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

[edwin_m]

It seems the proposal is for two 200hp automotive diesel engines per power car, which are small enough to fit under the floor and presumably comply with latest emissions regulations.

Roger Ford is concerned about the hammering these engines will get with constant changes in power demand, but I'm not sure he needs to be. There was a problem with "binary driving" on HSTs in particular, but diesel locomotive engines tend to be derived from marine ones which normally run at constant settings for long periods. This isn't the case on the roads, and this engine is essentially that from a top-end Transit van. As far as I know Sprinter engines are holding up OK, and even the Valentas went for 30 years or so before replacement. These probably have to last less than half of that.

As others have said, with the people behind this I'm pretty sure they have all the angles covered. But the top speeds means if we see these at all they will be on urban commuter and maybe a few deep rural rather than interurban duties.

 

[sprinterguy]

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

The seats look a lot like those used throughout the class 172 fleet: They’re quite decent for typical commuter or suburban journeys of up to perhaps an hour max. Granted that if this ever does go ahead, then there may still well be room for manoeuvre on the type of seat that is installed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I wouldn't say that the other options were "much" denser. Based on the 3-car units, the 'Country' layout is only "sacrificing" a total of 12 seats over the highest seated capacity 'Commuter' option, and only a total of 16 passengers less overall compared to the same highest capacity variant (283 seated + standing versus 299).

 

[al.currie93]

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.

Very interesting, thank you!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't say that the other options were "much" denser. Based on the 3-car units, the 'Country' layout is only "sacrificing" a total of 12 seats over the highest seated capacity 'Commuter' option, and only a total of 16 passengers less overall compared to the same highest capacity variant (283 seated + standing versus 299).

It's more about standing space. I was on an S-stock unit last week, and recall looking at one of the 2 windowed middle sections, noting that there are 7 longitudinal seats on each side, whereas if you fitted them as 4 facing bays you'd get 8 on each side - but far less standing capacity.

The bog (not present on the higher density commuter version) also takes up space.

Neil

 

[jopsuk]

This is, bizarrely, seemingly increasingly credible. Certainly looks like there will at least be a demonstrator made. Interesting times.

 

[al.currie93]

So my revised conclusion is Motorail (UK) own Vivarail and Motorail (UK) are a client of Creactive Design.

Any idea as to who owns Motorail (UK) or are they independent? I'm really curious as to who these people are!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any idea as to who owns Motorail (UK) or are they independent? I'm really curious as to who these people are!

Adrian Shooter of Chiltern fame appears to be involved, which does lend quite a bit of credibility to it.

And stranger things have happened - who would have thought the PPM on the Stourbridge branch would have lasted? (Though the mind boggles as to why that isn't driver-only operated, particularly as it isn't operated directly by LM so the staff will be on different contracts).

Neil

 

[trainplan1]

This is, bizarrely, seemingly increasingly credible. Certainly looks like there will at least be a demonstrator made. Interesting times.

It's not perfect by any means but I applaud to blue sky thinking.

 

[Taunton]

Erm did anyone notice in that final picture the seats facing each other with a door in between? It's just like some of the old slam door stock. That'll be fun in winter, or when it's busy, or if people with suitcases, prams, bikes get on...

If all the other seats are taken and you are in the vestibule, as regularly happens at present, it's a lot more comfortable to be seated there than standing.

On the commercial front here, I doubt that the project would be at this stage as complete speculation, without any customers lined up at all. There are only a handful of potential customers anyway, who must have been involved in detailed discussions to have made it worthwhile to get to this point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If all the other seats are taken and you are in the vestibule, as regularly happens at present, it's a lot more comfortable to be seated there than standing.

It's a plated over door anyway, it won't open.

Neil

 

[sprinterguy]

It's more about standing space.

As I noted though, the official number of standing passengers doesn't make that large a difference to the total capacity of the different variants, either (Though how many people you could cram in "unofficially" may differ quite widely!).

