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

[DarloRich]

the branch always used to be a unit breaker, some dmus could cope with way it banged them around, others couldn't...hopefully by giving the 230's a good hard test regime, to break em should sort out any issues..the branch needs her own fleet, it always worked better when the maintenance was done locally at BY...the ferrying of units to and from birmingham always feels to me like a waste of fuel, waste of train crews and pathing...it must be cheaper to have a local team long term to look after this ladies

As local users we all agree.

When I look at them I see a train, when I ride on it I then decide if it feels as if I am riding on a forty year old tube train or something decent, any comments made before, you or I have done that are, to be honest, worthless. Neither of us can say if they are good or not until we have the info to decide.

Agreed - few of us have ridden on a 230 yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed - few of us have ridden on a 230 yet.

Indeed, though from the pictures I've seen so far they look to be a reasonable short-distance DMU. On a par with a Class 150, say, which is just about ideal for the line.

TBH, 3 Pacers would also be fine, the key things are that (a) they are reasonably reliable (so ruling out 153s), (b) there are 3 of them so always a spare, and (c) they are kept at Bletchley, not miles away.

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed, though from the pictures I've seen so far they look to be a reasonable short-distance DMU. On a par with a Class 150, say, which is just about ideal for the line.

I have seen inside the test unit and the seats are a mixture of airline, table and transverse seating. It looks decent enough. Oh and fitted with a disabled person toilet and offering more bike space and wifi.

 

[Doomotron]

1. Are they 40-year-old Underground trains? Yes, but they have been rebuilt inside and out to make them essentially new trains in the body of the D-Stock. This makes them less expensive and because of the way they've been designed, cheaper and easier to maintain.
2. Would brand-new trains be better? Depends on the situation, really. The 230s can be perfect for shorter routes because of how they're built, but on a large scale could be a bad investment.
3. Are they better than Pacers (he didn't ask this but I'll answer it anyway)? Yes.
4. Is the money spent on the D-Train project better spent elsewhere? Yes and no. The money technically could be better spent on helping the poor and curing cancer, but I don't think that's the point. But for extending the life of a train to replace life-expired trains? Yeah, probably. I think these do well - or at least I hope they do.

 

[philthetube]

also well spent because of the research which has been involved in developing these trains. Regardless of whether or not the actual trains are a success.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also well spent because of the research which has been involved in developing these trains. Regardless of whether or not the actual trains are a success.

Let us not forget the original commercial raison d'etre of why the Class 230 project was originally set up, which was to make a Pacer (another "innovative" rail product) replacement fleet as one main project from their purchased unwanted stocks of a LU Class. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with research and development. To now view the actual reality of a situation of a few units sold here and a few units sold there and a large LU stock percentage being as yet unsold after four years of the project makes the comment above of "whether or not the actual trains are a success" seem somewhat strange when the overseas private finance company surely would have first launched Vivarail to fulfil the commercial marketing and sales of the Class 230 fleet as a strictly commercial project.

 

[samuelmorris]

Let us not forget the original commercial raison d'etre of why the Class 230 project was originally set up, which was to make a Pacer (another "innovative" rail product) replacement fleet as one main project from their purchased unwanted stocks of a LU Class. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with research and development. To now view the actual reality of a situation of a few units sold here and a few units sold there and a large LU stock percentage being as yet unsold after four years of the project makes the comment above of "whether or not the actual trains are a success" seem somewhat strange when the overseas private finance company surely would have first launched Vivarail to fulfil the commercial marketing and sales of the Class 230 fleet as a strictly commercial project.

That's a point you have made quite a few times. There's no denying the first intended use case of the 230s never materialised after they weren't permitted for use at Northern, but that's what business is about, you adapt to changing situations and Vivarail have done. Whether what they have achieved is a good return on investment for those who have paid into the company is another matter, but the fact is, what they have achieved is employment of a fair number of people, utilisation of resources that were otherwise headed for the scrapheap, and potentially valuable R&D in the refurbishment and battery train sectors. That they did not achieve their original intended outcome is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's a point you have made quite a few times. There's no denying the first intended use case of the 230s never materialised after they weren't permitted for use at Northern, but that's what business is about, you adapt to changing situations and Vivarail have done. Whether what they have achieved is a good return on investment for those who have paid into the company is another matter, but the fact is, what they have achieved is employment of a fair number of people, utilisation of resources that were otherwise headed for the scrapheap, and potentially valuable R&D in the refurbishment and battery train sectors. That they did not achieve their original intended outcome is pretty much irrelevant.

I wonder how many other commercial organisations under the current financial stringencies that apply on setting up a new company to market a single project that uses a limited amount of working stocks would, after a time period of four years, when incurring all financial costs of the said project, noting the amount of monies garnered inwards into the financial coffers from sales or leasing agreements to offset those costs which in this particular example is not at all good, view matters?

