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

[northwichcat]

Established by whom? What is established is that the current speed restrictions on 22xs in East Anglia are down to issues with the existing track in that part of the world, not anything to do with the trains per se.

Plus platform length issues and meeting capacity needs. Does Norwich-Peterborough need a 7 car 222 and how much would it cost to change the infrastructure to allow one? 222 formations will automatically need to be longer than current Sprinter formations due to the low capacity of the driving vehicles.

What do you think all the 22xs are going to be doing once displaced from MML and XC routes? And potentially West Coast as well at some point in a post-2018 franchise. If it's not going to be razor blades then 'premium regional routes' and replacing HSTs in Scotland are the most obvious places for them to go - and a lot sooner than 2030.

It was you who suggested 158s could remain in service until they are 40 years old and when I asked if you proposed using them on local or frequent stop services you said no, so where are you going to use the 40 year old 158s? Intercity services?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Hmmm. I have realised that there are two many variables in the electrification vs DMU building race.

What is clear to me is that electrification willcould happen at a slower pace than the aspirations of the last few years would suggest.

Although I argued that 230s will provide an open door for replacement EMUs sooner there is a risk. The risk is that if electrification proceeds as slowly as is becoming obvious then at the end of the 230s lives new DMUs might have to be ordered anyway thus postponing the necessity to electrify. That would mean that new DMUs now might be better.

I cannot face the detail but it is a fear of mine that the current pace of electrification is getting too ambitious. We bite off more than we can chew and end up with a lot less.



I agree and it is a hope I cling to that sooner or later we will reach critical mass and infill electrification schemes will be more relevant.



Thanks for reminding me. The above is what I have been keeping in mind, rightly or wrongly.

Typed the following in a rush :-

Separately I have always assumed that we have to look at the current diesel trains and services as two beasts. Loosely Suburban and Intercity - forgive the terms I am thinking door layout and speed/acceleration.

Suburban :-
I can see predominantly 170s replacing 150s which then replace 142s-144s. Later More 172s replace 150-153s. The hope was 230s would speed that up and take pressure of electrification.

Intercity :-
The 220s-222s replace 170s (a bit contentious). No case for 230s there of course.

In both the above electrification and EMUs has to fit in but goodness knows how effective that will be. The EMUS will probably obviate the need for 220-222s on inappropriate (suburbanish) routes.

EDIT :- In the above I can see it likely that 220s-222s have less use, the only thing they can do is replace HSTs (sadly in my biased mind). Of course this assumes enough electrification (or Bi-Modes) to make them spare.

There's a massive problem with most of the DMU figures I see discussed here, nobody really takes into account passenger growth on DMU operated routes, there's lots of 1 for 1 replacement talk on broadly comparable diagrams, and that's used to suggest because we'll be ordering a specific number of DMUs, it will make electrification unattractive.

The reality is as passenger growth continues and service frequencies increase, more DMUs will be needed, but they will operate fewer services or on fewer routes, as more units will be needed on specific lines, and more units will run coupled together. 25 x 2 car and 30 x 3 car units being ordered for Northern gives 55 units, but start running them in 6 car formations and you're down to 8 trains formed from 3 x 2 car units and 15 trains formed from 2 x 3 car units.

That's where electrification continues to be attractive, it allows DMU stock to be concentrated in isolated pockets, even though it's not entirely attractive to run 6, 8 and 9 car DMU formations of the sort South West Trains run, it makes sense to squeeze the last life out of units by running them in this way.

That's where the Class 230 falls down - the problem with the Class 230 is that it's a unit that's a quarter of the cost of a new unit, with a quarter of the life expectancy. It can't be cascaded onto a diesel depot serving one or two routes, when it's going to be life expired 10 or 15 years from now.

 

[northwichcat]

There's a massive problem with most of the DMU figures I see discussed here, nobody really takes into account passenger growth on DMU operated routes, there's lots of 1 for 1 replacement talk on broadly comparable diagrams, and that's used to suggest because we'll be ordering a specific number of DMUs, it will make electrification unattractive.

