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

[The Ham]

I've said it before, but obviously the pacers and 150s need replacing, which is around 275 units based on a rough, wikipedia-sourced count. Add this to 153s being reformed into 155s which halves the number of those available.... I'm sure that an order of even 100 DMUs could find work for many years to come on the lines that won't be electrified any time soon.

It is why elsewhere I had suggested that there could be a need for about 500 coaches to be ordered.

If however a new order (let's say 500 coaches) is made during CP5 to start in service in CP6 that would see the number of coaches at the end of each control period alter:

CP5 - 2486
CP6 - 2088 vs 1588
CP7 - 1298 vs 798
CP8 - 1298 vs 798
CP9 - 1228 vs 728
CP10 - 593 vs 93

Let's compare my figures above with the figures from the strategy (both excluding the 22x's and 180's):

CP5 - 2073 to 2156
CP6 - 1418 to 1547
CP7 - 1149 to 1384
CP8 - 1037 to 1352
CP9 - 1066 to 1368

Although it would appear that the strategy works without any new DMU's until CP7 there are a few key points which need to be considered.

First off we currently don't have enough DMU's to run all the services which should have started (i.e. Portishead)and Scott Rail are using short form HST's rather than DMU's during the next franchise (basicly CP5 & CP6), meaning that the base level could be argued to be too low.

Secondly the strategy assumes that 1900 miles of electrification happens totally within CP5 (which given the current delays may not happen) as well as a further 2100 miles within CP6 (which could be a bit too much if the delays currently seen continue).

Individual each of these is unlikely to cause much of a difference to the total number of DMU's each franchise needs, however combined it could make a big difference to the total number the country needs.

 

[Brian Aylott]

I've said it before, but obviously the pacers and 150s need replacing, which is around 275 units based on a rough, wikipedia-sourced count. Add this to 153s being reformed into 155s which halves the number of those available.... I'm sure that an order of even 100 DMUs could find work for many years to come on the lines that won't be electrified any time soon.

It is obvious to you that 150s need replacing but not obvious to anyone knowledgable in the railway industry (unless you mean replacing in the long distant future)
If the 150s need replacing soon why are the leasing companies spending millions sending them to works not only for C6 overhauls but getting Universal toilets installed and other mods to allow them to remain in traffic at the very least into the 2020s

There could well be a short term shortage DMUs but once the ordered EMUs are delivered and in traffic there will be a surplus of DMUS

Brian

 

[pemma]

It is obvious to you that 150s need replacing but not obvious to anyone knowledgable in the railway industry (unless you mean replacing in the long distant future)
If the 150s need replacing soon why are the leasing companies spending millions sending them to works not only for C6 overhauls but getting Universal toilets installed and other mods to allow them to remain in traffic at the very least into the 2020s

There could well be a short term shortage DMUs but once the ordered EMUs are delivered and in traffic there will be a surplus of DMUS

Brian

According to one rail journalist an unspecified ROSCO (likely Angel) has said that if new DMUs are ordered to replace 142s then the order should be large enough to withdraw the worst of the 150s as well.

There won't be any surplus of DMUs based on existing orders for EMUs. No new EMUs have been ordered for TPE and if the Sunday Times is correct a postponement to Manchester-York electrification until at least December 2021 is to be confirmed this week, with TPE set to take on additional diesel trains by December 2018 in lieu.

The 319s cascaded off Thameslink will be mainly providing extra carriages elsewhere, not starting a 142 replacement program.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

The class 150's both the /1's and /2's should be merged together to create a four car class 150 using the 8xx prefix so to sort of cover up the orignality of the units (as using 3xx would be too obvious).

Despite what I've come up with as non standard, all it would take would be for a 57 car of a /1 coach being coupled to a 52 /2 coach coupled to a 57 /2 coach which would be coupled to a 52 /1. The /2's would have to have the cabs facing each other and taken out of use. The Secondman's side could easily be modified for addtional luggage space.

So for example class 150150 (the last /1 unit) could be merged with 150201 (the first of the /2 units) to create 150801 and so forth, it would create more space out of what there is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's sort-of already been done - Central Trains formed 3-car 15x units by putting gangwayed driving cars in the middle of two others, and I think fGW did as well.

Neil

 

[pemma]

That's sort-of already been done - Central Trains formed 3-car 15x units by putting gangwayed driving cars in the middle of two others, and I think fGW did as well.

