional stop and release dates for all remaining units already penned in.

So that's a very recent change because it was that they were last to go.

 

[Journeyman]

So that's a very recent change because it was that they were last to go.

It changed a while ago when it was decided they were going to Southeastern.

 

[Thepacerfan]

Nothing *has to* be done. 450s get the passengers to the destination. People grumble about them but they do the job and have done for almost 15 years.

Passengers "going on and on" about 2+2 stock doesn't mean the operators have to provide it.

Can't they just make the 450s 2+2

 

[Journeyman]

Can't they just make the 450s 2+2

No, because they're needed on routes that need 3+2.

 

[spark001uk]

No, because they're needed on routes that need 3+2.

Did need 3+2. Reckon it'll be a while before 2 adjacent seats get used again let alone 3.

 

[southern442]

Did need 3+2. Reckon it'll be a while before 2 adjacent seats get used again let alone 3.

I agree that 2+2 would probably be okay for some services, but it is worth mentioning that people are already using 2 adjacent seats on busier services from what I've seen (although not specifically on SWR)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But I'm guessing SWR have switched the 458s precisely because it (now) saves money in the long run, with the £45m effectively sunk and can't be un-spent.

That wasn't the case back in 2017, long before Covid, when the numbers (presumably) did stack up to justify the investment.


A bit like Grand Central abandoning the Blackpool service. In spite of all the cost spent, the changed circumstances meant it was no longer a go-er.

Subtle difference is Grand Central have spent their own money not the taxpayers but terminating the project was the correct decision but for SWR to now tell us 458's are the way forward is laughable and its not as if its a simple matter of ECS to BOMO and put into use millions more will be have to expended.

 

[Journeyman]

Subtle difference is Grand Central have spent their own money not the taxpayers but terminating the project was the correct decision but for SWR to now tell us 458's are the way forward is laughable and its not as if its a simple matter of ECS to BOMO and put into use millions more will be have to expended.

But presumably it's more cost effective than carrying on with the 442s.

 

[Bald Rick]

millions more will be have to expended.

But millions less than if the 442 programme had continued.

We can all look back with hindsight and say it was a poor decision to resume use of the 442s, and I’ll freely admit I raised an eyebrow a considerable distance when it was announced 4 years ago. As did my good friend who is in the SWR fleet team. But then we can all look back with hindsight and say it was a poor decision for some chap in China to have bat stew one night in late 2019.

Equally you could say that this decision should have been taken earlier, but a) who’s to say it wasn’t taken month ago but has only come to light now, and b) would it have made any difference given that the refurb / re tractioning contracts were let?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Seriously? I despair. An industry that is under pressure in terms of cost and subsidy and demonstrates an ongoing inability to manage costs, but hey the odd £45 million squandered for no benefit is fine.


So the magic money tree pays and it's all fine?

You can’t unspent money but you can stop further spend on a project.

 

[northernbelle]

But I'm guessing SWR have switched the 458s precisely because it (now) saves money in the long run, with the £45m effectively sunk and can't be un-spent.

That wasn't the case back in 2017, long before Covid, when the numbers (presumably) did stack up to justify the investment.


A bit like Grand Central abandoning the Blackpool service. In spite of all the cost spent, the changed circumstances meant it was no longer a go-er.

Yes, that's more or less it.

One assumes that all that £45million is entirely taxpayer's money - no doubt at least a fair chunk of that will have been paid by the ROSCO as an investment to its asset that it would have seen a return on in the years that followed - not so now of course.

I'll say it again - I hope this is the last time we see end-of-life stock expensively 'repurposed' when the end result was always going to be a compromise. There's no doubt the 458s, with a decent interior upgrade, will be a better option than the 442s, even if it means retaining what is effectively a micro-fleet. I don't think it's a coincidence that Porterbrook owns the 458s while Angel owns the 442s - hints of a good deal for which it was worth cutting their losses on.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Nothing *has to* be done. 450s get the passengers to the destination. People grumble about them but they do the job and have done for almost 15 years.

Passengers "going on and on" about 2+2 stock doesn't mean the operators have to provide it.

You don’t have to provide it but it t puts people off returning to travelling it probably is worth spending the money.

I think it’s more the lack of tables that’s the problem, if you commute from Petersfield and south of you get a good couple of work on a laptop done per daily commute, no table and it’s not quite so easy, that might be enough to swing someone to not coming back to commuting.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, that's more or less it.

One assumes that all that £45million is entirely taxpayer's money - no doubt at least a fair chunk of that will have been paid by the ROSCO as an investment to its asset that it would have seen a return on in the years that followed - not so now of course.

I'll say it again - I hope this is the last time we see end-of-life stock expensively 'repurposed' when the end result was always going to be a compromise. There's no doubt the 458s, with a decent interior upgrade, will be a better option than the 442s, even if it means retaining what is effectively a micro-fleet. I don't think it's a coincidence that Porterbrook owns the 458s while Angel owns the 442s - hints of a good deal for which it was worth cutting their losses on.

I strongly suspect the extended lease on the 458s was a deal SWR couldn't refuse. Porterbrook will be very happy to carry on earning money on assets they thought were done with.

 

[Goldfish62]

You don’t have to provide it but it t puts people off returning to travelling it probably is worth spending the money.

Indeed. Some bus operators install all sorts of extras in their buses these days. It obviously costs a lot of money, but they wouldn't do it if they didn't think it would attract extra passengers and therefore revenue.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, that's more or less it.

One assumes that all that £45million is entirely taxpayer's money - no doubt at least a fair chunk of that will have been paid by the ROSCO as an investment to its asset that it would have seen a return on in the years that followed - not so now of course.

