Speculation: BR Class 442 - Northern Franchise

[jrleighton]

OK, here's the solution. 442s to run Waterloo - Salisbury - Exeter. This releases SWT's 158s and 159s to First Great Western. FGW release a few 150s for Romsey services and Lymington.

If it's not possible to electrify third rail to Salisbury and Exeter (and I've read elsewhere that there's an issue around getting electrical power to the route) then a group of the new revamped Class 73s are brought in to haul the 442's. Preferably the third rail goes to Salisbury and the electro-diesel takes over there; otherwise the loco would have to take over at Basingstoke. If there isn't capacity there for locos to attach and detach then extend the third rail for a mile or so west of Worting Junction and do the changeover there.

There are 24 class 442 units so with 20 or 21 in service at any time there are enough for the weekday service. Off-peak trains all go up to 5 coaches and peak time trains go to 10

Minimal adaptations required (it says here, anyway). The main problem is Salisbury depot - even if there are no capacity issues everyone needs to be retrained.

I don't believe this "rumour" but it would be less impractical than many others.

.

There'll be plenty of DMUs around in the future with all the electrification and EMU production and cascading going on. No need to remove those 159s from the West of England route.

However, there is a problem with capacity all across the network, so it makes no sense to chuck otherwise OK vehicles. Plus new stock means higher fares - so want to minimise that too, and sweat what assets are available without too much new investment.

So what's new?

Move 442s to Anglia London-Norwich route replacing Mk3s and Class 90 with DVT. 10 vehicle trains instead of 8 vehicle - a big bonus. No conversion needed - get a brand new panto motor car for each 442 set.

Those spare 442 motor vehicles? Well, the West of England route runs 9 car trains into Waterloo in the peak - SWML capacity is at a premium, so use them to run 10 car trains by putting some to use to make 4 car 158s - which would also mean that trains might be able to at least partly power themselves on the Waterloo-Basingstoke section using 3rd rail juice, helping with all those carbon emissions. Take a few of the SWT 158s and make them 4 car from 2 car with a couple of 442 motors in between the driving vehicles, and bung that hybrid on the Waterloo end of a train at Salisbury for the peak services. West of Salisbury would still be 3 or 6 car 159s. With a bit of jiggling of 158 / 159 stock around the network, easy. Plus, if the 442 motors fail, then there are still a lot of engines to keep the whole thing powered along. Plus the whole thing might be able to run at 100mph line speed into Waterloo, improving capacity ever so slightly instead of the 158/9 existing top speed of 90mph.

Cheap and relatively easy. And more importantly, it improves capacity where it's needed.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Why not shunt the 442's off to the Island Line, all that it requires is the Ryde Tunnel being lowered inside by a good four meters and jobs a good 'un. The Island Line can scrap the 1938 stock.

What's left of the remaining 442's could be stuck onto an extended third rail network from Southport to Leeds via Brighouse (what with it being a faster route) or better still extend the Merseyrail third rail network to Scarborough and you can have the 442's wizzing back and forth.

 

[jopsuk]

Ha, which EXACT Northern Spirit have you been at this afternoon?

 

[swt_passenger]

Cheap and relatively easy.

Really? :roll: Sounds complex, expensive, unnecessary and another solution looking for a problem to me...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

People seem to be forgetting that the traction motors on the 442s are past life expired, for them to be of any use to a new TOC, they'd have to have the traction package replaced and who knows what other wiring and cab controls replaced. I doubt that any of that is going to be cheap

 

[Jonny]

Why not shunt the 442's off to the Island Line, all that it requires is the Ryde Tunnel being lowered inside by a good four meters and jobs a good 'un. The Island Line can scrap the 1938 stock.

Apparently, the Island Line track was raised in the tunnel to prevent flooding, and that's what is responsible for the gauge restriction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's left of the remaining 442's could be stuck onto an extended third rail network from Southport to Leeds via Brighouse (what with it being a faster route) or better still extend the Merseyrail third rail network to Scarborough and you can have the 442's wizzing back and forth.

The network would have to be extended all the way from Hunts Cross to Scsrborough under both current and planned 25kV OLE areas, and it would look like it was an attempt to circumvent the rules on new 3rd rail sections. Oh, wait
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People seem to be forgetting that the traction motors on the 442s are past life expired, for them to be of any use to a new TOC, they'd have to have the traction package replaced and who knows what other wiring and cab controls replaced. I doubt that any of that is going to be cheap

Agreed, not cheap - but re-tractioning would give up to 20 years and de-tractioning with push-pull capability would give it at least the same additional lifespan. Perhaps the non-standard brakes etc. could be replaced with components pulled from elsewhere, and I would wager that such things (such as air pipes) would probably need to be replaced every few years anyway.

