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

[Clip]

So you think that one posting is sufficient to express one's views, when there have been numerous postings made as to the past record of Shooter and his "innovation" with regards to the Class 230 project.

.

you havent made just one though Paul and thats what we are getting at. Discussing the trains is one thing but all you have really contributed many many times is your disdain for these things and Shooter himself.And its boring.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

you havent made just one though Paul and thats what we are getting at. Discussing the trains is one thing but all you have really contributed many many times is your disdain for these things and Shooter himself.And its boring.

Fine, then tell me what was wrong with the paragraph that I have just made about the time it is still taking in bringing a fully completed unit to the stage of final testing and approval.

 

[coppercapped]

So you think that one posting is sufficient to express one's views, when there have been numerous postings made as to the past record of Shooter and his "innovation" with regards to the Class 230 project.

I served in the highest echelons of Senior Management for over 30 years and would bring to the attention of your good self and others on this thread that just because a record of exemplary company management has been the norm, no one is infallible in their judgement as to the success of every project under their managed remit, especially in the case of the Class 230 project which must have seemed small beer to Shooter in comparison with earlier projects in his career.

All I wish to repeat is the time taken so far by Vivarail to bring a fully completed unit to the stage where final testing and approval can then be made, as until that point in time is reached, there can surely be no TOC who would make any commitment to a product that has not passed the required criteria. I trust that this point is simplistically made so no-one claim not to understand what I say.

Of course, I fully understand how forum members can see in their own minds eye how a fully approved Class 230 product could be used on certain branch lines, but once again I reiterate the fact that Vivarail surely will not be looking to make sales of small numbers of these units, but their original vision of one major contract that would see all the units fully planned in comprehensive construction project that would see regular deliveries of completed units to the purchaser until completion. A similar sized production run to my mind would be that of the M5000 trams for the Manchester Metrolink system.

You may not realise that the 'Approvals' process is these days very long-winded due to the requirements of the European Rail Agency. The 4th Railway Package was adopted by the EU in 2013 and all approvals have now to be done through this body - trains are no longer approved by Network Rail as being fit to run on its tracks. I attended a presentation made to a section of the IMechE last year by the person responsible for getting the Hitachi Class 80x trains approved - these being the first trains in the UK going through this process - and the flow charts showing the flow of documents and the 'Bodies' involved were scary. If you look at the length of time that Hitachi has taken to get as far as it has, then Vivarail's timescale for receiving a 'letter of no objection' - the latest information on its website suggests an April/May time frame - has been quite quick. (Nobody gives 'Approval' any more - the most you get is 'no objection').

You also assume that (a) Vivarail wants to make one deal and (b) wants to sell the stock. I have looked through the stuff published in the railway press and on its website and I find no such declarations.

It is a small entrepreneurial company - it will adapt its offerings to suit the market in order to survive. It would be more than brain-dead to have painted itself into a corner by saying that it will only accept one type of business.

As Vivarail has backing from a financial institution there is no reason why it could not lease small numbers of these trains itself to enable short term solutions to be reached. In fact it would play well - the TOC can say that we are trying to solve an immediate problem with hired stock until our long-term solution (electrification/new trains/whatever) can be implemented. The stock could be labelled 'On hire to <TOCname> from Vivarail' to make this clear.

I also don't understand what you have against recycled rolling stock, especially if it has bogies. A train is a long metal tube. As long as the bits the paying customers see look contemporary and are kept in good order, it makes no difference whatsoever how old the structure is - as long as it is in a good condition mechanically. If trains can be procured at a lower cost, then so much the better - especially if the services on which they are used are lightly trafficked with a lower income per track-kilometre.

Vivarail is a small company operating out of large shed. It has low overheads and the detailed technical work - power packs, transmission, etc. - has been subcontracted. Its structure will allow it to make small numbers of trains, possibly on a bespoke basis. It is not Alstom or Bombardier which have to have a continuing flow of orders. In fact Vivarail's total production is limited to the number of D78 trains in existence - unless it has some other ideas in its business plan. Now there's an interesting thought...

