Which lines do you think could use Vivarail Class 230s?

[MatthewRead]

Has anyone read the latest issue of RAIL it says these trains could end up in the Isle Of Wight and even the Scottish Highlands.

 

[SeanG]

The problems with having small fleets all over the place are well documented. However, without these drawbacks, I would say the following lines:
- Barton on Humber branch
- Conwy Valley
- Heart of Wales
- Cornish Branches
- Kirkby - Wigan shuttle

Various commuter services onto preserved lines may also work:
- East Lancs
- Keighley & Worth Valley
- Severn Valley

 

[Aictos]

The problems with having small fleets all over the place are well documented. However, without these drawbacks, I would say the following lines:
- Barton on Humber branch
- Conwy Valley
- Heart of Wales
- Cornish Branches
- Kirkby - Wigan shuttle

Various commuter services onto preserved lines may also work:
- East Lancs
- Keighley & Worth Valley
- Severn Valley

Sheerness Branch too! Just fit them with 3rd rail power pack which frees up a Networker.

 

[Aictos]

Or even Bromley South branch...

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the short section of 50mph running on the WCML didn't get in the way too much, the Ormskirk-Preston-Blackpool S-Preston-Colne-Preston-Ormskirk circuit would probably be a suitable candidate for a few, replacing the usual Pacers with something quite a lot nicer. You could do some promotional work by branding them up for the "Lancashire Lines" (as that circuit was known some years ago).

 

[MatthewRead]

Or even Bromley South branch...

Correction Bromley North.

 

[mullac30]

In the Highlands, a battery version for a Georgemas Junction - Wick shuttle would work well, and would also significantly reduce journey times on the FNL. The units could possibly also be good for Inverness -Elgin/Dingwall local services, freeing up 158s for longer FNL/Kyle services and perhaps WHL services.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has anyone read the latest issue of RAIL it says these trains could end up in the Isle Of Wight and even the Scottish Highlands.

You didn’t need RAIL, Some sort of 230 variant for the IOW has been discussed regularly in these forums since last year some time...

 

[Esker-pades]

In the Highlands, a battery version for a Georgemas Junction - Wick shuttle would work well, and would also significantly reduce journey times on the FNL. The units could possibly also be good for Inverness -Elgin/Dingwall local services, freeing up 158s for longer FNL/Kyle services and perhaps WHL services.

I would be seriously against that.

Firstly, a micro fleet of 5 units would be really silly, especially for depots with serious staff shortages and ScotRail's current training problem.

Secondly, the dead mileage. The Caithness shuttle would have to dead run for 200 miles down to Inverness for servicing. Better to make it a 158 so it could interwork with the full length Far North services.

Far better to have more 158s.

 

[GusB]

In the Highlands, a battery version for a Georgemas Junction - Wick shuttle would work well, and would also significantly reduce journey times on the FNL. The units could possibly also be good for Inverness -Elgin/Dingwall local services, freeing up 158s for longer FNL/Kyle services and perhaps WHL services.

I had thought that they might be useful for Inverness - Elgin services, but wouldn't they perhaps be a bit too slow? Mind you, if they're better at accelerating than a 158, this might not be so much of an issue. A quick charge at each end and the battery version might be a good fit.

Cue lots of grumbling about London cast-offs, though...

 

[Clansman]

Having travelled on the 230s in service down in Bletchley, I really don't undertstand the hype they're getting.
I genuinley don't think it's the desire of anybody to want to sit longitudinally on a half baked make shift ex LU MU knocking about on a line of which they are used to travelling on in far enhanced comfort.

By this I pretty much mean any line in Scotland, where I can't see them ever being adequate. At a push, their only use anywhere in my opinion, would be to encourage providing services along unused branchlines to their nearest currently opened station - such as Leven to Kirkcaldy - without running through to principle destinations. Pretty much in the same way as to how Stourbridge works.

 

[Harpers Tate]

.....sit longitudinally.....

