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

edwin_m · 16 May 2019

The 60mph top speed is likely to rule out their use on any medium to long distance routes. I'd have thought that being originally built for high-density commuter routes then they would be suitable for those journeys with an appropriate interior, as they are for any other relatively rural routes like Bletchley-Bedford where fast running is not necessary.

However you do tend to find that most diesel trains exceed 60mph routinely, if not on a particular journey then on other journeys worked during the same day's duties or on other workings resourced from the same pool of units. This could be changed in some places by separating the diagrams, but at the cost of needing more units.

RailUK Forums

Chris217 · 16 May 2019

But life expired doesn't mean
units that are still good for further
service if they are ok to work elsewhere.
Like the D Stock which is older than
any of the Pacers,new life has been granted through upgrades etc.
The D Stock conversion is a good call
I reckon.
Just because something has got to a certain age,doesn't make it life expired if it's still operational.
I don't hear of passengers on the Island Line complaining about their elderly stock.
And like those units,further work was found for them when LU dispensed with them.
It's the stupid rules that govern life expired like step entrance,and non PRM facilities,something we have aloud to happen through government interference.
Never had the problems we face today. back in the day you'd board an open platformed bus where everyone with a pram or pushchair knew they needed to fold it before boarding!
Withdrawing any serviceable trains when there are still stock shortages is nothing less than lunacy whether they are PRM or not.
It's just another made up rule to score political points.

Xenophon PCDGS · 16 May 2019

Chris217 said:
But life expired doesn't mean units that are still good for further service if they are ok to work elsewhere. Like the D Stock which is older than any of the Pacers,new life has been granted through upgrades etc. The D Stock conversion is a good call I reckon.

Just because something has got to a certain age,doesn't make it life expired if it's still operational. I don't hear of passengers on the Island Line complaining about their elderly stock. And like those units,further work was found for them when LU dispensed with them. It's the stupid rules that govern life expired like step entrance,and non PRM facilities,something we have aloud to happen through government interference. Never had the problems we face today. back in the day you'd board an open platformed bus where everyone with a pram or pushchair knew they needed to fold it before boarding! Withdrawing any serviceable trains when there are still stock shortages is nothing less than lunacy whether they are PRM or not. It's just another made up rule to score political points.

What are the comparative current bodyshell conditions of the Class 142 Pacers and the D Stock?

Are you, in the final part of your posting above with Class 142 Pacers in mind, suggesting that Angel Trains have been "leant upon" politically to score political points in their decision not to keep their Class 142 Pacers on lease past the end of 2019?

Gareth · 16 May 2019

Chris217 said:
But life expired doesn't mean
units that are still good for further
service if they are ok to work elsewhere.

True but pacers don't realistically fit your description. They're way past their expected operational life as it is. What would you do with them? The PPM regulations cannot just be ignored and even if they could, it wouldn't stop a pacer needing a hugely comprehensive refurbishment. They quite probably need new engines and updated electrics and gizmos. Add to that the lack of bogies, which is the main reason the ride quality isn't great and you're then spending a significant outlay on getting a few more years service out of something that will ultimately still ride like crap when you could spend probably not much more, if more at all on new stock that should last 35-40 years.

I said pacers were similar in some ways to D trains but the key difference is that they were built to a better standard to begin with. Being a DEMU, with bogies, helps a lot too. Adding these two features to a pacer would not be so straight forward.

