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

[306024]

Agreed, think the best potential use of D-trains is to free up 'faster' 15x's from self contained rural branch lines, to provide increased frequencies or improved reliability, the 15x's can then be used t strengthen other services.

Potential routes that I can think of where D-trains could be suitable and future franchises that could take them on could include Great Western which I think is trailing one on one of the Cornish branches. If that trial is successfull they could be deployed on the other branches. Is Greater Anglia is trailing one on Marks Tay to Sudbury, but could they also be used used on the lines out of Norwich to Cromer/Sheringham, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft? The Wales and borders franchise could use D-trains as pacer replacement if the electrification of the valley lines is significantly delayed, a couple of units could also be used in North Wales on the Conway valley line.

Any other ideas/suggestions?

Marks Tey - Sudbury (with the right door config) may be theoretically possible, but Norwich - Sheringham has a line speed of 75mph on some sections south of North Walsham.

Norwich - Yarmouth / Lowestoft is 60 mph max and Ipswich - Lowestoft would be OK from a speed perspective. However Ipswich - Felixstowe also sees 75 mph running, anything that would compromise capacity on that line would be a no-no.

Still any speculation will be sorted when the result of the East Anglia beauty contest is announced next year. Would be interesting to see if any of the bidders considered this option.

Considering the average human brain is estimated to manage about 1 exaflops, while the most powerful supercomputer at the moment only manages around 50 petaflops, that's a really strange comment.

Is it only me that had to Google exaflops and petaflops?

 

[47802]

Well it seems to me this train is a long way from being proven, seen comments elsewhere about having issues with the transmission, and even if you put them on all the Cornish branches it wouldn't be very many units and Vivarails costing will presumably be based on flogging the lot, their primary target has now disappeared will they really be able to find a home for all of them?

 

[Camden]

all routes that have been talked about in City Region bids but never quite make the business case.

This is amongst my thinking when I mentioned the Preston to Ormskirk route. Lines like this ideally need integrating with their surrounding services (in this case Merseyrail) but the business case for extending the line to Preston will be impossible based on the passengers that this line currently manages. The powers that be don't appear to be very good at envisaging possibilities for "step change" usage when considering these things either, judging by the RUS.

Instead of a cascaded 144, 153 or 156, a D Stock train could give passengers a similar travelling experience to that which they experience when they change over at Ormskirk, boosting passenger numbers, initially creating a demand for higher frequency and subsequently helping the business case to full scale electrification. If instead the route just gets another cascaded diesel, I really doubt there will be much in it. It's not an attractive option for many.

It's an interim use for an interim train, and I'm sure there are many possible uses of that ilk.

 

[northwichcat]

Instead of a cascaded 144, 153 or 156, a D Stock train could give passengers a similar travelling experience to that which they experience when they change over at Ormskirk, boosting passenger numbers, initially creating a demand for higher frequency and subsequently helping the business case to full scale electrification. If instead the route just gets another cascaded diesel, I really doubt there will be much in it. It's not an attractive option for many.

At the moment we don't know what the refurbishment plans are for the Northern 156s, we know the franchise spec requires all trains to have a like new interior by December 2019. If it's decided air conditioning will be added to the 156s then they will be likely be quieter from the inside than D-Trains. Having been on a D78 in the Putney Bridge area I think if the D78s get put on curvy track they'll be called the Pacer mark II based on their squealing.

Having heard comments from passengers travelling on 319s and seen what non-rail enthusiasts have posted on Merseyside area forums, anyone who thinks the 319s are popular with passengers is misguided. There seems to be two positive comments which passengers seem to have universally agreed on which are better than a Pacer and it's good to have more capacity. As for the negative comments - I don't have time to write them all.

 

[Haydn1971]

This is amongst my thinking when I mentioned the Preston to Ormskirk route. Lines like this ideally need integrating with their surrounding services (in this case Merseyrail) but the business case for extending the line to Preston will be impossible based on the passengers that this line currently manages.

