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

[Harpers Tate]

it doesn't alter the following...you are being palmed off with recycled tube stock

Palmed off, recycled. Irrelevant negative words. They are either good trains or they aren't and we don't know which.

what the customer might think compared to a new modern Air Conditioned train remains to be seen

Yes, it does.

the train itself which was designed for an intensive frequent stop metro service where even the alleged top speed of 60mph wasn't the norm, you are now asking it to work generally longer distance mainline services with higher top speeds as a DEMU rather than EMU it was designed as

...and until we see it working we don't know how well it will work.

Point (c) you say its arguably not an issue well yes sure on some routes it isn't, but that limits their flexibility to specific routes

I'd contend it's arguably not an issue in far far more places than some here seem to choose to believe. For an extreme example, if a stretch of line has a 125mph limit and 125mph trains using it, then that's enough to totally preclude use of a 60mph unit (but not a 75mph one) in the minds of some. Apparently the intensity of the fast service and the length of block sections (i.e. the availability of paths) aren't factors that need considering. We just can't run a 60mph train on a 125mph track.

....Northern services...

Absolutely right; without measuring it, it's probably a majority of Northern's services that would not be affected to any material degree by a 60mph top speed (despite their running over track with higher limits) and might well benefit from different acceleration characteristics. However, as I understand it, it would be outside the terms of the franchise for Northern to deploy these at all so it's moot. As long as they have enough trains otherwise then that's fine. However if they continue experiencing stupid degrees of overcrowding either routinely or at predictable events (such as the Lincoln Market) then personally I'd rather see a bigger fleet of "palmed off, recycled, OMFG 60mph" trains than not.

Since we are talking EMT... the Doncaster - Peterborough services take over two hours to cover ninety miles...
...the service they'll inherit from Northern requires fifty miles minutes to cover twenty miles between Cleethorpes and Barton...
...it's 1h20 for the sixty miles between Grimsby and Newark...
...the thirty miles from Nottingham to Worksop take an hour...
...and over two hours to cover eighty miles between Nottingham and Skegness.
Take out the London services and the Liverpool - Norwich services and pretty much all EMT services (i.e. the 153 and 156 operated ones) could be run by 230s. Not "must be", just "could".

Now, people can argue about whether a 230 is a suitable unit for such services (although since the TOC will be able to specify seating/ layout, you could configure them to suit long distance or short distance demands), but the "60mph units couldn't cope" argument is a bit weak in light of how many services don't require that running.

Exactly. Depending on just how well these things actually run - and I'll just repeat: we DON'T KNOW yet - and provided there are enough of them to accommodate the passengers as needed and they are internally specified comfortably etc., then there is nothing yet proven to suggest they would not be more than suitable. Including the top speed!

I was referring to their use on EMT routes. They would slot into Robin Hood line slots, but no other EMT routes, apart from possibly Skegness. Derby to Long Eaton? Big no no. 110mph max linespeed.

110mph line speed is an irrelevant point in isolation. To repeat something from earlier - 60mph DTrain vs 75mph 156 - makes less than a minute difference assuming similar acceleration characteristics. In any case, one might apply the same point to a 75mph DMU on a 110mph track. Yet we have countless examples. Pathing is the ONLY thing that needs to be established.

Surely the Barton to Cleethorpes line would be ideal for 230s....

along with most of Lincolnshire - again, assuming that the trains are actually half decent in practice (and we DON'T KNOW yet).

Apart from these lines they probably aren't suitable, the Grimsby to Lincoln line has around 25 minutes of 75mph running so they would lose some serious time

About six minutes, if existing stock does in fact reach 75 and maintain it for the full 25 minutes. IF (and we don't know yet) the D-Train is quieter and more comfortable; if (and we don't know yet) they were specified with decent interiors; if they are big enough for demand and so on, I question whether customers will care.

I think a lot of people are just ideologically against what could be a great concept if used on the correct lines.

Correct.

 

[reddragon]

Had this website been running in the 1980s, posting comments such as this would most certainly have been made concerning the "exciting and new innovation" that the Class 142 Pacer fleet would bring to certain branch lines....

