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

[northwichcat]

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.

NWT (as they were known at the time) also used 101s, 322s and ran loco-hauled services using mk1 and mk2 stock. The 322s were only used on open-access services to Euston so we can exclude them if we're only talking about local services. The slam door stock was supposed to be eliminated when the 175s were introduced but due to teething problems with the 175s and then the sublease of 2 x 158s to TPE it was late 2004 before the slam-door stock completely disappeared.

 

[tbtc]

I was against D78s when the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce suggested electrifying their local line to take these old trains, and remained theoretically against them when the proposal was to put diesel engines in them. However, the arguments against them are so weak that I’m coming round in favour (as a short term increase in capacity whilst we get on with the serious business of electrification).

(quick question that shows my technical ignorance – if it’s possible to fit a diesel engine into a D78 then would it have been possible to do so on the scrapped 508s? Or any EMUs made redundant elsewhere – like GEML 315s?)

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

Do they?

Nobody’s arguing that FGW have a unified “go anywhere” fleet, or that TSGN gets a unified “go anywhere” fleet – people understand that a 313 isn’t going to go through the Thameslink tunnel just like an HST isn’t going to end up on the Par branch. ScotRail manages with 156s, 158s and 170s without accidently putting a 75mph 156 on a “fast” service.

I think it makes sense for Northern to have a mixture of DMUs: fast long DMUs (Nottingham – Leeds), small slower DMUs (given the low passenger demands at places like the Barton branch) etc given the variety of services that they run and the large fleet. However there seems to be an attitude on here that the stock allocators are too thick to put the correct type of unit on the correct type of service and are bound to allocate a D78 to a faster longer distance service (Nottingham – Leeds).

I suppose you could swap the seven 155s with GA’s nine 156s (with a handful of 153s going south as a makeweight) if you want to get OCD about tidying fleets up, but given how large the franchise is, does it really matter that different types of unit operate at other depots on the other side of the Pennines that are operationally independent?

Funny how one minute people are complaining about Northern having too “organised” a fleet (moving all the 158s to “Yorkshire” in exchange for 156s in “Lancashire”, keeping 144s in “Yorkshire”) then they are complaining about too much variety. Maybe some people just like to moan about Northern?

(obviously there are token examples where a TOC has put a unit out rather than cancelling a service – the FGW 142 running as far as somewhere like Swindon on a Paddington service where the alternative would have been to cancel the service outright – the kind of dilemma that BR would have had – but these are extreme examples despite what enthusiasts like to believe)

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.

The 172s were have should last until the 2040s though, and there are enough of them to operate several rural routes (e.g. two 172s could cover hundreds of miles of the Heart of Wales, a handful for the Far North/Kyle, a handful for the West Highland) – if we electrify as much in CP6 as we plan to in CP5 then we could have withdrawn all 1980s DMUs in the next decade.

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

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.

Agreed.

Plenty of Northern services seem to be timed slower than that, which suggests that D78s could match existing times okay.

I’m not suggesting that we put them on routes that would get in the way of significantly faster services (have already said that the Dearne Valley stopper would be unsuitable), but let’s not pretend that a 60mph DMU couldn’t cope with lots of the quieter branchlines/ rural routes where there’s no “fast” running.

Are any of the “Lancashire” routes I previously suggested particularly fast (Blackpool South – Colne, Barrow – Carlisle, Preston – Ormskirk etc)? I’m not the kind of person who tries measuring train speeds with GPS and records them in a spreadsheet, but I certainly don’t remember those services being particularly fast, would be surprised if they saw much running above 60mph! (let’s not get confused about maximum permitted linespeed versus what Northern’s services are actually timed to do though)

Obviously they’d be unsuitable for routes with fast running, just like 319s are unsuitable for routes that aren’t electrified, but nobody is suggesting running 319s to Colne so I don’t know why we are worrying about sending D78s to Stoke.

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

As far as I am aware, the speed of the Sheffield – Lincoln services doesn’t get above 60mph... hmm, what potential DMUs could cope with a route like that?