Indeed. People kept overlooking North West and Thames Valley electrification was in lieu of a new DMU order for extra capacity and started talking about how many Pacers could be withdrawn as a result of it. Similarly the class 172 order resulted in no 1980s DMUs being withdrawn and neither did the class 185 order that came before it.

 

[jimm]

Plus platform length issues and meeting capacity needs. Does Norwich-Peterborough need a 7 car 222 and how much would it cost to change the infrastructure to allow one? 222 formations will automatically need to be longer than current Sprinter formations due to the low capacity of the driving vehicles.

Platform lengths? Ever heard of selective door operation?

As for capacity, I didn't say 22xs would be the perfect train for the route, but they're not perfect for what they do now either, are they? However, they will need something to do post-electrification of their current haunts, which will then displace dmus for other routes. Or you send some to SWT, and move their 158/159 fleet north to allow lengthening of Liverpool-Norwich services.

The current mode of operation on Norwich-Liverpool is dictated by the limited pool of 158s that EMT has and where the heaviest demand on the route is - not because demand suddenly falls off a cliff east of Nottingham, or Peterborough come to that.

Across EMT, XC and Virgin there are more than 100 22x sets potentially looking for further employment at various points over the course of the 2020s. Or are you simply writing them off as of no further use except for scrap once their present duties end?

It was you who suggested 158s could remain in service until they are 40 years old and when I asked if you proposed using them on local or frequent stop services you said no, so where are you going to use the 40 year old 158s? Intercity services?

Try reading the bottom of post 2812. I said they could replace 170s in some places, so that those could move to services where 1/3, 2/3 doors would be best suited.

It may not be ideal for Sprinters and Turbostars (and 175s) to have to run for 40 years, but if it allows us to make a direct transition to emus, albeit later than everyone would like, that makes a lot more sense than rushing out to panic buy dmus now, which will have three or more decades of useful life in them and really would put the mockers on any incentive to electrify for a very long time.

 

[Haydn1971]

222 formations will automatically need to be longer than current Sprinter formations due to the low capacity of the driving vehicles.

Given the relative age of these units come electrification of MML, I'd expect it could be worthwhile doing a full overhaul that removed the unused areas from the driving cars - I can't imagine there's much essential electronic/mechanical gear in there that couldn't be repositioned, or the accessible toilets could be installed in these areas - limit the units to a lower speed if necessary, rip out the luggage spaces, buffets, reconfigure the internals to maximise passengers without upsetting comfort, revise the units to be 5 & 6 cars and bingo, regional sprinter replacements.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Given the relative age of these units come electrification of MML, I'd expect it could be worthwhile doing a full overhaul that removed the unused areas from the driving cars - I can't imagine there's much essential electronic/mechanical gear in there that couldn't be repositioned, or the accessible toilets could be installed in these areas - limit the units to a lower speed if necessary, rip out the luggage spaces, buffets, reconfigure the internals to maximise passengers without upsetting comfort, revise the units to be 5 & 6 cars and bingo, regional sprinter replacements.

Whatever you are smoking, can you pass me some please?

Never heard such a stupid suggestion

 

[Haydn1971]

Or you send some to SWT, and move their 158/159 fleet north to allow lengthening of Liverpool-Norwich services.

Ah the dream of six car sprinters dashing between Nottingham and Liverpool !

The reliability needs to improve somewhat, the missing units due to breakdowns are becoming more common.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Never heard such a stupid suggestion

Rubbish, do you have a better suggestion ?

 

[A0]

As for capacity, I didn't say 22xs would be the perfect train for the route, but they're not perfect for what they do now either, are they?

The 22x's are not suitable replacements for most Sprinters, for a multitude of reasons.

They are ideally suited to the work they currently have though - particularly on the MML where their performance is ideal for the stopping pattern they have.

The obvious place for displaced 22xs would be Scotrail - where they would be a *much* better solution than their recycling of ex FGW HSTs.

 

[northwichcat]

Platform lengths? Ever heard of selective door operation?

Yes but SDO isn't always a solution. At Salford Crescent if the train is too long for the platform it can't stop there even if SDO is available. It's also not a sensible solution if it means half the train is off the end of the platform at numerous stations.

