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

[Class377/5]

With the pacers, it should be a case of using them on sensible routes rather than on major flows they are used. But there isn't enough proper units to do that. So we're stuck with a few choices of what to do.

New trains - which we now have actual figures for thanks to Modern Railways. Pacers cost 4k per carriage a month. A new train would cost around 15k, nearly four times as much. In terms of annual cost, you looking at a £20m bill a year paid for by a 10% fare increase on top of anything else or subsided from taxes. So its not peanuts we're talking about but how much profit is Northern making under the new deal? However this plan do not allow for any passenger growth, something the current packed commuters won't like. Of course fact that no-one wants to fund new build DMU UK gauge stock currently is something that needs to be tackled as ROSCOs/banks may require shorter pay back periods pushing costs up.

Electrify - means we create a shortage of units in the meantime. Again the extra amount of units will create more cash requirements per month but at least we will be able to allow for growth in the longer term.

Rebuild - this is the 278 proposal. To provide an interim fleet to boost fleet numbers. Again its going to cost more money than todays situation but allows for passenger increases in the shorter term (at least one company believes they can have unit ready next year).

So perhaps the solution is new trains and electrify. That way you can accommodate for more passengers (by keeping pacers for a few years to increase rolling stock numbers while electric arrive). But new trains are going to require Rail North and DfT to sign an agreement to use the new build DMUs for x amount of years.

 

[pemma]

New trains - which we now have actual figures for thanks to Modern Railways. Pacers cost 4k per carriage a month. A new train would cost around 15k, nearly four times as much.

What kind of new carriage? A 3 car 172 is a longer train than a 4 car 142 so it shouldn't necessarily be a case of 1 carriage replaces 1 carriage unless you are allowing for extra capacity as well, in which case you'd expect to pay more for the extra capacity.

If it's assumed the new carriage is 23.8m (which is the approx. length of I think every new DMU carriage since around 1998) then to make the comparison fair you should either do (15/23.8)*15.5 for the new carriage cost or (4/15.5)*23.8 for the Pacer carriage cost. Yes the Pacer is still cheaper but the difference comes down to around 2.5 times opposed to 4 times.

I'm also assuming that's just the charge paid to the ROSCO which excludes diesel and track access charges. 172s have the lowest track access charges, while a pair of 156s is cheaper than 3 x 142s (3 x 142s is only 1m longer than 2 x 156s.)

Rebuild - this is the 278 proposal. To provide an interim fleet to boost fleet numbers. Again its going to cost more money than todays situation but allows for passenger increases in the shorter term (at least one company believes they can have unit ready next year).

The question is if 1 x 278 is supposed to a direct replacement for 1 x 142, will it provide extra capacity where it's most needed?

OK on the services that are currently 1 x 142 and part of a diagram where the 142 is not attached to another unit later on it will be a capacity increase but a number of 142s operate diagrams where they are attached to another unit for part/all of the day.

A 278 will be smaller than a pair of Sprinters and apparently will have a lot less seats than a pair of Pacers but a pair of 278s will be too long for being used on most Northern Rail local services, so we could see 156s being replaced by 278s so that Sprinters can be used doubled up on diagrams which are currently doubled up Pacers.

If the 278s have a top speed of 62mph then they may not be cleared to operate services on lines such as Stockport-Manchester which could also affect which routes they are put on.

 

[Class377/5]

What kind of new carriage? A 3 car 172 is a longer train than a 4 car 142 so it shouldn't necessarily be a case of 1 carriage replaces 1 carriage unless you are allowing for extra capacity as well, in which case you'd expect to pay more for the extra capacity.

The article states placing Northern's 102 pacers with 80x2 new build.

If it's assumed the new carriage is 23.8m (which is the approx. length of I think every new DMU carriage since around 1998) then to make the comparison fair you should either do (15/23.8)*15.5 for the new carriage cost or (4/15.5)*23.8 for the Pacer carriage cost. Yes the Pacer is still cheaper but the difference comes down to around 2.5 times opposed to 4 times.

I think your right we should assume 23m carriages but it doesn't change the extra 20 million a year additional bill that got to come from somewhere.

