D Trains and the Marston Vale Line

[A0wen]

The comment about only using the shell is interesting as that to my eyes would mean that the current interior is completely gutted and replaced with new but that's not the case on the prototype and i'm not sure it will be the case on any that go into production.

Well it is a prototype - and given the nature of the work they're doing to them, which is primarily around the traction package, it's not really surprising they haven't done anything with the interior. The interior is the easy bit.

No obviously I haven't travelled one as yet but many including myself don't see it as a major step up in quality from a Railbus and it also has some disadvantages in terms of Low Top Speed,

Well, let's look at some of the 'knowns' -

The D trains have proper bogies rather than being fixed axles mounted onto the frame - so the basic ride quality should be alot better. I did travel on them occasionally in London and don't recall the ride being poor.

The lower top speed is a bit of a red herring. Given these are likely to be deployed either where there are frequent stops (in which case acceleration is more important) or the line speed is already low (e.g. Marston Vale is only 60mph now) - it's not a problem. Their acceleration ought to be far better than a Pacer and probably better than a Sprinter - so any loss in top speed will probably be more than off-set by the improved acceleration. I've used this example before, so apologies, but try being at Kings Cross when both a 313 (top speed 75mph) and an HST leave together. The 313's long gone and is slowing for its stop at FP by the time the HST catches it.

and many customer's on the Northern Franchise are fed up of the Large Fleet of Railbuses frequently used on inappropriate length Journey's and much of the Sprinter fleet which hasn't had a proper decent overall in years, so the idea of trotting out 'D' trains to Northern is seen as more crap for the North.

So your issue is less one of D trains and more one of inappropriate rostering in terms of what services units are deployed on.

Let's look in the medium term (i.e. 5 years). The GWML is going to be electrified which should free up some Sprinters from the Bristol and Cardiff areas.

The MML electrification will be underway which will release the 222s, presumably to supplant 158s, 170s or 185s - we don't know yet, but the trickle down effect means the 158s etc will be cascaded to release 150s. With the railbuses at the bottom of the pile.

Throw in some inevitable 'fill in' electrification (quick win schemes) obvious ones being some of the suburban lines around Manchester and Birmingham and a few more units come free.

 

[D365]

They are doing the job they were designed to do. The D train was never designed to be:

a) diesel powered
b) let loose on the "open" railway
c) meet current railway standards

Hence structural enhancement works and extensive crash testing.

Yes electrification will release units IF the electrification plans actually happen or are not pushed back even further - but why not replace all of the oldest stock in one go with something new with a long design life

It shouldn't be beyond us to design a train that can be "modular" and offer different configurations to suit all needs

Talk to the ROSCOs, you'd be naive to think that they're prepared to lay down the cash at a moment's notice.

Yet people seem to have a problem with IEP and how it's been specified to meet the needs of different InterCity operators.

i know how a diesel/electric train works thanks. Guess what? Regardless of how you dress it up real people will not care about "traction packages" or "electric motor drivetrains" - they will see a second hand knackered underground train driven by a Ford transit engine.

Why would LU have made such an investment if the units were going to end up 'knackered' again, only 10 years after refurbishment?

As for the Marston Vale line we will need something new and offering more capacity. The 153 is often full in the mornings and as Amazon and others at Ridgemont expand and more workers realise they have a station of their own at the gate of the warehouse AND even more housing gets built along the line passenger numbers will increase. They already have in the 5 years i have used the line

What ROSCO would be interested in buying new diesel stock when the line is due to be upgraded and electrified in the next 5-10 years?

 

[northwichcat]

What ROSCO would be interested in buying new diesel stock when the line is due to be upgraded and electrified in the next 5-10 years?

As far as the ROSCO is concerned they aren't really bothered what line the train is used on, just as long as it's leased and they don't have small fleets split up between too many operators.

Angel Trains' 175s only remained on most of their original routes in the North West for a few years before they were transferred to another operator. Did Angel kick up a fuss about that?

 

[D365]

As far as the ROSCO is concerned they aren't really bothered what line the train is used on, just as long as it's leased and they don't have small fleets split up between too many operators.

