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

[Rick1984]

Couple for the Lymington branch? They could stay third rail as well! ??????

 

[Wolfie]

Couple for the Lymington branch? They could stay third rail as well! ��

To be a pedant they can hardly stay third rail as they've never been so... LU is fourth rail...

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Assuming you meant "not the north", some suggestions:
Cardiff Valleys, if the wires do not go up quick enough.
West Wales/Central Wales
Greenford branch
Marshlink
Devon/Cornwall short branches
Matlock-Derby-Crewe
Wrexham-Bidston, Llandudno-Blaenau Ffestiniog
some East Anglia locals
Bedford-Bletchley
Aylesbury-Princes Risborough
Glasgow-East Kilbride (until wired)

In the north outside urban areas:
Cumbrian coast
Settle-Carlisle (limited to 60mph)
Middlesbrough-Whitby
Newcastle-Carlisle

Any of these free up "big" DMUs for cascade to "main" routes.
Somehow, I don't think the D78 allocation will be "democratic".

Why don't the Newcastle, Carlisle and Middlesbrough areas count as urban????
Also Crewe is technically in The North.

 

[ainsworth74]

Why don't the Newcastle, Carlisle and Middlesbrough areas count as urban????

Services from Middlesbrough to Whitby are definitely not urban in nature neither are Newcastle to Carlisle services. Middlesbrough, Carlisle and Newcastle might be urban areas but those two services are not. That is what LNW-GW Joint is getting at.

I would also broadly agree, depending exactly on the interior, that those might be suitable for these 'frankentrains'.

 

[tranzitjim]

How many D stock cars would they need to replace the whole fleet of Pacers?

 

[northwichcat]

How many D stock cars would they need to replace the whole fleet of Pacers?

This idea alone can't replace all the Pacers either directly or indirectly. It would need to done alongside other projects.

 

[Wolfie]

This idea alone can't replace all the Pacers either directly or indirectly. It would need to done alongside other projects.

Would it replace the 142s though with the 143/144s refurbished a la Porterbrook to offer another 10 years of life also.

 

[northwichcat]

Would it replace the 142s though with the 143/144s refurbished a la Porterbrook to offer another 10 years of life also.

A number of around up to 75 ex-LU trains was mooted while there are 94 x 142s in total.

The Porterbrook 143/4 proposal may be sold in as their alternative to 153s, which they don't want to keep in single car formation.

Also there's rumours some 150s and 153s may have to be scrapped in the next few years due to corrosion in the case of the 150s and the bodies sagging in the case of the 153s.

So we could be talking about something like:
* Some 153s reformed in to 155s
* The rest of the 153s scrapped.
* The 'new' 155s directly/indirectly the written off 150s and some of the 153s.
* The refurbished 143/4s replacing the rest of the 153s.

Which leaves a total of 140 x Pacer trains to replace with the Vivarail proposal only going slightly more than half way to meeting that requirement.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Except the branches are due to be wired (although I'm not sure if anybody's found the funds or planned the project yet)

The first half of your posting (due to be wired) leads me to ask how you can marry that sentiment to the second half of your posting (or planned the project yet). What Control Period has been officially nominated for the said works to be commenced on the Berkshire branches?

 

[47802]

A number of around up to 75 ex-LU trains was mooted while there are 94 x 142s in total.

The Porterbrook 143/4 proposal may be sold in as their alternative to 153s, which they don't want to keep in single car formation.

Also there's rumours some 150s and 153s may have to be scrapped in the next few years due to corrosion in the case of the 150s and the bodies sagging in the case of the 153s.

So we could be talking about something like:
* Some 153s reformed in to 155s
* The rest of the 153s scrapped.
* The 'new' 155s directly/indirectly the written off 150s and some of the 153s.
* The refurbished 143/4s replacing the rest of the 153s.

Which leaves a total of 140 x Pacer trains to replace with the Vivarail proposal only going slightly more than half way to meeting that requirement.

