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

[Silverlinky]

Toilet/vestibule area with tip up seating if wheelchairs need to be accommodated....or bikes!
And tables provided too so you can have a picnic as you motor through the Bedfordshire countryside.

 

[DarloRich]

looks decent to me!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fabric looks better on that one. Lack of armrests and window-side seat jammed against the sidewall disappointing; suspect I will choose a side facing seat like I always did on Pacers.

Would have been nice to have a poshed up "coffee shop style" interior i.e. fake wood lino and a brighter colour on the seats.

 

[samuelmorris]

Is the body on a D78 exactly the same width as regular stock? If they're any narrower than standard it would explain the lack of armrests.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the body on a D78 exactly the same width as regular stock? If they're any narrower than standard it would explain the lack of armrests.

2.85m wide according to Wiki, which makes them the widest mainline stock in the UK by some margin (Class 323s are 2.82m, as I think are Turbos), though most of that is probably taken up by the thick "door pocket" sidewalls (you can see how thick from that window surround).

 

[Silverlinky]

2.85m wide according to Wiki, which makes them the widest mainline stock in the UK by some margin (Class 323s are 2.82m, as I think are Turbos), though most of that is probably taken up by the thick "door pocket" sidewalls (you can see how thick from that window surround).

They're more like portholes than windows!!

 

[Silverlinky]

The Drivers cab looks a bit "dark and dingy"!

 

[swt_passenger]

They're more like portholes than windows!!

Seems to be some sharp corners where that window liner overlaps the panels either side. More trim needed perhaps?
(Post 6482 2nd pic.)

 

[samuelmorris]

2.85m wide according to Wiki, which makes them the widest mainline stock in the UK by some margin (Class 323s are 2.82m, as I think are Turbos), though most of that is probably taken up by the thick "door pocket" sidewalls (you can see how thick from that window surround).

Hmm, then perhaps that's why then, the window thickness giving a slightly thinner interior space, or of course it could simply be armrests were deemed unnecessary. The longitudinal ones there are of course the original ones from the D-stock interior.

 

[Domh245]

Do also bear in mind that the 2.85m will be the widest point, ie at floor level. It then just tapers inwards all the way up

 

[northwichcat]

According to a post on another forum Network Rail are set to block clearance for D78s to be used on Chester-Crewe and North Wales coast (even as ECS) which will restrict them to only Borderlands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

According to a post on another forum Network Rail are set to block clearance for D78s to be used on Chester-Crewe and North Wales coast (even as ECS) which will restrict them to only Borderlands.

Why's that?

 

[northwichcat]

Why's that?

Probably no 60mph paths or turnaround times being too short in the case of Chester to Crewe using slower trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably no 60mph paths or turnaround times being too short in the case of Chester to Crewe using slower trains.

Chester-Crewe is an odd one, but I don't see why running to/from the Conwy Valley in the early hours/late evening should be a problem - the line is barely used at those times.

I suppose at a push they could truck one in and maintain it in place, but it seems unnecessary.

 

[krus_aragon]

Chester-Crewe is an odd one, but I don't see why running to/from the Conwy Valley in the early hours/late evening should be a problem - the line is barely used at those times.

Especially in the direction needed: the only trains heading from Chester to Llandudno Jn before 07:30 (@LLJ) are two ECS services, and there are only two eastbound services after 21:00, the second of which is operated by the current Conwy Valley diagram heading back to base.

Additionally, the nuclear freight trains to Valley are timed for 60mph. If they can find (multiple) paths for them from Crewe to Valley, there'll be paths for a 230 to get from Chester to Llandudno Jn, even if it is ECS. The "North Wales Coast" side of this rumour must surely be incorrect. (The Chester-Crewe part is plausible, whether it's true is another matter.)

 

[northwichcat]

Especially in the direction needed: the only trains heading from Chester to Llandudno Jn before 07:30 (@LLJ) are two ECS services, and there are only two eastbound services after 21:00, the second of which is operated by the current Conwy Valley diagram heading back to base.

Additionally, the nuclear freight trains to Valley are timed for 60mph. If they can find (multiple) paths for them from Crewe to Valley, there'll be paths for a 230 to get from Chester to Llandudno Jn, even if it is ECS. The "North Wales Coast" side of this rumour must surely be incorrect. (The Chester-Crewe part is plausible, whether it's true is another matter.)

The reasoning is my best guess as the rumour didn't have a reason behind it. Another possible reason I've thought of is the fact that D-Trains would be hard to rescue due to not being compatible with most trains on the network so possibly Network Rail want them to remain on lines which are exclusively D-Trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reasoning is my best guess as the rumour didn't have a reason behind it. Another possible reason I've thought of is the fact that D-Trains would be hard to rescue due to not being compatible with most trains on the network so possibly Network Rail want them to remain on lines which are exclusively D-Trains.

Presumably there is an emergency coupler to a loco like any unit.

 

[northwichcat]

Just a thought do D-Trains have full mainline clearance or could Network Rail be placing restrictions on them e.g. not wanting them using the same lines as trains like Voyagers and Pendolinos?

 

[route:oxford]

Just a thought do D-Trains have full mainline clearance or could Network Rail be placing restrictions on them e.g. not wanting them using the same lines as trains like Voyagers and Pendolinos?

They managed to get there on the same lines as Voyagers & Pendolinos.

 

[edwin_m]

It was stated upthread that 230s are wider than other stock - might it be a gauging issue?

 

[krus_aragon]

The reasoning is my best guess as the rumour didn't have a reason behind it. Another possible reason I've thought of is the fact that D-Trains would be hard to rescue due to not being compatible with most trains on the network so possibly Network Rail want them to remain on lines which are exclusively D-Trains.