As far as I'm aware, a ROSCO wants to be certain of recouping their investment throughout (and even beyond) the lifetime of their shiny new rolling stock, whereas in regards to diesel units, they seem to be getting mixed signals with the electrification programme that has been proposed/is ongoing.

 

[northwichcat]

As far as I'm aware, a ROSCO wants to be certain of recouping their investment throughout (and even beyond) the lifetime of their shiny new rolling stock, whereas in regards to diesel units, they seem to be getting mixed signals with the electrification programme that has been proposed/is ongoing.

Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry (which the ROSCOs were involved in) predicts 62% to 77% of the UK network will be electrified by 2034 (77% presumes higher than expected growth over the next 20 years.)

The updated strategy does allow for new self-powered trains being produced in CP5 (the previous one stated CP6 would be the earliest new self-powered trains are required) and indicates some rural lines are never likely to be electrified.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would they be any good on the Marlow branch? I've seen a drivers eye view of the approach on the preview video of Video 125's latest DEV video, it looks like a 2 car 230 would fit

 

[jopsuk]

The MML electrification will be underway which will release the 222s, presumably to supplant 158s, 170s or 185s - we don't know yet, but the trickle down effect means the 158s etc will be cascaded to release 150s. With the railbuses at the bottom of the pile.

Throw in some inevitable 'fill in' electrification (quick win schemes) obvious ones being some of the suburban lines around Manchester and Birmingham and a few more units come free.

Remaining 150s will hopefully be concentrated on remaining diesel operated "metro" type routes, be they in the North, Wales or south west

 

[RichmondCommu]

The whole point is that the stock is *not* "knackered". It is being replaced because of TfL's strategy to have one type of stock operating on the subsurface lines, and because the narrower single leaf doors are not optimal for that use. Were it not for those factors I'm sure it'd have continued for another 20 years at least.

No air conditioning equals no good on a hot day in London. Good riddance since 2010.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for DarloRich's posting, there's a few points that I take issue with, but his last sentence makes me question the credibility of his remarks...

I think it's called Humour!

 

[D365]

I think it's called Humour!

"There's a time and place for everything"

 

[RichmondCommu]

"There's a time and place for everything"

Yes and this is just an internet forum, a very good and useful internet forum but a forum all the same!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is there no longer a plan for Marston Vale services to run to MKC, at least prior to East-West services starting up? I'd have thought that might be a problem for the 230s...

 

[Julia]

To what extent is the 2-car limit on Marston Vale down to actual platform lengths, and how much down to longer platforms being neglected beyond a 2-car length? :roll:

 

[DarloRich]

To what extent is the 2-car limit on Marston Vale down to actual platform lengths, and how much down to longer platforms being neglected beyond a 2-car length? :roll:

most platforms on the line are snug for 2 cars as the signal posts are often right on the end of the platform

There are plans to extend Woburn and Ridgmont to accommodate longer E_w trains. The others will remain as now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there no longer a plan for Marston Vale services to run to MKC, at least prior to East-West services starting up? I'd have thought that might be a problem for the 230s...

The TOCs don't seem interested in making this happen despite the promises
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hence structural enhancement works and extensive crash testing.

it is still a conversion rather than a purpose built real railway vehicle. I understand the Vivarail business case: they think they have spotted gap in the market and are trying to develop a product to fill that gap. Good luck to them although I would rather the government sorted itself out and ordered new diesel trains.

personally i don't want to ride around on a converted, second hand London underground cast off. You clearly do. If you think my cynicism and criticism is bad wait till they pitch up in Northern Land and the media cottons on to what they are.

Talk to the ROSCOs, you'd be naive to think that they're prepared to lay down the cash at a moment's notice.

No i don't! I expect them to be involved, with the government & TOC's ,in a planned tender and procurement operation to provide new diesel trains

Yet people seem to have a problem with IEP and how it's been specified to meet the needs of different InterCity operators.

Of the many issues I have with IEP the design is not one of them!

What ROSCO would be interested in buying new diesel stock when the line is due to be upgraded and electrified in the next 5-10 years?

