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

[MidlandMainlie]

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.

Would it be possible to split the 222 stuff off into another thread?

 

[Mikey C]

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.

The D78s are hardly any younger than many of the PEPs, maybe Tube stock operates in easier conditions?

 

[Townsend Hook]

The D78s are hardly any younger than many of the PEPs, maybe Tube stock operates in easier conditions?

The D78s benefit from having received new bogies ten or so years ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair D-stock has a much better view out so would probably provide a nicer passenger environment than a PEP EMU.

OTOH, as noted above, a diesel-converted 319 or similar (or even a bi-mode one) would be quite useful in Northern-land and the likes.

 

[Haydn1971]

OTOH, as noted above, a diesel-converted 319 or similar (or even a bi-mode one) would be quite useful in Northern-land and the likes.

I'd prefer a full conversation - into a completely new train

 

[yorkie]

Would it be possible to split the 222 stuff off into another thread?

If you want to make this request, please click the report button (

) on the first posting to be moved, and provide a list of posts (ie, by post number in the top-right; this post is #2856) proposed to be split, along with a suggestion for an appropriate title, and I'll consider it, if I have the time (Bear in mind many forum staff may not have the time to do this as it is very complicated!)

A better solution, when people want to go off on a tangent to discuss different types of stock (which we are not trying to discourage in itself) is to click the "New Topic" button, and paste a quote of whatever they want to reply to, and post their message on a tangent on a new thread, with appropriate thread.

Splitting threads after people have gone off-topic is very time consuming, unless it's reported to us (using the report button) very early.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Its going to be a bit inextricable if posts refer to both ?. Or the 222s are talked about in the context of 230s or vice versa.

I have a feeling there is already a thread covering the general stuff about train cascades ?.

 

[northwichcat]

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 was thinking maybe it would be more cost-effective in the long run to adapt a middle aged train over an old train.

The 507s and 508s are apparently suffering from corrosion issues, so I imagine that could be a concern with fitting new costly equipment to the 313s or 315s, even if they aren't suffering now they might be in a few years time. However, a train expected to last another 15-20 years is less likely to encounter problems like that.

 

[tbtc]

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 see that as a strength (in terms of the 230s) - we only need extra DMU capacity for another decade - assuming that your colleagues continue to electrify at a reasonable rate - since the "main line" electrification of CP5 allows some good pockets of DMUs to be replaced by "secondary line" electrification in CP6/ CP7 (albeit I appreciate that a lot of the CP6 announcement will be "to do the bits of GWML/ MML/ TPML that we didn't have time to do in CP5").

We need a short term fix to get through the DMU shortages of the next five/ ten years (after which we should see wires at places like Salisbury/ Bradford Interchange/ Warrington Central/ Swinton South Yorkshire, and the bi-mode production line may have expanded into producing something less "high speed").

Since the PVR of "unelectrifiable" routes (like the Heart of Wales/ Kyle of Lochalsh) is pretty tiny, we've got thirty years before we need to worry about replacing DMUs on them (given the number of current DMUs capable of lasting until the 2040s - e.g. the 172s), so I don't think that we need to lumber ourselves with hundreds of new DMUs. We just need something to get through another decade - and if the 230s come at 25% of the cost and only last 25% as long then that's a fair trade off.

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" .

In terms of "replacing 1980s DMUs", we are doing electrification the wrong way round. We'll free up modern stock like 185s and 222s without directly replacing many Pacers/ Sprinters (other than the Valley Lines).

I get why we need to focus on the "spine" (GWML/ MML etc) before we target the branches that Pacers/ Sprinters tend to be found on, but there's a limit to how we can cascade the 185s/ 222s down to "local" routes - which is why I think we need some "basic, bottom of the market" DMUs like 230s in the shortish term.

We've built lots of 100mph/ 125mph DMUs since privatisation that aren't suitable to replace 142s or 150s - cascades can only go so far - we need something to directly replace the Sprinters/ Pacers in the short term (but probably don't need that diesel capacity to be around by 2030).

