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

[Murph]

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.

That's not how the free market works, and arbitrary banning of stock might even be illegal under the various EU open market laws.

ROSCOs have zero obligation to spend money for the sake of it. They need to either be offered an incentive to do so, or be confident of a gap in the market. If you don't like that, you need a nationalised industry, not a privatised industry. DfT get to set the franchise requirements, parliament get to legislate stuff like accessibility, ROSCOs and TOCs get to choose how they meet the requirements and legislation. ROSCOs are quite entitled to respond to any attempts at arbitrary bullying in a negative fashion, if they are the ones being asked to spend money and take risk. They also have an obligation to their shareholders to maximise the value of existing assets by milking as much profit from them as possible.

ROSCOs can keep stock running for as long as they like, and the model we have requires that they be allowed to make their own choices about when it's no longer reasonable to keep maintaining and upgrading existing stock. If you want them to order new stock before they otherwise would order it, you need to throw money at them.

The one situation where DfT can effectively ban something is on safety grounds, but even then they can't completely ban particular stock, only mandate minimum safety standards. Since there's not really any major concerns with the safety of Sprinters and Networkers, they have very little justification on trying to force retirement on safety grounds. Pacers, on the other hand, they can probably make a case more easily about safety concerns, but the ROSCOs could respond by strengthening the existing vehicles.

 

[Haydn1971]

Murph, with all due respect, I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with what results we are getting out of the "free market" - i.e. Rubbish service

The system isn't working, passengers are fed up with poor quality stock, more annoyed at a lack of a seat and once the penny drops, down right annoyed at their fares and taxes going towards paying healthy dividends to shareholders.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If these D78 stock sound so wonderful, why are they not jealously required by TOC in their home geographical area?

 

[Murph]

Murph, with all due respect, I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with what results we are getting out of the "free market" - i.e. Rubbish service

The system isn't working, passengers are fed up with poor quality stock, more annoyed at a lack of a seat and once the penny drops, down right annoyed at their fares and taxes going towards paying healthy dividends to shareholders.

Fair enough. I actually do agree with you, I think, as I think that we'd be better off with a more nationalised railway, called BR, but somewhere between full nationalisation and full privatisation. It does annoy me to see the profits from our national infrastructure and assets going offshore.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If these D78 stock sound so wonderful, why are they not jealously required by TOC in their home geographical area?

The existing 4th rail suburban metro D78 EMUs will be surplus to requirements once LUL's S stock delivery is complete.

The proposed new remanufactured D78 DEMUs don't have a home geographical area yet, and TfL have already got their DMU/DEMU needs sorted out, I believe.

 

[Bantamzen]

If these D78 stock sound so wonderful, why are they not jealously required by TOC in their home geographical area?

Perhaps they could be used on Crossrail......

ons tin hat and climbs into the trench>

 

[67018]

Fair enough. I actually do agree with you, I think, as I think that we'd be better off with a more nationalised railway, called BR, but somewhere between full nationalisation and full privatisation. It does annoy me to see the profits from our national infrastructure and assets going offshore.

I'm not convinced that the arguments over nationalisation versus privatisation are actually relevant in this context. Speeding up the replacement of old stock will happen if, and only if, either the government or fare payers stump up the cash, and this would be the case regardless of the structure of the industry.

It's not happening because the DfT believe that it's not worth it as new stock would be a white elephant, redundant halfway through its lifespan due to electrification. You (and I) might disagree with this opinion, but nationalising the railway wouldn't change it.

In the meantime, the Vivarail proposal seems to be one of the benefits of a privatised railway - someone's putting up their own money and a bit of creative thinking to come up with a possible solution to the short term problem. If it doesn't work and nobody signs up for them, it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny.

 

[Murph]

I'm not convinced that the arguments over nationalisation versus privatisation are actually relevant in this context. Speeding up the replacement of old stock will happen if, and only if, either the government or fare payers stump up the cash, and this would be the case regardless of the structure of the industry.

It's not happening because the DfT believe that it's not worth it as new stock would be a white elephant, redundant halfway through its lifespan due to electrification. You (and I) might disagree with this opinion, but nationalising the railway wouldn't change it.