Good brainstorming, but the NWCL already sees passenger trains with four different incompatible types of couplers: 221s, 175s, sprinters, and loco-hauled. It'd be a bit hypocritical to complain about a fifth type being introduced. And as suggested above, NR have allowed a 230 to run down the WCML to Bletchley for testing, so they can't be that allergic to Pendolinos.

It was stated upthread that 230s are wider than other stock - might it be a gauging issue?

If it were, then it should be practical to do the platform work necessary to resolve the gauging, rather than asset that they could never be permitted.

Perhaps this rumour could have arisen because the 230s haven't cleared for any of the NWCL yet. That could just require a paperwork exercise and running a unit slowly through the platforms to check, but could be misconstrued as a more terminal issue by the rumour mill / grapevine.

 

[northwichcat]

It was stated upthread that 230s are wider than other stock - might it be a gauging issue?

Could be. Many of us remember the 175s failed route clearance tests initially and had to have their steps made narrower.

 

[northwichcat]

Good brainstorming, but the NWCL already sees passenger trains with four different incompatible types of couplers: 221s, 175s, sprinters, and loco-hauled. It'd be a bit hypocritical to complain about a fifth type being introduced. And as suggested above, NR have allowed a 230 to run down the WCML to Bletchley for testing, so they can't be that allergic to Pendolinos.


If it were, then it should be practical to do the platform work necessary to resolve the gauging, rather than asset that they could never be permitted.

Perhaps this rumour could have arisen because the 230s haven't cleared for any of the NWCL yet. That could just require a paperwork exercise and running a unit slowly through the platforms to check, but could be misconstrued as a more terminal issue by the rumour mill / grapevine.

Yet there's plenty of other 15xs, 175s etc. If a 230 is out-of-service and one fails then only one other 230 could be used as a rescue unit and that might be in Bidston when the failed unit on the Conwy Valley line.

 

[craigybagel]

It would seem strange to worry about platform clearanceson Chester - Crewe given there aren't any other stations on that line, and if those two important stations were likely to cause issues you'd expect it to be a known issue that had cropped up before now with other fleets?

That said, there has been talk recently of these units being used on routes other then the three mentioned publicly in the past, so maybe there is indeed some kind of issue.

Does anyone have a link to the forum where this issue is being discussed?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It would seem strange to worry about platform clearanceson Chester - Crewe given there aren't any other stations on that line, and if those two important stations were likely to cause issues you'd expect it to be a known issue that had cropped up before now with other fleets?

That said, there has been talk recently of these units being used on routes other then the three mentioned publicly in the past, so maybe there is indeed some kind of issue.

Does anyone have a link to the forum where this issue is being discussed?

Could it be one issue in one case, and another in the other? The 60mph thing seems legit on Crewe to Chester (though clearances could be an issue there too, I remember there was talk of a few very tight listed bridges on there that would be an issue for electrification), whilst the North Wales Coast could be some other issue.

Or the whole thing could just be a rumour.

 

[krus_aragon]

Yet there's plenty of other 15xs, 175s etc. If a 230 is out-of-service and one fails then only one other 230 could be used as a rescue unit and that might be in Bidston when the failed unit on the Conwy Valley line.

But that's part of the appeal of putting the first unit into testing/service on the Conwy Valley, unless it's north of Glan Conwy it can fail wherever and however it wants and it won't be in the way of any other train: all you'd have to do is summon a rail replacement bus to take over. An early/late positional move along the coast shouldn't be that risky, and it could even stable at the Junction several nights a week, if that was desired.

Could it be one issue in one case, and another in the other? The 60mph thing seems legit on Crewe to Chester (though clearances could be an issue there too, I remember there was talk of a few very tight listed bridges on there that would be an issue for electrification), whilst the North Wales Coast could be some other issue.

Or the whole thing could just be a rumour.

Clearance issues for overhead electrification do exist (though aren't necessarily insurmountable), but that shouldn't be an issue for any diesel passenger stock. Bear in mind that until the Conwy Tunnel opened in 1991 there was a regular freightliner service operating to Holyhead, see this page of the Penmorfa website.

I think that most, if not all, of this news from whichever forum is indeed rumour.

 

[sw1ller]

Are we sure this “rumour” has been sourced correctly? The block on using the units isn’t coming from network rail.... it’s another organisation. And route clearances don’t seem to have anything to do with it. What the issue is, however, is beyond me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are we sure this “rumour” has been sourced correctly? The block on using the units isn’t coming from network rail.... it’s another organisation.

TfW, then? Or DaFT? Nobody else has the right to block it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But that's part of the appeal of putting the first unit into testing/service on the Conwy Valley, unless it's north of Glan Conwy it can fail wherever and however it wants and it won't be in the way of any other train: all you'd have to do is summon a rail replacement bus to take over. An early/late positional move along the coast shouldn't be that risky, and it could even stable at the Junction several nights a week, if that was desired.


Clearance issues for overhead electrification do exist (though aren't necessarily insurmountable), but that shouldn't be an issue for any diesel passenger stock. Bear in mind that until the Conwy Tunnel opened in 1991 there was a regular freightliner service operating to Holyhead, see this page of the Penmorfa website.

I think that most, if not all, of this news from whichever forum is indeed rumour.

The possible clearance issues I mentioned were for Crewe to Chester, not for the coast. There was talk of it being an issue back in the days of the fabled "rolling programme of electrification" when it was assumed that the TPML, MML and Windermere lines would all be done and dusted by now.

 

[Jona26]

TfW, then? Or DaFT? Nobody else has the right to block it.

ORR perhaps?

Following representation from another TOC/FOC?