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

If there were such redundant stock kicking around then I'd agree, but what have we withdrawn? Half a dozen 508s and a handful of front coaches from 460s (that are heavily cannabalised at Doncaster)?

I don't think that being limited to 60mph is as big an issue as some do - given how slow some services are - as long as the acceleration is decent.

I do think that, if the DfT had come up with this idea themselves, there'd have been a much better chance of 230s happening though.

 

[The Ham]

I see that as a strength (in terms of the 230s) - we only need extra DMU capacity for another decade - assuming that your colleagues continue to electrify at a reasonable rate - since the "main line" electrification of CP5 allows some good pockets of DMUs to be replaced by "secondary line" electrification in CP6/ CP7 (albeit I appreciate that a lot of the CP6 announcement will be "to do the bits of GWML/ MML/ TPML that we didn't have time to do in CP5").

We need a short term fix to get through the DMU shortages of the next five/ ten years (after which we should see wires at places like Salisbury/ Bradford Interchange/ Warrington Central/ Swinton South Yorkshire, and the bi-mode production line may have expanded into producing something less "high speed").

Since the PVR of "unelectrifiable" routes (like the Heart of Wales/ Kyle of Lochalsh) is pretty tiny, we've got thirty years before we need to worry about replacing DMUs on them (given the number of current DMUs capable of lasting until the 2040s - e.g. the 172s), so I don't think that we need to lumber ourselves with hundreds of new DMUs. We just need something to get through another decade - and if the 230s come at 25% of the cost and only last 25% as long then that's a fair trade off.

I think that there is a need for both 230's and new DMU's. This is because there will be a number of routes which will still require DMU's circa 2025 (by which point about 590 sprinter coaches which will need replacing compared with the number of pacer coaches which "need" replacing by 2020 - 280).

Even if we can use the 230's until 2030 all that's going to mean is that there will be a whole load (circa 700 DMU coaches plus the 230's) which need replacing (all assuming a 40 year lifespan). Although if that allows us to only have a small order (similar to Northern's) at about 2025 which would then be used up until 2065.

That's quite a big ask to be able to replace all of those by electrification, especially given the delays we have seen to date. However, there is also bi-modal and battery trains which would help reduce the need for quite so many pure DMU's. Also, if CP6 and CP7 focus on infill schemes rather than long distance routes then it is likely that we could see more bang for our buck.

In terms of "replacing 1980s DMUs", we are doing electrification the wrong way round. We'll free up modern stock like 185s and 222s without directly replacing many Pacers/ Sprinters (other than the Valley Lines).

I get why we need to focus on the "spine" (GWML/ MML etc) before we target the branches that Pacers/ Sprinters tend to be found on, but there's a limit to how we can cascade the 185s/ 222s down to "local" routes - which is why I think we need some "basic, bottom of the market" DMUs like 230s in the shortish term.

We've built lots of 100mph/ 125mph DMUs since privatisation that aren't suitable to replace 142s or 150s - cascades can only go so far - we need something to directly replace the Sprinters/ Pacers in the short term (but probably don't need that diesel capacity to be around by 2030).

I agree, it is why (as well as using 230's) we need to look at where we can best use the 180's, 185's and 22x's when they are replaced by EMU's or bi-modal stock.

The more I think about it the more I think that we're going to see end coaches of 22x's being scrapped to enable the running of longer sets so as to be a more sensible replacements for some of the longer distance sprinters (i.e. 158's), as although a 4 coach (22x) train will not provide extra capacity over a 3 coach (15x) train, a 6 coach (22x) train will also not provide more capacity than a 5 coach (15x) train but the increase in train length is less (20% vs 33%).

Although on a like for like lease basis (i.e. each coach costs £110,000) it would never work, if the 22x's are very short of work their owners may be willing to reduce their lease costs to a point where they work out comparable on a per seat basis (even allowing for the track access charges and fuel costs). At which point they could start being more useful.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The more I think about it the more I think that we're going to see end coaches of 22x's being scrapped to enable the running of longer sets

Would it be feasible, or economical, to (somewhere) fit air brake compressors to two-coach 22xs, so that they could replace 15xs on the more little-used regional services?

