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

[THC]

Well, those politicians who are quoted in the newsletter talk about that landmark rail route....the Boston to Skegness line..:roll:

That's right. Because, as I'm sure you're aware, the Class 230 is not exactly designed with top-link ECML duties in mind. :roll:

Your incessant belittling of this project and those involved in it is both obvious and tiresome. Mr Shooter may not be everyone's cup of tea - having met him one a couple of occasions, he would not be mine either - but his contribution to railways in the modern age stands scrutiny and this initiative deserves a chance to prove itself on that basis. Aside from supercilious sniping, what exactly is your contribution?

THC

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's right. Because, as I'm sure you're aware, the Class 230 is not exactly designed with top-link ECML duties in mind. :roll:

Your incessant belittling of this project and those involved in it is both obvious and tiresome. Mr Shooter may not be everyone's cup of tea - having met him one a couple of occasions, he would not be mine either - but his contribution to railways in the modern age stands scrutiny and this initiative deserves a chance to prove itself on that basis. Aside from supercilious sniping, what exactly is your contribution?

THC

All I did was read the submitted link in the posting made by your good self. Pray tell, what other lines beside the Boston to Skegness line were made mention of in that Vivarail newsletter? Did I miss some other named line in that link?

My contribution is to show how "third-world" the Class 230 project is in my eyes, speaking as someone resident in the 21st century and living in expectation that brand-new rolling stock would be the norm in what is supposed to be a major European country.

If there are those amongst us who think the purchase of ex-LU units of a certain age then to make modified rebuilds of these and expect that project to be a success, then this is your right to think that way, but I too hold to my particular view which will never change.

Perhaps if you have been around at the time when the GWR decided to play "mix and match" with the Bulldog Class and Duke Class locomotives to come up with the Dukedog Class, I have a feeling that you would have been enthralled by such a conversion.

The time taken to have a completed unit ready for testing so far on this project speaks for itself.

 

[LowLevel]

Boston to Skegness is one line I can't see them appearing on. Nottingham to Skegness is approximately 80 miles and requires significant luggage space in summer - class 156s are perfect for the route. You could hardly, in my opinion, do better in fact - line speeds are between 50 and 75 mph, the passenger loadings suit end doors and the speed of the journey is much less important than the people and luggage capacity of the train service. 156s with their ex parcel area and low density layout are ideal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 156s are considered a bit down at heel, a good choice (in preference to 230s) might be a refurb to the standard (but obviously with an InterCity style of seating) of the Class 321 refurb - so add aircon, more sound insulation, remove most of the openings leaving huge picture windows etc. They seem solid units with many more years left in them, just a bit old fashioned and basic.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Look - get a 230 up to Hull and I will personally test it on the trips to York - I think that route would work well

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Look - get a 230 up to Hull and I will personally test it on the trips to York - I think that route would work well

Which franchise will you be testing it for....and have you been given dispensation?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Which franchise will you be testing it for....and have you been given dispensation?

Northern, of course

They like me at Northern a lot

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Northern, of course

They like me at Northern a lot

You had better be quick, as they will be "gone with the wind" on April 1st...

 

[THC]

My contribution is to show how "third-world" the Class 230 project is in my eyes, speaking as someone resident in the 21st century and living in expectation that brand-new rolling stock would be the norm in what is supposed to be a major European country.

If there are those amongst us who think the purchase of ex-LU units of a certain age then to make modified rebuilds of these and expect that project to be a success, then this is your right to think that way, but I too hold to my particular view which will never change.

Perhaps if you have been around at the time when the GWR decided to play "mix and match" with the Bulldog Class and Duke Class locomotives to come up with the Dukedog Class, I have a feeling that you would have been enthralled by such a conversion.

The time taken to have a completed unit ready for testing so far on this project speaks for itself.

Let's look at those contributions again:

Mr Shooter - Former chairman of the UK's longest franchise. Evergreens I, II and III including expansion and new services to the West Midlands and Oxford. Responsible for ordering the first post-privatisation rolling stock. Many other industry innovations.

