Is the class 455 really life expired?

[Jozhua]

EMUs are expected to have a lifetime of 40 years. Class 455's are only a couple of years off being that old, therefore plans for replacement should be formulated.

Ultimately, finding a use for them shouldn't matter. Sometimes scrapping is okay. The coach designs are likely not up to modern safety standards, something which god forbid one gets in an accident, will be brought up.

But how overcrowded are the 150 routes??
They may be full and standing, but are they crush loaded so they leave people behind?

10 cars is immaterial to the issue, as the amount of passengers into Waterloo is orders of magnitude greater than in the north.

Very overcrowded in the North. I have been on many that are so crush loaded they leave people behind. Often about 10% of the train has to get off, to let people off. I'm good at shouting down carriages now telling people I need to leave at this station!

Besides, I don't think we need to compare areas of the country. Everywhere is in dire need of investment. I don't doubt that London has problems that need fixing too, especially as house prices mean people have no choice but to commute long distances.

Replacing rolling stock every 40 years should be seen as an inevitability, not a choice that can be simply be kicked down the road. Alternatively, significant rebuilding (a la 230) could be done.

 

[RealTrains07]

The decision to retraction them was taken in 2013, long before the ITT was issued for the new franchise, so Stagecoach at that time may well have had very different intentions compared to the situation which later panned out. They subsequently decided they wanted to walk away, so it isn't relevant, really. SWR now run the franchise, and operate the trains, so it's up to them to decide how much longer the lifespan of the trains will be. In any case, there will still be 455s operating for a few years yet, so there's every likelihood we'll get ten years or so out of the first ones to be re-tractioned. That's fairly respectable.

A lot of money was spent on giving the Brighton Belle units a major refurb only three years before withdrawal, and the D Stock was withdrawn about a decade before the original planned date, simply because circumstances change. If better solutions come along, they're worth adopting. The 455s are going to get increasingly difficult to operate, and however well they've been looked after, they're like ovens in the summer, lack modern information systems, and lack toilets, despite being used on some fairly long runs. I think whoever ended up operating the franchise would have ended up replacing them at the earliest opportunity. Let's get over the retractioning thing, shall we? It's still given a good few years of cheaper, more reliable operation, so what's the problem?

Better solutions arent always the right ones and the 455s have dot matrix displays which are considered modern for alot of existing trains

 

[Journeyman]

EMUs are expected to have a lifetime of 40 years. Class 455's are only a couple of years off being that old, therefore plans for replacement should be formulated.

Ultimately, finding a use for them shouldn't matter. Sometimes scrapping is okay. The coach designs are likely not up to modern safety standards, something which god forbid one gets in an accident, will be brought up.

Exactly. It does seem odd that people treat scrapping trains as some sort of major crime. The SWR 455s look modern, but as you say, they're very close to the normal lifespan of electric trains, and even though the traction equipment is new, there's going to be things like structural issues starting to need expensive attention.

Sometimes, trains just end up being surplus to requirements, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just happens. The 455s have had a long and successful life, so it's hardly a tragic waste.

Better solutions arent always the right ones

I don't get what you mean. Are you saying we should keep the 455s? It's already been pointed out multiple times why they're not being kept. Replacing them is the right solution.

 

[Energy]

But those criteria are arbitrary?

No they aren't. Why do we need more capacity per train? The commuter trains are packed with people so we need more capacity. Why do we need faster acceleration? Fit more trains on the same track so there is more capacity overall.

There are clear reasons for those requirements.

Better solutions arent always the right ones

You sure?

455s have dot matrix displays which are considered modern for alot of existing trains

Are you really saying the 455s should be kept in service because they have dot matrix displays? All trains have had them retrofitted and the 701s have a far better PIS.

 

[RealTrains07]

I don't get what you mean. Are you saying we should keep the 455s? It's already been pointed out multiple times why they're not being kept. Replacing them is the right solution.

No, I was saying that as a general comment. Alot of younger stock is being wasted unnecessarily because of a broken system. 455s have had a great life if anything ill be sad to see them go because those are one if the trains classes I grew up with.

