Why cant East Coast 225 DVTs be converted for passenger use?

[JohnCarlson]

Is there any reason the DVTs on East Coast can't be converted for use by passengers? I assume there are good reasons or it would have already been done.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Aside from the cost/benefit issue, the first 1/3 of the first vehicle can't have passengers anyway because of safety rules (you will notice this is true of all passenger trains that go above 110mph).

IIRC, NXEA had converting the Mk3 DVTs into DVT-K (kitchen/buffet) vehicles as part of their franchise agreement, but it didn't go ahead.

 

[asylumxl]

Although I'm not sure what rules would apply to such a conversion, I imagine they also wouldn't be structurally strong enough to meet crash worthiness standards for passenger vehicles.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I believe the owners of the mkIV sets (eversholt?) are planning on putting the kitchen facilities in them as part of an upgrade they are proposing to keep them on the ECML. (ie not electric IEPs just new locos for mkIVs)

 

[dk1]

I believe the owners of the mkIV sets (eversholt?) are planning on putting the kitchen facilities in them as part of an upgrade they are proposing to keep them on the ECML. (ie not electric IEPs just new locos for mkIVs)

This was the plan when NX had 'one'. It is however a very costly job even if possible. Full crew access has to be maintained too.

As for passengers, it was said that it was not possible to convert & meet safety standards.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It would please me to see more use of the DVT's capacity being promoted for large items of luggage; even if the promotion was limited to the major stations and focussed on busy periods (eg holidays, start of university term). Having more of passenger's luggage in the DVT could ease the passage through the gangways dramatically.

Over the winter months, while I take my bike in the DVT, I rarely find any other bikes in there, though in summer, its not uncommon to find the cycle area full - I'd be unhappy at loosing that capacity.
Once you allow for the driver's cab, guard's office, the electical cabinets, cycle racks and other equipment, there's not a great deal of unused space remaining.

 

[RyanB]

It would please me to see more use of the DVT's capacity being promoted for large items of luggage; even if the promotion was limited to the major stations and focussed on busy periods (eg holidays, start of university term). Having more of passenger's luggage in the DVT could ease the passage through the gangways dramatically.

Over the winter months, while I take my bike in the DVT, I rarely find any other bikes in there, though in summer, its not uncommon to find the cycle area full - I'd be unhappy at loosing that capacity.
Once you allow for the driver's cab, guard's office, the electical cabinets, cycle racks and other equipment, there's not a great deal of unused space remaining.

I thought you could just go up to the DVT and kindly ask for your large luggage to be put in there, or is it all change now-a-days?

 

[Spaceflower]

It would please me to see more use of the DVT's capacity being promoted for large items of luggage; even if the promotion was limited to the major stations and focussed on busy periods (eg holidays, start of university term). Having more of passenger's luggage in the DVT could ease the passage through the gangways dramatically.

Over the winter months, while I take my bike in the DVT, I rarely find any other bikes in there, though in summer, its not uncommon to find the cycle area full - I'd be unhappy at loosing that capacity.
Once you allow for the driver's cab, guard's office, the electical cabinets, cycle racks and other equipment, there's not a great deal of unused space remaining.

Yes, I thought the DVT were exactly that, vans. I've used them when travelling by bike several times and they always seemed pretty popular with like minded individuals. Where would you put your bike if this capacity was lost? Especially on the busier London trains which are often standing only and crowded to the point of bursting after Peterborough.

Also, I find the idea of conversion to kitchens wanting in practicality. Situated at one end means a long walk to reach the far end of the train. This either means too far from 1st class or means standard class passengers herding through first class. Neither is very desirable.

 

[jopsuk]

When I've put a bike into one, there's not been much spare space! They're already quite well used to store non-perishavble supplies for the catering, amongest other things. And at busy times of year they pretty much fill up with checked-in luggage.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Rail Group Standard that was in force at the time the DVTs were new:

4.8 Passengers and catering staff shall not be carried in the leading vehicle of a
train which has a maximum operating speed greater than 160 km/h without the sanction of HM Railway Inspectorate. A quantified risk assessment shall be submitted in support of any proposal to deviate from this requirement.
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ck/Railway Group Standards/GMRT2100 Iss 2.pdf

... barred both passengers AND catering staff from travel in the leading vehicle of a train above 100 mph. So as far as it read then, unless a dispensation was given, putting catering equipment in there would be unusable 50% of the time. Later iterations of the same RGS starting with issue3 in 2000 dropped the above paragraph completely; they cross refer to various BS and EN standards to do with safety structures, which aren't online.

