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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Off the top of my head, the new franchise is slated to start in November? Whether or not the interest in the Class 230 trial continues depends on the winning bidder proposes an improvement in service on the Coventry-Nuneaton line.

Thank you for your confirmation.

 

[The Planner]

Cannot see how the new franchisee won't propose increases in services otherwise the whole NUCKLE scheme dies immediately and Coventry council will be very much out of pocket.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Cannot see how the new franchisee won't propose increases in services otherwise the whole NUCKLE scheme dies immediately and Coventry council will be very much out of pocket.

In the tender bid submissions for the new franchises, will the bidders have to state what types of units are proposed to be used?

 

[alastair]

Whilst immediately acknowledging the final part of your posting above, are you saying that the Class 230 unit may have passed all its testing requirements and can actually run in commercial service on such a football special service as you describe above? I thought that the official body who had originally granted a 12-month period of running on the Coventry to Nuneaton line had officially terminated that agreement.

All that said, wishing to be fair to all on this thread, may I solicit opinions that have been garnered from any official source, that can give the actuality of the situation in which the said Class 230 unit currently finds itself. I am most interested when the findings of the RAIB report will be placed in the public domain.

The latest edition of Rail magazine states that although the incident was reported to RAIB, they have confirmed to the magazine that they will not be conducting an investigation into the fire. It also states that Vivarail themselves will be completing a "full and final report" into the incident by 31 Jan.

 

[QueensCurve]

I think that the class 230's would be slightly out of gauge for fitting in a launch tube!!!

Use 15" guage stock perhaps?

 

[route:oxford]

The Warrington Guardian has details today of plans for a "Metro" service in Oxford using Class 230 DMUs:-

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk...o__39__with_new_train_routes_across_the_city/

PLANS for a new 'Oxford Metro' will be presented to the Government as part of a future plan for a city-wide system of new train routes.

Upgrades to signalling south of the city's main station could allow the Cowley Branch Line to be used again for passenger services, possibly using refurbished trains from the London Underground.

Leading academic Dr Nicholas Falk said it is time to 'stop talking' about a new metro system and to 'get things under way'.

It would at first serve stops at Oxford Station, Oxford Science Park, Blackbird Leys and Oxford Business Park, but could be the first step towards a bigger system.

This could later include metro services between Oxford and Didcot, also serving a new station at Kidlington, according to new proposals.

The idea has been suggested by Wolfson Economics Prize winner Dr Falk, founder of think tank URBED, who said it could cut traffic in the city and give people an easier way to travel to work in Cowley.

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/resources/images/5941915.jpg

Dr Falk said the scheme could also drive the redevelopment of the city's West End – including Oxford Station – and urged local authorities to act on the idea.

He added: "At the moment, Oxford has a very successful economy but it risks being left behind by other areas like Cambridge if we cannot find solutions to its transport problems.

"If we don't take action, it will just become somewhere nice that visitors go.

"Surely now is the time to stop talking about this and to get things under way?"

Dr Falk has held 'promising' discussions with officials at the Department for Transport about the idea and is due to give a presentation to the Rail Board in the coming months.

His idea is significant because it could allow passenger services to resume on the Cowley Branch Line, which has been freight-only since 1963, without major infrastructure work.

It had previously been thought only costly upgrades to increase capacity, such as increasing the number of tracks between Oxford and Didcot from two to four, could bring this about.

But experts at URBED now believe the metro service could be made possible by signal upgrades already planned by Network Rail this year.

And this view is also supported by Chiltern Railways, which recently opened new services from central Oxford to London Marylebone.

The firm previously said it would aim to begin services on the branch line by 2020 but when asked recently stressed it had made little progress.

In an interview with the Oxford Mail, however, chief project engineer Stephen Barker said: "It is still potentially possible to do it by 2020.

"We need additional capacity to the stop of Oxford but we are not necessarily reliant on four-tracking between Oxford and Didcot to do that.

"Some other improvements that Network Rail are looking at on the line in the coming years could deliver that capacity.

"The new technology will make much better use of infrastructure."

The idea being put forward by Dr Falk also suggests using refurbished London Underground district line trains, such as those produced by a company called Vivarail, on the branch line.

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/resources/images/5941913.jpg

Bob Price, leader of Oxford City Council, said: "This is a perfectly feasible way to introduce services on the branch line.

"The issue you would have is when more freight services start running on the main line, and whether or not the gaps that leave room for branch line services would still be there.

"But we would be very enthusiastic about starting on the basis of whatever commercial operation the train companies could put together - the desire to establish some kind of service for the city's science and business parks, or potentially for the Kassam Stadium for Saturday football matches, is huge."

Oxfordshire County Council leader Ian Hudspeth said he had doubts about whether there would be capacity but encouraged Dr Falk to speak to the authority.

A Network Rail spokesman said: "We are continually looking at ways to improve the railway and welcome any new innovative ideas that can improve our capacity."

A DfT spokesman said: "We are committed to improving rail journeys and have been talking to Oxfordshire County Council about their plans to reopen the Cowley branch line."

 

[TheDavibob]

I'd have thought the primary issue with this would be running Class 230s into Oxford itself - how much line sharing would there be?

 

[keith1879]

Conversely, there are others who will do naught put make postings of euphoria and give their heartfelt full support to Adrian Shooter and the Class 230 project and Vivarail at every possible opportunity.

Two sides to every coin.

