| Home | News | Archive | Withdrawal | Petitions | History/Why 442s? | Gallery | Forum | Contact/Links | Site News |
The Archive
Please note - this is a LONG page!
This page serves a number of functions. Firstly, it's an archive of news removed from the "Latest News" page.
On this page are points and issues that should be mentioned,
but aren't of enough significance to be on
the "Withdrawal" page. If you think I'm wrong on a point, please
sign up to the forum and discuss!
Also here are points and issues I've not mentioned yet,
or have mentioned on another page but not
wanted to expand on, for page length reasons!
Additionally, I've now added discussions on rumours. As
it's hard to have rumours proven or disproven,
these are mostly lighthearted explorations and theoretical exercises. Take
with a pinch of salt!
As of 7th April, any new additions will be marked with the date they were added or moved.
Am I Serious?
It's been mentioned to me that I surely cannot think that
SWT will listen to one man and his website.
Well, that's more than likely correct. In my opinion, SWT have already made
the decision to withdraw
these trains. If they're handling the deal with Southern (as opposed to the
train's owners, Angel
Trains), then they're probably already in discussions and may already have
closed a deal.
However, I want SWT to know that their decisions DO have
an impact on their customers, and
that not all of their customers are happy about this withdrawal. I've heard
from people who use
the Portsmouth line regularly and are not at all happy about their 444s being
replaced with 450s.
I've also heard from users of the Reading line, who are getting the 458s back
and aren't happy
about it at all and want the 450s back!
So - SWT - while your stock shuffling may put the shiniest
and newest trains on your metals,
be aware that not everyone is happy about it. Your total lack of customer
consultation on this
withdrawal doesn't make you look too good, either. And while you're not required
to ask your
customers about every change you make, it would certainly make you look as
if you cared more
and were more customer-oriented, especially on big issues like this.
Quick Update (old news but still possibly relevant)
Note: This is now absolutely inaccurate and out of date
and is here for archive purposes only.
For anyone who is reading this page before reading the Withdrawal
page, approximately seven
units are going to Gatwick Express, and approximately ten to twelve units
will be going to Southern.
The remaining seven units include a number that have been withdrawn as they
are either damaged
or have a serious failure. It's a strong possibility that all seven trains
will be used for parts They will
probably be split 4/3 between GatEx and Southern.
(content below this line was moved 11th April and is older than mid May 2007)
2416 to Eastleigh (added 3rd May)
2416 moved to Eastleigh today, arriving at the usual time
of 13.10.
This leaves no 442s at Bournemouth Depot.
Here are some pictures, taken from Platform 1 at Hinton
Admiral:
(1024x768, approximately 200k)
Approaching
Hinton Admiral.
A
little closer...
Reaching
the platform...
Looking
a little faded... :-/
Leaving
now.
Bye
bye.
There's also a video... This file is about 9Mb and is encoded
in XviD. If you don't have the
XviD codec installed on your PC, then you can get free it from here,
or alternatively
download the very useful VLCPlayer (also free) from here.
It's also free and plays
a large number of codecs "out of the box". (Supported codec list
here.)
Here's the link to the video - just unzip it and play! --click here--
Pigs to GatEx (added 3rd May)
According to an article at TheRailwayCentre.Com, found here,
"several" class 442s
will be used by the new Gatwick Express service to start in December 2008.
The same
(GatEx) branding will be used and the 442s will supplement GatEx's existing
fleet of
460s. The current franchise will be ended in May 2008. The new franchise will
provide a non-stop service from Gatwick Airport and London every 15 minutes.
Additionally, at peak times, the service will run to Brighton,
doubling the number of
express trains between London Victoria and Brighton.
It will be interesting to see what modifications are made
to the 442s - there have
been a lot of rumours around - everything from just a new livery to being
completely
overhauled with new traction motors, bogies, etc.
Negotiations (added 3rd May)
In other news, rumours are about that talks between Angel
Trains and SWT have
not been successful. I would assume this is because AT wouldn't drop the leasing
costs as far as SWT would like, and this I would assume is due to interest
from
GatEx as detailled above.
I've also heard that SWT may be considering taking approximately
5 442s back
to cover for gaps in the 444/450 fleets.
Eastleigh Move (added 18th April)
2418 and 2423 moved to Eastleigh today, arriving at the
usual time of 13.10.
This just leaves 2416 at the depot, its future open to speculation. Due to
its
unreliability it may well be scrapped, but nothing is confirmed as yet.
News Update (added 7th April)
Back on a proper 'net connection now. There's a lot of rumours,
and some news flying around at the moment:
1) GatEx - will continue, but with peak trains running to Brighton.
2) Hull Trains are pretty much confirmed as taking on an
unspecified number of 442s to be
loco-hauled. These are supposedly to be used on the weekends so they can perform
maintenance on their Class 222s. Rumour says either 2 or 3 units will be going
north.
