Loco-Hauled Class 442s?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
15,890
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Something to cheer the loco-haulage brigade.

The ATOC Rolling Stock Requirements for CP5 (http://www.atoc.org/latest-publications)
scarcely mentions loco-hauled operation, but it does offer one intriguing option.
This is to convert the class 442 EMU fleet to loco-hauled mode (because their Mk3 bodyshell is similar to HST and Mk3a stock), for use with "a new type of electric locomotive".

I guess this is because it may be too expensive to upgrade the electric traction package for continued EMU use, so they would be reduced to loco-hauled only.
So here we have another 120 Mk3 vehicles (24x5car) to play with.
Now where should we put them?

The wider options also cover the nuclear option of IEP being cancelled!
There is not much likelihood of the ATOC view being adopted by DfT, though it must represent the views of individual TOCs as to the future deployment of their stock.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,744
You have the advantage that after spending a few quid to remove the excess weight of the traction equipment and bogies it gives you a neat 5 car carriage set that importantly includes a cab at both ends - so on 100 mph routes, no need for DBSOs or DVTs, and it wouldn't matter which end the loco was fitted.

Any expenditure on modernising the cabs to work with the intended loco wouldn't be a vast amount in the overall scheme of things?
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
5,397
Location
Nottingham
Didnt gatwick express use something similar? A locomotive at one end, some Mk2 MU cvarriages and a MU driving car at the other end.

Its certainly an intriguing idea. Looking at the specs for 442, it seems they dont have motors in every car? so the TSO's are probably very similar to HST TSO's. Furthermore they are much newer than Some HST sets as they where built in the late 80's. Maybe some experiments with 90's and 67's are in order? Although I'm wondering if this could be useful for cross country, 5 car trains could add vital capacity to some of their routes, either on a 170 diagram, (where the 125mph speed limit would allow it to keep to time with 100mph 170's) or possibly on a HST diagram if they can keep up
 
Last edited:

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
5,846
Location
South Wales
Whatever happened to those TRAXX locos....?

Yes order some TRAXX to work push pull with the class 442's on the London - Oxford services that would be nice however extremly unlikley. It could hopefully also provide some more work to Bombardiers factory in Derby.

Would it not be possible to do something like they did before the line was electrified between Bournemouth & Weymouth where a diesel loco was quickly attached to the front and worked push pull say between Oxford & Worcester/Hereford.

With Oxford perhaps being busy would it not be possible to say extend the wires to somwhere such as Moreton In Marsh and swap do what I suggested above there?.

Also wasnt a suggestion made about perhaps using the class 442's as loco hauled stock before? as I am sure I read about is sometime before the WAG1 loco hauled services started running when some companies like Grand Central looked at bidding to run it.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,962
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Also wasnt a suggestion made about perhaps using the class 442's as loco hauled stock before? as I am sure I read about is sometime before the WAG1 loco hauled services started running when some companies like Grand Central looked at bidding to run it.

If i can remember correctly, there was a proposal to use the then off lease Class 442s & a 67 on the Hull Trains replacement jobbie - Shortly after the 222 was dropped by Bombardier at Crofton, but the Class 86 & Cargo D Mk3s idea where chosen instead, with a 222 running a shuttle service between Doncaster and Hull.

Its certainly an intriguing idea. Looking at the specs for 442, it seems they don’t have motors in every car? .

Yep - The 442s were built on the Southern Region principle of having a central motor car, which included the Buffet Car, Snug Area and standard area too.

I have often wondered though, why would it be so expensive to replace the 442s traction motors and running gear with something newer? If you kept them similar to the current set up, then surely that would keep the costs down further. Also wonder how much it would cost to make the 442s more Push Pull operable (other than with 33s & 73s) – With such locos as 67s, 90s etc…
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,744
Its certainly an intriguing idea. Looking at the specs for 442, it seems they dont have motors in every car?

That's right. Basically, apart from the cabs, everything that makes it go is in the centre car, as was the original buffet, and the original significantly larger guards area.

