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

[Techniquest]

It looks interesting, however until some real life images of what they'll actually look like I'll reserve judgement. However it looks promising so far!

 

[samuelmorris]

Surely the toilet encroaching on the doorway space isn't going to be acceptable? The single-leaf D-stock doors, which seem to be being kept, are scarcely wide enough as it is... Other than that it looks nice, but I do wonder how many TOCs are really going to spec tables for the short-distance 60mph stopping services these will be running.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surely the toilet encroaching on the doorway space isn't going to be acceptable? The single-leaf D-stock doors, which seem to be being kept, are scarcely wide enough as it is... Other than that it looks nice, but I do wonder how many TOCs are really going to spec tables for the short-distance 60mph stopping services these will be running.

Those units with toilets (if any are ordered) I could see being used on HOWL services, I'd expect tables on journeys of that length!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am beginning to see a comparison of sorts with the Ryanair "basic plus extra costs" in the Vivarail methodology here. I wonder when they made their comment about the D78 unit conversions being a great deal cheaper than new-build, that they were only referring to the most basic of package upgrading in those costings.

I suppose there will be those on the thread will castigate me for my cynical views on this project, but it is only by a careful reading of ALL their published information when the hard cost-related facts emerge from text matter that is masked by the "pretty marketing pictures" that would have you then ignoring "the small print".

 

[Bantamzen]

I am beginning to see a comparison of sorts with the Ryanair "basic plus extra costs" in the Vivarail methodology here. I wonder when they made their comment about the D78 unit conversions being a great deal cheaper than new-build, that they were only referring to the most basic of package upgrading in those costings.

I suppose there will be those on the thread will castigate me for my cynical views on this project, but it is only by a careful reading of ALL their published information when the hard cost-related facts emerge from text matter that is masked by the "pretty marketing pictures" that would have you then ignoring "the small print".

Some of those people would ask why some are so cynical about them, I personally would ask why they are so excited about the D-trains. Nothing I've seen, including the 360 rendering of the "top of the range" model, seems anything to be excited about. It looks like an old tube train with new seats bolted in. Whoopie do. And then there's the claims that they are cheaper than new units, but that seems to be slowly creeping upwards. But the real excitement killer is the overplay in the marketing, things such as "Speedy train" and "The design specification is incredibly high" leave me cold, very cold. And they could have at least put a bit more colour into the interior design, all that grey just makes the whole appearance just that bit less appealing (and it wasn't very appealing from the outset).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Some of those people would ask why some are so cynical about them, I personally would ask why they are so excited about the D-trains. Nothing I've seen, including the 360 rendering of the "top of the range" model, seems anything to be excited about. It looks like an old tube train with new seats bolted in. Whoopie do. And then there's the claims that they are cheaper than new units, but that seems to be slowly creeping upwards. But the real excitement killer is the overplay in the marketing, things such as "Speedy train" and "The design specification is incredibly high" leave me cold, very cold. And they could have at least put a bit more colour into the interior design, all that grey just makes the whole appearance just that bit less appealing (and it wasn't very appealing from the outset).

I too thought that the interior in the 3D rendering looked peculiarly stark, but if they restore the interiors to the as-built standards (wooden flooring, Leyland atlantean seat covers!) I'd be happy to trundle up the Penistone line on them all day...

 

[chorleyjeff]

I am beginning to see a comparison of sorts with the Ryanair "basic plus extra costs" in the Vivarail methodology here. I wonder when they made their comment about the D78 unit conversions being a great deal cheaper than new-build, that they were only referring to the most basic of package upgrading in those costings.

I suppose there will be those on the thread will castigate me for my cynical views on this project, but it is only by a careful reading of ALL their published information when the hard cost-related facts emerge from text matter that is masked by the "pretty marketing pictures" that would have you then ignoring "the small print".

Seems rather like most automobile manufacturers who advertise their products with the most basic model price and images of a top of the range model. I guess most people are aware of that and that all people concerned professionally with the procurement of rail vehicles understand the nature of such publicity.
Jeff

 

[Bletchleyite]

I too thought that the interior in the 3D rendering looked peculiarly stark, but if they restore the interiors to the as-built standards (wooden flooring, Leyland atlantean seat covers!) I'd be happy to trundle up the Penistone line on them all day...

It's probably the same as the reason why everyone paints houses white or magnolia inside to sell them despite white being boring and magnolia being a horrible colour (there are far nicer cream colours if you want that sort of thing) - the greys are a blank canvas, whereas a green interior would look too LM, a purple one too Northern a red one too Stagecoach, a blue one too First etc. It makes it easier for a buyer to visualise what they would do with it.

It would be nice to have a "classy" interior, but that's easy to deliver and every buyer will know that. It just requires different coloured lino/carpet/moquette and won't add anything to the cost.

