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

[Peter Sarf]

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.

Nobody is saying the D-78s should run on high speed lines mingling with high speed trains.

The point made several pages ago was that a 60mph capable unit could be ideal *IF* it has good acceleration. A pacer can travel at 75mph but how often can it reach this speed on a stopping service. A 60mph unit with good acceleration will be less of an impediment to line capacity than a lower powered 75mph unit. It will also get there quicker. The D-78s are expected to have good acceleration BUT lets see what the prototype does before getting carried away.

Now I want to know. Why has no RosCo procured nice new units for Northern ?. Is it because the Franchise (Northern) cannot afford them or will not pay for them ?. Or is it because a bunch us Southerners stopped them ?. I am from the South and by all means have new trains BUT pay for them. I would love to have cheaper trains and cheaper fares down here. But you cannot compare a congested 12-car train railway with routes that have 2,3 or 4 car trains on them and spare capacity. There just is not the demand.

EDIT :- There are new railway lines being tunneled under London that are expected to run at/near capacity from the day they open. To make best use of that huge investment new trains are required. It would be a shame to throw away older trains that still have life in them *IF* there is somewhere else they can be of benefit.

 

[route:oxford]

Never know, if this works we might see DMU conversions of everything.
Lets watch them try to DMU-ize a HST trailer.

I'm sure it could be done.

Well, with a bit of work as an MS between two 156 coaches.

More likely to be done with a 442 if the D-Stock works out.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

My hope would be that the result of the D-78s would be a surplus of units allowing spare units to be easily found without having to use inappropriate units. Currently there are these long and complex diagrams to make the best use of a limited resource. Thing is it is so complicated that it is unreliable. If there were spare units then diagramming could be simpler and more robust. Certainly I would hope that a spare 150 or two could cover for a pacer or a D-78s failure.

On the subject of buying new. It has been said before in other threads (maybe this one) that the quantities involved are too small for manufacturers to get interested in bidding. I certainly think it would have to be one order from one manufacturer. To avoid micro-fleets it would be best if they were compatible with what has already been built in Derby . But try getting that past the fair competition rules. I am hoping that the D-78s will be a large enough fleet that they are standard enough in their own right. Certainly things like engines will be common with the automotive world.

I hope that the D-78s are better than Pacers. We will have a prototype first. The advantages should be that they have bogies. they will be good uality aluminium shells with modernised (ten year old) running gear and they will have better acceleration. The D-78s will have to be cheap - so whoever gets them will get more than they would otherwise get. If they are not cheap then buy new. I would always buy secondhand if it will do the job and has life left in it. Better than not having enough of the new alternative !.

 

[Harpers Tate]

What would be far more informative than the speculation about maximum speed's effect in these units' ability to mingle with other things in various places would be:

a calculation (which I am in no position to make) comparing
- the stop to stop time (i.e stationary at a station to stationary at the next)
- including likely passenger loading/unloading etc
- accounting for BOTH acceleration AND top speed
- on varying gradients

and determining the distance between two stations where one of these would in fact take longer than, say, a 153 (on the level say, or an average of likely gradients up and down).

Until someone can realistically calculate that, any suggestion of "interference" with faster services is moot. For example, it may be that one of these things might actually take less time betwen Leeds and Moorthorpe than Northern's current worst-case scenario - a 153 - does.

 

[northwichcat]

There seems to be a recurring misconception from posters from the South that Pacers mainly run services which stop at stations every 5 minutes. Maybe some people are under the impression the North is like Cornwall and Devon which retained many short branches and seem to have stations in every small settlement that the line passes through. In fact the real branch lines in the North have a token weekly service or are freight only. Sheffield to Lincoln is a good example of a rural line which gets Pacers, there are long sections where there are no stations and it's also the only direct route between those two cities.

 

[fairysdad]

Now I want to know. Why has no RosCo procured nice new units for Northern? Is it because the Franchise (Northern) cannot afford them or will not pay for them? Or is it because a bunch us Southerners stopped them? I am from the South and by all means have new trains BUT pay for them. I would love to have cheaper trains and cheaper fares down here. But you cannot compare a congested 12-car train railway with routes that have 2, 3, or 4 car trains on them and spare capacity. There just is not the demand.

It is my understanding (although somebody will likely come along and correct me, or clarify me at the least!) that the reason that a ROSCO hasn't procured any new units is because the government won't let them, nor let the TOCs lease them.

