Creation of class 230 DEMUs from ex-LU D78s by Vivarail

[Starmill]

I like Modern Railways - but it disappoints me when they print gibberish like this!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Say an HST set had a pantograph fitted. How many bogies would have to have traction motors fitted (and a traction package on the coach) to get at least the same performance as two fully functioning HST power cars?

 

[edwin_m]

Say an HST set had a pantograph fitted. How many bogies would have to have traction motors fitted (and a traction package on the coach) to get at least the same performance as two fully functioning HST power cars?

You could, in principle, just replace each engine with a transformer etc and ballast up to offset any reduction weight. If re-using the traction motors, the tractive effort (hence low speed acceleration) would be identical but the electric version would almost certainly have more power and therefore more acceleration at higher speeds. Even better if the traction motors were replaced by modern ones.

But would it be worthwhile spending all that money on a train that's already pushing 40 years old?

 

[jopsuk]

Surely as well as any other modifications, they'd need the current emergency access between carriages replaced with a safe gangway?

 

[broadgage]

Wow, D-Stock being converted into Diesel trains? I think I've heard it all now.

I take it the dream plan was to use a Class 55 for motive power and a DVT on the other end, oh and to fit IC70 seats along with putting a Mark 3 dining car in the middle?

Or are they going the full distance and double-heading with 4472 and 4468 on the front and DP1 on the back to round off the photo opportunity?

Almost as crazy as some of the suggestions for what to do with the class 442s.

I like the idea of a dining car in the middle

More seriously though, I can not see this happening. Modifications on the scale proposed would probably mean that the modified units would be regarded as new trains and have to conform to the very latest standards of crashworthiness, disabled access, and emissions controls.
The costs and time scales would probably approach that of new purpose built DMUs.

 

[northwichcat]

The D78 pacer replacements even have a class number, 278. And its proposed to fit them with toilets with 150 seats and 400 standing per 4 car with a price tag of a third of a new build unit according to Modern Railways.

Would that be in a 2+2 formation?

150 seems a bit low for a 4 car unit given a 4 car Pacer with 2+2 seating gives around 200 seats. I appreciate there's more doors on D78s and they would need to be properly accessible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Equally ask how many commuters care if there is aesthetic value in a pantograph and OHLE

You could say TPE is proof that you can have the so-called sparks effect by introducing new diesel trains on lines which have a high potential for growth, opposed to electrifying the lines with a high potential for growth.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I've got it. Scrap the Pacers and use their engine and transmission to power one bogie on each end of each D stock coach. Cannot remember how long a Dstock unit is but I imagine its about half a dozen coaches. This would make the "new" units unsuitable for branch lines as too long thus guaranteeing their use on more important routes. Thus obviating the need for electrification of busier routes like trans pennine.

The 185s are only 3-car anyway so could be used on branch lines !.

No I cannot be bothered to check my facts on this idea but feel free to improve on MY idea .

 

[apk55]

Say an HST set had a pantograph fitted. How many bogies would have to have traction motors fitted (and a traction package on the coach) to get at least the same performance as two fully functioning HST power cars?

A single modern electric locomotive could easily cope with a rake of HST coaches and work them push pull. An up geared class 88 would do just fine. Only problem would would be lighting and heating supplies which are none standard, although modern electronics could probably provide a sollution.

 

[joeykins82]

Well, that and finding a DVT for the other end. And ensuring that the DVT-loco wiring is up to standard. And refurbishing the mk.3 coaches with retention tanks for the toilets, and getting them up to DDA compliance. And ensuring that the mk.3 coaches that you select for the refurbishment and rewiring aren't horribly corroded to begin with.

Doable? Yes.
Economical? Less certain.

 

[swt_passenger]

I see the current Modern Railways contains another article, written by Ian Walmsley, completely rubbishing this idea. He uses the term 'Yorkshire Tripe' as the title...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see the current Modern Railways contains another article, written by Ian Walmsley, completely rubbishing this idea. He uses the term 'Yorkshire Tripe' as the title...

Ian is nobody's fool and his recent addition to the Modern Railways team recently is one that I hope continues for many years in my favourite railway magazine.

