Is the class 455 really life expired?

[A60stock]

As the title suggests, the reason i ask is because they are modern and upto date on the interior and also have traction package which is effectively newer than anything on the rest of the SWR fleet (701s excluded ofcourse).

Thoughts?

 

[Journeyman]

As the title suggests, the reason i ask is because they are modern and upto date on the interior and also have traction package which is effectively newer than anything on the rest of the SWR fleet (701s excluded ofcourse).

Thoughts?

They probably could go on for some time, but clearly SWR got a deal they couldn't refuse on the Aventras, and replacing several classes with one class brings a lot of benefits.

It's worth bearing in mind that although the SWR 455s have very nice interiors, new traction equipment and appear well-looked-after, the bodies, bogies and many other components are now almost 40 years old, and corrosion and wear will be significant issues.

 

[DustyBin]

They certainly don’t look or feel life expired, to the credit of SWT who looked after them for years. They also have a modern traction package as you’ve pointed out. I’ve no idea what they’re like structurally but I haven’t heard of any serious issues, somebody on here may know more than I do about this though. What are they like in terms of reliability (I presume data is available)?

I keep meaning to start a thread about this but whilst great deals are available on new rolling stock, ultimately it has to be paid for surely? Whilst I don’t advocate trying to keep genuinely life expired stock going indefinitely, we seem to be binning (or about to bin) an awful lot of decent EMUs in particular. I suppose in short what I’m asking is are we (i.e. tax payers and rail users) paying for shiny new trains we don’t actually need?

 

[yorksrob]

They could probably go on for ever (or until the underframes rot) Like the SUB's and EPB's.

 

[BayPaul]

As I understand it, the DfT effectively mandated their replacement in the franchise process as, although not life expired, the SWR network needed the capacity boost of new trains with bigger doors, better acceleration, more standing room and a consistent speed profile.

 

[jopsuk]

I keep meaning to start a thread about this but whilst great deals are available on new rolling stock, ultimately it has to be paid for surely? Whilst I don’t advocate trying to keep genuinely life expired stock going indefinitely, we seem to be binning (or about to bin) an awful lot of decent EMUs in particular. I suppose in short what I’m asking is are we (i.e. tax payers and rail users) paying for shiny new trains we don’t actually need?

One of the big factors since the mid/late 2000s is that credit has been exceptionally cheap

 

[D365]

They could probably go on for ever (or until the underframes rot) Like the SUB's and EPB's.

Which might already be happening; several of the 319s are experiencing such complications.

 

[DB]

Which might already be happening; several of the 319s are experiencing such complications.

If that was the case, it would have been identified and dealt with during the retractioning.

The basic answer is that they are not really life expired, but we've gone though a phase where the DfT liked to see new and shiny trains in franchise bids, so there's now a glut of surplus stock (EMUs particularly). And some of this has plenty of life left in it, but may well get scrapped anyway because nobody has a use for it.

 

[4SubAsociation]

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

 

[Domh245]

Are the 455s life expired, no. Are they fit for purpose, increasingly no

 

[DustyBin]

One of the big factors since the mid/late 2000s is that credit has been exceptionally cheap

That appears to be the case I agree. However it doesn’t alter the fact that the trains have to be paid for.

Apologies if this is an inappropriate analogy, I’m just trying to get my head around the economics. I go out and get a cheap loan to buy a £30k car to replace my ten year old car which I own outright. It’s a great deal only 1% APR or whatever. But, it does need to be paid back, and I now have a monthly outgoing of say £600 whereas I could have kept my old car and not had to find that money. Going back to trains, is that £600 being paid by rail users and/or tax payers? If so I suspect most people would happily travel by 455 for a few more years if it saved them a few hundred quid on season tickets over the period.

Then there’s the 365’s which are now owned by the government I believe. I realise you can’t just operate any train on any route for various reasons, but we have publicly owned assets parked up rotting away whilst at the same time we are buying new trains. I’m struggling to get my head around how this works to be honest!

 

[Journeyman]

It's worth bearing in mind that the 455s are now as old as the EPBs were when they were withdrawn, and quite a lot older than the SUBs, most of which lasted 20 to 30 years.