I can remember those exact discussions in the 1980's, when it was, following the Serpell report, "cheap trains or line closures". At that time Pacers were saving lines from closure and people preferred them to the ancient slower DMU's that then predominated rural lines then or worst still line closure.

People soon forget what happened at the time and just how many lines were under direct threat of closure, way beyond the S&C and all lines from Marylebone. Many actually did close and left voids today.

The pacer was an excellent solution at the time. It was cheap, built by beleaguered bus builders thus keeping people in work and allowed time for real trains to be developed and built. Pacers should have been scrapped years ago, but that is another matter.

The D78 / class 230 is another stop gap, which is better than overcrowded trains that fail / are not looked after due to over work. Just give them a chance.

And forget that 60mph nonsense. A moped is quicker in London traffic than a F1 racing car, a class 230 would be just a few minutes late on the 125mph race track from Reading to Paddington. I'd prefer a 6 car class 230 over a 2/3 car class 165 any day, which on stopping services rarely reaches 60 mph and is delayed at each stop by over crowding.

Trains are operated for passengers!

 

[47802]

I can remember those exact discussions in the 1980's, when it was, following the Serpell report, "cheap trains or line closures". At that time Pacers were saving lines from closure and people preferred them to the ancient slower DMU's that then predominated rural lines then or worst still line closure.

People soon forget what happened at the time and just how many lines were under direct threat of closure, way beyond the S&C and all lines from Marylebone. Many actually did close and left voids today.

The pacer was an excellent solution at the time. It was cheap, built by beleaguered bus builders thus keeping people in work and allowed time for real trains to be developed and built. Pacers should have been scrapped years ago, but that is another matter.

The D78 / class 230 is another stop gap, which is better than overcrowded trains that fail / are not looked after due to over work. Just give them a chance.

And forget that 60mph nonsense. A moped is quicker in London traffic than a F1 racing car, a class 230 would be just a few minutes late on the 125mph race track from Reading to Paddington. I'd prefer a 6 car class 230 over a 2/3 car class 165 any day, which on stopping services rarely reaches 60 mph and is delayed at each stop by over crowding.

Trains are operated for passengers!

Well yes they are but ultimately its the TOC and Dft that decide on the best business case, and the general word is that these trains when fully refurbished don't represent a particularly good financial deal compared to alternatives that may be available.

The idea of using them as stop gap while electrification progressed may have had some merit, but given our current electrification progress that's somewhat moot now.

I see these trains as really a Northern Rail solution, which now no longer applies due to political intervention so now they are a solution looking for a problem.

I would interested to see the reaction from Network Rail if you suggested running these things between Reading and Paddington at 60mph. not that its particularly relevant anyway since your 2/3 car 165's will be replaced with Electrostars and Crossrail units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can remember those exact discussions in the 1980's, when it was, following the Serpell report, "cheap trains or line closures". At that time Pacers were saving lines from closure and people preferred them to the ancient slower DMU's that then predominated rural lines then or worst still line closure.

Quite. What people forget is that the Pacer is very similar to the first-generation regional DMUs - 3+2 bus style seats, short vehicles, 3 cab windscreens etc - but provided a genuine improvement in environment. And the ride of the 1st generation DMUs with their leaf springs was not good either.

Standards have, like in many areas of life, simply improved since then. And as the oldest DMUs in regular service they can't help but be of the lowest standard, really.

 

[Clip]

I was referring to their use on EMT routes. They would slot into Robin Hood line slots, but no other EMT routes, apart from possibly Skegness.
Derby to Long Eaton? Big no no. 110mph max linespeed.

The line speed is not a target for all stock and people really REALLY need to get away from thinking this is the only reason these are not suitable anywhere. Its becoming more and more tedious especially when there are constant posts pointing out its all rubbish.

 

[Clip]

Oh and ill just add that if those up in the mighty towers hadnt dithered on the Northern ITT and actually said these were suitable then we really couldve had more units being built to solve the overcrowding we have NOW and not in two years time.

Think about that for just one minute.