3) As mentioned below in "Quick Update", Angel
Trains have offered SWT the 442s back.
Apparently the number offered is around 16-17, but that's currently unconfirmed.
(content below this line was moved 7th November and is older than April 2007)
Pigs Could Go North! (added 15th March)
There's word on the vine that the 442s could go to Hull
Trains. With 3rd rail not used up there,
they would need to be pulled by Class 67s (diesel loco), which Hull Trains
already have.
[source: Tom's Forum - http://www.railforums.co.uk]
Southern Rumour (added 15th March)
There's a rumour around that Southern don't want the 442s.
It's unofficial, there's not
been anything official from them yet. The reasons are rumoured to be:
1) Power issues between Clapham Junction and London Victoria.
2) Platform issues at Clapham - apparently the 442s are unable to
use a couple of the platforms there. Reasons unknown as yet.
Quick Update (added 5th April)
Updating from onboard a canal boat(!) - I'm on limited time, so I'll be quick!
Tom informs me that Angel Trains have offered SWT the 442s
back. Angel Trains will cover the
refurbishment costs and SWT would just be paying the lease. This is because
storing the units at
Eastleigh costs too much and obviously doesn't bring in any money for SWT
or Angel!
If this were to happen, SWT would probably return a majority
of Portsmouth services to
444 operation and may well withdraw the 458s as a result, making everyone
happy!
So, pressure on SWT at this point is a good thing - write
to your MP, write to SWT,
join the no450 campaign and we may well get the 442s back!
I've also received other news that "stored units"
may be used for Brighton to Gatwick services.
However, there seem to be a lot of questions over services on that entire
line at the moment,
including the possible axing of the Gatwick Express service, so I would suspect
this is one plan among
many for that line. Also, see the section below; "Southern Rumour".
That's all for now!
(content below this line is older than March 2007)
Meet The Manager (Added 9th Jan)
Two issues from the Meet The Manager session that really bothered me:
- 444/450 seats were apparently designed by an ergonomics
expert at Siemens, so - The main (official) reason for the withdrawal is that the new franchise required SWT to increase capacity overall. So by reintroducing the 458s, cascading the other stocks and withdrawing the 442s, they have increased the overall capacity, and that's what counts to the government. |
I want to address these two points in turn.
Firstly. I personally find the 444/450 seats to be darn
uncomfortable on a long journey.
They're fine for surburban/short haul services, but on a long journey (Waterloo
to
Weymouth or Poole or Bournemouth), they're too hard. I'm not an ergonomics
expert
nor a back expert, but I would hazard a guess that if you have bad posture,
suddenly
using a seat that puts your spine into a "correct" position when
it's used to being in an
incorrect position can't possibly be good?
After a journey on a 444, my back certainly wasn't as relaxed
as it usually was after
a journey in a 442. Perhaps I have bad posture and the 442's seats encourage
it!
The capacity reason just doesn't add up to me. Sure, I don't
doubt that the new franchise
required an overall increase in capacity. But I can't make the figures add
up. Carry on reading...
A Purely Theoretical Exercise... (Added 9th Jan)
I'm going to indulge myself here. If you have the patience
to read through all this, please
do bear in mind that this is a purely theoretical exercise. Without knowing
exactly
what trains are in use at a given time, it's impossibly to do this accurately,
and therefore
these numbers shouldn't be counted as anywhere near valid.
I don't have enough information about what stock was used
when and where to
be able to make a 100% accurate assessment of how good SWT's stock shuffle
has been, and whether withdrawing the 442s helped any. So I'm going to speculate.
SWT are currently in the process of returning their class
170s to Porterbrook (the
leasing company) and replacing them with refurbished 159/1s (formally 158s),
so this
will have an effect on capacity.
This is where it gets confusing, so thinking caps on please!
I'm going to do a pre-swap calculation, and a post-swap calculation.
For the pre-swap calculation, I'm going to head for mid-to-late
2005. The Junipers (458s)
have been withdrawn. I'm aware that they were never entirely 100% withdrawn,
but
for the sake of this exercise, I'm counting them as withdrawn.
The 455s have started their refurbishments, but as I don't
know how many have been refurbished at the time of my theoretical snapshot,
I'm going to use the old figures for the non-refurbished units. This will
slightly raise
the number of available seats, but if the number of refurbished units was
known, I
don't believe it would be enough to significantly alter the total number of
seats.
For the post-swap calculation, I'm going to head for sometime
in late 2007. The
455s have completed their refurbishment, the 458s are back on the rails, the
442s
have been withdrawn, and the swap of 170s for refurb 159s has been completed.