 

[tbtc]

This is, bizarrely, seemingly increasingly credible

My thoughts exactly!

It was ridiculous when the attention grabbers at Harrogate Chamber of Commerce came up with the idea of using these thirty five year old trains...

...but now, with a natty artists impression, it looks like we are falling for the idea of patching these up and bringing them north.

Where to run them? Preferably away from busy cities (I can understand the idea of the rural Huddersfield line, but this is the same service that runs Barnsley - Meadowhall - Sheffield), maybe Northern routes like:

• Barton branch
• Ormskirk - Preston
• Blackpool South - Preston - Colne
• Wigan - Kirkby shuttle (if this becomes a stand alone route, post Wigan - Bolton electrification, which has been rumoured)

...which suggests keeping them west of the Pennines (not much "critical mass" of suitable routes on the east side).

Most of the lightly loaded services east of the Pennines are either part of routes that are busier on other parts ( e.g. Knottingley - Goole is an extension of the rush hour service from Leeds to Castleford/ Pontefract)...

...or only operate part day (the Sheffield - Pontefract - York service isn't particularly busy, but it's only run at off-peak times, so putting ex London Underground stock on it would mean putting ex London Underground stock on rush hour services from Sheffield to Doncaster/ Barnsley etc)...

...or run on busy fast lines where the speed of D78 stock isn't suited (Leeds - Morecambe isn't incredibly busy, but needs to be fairly fast on the Leeds - Skipton bit).

Unless you ripped up the timetable to create shorter routes/ quieter routes for the D stock:

• Lancaster - Morecambe shuttle
• Darlington - Bishop Auckland shuttle
• Wakefield - Knottingley shuttle (currently interworks with busier service to Leeds)
• Barnsley - Huddersfield stand alone route (not running through to Sheffield)
• Skipton to Lancaster (connecting with Leeds EMUs at Skipton)

...but that's quite a lot of messing around with services to accommodate some bottom of the range stock (the old "solution in need of a problem").

TBH we'd be better spending the cost of converting seventy five units on more electrification, if we want to hurry the replacement of the current 75mph DMUs.

But I fear that this looks like we are getting the D78 stock, and that the cost of converting/ refurbishing them is going to mean that we'll be stuck with them for a decade (to justify the "investment"). Frustrating.

PS - Odd that there seems fewer complaints about these older smaller London trains coming to northern England that (compared to the younger longer 319s).

 

[ac6000cw]

It seems the proposal is for two 200hp automotive diesel engines per power car, which are small enough to fit under the floor and presumably comply with latest emissions regulations.

Roger Ford is concerned about the hammering these engines will get with constant changes in power demand, but I'm not sure he needs to be. There was a problem with "binary driving" on HSTs in particular, but diesel locomotive engines tend to be derived from marine ones which normally run at constant settings for long periods. This isn't the case on the roads, and this engine is essentially that from a top-end Transit van. As far as I know Sprinter engines are holding up OK, and even the Valentas went for 30 years or so before replacement. These probably have to last less than half of that.

As others have said, with the people behind this I'm pretty sure they have all the angles covered. But the top speeds means if we see these at all they will be on urban commuter and maybe a few deep rural rather than interurban duties.

The Cummins engines have been OK, but reaching back into the memory bank about what has been covered in Modern Railways over the years, the MTUs in the 168s were troublesome at first (cracked exhaust manifolds etc - the usual sort of problems) - and I think the Perkins/Rolls-Royce engines in the 165/166s have had issues too. All sorted now of course. (And the Valenta needed various parts re-designed and retro-fitted to make it reliable in the HST).

 

[northwichcat]

Where to run them? Preferably away from busy cities (I can understand the idea of the rural Huddersfield line, but this is the same service that runs Barnsley - Meadowhall - Sheffield)

Vivarail are claiming their new '230s' would match 142 timings on Huddersfield-Sheffield services based on a computer simulation which probably explains why Huddersfield is the chosen destination on the illustrations. Whether they can match 142 timings on the WCML and ECML stretches is a different question to which the answer is likely no.