 

[tbtc]

I was referring to their use on EMT routes. They would slot into Robin Hood line slots, but no other EMT routes, apart from possibly Skegness.
Derby to Long Eaton? Big no no. 110mph max linespeed.

I personally don't believe we'll see 230's on EMT. The lack of suitable routes would mean a microfleet that will offer little, if any advantage over the current fleet, with the possible exception of 153's

I've quoted examples to show how slow most of the ex Central Trains services are with EMT:

The Doncaster - Peterborough services take over two hours to cover ninety miles...

...the service they'll inherit from Northern requires fifty miles to cover twenty miles between Cleethorpes and Barton...

...it's 1h20 for the sixty miles between Grimsby and Newark...

...the thirty miles from Nottingham to Worksop take an hour...

...and over two hours to cover eighty miles between Nottingham and Skegness

... i.e. you could potentially run the next EMT franchise using 158s and 230s to cover all non-London services (rather than the three "provincial" DMU fleets that they currently have).

Could they be used Derby - Stoke?

It currently takes a 153/ 156 around 1h20 to cover around fifty miles, which suggests that they could be a possibility on that route.

Apart from these lines they probably aren't suitable, the Grimsby to Lincoln line has around 25 minutes of 75mph running so they would lose some serious time

It currently takes just short of an hour for a 153/156 to cover forty three miles between Grimsby and Lincoln, so if they are running for 75mph for half of that time (twenty five minutes) then they must be crawling along for the other half of the journey?

Pathing is the ONLY thing that needs to be established

^^ What he said ^^

without measuring it, it's probably a majority of Northern's services that would not be affected to any material degree by a 60mph top speed (despite their running over track with higher limits) and might well benefit from different acceleration characteristics. However, as I understand it, it would be outside the terms of the franchise for Northern to deploy these at all so it's moot

Agreed.

I only quoted Northern services as they are the ones I use most often - I accept that the thinly spread sprinkling of non gangwayed two coach DMUs at the new Northern franchise means that we won't get 230s.

But, I can't imagine that the 75mph stock at FGW/ ATW etc get up to 75mph on every journey either - I'm sure that there are lots of DMU services pathed at under 60mph.

I can remember those exact discussions in the 1980's, when it was, following the Serpell report, "cheap trains or line closures". At that time Pacers were saving lines from closure and people preferred them to the ancient slower DMU's that then predominated rural lines then or worst still line closure.

People soon forget what happened at the time and just how many lines were under direct threat of closure, way beyond the S&C and all lines from Marylebone. Many actually did close and left voids today.

The pacer was an excellent solution at the time. It was cheap, built by beleaguered bus builders thus keeping people in work and allowed time for real trains to be developed and built. Pacers should have been scrapped years ago, but that is another matter.

The D78 / class 230 is another stop gap, which is better than overcrowded trains that fail / are not looked after due to over work. Just give them a chance

Agreed.

There's a lot of enthusiasts too young to remember such days of Realpolitik.

The error with Pacers was keeping them going so long - they should have been withdrawn when slam door EMUs were withdrawn.

The idea of using them as stop gap while electrification progressed may have had some merit, but given our current electrification progress that's somewhat moot now

not that its particularly relevant anyway since your 2/3 car 165's will be replaced with Electrostars and Crossrail units

Well, the GWML announcement today will mean a delay in freeing up 165s for the West Country (which will impact upon the potential cascade of 150/153s elsewhere).

The "deferred" electrification will improve the need for stop gap DMUs... can anyone think of some?

 

[47802]

Well, the GWML announcement today will mean a delay in freeing up 165s for the West Country (which will impact upon the potential cascade of 150/153s elsewhere).

The "deferred" electrification will improve the need for stop gap DMUs... can anyone think of some?

I doubt it will make much difference, most of this isn't exactly new well maybe it being paused to an unknown date is, hence all Bi-mode IEP, the order for additional AT-300's and less EMU's, retention of 5 x 153's ,12 x 4 car HST's also keeping GWR 143's until a least 2019, and I gather the 150 cascade to Northern will still go ahead but with potentially 5 units short, which they may be able to cover with the 5 spare Scotrail 156's, obviously there might be some changes to timing but no need to get the D train out just yet.

