ATW to 'hold talks' for buying D-Trains

[pemma]

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

Hopefully we'll soon hear either an official 'yes' or 'no' from Arriva Trains Wales then they'll actually be a story either "Operator to take on D-Trains" or "Operator wanting more carriages rejects use of D-Trains."

 

[Clip]

Lol - possibly.

I see the RMT have come out against these trains
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-plans-to-run-old-tube-trains-on-welsh-railways/

RAIL UNION RMT today called on rail chiefs to come clean after speculation emerged over the weekend that 30 year old tube trains withdrawn from service on London Underground, currently undergoing refitting to diesel operation, could be dumped on railways across Wales as a cheapskate, rolling stock lash-up that raises both serious safety fears and a threat to the role of the guard.

 

[pemma]

Lol - possibly.

I see the RMT have come out against these trains
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-plans-to-run-old-tube-trains-on-welsh-railways/

Everything is a threat to the guard according to the RMT.

A pigeon got on a Northern Rail 156 I was travelling on recently I was surprised to not see a story from the RMT afterwards saying about Northern using pigeons as second members of on board staff instead of proper guards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lol - possibly.

I see the RMT have come out against these trains
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-plans-to-run-old-tube-trains-on-welsh-railways/

What complete and total garbage. Is there any pleasing them? As for the guard, there is no more reason why these would or would not be DOO than any other new or used rolling stock. ATW have made no suggestions that there will be any DOO, and fGW have climbed down from it...so I would see DOO as very unlikely whatever the stock.

There is not the money for a capacity increasing build of 172s or similar. It's as simple as that. So what's to lose?

 

[NSEFAN]

What complete and total garbage. Is there any pleasing them? As for the guard, there is no more reason why these would or would not be DOO than any other new or used rolling stock. ATW have made no suggestions that there will be any DOO, and fGW have climbed down from it...so I would see DOO as very unlikely whatever the stock.

There is not the money for a capacity increasing build of 172s or similar. It's as simple as that. So what's to lose?

Agreed DOO is unlikely, but safety is potentially something which could be reduced if Arriva use these trains on their routes alongside other classes of train.

Compared to the safety standards of brand new rolling stock I can see why the RMT might have concerns about the D train. Pacers aren't great in a collision but there are at least documented examples of what happens when they do hit something. They are also not being used in a manner which they were not originally intended. So far the only crash testing done of a D train has been at relatively low speed. Even if a unit is locked onto a branch line, collision with a vehicle at a level crossing remains a serious concern. Whilst D stock currently shares tracks with NR stock over a couple of short routes, there are no level crossings here and every signal has tripcocks to prevent collision of trains, whilst not every mainline signal has TPWS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see why they would be any less safe than a Pacer, and increased capacity and comfort would get people out of cars - by far the most dangerous middle/long distance mode of transport.

 

[gareth950]

There is not the money for a capacity increasing build of 172s or similar. It's as skimp le as that. So what's to lose?

No, but if the government was REALLY committed to a 'Northern Powerhouse', regenerated by world class transport links across the region, and the UK network was run by the Dft as a joined up network along with joined up thinking, then the most logical idea to solve the issue of the DMU capacity crisis and shortage of units across the country would be for the Dft to ensure that the new-build DMU order for the next Northern franchise will be enough to both scrap the entire Northern Pacer fleet and displace ALL of Northern's Sprinter 150/153/156 units to release them for use in Wales. That way, Wales will get enough Sprinter DMUs to cover scrapping all of its Pacers and increasing capacity until electrification. The Sprinters could all see out their life in Wales until the end of the 2020s when electrification will see them off.

However, we have a franchised, fragmented, privatised railway instead..........

 

[NSEFAN]

I don't see why they would be any less safe than a Pacer, and increased capacity and comfort would get people out of cars - by far the most dangerous middle/long distance mode of transport.

Nobody knows about the crashworthiness, that's the point. The trains have not as yet been properly crash tested so using them on the mainline where they are not designed to be used is something of a risk.

Would it be acceptable to turbo-charge a Pacer to run at 100mph, on the grounds of "well I can't see how it's any less safe than a mk1, and those go pretty quick!" ? I am being facetious with that example but it does have similarities with what's going on here, that is putting a train from a highly controlled metro environment to a rural single track line with increased risk of level crossing altercations and even head-on collisions when on single-track mainline.

Even if increased capacity reduces the number of cars and hence road accidents, from the perspective of the staff who operate the trains it could well be a downgrade in safety. Would you be happy to accept that risk in your day-to-day job, with or without a pay rise to compensate? Vivarail say they intend to strengthen the cabs but these really aught to be demonstrated to be safe before any serious discussion about deployment of the rolling stock can take place. As a passenger I know it frustrating that we have a chronic shortage of rolling stock, but I am more concerned about untested rolling stock being used to plug the gaps.

