Why the 442s?

[MarkyT]

As EMUs, I think 442s are toast. Containing 1960s traction equipment and limited to 3rd rail routes they can't even keep up with other traffic on those lines and there's no realistic option to convert them to AC without actually or effectively inserting a completely new power car. On the other hand, each unit contains 4 good Mk 3 trailers that are the newest examples of that design on the UK network, and which are fitted with powered external doors. I don't know whether the toilets are track discharge or retention, but if the latter, that's another very good point in the case for considering them as trailers in life extended HSTs or some other new loco hauled push-pull configuration. The driving trailers might be a suitable replacement for DVTs in MK 3 sets for Chiltern and Anglia routes, providing more seating within the same train length. In any of these new applications, the trailer shells would need significant levels of refit, but that would apply to any life extended Mk3. Any new DVT use of the driver trailers would probably need a completely re-engineered drivers desk arrangement.

 

[nlogax]

As EMUs, I think 442s are toast [..]

Probably the most well-stated example of this type of suggestion.

That being said..we could combine the Serco LHCS thread with this one. Gut the trailers, turn them into uniquely-configured Mk 3 sleeper stock in conjunction with the GBRf 73s while maintaining one of the two driving cabs.

No? Dammit..worth adding to the Insane Suggestions list anyway

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I would like the 442s to come back onto the SWT routes again, I much prefer travelling on those to Weymouth etc rather than the 444s.

I always thought it was odd the 442s replaced the Gatwick Expresses which themselves were not that old.

I suppose the middle 3 trailer units could be used to strenghten Chilterns Silver Trains or GA?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I would like the 442s to come back onto the SWT routes again, I much prefer travelling on those to Weymouth etc rather than the 444s.

I always thought it was odd the 442s replaced the Gatwick Expresses which themselves were not that old.

I suppose the middle 3 trailer units could be used to strenghten Chilterns Silver Trains or GA?

If SWT were to use 442s again then they should go on the Portsmouth route, with freed up 444s being used to have every Waterloo-Weymouth as 2x444 (as far as Poole)

 

[HarleyDavidson]

As EMUs, I think 442s are toast. Containing 1960s traction equipment and limited to 3rd rail routes they can't even keep up with other traffic on those lines and there's no realistic option to convert them to AC without actually or effectively inserting a completely new power car. On the other hand, each unit contains 4 good Mk 3 trailers that are the newest examples of that design on the UK network, and which are fitted with powered external doors. I don't know whether the toilets are track discharge or retention, but if the latter, that's another very good point in the case for considering them as trailers in life extended HSTs or some other new loco hauled push-pull configuration. The driving trailers might be a suitable replacement for DVTs in MK 3 sets for Chiltern and Anglia routes, providing more seating within the same train length. In any of these new applications, the trailer shells would need significant levels of refit, but that would apply to any life extended Mk3. Any new DVT use of the driver trailers would probably need a completely re-engineered drivers desk arrangement.

Completely clueless. You could easily fit a TCU under the MBLS or whatever SN like to call it these days. A modern ACU could easily replace the static converters on-board to do the auxiliary supplies. Install a modern version of the ETH jumper system to provide electrical supply and the ability to work over non-electrified lines.

If they can retraction a 455, then these will be a piece of p!

 

[Buttsy]

Take 2 trailers out and use 2 (1 spare) of them as 3 cars on the Lymington branch to free up a 159 for elsewhere!!!!

 

[NSEFAN]

my bold

Fixed that for you...

That's true, although as the 455 retractioning programme shows it is not beyond the scope of magic to replace the motors. My point was more about why you'd want to do that, as it's local and commuter trains which are of a more pressing need, not another intercity unit.

As EMUs, I think 442s are toast.

They seem to manage that fairly often thanks to Southern's TLC.

 

[sprinterguy]

I've seen very few misty-eyed people where cattle trucks are concerned. As long as one of each gets preserved to satisfy the small few who make up the preservation group, even booths is too good for them. God forbid one ever makes it anywhere near the NRM.