I've watched updates on this thread drop into my mailbox day by day with a sinking feeling but this one really takes the biscuit. There are certainly a number of posters who are generally supportive of this project. To describe them in these terms however (euphoria and heartfelt full support etc etc) tells us rather more about your own views than it does about theirs. I'm sorry Paul but although you do generally try (IMHO) to keep to factual comment (sometimes failing I have to say) your constant chipping away at the edges on every aspect of this matter is truly tiresome to the reader. This project may fail - it may succeed. Nothing that anyone says on here is going to make a blind bit of difference but I have to say that those posters who have noticeably ceased to contribute are impressing me a lot more than those who constantly try to have the last word - something which I am not going to attempt to do.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If you add together all the costs so far including the purchase of the d-stock units from LU, does it come anywhere near close to the cost of a new build?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've watched updates on this thread drop into my mailbox day by day with a sinking feeling but this one really takes the biscuit. There are certainly a number of posters who are generally supportive of this project. To describe them in these terms however (euphoria and heartfelt full support etc etc) tells us rather more about your own views than it does about theirs. I'm sorry Paul but although you do generally try (IMHO) to keep to factual comment (sometimes failing I have to say) your constant chipping away at the edges on every aspect of this matter is truly tiresome to the reader. This project may fail - it may succeed. Nothing that anyone says on here is going to make a blind bit of difference but I have to say that those posters who have noticeably ceased to contribute are impressing me a lot more than those who constantly try to have the last word - something which I am not going to attempt to do.

As in a posting that I made after the one that you have used as your quote, my view of this project is based upon purely commercial and financial project reasoning. Emotive comments concerning a certain Vivarail personage purely are made to mask the project difficulties in my view and have no basis in real-life commercial project management monitoring. I speak as one who retired in 2010 as Senior Head of Projects at the consultancy and as one who headed the consultancy Toronto office from 1995 to 2004 where we were the project lead on a Canadian Hydro project. Indeed, at the age of 71, despite suffering from a stroke in 2012, I consider my brain to be as keen as ever.

On another website that I am occasionally known to frequent, I am sometimes referred to as the Archangel of Death when I decide to enter the thread that deals with "fantasy projects" which needs the breath air of commercial realism to blow away the more outrageous flights of fantasy.

I can only make project progress evaluations upon what I see in actuality rather than that aspirationalism.

 

[WatcherZero]

If you add together all the costs so far including the purchase of the d-stock units from LU, does it come anywhere near close to the cost of a new build?

For the trial unit itself, yes comfortably exceeds it. If it went in to mass production, its currently being quoted as 3/4 the cost of a new unit with 1/2 the remaining lifespan.

 

[D365]

For the trial unit itself, yes comfortably exceeds it. If it went in to mass production, its currently being quoted as 3/4 the cost of a new unit with 1/2 the remaining lifespan.

However don't forget that it is specifically being designed as a low-cost unit which means that the lifetime cost should comfortably be lower.

 

[Chris125]

As I understood it, the physical limitation (as opposed to regulatory limitation) with regards to speeds was the diameter of the wheels. Wheels equivalent to those on 150s, which may well require new bogies, would in theory allow higher speeds.

The 790mm wheels of the D78s are not dissimilar in size to at least some of the Sprinter fleet (840mm IIRC) and larger than the 125mph Voyagers (780mm I believe) so it can't simply be an issue of diameter. As I understand it that bogie design simply isn't rated for higher speeds, so would need to be replaced.

 

[racklam]

I can only make project progress evaluations upon what I see in actuality rather than that aspirationalism.

This is the issue with posters detracting from this project. In reality, this project may succeed or it may fail. None of us (unless there are any Vivarail employees around) have the necessary information to judge the project from a purely commercial standpoint.

When you say "I can only make project progress evaluations upon what I see in actuality", you decline to finish that thought with the necessary "and what I see in actuality does not give me enough information to make an effective judgement". You're then perfectly entitled to say, on an emotive basis, that you think the project will fail, but as an experienced consultant you should know this carries no weight from a commercial point of view.

Maybe the 230 will succeed, maybe it won't. This forum is a good place for both substantive and emotive discussion, but in this case we have very little information on which to base substantive arguments, hence the emotive arguments dominate. That isn't necessarily a bad thing (people are entirely welcome to contribute to the discussion with their emotional opinions on the project) - just don't dress up personal dislike for the project as hard commercial analysis.

 

[coppercapped]

The 790mm wheels of the D78s are not dissimilar in size to at least some of the Sprinter fleet (840mm IIRC) and larger than the 125mph Voyagers (780mm I believe) so it can't simply be an issue of diameter. As I understand it that bogie design simply isn't rated for higher speeds, so would need to be replaced.

It may not be necessary to replace the bogies - after all, one of the points made about the 230s is that the bogies are much newer than the bodies. For speeds greater than their current design speed it may be necessary to add additional damping for the various axes of rotation or change spring rates or permitted deflections. I would not think it to be beyond the bounds of possibility or economics.

I agree with your point about it being unlikely that the wheel diameter per se is the reason for the limit. The trains were designed for metro use so the gearing would be optimised for torque over the speed range expected in operation. The limit is more likely to do with the bursting speed of the rotor in the motor or commutation issues. Shooter has already stated that production machines will use ac motors so some of these limitations may be removed.

 

[edwin_m]

If I recall correctly the D78 used rubber primary suspension where main line trains have springs, and unlike most modern main line trains doesn't have air secondary suspension. The suspension may not be adequate to give a comfortable or even a safe ride at higher speeds.

 

[tbtc]

We know that some D319's will be trialled at Northern so its not unreasonable to discuss it.

So it’s okay to discuss things not nailed down in the new Northern franchise? Good.

Windermere: where in Franchise agreement does it say this line has to worked by 331's? it says it will be Northern Connect service and even then its only 4 trains a day.