Here are the numbers.
| PRE-SWAP, POST-JUNIPER WITHDRAWAL. APPROX. LATE 2005. | |||||
| CLASS | STANDARD SEATS |
FIRST CLASS SEATS |
TOTAL SEATS PER TRAIN |
No. OF UNITS | TOTAL SEATS |
| 455 | 316 | 0 | 316 | 91 | 28756 |
| 450 | 246 | 24 | 270 | 110 | 29700 |
| 444 | 299 | 35 | 334 | 45 | 15030 |
| 442 | 281 | 50 | 331 | 24 | 7944 |
| 170 | 104 | 18 | 122 | 8 | 976 |
| 170 | 102 | 9 | 111 | 1 | 111 |
| 159 | 170+2 | 24 | 196 | 22 | 4312 |
| 158 | 114 | 13 | 127 | 2 | 254 |
| Second 170 row is for unit 170392. | TOTALS: | 303 | 87083 +standing |
||
+ figures indicate tip-up seats. Just add the two together.
| POST-SWAP, JUNPERS IN SERVICE, MORE 450s, 455s REFURBED, 442s WITHDRAWN | |||||
| CLASS | STANDARD SEATS |
FIRST CLASS SEATS |
TOTAL SEATS PER TRAIN |
No. OF UNITS | TOTAL SEATS |
| 458 | 250+11 | 24 | 285 | 22 | 6270 |
| 455 | 244 | 0 | 244 | 91 | 22204 |
| 450 | 246 | 24 | 270 | 127 | 34290 |
| 444 | 299 | 35 | 334 | 45 | 15030 |
| 1:1 REPLACEMENT RATIO USED FOR 170s to 159s (ie, for every 170 removed from service, a 159 is introduced) |
|||||
| 159 | 170+2 | 24 | 196 | 31 | 6076 |
| 158 | 114 | 13 | 127 | 2 | 254 |
| TOTALS: | 318 | 84124 +standing |
|||
Now, I should state here that I know these figures are inaccurate.
I also want to state that I
have not intentionally manipulated these figures to make the outcome as it
is.
With the refurbishment of the 455s there is a reduction
in seats, but an unknown addition
to the number of standing passengers. This will obviously affect the final
figures!
The conclusion here is that even though SWT have more trains
running, they have in practice reduced the number of seats!
Let's run those figures again, but WITHOUT withdrawing the 442s.
| POST-SWAP, JUNPERS IN SERVICE, MORE 450s, 455s REFURBED | |||||
| CLASS | STANDARD SEATS |
FIRST CLASS SEATS |
TOTAL SEATS PER TRAIN |
No. OF UNITS | TOTAL SEATS |
| 458 | 250+11 | 24 | 285 | 22 | 6270 |
| 455 | 244 | 0 | 244 | 91 | 22204 |
| 450 | 246 | 24 | 270 | 127 | 34290 |
| 444 | 299 | 35 | 334 | 45 | 15030 |
| 442 | 281 | 50 | 331 | 24 | 7944 |
| 1:1 REPLACEMENT RATIO USED FOR 170s to 159s (ie, for every 170 removed from service, a 159 is introduced) |
|||||
| 159 | 170+2 | 24 | 196 | 31 | 6076 |
| 158 | 114 | 13 | 127 | 2 | 254 |
| TOTALS: | 318 | 92068 +standing |
|||
Now, how about this, SWT. Put the 442s back on the Weymouth
line and re-jig your other
services appropriately. Run 12-carriage 450s whenever necessary, and look
at what happens
to the seat total!
Please do bear in mind that this is a purely theoretical
exercise. Without knowing exactly
what trains are in use at what time, it's impossibly to do this accurately,
and therefore
these numbers shouldn't be counted as anywhere near valid.
Those Junipers!!!
A little snip of a rumour from the forum. In January 2004,
the BBC reported that SWT
were withdrawing their Junipers. Here're the reasons why.
| The Juniper trains, costing £90 million, were introduced
four years ago by South West Trains.
In that time they have have suffered from leaky roofs and failing electronics. ... Figures show the Juniper rolling stock break down every 4,300 miles on average, compared to the previous slam-door trains which broke down on average once every 50,000 miles. ... The latest figures suggest that 27% of its services have run late since the trains were introduced. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3388679.stm |
Now, there's a very long and complicated story attached
to these trains. They've spent
more time either being repaired or being modified for the Disability Regulations
than they
have in service! You can find a very detailled history of these units and
their relation
with their Gatwick Express cousins on these two sites:
The Fall and Rise of South West Trains' 458 Units (SEG)
Getting back to the point, the rumour was that the only
reason the 458s have been
reintroduced is because when they were first introduced, back in 1998, Stagecoach
(SWT's parent company) owned Porterbrook (the leasing company), who ordered
the trains from Alstom. As they were at one time sister companies, SWT is
somehow
obligated to run units that its sister company ordered.
I didn't say there was any sense in it, I did say it's a rumour...