 

[TH172341]

It was certainly an interesting article regarding the "Class 278s". The analysis of Modern Railways is certainly a good read for operations and the future of the UK railways. Not too bad idea really this as a short term solution to bridge the gap between withdrawal of Pacers and Electrification. But the conversion would need to be cheap as possible for it to be viable and the safety aspects considered. Don't know how the travelling public in the North would react either to the fact they would be receiving London's cast offs, which are older than the stock they replace.

 

[northwichcat]

Just though - why not as a trial convert some D78s in the 278s for use on the Southern 171 routes in 6 car formations? The cost of longer formations must surely be cheaper. Then if it works well the rest could be converted in 4 car formation for other operators and if it doesn't go well the rest are scrapped/put to alternative use, with alternative solutions to the DMU shortage being evaluated.

 

[samuelmorris]

Traction power aside, is the rest of the infrastructure on a D78 really up to the considerable increase in line speed?

 

[JamesRowden]

Just though - why not as a trial convert some D78s in the 278s for use on the Southern 171 routes in 6 car formations?

Because the majority of the route between Brighton and Ashford will be 90mph according to the Sussex Route Specifications

 

[northwichcat]

Because the majority of the route between Brighton and Ashford will be 90mph according to the Sussex Route Specifications

The current top speed of D78s is apparently 62mph meaning without re-engineering them to run faster they'd be useless for Northern as well. Northern Pacer routes quite often have sections on mainlines where they need to be able to run at 75mph (minimum) but 90mph would cause less pathing constraints.

 

[JamesRowden]

The current top speed of D78s is apparently 62mph meaning without re-engineering them to run faster they'd be useless for Northern as well. Northern Pacer routes quite often have sections on mainlines where they need to be able to run at 75mph (minimum) but 90mph would cause less pathing constraints.

Brighton-Ashford is a regional service rather than the sort of service that I expect Pacers operate.

If these 'D stock' conversions were ever produced <I doubt it> they would be most suited to urban routes with a high frequency of stops like that which I believe the pacers were designed for.

 

[Qwerty133]

Brighton-Ashford is a regional service rather than the sort of service that I expect Pacers operate.

If these 'D stock' conversions were ever produced <I doubt it> they would be most suited to urban routes with a high frequency of stops like that which I believe the pacers were designed for.

Suggest you read some of the threads on pacers as you'll find that they're not just used on short urban routes!!!

 

[JamesRowden]

Suggest you read some of the threads on pacers as you'll find that they're not just used on short urban routes!!!

I did not say that Pacers were only being used on the types of routes that they seem to have been designed for.................

 

[northwichcat]

I did not say that Pacers were only being used on the types of routes that they seem to have been designed for.................

Pacers were designed for loss-making rural routes like the Penistone line and the branch lines in the South West - some of which Pacers got banned from due to excessive track wear. The government of the time forced them on to PTEs in the North for the more lightly loaded urban services, leaving Sprinters for the more heavily loaded services. However, it's now quite often the case that busy services can see 4 car 142s while 'quiet' services can see 2 car Sprinters. I say quiet in inverted commas because some of them have a lot more passengers than should be on a 2 car Sprinter.

 

[edwin_m]

The current top speed of D78s is apparently 62mph meaning without re-engineering them to run faster they'd be useless for Northern as well. Northern Pacer routes quite often have sections on mainlines where they need to be able to run at 75mph (minimum) but 90mph would cause less pathing constraints.

D78 apparently has wheels that are the same size as those of tube stock, unlike older sub-surface fleets which had larger ones (not sure about S stock). This may make it difficult to increase the maximum speed.

 

[rebmcr]

Brighton-Ashford is a regional service rather than the sort of service that I expect Pacers operate.

Well then you need to change your expectations.

 

[JamesRowden]

Well then you need to change your expectations.

Can you reference an express service that Pacers presently operate?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Unusual but not unknown on Blackpool North-Liverpool Lime St for one.

 

[JamesRowden]

Unusual but not unknown on Blackpool North-Liverpool Lime St for one.

That service only being timetabled for 75mph stock is interesting considering that many branches around the Thames Valley have a maximum speed of no more than 75mph but use 90mph stock.