Part of being an entrepreneur is being able to cope with failure. In fact progress is impossible if failures don't happen - as Joseph Schumpeter pointed out all those years ago. But in this case, even if the project eventually finds no takers, the worst loss is the expenditure on the design, the prototype and 'approvals', say £10 or £12 million. The D78s have been bought, or are contracted for, at scrap prices so Vivarail can sell the bodies on to scrap merchants - it's not as if the raw material has been very expensive.

I have no connection with Vivarail and have never met any of its staff. But I support entrepreneurs - and if people are serious about reducing the cost of running the railways this seems a good place to start.

 

[450.emu]

They will be amongst the very oldest in the capital (except the handful of Routemasters!).

At the time of manufacture panelling to replace the middle door (or at least schematics for such panels) will have been produced and put aside expecting it to become redundant once its life in London comes to an end.

The vast majority of them receive an extensive mid-life overhaul before either being redeployed within the group (which happens less now First has exited London) or being sold on. Ensignbus are a company who were literally created to do this, buying up all London's DMSs and more or less turning them back in to regular Fleetlines.

Ensign do a good job of converting ex-London buses for use elsewhere, in most cases removing the silly roller blinds, adding LED ones, more seating where the centre door is, an engine overhaul (but most London buses rarely exceed traffic due to clogged streets and the increasingly popular 20mph zones in many boroughs thanks to Boris Johnson to protect his cyclist mates), If older buses do not leave London, all they need is an AdBlue kit and they are good to go for a little while longer (though I think the age limit is 15 for most London buses, or at least Euro4 emissions levels). But at least an ex-London bus could potentially still go as fast as their provincial counterparts as they have the same engines.

The D Train, or Class 230 will need a lot more than that to bring it upto the standards (and speeds) of the national rail network. Even with its Ford Transit engines I doubt the traction motors (which are still the ones from 1978) have been geared for much past 50 mph anyway - they rarely hit 50 even on the stretches between Barking and Upminster before they were replaced by the S7 stock :roll:

London Overground-style seating for longer journies may be unpleasant, and a low top speed makes them seem unsuitable for anything except minor branchlines. I doubt they will make a London return for the Ealing - Greenford shuttle for instance. They might as well electrify that branch seeing as its so short :roll:

I admire this firm for the idea but I can't really see it of much benefit unless it's on private (or at least much slower) low demand lines where there's no real need to rush. Perhaps Epping-Ongar railway might take a couple? I doubt they would be any good on the Isle of Wight though :P

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What a most excellent posting above from coppercapped being one who has the ability and knowledge to see matters far clearer than most, including myself...

Perhaps it would be better if I now awaiting the success of the unit leasing or sale of the Class 230 units, before making any further comments. I shall leave all of you with two thoughts for the day...

Faber est suae quisque fortunae

Barba non facit philosophum

 

[kevjs]

If that be the case in Sheffield, why have the Stagecoach, First and Arriva groups in the TfGM administered areas of Greater Manchester introduced brand new large fleets of eco-buses when it was opportune to do so.

Just down the M1 Nottingham sees the two rival bus operators (Nottingham City Transport (part owned by Transdev with the City Council as main shareholder) and Trent Barton) operate fleets which predominately feature buses which are less than a decade old, owned by NCT/Trent Barton from new*, with extras like space for multiple prams, Free 4G Wifi, Audio Announcements, USB charging points, and Real Time bus stop displays (more features on newer vehicles). They are generally well maintained - an obvious example being that the buses on my local route (dating from 2011) have just had their tired looking seat padding and coverings replaced.

As a result it's unsurprising we have the fastest growing use of buses outside the capital, one of the operators is usually Bus Operator of the Year, and NCT is currently the best operator in the country for customer satisfaction.

Offering vehicles which are new, with creature comforts, has served the operators very well over the last fifteen years (both fleets, especially NCT's, were very run down back in 2000/2001 and had seen years of continuous decline in passenger numbers) and boosted demand for services, even with the tram coming in as a competitor.

i.e. the "sparks effect" has been seen on the local buses here, without even switching from diesel transport (although NCT will be getting 82 Gas powered double deckers next year, and Trent Barton and CT4N have a number of all electric vehicles) - just by providing new buses and keeping up with modern trends!

IIRC all new vehicles for the last three years have had Euro 5 or Euro 6 engines or their equivalent too.

* NCT normally have a handful which have been acquired from elsewhere - normally to strengthen an existing fleet on certain routes - i.e. the couple of 54 plate Bendies they had on the Unilink 4 until they were retired as life expired last year!