I am sorry to be so business-minded, rather than seeing "innovative project matters" as others have done on this thread in the past, but for the last thirty-five years of my business life, commercial reality was my sole concern in life. To slightly amend an old sign in a shop, "Do not ask for commercial reality as a refusal often offends", would be seem to be a sign that could well find a home in some of my past decriers upon this thread.

 

[DarloRich]

I wonder how many other commercial organisations under the current financial stringencies that apply on setting up a new company to market a single project that uses a limited amount of working stocks would, after a time period of four years, when incurring all financial costs of the said project, noting the amount of monies garnered inwards into the financial coffers from sales or leasing agreements to offset those costs which in this particular example is not at all good, view matters?

I am sorry to be so business-minded, rather than seeing "innovative project matters" as others have done on this thread in the past, but for the last thirty-five years of my business life, commercial reality was my sole concern in life. To slightly amend an old sign in a shop, "Do not ask for commercial reality as a refusal often offends", would be seem to be a sign that could well find a home in some of my past decriers upon this thread.

Paul - the people who own the company in question are clearly happy with progress at this stage. If they were not the company would be wound up.

There must be a willingness to advance funding in the belief of future orders. Surely that is the essence of capitalism. If you believe in the product build it and they will come. If they don't then you lose.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you believe in the product build it and they will come. If they don't then you lose.

That statement pre-supposes that Vivarail have, in these last four years, fully converted all their purchased LU stock into ready-to-sell/lease rail units in their manufactory in that time period, but that is not the case.

 

[DarloRich]

That statement pre-supposes that Vivarail have, in these last four years, fully converted all their purchased LU stock into ready-to-sell/lease rail units in their manufactory in that time period, but that is not the case.

Paul you are being silly now. Surely with your years of top level business experience you aren't suggesting rushing into something without validating both the concept and market? That is what prototyping is for.

The concept is being proven. The market is yet to be made. Of these units work on the marston vale and in Wales other orders may follow.

 

[mmh]

Paul you are being silly now. Surely with your years of top level business experience you aren't suggesting rushing into something without validating both the concept and market? That is what prototyping is for.

The concept is being proven. The market is yet to be made. Of these units work on the marston vale and in Wales other orders may follow.

That's a possibility.

Another possibility is the fallout is sufficient when people discover their new trains are 40 year old tube trains that no more are ordered. We'll just have to wait and see.

I've long not understood why there's so little criticism of the 230 idea here.

 

[Glenmutchkin]

That's a possibility.

Another possibility is the fallout is sufficient when people discover their new trains are 40 year old tube trains that no more are ordered. We'll just have to wait and see.

I've long not understood why there's so little criticism of the 230 idea here.

Have you been on one of the 230 units yet?

I had and took the chance to travel on the Battery prototype at Bo'ness and it did not look or feel like a 40 year old unit.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I've long not understood why there's so little criticism of the 230 idea here.

Have you not read this thread???

 

[Journeyman]

Have you been on one of the 230 units yet?

I had and took the chance to travel on the Battery prototype at Bo'ness and it did not look or feel like a 40 year old unit.

Much of it isn't 40 years old! The bogies are only about ten years old, all the traction equipment is new, and the interiors were very extensively refurbed by London Underground. They've subsequently been refurbed again. The bodies are aluminium and therefore corrosion isn't a problem, and the underframes are very hefty and solid. The trains they were based on were excellent, so there's no reason why, post-conversion, they can't be better.

 

[deltic08]

Let us not forget the original commercial raison d'etre of why the Class 230 project was originally set up, which was to make a Pacer (another "innovative" rail product) replacement fleet as one main project from their purchased unwanted stocks of a LU Class.

Lets hope they don't last as long.

 

[deltic08]

Much of it isn't 40 years old! The bogies are only about ten years old, all the traction equipment is new, and the interiors were very extensively refurbed by London Underground. They've subsequently been refurbed again. The bodies are aluminium and therefore corrosion isn't a problem, and the underframes are very hefty and solid. The trains they were based on were excellent, so there's no reason why, post-conversion, they can't be better.

If they are that good and refurbished by LU recently, why did LU withdraw them with lots of life left. Poor accounting.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If they are that good and refurbished by LU recently, why did LU withdraw them with lots of life left. Poor accounting.

I believe it was so that they could standardise the sub surface fleet on a single type of rolling stock, which carries huge cost saving benefits.

 

[Brissle Girl]

If they are that good and refurbished by LU recently, why did LU withdraw them with lots of life left. Poor accounting.

Because capacity is key on the underground, and the new trains are longer, and also have more space by being walk through, and by being designed to be compatible with the new signalling which is being introduced, thus enabling a higher frequency service in due course. They also have air conditioning which is a very welcome feature too given the problems of heat on the underground (albeit that it is more of a problem in the deep tube lines). That doesn’t mean to say that the trains they replaced can’t be suitable for other services where the above aspects are not an issue.