The plan was for it to be electrified and operated by Northern Connect units.

It doesn’t seem a massive leap to assume that it’ll be run by the only “Connect” EMUs that Northern will operate (the 331s), does it? (or maybe you think they planned to keep a separate EMU at Oxenholme for other services?)

the Connect services could be worked by a 195's or 158's its hardly a massive rolling stock problem, they may opt to run less Connect services to Barrow if they were planning to run more than the minimum required so they can cover Windermere.

Yes, they could – but those would require amendments to the franchise commitments (which I thought you were against?)

EMT probably has a few potentially suitable routes, as would Abellio East Anglia if they hadn't just ordered FLIRTs for them. They would be suitable for the Cornish and Thames Valley branches, too.

Lots of options if a reliable train is delivered and there is felt to be a need.

I calculated the average speed for EMT’s Lincolnshire services earlier in the thread – essentially, everything operated by a 75mph DMU (153, 156) has an average speed well below the 60mph that 230s can apparently attain – the only quibble was whether a short section around Long Eaton would require something a bit faster on that section – but all of the routes east of the ECML (other than the 158 operated Norwich service) seem to be able to cope with the top speed of a 230. I’m not saying that I’d necessarily want to sit on one all the way from Nottingham to Skegness, but it takes over two hours to cover eighty miles on that route so it doesn’t require much 75mph running.

Same goes for the FGW/ GWR branches – we just need something straightforward that can run simple services – top speed isn’t much of an issue.

Well that's the point isn't it Anglia have ordered Flirts so there is very little point in discussing it further, similarly Northern have ordered new trains and a selection of cascaded stock

True – they are similar – but that doesn’t mean that they are the same.

Anglia have ordered new stock
Anglia’s subsidy profile means that it may be cost effective for them to order additional new stock, over and above franchise commitments
Anglia’s new stock doesn’t rely on any infrastructure enhancements, so they won’t find that their sums are wrong because of any Network Rail delay
Anglia have ordered versatile bi-modes

Northern have ordered new stock
Northern’s services require large subsidies (45p per passenger mile under the previous franchise?), so they aren’t going to order additional new stock without more state funding being forthcoming
Northern’s new stock was on the basis that Network Rail would electrify everything they committed to (which, we both know, isn’t going to happen)
Northern have ordered some pure DMUs and some pure EMUs, so can’t be so flexible if the electrification map doesn’t turn out the way that their franchise calculations assumed it would

The thing that really struck me was the assertion that "all the parts that wear out are contained in two modules" - modules that can be changed in 10 minutes.

Which suggests to me that this is not a product intended to be concentrated in one place to become a given region's maid of all work DMU - the replacement for the Pacer being the cited example. Call this D-train scenario - assuming it was a train that struggled to maintain pace and comfort over extra-urban routes - the "Ghetto Turbostar" if you will.

Rather I think the intention is to allow D-trains to be spread over many franchises on specific lines to which they are suited. The replaceable modules mean that the trains do not all need to live in - or even return to - one shed. Rather there will probably be a pool of these power modules some spare spread across the sheds where the trains are serving, some down your friendly local Ford garage for fluid change, some undergoing repair at Vivarail central, and others sat in the back of the Transit whilst a sibling engine off the same production line takes it where it need to be - no specialist carriage requirements here! With the power pack servicing centralised, D-trains might be spread across Cornwall, mid Wales, North of England and not need to return home for years at a time. Giving us little islands of D train operation similar to the Parry People mover operation on the Stourbridge branch. Maybe we can call this scenario the "Parry Plus"?

This gives lots of opportunity for the Rosco to add value. The changeable engines staff in the operator's shed would barely need to get their hands dirty! There might be the opportunity for innovative means of charging for use, such as the kwh produced by the power packs. Would Vivarail lease its own trains?

When you look at the bigger picture (rather than just the snooty comments on here), the project is fascinating – unlike any other trains – capable of working remote routes with limited maintenance – no need to send them long distances back to a nominal “depot” on a regular basis.

I’m not saying that it will work, but if it can be proven to work then it could transform the economics of some rural routes (cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, potentially cheaper to lease).

(and thanks for getting Ghetto Superstar in my head…)

This programme should also be seen as being the start of something bigger. Vivarail's initial business is constrained by the number of D78 units available, some 70-odd. It has always struck me as odd that anyone would start a company which, by definition, can only have a limited life. There has to be a next phase...

Good point. A very good point – one which I hope isn’t buried amongst all of the other comments on this thread.

There you go. Letting reality get in the way of what 'should' happen !.

I agree the D230 provides a flexibility that seems to have a need that will not completely go away. Lets just hope that either the need does go away or, failing that, the D230 does work out as feasible. The former would be the best thing for the railways but the latter could mitigate a problem.

Sorry!

I’d be perfectly happy if we didn’t need 230s – if it meant that we electrified everything that we said we would within CP5 – if it meant that we could easily/ cheaply/ quickly convert all 1980s DMUs to 2020s accessibility standards – if it meant that we built sufficient trains to cope with growth.

But, as things stand, we are well behind where we should be. Whilst electrification continues on routes like Paddington – Cardiff (which will free up HSTs), we aren’t seeing much progress on wiring routes that will free up lots of 75mph DMUs – so there’s a perfect storm (the need to find extra trains to cope with increasing demand, the need to withdraw uneconomic Pacers, the need to have Sprinters out of service for weeks or months at a time to upgrade them) that 230s could be a solution for.

In an ideal world, we’d go back ten years and do things differently, of course, but realistically, 230s have to be considered as an option.