They don't have to have longitudinal seats. Any more than long-distance trains have to have airline seats with no window (to which, I'd say, the same lack of desirability applies). What the operator chose here is to retain an area of longitudinal seating (along with many other lateral pairs) so as to provide a greater amount of standing room on the few services (at school times) that are extremely busy. They may have elected for such a layout were the train a brand new shell for the same reason; a reason that makes perfect sense.

 

[Clansman]

They don't have to have longitudinal seats. Any more than long-distance trains have to have airline seats with no window (to which, I'd say, the same lack of desirability applies). What the operator chose here is to retain an area of longitudinal seating (along with many other lateral pairs) so as to provide a greater amount of standing room on the few services (at school times) that are extremely busy. They may have elected for such a layout were the train a brand new shell for the same reason; a reason that makes perfect sense.

Must admit I overlooked that completely. Fair enough on that point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They don't have to have longitudinal seats. Any more than long-distance trains have to have airline seats with no window (to which, I'd say, the same lack of desirability applies). What the operator chose here is to retain an area of longitudinal seating (along with many other lateral pairs) so as to provide a greater amount of standing room on the few services (at school times) that are extremely busy.

And also to allow for an effectively unlimited capacity for bicycles, of which there are almost as many as passengers on this line, and they had already officially allowed more than the usual 2 (up to 6 at guards' discretion I believe) even on the 153s by allowing them in the wheelchair space provided the passenger agreed to alight in the unlikely (on this line due to poor accessibility at Bletchley) event of a wheelchair user wishing to board.

 

[adrock1976]

I would be seriously against that.

Firstly, a micro fleet of 5 units would be really silly, especially for depots with serious staff shortages and ScotRail's current training problem.

Secondly, the dead mileage. The Caithness shuttle would have to dead run for 200 miles down to Inverness for servicing. Better to make it a 158 so it could interwork with the full length Far North services.

Far better to have more 158s.

The 230s would not have any requirement to run to and from Inverness for servicing, as they can easily be serviced at Thurso or Wick.

The whole point of the 230s that are presently used on Bletchley - Bedford is that as well as platform lengths, it reduces the requirement for the trains to run to and from Tyseley for servicing (as was the case with the Sprinters), meaning that the 230s can easily be serviced at Bletchley.

 

[Voyager lad]

I think the 230s would be good on lines like Glasgow - Anniesland via Maryhill, short journey times with relatively low speeds. I think the 230s could be useful for new shuttle services, for example an hourly service in each direction between Thurso and Wick to keep these remote towns better connected. It could also help reduce journey times if you had services from Inverness - Wick avoiding Thurso with the shuttle going to Thurso instead. No matter where they go some people are going to be benefited and others not, but it’s about what’s best for most people.

 

[Esker-pades]

I think the 230s would be good on lines like Glasgow - Anniesland via Maryhill, short journey times with relatively low speeds. I think the 230s could be useful for new shuttle services, for example an hourly service in each direction between Thurso and Wick to keep these remote towns better connected. It could also help reduce journey times if you had services from Inverness - Wick avoiding Thurso with the shuttle going to Thurso instead. No matter where they go some people are going to be benefited and others not, but it’s about what’s best for most people.

Because of the way Georgemas Junction works, the shuttle has to run Georgemas to Wick, with the main service from Inverness reversing and continuing to Thurso. I can explain more if you want.

I continue to register my disagreement with having a micro-fleet of one or two units for a Caithness shuttle. Keep the fleets homogenous (IE: 158s).

 

[ashkeba]

And also to allow for an effectively unlimited capacity for bicycles, of which there are almost as many as passengers on this line, and they had already officially allowed more than the usual 2 (up to 6 at guards' discretion I believe) even on the 153s by allowing them in the wheelchair space provided the passenger agreed to alight in the unlikely (on this line due to poor accessibility at Bletchley) event of a wheelchair user wishing to board.

Multifunction (PRM/bicycle/large luggage) coaches on Belgian railways have longitudinal seating for similar reasons. I'm not sure why it's so hated in the UK and we seem to prefer 3+2 facing bays where you play footsie whether wanted or not.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

How many Class 230 are there in total?

