ATW to 'hold talks' for buying D-Trains

[RP]

Running the Cardiff Valleys with D78s, assuming they are viable, strikes me as a sensible option: a substantial, almost entirely self contained network (Maesteg and Ebbw Vale aren't strictly speaking Cardiff Valleys anyway!), with nowhere more than an hour from Cardiff.

The units released would only be 150s, of course, but there's nothing better available anyway.

Perhaps D78s might be suitable for consideration for Ebbw Vale - Newport services when the current redoubling and capacity enhancement project is complete? The speed of the units for the short distance from Gaer Junction to Newport station should not be much of an issue.

 

[tbtc]

IIRC there are seventy five D78s going to be available before long... and the Wales & Borders franchise currently requires seventy five "slow" DMUs (i.e. the total number of their 142s, 143s, 150s and 153s)... I can see why that makes some sense to some people!

Plus, if there are seventy five "standard" DMUs that could be cascaded to other TOCs (the 143s are a fairly small fleet, but the 142/ 150/ 153s could be shared between the existing TOCs who already run such stock - Northern/ EMT/ GA/ FGW and to a lesser extend LM - then these could then be on the understanding of ATW getting a few extra 158s in return (AIUI there's no need for the 90mph top speed on routes like the Calder Valley, but AFAIK there are some 75mph DMUs that can turn up on longer distance ATW services like 153s tagged on to Manchester services where more 158s would be more beneficial).

If you coupled this with chopping of some through services from Manchester to west Wales (so that the freed up 175s could be put onto the "Swan Line" stoppers from Cardiff to Swansea as more suitable stock than 60mph D78s) then that gives ATW one massive fleet of "slower" DMUs (which should give some economies of scale), gives Northern/ EMT/ GA/ FGW some extra DMU stock/ allows the Valley Lines electrification to be delayed into the 2020s without requiring short term upgrading of the Pacers... yeah, it makes a lot of sense.

Let's face it, a lot of people regularly do journeys on D78s (and similar stock) in London that are as long (or longer) than the average length of journey on the current Valley Lines services - I think it'd be workable for the next five/ten years (on the basis that electrification will replace around fifty of them by then).

(also worth pointing out that the upgrading/conversion of the Chiltern loco hauled stock doesn't seem to have attracted anything like the same froth/ wibble as the proposed D78 stock by the same people - don't write them off yet!)

 

[gareth950]

IIRC there are seventy five D78s going to be available before long... and the Wales & Borders franchise currently requires seventy five "slow" DMUs (i.e. the total number of their 142s, 143s, 150s and 153s)... I can see why that makes some sense to some people!

Plus, if there are seventy five "standard" DMUs that could be cascaded to other TOCs (the 143s are a fairly small fleet, but the 142/ 150/ 153s could be shared between the existing TOCs who already run such stock - Northern/ EMT/ GA/ FGW and to a lesser extend LM - then these could then be on the understanding of ATW getting a few extra 158s in return (AIUI there's no need for the 90mph top speed on routes like the Calder Valley, but AFAIK there are some 75mph DMUs that can turn up on longer distance ATW services like 153s tagged on to Manchester services where more 158s would be more beneficial).

The article states that the D-trains would be in addition to ATW's current fleet, specifically on the Valleys where overcrowding in the morning peak especially is severe. I'd hope that ATW and the Welsh Government would have the sense to get the D-trains as additional stock and not trade off the Sprinters or even the 143s. ATW needs all the stock it can get and needs it now.

Services in the morning and evening peaks on the valleys need to be at least 4 car Sprinters or 6 car Pacers (platforms are long enough as the longest formation I've been on was 150+143+142, although it did end up failing!) and with D78 cars being no longer than Pacer cars, 6 car D-trains would be needed to ease overcrowding, especially once disability modifications are taken into account.

As for electrification being delayed beyond the mid 2020s, Stephen Crabb took nearly all of credit for himself for getting the electrification programme back on track last summer, will he want to risk it being delayed just so Vivarail can get their money's worth out of these trains? 10 years on the valleys will be long enough for them, we need the capacity now but a long term strategy is needed, not Pacers MkII.

 

[PHILIPE]

Running the Cardiff Valleys with D78s, assuming they are viable, strikes me as a sensible option: a substantial, almost entirely self contained network (Maesteg and Ebbw Vale aren't strictly speaking Cardiff Valleys anyway!), with nowhere more than an hour from Cardiff.

