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

[Class172]

Here's a bit of a curveball suggestion… class 458??

They've got an age advantage over everything else suggested (bar Stadler Flirts), and will be replaced by the 701s soon if I recall so will be available for modification. The TSO and MSO could be lopped out, and if you pick from the former 458/0s, the remaining carriage has a pantograph well so you could convert to AC if desired.

 

[Non Multi]

So we've got three outstanding options for 20m (or thereabouts) diesel units:

• Class 150: ageing
• Class 230: considered undesirable but very customisable, includes battery option
• Class 769: cannot be shortened from four cars

It's also several decades too late for GWR to order some new-build 3 car 210s from BREL!

Looks like someone should start a new thread for GWRs 20m 3 car branch line bi-modes (whatever they may be), the 230s are definitely off the menu.

 

[Domh245]

Here's a bit of a curveball suggestion… class 458??

They've got an age advantage over everything else suggested (bar Stadler Flirts), and will be replaced by the 701s soon if I recall so will be available for modification. The TSO and MSO could be lopped out, and if you pick from the former 458/0s, the remaining carriage has a pantograph well so you could convert to AC if desired.

You would only have 1 vehicle under which you could sling your diesel engines with a 458 flex, which would leave it somewhat underpowered to start with, before you account for things like air con!

 

[Rail Blues]

What year will that be?

Exactly. The longer the wait goes on without seeing one in the flesh, let alone turn a wheel in anger, the more sceptical I am about the whole project.

 

[Jonny]

No, the fundamental difference is that the 230 is ex LU.

Also it's made of Aluminium, which ages much more slowly than steel. In fact, the lack of iron means that the body shell doesn't rust.

 

[jimm]

As far as Stadler goes, there isn't one. Their bread and butter is microfleets like the Swiss narrow gauge lines.

Micro-fleets may have been their speciality some years ago, but Stadler is now a major player in rolling stock manufacture in Europe, picking up some big orders like the ones for Greater Anglia.

Now that they have a UK-gauge train available, they may be interested in the odd bespoke job here, but it wouldn't come cheap.

 

[mushroomchow]

The main spanner in the works of all these lovely suggestions for alternative bi / tri-mode projects is that Porterbrook's development process has all the pace of a snail in treacle with ADD.

Seriously, given that their 769 project has made VivaRail's own development seem positively rapid by comparison, we'd be talking a number of years before we see any concrete alternatives, by which point any manufacturer with sense would have seen the gap in the market and jumped in. Stadler has been mentioned and could be viable.

Even VivaRail themselves have expressed interest in getting more modern stock for conversion if the 230 sells and could probably get a small run product to market before we see a successor to the 769. Wouldn't be entirely surprised to see a few 319s end up at Long Marston once they've shipped a few "crawlers".

 

[James James]

Micro-fleets may have been their speciality some years ago, but Stadler is now a major player in rolling stock manufacture in Europe, picking up some big orders like the ones for Greater Anglia.

Now that they have a UK-gauge train available, they may be interested in the odd bespoke job here, but it wouldn't come cheap.

They still do plenty of small orders, e.g. just a few days ago they announced an order of 5 narrow-gauge hydrogen trains:
http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...n-orders-stadler-hydrogen-powered-trains.html

 

[Royston Vasey]

At a time of cheap finance where TOCs are ordering new stock left right and centre, even Northern, following their glacial progress on this thread and the tiniest niche branches these are proposed for (mostly unofficial proposals that is) I can't see how this company will make money from these cut and shut noddy trains.

 

[jimm]

They still do plenty of small orders, e.g. just a few days ago they announced an order of 5 narrow-gauge hydrogen trains:
http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...n-orders-stadler-hydrogen-powered-trains.html

Did I say they didn't still do small orders?

In the past, micro-fleets was pretty much all they did - maybe try looking at their press releases page to see the size of the some of the orders they work on nowadays.

http://www.stadlerrail.ch/en/meta/news-media/press-releases/

 

[Royston Vasey]

Also it's made of Aluminium, which ages much more slowly than steel. In fact, the lack of iron means that the body shell doesn't rust.

It doesn't rust because that's a specific term for ferrous metal corrosion. Aluminium does, however, corrode, particularly through ingress of dirt through any scratch or dent which disturbs the outer oxide layer or paint. It's then much harder to repair robustly compared to welding a patch of steel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did I say they didn't still do small orders?

