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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But the taxpayer isn't paying for your new Range Rover.

So it is fine for the taxpayer to pay for the private whim of a private company purchasing elderly London Underground units with aged bodyshells in order to provide yet another third-world rail experience in the third-world Northern Rail franchise.

Glad to hear that the "let them eat cake" syndrome is still alive, well and thriving in those areas who see new rolling stock as de rigeur..

 

[HSTEd]

It saves passengers, taxpayers and even corporate shareholders money.
I am not sure what else to say.
(I would prefer this conversion had been performed by an integrated railway, but such a thing will never exist again in Britain, so there we go)

 

[67018]

So it is fine for the taxpayer to pay for the private whim of a private company purchasing elderly London Underground units with aged bodyshells in order to provide yet another third-world rail experience in the third-world Northern Rail franchise.

Glad to hear that the "let them eat cake" syndrome is still alive, well and thriving in those areas who see new rolling stock as de rigeur..

Hardly a 'third world' experience - these trains are carrying large numbers of people on the District line today without much complaint. They would continue to do so for another 15 years, if it hadn't made sense to standardise on a single stock type.

And the taxpayer - or anyone else - won't pay for the 'private whim' of the purchasers of the stock unless said purchasers convince a TOC that they are the best option.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They would continue to do so for another 15 years, if it hadn't made sense to standardise on a single stock type.

How very nice to be able to have this option that you so describe above. Northern Rail, on looking at its existing fleet, would absolutely love to divest themselves of their Pacer fleet (which all and sundry in the southern reaches of Britain also say are good enough for another 15 years had the Equalities Act not been enacted) and to standardise on a single stock type of the age shown above.

 

[Harpers Tate]

......third-world rail experience in the third-world Northern Rail franchise

I, for one, will be quite happy to await the prototype (and the opportunity to ride it) and/or indeed production units, before making any such judgement. We may even be pleasantly surprised - and I say that as someone who experienced, the other day, a long ride on a 144 set along a good stretch of that rarity, the 60ft bull-head rail (Carnforth <> Leeds).

 

[northwichcat]

How very nice to be able to have this option that you so describe above. Northern Rail, on looking at its existing fleet, would absolutely love to divest themselves of their Pacer fleet (which all and sundry in the southern reaches of Britain also say are good enough for another 15 years had the Equalities Act not been enacted) and to standardise on a single stock type of the age shown above.

You mean like a fleet of 2/3 car versatile Turbostars/Desiros which could be used on any Northern diesel service opposed to the current conundrums Northern have where they have a choice of:
1) Service A (40 minutes in length) gets a 142/4 and leaves passengers behind while Service B (120 minutes in length) gets a 156/8 and has a number of spare seats.
2) Service A (40 minutes in length) gets a 156/8 and everyone gets on board while Service B (120 minutes in length) gets a 142/4 and the passengers have to put up with a train not suitable for a journey of that length
(And due to PTE influences option 2 is selected 95% of the time.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I, for one, will be quite happy to await the prototype (and the opportunity to ride it) and/or indeed production units, before making any such judgement. We may even be pleasantly surprised - and I say that as someone who experienced, the other day, a long ride on a 144 set along a good stretch of that rarity, the 60ft bull-head rail (Carnforth <> Leeds).

Perhaps my natural cynicism may have been in overdrive today. Just so everyone knows, what is the maximum speed allowable on these D78 units and on what Northern Rail-used routes would a low-ish top speed be a problem where shared lines with a much higher speed limit occur?

 

[northwichcat]

I, for one, will be quite happy to await the prototype (and the opportunity to ride it) and/or indeed production units, before making any such judgement. We may even be pleasantly surprised - and I say that as someone who experienced, the other day, a long ride on a 144 set along a good stretch of that rarity, the 60ft bull-head rail (Carnforth <> Leeds).

The 60mph top speed will be a major constraint where Northern need to use paths on mainlines. It may not be possible for them to use 60mph trains even for a short distance on the WCML due to pathing constraints. The 144 you traveled on is probably easily capable of running at 75mph between Lancaster and Carnforth even if it isn't capable of providing a good ride.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The 60mph top speed will be a major constraint where Northern need to use paths on mainlines.

Thanks for this confirmation. It appears that there are some upon this thread who feel the a top speed limit of 60mph for Northern Rail services is perfectly acceptable when they say how good the D78 conversions will be in that franchise area, but I hear no such comment from them about a 60mph top speed limit being totally acceptable in areas of their own franchises.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for this confirmation. It appears that there are some upon this thread who feel the a top speed limit of 60mph for Northern Rail services is perfectly acceptable when they say how good the D78 conversions will be in that franchise area, but I hear no such comment from them about a 60mph top speed limit being totally acceptable in areas of their own franchises.