Surely the better solution for Ormskirk to Preston would be to have a 750v/Diesel bi-mode in the next Merseyrail fleet or preferably a 750v/25kv EMU with overhead cables filling the missing gap. The economics are much greater here with existing stations than the city region examples I've mentioned above that are completely new routes.

 

[D365]

As for the negative comments - I don't have time to write them all.

As I am familiar with Mk3-based EMUs, having lived in the South East for a substantial time, what are passengers of Northern finding issue with on the refreshed Class 319/3?

 

[Camden]

Having been on a D78 in the Putney Bridge area

Having heard comments from passengers travelling on 319s and seen what non-rail enthusiasts have posted on Merseyside area forums

Having travelled on D Stock all my life.

And I think you're forgetting (or didn't know) I spend the majority of my weeks in the north, including a large amount of time in the Liverpool region (knowing enough about the area to know now not to use the almost universally detested "M" word). The Class 319s are a world away from the 142s and 156s that used to run the services beforehand. Plenty of seats, no more roaring of engines, comfortably warm. Certainly very well used judging by my late night journey to/from Wavertree last night.

Surely the better solution for Ormskirk to Preston would be to have a 750v/Diesel bi-mode in the next Merseyrail fleet or preferably a 750v/25kv EMU with overhead cables filling the missing gap. The economics are much greater here with existing stations than the city region examples I've mentioned above that are completely new routes.

Diesel no, AC overhead dual voltage maybe, although this increases costs across the board. At end of the day though AC electrification will fall just as foul of the current business plan look as DC electrification. For as long as these lines remain with Network Rail, it's hard to see progress ever being made unless the issue of present day demand versus project complete demand is able to be addressed, which I doubt will ever happen.

The D78 could break through all that with low cost rolling stock and no infrastructure.

As I am familiar with Mk3-based EMUs, having lived in the South East for a substantial time, what are passengers of Northern finding issue with on the refreshed Class 319/3?

As the majority of passengers using these are in the Liverpool area, combined with that they are a vast improvement on the trains running the services beforehand and that they are very similar to the Merseyrail trains that people are largely content with, I would wager it's something like 0.001% (ie. the person posting here) solely taking issue with that the trains are cascaded. No more reason than that.

I've heard people saying they're pleased the trains are better, I certainly haven't heard anyone complain.

 

[northwichcat]

As I am familiar with Mk3-based EMUs, having lived in the South East for a substantial time, what are passengers of Northern finding issue with on the refreshed Class 319/3?

Criticisms include no longer having tables on the Airport-Liverpool services, the banging and buzzing from the electrics (presumably when sitting in the pantograph vehicle), the fact the number of cancellations on Chat Moss services has gone up since 319s have been introduced, the seating, the doors banging when other trains pass them at speed etc.

 

[Camden]

Criticisms include no longer having tables on the Airport-Liverpool services, the banging and buzzing from the electrics (presumably when sitting in the pantograph vehicle), the fact the number of cancellations on Chat Moss services has gone up since 319s have been introduced, the seating, the doors banging when other trains pass them at speed etc.

I haven't heard one single complaint.

 

[northwichcat]

Certainly very well used judging by my late night journey to/from Wavertree last night.

I take it you are aware that some Wigan-Lime Street services were booked as 4 car 156s prior to the 319s and had very few empty seats? Having every seat filled on a 319 would only be a small increase in usage on those services.

I've heard people saying they're pleased the trains are better, I certainly haven't heard anyone complain.

Selective hearing or did you start using the 319s after Chat Moss passengers had got over their 156s being replaced by 319s? Also remember most people realise the conductor doesn't choose the rolling stock so pass on their feedback to Northern via social media, email or letter if it's negative.

How many business people do you see on the 319s on Liverpool-Airport services using their laptops? It was commonplace to see 30 or more on some services when the 156s were being used.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Having heard comments from passengers travelling on 319s and seen what non-rail enthusiasts have posted on Merseyside area forums, anyone who thinks the 319s are popular with passengers is misguided. There seems to be two positive comments which passengers seem to have universally agreed on which are better than a Pacer and it's good to have more capacity. As for the negative comments - I don't have time to write them all.

I know its Christmas and all that but what were they expecting from trains that had already seen 20 years service?