Well just typical of the attitude of some people on here especially some who seem to come from the south who seem determined that Northern should be lumbered with this second class product

I’ve lived in Yorkshire for over twenty years and I can accept that there are a number of slow unelectrified lines around here where a 230 could cope okay (especially if it meant that the 75mph DMUs on those routes could be used to provide additional capacity on busier faster lines). Sorry!

I've watched updates on this thread drop into my mailbox day by day with a sinking feeling but this one really takes the biscuit. There are certainly a number of posters who are generally supportive of this project. To describe them in these terms however (euphoria and heartfelt full support etc etc) tells us rather more about your own views than it does about theirs. I'm sorry Paul but although you do generally try (IMHO) to keep to factual comment (sometimes failing I have to say) your constant chipping away at the edges on every aspect of this matter is truly tiresome to the reader. This project may fail - it may succeed. Nothing that anyone says on here is going to make a blind bit of difference but I have to say that those posters who have noticeably ceased to contribute are impressing me a lot more than those who constantly try to have the last word - something which I am not going to attempt to do.

Fair points.

I think that I’d fall into the “generally supportive” camp – I can’t think of anyone on the thread who Pauls’ comment about “euphoria” can be applied to(?).

There are those who accept 230s as an interesting solution to an undeniable problem, a realistic compromise to get us through the next decade (after which electrification should have moved on from the GWML/ MML/ TP to “secondary” routes and start replacing 1980s DMUs in larder numbers), a worthwhile use of old stock, an innovative bit of private sector speculation.

There are those who can’t accept anything sub-optimal, who make personal comments about the people involved, who don’t offer any real alternative (other than “simply order more brand new trains”).

I’m happy to be in the former camp. I don’t think 230s are perfect, I’d be happy if we’d done things differently ten years ago and had a long term plan for efficient electrification/ DMU replacement/ growth. But, since we are where we are, we have to consider 230s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m happy to be in the former camp. I don’t think 230s are perfect, I’d be happy if we’d done things differently ten years ago and had a long term plan for efficient electrification/ DMU replacement/ growth. But, since we are where we are, we have to consider 230s.

That's largely my take too, though I must admit that the prospect of similarly converting Class 319s, which are suitable for a wider range of services and have the added benefit of being bi-mode, could prove to be the killer as there will be loads of these (and similar DC-motored EMUs) available soon. And the Class 150, while basic, has well proven itself, and these units are basically 4-car electric Class 150s with added bi-mode capability.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When you say "I can only make project progress evaluations upon what I see in actuality", you decline to finish that thought with the necessary "and what I see in actuality does not give me enough information to make an effective judgement". You're then perfectly entitled to say, on an emotive basis, that you think the project will fail, but as an experienced consultant you should know this carries no weight from a commercial point of view.

I do not wish to disparage your comments, but for heavens sake, do NOT add extra wording of your own as an adjunct to the words that I actually said in my posting, then carry on to develop the theme to suit your own reasoning...:roll:

If you had taken the time to fully read and inwardly digest my view on any commercial project, you would then see that what I said about emotive views as being naught in the way of any business management ethos. Perhaps you have the same amount of business acumen that I had developed in over thirty years of senior management but you have a most strange way of committing your thoughts on this particular matter in the form of the printed word.

 

[47802]

So it’s okay to discuss things not nailed down in the new Northern franchise? Good.



The plan was for it to be electrified and operated by Northern Connect units.

It doesn’t seem a massive leap to assume that it’ll be run by the only “Connect” EMUs that Northern will operate (the 331s), does it? (or maybe you think they planned to keep a separate EMU at Oxenholme for other services?)



Yes, they could – but those would require amendments to the franchise commitments (which I thought you were against?)



I calculated the average speed for EMT’s Lincolnshire services earlier in the thread – essentially, everything operated by a 75mph DMU (153, 156) has an average speed well below the 60mph that 230s can apparently attain – the only quibble was whether a short section around Long Eaton would require something a bit faster on that section – but all of the routes east of the ECML (other than the 158 operated Norwich service) seem to be able to cope with the top speed of a 230. I’m not saying that I’d necessarily want to sit on one all the way from Nottingham to Skegness, but it takes over two hours to cover eighty miles on that route so it doesn’t require much 75mph running.

Same goes for the FGW/ GWR branches – we just need something straightforward that can run simple services – top speed isn’t much of an issue.



True – they are similar – but that doesn’t mean that they are the same.

Anglia have ordered new stock
Anglia’s subsidy profile means that it may be cost effective for them to order additional new stock, over and above franchise commitments
Anglia’s new stock doesn’t rely on any infrastructure enhancements, so they won’t find that their sums are wrong because of any Network Rail delay
Anglia have ordered versatile bi-modes

Northern have ordered new stock
Northern’s services require large subsidies (45p per passenger mile under the previous franchise?), so they aren’t going to order additional new stock without more state funding being forthcoming
Northern’s new stock was on the basis that Network Rail would electrify everything they committed to (which, we both know, isn’t going to happen)
Northern have ordered some pure DMUs and some pure EMUs, so can’t be so flexible if the electrification map doesn’t turn out the way that their franchise calculations assumed it would




When you look at the bigger picture (rather than just the snooty comments on here), the project is fascinating – unlike any other trains – capable of working remote routes with limited maintenance – no need to send them long distances back to a nominal “depot” on a regular basis.

I’m not saying that it will work, but if it can be proven to work then it could transform the economics of some rural routes (cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, potentially cheaper to lease).