The current mode of operation on Norwich-Liverpool is dictated by the limited pool of 158s that EMT has and where the heaviest demand on the route is - not because demand suddenly falls off a cliff east of Nottingham, or Peterborough come to that.

Demand is higher to the west. The western end will be needing 6 cars before long. Does a middle of the day service between Ely and Norwich need 6 cars? Remember a middle of the day service service between Ely and Norwich will be part of a service which could be one of the busiest services of the day between Liverpool and Sheffield.

Across EMT, XC and Virgin there are more than 100 22x sets potentially looking for further employment at various points over the course of the 2020s. Or are you simply writing them off as of no further use except for scrap once their present duties end?

That's the key word there. We could potentially have some stations with 100% growth in the next 10 years - there's a number of stations in my local area where it has happened between 2004 and 2014 - which could then, for instance, mean 1 HST set at Scotrail needs at least 2 x 22xs to replace it.

Try reading the bottom of post 2812. I said they could replace 170s in some places, so that those could move to services where 1/3, 2/3 doors would be best suited.

So where are 170s used where they could be replaced by 158s where they are not regional routes?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the relative age of these units come electrification of MML, I'd expect it could be worthwhile doing a full overhaul that removed the unused areas from the driving cars - I can't imagine there's much essential electronic/mechanical gear in there that couldn't be repositioned, or the accessible toilets could be installed in these areas - limit the units to a lower speed if necessary, rip out the luggage spaces, buffets, reconfigure the internals to maximise passengers without upsetting comfort, revise the units to be 5 & 6 cars and bingo, regional sprinter replacements.

The 22xs will always have lower capacity in the driving vehicles due to their big noses.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The 22x's are not suitable replacements for most Sprinters, for a multitude of reasons.

They are ideally suited to the work they currently have though - particularly on the MML where their performance is ideal for the stopping pattern they have.

The obvious place for displaced 22xs would be Scotrail - where they would be a *much* better solution than their recycling of ex FGW HSTs.

Agreed, 222's from EMT* would gave been a much better solution for Scotrail than refurbished HST's, assuming the Scottish electrification plan remains on course then the wires should reach Aberdeen by the end of CP8 in 2034 and Invernes probably by the end of CP9 in 2039. By then the the 222's would gave been life expired but could be replaced by new EMU's.

Instead we now have the problem of looking to deploy cascaded 222's on sprinter routes with all the problems of reduced capacity, short platform lengths and speed restrictions.

IMO the best option now for 222's once displaced from the MML would be XC's 170 operated routes on Cardiff to Nottingham, Birmingham to Stansted and perhaps Cardiff to Manchester if it is remapped away from Wales and Borders franchise. This would free up 170's and 175's for use on Sprinter routes to boost capacity.

*That was assuming MML electrification ran to its original scheduled and the 222 fleet was available by the end of 2021.

 

[Haydn1971]

The 22x's are not suitable replacements for most Sprinters, for a multitude of reasons.

Agreed, however, there are routes where sprinters are used where a reconfigured 22x would be more appropriate - a prime example being Nottingham-Liverpool, maybe also on some of the South West 159 routes...

They are ideally suited to the work they currently have though - particularly on the MML where their performance is ideal for the stopping pattern they have.

Ideally now, but once the MML is electrified and the XC franchise gets renewed - I'd expect some bi-modes - there's going to be an awful lot of 22x's looking for work with limited mainline employment opportunities.

The obvious place for displaced 22xs would be Scotrail - where they would be a *much* better solution than their recycling of ex FGW HSTs.

Definitely, but we are were we are and the HST's will fill a gap until electrification up there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 22xs will always have lower capacity in the driving vehicles due to their big noses.

Absolutely, even if parts could be reconfigured to accommodate accessible toilets etc, and part conversation into seated areas, the capacity would be less than a mid carriage, but I'm struggling to see why it wouldn't be possible to get the seating capacity up to sprinter levels - the accessible toilet issue is another problem that the sprinters have on longer routes

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Absolutely, even if parts could be reconfigured to accommodate accessible toilets etc, and part conversation into seated areas, the capacity would be less than a mid carriage, but I'm struggling to see why it wouldn't be possible to get the seating capacity up to sprinter levels - the accessible toilet issue is another problem that the sprinters have on longer routes

It's difficult to do a like for like comparison but 7 cars v 7 cars isn't a bad thing to look at.