Basically you have four ordinary Mk 3 coaches, and one with all the guts in it.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
5,846
Location
South Wales
I wouldnt mind them trying to see if using the class 442's as loco hauled carriages would be possible especially since they are younger to the mark 2 & mark 3 carriages and are already fitted with powered doors
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,744
I wouldnt mind them trying to see if using the class 442's as loco hauled carriages would be possible...

There's no significant reason it wouldn't be possible with adaptations for the intended loco, as they were built from new with the capability of being loco hauled off the juice, by 33/?s and 73s. There was always some doubt over whether they could control a loco in 'push' mode, but no problem with being hauled by the loco.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,615
Location
Macclesfield
Didnt gatwick express use something similar? A locomotive at one end, some Mk2 MU cvarriages and a MU driving car at the other end.
The passenger carriages of the Gatwick Express stock were basically just standard air-con mark 2s with a slightly different interior layout. The Southern Region did however see fit to classify them as class 488 in either two or three carriage sets. The drivng luggage vans utilised on the Gatwick Express workings in push-pull format were, however, converted 2-HAP EMU vehicles.

The Southern did also have push-pull loco hauled stock (with a cab at each end of a four carriage unit, so pretty much an unpowered MU) in the form of the 4-TCs, so this idea is certainly not without precedent.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,467
I can't see how buying new locomotives (at £3-5m+ each) would be cheaper than stripping the motor carriage and rebuilding it with a modern (and likely lighter) traction package.

Could put the buffet back in at the same time.

Or if we are after dual voltage capability would it not be cheaper to put together a handful of PTSOs and fit them into the existing formation with a rebuilt traction package in the existing motor carriage?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,615
Location
Macclesfield
I can't see how buying new locomotives (at £3-5m+ each) would be cheaper than stripping the motor carriage and rebuilding it with a modern (and likely lighter) traction package.
Exactly. The ATOC document only details the possibility of converting the 442s to loco haulage after detailing the possibility of, firstly, replacing them with 377/5s displaced from Thameslink, and secondly, rebuilding them with new traction equipment. So it seems like it would be a very unlikely option to be taken up.

I'd suspect that the former option (replacement by 377/5) is far more likely, although that would depend I suppose on how many of Southerns' inner suburban routes are taken over by the new Thameslink stock to allow a shake up of Southerns' diagrams: As otherwise, 24 x 5-car trains being replaced by 23 x 4-car ones isn't going to be widely welcomed.

Additionally, the way I read that document it does not suggest that the 442s, even if hauled by locomotives, would be relocated anywhere else. Rather that they would continue in their current or similar duties, only hauled by electric locos instead. And as I say, in my opinion this option is unlikely to become future policy.
 

The Colonel

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2011
Messages
261
This is to convert the class 442 EMU fleet to loco-hauled mode (because their Mk3 bodyshell is similar to HST and Mk3a stock), for use with "a new type of electric locomotive".

I have a cunning plan My Lord . . . . .

The Southern used to have the 7TC, the 6TC and then the 3 & 4 TC's on the Bournmouth line, so we'll call these . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
5TC's

Thank you Baldrick, now all we need is a Crompton to pull them . . .

I'll get me coat and quietly leave :lol:
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
Just about the only thing it doesn't suggest 'might' happen to the 442s is converting them into holiday cottages.

It really is a pretty vague and poor report. Everything from the cancellation of Thameslink and Crossrail (not going to happen) are considered and there are no real concrete ideas of what will, or is likely to, happen - just stuff that 'might'.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,744
It really is a pretty vague and poor report. Everything from the cancellation of Thameslink and Crossrail (not going to happen) are considered and there are no real concrete ideas of what will, or is likely to, happen - just stuff that 'might'.

ATOC do not make policy though, it is not their job - they are simply providing broad info for those who do.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
However, their members will have a much larger say in whether new stock is ordered or not in the new longer franchises. I don't have any say in strategy either and I reckon Blackpool South - Colne 'might' get displaced HSTs! There isn't much point even creating a vague report if you have no say in the matter, especially when just about every eventuality is considered, and several things are contradictory - e.g. it states large numbers of HSTs and MK IIIs will become available and then considers creating even more by using 442s as LHCS.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
The ATOC Rolling Stock Requirements for CP5 (http://www.atoc.org/latest-publications)

It seems to be mentioning Valley Lines electrification as a given with 315s suggested traction.

