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

[pro4600]

Saw a unit heading north up the M40 on the back of a low loader tonight.

 

[Brian Aylott]

Saw a unit heading north up the M40 on the back of a low loader tonight.

Probably for Booths - they've already some for cut
Brian

 

[RPM]

I wonder if Chiltern could make use of a couple of D Trains for the Princes Risborough - Aylesbury branch? The bubble cars have to be gone by 2020 and the passenger loadings on a couple of the trips are beginning to exceed the capacity of a 121 anyway. They're not exactly flush for units, ex TPE 170s notwithstanding, so they'll be reluctant to tie up a 165 during the peaks...

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I wonder if Chiltern could make use of a couple of D Trains for the Princes Risborough - Aylesbury branch? The bubble cars have to be gone by 2020 and the passenger loadings on a couple of the trips are beginning to exceed the capacity of a 121 anyway. They're not exactly flush for units, ex TPE 170s notwithstanding, so they'll be reluctant to tie up a 165 during the peaks...

That's been mentioned before. I'd guess they would be best for any branch route with slow speeds anywhere.
If they are used on Pacer run lines it will just be a replacement for that line. If it replaces a Sprinter, then the faster unit could be put to better use.
So I think the Barton Line is a good place for a D-Train. It would allow a fast 153 to run elsewhere, Gainsborough Central hopefully.

 

[deltic08]

That's been mentioned before. I'd guess they would be best for any branch route with slow speeds anywhere.
If they are used on Pacer run lines it will just be a replacement for that line. If it replaces a Sprinter, then the faster unit could be put to better use.
So I think the Barton Line is a good place for a D-Train. It would allow a fast 153 to run elsewhere, Gainsborough Central hopefully.

I would hardly call a 153 fast. faster than a D train though.

 

[HSTEd]

I can't believe this is actually happening.....

75 roughly Pacer sized units? Well they are only going to be really useful if Pacer replacement is posponed beyond 2019.

Of course you could nick them all to put them on a Tees Valley Metro proposal.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not overly surprising, when they are a potential available DMU...the DMU shortage has ended up such that anything that will do the job goes!

Neil

It is at times like this that I am prone to seeing humour where none exists, but if the previously named "Adrian" and all the "interested" TOC were gathered together ready to sing the praises of the D78 Superpacer fleet, the Force could prevail and Obi Wan Kenobi would appear un-noticed and using his mind-powers, would say...."These are not the units that you are looking for" and all the gathering would then depart to see what units were on special offer that week at Aldi and Lidl...:roll:

 

[MarkyT]

I would hardly call a 153 fast. faster than a D train though.

Not necessarily for point to point timing on the typical all stations diagrams D trains might be assigned to, where better acceleration could compensate for a lower top speed. Every route and stopping pattern proposed would have to be studied in detail with simulated timing runs, and the test would be whether the D timings, even if slightly longer than those of sprinter or pacer overall on a particular route could be accommodated in the timetable. The electric transmission of the D train is supposed to to be able to deliver power to the wheels much more efficiently at starting and through the lower speed ranges than the mechanical systems on sprinters and pacers are able. 153s are particularly sluggish in my experience, seemingly taking ages and ages to get anywhere near full speed!

 

[Jonny]

I can't believe this is actually happening.....

75 roughly Pacer sized units? Well they are only going to be really useful if Pacer replacement is posponed beyond 2019.

Of course you could nick them all to put them on a Tees Valley Metro proposal.

And why not put them on the Tees Valley? It would be a good for of them.

Also, how much trouble would a re-jig for 75 mph be?

 

[WatcherZero]

Problem is they were designed and built for low speeds and feature smaller tube size wheels so pushing them to 60mph is already testing their stability, pushing them beyond they would have a high chance of derailing.

Even if that wernt an issue they have lower structural rigidity than mainline standard stock even of the era.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps they should halt all further scrapping of any D stock vehicle until such time as the prototype has been evaluated?
It would be a shame to throw away half the vehicles (I believe anyway?) only to find out that they are sufficiently succesful to warrant conversion of all of them.

