Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,917
230005 currently sat at Bedford St Johns with no power.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Creation of class 230 DEMUs from ex-LU D78s by Vivarail
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
delt1c
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,125
And this is called progress
Silverlinky
Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 683
Reliability-wise these things are not going down well. There is a plan to rescue this one using the other unit (004) meaning there will be no service on the line for a while yet.
Just rescuing the other unit is a job in itself as i've been told that no LNW drivers were trained to couple/uncouple these units as part of the training package. All instances like this have to be attended to by a Vivarail technician.
Harpers Tate
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2013
- Messages
- 1,698
Reliability/teething issues aside (which applied in equal measure to the 14x and 150 fleets when new) and having done the Bedford<>Bletchley thing a couple of times each way, one way on the 153 and the other three singles on the 230, frankly here (and by deduction, therefore, everywhere else that 153s, and indeed 150s can be found) I would far, far rather ride on the 230. The top speed is and always was a total red-herring just about every where 14x, 150 and 153 operate. The recycled/upcycled nature of these is only of relevance to railway enthusiasts and snobs. In absolute terms, the train is a massive improvement on much of the 1980s "modernisation" fleet and I would welcome their introduction to replace every 14x, 150 and 153 in service - and probably some others, too.
rogercov
Member
It looks like they fixed it. 005 went through Rigmont empty back to Bletchley about 10 mins ago, moving quite fast!
Hopefully 004 should be here in around 20 mins to take me back.
gazthomas
Established Member
I stopped at Husbourne Crawley between Aspley Guise and Ridgmont (quite a handful to type!) this morning to take a photo of one of the new trains. Externally 230005 looked really smart (though dwarfed by the countryside!) and it was eerily quiet as it passed me. The service I saw, the 11.01 from Bletchley to Bedford arrived 1 minute early having kept time throughout. I see later on that one of the units had failed, a real shame and I hope they can snag all the issues so that they can be relied on.
As well as the retrofitted windows replacing the doors it was obvious were the original doors were as you can see the metal on the roof used to divert rain water away from the doors.
As well as the retrofitted windows replacing the doors it was obvious were the original doors were as you can see the metal on the roof used to divert rain water away from the doors.
zn1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 435
The branch has always been a unit breaker...always has been always will be...
Now give these new girls a chance, they are undergoing their real breaking in period , by the passengers, train crews and maintenance teams alike
as for coupling and uncoupling training, this is surely Basic crew stuff.. you cant rely on the servicing engineers to be around all the time when a failure occurs and a drag is required...LNWR Need to get the BY crews sorted on this...yesterday
Now give these new girls a chance, they are undergoing their real breaking in period , by the passengers, train crews and maintenance teams alike
as for coupling and uncoupling training, this is surely Basic crew stuff.. you cant rely on the servicing engineers to be around all the time when a failure occurs and a drag is required...LNWR Need to get the BY crews sorted on this...yesterday
Bantamzen
Established Member
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....
Harpers Tate
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2013
- Messages
- 1,698
60 mph - almost completely irrelevant. It was when this thread was started, and it still is. Capacity - so, better a 153 then?
Outside of this forum, you'll find Adrian Shooter is well regarded by those that worked for him at Chiltern too.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
so the answer to my question was: No. thanks for confirming.
BTW - a 60 mph unit would be perfectly acceptable for many of northern secondary/branch routes and would offer a vast increase in comfort and facilities over a pacer. They offer more seats than the 153 that they replaced and vast amounts of circulating space.
What a load of balderdash. Personally I was very skeptical of these units. The delivered product is really good. The proof, as they say, is in the eating
can you provide a source for these claims? While i haven't seen a cost breakdown conversations with people "in the know" suggest the opposite of your claim.
Northern have missed out on cheap, quickly avialble trains that could have offered service improvements to thier passengers. I understand why but i think the finished article is better than they ( and many) suspected it would be.
PS what does a cheap train look like?
the most accurate comment on this thread! Real people who are daily users of the trains are very impressed and there has been an upsurge in good will.
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.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
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.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
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 in relation to these trains was wrong. Mine was.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
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.
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.
All of those cause the same problems as the current initial unreliability of your favourite target...
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Paul, I know you have trouble grasping this concept but the issues faced by the new class 230's are similar to the issues faced when introducing any new train. You seem to live in a fantasy world of 100% reliability "out of the box". It simply isnt going to happen with machines of this type. The trains have been fully tested.