Back on topic: it looks to me although jcollins's hypothetical trial of converted D-stock trains would be far better suited to the following routes around Reading:

• Reading-Basingstoke
• Reading-Redhill/Gatwick
• Henley Branch
• Marlow Branch
• Windsor Central Branch
• Greenford Branch

The fact that many of those routes would be electrified a few years after the trial would mean that it would be easier to get them replaced if they turned out to be a failure.

Of course, I expect that converted D-stock trains are fantasy land.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There might well be many lines in the north that I don't know about that would be more suitable for such a test.

 

[NSEFAN]

That service only being timetabled for 75mph stock is interesting considering that many branches around the Thames Valley have a maximum speed of no more than 75mph but use 90mph stock.

Back on topic: it looks to me although jcollins's hypothetical trial of converted D-stock trains would be far better suited to the following routes around Reading:

Reading-Basingstoke
Reading-Redhill/Gatwick
Henley Branch
Marlow Branch
Windsor Central Branch
Greenford Branch

The fact that many of those routes would be electrified a few years after the trial would mean that it would be easier to get them replaced if they turned out to be a failure.

You'd probably want to keep any converted D stock trains on isolated/low speed lines, both to compensate for poor crash worthiness and so as not to mess up the pathing of other services. Reading - Basingstoke for example is already a busy route, so using slower trains would interfere with the Cross Country and Freightliner services.

As an aside, is the current plan to lock the Greenford services in at West Ealing due to Crossrail?

 

[deltic08]

That service only being timetabled for 75mph stock is interesting considering that many branches around the Thames Valley have a maximum speed of no more than 75mph but use 90mph stock.

Back on topic: it looks to me although jcollins's hypothetical trial of converted D-stock trains would be far better suited to the following routes around Reading:

• Reading-Basingstoke
• Reading-Redhill/Gatwick
• Henley Branch
• Marlow Branch
• Windsor Central Branch
• Greenford Branch

The fact that many of those routes would be electrified a few years after the trial would mean that it would be easier to get them replaced if they turned out to be a failure.

Of course, I expect that converted D-stock trains are fantasy land.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There might well be many lines in the north that I don't know about that would be more suitable for such a test.

If you are ignorant of suitable lines in the North, then why suggest it. We have had enough of crappy trains in the North, let the South suffer it for once.

 

[northwichcat]

That service only being timetabled for 75mph stock is interesting considering that many branches around the Thames Valley have a maximum speed of no more than 75mph but use 90mph stock.

North/South divide. North has 75mph Pacers and Sprinters clogging up the WC and EC mainlines, South has 90/100mph units to allow for very short sections of mainline running.

 

[3141]

That service only being timetabled for 75mph stock is interesting considering that many branches around the Thames Valley have a maximum speed of no more than 75mph but use 90mph stock.
.

It's worth remembering that the classes 165/166 first appeared twenty three years ago. 165/0s for Chiltern services had a maximum speed of 75 mph and 165/1s and 166s for use on Thames Valley lines could do 90 mph. It's only a handful of them on any one day that are on the branches limited to 75 mph and wouldn't have been sensible to have a small sub-class for the slower services.

So I don't think that situation has much bearing on the issue of Pacers in the North being used on some services for which better and faster trains would be more suitable.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I've got a simpler idea (aside from the gas axe). How about removing the fourth rail shoe and sticking them on any quieter routes in third rail land (Southern division). They could even potter along on the Marshlink line or other diesel islands that should be electrified first obviously .

I just thought of Mersey rail .

If they dont like coping without the fourth rail then use them on the Wat-Eus line (Euston to Watford) which has a fourth rail at least as for as Harrow and Wealdstone). After all they must be compatible with the track/power/signalling etc as the Bakerloo line stock is. Funny how close Watford Junction is to er Watford (where they already run ?).

Oh sod it, just to show how fair the South is. How about converting the Pacers to electric and using them instead on the above routes . They would not even need to have loos as there are plenty of services South of the river that do not have loos yet.

Oh incidentally how old are these trains that currently run in front line service in London (i.e the South of Britain) - is it 39 years ?. How old are the Pacers ?. To be honest I cannot help feeling the Pacers are more use (i.e. less useless) so will probably plod on for longer whether any of us like it or not.