Routes like the Island Line are fringe cases with their own unique problems which require their own solutions. That is another line which may be found suitable for D Trains. However, for most lines, they won't be appropriate. For the most part, refurbishing life expired rolling stock is false economy.

reddragon · 16 May 2019

Chris217 said:
But life expired doesn't mean
units that are still good for further
service if they are ok to work elsewhere.
Like the D Stock which is older than
any of the Pacers,new life has been granted through upgrades etc.
The D Stock conversion is a good call
I reckon.
Just because something has got to a certain age,doesn't make it life expired if it's still operational.
I don't hear of passengers on the Island Line complaining about their elderly stock.
And like those units,further work was found for them when LU dispensed with them.
It's the stupid rules that govern life expired like step entrance,and non PRM facilities,something we have aloud to happen through government interference.
Never had the problems we face today. back in the day you'd board an open platformed bus where everyone with a pram or pushchair knew they needed to fold it before boarding!
Withdrawing any serviceable trains when there are still stock shortages is nothing less than lunacy whether they are PRM or not.
It's just another made up rule to score political points.

What is often forgotten is that London Transport had a vehicle refurbishment programme that basically renewed their buses & trains every few years, so even at 40 years old a Routemaster or tube stock only had its original shell, with so much of the mechanical, electrical and even structure renewed over the years. LT used to finally scrap things when the base structure gave in, which on the Routemaster was the A frame and the A stock the bogie frames & chassis. Hence, the D-stock was deposed of in 'as new condition'.

craigybagel · 16 May 2019

edwin_m said:
The 60mph top speed is likely to rule out their use on any medium to long distance routes. I'd have thought that being originally built for high-density commuter routes then they would be suitable for those journeys with an appropriate interior, as they are for any other relatively rural routes like Bletchley-Bedford where fast running is not necessary.

However you do tend to find that most diesel trains exceed 60mph routinely, if not on a particular journey then on other journeys worked during the same day's duties or on other workings resourced from the same pool of units. This could be changed in some places by separating the diagrams, but at the cost of needing more units.

The 60mph issue might not be as big a barrier as you'd think. If a 230 can get to 60 quicker then a 153 (and early suggestions are that they can) that might be enough to cancel out the top speed issue. I can think of two routes I work regularly where a 153 takes so long to get over 60, and so little time at that speed that I strongly suspect a 230 would out perform it. There's a third route that features a very long run between the first and second stations, with a 70mph line speed, where a 230 might lose a minute or so, but then the remaining 8 stations are all very close together, so overall a 230 would probably win on that one as well. And bear in mind most of the time I only work Class 1 services at up to 100mph - I'm sure my colleagues at Northern could think of plenty of routes where acceleration would trump top speed.

Bantamzen · 17 May 2019

keith1879 said:
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.

However the 230 program started back in late 2014, some three years earlier and had been previously rejected for the Nuneaton route because the originally built test unit had serious engine issues. So I'm afraid you are not even close to comparing like for like.

Let me be clear on my thoughts again. We (as in the travelling public) need trains that not only suit our railway network, but how our railways are run. With a privatised, medium term franchised set up units should be built to suit a multitude of routes, and a multitude of operating parameters. That is the thinking behind the CAF & Hitachi orders, large numbers of similar type units that can & doubtless will be used across large parts of our network over their lifespans. Lots of small, unique concepts like the 230s are not going to suit the industry in the long term. They are being used as a quick (although nearly 5 years cannot be considered quick) stopgap solution by the two operators that have so far ordered a whopping 8 of the units. Even Vivarail at this point will have realised that they are not going to be shipping dozens of these out anytime soon, hence their concentrating more on different engine designs which they doubtless hope to either sell directly or as a concept.

Now I know that it is considered almost heresy to even dare criticise the 230, as this unit has been giving the RUK seal of approval, but I'm not afraid to stand alone with my thoughts. The railway network isn't run for railway enthusiasts to try out a myriad of different unit and traction types, it is run to get people from one place to the next, and rightly or wrongly to make the companies operating them profits. And in today's world that doesn't mean lots of micro orders of different types of units that all require both crew and mechanical knowledge, it means large orders of similar units much in the way the airline industry works. Many here won't agree, and that's fine, but it is the reality. Time will tell, but I strongly suspect that the 230s, and indeed the 769s won't be seeing very long lifespans.

SWRtrain_fan · 17 May 2019

Have all 3 class 230s now entered service?

