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

[Class377/5]

Maybe a better idea would be to give them to Southern to run on inner suburban services for which little work would be required (in very crude terms remove the fourth rail collector shoes and solder the wires they were connected to to the chassis), cascade the 455s to outer suburban & coastway services and send some of the dual voltage 377s up north? If they ran the D78s as 5 car sets, it means they could really take advantage of the new 10 car platforms in the inner area.

As for the 442s. I reckon Chiltern would snap them up sans traction motors and run them with push pull units with class 67's if they got the chance. Mk3s with plug doors already fitted, happy days.

Hope your joking other wise your post ignored shift pursue of removing dual voltage units with non dual voltage units. Slight flaw in your plan there.

 

[WatcherZero]

Have the vehicles already been "acquired"; i.e. has Vivarail taken ownership of those that have already been retired by TfL, or have they purchased those still in service that are due to leave service in 2016?

If the latter, the fleet would likely not be ready, in service, before approx 2018.

Yes they acquired all the driving cabs and a sizeable number of the trailers for their scrap value in November. They don't however as yet have any clients, they are doing a demonstrator to shop around.

Also someone earlier said they would be 1/3 2/3 doors so good for commuters, they originally have 4 doors, some of the configurations keep the 4 doors with longitudal seating others they seal up the two centre doors so they would be end carriage doors though at only 18m long they would be even with the doors sealed up essentially 4 door pacers so perhaps marginally faster boarding than 3 door pacers.

However doors aren't everything, capacity is. I was on a Southport Pacer today that was held at Deansgate for 10 minutes because it was too full for anyone else to board, eventually left with around 30 people still on the platform, that was after it was delayed at Oxford Road for five minutes and left around 10 standing on the platform.

I still however fail to see how a conversion with upto 20 year expected max lifespan and 10 years to recoup the conversion costs would actually help the Pacer problem. It wouldn't provide quality improvement and they would be life expired in the late 2020's at best only just after the Sprinters just delaying the quantity problem a decade.

 

[northwichcat]

It is a cheap and nasty Pacer replacement option for the North. But the Tories are in and they like doing this. I agree totally with what you said but in these times when the North-South divide is huge, it's the best we will probably get unless something happens to allow a change in the system. These have been replaced 15 years early according to wikipedia and therefor will last longer than current trains.

Theoretically, if DfT really mean they'll be a free rolling stock then Northern should be in an excellent position.

The LO 172s and Scotrail 170s will be apparently be released at the end of 2018 and GTR can't make use of them all, meaning the next Northern and TPE franchise holders should be in a position to agree leases for either of those before other franchises are awarded.

On top of that there should be an option for Northern/TPE to do a Chiltern/GTR and agree deals for DMUs which will become off-lease. However, whether DfT block any such moves if it involves stock from the Midland/South going North is a different question.

 

[21C101]

Hope your joking other wise your post ignored shift pursue of removing dual voltage units with non dual voltage units. Slight flaw in your plan there.

No I'm not joking. Exactly why are dual voltage units needed to grind around the southern inner suburban area?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No I'm not joking. Exactly why are dual voltage units needed to grind around the southern inner suburban area?

At least some of them are for use on the trains to the WCML via Kensington Olympia.

Neil

 

[Wolfie]

Maybe a better idea would be to give them to Southern to run on inner suburban services for which little work would be required (in very crude terms remove the fourth rail collector shoes and solder the wires they were connected to to the chassis), cascade the 455s to outer suburban & coastway services and send some of the dual voltage 377s up north? If they ran the D78s as 5 car sets, it means they could really take advantage of the new 10 car platforms in the inner area.

10 car trains each car approx 17m long versus 10 x 23m cars hum... lots less seats too for trains that will likely already be heaving.. right! A very serious suggestion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No I'm not joking. Exactly why are dual voltage units needed to grind around the southern inner suburban area?

Why exactly would Northern need dual voltage stock? 319s, 317s and maybe 315s (if there really is a 3 car EMU requirement) will do the job very well in the short-term. I was on a 319 yesterday and it was in great nick (seriously, GTR seem to have much improved the cleaning).

 

[swt_passenger]

It is a cheap and nasty Pacer replacement option for the North. But the Tories are in and they like doing this.

There's no evidence this proposal has anything to do with the DfT, or the 'Tories'...

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no evidence this proposal has anything to do with the DfT, or the 'Tories'...

It's cheap, yes. But how does anyone know it's nasty until they travel on it?

I think the interiors look quite pleasant and would be more than happy to see these on local low-demand lines like Bedford-Bletchley.

Neil

 

[Wolfie]

Theoretically, if DfT really mean they'll be a free rolling stock then Northern should be in an excellent position.

The LO 172s and Scotrail 170s will be apparently be released at the end of 2018 and GTR can't make use of them all, meaning the next Northern and TPE franchise holders should be in a position to agree leases for either of those before other franchises are awarded.

On top of that there should be an option for Northern/TPE to do a Chiltern/GTR and agree deals for DMUs which will become off-lease. However, whether DfT block any such moves if it involves stock from the Midland/South going North is a different question.

