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

[ac6000cw]

Discussion of Voyagers is off-topic for this thread...

There is a bit more detail on the cab structure modifications in the December issue of Modern Railways (including replacing the centre door with a vertical collision protection member).

 

[Metrailway]

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!

No pacer class is 13ft tall.

A Class 141 is 3906mm (approx 12ft 10in), a Class 142 is 3863mm (approx 12ft 8in). A Class 144 is 3725mm (approx 12ft 3in) tall.

A Class 143 is 3515mm (approx 11ft 6in) tall which is shorter than a D78.

What may be an issue aside from the width of D78 is the D78's car length which is longer than the car length of the pacers by about 3m.

 

[route:oxford]

No pacer class is 13ft tall.

A Class 141 is 3906mm (approx 12ft 10in), a Class 142 is 3863mm (approx 12ft 8in). A Class 144 is 3725mm (approx 12ft 3in) tall.

A Class 143 is 3515mm (approx 11ft 6in) tall which is shorter than a D78.

What may be an issue aside from the width of D78 is the D78's car length which is longer than the car length of the pacers by about 3m.

Generally speaking, to be accommodated across the national network:-

The longer a unit of rolling stock is, the narrower it has to be.
The shorter a unit of rolling stock is, the wider it can be.

What is the technical maximum width of a unit of rolling stock that can be used across the majority of the rail network?

 

[northwichcat]

No pacer class is 13ft tall.

A Class 141 is 3906mm (approx 12ft 10in), a Class 142 is 3863mm (approx 12ft 8in). A Class 144 is 3725mm (approx 12ft 3in) tall.

A Class 143 is 3515mm (approx 11ft 6in) tall which is shorter than a D78.

What may be an issue aside from the width of D78 is the D78's car length which is longer than the car length of the pacers by about 3m.

Out of interest where did you get those figures from? I got mine from a blog site with the ROSCO websites not giving the height of trains only the width.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Generally speaking, to be accommodated across the national network:-

The longer a unit of rolling stock is, the narrower it has to be.
The shorter a unit of rolling stock is, the wider it can be.

What is the technical maximum width of a unit of rolling stock that can be used across the majority of the rail network?

I don't think there is anything wider than a 142 in operation on National Rail in the North of England.

 

[Metrailway]

Out of interest where did you get those figures from? I got mine from a blog site with the ROSCO websites not giving the height of trains only the width.

BRB vehicle diagram books:

http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/Prototype.html

 

[cjmillsnun]

If D78s are so damn good why is LUL getting rid instead of refurbing them? This could only happen in England. Imagine asking Scotland to take them as a stop-gap on scenic lines if the windows are so panoramic. Get real, another cheap and nasty Pacer in disguise.

It shouldn't be "here is an otherwise scrap train so where can we re-use it". It should be "this line or lines needs a train lets design one most suitable for the job".

D78s are going so that LUL gets a standard fleet across the whole of the subsurface lines of LUL. They'll all be either S7 or S8 stock.

They also have one design fault that makes them unsuitable for LUL, and that is the single leaf doors. Aside from the 1983 TS they were the only LUL stock in recent memory to have single leaf doors, and their replacements do not for good reason. Other than that, they are a good unit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think W6 gauge is 2.82m wide?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think the advantages of a D78 conversion over a Pacer are bogies, sliding doors and better transmission of power from engine to rail. I will wait to see how the conversion actually pans out. I think the challenge will be to mount a heavy lump under a coach not originally designed to take it (or were they ?).

I think the beefing up of the cab end seems to preclude the chance of having an inter-unit gangway.

A thought I had was, assuming both bogies on a D78 driving coach are motored, why not move one motored bogie to underneith the intermediate trailers along with one of the two power packs. That would give a better spread of weight but of course is irrelevant if the conversions are to only be 2 car units. I am assuming that moving a motored bogie from one coach to the next is possible (as in similar enough mountings and space).

Question I have (prompted by the above idea) is will the power derived from a pair of power packs match the capability of the existing traction motors under one coach or be more/less. So could half the traction motors under one coach handle the power of two power packs ?. Better still two lower powered packs under each coach would be more reliable as less stress on body and engine. Could also be viewed as less of a design risk but more cost due to extra power packs.

Obviously older trains/designs are not going to be good at coping with an intensely used railway line. In the mornings at East Croydon I see mostly twelve coach trains (2*442s are equivalent to 12 car 377s) going through platforms one and two nose-to-tail towards London and leaving passengers behind (me !). Contrast that with the routes where the converted D78s are expected to be used.