Xenophon PCDGS · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
Now I know that it is considered almost heresy to even dare criticise the 230, as this unit has been giving the RUK seal of approval, but I'm not afraid to stand alone with my thoughts. The railway network isn't run for railway enthusiasts to try out a myriad of different unit and traction types, it is run to get people from one place to the next, and rightly or wrongly to make the companies operating them profits. And in today's world that doesn't mean lots of micro orders of different types of units that all require both crew and mechanical knowledge, it means large orders of similar units much in the way the airline industry works. Many here won't agree, and that's fine, but it is the reality. Time will tell, but I strongly suspect that the 230s, and indeed the 769s won't be seeing very long lifespans.

You do not stand alone on this particular viewpoint.

Bletchleyite · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
Time will tell, but I strongly suspect that the 230s, and indeed the 769s won't be seeing very long lifespans.

And indeed I think this is the intention - one of the specific reasons for going 230 for the Marston Vale is that long-term EWR will bring in changes to the signalling system, platform extensions (and possibly station closures for the more pointless ones) and new dedicated rolling stock to the line. Therefore a unit lasting about 10-15 years was precisely what was required.

For North Wales it might not be as clear-cut as that, but Merseyrail extensions have certainly been hoped for on that kind of timeframe.

On your other point, standardisation has its benefits but so does the idea of dedicated, branded branch line units as has become common in places like Germany. It's a concept I have long wanted to see tried here, and the 230 provided a golden opportunity.

DarloRich · 17 May 2019

230003 in service today. It has a bletchley park motif on the toilets

Bletchleyite · 17 May 2019

DarloRich said:
230003 in service today. It has a bletchley park motif on the toilets

I wonder if they are going to get names at any point? I do hope so.

ashkeba · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
However the 230 program started back in late 2014, some three years earlier and had been previously rejected for the Nuneaton route because the originally built test unit had serious engine issues. So I'm afraid you are not even close to comparing like for like.

Let me be clear on my thoughts again. We (as in the travelling public) need trains that not only suit our railway network, but how our railways are run. With a privatised, medium term franchised set up units should be built to suit a multitude of routes, and a multitude of operating parameters. That is the thinking behind the CAF & Hitachi orders, […]

If you want to compare liker for like, the CAF Civity programme started before 2010. The UK orders are the first diesel sales.

The Hitachi A Train programme started before 2000 and trains have been in this country since around 2009. It's good to see more of them ordered but they're hardly a new train to compare like for like.

DarloRich · 17 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I wonder if they are going to get names at any point? I do hope so.

likewise!

Apparently 230003 was in use yesterday evening.

Bletchleyite · 17 May 2019

DarloRich said:
likewise!

Apparently 230003 was in use yesterday evening.

Indeed so, I saw it while boarding the 1552 to Euston (a good one to go for - a 12-car set running against the peak!)

keith1879 · 17 May 2019

This was your original post that I was answering.

Bantamzen said:
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 point being addressed was that it might have been quicker for Northern (in 2016) to have ordered class 230s than to have ordered CAF units.
Northern ordered CAF and they are still not in service. In 2017 (one year later) West Midlands ordered 230s and they are now in service.
If you are going to take 2014 as your starting point then the comparable time for the CAF units is when they started to design the Civity concept ....and it is equally irrelevant to Northern's ordering decision.

30907 · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
Let me be clear on my thoughts again. We (as in the travelling public) need trains that not only suit our railway network, but how our railways are run. With a privatised, medium term franchised set up units should be built to suit a multitude of routes, and a multitude of operating parameters. That is the thinking behind the CAF & Hitachi orders, large numbers of similar type units that can & doubtless will be used across large parts of our network over their lifespans.