 

[pemma]

Would it be acceptable to turbo-charge a Pacer to run at 100mph, on the grounds of "well I can't see how it's any less safe than a mk1, and those go pretty quick!" ?

That's if the carden shaft doesn't drop off when you get to 80mph. There's been a few instances with carden shafts and a RAIB report in to once instance stated about a small issue with the carden shafts fitted to Pacers when they travel at very low speeds.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No, but if the government was REALLY committed to a 'Northern Powerhouse', regenerated by world class transport links across the region, and the UK network was run by the Dft as a joined up network along with joined up thinking, then the most logical idea to solve the issue of the DMU capacity crisis and shortage of units across the country would be for the Dft to ensure that the new-build DMU order for the next Northern franchise will be enough to both scrap the entire Northern Pacer fleet and displace ALL of Northern's Sprinter 150/153/156 units to release them for use in Wales. That way, Wales will get enough Sprinter DMUs to cover scrapping all of its Pacers and increasing capacity until electrification. The Sprinters could all see out their life in Wales until the end of the 2020s when electrification will see them off.

However, we have a franchised, fragmented, privatised railway instead..........

The Northern bidders have to offer a minimum of 120 new vehicles.
Part of this is to extract an affordable build/lease price from the manufacturers which can be played into other bid situations, including Wales & Borders (2018).

For W&B, WG are going to specify and procure the new franchise, so it will not be in the DfT's purlieu (not directly, anyway).
Rail North and Wales Rail are different bodies with different budgets.
Currently, both Northern and W&B are hamstrung by massive subsidies.
What might seem obvious may not be affordable.
A reduced cost D78 fleet might just help pay for the Valleys and other electrification.

 

[pemma]

to ensure that the new-build DMU order for the next Northern franchise will be enough to both scrap the entire Northern Pacer fleet and displace ALL of Northern's Sprinter 150/153/156 units to release them for use in Wales.

I'm not disputing the idea of a larger order if a suitable new versatile train was introduced.

However, Northern have 402 Sprinter carriages in total and ATW currently have 258 DMU carriages in total. I'm not sure they need 402 carriages to replace the Pacers and to provide extra capacity!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Northern bidders have to offer a minimum of 120 new vehicles.
Part of this is to extract an affordable build/lease price from the manufacturers which can be played into other bid situations, including Wales & Borders (2018).

Following recent trends I expect if the Northern winning bidder proposes x new carriages (where x is a number greater than or equal to 120), the ITT for the new carriages will say a minimum number of x, with the option to add on a further x. The option for the further x could be given to other franchises which come up for renewal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am more concerned about untested rolling stock being used to plug the gaps.

Are they in public service yet? No. As I said none of us have even seen one, which is because one doesn't exist.

Who says they *won't* be properly crash-tested? Who says extensive computer simulations will not have taken place?

Many of those "naysayers" in here seem to think Vivarail are incompetent or haven't thought of those things. Why do you think that? At the top they have a highly competent railwayman who spent years building up what many people regard as the best TOC of the lot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, but if the government was REALLY committed to a 'Northern Powerhouse', regenerated by world class transport links across the region, and the UK network was run by the Dft as a joined up network along with joined up thinking, then the most logical idea to solve the issue of the DMU capacity crisis and shortage of units across the country would be for the Dft to ensure that the new-build DMU order for the next Northern franchise will be enough to both scrap the entire Northern Pacer fleet and displace ALL of Northern's Sprinter 150/153/156 units to release them for use in Wales. That way, Wales will get enough Sprinter DMUs to cover scrapping all of its Pacers and increasing capacity until electrification. The Sprinters could all see out their life in Wales until the end of the 2020s when electrification will see them off.

Is the obsession with brand new trains in this country related to the obsession with brand new cars? Will the North *ever* be happy?

There is *nothing wrong* with quality refurbished rolling stock. DB and SBB have been using it for years. The "Northern powerhouse" is not about building new DMUs, it's about adequate services, and for that we need capacity and we need it now. As passengers in the North no doubt don't want swingeing fare increases, nor those in Wales, what's wrong with some quality refurbs?

Do you knock your house down and rebuild it after 30 years? Mine's 45 years old and I just, umm, finished refurbishing it.

And before there is a whine about pampered Southerners, I'll say it again - D78s would be most welcome on Bedford-Bletchley, and if there was a good reason to move the 350s elsewhere, much as I like them, I'd be quite happy with LM getting a fleet of the same number of quality refurbished (2+2 seating etc) Class 319s.

 

[pemma]

what's wrong with some quality refurbs?