One thing I've noted is there's no mention of bike racks or luggage racks and on some rural lines bike and luggage racks are well used.

PS - Odd that there seems fewer complaints about these older smaller London trains coming to northern England that (compared to the younger longer 319s).

They're not coming yet, Vivarail have put them forward as an option.

Personally I think if you're going to produce 60mph stock then you need to look countrywide for suitable routes rather than trying to force them all on a single operator. A fleet split between Northern, FGW, EMT and ATW may work but trying to load them on to a single operator probably won't.

...or only operate part day (the Sheffield - Pontefract - York service isn't particularly busy, but it's only run at off-peak times, so putting ex London Underground stock on it would mean putting ex London Underground stock on rush hour services from Sheffield to Doncaster/ Barnsley etc)...

Vivarail are proposing 2, 3 or 4 car options which can work in multiple. A 2+3 car formation would be very slightly shorter than a 4 car 156 or 4 car 158 and could have 276 seats in 'commuter' formation - a similar number to a 4 car 158. Therefore, maybe one option to look at is the Yorkshire services which get doubled up 158s for capacity reasons, rather than needing 90mph stock or stock with narrow end doors?

 

[Murph]

Roger Ford is concerned about the hammering these engines will get with constant changes in power demand, but I'm not sure he needs to be. There was a problem with "binary driving" on HSTs in particular, but diesel locomotive engines tend to be derived from marine ones which normally run at constant settings for long periods. This isn't the case on the roads, and this engine is essentially that from a top-end Transit van. As far as I know Sprinter engines are holding up OK, and even the Valentas went for 30 years or so before replacement. These probably have to last less than half of that.

It's not really about marine vs. any other type of diesel. The only marine diesels which get days of running at constant load, and pretty much nothing else, are the cathedral diesels on the largest cargo ships. Smaller naval vessels which use the likes of Deltic and Valenta engines can see frequent changes in load and speed just the same as a locomotive. They will also get long periods of constant throttle combined with reasonably constant load some of the time. The same goes for smaller cargo ships when manoeuvring, or riding rough sea conditions (there can be HUGE surges in load as a ship pitches on a rough sea).

It's really all about adapting the same basic engines to each environment, and there's almost always a period of trial and error, until the thermal issues are fully addressed, when an engine is being introduced to a new application. Occasionally the designers will basically "luck out" and get it right first time, but it's very difficult for them to do so without going for significant over-engineering (with weight and cost penalties). Even in gensets (which traditionally are constant RPM to regulate the frequency of the AC supply generated), there's still variable load involved.

 

[jamesontheroad]

They're not coming yet, Vivarail have put them forward as an option.

I presume that the flip-up seats provide for bicycles. On the one hand, a dedicated cycle rack would be preferable, but on most trains these require passengers with bikes to be ready on the platform to run to one end of the unit or the other. It might actually be better for every set of flip up seats to provide space for bikes, buggies, etc throughout the train.

Even with the blank door plates, the visualisations are impressive. I doubt, however, that many operators would configure a rural or country unit with only bay seating; I'd expect many more airline style seats.

 

[sprinterguy]

My thoughts exactly!

It was ridiculous when the attention grabbers at Harrogate Chamber of Commerce came up with the idea of using these thirty five year old trains...

...but now, with a natty artists impression, it looks like we are falling for the idea of patching these up and bringing them north.

Where to run them? Preferably away from busy cities (I can understand the idea of the rural Huddersfield line, but this is the same service that runs Barnsley - Meadowhall - Sheffield

I would have thought that any TOC looking/mad enough to take these on would probably plan to place them on busy urban routes, where the majority of Pacers are used today?
They’re commuter trains that have served London’s transport needs ably for 35 years, and even with half the doors blanked off they’re still going to be “commuter-optimised” as it were with 1/3 + 2/3 door positions on a carriage shorter than that of a 150, hopefully meaning short dwell times. The interior designs, even the ‘Country’ variant, all seem to leave plenty of space for standing passengers making short trips, and with a top speed of 60mph they’d be best suited to services with short distances between stations – i.e. in well populated urban areas.