It also mentions with regards to Pacers "Some however might remain in service on low-mileage diagrams and on low revenue routes, subject to refurbishment, re-engineering and PRM-TSI." To me that seems to suggest the possibility of removing toilets.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,893
It seems to be mentioning Valley Lines electrification as a given with 315s suggested traction.
ValleyLines electrification already seemed to be a given - but we don't know how many of them are to be included or if Swansea will be included. Does this report shed any light on that?

I think the keeping the 5-WESes as EMUs is probably more sensible than converting them to LHCS, unless you order similar replacment EMUs (with a buffet car).

Options for them as EMUs would be:
  • Staying with Southern for London - Brighton fast services (ones with no more than 5 intermediate stops, not counting the terminal points)
  • Going to SWT to allow all Portsmouth - Waterloo fast services on the main route (via Havant, Petersfield and Guildford) to be run using 444s or 5-WESes. - This could allow SWT to shed some 444s to London Midland / TPE to replace some 350s on their more expressy services.
  • Being a bit more creative, SWT have 30 159s (30 x 3 = 90 coaches) and there are 24 5-WESes (24 x 5 = 120 coaches). Others have already mentioned the trick with the 4TCs and diesel locos attaching at the limit of electrification. Could you do that on some Waterloo - Exeter services, with 2x 5-WES running part of the route, attaching to a diesel loco where the 3rd rail stops and a single 5-WES hauled by a diesel reaching Exeter instead of a 3-car 159?
  • Better yet (given that diesel locos not liking Exeter service was the reason we have 159s) would be to put the 5-WESes back on Waterloo - Weymouth, electrify the Exeter line and use 444s there (Exeter would probably be OHLE, so 5-WESes wouldn't work).

If you can't keep them as EMUs, 24 x 2 = 48 DTSO vehicles and 24 x 3 = 72 TSO/FO/Buffet vehicles. I believe East Coast's IC125 fleet is 14 2+9 sets, that's 126 coaches. Added to the 72 vehicles from the 5-WESes, that's about 22 9 coach rakes if you can put new power door systems in the East Coast mark3s and make them compatible with the doors on the ex-5-WES coaches. Order a fleet of 125mph, class 91-lookalike, TRAXX locos (and perhaps some seated DVTs for the other end, or just use mark3 DVTs) and you have 22 125mph 'IC225 mark2' trains. These, plus new (IEP?) Intercity EMUs, could replace the current East Coast fleet (with Edinbrough, Aberdeen and Inverness services worked by the LHCS, most other services by IEP). The 31 140mph 'IC225 mark 1' trains would then go to the Great Western, which is getting ERTMS sooner and hence they might be able to use their 140mph top speed to make up for their acceleration being slower than the IEPs that they would be working alongside (you'd have to limit the IEPs to 125mph of course).

That leaves the 48 DTSO vehicles, and perhaps mark3s released from the reduced GW IC125 fleet, to be used by ATW, Chiltern and anyone else to replace mark3s DVTs on services that don't go above 110mph.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
There's a note in my Platform 5 book, 'Can be hauled and heated by any BR ETH-fitted loco.'. Is this not accurate? Presumably it was for diversions or the Weymouth Quay line.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,467
There's a note in my Platform 5 book, 'Can be hauled and heated by any BR ETH-fitted loco.'. Is this not accurate? Presumably it was for diversions or the Weymouth Quay line.