The '1/3 length of a leading vehicle' like in the 22x and 390 doesn't seem to have appeared in a published RGS that I can find, however even when the above RGS was in force approval could be sought from HMRI if a vehicle builder could prove there was a suitable crumple zone. I guess it's EU TSIs that are now most relevant though, so perhaps the 1/3 rule should really only be seen as a 'rule of thumb' description nowadays...

By the way, if you were to consider the 395 as an example of a current design, don't the passengers get a bit nearer the front than in Voyagers etc anyway?

 

[Helvellyn]

I find the idea of conversion to kitchens wanting in practicality. Situated at one end means a long walk to reach the far end of the train. This either means too far from 1st class or means standard class passengers herding through first class. Neither is very desirable.

Doesn't seem to be a problem on Voyagers, Meridians or Pendolinos. I'd image the existing Mk 4 Cafe Kitchen car would be rebuilt with just a small buffet/cafe bar, and that seating capacity would be increased as a result. The Kitchen in the DVT would then be used to provide the First Class catering alone.

 

[Bald Rick]

By the way, if you were to consider the 395 as an example of a current design, don't the passengers get a bit nearer the front than in Voyagers etc anyway?

Indeed so, suspect that is something to do with them having full ATP on any lines where they go over 100mph.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also, I find the idea of conversion to kitchens wanting in practicality. Situated at one end means a long walk to reach the far end of the train. This either means too far from 1st class or means standard class passengers herding through first class. Neither is very desirable.

Only first class catering requires the use of a full kitchen and serving coach K from the DVT would be no further than serving coach M is now from the buffet. This is what is available in standard class on East Coast. There is nothing on it that I can see would require a kitchen as all of it should be possible to produce using a micro-buffet as found on a variety of stock (222s, 221s, 390s, some FGW HSTs, 180s and so on).

That being said I think it's more logical to keep the DVT as is and instead focusing on trying to get more people to use it. I've often thought that the like of East Coast are missing a trick by not offering something similar to a checked luggage service between principle stations by taking advantage of the space offered by the DVT (and luggage space in power cars of HSTs).

 

[ryan125hst]

There is nothing on it that I can see would require a kitchen as all of it should be possible to produce using a micro-buffet as found on a variety of stock (222s, 221s, 390s, some FGW HSTs, 180s and so on).

That might be the case, but did food provided from the buffet for standard class passengers need food to be cooked in the kitchen back in BR days?

I've notice that catering on trains seems to be getting less and less. Just look at the loss of the restaurant car. It would be difficult to provide a restaurant service to standard class passengers if the kitchen was at the front of the train. Has it ever been done on a Pendolino or has it always been complementary food?

I know it's unlikely for the catering services to be changed for now, but whose to say that future franchise holders won't want to reintroduce the restaurant service and serve a wider range of food to standard class passengers?

 

[Yew]

Also, I find the idea of conversion to kitchens wanting in practicality. Situated at one end means a long walk to reach the far end of the train. This either means too far from 1st class or means standard class passengers herding through first class. Neither is very desirable.

Like the kitchens on a 222 are situated?

And I seem to remember that document, seemed to offer some sort of 'premium first class' with 1+1 seating. What a waste.

 

[ainsworth74]

That might be the case, but did food provided from the buffet for standard class passengers need food to be cooked in the kitchen back in BR days?

Until the complementary offer was introduced there were a range of items available to standard class passengers that requried the services of a chef and the kitchen.

Has it ever been done on a Pendolino or has it always been complementary food?

As far as I'm aware by the time 390s were arriving VT had pretty much done away with restaurant services. Certainly by the time they were in squadron service this was the case.

I know it's unlikely for the catering services to be changed for now, but whose to say that future franchise holders won't want to reintroduce the restaurant service and serve a wider range of food to standard class passengers?

I think it's highly likely that the future of railway catering is as found on VT and EC and the sort of catering as was available on EC and can still be found on FGW will likely vanish in the not to distant future. Further EC is a profitable franchise (one of the few that actually contribute to the Treasury) I find it very unlikely that any future company will mess with the formula they've developed all that much.

So with that in mind it makes sense to try and optimise the internal usage of the IC225 sets. If Eversholt and a future TOC feel that's by moving the kitchen facilities to the DVT then so be it. Personally I think it makes more sense to leave the DVT as a van for the conveyance of luggage and bikes but others may disagree.

And I seem to remember that document, seemed to offer some sort of 'premium first class' with 1+1 seating. What a waste.

Well that whole thing was more Eversholt brainstorming possible interior layouts rather than coming up with concrete plans. The reality is that any TOC would be most likely to take their proposed standard class and first class layouts rather than faff with 'Premium' or 'Business' class as proposed by Eversholt.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Although I'm not sure what rules would apply to such a conversion, I imagine they also wouldn't be structurally strong enough to meet crash worthiness standards for passenger vehicles.

