D Trains and the Marston Vale Line

[childwallblues]

2x 170/6s and 2x 170/5 & 153 combos will be released, allowing various internal LM cascades/rediagramming.

Can you see LM releasing Class 170s when it still operates three Class 150s?



Split from http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=119824

 

[D365]

Can you see LM releasing Class 170s when it still operates three Class 150s?

Yes. Any other two-car DMU stock is too long for the Marston Vale line. I don't see the Class 150s being replaced until EWR.

 

[158722]

Can you see LM releasing Class 170s when it still operates three Class 150s?

One option is for LM to actually increase its fleet of 150s by 2 or 3 units, with all the 153s and a couple of 170s leaving once the Chase is wired. Bedford-Bletchley needs 2 units plus really a hot stand-by, whilst the Nuneaton-Coventry service is expected to double in frequency and/or be extended to Lamington/Kenilworth, requiring 2 maybe even 3 units, as opposed to the single 153 currently used.

 

[CdBrux]

Class 230's for Bedford -> Bletchley?

 

[DarloRich]

One option is for LM to actually increase its fleet of 150s by 2 or 3 units, with all the 153s and a couple of 170s leaving once the Chase is wired. Bedford-Bletchley needs 2 units plus really a hot stand-by, whilst the Nuneaton-Coventry service is expected to double in frequency and/or be extended to Lamington/Kenilworth, requiring 2 maybe even 3 units, as opposed to the single 153 currently used.

happily take this option^^^^^ over this option vvvvvvvv on the Marston Vale!

Class 230's for Bedford -> Bletchley?

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

Yes. Any other two-car DMU stock is too long for the Marston Vale line. I don't see the Class 150s being replaced until EWR.

And even then only if "Chiltern" take over the route from "LM"

 

[sd0733]

The fleet director at LM has been to Long Marston to have a look at the '230s' so they must have entered consideration for one or more of the diesel routes and the only suitable ones seem to be Bedford-Bletchley, Nuneaton shuttle and maybe the Rugeleys

 

[D365]

And even then only if "Chiltern" take over the route from "LM"

What's the point in EWR and electrification if LM continue to only run a diesel 'shuttle' :roll:

 

[A0wen]

The fleet director at LM has been to Long Marston to have a look at the '230s' so they must have entered consideration for one or more of the diesel routes and the only suitable ones seem to be Bedford-Bletchley, Nuneaton shuttle and maybe the Rugeleys

Bedford - Bletchley would only allow 2 car units owing to platform lengths - it's the reason why they only have 150s / 153s on it at the moment.

If the 230's acceleration is better than a 153 / 150 then it would be a good fit for Bedford - Bletchley not least because the linespeed is only 60mph - until it's upgraded for EWR - and they've got two level crossings which need to be sorted as part of that work.

As a stop gap 230s would make sense.

 

[DarloRich]

What's the point in EWR and electrification if LM continue to only run a diesel 'shuttle' :roll:

it is unclear if the Marston Vale will be electrified at the same time as the Oxford - MK section.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bedford - Bletchley would only allow 2 car units owing to platform lengths - it's the reason why they only have 150s / 153s on it at the moment.

If the 230's acceleration is better than a 153 / 150 then it would be a good fit for Bedford - Bletchley not least because the linespeed is only 60mph - until it's upgraded for EWR - and they've got two level crossings which need to be sorted as part of that work.

As a stop gap 230s would make sense.

two level crossings! if only - it is closer to 30! We don't want those things on our line thank you. They are for dirty northern types. This is leafy Buckinghamshire. I didn't move down here to use a sub pacer

 

[D365]

Two level crossings! if only - it is closer to 30! We don't want those things on our line thank you. They are for dirty northern types. This is leafy Buckinghamshire. I didn't move down here to use a sub pacer

Two level crossings which need to be sorted.

Just as I didn't move up to the dirty north for the Pacer experience. Have you ever ridden the D-Train prototype?

 

[pemma]

They are for dirty northern types.

Nah they were built to transport Londoners. We don't know how the metal work might react to the strong overpowering antiperspirants Northerners use.

