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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

"This will not be a good thing" - I thought that was your view of the entire project, yet here you are now demanding that Vivarail should create another train.:roll::roll::roll:

I speak with my former "senior management of more than 30 years" hat on purely in terms of a commercial marketing expertise where it can be viewed that two units can offer two prospective customers a trial concurrently rather than the making the second of the two companies wait until the time period of the lease to the first company had so elapsed to be able to carry out running evaluations on their own lines.

Vivarail surely could have concurrently produced two of the said units if they were confident that their project was going to be a commercial success.

 

[47802]

I speak with my former "senior management of more than 30 years" hat on purely in terms of a commercial marketing expertise where it can be viewed that two units can offer two prospective customers a trial concurrently rather than the making the second of the two companies wait until the time period of the lease to the first company had so elapsed to be able to carry out running evaluations on their own lines.

Vivarail surely could have concurrently produced two of the said units if they were confident that their project was going to be a commercial success.

Well yes but since this project started the door has closed on 2 likely candidates ie Northern and Anglia, particularly Northern, so they might be somewhat careful as to how much more money they throw at this project.

We have also seen that a number of DMU's are now likely to become available as a result of the TPE and Anglia franchises that perhaps we didn't expect, along with a new Regional DMU design and Bi-mode design that could be obtained for other franchises.

Essentially they really got blown out of the water with Northern and now they are scraping around for other candidates.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Essentially they really got blown out of the water with Northern and now they are scraping around for other candidates.

And have hit on LM who have a precedent, in the form of the PPM, for doing slightly odd things with rolling stock.

 

[D365]

And have hit on LM who have a precedent, in the form of the PPM, for doing slightly odd things with rolling stock.

You don't agree that the utilisation of the Class 139 units has been a success?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You don't agree that the utilisation of the Class 139 units has been a success?

I didn't say it wasn't (indeed I think it has been), just that LM are open to being a little less conventional in that regard than other TOCs, and do not appear to have any fear of very small microfleets/depot "pets" (their other ones being the Class 150s, 153s and 319s).

 

[tbtc]

So the negativity in this thread has moved from

"nobody will want these units, they will never operate"

...to...

"these units will only work on wholly segregated routes where they cannot come into contact with any Heavy Rail trains"

...to...

"well, okay, LM are using one on the Nuneaton line, but they should have at least two available for that service"

...to...

"Vivarail clearly cannot be confident because they haven't got two concurrent trials operating"

I suppose this is progress and we've moved on from worrying about the seating (even though any TOC could obviously specify the layout they wanted)

(as for the trails... who knows... as I've said many times, there are a number of services that aren't required to go above 60mph where fast accelerating DMUs could do a job... maybe some accessibility compliant 230s will be useful to get through the squeeze of the next few years where we'll see a lot of Sprinters taken out of service to be upgraded to meet 2020 regulations... maybe this will work, maybe it won't but I can see merit in the concept)

 

[jimm]

I speak with my former "senior management of more than 30 years" hat on purely in terms of a commercial marketing expertise where it can be viewed that two units can offer two prospective customers a trial concurrently rather than the making the second of the two companies wait until the time period of the lease to the first company had so elapsed to be able to carry out running evaluations on their own lines.

Vivarail surely could have concurrently produced two of the said units if they were confident that their project was going to be a commercial success.

Well one or two senior managers of my acquaintance certainly would not view spending lots of extra money on something on the off-chance as a sensible use of the said money... the people behind Vivarail probably don't want to double their outlay either - unless there is a very good reason to do so.

Anyone from another TOC who wants to see how the 230 is performing will be able to take a trip to Coventry, ride on the thing and speak to their counterparts at LM...

 

[Clip]

Well one or two senior managers of my acquaintance certainly would not view spending lots of extra money on something on the off-chance as a sensible use of the said money... the people behind Vivarail probably don't want to double their outlay either - unless there is a very good reason to do so.