 

[jimm]

So you think that one posting is sufficient to express one's views, when there have been numerous postings made as to the past record of Shooter and his "innovation" with regards to the Class 230 project.

So instead we get one or more posts every day from you saying the same thing over and over. Presumably just in case we have forgotten in the space of a few hours...

I served in the highest echelons of Senior Management for over 30 years and would bring to the attention of your good self and others on this thread that just because a record of exemplary company management has been the norm, no one is infallible in their judgement as to the success of every project under their managed remit, especially in the case of the Class 230 project which must have seemed small beer to Shooter in comparison with earlier projects in his career.

And where has anyone said Mr Shooter is infallible? He had an idea. It may come off, it may not. If not, the D78s will go for scrap, which would would presumably have been their destiny already, had Vivarail never been set up.

All I wish to repeat is the time taken so far by Vivarail to bring a fully completed unit to the stage where final testing and approval can then be made, as until that point in time is reached, there can surely be no TOC who would make any commitment to a product that has not passed the required criteria. I trust that this point is simplistically made so no-one claim not to understand what I say.

I made the point that TOCs were probably waiting to see how the prototype performs before making any commitments - or not - a couple of weeks ago. But I repeat, this is the first train Vivarail has converted, so it was never going to be a straightforward exercise. And not surprisingly, they want to get it as good as they can before it begins mainline trials. How long it takes to reach that point is up to them, not you.

Of course, I fully understand how forum members can see in their own minds eye how a fully approved Class 230 product could be used on certain branch lines, but once again I reiterate the fact that Vivarail surely will not be looking to make sales of small numbers of these units, but their original vision of one major contract that would see all the units fully planned in comprehensive construction project that would see regular deliveries of completed units to the purchaser until completion. A similar sized production run to my mind would be that of the M5000 trams for the Manchester Metrolink system.

We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

 

[chiltern trev]

Boston to Skegness is one line I can't see them appearing on. Nottingham to Skegness is approximately 80 miles and requires significant luggage space in summer - class 156s are perfect for the route. You could hardly, in my opinion, do better in fact - line speeds are between 50 and 75 mph, the passenger loadings suit end doors and the speed of the journey is much less important than the people and luggage capacity of the train service. 156s with their ex parcel area and low density layout are ideal.

If you say speed is not a problem them a 60mph 230 is surely ok speed wise.

From the info available, the 230 can be 2 or 4 doors per side - thus you could have the 2 doors at the end of each side - thus ok.

The interior has been said to be flexible - so if you want a large luggage area, just put in a sufficient luggage racking.

ergo 230s are ok for replacing 156s.

Or was something else amiss?

 

[LowLevel]

You could butcher them about at some expense but what do you actually gain over a class 156 that already comes with the former parcels van and full height luggage stack plus big overhead racks, decent seating layout and so on. There's also the flexibility of the Sprinter types in that you can vary the length easily enough between a 1 or 2 car train in winter up to a 6 car train as is sometimes required, while having the guard complete revenue duties easily by being able to get through the whole train while the summer catering trolley can get through as well. The Skegness line is one of extremes of being dead or wedged so the Sprinter flexibility comes into it's own. With absolute block signalling and some very odd platform layouts DOO is not a likelihood any time soon and therefore the ticket inspector (guard) not being able to hop about on the trains when in multiple would be a significant liability. The 230s don't appear to have any end corridors except between cars. With the dimensions of the vehicle bodies I'd struggle to see how you'd manage to fit families seating together on a 2 hour trip with enough luggage space in high season.

Plodding along at 60 mph might cause a problem on the Grantham to Nottingham section which has just been resignalled with 90 mph running in mind.
There's no need to replace the perfectly suitable 156 units in my opinion, and I spend enough time on them to know!