I'm fairly sceptical about 15x being written off as fixing them how ever much it cost I think will be cheaper than a new build, unless there is to be a major new build rather than the Viva job, we also seen to be ignoring cascades as a result of electrification and IEP HST cascades, yes initially it will be used to increase capacity rather than bin a bus but I doubt that will continue to be the case as we progress further through the electrification program.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm fairly sceptical about 15x being written off as fixing them how ever much it cost I think will be cheaper than a new build, we also seen to be ignoring cascades as a result of electrification and IEP HST cascades, yes initially it will be used to increase capacity rather than bin a bus but I doubt that will continue to be the case as we progress further through the electrification program.

"Bin a bus"....what a magnificent motto to be at the foot on the coat of arms of "The anti-Pacer League"...

 

[Murph]

I'm fairly sceptical about 15x being written off as fixing them how ever much it cost I think will be cheaper than a new build, unless there is to be a major new build rather than the Viva job, we also seen to be ignoring cascades as a result of electrification and IEP HST cascades, yes initially it will be used to increase capacity rather than bin a bus but I doubt that will continue to be the case as we progress further through the electrification program.

Yeah, I have to agree with your general view about 15x units. I think it would be crazy to scrap any prematurely, before we are in a situation where the storage depots are starting to get crowded with DMUs most of the time. If the corrosion/fatigue of major structure really has become critical, maybe it will be too expensive to give them another 5-10 years, but I think the powers that be need to consider that very carefully before selling them to Mr Booth. It would probably be prudent to let them gather dust in secure storage for maybe 5 years before scrapping.

My guess would be that if they can be life-extended for 10 years at less than 50% of new build cost, then that should be done. If they can be given 10 years and a realistic possibility of 20 for less than 80%, that might make sense too.

 

[northwichcat]

we also seen to be ignoring cascades as a result of electrification and IEP HST cascades, yes initially it will be used to increase capacity rather than bin a bus but I doubt that will continue to be the case as we progress further through the electrification program.

I said earlier

This idea alone can't replace all the Pacers either directly or indirectly. It would need to done alongside other projects.

That could include electrification. However, there are serious question marks about when electrification programs will be completed and we can't guarantee a large number of 30 year old DMUs will all survive another 10 years in regular use.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the corrosion/fatigue of major structure really has become critical, maybe it will be too expensive to give them another 5-10 years, but I think the powers that be need to consider that very carefully before selling them to Mr Booth.

I think the corrosion concerns have come about after they were spotted on 150135 in 2012, the unit was sent to Kilmarnock for work in December 2012 and was found to be a much worse state than originally thought and only returned to service in mid 2014, which probably not only incurred a lot of expense in fixing but presumably a lot of expense in compensation from the ROSCO to Northern as well.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The first half of your posting (due to be wired) leads me to ask how you can marry that sentiment to the second half of your posting (or planned the project yet). What Control Period has been officially nominated for the said works to be commenced on the Berkshire branches?

The Windsor, Marlow and Henley branches are now part of the wider GW scheme, for completion Dec 2017 according to the NR milestones.
Reading-Basingstoke has recently been taken off the Electric Spine project and added to the GW scheme also, date not confirmed.

The only Thames Valley branch not covered is West Ealing-Greenford.
No decision on anything west of Newbury.

 

[bussnapperwm]

I have no idea if they're interested, but LM on Bedford-Bletchley would be ideal. A low-speed route with low loadings suffering a severe reliability problem due to a new unit having to be brought down from Brum every time one breaks. Bletchley CS with plenty of space for maintaining a fleet of say 4 of them.

Or perhaps as a first go the Stourbridge Shuttle? Or the Aylesbury locals replacing the bubble car?

Neil

Use them on the plannedDudley to Dudley Port service, then reinstate the line between Dudley and Round Oak and extend the service to Stourbridge?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Use them on the plannedDudley to Dudley Port service, then reinstate the line between Dudley and Round Oak and extend the service to Stourbridge?

