Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,920
230005 currently sat at Bedford St Johns with no power.
And this is called progressIt can't now, the reason being that a number of the stations have been rebuilt (and signals moved) to move the platform to be after the level crossing in both directions, which means the back end of the train would block the crossing while calling at the station. I'm pretty sure Class 172s would be being used if this were possible.
230005 currently sat at Bedford St Johns with no power.
It looks like they fixed it. 005 went through Rigmont empty back to Bletchley about 10 mins ago, moving quite fast!230005 currently sat at Bedford St Johns with no power.
and you have how much experience of them?
Which routes are the Northern CAF trains operating on at this exact moment in time?
Also, which routes are the converted Class 319s (769s) are operating on at this exact moment in time?
I would like to have those for sight and haulage as well as the 230s that are presently in service.
60 mph - almost completely irrelevant. It was when this thread was started, and it still is. Capacity - so, better a 153 then?..... limited to 60mph and by your own admission have limited seating capacity. This is not what Northern need......
You don't need any experience with them to know that they are limited to 60mph and by your own admission have limited seating capacity. This is not what Northern need.
How many? None at this time. However the CAF units were not ordered until well into 2016, the 769s proposed for Northern later than them. Vivarail started the 230 project in late 2014 if I recall correctly, and to date have three units working, albeit with some snags still to be dealt with. If by 2021 there are less than 3 CAF and/or 769 units in public service, then you can say that the 230 option would have been quicker.
I am fascinated by the love affair that takes place between RUK and the 230s, especially given that the 769 project despite being such a similar project with the added bonus of offering a bi-mode unit is not held in anything like the same regard. It does lead me to believe that either this is some rose-tinted nostalgia around the D-stock, or some rather odd cult of personality around Mr Shooter. I have made it clear in the past that I remain cynical in both the 230 & 769 projects because they involve rather a lot of money to repurpose units with potentially limited life spans. When the 230 project started it was suggested by Vivarail that they would be considerably cheaper than new units (about a third of the cost I believe), but ever since the rumours have been that this initial estimate has been sliding towards the cost of new units. It is my view that there is no point spending the cost of a new unit, or anything close, if these will only see very limited lifespans, or if the nature of the units means they have limited usefulness on the network.
Finally I remember well the discussion on here when it was thought that the Northern franchise would be lapping up large numbers of 230s, because they would have been a cheap option. Now people here get defensive when it is suggested that they look cheap. How times change....
You don't need any experience with them to know that they are limited to 60mph and by your own admission have limited seating capacity. This is not what Northern need.
I am fascinated by the love affair that takes place between RUK and the 230s, especially given that the 769 project despite being such a similar project with the added bonus of offering a bi-mode unit is not held in anything like the same regard. It does lead me to believe that either this is some rose-tinted nostalgia around the D-stock, or some rather odd cult of personality around Mr Shooter.
I have made it clear in the past that I remain cynical in both the 230 & 769 projects because they involve rather a lot of money to repurpose units with potentially limited life spans. When the 230 project started it was suggested by Vivarail that they would be considerably cheaper than new units (about a third of the cost I believe), but ever since the rumours have been that this initial estimate has been sliding towards the cost of new units. It is my view that there is no point spending the cost of a new unit, or anything close, if these will only see very limited lifespans, or if the nature of the units means they have limited usefulness on the network.
Finally I remember well the discussion on here when it was thought that the Northern franchise would be lapping up large numbers of 230s, because they would have been a cheap option. Now people here get defensive when it is suggested that they look cheap.
The recycled/upcycled nature of these is only of relevance to railway enthusiasts and snobs
as for 2 car,I'm fairly sure the line can cope with more.If i recall correctly it used to be worked by up to 2*2 car 11x DMU years ago for the school runs, and I think also top"n" tail 31/4 with 3*mk2c coaches at one stage.
Real people who are daily users of the trains are very impressed and there has been an upsurge in good will.