Well in the case of the 158s, it's been proven they can be given high quality modern interiors. However, one slight snag is the unreliable air conditioning hasn't been rectified and I think there's always going to be at least one snag which won't get fixed as part of a quality refurbishment. Refurbished Pacers will still squeal on bends while refurbished 150/3/5/6s will still be noisy even if you fit air conditioning. Not that passengers are always 100% satisfied with new trains though!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well in the case of the 158s, it's been proven they can be given high quality modern interiors. However, one slight snag is the unreliable air conditioning hasn't been rectified

That's called "doing it on the cheap", and only doing the interior, which is just part of the deal. It is perfectly possible to fit working aircon to second generation DMUs - Chiltern have done this. FGW have failed miserably, but then there's little FGW don't fail miserably at at times.

and I think there's always going to be at least one snag to refurbished trains. Refurbished Pacers will still squeal on bends while refurbished 150/3/5/6s will still be noisy even if you fit air conditioning.

True, but rather 4 cars of refurbished 156 than 2 cars of new 172. Cost always has to be considered against what can be achieved, and Northern at present (and probably ATW) need a near doubling of capacity as quick as it can be achieved, and more to come.

 

[D365]

It is perfectly possible to fit working aircon to second generation DMUs - Chiltern have done this.

Are the Turbos even considered second-generation? They're definitely not based on a Mark 3 or any contemporary design of the '80s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are the Turbos even considered second-generation? They're definitely not based on a Mark 3 or any contemporary design of the '80s.

2.5 generation? They are contemporary with the 158 (mid 1990s) even if they aren't from the same line of design and are in a way a precursor to the Turbostar/Electrostar.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the ability to fit working aircon, which simply involves fitting a completely new system. Chiltern have located it in the overhead luggage rack, so it doesn't even need to sit where the old one did.

 

[47802]

Agreed DOO is unlikely, but safety is potentially something which could be reduced if Arriva use these trains on their routes alongside other classes of train.

Compared to the safety standards of brand new rolling stock I can see why the RMT might have concerns about the D train. Pacers aren't great in a collision but there are at least documented examples of what happens when they do hit something. They are also not being used in a manner which they were not originally intended. So far the only crash testing done of a D train has been at relatively low speed. Even if a unit is locked onto a branch line, collision with a vehicle at a level crossing remains a serious concern. Whilst D stock currently shares tracks with NR stock over a couple of short routes, there are no level crossings here and every signal has tripcocks to prevent collision of trains, whilst not every mainline signal has TPWS.

You would think really that either these trains have to meet modern crash test standards, or every signal on the lines they are used on should have TPWS. of course that still level crossing crashes?

 

[Philip C]

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.

I would not use the word "ruse" in respect of the transfer of the ownership of the Putney Bridge/East Putney - Wimbledon section to LUL. Rather it was, at long last, placing ownership with the operator of the over-whelming majority of services over the line. Proper arrangements were put in place to accommodate Railtrack's proper interest in providing access for its customers (principally SWT stock accessing Wimbledon Depot but also diversions both planned and those caused by incidents). Prior to this transfer South Western Division were responsible for three stations at which their trains never called and the National Railway for a major structure, Putney River Bridge, over which its trains never passed. The transfer was no "ruse", the resultant arrangements were, and remain, eminently sensible.

The interest of the National Railway in the Gunnersbury - Richmond section was, and remains, much greater and there was no clear-cut argument for transferring ownership. Thus it remained outside the LUL/TfL fold.

Your comments about tripcocks and TPWS are I'm sure correct though, with low line speeds, I doubt the "D" Stock was ever seriously at risk of being seriously harmed by the few non-LUL trains running via Point Pleasant Junction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You would think really that either these trains have to meet modern crash test standards, or every signal on the lines they are used on should have TPWS. of course that still level crossing crashes?

Wasn't the latter the idea of the water container test they did? Effectively simulating a tanker lorry?

 

[Domh245]

It would have been, other than the fact that the train would probably collide at more than 20mph, and the lorry would weigh quite a bit more than the 3 tonne water tank. As I said before, it would likely have been a validation for various computer simulations, as you don't want to write off one of your new trains in a high speed collision

 

[NSEFAN]

You would think really that either these trains have to meet modern crash test standards, or every signal on the lines they are used on should have TPWS. of course that still level crossing crashes?

Fitting TPWS would be bringing things closer to how it works on LU metals, although yes there are still more opportunities for high speed collisions when you introduce level crossings.

Are they in public service yet? No. As I said none of us have even seen one, which is because one doesn't exist.

Who says they *won't* be properly crash-tested? Who says extensive computer simulations will not have taken place?

