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

[southern442]

b) that Pacers are used on routes which have 75mph paths and the trains get up to 75mph

This is a very good point. A lot of people (perhaps including myself at one stage) think that the 230's are perfect for replacing all the pacers in the UK. However, whilst the D trains might be ideal for the routes that the pacers were designed for, the (unfortunate many would say) truth is that pacers are often used on longer distance trains simply because they have the 75mph maximum speed needed. So the D trains couldn't possibly replace ALL the pacers because some of these trains are needed to be run on longer distance lines, and this is something that the D stock cannot do.

c) that D-Trains have 18m carriages so aren't standard length which may mean the maximum D-Train length a line can take is shorter than the maximum Sprinter length.

I believe that they are still longer than the pacer carriages though.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If the 230s (aka D-train) are to EVER replace Pacers it will be because they will more likely be used on the sort of lines that the Pacers were ORIGINALLY intended for. These might be slower rural lines or lines with a great many stops. I would hope that, if that happens, the superior stock released from those lines would then be used to replace some Pacers where the Pacers have actually ended up.

The speed issue is that a 230s maximum speed is 60 mph. This will be of no use on routes where trains sustain speeds above 60 mph for significant periods of time. HOWEVER on a route with frequent stops the acceleration becomes more useful than a rarely attained maximum speed. So *IF* the 230s have good acceleration - which is expected - then they may well provide a quicker or similar speed service on certain routes.

Meanwhile it has become abundantly clear, due to political interference/promises, that the 230s will not be considered for Northern regardless of how the prototype unit behaves.

Meanwhile some of us will *WAIT* to see what the prototype ACTUALLY achieves. Then it will be a matter of seeing what opportunities still remain if the 230 does behave as expected by the optimists.

 

[northwichcat]

This is a very good point. A lot of people (perhaps including myself at one stage) think that the 230's are perfect for replacing all the pacers in the UK. However, whilst the D trains might be ideal for the routes that the pacers were designed for, the (unfortunate many would say) truth is that pacers are often used on longer distance trains simply because they have the 75mph maximum speed needed. So the D trains couldn't possibly replace ALL the pacers because some of these trains are needed to be run on longer distance lines, and this is something that the D stock cannot do.

It doesn't even need to be a long route. A 15 mile route which has 10 miles of running on a mainline and 5 miles on a branch line can require a unit which is capable of 75mph or more.

I believe that they are still longer than the pacer carriages though.

There's a key difference.

A 5 car Pacer* is 77.5m
A 4 car 150 is 80m

*Possible as there are 3 car 144s and there are booked 5 car workings between Manchester and Leeds via Bradford.

A 6 car Pacer is 93m
A 4 car formation of one or more of 153s/155s/156s/158s is 92m

So it's possible to create Pacer formations very similar in length to Sprinter formations. However with 18m carriages that's not as easy to do unless you create formations which are too long for most platforms.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Meanwhile it has become abundantly clear, due to political interference/promises, that the 230s will not be considered for Northern regardless of how the prototype unit behaves.

Meanwhile some of us will *WAIT* to see what the prototype ACTUALLY achieves. Then it will be a matter of seeing what opportunities still remain if the 230 does behave as expected by the optimists.

Indeed, we are thankful indeed that the "political interferences/promises" have indeed been successful in overriding the "Shooter-inspired promises" for even more crosses that the Northern Rail franchise travelling public have had to bear for so many years. It really does give truth to the adage that "anything will do for Northern" that seems so beloved in the geographical areas of 200 miles to the south of the Northern Rail franchise, which unfortunately for Shooter has not proved to be the case.

By all means, as you say in your quote above, wait and see what the prototype with its 60mph top speed actually does achieve, then we can see if there is a clamour from area bodies such as the Welsh valleys for a large take-up of these units. Does your optimism still shine as bright as ever for the success of the Class 230 project?

 

[The Ham]

Indeed, we are thankful indeed that the "political interferences/promises" have indeed been successful in overriding the "Shooter-inspired promises" for even more crosses that the Northern Rail franchise travelling public have had to bear for so many years. It really does give truth to the adage that "anything will do for Northern" that seems so beloved in the geographical areas of 200 miles to the south of the Northern Rail franchise, which unfortunately for Shooter has not proved to be the case.