Neil

There are two orphan non-toilet vehicles as a result of two toilet vehicles being written off. These have been used to form 3 car 150s at both Central/LM and FGW. Central also split up 150/2s and inserted them in to 150/1s to make 3 car 150s and in the past Regional Railways North West did the same.

However, I don't think anyone had inserted a full 150/2 in to a 150/1 before but it must be possible.

 

[Brian Aylott]

According to one rail journalist an unspecified ROSCO (likely Angel) has said that if new DMUs are ordered to replace 142s then the order should be large enough to withdraw the worst of the 150s as well.

There won't be any surplus of DMUs based on existing orders for EMUs. No new EMUs have been ordered for TPE and if the Sunday Times is correct a postponement to Manchester-York electrification until at least December 2021 is to be confirmed this week, with TPE set to take on additional diesel trains by December 2018 in lieu.

The 319s cascaded off Thameslink will be mainly providing extra carriages elsewhere, not starting a 142 replacement program.

There will be surplus DMUs as a result of oustanding EMU orders whatever you think
Prior to 2020 at least the following EMU vehicles will be built:-
Class
345 - 594
387 - 108 + 40 built and not yet in passenger tfaffic
700 - 1140
707 - 150
Hitachi AT200 - 234
800/801 - 866

Obviously many are for expansioin but there will still be many others (out of the above over 3000 vehicles with more to come} that will result in cascades to replace Pacers and many others
The leasing companies have recently told the Government's Transport Select Committee this - are you saying that you known better than them?

Brian

 

[pemma]

Brian Aylott - that's all very well but that won't release enough usable DMUs and EMUs to replace Pacers by the end of 2019. Most of the orders you're talking about are replacing EMUs that could get withdrawn - 313s, 314s, 315s (although the best of the 315s are set to provide a short term solution for Valley lines) and 442s, or replacing Intercity stock which can't be used as Pacer replacement.

Why do you think Vivarail have come up with the D-Train proposal and Porterbrook have come up with the 'accessible' 144 proposal if there's going to be a surplus of DMUs? In the next five years there isn't.

All the ROSCOs were involved in the long term rolling stock strategy which said

Assuming that the current policy of a rolling electrification programme continues in CP6, the analysis suggests that no new diesel vehicles (or other self-powered vehicles) would be required to be built in either CP5 or CP6. Many older diesel vehicles would be withdrawn over this period, firstly those HSTs which are being replaced by IEP (although some might be used on other TOCs including open access operators), and then by 2024 around 500 (50%) of the shorter-distance Type A 75 mph DMUs procured by British Rail in the 1980s.

http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Portals/0/News_Downloads/Rolling Stock Strategy 2014 v10.pdf

The bit I've bolded is key. It seems electrification is being slowed down instead of retaining the same rate. You've also ignored the bit in my earlier post where I said "if the Sunday Times is correct a postponement to Manchester-York electrification until at least December 2021 is to be confirmed this week, with TPE set to take on additional diesel trains by December 2018 in lieu." I doubt the ROSCOs planned for TPE taking on DMUs in CP5 instead of releasing them.

 

[HSTEd]

The PEP stock has aluminium bodies and might be able to undergo a similar conversion to the D78s.

 

[alexl92]

It is obvious to you that 150s need replacing but not obvious to anyone knowledgable in the railway industry (unless you mean replacing in the long distant future)
If the 150s need replacing soon why are the leasing companies spending millions sending them to works not only for C6 overhauls but getting Universal toilets installed and other mods to allow them to remain in traffic at the very least into the 2020s

There could well be a short term shortage DMUs but once the ordered EMUs are delivered and in traffic there will be a surplus of DMUS

Brian

I've seen it stated in various places across this forum that some 150s are suffering quite bad corrosion or other issue due to build quality issues...

 

[pemma]

I've seen it stated in various places across this forum that some 150s are suffering quite bad corrosion or other issue due to build quality issues...

The 150s were built as solid units but they've got to the age when either they need life extension work to continue in service or they need to be withdrawn. Northern unit 150135 spent 18 months out-of-service due to corrosion issues, which cast doubts over how long some of the 150s can remain service without major work.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I thank all the forum members who have gone out of their way to set my mind at rest with regards to the subject matter of this particular thread.

