• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

DannyMich2018

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2018
Messages
732
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.
I agree-On the Bedford-Bletchley line there are 10 intermediate stations for what is a just under 17 mile line so even if the line speed was higher than is currently is there would be little need for a higher speed train here, I doubt the 153 or 150's ever got to top speed and I presume the line speed in 60mph max?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
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.
Agreed
I suspect there are a few other branches where this is true.
Agreed but if anyone wants to speculate on routes that could use these trains, please use this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/which-lines-do-you-think-could-use-vivarail-class-230s.182661/
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
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.

Actually it is their fault, nobody but themselves and a few on here were pushing the 230s for Northern. They obviously tried to pitch them as being Pacer replacements, but clearly it was decided that they were not suitable for that franchise's operational needs. They then tried to get them operating on the Nuneaton line until the first unit tried to set fire to itself.

Quite honestly, given the pace that this project has trundled along, I honestly doubt they could have delivered even a fraction of what Northern might have ordered, assuming of course they hadn't already cancelled it due to the technical issues we've seen.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
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.

There was a fire on a test unit. That caused the project serious delays meaning the trains could not enter service to support the new Leamington services.

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.

Thoughts based on practical experience or your own bias? The class 230's absolutely suit our railway network an how my part of the network is run. They would do that all over the country. OBVIOUSLY they are not suitable for high speed, long distance, intercity type lines but there are many lines in Northern land that could benefit from a quick capacity enhancement. I am think about, say, Castleford to Leeds where I have been left behind several times due to insufficient space on the trains. You and your fellow passengers are suffering because of the decision to rule out these units. You seem happy with that. I am not sure everyone would agree.

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,

You are being silly now. No one has suggested introducing train types to please train fans!

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.

And that is exactly what these 230 trains are doing on my line. They are fixing a particular problem for LNWR and they are doing so in more comfort, greater speed, and with better on train facilities than the trains they have replaced. These new trains require less traction knowledge for Blethcley depot, reduce costs for LNWR, increase resilience by offering a local support operation, increase service resilience by offering us a "hot spare", have speeded up services to the extent that the class 230's are often 3/4 minutes ahead of the 150/153 timings and regularly have to stand at stations waiting time and have generated a positive news story for a line often overlooked by local people. Anecdotally numbers travelling look up already.

But you aren't interested in any of this because it doesn't suit your agenda. I wouldn't mind your views so much if they were based on first hand knowledge. What is infuriating is your certainty despite knowing nothing about these trains. It isnt about any silly "RUK seal of approval". It is about a good quality product being delivered to LNWR and that product being used to deliver an improved journey experience for users of the line.

I also find your conflating of minor and fairly typical early introduction into service problems as some serious project failure. It is frustrating in the extreme. The truth is that the service has been, at worst, as reliable as the 150/153 combo. Those trains, btw, are the ones you are happy to have in Northern land.

Have all 3 class 230s now entered service?

yes - all three have been in service. Only 2 are needed each day.

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.

I love the utter certainly of your view based as it is on nothing but your own bias and stubborn unwillingness to admit you might be wrong.

For the record it is worth noting you admit that you haven't traveled on these units, wont travel on them and know nothing about how they are performing yet are certain of the essential rightness of your views. That should allow posters to grade your views and asses them versus people who use these trains on a daily basis and those who have experience of introducing new rolling stock to service.

assuming of course they hadn't already cancelled it due to the technical issues we've seen.

What technical issues do you refer to?

You do seem, like some other posters here, to have a real "cob on" for these trains. What is the problem? Is it that to admit that they might not be all bad is to admit that the central concept of your argument is invalid and that you might have to admit you made a mistake. I have admitted I made a mistake about these trains. It is illustrative you cant or wont.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Actually it is their fault, nobody but themselves and a few on here were pushing the 230s for Northern. They obviously tried to pitch them as being Pacer replacements, but clearly it was decided that they were not suitable for that franchise's operational needs. They then tried to get them operating on the Nuneaton line until the first unit tried to set fire to itself.