 

[samuelmorris]

The interior looks fine to me given what it is. It's not exactly a Desiro, but calling it 'too grey' is nuts - as said, the colour will be down to the operator, surely!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I guess most people are aware of that and that all people concerned professionally with the procurement of rail vehicles understand the nature of such publicity.
Jeff

Accepting the premise of what you say above to be true, why then bother to show any non-standard items such as tables in their visual publicity, in the knowledge that those charged with the procurement process of these refurbished vehicles will not be swayed by the addition of such non-standard items in such visual imagery?

I still maintain that the reason why Vivarail chose to follow that particular pathway of marketing was solely for the consumption of the general public at large.

 

[anme]

Accepting the premise of what you say above to be true, why then bother to show any non-standard items such as tables in their visual publicity, in the knowledge that those charged with the procurement process of these refurbished vehicles will not be swayed by the addition of such non-standard items in such visual imagery?

I still maintain that the reason why Vivarail chose to follow that particular pathway of marketing was solely for the consumption of the general public at large.

Quite possibly - and probably a very logical thing for them to do.
Based on my experience of working with marketing departments, I wouldn't read too much into material like this. The most concerning thing for me was the possible lack of a corridor to other coachs, however these illustrations should not be seen as definitive and there may in fact be such a corridor.

 

[D365]

Quite possibly - and probably a very logical thing for them to do.
Based on my experience of working with marketing departments, I wouldn't read too much into material like this. The most concerning thing for me was the possible lack of a corridor to other coachs, however these illustrations should not be seen as definitive and there may in fact be such a corridor.

Was it not well-advertised that a corridor connection between coaches is to be fitted? Perhaps, might they have run into a little difficulty in the design/demonstration process?

 

[anme]

Was it not well-advertised that a corridor connection between coaches is to be fitted? Perhaps, might they have run into a little difficulty in the design/demonstration process?

As I said, I wouldn't read too much into this publicity material. I'd be happier of a corridor connection was clearly shown (the model is a bit open to interpretation at the moment), but this stuff is illustrative. It's not a definitive technical specification.

 

[eps200]

These are DC as of now right?

How viable would it be to make some bimodals 3rd rail/ diesel. If this was possible what about the boarderlands line. It would be cheaper than electrification and allow through running to Liverpool while freeing up two DMUs for the assembly's plans to add more services to mid wales.

possibly preson-ormskirk-central as well though that seems a bit more dubious.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

These are DC as of now, right? How viable would it be to make some bimodals 3rd rail/ diesel. If this was possible what about the Borderlands line. It would be cheaper than electrification and allow through running to Liverpool while freeing up two DMUs for the assembly's plans to add more services to mid wales.

Possibly Preston-Ormskirk-Central as well, though that seems a bit more dubious.

How many of the D78 units, this being the thread for these units, do you envisage will be required for your plans above and what do budget as the extra cost that will be incurred for those with 3rd rail requirements.?

 

[chorleyjeff]

Accepting the premise of what you say above to be true, why then bother to show any non-standard items such as tables in their visual publicity, in the knowledge that those charged with the procurement process of these refurbished vehicles will not be swayed by the addition of such non-standard items in such visual imagery?

I still maintain that the reason why Vivarail chose to follow that particular pathway of marketing was solely for the consumption of the general public at large.

I don't think the general public at large could care less. Most of the general public do not travel by train and their only interest is in the tax they pay to run trains for a minority of the public.
Jeff

 

[eps200]

How many of the D78 units, this being the thread for these units, do you envisage will be required for your plans above and what do budget as the extra cost that will be incurred for those with 3rd rail requirements.?

ideally three units, two units currently run an hourly service bidston Wrexham but in reality this isn't adequate as the run officially takes 62 min so hawden bridge is skipped by most trains and delays are constant.
It takes 34 min to run bidston to Liverpool and back. So it seems we're looking at 158 wrexham to wrexham which is a little awkward in that three units means a 20 min wait at each end. Though having non zero recovery time and the possibility to better align to interchanges at wrexham general and shotton is a plus and would certainly allow the addition of the long planned beechwood & nocturm, woodchurch and deeside industrial stations at some future date. Mersey rail services at chester wait for 15 minuets quite frequently.

Converting them shouldn't be too difficult bond the fourth rail pickup to the running rails this has been done on southern to for a 3rd rail EMU then instal the diesel engines already planned.

This does free a pair of units so the cost of acquiring those would have to be offset against this. Ideally having this self contained line folded into mersey rail. Viva rail say their trains are a third cheaper than DMUs so the cambrian and or valleys get their extra units for the same price in a round about way if we are forced to the three unit option.

Though to get more accurate than this we would need to see the D-train in action. It does have a lower top speed than the 75mph trains there now but the line speed and proximity of stops is in the D-trains favor as there is only a single section on the down line that actually allows 70mph running so 60mph with superior acceleration is preferable.