My (hopefully) final thoughts on the matter suggest it does seem somewhat strange to see Britain described as one of the richest countries in the world on many threads over the last few years on this website whilst discussing other unrelated matters and a country who saw no wrong in scrapping part-constructed brand-new Nimrod military aircraft, yet appearing to show paucity of thought on a certain matter of transport provision that looks for the retention and belief in "old lamps for new syndrome" which would be understandable in countries such as Burkino Faso where usage of existing transport facilities was critical, them not having the finance to provide new rolling stock.

 

[Brian Aylott]

Brian Aylott - that's all very well but that won't release enough usable DMUs and EMUs to replace Pacers by the end of 2019. Most of the orders you're talking about are replacing EMUs that could get withdrawn - 313s, 314s, 315s (although the best of the 315s are set to provide a short term solution for Valley lines) and 442s, or replacing Intercity stock which can't be used as Pacer replacement.

Why do you think Vivarail have come up with the D-Train proposal and Porterbrook have come up with the 'accessible' 144 proposal if there's going to be a surplus of DMUs? In the next five years there isn't.

All the ROSCOs were involved in the long term rolling stock strategy which said


http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Portals/0/News_Downloads/Rolling Stock Strategy 2014 v10.pdf

The bit I've bolded is key. It seems electrification is being slowed down instead of retaining the same rate. You've also ignored the bit in my earlier post where I said "if the Sunday Times is correct a postponement to Manchester-York electrification until at least December 2021 is to be confirmed this week, with TPE set to take on additional diesel trains by December 2018 in lieu." I doubt the ROSCOs planned for TPE taking on DMUs in CP5 instead of releasing them.

Nearly 90% of 315s (over 50 units) have already been modified to last at least into the 2020s

The LTS was prepared when it was not expected that many HSTs would be retained post 2019 - this is no longer the case - for example with Scotrail

Retention of HSTs can, of course, help to eliminate Pacers - for example the Scotrail HSTs will replace 170s which can then replace 150/155/156s and then 142-144s
The DMUs being released by just Scotrail (including by electrification) could replace a large percentage of the Pacers - there are not thousands of them (less than 300 vehicles)

Porterbrook have always been prepared to retain their 143/144s if there was a requirement for them and obviously they and VivaRail are in the business of leasing out vehicles to make money - that would produce more income in time than just scrapping the vehicles now

Yes, it is accepted that there could be a short term DMU shortage which might result in a short term delay in increasing capacity by as much as is desired

The Government is probably over-reacting and it is. of course, election year when all the parties don't want to upset the voters

Brian
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've seen it stated in various places across this forum that some 150s are suffering quite bad corrosion or other issue due to build quality issues...

That is correct
Brian

 

[tbtc]

I was using that as an example of where a converted D78 could not just replace existing Pacers and Sprinters but two posters on here were suggesting there would be solutions to make them work on such lines like ensuring the converted D78s have faster acceleration and switching which services are the fast and which are the slow.

If you want to call other posters strawmen then I'm not going to get involved.

The difference is converted D78s would replace 75mph trains unless they just replace the 121s and 139s and/or provide new services

60mph trains replacing 75mph trains isn’t a problem as long as the 60mph trains can cope with the services that they are scheduled to run on (just like it wasn’t a problem when 75mph trains replaced 125mph trains on Northern’s service from Preston to Hazel Grove!).

A train on a route like Preston – Ormskirk or Blackpool South – Colne or Barrow – Carlisle (etc) won’t reach 75mph so the top speed isn’t the issue that some on here are making it. I don’t know why we are still having this argument, unless there’s a serious possibility of D78s being put onto services that require a train to run at 75mph (and, at this moment, we don’t know even know if any franchises will introduce them – just that the promoters of the D78s are saying they’ve had some enquiries).

Thanks for uploading that, it was very interesting and should dispel any doubts on here that there's a good chance these things if built would end up at Northern. One particular thing the bloke from Vivarail said stood out for me. "They will be the best new trains on the network". Really? That's not a good sign if they are already overselling the D78s. How could you possibly consider a unit restricted to a maximum of 60/62mph (and that assumes that they even get that far), with a rather basic interior done for the third of the price of a brand new vehicle to be the best?. Pardon me for saying this, but I smell a bit of Billy BS here. They might be able to convince DfT, they may even be able to convince the Northern franchise bidders, but on this form it'll take a lot more to convince me or many Northern punters.

Complaining that a PR bloke is suggesting that the product he’s being paid to promote is very good? Of course the PR guy is going to say they are great – that’s what he’s paid to do!