I'm also assuming that's just the charge paid to the ROSCO which excludes diesel and track access charges. 172s have the lowest track access charges, while a pair of 156s is cheaper than 3 x 142s (3 x 142s is only 1m longer than 2 x 156s.)

Its pure leasing costs. Assuming its a 172 variant for track access costs, just how much would it save?

The question is if 1 x 278 is supposed to a direct replacement for 1 x 142, will it provide extra capacity where it's most needed?

OK on the services that are currently 1 x 142 and part of a diagram where the 142 is not attached to another unit later on it will be a capacity increase but a number of 142s operate diagrams where they are attached to another unit for part/all of the day.

A 278 will be smaller than a pair of Sprinters and apparently will have a lot less seats than a pair of Pacers but a pair of 278s will be too long for being used on most Northern Rail local services, so we could see 156s being replaced by 278s so that Sprinters can be used doubled up on diagrams which are currently doubled up Pacers.

If the 278s have a top speed of 62mph then they may not be cleared to operate services on lines such as Stockport-Manchester which could also affect which routes they are put on.

My comments over the 278 were more the issues facing the use of them rather than suggest using them. There are possibly a use for them in the very short term but to be honest I'm not sure they are that great an idea.

The problem with using seating to compare is your trying to compare the current stock with PRM stock which will see most of the current stock lose some capacity to accommodate then changes.

The central plank to what I'm trying to say is are the 278 proposals are sensible alternative or are we repeating the same mistakes as the 'temporary' pacers with the interim 278s? Perhaps biting the bullet and providing a decent DMU that is convertible to BEMU in the future for the mainline services allowing the sprinters to go on the more rural routes?

One point to make is new build means £20m per year additional bill. But, assuming a cost of £2m per vehicle*, new build 80 carriages would cost £160m out right or 8 years of additional payments. Surely it makes sense to buy outright whether or not its DfT or Rail North purchasing the units?

* £2m per carriage assumed due to making units compliant with environmental regs and having them suitable for future BEMU work as the wires extend.

 

[pemma]

Assuming its a 172 variant for track access costs, just how much would it save?

A 172 costs 4.7p per carriage per mile in track access charges, a 142 costs 5.13p per carriage per mile, so a 8% saving if a 172 directly replaces a 142, or a 31% saving if a 3 car 172 replaces a 4 car 142.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Tony Miles on wnxx has said there are actually two companies which are looking to turn D78s in he 278s one is The York Transport Company but no company is registered under that name. The other is:

VIVARAIL LTD
QUINTON RAIL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE STATION RD
LONG MARSTON
STRATFORD UPON AVON
WARWICKSHIRE
CV37 8PL
Incorporation Date: 22 Aug 2013

Which confirms where the Rail Community Officer got a name from which no-one had heard of.

 

[edwin_m]

one is The York Transport Company but no company is registered under that name.

Try "The Yorkshire Train Company", as per an article in the October Modern Railways written by a Richard Hammerton of that company. The name is also visible on the artist's impression so likely to be correct.

Incidentally in the header to this article Modern Railways seem to be a bit embarrassed about having their two columnists disagreeing on this concept, and even more so that they didn't declare that Ian Walmsley only recently retired from Porterbrook who own the 143 and 144 Pacers, so might not be a disinterested observer.

 

[wra_relay]

December's Modern Railways has an article by Roger Ford on the plans by Vivarail for the stock

 

[Nym]

December's Modern Railways has an article by Roger Ford on the plans by Vivarail for the stock

Damn, does that mean I need to buy the magazine to see what they're planning on?

 

[Olaf]

December's Modern Railways has an article by Roger Ford on the plans by Vivarail for the stock

Thanks.

 

[pemma]

Damn, does that mean I need to buy the magazine to see what they're planning on?

Or find a large library which has copies available to read.

Apparently a railroad company in Pennsylvania are willing to provide a loan for the work. They'd be 4 car trains with the driving cars containing two fully-enclosed modules each housing a 200hp automotive diesel engine driving an alternator and compressor. They'd have a top speed of 60mph and computer simulations show that they'd be able to match 142/150 timings on rural lines with no mainline running like the Penistone Line.

 

[nlogax]

Damn, does that mean I need to buy the magazine to see what they're planning on?