By all means, as you say in your quote above, wait and see what the prototype with its 60mph top speed actually does achieve, then we can see if there is a clamour from area bodies such as the Welsh valleys for a large take-up of these units. Does your optimism still shine as bright as ever for the success of the Class 230 project?

If I had the option of using a class 230 on a SUITABLE route then I would have no problem with them. If however they become "Pacer 2.0" and are used on unsuitable routes and kept in a fashion similar to the originals in terms of some of the less well kept ones then then I can see why people get annoyed with them.

The other item of note is that the class 230 is/was proposing 75 units, so even if they do see mainline duties then there will be a lot less than the current 140 Pacers. As such they would be less likely to be running services.

In addition to this, given the removal of them as a possibility for Northern, it is likely that they will be spread over a wider area than the Pacers currently are. Meaning that, even if people don't like them, that there will be less of a concentration of them.

 

[northwichcat]

In addition to this, given the removal of them as a possibility for Northern, it is likely that they will be spread over a wider area than the Pacers currently are. Meaning that, even if people don't like them, that there will be less of a concentration of them.

The Pacers were originally supposed to be spread out than they finished up being but they didn't realise how badly they would perform on short curvy branch lines until some were put in service on the Cornish branches.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Indeed, we are thankful indeed that the "political interferences/promises" have indeed been successful in overriding the "Shooter-inspired promises" for even more crosses that the Northern Rail franchise travelling public have had to bear for so many years. It really does give truth to the adage that "anything will do for Northern" that seems so beloved in the geographical areas of 200 miles to the south of the Northern Rail franchise, which unfortunately for Shooter has not proved to be the case.

By all means, as you say in your quote above, wait and see what the prototype with its 60mph top speed actually does achieve, then we can see if there is a clamour from area bodies such as the Welsh valleys for a large take-up of these units. Does your optimism still shine as bright as ever for the success of the Class 230 project?

And if, by chance, the 230s turn out to be a useful train for APPROPRIATE routes will those cynics change their mind. Or will they persistently insist that the North has to be different for some reason ?. Is there perhaps a chip on a shoulder somewhere ?.

I think I am open minded enough to wait and see before making a judgement. I fear though that the tangible prejudices could well kill the 230 off before it has had a chance to be tried.

 

[TH172341]

I will wait and see what happens with the Vivarail - however I still feel it could be of use to try and resurrect the notion of new lines or new passenger services, or replace existing stock on lighter patronage lines.

The Bedford-Bletchley branch may be one option, with the 150s off in a few years, and the 153s facing DDA compliance. Plus the platforms would require extending if a 172 was to be used instead - and that would mean LM's successor trying to secure the LO ones to increase Snow Hill capacity and run the Bedford branch. Also the Nuneaton - Coventry line would be another candidate, being largely self contained and being run by 153s.

There is also the old abandoned line/trackbed from Stourbridge through to Walsall, and also the old South Staffs line to Wolverhampton. Would be an excellent scheme to reopen this to passenger use (by replacing the existing track and relaying the old - the 230s would be ideal for such a line with the proclaimed accleration performance, low cost and no need for electrfication, making implementation far simpler.

The Vivarail scheme needs to be aimed at the principle of being used on disused lines, or lines that have lighter loadings with the aim of encouraging higher patronage with a low risk rolling stock option.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I will wait and see what happens with the Vivarail - however I still feel it could be of use to try and resurrect the notion of new lines or new passenger services, or replace existing stock on lighter patronage lines.

The Bedford-Bletchley branch may be one option, with the 150s off in a few years, and the 153s facing DDA compliance. Plus the platforms would require extending if a 172 was to be used instead - and that would mean LM's successor trying to secure the LO ones to increase Snow Hill capacity and run the Bedford branch. Also the Nuneaton - Coventry line would be another candidate, being largely self contained and being run by 153s.

There is also the old abandoned line/trackbed from Stourbridge through to Walsall, and also the old South Staffs line to Wolverhampton. Would be an excellent scheme to reopen this to passenger use (by replacing the existing track and relaying the old - the 230s would be ideal for such a line with the proclaimed accleration performance, low cost and no need for electrfication, making implementation far simpler.

The Vivarail scheme needs to be aimed at the principle of being used on disused lines, or lines that have lighter loadings with the aim of encouraging higher patronage with a low risk rolling stock option.