Nobody promotes their product by saying that it’s “run of the mill” or “bog-standard” – nobody says that their product is going to be the “third best”.

More seats in third-rate refreshed elderly rail units with no answer from the company concerned about the type of which diesel engines which will feature and the lack of full details of how they propose to deal with the matter of the toilets required by the strictures of the Equalities Act being the answer to all the current rail problems?

I’m not sure that the engines were a “deal breaker”, but now that you know the types of engine that will be used, maybe you can tell us what evidence has led you to conclude that the refresh will be “third rate”? Or are you jumping to conclusions?

Those who abhor the thought of "London's cast-offs" being used in Scotland and would rather votres in Central Scotaldn facing cancelled services

Do Scots realise that they are seeing their post-privatisation DMUs replaced by English trains from the 1970s (HSTs from Paddington – Bristol) and their 21st century sleeper haulage replaced by 1960s locomotives from south London (the 73s)?

I’ve not seen any complaints about this yet.

As far as I can see from the image (there is a zoom function)...

There is an indoor WC which also has a door

An indoor toilet will be seen as luxury in this part of Yorkshire!

(mind you, on a lot of Northern’s routes in South Yorkshire, getting up to 60mph will be a luxury...)

The Vivarail website clearly indicates that the toilet module that is available for installation in the trailer car of a 3-car set will be fully compliant with the relevant PRM-TSI standards allowing operation beyond 2020.. so I'm not sure why we are being asked to imagine something otherwise..!

Agreed.

I’m amazed that we’ve had fifty pages of argument about why these trains are not suitable for fast services (when nobody is suggesting putting them on fast services), moans that these trains are not suitable to last another forty years (when nobody is suggesting running them for another forty years), complaints that they won’t have toilets (when they will be able to have toilets)...

...what next, complaints that they won’t be able to go through the channel tunnel, complaints that they won’t tilt, complaints that they won’t be suitable for HS2?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I’m not sure that the engines were a “deal breaker”, but now that you know the types of engine that will be used, maybe you can tell us what evidence has led you to conclude that the refresh will be “third rate”? Or are you jumping to conclusions?

Well, bowing to your obvious superior knowledge of rolling stock provision, would you describe these units, with all that is stated needed to be done to them, as "first-rate" or "second-rate" units ?

 

[route:oxford]

Do Scots realise that they are seeing their post-privatisation DMUs replaced by English trains from the 1970s (HSTs from Paddington – Bristol) and their 21st century sleeper haulage replaced by 1960s locomotives from south London (the 73s)?

I’ve not seen any complaints about this yet.

I guess you've never been to Scotland. The Scots are quite familiar with the HST - they've been used on Inter-city services in the country for around 40 years.

As to the 73s, Aslef have expressed fears about their use in "The Scotsman".

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105739

 

[Clip]

Well, bowing to your obvious superior knowledge of rolling stock provision, would you describe these units, with all that is stated needed to be done to them, as "first-rate" or "second-rate" units ?

That's a poor question to ask as you well know that the mock up hasn't even been completed so no one can say yet you state for a fact that it will be 3rd rate.

why not just read their website for whatever it is you need to know about them as that is all that anyone knows right now

 

[nottsnurse]

......it does seem somewhat strange to see Britain described as one of the richest countries in the world on many threads over the last few years on this website whilst discussing other unrelated matters and a country who saw no wrong in scrapping part-constructed brand-new Nimrod military aircraft, yet appearing to show paucity of thought on a certain matter of transport provision that looks for the retention and belief in "old lamps for new syndrome" which would be understandable in countries such as Burkino Faso where usage of existing transport facilities was critical, them not having the finance to provide new rolling stock.

Apart from the fact the Nimrods weren't brand new (they were extensively refurbished and upgraded MR2's), which was in no small amount what led to their downfall.

How do you fit 21st century, brand new, CAD-designed and nanometer perfect milled wing spars and other components into 1940s-designed airframes that were all effectively hand-built and individual?

This is before you even start to consider shoehorning in a constantly changing (throughout the life of the program) range of electronics that varied from OTS items through to type-specific items.

