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

[D365]

I think would beg to differ on that one, along with their somewhat limited flexibility

Lack of compatibility with 'Sprinter' type trains is a downside, but I certainly wouldn't have a problem if they were used as a Pacer or Class 150/153 replacement, from a passenger perspective at least.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There will be a talk on the D-Train from Vivarail in Leeds next month at the PWI section meeting.

This has been cancelled fyi

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This has been cancelled fyi

Any reasons given for the cancellation of that meeting?

 

[Harpers Tate]

...but nowhere else....

There must be literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of route miles on the network where a 60mph unit would have absolutely NO material effect on trip timings and other traffic - including the earlier mentioned Long Eaton - Derby route. Just because a bit of track will stand 75 or more and just because the present units can theoretically do 75 or more does not in itself preclude use of DTrains.
If one applied the same (flawed) logic to the present fleet then 158s would be totally banned from the ECML (90 vs 125) and there would be no chance for a 158 "towing" a 153 (75 vs 125) nor a 156 (say) going anywhere near. Neither thing is the case, though.

....their somewhat limited flexibility

If this is another comment about the top speed then the same applies. If this is a comment about, for example, ability to couple to other units - it seems fashionable nowadays to have no standard in place so I doubt that's an issue either.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem if they were used as a Pacer or Class 150/153 replacement, from a passenger perspective at least.

Exactly!

 

[47802]

There must be literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of route miles on the network where a 60mph unit would have absolutely NO material effect on trip timings and other traffic - including the earlier mentioned Long Eaton - Derby route. Just because a bit of track will stand 75 or more and just because the present units can theoretically do 75 or more does not in itself preclude use of DTrains.
If one applied the same (flawed) logic to the present fleet then 158s would be totally banned from the ECML (90 vs 125) and there would be no chance for a 158 "towing" a 153 (75 vs 125) nor a 156 (say) going anywhere near. Neither thing is the case, though.
If this is another comment about the top speed then the same applies. If this is a comment about, for example, ability to couple to other units - it seems fashionable nowadays to have no standard in place so I doubt that's an issue either.
Exactly!

Nobody said it did, however a combination of limited top speed and lack of compatibility with other stock makes them somewhat limiting when compared to even a Pacer. In the case of Northern's new DMU's they may not be compatible with existing stock but at least they don't have a speed handicap and will be concentrated on express services anyway. On Anglia the compatibility of there new bi-modes with older stock isn't an issue anyway as they have gone for complete fleet replacement.

Frankly I don't see why EMT should be lumbered with these things given the much lower subsidy of EMT comparted to Northern and the fact they don't even have any Pacer's to replace, only a relatively small number of 153's to deal with compared to Northern's Pacer fleet, and the need to increase capacity, added to which there are potentially a number cascaded DMU's going spare in a few years time as well as the option of new stock.

 

[Harpers Tate]

...lumbered with these things....

suggests that they are bad.

The only things we know about these units are
(a) their origin (unimportant)
(b) some detail about their modified mechanics (unimportant)
(c) that they have a top speed of 60mph (arguably not a substantial issue)

Anything else subjective is, until we can actually experience them in real life, totally speculative. For all we know from a subjective and practical POV they may in fact be a far better proposition than (say) a 156 - and perhaps this will be the case especially on services with frequent stops.

The point is - we just don't know. Yet.

 

[Clip]

Nobody said it did,

They did and have done so many times in this thread. Many many times

however a combination of limited top speed and lack of compatibility with other stock makes them somewhat limiting when compared to even a Pacer. In the case of Northern's new DMU's they may not be compatible with existing stock but at least they don't have a speed handicap and will be concentrated on express services anyway. On Anglia the compatibility of there new bi-modes with older stock isn't an issue anyway as they have gone for complete fleet replacement.

Frankly I don't see why EMT should be lumbered with these things given the much lower subsidy of EMT comparted to Northern and the fact they don't even have any Pacer's to replace, only a relatively small number of 153's to deal with compared to Northern's Pacer fleet, and the need to increase capacity, added to which there are potentially a number cascaded DMU's going spare in a few years time as well as the option of new stock.

