• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,942
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The only possible route SWT would consider them for would be Lymington - which would beg the obvious question of 'why bother'?

If using them at Lymington wouldn't it make more sense to just convert them to 3-rail operation and use as-is with a light refresh (remove LU posters, recover seats)?

Actually, that seems a very sensible use. That said, if there are enough spare 319s those would probably be more sensible as they have at least some commonality with the 455s.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
...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).

While I accept there's a lot of freight it appears the freight trains are timed for max. 75mph running and it looks like there is always at least 8 minutes between passenger and freight trains so pathing doesn't look as tight as it is in to cities like Newcastle, Cardiff and Bristol so if D-Trains can't be used on the Felixstowe branch they'll be a lot of other options ruled out as well.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,218
Location
Reading
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.

I have still not seen any reasoned argument why they would not be suitable for the Thames Valley branches: West Ealing - Greenford; Slough - Windsor; Maidenhead - Bourne End - Marlow and Twyford - Henley.

Their transmission layout is more efficient at low speeds and with lots of restarts than the Voith used under the 165/6s as torque converters are quite inefficient if they run too far off their design point. The 230's top speed is quite adequate for the duties. They are designed to be maintained by a man-with-a-van and could probably be refuelled from a bowser without leaving the branch.

Such a development would mean that more 165s (probably 5 or 6 sets) can be sent off to Bristol where their higher top speed would be more useful. In the medium term the only 16X trains which would be needed to be retained at Reading are those for the North Downs service to Gatwick and Reading to Basingstoke shuttle (because of the need for speed...).

And the real plus point - London's cast-offs won't insult the inhabitants of other parts of the country...:)
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
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).

I'd have thought their acceleration - which is likely to be better than a 153 - should at least even out the shortfall in top speed?
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
12,234
This 'Vivarail Leaf' livery really doesn't do it any favours...
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,253
I have still not seen any reasoned argument why they would not be suitable for the Thames Valley branches: West Ealing - Greenford; Slough - Windsor; Maidenhead - Bourne End - Marlow and Twyford - Henley.

Their transmission layout is more efficient at low speeds and with lots of restarts than the Voith used under the 165/6s as torque converters are quite inefficient if they run too far off their design point. The 230's top speed is quite adequate for the duties. They are designed to be maintained by a man-with-a-van and could probably be refuelled from a bowser without leaving the branch.

Such a development would mean that more 165s (probably 5 or 6 sets) can be sent off to Bristol where their higher top speed would be more useful. In the medium term the only 16X trains which would be needed to be retained at Reading are those for the North Downs service to Gatwick and Reading to Basingstoke shuttle (because of the need for speed...).

And the real plus point - London's cast-offs won't insult the inhabitants of other parts of the country...:)

Well for starters Windsor and Henley are both going to be electrified ere long and Greenford really ought to be handed to Chiltern when it becomes the last operator of dmus in London. And I doubt the HSE would take a charitable view of fuelling trains at passenger stations from road tankers.

Reading also needs to retain Turbos for the Oxford-Banbury service and Cotswold Line halts trains - again 90mph capability is essential in both cases.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,218
Location
Reading
Well for starters Windsor and Henley are both going to be electrified ere long and Greenford really ought to be handed to Chiltern when it becomes the last operator of dmus in London. And I doubt the HSE would take a charitable view of fuelling trains at passenger stations from road tankers.

Reading also needs to retain Turbos for the Oxford-Banbury service and Cotswold Line halts trains - again 90mph capability is essential in both cases.

Why bother electrifying these two lines at all? There's no advantage operationally as neither branch has, or will have, through trains to London; the train frequencies are not high; electrification now costs 3 times the number that was first thought of and diesel fuel is now cheaper than electricity for traction. Trains on these routes do not need the horsepower that electrification can provide.

Who said anything about fuelling the trains at the stations? But I don't see there is a problem anyway - I fill my car up with diesel without the benefit of any special training. If one really wants to spend money unnecessarily a concrete pad could be built off the end of the platform and the trains refuelled after the last passenger service. Considering the length of these branches fuelling wouldn't be necessary more than about once a week.

So Reading depot still needs trains for the other routes you mention - why is that important and why should that stop Bristol getting some more 16Xs from those routes that don't really need them? Chiltern is tight on dmus anyway - imagine the fuss from the North if it needs to get another 170 or two from Northern or TPE or wherever to run the Greenford branch. I can hear the axes being sharpened now.