 

[The Ham]

Would it be feasible, or economical, to (somewhere) fit air brake compressors to two-coach 22xs, so that they could replace 15xs on the more little-used regional services?

Unless they are little used units which weave between 125mph trains it probably wouldn't be worth doing. Although a 2 coach unit with only standard class seating could be useful to increase capacity over the XC core.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think that being limited to 60mph is as big an issue as some do - given how slow some services are - as long as the acceleration is decent.

The 60mph top speed is only one of the potential issues. As well as that and the non-standard carriage lengths which I mentioned, another is the width of the carriages at 285cm they are 5cm wider than Pacers and don't have shorter carriages, which sometimes helps. A further one is Vivarail have to prove they are suitable to operate on the same routes as heavy freight and potentially Intercity services, even if it's just for ECS movements.

So it might be the 60mph top speed isn't an issue for line x but the D-Train would be too wide for a tunnel on that line. On the other hand line y may have no clearance issues but requires something faster due to the paths available. While line z may currently see full 4 car 150s on Summer Saturdays and the platforms wouldn't be long enough to take 5 car D-Trains.

 

[asylumxl]

The 60mph top speed is only one of the potential issues. As well as that and the non-standard carriage lengths which I mentioned, another is the width of the carriages at 285cm they are 5cm wider than Pacers and don't have shorter carriages, which sometimes helps. A further one is Vivarail have to prove they are suitable to operate on the same routes as heavy freight and potentially Intercity services, even if it's just for ECS movements.

So it might be the 60mph top speed isn't an issue for line x but the D-Train would be too wide for a tunnel on that line. On the other hand line y may have no clearance issues but requires something faster due to the paths available. While line z may currently see full 4 car 150s on Summer Saturdays and the platforms wouldn't be long enough to take 5 car D-Trains.

I don't think the width will be an issue for gauging, considering most 20m stock is 2.8m. If anything the overhang on curves will be less than anything except a Pacer. Is there anywhere only Pacers are cleared for?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't think the width will be an issue for gauging, considering most 20m stock is 2.8m. If anything the overhang on curves will be less than anything except a Pacer. Is there anywhere only Pacers are cleared for?

Should be to Booths .

But yes I expect that a 230/D78 will be fine on any route guage cleared for normal(proper) DMUs. I doubt there are any routes that only Pacers can travel - apart from a few weight restricted routes perhaps ?.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think the width will be an issue for gauging, considering most 20m stock is 2.8m. If anything the overhang on curves will be less than anything except a Pacer. Is there anywhere only Pacers are cleared for?

There are routes where pacers are out of gauge (Buxton) but no routes where ONLY pacers are permitted.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think the width will be an issue for gauging, considering most 20m stock is 2.8m. If anything the overhang on curves will be less than anything except a Pacer. Is there anywhere only Pacers are cleared for?

Is that the question you meant to ask?

Both Pacers and 153s are banned from some routes due to their width, so presumably the list of banned routes would be longer for D-Trains due to being even wider and longer than Pacers.

AFAIK there's no lines where Pacers are used where 150s can't be. I'm not even sure there's any route which gets only Pacers, most (if not all) get Pacers alongside Sprinters.

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

I doubt there are any routes that only Pacers can travel - apart from a few weight restricted routes perhaps ?.

Actually it's more of the opposite. The Pacer weight per axle is higher than on Sprinters and Turbostars, due to less axles so a Pacer can face speed restriction or a ban on some routes which doesn't need to be imposed for other stock.

On the Leftwich viaduct not only has it been found Sprinters can safely travel at 50mph, while Pacers need to be restricted to 20mph (without some work being done to the viaduct) but heavy 175s could also travel at 50mph. The Leftwich viaduct goes through an area which has suffered subsidence issues due to excessive salt mining.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Which routes are 153s barred from?

 

[northwichcat]

Which routes are 153s barred from?

Banned from passing through Wigan Wallgate and the tunnel on the Buxton line (I forget the name), I think one of the routes out of Birmingham Snow Hill (I forget which) and I think there's some in GWR land.