Plus, you can use them in five or six carriage formations in a length similar to that of 4 x 23 metre carriages. Presumably they’d be an interim measure intended to last 15 – 20 years at most (now where have we heard that one before? ) until more of these commuter and suburban routes were electrified.

I can’t see why you’d put this sort of train, with the interior design they’re proposing, out on quiet rural routes, especially when there could be as many as 75 of them, suggesting deploying them in a market with a high peak vehicle requirement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

PS - Odd that there seems fewer complaints about these older smaller London trains coming to northern England that (compared to the younger longer 319s).

I don’t think that many people quite believe what they’re hearing yet! If an order is actually firmed up, and routes begin to be proposed, expect the rants to come rolling in…

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can’t see why you’d put this sort of train, with the interior design they’re proposing, out on quiet rural routes, especially when there could be as many as 75 of them, suggesting deploying them in a market with a high peak vehicle requirement.

Yeah, I'd see them as a sensible choice for the East Manchester suburban routes (i.e. Marple/Rose Hill) and the Atherton line to name but two, and if Oldham hadn't been Metrolinked that as well.

Good for scenic lines in preference to 150s, though - massive windows!

Neil

 

[sprinterguy]

Yeah, I'd see them as a sensible choice for the East Manchester suburban routes (i.e. Marple/Rose Hill) and the Atherton line to name but two, and if Oldham hadn't been Metrolinked that as well.

Neil

Agreed, the Marple/Rose Hill services were uppermost in my mind when envisaging where these trains could be put to best use.

 

[northwichcat]

Plus, you can use them in five or six carriage formations in a length similar to that of 4 x 23 metre carriages. Presumably they’d be an interim measure intended to last 15 – 20 years at most (now where have we heard that one before? ) until more of these commuter and suburban routes were electrified.

By my reckoning a 5 car formation with 4 driving vehicles would be just under 92m.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, the Marple/Rose Hill services were uppermost in my mind when envisaging where these trains could be put to best use.

And they don't appear vastly different in comfort levels to a Metrolink tram, which I would think is the most likely form of electric anything to go on the Marple/Rose Hill line at any future point.

Would be nice for a stopping run through the Hope Valley with the big windows, too. My choice of stock for that would be 142 at present for the excellent view.

Neil

 

[Bringback309s]

Has anyone thought that the D78 stock is quite a bit older than the 142's they'd replace? I know they're probably better built, but they would be between 32 and 36 years old by the time they enter service, the conversion cost seems like another elastoplast approach, further delaying the chance of real "new" DMU's in the future. Whatever happens, eventually, new DMU's will be needed, I expect by then the Londonised government will feel something built by the Indians and based on a rickshaw will be suitable for people in the North whilst Southerners ride around in German smooth-riding multi million pound air conditioned carriages. Tuctuc Ltd will be starting up again and putting conversion plans forward soon enough!

 

[northwichcat]

whilst Southerners ride around in German smooth-riding multi million pound air conditioned carriages.

Well we do have German built air conditioned trains in the North - the 185s and 350s, not that Desiros provide the smoothest ride at higher speeds!

Some Southerners moan about their 'poor riding' Bombardier stock but I've been on both a 377 and a 350 between Milton Keynes and Leighton Buzzard and the ride quality was practically the same. Although, some of the 377s are in need of a refresh.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has anyone thought that the D78 stock is quite a bit older than the 142's they'd replace? I know they're probably better built, but they would be between 32 and 36 years old by the time they enter service, the conversion cost seems like another elastoplast approach, further delaying the chance of real "new" DMU's in the future. Whatever happens, eventually, new DMU's will be needed

Eventually, one would hope, the whole Manchester and Liverpool suburban networks and the North's inter-regional network will be electrified, and you'll just be left with short branches which could be operated using battery EMUs or similar. So if we can build some DMUs now that will last 20 years that is probably enough.