Theoretically you are right. However whether Northern/TPE or their successors will have the financial muscle if it comes down to a bidding war with say Chiltern is a whole different issue. I would be unsurprised to see the 172s go to LM or Chiltern for example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's cheap, yes. But how does anyone know it's nasty until they travel on it?

I think the interiors look quite pleasant and would be more than happy to see these on local low-demand lines like Bedford-Bletchley.

Neil

Agreed

 

[northwichcat]

10 car trains each car approx 17m long versus 10 x 23m cars hum... lots less seats too for trains that will likely already be heaving.. right! A very serious suggestion.

Why not a 14 car formation which would then be the same length as a 10 x 23.7m train?

 

[Wolfie]

Why not a 14 car formation which would then be the same length as a 10 x 23.7m train?

Hum so you want to spatch-cock D-types together at lengths longer than they have ever operated (or were ever designed for)... a plan with no obvious or potential problems NOT...

...and all to satisfy Northern demands for newer rolling stock which have no logic other than because....

 

[northwichcat]

Theoretically you are right. However whether Northern/TPE or their successors will have the financial muscle if it comes down to a bidding war with say Chiltern is a whole different issue. I would be unsurprised to see the 172s go to LM or Chiltern for example.

The Scotrail 170s would be the bigger deal with their only being 8 of the LO 172s. However, the Northern bidders would be able to approach the ROSCO while Chiltern are still sorting out their newly acquired 170/3s so may not be in the market for new stock before a deal has been agreed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...and all to satisfy Northern demands for newer rolling stock which have no logic other than because....

Wrong. It's to meet John Major government's promise of having an accessible railway by the end of 2019, which was made all the way back in 1994. To meet that requirement (as well as allowing for passenger growth across the country) new trains need to be acquired to directly or indirectly replace the Pacers.

The order that has no logic is the Southern EMU order where the EMUs were never intended to be used by Southern but to be used to release 319s to Northern. That's as logical as ordering new trains for Northern to allow the TPE 170/3s to go to Chiltern before the end of 2018.

 

[Wolfie]

The Scotrail 170s would be the bigger deal with their only being 8 of the LO 172s. However, the Northern bidders would be able to approach the ROSCO while Chiltern are still sorting out their newly acquired 170/3s so may not be in the market for new stock before a deal has been agreed.

I agree in theory. I do think one of the things Northern could really use is some fleet rationalisation though. Smallish numbers of lots of types is woefully inefficient. What would be good would be no more than 3 types of DMU very possibly of different age profile (ie some new (or ish), some midlife and some mature)...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Scotrail 170s would be the bigger deal with their only being 8 of the LO 172s. However, the Northern bidders would be able to approach the ROSCO while Chiltern are still sorting out their newly acquired 170/3s so may not be in the market for new stock before a deal has been agreed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Wrong. It's to meet John Major government's promise of having an accessible railway by the end of 2019, which was made all the way back in 1994. To meet that requirement (as well as allowing for passenger growth across the country) new trains need to be acquired to directly or indirectly replace the Pacers.

The order that has no logic is the Southern EMU order where the EMUs were never intended to be used by Southern but to be used to release 319s to Northern. That's as logical as ordering new trains for Northern to allow the TPE 170/3s to go to Chiltern before the end of 2018.

The Southern order was a frig to deal with delays in Thameslink orders. Southern had an extant contract with options. It was all to avoid running a competition under EU procurement rules... think LM/TPE and 350s....

 

[ainsworth74]

It's cheap, yes. But how does anyone know it's nasty until they travel on it?

Agreed! I'm not totally convinced by the idea but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt until a demonstrator is produced because it could prove a very useful train for dealing with the chronic DMU shortage on Northern without massive initial or ongoing expenditure.

Then again people seem to always be able to judge the quality of a train before one is even built (see the certainty that IEP will just be a Voyager for example).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then again people seem to always be able to judge the quality of a train before one is even built (see the certainty that IEP will just be a Voyager for example).

I don't get that one, because all evidence so far is that the IEP will be a 26m, slightly narrower 125mph Class 395. And if you've ever travelled on one of those, you'll know that while the windows are a bit on the small side (not as small as UK Pendolinos, about the same as Euro-Pendolinos) they are very nice, well-constructed EMUs without half the faults of Voyagers.

Neil

 

[21C101]

Hum so you want to spatch-cock D-types together at lengths longer than they have ever operated (or were ever designed for)... a plan with no obvious or potential problems NOT...

...and all to satisfy Northern demands for newer rolling stock which have no logic other than because....

Except southern region inner suburban trains are 20m long not 23m long. So you could run 12 car sets of D78 comprising 2x 6 car sets (which is what they are now)

The point of sending the dual voltage sets up north isn't to use them in dual voltage mode, its to make use of their a.c. capability.

Alan Williams decades ago suggested British Rail try out the D78s on the Southern because they were (and are) markedly superior to the Class 455 "Pox Boxes"* that British Rail came up with in the 80s, many features of which have been perpetated since in newer suburban stock (1/3 - 2/3 doors etc.)