The project was doomed to failure due to the over-ambitious plan to try and 'zero hour' aircraft built in the 50s by inserting modern components and further hampered by poor oversight and political interference. It was like Nimrod AEW all over again...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's a poor question to ask as you well know that the mock up hasn't even been completed so no one can say yet you state for a fact that it will be 3rd rate. Why not just read their website for whatever it is you need to know about them as that is all that anyone knows right now

I have been given information by a member of the RailUK forum membership on this very thread about the type of diesel engine that is to be provided not being of a type that one would not normally envisage in railway units but rather in other modes of transport. Or was that submitted information wrong?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have been given information by a member of the RailUK forum membership on this very thread about the type of diesel engine that is to be provided not being of a type that one would not normally envisage in railway units but rather in other modes of transport. Or was that submitted information wrong?

In what way does introducing a new engine type to rail use make a unit "third rate"?

As to what the units are like, we don't know until the prototype is rolled out. Then we can make a judgement as to whether they are any good or not.

Neil

 

[NSEFAN]

n what way does introducing a new engine type to rail use make a unit "third rate"?

Because another industry (i.e. not the railway) built it, therefore it's automatically rubbish!

And even if it works fine on other nations' railways, how do we know it'll work on British trains?

</"not invented here" syndrome>

 

[D60]

The whole concept of installing diesel engines under ex-LT stock is completely novel, requiring novel solutions and a certain amount of "thinking outside of the box".. something that I understand one of the key figures involved has demonstrated previously to good effect during a long and distinguished railway career.. and the use of an alternative power pack to make the electricity on-board that the traction motors previously collected from the live rail seems like a good example of this... The proposed engines have elsewhere been described as from the Duratorq/Lion family as developed by Ford/Peugeot, and as supplied for use in certain premium Land-Rover/Range-Rover models.. so hopefully not so "third-rate"..

 

[jcc]

I have been given information by a member of the RailUK forum membership on this very thread about the type of diesel engine that is to be provided not being of a type that one would not normally envisage in railway units but rather in other modes of transport. Or was that submitted information wrong?

The whole concept of installing diesel engines under ex-LT stock is completely novel, requiring novel solutions and a certain amount of "thinking outside of the box".. something that I understand one of the key figures involved has demonstrated previously to good effect during a long and distinguished railway career.. and the use of an alternative power pack to make the electricity on-board that the traction motors previously collected from the live rail seems like a good example of this... The proposed engines have elsewhere been described as from the Duratorq/Lion family as developed by Ford/Peugeot, and as supplied for use in certain premium Land-Rover/Range-Rover models.. so hopefully not so "third-rate"..

I can reassure you that the information provided by D60 above and before is correct. As to help, I have an assortment of links to "back up" what D60 says- as D60 says, Feb's Railway Magazine states that they are Ford diesel units, Modern Railway's Roger Ford says so in the December 2014 one, available online here, Rail Technology Magazine goes further to call them "Transit engines", and finally the "Land Rover Owner International" magazine/online thing calls them Ford Duratorq engines as used in the Land Rover Defender cars. According to RAIL, a company called "Revolve" (of Essex) is supplying the engine power modules [ref]. Rail Technology Magazine's Sam McCaffrey also partook in an interview with Vivarail where they described the new diesel engines as "two 3L Ford Diesel engines combining to create 400hp for each driving car, plus a modern alternator and inverter with an output of 750v DC, plus a compressor".

The "key figure" is also Adrian Shooter, the ex-boss of the rather successful Chiltern [ref here], so I suspect that he knows what he's doing .

jcc

 

[Peter Sarf]

I have been given information by a member of the RailUK forum membership on this very thread about the type of diesel engine that is to be provided not being of a type that one would not normally envisage in railway units but rather in other modes of transport. Or was that submitted information wrong?

I recall someone on this thread saying they would be Ford transit engines and somewhere else that they are 200hp engines as used in Land Rovers. I do not recall anyone saying that those engines would be unsuitable - can you point me to the information please.

I imagine we will have to wait and see what the final result looks AND performs like rather than making pronouncements on something that does not even exist yet (not even as a prototype).

 

[Bantamzen]

Complaining that a PR bloke is suggesting that the product he’s being paid to promote is very good? Of course the PR guy is going to say they are great – that’s what he’s paid to do!

Nobody promotes their product by saying that it’s “run of the mill” or “bog-standard” – nobody says that their product is going to be the “third best”.

I see, so you are happy for someone to claim that a conversion of 30 year old stock, with a low maximum speed and completely untested apart from computer simulations on a slow line (which apparently yielded a whopping 3 minute journey reduction), with a price tag somewhere between 1/3 to 2/3 of the cost of a new unit is going to be the best on the network? This doen't ring any alarm bells? You don't happen to work for DfT by any chance?

