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

Perhaps.

Personally I would like to think that if we're going to be keeping the Sprinter classes for much longer that the entire fleet needs it's traction equipment updating, especially in light of the current drive to reduce air pollution, and not just one or two for use on a specific line.

O L Leigh said:

Personally I would like to think that if we're going to be keeping the Sprinter classes for much longer that the entire fleet needs it's traction equipment updating, especially in light of the current drive to reduce air pollution, and not just one or two for use on a specific line.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. The particulate filth kicked out by Classes 22x and older (22x are far worse than 150s) really needs dealing with. In 15 years most if not all cars and buses will be electric (or at least cleanish turbo/supercharged petrol hybrids) and 150s will still be belching their way around - that rather kills the railway's environmental credential, doesn't it?

Perhaps, to be fair, the alternative fuel work being done by Vivarail will inform such conversions. Indeed, I think Vivarail have noticed that they are likely to make quite a bit more money from modular new-generation drivetrains than from selling tarted-up D-stock.

Bletchleyite said:

Perhaps, to be fair, the alternative fuel work being done by Vivarail will inform such conversions. Indeed, I think Vivarail have noticed that they are likely to make quite a bit more money from modular new-generation drivetrains than from selling tarted-up D-stock.

Click to expand...

I think that is highly likely.

O L Leigh said:

I think that is highly likely.

Click to expand...

FWIW, it may also prove cheaper to scrap 150s and do 769-style conversions (not that those are going well). OK, that gives you a 4 rather than 2-car unit, but the call for 2-car units is reducing all the time with growing passenger numbers, and it's much easier to provide a 750VDC generator/rectifier/battery set than a rotating shaft in precisely the right place with precisely the right speed/torque.

O L Leigh said:

I think that is highly likely.

Click to expand...

yes i think people are forgetting the long term
its a modular system so start off with 4 engine setup

then on the same service 2 engine 2 battery pack set up so harvesting brake energy
then perhaps one engine for emergency with change end shore charging
then when the concept fully proven to a good standard fully battery

and iin the future hydrogen or what ever

anamyd said:

Nice shots!

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Bletchleyite said:

This was the 21xx, the inbound from which RTT has down as "This service was cancelled throughout due to a problem with the traction equipment (MD)."

which seems (from https://wiki.openraildata.com/index.php/Delay_Attribution_Guide) to be:
MD Other technical failures below the solebar BELOW SBAR

Click to expand...

rtt isnt accurate on delay causes. I suspect the doors were the issue.

O L Leigh said:

Quite a lot, I suspect. It's not so much persuading the banks themselves as persuading (and getting commitments from) the railway industry that helps to secure funding. It's this that Adrian is incredibly well placed to exploit. Lets not forget that the D-Train concept had been kicking around for quite a while before he even bought his first train. Heck, it was even discussed here some years ago. That you might not have heard of the man before does not mean that he doesn't have a profile within the industry that gives him leverage.

Click to expand...

Vivarail had no commitments of any sort at the outset. They saw a gap in the market, developed a product to exploit that and won orders. Do you think that LNWR would buy the product if it didn't offer them good value? Your criticism seems to be that Vivarail employed someone who could get them in the room with important people. That seems like good business practice to me! However the underlying point is that some kind of railway superstar alone wont get you orders. Quality and affordability will.

O L Leigh said:

Does the Marston Vale service really require four units to cover the necessary diagrams? That sounds like a lot and has me wondering about the TOC's use of it's resources.

Click to expand...

LM swapped the pair of units that work on the Vale over every Sunday. One pair traveled from Tysley to Beltchley and the other pair went the opposite way. The service on the line needs two units although 3 is best to mitigate any failures.

Bantamzen said:

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...

Click to expand...

mmh said:

Agreed. There seems to be something of a cult surrounding them where any criticism or dissent is automatically disallowed.

Some of the more outlandish claims for them on here just re-inforce my take. We've had people say they were sure they could do 80/90mph and advocate them being used on the (infamously full) WCML, and magically have greater capacity than a pacer with considerably more seats.

They might be fine for what they are, but they are what they are!

Other trains, new or rebuilt, are rightly criticised for being unreliable, either on introduction or 20 years later.

Click to expand...

This is rather amusing from you both seeing as both you two and Paul have not levelled any of the same sort of criticism on the late introduction of the new Northern fleet nor anything else as your posting history shows - I couldnt be bother to go into April.