For the 9 millionth time: BUYING A NEW, SMALL, BESPOKE TRAIN FLEET FOR ONE LINE IS MADNESS! and not what i suggest. I suggest, rather than cobbling something together, the government get off their backside and tender and procure one base unit to meet as many of the various TOC diesel unit needs as possible and move everyone onto a new, modern train design asap. We can then bin pacers et al as required.

You also assume the Vale will be electrified. It makes no sense until such time as MML is complete and may yet be cut from the programme entirely. We may yet see no upgrade works of any kind on the Marston Vale line.

 

[northwichcat]

DarloRich: I understand what you're getting at but if an order of new DMUs is placed it doesn't seem to make sense for LM to get a small number of them.

Ignoring the Turbostars and 139s LM have just 14 diesel carriages. The Northern ITT mentions minimum 120 new carriages. Why would you order 120 carriages for Northern and 14 of the same kind for LM opposed to letting LM take on some of the released Scotrail/LO 17xs opposed to 134 for Northern?

You may say 17xs on Marston Vale would cause too many issues but there isn't any guarantee the new build will be a better fit. If it's an order of 4 car FLIRTs from Stadler then they would be a worse fit for Marston Vale than the 172s which LO will release. (Some people have suggested FLIRTs for the UK network may not be able to have a corridor through the engine vehicle, which would probably make a 2 car option not viable.)

 

[nottsnurse]

I do love these disparaging remarks about "Transit engines". God forbid you like locos that use gunboat engines or DMUs that use static generator/marine engines eh?

Whats that? Diesel engines can be used for many different applications? But, but, but...railways first surely?

 

[DarloRich]

DarloRich: I understand what you're getting at but if an order of new DMUs is placed it doesn't seem to make sense for LM to get a small number of them.

Ignoring the Turbostars and 139s LM have just 14 diesel carriages. The Northern ITT mentions minimum 120 new carriages. Why would you order 120 carriages for Northern and 14 of the same kind for LM opposed to letting LM take on some of the released Scotrail/LO 17xs opposed to 134 for Northern?

You may say 17xs on Marston Vale would cause too many issues but there isn't any guarantee the new build will be a better fit. If it's an order of 4 car FLIRTs from Stadler then they would be a worse fit for Marston Vale than the 172s which LO will release. (Some people have suggested FLIRTs for the UK network may not be able to have a corridor through the engine vehicle, which would probably make a 2 car option not viable.)

Whilst the line remains within LM sphere it will be a diesel island. Once the line towards Claydon is open I would prefer to see the Marston Vale go over to Chiltern operation. Until then we need a diesel train along that line and A 17X's wont fit due to platform lengths and infrastructure furniture locations. No one seems to want to pay to accommodate such a train.

Being fair: If the D train was presented a true short term stop gap before electrification that could increase service provision and reliability I might just wear it. By that I mean ACTUALLY increase service provision and reliability, not just press release the same. It would be nice if the reduce cost incurred by the TOC was passed on to us as customers

The problem is that unlike many of you I don't trust many people and certainly not private rail companies out for a profit . That short term stop gap will quickly become long term permanence. Perhaps I am overly cynical. I doubt it.

I do love these disparaging remarks about "Transit engines". God forbid you like locos that use gunboat engines or DMUs that use static generator/marine engines eh?

Whats that? Diesel engines can be used for many different applications? But, but, but...railways first surely?

If you think this is bad just wait till the northern press get hold of the story once they arrive there:

30 + year old bus trains replaced by 30 + year old London underground cast offs powered by a transit van engine. They aren't even real trains say local Councillors. North once again plays second fiddle to south in new train lottery etc etc. ...........

 

[nottsnurse]

...If you think this is bad just wait till the northern press get hold of the story once they arrive there:

30 + year old bus trains replaced by 30 + year old London underground cast offs powered by a transit van engine. They aren't even real trains say local Councillors. North once again plays second fiddle to south in new train lottery etc etc. ...........

And you expect such trot from the idiot press, not so much from someone who appears (from brief glimpses of your posts) to be knowledgeable about the railways/technology, or at least rather more so than some clueless sub-editor.