So to be clear despite this verbiage the answer to my question is that you ARE too proud to admit a mistake. Thank you for clearing that up.
Paul, please do try to grasp this very simple concept: The issues are nothing out of the ordinary for the introduction of a new train. The issues have been relatively minor and few in number. I have experience of introduction several new machine types and these kinds of failures are common, regardless of the level of pre service introduction testing. As a daily user of the line the failures are at a level no worse than the 150/153 with the worst problems caused by infrastructure failures. We haven't, for instance, lost the service for a whole day or for several days at a time which was a sadly common occurrence in the past.
As an aside perhaps you could provide me with a list of the train types in the country that offer the 100% reliability you require.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
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.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
You have been very happy to "decry" these units at regular periods throughout this thread. You continue to do so with your gnomic postings on reliability. I am comfortable enough to admit that my earlier views on these trains have been proved wrong and that therefore my view has changed, especially once the finished product has entered into service. You seem unwilling to admit any such mistake.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Mainly because there is NO mistake and facts speak for themselves.
Are you not in agreement with posting # 7981 by Spartacus as being factual?
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Which "facts" are these? As i said, daily use of these trains has changed my opinion. For our line they are better than what they have replaced.
ashkeba
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2019
- Messages
- 2,171
With hindsight, is "upgraded" the correct term?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Given that, other than the 230s, all DMUs built since about 1985 have had 23 or 24m vehicles, the money saved from 8m of platform at the affected stations does seem to have been a very false economy indeed. The 230s are nice, interesting units, but really the branch should have been being worked by a pair of 2-car Class 172s for years, and I'm sure it would have been absent that issue.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
yes - in that the got a new signalling system to replace life expired equipment. No in that it limited the length of units that could use the line. Personally, I think the former is a greater benefit.
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.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
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.
I believe the comparison was first made by someone else however its worth noting that the civity was launched in 2010 if wiki is correct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAF_Civity not a train built from 'scratch'
Struner
Member
The CAFs are based on their Civities, so not exactly from scratch.
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.
I don't get why people are arguing over trains on here.
It's the same with people who are so against Pacers .
Ok an opinion is always good if it remains friendly to read.
On 230s,I'd love to see some and have a ride on them to see what they are like.
I have read a bit about them and seem quite impressed what has gone into the D stock trains to give them their new lease of life.
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.
Newer trains never work 100% out of the box and will always have teething problems with introduction.
The Voyagers,which are a horrid toy train in my opinion didn't work successfully for quite a while after introduction.
They all seem to be ok now though.
And I'm not too sure if Voyagers actually have any sort of following with enthusiasts.
The new 195s is an interesting prospect as with any new trains,as is with the 230s,we wish every success for the benefit of the passengers.
Also,there should be no haste in withdrawing perfectly usuable stock if the newer trains don't work properly or become problematic.
It's the same with people who are so against Pacers .
Ok an opinion is always good if it remains friendly to read.
On 230s,I'd love to see some and have a ride on them to see what they are like.
I have read a bit about them and seem quite impressed what has gone into the D stock trains to give them their new lease of life.
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.
Newer trains never work 100% out of the box and will always have teething problems with introduction.
The Voyagers,which are a horrid toy train in my opinion didn't work successfully for quite a while after introduction.
They all seem to be ok now though.
And I'm not too sure if Voyagers actually have any sort of following with enthusiasts.
The new 195s is an interesting prospect as with any new trains,as is with the 230s,we wish every success for the benefit of the passengers.
Also,there should be no haste in withdrawing perfectly usuable stock if the newer trains don't work properly or become problematic.
Pacers are pretty much life-expired. It’s pretty much academic, at this point, how people feel about them. It should be remembered that pacers were originally only meant to have a working life of around 20 years or so. Plus, they were intended to be used on quiet branch lines where the economic case for keeping the line open was considered marginal, during the “managed decline” era of 1980s British Rail. In reality, they ended up on busy commuter lines such as Liverpool-Manchester and even on some longer distance regional express services and will have been in service for around 35 years once they finally retire. There’d have been less distain for them from people if they were utilised as originally intended.
These D-trains are similar in some ways. So long as they’re used as intended, there should be no major issues after they’ve bedded down. Also, being DEMUs they’ll probably ride a fair bit better than a pacer, though maybe that’s not difficult to achieve.
- Status