Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Please look at my posting # 6958.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Creation of class 230 DEMUs from ex-LU D78s by Vivarail
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
- Status
Please look at my posting # 6958.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Neen Sollars
Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 326
PS. The very first post on this thread mentioned 75 trains as being a possible order for the 230`s from Northern. Perhaps Vivarail were targeting that as a potential order for 75 x 3 car DEMU 230`s? That potential order clearly did not materialise. As you say project going for four years no 230`s yet in service. However Vivarail have stated that the market is moving towards electric trains and about 18 months into the project Vivarail put a lot of effort into developing the 230 BEMU. Latest videos on you tube show it in test running and the company say it is now ready to order. The latest Vivarail press release is not about cake it is dated 13/12/2018 about a tie up with a battery developer to keep improving the 230 BEMU which have been designed for ease of switching power packs onto the vehicle. So in four years Vivarail have developed a DEMU and a BEMU and both are available for sale. They appear to have very patient backers who as you state may be able to offset losses here elsewhere. If the project fails they appear to have the option to scrap the 400 or so units for a total of around £3.7 million. That would assist in recovering the overheads expended. Also note that Vivarail are attempting to protect the intellectual property rights of what they are developing by filing patents, as another poster has already stated such a move could hold future value for the company.
Neen Sollars
Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 326
PS. I note you are in your 70`s and a retired businessman, and probably retired due to ill health? I also note Adrian Shooter is 70 is a serial entrepreneur who has had a lot of success and few unsuccessful ventures. You appear not to like him, have you met him in a previous business life and fallen out? I think upcycling the D78s into 230s is a fantastic idea and I wish the project well. The finished trains external and internal look great. I do not like the whine of the 230 BEMU at low speed, however that appears to fade as the train attains speeds of 25 mph plus
take a look and listen to
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The whine is typical of a good many three phase drives, and tends to be a lot less obtrusive in real life than it sounds when recorded on a mobile phone or video camera.
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
Overall I’m pretty impressed at how far this train has come.
Last edited by a moderator:
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3,762
Sorry to hear this, hope I do not offend you by suggesting that when you write a post you leave it five minutes read it again and then post.
From family experience I know that doing things like that can aid recovery as it forces the brain to work around it's issues.
Apologies if you feel I am sticking my nose in where not wanted.
NOW BACK TO TOPIC.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They do seem to have sped the doors up a bit compared to the D-stock in LU days. No hustle alarm either, though that will one assumes be fitted to production trains.
Haven't seen the video but passcom override would be my guess.
Travelled on the route once and that was before Bedford- Cambridge closed so can't remember line let alone station and level crossing frequency
Why maintain such a short route to a higher line speed limit if trains can't reach that speed in day to day operating. Bonkers. Harrogate line is maintained to 60/65mph but running trains capable of 100/125 mph that could run at 80/90 between stations as 99% of the track is cwr on concrete sleepers and deep ballasted and 90mph signalling spacing and sighting. Equally bonkers.
I think you should keep your 150s. You are welcome to them after experiencing 170s on my local line and I am sure Northern could spare 3 or 4. They have 156s, 158s and 170s cascaded from Scotland coming out of their ears at the moment with 195s and 769s to come. Although having said that, the 150 refurbs are acceptable but not great.
Why not have the 3 150/0 units and keep them together and will give you capacity in the peaks being 3-car.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Because the branch can't support trains longer than 80m due to signal/level crossing positioning, which is the whole reason they aren't using Class 170/172!
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Also there are only two 150/0s...Because the branch can't support trains longer than 80m due to signal/level crossing positioning, which is the whole reason they aren't using Class 170/172!
Agreed, I fail to see the point of using an unnecessary long word when a diminutive one will do.
What about a short one?
The advantage for LNWR with a 230 is that they will get an off peak return ticket from me. If they stuck with Sprinters, I don't think I would bother.
my mistake, I thought there were 3.
You could do even better cos the correct grammar is unnecessarily long word.
You could 60 years ago. What's changed?Because the branch can't support trains longer than 80m due to signal/level crossing positioning, which is the whole reason they aren't using Class 170/172!
Because the branch can't support trains longer than 80m due to signal/level crossing positioning, which is the whole reason they aren't using Class 170/172!
Eh? You can't use 3 car 150s (approx 60m), or 2 or 3 car 170/172s (approx 47m/70m), because the line can't take trains longer than 80m? That's a bit confusing.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I often wonder in these enlightened days of education how many pupils leave school with the knowledge of the correct use of both adverbs and adjectives.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
It isnt maintained to a higher standard for us passengers! I think it is now 75 mph and it is at that level for freight. We have a heavy stone train several times a week plus whatever else turns up.
because a three car 150 wont fit in the majority of the platforms due to platform lengths, signal positions and level crossings. That is also why we cant have a 170 or 172. The only trains that will fit are 2 car 150's 1 x 153 ( unsure if 2 x 153 will fit) Pacers ( again unsure if a double pacer would fit) or 230's. We couldn't even take the top and tailed 31's and 2 carriages these days!
Also no one will pay to extend platforms or move signals until E-W rail arrives. We as mere passengers would be very happy to have 3 x 150's for our line. However i am sure they can do more good in Northern land.
thanks for visiting our line. Don't sit in my seat....................
See above.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A number of the platforms have been moved the other side of the level crossing (with associated signalling changes) so that the crossing doesn't have to remain closed while the train is standing at the platform. This was done on the cheap.
I did, sorry.
2 x 153 won't fit (and so a double Pacer won't either as that would be 2x32m, though a single one would probably do the job fine), there was a discussion about using only 153s (with the toilets removed), but if they had they would have had to increase the frequency at certain times of day as a single one is inadequate for the school trains, which would have broken the Takt.
Tinkering to improve the lot of the car driver always buggers up the lot of the rail user.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
True. The amount it would have cost to extend by another 6m would probably have been miniscule, though, and in that case we'd have had Class 172s for a few years now.
To be fair, bicyclists, horse riders, nor pedestrians can pass a closed level crossing either.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Including people who wish to board the train, and can see it there but have no legal or safe means of accessing it (and so some might take an illegal and unsafe method of doing so).
DarloRich
Veteran Member
they aren't trying to help motorists. They are helping the railway. Note the complaints in villages like Liddlington about the proposed mitigation!
nor are the 153's suitable for carrying bikes - they are one of the main reasons for delays as people have to manipulate their bikes around the 90 degree narrow turn at the ends and through the narrow doors. We are a rural branch line so quite a few people cycle to the stations
samuelmorris
Established Member
You're right about that but even so, knowing what the D78 sounded like in its original guise, there's no hiding that is one noisy traction inverter, probably the noisiest I've encountered outside a Velaro, which you can forgive a bit more as they are much more soundproofed inside and are capable of near enough 200mph. In this case, it just sounds cheap. Not a problem in of itself, but I genuinely think that'd be quite unpleasant when travelling on these units - internal footage shows it's very clearly audible inside too. Given the use case of these units, you don't get away with the reduction in noise at high speed that mitigates this issue on the 800s, you'll be hearing it a lot on the Marston Vale and probably most other routes the 230s may end up on. In my humble opinion, that could do with some work to be made a little quieter. It's not a dealbreaker for using the trains at all, but it's a disappointing flaw I think, in what otherwise looks like a genuinely neat engineering solution.
- Status