SE Networker Retraction

[Vindaloo 42]

What's the reason for the Southeastern 465/0 and 465/1 fleet being retractioned with Hitachi IGBT drives, whilst the 465/2, 465/9 and 466 keep the original GTO drives?

Seems bizarre to upgrade only half the fleet with new traction technology, it's the same class of train operating with one TOC in a common pool.

 

[southern442]

What's the reason for the Southeastern 465/0 and 465/1 fleet being retractioned with Hitachi IGBT drives, whilst the 465/2, 465/9 and 466 keep the original GTO drives?

Seems bizarre to upgrade only half the fleet with new traction technology, it's the same class of train operating with one TOC in a common pool.

The 465/0s and 465/1s initially had Brush traction, different to the 465/2s and /9s. Here is a video which shows what they used to sound like.

I believe the issue was that these were unreliable and so they were upgraded. There was no need to do so with the fleet that had the other type of motor.

 

[D365]

Seems bizarre to upgrade only half the fleet with new traction technology, it's the same class of train operating with one TOC in a common pool.

The GEC-Alsthom traction equipment on the Metro-Camm units (and the 365s) was considered more reliable and thus didn’t have the same business case for early replacement.

 

[bramling]

What's the reason for the Southeastern 465/0 and 465/1 fleet being retractioned with Hitachi IGBT drives, whilst the 465/2, 465/9 and 466 keep the original GTO drives?

Seems bizarre to upgrade only half the fleet with new traction technology, it's the same class of train operating with one TOC in a common pool.

They may be the same class of train, but there’s a considerable number of differences between the two builds. Indeed there’s a lot more difference between them than 317 versus 318, or 320 versus 321.

The traction package is different, and there’s a considerable list of detail and equipment differences. Built to a specification rather than a design.