Mr Sidorczuk - Armchair critic with a seeming grudge regarding Mr Shooter.

I rest my case.

THC

 

[Harpers Tate]

You forgot the
"OMFG 60 mph, OMFG 60mph, OMFG 60mph" gang.....

 

[BestWestern]

If 156s are considered a bit down at heel, a good choice (in preference to 230s) might be a refurb to the standard (but obviously with an InterCity style of seating) of the Class 321 refurb - so add aircon, more sound insulation, remove most of the openings leaving huge picture windows etc. They seem solid units with many more years left in them, just a bit old fashioned and basic.

I think adding aircon on an elderly diesel unit is likely to be a challenge too far. I would imagine the draw on both electricals and engines would be too great, and they'd need to be completely re-engineered, as well as space having to be found for the considerable amounts of equipment needed. An EMU has very little below the solebar on all but the motor coach, and power supply to run extra kit is not a problem. On a 156, I'd imagine the workload would be unjustifiable, particularly when they already have very effective ventilation!

Nice trains though, and I'd certainly be in favour of a thorough refurbishment.

 

[Philip C]

Let's look at those contributions again:

Mr Shooter - Former chairman of the UK's longest franchise. Evergreens I, II and III including expansion and new services to the West Midlands and Oxford. Responsible for ordering the first post-privatisation rolling stock. Many other industry innovations.

Mr Sidorczuk - Armchair critic with a seeming grudge regarding Mr Shooter.

I rest my case.

THC

I take that as an offer to have the Cl.230s running through THC's neck of the woods. Strange then that LO didn't snap them all up!

It is a characteristic of this thread that, whilst many will suggest places suitable for their use, few want them close to their homes. A little like nuclear power stations (an ideal for use for the Royal Parks?).

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'd be no use for the WCML, but as I've said before I would welcome them on non-electrified South East branches.

 

[northwichcat]

It appears that some politicians would welcome 230s on their patch...

http://www.vivarail.co.uk/on-record/

THC

Question is how much does that MP know? I'm sure someone at Vivarail can give a list of valid advantages of a D-Train over a 153 but they aren't going to give you the disadvantages unless you press them with the right questions.

Claire Perry was apparently warned not to publicly dismiss options after previously suggesting D-Trains won't be used if she gets her way.

 

[THC]

I take that as an offer to have the Cl.230s running through THC's neck of the woods. Strange then that LO didn't snap them all up!

It is a characteristic of this thread that, whilst many will suggest places suitable for their use, few want them close to their homes. A little like nuclear power stations (an ideal for use for the Royal Parks?).

Don't be so puerile. I have as much influence over railway operational matters as I'm sure you do. The difference appears to be that I am keeping an open mind on their potential contribution.

For what it is worth I would have no issue at all with Class 230s, subject to proof of concept, operating on suitable lines. I travel all over the country and can think of many lines that I know well where they could be used, in the process freeing up stock for use elsewhere:

- Bedford-Bletchley
- Marks Tey-Sudbury
- Norfolk and Suffolk branches
- West Ealing-Greenford and Thames Valley non-electrified branches

There are many others, I'm sure, many of which have been identified on this thread. I'm sure Mr Shooter and his team know what they're doing and it is up to them to prove their case and to make the sale. I wish them well because, unlike any of us here, they are actually putting their money into this innovation. I find it staggering and rather sad that anyone would take delight in them failing.

THC

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Let's look at those contributions again:

Mr Shooter - Former chairman of the UK's longest franchise. Evergreens I, II and III including expansion and new services to the West Midlands and Oxford. Responsible for ordering the first post-privatisation rolling stock. Many other industry innovations.

Mr Sidorczuk - Armchair critic with a seeming grudge regarding Mr Shooter.

I rest my case.