Heavily edited because i screwed up my calculations.

 

[D60]

And the same principle could surely be applied to Liverpool to Preston via Ormskirk..

Could the D-train principle be applied to 313s, as a further possibility to consider?

 

[eps200]

Ellesmere port-Helsby and Kirkby-Wigan also, but when i tried running numbers i could get it to work nicely you end up displacing more EMUs than DMUs or useing way too many extra units.

Unless you ran fast ormskirk, sandhils that might work, I've no way of working that out though.
Imo extending into burscough and opening the north and south curves creating a good interchange is a better option there and Ellesmere port is a relatively tiny amount of extra third rail. Cant make heads or tails of what would be best for kirkdale.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regard to bi-mode units of any origins running extensions of Merseyrail services, one thing to consider is that in the case of a Wrexham to Liverpool via Borderlands is the fact that waiting in the loop is not an option. As a result any extended dwell times would need to take place elsewhere. Anywhere on the DC section is unlikely due to the existing level of service by the Merseyrail services. Piling all the dwell time at Wrexham Central would be the easy option but would be wasteful in crewing terms, so perhaps time could be added by waiting for connections at General or at Shotton. Failing that, some extra short trips between Central and General could be added.
The advantage of the Borderlands line is that no extra infrastructure is required, I assume that the signalling hasn't been altered significantly since services were curtailed at Bidston rather than (IIRC) Birkenhead.
Ormskirk would require at the very least the reconnection, removal of buffer stops, and presumably some quite significant signalling alterations. Kirkby IIRC is similar but with a greater gap between the stubs. I'd guess it's the least beneficial one too, as Liverpool to Wigan is already getting a capacity boost with the 319s replacing 142s and 156s.

In the case of D-trains, they would need clearing on the Liverpool loop as they are a bit wider than the PEPs. They'd probably fit, but it might require a bit of work. 313s would be a better option, though if they can be fitted with the engine rafts then so could some of the 507/508s. If only MTL hadn't discarded those spares shortly after taking over from BR!

 

[edwin_m]

From the above two posts it sounds as if there would have to be about 40min layover at Wrexham Central because none is possible on the Loop and having a train stand for a long period part way through a journey isn't really an option. Building a messroom at Wrexham Central might allow crews to take a diagrammed break here and therefore make the operation more efficient.

However if there is a half-hourly service then a 40min layover would need two platforms at Wrexham Central. So it might be better to go back to a 10min layover and save a unit and crew while accepting some performance risk.

 

[eps200]

It would be a 20 min layover at wrexham, making an hourly service, to Liverpool around the loop and back stopping at every station would take 158min. Wrexham> bidston 62 min, bidston> lime street 17min, line street > bidston > 17min Bidston> Wrexham 62 min. 62+17+17+62=158

Hourly needs a unit to set off from wrexham every hour assume we start at six am. Units depart at 06:00, 07:00, 08:00 then the 06: arrives back at 08:38 in time to form the 09:00 service with 22 min dwell time. Thus requiring three units.

half hourly needs to set a unit off every 30 min so how that works out i cant figure. If you start at six am your seting off trains at 06:00, 06:30, 07:00, 07:30, 08:00, 08:30 then the 06:00 train arives back at 08:38 in time to form the 09:00 with 22 min dwell time. Thus requiring 6 units while releasing two i can't see the line justifying that kind of spend.

Some of the 22min can be spent at shotton and wrexham general to aid interchange or possibly upton on the up line to prevent a late running borderlands messing up the west kirby timings.

 

[kieron]

Some of the 22min can be spent at shotton and wrexham general to aid interchange or possibly upton on the up line to prevent a late running borderlands messing up the west kirby timings.

I take it you meant "Upton on the down line"? Up's away from Liverpool there.

Wrexham-Bidston doesn't have the passengers or the interaction with other services needed to cause delays en route. I have known it to be affected by bad weather, but the whole timetable went by the board then anyway, and I don't think a couple of minutes extra at Upton would have made any difference.

I don't really understand where the desire to create bi-modes based on D78 carriages comes from, though. If you wanted to introduce some bi-modes with DC and diesel, wouldn't it be better to get something with a better top speed?

Based on the SA, trains which have a 50mph top speed, but can accelerate and brake as well as 507s and 150s on electric and diesel respectively, would only take a few seconds longer than current trains on the route between Wrexham and Liverpool via Shotton, if that.

That's only a handful of trains, though. Liverpool-Ormskirk-Preston is also pretty slow (losing a few seconds between Maghull and Ormskirk, if that). If you want trains which could go from Kirkby to Wigan, or (say) Hunts Cross to Warrington, a 50mph top speed becomes a problem as you're running on fast lines which don't have a station every mile or two.