 

[Murph]

It is my understanding (although somebody will likely come along and correct me, or clarify me at the least!) that the reason that a ROSCO hasn't procured any new units is because the government won't let them, nor let the TOCs lease them.

ROSCOs do not need permission to order stock. They need a financial commitment from either/both a TOC or DfT before they shell out the vast amount needed to buy new stock. ROSCOs are basically finance companies, they effectively give longish term capital loans with interest, but only to people who give suitable guarantees (i.e. contracts) that they will pay enough for long enough to cover the loan, and give them a healthy profit.

Give ROSCOs the right incentive (i.e. an appealing and pretty much guaranteed return on investment), and they will order whatever stock the market is calling for.

 

[northwichcat]

It is my understanding (although somebody will likely come along and correct me, or clarify me at the least!) that the reason that a ROSCO hasn't procured any new units is because the government won't let them, nor let the TOCs lease them.

The previous government was going to order new trains for Northern, TPE and FGW and had issued an ITT which experts expected to result in a second order of 172s. Lord Adonis instead proposed electrification and putting the released 319s from Thameslink on routes in the North West and Thames Valley to provide short term increases in capacity.

The current government have just proposed further electrification projects for the North but keep saying the rolling stock is the responsibility of the franchisee. Yet Northern's franchise agreement says they use what rolling stock Patrick McLoughlin tells them to use and forbids them from placing an order for new trains.

 

[67018]

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.

Doesn't sound much like the 'third world railway' you mentioned in a previous post.

And you still seem to be ignoring the numerous places round the country that have been suggested as suitable for this stock.

Fact is, the prevailing view (i.e. that of the DfT) is that electrification renders a new DMU order as not the best use of money. That might be arguable (and is already a subject of several separate threads), but until that changes it might be a choice of this or live with what we already have - and face aging stock and increasing congestion. So it's worthy of consideration as a stopgap.

 

[MarkyT]

So it's worthy of consideration as a stopgap.

Agreed, but I do note and appreciate Paul's caution on waiting for the prototype before drawing any firm conclusions on performance and crashworthyness etc. Robust data for performance in particular will be needed for calibrating simulation software for timetable studies to ascertain once and for all the suitability of these units for interworking as stopping services with other traffic on any target routes, as a pacer replacement or otherwise. The bottom line is that it would be a shame to throw away these fairly modern and still highly functional bodyshells with their nearly new running gear without at least some serious consideration of their reuse. Confining them to local branch lines might offer a viable solution and fits in with Vivarail's easy 'on-site' maintenance objectives. In another thread I suggested their use on Thames Valley branches to avoid some more marginal electrification activity, perhaps again as a stopgap pending completion of more urgent main line sections whilst releasing the current higher performance diesel units for use elsewhere.

 

[edwin_m]

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

I think you'll find on a like for like basis (excluding maintenance) that the Crossrail order is costing a fair bit less than £2m per vehicle. The going rate for EMUs is somewhere around £1.5m per vehicle.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think you'll find on a like for like basis (excluding maintenance) that the Crossrail order is costing a fair bit less than £2m per vehicle. The going rate for EMUs is somewhere around £1.5m per vehicle.

May I ask you to view the final paragraph of the posting # 656 on this thread that was made by 3141 which is the posting that made reference to a cost figure of £2m per vehicle....not one made by me.

 

[Peter Sarf]

There seems to be a recurring misconception from posters from the South that Pacers mainly run services which stop at stations every 5 minutes. Maybe some people are under the impression the North is like Cornwall and Devon which retained many short branches and seem to have stations in every small settlement that the line passes through. In fact the real branch lines in the North have a token weekly service or are freight only. Sheffield to Lincoln is a good example of a rural line which gets Pacers, there are long sections where there are no stations and it's also the only direct route between those two cities.

I am pretty sure that the Pacers were meant for those branch lines etc. But I also know significant numbers of Pacers ended up on routes that they ought not be on. This was because it became apparent that they were inappropriate (well even less appropriate) for the lines they were originally meant for. True it is easy to forget that.

My hope would be that the D-78s end up on the sort of routes that Pacers were originally meant for thus leaving the sprinters to go back to busier routes. But because they are *HOPEFULLY* that much better than Pacers they routes theythen ought to be an improvement on busier routes.

