Speculation: BR Class 442 - Northern Franchise

[TheEdge]

We still appear to be awaiting the origin of the rumour... :roll:

Probably a fairy from the dark side of Mars.

 

[Qwerty133]

Have the fire brigade got enough officers in northernland

 

[GatwickDepress]

Only if you do a peak hour extension to Ashford International

Done, and done. Here's hoping it doesn't have to push out the Southeastern train at platform 1 in order to fit in!

Accelerate up to 108mph through ore and then coast all the way to Ashford. Fill the guards compartments with batteries to help with keeping speed up, and install some third rail from Ashford to Appledore to charge up the batteries.

Duracell or Energizer?

 

[northwichcat]

The first 319 was completed in summer 1987 I believe, the first 442 was completed in November 1987 so the two classes are almost exactly the same age.

Think the difference is a 319 is like an electric version of a 150 while a 442 is like an electric version of a 158 so the 442 gives passengers the impression of being a newer nicer unit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Utter bollocks. The 442s are going to be scrapped in the near future, without a doubt.

They won't even need to be melted down, as they're more than capable of doing it by themselves .

The idea doesn't make sense. If the Liverpool-Scotland option goes ahead then the number of units needed for TPE Scottish services would be around 17 and like people have said they would be TPE services not Northern. 24 units would probably be about the right number for all electric TPE services from Manchester Airport post-Bolton and Blackpool electrification. However, the plan is for the non-Scottish North West services to transfer to Northern.

One serious point - if the 442s will have a life expired traction system, would it not be cheaper to fit a new AC traction system to 442s then to order brand new AC EMUs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You mean like all that rolling stock that was previously being used in the Midlands and North that has found it's way onto the GEML...?

O L Leigh

Didn't it move from one London mainline to a different (shorter) one though?

 

[Mikey C]

One serious point - if the 442s will have a life expired traction system, would it not be cheaper to fit a new AC traction system to 442s then to order brand new AC EMUs?

Rebuilding older stock is far trickier than building new ones, and you would still end up with 25 year old bodies, with a 20 year life span?

 

[CalderRail]

How many driving axles does a 442 have? Because if I read this right (I'm not completely certain) the config only has power equipment in the central car? I'd be worried about traction on the inclines in the North, such as the one up to Halifax. The Pacers have enough trouble, and they are built out of balsawood & tinfoil.

 

[paul1609]

Its fair to say the 442s had enough problems with the Surrey inclines on the Portsmouth Direct Line. I understand that the many heritage diesel lines running Class 33s have already made enquiries with the ROSCOs.

 

[Ploughman]

You could always use them on the Merseyrail 3rd rail if they had to move North.
Or would there be a slight structure gauge problem?

 

[cjmillsnun]

You could always use them on the Merseyrail 3rd rail if they had to move North.
Or would there be a slight structure gauge problem?

There would be gauging problems. 442s have 23m cars, 507/8s have 20m

 

[daikilo]

Rebuilding older stock is far trickier than building new ones, and you would still end up with 25 year old bodies, with a 20 year life span?

Yes, but if you happen to own the asset, then pumping more money in, with a positive NPV, might be much better than a sell-off for scrap. The questions are
1) the accuracy of the estimate of the required investment,
2) how to get a 20-year commitment with a 10-year TOC contract
The answer is that the required investment must yield an acceptable NPV within the TOC life. But then, new stock is even more uncertain.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, but if you happen to own the asset, then pumping more money in, with a positive NPV, might be much better than a sell-off for scrap. The questions are
1) the accuracy of the estimate of the required investment,
2) how to get a 20-year commitment with a 10-year TOC contract
The answer is that the required investment must yield an acceptable NPV within the TOC life. But then, new stock is even more uncertain.

The sale for scrap would at least provide some income without the need for the worry of those matters that you detail above.

 

[Mikey C]

Yes, but if you happen to own the asset, then pumping more money in, with a positive NPV, might be much better than a sell-off for scrap. The questions are
1) the accuracy of the estimate of the required investment,
2) how to get a 20-year commitment with a 10-year TOC contract
The answer is that the required investment must yield an acceptable NPV within the TOC life. But then, new stock is even more uncertain.

Buy a standard Bombardier/Siemens EMU and you can cascade it easily. Rebuild the 442s and in 10 years time you might find yourself once more stuck with unwanted stock...

 

[Emblematic]

Buy a standard Bombardier/Siemens EMU and you can cascade it easily. Rebuild the 442s and in 10 years time you might find yourself once more stuck with unwanted stock...

Owners of new stock can unexpectedly find themselves with expensive assets in storage and depreciating - Classes 460 and 180 for example.
Assuming the 442s are written down to a negligible scrap value when they come off lease, you would only need to recoup the rebuild and finance/operating costs in the next lease period for the exercise to be worthwhile. I doubt the owners would aim for a 20 year life extension - probably 10 years is it, but if they do go on longer, that's more profit. I would think that all of the proposed retraction exercises on Mk3-based EMUs are based on payback somewhere around 10 years - they are already up to 30 years old.

 

[The Ham]

Owners of new stock can unexpectedly find themselves with expensive assets in storage and depreciating - Classes 460 and 180 for example.
Assuming the 442s are written down to a negligible scrap value when they come off lease, you would only need to recoup the rebuild and finance/operating costs in the next lease period for the exercise to be worthwhile. I doubt the owners would aim for a 20 year life extension - probably 10 years is it, but if they do go on longer, that's more profit. I would think that all of the proposed retraction exercises on Mk3-based EMUs are based on payback somewhere around 10 years - they are already up to 30 years old.

Both those examples had faily limited numbers of units with a fairly spercific role. If the 442's were replaced by the TOC with dual voltage units, but otherwise with a similar specification (i.e. 5 coaches, end doors, etc.) then there would likely be a lot of places that would be intrested in having them.