I've said on many occasions that the units would be more than acceptable for use on Bedford-Bletchley services, and provided we can have three of them so there's a spare kept locally I would be extremely happy for them to be in use down here, and Tyseley would be welcome to their broken 153 and 150 back.

Neil

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps my natural cynicism may have been in overdrive today. Just so everyone knows, what is the maximum speed allowable on these D78 units and on what Northern Rail-used routes would a low-ish top speed be a problem where shared lines with a much higher speed limit occur?

Well of course, the 60mph top speed means that the reconditioned D stock isn't suitable for everywhere. Routes where they WILL be suitable would be places like Penistone, Knottingley, Leeds-Barnsley-Sheffield in the Yorkshire area, plus Preston to Ormskirk and the South Fylde line in Lancashire. This will free up units (largely Pacers, but that's better than nothing!) for those commuter services in the Manchester area that regularly leave people behind. The reduced (presumably) running costs might also lead to improvements, such as a clockmaker hourly service on the Ormskirk line.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Rather like one of the Underground lines in the D78s' current sphere of operation, this thread seems to be going round in circles.

 

[northwichcat]

Thanks for this confirmation. It appears that there are some upon this thread who feel the a top speed limit of 60mph for Northern Rail services is perfectly acceptable when they say how good the D78 conversions will be in that franchise area, but I hear no such comment from them about a 60mph top speed limit being totally acceptable in areas of their own franchises.

The Aylesbury to Marleybone Line being a good example - mainly no higher than 60mph, yet apparently it needs 75mph 165s and 100mph Clubmans/Turbostars.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think it's absolutely essential to look at ways of acquiring stock more cheaply than brand new diesels at £2 million per coach.

What a very good point you make above....perhaps you would also apply this same logic to units intended for Crossrail?

 

[northwichcat]

This will free up units (largely Pacers, but that's better than nothing!) for those commuter services in the Manchester area that regularly leave people behind.

And I thought this was supposed to be an option for actually replacing some Pacers not just moving more on to commuter services. If the 143/4s get the accessible refurbishment proposed they need to be kept well away from commuter services in to the main cities in the franchise due to their already low capacities being reduced further.

 

[Murph]

What a very good point you make above....perhaps you would also apply this same logic to units intended for Crossrail?

I'm sure that DfT would be delighted to hear your proposal for lower cost stock that can meet the requirements of Crossrail's high intensity, more or less maxed out from day 1 service. You do have a credible alternative to their current plans, don't you? Or was that just gratuitous London bashing which should be treated with contempt?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Rather like one of the Underground lines in the D78s' current sphere of operation, this thread seems to be going round in circles.

....and will continue doing so whilst the unpaid PR types on this thread are endeavouring to convince all and sundry of the wonders of the D78 conversions in a "first-strike" scenario long before any required testing is seen to be fully implemented.

Perhaps we would have seen the same enthusiasm from them for new-fangled bus-type units many years ago which I now term as "Newton Heath's Finest", with the proviso that such "bright new world" transportation units have an embargo of "X" miles from London...:roll:

 

[67018]

How very nice to be able to have this option that you so describe above. Northern Rail, on looking at its existing fleet, would absolutely love to divest themselves of their Pacer fleet (which all and sundry in the southern reaches of Britain also say are good enough for another 15 years had the Equalities Act not been enacted) and to standardise on a single stock type of the age shown above.

And I, living in (then) Southern Region land, would have loved loads of shiny new trains in the 1980s rather than the slam door stock that remained in place for another 15 years or more. And, these days, being a far more frequent user of the Bakerloo line than the District, wouldn't mind something a bit newer than 72 stock that's going to be around till it's 50+ years old...

Thanks for this confirmation. It appears that there are some upon this thread who feel the a top speed limit of 60mph for Northern Rail services is perfectly acceptable when they say how good the D78 conversions will be in that franchise area, but I hear no such comment from them about a 60mph top speed limit being totally acceptable in areas of their own franchises.

Haven't seen anyone suggesting that 60mph trains should be used where they will cause congestion or negatively impact journey times. But there have been several suggesions that they could be usable on Bedford-Bletchley, Cornwall branches, Thames Valley, Princes Risborough to Aylesbury...