Maybe you would find that if your criticism was equal and you had a good reason to be against these units in the first place or had tried them out for yourselves then people may not come back a little bit more defensive towards you - but seeing as you dont seem to care about anything else but levelling criticism at the cl230 then it really does show you as very very petty.

DarloRich said:

Vivarail had no commitments of any sort at the outset. They saw a gap in the market, developed a product to exploit that and won orders. Do you think that LNWR would buy the product if it didn't offer them good value? Your criticism seems to be that Vivarail employed someone who could get them in the room with important people. That seems like good business practice to me! However the underlying point is that some kind of railway superstar alone wont get you orders. Quality and affordability will.

Click to expand...

I think you're being needlessly over-defensive as no criticism was implied. I have already stated that I will not comment on the D-Train itself as I have yet to encounter one, and neither do I see anything wrong with Vivarail's business methods.

However, as you raise the point, I do not agree that this is how the D-Train came into being. I have already dissected the part that the haphazard rolling stock procurement programme has played in creating a niche into which the D-Train nicely fits. But Vivarail did not simply employ Adrian Shooter as a way of opening doors and gaining access to the right people, but rather Vivarail is Adrian Shooter, as he is the company's CEO (http://vivarail.co.uk/about-vivarail/).

As for the financiers being concerned that the product is "good" is also not correct. All financiers are interested in is whether or not the product will sell and how much of a return they will see from their investment, and with Adrian working on the rail industry to show that his product was viable and necessary, raising finance was made that much easier. Could someone without Adrian's profile have generated the same levels of interest and commitment from the rail industry? Well you say you have no idea who Adrian Shooter is, but then that doesn't surprise me. But if you're anyone from the DfT, TOC management, Nitwit Rail or one of the rolling stock providers, believe me you would have heard of him and be very well aware of who he is.

As for LNWR's part in all this, I fear that they didn't really have much of a choice. I keep hearing that the service cannot be operated by anything longer than a Cl150 without infrastructure changes, but with the Cl150s gone and the Cl153s soon to follow what were LNWR going to use? It clearly benefits Vivarail more than LNWR to show that the product is both high quality and good value, as this really is their new shop window. No amount of demonstrations top showing a real train operating a real service carrying real smiling passengers, while LNWR can trumpet the green credentials of the new trains. No doubt LNWR will be getting exemplary service from Vivarail as a consequence, as they cannot allow the D-Train to garner negative publicity.

You keep mentioning quality and affordability. Clearly no-one can argue with the affordability of these trains as they are clearly cheaper to buy than brand new trains. I used a phrase yesterday that I feel will be the real test, and that phrase was "whole-life value". It's one thing to get good value when making a purchase, but if the upkeep of the product becomes expensive or the life is shorter than anticipated it becomes harder to judge whether or not you have had the good value you thought you were getting at the outset. Now I'm not going to say that the D-Train will be expensive to run or have a short life because none of us know that just yet. However, the question still hangs in the air.

As for quality, well your feedback at least seems glowing and I have no reason to doubt it. There should be no reason why the interior ambience and the quality of the internal surfaces etc shouldn't rival that of other new stock. I would be very disappointed if it didn't. It's clear even from the photos that the D-Train is very far from the D78 Stock it once was. I imagine that the engineering under the floors has been done to a similarly high standard and that any reliability issues have been minimised to the extent that the D-Train's availability matches that of other mainline stock.

gazthomas said:

Thank you!

Click to expand...

welcome

Clip said:

This is rather amusing from you both seeing as both you two and Paul have not levelled any of the same sort of criticism on the late introduction of the new Northern fleet nor anything else as your posting history shows - I couldnt be bother to go into April.

Maybe you would find that if your criticism was equal and you had a good reason to be against these units in the first place or had tried them out for yourselves then people may not come back a little bit more defensive towards you - but seeing as you dont seem to care about anything else but levelling criticism at the cl230 then it really does show you as very very petty.

Click to expand...

Let's flip this around and imagine Northern had not ordered them, and they were having the same technical issues with them that LM are. Would the forum be as tolerant, or would the hypothetical '230s to Northern' thread have gone into meltdown? I think we all know the answer here.

Personally I am really not concerned that the CAF stock is running a bit late, not that it is on-topic for this thread. I do still think that the 230s are not suitable for Northern. There, I said it and I don't believe I need to see them, no matter how shiny they are inside to form this opinion.

Bantamzen said:

Let's flip this around and imagine Northern had not ordered them, and they were having the same technical issues with them that LM are. Would the forum be as tolerant, or would the hypothetical '230s to Northern' thread have gone into meltdown? I think we all know the answer here.