The CrossCountry Turbostar units, if we assume 1 x 3 car and 2 x 2 car, give a seating capacity of 27 first, 257 standard seats, 6 wheelchairs and 6 bikes, whilst a 7 car Meridian at present has 106 first, 232 standard seats, 2 wheelchairs and 2 bikes. There is clearly going to be more capacity available with a Meridian than coupling up Turbostar units continually.

I reckon, for a small amount of changes, such as reconfiguring two of the first vehicles, removing the buffet and shrinking the galley to a trolley storage area (purely to match the Turbostar) you could get to easily match the 27 first class seats, add in another 4 wheelchair spaces and bike spaces, and convert the remaining space to standard seats, giving a unit that has 27 (or more) first class seats, 357 (or more) standard seats, 6 wheelchair spaces and 6 bike spaces.

I'd suggest a less radical approach, shrinking the galley but leaving the buffet/shop present (moving it to between first and standard if possible) and having maybe 2 standard and 2 first wheelchair spaces. That should give around 30 first seats, still 360 standard seats plus buffet/shop and trolley service.

The TM moves from his cubby hole next to the bikes into the space in first class previously occupied by the galley, making room for additional bikes and luggage also.

The fundamental problem with Sprinter type units is you waste space on too many cabs and too many accessible toilets, there's really no need for so many accessible toilets in a train, you just put more wheelchair spaces and priority seats around 1 toilet.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The future has got to be longer multiple units and this is more sensible given the growth that has been alluded to up thread. Indeed I wonder how much pent up demand is there and so longer trains might very quickly be filled. The new 2-car units for Northern flies against this though - but it depends where they really are to be used.

Spilt-milk alert :-
Regarding the 220-222s (Voyagers & Meridiens), when I read this thread, I keep wanting to re-visit the idea of adding an electric coach to them to make them Bi-Mode. Pity it has already been ruled out. They are therefore at risk of being used on routes more suited to 1/3+2/3 door layout coaches rather than carrying on in front line intercity service under more and more wires as bi-modes.

 

[The Ham]

There's a massive problem with most of the DMU figures I see discussed here, nobody really takes into account passenger growth on DMU operated routes, there's lots of 1 for 1 replacement talk on broadly comparable diagrams, and that's used to suggest because we'll be ordering a specific number of DMUs, it will make electrification unattractive.

The reality is as passenger growth continues and service frequencies increase, more DMUs will be needed, but they will operate fewer services or on fewer routes, as more units will be needed on specific lines, and more units will run coupled together. 25 x 2 car and 30 x 3 car units being ordered for Northern gives 55 units, but start running them in 6 car formations and you're down to 8 trains formed from 3 x 2 car units and 15 trains formed from 2 x 3 car units.

That's where electrification continues to be attractive, it allows DMU stock to be concentrated in isolated pockets, even though it's not entirely attractive to run 6, 8 and 9 car DMU formations of the sort South West Trains run, it makes sense to squeeze the last life out of units by running them in this way.

That's where the Class 230 falls down - the problem with the Class 230 is that it's a unit that's a quarter of the cost of a new unit, with a quarter of the life expectancy. It can't be cascaded onto a diesel depot serving one or two routes, when it's going to be life expired 10 or 15 years from now.

I am conscious of the fact that rail growth could be a problem when it comes to DMU replacement. Although at first glance my suggestion for 220's replacing 159's on the SWT routes would appear to contrast this.

However the static nature of the number of seats on the DMU's has to be viewed in the context of EMU's taking over the majority of services by then, (1.5tph prior to Crossrail 2 and 2.5tph after it) with DMU's (10 coach 220 sets) covering the remaining services (0.5tph).

It's also why easy wins (such as wires to Weston Super Mare and other lines around Bristol) to follow on from tge wSouthampton long distance services will probably be the focus of CP6 and beyond after the current schemes have been done.

