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

[Murph]

There's no guarantee Pacers or even 150s will be able to stay in service as long as DfT are hoping.

We were promised by John Major's government in 1994 that all trains would be accessible by the end of 2019. Why should disabled people suffer longer? And why should disabled people in the North suffer for longer than in other parts of Britain?

Sir John is no longer in a position where a broken promise from 1994 makes any difference to him. It still comes down to the same thing: are you ready to get your cheque book out?

Additionally, new stock isn't the only way to get accessible trains. Any of the existing stock can be upgraded at a cost. The tricky thing is to work out just how much it will cost to upgrade existing stock and then get another 10-15 years out of it to justify the upgrade. In some cases, the correct answer might end up being scrap and buy new, but it's far from simple.

 

[158756]

I think the difference is that it confirms the DfT has persuaded the Treasury that the increased leasing charges for the replacement stock has been agreed.

All the actual Autumn Statement document says is that the new franchise will 'encourage bidders to replace the outdated Pacer trains'.
It's been said a dozen times already and is in no way a commitment to actually replace them. And even if they are replaced that could easily be achieved by replacing them with 153s in ten years time.

 

[northwichcat]

Sir John is no longer in a position where a broken promise from 1994 makes any difference to him.

It will make a difference to David Cameron though especially if he is Prime Minster after the next election. I'm sure if they are in opposition after the next election Labour will highlight that failing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any of the existing stock can be upgraded at a cost. The tricky thing is to work out just how much it will cost to upgrade existing stock and then get another 10-15 years out of it to justify the upgrade. In some cases, the correct answer might end up being scrap and buy new, but it's far from simple.

Assessments have been done on current stock which is why Angel plan to scrap the 142s as upgrading is not economically viable. Porterbrook have said the 143s and 144s could be done at a cost (financial and capacity) while Porterbrook have said upgrading the 153s in single carriage formation is not economically viable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If refurbished, the D78s could be the latter.

Has anyone actually asked that particular question in the House of Commons and received a direct reply?

 

[Murph]

It will make a difference to David Cameron though especially if he is Prime Minster after the next election. I'm sure if they are in opposition after the next election Labour will highlight that failing.

No matter what happens, mud will continue to be slung from one side of the Commons to the other. Labour will blame Major or Cameron, Cameron will blame Blair, Blair will write another book, etc.

Assessments have been done on current stock which is why Angel plan to scrap the 142s as upgrading is not economically viable. Porterbrook have said the 143s and 144s could be done at a cost (financial and capacity) while Porterbrook have said upgrading the 153s in single carriage formation is not economically viable.

Yeah, I'm not advocating keeping the Pacers around for much longer. The 153s should probably be re-formed into 155s again, I'd guess, assuming that makes the economic case viable by only needing to make 1/2 as many vehicles accessible. My point is against the general view (and not implying that this is your view) of "give us all shiny new trains, we don't want cast offs from elsewhere".

We almost certainly do need some new DMUs over the next few years, while making the most of assets which are not completely beyond salvation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has anyone actually asked that particular question in the House of Commons and received a direct reply?

I don't know, but I would expect they won't know the answer as it will need to feed into the Northern franchise spec before anyone decides anything.

Neil

 

[route:oxford]

That should put to bed the idea of D stock being converted for use on non electrified lines in the north. I do wonder sometimes at the blind faith people put into Roger Ford's words. All he appeared to be doing was giving a bit of free advertising to Vivarail despite them having no firm order for their speculative punt on converted 'D' stock. Mr Shooter et al could be left with an expensive pile of scrap.

You've stated your opinion for "The North"

Now what about the Midlands & South?

I can't be then only one who sees these units as being an ideal shuttle for non-electrified routes off mainlines in the South to cover the next 15-20 years...

Shuttle back and forth on the Windsor line, Henley-on-Thames, Marlow similarily between Princes Risborough & Aylesbury, Oxford & Garsington Road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Shuttle back and forth on the Windsor line, Henley-on-Thames, Marlow similarily between Princes Risborough & Aylesbury, Oxford & Garsington Road.

No worse than a Class 121. Would be perfectly fine as a swap for the 150 or 153 on Bedford-Bletchley. For Windsor a 4 or 5-car set in the standee layout might actually be very suitable.

But it's the North that needs new trains, so why bother faffing with a cascade if you don't need to?