THC

You're allowing Adrian's good record to cloud your judgement, the Class 230 project is now completely idiotic and needs really to be wound up, the window Adrian saw for their use has rather firmly been bricked up.

I like and respect Adrian enormously, so it's hard to criticise him, but to my mind he and the others at VivaRail didn't take into account the possibility for a series of relatively small delays to electrification and rolling stock procurement which would ultimately give a new DMU order enough time for the funding ROSCO to recoup their investment and turn at least a modest profit.

I'd guess Adrian and others, having had good results with the Evergreen projects, thought electrification would run more smoothly (were we ever that naive ourselves - yes, we were) and that their business plan was perfect for it. It was then, it isn't now.

 

[DaiGog]

Don't be so puerile. I have as much influence over railway operational matters as I'm sure you do. The difference appears to be that I am keeping an open mind on their potential contribution.

For what it is worth I would have no issue at all with Class 230s, subject to proof of concept, operating on suitable lines. I travel all over the country and can think of many lines that I know well where they could be used, in the process freeing up stock for use elsewhere:

- Bedford-Bletchley
- Marks Tey-Sudbury
- Norfolk and Suffolk branches
- West Ealing-Greenford and Thames Valley non-electrified branches

There are many others, I'm sure, many of which have been identified on this thread. I'm sure Mr Shooter and his team know what they're doing and it is up to them to prove their case and to make the sale. I wish them well because, unlike any of us here, they are actually putting their money into this innovation. I find it staggering and rather sad that anyone would take delight in them failing.

THC

Agreed. I don't see them as suitable large scale Pacer replacements in the north, but there are several places where they could do a job, and free up other rolling stock for the greater good. The Cardiff Valleys would be one idea, as it's mostly self contained (so they won't get in the way of very much), the services are frequent and the stops not far apart.

In reality though, they will probably end up being exported to places like Bulgaria or Poland.

 

[tbtc]

My contribution is to show how "third-world" the Class 230 project is in my eyes, speaking as someone resident in the 21st century and living in expectation that brand-new rolling stock would be the norm in what is supposed to be a major European country

Where do you get this idea that all trains should be “new” from?

Not every railway line can justify new trains, just like not every bus route can justify new buses.

The 230s are similar to the way that we’ve seen London buses cascaded onto “provincial” operations – converted London vehicles (i.e. with the second door removed) can be seen in most other British cities.

I don’t know why the idea of converting some heavy rail vehicles from London should attract the same sniffiness?

It’s not ideal (and wouldn’t it be spiffing if every route could get brand new vehicles etc etc), but it’s a realistic option to consider.

Many bus routes in Sheffield have had cascaded/converted London buses (whether Presidents/ Tridents or Darts). They’re not perfect, but I can understand why operators would rather put a ten year old ex-London vehicle on a route rather than purchase brand new vehicles.

Budgets are going to be tight over the next decade – the railway industry has been spared most of the “austerity” we’ve seen in other public services, but I think we have to be mindful of costs – and buying lots of new DMUs is an expensive way of dealing with a short/medium term problem.

There’s a serious discussion to be had about how we provide capacity to unelectrified lines over the next ten years (given that there’s currently a backlog of electrification, but CP6/CP7 should see significant inroads made, so “buy hundreds of DMUs” isn’t a realistic answer)...

...we could talk about what level of investment is appropriate on lightly used branches (e.g. whether heavy rail is still appropriate)...

...we could discuss which routes a 60mph unit could cope with (e.g. the Northern service from Sheffield to Manchester via Edale takes around 75 minutes to travel fortysomething miles, the Northern service from Sheffield to Leeds via Castleford takes around 75 minutes to travel fortysomething miles)...

...or you can keep typing “Incubus” to try to provoke a reaction. Up to you.

If there are those amongst us who think the purchase of ex-LU units of a certain age then to make modified rebuilds of these and expect that project to be a success, then this is your right to think that way

As above - most UK cities have had modified London buses "of a certain age" cascaded to them, without the sky falling in.