That is an important factor, but other considerations include good use of resources (cascaded HSTs...) for the benefit of the environment and the consumer.
There are always likely to be bits of the system for which the standard product(s) are unsuitable/uneconomic (Marston Vale, Marlow..., IoW) or for which a short term solution is needed (Marston Vale again, Borderlands...), and improvisation adapting existing resources has a long railway pedigree (the Southern for example!).
So I don't see an either/or here.

Bantamzen · 17 May 2019

keith1879 said:
This was your original post that I was answering.

The point being addressed was that it might have been quicker for Northern (in 2016) to have ordered class 230s than to have ordered CAF units.
Northern ordered CAF and they are still not in service. In 2017 (one year later) West Midlands ordered 230s and they are now in service.
If you are going to take 2014 as your starting point then the comparable time for the CAF units is when they started to design the Civity concept ....and it is equally irrelevant to Northern's ordering decision.

Well if we are talking about the basic concept of the unit, traction notwithstanding, the the D-Stock can be be dated back to the mid 1970s.

30907 said:
That is an important factor, but other considerations include good use of resources (cascaded HSTs...) for the benefit of the environment and the consumer.
There are always likely to be bits of the system for which the standard product(s) are unsuitable/uneconomic (Marston Vale, Marlow..., IoW) or for which a short term solution is needed (Marston Vale again, Borderlands...), and improvisation adapting existing resources has a long railway pedigree (the Southern for example!).
So I don't see an either/or here.

But clearly as seen up thread, the issue of needing shorter units on this particular line is an infrastructural one, and one that can be resolved with the will and finance. And that investment will leave the line able to cope with a variety of units for decades to come, and not require constantly varying solutions which in the long term will equate to lower costs both financially and environmentally.

DarloRich · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
But clearly as seen up thread, the issue of needing shorter units on this particular line is an infrastructural one, and one that can be resolved with the will and finance.

it isnt going to be resolved because it doesn't need to be resolved. it simply wouldn't be worth the money in any event!

it is clear you, despite never having been within 100 miles of these trains, have a blinkered view of what these trains are about. You are welcome to that view but those of us who use the trains every day have a different one.

ashkeba · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
Well if we are talking about the basic concept of the unit, traction notwithstanding, the the D-Stock can be be dated back to the mid 1970s.

Really? Only the mid 1970s? I think the "basic concept of the unit" could be dated back to the early 1800s, same as all other passenger trains, but it's not really a useful fact for comparing class 230 with class 195!

Bantamzen · 17 May 2019

DarloRich said:
it isnt going to be resolved because it doesn't need to be resolved. it simply wouldn't be worth the money in any event!

it is clear you, despite never having been within 100 miles of these trains, have a blinkered view of what these trains are about. You are welcome to that view but those of us who use the trains every day have a different one.

You are right, I do have a blinkered view of them despite not having been within a fair distance of them. They are old, ex-Subsurface stock, tarted up a bit and given a new diesel power unit that has taken well over four years to get from concept to revenue service, and is still falling over. As I said, time will tell but it is what it is, ex-LU stock with Transit engines shoved underneath. Let's see how they get on in the years to come. I honestly hope for the sake of yourself and your fellow users that they don't keep rattling themselves apart, or setting fire to themselves. But you will forgive me for not being in the slightest bit envious of not getting them. Because believe me, I am not.

ashkeba said:
Really? Only the mid 1970s? I think the "basic concept of the unit" could be dated back to the early 1800s, same as all other passenger trains, but it's not really a useful fact for comparing class 230 with class 195!

The bottom line is this. CAF's UK Civity product was in April 2016 a design only, physical units did not exist. However the D-Stock did exist, it was just a case of adding a new power unit and refurbishment of the interior. So CAF's end to end productivity way exceeds that of Vivarail. They have already produced more physical units, and in a few months time will have way more revenue earning ones than their supposed rivals.

Clip · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
that has taken well over four years to get from concept to revenue service

Thats not their fault though is it - it was all set to send some to Northern but the order never materialized did it? Maybe because those in the north west were up in arms about them and now have had to wait even longer to get any extra trains at all especially as the 195s & 331s still havent come online.