With 4 doors a side with much faster opening closing, more circulation room and better acceleration/braking than a pox box*, it would enable a significant speeding up of journey times back to what they were in the slam door era for a start.

* What class 455s were (IMHO accurately) known as by some of the pax when they were introduced.

 

[northwichcat]

Agreed! I'm not totally convinced by the idea but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt until a demonstrator is produced because it could prove a very useful train for dealing with the chronic DMU shortage on Northern without massive initial or ongoing expenditure.

Then again people seem to always be able to judge the quality of a train before one is even built (see the certainty that IEP will just be a Voyager for example).

Given anyone can travel on a D78 now there will be certain conclusions you can draw. For instance, the comments about the lack of overhead luggage racks being because there isn't space for one on an Underground train. The type of seating is apparently an existing design already in use on trains.

I'm sure anyone who was told in 1980 that British Rail were to build new 'Pacer' trains using Leyland bus shells including folding doors wouldn't have expected the new trains to have draught proof doors.

 

[Murph]

For instance, the comments about the lack of overhead luggage racks being because there isn't space for one on an Underground train.

That's incorrect. The LUL A60s had overhead luggage racks, and the D78s are not all that different in height. There's plenty of space to fit a rack, if they decided to do so, although there might be engineering reasons why it's not so practical (e.g. lack of a suitable bit of structure to support them). These are not tube trains, they are full size trains.

 

[21C101]

These are not tube trains, they are full size trains.

Exactly, they operate on full size heavy rail railways that due to accident of history are not part of the National Rail network.

 

[northwichcat]

they are full size trains.

Not quite. They are short and fat compared to National Rail trains.

A Pacer is 13ft tall - a D78 is 11 ft 11.

A Pacer is 9 ft 2 wide - a D78 is 9 ft 4.

Obviously being shorter won't cause an issue on Northern routes but being 2 inches wider could cause platform clearance issues!

 

[21C101]

Not quite. They are short and fat compared to National Rail trains.

A Pacer is 13ft tall - a D78 is 11 ft 11.

A Pacer is 9 ft 2 wide - a D78 is 9 ft 4.

Obviously being shorter won't cause an issue on Northern routes but being 2 inches wider could cause platform clearance issues!

As they are 13" lower than standard NR stock I wonder if they could be used in the Isle of Wight. According to the website below Ryde tunnel is only 10" too low for standard NR stock:

Source: http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/IsleOfWight/

The Isle of wight must be the only place in the world where the preserved railway has newer stock than the main line service it connects with!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I found this picture of London Underground A60 trains in Network South East colours. This might help people understand what they will look like with a yellow front. A60's are a bit like the D stock in question.

 

[jopsuk]

But if you look at the site (linked earlier in the thread) you'll see Vivarail will rebuild the cab end entirely. Won't look anything like that!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Okay I missed that bit. Thanks.

 

[Murph]

But if you look at the site (linked earlier in the thread) you'll see Vivarail will rebuild the cab end entirely. Won't look anything like that!

Really? I do see "new cab structure" on their blog, but don't see any real detail on the cab changes. The only picture of it on their site looks very much like the existing D78 cab end with some "modern" plastic glued over it to give it an unnecessary fake and less honest face.

I'm not certain of the regs, but I'd imagine that the existing D78 cabs would have grandfather rights to run on NR metals, since they already do run on shared NR metals for some of their District line routes (or am I getting confused with the A60s on the Met?).

 

[deltic08]

I don't get that one, because all evidence so far is that the IEP will be a 26m, slightly narrower 125mph Class 395. And if you've ever travelled on one of those, you'll know that while the windows are a bit on the small side (not as small as UK Pendolinos, about the same as Euro-Pendolinos) they are very nice, well-constructed EMUs without half the faults of Voyagers.

Neil

That is comforting to know. By definition that means they will still have half the faults of a Voyager.

Slightly narrower than a 395 will be great in standard class. Do you call that progress? Bring back the Mark 3.

 

[route:oxford]

That is comforting to know. By definition that means they will still have half the faults of a Voyager.

Slightly narrower than a 395 will be great in standard class. Do you call that progress? Bring back the Mark 3.

Given that Voyagers are one of the most reliable units to ever operate in the UK, surely a unit with half the number of potential faults is utterly amazing?

 

[NSEFAN]

Given that Voyagers are one of the most reliable units to ever operate in the UK, surely a unit with half the number of potential faults is utterly amazing?

Aren't they only reliable because of the number of engines they have? It's what gives them both high acceleration and high speed, but it makes them expensive to run!

 

[kermit]

Given that Voyagers are one of the most reliable units to ever operate in the UK, surely a unit with half the number of potential faults is utterly amazing?

I suspect that "half the faults of Voyagers" was referring to their inherent (cramped, smelly, plasticcy, small windowed) design faults rather than their ability to avoid breaking down

 

[Murph]

I suspect that "half the faults of Voyagers" was referring to their inherent (cramped, smelly, plasticcy, small windowed) design faults rather than their ability to avoid breaking down

Don't forget the corridor doors without any sensors which love to assault you on your way past…