By 2025, ICWC's 221's will likely have been released, MML will have probavly gone nearly totally to EMU's, XC will be able to run Manchester to the South coast by EMU's and possibly even Newcastle to Reading/Southampton. That's a fair few 22x's which will no longer be needed on their current routes. Yes they will be need for some to be retained to strengthen services.

Yes there's going to be a need for Scottrail's HST's to be released, but a number of those will be electrification projects (even if not directly).

 

[jimm]

The 22x's are not suitable replacements for most Sprinters, for a multitude of reasons.

They are ideally suited to the work they currently have though - particularly on the MML where their performance is ideal for the stopping pattern they have.

The obvious place for displaced 22xs would be Scotrail - where they would be a *much* better solution than their recycling of ex FGW HSTs.

And where did I or anyone else say that 22xs would be "suitable replacements for most Sprinters"? What they can do is help to replace Sprinters by allowing a cascade of 159/159s and Turbostars.

While sending 27 222s to Scotland instead of 24 HSTs would be a nice solution, the dates Scotrail wants HSTs and the dates the 222s will be available just don't align, never mind that once the HSTs are in place, the leasing company will want to recoup the money they are going to shell out to fit power doors and toilet tanks on the HSTs, which presumably requires them to stay in use with Scotrail right up to the end of the franchise in 2025. At that point, you might then be able to send 22xs north of the border.

XC won't be releasing anything any time soon, and would probably be the leading contender to acquire West Coast 221s if a post-2018 franchise there could get its hands on a tilting bi-mode to eliminate miles of diesel running under the wires - and the Hitachi A-train parts bin does include the necessary bits, though it remains to be seen if it would be feasible to combine AT300 bi-mode kit with the tilt system used on A-trains supplied to Taiwan.

 

[The Ham]

And where did I or anyone else say that 22xs would be "suitable replacements for most Sprinters"? What they can do is help to replace Sprinters by allowing a cascade of 159/159s and Turbostars.

While sending 27 222s to Scotland instead of 24 HSTs would be a nice solution, the dates Scotrail wants HSTs and the dates the 222s will be available just don't align, never mind that once the HSTs are in place, the leasing company will want to recoup the money they are going to shell out to fit power doors and toilet tanks on the HSTs, which presumably requires them to stay in use with Scotrail right up to the end of the franchise in 2025. At that point, you might then be able to send 22xs north of the border.

XC won't be releasing anything any time soon, and would probably be the leading contender to acquire West Coast 221s if a post-2018 franchise there could get its hands on a tilting bi-mode to eliminate miles of diesel running under the wires - and the Hitachi A-train parts bin does include the necessary bits, though it remains to be seen if it would be feasible to combine AT300 bi-mode kit with the tilt system used on A-trains supplied to Taiwan.

Assuming that Scotland keep the HST's until at least 2025, then there is a good chance that the 27 x 222's would be too many, even allowing for passenger growth, as some of the routes will have gained wires. Even if they haven't there will be some routes which will only be a few years away from getting them and so some HST's maybe kept until mid to late 2020's. Therefore some 222's could head north.

XC don't have trains which tilt at present as it has been semi-permanently disabled. As such they could just go fit a straight AT300 based train. It may even be able to have 26m long coaches, as quite a bit of the XC network will be cleared for them anyway (GW & EC). I would guess that they could opt for 7 coach sets and focus on running them on one or two key routes. My guess would be Manchester to the South Coast (freeing up about 10 22x's to strengthen other services).

 

[Greenback]

This thread is supposed to be about class 230 DEMU's. I know that threads about 'new' rolling stock inevitably drift into different classes of traction as a result of the knock on effect and the cascade of other stock that will result, but please try and keep on topic as much as possible.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My guess would be Manchester to the South Coast (freeing up about 10 22x's to strengthen other services).

Noting what our moderator has had to say in terms of this thread being about the Class 230 "Vivarail" project and what you say above, I have just had a mental image of close-coupled Class 230 units of similar train length running from Manchester to the South Coast and not exceeding 60mph at any time on that journey...

Can I ask for consideration of a Manchester to Bognor Regis direct service, please.