 

[Camden]

I take it you are aware that some Wigan-Lime Street services were booked as 4 car 156s prior to the 319s and had very few empty seats? Having every seat filled on a 319 would only be a small increase in usage on those services.

Yes. Many were also 142s. It's not just quantity, but also quality.

Selective hearing or did you start using the 319s after Chat Moss passengers had got over their 156s being replaced by 319s.

I've been working up this way solidly for many years. I'm even staying for Christmas. How often do you make it to Liverpool, I wonder, much less use the transport in the region. I wouldn't get paid if I had "selective hearing". Simply, no one has complained about the trains.

How many business people do you see on the 319s using their laptops? It was commonplace to see 30 or more on some services when the 156s were being used.

Probably about the same number as I saw using laptops on the 156s. Hardly any, since these are people primarily going to/from shops and work.

30 or more people using their laptops on one train from Liverpool to Wigan... it seems strange to me how my experiences can differ so wildly from your own...

Although there is me, I suppose. Now there is much more choice for me if I wanted to sit with my laptop on my lap. That would be one.

 

[northwichcat]

I've been working up this way solidly for many years. I'm even staying for Christmas. How often do you make it to Liverpool, I wonder, much less use the transport in the region.

The timings of the 319 operated services don't provide good connections with the other services I use so I usually finish up using EMT Liverpool bound and TPE Manchester bound but do on occasions use the Northern services. Passengers travelling between Liverpool and Manchester on EMT or TPE frequently comment on the 158 or 185 they are on being so much better than the 'Northern Rubbish' they caught in the other direction or the last time they travelled. I've even seen passengers watch a Northern service depart and then catch a later TPE/EMT service.

Probably about the same number as I saw using laptops on the 156s. Hardly any, since these are people primarily going to/from shops and work.

30 or more people using their laptops on one train from Liverpool to Wigan... it seems strange to me how my experiences can differ so wildly from your own...

I missed out 'on Liverpool to Airport services' in my post initially but have added that in but I didn't say it was on Liverpool to Wigan services. Both Liverpool to Airport and Liverpool to Wigan services call at Wavertree Technology Park.

Like I said this was pre-class 319s being introduced, when I was using Liverpool to Manchester services more regularly, so as someone who says they are using 319s regularly now I was asking you is it commonplace for so many business travellers to be travelling with laptops now. From your response I think it's a no.

TfGM claim passengers on the Liverpool-Victoria services have gone up by 10% since the 319s have been introduced (they previously had 142s and 150s) but they make no claim about increased patronage on Liverpool-Airport services (which mainly had 156s) which is why I'm questioning whether the business travellers are still travelling on the 319s.

 

[47802]

Having travelled on D Stock all my life.

And I think you're forgetting (or didn't know) I spend the majority of my weeks in the north, including a large amount of time in the Liverpool region (knowing enough about the area to know now not to use the almost universally detested "M" word). The Class 319s are a world away from the 142s and 156s that used to run the services beforehand. Plenty of seats, no more roaring of engines, comfortably warm. Certainly very well used judging by my late night journey to/from Wavertree last night.



Diesel no, AC overhead dual voltage maybe, although this increases costs across the board. At end of the day though AC electrification will fall just as foul of the current business plan look as DC electrification. For as long as these lines remain with Network Rail, it's hard to see progress ever being made unless the issue of present day demand versus project complete demand is able to be addressed, which I doubt will ever happen.

The D78 could break through all that with low cost rolling stock and no infrastructure.



.

What are you talking about, Yes a 319 is better than a Pacer but to say a 319 is a world away from a 156 is utter drivel, and clearly some passengers may prefer a 156 because of its 2+2 seating and tables.

I don't really understand the point you are making about the D trains are you trying to claim that D train will be better than a refurbished 15x? if so that's more utter drivel. Yes I would really prefer D train essentially a glorified light rail EMU not designed to be a DMU with a 60mph max speed but usually travels much slower, and is older than a 15x unit.