 

[mmh]

I believe it was so that they could standardise the sub surface fleet on a single type of rolling stock, which carries huge cost saving benefits.

It was because they were old and obsolete as tube trains. Yet miraculously they were fantastic as soon as they're used anywhere else.

The "hand-me-downs are ok for the provinces" line never goes down well. It'll go down worse when the press and public discover not only are they hand-me-downs but weren't good enough for the London Underground.

If replacing them was supposed to save money it doesn't seem to have worked. TFLs are not in a good place financially. Although to be fair that may be as much to do with it being a complete basket case all round than a single train order

 

[mmh]

Have you been on one of the 230 units yet?

I had and took the chance to travel on the Battery prototype at Bo'ness and it did not look or feel like a 40 year old unit.

I've not been on one, but I have seen videos of the battery prototype - what a racket!

I'm more concerned about what the diesel ones they've actually sold will be like though.

And I'm sorry, they do look exactly like what they are.

 

[Jonny]

If you could only alter the bogies to handle 75 mph +

 

[Journeyman]

It was because they were old and obsolete as tube trains. Yet miraculously they were fantastic as soon as they're used anywhere else.

The "hand-me-downs are ok for the provinces" line never goes down well. It'll go down worse when the press and public discover not only are they hand-me-downs but weren't good enough for the London Underground.

If replacing them was supposed to save money it doesn't seem to have worked. TFLs are not in a good place financially. Although to be fair that may be as much to do with it being a complete basket case all round than a single train order

No, they weren't "old and obsolete" as tube trains. They were perfectly good for many more years' service - it just happens that LU were given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to upgrade and replace the whole subsurface fleet. TfL's money troubles are almost entirely down to the current government's complete inability to fund anything properly, and has nothing to do with S Stock procurement.

You're just making yourself look ignorant now.

 

[MAV39]

I always thought that the 4 single door openings became regarded as a lot less than ideal, in terms of opening/closing speed, aperture width and passenger familiarity difference to just about every other tube and sub service stock, for the busy sections of the District Line.

 

[DarloRich]

That's a possibility.

Another possibility is the fallout is sufficient when people discover their new trains are 40 year old tube trains that no more are ordered. We'll just have to wait and see.

I've long not understood why there's so little criticism of the 230 idea here.

Have you been on them? Here are some through the square window pictures:

Bletchley by DarloRich2009, on Flickr

Bletchley by DarloRich2009, on Flickr

Bletchley by DarloRich2009, on Flickr


As a daily Marston Vale user we cant wait for them to start. 40 years old or not ( which the mechanical gubbins aren't!) they will still be better than the rotten dog box. OBVIOUSLY I would like a brand new train but having a working 230 is better than a broken ( more and more often) 153. I am sick of having to walk to Bletchley. So yeah, not bothered about the 40 year old train IF it is better than the 35 year old train.

PS I also have a video of the train moving: https://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/46330869991/in/dateposted-public/

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would brand-new trains be better? Depends on the situation, really. The 230s can be perfect for shorter routes because of how they're built, but on a large scale could be a bad investment

For the Marston Vale due to platform/level crossing positions your other option is basically Stadler (or used Class 150).

 

[big all]

i think its a truly brilliant concept
the age off something is not important
if its safe efficient and fit for purpose i simply dont understand the problem
its possibly 30-45% off the cost off a brand new train
we need innovation to give improvements to encourage more passengers on lighter used services
when growth is enough that will attract the investment in a slightly upmarket recycle like a newer 230 or 769 or indeed a brand new train
remember
buses on the roads have often 40 year old registration numbers because that goes with the chassis but the body and running gear can be yesterdays build
innovation recycle modernisation are no bad thing but being narrow minded can be

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

i think its a truly brilliant concept
the age off something is not important
if its safe efficient and fit for purpose i simply dont understand the problem
its possibly 30-45% off the cost off a brand new train

Where have your financial figures above come from and why have you used the word "possibly".

For the actual procured sales with the interior fitments as ordered, how do your figures above equate?

 

[big all]

as a guess nothing more
re engineneering will always be far cheaper
as you are taking a known entity adding another several known entities
there are no expensive multi million pound extrusion and body forming set ups just adaption costs
in a similar way you take your car
you re engine and reupholster rather than a new build a 90% as new specification
for a fraction off the price

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

as a guess nothing more
re engineneering will always be far cheaper
as you are taking a known entity adding another several known entities
there are no expensive multi million pound extrusion and body forming set ups just adaption costs
in a similar way you take your car
you re engine and reupholster rather than a new build a 90% as new specification
for a fraction off the price

You'll be telling us all next that all those stated savings you mention will be passed onto prospective purchasers rather than Vivarail selling these units at what they see as a commercial market unit rail rate....