I have saved on my desktop a Mk3 Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock brochure (.pdf) from porterbrook. Among other things, they present four options for the driving vehicle: Mk3 DVT, Seated DVT, Mk3 DBSO and new DTSO vehicle.

The "seated DVT" and "Mk3 DBSO" options involve converting existing mrk3 vehicles, if Porterbrook are correct that it can be done with a mrk3 DVT then I would imagine it can be done with a mrk4 DVT also. Personally I think a new build mrk5 DVT seated DVT, styled to look like a 91, using the bogies from the mrk4 DVTs, should replace the mrk4 DVTs.

I believe the owners of the mkIV sets (eversholt?) are planning on putting the kitchen facilities in them as part of an upgrade they are proposing to keep them on the ECML. (ie not electric IEPs just new locos for mkIVs)

I think that's what was said in Modern Railways, although upgrades to class 91s are being proposed (and a double-pantograph prototype has already been created) also as an alternative to new locos. Personally, I think they new loco proposed (TRAXX?) looks really naff compared to the 91s, the best looking locos out there (bar some steam ones).

Also, I find the idea of conversion to kitchens wanting in practicality. Situated at one end means a long walk to reach the far end of the train. This either means too far from 1st class or means standard class passengers herding through first class. Neither is very desirable.

I agree, and IEP has the same problem (kitchen/buffet in first class only). I think the buffet should be between first and standard class, as it is at present on both IC125s and IC225s, so that passengers from either class can buy a hot evening meal (nothing fancy for me please, nice plate of Fish & Chips?).

You could provide 1st class passengers with waiter/waitress service I suppose. Personally I think the mrk4 buffet cars should revert to facing the same way as the rest of the rake with the buffet becoming first class like the IC125s, so you'd have:

DVT (seated) - TSO - TSO - TSO - TSO - TSO - TSO - BUFFET (1st class seats) - FO - FO - 91

Of course that wouldn't work on the East Coast as 1st class is traditionaly at the London end and the 91 needs to be at the other. If they were on the GWML and the 91s were based at Swansea it would work perfectly however.

 

[jopsuk]

Why with your idea of turning the buffet around did you turn the rest of the set, rather than just the buffet? Why not have 1st in the DVT?

 

[edwin_m]

Having the kitchen in the end car probably also means it can take up the full width. Or is there some safety reason why the driver can't walk through the kitchen on the rare occasions it might be necessary?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Why with your idea of turning the buffet around did you turn the rest of the set, rather than just the buffet? Why not have 1st in the DVT?

It wouldn't be turning the 'buffet' (they were turned when the Mallard refurbishments were done), but it does go to the trouble of making them first class again and making the TSOE into a TFOE and two FOs into TSOs

 

[tbtc]

If you were going to put seats in a DVT, wouldn't it be better to start with the Chiltern ones (where there's no 125mph running, so no "crumple zone" to worry about)?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

They are already having generators fitted so not as much room spare in them.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Of course they could always be used to re introduce third class travel where you just sit on the floor.

John

 

[Kettledrum]

Of course they could always be used to re introduce third class travel where you just sit on the floor.

John

On some routes, we already have the 3rd class travel you describe in all but name

 

[cjmillsnun]

Of course they could always be used to re introduce third class travel where you just sit on the floor.

John

You obviously haven't tried to get from Woking to Waterloo in the morning :-/ I've done carpet class

 

[JohnCarlson]

You obviously haven't tried to get from Woking to Waterloo in the morning :-/ I've done carpet class

I seem to have touched a nerve here.

John

 

[cjmillsnun]

Lets just say I'm glad I don't commute to London any more.

 

[jopsuk]

You obviously haven't tried to get from Woking to Waterloo in the morning :-/ I've done carpet class

Could be worse, could be so busy sitting down isn't possible.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Yes, I thought the DVT were exactly that, vans. I've used them when travelling by bike several times and they always seemed pretty popular with like minded individuals. Where would you put your bike if this capacity was lost? Especially on the busier London trains which are often standing only and crowded to the point of bursting after Peterborough.

Also, I find the idea of conversion to kitchens wanting in practicality. Situated at one end means a long walk to reach the far end of the train. This either means too far from 1st class or means standard class passengers herding through first class. Neither is very desirable.

unless you

1. rearrange the layout of the diagram to put the DVT at the London end followed by the first class coaches ...

2. kitchen in DVT and next carriage goes back to having a restaurant car rather than at seat service for first class and usingthe restaurant car as more 1st ...