 

[AndyW33]

I think one of the routes out of Birmingham Snow Hill (I forget which)

I'm not sure which that would be. It's not as if there are a vast number!.
Northwards towards Stourbridge Junction and Kidderminster? Certainly allowed there and I've travelled on them.
Southwards through the tunnel - well that's the route to Tyseley where all London Midland's 153s are maintained.
Maybe you're thinking of extensions beyond Kidderminster or Tyseley - towards Worcester and Hereford; or via the North Warwickshire line to Stratford on Avon, or the GW main line to Leamington, or the connection between these two lines via Bearley? There really isn't anything else.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure which that would be. It's not as if there are a vast number!.
Northwards towards Stourbridge Junction and Kidderminster? Certainly allowed there and I've travelled on them.
Southwards through the tunnel - well that's the route to Tyseley where all London Midland's 153s are maintained.
Maybe you're thinking of extensions beyond Kidderminster or Tyseley - towards Worcester and Hereford; or via the North Warwickshire line to Stratford on Avon, or the GW main line to Leamington, or the connection between these two lines via Bearley? There really isn't anything else.

I don't know which route it is but I recall someone posting something about a 15x clearance issue on one route out of Birmingham.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

If there is a restriction for 153s, would it apply to 155s as they are just two 153s put together

 

[swt_passenger]

If there is a restriction for 153s, would it apply to 155s as they are just two 153s put together

Other way round really, a 153 is half of a 155. The thing is each half had to have a cab added where there originally wasn't one, and the addition of various stuff altered the physical details of the equipment under sole bar level.

People have previously suggested that the driver's steps at that end are the simple reason 153s are more route restricted than their 'donor' 155s, but I've no evidence to confirm that.

 

[Class172]

I don't know which route it is but I recall someone posting something about a 15x clearance issue on one route out of Birmingham.

I just had a quick look in the sectional appendix but couldn't see any lines in the Birmingham area that 153s aren't allowed on (other than routes that ban other DMUs).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Other way round really, a 153 is half of a 155. The thing is each half had to have a cab added where there originally wasn't one, and the addition of various stuff altered the physical details of the equipment under sole bar level.

People have previously suggested that the driver's steps at that end are the simple reason 153s are more route restricted than their 'donor' 155s, but I've no evidence to confirm that.

Portsmouth is barred to 153s, due to the steps at the "small" end, but prior to conversion 155s were regularly used on Cardiff to Portsmouth.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Back to the subject of the thread, it now being the middle of February 2016, has there been any recent statements from Vivarail with regards to any new interest from other sources being shown in their Class 230 product?

 

[northwichcat]

Back to the subject of the thread, it now being the middle of February 2016, has there been any recent statements from Vivarail with regards to any new interest from other sources being shown in their Class 230 product?

Some Anglia bidders have reportedly looked at the D-Train. I doubt SWT bidders will even consider it. Other franchises which could use them like EMT, LM and 'Wales' haven't reached the renewal stage yet.

 

[A0]

Some Anglia bidders have reportedly looked at the D-Train. I doubt SWT bidders will even consider it. Other franchises which could use them like EMT, LM and 'Wales' haven't reached the renewal stage yet.

I get why GA would look at them - Sudbury and Felixstowe branches and potentially the Ipswich - Lowestoft line.

The only possible route SWT would consider them for would be Lymington - which would beg the obvious question of 'why bother'?

EMT - OK there are some branches there.

LM - Apart from Bedford - Bletchley I'm struggling to think where they'd use them?

Wales - OK - there are a number of branches they could be looked at.

 

[jcc]

Back to the subject of the thread, it now being the middle of February 2016, has there been any recent statements from Vivarail with regards to any new interest from other sources being shown in their Class 230 product?

According to their Twitter, they've managed to string a unit together, and are halfway through testing.

 

[ac6000cw]

I get why GA would look at them - Sudbury and Felixstowe branches and potentially the Ipswich - Lowestoft line.

...and the branches from Norwich (Gt. Yarmouth and Lowestoft in particular).

The Felixstowe branch might be too 'fast' for them (the 153's run hard-and-fast between Derby Road and Trimley to keep out of the way of the freights).