It's one thing to take the D stock convertions and pitch them as a cheap and cheerful solution for branch lines if Roscos/Tocs want to take a chance. But pitch them as the best on the network and try to make them sound like they are suitable for longer journies (the Country veversion with the 2x2 around tables configuration) and you are at best stretching the truth. Remind me never to buy a second hand car from them, or you for that matter.

 

[Greybeard33]

I can reassure you that the information provided by D60 above and before is correct. As to help, I have an assortment of links to "back up" what D60 says- as D60 says, Feb's Railway Magazine states that they are Ford diesel units, Modern Railway's Roger Ford says so in the December 2014 one, available online here, Rail Technology Magazine goes further to call them "Transit engines", and finally the "Land Rover Owner International" magazine/online thing calls them Ford Duratorq engines as used in the Land Rover Defender cars. According to RAIL, a company called "Revolve" (of Essex) is supplying the engine power modules [ref]. Rail Technology Magazine's Sam McCaffrey also partook in an interview with Vivarail where they described the new diesel engines as "two 3L Ford Diesel engines combining to create 400hp for each driving car, plus a modern alternator and inverter with an output of 750v DC, plus a compressor".

The "key figure" is also Adrian Shooter, the ex-boss of the rather successful Chiltern [ref here], so I suspect that he knows what he's doing .

jcc

But the engine in a light van or Land Rover is designed for a completely different duty cycle to that of a DEMU.

In the road vehicle, the engine only approaches its maximum 200hp power output in short bursts of a few seconds at a time, during rapid acceleration or climbing a steep hill. Cruising at 70mph on the motorway needs much less power. The engine is optimised for efficient operation over a wide range of loads and speeds, and for rapid response to changing throttle demands.

In a D78 on a stopping service, on the other hand, the engine will run flat out for several minutes continuously during acceleration, interspersed with periods at idle during braking and station stops. There must be a risk that this more stressful cycle with have an adverse effect on engine reliability and durability.

 

[Clip]

I have been given information by a member of the RailUK forum membership on this very thread about the type of diesel engine that is to be provided not being of a type that one would not normally envisage in railway units but rather in other modes of transport. Or was that submitted information wrong?

No it wasn't wrong as that is what has been said by Vivarail I do believe. Now tell me why you deem them and the whole conversion as 3rd rate

 

[NotATrainspott]

But the engine in a light van or Land Rover is designed for a completely different duty cycle to that of a DEMU.

In the road vehicle, the engine only approaches its maximum 200hp power output in short bursts of a few seconds at a time, during rapid acceleration or climbing a steep hill. Cruising at 70mph on the motorway needs much less power. The engine is optimised for efficient operation over a wide range of loads and speeds, and for rapid response to changing throttle demands.

In a D78 on a stopping service, on the other hand, the engine will run flat out for several minutes continuously during acceleration, interspersed with periods at idle during braking and station stops. There must be a risk that this more stressful cycle with have an adverse effect on engine reliability and durability.

If the engines are significantly cheaper than standard DMU engines, and would last as long as the refurbished trains in passenger service, then I can't see this being a massive problem. The value of the D-Train proposal is that there is no wasted cost once the DMU shortage is solved through whatever electrified means. If another batch of 172s could be built, they would have a ~30-35 year life ahead of them yet there would be no more work for them to do only halfway through their working lives, so there would be some incentive to keep lines unelectrified so that they can continue in service until they're finally past it.

 

[D60]

Presumably a maintenance regime tailored specifically to these specific engines will need to be devised, possibly involving rebuild or replacement at intervals... Information from Vivarail suggests they can be dropped out of a unit and replaced with a new or reconditioned example as a straightforward, simple and routine task... (But I believe all of this has been covered on here before..)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably a maintenance regime tailored specifically to these specific engines will need to be devised, possibly involving rebuild or replacement at intervals... Information from Vivarail suggests they can be dropped out of a unit and replaced with a new or reconditioned example as a straightforward, simple and routine task... (But I believe all of this has been covered on here before..)

As I've mentioned before, could this approach be considered in a more usual EMU body? That way you'd get a 110mph EMU that could also run at, say, 75mph on diesel? Perfect for lines like Barrow.

Neil