The 455s even with modern traction are old. Any train 40 or beyond is at the end. Thats what I believe.

And right now 455s are 2 years away from retirement age anyway. As long as they survive to 2023, iam happy. Its what those workhorses least deserve.

 

[RealTrains07]

You sure?


Are you really saying the 455s should be kept in service because they have dot matrix displays? All trains have had them retrofitted and the 701s have a far better PIS.

Yes I am actually (in situations that involve classes that are not 455s)

Also, no. I was simply making a point that by having dot matrix displays, 455s do in fact have a modern information system as a dot matrix is a modern system. Retrofitting them has clearly proven that.

I did not suggest that was reason to keep the 455s. That would be ridiculous!

As I have said. The 455s are old as far as iam concerned and as long as some of them last till their 40th year in 2023. Then retirement is all that remains.

 

[bramling]

Exactly. It does seem odd that people treat scrapping trains as some sort of major crime. The SWR 455s look modern, but as you say, they're very close to the normal lifespan of electric trains, and even though the traction equipment is new, there's going to be things like structural issues starting to need expensive attention.

Sometimes, trains just end up being surplus to requirements, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just happens. The 455s have had a long and successful life, so it's hardly a tragic waste.


I don't get what you mean. Are you saying we should keep the 455s? It's already been pointed out multiple times why they're not being kept. Replacing them is the right solution.

I can understand why people, especially enthusiasts, don’t like seeing trains scrapped. I don’t like getting rid of cars, hence why I keep mine until the bitter end (with my bank balance suffering accordingly, as keeping old machines going isn’t cheap).

There are three things which bug me with some of the current fleet replacements.

Firstly in some cases it does seem like legacy assets are being binned prematurely. This may not be the case for the 455s, but the 321s feel like they should really have lasted another franchise term. Dare I mention the 332s!

Secondly it isn’t just old assets being tossed aside. The 707s were up for replacement before even entering service. Combined with things like the 455 retractioning waste and the EMR HST trailers fiasco, it does point to a system that is not working well.

Thirdly some of the replacements aren’t that wonderful from a user perspective. One doesn’t have to be an enthusiast to find ironing board seats uncomfortable, the 700 foot duct irritating, or the new GA EMUs cramped.

One does wonder how well some fleets have been looked after if they’re as shot to pieces as seems claimed to be the case. The HEx 332s are a case in point. Perhaps it hasn’t helped that many of these fleets have found themselves worked harder than might have been envisaged when built, due to things being squeezed to accommodate rising passenger numbers. LU has got 50 years out of some of its fleets, the Bakerloo fleet could well see 60.

 

[BayPaul]

I suspect that the old Southern 'trigger's broom' method of replacing trains has probably partly caused this issue, and the similar situation with the 442s. In both cases the trains weren't completely new when built, with reused mechanical parts but a new body. Unsurprisingly, the traction needed to be replaced whilst the body was still good, then the body was getting past its best while the traction was still modern etc. At some point it becomes more efficient to break the cycle and build trains where the entire train is the same age. I think that the 442s will get to a similar position in a very short time.

 

[Jozhua]

By the way, do the trains have AC or modern climate control?

Exactly. It does seem odd that people treat scrapping trains as some sort of major crime. The SWR 455s look modern, but as you say, they're very close to the normal lifespan of electric trains, and even though the traction equipment is new, there's going to be things like structural issues starting to need expensive attention.

Sometimes, trains just end up being surplus to requirements, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just happens. The 455s have had a long and successful life, so it's hardly a tragic waste.

Indeed, and keeping them to what end?
So they end up like the 80 year old 38 stock on the IOW?

It's good to see they have been maintained for so long. And honestly the traction equipment will have still seen five years of good use.

But it pulls up another major consideration that we should be thinking about the maintenance of these vehicles as a lifetime cycle, rather than ad-hoc. Otherwise you spend millions retrofitting new equipment, to only use it for a couple years as the rest of the train is at the end of its useful life.

Obviously a few should be kept around for historic preservation, but that's another conversation!