 

[A0wen]

it is unclear if the Marston Vale will be electrified at the same time as the Oxford - MK section.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


two level crossings! if only - it is closer to 30! We don't want those things on our line thank you. They are for dirty northern types. This is leafy Buckinghamshire. I didn't move down here to use a sub pacer

Not all the level crossings need to be sorted - the two which DO though are Bow Brickhill and Woburn Sands - because of the volume of traffic using them.

Ridgmont's went when they remodelled Jnc 13 of the M1 and the A421 - and the others are not as significant.

Frankly, I suspect the 230s will be better than the 150 / 153 you have at the moment. For many years that line was the recipient of some of the most decrepit stock on the whole of the BR network. When 'oop North was getting shiny new Pacers and Sprinters, that line experienced whatever Bletchley depot could drag into life - Class 104, Class 105 and then a little later in NSE days Cl 117s displaced from Paddington.

OK - the 230's might not be 'brand new' - but they're a damn site closer than anything that line's had since about 1963.......

 

[pemma]

When 'oop North was getting shiny new Pacers and Sprinters, that line experienced whatever Bletchley depot could drag into life - Class 104, Class 105 and then a little later in NSE days Cl 117s displaced from Paddington.

Don't forget some lines in the North West still had 101s at the turn of the millennium. I think the Marple line had the last class 101 operated service in around 2003. Then just as the 101s were withdrawn FNW took on a 31 hauled mk2 set to allow 2 x 158s to be subleased to TPE, which was used on the Blackpool-Manchester and Manchester-Chester via Altrincham lines.

 

[A0wen]

Don't forget some lines in the North West still had 101s at the turn of the millennium. I think the Marple line had the last class 101 operated service in around 2003. Then just as the 101s were withdrawn FNW took on a 31 hauled mk2 set to allow 2 x 158s to be subleased to TPE, which was used on the Blackpool-Manchester and Manchester-Chester via Altrincham lines.

The Marston Vale line wasn't that far ahead in getting 'new' stock - it was 1998/9 when Silverlink hired Fragonset Cl 31s and Mk2s. The 150s arrived in 1999 and the 150s weren't in particularly good condition....

 

[DarloRich]

The Marston Vale line wasn't that far ahead in getting 'new' stock - it was 1998/9 when Silverlink hired Fragonset Cl 31s and Mk2s. The 150s arrived in 1999 and the 150s weren't in particularly good condition....

could we get them back? The 150's are in decent nick now. The 153's not so!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Two level crossings which need to be sorted.

MORE than 2 are being done need or not. I know mine at Fenny will stay but most along the line will go

Just as I didn't move up to the dirty north for the Pacer experience. Have you ever ridden the D-Train prototype?

Dont need to. I know best My point is that we shouldn't be cobbling together new trains out of knackered ex underground stock. We should be building new trains as required!

 

[The Ham]

We don't want those things on our line thank you. They are for dirty northern types. This is leafy Buckinghamshire. I didn't move down here to use a sub pacer

Those from leafy Buckinghamshire should be used to them (or trains like them, although admittedly not powered by a ford transit van engine) as the trains won't have had to travel far from their old stomping grounds.

 

[DarloRich]

Those from leafy Buckinghamshire should be used to them (or trains like them, although admittedly not powered by a ford transit van engine) as the trains won't have had to travel far from their old stomping grounds.

perhaps the far side of Bucks. We are used to nice proper trains on our side of the county

 

[A0wen]

perhaps the far side of Bucks. We are used to nice proper trains on our side of the county

Not quite true - you're getting the ex-Thameslink 319s.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two level crossings which need to be sorted.

Just as I didn't move up to the dirty north for the Pacer experience. Have you ever ridden the D-Train prototype?

I think D-trains would be perfect for the Marston Vale, especially if it meant a hot spare could be kept at Bletchley to deal with the terrible reliability of the line at present.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

perhaps the far side of Bucks. We are used to nice proper trains on our side of the county

I think calling a 153 a proper train is stretching it

 

[D365]

My point is that we shouldn't be cobbling together new trains out of knackered ex underground stock. We should be building new trains as required!