 

[SeanG]

They appear to have been kept well given their age. I wonder if this has anything to do with always being based at the same depot, whereas similar aged trains have been moved about (eg Sprinters)

 

[swt_passenger]

The SWT 455 retractioning was not actually done for life extension of the class, but to enable maintenance space for 707s at Wimbledon. I think it is a bit of a red herring in terms of the 701 order.

The 2016 franchise ITT put various requirements on the inner suburban fleet, such as door open times of 30 secs at most stations, and an assumed standing capacity of 4 passengers per sq m, (Or 0.25 sq m pp). It then explained that the 455, 456, 458, and 707 fleets did not meet those requirements. Hence the full fleet replacement.

 

[Domh245]

Apologies if this is an inappropriate analogy, I’m just trying to get my head around the economics. I go out and get a cheap loan to buy a £30k car to replace my ten year old car which I own outright. It’s a great deal only 1% APR or whatever. But, it does need to be paid back, and I now have a monthly outgoing of say £600 whereas I could have kept my old car and not had to find that money. Going back to trains, is that £600 being paid by rail users and/or tax payers? If so I suspect most people would happily travel by 455 for a few more years if it saved them a few hundred quid on season tickets over the period.

The analogy breaks down as the 455s aren't owned outright, but instead are owned by Porterbrook, so there's already a monthly outgoing for them. The saving then by keeping the old units will be relatively small, but there then are additional savings to the company from having a common fleet (hence lower training & maintenance costs as well as being able to diagram units more efficiently), more modern trains (read: lighter & more energy efficient) which will both decrease costs, and not to mention the customer improvements (Aircon will be very welcome in the summers, as will the toilets all year round)

 

[DustyBin]

The analogy breaks down as the 455s aren't owned outright, but instead are owned by Porterbrook, so there's already a monthly outgoing for them. The saving then by keeping the old units will be relatively small, but there then are additional savings to the company from having a common fleet (hence lower training & maintenance costs as well as being able to diagram units more efficiently), more modern trains (read: lighter & more energy efficient) which will both decrease costs, and not to mention the customer improvements (Aircon will be very welcome in the summers, as will the toilets all year round)

Thanks, you’ve touched on what was going to be my next question there. Are the leasing companies profiting excessively by over-charging for older rolling stock? Surely BR-era stock will have been paid for many times over by now. Is this an inherent problem with privatisation?

 

[D365]

If that was the case, it would have been identified and dealt with during the retractioning.

The basic answer is that they are not really life expired, but we've gone though a phase where the DfT liked to see new and shiny trains in franchise bids, so there's now a glut of surplus stock (EMUs particularly). And some of this has plenty of life left in it, but may well get scrapped anyway because nobody has a use for it.

It might have been dealt with, but that doesn't guarantee the 455s will be economical to maintain beyond 5-10 years. Note that we haven't heard any further news from Porterbrook about their proposal to convert the 455s to be diesel and/or battery powered.

It's not possible to answer whether or not a rolling stock fleet is life expired unless you are privy to their maintenance regimes and the costs involved.

 

[Snow1964]

Thanks, you’ve touched on what was going to be next question there. Are the leasing companies profiting excessively by over-charging for older rolling stock? Surely BR-era stock will have been paid for many times over by now. Is this an inherent problem with privatisation?

Yes it is a flaw in the privatisation, when it was originally done lease rates were set so that new fleets would also be competitive (a sort of neutral financial choice for the Operator)

The BR fleets were transferred (almost) free, the 3 original leaseCo didn’t acquire them at anything like market price. The flaw was there was no clawback so when trains came off lease they weren’t returned to a residual company that could spot hire them as extra trains. The result was hundreds of thousands of instances of no stock available, simply because no one thought to keep a paid for spare trains in convenient sidings. The fleet size requirement was set too low, probably should have mandated holding extra 8-12%

However it has to be said unlike the references to 4SUBs and EPBs that some of these modern trains have parts that don’t like sitting in sidings for weeks, and which were so basic they will still work at flick of a switch.