 

[Murph]

Perhaps they should halt all further scrapping of any D stock vehicle until such time as the prototype has been evaluated?
It would be a shame to throw away half the vehicles (I believe anyway?) only to find out that they are sufficiently succesful to warrant conversion of all of them.

Yeah, I was thinking just that when I read that some had already gone to Booth's. The D78 DEMU project is probably still a bit of a gamble, but it would be very silly to end up in a "gee, if only we had more carriages" situation in 1–2 years with it if they turn out to be useful and successful.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I wonder (and I say this solely from the point of view of a passenger and with nothing more than a smartphone with a speedometer app on it to guide me) where all this "high speed" (i.e. 75mph) running, that's the reason D-Trains are unsuitable, is.

For example, the last time I made the trip, as far as I could detect on almost all of the route between Sheffield and Lincoln - despite being largely straight and level, and despite having been recently relaid - the train travelled at 60mph or less. And the same is true of a good proportion of the route between Sheffield and Doncaster via Rotherham (which, currently is worked as an extension of the Lincoln route). I suspect that a D-Train could operate this route with little or no impact on end-to-end timings.

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder if Chiltern could make use of a couple of D Trains for the Princes Risborough - Aylesbury branch? The bubble cars have to be gone by 2020 and the passenger loadings on a couple of the trips are beginning to exceed the capacity of a 121 anyway. They're not exactly flush for units, ex TPE 170s notwithstanding, so they'll be reluctant to tie up a 165 during the peaks...

Possible and in view of the Chiltern heritage of the people who run Vivarail I'm sure it's been considered. However this service effectively disappears when East West Rail opens, being replaced by the through working to MK, so they may have decided it's not worth doing for the short term.

 

[northwichcat]

A stopper from Sheffield to Leeds takes 75 minutes, so would theoretically require 4 diagrams to operate, similarly Sheffield to Hudderfield would require 4 diagrams, plus another 3/4 on the Knottingley service... That's a larger "micro fleet" than TPE have of 350's

There is no guarantee they'll be cleared for all those routes. They are a bit wider than Pacers and the carriages are 2.5m longer so they could run in to clearance issues at certain stations.

The North East routes (like some of the South West routes) would be OK to take 23m Networkers which would fail clearance for many routes.

 

[route:oxford]

Possible and in view of the Chiltern heritage of the people who run Vivarail I'm sure it's been considered. However this service effectively disappears when East West Rail opens, being replaced by the through working to MK, so they may have decided it's not worth doing for the short term.

It's definitely a good proving ground for raking up some mileage.

I suspect it might get a bit busier prior to E-W opening too - it's not long until the route into Oxford opens from Princes Risborough. The 280 takes around 90 minutes to do the journey from Aylesbury to Oxford. With a good connection at PR, the journey could be done in around 50 minutes.

And that will be a comfortable journey - not thrown around the speed calming of Thame and the stop-start chugging along from Thame to Wheatley to Oxford.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bedford-Bletchley would also be a good candidate prior to East West Rail. They could, if the through service in the end is likely to be operated by Chiltern, pass it over to Chiltern to operate with one Aylesbury-based "microfleet" with some (3, ideally) outbased at Bletchley.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Bedford-Bletchley would also be a good candidate prior to East West Rail. They could, if the through service in the end is likely to be operated by Chiltern, pass it over to Chiltern to operate with one Aylesbury-based "microfleet" with some (3, ideally) outbased at Bletchley.

Neil

How long are the platforms on the Bedford-Bletchley line? I remember someone once saying some stations don't even have platforms long enough to take a 2 car 172.

I'm not bringing that up because I think D78s would be a bad idea for Bedford-Bletchley. In fact if you need a capacity enhancement using 3 car trains with 18m carriages may require less infrastructure changes than tagging a 153 on to the back of a 150.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How long are the platforms on the Bedford-Bletchley line? I remember someone once saying some stations don't even have platforms long enough to take a 2 car 172.

Couldn't tell you to be honest, but as these trains are destined for regional use I'd imagine SDO may be considered. There are some short ones, but a number of them have been rebuilt recently (to move them the other side of the level crossing to reduce the road closure time).