I do fear that, like the pacers, the D78s will end up being used for routes they were not originally intended for. Were they not originally intended for rural branch lines but their bogie-less wheelbase made life too difficult ?. I hate the Pacers but they were something cheap enough to be affordable for lines that could not justify higher expenditure. However that seems to be where we are again now and something is better than nothing. The alternative is to put the fares up in the hope of being able to afford newer trains and/or reduce demand.

I would, of course, rather the wires were put up and old ELECTRIC trains were used - but that is not happening fast enough. We will get there (mostly) eventually but we have to accept that the current electrification projects will be followed by yet another long pause - history repeats itself. We have had three bursts already:-
Early-mid 60s West Coast Main Line (last bit in the mid 70s),
15 year gap,
Mid 80s East Coast Main Line,
20 year gap,
Currently embarking on GWML and MML plus the North West.
I am missing a few things but basically we have more routes being electrified now BUT after a longer gap. More time spent NOT electrifying than actually doing what Europe finished back in the mid 60 ! .

 

[edwin_m]

I think the advantages of a D78 conversion over a Pacer are bogies, sliding doors and better transmission of power from engine to rail. I will wait to see how the conversion actually pans out. I think the challenge will be to mount a heavy lump under a coach not originally designed to take it (or were they ?).

I think the beefing up of the cab end seems to preclude the chance of having an inter-unit gangway.

A thought I had was, assuming both bogies on a D78 driving coach are motored, why not move one motored bogie to underneith the intermediate trailers along with one of the two power packs. That would give a better spread of weight but of course is irrelevant if the conversions are to only be 2 car units. I am assuming that moving a motored bogie from one coach to the next is possible (as in similar enough mountings and space).

It's possible that the motor cars have a heavier structure designed to take the extra weight of the traction equipment - I believe this is the case with the Mk3-derived units even though the bodyshells look similar externally. I presume the diesel engine raft replaces the traction control cases (camshafts) but there are also braking resistors which presumably stay as they say they will still have rheostatic braking. They also float the possibility of an accessible toilet being fitted in a trailer car.

 

[WatcherZero]

Another thing is if these are limited to 60mph there will be a lot of branch/rural lines where 75/90 is permissible that they wont be suitable for (particularly as NR is planning universal network speed improvements over the next couple of decades) and those would have required the vast majority of units. The short branch lines with low speeds don't tend to have intensive services and could be managed with one or two units e.g. Kirkby rather than much longer Southport line which would require a larger number of units.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Another thing is if these are limited to 60mph there will be a lot of branch/rural lines where 75/90 is permissible that they wont be suitable for (particularly as NR is planning universal network speed improvements over the next couple of decades) and those would have required the vast majority of units. The short branch lines with low speeds don't tend to have intensive services and could be managed with one or two units e.g. Kirkby rather than much longer Southport line which would require a larger number of units.

I cannot recall what the maximum speed of a Pacer is . Surely not more than 60mph. I assume all three classes 142, 143 and 144 have the same maximum btw. So I would argue that 60mph is not a disadvantage over Pacer replacement. But it would be better if the D78s were passed for higher speeds. I wonder what the limit really could be - are they capable of being used at higher speeds than 60mph subject to proving ?.

Anyway to be feasible the D78 conversions have to be generally better than a Pacer BUT cheaper than a new build DMU otherwise they are merely worth their weight in er metal.

 

[Haydn1971]

Having been on a D78 unit a few times this weekend, I'm now annoyed. Whilst yes the renders look very promising, I'm doubtful that these things are going to be that much cheaper in the long run to upgrade over a fleet of new DMU's/EDMU's/BiModes. Essentially everything gets ripped out of a D78, the bodyshell and bogies are retained, so that's new interiors, new electrics, new braking systems, new control gear, plumbing toilets in, fitting new seats, sealing some doors up, fitting new fronts... I can then see us lumbered with these things for years after their scraping time the same way as we are with the pacers today. For heavens sake, just get on with either buying a new fleet that will service the nation well into the 2040's

 

[Bletchleyite]

I cannot recall what the maximum speed of a Pacer is . Surely not more than 60mph. I assume all three classes 142, 143 and 144 have the same maximum btw. So I would argue that 60mph is not a disadvantage over Pacer replacement. But it would be better if the D78s were passed for higher speeds. I wonder what the limit really could be - are they capable of being used at higher speeds than 60mph subject to proving ?.