Neil

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Are they going to be no Pacers in the 2020s, I think Porterbrook are making a Pacer nicer to be legal past 2020 requirements. Maybe more will be done up too? I know the Super Pacer that Vivarail want to make from London D stock might replace some but only 85 can be made. The cheapest option for the short term will always be keep the current trains, and it's what companies want.

 

[samuelmorris]

75, if they're 3-car. Less still if 4-car or more, bearing in mind the reduced vehicle length (less than a Sprinter but admittedly still longer than a Pacer). That's still a large number of units though, it must be said. I'm just a little concerned by the speed restriction, it really doesn't take much to find 60mph a bit limiting - even relatively old rolling stock is capable of exceeding that with inter-station distances barely over 2 miles. I find myself wondering whether there is a sufficient number of routes that won't have journey times compromised by a 60mph running speed, to justify that many units being produced.

This announcement is pretty definitive about binning Pacers, whether or not the 144s get refurbished, most of Northern's are 142s so will presumably be going at last, however, is this all-encompassing to affect the other TOCs that operate pacers? The pacer issue always seemed focused on Northern, when ATW and FGW still operate a limited number as well - in the case of the former, also including 142s...

I can clearly see the cascade route for FGW (presumably 801/345 displacing 165, displacing 150s to pacer routes) and Northern (presumably new TPE stock displacing 185s and 319s displacing various sprinters to pacer routes), but I don't see how ATW fit into all this?

 

[edwin_m]

I don't see how ATW fit into all this?

Most of the ATW Pacers run on the Valley lines, along with some 150s. Both fleets will be displaced by electrification, with the Pacers going for scrap and the 150s displacing the few Pacer diagrams elsewhere in Wales with probably some 150s left over to provide for growth.

 

[samuelmorris]

Ah OK, so that is still going ahead then. Understood - perhaps withdrawal of the Pacers is a genuine possibility then - there aren't a great deal of them left if ATW's fleet and all of Northern's 142s are taken out of the equation. If the FGW ones are withdrawn too, it hardly seems worth bothering carrying out the works on the remaining 144s with Northern.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1525-Northern-saviour

75, if they're 3-car. Less still if 4-car or more, bearing in mind the reduced vehicle length (less than a Sprinter but admittedly still longer than a Pacer). That's still a large number of units though, it must be said. I'm just a little concerned by the speed restriction, it really doesn't take much to find 60mph a bit limiting - even relatively old rolling stock is capable of exceeding that with inter-station distances barely over 2 miles. I find myself wondering whether there is a sufficient number of routes that won't have journey times compromised by a 60mph running speed, to justify that many units being produced.

This announcement is pretty definitive about binning Pacers, whether or not the 144s get refurbished, most of Northern's are 142s so will presumably be going at last, however, is this all-encompassing to affect the other TOCs that operate pacers? The pacer issue always seemed focused on Northern, when ATW and FGW still operate a limited number as well - in the case of the former, also including 142s...

I can clearly see the cascade route for FGW (presumably 801/345 displacing 165, displacing 150s to pacer routes) and Northern (presumably new TPE stock displacing 185s and 319s displacing various sprinters to pacer routes), but I don't see how ATW fit into all this?

The Vivarail and Railfuture sites say upto 85 units could be made, is this source wrong?

 

[samuelmorris]

Well, I can only assume they don't intend to run them as 6-car units throughout. If you went with 4-car or even 5-car though you could manage far more than 85, so I'm assuming that means they'll have some units different lengths?

As I understand it the existing D78 fleet consists of 130 'single end' 3-car sets, that would form 65 6-car train sets with a cab only at each end, plus a further 20 'double end' 3-car sets that have a cab at each end allowing for operation just as a 3-car set, even if LUL never do this in service any more (to my knowledge?). That provides for 150 3-car units, or as they are currently used on the District line, 75 6-car units, as per the thread title. I'm clueless about where the figure of 85 came from - I can only assume it means they intend to use the 'double ended' units as-is, in a 3-car state. Given the extent of the refurbishment it seems a little unnecessary to repeat the way the units are configured at LUL...

 

[Murph]

http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1525-Northern-saviour



The Vivarail and Railfuture sites say upto 85 units could be made, is this source wrong?

http://www.districtdave.co.uk/html/rolling_stock.html

130 single ended units (DM-T-UNDM), and 20 double ended units (DM-T-DM)

Total of 150 3-car units in the original LUL fleet.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

That's a good site.

 

[Peter Sarf]

http://www.districtdave.co.uk/html/rolling_stock.html

130 single ended units (DM-T-UNDM), and 20 double ended units (DM-T-DM)

Total of 150 3-car units in the original LUL fleet.