(and thanks for getting Ghetto Superstar in my head…)



Good point. A very good point – one which I hope isn’t buried amongst all of the other comments on this thread.



Sorry!

I’d be perfectly happy if we didn’t need 230s – if it meant that we electrified everything that we said we would within CP5 – if it meant that we could easily/ cheaply/ quickly convert all 1980s DMUs to 2020s accessibility standards – if it meant that we built sufficient trains to cope with growth.

But, as things stand, we are well behind where we should be. Whilst electrification continues on routes like Paddington – Cardiff (which will free up HSTs), we aren’t seeing much progress on wiring routes that will free up lots of 75mph DMUs – so there’s a perfect storm (the need to find extra trains to cope with increasing demand, the need to withdraw uneconomic Pacers, the need to have Sprinters out of service for weeks or months at a time to upgrade them) that 230s could be a solution for.

In an ideal world, we’d go back ten years and do things differently, of course, but realistically, 230s have to be considered as an option.



I’ve lived in Yorkshire for over twenty years and I can accept that there are a number of slow unelectrified lines around here where a 230 could cope okay (especially if it meant that the 75mph DMUs on those routes could be used to provide additional capacity on busier faster lines). Sorry!



Fair points.

I think that I’d fall into the “generally supportive” camp – I can’t think of anyone on the thread who Pauls’ comment about “euphoria” can be applied to(?).

There are those who accept 230s as an interesting solution to an undeniable problem, a realistic compromise to get us through the next decade (after which electrification should have moved on from the GWML/ MML/ TP to “secondary” routes and start replacing 1980s DMUs in larder numbers), a worthwhile use of old stock, an innovative bit of private sector speculation.

There are those who can’t accept anything sub-optimal, who make personal comments about the people involved, who don’t offer any real alternative (other than “simply order more brand new trains”).

I’m happy to be in the former camp. I don’t think 230s are perfect, I’d be happy if we’d done things differently ten years ago and had a long term plan for efficient electrification/ DMU replacement/ growth. But, since we are where we are, we have to consider 230s.

Your Comments about the Windermere branch make no sense whatsoever, the Windermere could be worked by DMU or EMU providing it has 4 services of the Connect standard, it could be Arriva were planning to run more but, if they need DMU vice EMU then they can run the minimum number with a Northern Connect DMU and run other services with non connect trains, I see no reason why that requires a change to the franchise agreement.

I see no reason not to discuss 319 flex trains because they are to be trailed on Northern, where as D trains are not.

The vast majority of the North West Electrification will be delivered and those bits that are not may be at a later date. In any case you make out that Northern will be loads of self powered trains short as a result, which is simply not the case and probably be largely covered by the 319 Flex Units.

You then go to assert that Northern will be loads of DMU's short because GWR Electrification delays when as far as is known and even Modern Railways are now apparently saying this the loss of 150's to Northern and cascade delays will be effectively covered by Mini HST sets.

So again No need for the D train on Northern or GWR.

Then you say that they could be used on some EMT routes, OK yes they could but that doesn't mean that they should or would be used on them and that franchise bidders may have other ideas in terms of cascaded stock or new trains.

Both yours and my comments frankly don't bring anything new to the debate and have been discussed to death previously so why not leave it at that.

Why not just discuss the technical side of the train until it is seen as to whether anybody does actually take these trains.

 

[edwin_m]

If you had taken the time to fully read and inwardly digest my view on any commercial project, you would then see that what I said about emotive views as being naught in the way of any business management ethos. Perhaps you have the same amount of business acumen that I had developed in over thirty years of senior management but you have a most strange way of committing your thoughts on this particular matter in the form of the printed word.

Adrian Shooter has spent an entire career in the rail industry and was in a senior management role at BR in 1990 and possibly earlier, having previously been in rolling stock engineering. He is now well enough off (and sufficiently interested in trains!) to have a private railway in the grounds of his house. So I don't think his credentials in rail engineering and management are to be sniffed at.

He clearly feels that the chances of making some money out of this it are worth him committing some of that fortune and convincing other investors to do the same. As many posters have said, there is no public funding for this project, and if it doesn't work out he and they will be out of pocket (although they can recoup some of this by selling the D78s for scrap).

So, Paul, while your own judgment based on experience suggests this is a bad idea, someone with a similar amount of experience in a much more relevant field has concluded the opposite.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see no reason not to discuss 319 flex trains because they are to be trailed on Northern, where as D trains are not.

There's another thread to discuss 319 Flex trains. This one is about D-trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The latest edition of Rail magazine states that although the incident was reported to RAIB, they have confirmed to the magazine that they will not be conducting an investigation into the fire. It also states that Vivarail themselves will be completing a "full and final report" into the incident by 31 Jan.

Noting the date in the final part of your posting, now we enter into February 2017, I wonder when the in-house report findings will be put into the public domain.

 

[Bantamzen]

Northern have ordered new stock
Northern’s services require large subsidies (45p per passenger mile under the previous franchise?), so they aren’t going to order additional new stock without more state funding being forthcoming
Northern’s new stock was on the basis that Network Rail would electrify everything they committed to (which, we both know, isn’t going to happen)
Northern have ordered some pure DMUs and some pure EMUs, so can’t be so flexible if the electrification map doesn’t turn out the way that their franchise calculations assumed it would.