Personally I am really not concerned that the CAF stock is running a bit late, not that it is on-topic for this thread. I do still think that the 230s are not suitable for Northern. There, I said it and I don't believe I need to see them, no matter how shiny they are inside to form this opinion.

Click to expand...

The thing is, they demonstrably are suitable for a number of lines on Northern. They wouldn't make sense to be ordered instead of 195s, but for instance the acceleration would make a massive difference on a diesel suburban type line with frequent stops like the CLC or some Manchester area locals. Of course, the wires would be best, but that isn't going to be tomorrow, so a unit with a design life of about 15 years would be ideal.

...and (I'll say it again) IMO they offer a better passenger experience than any 150 (which, of course, will eventually become Northern's "lowest" form of train alongside 153s) and, at least in terms of the almighty racket onboard, probably better than 156s. For a large proportion of Northern's route, the 60mph top speed limitation is a total, absolute, utter irrelevance.

O L Leigh said:

I think you're being needlessly over-defensive as no criticism was implied. I have already stated that I will not comment on the D-Train itself as I have yet to encounter one, and neither do I see anything wrong with Vivarail's business methods.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I am simply saying that I think you are criticising where no criticism is justified. Vivarail ( and the company is more than one man) seem to have simply used good business practices to force an opening which they have exploited. I would hope that cynical TOC executives would not be swayed by a sharp salesman and/or some railway superman ( who I wouldn't know from Adam). This person may be able to open doors but that is no different to companies employing politicians to open doors for them. Surely this is good practice. I think you only make sales by having a product that meets the requirements of the customer in price, time and quality.

The criticism I DO agree with is that the rolling stock procurement process/allocation is so dysfunctional that there was a gap to be exploited!

O L Leigh said:

As for the financiers being concerned that the product is "good" is also not correct. All financiers are interested in is whether or not the product will sell and how much of a return they will see from their investment, and with Adrian working on the rail industry to show that his product was viable and necessary, raising finance was made that much easier.

Click to expand...

I think we are discussing semantics here. I agree that from a financial point of view a good product is one that sells. Vivarail have sold several of this train type. It is a good ( ish) product in that regard.

It is absolutely a good product from a passenger comfort point of view. They are miles better than the units they have replaced.

Bantamzen said:

Let's flip this around and imagine Northern had not ordered them, and they were having the same technical issues with them that LM are. Would the forum be as tolerant, or would the hypothetical '230s to Northern' thread have gone into meltdown? I think we all know the answer here.

Click to expand...

My response would be the same: These are usual introduction to service teething troubles. However I am also sure that posters, such as yourself, would have gone into "meltdown".

Bantamzen said:

Personally I am really not concerned that the CAF stock is running a bit late, not that it is on-topic for this thread. I do still think that the 230s are not suitable for Northern. There, I said it and I don't believe I need to see them, no matter how shiny they are inside to form this opinion.

Click to expand...

Well then you are wrong. They ARE suitable for some northern lines. Are you suggesting Northern doesn't have any routes like the Marston Vale line? Are you suggesting there are not short distance, high loading routes in northern land that might be suitable? None? None at all? I gave the example of Castleford > Leeds. They seem very suitable to that route to my mind.

Perhaps you could explain why you think they are not suitable for ANY northern routes. Could that reasoning be more substantial than I don't like the idea or these are 2nd hand cast offs.

One of the routes these units were originally pitched for was Huddersfield to Sheffield. As a regular user of this route, I'd have no problem with one of these instead of the 144s (or 150s from next year) providing they could keep to time between Barnsley and Sheffield. If they're cheaper to run/lease than 150s that could help fund an extra loop and a second hourly service which is an aspiration of Travel South Yorkshire, if not WYPTE.

Certainly better than the bi-mode tram-trains that we were once threatened with!

DarloRich said:

Not at all. I am simply saying that I think you are criticising where no criticism is justified. Vivarail ( and the company is more than one man) seem to have simply used good business practices to force an opening which they have exploited. I would hope that cynical TOC executives would not be swayed by a sharp salesman and/or some railway superman ( who I wouldn't know from Adam). This person may be able to open doors but that is no different to companies employing politicians to open doors for them. Surely this is good practice. I think you only make sales by having a product that meets the requirements of the customer in price, time and quality.

Click to expand...

Criticising? Please can you quote me because I have been very clear not to criticise.