Quite honestly, given the pace that this project has trundled along, I honestly doubt they could have delivered even a fraction of what Northern might have ordered, assuming of course they hadn't already cancelled it due to the technical issues we've seen.

The project trundled along as they had no firm order - which you know.

You dont know that they couldnt have worked for Northern in various areas but you keep telling yourself that you are right and they were wrong.

All whilst you wait for newer trains which still havent entered into service yet and were ordered years ago
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
@DarloRich I have to ask, because for the life of me I can't understand it, why are you so angry that I am criticising them? I see them for what they are, old LU stock tarted up and given new traction for a few years before being sent to the scrapyard.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
@DarloRich I have to ask, because for the life of me I can't understand it, why are you so angry that I am criticising them? I see them for what they are, old LU stock tarted up and given new traction for a few years before being sent to the scrapyard.

There is no anger. I just find it odd that you are so certain of your views despite never having used the trains. I, for the life of me, cant understand how you can be so utterly certain despite having no knowledge of the finished product!

I use the trains every day. They are much better than the 150 and MILES better than the 153. I am happy to admit I was wrong about these trains. It seems you cant do that. I find that interesting.

PS you may well be right about them being a short term product. I cant see them running on our line beyond E-W rail completion. However, short term or no they are offering us a better journey every morning. That seems a positive. You can happily have our grotty cast off 150 & 153. I think we are up on the deal!
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
There is no anger. I just find it odd that you are so certain of your views despite never having used the trains. I, for the life of me, cant understand how you can be so utterly certain despite having no knowledge of the finished product!

I use the trains every day. They are much better than the 150 and MILES better than the 153. I am happy to admit I was wrong about these trains. It seems you cant do that. I find that interesting.

PS you may well be right about them being a short term product. I cant see them running on our line beyond E-W rail completion. However, short term or no they are offering us a better journey every morning. That seems a positive. You can happily have our grotty cast off 150 & 153. I think we are up on the deal!

Your last paragraph sums it all up. Its a short term product, that was mooted as a cheap replacement that seemed to get ever more expensive (see way up thread for the discussion of the cost). Or in other words something that might cost almost as much as a brand new unit, and last a fraction of the time. Can you see yet why I am cynical?
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Time will tell, it depends what the leasing costs are like. Assuming Pacers do eventually get the chop, these could well be the cheapest thing to run thereafter - that alone should suggest they'll last a lot longer than may be anticipated.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Your last paragraph sums it all up. Its a short term product, that was mooted as a cheap replacement that seemed to get ever more expensive (see way up thread for the discussion of the cost). Or in other words something that might cost almost as much as a brand new unit, and last a fraction of the time. Can you see yet why I am cynical?

Frankly: No! It is also illustrative you ignore the central criticism of your stance or the positives these new "short term" trains are offering passengers on our line. Why is that?

We needed new trains. We got some. They are better than the old trains they replaced. I think they have surprised many "experts", especially those here, with the quality of the product. They could also have been used to improve service in Northern Land BEFORE you got your new trains. You seem happy they were not. I am not sure that real punters squashed on a 142 somewhere will agree.

As I said short term or no i think we are up on the deal!
 

Tony2

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2019
Messages
398
I've read this thread with interest, especially regarding the opposing views on these units.

I have to admit to being sceptical initially as I couldn't grasp the concept of the project. However, after a visit to Bo'ness last October to check out and travel on 230002 for myself, and having listened to Vivarail staff I now support what they are doing.

I'd spoken with Adrian Shooter on board 230002, he advised that the D78 stock was selected as being composed of aluminium the bodyshells are in extremely good condition so they still have life left in them. He'd mentioned other units that they considered for recycling, but ruled out classes 313/314/315/507/508s as they have alloy composite bodies and therefore suffer from corrosion. The other units they are interested in are class 365s 465s and 466s as again they are aluminium and in good condition.