As Harpers tate points out(again because people dont seem to understand this yet) is that we dont know what the train is capable of yet in revenue service. Yes in a few eyars there may be some stock to cascade down but these are ready before then and before any new build so think of them as supplemental stock to assist on those routes that need capacity improvements now(though 6 months for a build really) rather than 3 maybe 4 years time. Or would you prefer not to have improvements now? Which is what it sounds like to me.

 

[47802]

suggests that they are bad.

The only things we know about these units are
(a) their origin (unimportant)
(b) some detail about their modified mechanics (unimportant)
(c) that they have a top speed of 60mph (arguably not a substantial issue)

Anything else subjective is, until we can actually experience them in real life, totally speculative. For all we know from a subjective and practical POV they may in fact be a far better proposition than (say) a 156 - and perhaps this will be the case especially on services with frequent stops.

The point is - we just don't know. Yet.

Yes some of it is subjective until you experience them in real life however it doesn't alter the following

Point (a) is debatable you don't have to be a railway expert to work out that you are being palmed off with recycled tube stock, what the customer might think compared to a new modern Air Conditioned train remains to be seen, then the train itself which was designed for an intensive frequent stop metro service where even the alleged top speed of 60mph wasn't the norm, you are now asking it to work generally longer distance mainline services with higher top speeds as a DEMU rather than EMU it was designed as.

Point (c) you say its arguably not an issue well yes sure on some routes it isn't, but that limits their flexibility to specific routes along with incompatibility with anything else, in terms of railway operations that seems to be somewhat limiting compared to what operators may get from a 14x or 15x fleet. Yes they may be able to work around it, but doesn't mean they have to if a better alternative can be justified.

 

[LowLevel]

The cynic in me sees at least a small chance they might try and use these units to bring in DOO on the Robin Hood line which will have TVMs installed everywhere by January 2017. That said the units are also specifically stated to be capable of crew or driver operation and unless someone pulls in with some money to abolish Shirebrook Junction and Elmton and Creswell boxes (currently a long absolute block section from Shirebrook to Woodend Junction in bandit country) I suppose it's unlikely to have a small subfleet of DOO trains among crew operated ones.

Part of me thinks they could be quite useful things to have, the rest thinks the lack of compatibility with the 15x fleet would be a big problem for flexiibiity.

As for the Matlock trains - while trains do interwork on the route, some kind of timetable recast might be necessary to accommodate them. The Newark trains are often a few minutes late being regulated for intercity services at Ambergate Jn. This means a higher speed is quite useful for keeping ahead of the following London service - the distance is quite sufficient for a 158 to be travelling at 90 mph and even a 153 will reach 75 mph. A 60 mph train would remove a bit of flexibility there.

 

[47802]

The cynic in me sees at least a small chance they might try and use these units to bring in DOO on the Robin Hood line which will have TVMs installed everywhere by January 2017. That said the units are also specifically stated to be capable of crew or driver operation and unless someone pulls in with some money to abolish Shirebrook Junction and Elmton and Creswell boxes (currently a long absolute block section from Shirebrook to Woodend Junction in bandit country) I suppose it's unlikely to have a small subfleet of DOO trains among crew operated ones.

Part of me thinks they could be quite useful things to have, the rest thinks the lack of compatibility with the 15x fleet would be a big problem for flexiibiity.

As for the Matlock trains - while trains do interwork on the route, some kind of timetable recast might be necessary to accommodate them. The Newark trains are often a few minutes late being regulated for intercity services at Ambergate Jn. This means a higher speed is quite useful for keeping ahead of the following London service - the distance is quite sufficient for a 158 to be travelling at 90 mph and even a 153 will reach 75 mph. A 60 mph train would remove a bit of flexibility there.

Ultimately despite there limitations I don't doubt they could be used, assuming they actually meets expectations in terms of performance and reliability and cost which is still an unknown at present, but I think the railway should be aiming for something higher, they are not being used on Northern, Anglia or GWR which all had routes where they could have been potentially used, so why should they be used on EMT or Wales for that matter.