There is a low cost answer staring everybody in the face - save the money on the electrification on routes that don't need it and lease cheap(ish) trains that are good enough. What's not to like?
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
Why bother electrifying these two lines at all? There's no advantage operationally as neither branch has, or will have, through trains to London.

That's an outright lie.

07:07 HOT-PAD Direct, 47m
07:42 HOT-PAD Direct, 45m

17:12 PAD-HOT Direct, 1h01m
18:12 PAD-HOT Direct, 1h02m
19:05 PAD-HOT Direct, 47m
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,942
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Windsor is an interesting option. While they aren't very posh, the as-built layouts of a 3-car D78 would be perfect for the combination of low winter and high summer loadings on that 5 minute run.

Other option would be to shove the DC wires up and use a high floor tram, perhaps a couple of Metrolink style ones.

Certainly doesn't seem worthwhile throwing mainline equipment at it.
 
Last edited:

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,472
Location
Somewhere, not in London
It appears they've retained the same auto-couplers and jumpers...

The GEC ones won't give them any problems except obsolescence, but the Refubishment ones aren't the most reliable...
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,253
Why bother electrifying these two lines at all? There's no advantage operationally as neither branch has, or will have, through trains to London; the train frequencies are not high; electrification now costs 3 times the number that was first thought of and diesel fuel is now cheaper than electricity for traction. Trains on these routes do not need the horsepower that electrification can provide.

Sorry but trying to extrapolate from the costs of the GW project, with all the very specific issues that are involved there, does not make electrification three time more expensive? Has anyone been banging on about the cost of NW and Scottish schemes? And since diesel is now cheaper, maybe we should just give up wiring again - that sort of attitude is why we have so little electrification compared with the rest of Europe in the first place.

Who said anything about fuelling the trains at the stations? But I don't see there is a problem anyway - I fill my car up with diesel without the benefit of any special training. If one really wants to spend money unnecessarily a concrete pad could be built off the end of the platform and the trains refuelled after the last passenger service. Considering the length of these branches fuelling wouldn't be necessary more than about once a week.

Yes, I suppose they could park next to a field somewhere instead...

So Reading depot still needs trains for the other routes you mention - why is that important and why should that stop Bristol getting some more 16Xs from those routes that don't really need them? Chiltern is tight on dmus anyway - imagine the fuss from the North if it needs to get another 170 or two from Northern or TPE or wherever to run the Greenford branch. I can hear the axes being sharpened now.

Why is it important that there are 165s for the Cotswold Line and Oxford-Banbury? So that the those services don't get in the way of expresses running at up to 100mph or the procession of 75mph container trains between Oxford and Banbury - something that can only hit 60mph doesn't fit in such places.

There is a low cost answer staring everybody in the face - save the money on the electrification on routes that don't need it and lease cheap(ish) trains that are good enough. What's not to like?

Well, we could start with the need to hold spares for a handful of non-standard trains, to train staff to maintain them... continued on page 94...
 

73001

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2010
Messages
447
Location
Liverpool
Well, we could start with the need to hold spares for a handful of non-standard trains, to train staff to maintain them... continued on page 94...

Surely they'd be fine as long as there's a Halfords nearby... :roll:
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
And since diesel is now cheaper, maybe we should just give up wiring again - that sort of attitude is why we have so little electrification compared with the rest of Europe in the first place.

Electrification isn't really about the cost of fuel, diesel was pennies per litre when the ECML was electrified, and it was around today's prices in 2009/2010 when the GWML electrification was announced. It's about the entire cost to the country of operating diesel trains, which is enormous.

Diesel, despite the headline cost per litre, isn't cheaper than electric. There's the transportation costs involved in getting fuel to a depot, whether it's a train path with tanks, or whether it's HGV tankers taking up road space, it's a hidden cost which is removed through electrification.

There's emissions and pollution legislation, which is the biggest driver of electrification. It's another hidden cost which goes into the mix, bunded fuel tanks on depots, waste oils and other lubricants unique or used in vastly larger quantities by diesel stock which need safely disposed of, oil leaking onto the track from crankcase breathers.