I'm not bringing that up because I think D78s would be a bad idea for Bedford-Bletchley. In fact if you need a capacity enhancement using 3 car trains with 18m carriages may require less infrastructure changes than tagging a 153 on to the back of a 150.

No need for capacity enhancements, a 2-car 150 is plenty for the very low use of the line. The problem is that there aren't enough regular DMUs for a spare to keep at Bletchley, so reliability is pitiful as when one fails (more often than not the 153, I believe - it has one of each, a 150 and a 153) one of the two diagrams is out for a good few hours while they bring one down from Tyseley.

They do bustitute, but that's no way to run a railway and attract people to it.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

No need for capacity enhancements, a 2-car 150 is plenty for the very low use of the line.

So an alternative could be a refurbished 2 car 143/4

 

[Bletchleyite]

So an alternative could be a refurbished 2 car 143/4

That would also work, yes. Though I think Pacers are banned from round there at present. The line is surprisingly scenic so the view would be good, though it might be a bit bouncy in places, not to mention the squeal at St Johns curve

(Might actually have problems starting off from St Johns?)

Near enough anything in current use would be an improvement provided 3 of them can be based at Bletchley so there's a spare for when it breaks.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

That would also work, yes. Though I think Pacers are banned from round there at present. The line is surprisingly scenic so the view would be good, though it might be a bit bouncy in places, not to mention the squeal at St Johns curve

Banned or not cleared? As Pacers have never operated in that area I imagine clearance hasn't been applied for, which isn't the same as banned in the way that Pacers are banned between Hazel Grove and Buxton.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Perhaps they should halt all further scrapping of any D stock vehicle until such time as the prototype has been evaluated?
It would be a shame to throw away half the vehicles (I believe anyway?) only to find out that they are sufficiently succesful to warrant conversion of all of them.

I believe they are only scrapping the vehicles that are not required for superPacer conversion; not complete units. The majority of the vehicles are going to Long Marston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Banned or not cleared? As Pacers have never operated in that area I imagine clearance hasn't been applied for, which isn't the same as banned in the way that Pacers are banned between Hazel Grove and Buxton.

Probably not cleared - NSE always refused to clear them.

I would say (as an occasional user) even swapping the 153 and 150 for three 142s would be an advantage. Reliability is a real problem with no "hot spare" at Bletchley.

Neil

 

[Bantamzen]

It is at times like this that I am prone to seeing humour where none exists, but if the previously named "Adrian" and all the "interested" TOC were gathered together ready to sing the praises of the D78 Superpacer fleet, the Force could prevail and Obi Wan Kenobi would appear un-noticed and using his mind-powers, would say...."These are not the units that you are looking for" and all the gathering would then depart to see what units were on special offer that week at Aldi and Lidl...:roll:

Talking of Star Wars, the Jedi would certainly feel it in the Force if the D78 rattlers were announced as the ideal replacement for the Pacers....

"The DfT are pleased to announce that your ageing slow stock is to be replaced by even slower ageing stock, but with a few bits of plastic stuck inside and powered by some diesel engines we found lying around the place..."

Oh, they'd feel that one alright!!

I wonder (and I say this solely from the point of view of a passenger and with nothing more than a smartphone with a speedometer app on it to guide me) where all this "high speed" (i.e. 75mph) running, that's the reason D-Trains are unsuitable, is.

For example, the last time I made the trip, as far as I could detect on almost all of the route between Sheffield and Lincoln - despite being largely straight and level, and despite having been recently relaid - the train travelled at 60mph or less. And the same is true of a good proportion of the route between Sheffield and Doncaster via Rotherham (which, currently is worked as an extension of the Lincoln route). I suspect that a D-Train could operate this route with little or no impact on end-to-end timings.