In the past, micro-fleets was pretty much all they did - maybe try looking at their press releases page to see the size of the some of the orders they work on nowadays.

http://www.stadlerrail.ch/en/meta/news-media/press-releases/

My point was that their modular platform means that a small order need not be prohibitively priced. And in any case it could be done as a follow on from the Abellio fleet.

 

[jimm]

The initial post you made that I was referring to said that microfleets are Stadler's bread and butter - ie their main source of work and income. Not these days they aren't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The initial post you made that I was referring to said that microfleets are Stadler's bread and butter - ie their main source of work and income. Not these days they aren't.

OK, fair enough.

My main point stands, though, which is that there is no reason why Stadler would price a microfleet prohibitively highly as microfleets are still very much part of their business model - they are near enough exclusive supplier to the Swiss narrow gauge railways, all of which have slightly differing requirements, and the fact that their loading gauge is quite small is one reason why building for the UK is not such a niche thing for them.

 

[James James]

Did I say they didn't still do small orders?

In the past, micro-fleets was pretty much all they did - maybe try looking at their press releases page to see the size of the some of the orders they work on nowadays.

http://www.stadlerrail.ch/en/meta/news-media/press-releases/

That page pretty much proves the point - even if they do have large orders, they're doing plenty of small orders - and they're clearly competitive in the small-order market:
12 trams to Bolivia
8 trains to the nordics (admittedly standard KISS)
8 (US-spec) flirts in Dallas
5 bi-modal flirts in Italy
30 single sleeper cars (that's like 6 trains)
Those 5 hydrogen trains
(Plenty more...)

There's no question they'd be competitive if you need a handful of flirts for the UK.

 

[D365]

... I can't see how this company will make money from these cut and shut noddy trains.

Perhaps by selling on the battery train expertise that they are currently developing?

 

[Royston Vasey]

Perhaps by selling on the battery train expertise that they are currently developing?

These guys aren't battery researchers but are rail professionals focused on the renovation of a specific train with commercially available technologies. However, the technology integration and interchangeable powertrain concept is kinda neat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, the technology integration and interchangeable powertrain concept is kinda neat.

Yeah, that's the interesting bit, I'd say. In particular the concept of the train being maintainable locally with minimal tools, which makes it ideal for "diesel islands" and even for introducing commuter services on some preserved lines, potentially. IOW it's most of the things that the Parry People Mover probably should have been but really wasn't.

(Speaking of which, if the rubber band ever snaps irreparably I would be not at all surprised to see a short platform extension and a 2-car Class 230 - or even a single-car one if that is viable by sort-of-cut-and-shut means - probably of the battery variety)

 

[zn1]

I hope this works, the Branch used to be a bit of an Alton Towers Ride, Flying meccano the next generation...cant wait..and nor can the punters...

 

[southern442]

456's? They are already 2-cars so would work well for the branch lines. Or are we mainly looking at 3-car solutions?

Rather annoyingly the 230's are more or less the perfect solution, and could be obtained very quickly, it seems like the only real problem is that an MD who seems to change his mind a lot is saying he doesn't want them.

Here's a solution: don't tell anyone that the new trains are ex-LU. None of the public will be observant enough, and if you don't tell the press they won't kick up a fuss about it (way easier said than done though). I'd be willing to bet that even people that used to travel on the D stock wouldn't notice.

 

[jimm]

That page pretty much proves the point

Proves what point?

I never said they had stopped doing small orders - but when they are taking on jobs like Greater Anglia, Merseyrail and some similar-sized orders from operators all over Europe, micro-orders are not their "bread and butter" and more, in the way that they were for a long time.

And if all what is involved is tacking on a small number of near-identical trains to a bigger production run for someone else, does it actually count as a micro-order anyway?

 

[SamYeager]

Proves what point?

I never said they had stopped doing small orders - but when they are taking on jobs like Greater Anglia, Merseyrail and some similar-sized orders from operators all over Europe, micro-orders are not their "bread and butter" and more, in the way that they were for a long time.

And if all what is involved is tacking on a small number of near-identical trains to a bigger production run for someone else, does it actually count as a micro-order anyway?