Here is a link to a video I'd recorded at Bo'ness. Part of the project concept description starts from about 2mins 50s, there is also reference to hydrogen power:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=230002

It is far too early to determine whether these are/will be successful, in time maybe we will be able to look back and see whether the project was worthwhile. What we can only see just now are initial teething troubles, as has been said before this is not uncommon in new rail vehicles. Other classes now considered successful in retrospect such as the Mirrlees engined class 30 all of which had to be refitted with EE engines as class 31, or the class 47s suffering major engine crankcase failures as described on this page are cases in point-

https://twsmedia.co.uk/vickers-and-the-brush-sulzer-class-47/
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Looking at the number of stations and the end-to-end distance on this line under discussion, is there a similarity of those criteria to the former heavy-rail railway routes of both Altrincham to Manchester and of Bury to Manchester, that were the first lines that were converted to the Manchester Metrolink tram system, using trams that were compatable to the existing platform heights?
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
We needed new trains. We got some. They are better than the old trains they replaced. I think they have surprised many "experts", especially those here, with the quality of the product.
What if a similar amount of money had been spent on a 150 or even a 456? They're both a lot younger than the D78s.

They could also have been used to improve service in Northern Land BEFORE you got your new trains. You seem happy they were not. I am not sure that real punters squashed on a 142 somewhere will agree.
The problem in my part of Northern Land is that 142s are still being used on long-distance services; such as Saturday's 1N61 Newcastle-Carlisle service - a journey for which Pacers are not suitable. And 230s won't help with that.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
We needed new trains. We got some. They are better than the old trains they replaced. I think they have surprised many "experts", especially those here, with the quality of the product. They could also have been used to improve service in Northern Land BEFORE you got your new trains. You seem happy they were not. I am not sure that real punters squashed on a 142 somewhere will agree.

Two queries here:-

1) ... What was the stated monthly unit production capacity of Vivarail when it seemed they hoped to provide Class 142 Pacer replacements for Northern and how many units could they have produced from the stocks of the LU redundant units they purchased?

2) ... What is the seating comparison between a Class 230 unit that is used on the line in question and a Class 142 Pacer unit, noting your comment above about "squashed".
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What if a similar amount of money had been spent on a 150 or even a 456? They're both a lot younger than the D78s.

150s and 456s are not presently available. Northern need the former and SWR haven't finished with the latter yet.

The problem in my part of Northern Land is that 142s are still being used on long-distance services; such as Saturday's 1N61 Newcastle-Carlisle service - a journey for which Pacers are not suitable. And 230s won't help with that.

With good window views, quiet engines, 2+2 seating and tables, I'd have no objection to a 230 on that run at all. Though really that route is made for a 156.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
What if a similar amount of money had been spent on a 150 or even a 456? They're both a lot younger than the D78s.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 150 that a decent internal refurbishment wouldn't fix. We were quite happy with our 150. The problem was that there were insufficient to go around. I dont know the class 456 train so cant comment.

The problem in my part of Northern Land is that 142s are still being used on long-distance services; such as Saturday's 1N61 Newcastle-Carlisle service - a journey for which Pacers are not suitable. And 230s won't help with that.

I don't suggest that they are complete pacer replacement. I think they could have been part of the solution. Having lived most of my life in Darlington I am well aware of the use of pacers on long runs!

Two queries here:-

1) ... What was the stated monthly unit production capacity of Vivarail when it seemed they hoped to provide Class 142 Pacer replacements for Northern and how many units could they have produced from the stocks of the LU redundant units they purchased?

Not being privy to the construction of the these trains I cant comment. Perhaps addressing that comment to Vivarail might produce results.

2) ... What is the seating comparison between a Class 230 unit that is used on the line in question and a Class 142 Pacer unit, noting your comment above about "squashed".

