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

[Domh245]

That's because it is one of the doors that will be take out of use in that configuration. All trains apart from the "commuter" variant will be the 2 end doors only, with the other 2 locked off. Interesting to see that there will be seats for those who enjoy looking out of the window.

 

[Bantamzen]

Hmmm, will they be properly sealed or just out of use? Imagine the drafts through them if they weren't. Cheap and nasty springs to mind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hmmm, will they be properly sealed or just out of use? Imagine the drafts through them if they weren't. Cheap and nasty springs to mind.

It refers to "door replacement panels" so I don't see why they wouldn't be properly sealed.

This sort of thing is done all the time to buses leaving London for the provinces, and done well you can barely tell there was ever a door there. (I expect there are structural reasons for needing to keep the pillars).

Neil

 

[Bantamzen]

Well either way they look awful. And given the state of some ex TfL buses that land oop North the prospect of ex-D stock rattling around doesn't exactly inspire.

 

[Feathers44]

I didn't think they looked that bad (particularly when compared to their present incarnation).

 

[GatwickDepress]

Those are some massive gaps between the seats. Makes sense considering there's no space for overhead luggage racks.

 

[northwichcat]

Those are some massive gaps between the seats. Makes sense considering there's no space for overhead luggage racks.

If anyone proposes putting them on the Mid-Cheshire or Hope Valley lines (and probably other lines with village stations) they'll be people demanding there is a bicycle rack which can take 4 bicycles.

 

[Murph]

Well either way they look awful. And given the state of some ex TfL buses that land oop North the prospect of ex-D stock rattling around doesn't exactly inspire.

They look ok to me. My only criticism is the exterior cab end shown. I don't think they need the modern plastic glued over the existing end. I think if you're going to do a project like this, it's better to just give them an honest face (i.e. give the original face a decent paint job and just the minor adjustments needed to lights, etc), and not try to disguise what's underneath. I think that the honesty of presenting them as a thoroughly refurbished and modernised old train is something that the general public can respect if it's providing good service for them, without the plastic surgery.

As long as there's some decent padding on those seats, I could see them as being a possible step up from an unholy union of a bus and a freight wagon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I didn't think they looked that bad (particularly when compared to their present incarnation).

I think they look fine. Indeed if Bletchley could get 3 sets (2 to use and one spare) they could perhaps release a 150 and a 153, and avoid needing to go all the way back to Brum if you need a spare when one of them inevitably conks out. And this is similarly a route that needs interim DMU stock because it's going to get wired within 20 years (as part of East West Rail).

Neil

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That looks surprisingly good, apart from that hideous front end... Though once you allow for the space needed for a power unit above the floor; and the fact that each vehicle is 17m long (so longer than a Pacer car but shorter than a 150) I can't see much use for a 2-car set.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That looks surprisingly good, apart from that hideous front end... Though once you allow for the space needed for a power unit above the floor; and the fact that each vehicle is 17m long (so longer than a Pacer car but shorter than a 150) I can't see much use for a 2-car set.

The engines are going *under* the floor. The above floor power was another idea.

Neil

 

[47802]

They look ok to me. My only criticism is the exterior cab end shown. I don't think they need the modern plastic glued over the existing end. I think if you're going to do a project like this, it's better to just give them an honest face (i.e. give the original face a decent paint job and just the minor adjustments needed to lights, etc), and not try to disguise what's underneath. I think that the honesty of presenting them as a thoroughly refurbished and modernised old train is something that the general public can respect if it's providing good service for them, without the plastic surgery.

As long as there's some decent padding on those seats, I could see them as being a possible step up from an unholy union of a bus and a freight wagon.

I suspect the changed front end is to do with improving the crash worthiness.

 

[contrex]

Some illustrations of the proposed trains have appeared:

My God that's ugly!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The engines are going *under* the floor. The above floor power was another idea.

Neil

Oh ok. I'm surprised there's room for an engine that meets emissions regulations under there!

I suspect the changed front end is to do with improving the crash worthiness.

...

My God that's ugly!

I don't doubt that some work would be needed to the front, above and beyond painting it yellow...

But is there a need for it to be so grotesque as to scare trespassers away?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think it looks terrible. A bit 319ish maybe.

 

[Starmill]

I'm confused.

So this tinpot madness actually is going to happen?

'CONVERSION IS GO' from Rodger Ford must have annoyed Ian Walmsley

 

[yorksrob]

Going by the images, the apparent large numbers of facing seats with tables would definately be an improvement (lack of tables on Northern's 144's and 150's is an unnecessary and unjustified oversight IMO).

They do appear to suffer from that unfortunate modern disease, thin seat syndrome though.

That said, I would welcome a return to British Rail style stripey moquette as the graphics seem to imply

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Going by the images, the apparent large numbers of facing seats with tables would definately be an improvement (lack of tables on Northern's 144's and 150's is an unnecessary and unjustified oversight IMO).

They do appear to suffer from that unfortunate modern disease, thin seat syndrome though.

That said, I would welcome a return to British Rail style stripey moquette as the graphics seem to imply

I was surprised by the tables too. I do wonder if 365-style small tables would be a better idea though, as if they're 2/3x17m there'll be overcrowding at peak times on routes such as the Penistone line. Anything more than 4-car would need platform extensions there though, and the bay (P2) at Huddersfield might be tricky.

As for the moquette, something about it reminded me that what I was looking at was Designed stock. Not sure why though, as it doesn't look like anything that ever appeared on them!

 

[yorksrob]

I was surprised by the tables too. I do wonder if 365-style small tables would be a better idea though, as if they're 2/3x17m there'll be overcrowding at peak times on routes such as the Penistone line. Anything more than 4-car would need platform extensions there though, and the bay (P2) at Huddersfield might be tricky.