Personally I think this discussion of micro-orders (custom orders?) has gone well OT. However if we're to take your viewpoint above seriously then by that token there should be no problem getting micro-orders/custom orders/small unit orders from any company at an acceptable price which in reality appears not to be the case.

In my view the core of @James James argument is that Stadler have plenty of experience doing small bespoke orders whilst not charging the earth for the privilege. Whether or not this is still Stadler's bread and butter is frankly irrelevant and best discussed elsewhere.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Five narrow gauge train sets running on hydrogen? I'm thinking Windermere...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Five narrow gauge train sets running on hydrogen? I'm thinking Windermere...

The Zillertalbahn, as the article title says!

 

[Royston Vasey]

Mechanically how does that make a difference? Aside from the lower top speed (not really relevant for branch line operation) I don't see anything.

I continue to await the first of Porterbrook's fruits with anticipation.

Would be interested to learn how crash resistance and passenger safety differ between 1978 LU stock, 1987 BREL Mk 3-derived 100 mph EMU and modern units.

D78s were designed for a closed system with no level crossings and no higher speed heavy mainline steel bodied units or freight coming the other way.

I for one was not terribly convinced that bumping into an unanchored water tank replicated a collision with an object, vehicle or another train on open track.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The Zillertalbahn, as the article title says!

Ho Ho! I was thinking they might have a train small enough to fit in our loading gauge though it would need adjusting for the track width!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ho Ho! I was thinking they might have a train small enough to fit in our loading gauge though it would need adjusting for the track width!

They do; they are producing a large fleet for Abellio East Anglia.

 

[DelW]

D78s were designed for a closed system with no level crossings and no higher speed heavy mainline steel bodied units or freight coming the other way.

When the D78s were built, they shared tracks with (then) BR trains between Gunnersbury and Richmond, and between East Putney and Wimbledon Park. Not much freight on those, admittedly, but definitely steel bodied EMUs.

 

[Domh245]

Would be interested to learn how crash resistance and passenger safety differ between 1978 LU stock, 1987 BREL Mk 3-derived 100 mph EMU and modern units.

D78s were designed for a closed system with no level crossings and no higher speed heavy mainline steel bodied units or freight coming the other way.

I for one was not terribly convinced that bumping into an unanchored water tank replicated a collision with an object, vehicle or another train on open track.

The modifications evidently convinced the ORR that it complies with all the necessary standards, otherwise they wouldn't let it out on the mainline. Obviously you aren't going to send your train into a 100+ ton concrete block to prove that it crashes as intended, that is awfully expensive and wasteful - you simply create a crash condition in real life and in FEA software, and then compare the results. If the results are a good match, then the design (which you can test on the computer at far higher speeds/energies) works as intended.

You may wish to boycott Hitachi's 80xs as well, because the crash testing for that was similarly 'unrepresentative' consisting of a replication of the front end of a unit being crashed and compared to their simulations

http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf (figure 13)

 

[Royston Vasey]

The modifications evidently convinced the ORR that it complies with all the necessary standards, otherwise they wouldn't let it out on the mainline. Obviously you aren't going to send your train into a 100+ ton concrete block to prove that it crashes as intended, that is awfully expensive and wasteful - you simply create a crash condition in real life and in FEA software, and then compare the results. If the results are a good match, then the design (which you can test on the computer at far higher speeds/energies) works as intended.

You may wish to boycott Hitachi's 80xs as well, because the crash testing for that was similarly 'unrepresentative' consisting of a replication of the front end of a unit being crashed and compared to their simulations

http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf (figure 13)

Even finite element modelling requires a number of data points to be truly verified. A single point correlation is not a correlation. Although yes there are certain parameters and assumptions you can use in terms of the microstructure, tensile strength, assumed levels of fatigue, assumed integrity of the metal, bindings and fixings, corrosion, microcracks etc built up over 40 years, FEA is unable to perfectly model a used train built to looser specifications, with 40 years wear and tear, from a single data point. You absolutely do need to test to destruction, whatever it costs. A brand new train built from scratch to current standards with new parts and known tolerances, having been no doubt thoroughly modelled and tested from the bottom up, part by part, absolutely I trust the software and less stringent tests.

Like I say, these people are railway professionals, not finite element modellers or metallurgists.