The power of Google suggests a 2 car class 230 train has 86 seats with standing space for a total number of 188 people. The train has much larger circulating areas and a proper disabled access toilet

There is an interesting article here: http://www.rrdc.com/article_10_2015_vivarail_rogerford_MR.pdf writted by Roger Ford. Perhaps his views, which seem to be held in high regard here, will convince some of the skeptics.
 

Chris217

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2018
Messages
620
Looks like
Anti 230 brigade is also
Anti Pacer brigade.

I have NEVER been squashed on a Pacer.

Being squashed on any train is nothing to do with the train type. It's the operator that doesn't provide enough carriages when they already know how busy their services are!

The 230s on the Marston Vale Line sounds like a massive improvement and I am looking forward to a trip on these very soon.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Frankly: No! It is also illustrative you ignore the central criticism of your stance or the positives these new "short term" trains are offering passengers on our line. Why is that?

We needed new trains. We got some. They are better than the old trains they replaced. I think they have surprised many "experts", especially those here, with the quality of the product. They could also have been used to improve service in Northern Land BEFORE you got your new trains. You seem happy they were not. I am not sure that real punters squashed on a 142 somewhere will agree.

As I said short term or no i think we are up on the deal!

In a later response you said you were happy with your 150s so, hypothetically speaking, would it not have been better to let Northern order a few more 195s and pass some more 150s onto your TOC, to allow for the existing and cascaded ones to be refurbished? Because my point, which you skillfully avoided is that given that the 230s may have a very limited lifespan, yet potentially cost close to that of a new unit. How in any way, shape or form is that a better option? Your TOC could easily order units that could be suitable for decades of use if they so wished.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
In a later response you said you were happy with your 150s so, hypothetically speaking, would it not have been better to let Northern order a few more 195s and pass some more 150s onto your TOC, to allow for the existing and cascaded ones to be refurbished?

As long as three units (two in service and a hot spare) could be allocated to Bletchley depot with the facility to maintain them there, yes. Much of the unreliability on the branch was caused by needing to bring a unit down from Tyseley on the frequent occasion of one failing.

What definitely needed gone was the 153 - inadequate capacity for busier trains and for bicycles, and grossly unreliable.
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,482
In a later response you said you were happy with your 150s so, hypothetically speaking, would it not have been better to let Northern order a few more 195s and pass some more 150s onto your TOC, to allow for the existing and cascaded ones to be refurbished? Because my point, which you skillfully avoided is that given that the 230s may have a very limited lifespan, yet potentially cost close to that of a new unit. How in any way, shape or form is that a better option? Your TOC could easily order units that could be suitable for decades of use if they so wished.
Very hypothetical as a TOC looks at it's own requirements in isolation when procuring stock, and isn't going to be concerned about what might work for another TOC, either then or in the future. Even with common ownership the timing was very unlikely to work as the two franchises were let at different times, but of course they're not owned by the same group anyway.

Unless the TOC buys the units (which I don't think is the case with the WM ones), then it's the comparative leasing cost which is relevant, not the build cost or likely period of use, the risk of which stays with Vivarail (or whoever owns them).
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
In a later response you said you were happy with your 150s so, hypothetically speaking, would it not have been better to let Northern order a few more 195s and pass some more 150s onto your TOC, to allow for the existing and cascaded ones to be refurbished? Because my point, which you skillfully avoided is that given that the 230s may have a very limited lifespan, yet potentially cost close to that of a new unit. How in any way, shape or form is that a better option? Your TOC could easily order units that could be suitable for decades of use if they so wished.

I would have no problem with 3 x 150. However the key, as Blethcleyite suggests, is to provide them based at Blethcley. I would have taken 3 x 142 tbh! The problem would be that the refurb would have to be to a very high standard to match that of the Class 230. I haven't been on a 150 done to the standards that Vivarial have delivered with the class 230. it really is a very good job.

On costing the article I linked to above suggests the cost of the a 230 conversion is half that of a new build with cheaper lease costs. None of us know the details of course!