 

[Chris125]

Apparently, the Island Line track was raised in the tunnel to prevent flooding, and that's what is responsible for the gauge restriction.

If it was, it couldn't have been by very much as the bridge carrying Rink Road remained the greatest restriction on height according to ex-staff - the real limitations are on vehicle length and cant-rail height, due to the very tight reverse curve through the tunnel and also the curved platform at Ryde Esplanade. This is a problem for 20m stock, so 23m...

Chris

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many more years life has the basic body and chassis (not inc bogies) got?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Ha, which EXACT Northern Spirit have you been at this afternoon?

Its some random idea that I have.

 

[starrymarkb]

How many more years life has the basic body and chassis (not inc bogies) got?

Probably about 10 by the time their replacements on GatEx arrive.

 

[Emblematic]

Probably about 10 by the time their replacements on GatEx arrive.

I'd say nearer 25. The IC125 carriages were assessed as being extendible to 2035 with minor work, and these are younger. The doors are probably one of the most problematic areas, I understand spares are in short supply (although I would have thought the retired Irish Mk3s would be a good source of spares as they shared the design.)

 

[gazthomas]

But the motors are getting on an DC based

 

[jopsuk]

The doors aren't good past 2020 due to access issues (too narrow)

 

[Emblematic]

But the motors are getting on an DC based

No argument there! We were just on about the structure, the traction side is on borrowed time
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The doors aren't good past 2020 due to access issues (too narrow)

Good - no. Acceptable - just about. However if spares are becoming a problem, the Chiltern solution seems a good idea anyway (assuming that you've found somewhere to run them, and a commercially acceptable solution to updating the traction to whatever's needed, which is by far the bigger problem.)

 

[starrymarkb]

I'd say nearer 25. The IC125 carriages were assessed as being extendible to 2035 with minor work, and these are younger. The doors are probably one of the most problematic areas, I understand spares are in short supply (although I would have thought the retired Irish Mk3s would be a good source of spares as they shared the design.)

IIRC it wasn't minor work, if it was I doubt IEP would be on order Given the option of retaining Mk3s until 2035 was pretty rapidly discounted I would say that idea is a non runner

 

[Emblematic]

IIRC it wasn't minor work, if it was I doubt IEP would be on order Given the option of retaining Mk3s until 2035 was pretty rapidly discounted I would say that idea is a non runner

Given that IEP is replacing much newer electric stock on the ECML (life expired? doubtful), and is replacing most - but not all - of the 125s on the western routes, I don't think you can say that IEP is driven by life-expired stock replacement. It may have been some time ago, when there was a full-diesel option. It's now more closely tied with electrification and increased utilisation/decreased diesel running. The IC125s will be going to places like Plymouth and Penzance for a good while yet.

 

[plastictaffy]

I've never been on a 442, but I have had a squint through the window, and they look very smart and comfortable. As Mark III's, we know they run well. So, take the traction package out and use them as hauled stock.
DRS to have the lot, bang them up to one of their new spangled 68's, and give them a passenger franchise in push-pull formation. They'd be ideal when they do things like shut the Euston line, you could fire 'em off up the Chltern in place of the horrid Voyagers Virgin run up there. Available for spot-hire also.
Of the 442's that there are, keep say half a dozen in 3rd rail running order and keep them as spot-hire stock for the Southern Region - football specials, things like that. Judging by what I've read, they don't accelerate well, so they're not suited for stop-start work, so making them better for things like football specials!! They're only a small fleet also, so it's not like there'd be thousands of them with no work.

 

[jopsuk]

To recap:
Even to use the four cars as hauled stock, you'd need to replace the doors with wider accessible ones, rewire with "hotel services" (aircon, lighting, heating) and fully replace the control systems.

To use them as AC EMUs, you'd have to do all that, replace the traction system and fit a pantograph.

 

[gazthomas]

As much as I like them time for the grim reaper

 

[starrymarkb]

Following the seaside strengthening thread I had a mad idea (and very quickly realised the issues)

Take a 442 driving car and fit it with BSI couplings. Then use to strengthen sprinter services for events and seasonal peaks.

Problem I very quickly realised is that a 150 or 156 isn't powerful enough to haul an unpowered trailer, and there is also the issue of powering the aircon and auxiliaries (esp as a Sprinter's heating uses engine coolant)

Then there is the need to shunt unpowered trailers around, and storing them when not in use.

So the idea is a non starter but probably more realistic then many that have been mooted in this thread.

 

[edwin_m]

I guess it's remotely possible they could be de-powered to become the proposed "scenic coaches" on Scotrail. Perhaps in push-pull mode with the 73s that will be hauling the sleeper at other times of day.