I would say its just made the option for new Diesel/Bi-mode trains more viable Stadler/CAF may be happy and Bombardier/Siemens may be scratching their heads about not wanting to build more Diesel trains for the UK, oh ok yes maybe it will be an opportunity for Vivarail as well.

 

[Clip]

I doubt it will make much difference, most of this isn't exactly new well maybe it being paused to an unknown date is, hence all Bi-mode IEP, the order for additional AT-300's and less EMU's, retention of 5 x 153's ,12 x 4 car HST's also keeping GWR 143's until a least 2019, and I gather the 150 cascade to Northern will still go ahead but with potentially 5 units short, which they may be able to cover with the 5 spare Scotrail 156's, obviously there might be some changes to timing but no need to get the D train out just yet.

I would say its just made the option for new Diesel/Bi-mode trains more viable Stadler/CAF may be happy and Bombardier/Siemens may be scratching their heads about not wanting to build more Diesel trains for the UK.

And how long would you be looking at before they could build some then when their plants are pretty busy with current orders?

 

[Kneedown]

!110mph line speed is an irrelevant point in isolation. To repeat something from earlier - 60mph DTrain vs 75mph 156 - makes less than a minute difference assuming similar acceleration characteristics. In any case, one might apply the same point to a 75mph DMU on a 110mph track. Yet we have countless examples. Pathing is the ONLY thing that needs to be established

Just to clarify an error on my part, Draycott to Spondon is 115, not 110. I'm sure a 222 could acheive tjis but we dont touch those at Notts depot. The most I have got up to is 110 witj an HST.
I think the success of the 230's rests on whether the acceleration is sufficiently greater than a 15x to offset the lower speed. We will find out in due course.

 

[northwichcat]

The "deferred" electrification will improve the need for stop gap DMUs... can anyone think of some?

Or will it?

There are a large number of 150s which there are currently no withdrawal plans for and GW electrification is set to be completed in 2024. So ordering 30 or so extra trains from CAF or Stadler wouldn't leave us with a DMU surplus if the worst of the 150s get withdrawn a couple of years earlier than envisaged.

 

[Harpers Tate]

etc..

And again to repeat - in that particular context and supposing even only a similar acceleration/deceleration curve to a 156 (say) - 60 vs 75 makes LESS THAN A MINUTE difference in the start to pass time from Long Eaton to a box just outside Derby. That does not seem to me to be likely to be a show-stopping matter.

 

[northwichcat]

I doubt it will make much difference, most of this isn't exactly new well maybe it being paused to an unknown date is, hence all Bi-mode IEP, the order for additional AT-300's and less EMU's, retention of 5 x 153's ,12 x 4 car HST's also keeping GWR 143's until a least 2019, and I gather the 150 cascade to Northern will still go ahead but with potentially 5 units short, which they may be able to cover with the 5 spare Scotrail 156's, obviously there might be some changes to timing but no need to get the D train out just yet.

What happened regarding the Eversholt 170s? I know Southern secured them but wasn't there something about them not still requiring them all?

Also what's happening regarding Gospel Oak electrification and 172s being freed up?

 

[Kneedown]

60 vs 75 makes LESS THAN A MINUTE difference in the start to pass time from Long Eaton to a box just outside Derby. That does not seem to me to be likely to be a show-stopping matter.

You'd be surprised. If I were to drive around all day at 60 instead of 75, then my pigeonhole would be overflowing with delay info requests!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Adrian Shooter will be most heartened by the fact that he seems to have many unpaid PR consultants on this thread who dutifully and forever sing the praise of the single constructed Class 230 unit that still has to complete its trials and turn a wheel in service, but he will be equally disheartened that none of those unpaid PR acolytes are in an official position to place a leasing order for Class 230 units with his company.

 

[47802]

What happened regarding the Eversholt 170s? I know Southern secured them but wasn't there something about them not still requiring them all?

Also what's happening regarding Gospel Oak electrification and 172s being freed up?