 

[Peter Sarf]

OK so the 230s provide a way of creating a cascade from the bottom. All this talk of 220-222s being available for cascade does not directly help the routes that Pacers and other older units run on (150s) - units with a 1/3 + 2/3 door spacing, higher acceleration and lower top speed. Granted the 220-222s could cause an indirect cascade via displaced 158/159s and 170s. But I do not think there is enough scope for these "intercity" units to really effect the other end of the market. I think it highly likely that the 220-222s will end up surplus while 150s are kept going well beyond their use by date. That is unless non-intercity (suburban) electrification really gets going.

Are the wrong trains being replaced with the current choices of electrification ?. For example would electrifying the Welsh valleys sooner obviate the need for more DMUs, including 230s ?. That is rather than electrifying the Midland mainline which is in danger of creating a surplus of the wrong kind of DMUs (222s) - thus meaning the 230s are still needed !. I know, I know, its a bit of a "making the solution fit the problem" .

 

[northwichcat]

Regarding the D78s and Vivarail. Is it actually a case of a good idea but wrong type of train to be going it with? If they had done it using existing heavy rail EMUs then some of the issues which have come up like 60mph top speed and non-standard length carriages wouldn't have occurred.

 

[Domh245]

Regarding the D78s and Vivarail. Is it actually a case of a good idea but wrong type of train to be going it with? If they had done it using existing heavy rail EMUs then some of the issues which have come up like 60mph top speed and non-standard length carriages wouldn't have occurred.

In some respects, yes. But the whole reason that they went for the D78s was that they were surplus to requirements (and facing a 1-way trip to Rotherham) whilst still perfectly serviceable and easily capable of at least 10 more years service. In comparison, the only EMU stock due to be replaced any time soon is rather knackered, and only fit for a 1-way trip to Rotherham. That said, the 317s seem to be facing a somewhat uncertain future after the introduction of the class 700s on Great Northern routes, so they might be a candidate, but I'm not sure how fit for conversion they might be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's an interesting point. A diesel 319 would basically be a 100mph 150.

Or...(waits with bated breath for someone to suggest a certain Mk3-based 23m third rail EMU...)

 

[47802]

In some respects, yes. But the whole reason that they went for the D78s was that they were surplus to requirements (and facing a 1-way trip to Rotherham) whilst still perfectly serviceable and easily capable of at least 10 more years service. In comparison, the only EMU stock due to be replaced any time soon is rather knackered, and only fit for a 1-way trip to Rotherham. That said, the 317s seem to be facing a somewhat uncertain future after the introduction of the class 700s on Great Northern routes, so they might be a candidate, but I'm not sure how fit for conversion they might be.

If your thinking of some kind of class 230 conversion for 317's I think that's unlikely, being somewhat heavier and only one car, one of the trailer cars has motors fitted.

 

[The Ham]

OK so the 230s provide a way of creating a cascade from the bottom. All this talk of 220-222s being available for cascade does not directly help the routes that Pacers and other older units run on (150s) - units with a 1/3 + 2/3 door spacing, higher acceleration and lower top speed. Granted the 220-222s could cause an indirect cascade via displaced 158/159s and 170s. But I do not think there is enough scope for these "intercity" units to really effect the other end of the market. I think it highly likely that the 220-222s will end up surplus while 150s are kept going well beyond their use by date. That is unless non-intercity (suburban) electrification really gets going.

Are the wrong trains being replaced with the current choices of electrification ?. For example would electrifying the Welsh valleys sooner obviate the need for more DMUs, including 230s ?. That is rather than electrifying the Midland mainline which is in danger of creating a surplus of the wrong kind of DMUs (222s) - thus meaning the 230s are still needed !. I know, I know, its a bit of a "making the solution fit the problem" .

Which is in part why Ihad suggested that more wires around Bristol would be useful as it would release a load of 16x's which would be useful as a replacement for other (mostly older) DMU's.

What's worth remembering is the number of units that we know about (Northern's DMU's, TPE's bi-modal units, Scotrail's HST's, GWR's new trains, etc.) which are, to all intense and purposes, being needed and keep up with passenger growth and replacing some 280 pacer coaches.