I said it ages ago in this thread - you could've had trains within 6 months or so to cascade units to where needed or wait years for new - you waited years and boy do you look all the more petty for it now.

gingertom · 17 May 2019

I've met with Vivarail at the battery train demo at Bo'ness. They've replaced the original DC traction motors and control gear with AC motors and IGBT inverters to control them. Same weight, similar power but easier to control, more efficient and able to give regenereative braking. IIRC the bogies have been changed too. So there's a lot of new gear on these old trains.

Harpers Tate · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
.....forgive me for not being in the slightest bit envious of not getting them. Because believe me, I am not.......

If you are totally happy with Class 150 and 153 (for interior ambience and noise) and 156 for noise, then I'm going to continue to fail, completely, to understand your preference. I have ridden the 230 and if it were up to me, I'd choose that - 60mph and all - over any of NRs 150s and 153s. Quieter, quicker off the mark, better interior, better seats, better legroom, better lighting. Just better.

samuelmorris · 17 May 2019

Have they accidentally covered up the PIS speakers? They sound incredibly muffled, which they never were on the D78s.

Bantamzen · 17 May 2019

Harpers Tate said:
If you are totally happy with Class 150 and 153 (for interior ambience and noise) and 156 for noise, then I'm going to continue to fail, completely, to understand your preference. I have ridden the 230 and if it were up to me, I'd choose that - 60mph and all - over any of NRs 150s and 153s. Quieter, quicker off the mark, better interior, better seats, better legroom, better lighting. Just better.

I'm not sure were you got the idea that I prefer the 15x over the 230s from. Perhaps you might like to review my various posts over the years on the issue to see why I am cynical about them?

Bletchleyite · 17 May 2019

samuelmorris said:
Have they accidentally covered up the PIS speakers? They sound incredibly muffled, which they never were on the D78s.

It's the cheap and nasty PIS, it's exactly the same on the 319s.

A0wen · 17 May 2019

craigybagel said:
The 60mph issue might not be as big a barrier as you'd think. If a 230 can get to 60 quicker then a 153 (and early suggestions are that they can) that might be enough to cancel out the top speed issue. I can think of two routes I work regularly where a 153 takes so long to get over 60, and so little time at that speed that I strongly suspect a 230 would out perform it. There's a third route that features a very long run between the first and second stations, with a 70mph line speed, where a 230 might lose a minute or so, but then the remaining 8 stations are all very close together, so overall a 230 would probably win on that one as well. And bear in mind most of the time I only work Class 1 services at up to 100mph - I'm sure my colleagues at Northern could think of plenty of routes where acceleration would trump top speed.

On the Marston Vale with the average station spacing of 2 miles, I doubt either of the 15x units were ever getting close to their top speed. So if the 230s have better acceleration, the lower top speed won't be an issue.

I suspect there are a few other branches where this is true.

krus_aragon · 17 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
For North Wales it might not be as clear-cut as that, but Merseyrail extensions have certainly been hoped for on that kind of timeframe.

To my eye, it's just as clear-cut as the Marston Vale case. Up here, they're being used as a cheap way of testing the sparks effect (without the actual sparks) of doubling the service frequency, and to make the business case for through services to/by/with Merseyrail. Whatever diesel stock TfW ordered for the new line, it wasn't going to be able to operate through the underground Liverpool loop, so a set of refurbished units with a short lifespan is perfect in that regard.

30907 · 17 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
the issue of needing shorter units on this particular line is an infrastructural one, and one that can be resolved with the will and finance. And that investment will leave the line able to cope with a variety of units for decades to come, and not require constantly varying solutions which in the long term will equate to lower costs both financially and environmentally.

An issue that will be resolved in conjunction with East West Rail, hence a short term solution makes sense.

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

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member