The problem is, especially with operators like Northern is that their stock can and does find itself on all diagrams that they are cleared for. This invariably means that sooner or later the D78s could find themselves deployed on routes with 60mph+ routes, and risking tripping over faster services. If you've ever been on a Leeds-Doncaster (for example) service that has had it's usual 321 / 322 replaced by a 144, or worse 142 you'll know just how quickly it falls behind it's planned diagrams and invariably causes delays when eventually they are held at termini stations, or shunted onto a passing loop to allow fast services through. As a commuter it's very frustrating when another 10 or 15 minutes is put onto your already delayed service just because your unit can't keep up with the timings.

TOCs like Northern need stock that is flexible and can be used just about anywhere on the network. There aren't going to anywhere near enough D78s to replace the Pacer fleet, or even accommodate the refurb of the 143 / 144s. Sooner or later any decision to use the D78s as a sticky plaster over the problem of ageing stock levels is going to backfire.

 

[Wolfie]

Talking of Star Wars, the Jedi would certainly feel it in the Force if the D78 rattlers were announced as the ideal replacement for the Pacers....

"The DfT are pleased to announce that your ageing slow stock is to be replaced by even slower ageing stock, but with a few bits of plastic stuck inside and powered by some diesel engines we found lying around the place..."

Oh, they'd feel that one alright!!

They tick the DfT public checklist in two respects, being:
a Not a Pacer;
b More modern.

The other (more hidden) advantage they have for DfT is that they are realtively cheap.

The problem is, especially with operators like Northern is that their stock can and does find itself on all diagrams that they are cleared for. This invariably means that sooner or later the D78s could find themselves deployed on routes with 60mph+ routes, and risking tripping over faster services. If you've ever been on a Leeds-Doncaster (for example) service that has had it's usual 321 / 322 replaced by a 144, or worse 142 you'll know just how quickly it falls behind it's planned diagrams and invariably causes delays when eventually they are held at termini stations, or shunted onto a passing loop to allow fast services through. As a commuter it's very frustrating when another 10 or 15 minutes is put onto your already delayed service just because your unit can't keep up with the timings.

TOCs like Northern need stock that is flexible and can be used just about anywhere on the network.

The extent to which this in inherent in the Northern franchise (question: does anything similar happen in other such franchises) as opposed to being a feature of Northen's own mismanagement is likley be prominent in decision making. Given that there is not an infinite budget I have s atrong suspicion that Northern (or successors) could be told "here is your rolling stock, you make best use of it....".

There aren't going to anywhere near enough D78s to replace the Pacer fleet, or even accommodate the refurb of the 143 / 144s. Sooner or later any decision to use the D78s as a sticky plaster over the problem of ageing stock levels is going to backfire.

The "278s" and refurbished 143/144 will be a sticking plaster. If, however, they get us to a point 10-15 years down the line where electrification is much more widely spread and more modern DMUs are in use on remaining diesel lines then that is not such a bad thing. Trying to run them on past that point on the other hand....

 

[bluegoblin7]

Only three cars have been sent for scrap so far - 8058, 8114 and 8129. All of the 8XXX series trailer cars* are being scrapped as there is no practical use for them as part of the project. Very few DMs (7XXX) and NDMs (17XXX) are being scrapped as they are the basis of the "D-train".

(*The units reserved for the ERU and RATs may keep their 8XXX cars.)

 

[Nym]

Most of the UNDM cars will also be going for scrap last I checked...

The RATs will have DM, UNDM and T cars I'd think.

 

[Domh245]

Only three cars have been sent for scrap so far - 8058, 8114 and 8129. All of the 8XXX series trailer cars* are being scrapped as there is no practical use for them as part of the project. Very few DMs (7XXX) and NDMs (17XXX) are being scrapped as they are the basis of the "D-train".

(*The units reserved for the ERU and RATs may keep their 8XXX cars.)

Erm, hate to nit-pick, but it is the 17XXX that are trailers, and the 8XXX cars that are the UNDM.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

They tick the DfT public checklist in two respects, being:
a Not a Pacer;
b More modern.
...

They are not more modern. They are slightly older, just of better construction.
And some have already called them "SuperPacers" I would call them D-Trains like Vivarail want though.

People will assume the D means either:
Delayed, Dumped, Degraded, Donkey or Dirtcheap.