Off topic, but the National Railway Museum already own the prototype Leyland railbus LEV1. You'll also be disappointed to know that in 2013 the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Committee (Formerly the RHC) updated their list so that a class 142 Pacer is now earmarked for the National Collection.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suppose the middle 3 trailer units could be used to strenghten Chilterns Silver Trains or GA?

The outer four cars are trailer vehicles. The centre car is the only traction vehicle.

For about the tenth time... :roll:

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If SWT were to use 442s again then they should go on the Portsmouth route, with freed up 444s being used to have every Waterloo-Weymouth as 2x444 (as far as Poole)

Causing a major capacity reduction on the Portsmouth route, and contravening the franchise spec so it won't happen.

As is pointed out in nearly every 442 thread ever.

 

[tbtc]

I think that it’s a combination of a few different things:

Firstly, the oddity of this relatively small fleet – look at how previous generations got excited about Baby Deltics/ Class 13s etc and other classes that were built in fairly small numbers – much easier to be fascinated with these than with common or garden things like a Class 37/47 that were a lot more successful. Similarly there’s a lot more threads/comments on a Forum like this about lines/stations with trivially low numbers of trains/passengers (Brigg/Denton etc) than about functionally busy places (much easier to be fascinated with quaint little “one passenger a day” places than somewhere like Peterborough or Sevenoaks or Runcorn). Same goes for other hobbies – like the football fans who still talk about hardcore who were in the away end at Rochdale in the League Cup in 1993 and not the large crowds who attend their regular home games. Car enthusiasts will be more interested in some quirky/failed/limited/obsolete model than they are in something that functioned well in the mass market like a Ford Fiesta. Some music enthusiasts talk about b-sides and the Japanese-only reissues and uncredited gigs ahead of anything as obvious as the last album. It’s that male obsession with the obscure (don’t start me on Real Ale bores... :roll.

Secondly, the enthusiast obsession with finding a solution in need of a problem (hence my signature) – look at the “can we get HSTs to haul freight” thread or the “can we bring back mail trains to find some use for redundant 67s” thread... Suggestions for how we can find a use for the old Post Office tunnels under London? Crayonista fantasies! In any given week you’ll see loads of suggestions to solve a problem that you were never aware was really much of a problem (e.g. “Bradford Crossrail would finally provide a direct service from Ilkley to Halifax”, when nobody realised there were many people inconvenienced by the lack of such a service).

Thirdly, they were built in the "Good Old Days" of BR, when passenger numbers were lower (so no need for modern inconveniences like 3+2 seating to deal with overcrowding), when accessibility regulations were a pipedream (so relatively narrow end doors, little standing space) and when you could take some kind of pride in the stock that your nationalised railway was building (not to be confused with the 1980s BR Pacers, which don’t fit conveniently into the “BR was great” narrative).You could argue that the 442s are the last generation of “proper” trains from the days when we didn’t have to worry about large passenger volumes that needed wide doors to minimise dwell times – there were no accessible spaces – they have more in common with coaches designed a hundred years ago than with modern stock, which probably appeals to the nostalgics.

The services that they were designed for are becoming more of a rarity in today’s “Metro” world south of the Thames – so I suppose there’s nostalgia for the days of proper “expresses” – most of the old Southern Region could be categorised as “Outer Suburban” these days (functional, efficient, boring, no room for quirky “flagship” services) – the idea of anything more glamorous than a refreshment trolley with 2+2 seating in First seems old fashioned. The hard working modern railway means you’ll see an Inverness – Glasgow DMU pressed into action on a suburban service to Anniesland in between duties rather than sitting idle for the next Inverness service – no space at terminals to let something idle there for a long time between duties, meaning we need “universal” stock like 377s that could do a Brighton fast just as easily as a Hove shuttle.

Plus the fact that they are reconditioned from 1960s equipment, making them seem ecological, older, quaint (not to be confused with cascading 1980s EMUs away from London – there’s a fine line in enthusiast mindsets between “vintage” and “cast-off” generally anything pre-1980 is “vintage/ built to last”, anything younger than 1980 is “old/ clapped out”... ).