 

[reddragon]

Why is it that this thread has large numbers of posts trying to find reasons why a 1980's design modern Aluminium bodied train (D78 / 230) on 21st century bogies could not work, when clearly there is a shortage of DMUs.

whereas

Another thread devotes a large number of posts trying to find reasons why a 1970's designed mk3 / 1960's motored steel train (class 442) that can only run on DC where nobody wants it has 101 further uses, including a vivarail style project?

 

[Clip]

Why is it that this thread has large numbers of posts trying to find reasons why a 1980's design modern Aluminium bodied train (D78 / 230) on 21st century bogies could not work, when clearly there is a shortage of DMUs.

whereas

Another thread devotes a large number of posts trying to find reasons why a 1970's designed mk3 / 1960's motored steel train (class 442) that can only run on DC where nobody wants it has 101 further uses, including a vivarail style project?

Been asked before and non of those opposed to this scheme but in favour of others has ever answered. I think its the nostalgia for the 125s really.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why is it that this thread has large numbers of posts trying to find reasons why a 1980's design modern Aluminium bodied train (D78 / 230) on 21st century bogies could not work, when clearly there is a shortage of DMUs.

How many of those postings make reference to the maximum speed of a Class 230 units which is not an advisable proposition on many of the lines, for reasons that have been explained countless times on this thread.

Do you therefore propose a reduction of line speeds on those lines in order to accommodate the Class 230 units? You state there is a shortage of DMU s, but considering the hard truth that Vivarail only have one three-car unit, still on trials, that has a one-year lease already booked for service on the Nuneaton to Coventry line that on current information will be booked for use until early 2018, how does that matter help with stated current shortage of DMUs?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Any reasons given for the cancellation of that meeting?

Its not because they have given up on the project if that is what you are hoping for?

 

[tbtc]

Why is it that this thread has large numbers of posts trying to find reasons why a 1980's design modern Aluminium bodied train (D78 / 230) on 21st century bogies could not work, when clearly there is a shortage of DMUs.

whereas

Another thread devotes a large number of posts trying to find reasons why a 1970's designed mk3 / 1960's motored steel train (class 442) that can only run on DC where nobody wants it has 101 further uses, including a vivarail style project?

This forum in a nutshell

As I've said a few times, there are lots of services operated by 75mph DMUs (Pacers, Sprinters) where the unit never needs to get anywhere near 75mph.

Northern services from Sheffield to Leeds (via Castleford or via Bolton on Dearne), Huddersfield and Manchester all take around 1h15 to cover roughly forty five miles.

Forty miles from Sheffield to Scunthorpe and fifty miles from Sheffield to Lincoln take almost an hour and a half.

Seventeen miles from Knottingley to Leeds take around forty minutes, ten miles from Knottingley to Wakefield take around twenty minutes.

(and, yes, I'm no NIMBY; I accept that there are a number of local services around here that a 230 would cope with - not every route justifies brand new 100mph DMUs - if 230s come to Yorkshire then I'd accept that)

Given the number of stops on those services, a fast accelerating unit would probably operate the service faster than a Pacer/ Sprinter that never gets to use its 60mph capabilities.

There are a number of other Northern services that are tediously slow - do you need much 75mph running to match the 1h50 taken to cover fifty miles between Colne and Blackpool?

Since we are talking EMT... the Doncaster - Peterborough services take over two hours to cover ninety miles...

...the service they'll inherit from Northern requires fifty miles to cover twenty miles between Cleethorpes and Barton...

...it's 1h20 for the sixty miles between Grimsby and Newark...

...the thirty miles from Nottingham to Worksop take an hour...

...and over two hours to cover eighty miles between Nottingham and Skegness.

Take out the London services and the Liverpool - Norwich services and pretty much all EMT services (i.e. the 153 and 156 operated ones) could be run by 230s. Not "must be", just "could".

Now, people can argue about whether a 230 is a suitable unit for such services (although since the TOC will be able to specify seating/ layout, you could configure them to suit long distance or short distance demands), but the "60mph units couldn't cope" argument is a bit weak in light of how many services don't require that running.

Don't worry though, this thread traditionally moves in circles - we'll be back to making snobbish comments about the "Transit Van" engines before long and the "top speed" will be conveniently forgotten about.

(as for the 442s... you've got to love the wild imaginations... well, sometimes...)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Its not because they have given up on the project if that is what you are hoping for?