 

[PHILIPE]

If the D230s were to enter traffic, they would have to be concentrated in one or two areas to be accessible to whatever Maintenance Depot maintains them. You couldn't have them scattered about the country on the Far North, Ormskirk and Whitby,, South Wales Valleys or Cornwall all at the same time..

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If the D230s were to enter traffic, they would have to be concentrated in one or two areas to be accessible to whatever Maintenance Depot maintains them. You couldn't have them scattered about the country on the Far North, Ormskirk and Whitby,, South Wales Valleys or Cornwall all at the same time..

Actually, one of the apparent advantages is the ability to switch engine modules quickly when required, which could be done in a siding rather than requiring an inspection pit. The Ford Transit engines are also simple and widely used, and the units would only need to return to a larger depot periodically. On a line such as the Looe branch this would be a distinct advantage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The best thing to do with Ormskirk to Preston is to extend third rail to Burscough, from which an hourly shuttle can be run with one unit.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Last time I checked, Ormskirk and Preston aren't in Manchester or Leeds, and using them to improve services here wouldn't have any peripheral effect.

Also, it is pure sulky conjecture to assume that if these were used on busy commuter lines that it would reduce capacity. The superior acceleration is visbly impressive versus one of your diesel units.

Incidentally, these trains, which are apparently too good for the delicate Manchester sensibility, have been serving Londoners for decades at a far higher frequency and loading intensity. Before any whinges about "keeping them then" two words: "business case". I thought super wonderful Manchester was now leader of the universe on that sort of thing?

however they havbe been used on rapid tranist not heavy rail, last time i looked manchester's rapid transit was using considerably younger vehicles (metrolink)

 

[Emblematic]

however they havbe been used on rapid tranist not heavy rail, last time i looked manchester's rapid transit was using considerably younger vehicles (metrolink)

Eh? D78 stock is rapid transit? I rather think not, they are very much heavy rail metro. Bear in mind they currently share track with TFL Capitalstars on the Richmond branch, and that arrangement (with varying stock) has persisted for decades without anyone raising an eyebrow. They have little in common with Manchester's younger but lighter trams.
Not that I would see a problem if they did, many countries have successful tram-train integration projects. Only here do we seem obsessed with the idea that catastrophe awaits us if light and heavy vehicles are allowed on the same tracks. You'd think that block signalling had never been invented. Meanwhile we happily class pacers as heavy rail and thereby allow the bus-lashed-to-a-freight-wagon concoction to mix it with the fastest and heaviest trains we have. I think perspective is lacking.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Eh? D78 stock is rapid transit? I rather think not, they are very much heavy rail metro. Bear in mind they currently share track with TFL Capitalstars on the Richmond branch, and that arrangement (with varying stock) has persisted for decades without anyone raising an eyebrow. They have little in common with Manchester's younger but lighter trams.

Not that I would see a problem if they did, many countries have successful tram-train integration projects. Only here do we seem obsessed with the idea that catastrophe awaits us if light and heavy vehicles are allowed on the same tracks. You'd think that block signalling had never been invented. Meanwhile we happily class pacers as heavy rail and thereby allow the bus-lashed-to-a-freight-wagon concoction to mix it with the fastest and heaviest trains we have. I think perspective is lacking.

I totally agree with what has been said by you on this matter. How on earth can the Class 230 vehicle project be in any way compared to the Manchester Metrolink M5000 trams? How many of the Class 230 project vehicles are actually in revenue-earning service on heavy rail routes whereas the the number of the M5000 trams on the current contract total of 120 already has surpassed over 100 delivered and operating in revenue-earning service.

 

[Camden]

What is a heavy rail metro if not "rapid transit", exactly?

Having travelled on both, you could certainly travel further faster on a D78 tube train than you could a Greater Manchester tram. I agree the two don't have much in common.

 

[Emblematic]

I would agree that rapid transit by most definitions would cover heavy rail metro. However my response was to the statement "used on rapid transit not heavy rail" and that implied the narrower LRT definition.
In my opinion, the D trains will make good Pacer replacements on routes for which Pacers were designed. Putting Pacers on rapid transit routes was always a wrong decision, and replacing them with D trains would be equally daft. Longer term, I would hope that we will see more lightweight, economical tram-train type solutions being developed to keep marginal rail services viable.