Suspect this thread is going to go nowhere if it degenrates into another 'its grim up north' thread - when it's not even clear where, if anywhere, these units will operate.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm sure that DfT would be delighted to hear your proposal for lower cost stock that can meet the requirements of Crossrail's high intensity, more or less maxed out from day 1 service. You do have a credible alternative to their current plans, don't you? Or was that just gratuitous London bashing which should be treated with contempt?

All I asked is for the same economic argument put forward by 3141 to be put forward for all rolling-stock projects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I thought this was supposed to be an option for actually replacing some Pacers not just moving more on to commuter services. If the 143/4s get the accessible refurbishment proposed they need to be kept well away from commuter services in to the main cities in the franchise due to their already low capacities being reduced further.

Or you just run longer trains of them, perhaps 6 and 8-car formations where platform lengths allow.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Or you just run longer trains of them, perhaps 6 and 8-car formations where platform lengths allow.

The maximum length you can run Sprinters at on most lines not being electrified is 4 car. For Pacers it would be 5 car but there's only 10 x 3 car Pacers, so some services would have to operate as 2/4 car and there might be lines away from the big cities where a 3 car 144 on it's own would be ideal, which would mean less 3 car Pacers to make 5 car formations.

 

[Murph]

All I asked is for the same economic argument put forward by 3141 to be put forward for all rolling-stock projects.

You're very much missing the crucial point that there's an almost unique opportunity with the D78s. It's very unusual for there to be available full size heavy rail stock with new-ish bogies and structure+body with lots of available life. LUL are retiring them early, before those key parts of them are anywhere close to life expired, that's the unique opportunity to save a huge proportion of the manufacturing cost.

All rolling stock projects are already subject to trying to go with the best credible value (not necessarily absolutely lowest cost) that will meet the requirements, that's what the competitive tendering process achieves.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You're very much missing the crucial point that there's an almost unique opportunity with the D78s.

It is you, not I, who is missing the very crucial point that the D78 units are said to have a maximum top speed of 60mph. Do you assume that Northern Rail is somewhat different than other TOC in the type of lines in its area...or is such a top limit acceptable in your own franchise area?

"Reliant Robin" syndrome does not exist in this area....just the Pacer affliction

 

[Murph]

It is you, not I, who is missing the very crucial point that the D78 units are said to have a maximum top speed of 60mph. Do you assume that Northern Rail is somewhat different than other TOC in the type of lines in its area...or is such a top limit acceptable in your own franchise area?

Nope, you're entirely wrong there. I'm well aware of the limitations, just not so foolish as to dismiss their potential hastily. You seem desperate to shoot them down before the final product is even seen. The D78s are a unique opportunity to get some new stock in at very low cost, but they need to be deployed in scenarios where the lower speed is less of an issue, i.e. either frequent stopping metro-like services, or low intensity branch lines. In all cases, special care needs to be taken to ensure that they don't create a rolling speed block on any important routes. 60 vs 75 isn't even necessarily significant, if the 75s are low powered and don't spend much time above 60.

 

[47802]

You're very much missing the crucial point that there's an almost unique opportunity with the D78s. It's very unusual for there to be available full size heavy rail stock with new-ish bogies and structure+body with lots of available life. LUL are retiring them early, before those key parts of them are anywhere close to life expired, that's the unique opportunity to save a huge proportion of the manufacturing cost.

All rolling stock projects are already subject to trying to go with the best credible value (not necessarily absolutely lowest cost) that will meet the requirements, that's what the competitive tendering process achieves.

Well its a unique opportunity for a quick cheap fix on the basis that electrification will make them redundant in the next 10 to 15 years.

But that still leaves questions, of how well they will actually work, the crashworthiness, and appropriate routes were 60mph max isn't a problem

 

[northwichcat]

60 vs 75 isn't even necessarily significant, if the 75s are low powered and don't spend much time above 60.

I'm sure the likes of Virgin, XC, TPE will be more than happy for their trains to be held at signals for a couple of minutes because Northern are using 60mph trains instead of 75mph trains :roll:

Realistically Network Rail will refuse clearance for D-Trains if it would result in that happening. It only needs 5 minutes of 75mph running on a mainline to create a pathing conflict using 60mph stock - the 60mph train will have made 1.25 miles less progress than the 75mph train.

 

[Murph]

I'm sure the likes of Virgin, XC, TPE will be more than happy for their trains to be held at signals for a couple of minutes because Northern are using 60mph trains instead of 75mph trains :roll:

Realistically Network Rail will refuse clearance for D-Trains if it would result in that happening. It only needs 5 minutes of 75mph running on a mainline to create a pathing conflict using 60mph stock - the 60mph train will have made 1.25 miles less progress than the 75mph train.