Certainly not. I could well imagine that there would have been up-to-date project information put forward as to the current state of the trials and the actual aspirational start date for the unit to commence its one year lease on the Nuneaton to Coventry line. Matters such as contacts from TOC for the possible lease of units, a discussion of the interest of TOC into the preferred interior layout requirements of interested TOC and a discussion on the number of units that could be produced per month would all have been interesting topics at that meeting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seventeen miles from Knottingley to Leeds take around forty minutes, ten miles from Knottingley to Wakefield take around twenty minutes.

(and, yes, I'm no NIMBY; I accept that there are a number of local services around here that a 230 would cope with - not every route justifies brand new 100mph DMUs - if 230s come to Yorkshire then I'd accept that)

Given the number of stops on those services, a fast accelerating unit would probably operate the service faster than a Pacer/ Sprinter that never gets to use its 60mph capabilities.

There are a number of other Northern services that are tediously slow - do you need much 75mph running to match the 1h50 taken to cover fifty miles between Colne and Blackpool?

I sense that these are rhetorical discussion points or has Northern any franchise "wriggle-room" to accept Class 230 units. As I have said in the past, would Vivarail have the capacity, production-line wise, to produce a number of units per month that would make a real mark in unit availability to interested TOC?

 

[HLE]

Wouldn't bank on the trial on the Nuneaton branch starting anytime soon.

No known start date.

 

[D365]

Matters such as contacts from TOC for the possible lease of units, a discussion of the interest of TOC into the preferred interior layout requirements of interested TOC and a discussion on the number of units that could be produced per month would all have been interesting topics at that meeting.

Seeing as the meeting was going to be organised by the West Yorkshire Section of the Permanent Way Institution, I believe that the content of the talk would have been more related to the engineering side of the converted units.

No known start date.

Not publicly known, that's for sure.

 

[HLE]

Seeing as the meeting was going to be organised by the West Yorkshire Section of the Permanent Way Institution, I believe that the content of the talk would have been more related to the engineering side of the converted units.




Not publicly known, that's for sure.

Or within.

Dogbox until Easter-time seems more likely at the minute.

 

[Kneedown]

There must be literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of route miles on the network where a 60mph unit would have absolutely NO material effect on trip timings and other traffic - including the earlier mentioned Long Eaton - Derby route. Just because a bit of track will stand 75 or more and just because the present units can theoretically do 75 or more does not in itself preclude use of DTrains.
If one applied the same (flawed) logic to the present fleet then 158s would be totally banned from the ECML (90 vs 125) and there would be no chance for a 158 "towing" a 153 (75 vs 125) nor a 156 (say) going anywhere near. Neither thing is the case, though.

I was referring to their use on EMT routes. They would slot into Robin Hood line slots, but no other EMT routes, apart from possibly Skegness.
Derby to Long Eaton? Big no no. 110mph max linespeed.

 

[47802]

I was referring to their use on EMT routes. They would slot into Robin Hood line slots, but no other EMT routes, apart from possibly Skegness.
Derby to Long Eaton? Big no no. 110mph max linespeed.

We shall see but even if EMT don't want to invest in new trains for their regional routes as we know there will be potentially 156/170/185 going spare there will also be enough spare dog boxes going to turn all their 153's into 2 car units if desired.

It would seem to me that yes a D train might stack up reasonably against a Pacer or even a 150, but EMT have neither and against a 156 you need a 3 car unit for similar capacity which takes up more platform space than a 156 and presumably with the trailer car doesn't accelerate as well either and your maintaining 3 carriages instead of 2. As for the 2 car well maybe that's an alternate to a 153 although the 2 car doesn't appear to have a Toilet option not sure how well that would go in rural Lincolnshire, but if you can do without the Toilet maybe just keep a no Toilet 153 instead :roll:.

The other question you have to ask does a D train offer a superior passenger environment, well arguably yes against a Pacer, but against non aircon 15x in good condition I would say that's doubtful.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I was referring to their use on EMT routes. They would slot into Robin Hood line slots, but no other EMT routes, apart from possibly Skegness.
Derby to Long Eaton? Big no no. 110mph max linespeed.