To say the D-stock's age isn't to give the full picture, by the way - the bogies are only 10-12 years old as they were replaced.

As for the Southern 377s they are in a right state, but I suspect us civilised south WCML dwellers (us of the "all coaches are the quiet coach" at commuter times) look after ours rather better than innersuburban Sarf Landaners. You certainly rarely see vandalism of any kind on LM's 350s and 321s.

Neil

 

[sprinterguy]

Has anyone thought that the D78 stock is quite a bit older than the 142's they'd replace? I know they're probably better built, but they would be between 32 and 36 years old by the time they enter service, the conversion cost seems like another elastoplast approach, further delaying the chance of real "new" DMU's in the future. Whatever happens, eventually, new DMU's will be needed, I expect by then the Londonised government will feel something built by the Indians and based on a rickshaw will be suitable for people in the North whilst Southerners ride around in German smooth-riding multi million pound air conditioned carriages. Tuctuc Ltd will be starting up again and putting conversion plans forward soon enough!

Have no fear, I am not condoning this course of action, but simply commenting on the details as provided by this thread.

I am unable to understand why the DfT seems so recalcitrant in ordering new diesel trains for the North of England, when (and, no, I’m not trying to start up another one of those arguments) the Southern electric network seems to have new stock chucked at it as required (387s due to the Thameslink delay* and for Gatwick Express, new 5-car Desiros for SWT). Introducing converted 1970s vintage tube trains to the North of England really does smack of the “sticking plaster” approach: At least I can appreciate that there are a large number of class 319s with life left in them needing new homes and that this can reduce the overall cost of electrification in the North West.

*I am also aware that a good reason for these being ordered is to allow 319s to be moved North in time to start electric services.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I don't think these will be a good Pacer replacement. But...
It's better they are reused than scrapped considering the DMU shortage that may get worse after 2019. I'm sure all shorter routes urban or rural could be suited for them. I wouldn't mind it but I'll still prefer the Saturday Pacer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So here's a thought.

If it's viable for modular engine rafts using 3.2l automotive diesel engines to be slung under a Tube train, is it also viable to do exactly the same to a modern EMU, to be removed when electrification is complete?

If not, why not?

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Eventually, one would hope, the whole Manchester and Liverpool suburban networks and the North's inter-regional network will be electrified, and you'll just be left with short branches which could be operated using battery EMUs or similar. So if we can build some DMUs now that will last 20 years that is probably enough.

Question is do you re-open any lines or provide a proper service on any lines which currently have parliamentaries? If you do then you'll start using DMUs released by electrification to provide those services (as is the case with Burnley to Manchester.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Introducing converted 1970s vintage tube trains to the North of England really does smack of the “sticking plaster” approach

But a "sticking plaster" approach is what is needed, as (to stick with that analogy) the final cure, at least for the next 50 years or so, is electrification and a cascade of things like 185s onto the few remaining non-electrified branch lines.

Edit: Similarly, it would make sense to electrify the Birmingham suburban network and move the 172s onto branch lines and such.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Question is do you re-open any lines or provide a proper service on any lines which currently have parliamentaries? If you do then you'll start using DMUs released by electrification to provide those services (as is the case with Burnley to Manchester.)

I would suggest that any new line should be electrified in the context of the much more electrified network we should have in 20 years. If it isn't viable to electrify it, it probably isn't viable to open it either. As for the Parlies, wire them and operate a proper service, or be honest about it and close them.

I love a ride on the Flying Dentonian as well as anyone else, but it is not a sensible situation.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

and a cascade of things like 185s onto the few remaining non-electrified branch lines.

Why 185s not 172s? 172s are newer and much cheaper to operate. 185s being the most expensive type of DMU to operate while only high leasing costs of newer trains prevent 172s costing more to operate than Pacers - they have the lowest track access charges of any DMU.