You could also subscribe to RF's 'Informed Sources' for additional titbits of info.

https://ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/Informed Sources e-preview

 

[talltim]

Or find a large library which has copies available to read.

Apparently a railroad company in Pennsylvania are willing to provide a loan for the work. They'd be 4 car trains with the driving cars containing two fully-enclosed modules each housing a 200hp automotive diesel engine driving an alternator and compressor. They'd have a top speed of 60mph and computer simulations show that they'd be able to match 142/150 timings on rural lines with no mainline running like the Penistone Line.

How many routes don't also include some mainline running?

 

[pemma]

How many routes don't also include some mainline running?

Not just routes including mainline running which need to be excluded. They'll be too small for some services in single formation and platforms will be too short for them to run doubled up e.g. Calder Vale line.

 

[edwin_m]

The Penistone line does include "mainline running" between Sheffield and Meadowhall, but that's probably short enough that a 60mph train won't cause many pathing difficulties. However I can't help thinking this low top speed would cause problems on many regional routes, either because of keeping ahead of faster trains or because of the effect on journey time. Even the Heart of Wales line has 75mph sprints either end!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Penistone line does include "mainline running" between Sheffield and Meadowhall, but that's probably short enough that a 60mph train won't cause many pathing difficulties. However I can't help thinking this low top speed would cause problems on many regional routes, either because of keeping ahead of faster trains or because of the effect on journey time. Even the Heart of Wales line has 75mph sprints either end!

Is there not also some 75mph stretches between Barnsley and Meadowhall? Huddersfield services run semi-fast on this stretch anyway, omitting Elsecar on most services and Wombwell and Chapeltown on a handful. They certainly used to anyway.

In the West Yorkshire area, I'm struggling to think of any routes where a 60mph limit wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps Wakefield Kirkgate/Leeds to Knottingley, as I don't think it's more than 60mph even on the parts shared with faster services. Capacity wouldn't be a problem in the off-peak but I'm not sure of the peak loadings. Most platforms would be too short for 8x17m formations.

 

[Nym]

Or find a large library which has copies available to read.

Apparently a railroad company in Pennsylvania are willing to provide a loan for the work. They'd be 4 car trains with the driving cars containing two fully-enclosed modules each housing a 200hp automotive diesel engine driving an alternator and compressor. They'd have a top speed of 60mph and computer simulations show that they'd be able to match 142/150 timings on rural lines with no mainline running like the Penistone Line.

Hmmm, strange as four car units doesn't seem to match up on numbers...

 

[Class377/5]

Hmmm, strange as four car units doesn't seem to match up on numbers...

Vivarail has acquired 150 D stock Driving Motor Carriages and additional vehicles to form 75 trains which can be paired up.

 

[Nym]

"Additional Vehicles" being?

Trailers?
Special Trailers?
Uncoupling Non Driving Motors?

 

[Tracked]

Is there not also some 75mph stretches between Barnsley and Meadowhall? Huddersfield services run semi-fast on this stretch anyway, omitting Elsecar on most services and Wombwell and Chapeltown on a handful. They certainly used to anyway.

think it's around 55mph between Meadowhall & Chapeltown, 60mph max speed limit probably wouldn't be an issue if they're stopping at all stops between Meadowhall and Barnsley - 5/6 minutes between each station?

 

[Haydn1971]

The mind boggles... More cast off London oldies, when will this nightmare end ?

 

[Nym]

The mind boggles... More cast off London oldies, when will this nightmare end ?

They are aluminum extrusions with very little structural issues riding on nearly new flexible bogies and very nice suspension though.

 

[Class377/5]

"Additional Vehicles" being?

Trailers?
Special Trailers?
Uncoupling Non Driving Motors?

That's all Roger Ford said in his e-preview.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Are they an D stock units in use now on the District line?

If they've got the life left, could some of the old D stock be used on the Island Line? (Not sure if the tunnel would need the track lowered)

 

[edwin_m]

Are they an D stock units in use now on the District line?

If they've got the life left, could some of the old D stock be used on the Island Line? (Not sure if the tunnel would need the track lowered)

Yes.

Probably not. D stock is about the same height as main line stock. The existing IoW stock is Tube gauge so much lower than D stock.