The line from Stourbridge to Brierly Hill will use new two-car Parry People movers with similar looks to a revved up 142. The eastern section will be an extension of the Midland Metro. As confirned in my thread on Dudley.
So thes D-Trains aren't needed there and they are needed in many other areas partically on branch lines with low speeds and outdated rolling stock.

 

[Haydn1971]

Would it replace the 142s though with the 143/144s refurbished a la Porterbrook to offer another 10 years of life also.

This does beg the question, why are the 143/144's suitable for refurb and another 10 years, but the 142's aren't ? They are essentially the same train but with different coach work - or are they ?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

This does beg the question, why are the 143/144's suitable for refurb and another 10 years, but the 142's aren't ? They are essentially the same train but with different coach work - or are they ?

I think the 142's should be similar and upgraded.
However 142's were built by Leyland and 143's/144's were built by Alexander hence the worse look on the newer ones.

 

[Haydn1971]

Time the DfT got their finger out and poked it into the ROSCO's to order a new fleet of DMU's because the Pacers will not be allowed on the network after 2017 and set retirement dates for the Sprinter and Networker DMU fleets. Along with realistic electrification target and expected capacity provision on routes so that the TOC's can work with the ROSCO's on a forward plan for new units, refurbishments and retirements. Faffing about with a new small fleet of old LU units as a stop gap is just kidding themselves and leaving passengers with a lingering poor experience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the 142's should be similar and upgraded.

However 142's were built by Leyland and 143's/144's were built by Alexander hence the worse look on the newer ones.

Yeah I know they are different bodyshells, but just because one looks uglier doesn't mean it's past it - however, as I've said above, time to scrap the lot

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This does beg the question, why are the 143/144's suitable for refurb and another 10 years, but the 142's aren't ? They are essentially the same train but with different coach work - or are they ?

Porterbrook who own the 143/144s have produced a plan for refurbishment of those units making them compliant with accessibility regulations post-2020. Angel who own the 142's have publicly stated that they do not plan to make them accessible.

Presumably the 142's could have similar work done, but only if Angel have a guarantee that they'll have work. The construction of the various types is broadly similar, though the 142s don't appear to have aged as well. That said, they do seem less prone to self-immolation...

 

[Haydn1971]

Cheers, just down to ownership then

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Time the DfT got their finger out and poked it into the ROSCO's to order a new fleet of DMU's because the Pacers will not be allowed on the network after 2017 and set retirement dates for the Sprinter and Networker DMU fleets. Along with realistic electrification target and expected capacity provision on routes so that the TOC's can work with the ROSCO's on a forward plan for new units, refurbishments and retirements. Faffing about with a new small fleet of old LU units as a stop gap is just kidding themselves and leaving passengers with a lingering poor experience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Yeah I know they are different bodyshells, but just because one looks uglier doesn't mean it's past it - however, as I've said above, time to scrap the lot

You miss-understood. I think the 144's are ugglier than the 142's.

 

[158722]

Cheers, just down to ownership then

No, the step access to 143/144s can be made PRM compliable whilst the 142s apparently cannot, or at least not without some serious and expensive work.

 

[Mikey C]

As there are 75 6 car D78 trains, surely this would replace more than just the 142s?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

As there are 75 6 car D78 trains, surely this would replace more than just the 142s?

The info Vivarail has suggests only 85 D-Trains can be made. Maybe they never bought all of the D78's?? And they are more 142's than that.