 

[northwichcat]

If you think this is bad just wait till the northern press get hold of the story once they arrive there

Considering senior Conservative ministers have on numerous occasions said the next Northern franchise will be replacing Pacers and won't be getting converted London Underground trains in lieu, I think the headlines would be along the lines of "Conservatives Fail To Deliver Promises" if they are used by the next Northern franchise.

Fortunately, for Northern users the ITT was specified a few months before the General Election and the Pacer withdrawal date is a few months before the next General Election, so they were aware the ITT has to be good and that if the Pacer withdrawal doesn't go ahead it could lose them their small majority (if other things they've done don't already cause that to happen.)

Until then we need a diesel train along that line and A 17X's wont fit due to platform lengths and infrastructure furniture locations. No one seems to want to pay to accommodate such a train.

If no-one's willing to pay for platform extensions or SDO then it's likely no-one's willing to pay for new stock either. I recall Neil Williams saying the loadings are quite low and an ePacer or D-Train would cope fine. Those alongside keeping 150s for a lot longer may be the only option until passenger numbers improve.

 

[Julia]

I suggest, rather than cobbling something together, the government get off their backside and tender and procure one base unit to meet as many of the various TOC diesel unit needs as possible and move everyone onto a new, modern train design asap.

That assumes that anyone will answer the tender with a sensible and politically acceptable bid. If it's technically difficult and/or gets in the way of more profitable orders for other countries, and doesn't come with guarantees of mass orders, the usual suspects won't bother. Because capitalism, or something like that.

 

[DarloRich]

Although having been on the 153 last night that had a ripe toliety odour i might change my mind about D trains!

 

[MK Tom]

Do we not have the slight problem anyway that after electrification there still won't be any EMUs that fit in the platforms?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If new ones, SDO?

 

[Nym]

Do we not have the slight problem anyway that after electrification there still won't be any EMUs that fit in the platforms?

Care to be a bit more specific?

 

[DarloRich]

A 456 will have a job running under OHLE. Although we could tie a diesel on the front

Do we not have the slight problem anyway that after electrification there still won't be any EMUs that fit in the platforms?

assuming the line is electrified. There are plans to extend platforms at 2 stations as part of E-W

If new ones, SDO?

indeed

 

[paul1609]

Bedford - Bletchley would only allow 2 car units owing to platform lengths - it's the reason why they only have 150s / 153s on it at the moment.

If the 230's acceleration is better than a 153 / 150 then it would be a good fit for Bedford - Bletchley not least because the linespeed is only 60mph - until it's upgraded for EWR - and they've got two level crossings which need to be sorted as part of that work.

As a stop gap 230s would make sense.

Why not fit the 230s with selective door opening? 171s manage ok on Marshlink where some platforms are only 1 coach long.

 

[MK Tom]

I was referring to the other stations, as presumably we'd want the local shuttle to go electric when electrification happens. And yeah, a 456 converted to AC would be interesting, but in realistic terms it's either platform extensions at every station or diesel operation of a fully electrified line.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I was referring to the other stations, as presumably we'd want the local shuttle to go electric when electrification happens. And yeah, a 456 converted to AC would be interesting, but in realistic terms it's either platform extensions at every station or diesel operation of a fully electrified line.

What about either a 319 or 365 as a three car formation (if that's even physically possible for a 365)?

 

[DarloRich]

What about either a 319 or 365 as a three car formation (if that's even physically possible for a 365)?

wont fit without platform extensions or SDO. 2 cars are very tight at most stations.

Why not fit the 230s with selective door opening? 171s manage ok on Marshlink where some platforms are only 1 coach long.

Why not just fit SDO to the LM 172's? I have been informed that the lack of SDO is why they didn't come down here.

 

[edwin_m]

From the comments about the number of passengers, it would probably be OK using a 319 or 321 reduced to 3 cars, and locking the first and last sets of doors out of use. As long as some sort of emergency release of these doors or into the cab is still available.

 

[Nym]

Why not fit the 230s with selective door opening? 171s manage ok on Marshlink where some platforms are only 1 coach long.

They're only 17m cars so you'd need a 3 car in order to require SDO...

And it's quite easy on D Stock since they have individual door engines and independent control of each, unlike some LU stocks prior to 1973...