BUT of the 150 D78 3-car units 130 of them only have a cab at one end as I read it above.

That means you have 130 driving coaches from 130 units with one cab at one end. Plus 40 driving coaches from the 20 units that have a cab at each end. Thats a total of 170 driving coaches - enough for 85 D78 converted units.

There are 150 trailer coaches assuming its only a dumb trailer in the middle of each 3-car D78. There are 130 coaches that have no cab but probably have powered bogies from the single ended D78s (my assumption). In which case that is 130 powered centre cars available for the 85 new units and 150 unpowered centre cars.
That gives a maximum of 45 4-car units with all vehicles powered and 30 3-car units with all vehicles powered.
OR
if you want un powered coaches in the sets as well that gives a maximum of 45 5-car units with four powered coaches and one trailer and 30 5-car units with three powered and two trailers.

That's my understanding based on the post above and number 404 quoted below.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

........

As I understand it the existing D78 fleet consists of 130 'single end' 3-car sets, that would form 65 6-car train sets with a cab only at each end, plus a further 20 'double end' 3-car sets that have a cab at each end allowing for operation just as a 3-car set, even if LUL never do this in service any more (to my knowledge?). That provides for 150 3-car units, or as they are currently used on the District line, 75 6-car units, as per the thread title. I'm clueless about where the figure of 85 came from - I can only assume it means they intend to use the 'double ended' units as-is, in a 3-car state. Given the extent of the refurbishment it seems a little unnecessary to repeat the way the units are configured at LUL...

And if the above quote is wrong then we are back down to 75 units of converted D78s assuming you want them to have a powered driving motor at each end.

 

[samuelmorris]

Given the capacity issues people often cite (experienced first hand on a crush-loaded 153&155 for a peak hours service from Leeds to Harrogate) I wonder, given the 18m vehicle length, what the intended size will be - it seems extremely wasteful to design these from the ground up to run in multiple from day one, but on the other hand there are certainly some very short platforms up north.

 

[Murph]

BUT of the 150 D78 3-car units 130 of them only have a cab at one end as I read it above.

That's correct. The single ended units are DM-T-UNDM. Double ended are DM-T-DM. The DMs have full cabs. The UNDMs (uncoupling non-driving motor) only have shunting and uncoupling controls, with no cab.

So, in their current LUL usage, it's a max of 20 3 car trains (the double enders), and the single enders have to be coupled together as 6 car trains. The doubles can be coupled together or to a single as well. Max of 75 6 car, or 65 6 car + 20 3 car. In existing form, they can't run without a trailer, as the compressors are on the trailers.

Remanufacturing can obviously change all of that, but adding cabs that didn't previously exist or creating a need for new power bogies would probably not make financial sense. So, effectively a hard upper limit of 85 trains, but some flexibility about exactly what cars will sit between a pair of DMs if the remanufacturing will allow different formation options.

 

[Peter Sarf]

.....

Remanufacturing can obviously change all of that, but adding cabs that didn't previously exist or creating a need for new power bogies would probably not make financial sense. So, effectively a hard upper limit of 85 trains, but some flexibility about exactly what cars will sit between a pair of DMs if the remanufacturing will allow different formation options.

I agree with that - they have to be cheap. The more they spend the more they get - until its cheaper to build new. So I suspect the compressors can move but that the powered D78 coaches will be the only candidates for engines.

The only cheap (?) alternative, as I suggested before, is is BOTH bogies are powered on a motor coach and then one powered bogie could be moved to a former trailer. It appears all the electrical equipment is being replaced EXCEPT for the traction motors. But I dont know if a motor coach currently has two powered bogies or one ?. But there are 130 powered trailers that I did not know about until a few posts up .

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, it is better to cascade old stock until more or less the maximum possible value has been extracted from it. One very simple reason, and the only reason which matters: money in the pocket of the British public.

Where does the money come from for new trains? In the long term, big picture, it does not come from any of the following: ROSCOs, TOCs, banks, or investors with deep pockets. It only ever comes from two places, the pockets of the British travelling public and/or taxpayers. No matter where the short term cash comes from to actually place the orders, that's only a temporary situation, a loan with interest, before it comes from the true source of the pockets of the British public.

So, are you ready to get your cheque book out? How badly do you really want to have a shiny new train, rather than making the most of what's available in the big picture nationwide?