NOx and particulate matter damages the health of millions - diesel trains contribute to childhood asthma and anywhere from 30,000 to 90,000 (premature) deaths a year are attributable to air pollution. That's a moral and financial problem we need to solve, the pressure that puts onto the NHS is huge, lots of prescriptions for asthma and allergies, for blood pressure, treatments for airway and other related chronic conditions. There's the cost of people affected staying in hospitals, the loss of tax revenue if people are declared unfit for work, and the loss of tax and productivity as people are off work ill temporarily or permanently.

Diesel trains, as we know, are either slow and ponderous, or vastly overpowered and uneconomical in order to meet EMU performance, they waste paths in many areas, they're on the whole less reliable and require more maintenance. They can be noisy and upset local residents and they make lower floored, more accessible trains difficult.

And we can do more with electric costs - we can invest and drive down the costs of power generation, we still remain at the mercy of the oil markets when it comes to diesel costs. We can plan properly with electric trains, trying to forward plan fuel costs for diesels in an idiot's game, the oil price crash took most by surprise - the UK Government expected $100 per barrel, the Scots were thinking more like $125 this year. Thanks to the electric market having up front costs, we know what we'll be paying for electric in the next few Control Periods, we can only case and make provisions for what we'll be paying for diesel at the end of CP6.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,081
Also, the lease costs of a DMU carriage is more than an EMU carriage (I've heard figures of £110,000 vs £100,000), add in the extra maintenance costs (there are more parts to go wrong on a DMU than an EMU with the same facilities) and the extra wear and tear on the track (DMU's tend to be heavier than EMU's) and the costs soon add up.

It means that even if fuel had no cost it would probably be cheaper to have an electric network than to run DMU's.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
the extra wear and tear on the track (DMU's tend to be heavier than EMU's) and the costs soon add up.

The costs imposed by Network Rail are much higher for EMUs but the track access charge for EMUs includes the electricity costs whereas for DMUs TOCs need to provide their own fuel. However, that makes it difficult to make a DMU vs EMU comparison.

I think it's the weight per axle that Network Rail charge for opposed to the weight of the unit, which results in a 4 car 142 costing more in track access than a 156+153 despite the latter being longer and heavier.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
The costs imposed by Network Rail are much higher for EMUs but the track access charge for EMUs includes the electricity costs whereas for DMUs TOCs need to provide their own fuel. However, that makes it difficult to make a DMU vs EMU comparison.

I think it's the weight per axle that Network Rail charge for opposed to the weight of the unit, which results in a 4 car 142 costing more in track access than a 156+153 despite the latter being longer and heavier.

Track Access charges are separated out from Traction Electricity Consumption in some of the relevant NR documentation, and there is modelled energy consumption data available.

Axle loadings are the primary constituent of cost for track access charges but there are other track forces which are taken into account, and speed plays a large role in the way track forces and thus track access charges are calculated.

As this is the discussion about the silly Class 230 DEMU, its low speed, bogied nature and relatively low overall mass should combine to produce a unit which has exceptionally low track access charges.
 

RepTCTC

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2015
Messages
59
Electrification isn't really about the cost of fuel, diesel was pennies per litre when the ECML was electrified, and it was around today's prices in 2009/2010 when the GWML electrification was announced. It's about the entire cost to the country of operating diesel trains, which is enormous.
About the best total cost to operate the railways as a whole I could come up with around £7.5bn in 2011/12. GDP was about £1.6tr that year. Operating the railways as a whole is enormous in the sense that buying a packet of crisps is enormous for an average earning household. The percentage of that cost that would be saved over diesel operations on an annual basis by electrifying the whole network (assuming electrification itself was free and instant, as was the provision of new electric stock) would be in the realms of maybe a single Monster Munch for the other half and I.

Electrification is definitely important for the railways, but for the country as a whole in terms of the direct cost savings over time, it's trivia.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,218
Location
Reading
That's an outright lie.

07:07 HOT-PAD Direct, 47m
07:42 HOT-PAD Direct, 45m

17:12 PAD-HOT Direct, 1h01m
18:12 PAD-HOT Direct, 1h02m
19:05 PAD-HOT Direct, 47m

Which bit of
or will have,
is difficult to understand? No Crossrail trains are planned to run to Henley and the rump of the GW outer-suburban service will run to Oxford. Henley, as planned at the moment, will be served by a shuttle from Twyford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry but trying to extrapolate from the costs of the GW project, with all the very specific issues that are involved there, does not make electrification three time more expensive? Has anyone been banging on about the cost of NW and Scottish schemes? And since diesel is now cheaper, maybe we should just give up wiring again - that sort of attitude is why we have so little electrification compared with the rest of Europe in the first place.
Now, now... calm down. I'm not suggesting that the Midland Main Line, or another of your choice, is not electrified. Just that I cannot see the arguments for spending large amounts of money making 3 short, stub-end branch lines electrically operated. The planning is that they will, post Crossrail, operate as shuttles so there is no need for inter-operability. Speeds and frequencies are low and distances are short.
Save the money and resources on planning and electrifying them and get the GW main line done faster.