As for the moquette, something about it reminded me that what I was looking at was Designed stock. Not sure why though, as it doesn't look like anything that ever appeared on them!

That's a point. They might need a few more airline seats in that case, but the tables are still fundamentally a good idea.

I hope they've checked these things structurally as once they're converted, they'll be with us a lot longer than the intended design life !

 

[WatcherZero]

The layout in the pictures seems to be the 3 car 'Country' layout with seating sacrificed for good window views, the other two configurations are much denser.

 

[yorksrob]

The layout in the pictures seems to be the 3 car 'Country' layout with seating sacrificed for good window views, the other two configurations are much denser.

Well, if they're going to Northern, they could end up on any.

Perhaps a mixture of configurations within the set might work ?

 

[Bantamzen]

Somehow I doubt if this project ever went ahead that the tables would see the light of day. Even the seating configuration would probably be altered.

But the simple fact remains. These look like old stock tarted up, which is exactly what they would be. Roll those monstrosities out and expect an awful lot of negativity and bad press, and frankly a short shelf life. They will end up being ditched sooner rather than later, trust me. So why waste time and money on this and bite the bullet by getting one final new DMU order ready for all TOCs that will need them for the next 30 years.

If no-one wants the D-stock as they are do them a favour, melt them down and turn them into truly new trains not just mutton dressed as lamb.

 

[Grumpy]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply convert them into 3rd rail emu's?

 

[RobShipway]

As much as this is a good idea and yes cycles racks need to be included within it, I am concerned as to whether the chassis of the D-stock would in a state where a new train could be built on to it? If this train is to go a-head, I think actions needs to be taken now on the D stock to sort out any corrosion given the work that was needed on the Class 460's to change them into 458/5's.

 

[1018509]

This ain't going to happen.

D stock were built down to a standard and I doubt they would ever withstand the rigours of heavier rail work.

Based on no information at all but several years working with 1973 stock (a similar design but tube sized) which has been cracking up since day one. Still a basically good tube train though.

 

[Nym]

As much as this is a good idea and yes cycles racks need to be included within it, I am concerned as to whether the chassis of the D-stock would in a state where a new train could be built on to it? If this train is to go a-head, I think actions needs to be taken now on the D stock to sort out any corrosion given the work that was needed on the Class 460's to change them into 458/5's.

The D78 is an aluminum extrusion with two bolsters, structural members and some very significant corrugations in the flooring, provided it is done properly, it is a very versatile bodyshell, no specific hard mounting points, other than structural ones for the doors, roof, body end etc have been put in, so technically, everything is movable.

The D78s are also not built anything like the 1973TS, being an extrusion rather than fabricated together.

Given that it is predominantly aluminum and the refurbishment included new bogies, I don't think that corrosion is much of an issue, or they wouldn't be looking at doing all this work.

PS: The doors do have some pretty huge aluminum structure around them that it really isn't advisable to remove, answering something from a while back there.

 

[Bevan Price]

They might make a useful shortish-term replacement (15 or so years) for Pacers on selected lines, but I think they need decent seating (mainly 2+2), rather than expect hordes of passengers to stand. It would also be preferable to use 4 coach formations rather than 3. At about 18 m. coach length, a 4 coach formation would only be slightly longer than 3 car 158s or 185s.

Lines for which they might be suitable ? Those with low speed limits, or where most of the stations are closely spaced, and speeds between stations often don't reach 60 mph., e.g.

Leeds - Harrogate - York
Huddersfield - Barnsley - Sheffield.
Manhester Victoria - Atherton - Wigan Wallgate / Kirkby
Bishop Auckland - Darlington - Saltburn
Barrow - Workington - Carlisle (but only if totally separated from the Preston/ Lancaster - Barrow services; between Preston & Lancaster, a 60 mph unit would take nearly 10 minutes longer than 390s, 221s or 185s, and create pathing problems.)

 

[chorleyjeff]

They might make a useful shortish-term replacement (15 or so years) for Pacers on selected lines, but I think they need decent seating (mainly 2+2), rather than expect hordes of passengers to stand. It would also be preferable to use 4 coach formations rather than 3. At about 18 m. coach length, a 4 coach formation would only be slightly longer than 3 car 158s or 185s.

Lines for which they might be suitable ? Those with low speed limits, or where most of the stations are closely spaced, and speeds between stations often don't reach 60 mph., e.g.

Leeds - Harrogate - York
Huddersfield - Barnsley - Sheffield.
Manhester Victoria - Atherton - Wigan Wallgate / Kirkby
Bishop Auckland - Darlington - Saltburn
Barrow - Workington - Carlisle (but only if totally separated from the Preston/ Lancaster - Barrow services; between Preston & Lancaster, a 60 mph unit would take nearly 10 minutes longer than 390s, 221s or 185s, and create pathing problems.)

From observation there is plenty of capacity North of Preston and when driving at 70mph on the M6 alongside the railway the 185s and 390s are not going much faster. How do you get a 10 minute difference?

 

[al.currie93]

I'm personally glad this is happening. Reuse of existing machines that do their current job well that saves resources; I approve!

On another note, can anyone provide any information on "Vivarail", such as where they're based, who owns them, what else they/their owners do and so on? I can't seem to find much at all...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

On another note, can anyone provide any information on "Vivarail", such as where they're based, who owns them, what else they/their owners do and so on? I can't seem to find much at all...

Here you are:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/08661726

The address is in there, and the list of directors, but no accounts yet as it isn't old enough to have filed any.