The units released would only be 150s, of course, but there's nothing better available anyway.

Maestegs and Ebbw Vales have to run part of their journey over Main Lines, so unsuitable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you coupled this with chopping of some through services from Manchester to west Wales (so that the freed up 175s could be put onto the "Swan Line" stoppers from Cardiff to Swansea as more suitable stock than 60mph D78s) then that gives ATW one massive fleet of "slower" DMUs (which should give some economies of scale), gives Northern/ EMT/ GA/ FGW some extra DMU stock/ allows the Valley Lines electrification to be delayed into the 2020s without requiring short term upgrading of the Pacers... yeah, it makes a lot of sense.

Why on earth should any of the existing Class 175 units (even without First Class) on the Manchester to West Wales services be sacrificed in order that the D78 units could do as you state about....or was your posting so full of hidden sarcasm at the idea of that, that I missed it?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Let's think this through. WG want to have extra trains from Cardiff to Holyhead, there's pressure to get trains from Ebbw Vale to Newport, there's overcrowding on most services in the peaks. Vivarail are now desperate for a buyer as the Norther franchise has been promised much due to the election.

So are WG paying or is it ATW? With pre tax profits of £26 million roughly 10% of turnover fitting ill at ease with the Rail Delivery Groups pleading of 2% profits! will a dozen or so sets be a token of goodwill that doesn't ruin the profit margin?

 

[transmanche]

I still can't believe that anyone is considering doing anything with the D78s other than recycling them into Coke cans!

They're 33-35 years old already and (IMHO) the worst sub-surface stock ever operated on the Underground.

 

[Philip C]

I think the stock is already passed for NR use because it has worked over the NR East Putney-Wimbledon line for many years.

Just a minor point:

The East Putney - Wimbledon Line has been in the ownership of LUL/TfL since 1994 (I think that is the correct year). That acquisition also included Putney Bridge - East Putney and the track alongside the platform at Olympia. If you had made reference to the NR Gunnersbury - Richmond Line that would have been correct.

I'm not in a position to say whether the stock as proposed is, thereby, in any sense "passed for NR use" as many features (traction system being the most obvious) will be changed. It may well be that, at the time the present "passing" arrangements came into effect, it was simply an exercise of "grandfather rights" and this may only apply to use over the sections historically used by the stock.

Having said this, I have no expectation that the D Stock would have any particular problems in conforming to standards. The promoting company would surely have recognized any such issue, and resolved it, before setting out its stall.

 

[MarkyT]

Just a minor point:

The East Putney - Wimbledon Line has been in the ownership of LUL/TfL since 1994 (I think that is the correct year). That acquisition also included Putney Bridge - East Putney and the track alongside the platform at Olympia. If you had made reference to the NR Gunnersbury - Richmond Line that would have been correct.

I think the Wimbledon line transfer of ownership was a ruse to prevent it becoming part of the Railtrack national network and thus being available to any operator to bid for paths. The special arrangement for running regular main line empty stock and diversions was retained however. There was no issue with this on the Richmond line as it is not a through route, having no physical connection with the SWT Windsor lines at Richmond. The collision risk to the D78s was higher on the Winmbledon branch however before TPWS was installed. Whilst the signals were fitted with trainstops and the LUL trains with tripcocks, SWT rolling stock sharing the line clearly was not, whilst on the Richmond line both LUL and national rail units had tripcocks. Today each and every signal between Wimbledon and Putney is provided with both trainstops and TPWS/AWS equipment.

 

[edwin_m]

Probably the greatest safety risk on the railway today arises from level crossings. The routes used by the D78s in their LUL operation don't have any, so I imagine Vivarail decided they would have to do something to reduce the risk of this additional hazard. I think this is the reasoning behind the end strengthening and the crash test. I don't believe they intend to bring the train up to the crashworthiness standards required of new stock, as this would involve rebuilding all the cab and inner ends and would not be reasonably practicable. Instead they are probably looking for a similar standard to the Pacers and Sprinters they hope to replace.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still can't believe that anyone is considering doing anything with the D78s other than recycling them into Coke cans!

They're 33-35 years old already

Do you oppose refurbishing of Mk3s, some of which are older? FWIW, the bogies were all replaced and are less than 10 years old.

and (IMHO) the worst sub-surface stock ever operated on the Underground.

The only thing the D78 will have in common with the LUL sub-surface version is the bodyshell, bogies and traction motors. It is impossible to say yet if the result will be good or not until any of us have seen one!