Who is 'we'? The ROSCOs haven't been forthcoming with DMU orders since the Class 172, it's taken DfT intervention (in the end) to ensure franchises will receive new diesel stock in CP5. And it's not as if the taxpayer's going to be held at gunpoint if Vivarail goes under...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dont need to. I know best My point is that we shouldn't be cobbling together new trains out of knackered ex underground stock. We should be building new trains as required!

The whole point is that the stock is *not* "knackered". It is being replaced because of TfL's strategy to have one type of stock operating on the subsurface lines, and because the narrower single leaf doors are not optimal for that use. Were it not for those factors I'm sure it'd have continued for another 20 years at least.

 

[A0wen]

I think D-trains would be perfect for the Marston Vale, especially if it meant a hot spare could be kept at Bletchley to deal with the terrible reliability of the line at present.

Is the reliability of the line really "terrible" ?

A quick Google doesn't uncover anything untoward - in fact the line user's organisation seems to think it's pretty good.

 

[DarloRich]

The whole point is that the stock is *not* "knackered". It is being replaced because of TfL's strategy to have one type of stock operating on the subsurface lines, and because the narrower single leaf doors are not optimal for that use. Were it not for those factors I'm sure it'd have continued for another 20 years at least.

They have had the best part of 30 years carting millions of people about on the underground! it is a cheap and nasty solution to a problem the government should be sorting out properly.

Who is 'we'? The ROSCOs haven't been forthcoming with DMU orders since the Class 172, it's taken DfT intervention (in the end) to ensure franchises will receive new diesel stock in CP5. And it's not as if the taxpayer's going to be held at gunpoint if Vivarail goes under...

The government should be instructing their own purchase of a new fleet of diesel trains. They should tender for a single design type that can be converted to meet all needs: urban, suburban, regional and local. Instead they opt for the cheap and nasty sticking plaster option.

And it isn't new diesel stock, it is second hand, 30 year plus aged converted nonsense with a ford transit engine slung underneath. Of course the TOCS will love as it will be cheap and will offer an even more reduced passenger journey experience than a pacer. It is almost better to do nothing than take this option.

I think D-trains would be perfect for the Marston Vale, especially if it meant a hot spare could be kept at Bletchley to deal with the terrible reliability of the line at present.

Is the reliability of the line really "terrible" ?

A quick Google doesn't uncover anything untoward - in fact the line user's organisation seems to think it's pretty good.

The reliability of the line is fine at present and has been decent for quite a while. I use it every day. It has been awful in the past but LM have taken steps to improve things, especially on the reliability & staffing side so full credit to them.

Obviously if a train goes U/S it takes a while to sort out as they have to send another train from Brum but we haven't been busitituted for ages.

Time keeping on the 153 can be poor mainly due to the door layout and loading all the passengers and especially bikes. it is a rural line and many cycle to the stations. The 150 is absolutely solid and 2 would be perfect!

Obviously it will all collapse now i have said all this positive stuff!

 

[capital12]

The 150s on MV line are quite pleasant to travel on now after their refresh - those 230 things look awful inside, and that's if you pay a lot extra - if not its underground layout with the tube maps removed - no thanks, 150s please!

 

[A0wen]

They have had the best part of 30 years carting millions of people about on the underground! it is a cheap and nasty solution to a problem the government should be sorting out properly.

But the HSTs have spent 40 years carting people about and there seems to be outcry every time their replacement is touted?

The PEP derived EMUs are also approaching 40 years old - they're still very much fit for purpose - so the basic D train unit is completely serviceable.

The government should be instructing their own purchase of a new fleet of diesel trains. They should tender for a single design type that can be converted to meet all needs: urban, suburban, regional and local.

Two things against that - firstly the electrification of a number of lines is going to result in lots of DMUs coming free in any case - which will naturally allow some of the oldest units to be retired naturally.

Secondly - do you really think you can get to a 'single' design? You already have people moaning on these boards about the 350/4s being used on 'regional' (TPE) services for, among other reasons, they have 1/3 2/3 doors rather than vestibule end doors.

Instead they opt for the cheap and nasty sticking plaster option.

Unless I've missed something, nobody's opted for anything yet with regard to the D train, beyond Vivarail developing a prototype - I'm not aware of any TOC signing up to then or even the government committing to buy them?