Yes that is the sort of route where I expect/hope the 230s can be used. That will free up things like 150s and 153s which in turn can replace Pacers (although there is growth to contend with). I also thought about routes like Hastings-Ashford and possibly Oxted-Uckfield (freeing up the line to London for 12-car electrics - bit contentious). The released 170s would be very useful elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Don' t forget also the 230s are expected to be easy to maintain away from a main depot by virtue of their equipment rafts. So they will not need to go back and forth just for most repairs or servicing. That would be useful for a diesel island like Bedford-Bletchley (ignoring the electric depots at each end !).

 

[TH172341]

Yes that is the sort of route where I expect/hope the 230s can be used. That will free up things like 150s and 153s which in turn can replace Pacers (although there is growth to contend with). I also thought about routes like Hastings-Ashford and possibly Oxted-Uckfield (freeing up the line to London for 12-car electrics - bit contentious). The released 170s would be very useful elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Don' t forget also the 230s are expected to be easy to maintain away from a main depot by virtue of their equipment rafts. So they will not need to go back and forth just for most repairs or servicing. That would be useful for a diesel island like Bedford-Bletchley (ignoring the electric depots at each end !).

Hopefully they can - LM's successor will need replacements for the 150s with them going to Northern in a couple of years time, and the 153 DDA issue. That does sound quite good - you never know!

Would be a major advantage - not exactly easy having a 150 all the way in Bedford, quite a way from Tyseley. So that's another potential benefit as you say.

 

[Philip C]

Yes that is the sort of route where I expect/hope the 230s can be used. That will free up things like 150s and 153s which in turn can replace Pacers (although there is growth to contend with). I also thought about routes like Hastings-Ashford and possibly Oxted-Uckfield (freeing up the line to London for 12-car electrics - bit contentious). The released 170s would be very useful elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

In the previous 2,750+ postings there has already been discussion on the (im-)practicality of finding a home for a few 'D' Stock trains on the Ashford-Hastings line. Rather than repeat the reasons why this would be a poor idea, I would merely suggest that you use the Search facilities to seek out some of those earlier discussions.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In the previous 2,750+ postings there has already been discussion on the (im-)practicality of finding a home for a few 'D' Stock trains on the Ashford-Hastings line. Rather than repeat the reasons why this would be a poor idea, I would merely suggest that you use the Search facilities to seek out some of those earlier discussions.

Ugh and there was me thinking I had followed this thread from the start !. Takes deep breath and gets ready for >2,750 results from a search. Think I will sleep on that one as the answer may well pop out of my memory somewhere. I bet there are a few circles gone round on here.

 

[Philip C]

Ugh and there was me thinking I had followed this thread from the start !. Takes deep breath and gets ready for >2,750 results from a search. Think I will sleep on that one as the answer may well pop out of my memory somewhere. I bet there are a few circles gone round on here.

Too true!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

They would certainly be welcome on the Marston Vale in my eyes (though I know another poster wouldn't, I think), particularly if they were cheap enough to allow a third spare unit to be kept at Bletchley.

 

[47802]

And if, by chance, the 230s turn out to be a useful train for APPROPRIATE routes will those cynics change their mind. Or will they persistently insist that the North has to be different for some reason ?. Is there perhaps a chip on a shoulder somewhere ?.

I think I am open minded enough to wait and see before making a judgement. I fear though that the tangible prejudices could well kill the 230 off before it has had a chance to be tried.

The issue with Northern has been the poor condition of rolling stock generally and Pacers working longish journeys particularly on routes linking Major Cities and towns, Northern Connect should largely fix this and on that basis I wouldn't have objected to refurbished 144's being retained on shorter routes which in my view are preferable to D Trains for Northern given their 75mph Top Speed and ability to work with 15x stock.

However I do think the decision not to allow any Railbuses was correct because if some had been retained how far could that have been watered down so that more and more were retained, while the idea of accepting D trains being classed as new trains would not have been very acceptable.

I also still wonder about the economics of D trains, if your convinced that these trains can be effectively replaced by the electrification programme in the next 10 to 15 years then maybe it makes sense, but if not then surely it makes more sense to buy new.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But in the end a seat on a railbus or 230 is preferable to standing on a nice brand new DMU. So I think both solutions were needed, but only one has been chosen. I think as a result Northern will still suffer overcrowding.

 

[MML]

They would certainly be welcome on the Marston Vale in my eyes (though I know another poster wouldn't, I think), particularly if they were cheap enough to allow a third spare unit to be kept at Bletchley.