I too hold to my particular view which will never change

Indeed.

It is a characteristic of this thread that, whilst many will suggest places suitable for their use, few want them close to their homes. A little like nuclear power stations (an ideal for use for the Royal Parks?).

As I've said a few times on this thread, there are a lot of local services in my neck of the woods where the current Northern service has an average speed of well under sixty miles per hour (e.g. taking well over an hour to do the fortysomething miles from Sheffield to Leeds/ Manchester).

 

[Philip C]

Don't be so puerile. I have as much influence over railway operational matters as I'm sure you do. The difference appears to be that I am keeping an open mind on their potential contribution.

For what it is worth I would have no issue at all with Class 230s, subject to proof of concept, operating on suitable lines. I travel all over the country and can think of many lines that I know well where they could be used, in the process freeing up stock for use elsewhere:

- Bedford-Bletchley
- Marks Tey-Sudbury
- Norfolk and Suffolk branches
- West Ealing-Greenford and Thames Valley non-electrified branches

There are many others, I'm sure, many of which have been identified on this thread. I'm sure Mr Shooter and his team know what they're doing and it is up to them to prove their case and to make the sale. I wish them well because, unlike any of us here, they are actually putting their money into this innovation. I find it staggering and rather sad that anyone would take delight in them failing.

THC

Like you I travel in many parts of this country. Like you I might be happy to travel in a Cl. 230 when I'm in one of those areas. Like you, it appears, I would not volunteer a line on which I regularly travel for conversion to Cl. 230 operation. Unlike you I don't regard my opinions on matters as being driven by whether a wealthy man, seeking further wealth, is frustrated in this or not. Unlike you I will resist calling you names for offering opinions.

 

[keith1879]

Like you I travel in many parts of this country. Like you I might be happy to travel in a Cl. 230 when I'm in one of those areas. Like you, it appears, I would not volunteer a line on which I regularly travel for conversion to Cl. 230 operation. Unlike you I don't regard my opinions on matters as being driven by whether a wealthy man, seeking further wealth, is frustrated in this or not. Unlike you I will resist calling you names for offering opinions.

FWIW I personally would welcome a trial of these things as an alternative to Pacers (and indeed Sprinters with knee-crunching seats and leaking roofs) on my local line. It looks clear that 230s will never form a key component of a franchise proposal - but if they can be supplied at a significantly lower cost than new stock then surely there must be a possible role in expanding a fleet beyond what would otherwise be possible.

May I also say how disappointing the name-calling and point-scoring is on this thread from both sides of the fence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Many bus routes in Sheffield have had cascaded/converted London buses (whether Presidents/ Tridents or Darts). They’re not perfect, but I can understand why operators would rather put a ten year old ex-London vehicle on a route rather than purchase brand new vehicles.

If that be the case in Sheffield, why have the Stagecoach, First and Arriva groups in the TfGM administered areas of Greater Manchester introduced brand new large fleets of eco-buses when it was opportune to do so.

Incidentally, when you make reference to the buses cascaded from London, may I enquire what London used to replace them. Was it NEW buses?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...or you can keep typing “Incubus” to try to provoke a reaction. Up to you.

Whilst I admit using that term in the early part of this debate as it seemed to fit the offered product, have you seen my use of it in recent times?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where do you get this idea that all trains should be “new” from? Not every railway line can justify new trains, just like not every bus route can justify new buses. The 230s are similar to the way that we’ve seen London buses cascaded onto “provincial” operations – converted London vehicles (i.e. with the second door removed) can be seen in most other British cities.

I don’t know why the idea of converting some heavy rail vehicles from London should attract the same sniffiness? It’s not ideal (and wouldn’t it be spiffing if every route could get brand new vehicles etc etc), but it’s a realistic option to consider.

New rolling stock does seem to occur in certain new rail projects of size and in some of the recent new franchises.

 

[47802]

Where do you get this idea that all trains should be “new” from?