 

[paul1609]

Assuming you meant "not the north", some suggestions:
Cardiff Valleys, if the wires do not go up quick enough.
West Wales/Central Wales
Greenford branc
Marshlink
Devon/Cornwall short branches
Matlock-Derby-Crewe
Wrexham-Bidston, Llandudno-Blaenau Ffestiniog
some East Anglia locals
Bedford-Bletchley
Aylesbury-Princes Risborough
Glasgow-East Kilbride (until wired)

In the north outside urban areas:
Cumbrian coast
Settle-Carlisle (limited to 60mph)
Middlesbrough-Whitby
Newcastle-Carlisle

Any of these free up "big" DMUs for cascade to "main" routes.
Somehow, I don't think the D78 allocation will be "democratic".

Marshlink is actually Brighton to Ashford an important inter urban link on the south coast about the same distance as Manchester-York.
What is needed is the infill third rail electrification that has been cancelled no less than 3 times.

 

[158756]

The info Vivarail has suggests only 85 D-Trains can be made. Maybe they never bought all of the D78's?? And they are more 142's than that.

It was established earlier in the thread that there are a total of 170 driving ends, giving a maximum of 85 trains.(or 75 if the existing double-ended sets are used as is)

As another idea, if wikipedia is to be believed, 85 is exactly equal to the combined total of Northern's 156s and 158s. It would presumably make the franchise cheaper to run....

 

[Haydn1971]

No, the step access to 143/144s can be made PRM compliable whilst the 142s apparently cannot, or at least not without some serious and expensive work.

Ah, cheers - essentially not quite the same then, I'll take a closer nosy when I'm next on one
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As another idea, if wikipedia is to be believed, 85 is exactly equal to the combined total of Northern's 156s and 158s. It would presumably make the franchise cheaper to run....

That would cause passenger riots outside of MP's offices

 

[Murph]

Time the DfT got their finger out and poked it into the ROSCO's to order a new fleet of DMU's because the Pacers will not be allowed on the network after 2017 and set retirement dates for the Sprinter and Networker DMU fleets. Along with realistic electrification target and expected capacity provision on routes so that the TOC's can work with the ROSCO's on a forward plan for new units, refurbishments and retirements. Faffing about with a new small fleet of old LU units as a stop gap is just kidding themselves and leaving passengers with a lingering poor experience.

Poking the ROSCOs with a finger is pointless. They basically need to be handed a big juicy contract, or they will just let the Pacers rot (they might do something more proactive if they believe the contracts are likely to appear, but finger poking isn't going to do much). So, either DfT or TOCs need to start waving cash and contracts around (or the promise of the same), before new DMUs will be ordered. Apart from that, it's not really 2017 anyway, that's just an arbitrary life-expired date which could be extended if need be (for a cost). 2020 is the big date for accessibility, but even that doesn't guarantee the end of Pacers with ROSCOs offering options to upgrade them.

The D78s are not a DfT initiative, with the DfT going as far as to basically say "not our idea". They are a private enterprise punt by some investors that think they have spotted an opportunity to make some money. The positive side of it is possibly helping to spread the new DMU building over a longer period of time, which is better for keeping the factories open, assembly lines running, people that build them in jobs, etc. A huge short-term burst of DMU building is not necessarily such a great thing, as you have to pay to build a larger manufacturing capacity, then the capacity becomes redundant again. Slower sustained manufacturing can be overall better for the economy.

The DfT absolutely should not be setting forced retirement dates for Sprinters and Networkers, under the current system. That is none of their business. They get to set the franchise policies and standards, but it's up to the TOCs and ROSCOs between them to choose when existing stock can no longer be economically operated (due to both rising maintenance costs, and costs of meeting the latest franchise requirements). If you want DfT to control that, you basically need to re-create the nationalised British Rail.

Of course, no matter which options are chosen, the cash only ever truly comes from 2 sources: 1) the taxpayer, and/or 2) the travelling public. ROSCOs, TOCs, banks, etc, don't actually pay for them, they just provide temporary loans with interest to the British public.

 

[Haydn1971]

I disagree, the ROSCO's need belting with a stick, without the DfT banning stock from the network, nothing will ever change, we will still be riding on pacers in 2040 if the ROSCO's had their way.