I'll say it again - I hope this is the last time we see end-of-life stock expensively 'repurposed' when the end result was always going to be a compromise. There's no doubt the 458s, with a decent interior upgrade, will be a better option than the 442s, even if it means retaining what is effectively a micro-fleet. I don't think it's a coincidence that Porterbrook owns the 458s while Angel owns the 442s - hints of a good deal for which it was worth cutting their losses on.

Well seeing as most folk seem to believe ridership will be down for years, if not permanently, there will be no need to repurpose anything from the BR era as there will be a surplus of rolling stock. What's needed now is a strategy as to how best to disperse stock across the network without getting hung up on former TOC areas.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Because £45 million has been p***ed up the wall to get to this position!

No different to the £60 million spent on 30 x 321 units on Retanus upgrades that will see less than 5 years in traffic.

Things move on in lots of industries and we sadly end up with abortive spend.

 

[Goldfish62]

Equally you could say that this decision should have been taken earlier, but a) who’s to say it wasn’t taken month ago but has only come to light now, and b) would it have made any difference given that the refurb / re tractioning contracts were let?

Given that it's all been agreed with Porterbrook, and more importantly, the DfT I'd say the initial decision to go for this option was taken months ago.

 

[Bald Rick]

One assumes that all that £45million is entirely taxpayer's money - no doubt at least a fair chunk of that will have been paid by the ROSCO as an investment to its asset that it would have seen a return on in the years that followed - not so now of course.

That depends on the deal with the leasing company for the 442s refurb / retraction. If they assumed there would be some potential for further leasing after the refurb, then the full £45m wouldn’t have been amortised over the life of the lease. It’s the wonderful world of asset leasing.

Given that it's all been agreed with Porterbrook, and more importantly, the DfT I'd say the initial decision to go for this option was taken months ago.

I’d say so too

 

[Matt Taylor]

Leisure travel is going to be key in making up the shortfall from the ongoing and probably long term loss in commuter traffic, expecting these leisure travellers to sit on 3+2 non tabled trains for an hour and half each way is not going to cut it.

Digressing, the 458s will be twenty four years old when they come on stream next year, the 442s were only five years older when they were withdrawn by Southern!

 

[JonathanH]

Well seeing as most folk seem to believe ridership will be down for years, if not permanently, there will be no need to repurpose anything from the BR era as there will be a surplus of rolling stock.

I do find it odd that SWR aren't just looking at the 444 and 450 fleet and cutting back the service provision to what that can reasonably cover.

 

[Journeyman]

Leisure travel is going to be key in making up the shortfall from the ongoing and probably long term loss in commuter traffic, expecting these leisure travellers to sit on 3+2 non tabled trains for an hour and half each way is not going to cut it.

Digressing, the 458s will be twenty four years old when they come on stream next year, the 442s were only five years older when they were withdrawn by Southern!

24 years is mid-life for an EMU. They've easily got another decade left. Remember that by the time Southern got rid of the 442s, the traction equipment was 50 years old and seriously knackered. That doesn't apply here.

I do find it odd that SWR aren't just looking at the 444 and 450 fleet and cutting back the service provision to what that can reasonably cover.

That'll work for now, but numbers will rise again in the future.

 

[CBlue]

Leisure Youre missing a point l is going to be key in making up the shortfall from the ongoing and probably long term loss in commuter traffic, expecting these leisure travellers to sit on 3+2 non tabled trains for an hour and half each way is not going to cut it.

Digressing, the 458s will be twenty four years old when they come on stream next year, the 442s were only five years older when they were withdrawn by Southern!

You're missing one key difference here. 442s had running gear taken off the trains they replaced, which was approaching 50+ years old by the time it started getting replaced.
Chuck a 458 on most commuter routes into London and most people wouldn't think they were 24 years old - rolling stock design hasn't changed a huge amount since they were introduced.

The 442s on the other hand with their poor accessibility.....

 

[221101 Voyager]

So these units are off lease and will be stored. Can we also bet it’s almost certain they will all be scrapped too?

If so, I shall look forward to getting some scrap runs.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I do find it odd that SWR aren't just looking at the 444 and 450 fleet and cutting back the service provision to what that can reasonably cover.

Would have been more sensible for them to take the surplus class 350's when they come off lease from WMT rather than waste more money on rejigging the 458's then they would have had just the two fleets to maintain.

 

[Bald Rick]

So these units are off lease and will be stored.

are they definitely off lease?

 

[Journeyman]

You're missing one key difference here. 442s had running gear taken off the trains they replaced, which was approaching 50+ years old by the time it started getting replaced.
Chuck a 458 on most commuter routes into London and most people wouldn't think they were 24 years old - rolling stock design hasn't changed a huge amount since they were introduced.

The 442s on the other hand with their poor accessibility.....

Absolutely true. I think unfortunately that a lot of enthusiasts have elevated the Mark 3 design to a mythical status it's never really deserved, and certainly doesn't deserve now. Although the 442s dealt with some of the worst problems with Mark 3s, and although they were a huge improvement on the knackered REPs and TCs, in true Southern style they were the last 23m, end door Mark 3 vehicles built, and the design was showing its age.

I now get extremely annoyed by people waxing lyrical about how great Mark 3s are, because the design is close to 50 years old, and the advances in design, accessibility, comfort, efficiency and reliability since then have been enormous. Yes, you can make Mark 3s comfortable to travel in, but to say they're truly fit for purpose in 2021 is getting on for delusional.

Would have been more sensible for them to take the surplus class 350's when they come off lease from WMT rather than waste more money on rejigging the 458's then they would have had just the two fleets to maintain.

The 350s are 3+2 and AC only.

 

[221101 Voyager]

are they definitely off lease?

I read on this thread somewhere the lease had been terminated.

 

[Journeyman]

I read on this thread somewhere the lease had been terminated.

As others have said, I suspect this was finalised some time ago.