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

[krus_aragon]

The possible clearance issues I mentioned were for Crewe to Chester, not for the coast. There was talk of it being an issue back in the days of the fabled "rolling programme of electrification" when it was assumed that the TPML, MML and Windermere lines would all be done and dusted by now.

I recall the discussion, looking at how low bridges on Crewe-Chester meant doing that portion wouldn't necessarily be much easier than Crewe-Holyhead.

I was trying to reference vehicle clearance along the whole line: the freightliners ran Crewe-Chester-Holyhead, hence my suggestion that issues with overhead line clearance needn't mean DMU clearance issues.

 

[The Planner]

You cannot block traction on the basis it cannot be timetabled, as it isn't a fixed entity, just because you cannot now doesn't mean you cannot in the future. If a TOC wants to bring in new or different stock then they have to go through the vehicle change procedure (Part F of the Network Code), which gives TOC/FOC/ORR/Dft/NR itself chance to object or probe deeper into it. I'm not aware if anyone has started or been through that process for anywhere in Wales for the 230.

 

[northwichcat]

You cannot block traction on the basis it cannot be timetabled, as it isn't a fixed entity, just because you cannot now doesn't mean you cannot in the future. If a TOC wants to bring in new or different stock then they have to go through the vehicle change procedure (Part F of the Network Code), which gives TOC/FOC/ORR/Dft/NR itself chance to object or probe deeper into it. I'm not aware if anyone has started or been through that process for anywhere in Wales for the 230.

Network Rail did block 158s from Borderlands and Conwy Valley on the basis they wouldn't be able to run to the timetable based on 75mph 15x running due to the slower door release and nowhere where the lost time could be made up.

 

[northwichcat]

But that's part of the appeal of putting the first unit into testing/service on the Conwy Valley, unless it's north of Glan Conwy it can fail wherever and however it wants and it won't be in the way of any other train: all you'd have to do is summon a rail replacement bus to take over. An early/late positional move along the coast shouldn't be that risky, and it could even stable at the Junction several nights a week, if that was desired.


Clearance issues for overhead electrification do exist (though aren't necessarily insurmountable), but that shouldn't be an issue for any diesel passenger stock. Bear in mind that until the Conwy Tunnel opened in 1991 there was a regular freightliner service operating to Holyhead, see this page of the Penmorfa website.

I think that most, if not all, of this news from whichever forum is indeed rumour.

If I was a Conwy Valley user I wouldn't be happy with the idea a failed train can just be abandoned and replacement buses can run. I would be hoping a full train service is back running within 2 hours unless the failed train set on fire or derailed.

 

[krus_aragon]

If I was a Conwy Valley user I wouldn't be happy with the idea a failed train can just be abandoned and replacement buses can run. I would be hoping a full train service is back running within 2 hours unless the failed train set on fire or derailed.

One would hope for a speedy recovery, of course, but I'm looking at the situation with a pessimist/damage limitation head on. There may be no actual breakdowns, but it's sensible to bed-in a new unit on a quieter route. Note also that the current service is a three-hourly shuttle operated by one diagram. Even if you get a failed unit moved/moving within an hour or two, you'll have to can some services in order to get back on the diagrammed timetable, so there'll be buses summoned in any case.

Plus, regular Conwy Valley passengers are already used to timetabled bus services on winter Sundays, and bustitution when flooding requires bridge inspections (which often can't be done for a few days until the water level drops).

 

[craigybagel]

Are we sure this “rumour” has been sourced correctly? The block on using the units isn’t coming from network rail.... it’s another organisation. And route clearances don’t seem to have anything to do with it. What the issue is, however, is beyond me.

It could be a separate issue from the issue you've mentioned, since as you say that particular problem with the units is nothing to do with network rail.

If I was a Conwy Valley user I wouldn't be happy with the idea a failed train can just be abandoned and replacement buses can run. I would be hoping a full train service is back running within 2 hours unless the failed train set on fire or derailed.

That's pretty much what happens now. For various reasons at present you can only run 150s down that branch and if the unit that's there fails there aren't normally any others nearby to replace it with.