If we are going to look at subsidy costs, perhaps we also ought to look at the bigger picture here too. Things like:

• Investment per passenger mile - An often ignored factor, but can we safely say that the available networks to the premium paying TOCs is generally of a higher standard than that of Northern's?
• Passenger capacity per service / frequency - Always important to maximise revenue, if busy services are arriving regularly as 4,8 or even 12 cars you are more likely to attract new passengers than if services are only ever 1, 2 or 3 cars and only every 30 mins or less. Travel around the Northern network and you will find dozens of examples of services leaving passengers behind with no service for some time after. How many of those will return time and again?
• Station capacity - Following on from above, if extra capacity is needed and cannot be provided by extra services, station capacity (i.e. the ability to accommodate longer services) helps to maximise revenue. Is it fair to say that the premium paying TOCs generally have better station capacity than that of Northern?
• Revenue protection - Following on from station capacity, is it safe to say that the premium paying TOCs have access to a greater proportion of stations that are staffed / barriered allowing for a greater amount of revenue checking than Northern?
• Potential revenue per passenger mile - And of course the premium paying TOCs are better able to charge more because a larger proportion of their customer base are on higher income levels than Northern.

All of these factors (and more) are important when looking at how much it costs to keep services going on the Northern network. If we were to be totally honest and open about this, and putting aside any North / South divide arguments, Northern have to try and make their revenue with far less capacity, less infrastructure, generally smaller stations with lower levels of revenue protection (or in many cases still and revenue collection facilities), as well as having to reign in prices as much as possible.

Northern could easily be a profit making company if it could maximise it's potential and capacity, as well as revenue collection with some additional investment. The new 195/331s are a start, are as the planned cascades and refurbishments. But if Arriva/Northern are to be allowed to have an almost equal playing field to other TOCs, further investment is going to be needed. And before anyone plays the "who is paying for it" card, if the investment isn't made then the costs will simply be moved elsewhere like the road networks which will then need more investment to cope with the passengers choosing not to use the train.

When you look at the bigger picture (rather than just the snooty comments on here), the project is fascinating – unlike any other trains – capable of working remote routes with limited maintenance – no need to send them long distances back to a nominal “depot” on a regular basis.

I’m not saying that it will work, but if it can be proven to work then it could transform the economics of some rural routes (cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, potentially cheaper to lease).

Continuing the theme, but aiming specifically at the 230s, this idea of remote / cheap maintenance has yet to be proved. In it's first fail, it wasn't possible to test this as the work required 230001 to go back to it's depot to be repaired. So as yet we don't know the practicality of being able to quickly swap out an engine unit remotely. And even if it does prove itself possible in the future, there's still the little matter of having a unit that can't be worked with or rescued by other DMU stock, so in the event of a failure you have exactly the same problem in have a line effectively closed until a rescue or repair is possible.

So for example if the 230s worked the Windermere branch, and only one unit was in the area, how long would it take to restore the service? Would you first opt to send a man with a van & forklift to try to replace the failed engine? Would you send another 230 or capable thunderbird up (assuming one was available) from the nearest depot in the hope of a rescue? Given their almost complete incompatibility with anything else on the network, and that they would be almost invariably spread widely and thinly, it seems to me that a 230 failure could cost a lot more than if the branch was worked by more widely operated unit, or indeed in the case of Windermere by services running beyond.

There is even a question about procurement and running costs. It has been widely speculated that the 230s in their basic setup will cost 2/3rds that of a new DMU unit. But that layout would not be suitable for all suggested branches, so some 230s would have to be delivered with the shiny optional extras like proper seating arrangements, tables and even the luxury of toilets. So they will cost quite a bit more (and take longer to deliver), leaving TOCs with the dilemma of choosing between a mix of basic and enhanced interiors, or all enhanced. They could end up paying close to the price of new units for what are basically refurbished, retractioned D-Stock units with a shelf life of possibly half that of new ones. And all of this is before running costs and maintenance is a known factor. No wonder nobody is beating VivaRail's doors down with orders.....

 

[Domh245]

Noting the date in the final part of your posting, now we enter into February 2017, I wonder when the in-house report findings will be put into the public domain.

Being an in-house report, there is no guarantee that it will be released to the public. It is surely a question of if, not when.

 

[Peter Sarf]

............
I’d be perfectly happy if we didn’t need 230s – if it meant that we electrified everything that we said we would within CP5 – if it meant that we could easily/ cheaply/ quickly convert all 1980s DMUs to 2020s accessibility standards – if it meant that we built sufficient trains to cope with growth.

But, as things stand, we are well behind where we should be. Whilst electrification continues on routes like Paddington – Cardiff (which will free up HSTs), we aren’t seeing much progress on wiring routes that will free up lots of 75mph DMUs – so there’s a perfect storm (the need to find extra trains to cope with increasing demand, the need to withdraw uneconomic Pacers, the need to have Sprinters out of service for weeks or months at a time to upgrade them) that 230s could be a solution for.

In an ideal world, we’d go back ten years and do things differently, of course, but realistically, 230s have to be considered as an option.
.......

The above reminds me. I agree and I agonise over the fact that, even if the current electrification was on time, we would be freeing up quantities of intercity diesel trains that do not really have an alternative use. Instead we need more suburban electrification to use the spare EMUs that the UK is soon to be awash with so that we can take the pressure of the existing DMU fleet.

I cannot recall/find who mentioned it so cannot quote but of course the Turbo HSTs (shortened sets for Cornwall) are probably far less economic to run than a 230 or any other DMU. So if 230s could take over some Cornish branches then Sprinters (?) could be freed up for the Cornish mainline where I think the Turbo HSTs care meant for. So the railways generally will save money if they can make use of cheaper DMUs where possible.

I would prefer it if the 230s could be cheaper than 2/3rds the costs of a more normal DMU. But this leads me to a question I have. Is it the case that the 230 is not as cheap as could be because a ROSCO will be expecting to recoup their costs of investment over a shorter time period ?. A short time period that prevents a ROSCO from wanting to invest in a "proper" DMU.