In all cases, special care needs to be taken to ensure that they don't create a rolling speed block on any important routes. 60 vs 75 isn't even necessarily significant, if the 75s are low powered and don't spend much time above 60.

If you're a little less selective with your quoting, I think you'll find that I already mentioned that. Sure, if you're stupid about it and just plonk them in front of high speed express services, the network will suffer. It's hardly a new concept, and something that we already manage to cope with quite well with a wide variety of stock, from low speed freight, to 140mph expresses restricted to 125mph.

The speed will certainly limit or prohibit their use on some routes, but I'd be very surprised if it's a problem on all possible routes.

 

[alexl92]

IIRC the D78s are proposed for the Harrogate Line amongst others. I don't know what the linespeed is along that line but I can't imagine that 60mph running would be a major issue along that route. Could they even go on Huddersfield - Bradford? I'm pretty sure that the 142s don't make it to 75 along that route and most of it's limited anyway...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Suspect this thread is going to go nowhere if it degenerates into another 'its grim up north' thread - when it's not even clear where, if anywhere, these units will operate.

It is nothing of the sort. I will ask where all the self-proclaimed extollers of a 60mph maximum speed unit where they so reside just because they see the financial advantage of extolling the virtues of the said units in areas far away from their home area. Do I hear distant southern cries of "NIMBY" wafting over the Home Counties? I well remember in my youth well over 50 years ago of the "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" story and in an idle moment between postings, looked to the London homeland so well known of the D78 units and then thinking of the "Southern Hemisphere" of Britain as somewhere that the remainder of their working life, of which postings tell me have quite a number of years left, could be spent, carrying around those who are well versed in travelling in these units.

It may well be "grim up North" but it will be a damn sight grimmer if these Vivarail devotees have their way with timetabled services being made to have timetable allowance of such low-speed units. The fact that I speak from my seven-figure residence in the "Cheshire Golden Triangle" (Mr Collins in "Pride and Predjudice" would speak as highly of our fireplaces as those found at "Rosings"....we all do not live on "chip butties" up North) on this thread does not make me less mindful of the fact that my local station of Prestbury has Class 323 units on local services with a much higher top speed of 60mph, but also passing through at speed, certain units of the XC stock and also of those Branson inspired Pendolino vintage nor the fact that a few miles drive to Wilmslow station with its "rather than higher top speed of 60mph" units running to places far removed geographically. I can well see how these could be disrupted by the D78 units.

 

[Bantamzen]

IIRC the D78s are proposed for the Harrogate Line amongst others. I don't know what the linespeed is along that line but I can't imagine that 60mph running would be a major issue along that route. Could they even go on Huddersfield - Bradford? I'm pretty sure that the 142s don't make it to 75 along that route and most of it's limited anyway...

This would be OK(ish) if these routes were operated in isolation, but the fact is they are not. Units operating on Bradford-Huddersfield (which is actually part of a bigger set of diagrams & operates on a route with some semi-fasts), Harrogate-Leeds (which might be electrified in CP6, but almost certainly will have VTEC services running along it bi-hourly from 2018), even Huddersfield-Sheffield at will also be used on other routes at some point. By utilising the slower D78s, Northern would have reduced options when rotating stock around to cover routes. So if, for example there are a shortage of units available for the Leeds-Sheffield via Moorthorpe, do they cancel or risk running 60mph stock along main line sections and risk causing delays for units that couldn't possibly keep the timings. Or worse still, do they alter the timings of all routes just in case D78 stock has to be used on any route? That's the big problem.

I've argued this matter before. Northern (or at least the Northern franchise) needs a flexible fleet that can operate pretty much anywhere. Sure there are currently exceptions from this like the 321/322/333 stock in Yorkshire and the 323s and soon the 319s in Greater Manchester / Merseyside plus some issues with other stock, but in large most of Northern's units can operate almost anywhere. It's how Northern has just about muddled through with a rapidly ageing stock, by being able to quickly move units around as required. But present them with stock that simply wouldn't be up to the task on a significant proportion of it's route and you are storing up problems in the future when the Pacer stock falls away, or is away for long periods being re-fitted.

Maybe there is limited demand for these cheap 'n' cheerful units, maybe. But it shouldn't simply be used in an attempt to cheap out, because sooner or later new stock will need to be ordered. And as the D78s will be a limited run, you will just end up with yet more microfleets and incompatible stock. Just what the network as a whole doesn't need. Better to bite the bullet now, make arrangements with one or two suppliers for new, compatible stock that can suit the needs of all TOCs that are going to need DMU stock 20-30 years from now.