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

[Clarence Yard]

Right, I’m going to repeat this again. Despite the hard sell from the owners, GWR are not in the market for reworked D stock. Neither GWR or FG seniors are at all keen because of the likely public and political reaction to using ancient underground stock and they also have much better units in their existing GWR fleet that will shortly become spare.

With the 769 stock becoming available, they will have plenty of Turbos spare to continue the cascade westwards and another solution is being looked at for the remaining London area branches to release even more Turbos.

 

[D365]

With the 769 stock becoming available...

What year will that be?

 

[Non Multi]

What year will that be?

Never mind that, "... another solution is being looked at..." is the more interesting bit!

 

[D365]

Never mind that, "... another solution is being looked at..." is the more interesting bit!

Hydrogen 321s?

 

[Non Multi]

Hydrogen 321s?

What seems to be required for the remaining branches that can't take the 769s:

• 2 car units (Marlow, Greenford branches)
• self powered
• must have couplers compatible with other GW Thames Valley stock (for rescue)
• should be able to run at 90mph (relief line max speed)
• must not be 'ancient'
  
• Air con or air cooling is desirable

 

[JamesT]

What seems to be required for the remaining branches that can't take the 769s:

• 2 car units (Marlow, Greenford branches)
• self powered
• must have couplers compatible with other GW Thames Valley stock (for rescue)
• should be able to run at 90mph (relief line max speed)
• must not be 'ancient'
  
• Air con or air cooling is desirable

Somewhat off-topic, but a follow-on order of 195/0s? Meets all of those requirements. Bit crayonista, but I wonder how much advantage GWR will get from the bi-mode nature of 769s. Potentially simpler to have 387s, 80Xs, and then 195s or similar for non fully electrified routes that don't merit a 80X?

 

[Clarence Yard]

What seems to be required for the remaining branches that can't take the 769s:

• 2 car units (Marlow, Greenford branches)
• self powered
• must have couplers compatible with other GW Thames Valley stock (for rescue)
• should be able to run at 90mph (relief line max speed)
• must not be 'ancient'
  
• Air con or air cooling is desirable

Can be 3 cars but must be 20m long vehicles. Does not have to be 90mph stock.

 

[D365]

So we're looking for a brand new D-Train equivalent here?

 

[Non Multi]

Can be 3 cars but must be 20m long vehicles. Does not have to be 90mph stock.

Is there an aspiration to run 20m long 3 car stock to Marlow then?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Is there an aspiration to run 20m long 3 car stock to Marlow then?

Yes - if it is possible, which FG believe it is.

 

[Non Multi]

Yes - if it is possible, which FG believe it is.

Thanks.

I assume that leaves open the option to use 20m 3 car 769s (if they can be configured as 3 car) on those branches. It also leaves the option open to electrify the Marlow branch at a later date (or even just electrify Maidenhead-Bourne End) if 3x20m units do fit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can be 3 cars but must be 20m long vehicles. Does not have to be 90mph stock.

There are no 20m vehicle traditional DMUs available on the market at present - other than the D-train (which is 18.5m vehicles), hence WMT's order for three for the Marston Vale. It's quite possible that the reason for this is that with all the extra pollution related equipment it's just a bit difficult to do.

What there is, however, is the possibility of a 2-section (plus engine module) Stadler FLIRT[1], which may well be ideal with a smaller engine module than the longer ones ordered by Abellio and say 18m "vehicles" plus a 4m engine module.

And how good would it be if we could have full level boarding on all the GWR branches without the need for pratting about with the ramp? A "step change", you could call it

[1] Well, the WINK. But that's basically FLIRT derived.

 

[cj_1985]

Depending on how soon they need/want the diesel stock... Would the GA 2x car 170s be acceptable?

 

[D365]

Depending on how soon they need/want the diesel stock... Would the GA 2x car 170s be acceptable?

23m carriages, so would only allow a two car unit like present.

 

[Non Multi]

Depending on how soon they need/want the diesel stock... Would the GA 2x car 170s be acceptable?

Some Pros:

• Reading Traincare depot mainly looks after Bombardier built rolling stock (including the BREL/ABB Turbos).
• It would facilitate the cascade west of the remaining branch line 2 car 165s.
• Air con works.
• They aren't 'ancient'.

Some Cons:

• Sprinter spec 15x/17x BSI couplers, not 16x (this may not be an issue if the Turbos have all gone west).
• 2x2 seating rather than the 3x2 on the 165s, may lead to further overcrowding during peaks.
• No increase in capacity that would come with 3x20m MUs.
• May need internal refurbishment or upgrades.
• Availability dependent on GA's replacement rolling stock being delivered on schedule.
• Reading depot appears to be under some pressure locally with regards to noise pollution from their remaining DMUs.

 

[IanXC]

If 3x 20m really is an option for Marlow, then surely the obvious solution for GWR is to retain the 150/0 3 car units at Reading....