I do see that Anglia's new fleet of DMUs does fly in the face of the above question/argument. So how many old DMUs does Anglia's order free up ?. Unfortunately the problem is that a cascade would not happen soon enough to fill the other needs. But then how soon will the 230(s) be ready ?.

On the subject of coupling/operating compatibility I also wonder if, like the 230s, Anglia's FLIRT DMUs will be compatible with other DMUs ?. At least the Anglia DMUs will be a larger fleet concentrated in one part of the UK. Caveat is that if a 158 or 170 working into Anglia from further afield (to, say, Stanstead) fails then how easily will an Anglia Flirt be able to rescue it. If we compare that to a 230 then at least the 230 is likely to be stuck on its own branch so not blocking a whole main line !. I expect that in all cases a simple coupling adaptor would be available anyway so an otherwise incompatible unit will be able to move the failed unit (be it a 230, Sprinter family, 170 or FLIRT). We are not expecting a rescue to be fully functioning just good enough to move the errant unit.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If we are going to look at subsidy costs, perhaps we also ought to look at the bigger picture here too. Things like:

• Investment per passenger mile - An often ignored factor, but can we safely say that the available networks to the premium paying TOCs is generally of a higher standard than that of Northern's?
• Passenger capacity per service / frequency - Always important to maximise revenue, if busy services are arriving regularly as 4,8 or even 12 cars you are more likely to attract new passengers than if services are only ever 1, 2 or 3 cars and only every 30 mins or less. Travel around the Northern network and you will find dozens of examples of services leaving passengers behind with no service for some time after. How many of those will return time and again?
• Station capacity - Following on from above, if extra capacity is needed and cannot be provided by extra services, station capacity (i.e. the ability to accommodate longer services) helps to maximise revenue. Is it fair to say that the premium paying TOCs generally have better station capacity than that of Northern?
• Revenue protection - Following on from station capacity, is it safe to say that the premium paying TOCs have access to a greater proportion of stations that are staffed / barriered allowing for a greater amount of revenue checking than Northern?
• Potential revenue per passenger mile - And of course the premium paying TOCs are better able to charge more because a larger proportion of their customer base are on higher income levels than Northern.

All of these factors (and more) are important when looking at how much it costs to keep services going on the Northern network. If we were to be totally honest and open about this, and putting aside any North / South divide arguments, Northern have to try and make their revenue with far less capacity, less infrastructure, generally smaller stations with lower levels of revenue protection (or in many cases still and revenue collection facilities), as well as having to reign in prices as much as possible.

Northern could easily be a profit making company if it could maximise it's potential and capacity, as well as revenue collection with some additional investment. The new 195/331s are a start, are as the planned cascades and refurbishments. But if Arriva/Northern are to be allowed to have an almost equal playing field to other TOCs, further investment is going to be needed. And before anyone plays the "who is paying for it" card, if the investment isn't made then the costs will simply be moved elsewhere like the road networks which will then need more investment to cope with the passengers choosing not to use the train.
........

Regarding your list of points above. One of the cruel facts to add is that, although the average wage in the South East is high, there are a very large number of people who earn no more than the norm out side the South East. For them they have to pay the same expensive fares as their richer travelling companions. I know of cases where people can not take a minimum wage job because of the costs of travel.

In terms of profitability an important factor is can the market support the increased investment ?. If the trains and stations become more expensive is there a large enough untapped demand to cover that. Even in the South East there is a reluctance to spend on 12-coach metro trains, we have to make do with 10-coach trains. Granted that is a hell of a lot more capacity than elsewhere but then the fares are higher per mile and the demand is there. I think the railways in London get the demand because London is so large that there is no possibility of viewing a car as an alternative not just that there are more potential passengers. A lot of people travel by bus in London. In my case, from Croydon to jobs in central London takes about one hour, that is including getting to the stations at each end. If I travel by the cheaper bus it takes two hours or more each way - I know people who do that every day !.

Apologies, it occurs to me the above is off topic . So.. In the case of the 230s if the Hastings to Ashford service is not worth electrifying then surely 230s could be justifiably used to send the 171s elsewhere. Granted they might not be compatible with the 170s as noted by Southern's experience. It is ironic that the route from Oxted to Uckfield has had its platforms lengthened to 10-cars but is still diesel. It does seem a waste that all those 171s spend most of their time on third rail equipped tracks continuing their journey up to London Bridge. They could otherwise be used elsewhere in the UK. Surely a ten-car service of that frequency can justify electrification ?. Or - If I am wrong then perhaps it follows that fewer 171s should only work a shuttle at the non-electrified end. If it were really the case that 10-car 171s was too much then a shuttle using 230s might suffice. Obviously a 230 (unlike a Dieselised 319) has more scope on a lesser used branch I suggest.

On the whole - I think a lot of talk about potential uses of 230s is because there are few technical facts and progress to feed our curiosity on. So in the meantime it is natural for thinking people to want to explore the possible uses of 230s. How far that is off topic is open to argument but when it turns into a slanging match or showing off then perhaps it is time to stop.

 

[47802]

The above reminds me. I agree and I agonise over the fact that, even if the current electrification was on time, we would be freeing up quantities of intercity diesel trains that do not really have an alternative use. Instead we need more suburban electrification to use the spare EMUs that the UK is soon to be awash with so that we can take the pressure of the existing DMU fleet.