Yes, or even perhaps a fourth unit at Bletchley. The old facilities being perfect for a small isolated depot and a fourth unit permitting a half-hour frequency in each direction. Improved service resulting in increased ridership well before the promised but some way off arrival of the East-West electric spine. And if a unit is out of service for minor attention, then temporarily reduce to the hourly service until repaired.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But in the end a seat on a railbus or 230 is preferable to standing on a nice brand new DMU. So I think both solutions were needed, but only one has been chosen. I think as a result Northern will still suffer overcrowding.

Doesn't that make assumptions that a larger capacity "new DMU" offering more seats than a Class 230 will be full as you say, so with the reduced capacity of a Class 230 on exactly the same route picking up exactly the same number of passengers, will not the lack of available seats on that Class 230 unit be even more pronounced?

 

[asylumxl]

They would certainly be welcome on the Marston Vale in my eyes (though I know another poster wouldn't, I think), particularly if they were cheap enough to allow a third spare unit to be kept at Bletchley.

I'd also like them on the Marston Vale. He who shall not be named probably won't though. It's OK anyway, he's only one stop from Bletchley.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd also like them on the Marston Vale. He who shall not be named probably won't though. It's OK anyway, he's only one stop from Bletchley.

If there's still a plan for a trial to Gunnislake, much will be revealed from the results thereof. It's already been established that they wouldn't be suitable everywhere (despite the repeated moans about 60mph stock clogging up mainlines) but if they can't work on the Cornish branches and the Marston Vale then those skeptics will have been proved right.

What are the platform lengths on the Marston Vale that prevent anything bigger than a 150? Presumably this would mean a 3-car 230 would also be too long, meaning some services would lose 6m of space? (2x17m versus 2x20m).

 

[Bletchleyite]

What are the platform lengths on the Marston Vale that prevent anything bigger than a 150? Presumably this would mean a 3-car 230 would also be too long, meaning some services would lose 6m of space? (2x17m versus 2x20m).

2x23m indeed won't fit. This might only be an issue on the school trains (most others carry one man and his dog), but if a hybrid layout similar to the LUL S-stock was used it would be unlikely to be an actual issue, you'd just get a few more standing passengers on the school trains.

Or fit SDO to them.

 

[Bantamzen]

But in the end a seat on a railbus or 230 is preferable to standing on a nice brand new DMU. So I think both solutions were needed, but only one has been chosen. I think as a result Northern will still suffer overcrowding.

Don't forget that the cheapest option offered by VivaRail for the 230s is effectively a D-Stock seating configuration, designed for high density travel. So passengers could end up standing on a 230 just as easily as new stock, unless the TOC opted for the more expensive options in which case the economic case between 230s and new starts to weigh in favour of new, especially if electrification projects continue to slip.

As far as the Northern franchise is concerned, I do wonder if such slippage was as much as an influence on the decision for all new as the political pressure. It might have occurred to them that any DMU solutions may have to be around much longer than originally planned, and thus opting for new stock with a longer expected shelf life could well have been the deciding factor. Personally, beyond the current and planned North TP sparks projects, I would not be entirely surprised if further proposed ones such as the Calder Valley might suddenly slip away into the distance.

 

[A0]

Yes, or even perhaps a fourth unit at Bletchley. The old facilities being perfect for a small isolated depot and a fourth unit permitting a half-hour frequency in each direction. Improved service resulting in increased ridership well before the promised but some way off arrival of the East-West electric spine. And if a unit is out of service for minor attention, then temporarily reduce to the hourly service until repaired.

There's no justification for increasing the current Bedford - Bletchley service to half-hourly. At the moment most of the daytime trains run well below capacity.

The second train will be introduced when EWR starts running through to Bedford - but even then its recognised that it will be limited stop on the Bedford - Bletchley not all stations as the current service.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There's no justification for increasing the current Bedford - Bletchley service to half-hourly. At the moment most of the daytime trains run well below capacity.

The second train will be introduced when EWR starts running through to Bedford - but even then its recognised that it will be limited stop on the Bedford - Bletchley not all stations as the current service.