Negotiate transfer of Greenford to Chiltern - or at least have Chiltern provide the stock for it, and Robert is your fathers brother.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 3x 20m really is an option for Marlow, then surely the obvious solution for GWR is to retain the 150/0 3 car units at Reading....

Negotiate transfer of Greenford to Chiltern - or at least have Chiltern provide the stock for it, and Robert is your fathers brother.

Arguably they'd be better sticking the wires up and making it part of LO.

 

[Class172]

If 3x 20m really is an option for Marlow, then surely the obvious solution for GWR is to retain the 150/0 3 car units at Reading....

Exactly what I was thinking, given 150s are the only 20m DMUs we have currently in the country. Whether it would be acceptable to use them is another question, as they haven't exactly got youth on their side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly what I was thinking, given 150s are the only 20m DMUs we have currently in the country. Whether it would be acceptable to use them is another question, as they haven't exactly got youth on their side.

Nor to be fair have 769s.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Thanks.

I assume that leaves open the option to use 20m 3 car 769s (if they can be configured as 3 car) on those branches. It also leaves the option open to electrify the Marlow branch at a later date (or even just electrify Maidenhead-Bourne End) if 3x20m units do fit.

A 3 car 769 is not a runner (the question has been asked) but another current EMU type could be converted, if the price was right.

 

[D365]

So we've got three outstanding options for 20m (or thereabouts) diesel units:

• Class 150: ageing
• Class 230: considered undesirable but very customisable, includes battery option
• Class 769: cannot be shortened from four cars

 

[Bletchleyite]

So we've got three outstanding options for 20m (or thereabouts) diesel units:

• Class 150: ageing
• Class 230: considered undesirable but very customisable, includes battery option
• Class 769: cannot be shortened from four cars

Stadler FLIRT. Several coach lengths are offered.

 

[Domh245]

So we've got three outstanding options for 20m (or thereabouts) diesel units:

• Class 150: ageing
• Class 230: considered undesirable but very customisable, includes battery option
• Class 769: cannot be shortened from four cars

If you're willing to wait a while, you could always get some 455s with Diesels strapped underneath them. Can easily be chopped down to three cars (I'm assuming, by cutting out the Trailer car), have brand spanking new traction equipment, and are owned by Porterbrook (so no issues with intellectual rights issues if you simply duplicate the 769 system)

 

[Non Multi]

Safe to say there will soon be plenty of redundant 20m EMU stock to consider for bi-mode conversion... The issue of noise pollution at Reading depot probably dictates that these bi-modes will require a pantograph.

 

[D365]

Stadler FLIRT. Several coach lengths are offered.

How small a (brand new made-to-order) microfleet is too small.

If you're willing to wait a while, you could always get some 455s with Diesels strapped underneath them. Can easily be chopped down to three cars (I'm assuming, by cutting out the Trailer car), have brand spanking new traction equipment, and are owned by Porterbrook (so no issues with intellectual rights issues if you simply duplicate the 769 system)

Is that not fundamentally the same as what the Class 230 can offer?

 

[43096]

Safe to say there will soon be plenty of redundant 20m EMU stock to consider for bi-mode conversion... The issue of noise pollution at Reading depot probably dictates that these bi-modes will require a pantograph.

But the 319s and 455s make for the easiest conversion as they already have the 750V DC bus-line running down the train for the diesels to feed into. The 455s are ideal for 3-car conversion (and get better performance) as they can easily drop a trailer - SWT did it for performance tests a while back.

 

[Domh245]

Is that not fundamentally the same as what the Class 230 can offer?

It is (although the 455 would give you slightly longer 3-car trains), but if you are dead set against the 230 for being "ancient underground stock", a 455-flex has a few years advantage in terms of age, and is a 'proper train' rather than something ex-LU. The only real advantage that the 230 has over it in terms of passenger experience is the possibility of a toilet, although I'm sure Porterbrook could quite easily offer the same should they wish.

 

[PeterC]

How small a (brand new made-to-order) microfleet is too small.



Is that not fundamentally the same as what the Class 230 can offer?

No, the fundamental difference is that the 230 is ex LU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How small a (brand new made-to-order) microfleet is too small.

As far as Stadler goes, there isn't one. Their bread and butter is microfleets like the Swiss narrow gauge lines. Their business model is quite different from other builders - they've basically designed a modular platform on which you can build a one off or small number of trains to pretty much any size/shape.

That said, if they did go Stadler you could argue it would make sense to go Stadler for *all* the Thames Valley branches and gain the advantage of level boarding on more services.

 

[D365]

No, the fundamental difference is that the 230 is ex LU.

Mechanically how does that make a difference? Aside from the lower top speed (not really relevant for branch line operation) I don't see anything.

I continue to await the first of Porterbrook's fruits with anticipation.