I cannot recall/find who mentioned it so cannot quote but of course the Turbo HSTs (shortened sets for Cornwall) are probably far less economic to run than a 230 or any other DMU. So if 230s could take over some Cornish branches then Sprinters (?) could be freed up for the Cornish mainline where I think the Turbo HSTs care meant for. So the railways generally will save money if they can make use of cheaper DMUs where possible.

I would prefer it if the 230s could be cheaper than 2/3rds the costs of a more normal DMU. But this leads me to a question I have. Is it the case that the 230 is not as cheap as could be because a ROSCO will be expecting to recoup their costs of investment over a shorter time period ?. A short time period that prevents a ROSCO from wanting to invest in a "proper" DMU.

I do see that Anglia's new fleet of DMUs does fly in the face of the above question/argument. So how many old DMUs does Anglia's order free up ?. Unfortunately the problem is that a cascade would not happen soon enough to fill the other needs. But then how soon will the 230(s) be ready ?.

On the subject of coupling/operating compatibility I also wonder if, like the 230s, Anglia's FLIRT DMUs will be compatible with other DMUs ?. At least the Anglia DMUs will be a larger fleet concentrated in one part of the UK. Caveat is that if a 158 or 170 working into Anglia from further afield (to, say, Stanstead) fails then how easily will an Anglia Flirt be able to rescue it. If we compare that to a 230 then at least the 230 is likely to be stuck on its own branch so not blocking a whole main line !. I expect that in all cases a simple coupling adaptor would be available anyway so an otherwise incompatible unit will be able to move the failed unit (be it a 230, Sprinter family, 170 or FLIRT). We are not expecting a rescue to be fully functioning just good enough to move the errant unit.

The short HST's are taking over services that were meant for mainly pairs of class158's that will not now be freed up. Possibly they will cost more to operate but your alternate of D trains would have essentially freed up 150's from the Devon/Cornish branches so it would have been a case of poorer quality of trains all round. In would imagine in the next franchise bidders will be required to look at replacing the short HST sets in the long term.

I doubt the Anglia Bi-modes will be compatible with other DMU's and it will probably be the same for the CAF DMU's for Northern as well, something the railway have to live with and probably not the biggest issue with the D trains although that fact all non connect Northern DMU's will be compatible is something additional against D trains.

Well you could scrub electrification of the Midland line in favour of more local schemes, but then you would need to look at what to replace the HST's with, you would probably still want to electrify to Corby at least as the plan is to significantly increase the capacity and frequency on the Corby service, and might provide a home for some of many redundant EMU's we will have by 2020.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The short HST's are taking over services that were meant for mainly pairs of class158's that will not now be freed up. Possibly they will cost more to operate but your alternate of D trains would have essentially freed up 150's from the Devon/Cornish branches so it would have been a case of poorer quality of trains all round. In would imagine in the next franchise bidders will be required to look at replacing the short HST sets in the long term.

I doubt the Anglia Bi-modes will be compatible with other DMU's and it will probably be the same for the CAF DMU's for Northern as well, something the railway have to live with and probably not the biggest issue with the D trains although that fact all non connect Northern DMU's will be compatible is something additional against D trains.

Well you could scrub electrification of the Midland line in favour of more local schemes, but then you would need to look at what to replace the HST's with, you would probably still want to electrify to Corby at least as the plan is to significantly increase the capacity and frequency on the Corby service, and might provide a home for some of many redundant EMU's we will have by 2020.

Your right of course. The short HSTs do have the advantage of leaving an option available for Franchise bidders to offer to replace the HSTs in the next round of Franchise bidding. The devil in me thinks that maybe replacing 230s and or 150s might get more public support though !.

 

[Bantamzen]

Regarding your list of points above. One of the cruel facts to add is that, although the average wage in the South East is high, there are a very large number of people who earn no more than the norm out side the South East. For them they have to pay the same expensive fares as their richer travelling companions. I know of cases where people can not take a minimum wage job because of the costs of travel.

I take your point about some wages in the S/E, and it is a fair one. But generally prices in that region are driven by the market average, and that tends to be higher elsewhere. Is it fair, absolutely not and something that needs tackling. But that's for another thread.

For me the problem with the 230s has always been the economics of them. Initially they were touted as being possibly just 1/3rd of the cost of a new unit (although this may have been a misinterpretation of the original blurb). Then as the cost seemed to rise, VR laid on renders of totally refurbished units, inside and out, only mentioning deep in the small print that these were not the standard interiors but optional extras. And when the first test unit rolled out onto the tracks, it was really just a pair of slightly tarted up D-Stock carriages to be joined later by a slightly more tarted up again middle trailer. It looked nothing like the early renders that they tried to woo the TOCs with, but pretty much a D-Stock with some diesel engines slung underneath to provide power to the traction units. And for 2/3rds of the cost but with maybe half the expected life span of new units, not to mention the possible operational restrictions, it hardly looked like the answer to the prayers of TOCs.

The idea that Northern as one of the most heavily subsidised TOCs should take at least some to lower costs of some of their branches ignores the fact that in 10-15 years (admittedly outside of the franchise period) Northern would be stuck with the same problem again, units running into end-of-life and needing replacing, along with large portions of the rest of it's fleet. In other words they don't offer the long-term solution the franchise needs, being cheaper is meaningless if you have to replace far more frequently. So it makes sense for them to order new units and accept cascades rather than pay a heavy price for units that are seriously limited.

As for elsewhere on the network, well the same economics apply. An expensive for what it is unit, probably only capable of limited operation that will need replacing within a couple of franchise periods. LM were going to take a look, but a single fail has seen them back off. This really ought to be telling. Maybe VR need to look further afield where operators are prepared / forced to run units way beyond their expected life span?