And it isn't new diesel stock, it is second hand, 30 year plus aged converted nonsense with a ford transit engine slung underneath.

It's using a basic EMU shell which is of a comparable age to a MK3 shell or a PEP unit. It's then deploying a new traction package - and whilst you may sneer about the "Transit engine" - the fact is the engine ISN'T being used to actually drive the train - instead it's retaining electric motors for the drivetrain - and the engine is being used to provide the electric power in the same way 3rd rail or OHLE does.

Of course the TOCS will love as it will be cheap and will offer an even more reduced passenger journey experience than a pacer. It is almost better to do nothing than take this option.

Have leasing costs been confirmed?
Have you travelled on one to know it will offer "a more reduced passenger journey experience" (whatever that is) ?

Perhaps it would be better to reserve judgment until we've actually seen one in action and can make an objective judgment rather than a subjective judgment from afar.

Yes - the leasing costs may be cheap - but then the lines it will probably be operating on have relatively low revenue therefore these lines need to be operated on a sensible budget - I'm not sure buying new DMUs for the Marston Vale line would be a particularly sensible investment?

The reliability of the line is fine at present and has been decent for quite a while. I use it every day. It has been awful in the past but LM have taken steps to improve things, especially on the reliability & staffing side so full credit to them.

Obviously if a train goes U/S it takes a while to sort out as they have to send another train from Brum but we haven't been busitituted for ages.

OK - so Neil Williams' sweeping statement about "terrible reliability" was wrong then.

Time keeping on the 153 can be poor mainly due to the door layout and loading all the passengers and especially bikes. it is a rural line and many cycle to the stations.

I refer to my previous response about your suggestion of a "single unit design".......

The 150 is absolutely solid and 2 would be perfect!

Obviously it will all collapse now i have said all this positive stuff!

Maybe so - but presumably to obtain another 150 would have an impact elsewhere on a busier route? Probably a WM commuter service which is already at capacity.....

 

[pemma]

Unless I've missed something, nobody's opted for anything yet with regard to the D train, beyond Vivarail developing a prototype - I'm not aware of any TOC signing up to then or even the government committing to buy them?

GWR have agreed to take on 1 unit to trial on the Tamar Valley Line.

Certain media reports have continued to say the next Northern franchise will be taking some on, despite the ITT not allowing it and both Patrick McLoughlin and Claire Perry confirming that it won't be the case. Obviously the media don't trust Conservative MPs!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmm. No other freight companies sign Man Picc to Stafford/Birmingham then? Prepared to be proved wrong, but sounds like the usual railway gossip BS to me. Why train drivers up on them, when you could lump two or three sets together, stick an adapter wagon on and haul them with a 66?

It's worth remembering the 323s will have to undergo DDA modifications at some point, so drivers being hired to move 323s around may have nothing to do with a future cascade.

 

[DarloRich]

But the HSTs have spent 40 years carting people about and there seems to be outcry every time their replacement is touted?

The PEP derived EMUs are also approaching 40 years old - they're still very much fit for purpose - so the basic D train unit is completely serviceable.

They are doing the job they were designed to do. The D train was never designed to be:

a) diesel powered
b) let loose on the "open" railway
c) meet current railway standards

There aren't many crossings or animals or vehicle incursions on the District Line

Two things against that - firstly the electrification of a number of lines is going to result in lots of DMUs coming free in any case - which will naturally allow some of the oldest units to be retired naturally.

Secondly - do you really think you can get to a 'single' design? You already have people moaning on these boards about the 350/4s being used on 'regional' (TPE) services for, among other reasons, they have 1/3 2/3 doors rather than vestibule end doors.

Yes electrification will release units IF the electrification plans actually happen or are not pushed back even further - but why not replace all of the oldest stock in one go with something new with a long design life

It shouldn't be beyond us to design a train that can be "modular" and offer different configurations to suit all needs

BTW the 350 is a perfect design for the kind of work TPE use them for. They just don't have enough

Unless I've missed something, nobody's opted for anything yet with regard to the D train, beyond Vivarail developing a prototype - I'm not aware of any TOC signing up to then or even the government committing to buy them?