I suspect that the old Southern 'trigger's broom' method of replacing trains has probably partly caused this issue, and the similar situation with the 442s. In both cases the trains weren't completely new when built, with reused mechanical parts but a new body. Unsurprisingly, the traction needed to be replaced whilst the body was still good, then the body was getting past its best while the traction was still modern etc. At some point it becomes more efficient to break the cycle and build trains where the entire train is the same age. I think that the 442s will get to a similar position in a very short time.

Yeah, this seems sensible.

 

[DustyBin]

I can understand why people, especially enthusiasts, don’t like seeing trains scrapped. I don’t like getting rid of cars, hence why I keep mine until the bitter end (with my bank balance suffering accordingly, as keeping old machines going isn’t cheap).

There are three things which bug me with some of the current fleet replacements.

Firstly in some cases it does seem like legacy assets are being binned prematurely. This may not be the case for the 455s, but the 321s feel like they should really have lasted another franchise term. Dare I mention the 332s!

Secondly it isn’t just old assets being tossed aside. The 707s were up for replacement before even entering service. Combined with things like the 455 retractioning waste and the EMR HST trailers fiasco, it does point to a system that is not working well.

Thirdly some of the replacements aren’t that wonderful from a user perspective. One doesn’t have to be an enthusiast to find ironing board seats uncomfortable, the 700 foot duct irritating, or the new GA EMUs cramped.

One does wonder how well some fleets have been looked after if they’re as shot to pieces as seems claimed to be the case. The HEx 332s are a case in point. Perhaps it hasn’t helped that many of these fleets have found themselves worked harder than might have been envisaged when built, due to things being squeezed to accommodate rising passenger numbers. LU has got 50 years out of some of its fleets, the Bakerloo fleet could well see 60.

You make some good points there. I’ll hold my hands up, I don’t like seeing the trains I grew up with being withdrawn, but that’s not what underlines my concern. Things like the 332s simply weren’t suitable for further use, I accept that (I didn’t even comment on the 332 thread!). My concern is that we’ve become wasteful.

I agree with you’re observation regarding the quality of some of the new trains as well. Passenger comfort leaves a lot be desired in some cases.

I’ve used the 455s to make a wider point, and they perhaps aren’t the best example to be fair. Fortunately @py_megapixel had started a thread regarding rolling stock strategy in the appropriate place so we can discuss the wider issues there.

 

[Jozhua]

You make some good points there. I’ll hold my hands up, I don’t like seeing the trains I grew up with being withdrawn, but that’s not what underlines my concern. Things like the 332s simply weren’t suitable for further use, I accept that (I didn’t even comment on the 332 thread!). My concern is that we’ve become wasteful.

I agree with you’re observation regarding the quality of some of the new trains as well. Passenger comfort leaves a lot be desired in some cases.

I’ve used the 455s to make a wider point, and they perhaps aren’t the best example to be fair. Fortunately @py_megapixel had started a thread regarding rolling stock strategy in the appropriate place so we can discuss the wider issues there.

Yeah, I think I might be sad too when the trains I grew up with begin to get withdrawn. In fact, 156's are already being withdrawn in the Midlands. Really, heritage railways/museums are there to preserve this stuff, although it would be nice to see the industry take a bit more of an active role in preserving railway history.

That said, when I used to commute on them, I did not find the experience perticularly pleasent, especially in tunnels.

Ultimately, things wear out, need replacing. There is little need for spare EMUs in the UK. Bad electrification strategy leaves us with plenty more electric rolling stock than electrified line to run it on. 3rd rail isn't really growing in scope either - so unless you sunk even more cost converting 40-year old trains to run on overheads, likely downgrading the service of anywhere they ran - then there just isn't that much space for them.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The only one i am aware of that had structal issues was 455912 (more specificly coach 71731).

This was due to it had plug door trials and it turned out it strucutally weakend the coach the trials to took place on (there was two, but the carraige affected was 71731). So they used the spare coach from the 457 (67400). Link below

Class 455 Trailer Standard 71731

455913 also had structural problems after a lorry fell on it! Also fixed by replacing it with an ex-210/457 carriage

I don't deny any of that. But SWR don't have the worst, or the most outdated, trains. That honour would have to go to either Scotrail (the Sprinters, 318s and 320s are really getting on a bit and experiencing some corrosion issues) or Northern (2 car or 4 car 150s on what would be busy commuter services simply isn't acceptable).