Anyone from another TOC who wants to see how the 230 is performing will be able to take a trip to Coventry, ride on the thing and speak to their counterparts at LM...

And then when they decide they want one but may not be prepared to wait another 6 months for one to be converted they may lose that.

Now all this is speculation as none of us know how many of these engines and other parts needed they have already procured but if they have done then they have already spent that money so would make sense to fix up another one. If they have only bought enough for one train then fair enough I can see they may not want to spend on the outlay.

But hey who knows even being positive about this project still gets you grief so why bloody bother anymore

 

[northwichcat]

"well, okay, LM are using one on the Nuneaton line, but they should have at least two available for that service"

...

(as for the trails... who knows... as I've said many times, there are a number of services that aren't required to go above 60mph where fast accelerating DMUs could do a job... maybe some accessibility compliant 230s will be useful to get through the squeeze of the next few years where we'll see a lot of Sprinters taken out of service to be upgraded to meet 2020 regulations... maybe this will work, maybe it won't but I can see merit in the concept)

Like I said when the idea was first mooted a blanket solution of replacing Pacers with D-Trains wouldn't have worked. Looking at using D-Trains on a route by route basis around the whole country is a more sensible solution. Although, other factors have changed - the cost of producing D-Trains is going to be much higher than estimated, plus both CAF and Stadler will deliver brand new self-powered trains with the CAF ones being much cheaper than the suggested inflated cost of a new DMU which meets the latest emission standards.

 

[Chester1]

Like I said when the idea was first mooted a blanket solution of replacing Pacers with D-Trains wouldn't have worked. Looking at using D-Trains on a route by route basis around the whole country is a more sensible solution. Although, other factors have changed - the cost of producing D-Trains is going to be much higher than estimated, plus both CAF and Stadler will deliver brand new self-powered trains with the CAF ones being much cheaper than the suggested inflated cost of a new DMU which meets the latest emission standards.

The valleys lines are the last chance for building them on a large scale. A new DMU order wouldn't make sense with electrification likely in the next 10-15 years. Refurbishing Pacers would be more toxic than D Trains and after meeting disability requirements all 46 Porterbrook Pacers would barely be an increase in capacity compared with today. Do you think D Trains are financially viable in microfleets?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The valleys lines are the last chance for building them on a large scale. A new DMU order wouldn't make sense with electrification likely in the next 10-15 years. Refurbishing Pacers would be more toxic than D Trains and after meeting disability requirements all 46 Porterbrook Pacers would barely be an increase in capacity compared with today. Do you think D Trains are financially viable in microfleets?

In theory, no less so than the 139s or indeed than the various usages of LHCS on the network. In fact more so than the latter.

 

[Richard_B]

Even if they only can release 10 or so units from Devon/Cornwall, Cov-Nuneaton, Bedford-Bletcly Ie all self contained branches with max linespeeds all usually at or below 60, that's nothing to be sniffed at for the extra peak carriages around Cardiff or Manchester/Leeds. Particularly as they are cheap

 

[Bletchleyite]

In theory, no less so than the 139s or indeed than the various usages of LHCS on the network. In fact more so than the latter.

Indeed. As I posted upthread LM has several microfleets - 139s (2 units), 150s and 153s (not many, is it 3 of the former and not many more of the latter?), 319s (7 at the moment I think). They don't appear to be causing issues, otherwise LM would get rid of them and short-form/cancel services instead.

Microfleets are not necessarily an issue at all.

 

[MK Tom]

I would have thought the Marston Vale was the perfect place for these units. I wonder if the local authorities opposed such a trial in Beds/Bucks.

They would be perfect given that 23m 2-car units won't fit in our platforms here and we're apparently losing the 150s soon.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well then, October 2016 has arrived with no news on the Vivarail website as to the actual start date of the service run by THE Class 230 3-car unit on the Coventry to Nuneaton line.

 

[Clip]

Well then, October 2016 has arrived with no news on the Vivarail website as to the actual start date of the service run by THE Class 230 3-car unit on the Coventry to Nuneaton line.