No one has signed up yet but they will. You are naive if you think otherwise.

It's using a basic EMU shell which is of a comparable age to a MK3 shell or a PEP unit. It's then deploying a new traction package - and whilst you may sneer about the "Transit engine" - the fact is the engine ISN'T being used to actually drive the train - instead it's retaining electric motors for the drivetrain - and the engine is being used to provide the electric power in the same way 3rd rail or OHLE does.

i know how a diesel/electric train works thanks. Guess what? Regardless of how you dress it up real people will not care about "traction packages" or "electric motor drivetrains" - they will see a second hand knackered underground train driven by a Ford transit engine.

Have leasing costs been confirmed?
Have you travelled on one to know it will offer "a more reduced passenger journey experience" (whatever that is) ?

Perhaps it would be better to reserve judgment until we've actually seen one in action and can make an objective judgment rather than a subjective judgment from afar.

If you think that these trains will not offer rock bottom leasing costs to attract the TOCs desperate for capacity you are, once again, showing naivety. They only selling point is the reduction in cost to the TOC and rapid availability.

Yes - the leasing costs may be cheap - but then the lines it will probably be operating on have relatively low revenue therefore these lines need to be operated on a sensible budget - I'm not sure buying new DMUs for the Marston Vale line would be a particularly sensible investment?

Do you seriously think those reduced operating costs will be passed on the passenger? really? :roll:These trains will boost TOC profits and cost us as passengers more. You may be prepared to offer the benefit of the doubt. Going on recent train design i am not, certainly internal internal design wise

OBVIOUSLY buying a small fleet of trains for individual lines makes no sense. However as part of a wider scheme it does.

As for the Marston Vale line we will need something new and offering more capacity. The 153 is often full in the mornings and as Amazon and others at Ridgemont expand and more workers realise they have a station of their own at the gate of the warehouse AND even more housing gets built along the line passenger numbers will increase. They already have in the 5 years i have used the line

Maybe so - but presumably to obtain another 150 would have an impact elsewhere on a busier route? Probably a WM commuter service which is already at capacity.....

Bluntly: Do i care? I don't travel in the WM. If it is bad give them a D train - they will be ideal for commuter flows!

 

[47802]

It's using a basic EMU shell which is of a comparable age to a MK3 shell or a PEP unit. It's then deploying a new traction package - and whilst you may sneer about the "Transit engine" - the fact is the engine ISN'T being used to actually drive the train - instead it's retaining electric motors for the drivetrain - and the engine is being used to provide the electric power in the same way 3rd rail or OHLE does.

Have leasing costs been confirmed?
Have you travelled on one to know it will offer "a more reduced passenger journey experience" (whatever that is) ?

Perhaps it would be better to reserve judgment until we've actually seen one in action and can make an objective judgment rather than a subjective judgment from afar.

Yes - the leasing costs may be cheap - but then the lines it will probably be operating on have relatively low revenue therefore these lines need to be operated on a sensible budget - I'm not sure buying new DMUs for the Marston Vale line would be a particularly sensible investment?

.

The comment about only using the shell is interesting as that to my eyes would mean that the current interior is completely gutted and replaced with new but that's not the case on the prototype and i'm not sure it will be the case on any that go into production.

No obviously I haven't travelled one as yet but many including myself don't see it as a major step up in quality from a Railbus and it also has some disadvantages in terms of Low Top Speed, and many customer's on the Northern Franchise are fed up of the Large Fleet of Railbuses frequently used on inappropriate length Journey's and much of the Sprinter fleet which hasn't had a proper decent overall in years, so the idea of trotting out 'D' trains to Northern is seen as more crap for the North.

Apologies for another post which is drifting away from 323's

 

[D365]

As for DarloRich's posting, there's a few points that I take issue with, but his last sentence makes me question the credibility of his remarks...

 

[DarloRich]

As for DarloRich's posting, there's a few points that I take issue with, but his last sentence makes me question the credibility of his remarks...

so have i - humour is intended in my least sentence that and taking the approach many posters do of placing their own backwater line at the pinnacle of the world. It is quite fun.

Please outline your issues so we may discuss them.