Skegness services have to cross the ECML and i'm not sure what they share the lines with west of the ECML

 

[edwin_m]

Skegness services have to cross the ECML and i'm not sure what they share the lines with west of the ECML

Very little. Although there is the non-stop Norwich train between Nottingham and Grantham it is very slackly timed. Nor do they conflict with the ECML any more, as they now leave Grantham the same way they came in from Nottingham, and use the curve that was put in at Allington ten years or so back to transfer onto the direct Nottingham-Sleaford line and pass under the ECML just north of Peascliffe tunnel (where the Barkston curve used to be but has been removed).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surely the Barton to Cleethorpes line would be ideal for 230s? They wouldn't need to come back often, as most light maintenance could be carried out in the carriage sidings at Cleethorpes along with fuelling, cleaning, tanking (if a toilet is fitted). Cleethorpes is a TPE facility but that shouldn't be a show-stopper.

 

[Kneedown]

We shall see but even if EMT don't want to invest in new trains for their regional routes as we know there will be potentially 156/170/185 going spare there will also be enough spare dog boxes going to turn all their 153's into 2 car units if desired.

It would seem to me that yes a D train might stack up reasonably against a Pacer or even a 150, but EMT have neither and against a 156 you need a 3 car unit for similar capacity which takes up more platform space than a 156 and presumably with the trailer car doesn't accelerate as well either and your maintaining 3 carriages instead of 2. As for the 2 car well maybe that's an alternate to a 153 although the 2 car doesn't appear to have a Toilet option not sure how well that would go in rural Lincolnshire, but if you can do without the Toilet maybe just keep a no Toilet 153 instead :roll:.

The other question you have to ask does a D train offer a superior passenger environment, well arguably yes against a Pacer, but against non aircon 15x in good condition I would say that's doubtful.

I personally don't believe we'll see 230's on EMT. The lack of suitable routes would mean a microfleet that will offer little, if any advantage over the current fleet, with the possible exception of 153's. Passenger loading times may well be faster, but that's about it as far as I can see.
Between Nottingham and Matlock it's hard enough keeping out of the way of the express's with 75mph stock, so I don't think Network Rail will accept the reduction in paths happily.
Like I said, they would fit in well on the Worksops and maybe Skeggs, but certainly not suitable for the other EMT local routes.

 

[Kettledrum]

I was referring to their use on EMT routes. They would slot into Robin Hood line slots, but no other EMT routes, apart from possibly Skegness.
Derby to Long Eaton? Big no no. 110mph max linespeed.

Could they be used Derby - Stoke?

 

[Grimsby town]

Surely the Barton to Cleethorpes line would be ideal for 230s? They wouldn't need to come back often, as most light maintenance could be carried out in the carriage sidings at Cleethorpes along with fuelling, cleaning, tanking (if a toilet is fitted). Cleethorpes is a TPE facility but that shouldn't be a show-stopper.

This is the thing with the 230. They are designed in such a way that they are ideal for micro fleets. It would cut a lot of needless empty stock movements, the line doesn't go over 60mph and the fast acceleration of the units could actually improve journey times. Three 2 car units could revolutionise the Barton line by providing an hourly service and spare stock if there are mechanical issues.

As for other lines if you split the Newark stopper at Nottingham there is no speed issue and the same with the Robin Hood line. Frequency could be increased on both of these lines too. A lot of stock currently runs through services on EMT services due to the lack of stock. This won't be a problem if the D train option is taken up and EMT takes on more 156's.

Apart from these lines they probably aren't suitable, the Grimsby to Lincoln line has around 25 minutes of 75mph running so they would lose some serious time. I think a lot of people are just ideologically against what could be a great concept if used on the correct lines.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think a lot of people are just ideologically against what could be a great concept if used on the correct lines.

Had this website been running in the 1980s, posting comments such as this would most certainly have been made concerning the "exciting and new innovation" that the Class 142 Pacer fleet would bring to certain branch lines....

 

[D365]

There's a big difference between a Pacer and a Class 230 though, as a Pacer carriage is just one giant bogie

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There's a big difference between a Pacer and a Class 230 though, as a Pacer carriage is just one giant bogie

Indeed, that is certainly "innovation"...