I am making an infrequent posting on this thread to ask if the prospective passengers on that line who would not be well versed in the trials and tribulations of the RUK experts of new rolling stock having early teething problems were warned in advance of the delay in service introduction and also of the possibilities of units failing in service.
Paul, what on earth are you talking about? I am not sure what world you live in. Does any TOC put out a blanket warning telling prospective passengers that a train might break down? That seems to be what you are asking for!
PS Are you so proud that you are unable to admit your stance on relation to these trains was wrong. Mine was.
You are wholly correct with your last para. I take it therefore that we will see you condemning all of the other classes delivered late, having problems which are delaying their entry into service, or proving unreliable once they have entered service.If these trains had been fully tested and not rushed into service, noting the other point that I made (which I note you conveniently overlooked) concerning the late introduction into service that led to the transport bodies blaming each other at the time, would matters that have been recently reported on this thread not have occurred?
I have no need to decry the Class 230 units, as it does appear that there are indeed other website members who seem quite capable of making such comments without any assistance from me. After the less than auspicious start of the Class 230 units on that line, reading of problems reported on postings on this thread, why do you assume that my stance in relation to the Class 230 units was wrong? These trains are meant to fulfil a reliable transportation mode for prospective passengers, just like any other transportation mode, in which passengers expect reliability.
If these trains had been fully tested and not rushed into service, noting the other point that I made (which I note you conveniently overlooked) concerning the late introduction into service that led to the transport bodies blaming each other at the time, would matters that have been recently reported on this thread not have occurred?
I have no need to decry the Class 230 units, as it does appear that there are indeed other website members who seem quite capable of making such comments without any assistance from me.
After the less than auspicious start of the Class 230 units on that line, reading of problems reported on postings on this thread, why do you assume that my stance in relation to the Class 230 units was wrong? These trains are meant to fulfil a reliable transportation mode for prospective passengers, just like any other transportation mode, in which passengers expect reliability.
So to be clear despite this verbiage the answer to my question is that you ARE to proud to admit a mistake. Thank you for clearing that up.
How you can possibly arrive at that view stated above is way above my comprehension, as all I said that I had no need to decry the Class 230 units on this thread, as there were other website members quite capable of making such decriance as had occurred in recent postings.
I am more than happy to once return to holding a watching brief of the postings made upon this thread.
You seem unwilling to admit any such mistake.
Mainly because there is NO mistake and facts speak for themselves.
With hindsight, is "upgraded" the correct term?not since the line was upgraded. The longest train that the majority of the stations on the line can take is a 150. That is why there was so much difficulty in replacing the units.
With hindsight, is "upgraded" the correct term?
With hindsight, is "upgraded" the correct term?
How many? None at this time. However the CAF units were not ordered until well into 2016, the 769s proposed for Northern later than them. Vivarail started the 230 project in late 2014 if I recall correctly, and to date have three units working, albeit with some snags still to be dealt with. If by 2021 there are less than 3 CAF and/or 769 units in public service, then you can say that the 230 option would have been quicker.
The 230's piggybacked off of an existing train, CAF had to design a train from scratch. There is no comparison to be made between the two.Let's compare like with like. The order for the three Class 230 units now in service was announced in October 2017 ....so less than 2 years from order to service. The CAF units for Northern were ordered a year earlier (according to your statement) and are still not carrying passengers.
The 230's piggybacked off of an existing train, CAF had to design a train from scratch. There is no comparison to be made between the two.
In the context of Bantamzen's post there is every comparison to be made ....in fact he/she made it. But as subsequently pointed out the CAF trains were based on an established and marketed design and (like TransPennine's fleets ordered around the same time) have yet to carry a passenger. I am not decrying CAF ....I look forward to using their trains.The 230's piggybacked off of an existing train, CAF had to design a train from scratch. There is no comparison to be made between the two.
If Pacers could be further used in a different capacity,that too could be an interesting read although I doubt there would be any support given how much slating they have received.