As long as three units (two in service and a hot spare) could be allocated to Bletchley depot with the facility to maintain them there, yes. Much of the unreliability on the branch was caused by needing to bring a unit down from Tyseley on the frequent occasion of one failing.

What definitely needed gone was the 153 - inadequate capacity for busier trains and for bicycles, and grossly unreliable.

Agreed. However the class 230 offer a much better internal aspect than the 150. We wouldn't, for instance, get a proper disabled toilet. We wouldn't get wifi or charging points.

Very hypothetical as a TOC looks at it's own requirements in isolation when procuring stock, and isn't going to be concerned about what might work for another TOC, either then or in the future. Even with common ownership the timing was very unlikely to work as the two franchises were let at different times, but of course they're not owned by the same group anyway.

Unless the TOC buys the units (which I don't think is the case with the WM ones), then it's the comparative leasing cost which is relevant, not the build cost or likely period of use, the risk of which stays with Vivarail (or whoever owns them).

Indeed!

I have NEVER been squashed on a Pacer.

try a peak hours Leeds > Castreford train. I have been left behind several times!
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Two queries here:-

1) ... What was the stated monthly unit production capacity of Vivarail when it seemed they hoped to provide Class 142 Pacer replacements for Northern and how many units could they have produced from the stocks of the LU redundant units they purchased?

I am fairly sure that I, or someone else, answered the question about set numbers when it was asked several years ago.

Vivarail bought 156 driving coaches and 70 trailer coaches from London Underground, with the aim being to produce 75 trains. The other half-dozen driving coaches presumably being accounted for by the prototype sets and crash test.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/f...il-ready-to-start-converting-first-lu-d-stock

No idea about production rates, but those would presumably be down to what any customers required in terms of delivery dates and delivery rates - and since Northern never ordered any, what does it matter?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I would have no problem with 3 x 150. However the key, as Blethcleyite suggests, is to provide them based at Blethcley. I would have taken 3 x 142 tbh!

Now that I don't believe!!

The problem would be that the refurb would have to be to a very high standard to match that of the Class 230. I haven't been on a 150 done to the standards that Vivarial have delivered with the class 230. it really is a very good job.

I'm sure its very nice inside, but it has had it's problems, which in fairness could just be teething problems but then Vivarail have had quite a lot of time to snag these before offering them for service. Up thread someone suggested that this project should be admired as being a typical British garden shed style engineering initiative. Anyone that casts more than a causal glance at the state of British engineering circa 2019 might disagree. And as you may have guessed I am one of those.

I
On costing the article I linked to above suggests the cost of the a 230 conversion is half that of a new build with cheaper lease costs. None of us know the details of course!

It is way up thread, and to be honest I can't be bothered searching for it, but there was discussion that this project would deliver a product that would cost about a third of the cost of a new unit. So that seems even by your admission to have risen. So the expected lifespan of the 230s should be at least 15-20 years to be viable, do you agree?
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
Talk about short lifespans of the 230s seem off. Aluminium bodied stock can last for a very, very, long time. There are plenty of aluminium bodied cars in North America of a similar age with no issues. Aluminium structures don't rust away like steel ones do. The USAF is still flying B-52s that are over 60 years old with no problems.

This is not like the refreshes that have happened to various stock over the years. Those refreshes are like a house having a repaint and some new carpets. This is more like the house being stripped back to brick, having a new roof, new electrics, new plumbing. It's very different.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Looking at the number of stations and the end-to-end distance on this line under discussion, is there a similarity of those criteria to the former heavy-rail railway routes of both Altrincham to Manchester and of Bury to Manchester, that were the first lines that were converted to the Manchester Metrolink tram system, using trams that were compatable to the existing platform heights?
There's probably some similarity but the big difference is that the Metrolink lines link commuter suburbs to the main centre so is much more frequent and carries far more people. If there were that may commuters on the Vale then there might be a case to run tram-trains and build a street extension to central Milton Keynes.