In the meantime, the Vivarail proposal seems to be one of the benefits of a privatised railway - someone's putting up their own money and a bit of creative thinking to come up with a possible solution to the short term problem. If it doesn't work and nobody signs up for them, it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny.

It's relevant in as much as (paraphrasing with a little exaggeration) the position of "DfT should beat up the ROSCOs for not buying lots of shiny new DMUs, and force them to scrap the dated ones". In the more or less fully privatised model that we have, DfT don't really get to do that, unless they are willing to throw money or other guarantees at the issue.

I think my "perfect" model for our railways would be BR with the business units it had shortly before privatisation (i.e. IC, Regional, Mail, etc, and maybe even bring back some sort of modernised Red Star). Bring that back at the top level strategy management, branding, coherent fares, etc, but then contract out the delivery of services when a cost effective commercial provision can be found. Somewhere between what we have now and the old BR.

This proposal from Vivarail does seem like it's on the positive end of privatisation. I'd want the door to be open to industry innovation like that in a slightly more nationalised model. Possibly tricky to achieve the best of both worlds like that.

It's entirely correct that no matter what the model, it's always tickets and/or taxpayers funding the stock and services.

As far as the stock shortage goes, I think we need to grab stuff like the D78s if the numbers look like they will add up and there's a suitable niche for them. We also need to keep as much of the 15x and 16x fleets going despite age, as long as the cost and reliability isn't getting silly for them, and keep them reasonably well refreshed and refurbished. For the gap remaining after that, I'd build DEMUs designed to be relatively easily converted into EDMUs or EMUs later, ideally building them at a long term sustainable rate (to keep the factories open long term).

Edit: I'd also try to make good use of the HST fleet to lessen the need for new DEMUs, as long as they could be kept fresh and maintainable. Only for routes that they should work reasonably well though, so probably not lots of short hops between stops but longer IC and IC-like routes where they should perform well.

 

[edwin_m]

Isn't there much more of a corrosion issue with 142s than with 143s or 144s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Isn't there much more of a corrosion issue with 142s than with 143s or 144s?

That wouldn't surprise me - panels held together with rivets let in moisture, which causes rust. They certainly seem to the passenger far inferior even to 144s, which aren't great themselves.

I'd be quite happy if in a year or so I was taking a '278' to Denby Dale instead of a 144. Even the 155s are rather chilly at this time of year: I was on 343 the other day and there was a 2"+ gap in one of the doors - The D78s can't come soon enough*!

I'd rather have 172s or an up to date version thereof, but I can't see that happening.

 

[DimTim]

To modernise stock could 'stock to be no older than xx years be included' in Invitation to Tender etc.? As is the case with London bus tenders.

 

[Murph]

To modernise stock could 'stock to be no older than xx years be included' in Invitation to Tender etc.? As is the case with London bus tenders.

That would be a fantastic way to waste money. If you're going to operate an open/free market, you don't put silly arbitrary criteria in like that. With trains, age is a terrible measure of quality, as a poorly/cheaply built or maintained train can be worse at 20 years old than a well built and maintained train at 30-40 years old. A well maintained HST that has been newly refurbished to a high standard is pretty much equal, or at least close to a brand new IC train.

It would also be a great way to discourage companies from bidding, or push them into an expensive bid, resulting in a less competitive offering and therefore higher fares or taxpayer subsidy. You have to trust the market, then evaluate the proposals based on the offered quality of service vs financial, giving very little weight to age alone. Stock that is truly at the natural end of its life gets automatically filtered out by being too costly to maintain, or too unreliable to meet reliability metrics.

 

[Clip]

If these D78 stock sound so wonderful, why are they not jealously required by TOC in their home geographical area?

Which TOC outside of London has actually said they want them then or are you just automatically thinking it will be Northern?

 

[NSEFAN]

That's not how the free market works, and arbitrary banning of stock might even be illegal under the various EU open market laws.

Actually you can ban rolling stock. It had to be done to catalyse the replacement of Mk1 slam door trains in the London commuter belt, which would have happened earlier if Network Southeast had been able to finish the job.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually you can ban rolling stock. It had to be done to catalyse the replacement of Mk1 slam door trains in the London commuter belt, which would have happened earlier if Network Southeast had been able to finish the job.