There really ought to be a case for being able to keep a batch of trains for 12car peak extras that have been fully depreciated, rather than sending them for scrap, or parking them miles away from an electrified line where they can’t be pressed into service

 

[DB]

It might have been dealt with, but that doesn't guarantee the 455s will be economical to maintain beyond 5-10 years. Note that we haven't heard any further news from Porterbrook about their proposal to convert the 455s to be diesel and/or battery powered.

It's not possible to answer whether or not a rolling stock fleet is life expired unless you are privy to their maintenance regimes and the costs involved.

Converting them to diesel would basically be the same process as the 319s, and that hasn't exactly gone smoothly.

 

[jopsuk]

It might have been dealt with, but that doesn't guarantee the 455s will be economical to maintain beyond 5-10 years. Note that we haven't heard any further news from Porterbrook about their proposal to convert the 455s to be diesel and/or battery powered.

At this point with 321 and 319 projects (fairly) well advanced and a seeming over abundance of donor units for those I can't really see where a multi-mode 455 even fits? Who would it be for?

 

[D365]

Converting them to diesel would basically be the same process as the 319s, and that hasn't exactly gone smoothly.

Exactly my point. The 319s are known (by and large) to be in poor condition, and the 455s are older.

 

[DustyBin]

Converting them to diesel would basically be the same process as the 319s, and that hasn't exactly gone smoothly.

Would the retractioning not affect that? Or are AC motors not prohibitive in themselves?

 

[theironroad]

Apart from the serious capacity issues SWR had in the peaks in the metro area, obviously currently not an issue but we're when all this was planned, certainly there was a clamouring call for air con, especially in the short very hot bits of summer in recent years and to a lesser extent toilets.

Quite where air con and toilets rank on the priority list I don't know

 

[DustyBin]

Exactly my point. The 319s are known (by and large) to be in poor condition, and the 455s are older.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they share the same issues though (I do however see your logic). The 319s were absolutely hammered on Thameslink as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Converting them to diesel would basically be the same process as the 319s, and that hasn't exactly gone smoothly.

And they'd have the downside of no pantograph, so more diesels under the wires. There are very few places where a third-rail-only bi-mode would be useful compared with one that does both like 319s.

 

[DB]

Exactly my point. The 319s are known (by and large) to be in poor condition, and the 455s are older.

They aren't that much older, and SWT generally looked after their trains better than many operators.

 

[Journeyman]

They aren't that much older, and SWT generally looked after their trains better than many operators.

They're still almost 40 years old, though, and there's no getting away from that. Realistically, how long do they really have?

 

[BayPaul]

Thanks, you’ve touched on what was going to be my next question there. Are the leasing companies profiting excessively by over-charging for older rolling stock? Surely BR-era stock will have been paid for many times over by now. Is this an inherent problem with privatisation?

You could argue that it is a major benefit of privatisation that the roscos take the risk on this, meaning that there is no need for a TOC to keep expensive old trains if the market conditions mean that cheaper new ones are available. Not perhaps so relevant for the 455s, but for the 350/2s,379s and 707s it is probably the case that the new trains cost less per month than those they replaced in leasing costs.

 

[py_megapixel]

Do I think the 455s are feeling outdated now? Yes.

But do I feel that the best use for an order for 750 new-build carriages is replacing them? Absolutely not...

 

[daccer]

Isnt this a justification of the structure set up at privatisation. The stock is owned by a ROSCO who take a commercial risk on it. The ROSCOS obviously did very well with the ex BR stock but it is a competative marketplace now and it seems that new stock can be provided without a massive financial downside to the TOC in question. In time the marketplace will adjust if mid-life fleets keep being scrapped before fully depreciated but at the moment it seems to be a buyers marketplace. We should actually be celebrating this a little. The ROSCOs are private companies and if we are getting newer and more suitable stock at their expense then tough luck on them. An argument against franchising was that the risk was nationalised whilst profits were not. At least in this case losses are laid at the feet of the private companies. as for the 365's well that is just a bit of a cock up.