Pay attention Paul. If you did you would've seen a prospective start date on these very pages. Don't worry you've still got time to say I told you so yet

 

[northwichcat]

The valleys lines are the last chance for building them on a large scale. A new DMU order wouldn't make sense with electrification likely in the next 10-15 years. Refurbishing Pacers would be more toxic than D Trains and after meeting disability requirements all 46 Porterbrook Pacers would barely be an increase in capacity compared with today. Do you think D Trains are financially viable in microfleets?

Porterbrook Pacer option:

Instead of 15 x 2 car 142s and 15 x 2 car 143s you could have 23 x 2 car 143s, 13 x 2 car 144s and 10 x 3 car 144s. Each Pacer would lose around 20 seats and the Pacer centre cars contain 58 seats with no reason for that to change.

So if 15 x 2 car 143/4s replace the 142s and all the Pacers are converted to ePacers you'd lose around 600 seats. However, there could be an additional 6 x 2 car Pacers and 10 x 3 car Pacers made available which would have a total of around 1860 seats post-conversion - more than triple the number you would lose by the conversion of 30 x car sets to ePacers.

Vivarail D-Train option:

The options are

With it being possible to create up to 75 sets - far more than ATW would need to replace Pacers. The 2 car sets would have around the same number of seats as a 2 car ePacer unless you go for the no toilet option and if you're going for the no toilet option your point about the ePacer capacity reduction can be dismissed.

Other options:

There are a number of DMUs going off-lease in the coming years which haven't yet been secured by new operators - these include 153s, 156s, 170s, 172s and 185s. Some of these could be cascaded either directly or indirectly to ATW.

 

[The Planner]

Well then, October 2016 has arrived with no news on the Vivarail website as to the actual start date of the service run by THE Class 230 3-car unit on the Coventry to Nuneaton line.

It is well known within Network Rail and London Midland, including the public launch which isn't on Nuneaton Coventry but a different line before it enters service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Pay attention Paul. If you did you would've seen a prospective start date on these very pages. Don't worry you've still got time to say I told you so yet

I do like the word "prospective"....it covers a multitude of sins....

Are we now saying that this thread now carries more weight than the actual Vivarail website?

 

[D365]

It is well known within Network Rail and London Midland, including the public launch which isn't on Nuneaton Coventry but a different line before it enters service.

I would like to emphasise this particular post; after all, don't forget that there were numerous delays to the Class 700 launch.

 

[Chester1]

Porterbrook Pacer option:

Instead of 15 x 2 car 142s and 15 x 2 car 143s you could have 23 x 2 car 143s, 13 x 2 car 144s and 10 x 3 car 144s. Each Pacer would lose around 20 seats and the Pacer centre cars contain 58 seats with no reason for that to change.

So if 15 x 2 car 143/4s replace the 142s and all the Pacers are converted to ePacers you'd lose around 600 seats. However, there could be an additional 6 x 2 car Pacers and 10 x 3 car Pacers made available which would have a total of around 1860 seats post-conversion - more than triple the number you would lose by the conversion of 30 x car sets to ePacers.

Vivarail D-Train option:

The options are

With it being possible to create up to 75 sets - far more than ATW would need to replace Pacers. The 2 car sets would have around the same number of seats as a 2 car ePacer unless you go for the no toilet option and if you're going for the no toilet option your point about the ePacer capacity reduction can be dismissed.

Other options:

There are a number of DMUs going off-lease in the coming years which haven't yet been secured by new operators - these include 153s, 156s, 170s, 172s and 185s. Some of these could be cascaded either directly or indirectly to ATW.

I am surprised by how much capacity 46 epacers would provide but I still doubt that it would be politicially viable to keep pacers in the valleys for another 10 years or so. 153s will need to be reformed into 155s or have toilets removed and be doubled up after 2019. 170s, 172s and 185s could only be cascaded indirectly so the Northern electrification can't have any further delays!

