Could class 442s ever go back to SWT?

[physics34]

Yet again you are clouded by nostalgia :roll:.
The 444 Desiros are smoother, quieter, faster, have larger doors, lower step at the doors, and are more accessible in several ways.
Seats you'll never have consensus on, seats that are overly soft cause my back pain to flare up. The 444 and 450/455 ones are perfect.

I grant you the sloping seats of the 442s were not the best and nor are the fgw 158s which some one mentioned...and they are a killer.

I'm actually like the 444s but from Clapham jct to Weymouth I cramp up. Seating not good enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Additional rolling stock was needed, there weren't enough Electrostars on order at the time.

I think alterations could've been made to make this work (such as ordering 377/6s earlier as to realise 377/1s-4s ) earlier so that the 442s would not be needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Forget about loco hauled,that was for the olden days.EMU's are far more simpler.We have more chance of steam making a comeback.(almost)

For a distance such as Waterloo to Exeter it would make sense to have loco hauled/ services again.

This would release 159s to other parts of the UK that desperately need diesel stock.

 

[superalbs]

For a distance such as Waterloo to Exeter it would make sense to have loco hauled/ services again.

This would release 159s to other parts of the UK that desperately need diesel stock.

What loco/stock would you suggest is used? I doubt that acceleration from locos would be very good compared to the 159s, and locos were removed from the route in the first place due to not being suited to the stop-start nature of the route.

 

[swt_passenger]

What loco/stock would you suggest is used? I doubt that acceleration from locos would be very good compared to the 159s, and locos were removed from the route in the first place due to not being suited to the stop-start nature of the route.

Hasn't it been said that SWT would prefer faster accelerating DMUs anyway, so that they can better match the Desiro performance between Basingstoke and Waterloo? Can't see LHCS arriving anytime.

 

[physics34]

What loco/stock would you suggest is used? I doubt that acceleration from locos would be very good compared to the 159s, and locos were removed from the route in the first place due to not being suited to the stop-start nature of the route.

442 coaches. bring back the class 50s! no seriously, that would have to be looked at what becomes avaliable. Im not aware as to why loco haulage was stopped in the first place... i just thought it was due to the climate of the time of cost cutting.

As i said this would give an alternative use for 442 coaches and would also give the opportunity for 159s to be used elsewhere which are much needed! Could also help towards the imminent withdrawl of the pacers.

not too clued up of ratios etc etc but couldnt some locos be geared to accelerate quicker to answer your question? Or would they suffer severe wheelslip as the powered axles arent spread out as much.

 

[jopsuk]

why were locos taken away from the SWML & WEML? Because the southern region (succeeded by NSE then SWT) had very long ago realised that self propelled units, be they electric or diesel, were generally preferable from an operations point of view to loco + coaches. With the 159s as well as being better at stop-start it meant they could do portion working more easily, providing higher capacity in the north/east of the route without dragging around empty carriages in the west.

 

[physics34]

why were locos taken away from the SWML & WEML? Because the southern region (succeeded by NSE then SWT) had very long ago realised that self propelled units, be they electric or diesel, were generally preferable from an operations point of view to loco + coaches. With the 159s as well as being better at stop-start it meant they could do portion working more easily, providing higher capacity in the north/east of the route without dragging around empty carriages in the west.

true i didnt think of the splitting and attaching.

 

[bramling]

Quick question has their return to SWT been ruled out yet?

They certainly *could* return to SWT. Their use on some Weymouth line services could allow a rediagramming of Desiros to reduce the number of 1x444 or 2x450 workings during the peaks, or more specifically in the peak shoulders. Some of these services could go to 2x444 (or 2x442). It wouldn't allow removal of 450s from the 12-car peak Portsmouth trains as this is more to do with seat capacity.

Will it happen? No I don't think so. The stated mechanical condition of the trains means a full retractioning would be needed at some point, then there's still the need for accessibility compliance. By the time they are released from Southern these two issues will be hard to defer, so unless pressure for this particular extra capacity on SWT becomes impossible to ignore I can't see it happening. They're no real use for extra services on SWT as the track is already running at capacity, and most high peak trains are already at maximum realistic length - the only services which can be lengthened relatively easily are the peak shoulders. Is this enough of a political issue to merit the cost? Probably not.

A shame, but that's the hand of cards these trains were dealt. The re-use of old traction equipment (even if without this the units may not have got the funds to be built in the first place) combined with a relatively small non-standard fleet have conspired against these trains. They will still be around 30 upon finishing with Southern, which although fairly young in EMU terms, remains on a par with some other EMUs - class 312s, the SET 508s, some recent LUL stocks, and not too far from some of the newer CIGs and VEPs, as well as many of the 1960s AC EMUs many of which were gone by the 1990s even if a residue survived longer.

 

[ainsworth74]

Can't see LHCS arriving anytime.

I'm not much of a fan of LHCS when compared to MUs in most circumstances but, to be fair, reports indicate that 68s on Chiltern are out-accelerating their DMUs in a number of places.