Anyway to be feasible the D78 conversions have to be generally better than a Pacer BUT cheaper than a new build DMU otherwise they are merely worth their weight in er metal.

75mph I believe.

Neil

 

[Taunton]

For heavens sake, just get on with either buying a new fleet that will service the nation well into the 2040's

I'm one of those renegades who finds the current products from the manufacturers are more uncomfortable, draughtier, have notably less seats, cannot line up seats with windows (something surely covered in design class 1.01) and are more unpleasant to travel in than anything that was built pre-Sprinter/Pacer. Also, bizarrely, they are so expensive that less are purchased than needed. So I'm not too keen on new stuff. For those too young to remember what it was like a generation ago, too bad. And this is not looking through rose-tinted nostalgia spectacles. Go to a preserved railway and you'll be reminded of all this.

I honestly don't know how, while the car industry has advanced their product in leaps and bounds over the years, and continues to do so, rail stock has gone the other way.

 

[Metrailway]

Having been on a D78 unit a few times this weekend, I'm now annoyed. Whilst yes the renders look very promising, I'm doubtful that these things are going to be that much cheaper in the long run to upgrade over a fleet of new DMU's/EDMU's/BiModes. Essentially everything gets ripped out of a D78, the bodyshell and bogies are retained, so that's new interiors, new electrics, new braking systems, new control gear, plumbing toilets in, fitting new seats, sealing some doors up, fitting new fronts... I can then see us lumbered with these things for years after their scraping time the same way as we are with the pacers today. For heavens sake, just get on with either buying a new fleet that will service the nation well into the 2040's

There was a reason why Pacers came about initially and this reason is still relevant today. The reason was to reduce operating subsidies on certain lines.

It is well known that Northern routes are one of the most heavily subsidised routes in the country.

The problem with modern DMUs is that they are far too heavy and costly to operate. A Class 172 is nearly 20 tonnes heavier per car than a pacer. The use of new DMUs would mean a substantial increases in subsidies on services currently operated by Pacers.

A converted D78, although heavier than a pacer, would be lighter than modern DMUs, and as a result would require less operating subsidy.

With further spending cuts on the horizon, regardless of the colour of the Government, it would not surprise me if the DfT look at this proposal very closely.

 

[Haydn1971]

There's a reason Northern's subsidy is so high, there's no golden goose of intercity services in the franchise !

 

[Class377/5]

There's a reason Northern's subsidy is so high, there's no golden goose of intercity services in the franchise !

Govia Thameslink Railway has no intercity but is giving the Government £3.5bn over 8 years do don't believe your example hold true.

 

[Bantamzen]

Govia Thameslink Railway has no intercity but is giving the Government £3.5bn over 8 years do don't believe your example hold true.

But to be fair a further £6bn is being put back into the Thameslink Programme....

But anyway, staying away from any risk of a further North/South debate is it really good value to take the old shells of the D-stock, specially engineer a one off batch of engines to suit as well as comprehensively refit them and seal large number of the doors. On top of the the proposals are for a mix of seating alignments, fine if the stock were to be used on only one type of route but with Northern as it stands pretty much any unit could end up on any route. Seriously, would it not be better to calculate how many new DMUs are needed up and down the country up until say 2040, then allow them to be procured from one supplier to be used where required, rather than trying to come up with a bodged solution that may not even be suitable for some of the routes they would be used on?

 

[jopsuk]

Is this good value? Well, there seems to be serious people involved, they've clearly got serious investors behind them to fund the design and the pilot.

 

[Murph]

But anyway, staying away from any risk of a further North/South debate is it really good value to take the old shells of the D-stock, specially engineer a one off batch of engines to suit as well as comprehensively refit them and seal large number of the doors. On top of the the proposals are for a mix of seating alignments, fine if the stock were to be used on only one type of route but with Northern as it stands pretty much any unit could end up on any route.

From the sound of it, there's not much engineering going into the engines, just taking off the shelf automotive engines and adapting them to the application. Some engineering involved, sure, but not a vast amount.

Sealing the extra doors? I really can't see how that's a big or difficult job.

Different seating options are just the company throwing around options that they think could be possible or useful. It will be up to the TOC to choose the options they think they need, if they find a TOC that wants to take the trains on.