But that ban was on safety, not comfort, grounds. And it would not be justified on the same grounds for D78s nor for Pacers, because they are not slam-door body-underframe stock with a weak body. (Pacers are body-underframe but it is for convenience of construction - the body itself is a monocoque that just happens to sit on top of an underframe).

Neil

 

[doningtonphil]

There will never be a 'free and competitive' market for as long as on most routes there is only one choice of provider. If someone needs to travel from Manchester to Liverpool they only have one option (Northern) so will have to travel on whatever vehicle Northern provide. However if franchises were provided to 2 competing operators there would be an incentive for operators to differentiate themselves by providing better trains for example.

To a certain extent this occurs on the WCML. I know people who will choose specific times of trains to avoid travelling on a voyager for example.

Would people delay their journey by 10 mins if they knew the next train was a 15X newly overhauled and refurbished (or indeed a recently procured brand new DMU) operated by "newfranchiseco" as opposed to the Northern pacer stood in the station?

Just like the Premier League TV rights get divided up into 'packages' of games, with each package having some premium matches and some less desirable, the timetable for a particular route could be divided up into franchise packages that had a fairly even spread of Peak/rush hour and off peak services included.

 

[edwin_m]

IIRC The Scotrail franchise specified that all rolling stock used would be bogie vehicles.

 

[Mikey C]

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....

As the existing cabs are being heavily rebuilt for safety reasons, couldn't some new ones be built as well? Surely the effort involved in building a new cab wouldn't be harder than converting a 3rd rail EMU train to run on diesel?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps they could be used on Crossrail......

ons tin hat and climbs into the trench>

That thought had occurred to me when I made a recent posting, but unlike you, I did not dare to commit my thoughts to print at that time.

Perhaps a reference to the New Testament (Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17) may be useful when Jesus was asked a hostile question by Pharisees and Herodians about coinage being used to pay Roman taxes...
Jesus : "Whose name and inscription appears on the coinage"
Questioner : "Caesar"
Jesus : "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God, the things that are God's"

And it came to pass that the refurbishers of the D78's wished to quiz the DfT to whom should be the recipients of these London Underground items. Moses then descended upon the DfT saying that the curse of the Pacers was the final one of the seven that God had sent to punish Northern Rail and that the refurbishers should be mindful of what Jesus had said to the Pharisees and Herodians. And it came to pass that their eyes were opened and these D78 units were awarded to Crossrail.

Here endeth the lesson for today.

 

[Emyr]

If someone needs to travel from Manchester to Liverpool they only have one option (Northern) so will have to travel on whatever vehicle Northern provide.

EMT run Norwich to Liverpool via Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Oxford Rd.
TPEx run Liverpool to Newcastle via Manchester Victoria.

 

[northwichcat]

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.

And then what would you do with the 'upgraded' Pacers?

The Porterbrook plan for the 143/4s really makes them unsuitable for commuter services out of major cities, while the majority of the 142s are used for commuter services out of major cities.

Also note the 142s are the oldest trains and the oldest design, so it's a bit like comparing 155s to 156s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

IIRC The Scotrail franchise specified that all rolling stock used would be bogie vehicles.

And also a requirement that train toilets must not release smells in to the passenger saloons, except on the Glasgow electric services where there is no toilet requirement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The proposed new remanufactured D78 DEMUs don't have a home geographical area yet, and TfL have already got their DMU/DEMU needs sorted out, I believe.

TfL won't need any DMUs long term, once Gospel Oak is electrified LO will be 100% electric. Other TOCs which operate DMUs in London have sorted their DMU requirements by exploiting the franchising mess and securing 170s which TPE and Scotrail weren't going to release in the short term.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which TOC outside of London has actually said they want them

No TOC has expressed an interest in them AFAIK. However, the Vivarail mockup shows a Metro logo on the side and Huddersfield as the destination. They also claim they have done a computer simulated trial of how the converted D78s trains would perform on the Penistone line.

 

[NSEFAN]

But that ban was on safety, not comfort, grounds. And it would not be justified on the same grounds for D78s nor for Pacers, because they are not slam-door body-underframe stock with a weak body. (Pacers are body-underframe but it is for convenience of construction - the body itself is a monocoque that just happens to sit on top of an underframe).