Not every railway line can justify new trains, just like not every bus route can justify new buses.

The 230s are similar to the way that we’ve seen London buses cascaded onto “provincial” operations – converted London vehicles (i.e. with the second door removed) can be seen in most other British cities.

I don’t know why the idea of converting some heavy rail vehicles from London should attract the same sniffiness?

It’s not ideal (and wouldn’t it be spiffing if every route could get brand new vehicles etc etc), but it’s a realistic option to consider.

Many bus routes in Sheffield have had cascaded/converted London buses (whether Presidents/ Tridents or Darts). They’re not perfect, but I can understand why operators would rather put a ten year old ex-London vehicle on a route rather than purchase brand new vehicles.

Budgets are going to be tight over the next decade – the railway industry has been spared most of the “austerity” we’ve seen in other public services, but I think we have to be mindful of costs – and buying lots of new DMUs is an expensive way of dealing with a short/medium term problem.

There’s a serious discussion to be had about how we provide capacity to unelectrified lines over the next ten years (given that there’s currently a backlog of electrification, but CP6/CP7 should see significant inroads made, so “buy hundreds of DMUs” isn’t a realistic answer)...

...we could talk about what level of investment is appropriate on lightly used branches (e.g. whether heavy rail is still appropriate)...

...we could discuss which routes a 60mph unit could cope with (e.g. the Northern service from Sheffield to Manchester via Edale takes around 75 minutes to travel fortysomething miles, the Northern service from Sheffield to Leeds via Castleford takes around 75 minutes to travel fortysomething miles)...

...or you can keep typing “Incubus” to try to provoke a reaction. Up to you.



As above - most UK cities have had modified London buses "of a certain age" cascaded to them, without the sky falling in.



Indeed.



As I've said a few times on this thread, there are a lot of local services in my neck of the woods where the current Northern service has an average speed of well under sixty miles per hour (e.g. taking well over an hour to do the fortysomething miles from Sheffield to Leeds/ Manchester).

Well my local bus company must be an exception then as the majority of Buses they have are reasonably new, and the older ones they have they have had from new and are not London cast off.

Many regional services have had poor investment and crap trains for years, we now need to be aiming for a higher quality solution, I'm of the view that's its not acceptable to say well we can justify HS2 but then have a poverty stricken solution for our regional services.

I'm sure many people in the North including myself would not have been impressed by replacement of Pacer's by an older tube train, and don't try the Shooter line that its really new, and just because the average speed is below 60 on many services doesn't mean they don't need a decent top end speed in many cases to give a reasonable journey time, yes there are routes that 60 would be ok but these trains would reduce operational convenience.

The Arriva solution for the North, of New trains on the Major regional route between the main Towns and Cites, and cascaded 150's and 170's is long overdue and the minimum that should be expected in my view.

The revised traction plan for GWR in view of electrification delays now allegedly includes the option of more AT300's for medium distances services instead of using mini HST's, of course DTF may not accept more AT300's but its the kind of ambition we should be aiming at in my view.

 

[Emblematic]

In case folk are under the impression that Londoners are used to nothing but shiny new buses, I would mention that large numbers in the capital are over a decade old; my local route is almost exclusively served by 52 reg. buses, which do a great impression of being about to fall apart. It's hardly a peripheral route, passing both London Bridge and Waterloo. TfL require buses with separate entrances and exits, so they would have to be extensively modified for other operators. Apart from where politics overrides common sense (e.g. the bendy bus saga) I would have thought that cascade is the exception not the rule - most ex London buses will be fit for nothing but scrap.

 

[WillPS]

In case folk are under the impression that Londoners are used to nothing but shiny new buses, I would mention that large numbers in the capital are over a decade old; my local route is almost exclusively served by 52 reg. buses, which do a great impression of being about to fall apart. It's hardly a peripheral route, passing both London Bridge and Waterloo. TfL require buses with separate entrances and exits, so they would have to be extensively modified for other operators. Apart from where politics overrides common sense (e.g. the bendy bus saga) I would have thought that cascade is the exception not the rule - most ex London buses will be fit for nothing but scrap.