Yes, there does come a point in time where any rolling stock starts to be uneconomic for continued use, due to the cost of keeping it in usable condition. Replacing (i.e. scrapping and buying new, not cascading) any of it before it reaches that point (other than in truly exceptional circumstances), is damaging to your financial health. Every extra year of good service that can be squeezed out of existing stock is directly beneficial to the nation.

Edit: Oh yeah, and don't take anything that a politician says at face value. There's plenty of ways for them to spin remanufactured D78s as "new and modern".

Oh I'm sure that a politician could try to spin the D-Train as new, but as with the 319 cascade nobody will buy it. And at least the 319s are full speed, decent seating capacity units. The D-Trains don't offer much more in way of capacity, if indeed even the same amount and of course there's that all important speed limitation. It may only be around 13mph but on a lot of routes that will make a noticeable difference. Sure you could shoehorn more people on if you install longitudinal seating but this isn't exactly going to be a selling point for a franchise that currently utilises much of it's stock across a wide number of routes.

Much has been said about the high subsidies that Northern receive, so at least one strategy for a future franchise holder would be to increase patronage on the lesser used routes/services. My point about these possible units is that they are effectively a new Pacer-like offering, with similar capacities and slower speeds. A cheap and not so cheerful solution. This is hardly going to attract greater numbers to these routes with much of the great British public already believing that trains are unreliable, slow and dirty. The local press right across the region would have a field day telling it's readers about these new old trains, and how the North is getting not only the cast-offs from the S/E overground network but now it's even older underground stuff heading this way. Take the 319s again, over on the cascade thread there's now a picture of a refreshed interior of one of the units up at Allerton. Looks reasonable enough I think we could agree, however most passengers will see that they look very similar to the 150 interiors, and so won't be as blown away as people seem to think.

It's one thing wanting to save some money from the public purse, but sometimes going for the cheapest option simply isn't the best. I work in the public sector and believe me this is what often happens, only for us then to lament the decisions shortly after. Cheap isn't always best. What I am arguing for is a long term strategy that can offer replacements not only for the Pacers in the next 5-10 years, but also for stock that need to be replaced beyond that right across the country. The D-Train is not this solution. The only solution is to get prepared to negotiate deals with manufactures to put forward designs and costings for new stock that can be used wherever in the country it will be needed. Yes it's going to cost more, but it will mean we have a stock programme that's suitable for decades and not just a few years down the road. And in the long term that will represent better value for the public's money. Investment, not just papering over the cracks is what is needed.

 

[Murph]

The only cheap (?) alternative, as I suggested before, is is BOTH bogies are powered on a motor coach and then one powered bogie could be moved to a former trailer. It appears all the electrical equipment is being replaced EXCEPT for the traction motors. But I dont know if a motor coach currently has two powered bogies or one ?. But there are 130 powered trailers that I did not know about until a few posts up .

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...lling stock Data Sheet 2nd Edition 1.pdf.html (you'll probably want to click on the original PDF on that page to view the document properly)

It's 4 tractions motors, 1 per axle, on the motor cars. I'm not sure what you'd achieve by swapping a motor bogie onto the trailer, to be honest. The limit is still the number of cabs. Assuming that there's sufficient space for engines, compressors, etc, I'd guess it would be easier to just omit trailers to create 2, 4, or 5 car versions, or perhaps 3M+T for a 4 car. If you start converting trailers into half-power cars, you end up with more cars needing traction control equipment, so probably cheaper and simpler to just stick with the existing arrangement. Also, unless axle load was becoming an issue, 2 power bogies per motor car and a lighter trailer probably gives the best case for keeping weight on top of driving axles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's one thing wanting to save some money from the public purse, but sometimes going for the cheapest option simply isn't the best. I work in the public sector and believe me this is what often happens, only for us then to lament the decisions shortly after. Cheap isn't always best. What I am arguing for is a long term strategy that can offer replacements not only for the Pacers in the next 5-10 years, but also for stock that need to be replaced beyond that right across the country. The D-Train is not this solution. The only solution is to get prepared to negotiate deals with manufactures to put forward designs and costings for new stock that can be used wherever in the country it will be needed. Yes it's going to cost more, but it will mean we have a stock programme that's suitable for decades and not just a few years down the road. And in the long term that will represent better value for the public's money. Investment, not just papering over the cracks is what is needed.

Yes, sometimes the better option long term is not the short term cheapest. I agree with you on that. My issue is mainly that there is often a slightly irrational bias against old stock purely because of the age, and no other reason. The age alone really doesn't matter, if it's properly refurbished or remanufactured, and properly maintained; until it simply becomes too costly to maintain it to a reasonable standard.