Yes, I suppose they could park next to a field somewhere instead...
Why not?

Why is it important that there are 165s for the Cotswold Line and Oxford-Banbury? So that the those services don't get in the way of expresses running at up to 100mph or the procession of 75mph container trains between Oxford and Banbury - something that can only hit 60mph doesn't fit in such places.
I don't see why you are making a fuss about it because the 16Xs have to be at Reading anyway for the Cotswold, Banbury, Basingstoke and North Downs lines. Who has suggested using 230s on these routes? Certainly not me.
But the released 16Xs could go to Bristol. What have you against the good burghers of Bristol that they don't deserve as many trains as possible?

Well, we could start with the need to hold spares for a handful of non-standard trains, to train staff to maintain them... continued on page 94...
Regarding spares - why couldn't someone BUY TfL's stock - as far as they are concerned it's going for scrap prices anyway.
The trains are only non-standard to the main line railway. The UndergrounD has LOTS of them -- if necessary get a couple of fitters over from Acton...it's only a 30 minute drive!
You've completely missed the point about modern maintenance - it's now mostly repair by replacement. The only moving parts in the transmission are in the engine pods - a pod can be changed in less than 30 minutes with a collis pallet truck - and the traction motors. Power control is solid state. These are not BR's 1st generation dmus.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,253
Or you could just wire the Thames Valley branches anyway - as is planned - and have done with it. And if you want Bristol to have lots more Turbos then move swiftly on to infilling the gaps in electric power supply on the North Downs line, so all the Turbos needed for that route can go west, put up the wires from Oxford to Banbury and beyond and that's another 165 off to Bristol - at which point you would probably reshuffle Cotswold Line Class 800 diagrams to replace that one as well. Use a trolley wire electric system for Bourne End and Marlow with a light-rail type tram-train and bob's your uncle. No more Thames Turbos any more...
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,218
Location
Reading
Electrification isn't really about the cost of fuel, diesel was pennies per litre when the ECML was electrified, and it was around today's prices in 2009/2010 when the GWML electrification was announced. It's about the entire cost to the country of operating diesel trains, which is enormous.

Diesel, despite the headline cost per litre, isn't cheaper than electric. There's the transportation costs involved in getting fuel to a depot, whether it's a train path with tanks, or whether it's HGV tankers taking up road space, it's a hidden cost which is removed through electrification.

There's emissions and pollution legislation, which is the biggest driver of electrification. It's another hidden cost which goes into the mix, bunded fuel tanks on depots, waste oils and other lubricants unique or used in vastly larger quantities by diesel stock which need safely disposed of, oil leaking onto the track from crankcase breathers.

NOx and particulate matter damages the health of millions - diesel trains contribute to childhood asthma and anywhere from 30,000 to 90,000 (premature) deaths a year are attributable to air pollution. That's a moral and financial problem we need to solve, the pressure that puts onto the NHS is huge, lots of prescriptions for asthma and allergies, for blood pressure, treatments for airway and other related chronic conditions. There's the cost of people affected staying in hospitals, the loss of tax revenue if people are declared unfit for work, and the loss of tax and productivity as people are off work ill temporarily or permanently.

Diesel trains, as we know, are either slow and ponderous, or vastly overpowered and uneconomical in order to meet EMU performance, they waste paths in many areas, they're on the whole less reliable and require more maintenance. They can be noisy and upset local residents and they make lower floored, more accessible trains difficult.

And we can do more with electric costs - we can invest and drive down the costs of power generation, we still remain at the mercy of the oil markets when it comes to diesel costs. We can plan properly with electric trains, trying to forward plan fuel costs for diesels in an idiot's game, the oil price crash took most by surprise - the UK Government expected $100 per barrel, the Scots were thinking more like $125 this year. Thanks to the electric market having up front costs, we know what we'll be paying for electric in the next few Control Periods, we can only case and make provisions for what we'll be paying for diesel at the end of CP6.