Really, they are stock without an obvious future (without creating work specially for them), too small in number to replace someone’s existing fleet of EMUs but too large a number to be able to solve with just one route. The third rail world is moving towards a relatively uniform world of Metro services, “go anywhere” Electrostars plus 700s, there aren’t any suitable routes there for a 442.

You can’t convert them to overhead electrification (without *significant* costs that would probably make it uneconomical), there won’t be many diesel services that require five coaches to make loco haulage suitable (once electrification happens on lines like TPE North). They couldn’t keep up with Voyager/180 times if they moved to XC/ Grand Central. The doors are too narrow for any service with busy intermediate stations yet the length of them means they’d be overkill for quiet services. You could come up with some convoluted “solution” (give them all to ATW to replace their 175s and hope that all intermediate stations can cope with five coaches plus a loco?) but would it actually solve anything?

For me, they raise questions about the suitability of small classes, especially small classes of specialist units designed for one specific duty. At least the 460s can be converted into 458s (at expense), and the plans are for 345s and 700s to work on Crossrail and Thameslink for their full life, but other trains need to be designed with their whole life being considered, not just fit for the first five years.

If you play Enthusiast Bingo, the 442s meet most criteria (small fleet size, properly old, British Rail, “end doors”, a bit rubbish... the only thing that could make them more enthusiast friendly would be if they had nameplates referencing animals/historic buildings/ships/regiments and if Dr Beeching had scrapped them all!). I think there’s a good chance we’ll see more preserved 442 coaches in preservation than 142 coaches, despite the fact that there were many more Pacers.

I almost won't be surprised the day I see someone suggesting them for use as ECML Thunderbirds

I'll add that to Merseyrail and the Heart Of Wales as suggestions I've seen for 442s...

 

[The Ham]

If you play Enthusiast Bingo, the 442s meet most criteria (small fleet size, properly old, British Rail, “end doors”, a bit rubbish... the only thing that could make them more enthusiast friendly would be if they had nameplates referencing animals/historic buildings/ships/regiments and if Dr Beeching had scrapped them all!). I think there’s a good chance we’ll see more preserved 442 coaches in preservation than 142 coaches, despite the fact that there were many more Pacers.

When they were with SWT's most of them had name plates, although these were links to places the 442's served rather than any of the above requirements.

 

[Boothby97]

Off topic, but the National Railway Museum already own the prototype Leyland railbus LEV1. You'll also be disappointed to know that in 2013 the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Committee (Formerly the RHC) updated their list so that a class 142 Pacer is now earmarked for the National Collection.

I think a 442 should be a part of NRM, as part of an exhibit that shows how many crazy ideas can be given to one type of railway rolling stock

 

[po8crg]

To me, the most obvious use for the 442s would be to break up the units and convert the cabs into Mk3 DTSOs. Given that these have seats in and DVTs don't, I suspect there are potential uses for them - they would effectively add a carriage-worth of seats to any service currently running with a DVT (Greater Anglia, Chilterns, Gerald) without needing a platform lengthening. That's a user for about half the 442 DTS carriages, based on the DVTs that are currently in-use.

I can't see lower-standard vehicles being acceptable in franchise agreements going forward, other than where Mk3 is already in use, and even there, now that Chilterns have proven it's possible, I suspect that any new franchises will require Mk3s to be brought up a a higher standard (power doors, retention toilets) to remain in longer-term use, so it may be cheaper to break-up the 442 sets, which already have power doors, than to insert power doors into existing Mk3 coaches, in which case the centre coaches of the 442s might see use in that fashion.

 

[MarkyT]

You could easily fit a TCU under the MBLS or whatever SN like to call it these days. A modern ACU could easily replace the static converters on-board to do the auxiliary supplies. Install a modern version of the ETH jumper system to provide electrical supply and the ability to work over non-electrified lines.