They will be amongst the very oldest in the capital (except the handful of Routemasters!).

At the time of manufacture panelling to replace the middle door (or at least schematics for such panels) will have been produced and put aside expecting it to become redundant once its life in London comes to an end.

The vast majority of them receive an extensive mid-life overhaul before either being redeployed within the group (which happens less now First has exited London) or being sold on. Ensignbus are a company who were literally created to do this, buying up all London's DMSs and more or less turning them back in to regular Fleetlines.

 

[Emblematic]

They will be amongst the very oldest in the capital (except the handful of Routemasters!).

At the time of manufacture panelling to replace the middle door (or at least schematics for such panels) will have been produced and put aside expecting it to become redundant once its life in London comes to an end.

The vast majority of them receive an extensive mid-life overhaul before either being redeployed within the group (which happens less now First has exited London) or being sold on. Ensignbus are a company who were literally created to do this, buying up all London's DMSs and more or less turning them back in to regular Fleetlines.

I expect it's cyclic. Buses of this age will have had the emissions control upgraded to meet the LEZ requirements; older buses may have been cascaded as impractical / too expensive for the remaining service life. They will also have had the London-wide gps tracking, and moves elsewhere also mean the disability equipment and facility needs to be moved to the front, so it's more than just plating the doorway up. TfL are now pushing for an all-hybrid fleet, so that may cause a swing back towards cascade of younger buses.

 

[jimm]

My contribution is to show how "third-world" the Class 230 project is in my eyes, speaking as someone resident in the 21st century and living in expectation that brand-new rolling stock would be the norm in what is supposed to be a major European country.

Yes, but we have known your view since day one. There's no need to repeat it over and over - or have I missed some new and interesting angle to what you have to say?

And many people in the third world would probably be very happy to have such trains to ride around in, never mind that D-trains are still in daily service in the first world city known as London - and would likely have remained so for another decade, had London Transport not taken a policy decision to use a single type of train on the sub-surface lines.

As for the idea that brand-new rolling stock would be the norm, what an utterly laughable proposition. Rolling stock cascades and rebuilding rail vehicles of all kinds for new roles have been with us pretty much ever since railways were invented. In that regard, Vivarail are hardly radical innovators or doing something out of the ordinary.

Perhaps if you have been around at the time when the GWR decided to play "mix and match" with the Bulldog Class and Duke Class locomotives to come up with the Dukedog Class, I have a feeling that you would have been enthralled by such a conversion.

The time taken to have a completed unit ready for testing so far on this project speaks for itself.

What, you mean it's the first D-train that this conversion work has been carried out on, so there might just have been one or two obstacles to overcome and lessons to learn along the way. Lessons which it might be useful to learn should anyone want to order more...

And most of the Dukedogs gave the railway the best part of 20 years' service after the rebuilding, suggesting that GWR and BR found them reasonably useful to have around, whatever the Sidorczuk doctrine states.

If that be the case in Sheffield, why have the Stagecoach, First and Arriva groups in the TfGM administered areas of Greater Manchester introduced brand new large fleets of eco-buses when it was opportune to do so.

Probably because in many cases the operators were given nice slices of public money to help them acquire low-emission buses, thanks to DfT schemes.