 

[6Gtraincrew]

Are we sure this “rumour” has been sourced correctly? The block on using the units isn’t coming from network rail.... it’s another organisation. And route clearances don’t seem to have anything to do with it. What the issue is, however, is beyond me.

It's come from ASLEF about not using them on WMT in revenue service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's come from ASLEF about not using them on WMT in revenue service.

As in they are refusing to drive them? What grounds do they have for that? Are they planned to be only operable DOO/DCO or something? For the Marston Vale I had expected driver open guard close or traditional full guarded operation (preferably the former).

 

[6Gtraincrew]

Can't remember the wording on the notice now, but it basically said they don't mind testing them, but they won't drive them in passenger service until they are happy with the safety of them.

 

[craigybagel]

Something along the lines of ASLEF having numerous concerns about the 230s and until they're adressead, they're only permitting their members to drive them on tests, but not in service. The notice in our depot doesn't go in to what those issues actually are.

That said, it's always possible that network rail have blocked them as well for separate reasons from ASLEF. The issue of timings on Crewe - Chester I flagged from Day 1, and knowing what Virgin are like about regulation and getting held up by other TOCs it wouldn't surprise me if they have protested to NR about sharing a route with these much slower units.

 

[pt_mad]

Fabric looks better on that one. Lack of armrests and window-side seat jammed against the sidewall disappointing; suspect I will choose a side facing seat like I always did on Pacers.

Would have been nice to have a poshed up "coffee shop style" interior i.e. fake wood lino and a brighter colour on the seats.

Is the seat fabric traditional 'moquette' i.e. Velour fabric? Or cloth type like on the 800s (and used in most cars nowadays!)?

 

[The Planner]

Network Rail did block 158s from Borderlands and Conwy Valley on the basis they wouldn't be able to run to the timetable based on 75mph 15x running due to the slower door release and nowhere where the lost time could be made up.

Amazed ATW didn't kick off to be honest, though I expect they did.

 

[krus_aragon]

Amazed ATW didn't kick off to be honest, though I expect they did.

This was quite a few years ago, when the Cambrian infrastructure couldn't do more than 1tp2h, and thus there were more 158s available for services elsewhere.

I had the impression at the time that ATW made the aplication for the sake of operational convenience: if they could operate 158s on all the North Wales branches they could leave all the 150s in South Wales and avoid the long positioning moves for maintenance swaps.

 

[DarloRich]

exciting news yesterday! New chug was spotted in the shed yard. He is obviously happy with his new shed and is now getting used to the fresh air. It is like getting a dog form the dogs home!

 

[northwichcat]

Amazed ATW didn't kick off to be honest, though I expect they did.

Network Rail did give them the option of altering the timetable so that it worked for 158 timings but that would have meant an extra unit was required for Borderlands which is probably why ATW dropped the idea.

 

[whhistle]

Something along the lines of ASLEF having numerous concerns about the 230s and until they're adressead (sic), they're only permitting their members to drive them on tests, but not in service.

So ASLEF are happy to put their drivers in potentially un-safe trains (or trains they have "concerns" about) but not passengers?

 

[northwichcat]

So ASLEF are happy to put their drivers in potentially un-safe trains (or trains they have "concerns" about) but not passengers?

To me that would suggest the concern doesn't relate to the cabs.

 

[craigybagel]

So ASLEF are happy to put their drivers in potentially un-safe trains (or trains they have "concerns" about) but not passengers?

People normally complain anytime ASLEF or RMT go out on strike about them not showing any consideration towards their passengers, so I hope this change will be noted!

 

[PeterC]

So ASLEF are happy to put their drivers in potentially un-safe trains (or trains they have "concerns" about) but not passengers?

Surely test running would be necessary to ensure that the "safety concerns" were all resolved.

 

[northwichcat]

People normally complain anytime ASLEF or RMT go out on strike about them not showing any consideration towards their passengers, so I hope this change will be noted!

Depends if that's the main reason or a secondary or tertiary reason for good PR.

 

[43096]

Depends if that's the main reason or a secondary or tertiary reason for good PR.