 

[southern442]

I would agree that rapid transit by most definitions would cover heavy rail metro. However my response was to the statement "used on rapid transit not heavy rail" and that implied the narrower LRT definition.
In my opinion, the D trains will make good Pacer replacements on routes for which Pacers were designed. Putting Pacers on rapid transit routes was always a wrong decision, and replacing them with D trains would be equally daft. Longer term, I would hope that we will see more lightweight, economical tram-train type solutions being developed to keep marginal rail services viable.

I agree with you here. I was quite surprised at the almost panning of the idea of D trains up north. Yes, 'the north' is deprived of good quality rolling stock, but most people will only be satisfied with brand new trains. The D stock are perfectly solid machines, already a step up from pacers, and the only reason why they were replaced from LU was because they are old and were beginning to become outdated. However, with a very good refurbishment, such as the 455 refurbishment where they almost looked brand new in the public's eyes, there is no reason why they cannot be operated on branch lines and other like routes. They are much nicer, smoother and more reliable than pacers, and given a chance will prove to be a viable solution for at least 20 years.

 

[D365]

... the only reason why they were replaced from LU was because they are old and were beginning to become outdated.

Economy of scale.

They are much nicer, smoother and more reliable than pacers, and given a chance will prove to be a viable solution for at least 20 years.

Just like the 'HST lasting to 2035' wibble

 

[southern442]

Just like the 'HST lasting to 2035' wibble

The fact that the D stock will have new diesel motors put in will extend their life considerably, so the only thing we will have to worry about is the strength of the unit, which will only come into light as a factor if they get really old.

Just like if the 442's got new motors they would last longer BUT the big difference is that the 442's have been proved to be pretty much useless for any reasonable idea, whereas the D stock is much more versatile than both the 442's and the HST's so it has greater flexibility.

 

[MML]

A real chance to improve frequency along many branch lines. A train at 30 minute intervals is far more likely to encourage patronage than a departure at 2 hour intervals. Better frequency service has already achieved improved results where it has been introduced. So what are the economics of operating these units ? Initial purchase or lease costs should be low, but operating economic need to provide a low cost solution.
Perhaps these units will be able to improve efficiency where the Pacers were intended to succeed but never did ?

 

[D365]

The fact that the D stock will have new diesel motors put in will extend their life considerably, so the only thing we will have to worry about is the strength of the unit, which will only come into light as a factor if they get really old.

I don't see how adding diesel engines is going to extend the units' economic lifespan. The original Brush-built DC motors are to be retained.

The mid-00s D Stock refurbishment was based on the expectation that the fleet would be retained in service for a further 20 years, but with the Metronet contracts having been signed for what has turned out to be the S Stock and SSL resignalling, the cost efficiencies that emerged were too significant to ignore.

 

[Haydn1971]

A real chance to improve frequency along many branch lines. A train at 30 minute intervals is far more likely to encourage patronage than a departure at 2 hour intervals.

So long as they don't interfere with mainline running of real trains that travel at speeds in excess of 60mph

 

[asylumxl]

So long as they don't interfere with mainline running of real trains that travel at speeds in excess of 60mph

What is a "real train"? I'd say D stock are real trains personally, metro trains.

 

[Emblematic]

The mid-00s D Stock refurbishment was based on the expectation that the fleet would be retained in service for a further 20 years, but with the Metronet contracts having been signed for what has turned out to be the S Stock and SSL resignalling, the cost efficiencies that emerged were too significant to ignore.

That, and the continued growth in patronage is testing the limits of capacity on the Underground. The D78 was designed at a time when LU passenger numbers were falling and economies were being sought. Although the refurbishments addressed many issues, the narrow (for LU) single-leaf doors are too fundamental a problem, and the opportunity to take advantage of a replacement stock design was hard to ignore. The economies of scale, and efficiencies of a single common fleet made the case for replacement overwhelming. Many similarities with the replacement and scrapping of the 83 stock, some little more than a decade old, which shared the deficient door design.