The following is from a House of Commons Library paper www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01522.pdf

3 Green Bus Fund
General information on the Green Bus Fund can be found on the Gov.uk website.
In July 2009 the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, announced “a new £30 million fund to encourage the purchase of low carbon buses”. Bids for funding would be assessed according to the following criteria including environmental performance and manufacturers’ commitments to environmental objectives.
The first round of winning bids were announced in December 2009. The Labour Government claimed that “up to 1000 jobs will be secured and up to 10,000 tonnes of CO2” would be saved because of the fund.
Despite the Department’s enthusiasm for the scheme, there were reports that some of the bigger bus groups did not apply because they could not see enough benefit in doing so.
In July 2010 the Coalition Government confirmed that it would proceed with a second round of funding for 2010, though the amount available was reduced to £15 million. In the 2011 Autumn Statement the Chancellor announced a further £20 million for the third round of the Fund.
The March 2012 buses green paper indicated that this would be increased to £31 million due to the level of interest.
A fourth round was launched in December 2012 with £20 million of funding.
In October 2013 the Government stated that since 2009, through four rounds of the Green Bus Fund, it had provided £88 million of funding to bus operators and local authorities.

And there was £30m more last year https://www.gov.uk/government/news/65-million-funding-for-ultra-low-emission-cities-and-green-buses

So don't get carried away by the idea that the bus bandits have acquired all those new buses out of the of kindness of their hearts. They got a nice bung from our pockets to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TfL require buses with separate entrances and exits, so they would have to be extensively modified for other operators.

Buses are very modular; panelling over the rear door and adding 2 rows of seats is an afternoon's job plus time in the paintshop that would happen anyway.

The Borismaster, OTOH, may be an entirely different kettle of fish in that regard.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well my local bus company must be an exception then as the majority of Buses they have are reasonably new, and the older ones they have they have had from new and are not London cast off.

I was wondering about this myself. Most ex-London buses around these parts are confined to one or two smaller operators and / or school specials.

Many regional services have had poor investment and crap trains for years, we now need to be aiming for a higher quality solution, I'm of the view that's its not acceptable to say well we can justify HS2 but then have a poverty stricken solution for our regional services.

I'm sure many people in the North including myself would not have been impressed by replacement of Pacer's by an older tube train, and don't try the Shooter line that its really new, and just because the average speed is below 60 on many services doesn't mean they don't need a decent top end speed in many cases to give a reasonable journey time, yes there are routes that 60 would be ok but these trains would reduce operational convenience.

The Arriva solution for the North, of New trains on the Major regional route between the main Towns and Cites, and cascaded 150's and 170's is long overdue and the minimum that should be expected in my view.

The revised traction plan for GWR in view of electrification delays now allegedly includes the option of more AT300's for medium distances services instead of using mini HST's, of course DTF may not accept more AT300's but its the kind of ambition we should be aiming at in my view.

Indeed, austerity or not, much of the North has not had anything like the investment that it ought to have. No matter how pretty Vivarail could make the 230s, they would still be old stock on slightly younger bogies. And sooner rather than later later they would have to be replaced. So Arriva have gone with the idea that temporary solutions are not the way forward, hence the new stock orders.

As I've said a few times on this thread, there are a lot of local services in my neck of the woods where the current Northern service has an average speed of well under sixty miles per hour (e.g. taking well over an hour to do the fortysomething miles from Sheffield to Leeds/ Manchester).

So the answer should be units that can only operate in these timings, rather than trying to improve the picture? Or should operators / NR be looking to improve these timings, something that would be hard to do with units like the 230s who can only offer the hope of the odd minute or two quicker timings through better acceleration? And what about the faster services over these lines, should they be hampered by 60mph units simply to save a bit of cash?

But whatever, the decision has been made. The 230s will not be operating any time soon in the North. Maybe they will find a home elsewhere, maybe they won't. I may be wrong, but a sense a bit of disappointment in your posts. I would have thought some investment around here would be welcomed? Or are we engaging in a bit of the Yorkshireman's sketch?

 

[northwichcat]

If that be the case in Sheffield, why have the Stagecoach, First and Arriva groups in the TfGM administered areas of Greater Manchester introduced brand new large fleets of eco-buses when it was opportune to do so.

Incidentally, when you make reference to the buses cascaded from London, may I enquire what London used to replace them. Was it NEW buses?

Manchester is lucky in being one of the cities where the government has made grants available for the introduction of new eco-buses in an attempt to reduce pollution which First, Stagecoach and Bullocks have all taken advantage of.