If they can retraction a 455, then these will be a piece of p!

OK, so that's another option. Presumably you'd keep the existing traction motors and bogies. A new traction control package might squeeze a little more performance and a lot more reliability out of them, but the underlying power to weight ratio would remain unchanged. If all that can be done cost effectively for Transpennine or similar, then great I'm all for it, but if it can't I still think the trailers may end up being reused for something else, and, in either case an extensive internal refit would be desirable to make the passenger environment as good as a new train.

 

[Temple Meads]

I've seen very few misty-eyed people where cattle trucks are concerned. As long as one of each gets preserved to satisfy the small few who make up the preservation group, even booths is too good for them. God forbid one ever makes it anywhere near the NRM.

Regardless of whether you like Pacers or not they represent an important part of UK railway history, and thus they deserve a place in the national collection.

__

RE: 442's, conversion to LHCS seems the most sensible option if a suitable operating area can be found, but even that could well be a stretch too far.

 

[LBSCR Times]

As someone who has to work with the units, then the best option is to divert the evening London Bridge to Eastbourne service, to Newhaven Marine, and keep going in to the English Channel.....
After 5 consecutive nights that'll be 10 units gone.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

OK, so that's another option. Presumably you'd keep the existing traction motors and bogies. A new traction control package might squeeze a little more performance and a lot more reliability out of them, but the underlying power to weight ratio would remain unchanged. If all that can be done cost effectively for Transpennine or similar, then great I'm all for it, but if it can't I still think the trailers may end up being reused for something else, and, in either case an extensive internal refit would be desirable to make the passenger environment as good as a new train.

The AC motors you can get are more powerful & yet lighter, with the correct gearing they'd be pretty much on a par with the 444s.

Put them back on the SWML, where they're appreciated and are known to staff, best option would be to put them on the Portsmouth Direct route, a fleet of 24 dedicated units that would allow 444s & 450s to serve the Alton/Basingstoke lines more effectively.

 

[TheJRB]

A 2tph Victoria-Redhill(-Reigate)-Tonbridge-Ashford-Margate/Dover service

Just replace/upgrade the traction system.

I don't know whether you're saying it in a tongue in cheek way but I'm in!

We could do with both a fast service between Ashford and Tonbridge and also between Tonbridge and Redhill and combining the two would allow better connections to Gatwick and the South Coast. As for whether a 442 would be suitable, at least they will be spare!

 

[CosherB]

A salutary lesson for those advocates of major reuse of existing equipment - you don't really get a new train and the underlying design issues will come back to haunt you. The 'premature' fate of the 442's was sealed in 1988 when they were built with recycled traction equipment. The fact that we are having this inevitable debate beggars belief!

Or does this now mean that history will really repeat itself (in a 'funny' way) with a new 'Class 432' ....... :roll:

 

[AM9]

A salutary lesson for those advocates of major reuse of existing equipment - you don't really get a new train and the underlying design issues will come back to haunt you. The 'premature' fate of the 442's was sealed in 1988 when they were built with recycled traction equipment. The fact that we are having this inevitable debate beggars belief!

Or does this now mean that history will really repeat itself (in a 'funny' way) with a new 'Class 432' ....... :roll:

Well if it had anything like the concentration of power of the original 432s to act as a 3rd rail tractor unit, the line power limits would probably restrict its use to the point of useless. It's 3rd rail power that is the real problem on a 21st century main line.

 

[Emblematic]

And of course the original 432s were a mongrel of recycled Mk1 hauled stock for the trailers and new-build motor coaches, which were scrapped after little more than 20 years (less for some) apart from the traction bits. Rather than continuing the 'Triggers broom' approach, the only sensible thing to do is chuck away the 50-year-old bits and haul them around. The 67s don't seem to have much else to do, after all, and if they aren't used for this I can see the whole lot going to the recyclers.