Just to reiterate, I am ambivalent towards the D-Train. I have not seen one nor yet been on one to pass any sort of impression. It looks good in the photos and I have no reason to doubt why it should be any less swish than any other new train. I'm yet to be convinced of it's whole-life value but that will only become clear with time. I have also been clear in not criticising Vivarail's practices and have praised their ability to identify a niche and produce a product to fill that niche, and have credited Adrian Shooter for his role in this. Where in all of this is any criticism? Or is it simply that I have failed to give the project my ringing, wholehearted and unequivocal endorsement?

You don't only make sales by offering a product that meets a customer's requirements in terms of price time and quality, but also by being the only person to offer any sort of product that fills a market niche. At present D-Train has no competitors. It may be a heap of cack (and I'm not saying that it is), but if it's the only product available then realistically what options does the customer have? Had the platforms on the Marston Vale line been a little longer and the signalling better sited LNWR would have had options to allocate other stock to the route. Would we still have seen the D-Train under those circumstances? Who can say, but either way the D-Train would have had competition.

DarloRich said:

The criticism I DO agree with is that the rolling stock procurement process/allocation is so dysfunctional that there was a gap to be exploited!

Click to expand...

This is the only criticism that I have made, and it's the one you happen to agree with.

Just a quick return to the thread. Was there anything in the wording of the franchise documentation of the current Northern franchise that may have mitigated against the purchase of Class 230 units?

1/3 in service at present, with half the Marston Vale service cancelled

Xenophon PCDGS said:

Just a quick return to the thread. Was there anything in the wording of the franchise documentation of the current Northern franchise that may have mitigated against the purchase of Class 230 units?

Click to expand...

Well said....all this discussion of the possible use of trains in the Northern franchise is of couirse pure speculation because as we all (should) know the franchise invitation effectively forbade their use. There are three in service for LM and 5 on order for North Wales....I look forward to making my mind up when they are available on lines which I am familiar with.

Bletchleyite said:

1/3 in service at present, with half the Marston Vale service cancelled

Click to expand...

This is a bit of an issue at the moment unfortunately, especially considering I would board the service from a station part way along the line. One train gets cancelled and I might as well do a lap of stewartby lake while I wait for the next, if that turns up!

Guessing it is teething problems, but it has caused the service to be almost unusable.

So far they failed to run a late night train all week.

Bletchleyite said:

FWIW, it may also prove cheaper to scrap 150s and do 769-style conversions (not that those are going well). OK, that gives you a 4 rather than 2-car unit, but the call for 2-car units is reducing all the time with growing passenger numbers, and it's much easier to provide a 750VDC generator/rectifier/battery set than a rotating shaft in precisely the right place with precisely the right speed/torque.

Click to expand...

I think there is still very much a use case for a cheap+cheerful 153/pacer replacement.There are still a significant amount of lines (mostly rural) ,where there needs to be at least some coverage...you know it will be loss making, but it will be about keeping connectivity while keeping losses to a minimum.
So it would need to be lightweight,reasonable capacity,have PRM access and go-anywhere route availability,faster than a pacer/sprinter, and end-gangwayed would also be a bonus.

CAF unit's can't do it.....to heavy,too long and 100mph not necessary.
150's...ok, but 50% more on access charges than a 153
230's, limited to 60mph, no good for a rural line that has a few miles blast up a mainline for connections.

I'd certainly agree that a modular power plant(diesel/fuel cell/NG/Hydrogen -battery etc)-electric unit looks like the way to go.

I think the closest to that spec looks like bombardier talent.
17m body, 60T for 2 car set+90mph capable fits the bill,but would need some engine and body mods.
can drop in an extra trailer carriage pretty easily so :
2 car set=1.5 *153 capacity+ wheelchair/bike space and useable bogs.
3 car set= just over 156 capacity(51m v 46m)

seems pretty ideal,and gives you about 15% seats extra on present pacer loadings to boot.

for power plant/transmission you'd maybe go for cummins L9 around 300BHP per car (maybe even a b6.7 at a push),and ZF ecoworld box.

Going by truck specs the L9 should routinely cope with 35-40 Tonne loads on the road,can go up to 45T.B6.7 is not quite as robust and can take 30T as standard and 35T gross vehicle weight.

That should net you a very decent rural unit with some scope for good mainline bursts (75mph+ up to 90mph looking at power to weight ratio..and seeing as it's a bo-2-bo or bo-2-2-bo unit),so as not to block traffic.And at 30T a car should keep the running costs down.