Philip,

Although I have the greatest respect for your posts, I really think this one comes under the "motherhood and apple pie' heading.

Firstly some background numbers. There are fewer than 1000 diesel locomotives operating on the British railways and around 800 dmus. Allowing for a mix of lengths from 2 to 5 coaches, if we multiply the total by 3 we are probably not far from the true total of powered units, lets say there are 2,400 powered dmu coaches in existance.

These numbers should be compared with the total of motor vehicles on the roads. At the end of 2013 according to the DfT figures there were some 29 million cars, half a million goods vehicles and about 100,000 public service vehicles on the roads. The emissions from railway vehicles are lost in the noise - if all the railways in the country were electrified there would be no measurable change whatsoever to the global pollution figures. Shroud waving is not a valid argument for electrification.

You are correct in that there are costs involved in distributing diesel around the country, but there is a huge capital expenditure required to connect the overhead to the grid system. These are the feeder points and I understand that each one costs around £10 million - and the GW has three of them. These take the same role in an electric railway as diesel distribution takes in a diesel railway - and you can buy an awful lot of HGV mileage for £30 million.

Current diesels might be noisy - but stand beside a modern German diesel using the same power plant as the Class 43 power cars and it is significantly quieter. British designers have not emphasised noise reduction - at least until now.

Fuel price prediction is a fraught game - but so is all prediction. 10 years ago who would have predicted that Apple would wipe out Nokia? One just has to cope with the situation as it is, but at the moment it seems that the price of electricity will, at best, stay constant over the next couple of years as the fuel sources are fixed - unless some of the 'green' taxes are abandoned. In the meantime, why not take advantage of lower oil prices? It seems to me to be cutting off your nose to spite your face if one doesn't. And burning oil in steam power stations is not an answer - burning oil in a modern diesel is better bet.

Please note that I am not arguing against electrification per se. It most definitely has its application if train frequencies are high, speeds are high (certainly if they are above about 200kph), train weights are high or really high performance is needed. I am not convinced of its necessity for infrequent services of light, lower speed trains on branch or secondary lines. The arguments for investment in such circumstances have to be very carefully made.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,300
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
Please note that I am not arguing against electrification per se. It most definitely has its application if train frequencies are high, speeds are high (certainly if they are above about 200kph), train weights are high or really high performance is needed. I am not convinced of its necessity for infrequent services of light, lower speed trains on branch or secondary lines. The arguments for investment in such circumstances have to be very carefully made.

That makes sense. In 2008 when the current push towards electrification started, GWML and MML just about achieved a business case with some rather cheerful assumptions about electrification cost. Since then (predictably) NR has pushed the costs up by a factor of 3 and (less predictably) the oil price has fallen by a similar factor.

Getting back to the point of the thread, send a few D78s off to the Isle of Wight where they will fit in nicely and electrification really isn't needed.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,980
Location
Torbay
That makes sense. In 2008 when the current push towards electrification started, GWML and MML just about achieved a business case with some rather cheerful assumptions about electrification cost. Since then (predictably) NR has pushed the costs up by a factor of 3 and (less predictably) the oil price has fallen by a similar factor.

Getting back to the point of the thread, send a few D78s off to the Isle of Wight where they will fit in nicely and electrification really isn't needed.

I'd agree with that . . . As long as they and the Ryde Tunnel can be made compatible. Also short to medium term diesel operation with 230s or similar could allow electrification to be DEFERRED (not cancelled) on some fairly self contained lines like (some of) the Thames Valley branches so construction resources can be concentrated on the main lines.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,260
Please note that I am not arguing against electrification per se. It most definitely has its application if train frequencies are high, speeds are high (certainly if they are above about 200kph), train weights are high or really high performance is needed. I am not convinced of its necessity for infrequent services of light, lower speed trains on branch or secondary lines. The arguments for investment in such circumstances have to be very carefully made.

Those application domains are exactly where most of the rail network is headed, especially the areas which are currently being wired.

Think about it. Back at the time of privatisation, the GWML was busy but most Relief line services would be perfectly fine being run by a few DMU carriages. Long distance services carried mostly long distance passengers going to far-flung places like Bristol. Electrification would be 'a nice thing to have' but it wouldn't be a matter of life and death.