 

[47802]

You could butcher them about at some expense but what do you actually gain over a class 156 that already comes with the former parcels van and full height luggage stack plus big overhead racks, decent seating layout and so on. There's also the flexibility of the Sprinter types in that you can vary the length easily enough between a 1 or 2 car train in winter up to a 6 car train as is sometimes required, while having the guard complete revenue duties easily by being able to get through the whole train while the summer catering trolley can get through as well. The Skegness line is one of extremes of being dead or wedged so the Sprinter flexibility comes into it's own. With absolute block signalling and some very odd platform layouts DOO is not a likelihood any time soon and therefore the ticket inspector (guard) not being able to hop about on the trains when in multiple would be a significant liability. The 230s don't appear to have any end corridors except between cars. With the dimensions of the vehicle bodies I'd struggle to see how you'd manage to fit families seating together on a 2 hour trip with enough luggage space in high season.

Plodding along at 60 mph might cause a problem on the Grantham to Nottingham section which has just been resignalled with 90 mph running in mind.
There's no need to replace the perfectly suitable 156 units in my opinion, and I spend enough time on them to know!

Well Vivarail have made comparisons with a 150's I haven't seen any comparison with a 156 which I don't think they would stack up particularly well against as you need a 3 car 230 to get similar seating capacity, and I don't really see how a 230 is an improvement on well refurbished 156.

I see them best suited to some short distance metro services where the 60 limit isn't a problem, Barking - Gospel Oak would be a perfect example if it wasn't been electrified and short branches but the question is there really enough routes per TOC that fit that critera.

 

[furnessvale]

Well Vivarail have made comparisons with a 150's I haven't seen any comparison with a 156 which I don't think they would stack up particularly well against as you need a 3 car 230 to get similar seating capacity, and I don't really see how a 230 is an improvement on well refurbished 156.

I see them best suited to some short distance metro services where the 60 limit isn't a problem, Barking - Gospel Oak would be a perfect example if it wasn't been electrified and short branches but the question is there really enough routes per TOC that fit that critera.

Without checking back through 203 pages, and at the risk of repetition, 60 mph top speed is only one side of the equation.

The new(refurbished) unit is claimed to be faster accelerating than other units. On that basis, not only is maximum speed a factor but also station spacing.

It is quite possible that a 230 peaking at 60 could match, or even beat another unit peaking at 75 but taking longer to get to that speed, if station spacing intervened.

Someone better versed in such matters than me could produce graphs demonstrating the effect. Maybe Vivarail are doing this as part of their sales package.

 

[47802]

Without checking back through 203 pages, and at the risk of repetition, 60 mph top speed is only one side of the equation.

The new(refurbished) unit is claimed to be faster accelerating than other units. On that basis, not only is maximum speed a factor but also station spacing.

It is quite possible that a 230 peaking at 60 could match, or even beat another unit peaking at 75 but taking longer to get to that speed, if station spacing intervened.

.

Quite possibly although the 3 car unit would be an unpowered trailer which presumably will impact on performance. But even if they offer better performance over some routes where the station stops are close are there enough routes to justify a reasonable concentration of these trains or do they become something of an inflexible oddity compared to the more or less go anywhere fleet that current TOC might have.

If you look at Northern for example even if the new trains are not compatible with the existing fleet it shouldn't be too much of a problem because they will working Northern Connect services, but the non Northern Connect trains will all have a 75mph top speed minimum and they can all run in Multiple with each other. If you buy D trains however then that's another distinct fleet you have to accommodate with lower top speed and no compatibility with your existing fleet.

It would appear also now that there will be some spare units becoming available e.g a few sprinters and some 185's which may be able to satisfy at least some TOC's requirement for additional capacity without taking D trains.

EMT could take the 185's for instance and maybe get rid of its 153's

 

[pemma]

Without checking back through 203 pages, and at the risk of repetition, 60 mph top speed is only one side of the equation.

The new(refurbished) unit is claimed to be faster accelerating than other units. On that basis, not only is maximum speed a factor but also station spacing.

It is quite possible that a 230 peaking at 60 could match, or even beat another unit peaking at 75 but taking longer to get to that speed, if station spacing intervened.

Someone better versed in such matters than me could produce graphs demonstrating the effect. Maybe Vivarail are doing this as part of their sales package.

The D-Train can match the Pacer timings despite the top 60mph speed was based on a computer simulation on the Penistone Line only. I think the reason for Vivarail choosing that line was because they unveiled the idea at a transport conference in Huddersfield and wanted to show it as a Pacer replacement option on a route local to the conference, so the Penistone Line ticked the boxes for that. However, really to validate the claim properly they should have done analysis on numerous lines from those where the line speed doesn't allow over 60mph, to those where the line speed allows up to 125mph running.