XC to run their Manchester to south coast services, SWT's to strengthen their fleet (esp. if they were compatable with their existing units) or if electrification of the WoE line, GW to provide Thames Valley services (esp. if they could do 110mph on OHLE). I could go on, but almost any TOC would be able to find a use for such a unit.

Conversly the 180's are a very small fleet of IC DMU's which (AIUI) can't run paired up with other IC DMU's, which makes their usefulness very limited (i.e. XC wouldn't want them unless they could isolate a service to run soley with them, but then they would haveto have more spare units than a uniform fleet, likewise Northern wouldn't want them as they would be too powerful for many of their routes). Similarly the 460's were a very small fleet of 3rd rail units which were 8 coaches long, which would limit where they could have been reused (i.e. nowhere with OHLE and somewhere where they could run one route on their own which was busy enough to need 8 coaches all day every day).

 

[Wavertreelad]

There would be gauging problems. 442s have 23m cars, 507/8s have 20m

I seem to remember reading that the tunnels on the Wirral loop are certainly able to handle a class 66 which is a little short of 22mtrs. If the Northern line tunnels are more generous could a few be used on Southport to Hunts Cross or beyond trains?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Both those examples had faily limited numbers of units with a fairly spercific role. If the 442's were replaced by the TOC with dual voltage units, but otherwise with a similar specification (i.e. 5 coaches, end doors, etc.) then there would likely be a lot of places that would be intrested in having them.

That sounds like a perfect description of a class 444. How long would it take Siemens to build new jigs if a TOC ordered a new build of 444s but with the new style cab needed to meet current crash regs?

 

[Mikey C]

Owners of new stock can unexpectedly find themselves with expensive assets in storage and depreciating - Classes 460 and 180 for example.
Assuming the 442s are written down to a negligible scrap value when they come off lease, you would only need to recoup the rebuild and finance/operating costs in the next lease period for the exercise to be worthwhile. I doubt the owners would aim for a 20 year life extension - probably 10 years is it, but if they do go on longer, that's more profit. I would think that all of the proposed retraction exercises on Mk3-based EMUs are based on payback somewhere around 10 years - they are already up to 30 years old.

If Alstom hadn't screwed up so badly, there would be a lot more Junipers and Coradias on our tracks, a purchase of current production EMUs would have very small risk.
I presume retractioning 455s (a decent sized fleet) is a lot easier than retractioning AND converting to overhead power...

 

[47802]

Amazing the idea of putting them on Merseyrail is utterly ridiculous, there are not many northern electrified routes they would be really suitable for either, Scottish TPE services I guess is not an entirely unreasonable, but then what's going to be the cost of AC Conversion and in particular fitting a Pantograph to the roof which has never been done before on an Intercity Style MK3 for a train which wont be far off 30 years old by the time they booted off Gatwick Services.

The only future I can see is possibly they might be retained for a few more years by one of the Southern Rail companies as possible additional peak time capacity.

 

[Buttsy]

Scrap the motor coach and replace with a DDA compliant motor coach with pantograph to avoid having to rebuild the current coach...

 

[alex17595]

If they need rebuilding you might as well stick a loco on it for a push-pull set or get new EMUs.

What is the scrap value on these? They would make a nice garden ornament

 

[swt_passenger]

That sounds like a perfect description of a class 444. How long would it take Siemens to build new jigs if a TOC ordered a new build of 444s but with the new style cab needed to meet current crash regs?

Production time to build a set of jigs would be absolutely trivial in comparison to sorting out the contracts for the order. Jigs really are not an issue at all.

 

[Lockwood]

If the North don't want them, put them on the Lymington shuttle?

 

[northwichcat]

If the North don't want them, put them on the Lymington shuttle?

Why not join them all up and just leave the formation on the Lymington branch? That way the train can be stopped at multiple stations at the same time.

 

[Muzer]

Haha, yes! Best solution to the Lymington "problem" I've heard

 

[swt_passenger]

Haha, yes! Best solution to the Lymington "problem" I've heard

You could fit a travelator inside them. They could even call it a 'tube'...

 

[170401]

Can they be used as conventional loco hauled stock? Seems a waste of good rolling stock and a good source of driving trailers Theirs also going to be plenty of class 67's going spare in a couple of years, could they not pair them up and use them as push pull formations. Would be nice to see something like that on some Wales/West of England regional services or just to generally relieve the shortage of DMU's until electrification programs can see a suitable cascade program.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If any TOC takes them on after they get moved off the Gatwick Express, they'll have to replace the traction motors at the very minimum. How much of the underframe equipment will need to be replaced for working with new traction motors?

 

[Muzer]

You must remember that around the time the 442s will become available, great swathes of ex-HST Mk 3s will be as well. Why spend money adapting the 442s to LHCS when you can just use the ex-HST coaches, presumably with comparatively few modifications?

 

[Emblematic]

If any TOC takes them on after they get moved off the Gatwick Express, they'll have to replace the traction motors at the very minimum. How much of the underframe equipment will need to be replaced for working with new traction motors?

You would replace everything that originally came off the REPs, which is the whole traction package - it's all very old and life expired. Conveniently that would allow you to switch to modern electronics and AC motors, just as is being trialed and fitted to other Mk 3 based units at the moment.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I seem to remember reading that the tunnels on the Wirral loop are certainly able to handle a class 66 which is a little short of 22mtrs. If the Northern line tunnels are more generous could a few be used on Southport to Hunts Cross or beyond trains?

In terms of a suburban service the 442's would be a disaster. Poor acceleration and no centre doors. I can see the Mid Hants being interested in a rake but nothing more.