 

[route:oxford]

Or find a large library which has copies available to read.

Apparently a railroad company in Pennsylvania are willing to provide a loan for the work. They'd be 4 car trains with the driving cars containing two fully-enclosed modules each housing a 200hp automotive diesel engine driving an alternator and compressor. They'd have a top speed of 60mph and computer simulations show that they'd be able to match 142/150 timings on rural lines with no mainline running like the Penistone Line.

Why did they have to go all the way to Pennsylvania?

The Boris Bus has a 174hp unit that would do pretty much the same thing and is available off-the-shelf in blighty?

 

[fgwrich]

Are they an D stock units in use now on the District line?

If they've got the life left, could some of the old D stock be used on the Island Line? (Not sure if the tunnel would need the track lowered)

Yes and no. It's rather unlikely that Stagecoach would go to the extent of lowering the Island Line tunnels at Ryde again to cater for the D Stock as the reason why BR raised the height was because of the fairly common flooding problems it used to suffer, and somewhat seems to still suffer to this day (see last winter for example). The other factor is that Island Line will be waiting for the 1973 stock to be released from LULs Piccadilly Line to replace the 1938 stock - they have cab doors and a fairly hefty late 1990s refurbishment, unlike the recently released and mostly scrapped ex Vic Line 1967* stock which doesn't have cab doors.

*(Baring the units saved for conversion to Asset Inspection trains or in store in Eastleigh Works for LUL)

 

[Nym]

Yes and no. It's rather unlikely that Stagecoach would go to the extent of lowering the Island Line tunnels at Ryde again to cater for the D Stock as the reason why BR raised the height was because of the fairly common flooding problems it used to suffer, and somewhat seems to still suffer to this day (see last winter for example). The other factor is that Island Line will be waiting for the 1973 stock to be released from LULs Piccadilly Line to replace the 1938 stock - they have cab doors and a fairly hefty late 1990s refurbishment, unlike the recently released and largely scrapped 1972 stock which doesn't have cab doors.

Bugger, what they using on the Bakerloo Line?

PS: The 1972TS Mk.I vehicles where largely split up between departmental vehicsle, the Bakerloo Line and Victoria Line when it came off the Northern Line.

3 went to the Bakerloo Line

3229 went down to Aldwych and is still there.

One is down at Acton Works

Several went into 1967TS units as cut and shuts

One Asset Inspection Train

Two DMs and two 1967TS DMs are converted for departmental use.

One was up at Hainault

A significant amount of 1972TS Mk.I was not scrapped.

 

[47802]

They are aluminum extrusions with very little structural issues riding on nearly new flexible bogies and very nice suspension though.

Hmm having been on a D stock train on Saturday my comment would be 'you cannot be serious'.

So keeping the 8 doors per carriage? not much seating then which ever way the seating is, wrap up well in winter, Internal Gangways? Toilet? Ford transit engines powerful enough? Noise on a train not designed to be a DEMU? Crashworthiness?

Think I would prefer a 142

 

[Nym]

Hmm having been on a D stock train on Saturday my comment would be 'you cannot be serious'.

So keeping the 8 doors per carriage? not much seating then which ever way the seating is, wrap up well in winter, Internal Gangways? Toilet? Ford transit engines powerful enough? Noise on a train not designed to be a DEMU? Crashworthiness?

Think I would prefer a 142

Didn't say the conversion was appropriate, just that they're good units.

Oh and I expect that any engines put under them will vibrate a lot less than the compressors currently fitted in the Trailers and Special Trailers...

 

[fgwrich]

Bugger, what they using on the Bakerloo Line?

PS: The 1972TS Mk.I vehicles where largely split up between departmental vehicsle, the Bakerloo Line and Victoria Line when it came off the Northern Line.

3 went to the Bakerloo Line

3229 went down to Aldwych and is still there.

One is down at Acton Works

Several went into 1967TS units as cut and shuts

One Asset Inspection Train

Two DMs and two 1967TS DMs are converted for departmental use.

One was up at Hainault

A significant amount of 1972TS Mk.I was not scrapped.

Or 1967 Ex Victoria Line stock even.

(My mistake!)

 

[Nym]

Yeah, 1967TS wasn't really designed for manual driving, there are some stored though.