I'm not claiming to be an inside expert so I don't know, my comments about the GWR cascade plan came from a wnxx source who seems to be fairly in the know and usually correct.

It would seem that the current delays were reasonably well accommodated in GWR's latest Traction Plan and after the initial 165/166 cascade presumably they were expecting further 165's at a later date which by the looks of it wont happen anytime soon now so I guess it could change things further.

If they are correct about 5 x 150's not going to Northern I guess the Eversholt 170's might be a possibility if Southern don't want them

 

[northwichcat]

Adrian Shooter will be most heartened by the fact that he seems to have many unpaid PR consultants on this thread who dutifully and forever sing the praise of the single constructed Class 230 unit that still has to complete its trials and turn a wheel in service, but he will be equally disheartened that none of those unpaid PR acolytes are in an official position to place a leasing order for Class 230 units with his company.

I don't think he's really that bothered about what's posted on here regarding D-Trains anymore than Julian Peddle is bothered about your objections to orange and blue buses.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not claiming to be an inside expert so I don't know, my comments about the GWR cascade plan came from a wnxx source who seems to be fairly in the know and usually correct.

It would seem that the current delays were reasonably well accommodated in GWR's latest Traction Plan and after the initial 165/166 cascade presumably they were expecting further 165's at a later date which by the looks of it wont happen anytime soon now so I guess it could change things further.

If they are correct about 5 x 150's not going to Northern I guess the Eversholt 170's might be a possibility if Southern don't want them

I wasn't directing the questions at you. I was asking questions based on additional options to the ones you mentioned.

 

[1179_Clee2]

Well, the GWML announcement today will mean a delay in freeing up 165s for the West Country (which will impact upon the potential cascade of 150/153s elsewhere).

The GWML announcement will have no impact on the cascade of trains to other franchises.
Think of Trans Pennine and the 170's, Chiltern leased them and off they went.
The boot is on the other foot now as Northern have leased some trains which Northern will want. It if up to GWR and DaFT to find a way forward.
Possibly
Short HST's
Loco hauled Class 442
Class 230 D trains

 

[Mordac]

The GWML announcement will have no impact on the cascade of trains to other franchises.
Think of Trans Pennine and the 170's, Chiltern leased them and off they went.
The boot is on the other foot now as Northern have leased some trains which Northern will want. It if up to GWR and DaFT to find a way forward.
Possibly
Short HST's
Loco hauled Class 442
Class 230 D trains

Don't forget shortened 373s hauled by sheds!

 

[keith1879]

Adrian Shooter will be most heartened by the fact that he seems to have many unpaid PR consultants on this thread who dutifully and forever sing the praise of the single constructed Class 230 unit that still has to complete its trials and turn a wheel in service, but he will be equally disheartened that none of those unpaid PR acolytes are in an official position to place a leasing order for Class 230 units with his company.

He will be utterly uninterested - just as he is in the constant slightly snidey comments which have replaced the endless negativity from one poster. Just as we all are really. We will probably never know whether the class 230 was a good idea because the commercial case has changed so much in the last couple of years in a way that nobody foresaw. Not sure if I can actually be bothered to press send....

 

[paul1609]

I'm not claiming to be an inside expert so I don't know, my comments about the GWR cascade plan came from a wnxx source who seems to be fairly in the know and usually correct.

It would seem that the current delays were reasonably well accommodated in GWR's latest Traction Plan and after the initial 165/166 cascade presumably they were expecting further 165's at a later date which by the looks of it wont happen anytime soon now so I guess it could change things further.

If they are correct about 5 x 150's not going to Northern I guess the Eversholt 170's might be a possibility if Southern don't want them

Govia are still promising Marshlink customers extra 171 coaches and of course we now have the home secretary as MP for half the line and the minister for work and pensions the other half.
Something needs to be done before the introduction of bi modes for the Marshlink High Speed Service St Pancras to Eastbourne.

 

[D365]

Something needs to be done before the introduction of bi modes for the Marshlink High Speed Service St Pancras to Eastbourne.

Is that promised?