D trains could be more suitable to run a metro service than cascaded sprinters and the 60mph limit would only stop them being used on the Ebbw Vale line.

 

[The Planner]

60mph or even 10mph doesnt stop any train going anywhere, if it fits in a timetable then what is the problem.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

60mph or even 10mph doesnt stop any train going anywhere, if it fits in a timetable then what is the problem.

Who are the TOC who are still expressing interest in the Class 230 units?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Regarding the building of a second unit or even third. I think that once the engineers have finished this prototype and seen it through its teething problems they will then consider busying themselves with another. After all there is no point being busy making a second unit and then not keeping up with the requirements to keep the first one running. I am not one of those who likes the idea of showing commitment by over-stretching ones self. !.

The only risk is that as soon as the first 230 has proved itself Vivarail will possibly need to rush to get a second one ready. But I think it more likely that getting another branch ready might allow some time. Things like driver training can be done on the first unit at LM.

On the subject of Vivarail already having enough parts for a second unit. I doubt they would have committed to an unproven design that might require alterations. They might well have a spare(s) engine pack though. As otherwise the lack of a spare would defeat the virtue of being able to easily swap engine modules ("power Packs" ?).

 

[47802]

Who are the TOC who are still expressing interest in the Class 230 units?

Well that's an interesting question apart from LM

As I see it if Northern and Anglia can justify New Trains then EMT should be able to as well, alternatively they might take some of the cascaded stock, but I guess we will get more of a clue to the Dft's view when the ITT is released.

Wales well there is the whole question of Valley Line's electrification however making the Railbus compliant may be more flexible option than getting D trains, I believe there is an issue on the Valley Lines with running 23m length trains however I believe if the entire Welsh 150 fleet was concentrated only on the Valley Lines up to half the current Railbuses could be withdrawn with the rest made compliant, you would then need either cascaded stock or new stock to replace the 150's removed from other routes, you would also need to deal with the 153's as well which 2 franchises so far have elected to bin despite various idea's on here about reforming them back into 2 car units or running them without Toilets.

Of course an alternate strategy would be to get a load of D trains for the Valley lines as an intrim solution but my gut feeling is that wont happen.

 

[A0]

They could do with trying the D trains on the Marston Vale line. One of the units on there failed (again) today.

A couple of D trains would probably be more reliable......

 

[Bletchleyite]

They could do with trying the D trains on the Marston Vale line. One of the units on there failed (again) today.



A couple of D trains would probably be more reliable......

If it allowed there to be three even better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[1179_Clee2]

Well that's an interesting question apart from LM

As I see it if Northern and Anglia can justify New Trains then EMT should be able to as well, alternatively they might take some of the cascaded stock, but I guess we will get more of a clue to the Dft's view when the ITT is released.

Wales well there is the whole question of Valley Line's electrification however making the Railbus compliant may be more flexible option than getting D trains, I believe there is an issue on the Valley Lines with running 23m length trains however I believe if the entire Welsh 150 fleet was concentrated only on the Valley Lines up to half the current Railbuses could be withdrawn with the rest made compliant, you would then need either cascaded stock or new stock to replace the 150's removed from other routes, you would also need to deal with the 153's as well which 2 franchises so far have elected to bin despite various idea's on here about reforming them back into 2 car units or running them without Toilets.

Of course an alternate strategy would be to get a load of D trains for the Valley lines as an intrim solution but my gut feeling is that wont happen.

I make it 3 franchises that have elected to bin 153's
GWR, Northern and Anglia

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is well known within Network Rail and London Midland, including the public launch which isn't on Nuneaton Coventry but a different line before it enters service.

That may well be the case, but it was the Coventry to Nuneaton line of the actual 12 month trials that I was making reference to, not just that of the public launch.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I make it 3 franchises that have elected to bin 153's
GWR, Northern and Anglia

Is there much difference between 158s/159s and 153s for drivers, guards and fitters?