Seriously, would it not be better to calculate how many new DMUs are needed up and down the country up until say 2040, then allow them to be procured from one supplier to be used where required, rather than trying to come up with a bodged solution that may not even be suitable for some of the routes they would be used on?

That would only make sense as a criticism if this were a government funded or supported project. So far, it's a private enterprise project. Obviously some investors have decided that they see an opportunity and have decided to throw some money around, roll the dice, and see what happens.

Does it make sense as a national strategy? No, probably not, but that's not what it is or what it is intended to be. The company is just trying to fill a bit of a vacuum left by a lack of national strategy, and that's their risk to take.

 

[47802]

Govia Thameslink Railway has no intercity but is giving the Government £3.5bn over 8 years do don't believe your example hold true.

Well getting off the point I'm sure there are a number of routes which require a high level of subsidy under EMT, FGW and Scotrail, I do think there does need to be a review of Stations, routes and services that have little more than a token service on Northern, such as the Goole Leeds, Brigg, Chathill, York Sheffield Local service, although there wouldn't be much of a saving in rolling stock but possibly other costs.

Depending on performance there are potentially a number of services that the D stock could work in Yorkshire Huddersfield - Sheffield, Sheffield Leeds via Barnsley Slow, Harrogate Services maybe Leeds Bradford Huddersfield if they can get up the hills Clearly there are some question marks over overall top speed and performance and reliability

 

[northwichcat]

There's a reason Northern's subsidy is so high, there's no golden goose of intercity services in the franchise !

Govia Thameslink Railway has no intercity but is giving the Government £3.5bn over 8 years do don't believe your example hold true.

There's some truth in what Haydn1971 says - South West local services aren't dissimilar to Northern ones but there was no FGW subsidy in the previous year due to the unprofitable routes being grouped with profitable routes. EMT are still subsided despite having Intercity services in their franchise but I imagine the Intercity services prevent EMT being as highly subsided as Northern.

South East franchises were a mixture - Southern just missed out on being break-even, SWT and FCC were profitable but c2c, Southeastern, LM and Chiltern were all loss-making. Overall the South East franchises were loss making as the subsidy Southeastern received wasn't recouped by the combined premium of SWT and FCC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was a reason why Pacers came about initially and this reason is still relevant today. The reason was to reduce operating subsidies on certain lines.

It is well known that Northern routes are one of the most heavily subsidised routes in the country.

Don't agree at all. Many Pacers are now used doubled up at peak times while a doubled up Pacer provides no more capacity than a 156+153, yet the cost of running 2 x 142s is higher.

On a local bus route to me what was a standard hourly service has been improved to a half-hourly service using brand new buses with leather seats, wi-fi and even a table at the back. Usage has increased significantly since the changes, which only occurred around 1 month ago. On the other hand the local rail service remains hourly and is mainly operated by 142s and 150s, which doesn't help increase the amount of revenue collected and makes fare rises unjustified with the 142s and 150s getting progressively worse to travel on.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Well getting off the point I'm sure there are a number of routes which require a high level of subsidy under EMT, FGW and Scotrail, I do think there does need to be a review of Stations, routes and services that have little more than a token service on Northern, such as the Goole Leeds, Brigg, Chathill, York Sheffield Local service, although there wouldn't be much of a saving in rolling stock but possibly other costs.

Depending on performance there are potentially a number of services that the D stock could work in Yorkshire Huddersfield - Sheffield, Sheffield Leeds via Barnsley Slow, Harrogate Services maybe Leeds Bradford Huddersfield if they can get up the hills Clearly there are some question marks over overall top speed and performance and reliability

The Brigg service is well used when it runs, some have to stand. If Northern ran through services instead of branch only more people would use it. If the services got investment in newer trains and better services more people would travel and subsidies would fall.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1525-Northern-saviour

This story on Railfuture's website is about the new D stock conversion.
It says 'upto 85 trains could be made'
'With a 60mph topspeed' 'a disabled toilet'
'Rust free Aluminium' and 'EU complient engines'

 

[Bletchleyite]

Govia Thameslink Railway has no intercity but is giving the Government £3.5bn over 8 years do don't believe your example hold true.

And it's primarily a London commuter operation, not really comparable with Northern.

Neil

 

[deltic08]

D78s are going so that LUL gets a standard fleet across the whole of the subsurface lines of LUL. They'll all be either S7 or S8 stock.