Many of those "naysayers" in here seem to think Vivarail are incompetent or haven't thought of those things. Why do you think that? At the top they have a highly competent railwayman who spent years building up what many people regard as the best TOC of the lot.

This is the point. The train doesn't exist yet. Why is Arriva considering taking up the rolling stock when it isn't even ready?

With a brand new design things are different because an at-least basic working design will have to exist and meet the standards before it can even be advertised to potential customers. The D train on the other hand is still being patched together try and make it good enough. The reason the railways are safe is because we have defined standards that things have to meet before they can operate. Welding shields onto the front of D78 stock like it's a Robot Wars competitor to me smacks of trying to limbo around these standards to recycle some old trains. I believe the only reason it's allowed to happen is because of years of poor planning from the government and NR's painfully slow and expensive electrification programme.

Internal refurbishments are neither here nor there. If the price is right I'm sure the D78s can be made very pleasant to ride in. If they were then going to be used in a very similar environment to their current duties (highly controlled urban network with no road crossings, a uniform fleet and trainstops at every signal) then there wouldn't be an issue. A unit contained on a branch line (say Liskeard-Looe) would be less bad although there's still the issue of vehicle collisions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the point. The train doesn't exist yet. Why is Arriva considering taking up the rolling stock when it isn't even ready?

Why shouldn't it consider it? It's no different to me looking to buy a new car in 6 months' time, and considering models which are on the horizon but not yet on the market. It's not like they've signed a contract before they've seen one.

The D train on the other hand is still being patched together try and make it good enough.

I think you are being unduly cynical, and would say (as I have said a few times) that you should wait until one is produced and in operation before you cast judgement.

The reason the railways are safe is because we have defined standards that things have to meet before they can operate.

Indeed. There is no evidence that the D78s will not meet these standards yet.

Welding shields onto the front of D78 stock like it's a Robot Wars competitor to me smacks of trying to limbo around these standards to recycle some old trains.

If they work, why should it matter? They aren't just bolting bits on. The design will have been extensively analysed by computer to ensure it is going to be effective.

I believe the only reason it's allowed to happen is because of years of poor planning from the government and NR's painfully slow and expensive electrification programme.

That really doesn't matter. We are where we are.

 

[transmanche]

It's no different to me looking to buy a new car in 6 months' time, and considering models which are on the horizon but not yet on the market.

That's absolutely true... if you are considering one of the competitors from the Red Bull Soapbox Race as your next vehicle purchase.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is not the money for a capacity increasing build of 172s or similar. It's as simple as that. So what's to lose?

Quite. Is it time to dust-off the Titfield Thunderbolt too?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Are the Turbos even considered second-generation? They're definitely not based on a Mark 3 or any contemporary design of the '80s.

2.5 generation? They are contemporary with the 158 (mid 1990s) even if they aren't from the same line of design and are in a way a precursor to the Turbostar/Electrostar.

I've seen 170s described as 2nd generation on these forums. I've always considered anything post-privatisation to be the "3rd generation".

I'm not sure what that would make the D78s though...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I've seen 170s described as 2nd generation on these forums. I've always considered anything post-privatisation to be the "3rd generation".

I'm not sure what that would make the D78s though...

Zombies?

 

[TDK]

I would have thought any Arriva / TOC bid would be most likely to have had confirmed interest in the D Trains considering their CEO's connection

What CEO and what connection?

 

[JaJaWa]

What CEO and what connection?

Adrian Shooter is Chairman of Vivarail, he formerly ran Arriva's Chiltern Railways.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Adrian Shooter is Chairman of Vivarail, he formerly ran Arriva's Chiltern Railways.

Indeed. And one thing notably in common between Arriva TOCs (and their parent DB) is the willingness to use often small fleets of refurbished older trains, e.g...

ATW: Mk3s and possibly D-trains, bubble car when they had it
Chiltern: Mk3s, bubble car
XC: HSTs
DB: Silberlinge/n-Wagen, IC/IR stock etc

 

[pemma]

ATW: Mk3s and possibly D-trains, bubble car when they had it
Chiltern: Mk3s, bubble car
XC: HSTs
DB: Silberlinge/n-Wagen, IC/IR stock etc

Also in the past ATN used a loco-hauled set on Settle-Carlisle.

 

[Gareth Marston]

All very well buts whose paying? ATW have a poor record on paying for anything above what the franchise agreement specifies unless someone else pays, aka Welsh Goverbment. The LHCS on the north wales coast is a fine from DfT that DB had to pay for taking over Arriva, it's not an example of what great chaps ATW are who do things off their own bat.

Vivarail want to turn a profit and there stymied up north by election promises. Claire Perry whose still a DFT Minister said "not on my watch" about D78's.