Fast-forward to today and the near future and both the GWML Main and Relief lines are both going to see >200m long rakes of EMUs at almost the maximum capacity of the railway. This is needed because of the massive explosion in passenger numbers all across the rail network, and in particular on longer-distance commuter flows into London from places like Reading and beyond. Commuter services will be running along at 100mph or more and needing to stop frequently to provide enough capacity at all the intermediate stations which have got by with fewer calls until now. If a train breaks down, it would cause absolute chaos as there would be almost no capacity to go around it.

Trains which need to be as long as the infrastructure allows, need to run at faster speeds than ever before while stopping more frequently than ever before are just the sort where electrification makes the biggest possible difference. Even if the original HST2 plans went ahead and the long distance services did not take advantage of the wires, electrification would still be justified just on the basis of the extra commuter and peak crowd buster services which are not only essential but very profitable for the rail operator.

The lines being electrified right now are all of this sort. The Scottish electrification is necessary to efficiently cope with ever-increasing passenger numbers on the E&G, both end-to-end and for commuter services into one of the cities. Instead of Bedford being the outer extent of MML commuting it's now Corby, and then it'll be Leicester on the express services, all of which run faster, more frequently and with more passengers than ever before as a result of recent upgrades. The North West wiring is needed to efficiently get more and more people on trains into Manchester and Liverpool as 2-car DMUs are just not enough any more on any route. The TP North wiring is needed just as badly as the E&G wiring and for the same reasons. There's more local wiring to be done around Birmingham at the moment which is also just as necessary because the city is starting to see spill-over of economic activity priced out of London and its public transport network just can't cope.

There is enough electrification to be getting on with for the next ten years before you start to reach lines where wiring wouldn't be the number 1 priority for service improvement. Even then, while the wiring teams are at work elsewhere other work can still be done on these lines which will then improve the case for wiring later on while improving them in the meantime. The more wiring that is done, the more passengers there can and will be on the rail network, and so the more passengers there will be who can then end up also using other services even if they're not wired. All those DMUs freed up by wiring will firstly replace the worst of the existing diesel rolling stock and then filter down onto these other routes, allowing more frequent services, new services or more capacity on existing ones. Where these services then exist alongside other wired services, e.g. the variety of local services in and around West Yorkshire after TP North wiring is done, then the case for further wiring improves yet further due to the network effect
 

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
Enjoy the cheap oil while it lasts. All too soon it will be a distant memory, and even the years of stable, £100-ish a barrel prices will be recalled with nostalgia. We are headed for trouble, and when it arrives it will be both painful and long-lasting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/12136886/Oil-slowdown-to-trigger-supply-crisis-by-2020-warns-bank.html

The oil industry faces a looming supply crisis by the end of the decade as falling prices cause the pipeline of future projects to dry up, according to analysts
Investment in new oil and gas projects plunged 20pc in 2015 and energy companies pull back even further this year, experts at UBS said.
The delay between investment and production in the energy sector means this is “likely to hit the market around the end of the decade”, the analysts added.
The 75pc collapse in oil prices since summer 2014 has slashed profits at oil firms, which have been forced to axe jobs and postpone putting money into new projects.
“The almost crash-stop in new project sanctions is an obvious reaction to the collapse in oil prices,” research from UBS said.

Which, to bring this back remotely to the topic in hand, is why the D-train stopgap is, to my mind at least, a better option than new-build DMU with 30+ year lifespan, at least for now. And just keep wiring (I do agree with the tram + simplified wiring for branches idea though)
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,081
You are correct in that there are costs involved in distributing diesel around the country, but there is a huge capital expenditure required to connect the overhead to the grid system. These are the feeder points and I understand that each one costs around £10 million - and the GW has three of them. These take the same role in an electric railway as diesel distribution takes in a diesel railway - and you can buy an awful lot of HGV mileage for £30 million.

A DMU coach costs about £10,000 more per year than an EMU coach. There are going to be 58 EMU units on the GWML (excluding the 80x's) with 4 coaches (so 232 coaches or £2,230,000 savings per year).

Therefore within 13 years those cost savings pays for your 3 electricity supplies costing £30 million.

OK with railway economics it's not that simple, but the TOC would be more profitable and so can pay more in premiums to the DfT which can use that money to reinvent in the railways. The government would probably see you their money back over a 20 to 30 year period.

Yes it doesn't work on small branch lines as you will not see the number of units, until you get to a point where there are very few DMU's and the cost in buying a custom order of 100 coaches or less starts pushing the lease costs up still further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top