The 319s are BREL mark 3s, some of the best rolling stock that we ever produced. If they are given a good refurbishment and are still in good shape as far as corrosion and the like goes, they really should be basically as good as brand new stock until they do become too costly to maintain. If the refurbishment is lacking, on the other hand, people will have every right to complain about it. If you think back in time about the likes of the newly GNER-refurbished HSTs (or any similar high quality refurb), they were every bit as good as a brand new train (and arguably much better than a brand new tilt-profile train), aside from maybe being a bit claggy before the engines were replaced.

The D78s, honestly I'm not sure. The idea and project is interesting, and they could help buy us some time, or help keep some lesser routes going. One possibility is that they might help to reduce the rate that we need to build new DMUs at, allowing more of an ongoing production of new DMUs over time, rather than a short term burst of activity followed by nothing for years.

 

[MarkyT]

. . .My issue is mainly that there is often a slightly irrational bias against old stock purely because of the age, and no other reason. The age alone really doesn't matter, if it's properly refurbished or remanufactured, and properly maintained; until it simply becomes too costly to maintain it to a reasonable standard.

Agree completely. Age in itself is in not a particularly good indicator of good design, build quality and resilience. Some relatively modern vehicles like Manchester Metrolink's original Italian trams have aged very badly and are now all withdrawn from service. A key issue with the D78s is the aluminium body-shells which naturally make them much more resistant to the corrosion that plagues steel. They also have relatively modern bogies, all replaced within the last ten years. Their control gear on the other hand is old school camshaft, but that can be stripped out wholesale and substituted by something state of the art and new more compact controls should fit comfortably in the space occupied formerly by the more bulky old equipment. Traction motor design is shared with Piccadilly line stock due to be withdrawn, thus providing a source of spares to be refurbished for further overhaul of the D-Train during its second main line career. The basic bodyshell and running gear combination is already main line certified because the trains run today along shared NR infrastructure to Wimbledon and Richmond.

If a 4-car re-manufactured D78 unit can be had for the same leasing cost as a 2-car pacer then more than double the passenger seating capacity could be provided for a similar operating subsidy. The ride quality on bogies, particularly on jointed track and through junctions, should be much better and the appalling flange squeal of the pacer's long fixed wheelbase on sharp curves would be eliminated, pleasing the railway's neighbours no end. Practically the 60MPH speed limit should not be a major problem on most local traffic subject to detailled simulations and test runs. On all stations "Devon Metro" runs from Paignton to Exmouth for instance a small improvement in low speed acceleration from the already good pacer performance would probably be more valuable.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, sometimes the better option long term is not the short term cheapest. I agree with you on that. My issue is mainly that there is often a slightly irrational bias against old stock purely because of the age, and no other reason. The age alone really doesn't matter, if it's properly refurbished or remanufactured, and properly maintained; until it simply becomes too costly to maintain it to a reasonable standard.

The 319s are BREL mark 3s, some of the best rolling stock that we ever produced. If they are given a good refurbishment and are still in good shape as far as corrosion and the like goes, they really should be basically as good as brand new stock until they do become too costly to maintain. If the refurbishment is lacking, on the other hand, people will have every right to complain about it. If you think back in time about the likes of the newly GNER-refurbished HSTs (or any similar high quality refurb), they were every bit as good as a brand new train (and arguably much better than a brand new tilt-profile train), aside from maybe being a bit claggy before the engines were replaced.

The D78s, honestly I'm not sure. The idea and project is interesting, and they could help buy us some time, or help keep some lesser routes going. One possibility is that they might help to reduce the rate that we need to build new DMUs at, allowing more of an ongoing production of new DMUs over time, rather than a short term burst of activity followed by nothing for years.

Personally the age factor is just one. I am equally concerned about these D-Trains being suitable for the purpose for which they will almost certainly be employed. Unless the next franchise holder makes some serious changes to the existing routes, the D-Trains could very easily find themselves employed just about anywhere on the network. And with that speed restriction this could have a real impact on running, or the planned timetables. And if the various seating configurations are all opted for, you could end up in the situation of having short-distance commuter designed units running much longer routes. Yes an operator might start out with the intentions of using them only on selected routes, but sooner or later they will inevitably end up running elsewhere.