 

[RobShipway]

And of course the original 432s were a mongrel of recycled Mk1 hauled stock for the trailers and new-build motor coaches, which were scrapped after little more than 20 years (less for some) apart from the traction bits. Rather than continuing the 'Triggers broom' approach, the only sensible thing to do is chuck away the 50-year-old bits and haul them around. The 67s don't seem to have much else to do, after all, and if they aren't used for this I can see the whole lot going to the recyclers.

This is what has been suggested through this thread and through the Class 442 - HSTs thread that I started as I see that they would be useful to either be between two class 43 HST power cars or be pulled by a class 67 on some Inter City routes such as Glasgow - Edingburgh or services to Inverness.

 

[whhistle]

Or why not use a redundant MK3 when IEP arrives to convert into a pantograph coach, then use the 442's on GEML...

 

[CosherB]

Or why not use a redundant MK3 when IEP arrives to convert into a pantograph coach, then use the 442's on GEML...

i suggest you find the legion posts on here about convertying a existing LHCS mk3 into a power car ...... or more to the point, why you probably can't.

 

[bavvo]

Seriously, what state are the bodyshells in? I mean these are steel monocoque construction, so are they at risk from corrosion? Are there lots of hidden box sections that can rust from the inside out, or is the whole lot galvanised?

 

[MrC]

The AC motors you can get are more powerful & yet lighter, with the correct gearing they'd be pretty much on a par with the 444s.

Oh really? When I drove the things on SWT the single motor coach often had problems getting adhesion just in shunt (notch 1) in poor railhead conditions, and it wasn't unknown to get wheelspin at reasonable speeds (70+) on the flat in damp weather.

How is sticking lighter, more powerful, AC motors in them going to magically make them any better? No matter how good the control electronics are you can't overcome the fact that a comparably light motor coach will have problems getting enough adhesion to accelerate a 200t train at a decent rate.

Even the 444s with two motor coaches have been known to struggle a bit getting away from Parkstone on the up at times.

I'll be honest I loved driving them (most of the time unless it was 2001, or 2006, or 2013, or....!!!) but I think their days are over.

 

[Emblematic]

Seriously, what state are the bodyshells in? I mean these are steel monocoque construction, so are they at risk from corrosion? Are there lots of hidden box sections that can rust from the inside out, or is the whole lot galvanised?

Mk3s seem to be very well built. The HST rakes were assessed a while back and were estimated to have a safe life to at least 2035. This article is worth a read. These units have bodyshells considerably younger than the HSTs, their problems are elsewhere.

 

[RobShipway]

Oh really? When I drove the things on SWT the single motor coach often had problems getting adhesion just in shunt (notch 1) in poor railhead conditions, and it wasn't unknown to get wheelspin at reasonable speeds (70+) on the flat in damp weather.

How is sticking lighter, more powerful, AC motors in them going to magically make them any better? No matter how good the control electronics are you can't overcome the fact that a comparably light motor coach will have problems getting enough adhesion to accelerate a 200t train at a decent rate.

Even the 444s with two motor coaches have been known to struggle a bit getting away from Parkstone on the up at times.

I'll be honest I loved driving them (most of the time unless it was 2001, or 2006, or 2013, or....!!!) but I think their days are over.

I agree that the Motor coaches days are possibly over, but the other carriages within the class 442's I believe are still quite useable.

 

[CosherB]

Oh really? When I drove the things on SWT the single motor coach often had problems getting adhesion just in shunt (notch 1) in poor railhead conditions, and it wasn't unknown to get wheelspin at reasonable speeds (70+) on the flat in damp weather.

How is sticking lighter, more powerful, AC motors in them going to magically make them any better? No matter how good the control electronics are you can't overcome the fact that a comparably light motor coach will have problems getting enough adhesion to accelerate a 200t train at a decent rate.

Even the 444s with two motor coaches have been known to struggle a bit getting away from Parkstone on the up at times.

I'll be honest I loved driving them (most of the time unless it was 2001, or 2006, or 2013, or....!!!) but I think their days are over.

at last, the voice of reason!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

There's probably nothing wrong structurally with the motor coaches but they would just have to be hauled by something else.