 

[CDM]

Without making any comment on the actual likelihood of this happening...

...and in particular fitting a Pantograph to the roof which has never been done before on an Intercity Style MK3 ...

You mean like this thing that's never been done and isn't an already approved design?

(Design carried out by Delta Rail about 8 years ago for NR)

 

[Manchester77]

I'll happily be corrected but the pantograph on the NMT is just for checking the OHLE and the wire profile and not to actually power the train though

 

[CDM]

Correct, but that's a standard B+W High Speed pantograph (base frame is slightly modified TBH - it's narrower than the standard footprint, but big deal) doing exactly the same job as it would need to do.

What you have there is all that's required to fit a pan to a Mk3 bodyshell (actually more than is required, because you'd lose most of the equipment up there).

 

[starrymarkb]

You'd also need a few tonnes of transformer to get the voltage down to that required

 

[Domh245]

That may be all you need to fit a pantograph to a bodyshell, but there are a number of other steps involved to make the pantograph usable. You'd have to add a transformer, and rectifier, as well as a way of passing the current between the pantograph and the transformer. Don't forget that the space gained by loosing all the monitoring equipment would start getting eaten up again by the circuit breakers and other stuff in the well. Lastly, would the thing then stand up to crash regulations, I suspect that quite a lot was spent on converting that coach to have a well, and an awful lot of reinforcement was needed beneath it!

 

[CDM]

That may be all you need to fit a pantograph to a bodyshell, but there are a number of other steps involved to make the pantograph usable. You'd have to add a transformer, and rectifier, as well as a way of passing the current between the pantograph and the transformer. Don't forget that the space gained by loosing all the monitoring equipment would start getting eaten up again by the circuit breakers and other stuff in the well. Lastly, would the thing then stand up to crash regulations, I suspect that quite a lot was spent on converting that coach to have a well, and an awful lot of reinforcement was needed beneath it!

Oh yes, of course, I'd completely forgotten about the transformer etc... :roll:

I will re-quote the sentence I was commenting on;

...and in particular fitting a Pantograph to the roof which has never been done before on an Intercity Style MK3 ...

Oh and look, there's this sentence too;

What you have there is all that's required to fit a pan to a Mk3 bodyshell (actually more than is required, because you'd lose most of the equipment up there)

And since the transformer and rectifier etc. etc. aren't mounted on the roof, then... Can you see how I actually restricted my answer to responding to the comment raised, without feeling the need to demonstrate my superiority by explaining how a full traction system works?

For that record, I will also re-quote the first line of my reply as to whether or not I was actually expressing an opinion on the likelihood;

Without making any comment on the actual likelihood of this happening...

However, I am so glad there are so many qualified experienced and expert rolling stock engineers on here to point out everyone else's shortcomings mistakes and exercise their expertise in misreading what point that person was answering. Where would the rest of us be without you?



(I wonder if anyone picks up on the irony, that that was actually why I bothered with my OP in the first place - I do get very fed up with how full this forum is of opinionated people that get their kicks out of poo-pooing other peoples thoughts here by presenting things as 'facts' that are in fact, not facts).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't forget that the space gained by loosing all the monitoring equipment would start getting eaten up again by the circuit breakers and other stuff in the well

This was answered in my post - you have MORE equipment than you need on that roof, full stop. That is all there anyway.

The only equipment you need up there on an operational pan is;
Pan itself (plus its foot insulators, if you want to be pedantic)
VCB (the "circuit breaker")
Thru-bushing (the top of the HT cable)
Spark Gap
Earth Switch
You might also have a CMD / VMD up there as well these days.
But they're all either already there in that photo, or take up no more space than what is seen in the immediate vicinity around that pan frame.

The rest of that pan well is full of equipment you don't need. It's basically twice as big as is required.

So again.
In conclusion.
To answer the original point.
You can fit a pan to a Mk3 Intercity coach roof.
And it has been done.

 

[Bigfoot]

Could of course just live in the real world that it is more likely to be cost effective to just get new stock...

Would still need new motors plus all the work moding a coach. Melt them down. Save the best two for heritage lines.

Times change. Move on!

 

[47634 "Holbeck]

Without making any comment on the actual likelihood of this happening...



You mean like this thing that's never been done and isn't an already approved design?

(Design carried out by Delta Rail about 8 years ago for NR)

I Have A Funny Feeling Thats a PAN On Top of an ex Intercity MK 3 Coach
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It CAN be done but whether or not it will only time will tell and another way round would be to strip the former MBRSM Vehicles and completley re-wire and equip for AC running but costs would be Astronomical i assume

 

[CosherB]

Well done Sherlock.

I'm amazed this thread wasn't resurrected earlier about reusing 442's on Northern routes! lol