I happen to notice your username is the name of a station on the Buxton line. I don't think D-Trains would work on that line for a few reasons:
1. The width of them would be too wide for one of the tunnels (I forget the name of which) given Pacers and 153s already are banned from the tunnel.
2. 60mph trains running non-stop between Stockport and Manchester wouldn't be allowed, given a 150 running on the fast is already slower than a 158 or a Voyager running on the slow.
3. Unit lengths compared to platform lengths. The longest formation which would be possible on the Buxton line would be 4 cars but a 4 car D-Train would be at least 6m shorter than a 4 car 150, resulting in a capacity reduction on peak time services.

 

[Goldfish62]

Buses are very modular; panelling over the rear door and adding 2 rows of seats is an afternoon's job plus time in the paintshop that would happen anyway.
.

That's an incredibly simplistic description of the work required. Afternoon's job? Really? You seem to have forgotten fitting of a new window pan and relocation of the wheelchair ramp for starters. I could go on with a detailed list of the work required, but you probably get the gist and anyway it's off topic.

 

[pemma]

but the non Northern Connect trains will all have a 75mph top speed minimum and they can all run in Multiple with each other

I think you've forgotten they'll be a lot of 90mph 158s which won't be running Northern Connect services. Given the majority of the current 158 routes will be getting new CAF DMUs or cascaded 170s it'll be interesting to see where the rest of them are used. Two routes in the North East aren't going to need in the region of 50 units!

 

[IanXC]

I think, given the variety of off topic discussions recently held on this thread, the time has come to close it.

When there is meaningful news from the Vivarail project please do let a member of the team know and we will reopen this thread for further discussion.

 

[jimm]

Spotted yesterday running on the circular line around the Long Marston site

http://www.petertandy.co.uk/230001__LM_260516

 

[phil281]

What's happening with this project? Seem's to have gone cold. I know the Northern franchise can't take them now, but is there still interest from elsewhere? Anglia, Valleys, Cornwall?

 

[Bungle965]

What's happening with this project? Seem's to have gone cold. I know the Northern franchise can't take them now, but is there still interest from elsewhere? Anglia, Valleys, Cornwall?

I believe that GWR wanted to trial them on the Tamar valley line.
Sam

 

[jimm]

Video of the three-car set in action https://vimeo.com/168240991

This section of the circuit at Long Marston is used for training of maintenance teams and has welded rail, so the train can run at 40+here

The train is expected to undertake Network Rail type approval testing soon on the Cotswold Line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably no case for a large UK build, but they might still have potential under another business model e.g. spot hire, branch line microfranchises etc.

 

[Class 466]

I can't say much on the subject - but expect it to turn up where you'd least expect it!

 

[physics34]

I can't say much on the subject - but expect it to turn up where you'd least expect it!

looking at your user name im thinking... Grove Park to Bromley North lol

 

[trainmania100]

Could use them on the Isle Of Wight

 

[Class 466]

looking at your user name im thinking... Grove Park to Bromley North lol

My username may or may not be a clue All will become clear in the coming months.

 

[A0wen]

My username may or may not be a clue All will become clear in the coming months.

That sort of post will get various posters frothing excitedly with all sorts of spurious ideas.

Is there any truth in the rumour that they can run in multiple with Class 442s?

 

[The 4th Rail]

looks much better now with the cowcatcher installed imo.
Shame the prospects have almost ran out for them.

 

[Yew]

I can't say much on the subject - but expect it to turn up where you'd least expect it!

The alton towers monorail?

 

[Class 466]

That sort of post will get various posters frothing excitedly with all sorts of spurious ideas.

Is there any truth in the rumour that they can run in multiple with Class 442s?

They can indeed! They will also come fitted with a free to use entertainment system with TV screens suspended from the ceiling.

 

[Dstock7080]

A recent presentation to LURS revealed that, as said, type approval for NR running is due to be received soon, as the train still carries grandfather rights for this limited additional approval will be required.

The LU compressors, camshaft equipment, MAs, fan MAs, will all be removed saving much weight per unit, although the addition of two Diesel engines and fuel tanks will balance this.

Units will retain the LU auto couplers on the DM cars and be able to form a maximum of 9-car trains if required.