Now whether that's got more to do with the lackadaisical performance of Chilterns Turbos and Networks or the capabilities of the 68s has not been clarified as far as I'm aware

 

[alexl92]

Probably a crazy question, but could the 442s be reformed - say get rid of the driving cars and lengthened to 7 cars, then be loco hauled to increase capacity to Exeter or on another route somewhere? Just for the short term. Not saying they should be, just wondering...

Isn't that basically a loco-hauled mk3 rake?

 

[Via Bank]

Loco-hauling them is out of the question, particularly given how close to full the SWML is capacity-wise.

If SWT wanted more express fleet, they would order five- or six-car Desiro City units with end doors and corridor connectors, or ten- or twelve-car Desiro Verve sets. (Or a similar product from another manufacturer.) No need to re-traction, refurbish or make compliant with accessibility legislation, better performance, future-proofed against AC conversion, and almost certainly more reliable. With the double bonus that there'd be no headlines about "Croydon cast-offs"!

Talk of retaining the 442s for anything other than scrap is fantasy, I'm afraid.

 

[swt_passenger]

Talk of retaining the 442s for anything other than scrap is fantasy, I'm afraid.

Agree. Perhaps we could even try and make June 2015 the first month ever without yet another variation on the "what shall we do with the 442s" thread.

It's probably OK for a complete newbie to start one, but I think anyone with a reasonable time in the forum must surely know this is flogging a dead horse...

 

[ExRes]

Flogging a dead horse is a very generous description, I've actually heard that the RSPCA are taking steps to stop the very mention of 442s as they claim it's the worse case of horse mistreatment they've ever come across

Out of 'interest', are people suggesting turning the 442 driving cabs into DVTs, are locos going to be provided at both termini or is the loco going to run round, I'm sure SWT will be delighted to employ additional staff to take care of the last two options

 

[D365]

Perhaps we could even try and make June 2015 the first month ever without yet another variation on the "what shall we do with the 442s" thread.

There's as much chance of that as there is me scoring A grades in my A-Levels :P

 

[ainsworth74]

Agree. Perhaps we could even try and make June 2015 the first month ever without yet another variation on the "what shall we do with the 442s" thread.

It's probably OK for a complete newbie to start one, but I think anyone with a reasonable time in the forum must surely know this is flogging a dead horse...

Anyone whose been signed up for more than one month gets banned for six months if they do?

 

[D365]

Flogging a dead horse is a very generous description, I've actually heard that the RSPCA are taking steps to stop the very mention of 442s as they claim it's the worse case of horse mistreatment they've ever come across.

Though not quite the so-called 'cattle-truck' 319s!

Out of 'interest', are people suggesting turning the 442 driving cabs into DVTs...

They'd be known as DBSOs as the passenger compartments would be kept in use. Anyway I don't see why this conversion wouldn't happen, if a full LHCS conversion were to be undertaken.

Anyone whose been signed up for more than one month gets banned for six months if they do?

Do I get away with it if I have my user handle changed to something along the lines of "442lover"

 

[ainsworth74]

Do I get away with it if I have my user handle changed to something along the lines of "442lover"

No, that gets you an instant ban and permanent ban

 

[D365]

No, that gets you an instant ban and permanent ban

Uh-oh, tell me my change in avatar didn't go though

 

[jopsuk]

I've been at the painkillers again, so here's daft with knobs on:
1. retraction them. Modern AC motors and all
2. get the welding kit out and fit a pantograph well
3. replace all the cab equipment to give commonality with the Desiros
4. oh, and the inter unit gangway
5. really upset all the control software by forcing them to actually work in multiple with Deisros, ASDO and all
6. use as a common fleet with the 444s
7...
8 PROFIT?

 

[CosherB]

I've been at the painkillers again, so here's daft with knobs on:
1. retraction them. Modern AC motors and all
2. get the welding kit out and fit a pantograph well
3. replace all the cab equipment to give commonality with the Desiros
4. oh, and the inter unit gangway
5. really upset all the control software by forcing them to actually work in multiple with Deisros, ASDO and all
6. use as a common fleet with the 444s
7...
8 PROFIT?

Now work out (a) if it's all technically feasible (b) what that all costs and what the payback would be investing your precious cash in near 30 year old kit of questionable condition and (c) sell the idea to the TOC's, if you even got beyond (a)!!!

Or just buy a brand spanking new EMU.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Despite the rush here to put them in the bin a Class 442 and Class 68 push-pull combination is being taken very seriously for the Trans Pennine franchise.

No,can't say I'd like them binned if they can be found useful in any way.

How about re-use as an ash tray?

 

[Bigfoot]

Here is the perfect use for the 442s and the pie in the sky ideas...

 

[martynbristow]

Despite the rush here to put them in the bin a Class 442 and Class 68 push-pull combination is being taken very seriously for the Trans Pennine franchise.

Interesting
They need to extra rolling stock!

 

[al.currie93]

Despite the rush here to put them in the bin a Class 442 and Class 68 push-pull combination is being taken very seriously for the Trans Pennine franchise.

I've heard this too - I'm not going to say it will happen, but I believe it could well... remember the amount of 'HSTs are destined for scrap' forsight there was before Scotrail announced their use of them? Never say something will never be used until it has been confirmed!