It would be similar to the frequent problems we used to have on the Wakefield line when Northern had only the 3 321/9s available for the Leeds - Doncaster routes. When they were available and not having problems, the timetable was just about kept to. But take one or more out of service, and suddenly pretty much anything that ran from Donny or Leeds could show up. So we would usually have a 156, 158 (sometimes in pairs or a 3 car 158), or fairly frequently a 144, occasionally a pair of 142s with the occasional single unit & even the rare occasions when a single 153 showed up on one of the peaks to try and replace the usually busy 4 car 321. Even the 158s would struggle to keep close to the timetable, usually dropping 5-10 minutes each way at least. You can imagine what is was like when a single 142 or 153 pulled in. And obviously on a route like this, too much dropped time meant that services were often held to allow the fasts running behind through leaving the services running even later & eventually some being cancelled to allow units & crews to get back into position.

OK, this was only one route but it was a good example of how not having the right stock to operate routes can lead to regular problems. My fear is that these D-Trains released into the wild would eventually find themselves in a similar situation, and causing the kind of chaos that often befell my commute. It's really not what the North needs from its rail network.

The 319s are a different kettle of fish. Despite some initial disappointment that new stock wasn't to head immediately to the newly wired lines (with the exception of the 350/4s of course), these are at least units capable of running most of the services expected of them. And they offer the opportunity to genuinely increase capacity on quite a few routes. I'm sure with the refresh (and maybe more comprehensive ones once the new franchise kicks in), they will prove to be a useful addition to the North of England fleet. But the D-Trains, well by now you now my feelings...

 

[edwin_m]

Yes it will be essential to confine any D-trains to the routes they are suitable for, not forgetting the need to get them back to a depot (are Devon Metro units based at Exeter or somewhere further afield). This will be most easily achieved if a whole group of routes in one area can be converted to D-train operation.

 

[northwichcat]

Regarding suitable routes to use converted D78s on. It now sounds like the Barton Line will become an EMT line not a Northern one given the Northern/TPE consultation said either that line go to EMT or Doncaster-Cleethorpes will go to Northern and Patrick McLoughlin confirmed yesterday Doncaster-Cleethorpes will remain with TPE.

 

[Taunton]

And at least the 319s are full speed, decent seating capacity units. The D-Trains don't offer much more in way of capacity

From long experience of the 319s I find their seating to be notably poor. If Adrian Shooter has his normal competence about him, he will ensure that the new seats provided in the D-diesels (because the current longitudinal ones patently have to be replaced) will be notably comfortable and a real improvement on much of what has been provided in recent times, whether Pendolino or Class 378, in all of which the seats are apparently hugely expensive and introduced with much hoopla by their manufacturers, and yet have all the comfort of an Indian fakir's bed of nails (the Class 378 especially). There's a sort of undercurrent in all the PR than New = More Comfortable and a Better Ambience than What Went Before. Actually, as we know only too well by now, it doesn't.

 

[47802]

With Network Rail now possibly talking 2021 for North Transpennine Electrification completion then the idea of substancial parts of the network being electrified by 2025 or even 2030 is looking somewhat fanciful, and then there predictions of massive spending cuts after the next election who ever is in power, that to me suggests there is real need to buy some more dmu's either something along the lines of 172 or a bi-mode and see what the manufacturer's can come up with, and maybe the Dft needs come to some sort of deal with the leasing companies, finance companies etc. to get these things funded.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Regarding suitable routes to use converted D78s on. It now sounds like the Barton Line will become an EMT line not a Northern one given the Northern/TPE consultation said either that line go to EMT or Doncaster-Cleethorpes will go to Northern and Patrick McLoughlin confirmed yesterday Doncaster-Cleethorpes will remain with TPE.

That is very concerning. How will it work?
The early morning train from Doncaster will be canceled.
EMT's crew base is in Lincoln so services will be based there so the last and first trains will be cut. Northern have an agreement with TPE.
The Newark trains end at Grimsby Town so will the some trains not run from Cleethorpes? Plus EMT are rubbish compared to Northern on locals.

 

[northwichcat]

That is very concerning. How will it work?
The early morning train from Doncaster will be canceled.
EMT's crew base is in Lincoln so services will be based there so the last and first trains will be cut. Northern have an agreement with TPE.
The Newark trains end at Grimsby Town so will the some trains not run from Cleethorpes? Plus EMT are rubbish compared to Northern on locals.

EMT would have to operate to the specified requirements which will include a minimum number of services, a latest time for the first service, an earliest time for the last service and the maximum permitted gap between services.