As "Harper Tate" requests - some meaningful calculations would be nice. Beyond me as I have no route figures to go by. The real test will be how a prototype performs and I am looking forward to the results of that. Then we will know whether a D-78 has enough power to even speed up some of the routes it might work on.

Some of the un-electrified lines in the South East might be a candidate for D-78s. Hastings to Ashford must be a candidate thus freeing up some class 171s to go and work with their near identical 170s. Others have mentioned the Watford-StAlbans line, Bletchley-Bedford, parts of Chiltern and some of the branches off the Paddington mainline. All those would sent sprinters North or Networker Turbos West.

 

[edwin_m]

May I ask you to view the final paragraph of the posting # 656 on this thread that was made by 3141 which is the posting that made reference to a cost figure of £2m per vehicle....not one made by me.

Post #656 was referring to the price of diesels. You were referring to the price of Crossrail units which are electric.

 

[Bantamzen]

What would be far more informative than the speculation about maximum speed's effect in these units' ability to mingle with other things in various places would be:

a calculation (which I am in no position to make) comparing
- the stop to stop time (i.e stationary at a station to stationary at the next)
- including likely passenger loading/unloading etc
- accounting for BOTH acceleration AND top speed
- on varying gradients

and determining the distance between two stations where one of these would in fact take longer than, say, a 153 (on the level say, or an average of likely gradients up and down).

Until someone can realistically calculate that, any suggestion of "interference" with faster services is moot. For example, it may be that one of these things might actually take less time betwen Leeds and Moorthorpe than Northern's current worst-case scenario - a 153 - does.

I can only go on the experience of using the line when I lived in South Elmsall. But as I recall delays on the services through Moorthorpe were fairly common depending on what unit actually ran (and it could be just about any DMU). The 158/156s when used kept the times well, as did the 144s. But if a 142 or indeed a single 153 arrived on a peak service then you could usually expect some delay.

The real impact of running slower units on the section to and from Leeds was felt when the 321s (the 322s hadn't yet arrived) running to Doncaster were replaced with DMUs. Then delays of 10 mins + were not uncommon, and often peak services from Leeds would either be delayed at Leeds to allow GNER/East Coast & XC services to run in front, or the service would be moved onto the loop south of Fitzwilliam to allow them to pass en route.

So quite a few 75mph units struggled on this section, and even with better acceleration I suspect a fully loaded 60mph D78 would really struggle to stay out of the way of 2 VTECs (and who knows maybe more in the future), and at least one XC with even the odd EMT running the route. I just don't think that these units will be anywhere near powerful enough to offset the slower top speeds with enough acceleration to be able to work any main lines or busy routes with fast or semi fasts. And this means that they wouldn't be suitable for quite a bit of Northern's network, not ideal when they use their stock far and wide.

 

[northwichcat]

I am pretty sure that the Pacers were meant for those branch lines etc. But I also know significant numbers of Pacers ended up on routes that they ought not be on. This was because it became apparent that they were inappropriate (well even less appropriate) for the lines they were originally meant for. True it is easy to forget that.

They were designed for branch lines but then were found to be unsuitable for some e.g. Cornish branch lines and more recently increases in passenger numbers have meant they aren't still suitable for other rural lines in single formation but then a 2 car Sprinter is cheaper to operate than a 4 car Pacer.

GMPTE wanted versatile 210s for commuter routes around Manchester but instead were forced to take on a mix of 142s and 150s instead because of budget constraints at the time, so some of the 142s have always been used on commuter routes but I don't think that was intended to be a long term solution at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

GMPTE wanted versatile 210s for commuter routes around Manchester but instead were forced to take on a mix of 142s and 150s instead because of budget constraints at the time, so some of the 142s have always been used on commuter routes but I don't think that was intended to be a long term solution at the time.

Given that 210s were a DEMU with exactly the same bodywork as 150s, I don't see why 150s are a bad thing - essentially the same thing but cheaper.

142s I'll give you

Neil

 

[Clip]

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.

I cant believe what I am reading here over the last few pages from you Paul.

These things haven't even had a demonstrator built yet, they haven't even been confirmed as only being for the Northern franchise - just that they are talking to interested parties yet you have done nothing but say they shouldn't be up there and therefore shouldn't be built.

I find it truly amazing that you and others are saying something that isn't even built yet is unsuitable. Blimey even those who were against the 319s going up north have seemingly calmed down now but this is another level of stupidity.