As such I wouldn't be suprised if we saw a similar pattern going forward for the replacement of the 590 coaches of the sprinters turning 40 around 2025 and the 700 sprinters and turbos coaches which turn 40 around 2030

 

[Peter Sarf]

Regarding the D78s and Vivarail. Is it actually a case of a good idea but wrong type of train to be going it with? If they had done it using existing heavy rail EMUs then some of the issues which have come up like 60mph top speed and non-standard length carriages wouldn't have occurred.

Makes sense to consider the PEP style EMUs (classes 313, 314, 315, 507 & 508). These have an aluminium body iirc so corrosion would be less likely - same as the D78s/230s. As you say coach length is standard, the running gear is suitable for speeds above 60mph and the door spacing is still ideal for the "suburban" type workings that the Pacers find themselves on.

Actually I think this came up earlier in the thread.

Some of the 313s and 508s are available for experimenting with now I should imagine. Only problem I can think of is if the running gear is too worn out. Remember that the D78s are not life expired. Also do the PEP style units have enough space/strength for an engine to go underneath ?. I would have thought it possible that even if these disadvantages over the D78s/230s do exist that the operational advantages may well be worth the extra cost.

 

[northwichcat]

Makes sense to consider the PEP style EMUs (classes 313, 314, 315, 507 & 508). These have an aluminium body iirc so corrosion would be less likely - same as the D78s/230s. As you say coach length is standard, the running gear is suitable for speeds above 60mph and the door spacing is still ideal for the "suburban" type workings that the Pacers find themselves on.

Actually I think this came up earlier in the thread.

Some of the 313s and 508s are available for experimenting with now I should imagine. Only problem I can think of is if the running gear is too worn out. Remember that the D78s are not life expired. Also do the PEP style units have enough space/strength for an engine to go underneath ?. I would have thought it possible that even if these disadvantages over the D78s/230s do exist that the operational advantages may well be worth the extra cost.

Would it be worth considering younger units that are due a mid-life refurbishment, especially if the routes those EMUs are currently used on are due to be replaced by 110mph capable EMUs.

 

[Domh245]

Would it be worth considering younger units that are due a mid-life refurbishment, especially if the routes those EMUs are currently used on are due to be replaced by 110mph capable EMUs.

Which EMUs are you thinking of? 37xs? I can't think of any in such a position.

 

[northwichcat]

Which EMUs are you thinking of? 37xs? I can't think of any in such a position.

Well we don't know where the mystery 20 x 387s are going yet.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well we don't know where the mystery 20 x 387s are going yet.

Oh well, in that case, I suppose any of the Electrostars 375 or 377 (even 376 and 378 !) are in the same family as Turbostars (170, & 171s). So perhaps an Electrostar coach has all the right construction to suit a diesel engine bolted underneath. In which case all proven technology. Although is the engine used under a Turbostar no longer allowed under Emissions rules ?.

I love this. The redundant electrical equipment could then be used to modernise the 442s .

Or is the 230 a simpler idea. But converted mid-life BR EMUs would provide for more than just branches.

 

[keith1879]

OK so the 230s provide a way of creating a cascade from the bottom. All this talk of 220-222s being available for cascade does not directly help the routes that Pacers and other older units run on (150s) - units with a 1/3 + 2/3 door spacing, higher acceleration and lower top speed. Granted the 220-222s could cause an indirect cascade via displaced 158/159s and 170s. But I do not think there is enough scope for these "intercity" units to really effect the other end of the market. I think it highly likely that the 220-222s will end up surplus while 150s are kept going well beyond their use by date. That is unless non-intercity (suburban) electrification really gets going.

Are the wrong trains being replaced with the current choices of electrification ?. For example would electrifying the Welsh valleys sooner obviate the need for more DMUs, including 230s ?. That is rather than electrifying the Midland mainline which is in danger of creating a surplus of the wrong kind of DMUs (222s) - thus meaning the 230s are still needed !. I know, I know, its a bit of a "making the solution fit the problem" .

Making the solution fit the problem is exactly what we should be doing!! It's doing the opposite that causes the trouble!!!!!