I have no idea of L/HR fuel consumption figures for a new stage V cummins L9 versus The pacer LTA10/sprinter NT855 but I would think that it should still be a 20% saving, even despite much more horsepower and torque.

I would assume that if it was viable then Bombardier would have already offered their product.
These lines are not really a viable place for brand new trains.

Bantamzen said:

I do still think that the 230s are not suitable for Northern. There, I said it and I don't believe I need to see them, no matter how shiny they are inside to form this opinion.

Click to expand...

They are perfectly suitable for the Blackpool South to Preston, Preston to Ormskirk and Preston to Colne services, also Lancaster to Morecambe shuttle, Wigan to Kirkby to name just a few. The short distance to run on the WCML on the Preston routes are absolutely no problem as I doubt the existing 142/150s get above 60mph from Preston before slowing for Farrington Junction and the 230s would out accelerate them.

230005 out of service due to WSP issues and doors
230003 out of service due to half power and overheating.

Silverlinky said:

230005 out of service due to WSP issues and doors
230003 out of service due to half power and overheating.

Click to expand...

From observations on this thread, it does seem like 230004 is the best unit of the trio, being the first into service and bailing out 005 on multiple occasions. Is it just teething, or could the quality vary between units?

Meerkat said:

I would assume that if it was viable then Bombardier would have already offered their product.
These lines are not really a viable place for brand new trains.

Click to expand...

that depends on replacement costs and running costs...if we take a dmu price as around £1m per carriage.
..that price can probably be brought down if there is a design which has already present body shell/parts/components,rather than the whole lot being drafted from the drawing board.
may sound a bit cut "n" shut, but why re-invent the wheel if heating/lighting/aircon/coupling/door systems already exist?
might need a bit of programming for a cnc machine to cut out the body shell and some new jigs for mounting bogies etc.

equally so if the driver/trailer units are cut to identical shapes.economies of scale will give you a better price for 200 off rather than a bespoke 4 or 5 off like vivarail are doing.

given that the 153 is meant for extremely sparcely populated services,then you'd expect the existing stock to be stretched about as far as it can go,absent some massive cost-cutting features.

I would propose that saving 20l/hr on fuel(I'm assuming 70l/h for a 153 at full pelt) and freeing up blockages with faster running would be worth the investment over 30+ odd year expected lifespan.
I work that out as around £60kpa saving, so payback in 17 years.

granted, it's not going to be a massive money spinner.Such a unit never will be.
It's meant to be a cost cutter.

Vivarail could send 001 minus it's centre car to bletchley while they sort this unreliability out.

Meerkat said:

I would assume that if it was viable then Bombardier would have already offered their product.
These lines are not really a viable place for brand new trains.

Click to expand...

The service models used in many other European countries do use brand new trains as they can be uniquely suited to and branded for branches, and coupled with service improvements and a move to a proper connectional Taktfahrplan (clockface + planned connections) do well at improving patronage. The Stadler WINK (the successor of the GTW) is basically designed precisely for this use - I'm sure they'd do a UK version if enough were ordered. Indeed, the 230s on the Marston Vale very much feel like GTWs other than the lack of a low floor.

TBH, I think Northern got their order very much the wrong way round. Better would have been new units as direct Pacer/150 replacements (the CAF units, being near enough the same as Class 172s with fast acceleration via mechanical transmissions and basic seating, would fit this role perfectly), and Northern Connect being run using Class 170s and 158s refurbished to the quality of the ScotRail Inverness units. 170s are not suitable for branches at all; they accelerate like a horse and cart.

HLE said:

Vivarail could send 001 minus it's centre car to bletchley while they sort this unreliability out.

Click to expand...

Is there any detail out there as to exactly what the cause is? Is it one thing, or several?
Edit: Ah, it has been posted upthread, sorry.

Maybe it would make sense to short-form a Brum area diagram by one coach and send a 153 back down as a fallback.

Elecman said:

They are perfectly suitable for the Blackpool South to Preston, Preston to Ormskirk and Preston to Colne services, also Lancaster to Morecambe shuttle, Wigan to Kirkby to name just a few. The short distance to run on the WCML on the Preston routes are absolutely no problem as I doubt the existing 142/150s get above 60mph from Preston before slowing for Farrington Junction and the 230s would out accelerate them.

Click to expand...

Barring electrification, which is really needed, and assuming the slow doors issue can be sorted (as it's wasting about 20 seconds per stop), I reckon you'd easily get 5-10 minutes off the running time of a CLC all stations stopper using 230s rather than Sprinters/Pacers. That's surely not to be sniffed at?