 

[700007]

I think SWR would make good use of them not just on the Isle of Wight but also on the Salisbury - Romsey shuttle, Lymington branch and Swanage branch (if that ever gets a regular all year round shuttle service). Fit them with shoes and either batteries or diesel engines for where there is no juice.

 

[Bevan Price]

If the short section of 50mph running on the WCML didn't get in the way too much, the Ormskirk-Preston-Blackpool S-Preston-Colne-Preston-Ormskirk circuit would probably be a suitable candidate for a few, replacing the usual Pacers with something quite a lot nicer. You could do some promotional work by branding them up for the "Lancashire Lines" (as that circuit was known some years ago).

Preston to Farington Junction is probably too short for 50 mph maximum speed to affect running times by more than a few seconds. Of greater concern would be the section between Preston & Kirkham, where 75mph (at least) is permitted.

 

[markindurham]

The Esk Valley line to Whitby would be an ideal route for 230s

 

[yorksrob]

Why not use them to provide new services where the stock doesn't currently exist ?

Leeds - Knottingley
Sheffield - Cleethorpes via Brigg
Huddersfield - York via Castleford
Ashford - Lydd

One might even consider using some to supplement services on inadequately served lines such as Whitby -

 

[Esker-pades]

The Esk Valley line to Whitby would be an ideal route for 230s

Diagrams would have to be altered because of the way Whitby services extend to Newcastle, Hexham, Carlisle etc. The Esk Valley line doesn't have a self-contained diagram.

 

[Brissle Girl]

My guess would be a small fleet of battery ones for Barrhead, East Kilbride and Anniesland. Why? The Scottish Govt has been very careful in its aspirational wording to "green" more services around Glasgow without stating electrification. These routes don't need a high top speed (so 60mph limit is not a problem), and the Class 230 could achieve that aim quickly and at low cost. That together with the Battery trials in Scotland last year make me put 2 and 2 together. As I suspect those three branches couldn't be covered within the existing AC fleet (assuming retirement of the 314s) then it would probably be cheaper than a follow on order of 385s.

 

[clagmonster]

Because of the way Georgemas Junction works, the shuttle has to run Georgemas to Wick, with the main service from Inverness reversing and continuing to Thurso. I can explain more if you want.

I continue to register my disagreement with having a micro-fleet of one or two units for a Caithness shuttle. Keep the fleets homogenous (IE: 158s).

I'd be interested to hear of the operational restrictions as Georgemas Jn. In any case though, I would have thought the solution would be to run pairs of 158s and split at Georgemas. If usage doesn't justify that, then I'm sure there are cunning plans available involving 153s, of which Inverness are to gain a microfleet anyway.

 

[Richard Ingram]

I'd be interested to hear of the operational restrictions as Georgemas Jn. In any case though, I would have thought the solution would be to run pairs of 158s and split at Georgemas. If usage doesn't justify that, then I'm sure there are cunning plans available involving 153s, of which Inverness are to gain a microfleet anyway.

That is being discussed on this thread:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/georgemas-junction.182732/

 

[yorksrob]

Diagrams would have to be altered because of the way Whitby services extend to Newcastle, Hexham, Carlisle etc. The Esk Valley line doesn't have a self-contained diagram.

The existing services are more or less evenly spaced. If one got rid of the pointless ones that terminated half way along the branch, you could use a set or teo to fill in the gaps.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Diagrams would have to be altered because of the way Whitby services extend to Newcastle, Hexham, Carlisle etc. The Esk Valley line doesn't have a self-contained diagram.

You consider the 230 to be unsuitable for the service to Newcastle from Teeside? Or even Hexham? I wonder what is so appealing about a 156 in this context.

 

[markindurham]

Diagrams would have to be altered because of the way Whitby services extend to Newcastle, Hexham, Carlisle etc. The Esk Valley line doesn't have a self-contained diagram.

Well yes, but diagrams do change regularly - and I suspect that once the Pacers go then we will see a fairly large rejig of timetables and diagrams.