The 455s are older than any of these.

But that sort of thing happens all the time - Renatus 321s, for example. Things change, and so decisions need to be made to deal with that. In any case, as stated, the DfT insisted on bidders replacing them.

Going further back, the flagship "Blue Pullmans" were redundant on the Midland route after only six years, thanks to WCML electrification, and withdrawn from the Western when they were only 12 years old.

The 455s had a high quality interior refurbishment under SWT.

As someone whose working life very closely corresponded to that of the 455s (I saw them in, but they saw me out) I would dispute the "high quality". They removed 23% of the seats (only remedied by extension to 10-car many years later) and replaced the rest with some of the very first "ironing boards". Moreover, because of the way the seats were arranged they managed to provide less legroom for seated passengers (I'm not particularly tall at 5'9", but could not use the window seats in the "face-to-back" arrangement), and no more room for that extra 23% of passengers who now had to stand as the gangways, although wider, were still only wide enough for people to stand in single file. Add to that the removal of the clever "perches" on the original seat ends and the lack of grab handles. Southern's more modest refurbishment of its own 455s, on the other hand, was much more pleasant. They also updated the 456s, but sadly SWT ruined them too when they got hold of them.

It was not the only project SWT spent a lot of money on to make things worse - Kingston station is another example. Very pretty, but now only one entrance instead of two (and that further away from the direction most people live) and you still need an umbrella and wellingtons to use the subway.

 

[gka472l]

Probably a daft suggestion and likely many reasons why it can't happen.....but couldn't some of the traiier cars (the 71/72***) in Mk3 EMU fleets be slotted into 150's to make 3/4 car units??? although 1 or 2 extra unpowered coaches are obviously going to have an impact on performance.....

 

[Energy]

Probably a daft suggestion and likely many reasons why it can't happen.....but couldn't some of the traiier cars (the 71/72***) in Mk3 EMU fleets be slotted into 150's to make 3/4 car units??? although 1 or 2 extra unpowered coaches are obviously going to have an impact on performance.....

Not without some extra engines. The 150s aren't fast already, adding extra cars will make them too slow.

 

[D365]

Probably a daft suggestion and likely many reasons why it can't happen.....but couldn't some of the traiier cars (the 71/72***) in Mk3 EMU fleets be slotted into 150's to make 3/4 car units??? although 1 or 2 extra unpowered coaches are obviously going to have an impact on performance.....

You've answered your own question there.

 

[py_megapixel]

Probably a daft suggestion and likely many reasons why it can't happen.....but couldn't some of the traiier cars (the 71/72***) in Mk3 EMU fleets be slotted into 150's to make 3/4 car units??? although 1 or 2 extra unpowered coaches are obviously going to have an impact on performance.....

"an impact on performance" would be a massive understatement!

The 150s are far from quick off the mark as they are, and an extra carriage wouldn't exactly be a negligible additional mass for them to drag around...

 

[Wolfie]

455913 also had structural problems after a lorry fell on it! Also fixed by replacing it with an ex-210/457 carriage


The 455s are older than any of these.


Going further back, the flagship "Blue Pullmans" were redundant on the Midland route after only six years, thanks to WCML electrification, and withdrawn from the Western when they were only 12 years old.


As someone whose working life very closely corresponded to that of the 455s (I saw them in, but they saw me out) I would dispute the "high quality". They removed 23% of the seats (only remedied by extension to 10-car many years later) and replaced the rest with some of the very first "ironing boards". Moreover, because of the way the seats were arranged they managed to provide less legroom for seated passengers (I'm not particularly tall at 5'9", but could not use the window seats in the "face-to-back" arrangement), and no more room for that extra 23% of passengers who now had to stand as the gangways, although wider, were still only wide enough for people to stand in single file. Add to that the removal of the clever "perches" on the original seat ends and the lack of grab handles. Southern's more modest refurbishment of its own 455s, on the other hand, was much more pleasant. They also updated the 456s, but sadly SWT ruined them too when they got hold of them.