I wouldn't say there's necessarily NO justification, as often an improved service results in a rise in usage. Whether such a rise in service provision on that route should be a priority I'd agree is unlikely, UNLESS such a rise could be provided relatively cheaply. More realistically the 230s could possibly allow a hot spare to be provided, particularly when compared with the future plan for the 150s to go north.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A hot spare is what is needed. A reliable hourly service is better than an unreliable half-hourly one. Yes, that means you, LM - Liverpool to Brum is particularly bad. When you get below hourly that becomes less clear cut, though.

FWIW it would be possible, with two units, to run an hourly fast service plus an approximately two-hourly stopping service, but this was felt to have limited benefit, if I recall. Indeed, the only thing that would *really* be a benefit would be extending it to MKC platform 2, which is what that platform was intended for pre-East West Rail. But I think there is a concern about WCML capacity, plus they might not want to give something that will be withdrawn with EWR.

 

[northwichcat]

A hot spare is what is needed. A reliable hourly service is better than an unreliable half-hourly one. Yes, that means you, LM - Liverpool to Brum is particularly bad. When you get below hourly that becomes less clear cut, though.

Cutting the frequency wouldn't necessarily make it more reliable, one of the most common reasons for Liverpool to Birmingham being late is a Scotland to London service is delayed and the LM service is made to wait until the late running Pendolino has gone through.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cutting the frequency wouldn't necessarily make it more reliable, one of the most common reasons for Liverpool to Birmingham being late is a Scotland to London service is delayed and the LM service is made to wait until the late running Pendolino has gone through.

I wasn't referring to delays, I was referring to cancellations (turning short) which are very common as a result of those delays. These could be removed by halving the frequency, as the units and staff so released would provide additional layover/stepping up capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
(By that I was using the strict railway wording, whereby "punctuality" refers to not being late, and "reliability" refers to running at all)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I suppose to be fair the cause of the poor reliability (cancellations) of Bedford to Bletchley is that there is no spare unit anywhere nearer than Tyseley. This means a failure results in cancellation of half of the service for at least two hours, often for the rest of the day if no unit is available at Tyseley. The service is very *punctual* because the layovers at Bletchley are very long.

This differs from Liverpool-Birmingham where the cause is a combination of delays and inadequate layover.

 

[The Ham]

I wouldn't say there's necessarily NO justification, as often an improved service results in a rise in usage. Whether such a rise in service provision on that route should be a priority I'd agree is unlikely, UNLESS such a rise could be provided relatively cheaply. More realistically the 230s could possibly allow a hot spare to be provided, particularly when compared with the future plan for the 150s to go north.

Also, if we assume that 2x17m is a reduction of 85% of the length of the existing units then by doubling of the frequency would only increase capacity by about 70%.

It's also worth noting that it could be possible to provide the illusion of 2tph at key times by providing an extra unit, for instance (assuming a two hour start, end, start loop) trains could leave from one end at
07:00 (1), 08:00 (2), 08:30 (3),
09:00 (1), 10:00 (2), 10:30 (3),
11:00 (1), 12:00 (2), 13:00 (3),
13:30 (1), 14:00 (2), 15:00 (3),
15:30 (1), 16:00 (2), 17:00 (3),
17:30 (1), 18:00 (2), 19:00 (3),
20:00 (2), 21:00 (3),
22:00 (2).

There would be a need for a few long layovers to make it work at the key times.

In doing so costs go up by 50% but at key times of the day there are two trains an hour when demand is likely to be high.

The timetable is mostly every hour at the same time with the odd extra service (5 over the day) at the same time within the hour, so shouldn't cause too much confusion to travelling public.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, if we assume that 2x17m is a reduction of 85% of the length of the existing units then by doubling of the frequency would only increase capacity by about 70%.

It's not a reduction of 85%. It's a reduction of 15%. But only on the Class 150 operated services.

FWIW the present service is operated by a 153 and a 150. Thus, there are presently 63m of train every 2 hours. Replace with 2-car 230s and you will have 68m of train every 2 hours. That's actually an increase.

In doing so costs go up by 50% but at key times of the day there are two trains an hour when demand is likely to be high.

Demand is only high for the school trains. The only way to get more passengers onto the line is to extend to MKC so that the train becomes a viable alternative to the X5. Without that, you're just going to shift roughly 2 x 85% of the amount of fresh air it presently does.

 

[northwichcat]

Interestingly Tony Miles has posted on wnxx that a D-Train with a full new interior will finish up only being slightly cheaper to lease than the new build CAF stock due to their only be limited time to recoup the cost of modifications to D-Trains.