 

[pemma]

ATW don't have any 144s. 142s and 143s which can be placed into the same category.

I'm well aware ATW have no 144s currently. However, the 144s will be released by Northern before December 2019 so they are free for another operator to use if the ePacer conversion goes ahead. Angel plan to scrap the 142s by December 2019 so ATW will need something to replace them before then - the FGW 143s and Northern 144s could be possible options.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not suitable for Wrexham - Bidston as they interwork with a Wrexham - Shrewsbury service in the morning, and the opposite in the evening.

Not suitable for Llandudno - Blaenau Ffestiniog as they interworking with a Llandudno - Crewe service.

By your reasoning 319s were unsuitable for Northern Chat Moss services because the DMUs used previously went on to other lines which haven't been electrified.

 

[transmanche]

Do you oppose refurbishing of Mk3s, some of which are older?

Refurbishing good quality coaching stock is not the same as rebuilding poor quality, life-expired LU stock and converting them to diesel operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Refurbishing good quality coaching stock is not the same as rebuilding poor quality, life-expired LU stock and converting them to diesel operation.

They are neither "poor quality" nor "life expired". TfL are replacing them because they want a single type (seating layout aside) of subsurface vehicle.

What powers them is about as relevant as what type of locomotive you put on the front of a rake of Mk3s.

 

[transmanche]

They are neither "poor quality" nor "life expired".

So why are LU getting rid of them, rather than spending large amounts of money in rebuilding them? Why did they need such extensive midlife refurbishment? Why did LU scrap their twin sisters after less than 15 years of service?

They were rubbish when introduced and they're rubbish now.

 

[swt_passenger]

So why are LU getting rid of them, rather than spending large amounts of money in rebuilding them?

Primarily to achieve a common fleet for all the sub surface lines, with identical performance, and suitable for fitting a modern ATO signalling system (originally due by 2018). Identical layouts, more standing space and more door capacity also allows for shorter dwell times, an enabling step for higher frequencies all round, 32 tph on most sections of the circle line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why are LU getting rid of them, rather than spending large amounts of money in rebuilding them?

As I said above:-

TfL are replacing them because they want a single type (seating layout aside) of subsurface vehicle.

Also because the single doors are quite slow, which is a problem for LU but not for country branch lines.

Why did they need such extensive midlife refurbishment?

If you mean the bogies, there was a design flaw in the bogies, I believe. That doesn't say anything about the rest of the unit. If you mean the interior, it was a quality refurbishment that stopped them looking so 1970s/1980s - the UK seems often averse to such things but it doesn't mean they are rubbish, and in any case Vivarail are completely replacing the interior.

Why did LU scrap their twin sisters after less than 15 years of service?

Wikilies says:

The 1983 Tube stock owed much to the sub-surface D Stock in design. Like D Stock, the 1983 Tube Stock had single leaf doors, a similar orange interior and cab design. Unlike the D Stock however, the 1983 Tube Stock proved to be unreliable. Electrical generators for lighting the carriages failed often, as did the motors. Boarding of passengers was slow because of the single leaf doors.

They were rubbish when introduced and they're rubbish now.

Not at all. If they were rubbish, they wouldn't have lasted so long in service on LU.

 

[eisenach]

How depressing .

 

[Bletchleyite]

How depressing .

I fail to see what's depressing about the possibility of solving ATW's heavy overcrowding problem, and the possibility of introducing trains with a good window view on scenic lines. It all sounds quite good to me.

I know ATW would like a 3 for 2 replacement of all their existing stock with something like 172s, but it's just not happening. The money isn't there.

 

[pemma]

(AIUI there's no need for the 90mph top speed on routes like the Calder Valley, but AFAIK there are some 75mph DMUs that can turn up on longer distance ATW services like 153s tagged on to Manchester services where more 158s would be more beneficial).

At the moment Northern use their variety of DMUs based solely on capacity so you get 75mph Pacers on longer services where a faster top speed could be utilised and 90mph 158s with narrow doors on frequent stop services where they don't get over 75mph.

The Northern ITT does mention paths for Chester-Bradford-Leeds to be acquired based on 90mph capable DMUs running the service. However, Northern may acquire either cascaded 170s or new self-powered trains capable of doing at least 90mph.