Given that unions are not noted for giving a stuff about passengers - strikes aren’t in the passengers’ interest despite what they claim - I rather suspect the latter. And being awkward just for the sake of it.

 

[notlob.divad]

According to this thread, the idea of Diesel Powered D78s, running on the National Rail network has existed for over 4 years. There has also been 21 months since the train made its first test outing (and set fire to itself). If ASLEF really do have 'numerous concerns about the 230s' , they have had plenty of time to make their opinions known in the intervening months. The timing of this coming out, when the refurbished units are at the depot waiting to be deployed on their test outings, lends me to the think there is a certain amount of:

being awkward just for the sake of it

even if there is some legitimacy in the concerns being expressed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cabs don't look bad, and are presumably a lot more spacious than a gangwayed Class 153, particularly at the number 2 end. So why the hate?

 

[craigybagel]

Given that unions are not noted for giving a stuff about passengers - strikes aren’t in the passengers’ interest despite what they claim - I rather suspect the latter. And being awkward just for the sake of it.

According to this thread, the idea of Diesel Powered D78s, running on the National Rail network has existed for over 4 years. There has also been 21 months since the train made its first test outing (and set fire to itself). If ASLEF really do have 'numerous concerns about the 230s' , they have had plenty of time to make their opinions known in the intervening months. The timing of this coming out, when the refurbished units are at the depot waiting to be deployed on their test outings, lends me to the think there is a certain amount of:
even if there is some legitimacy in the concerns being expressed.

The cabs don't look bad, and are presumably a lot more spacious than a gangwayed Class 153, particularly at the number 2 end. So why the hate?

Contrary to popular belief, unions don't exist to be "awkward for the sake of it". It may well be that ASLEF's concerns have been raised a long time ago and been ignored, or that they had to wait until they could inspect a finished production train before they could make a complaint. I've never known any driver to be especially keen on working 153s so I'm sure they will want them replaced just as quickly as the passengers and TOCs do - providing they are satisfied with the suitability and safety of the replacement units.

But of course it's much easier to just blame the unions for being awkward....

 

[jimm]

So no one actually knows for sure what concerns Aslef may have, at a time when the trains are still three months out from planned passenger service anyway

Aslef know plenty about the 230s - I visited Long Marston and had a ride round on 230001 in early 2016 on the same day a group from Aslef was there at the invitation of Vivarail. I'd be surprised if there had been no further contact between the two parties since then.

 

[samuelmorris]

At the risk of ranking unions I tend to find ASLEF rather less impatient when it comes to things requiring action, I'm not particularly pro-union when it comes to these sorts of things (for context only, not starting a debate) but when they get involved it's usually because there really is something to be concerned about. It would help their cause, however, to know what that concern was!

 

[43096]

Contrary to popular belief, unions don't exist to be "awkward for the sake of it".

It may not be why they exist, but they sure as hell come across that way. When was the last time a union said anything positive about anything in the railway industry?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It may not be why they exist, but they sure as hell come across that way. When was the last time a union said anything positive about anything in the railway industry?

With respect, that isn't what they're there for. They (like unions in all other industries) are there to protect their members' interests, be that safety, job security or pay/conditions among many other issues that generally don't get press attention. If they were simply cheerleaders for the companies which are often hostile to them, they wouldn't be doing their job.

 

[Fincra5]

It may not be why they exist, but they sure as hell come across that way. When was the last time a union said anything positive about anything in the railway industry?

Obviously you're not a Union man yourself. ASLEF don't just raise concerns for the sake of it. Issues will arise during testing (thats the point in it), a bit like the Cl385s and their windscreen, and the issues will need addressing before the unit should enter revenue service.

ASLEF don't just reject new (recycled trains) for the fun of it.

 

[Clip]

Obviously you're not a Union man yourself. ASLEF don't just raise concerns for the sake of it. Issues will arise during testing (thats the point in it), a bit like the Cl385s and their windscreen, and the issues will need addressing before the unit should enter revenue service.

ASLEF don't just reject new (recycled trains) for the fun of it.

Indeed but they appear to have raised concerns before testing and thats what people are wondering about