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

Do Londoners have a Third World railway or a World Class railway? I get confused, because I keep hearing about the billions of pounds being spent there and how much investment they get and how wonderful everything is... yet the moment any London/ South East trains are mooted for moving to “the north” these are described as “clapped out Third World rustbuckets, suitable only for scrapping” (I paraphrase, but only slightly...).

Is there something magical about trains “down south” that means they start falling apart once north of the Watford Gap? Or maybe (despite the grumbles from those in the “north”) the platforms aren’t paved with gold in London/ South East... maybe these trains aren’t as bad as they are being made out to be?

For a start, I’ve been told several times that the fact that London/ South East has lots of trains much older than Pacers (313s, Island Line stock, various Underground classes) isn’t relevant because EMUs have a much longer life expectancy, and that the 1980s Pacers are further through their lives than 1970s EMUs...

...yet the same people are complaining that the D78s are older than Pacers! Can’t have it both ways... Either the fact that the D78s are older than Pacers is irrelevant, or we accept that London/ South East does have older 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.

Agreed. We’re going to need spare DMUs in the short term just to allow Sprinters to go for accessibility modifications etc (which may take quite a lot of units out of service) – no harm in at least investigating D78s in that case. I’m not saying they’ll be amazing, but they could get us out of a hole.

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 don’t think anyone would seriously suggest D78s on the Dearne Valley services though, that seems a Strawman argument.

AIUI the problem with the 321s was that there were only three of them and they could only be rescued by another 321 (so that if one was unfit on a day when another was due for maintenance then they couldn’t send only the third one out – hence them regularly running none of them.

Now the 322s are in Leeds, that’s no longer a problem as there are sufficient compatible EMUs (eight) to cope when one is unfit

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

You’re doing that thing of confusing “track access charges” with “total cost of operating a train” again, aren’t you?

Not surprising that a 60m Pacer (with four coaches) would cost more in track access charges than a 20m/23m Sprinter (with only two coaches) though, is it?

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

GMPTE seemed to have a ridiculously long wish list – a “Manchester Crossrail” (the PicVic tunnel), “go anywhere units that could work as DMUs or EMUs” etc... given the constraints that BR were under at the time, I’d not take GMPTE’s long list of demands as any kind of realistic idea of what could have been done.

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.)

So a 175 running from Manchester to Milford Haven isn’t a long distance service, but a 170 running from Manchester to Cleethorpes/ Hull *is* a long distance service?

The linespeed between Ashburys and Guide Bridge is only 60mph

There are no 100mph linespeeds between Wakefield and Huddersfield or Bradford. These services may be run with faster trains (180s on GC, very rare for anything faster than 75mph on the Wakefield to Huddersfield shuttles) but I don't think the linespeeds are any higher than 90 through there, probably very little above 75. Probably still a push to path them between the TPE services on those particular routes, though they'd be okay on HUD-BDI-LDS and Penistone services. Pontefract/Knottingley services likewise

Fair enough, cheers for confirming – I presumed that the 185s on Transpennine services were pathed for faster speeds (though since the journey is tediously slow between Leeds and Manchester I should have known better!)

There’s certainly a few routes that D78s could cope on then.

Would would be the timing/pathing impact of using 60mph units?

Northern use 75mph Pacers on sections of the WCML and ECML where the service could operate at 90 or 100mph if Turbostars were used and it could well be that some of the 75mph sections on non-mainline sections could be upgraded to 80 or 85mph with little or no work if faster trains were available, so it isn't always the case that operators get trains which can run at the fastest permitted speed.

...and yet when we’re discussing the 319s, you’re complaining about 100mph units potentially being used on the WCML and preferring 90mph 323s?

That's too obvious, let's say "A. Shooter."

Formerly of a TOC which could provide a very good testbed for them...

Neil

"Meanwhile - a slightly tactless senior person, who for anonymity we'll call Adrian S. involved in the D78/278 proposal took a phone call from what I guess was a journo from a Sunday paper during Friday's Modern Railways event.. indiscretely he answered all the questions loudly and about 3 metres from me... so as it's also public domain (and he was briefing a journo anyway) I can report that "All three bidders for the Northern Franchise are in discussions about using the 278s on 'rural routes in the most northern parts of the franchise area' and other enquiries are coming in from across the UK."