I'm not much of a fan of LHCS when compared to MUs in most circumstances but, to be fair, reports indicate that 68s on Chiltern are out-accelerating their DMUs in a number of places.

Now whether that's got more to do with the lackadaisical performance of Chilterns Turbos and Networks or the capabilities of the 68s has not been clarified as far as I'm aware

This is true, as I quoted elsewhere a 68 hauling 6 Mk3s and a DVT accelerates to 50mph in 60 seconds, when I timed it for the beginnings of a university project. This beats the quoted best of a similar power-to-weight ratio six car 172 (80 seconds to 50mph) quite significantly, and comes close to matching a 4 car 377 on the DC (50 seconds to 50mph). I was very surprised by this result, and somewhat annoyed as it ruined my hypothesis.

It seems to be a myth that MUs are ALWAYS (key word there) better accelerating then LHCS, so yes, LHCS is not a inferior for such a route on acceleration grounds alone. The stop-start nature of the route however is another field entirely - I believe that having to keep accelerating from zero puts a lot of strain on a single engine, while this effect is mitigated by having multiple distributed engines. This would reduce the reliability of a locomotive, hence the preference for MUs on this line (and all stop-start lines) as I see it would be for these purposes. I believe it was this reason that the 50s, already being unreliable locomotives, were ultimately withdrawn for MUs.

 

[Dent]

This is true, as I quoted elsewhere a 68 hauling 6 Mk3s and a DVT accelerates to 50mph in 60 seconds, when I timed it for the beginnings of a university project. This beats the quoted best of a similar power-to-weight ratio six car 172 (80 seconds to 50mph) quite significantly, and comes close to matching a 4 car 377 on the DC (50 seconds to 50mph).

Trains with a similar power-to-weight ratio will naturally have similar acceleration, since power-to-weight ratio determines acceleration. The better acceleration of multiple is because they can have a higher power-to-weight ratio before the wheels spin.

It seems to be a myth that MUs are ALWAYS (key word there) better accelerating then LHCS, so yes, LHCS is not a inferior for such a route on acceleration grounds alone.

Better acceleration can be achieved with multiple units than can be achieved with hauled stock, so as a technology LCHS is inferior on acceleration grounds. With any technology you may find implementations that don't take full advantege of it, but that's an issue with those implementations, not with the technology.

 

[notadriver]

I think it would be a massive waste having a new large diesel loco to push or pull 6 coaches. I bet the maintenance and fuel costs are higher with the diesel compared with a multiple unit too.

I'm unsure about your calculations for the the class 68. This significantly beats the Class 22x DMUs 0-60 of 80 seconds time which have a similar power to weight ratio.

 

[AM9]

I think it would be a massive waste having a new large diesel loco to push or pull 6 coaches. I bet the maintenance and fuel costs are higher with the diesel compared with a multiple unit too.

I'm unsure about your calculations for the the class 68. This significantly beats the Class 22x DMUs 0-60 of 80 seconds time which have a similar power to weight ratio.

Surely for raw acceleration, it's adhesive power to weight that matters. Looking at what is being discussed for comparison:
a 68 + 6 ex 442 trailers total weight is 311t of which 85t is driven, an adhesion ratio of 27%
a 6 car 172 set (e.g. 2x3) total weight is 246t of which 123t is driven, an adhesion ratio of 50%
a 6 car 377 total weight is 266t of which 97.5t is driven, an adhesion ratio of 37%
So with 3800hp from the class 68s, much of it is wasted at low and medium speeds, - add in some of the gradients on suggested routes with unreliable railhead conditions and the ensemble would have less acceleration than a 172 with its 50% driven axles.

 

[pemma]

I've heard this too - I'm not going to say it will happen, but I believe it could well... remember the amount of 'HSTs are destined for scrap' forsight there was before Scotrail announced their use of them? Never say something will never be used until it has been confirmed!

DfT have said TPE bidders can't propose using 15xs or 17xs released by other franchises (as Northern bidders will likely need to take them on.) They haven't prevented 16xs or 18xs released by other operators but FGW and Chiltern are keeping all their 16xs, while the FGW 180s have been secured by Grand Central once they come off-lease.

That leaves loco-hauled carriages and new build. New build will have a poor business case unless they order bi-mode or DfT have a proposed future use in mind.

 

[387star]

I think Stagecoach will win TPE the only company aside from virgin to have a fantastic track record in all operations Govia is a close second but has been let doen by Southeastern... Only in terms of train upkeep and presentation

 

[pemma]

I think Stagecoach will win TPE the only company aside from virgin to have a fantastic track record in all operations Govia is a close second but has been let doen by Southeastern... Only in terms of train upkeep and presentation

Virgin Trains are part owned by Stagecoach.

Govia aren't bidding for TransPennine Express. Keolis Go-Ahead Limited are the company which is bidding which is 65% owned by Keolis.

 

[jopsuk]

Now work out (a) if it's all technically feasible (b) what that all costs and what the payback would be investing your precious cash in near 30 year old kit of questionable condition and (c) sell the idea to the TOC's, if you even got beyond (a)!!!
.

pfft, that's all in step 7

Or just buy a brand spanking new EMU

where's the fun in that?