Well presumably they are fitted with standard BR Southern Region Jumpers...... so 33/1s or 73s can certainly haul them. (If that Super 73 with 1500hp happens then a pair of them could certainly manage it).
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,615
Location
Macclesfield
[*]Being a bit more creative, SWT have 30 159s (30 x 3 = 90 coaches) and there are 24 5-WESes (24 x 5 = 120 coaches). Others have already mentioned the trick with the 4TCs and diesel locos attaching at the limit of electrification. Could you do that on some Waterloo - Exeter services, with 2x 5-WES running part of the route, attaching to a diesel loco where the 3rd rail stops and a single 5-WES hauled by a diesel reaching Exeter instead of a 3-car 159?
[*]Better yet (given that diesel locos not liking Exeter service was the reason we have 159s) would be to put the 5-WESes back on Waterloo - Weymouth, electrify the Exeter line and use 444s there (Exeter would probably be OHLE, so 5-WESes wouldn't work).
[/LIST]
If I were to indulge in a bit of a flight of fantasy, then I too was thinking that if the 442s were converted to hauled stock (or left as EMUs and then with a diesel loco coupling on at Basingstoke for the journey westwards; although it would be more convenient if the third rail went as far as Salisbury) then they should be deployed on Waterloo to Exeter services. You would then definitely be able to displace 22 x 159/0s and 8 x 159/1s, and I can imagine that ATW or FGW would love to get their hands on them, perhaps even releasing some of their existing 2-car 158s to EMT or Northern through receiving three car units.

All services on Waterloo to Exeter services would then be either five or ten carriages in length, which seems like an excellent arrangement when existing services can be 3, 6, 9 or 10 carriages long. It would probably be necessary to make use of the International platforms at Waterloo though if the 442s were used solely as loco hauled stock: I'm under the impression that the platform extensions at Waterloo are only to accomodate 10 x 20m carriages, and 10 x 23m carriages is already the maximum limit on the few platforms that can take them, without trying to add in the length of a loco as well.

As a final point though, I can't think of many logical reasons for removing the 442s from Waterloo to Southampton and Bournemouth services that they were designed for in the first place, other than it allowed SWT to have a larger standard fleet of replacement 23 metre stock in the form of the 444s: There aren't really many other routes across the Southern region AFAIK that are as well suited to what are very much Intercity-spec EMUs with end doors and the slow loading times and limited accessibility that this causes.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
I can't see how buying new locomotives (at £3-5m+ each) would be cheaper than stripping the motor carriage and rebuilding it with a modern (and likely lighter) traction package....

It may not be cheaper, but 442s are DC units, whereas new locos could be diesel or AC electric and interchangeable
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,467
It may not be cheaper, but 442s are DC units, whereas new locos could be diesel or AC electric and interchangeable

For less than the cost of locos you could rebuild the motor carriages and add sixth vehicles to the formations, with transformers and pantographs in them.

And before anyone says that adding electrostar or similar carriages to existing formations is impossible.... Southern Region mixed and matched stuff all the time (hence the tadpoles).
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
I hate to ask this but... Why should they be loco hauled?

Couldn't they also be hauled by a suitably powerful DEMU or EMU?
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
It may not be cheaper, but 442s are DC units, whereas new locos could be diesel or AC electric and interchangeable

They could, but how many locomotives (diesel or electric) have been ordered by TOCs for passenger work since privatisation? None, so why would they start now to haul 30 year old EMUs about?
 

Aictos

On Moderation
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,360
If I were to indulge in a bit of a flight of fantasy, then I too was thinking that if the 442s were converted to hauled stock (or left as EMUs and then with a diesel loco coupling on at Basingstoke for the journey westwards; although it would be more convenient if the third rail went as far as Salisbury) then they should be deployed on Waterloo to Exeter services. You would then definitely be able to displace 22 x 159/0s and 8 x 159/1s, and I can imagine that ATW or FGW would love to get their hands on them, perhaps even releasing some of their existing 2-car 158s to EMT or Northern through receiving three car units.

All services on Waterloo to Exeter services would then be either five or ten carriages in length, which seems like an excellent arrangement when existing services can be 3, 6, 9 or 10 carriages long. It would probably be necessary to make use of the International platforms at Waterloo though if the 442s were used solely as loco hauled stock: I'm under the impression that the platform extensions at Waterloo are only to accomodate 10 x 20m carriages, and 10 x 23m carriages is already the maximum limit on the few platforms that can take them, without trying to add in the length of a loco as well.

As a final point though, I can't think of many logical reasons for removing the 442s from Waterloo to Southampton and Bournemouth services that they were designed for in the first place, other than it allowed SWT to have a larger standard fleet of replacement 23 metre stock in the form of the 444s: There aren't really many other routes across the Southern region AFAIK that are as well suited to what are very much Intercity-spec EMUs with end doors and the slow loading times and limited accessibility that this causes.