I was just demonstrating the point that rolling stock can be banned given reasonable grounds. For Mk1 carriages, safety was a good reason to hasten their replacement. With Pacers, the reason might be their inability to meet disabled access requirements. If we wanted, we could always tighten up regulations further so that Pacers end up being effectively banned.

I also tried to make the point that it can take legislation to force the rail industry to procure new trains. It is clearly not a free market as some would like to believe, or else this surely would have happened naturally as part of ongoing investment in the service.

 

[jopsuk]

Perhaps they could be used on Crossrail......

ons tin hat and climbs into the trench>

I know you're not being serious, but 75 110 metre units versus an actual order of 65 200m units....

 

[sprinterguy]

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.

I'm not aware that Parry's proposal to operate services between Stourbridge and Brierley Hill is moving forward at any great pace at present.

The current live proposal to set up a very light rail development centre in Dudley, with a passenger shuttle service between the town and Dudley Port station, has no involvement from Parry and is being developed as an alternative to the Parry People Movers.
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ultra-light-rail-service-in-the-west-midlands

As such, I agree that there is no place for converted "D" stock on this service - The project is being set up as a proving ground for new very light rail technology so the conversion of D stock has no relevance. Converted "D" stock trains would probably be excessive for the Stourbridge town shuttle, too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And it came to pass that the refurbishers of the D78's wished to quiz the DfT to whom should be the recipients of these London Underground items. Moses then descended upon the DfT saying that the curse of the Pacers was the final one of the seven that God had sent to punish Northern Rail and that the refurbishers should be mindful of what Jesus had said to the Pharisees and Herodians. And it came to pass that their eyes were opened and these D78 units were awarded to Crossrail.

I'm not sure that 65 x 9-car EMUs going to Northern in their place would be entirely suitable to maintain services on diesel routes or to keep the costs of the Northern franchise manageable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not sure that 65 x 9-car EMUs going to Northern in their place would be entirely suitable to maintain services on diesel routes or to keep the costs of the Northern franchise manageable.

Oh surely not....these units are FAR too new to be sent to Northern Rail...

Dare I mention the number of Northern Rail stations that also can fully take a 9-car set...

 

[Bantamzen]

I know you're not being serious, but 75 110 metre units versus an actual order of 65 200m units....

Of course I was joking. Although maybe you could have 10/11 car D-Stocks with AC power units operating the Paddington-Abbey Wood section and save a bit on the 65 class 345s...

<Runs away singgering...>

 

[samuelmorris]

I know you're not being serious, but 75 110 metre units versus an actual order of 65 200m units....

Nobody wanted to question 60mph units plodding along between Maidenhead and Twyford?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Converted "D" stock trains would probably be excessive for the Stourbridge town shuttle, too.

These SuperPacers would probably not fit in the platform at Town anyway...?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which TOC outside of London has actually said they want them then or are you just automatically thinking it will be Northern?

It will be one or more of the 3 Northern bidders rather than a current TOC.
So Arriva, Govia and Abellio.

First is negotiating for its direct FGW award period but will not have a problem after its internal Turbo cascade.
The bidding for Wales & Borders hasn't started yet, but is bound to be linked to Valleys electrification - so like Northern they might well have a problem with the Pacer replacement timescales.

EMT and GA are also coming up for renewal soon.
They don't have Pacers but the bidders might be interested in D78s to grow services.

 

[Clip]

@J Collins & LNW-GW joint I only ask because of Pauls statement

If these D78 stock sound so wonderful, why are they not jealously required by TOC in their home geographical area?

and given that none have been built yet I also don't understand how he can say they are so wonderful as I don't think Ive seen anyone say such a thing either.

 

[Elecman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Williams
But that ban was on safety, not comfort, grounds. And it would not be justified on the same grounds for D78s nor for Pacers, because they are not slam-door body-underframe stock with a weak body. (Pacers are body-underframe but it is for convenience of construction - the body itself is a monocoque that just happens to sit on top of an underframe).
And wasn't that shown at Winsford when the body sheared off from the under frame!!