 

[edwin_m]

I take it you meant "Upton on the down line"? Up's away from Liverpool there.

Wrexham-Bidston doesn't have the passengers or the interaction with other services needed to cause delays en route. I have known it to be affected by bad weather, but the whole timetable went by the board then anyway, and I don't think a couple of minutes extra at Upton would have made any difference.

I don't really understand where the desire to create bi-modes based on D78 carriages comes from, though. If you wanted to introduce some bi-modes with DC and diesel, wouldn't it be better to get something with a better top speed?

Based on the SA, trains which have a 50mph top speed, but can accelerate and brake as well as 507s and 150s on electric and diesel respectively, would only take a few seconds longer than current trains on the route between Wrexham and Liverpool via Shotton, if that.

That's only a handful of trains, though. Liverpool-Ormskirk-Preston is also pretty slow (losing a few seconds between Maghull and Ormskirk, if that). If you want trains which could go from Kirkby to Wigan, or (say) Hunts Cross to Warrington, a 50mph top speed becomes a problem as you're running on fast lines which don't have a station every mile or two.

Yes your're right the top speed of the D78 is a major limitation that has been discussed in some detail in the D78 topic. Incidentally it's stated to be 60mph not 50mph. Putting diesel engines under something like a 313 would be an interesting possibility, giving the possibility of operation from one or both DC voltages. Again this has been discussed, with the main problem probably being that none of these fleets is available for at least a couple of years.

Correction: Just realised this is the D78 topic! So the answers should be found further back.

 

[kieron]

Yes your're right the top speed of the D78 is a major limitation that has been discussed in some detail in the D78 topic. Incidentally it's stated to be 60mph not 50mph.

Sorry, my mistake. 60mph is a lot better, as Merseyrail doesn't go above that anyway at present, although trains from Kirkby to Wigan and beyond do.

Putting diesel engines under something like a 313 would be an interesting possibility, giving the possibility of operation from one or both DC voltages. Again this has been discussed, with the main problem probably being that none of these fleets is available for at least a couple of years.

I have no opinion either way regarding 313s. My understanding of the D78 conversion is that it's supposed to be cheap as it's using part of an existing train. Creating a small additional fleet of D78-derived bi-modes will increase the development cost (as there's a lot of extra equipment to put in, and the performance requirements are a lot more exacting when the trains are mixing with up to 16tph on a 1:27 gradient) without attracting too many customers.

I haven't heard anything to suggest anyone in UK government or industry is looking into DC/diesel bi-modes, anyway.

 

[eps200]

It's not been raised but it is a substantially cheaper option then electrification of a line that currently has shockingly poor provision. It doesn't work for the other branches especial ellsmere port helsby, that would be best served by additional third rail and an extra EMU on merseyrails next order.

How much extra kit is really needed? these trains are already capable of running on 750DC third rail with minor alteration, it's been done before on southern. What is needed beside the already planned engines and a switch?

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's not been raised but it is a substantially cheaper option then electrification of a line that currently has shockingly poor provision. It doesn't work for the other branches especial ellsmere port helsby, that would be best served by additional third rail and an extra EMU on merseyrails next order.

How much extra kit is really needed? these trains are already capable of running on 750DC third rail with minor alteration, it's been done before on southern. What is needed beside the already planned engines and a switch?

Vivarail seem to be replacing most of the traction electrics when they convert trains, so it may not be the case that the existing 630V pickup would still exist. I can't blame them for not considering DC bi-modes, since the sorts of lines the D-Trains could ever be useful for across the South East already tend to be electrified. A line like the Uckfield one then needs massively long trains which negate the point of the D-Trains in the first place.

 

[Emblematic]

The D78s would need a rework of the electrical system to 750V DC for use on 3rd rail. As I understand it, there is an intention to raise the nominal voltage on the subsurface LUL lines to 750V from the present 630V, but that can only happen when the D stock is displaced. I believe it was the same on SR, with the inner suburban lines remaining on 630V until the older stock not able to handle the higher voltage (4SUB?) was removed. I'm aware that the actual voltages will vary considerably above and below nominal, depending on loading, and regeneration would possibly increase the overvoltage when used.

 

[Nym]

Funny that considering D78 Surface is designed for 750V running.
So long as the voltage profile of the sections it's on fit the non-regen standards of course...
Even then, they're not hard to make compliant.

 

[Emblematic]

My point is just that you cannot assume that you could convert the existing train electrical system, which has run it's whole life on 630V fourth rail, by bonding the fourth rail connections to the wheelsets and assuming it will happily run on NR 750V where regenerative braking may well be going on. It may not be much additional work to adapt, especially as the traction control system is being replaced anyway, but it's not necessarily the 'minor alteration' described either.