They also have one design fault that makes them unsuitable for LUL, and that is the single leaf doors. Aside from the 1983 TS they were the only LUL stock in recent memory to have single leaf doors, and their replacements do not for good reason. Other than that, they are a good unit.

When since the 1955 Modernisation Plan has any train been built that has a top speed of only 60mph? It is not just lines that currently have 60mph linespeeds but empty stock moves over lines where traffic could be running at a minimum of 75mph.

Leeds-Barnsley-Sheffield services run over track where the line speed is as high as 80mph in places. Harrogate services run on 65mph track in places and this will be increased to 70 or 75 mph soon following recent resignalling. Both routes could be electrified by 2020.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When since the 1955 Modernisation Plan has any train been built that has a top speed of only 60mph? It is not just lines that currently have 60mph linespeeds but empty stock moves over lines where traffic could be running at a minimum of 75mph.

On any line with freight stock won't be moving at a minimum of 75mph.

Neil

 

[47802]

When since the 1955 Modernisation Plan has any train been built that has a top speed of only 60mph? It is not just lines that currently have 60mph linespeeds but empty stock moves over lines where traffic could be running at a minimum of 75mph.

Leeds-Barnsley-Sheffield services run over track where the line speed is as high as 80mph in places. Harrogate services run on 65mph track in places and this will be increased to 70 or 75 mph soon following recent resignalling. Both routes could be electrified by 2020.

Yeh and how much do the stoppers on these routes actually run at that speed, as for both routes being electrified by 2020 dream on.

 

[MarkyT]

Having read the MR article and looked at Vivarail's website I'm rather excited by this idea although I understand the reservations of those who complain about second hand trains, London's cast offs sent to the reqions etc. In many ways this project is like the proposals to send 313s, 315s etc to the electrified Cardiff Valleys. One major thing both these designs have in their favour is aluminium body shells which will not have deteriorated significantly over their life to date compared to their steel contemporaries. The D78s also have new bogies, and were likely fitted with fully refurbed traction motors at the same time. Because they already operate over National Rail infrastructure to Richmond and Wimbledon, continued certification is much less an issue than for any other ex-LUL stock. If, as seems reasonable, use of these re-engineered second hand fleets proves significantly cheaper than entirely new fleets, then for a given subsidy level a larger fleet should be affordable which should be better able to meet the growing demands of many regional urban and even some rural operations, surely a more palatable outcome than yet further fare increases to choke off demand.

So in short, assuming the pilot prototype conversion is a technical success and Vivarail can create high quality modern interiors, this is in my view a very promising initiative by some very reputable industry players. Private enterprise and good engineering at their best.

 

[northwichcat]

When since the 1955 Modernisation Plan has any train been built that has a top speed of only 60mph? It is not just lines that currently have 60mph linespeeds but empty stock moves over lines where traffic could be running at a minimum of 75mph.

The 139s have a top speed below that but they are an exception.

Leeds-Barnsley-Sheffield services run over track where the line speed is as high as 80mph in places. Harrogate services run on 65mph track in places and this will be increased to 70 or 75 mph soon following recent resignalling. Both routes could be electrified by 2020.

If you said by the end of CP6 (April 2024) then I'd agree.

I suspect there might have been talks between Metro and Vivarail regarding these trains. The route examined is Huddersfield-Sheffield while the mockup includes an orange logo with a M logo on it which looks identical to the M on the Metro logo. Possibly that should be red and the image hasn't been saved correctly for web or possibly it's been edited (badly) to make try and disguise the images were produced for Metro.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 139s have a top speed below that but they are an exception.



If you said by the end of CP6 (April 2024) then I'd agree.

I suspect there might have been talks between Metro and Vivarail regarding these trains. The route examined is Huddersfield-Sheffield while the mockup includes an orange logo with a M logo on it which looks identical to the M on the Metro logo. Possibly that should be red and the image hasn't been saved correctly for web or possibly it's been edited (badly) to make try and disguise the images were produced for Metro.

If it can be proven that 60mph max won't impact other services South of Barnsley, I'd have no problem with D78s on the Penistone line... If that isn't possible though, then either a bay or a turnback siding will be needed at Barnsley, with Huddersfield losing the direct Sheffield and Meadowhall service. I think passengers would only accept that with an increase in frequency which like any adjustments at Barnsley won't be cheap. Some tweaking of diagrams would be needed too, as a handful of units used there don't stay there all day at present.