Regarding 3rd rail electrification to Exeter, why not just extend this to Exeter Central and use Platform 1, surely that platform is long enough to take a 5 or 10 coach 442 and is perfect for stabling a unit or two in between trips without having to go into Exeter St David's and also means a extra path for local services at St David's.

Course this could mean only Platform 1 being electrified or all three platforms at Exeter Central being done.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,893
You would then definitely be able to displace 22 x 159/0s and 8 x 159/1s, and I can imagine that ATW or FGW would love to get their hands on them, perhaps even releasing some of their existing 2-car 158s to EMT or Northern through receiving three car units.
If that ever happens, I'd put the 22 159/0s on the Cambrian lines. Using the 2-car class 158 units released from that, and perhaps more 2-car 158s released by dishing out the 159/1s, I'd lengthen Portsmouth - Cardiff to 4-car and extend it to Carmarthen via the Swansea District Line, and in alternate hours from there to Fishguard/Milford Haven (probablly spliting at CDF so only 2 coaches head west).
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,440
As a final point though, I can't think of many logical reasons for removing the 442s from Waterloo to Southampton and Bournemouth services that they were designed for in the first place, other than it allowed SWT to have a larger standard fleet of replacement 23 metre stock in the form of the 444s: There aren't really many other routes across the Southern region AFAIK that are as well suited to what are very much Intercity-spec EMUs with end doors and the slow loading times and limited accessibility that this causes.

It was all to do with money, at the time the 458s had or were going off lease because of the poor reliability, 450s had replaced them. It was cheaper for SWT to lease the 30 458s than the 24 442s. The 30 458s were used on the Reading services, 450s then replaced some 444s from London-Portsmouth services with the 444s replacing 442 diagrams. SWT bid with that option for the new franchise and won.
 

Pen Mill

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2010
Messages
337
Location
Yeovil Somerset
If I were to indulge in a bit of a flight of fantasy, then I too was thinking that if the 442s were converted to hauled stock (or left as EMUs and then with a diesel loco coupling on at Basingstoke for the journey westwards; although it would be more convenient if the third rail went as far as Salisbury) then they should be deployed on Waterloo to Exeter services. You would then definitely be able to displace 22 x 159/0s and 8 x 159/1s, and I can imagine that ATW or FGW would love to get their hands on them, perhaps even releasing some of their existing 2-car 158s to EMT or Northern through receiving three car units.

All services on Waterloo to Exeter services would then be either five or ten carriages in length, which seems like an excellent arrangement when existing services can be 3, 6, 9 or 10 carriages long. It would probably be necessary to make use of the International platforms at Waterloo though if the 442s were used solely as loco hauled stock: I'm under the impression that the platform extensions at Waterloo are only to accomodate 10 x 20m carriages, and 10 x 23m carriages is already the maximum limit on the few platforms that can take them, without trying to add in the length of a loco as well.

As a final point though, I can't think of many logical reasons for removing the 442s from Waterloo to Southampton and Bournemouth services that they were designed for in the first place, other than it allowed SWT to have a larger standard fleet of replacement 23 metre stock in the form of the 444s: There aren't really many other routes across the Southern region AFAIK that are as well suited to what are very much Intercity-spec EMUs with end doors and the slow loading times and limited accessibility that this causes.
I'd love them down here ! If my arithmetic is right , however , there are only about 8/9 diagrams currently from Waterloo through to Exeter. If we go diesel hauled from Basingstoke , that could probably be covered by 7 locos.
This could almost be approaching a zero (very low cost) option as there are currently 5 * skips in storage although I'd prefer some brand -spanking DRS 68 s :D.
This would rule out electrification of Basingstoke-Exeter just to accomodate thes 442s.

To get all the 442s on the WoEML then electrification to Salisbury would need to happen otherwise you would need to add in more locos to cover Basingstoke (Ex Wat) Salisbury Terminators.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On reflection , I'm not sure how this releases all the 158s as you have the Lymington shuttle plus the Romsey-Salisbury circular (2 sets ?) to deal with.

Further edit : !!!! Also , the Bristol-Salisbury leg of the SWT service Bristol-Waterloo
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top