It was not the only project SWT spent a lot of money on to make things worse - Kingston station is another example. Very pretty, but now only one entrance instead of two (and that further away from the direction most people live) and you still need an umbrella and wellingtons to use the subway.

Your views on SWT's refurbishment of 455s (and indeed 456) are a tad idiosyncratic and inconsistent with the views of most people.
I am definitely one of those who finds an SWR 455 an order of magnitude better than a Southern equivalent.

 

[Journeyman]

Your views on SWT's refurbishment of 455s (and indeed 456) are a tad idiosyncratic and inconsistent with the views of most people.
I am definitely one of those who finds an SWR 455 an order of magnitude better than a Southern equivalent.

Yeah, the SWT refurb was extremely comprehensive and very popular. Many people were convinced they were new trains. Not only that, but the standard of upkeep was much better afterwards. I think this might be why people are loathe to see them replaced, as they don't look or feel as old as they actually are.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yeah, the SWT refurb was extremely comprehensive and very popular. Many people were convinced they were new trains. Not only that, but the standard of upkeep was much better afterwards. I think this might be why people are loathe to see them replaced, as they don't look or feel as old as they actually are.

I can tell you that they’re a horrible place to be on a very hot day.

 

[DorkingMain]

Yeah, the SWT refurb was extremely comprehensive and very popular. Many people were convinced they were new trains. Not only that, but the standard of upkeep was much better afterwards. I think this might be why people are loathe to see them replaced, as they don't look or feel as old as they actually are.

From experience, most passengers tended to notice how old they were, especially when they deputised on the Windsor / Reading / Hounslow lines where they were used to more modern 450s / 458s. The fact enthusiasts like how they were tidied up doesn't change that they're generally very unpopular units for commuters.

Your views on SWT's refurbishment of 455s (and indeed 456) are a tad idiosyncratic and inconsistent with the views of most people.
I am definitely one of those who finds an SWR 455 an order of magnitude better than a Southern equivalent.

Having dealt with two different sets of 455s I'm afraid I don't agree with this at all. They are showing their age in various ways, not least because in the winter they're generally absolutely freezing, and in the summer are sweltering hot. Conditions aren't a great deal better in the cabs either.

 

[bramling]

Your views on SWT's refurbishment of 455s (and indeed 456) are a tad idiosyncratic and inconsistent with the views of most people.
I am definitely one of those who finds an SWR 455 an order of magnitude better than a Southern equivalent.

I’ve never quite got this, as personally I much prefer the Southern refurb.

I suppose it depends on how one uses the trains - if you travel in the peaks then the SWT refurb probably gives a better seating layout. However the Southern layout is much better if you’re an off-peak user where you’ll likely have a whole facing bay to ones self.

 

[DorkingMain]

Secondly it isn’t just old assets being tossed aside. The 707s were up for replacement before even entering service. Combined with things like the 455 retractioning waste and the EMR HST trailers fiasco, it does point to a system that is not working well.

The retractioning has paid for itself several times over, with a significantly reduced failure rate and better acceleration vs the ancient DC motors. I don't think the retractioning was ever done with the intention of them lasting decades longer - there'd long been a desire for a unified fleet at South West Trains, and the 455 / 458 fleet was at one point almost swept away by a new fleet of metro-adapted 450s. There has been much talk of Southern subbing out their 455s for SWR's retractioned examples once they become available.

The 707 situation wasn't exactly trains going to waste either - they were already found a new home before they were even withdrawn. SWR wanted the option of a unified fleet + toilets on all trains (a big demand from passengers). The high leasing cost + the fact Siemens wanted to charge a huge sum per unit to refit them with toilets (in spite of their modular interior) meant that they opted for the new train option and called the bluff of the ROSCO.

 

[nlogax]

As a regular user of SWR 455s, I still find them more than acceptable. Bright, fairly clean, smoother with the AC traction packages. Even in the shadow of the surrounding Siemens kit and 458s (which don't seem to have fared nearly as well in spite of relatively recent refreshes) they do the job well and as a passenger they're a far nicer place to be than inside their Southern brethren which feel grotty and tired.