In a later response you said you were happy with your 150s so, hypothetically speaking, would it not have been better to let Northern order a few more 195s and pass some more 150s onto your TOC, to allow for the existing and cascaded ones to be refurbished? Because my point, which you skillfully avoided is that given that the 230s may have a very limited lifespan, yet potentially cost close to that of a new unit. How in any way, shape or form is that a better option? Your TOC could easily order units that could be suitable for decades of use if they so wished.

Unless the TOC buys the units (which I don't think is the case with the WM ones), then it's the comparative leasing cost which is relevant, not the build cost or likely period of use, the risk of which stays with Vivarail (or whoever owns them).
And to be viable Vivarail will have to pitch the lease costs at a level that will pay for the modifications, plus their other costs* and profit, in whatever they expect the remaining life of the units to be. Which, on a fairly quiet route like Marston Vale, could even be as long as the ex-LU stock on the Isle of Wight! We don't know what they are charging LNW but Marston Vale might be a loss leader to get them into the market. However TfW choosing them in North Wales suggests they are cost-competitive against refurbished 150s.

*They should also account for the original units at scrap value, since any unconverted ones would be worth that amount.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Now that I don't believe!!

you have taken away our trains and we needed new ones. We needed ones that were available and no longer than a class 150 unit. A couple of pacers would have been ideal for our line. Don't get me wrong i am glad we didn't get them but our line is a rural branch line - exactly what a pacer is supposed to be for. We could have had the pick of the litter!

I'm sure its very nice inside, but it has had it's problems, which in fairness could just be teething problems but then Vivarail have had quite a lot of time to snag these before offering them for service. Up thread someone suggested that this project should be admired as being a typical British garden shed style engineering initiative. Anyone that casts more than a causal glance at the state of British engineering circa 2019 might disagree. And as you may have guessed I am one of those.

They have had a couple of issues. I don't think they are more than usual introduction into service teething issues. You can test all you like but daily service, stop start, people on and off use will drive out other issues. That is normal.

No idea what all that garden shed nonsense is about.

It is way up thread, and to be honest I can't be bothered searching for it, but there was discussion that this project would deliver a product that would cost about a third of the cost of a new unit. So that seems even by your admission to have risen. So the expected lifespan of the 230s should be at least 15-20 years to be viable, do you agree?

It has risen. Development projects often do however the growth from 1/3 cost of a new train to 1/2 cost of a new train is not THAT great. No idea on the lifespan. It will depend on what Vivarail have budgeted as a return period.
 

boing_uk

Member
Joined
18 May 2009
Messages
619
Location
Blackburn
Doors kept opening on the 155s when they were introduced.

Class 70 locos catch fire.

Hitachi are replacing their windscreens on the ScotRail stock

GWRs IEPs draining air con water in to the passenger cabin.

Azumas not working on electric north of York.

Class 195 modifications required due to damage caused during running-in.

And the 230s are being criticised for a few early-on failures?

I can think of many lines in Northern-land where the 230s would be way better than the re-decorated kennels we’ve currently got running around.
 

bastien

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2016
Messages
427
Doors kept opening on the 155s when they were introduced.

Class 70 locos catch fire.

Hitachi are replacing their windscreens on the ScotRail stock

GWRs IEPs draining air con water in to the passenger cabin.

Azumas not working on electric north of York.

Class 195 modifications required due to damage caused during running-in.

And the 230s are being criticised for a few early-on failures?

I can think of many lines in Northern-land where the 230s would be way better than the re-decorated kennels we’ve currently got running around.
Plus, it's worth remembering how open Vivarail have been about those problems, as compared others on that list.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Plus, it's worth remembering how open Vivarail have been about those problems, as compared others on that list.

It's still more interesting to note the greater tolerance on RUK to Vivarail's issues than pretty much any other project. The slightest niggle to any project not associated with Mr Shooter comes with howls of angst and derision, but the 230s have a problem and it's Gucci...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top