Rumour Mill (Added 9th Jan)
The "Rumour Mill" is located in the forum and
is one of the places where members post
up unconfirmed information about the 442s. Some of the earlier rumours have
now been
confirmed, so it would seem that there is some good information to be found
in rumours!
Here are some of the latest.
- Southern may only want 5x 442s, ditto got Gatwick Express.
- Southern may insist that they are converted to Driver
Only Operation and that
Angel Trains (who own the 442s) do the conversion and foot the bill before
they will accept them.
- SWT may be keeping five units for "relief" work.
Why do Gatwick Express want these? (Added 9th Jan 2007)
Gatwick Express have a fleet of eight class 460s (similar
to the 458 Junipers that SWT run,
but with the designation 8-GAT). Delivery of these new units started in 2000,
so they're
not anywhere near old yet.
Originally, they had the older class 73, 488 and 489 trains,
a few of which were kept on after
the 460s were introduced. However, I'm told that nearly all of these have
now been withdrawn.
This would require GatEx to need some backup stock, just in case something
went wrong
with a 460. But to purchase FIVE 442 units?
They're either expecting some serious failures, planning
on expanding the service (in which
case, wouldn't they just purchase/lease more 460s? and unlikely seeing as
the Victoria to
Brighton line is already fairly overcrowded), or that figure is plain inaccurate.
Additionally, there seems to be some issues over the future
of the GatEx service.
See this website: BAA
Gatwick - Save the Gatwick Express.
The short version:
| The Department for Transport has recently published a consultation document (consultation closes 22 December 2006) which aims to reduce peak-time overcrowding on services between Brighton and London. This is the second major public consultation on the implementation of the Brighton Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS). |
As we're now in January, either the DfT got a real move
on about deciding to keep GatEx,
or GatEx know something that no one else knows, because the rumours are that
they're
PURCHASING (not leasing, note, outright purchasing) five 442 units.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
(everything beyond this point is pre January 9th 2007)
Why on earth do Southern want these?
SWT have claimed (apparently) that these trains are too
expensive to run. As I've said on another page,
SWT don't seem to have any problems with flashing their cash around, so I
can only put this down to cost cutting.
Southern will have to completely overhaul these trains to
their own standards, and if they're expensive to
run, then these trains are going to cost them a lot of money. To quote;
| "Now the innards of the units will be gutted totally, and rebranded into Southern's home colours, tho it is unclear if the buffet will be retained. The traction kit will be completely stripped dwon, wiring looked at and changed as necessary." |
Let's also consider the uses that Southern have for these
units. The rumours say that Soutern will probably
put them on the Victoria - Brighton route and displace the 319s that are currently
serving that line. That
line serves Gatwick Airport, so you're going to get a lot of luggage there.
Let's summarize what Southern
will need to do to make these units suitable for the task:
1) Interior - change layout to make room for luggage. |
Now, that's a hell of a lot of work. Surely it would be
far easier for SWT to carry on refurbishing them as
they are doing? At the end of this refurbishment, SWT will have a fleet of
(hopefully) spotless trains in
excellent condition, in the current SWT livery (if reports of 2402's new livery
are confirmed), ready to roll.
I know it's part of their lease contract, but it doesn't
seem to make sense to do all that work just to give
them up and have that hard work undone. Obviously without knowing the exact
work that's being
undertaken in the SWT C6 overhaul, it's hard to know what Southern will need
to do.
This is no insult to the trains themselves. I strongly believe
that if Southern take these units on
and do a really good, thorough job of overhauling them, they'll have trains
that'll provide another
20 years of good, reliable service.
The other reason...
They're 442s - Southern know they'd be onto a good thing if they could get hold of them!
Things are shaping up. (added 24th Dec 2006)
I've been keeping an eye on various forums and groups over
the last few days, and things
are really shaping up. Between failed units and transfers to other TOCs, there's
definate
game plan being formulated. It just seems to need its edges smoothing out.
Seven units will be going to Gatwick Express. Which units
exactly isn't known yet, but
it's rumoured that 2421 will be one of them as it's returned from its refurb
in white/grey,
which are two of GatEx's colours.
Ten, possibly twelve units will be going to Southern, however
there appears to be a
problem. The rumour mill says Southern will only have them if they're converted
to
DOO (Driver Only Operation), and ASLEF (rail union) may not be happy about
this as it
would mean a reduction in train staff.
(Up to) seven units are out of service for various faults.
These will probably be split 4/3
to GatEx and Southern, although this isn't confirmed yet.
Check the forum for the absolute latest - many thanks to Tom.
There are rumours that Southern are moving their Class 319s
to First Capital
Connect, which is why they want the 442s.
One final thing, I received an acknowledgement yesterdat
from SWT about the four page
letter I sent them. They're going to send a full reply "shortly". I'll post
here once they do!