That said it's inevitable and understandable that we won't have them for much longer. 455s have been sturdy workhorses for a very long time and I guess passengers' expectations are different than the early 80s.

 

[lewisf]

As a regular user of SWR 455s, I still find them more than acceptable. Bright, fairly clean, smoother with the AC traction packages. Even in the shadow of the surrounding Siemens kit and 458s (which don't seem to have fared nearly as well in spite of relatively recent refreshes) they do the job well and as a passenger they're a far nicer place to be than inside their Southern brethren which feel grotty and tired.

That said it's inevitable and understandable that we won't have them for much longer. 455s have been sturdy workhorses for a very long time and I guess passengers' expectations are different than the early 80s.

The only thing really missing from the class 455s is air conditioning, they get very toasty in the summer!

 

[nlogax]

The only thing really missing from the class 455s is air conditioning, they get very toasty in the summer!

I agree, though catching a summer evening non-stopper from Waterloo to Surbs was still fun.. with the windows open you could get some decent airflow at 70mph!

 

[norbitonflyer]

As a regular user of SWR 455s, I still find them more than acceptable. as a passenger they're a far nicer place to be than inside their Southern brethren which feel grotty and tired.

I agree that SWT kept theirs in better nick than Southern managed, but as a daily commuter on 455s for most of the past 40 years, the mid-life refurbishment somehow managed to achieve the quadruple of fewer seats, less legroom in the ones that were left, fewer places to "perch", and poor use of the extra standing space. Add to that the "ironing board" seats whose backs were so high and close together it was like being in a coffin, and impossible to hold anything far enough away to be able to read it. Certainly impossible to get in or out of a non-aisle (but not-necessarily-window) seat if someone is esconsed in the gangway seat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that SWT kept theirs in better nick than Southern managed, but as a daily commuter on 455s for most of the past 40 years, the mid-life refurbishment somehow managed to achieve the quadruple of fewer seats, less legroom in the ones that were left, fewer places to "perch", and poor use of the extra standing space. Add to that the "ironing board" seats whose backs were so high and close together it was like being in a coffin, and impossible to hold anything far enough away to be able to read it. Certainly impossible to get in or out of a non-aisle (but not-necessarily-window) seat if someone is esconsed in the gangway seat.

It's interesting that you are opposed to that refurb, when the almost identical Merseyrail one (I think the Southern one is 3+2 being the main difference?) both fooled a lot of people into thinking the units were new and impressed those who didn't think that.

OK, PEPs don't look quite as dated as Mk3 EMUs from the outside, I suppose, but that's a bit neither here nor there.

 

[Journeyman]

I agree that SWT kept theirs in better nick than Southern managed, but as a daily commuter on 455s for most of the past 40 years, the mid-life refurbishment somehow managed to achieve the quadruple of fewer seats, less legroom in the ones that were left, fewer places to "perch", and poor use of the extra standing space. Add to that the "ironing board" seats whose backs were so high and close together it was like being in a coffin, and impossible to hold anything far enough away to be able to read it. Certainly impossible to get in or out of a non-aisle (but not-necessarily-window) seat if someone is esconsed in the gangway seat.

I don't recognise those criticisms at all. The refurbished trains were transformed, and much more pleasant to travel in. The seats are absolutely not "ironing boards" either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't recognise those criticisms at all. The refurbished trains were transformed, and much more pleasant to travel in. The seats are absolutely not "ironing boards" either.

They're Grammer E3000s, aren't they (for commonality with the 450s and 444s)? Don't get a much better regional seat, nothing like Fainsa/Compin's vastly inferior product.

I thought the poster was referring to Southern's sets which have a different seat (same as the Merseyrail refurbs), I don't know which manufacturer it is but it is superior to the ironing board.

 

[Journeyman]

They're Grammer E3000s, aren't they (for commonality with the 450s and 444s)? Don't get a much better regional seat, nothing like Fainsa/Compin's vastly inferior product.

I think so, yes. And they're very comfortable.