 

[craigybagel]

I wouldn't worry too much about the top speed issue for heart of wales trains. I can't speak for the southern end, but at the northern end the 153's spend very little time above 60mph thanks to the gradients (for example, going south a 153 won't hit 75 until it's most of the way between Church Stretton and Craven Arm). Getting them between Shrewsbury and Wrexham to work the Bidston service isn't much of an issue either - speed limit is only 70 mph there, and even then only for DMUs (60 MPH for everything else) so not much difference there either.

That said, the most cost effective and sensible plan would surely be to keep them all together on the Valleys, and using units freed from there on the other lines mentioned if you need more units in those areas.

 

[transmanche]

Wikilies says The 1983 Tube stock owed much to the sub-surface D Stock in design. Like D Stock, the 1983 Tube Stock had single leaf doors, a similar orange interior and cab design. Unlike the D Stock however, the 1983 Tube Stock proved to be unreliable. Electrical generators for lighting the carriages failed often, as did the motors.

But LU chose to scrap the stock after less than 15 years, rather than replace the electrical generators. Strange that.

If they were rubbish, they wouldn't have lasted so long in service on LU.

32-35 years is hardly long service for LU stock - another 15 years would be expected, especially after spending money to overcome the bogie design flaw, the window design flaw and the mid-life refurb to correct some of the poor interior design choices. Rather than chuck yet more good money after bad, it'd be far better to spend the money on new purpose-built stock and send the D78s for recycling into cans.

 

[Domh245]

But LU chose to scrap the stock after less than 15 years, rather than replace the electrical generators. Strange that.

The decision to scrap them was also influenced by the JLE, which was predicted to have very heavy loadings, unsuitable for the single door 83TS. At one point, they were going to rebuild the 83TS to be similar to the 96ts, but they realised it's cheaper to scrap them and get entirely new build instead.

32-35 years is hardly long service for LU stock - another 15 years would be expected, especially after spending money to overcome the bogie design flaw, the window design flaw and the mid-life refurb to correct some of the poor interior design choices. Rather than chuck yet more good money after bad, it'd be far better to spend the money on new purpose-built stock and send the D78s for recycling into cans.

Yes, you would expect them to go on for a few more years yet, but the decision was made a while back that it is far more sensible to withdraw them at about the same time as the other stocks and replace them with a common fleet for economies of scale (spares, training, etc). Another 15 years would have been expected after the mid-life refurb, except (as has been pointed out several times now in other threads) various points were cut out of the refurb, so that it was almost entirely cosmetic. A proper refurbishment would have involved various changes to the electrical equipment, cab, and interior, but the refurbishment carried out was just the interior with the bare minimum done to the other parts.

 

[physics34]

I really thought it was an April Fool when this was first talked about a couple of years ago but I think if they do get the go ahead it'll be great. Why scrap very useful coaches?!

 

[PaulHarding150]

Any indication as to who will pay for them?

Arriva or The Welsh Government?

 

[eisenach]

The only thing the D78 will have in common with the LUL sub-surface version is the bodyshell, bogies and traction motors.

Well, apart from a few seats, that's pretty much the entire train, isn't it ?!
Not good enough for London, but ok for anywhere else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, apart from a few seats, that's pretty much the entire train, isn't it ?!

People are criticising them as being rubbishy old LU trains. But the interior won't be LU, it'll be completely new, so it is impossible to comment properly until we have seen one.

Old train? New train?
http://bahnsteigbilder.startbilder.de/1024/der-innenraum-eines-n-wagens-25072009-39614.jpg

Old train (Silberling/n-Wagen - built in the 1970s/80s), in fact, but comprehensively refurbished to a level you rarely if ever see in the UK.

 

[90sWereBetter]

The decision to scrap them was also influenced by the JLE, which was predicted to have very heavy loadings, unsuitable for the single door 83TS. At one point, they were going to rebuild the 83TS to be similar to the 96ts, but they realised it's cheaper to scrap them and get entirely new build instead.

Apologies for the continued off-topic, but I remember reading in a book (Underground Movement, published in 2000 iirc), that the plan for the second batch of 83TS (the ones which barely lasted a decade in service) after their displacement by the 96TS in 1998 was to convert them to run alongside 73TS on the Piccadilly line, perhaps as a dedicated airport train. Evidently, this never happened, probably because of the costs needed to get rid of the single doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And while single doors are not well suited to Tube operations, they're fine for rural branch lines - better, in a way, as that's half as much mechanism to break.

 

[Clip]

Oh goody another Vivarail thread. What could possibly be said that hasn't already?