TfL specify age limits on vehicles which can operate services, something that is unheard of in most areas. (Most cities also don't have a mad mayor who has banned certain types of buses from operating in the city!)

None of the big operators like to withdraw buses if they are still able to use them. I used to live in Huddersfield and I recall First Bus drivers grumbling about Huddersfield always being sent old deckers while Halifax always getting new ones, some of the old deckers in Huddersfield were withdrawn when they reached around 20 years in age and what replaced them? A cascade from Halifax with Halifax getting some brand new deckers in exchange. The First Huddersfield fleet at the time included some ex-London deckers which had become too old to operate services in London. How First decide which depots get new and which get cascaded is unclear, it can't always be the biggest towns and cities if Halifax gets prioritised over larger towns.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well my local bus company must be an exception then as the majority of Buses they have are reasonably new, and the older ones they have they have had from new and are not London cast off.

There's three operators of public service buses in my town.

D&G Bus have one route and they generally use Streetlites which are 5-6 years old which they acquired as a result of taking over Bakerbus (the route is not a former Bakerbus route.) When it's not one of those buses it's usually a similar age Solo or Enviro 200 which used to belong to Go Goodwins. However, I doubt most passengers will be aware that the buses are all second hand.

GHA Coaches use a right mixture, anything from an under 2 year old Enviro 200 with a high specification interior to a 12 year Solo which used to be used by D&G Bus, a R reg Wright Renown (they acquired these off both Brighton & Hove and Go Ahead North East), a 7 year Solo they've had since new to a 14 year old Dart which used to be used by Arriva.

Tomlinson Travel pretty much always use a 51 reg Renault Harrier which used to belong to SGI Buses on their one evening service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, austerity or not, much of the North has not had anything like the investment that it ought to have. No matter how pretty Vivarail could make the 230s, they would still be old stock on slightly younger bogies. And sooner rather than later later they would have to be replaced. So Arriva have gone with the idea that temporary solutions are not the way forward, hence the new stock orders.

Despite Shooter constantly going to the media with his D-Train solution for Northern, the ITT didn't permit it. The ITT clearly said the only options were proper new build not involving recycled components, 15xs, 17xs and loco-hauled (also Pacers up until December 2019.) Somehow he got the idea that as long as 120 proper new self-powered carriages were ordered his solution could be used as well claiming the D-Train was an option to meet the metro style interior which was included as an option for commuter services.

It seems a while back people were saying an order of over 100 new DMUs for Northern as Pacer replacement was unaffordable. However, it now seems 55 new DMUs alongside cascades and electrification is affordable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, but we have known your view since day one. There's no need to repeat it over and over - or have I missed some new and interesting angle to what you have to say?

So you think that one posting is sufficient to express one's views, when there have been numerous postings made as to the past record of Shooter and his "innovation" with regards to the Class 230 project.

I served in the highest echelons of Senior Management for over 30 years and would bring to the attention of your good self and others on this thread that just because a record of exemplary company management has been the norm, no one is infallible in their judgement as to the success of every project under their managed remit, especially in the case of the Class 230 project which must have seemed small beer to Shooter in comparison with earlier projects in his career.

All I wish to repeat is the time taken so far by Vivarail to bring a fully completed unit to the stage where final testing and approval can then be made, as until that point in time is reached, there can surely be no TOC who would make any commitment to a product that has not passed the required criteria. I trust that this point is simplistically made so no-one claim not to understand what I say.

Of course, I fully understand how forum members can see in their own minds eye how a fully approved Class 230 product could be used on certain branch lines, but once again I reiterate the fact that Vivarail surely will not be looking to make sales of small numbers of these units, but their original vision of one major contract that would see all the units fully planned in comprehensive construction project that would see regular deliveries of completed units to the purchaser until completion. A similar sized production run to my mind would be that of the M5000 trams for the Manchester Metrolink system.