 

[duffield]

Skegness services have to cross the ECML and i'm not sure what they share the lines with west of the ECML

The Skegness services all go *under* the ECML since the Allington Chord was built.

West of the ECML they share with Liverpool to Norwich services between Nottingham and Grantham.

 

[JonathanH]

Govia are still promising Marshlink customers extra 171 coaches and of course we now have the home secretary as MP for half the line and the minister for work and pensions the other half.
Something needs to be done before the introduction of bi modes for the Marshlink High Speed Service St Pancras to Eastbourne.

They aren't offering more 171 coaches. The consultation is pretty clear that there aren't any available. Any extra capacity on the eastern end of the Marshlink route would come from cutting the through services to Brighton.

 

[Mikey C]

They aren't offering more 171 coaches. The consultation is pretty clear that there aren't any available. Any extra capacity on the eastern end of the Marshlink route would come from cutting the through services to Brighton.

There aren't any spare 395s either...

 

[Chester1]

The GWML announcement will have no impact on the cascade of trains to other franchises.
Think of Trans Pennine and the 170's, Chiltern leased them and off they went.
The boot is on the other foot now as Northern have leased some trains which Northern will want. It if up to GWR and DaFT to find a way forward.
Possibly
Short HST's
Loco hauled Class 442
Class 230 D trains

D trains could replace all the pacers and sprinters used on the Devon and Cornwall branch lines. I am not sure the current stock could be cascaded elsewere in the franchise though.

 

[JonathanH]

They aren't offering more 171 coaches. The consultation is pretty clear that there aren't any available. Any extra capacity on the eastern end of the Marshlink route would come from cutting the through services to Brighton.

There aren't any spare 395s either...

What have 395s got to do with the Marshlink line at the moment (apart from some aspiration to extend high speed services via Rye to Hastings which is likely to remain a distant aspiration for some time)?

The GTR consultation says:

We are seeking views to provide additional capacity on the route between Brighton and Eastbourne or between Brighton and Hastings and as such we are seeking views to provide the current Brighton to Ashford International services as two separate trains with passengers being required to change trains at either Eastbourne or Hastings. In their place would be longer electric trains which would be able to accommodate the number of passengers using the train service.

At the time of writing, it is unlikely that there will be any additional diesel units available to strengthen the current services to three or four carriage trains. The current Class 171 units used on this route, when joined together, cannot be walked through meaning passengers and conductors are unable to access both parts of the train. In this circumstance when operating between Ashford International and Hastings, the rear coaches would need to be locked out of use...

2-car 171s for the forseeable future between Ashford and Hastings (and no obvious need for D-trains).

 

[The Ham]

D trains could replace all the pacers and sprinters used on the Devon and Cornwall branch lines. I am not sure the current stock could be cascaded elsewere in the franchise though.

The existing units wouldn't need to go elsewhere within the franchise, as the 230's would only be needed until electrification (which is currently paused) is completed and DMU's can be removed from the eastern end of the franchise and/or from the metro services around Bristol.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

He will be utterly uninterested - just as he is in the constant slightly snidey comments which have replaced the endless negativity from one poster. Just as we all are really. We will probably never know whether the class 230 was a good idea because the commercial case has changed so much in the last couple of years in a way that nobody foresaw.

Glad to see that my recent change of tack has not gone un-noticed..

I hereby reserve the right to make comment on this long running project aspiration until I see the one and only unit that Vivarail has constructed passing all required testing and commencing in service on the one year lease on the Coventry to Nuneaton line and the subsequent technical running statistics and listening to passenger comments subsequently made.

I am sure that had he still have been alive, O.S.Nock would have written quite a good article on the running of the Class 230 unit once in service.

 

[adrock1976]

I seem to remember towards the end of the second half of the noughties that there were proposals to electrify the York - Leeds via Harrogate route, and to use cascaded London Underground stock.

Obviously, this would have meant third rail DC, of which the government is not enthusiastic about nowadays.

Have both the councils of the West Riding (or West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive) and the North Riding now gone cool on the idea of using cascaded London Underground stock for that route, or do they still harbour those desires in a different form?