 

[northwichcat]

Given that 210s were a DEMU with exactly the same bodywork as 150s, I don't see why 150s are a bad thing - essentially the same thing but cheaper.

I think GMPTE were envisaging a dual-powered version of the 210s instead of 323s. Then those 210s would have been go anywhere and able to use wires on partially electrified lines e.g. a Buxton service could have operated on electric as far as Hazel Grove.

 

[RobShipway]

As has been mentioned within the first few pages of this thread, there are some routes where trains are lucky if they get above 60mph on some of the Branch routes.

However, when the D78 comes to meet the mainline in some places I do think that it would need to have a 75mph top speed as per the Class 458/5 conversions.

 

[northwichcat]

However, when the D78 comes to meet the mainline in some places I do think that it would need to have a 75mph top speed as per the Class 458/5 conversions.

I think 60mph for the D78s is a push as it is. They aren't currently used above 45mph, so an increase to 60mph is an increase in top speed by 33%. There is even a chance they are cleared to run at 60mph but aren't cleared to run at Pacer/Sprinter speeds on some lines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think GMPTE were envisaging a dual-powered version of the 210s instead of 323s. Then those 210s would have been go anywhere and able to use wires on partially electrified lines e.g. a Buxton service could have operated on electric as far as Hazel Grove.

Might have been nice, but I don't think that was ever on the cards.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Might have been nice, but I don't think that was ever on the cards.

I think the aim was for a consistent fleet of multiple units for services in the area, which didn't happen as currently operating out of Piccadilly and Victoria there are 142s, 144s, 150s, 153s, 155s, 156s, 158s, 175s, 185s and 323s with 319s coming soon. (I've ignored the 350s, 390s, 170s, 220s and 221s as they are only used on long distance services out of Manchester.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the aim was for a consistent fleet of multiple units for services in the area, which didn't happen as currently operating out of Piccadilly and Victoria there are 142s, 144s, 150s, 153s, 155s, 156s, 158s, 175s, 185s and 323s with 319s coming soon. (I've ignored the 350s, 390s, 170s, 220s and 221s as they are only used on long distance services out of Manchester.)

Which was never going to happen on such a disparate network - it isn't the case in London either and never has been. So GMPTE were being unrealistic.

Perhaps had their system been electrified on a rolling basis to 25kV instead of going for Metrolink it might have been feasible to operate it as one network Merseyrail-style - but then again maybe not - there's too much long-distance stuff on the same lines.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Which was never going to happen on such a disparate network - it isn't the case in London either and never has been. So GMPTE were being unrealistic.

Yet Birmingham has a much more consistent fleet even if it's not 1 type of versatile DEMU for local services. GMPTE were probably suggesting their ideal scenario and would have probably been happy to accept a mix of 150s and 317s in lieu.

 

[RobShipway]

Yet Birmingham has a much more consistent fleet even if it's not 1 type of versatile DEMU for local services. GMPTE were probably suggesting their ideal scenario and would have probably been happy to accept a mix of 150s and 317s in lieu.

Birmingham has not always had a consistent fleet though, this has only come about in recent years due to the TOC not wanting multiples of different types of trains.

It has also come about from point of electrifying the Cross City route as well, I believe.

 

[northwichcat]

Birmingham has not always had a consistent fleet though, this has only come about in recent years due to the TOC not wanting multiples of different types of trains.

But then didn't the inconsistency on local services only come about because of Central taking on 170s and using them on a variety of different services that were a mix of local, regional and pseudo-Intercity opposed to picking one type of service to use them on?

 

[Camden]

1) Can the top speed be increased?
2) Given the low average speeds of some lines, especially through frequent stops, might these not perform rather well anyway?
3) Surely a comfortable modern looking DEMU is going to be better than a DMU pacer?

 

[northwichcat]

1) Can the top speed be increased?
2) Given the low average speeds of some lines, especially through frequent stops, might these not perform rather well anyway?

I think this is an appropriate response to those two questions

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

 

[Bletchleyite]

But then didn't the inconsistency on local services only come about because of Central taking on 170s and using them on a variety of different services that were a mix of local, regional and pseudo-Intercity opposed to picking one type of service to use them on?

Prior to 1998's timetable enhancements when North West services ran on a substantially lower frequency base, units were kept on specific diagrams as well. For instance all the green-stripe 156s were used on the North West Express routes.

And Central Trains had everything First North Western had, other than 142s.

Neil