I'm not at all surprised that the bidders for the Northern franchise are interested. If they need to replace Pacers, and they also need extra trains, then something relatively inexpensive is definitely worth looking at

Hold the front page... the bloke whose job it is to promote D78s is loudly boasting about how many people are interested in them?

Hardly surprising, is it? Of course he’s going to give the impression that lots of franchise bidders are interested!

And not that surprising that anyone looking to bid for a large franchise (almost three hundred DMUs) with lots of slower/quieter routes (where 60mph DMUs ought to be able to cope) are at least asking for information about D78s... it’d be surprising if they hadn’t at least asked some preliminary questions (e.g. to see if they could get them cheaper than the leasing costs of a Pacer).

Making reference in part to the sentiments inherent in the immortal words made famous by Kevin Keegan when he was in charge of Newcastle United FC....
"I would just love it, if after all this hype, the approval tests for the prototype D78 conversion were found not to be in favour of proceeding with this project"

Given that electrification should free up hundreds of DMUs (and that the recently built 172s should be capable of running lots of unelectrified lines into the 2040s, given the low PVRs of routes like the Heart Of Wales/ Far North/ West Highland etc), what realistic alternative do you have?

Do you honestly think that all the quiet slow rural routes that Northern operate require the railway equivalent of a “Range Rover”?

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.

Good points

 

[northwichcat]

You’re doing that thing of confusing “track access charges” with “total cost of operating a train” again, aren’t you?

100% incorrect.

According to some users on here a 2 car 172 costs almost twice as much in leasing costs as a 2 car 142, so if that correct a 2 car Sprinter is almost certainly much cheaper to lease than 2 x 2 car 142s isn't it?

And which would use more diesel? A 62m formation or a 40 to 46m formation?

Then there's less to maintain with a 40-46m formation than a 62m formation.

With 2 x 2 car 142s you also need more revenue staff to ensure there's no ticket-less travel due to the lack of corridor connectors.

So no I considered everything but you automatically assume if I post something relating to costs it only relates to leasing costs.

and yet when we’re discussing the 319s, you’re complaining about 100mph units potentially being used on the WCML and preferring 90mph 323s?

I'm not complaining. The owners of the trains (Porterbrook) have doubts about whether the 319s could be used in lieu of 323s without re-engineering them. That's a fact not a complaint. You seem to not know the difference between the two.

Vivarail haven't provided any evidence the 60mph D-Trains can run in 75mph paths other than saying they've done a computer simulation on one line (the Penistone line) and they should be fine on that one line, that line doesn't involve any running on the WCML or the ECML unlike many other Northern services.

So a 175 running from Manchester to Milford Haven isn’t a long distance service, but a 170 running from Manchester to Cleethorpes/ Hull *is* a long distance service?

I didn't say it was. Are the services between Manchester and Chester via Warrington only long distance services? 175s are used on them. 175s like the 185s are used on short, medium and long distance services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ormskirk-Preston and Lancaster-Barrow both have short sections of running on the WCML. 60mph may be an issue for the latter as it's a relatively long section, but I doubt it for the former - the 153 barely gets up to speed before it starts slowing again. It might even be that better acceleration would reduce, not increase, the time it spends on the WCML.

Neil

 

[Clip]

Vivarail haven't provided any evidence the 60mph D-Trains can run in 75mph paths other than saying they've done a computer simulation on one line (the Penistone line) and they should be fine on that one line, that line doesn't involve any running on the WCML or the ECML unlike many other Northern services.

And Vivarail nor anyone else apart from those who oppose these trains has ever said they would run on paths on the WC/ECML - that has been invented by the very people who have posted in this thread(maybe yourself who knows) as a reason why they should not be used up north!
People are inventing arguments for trains that don't even exist in places where rational people would understand they would never run!!

 

[northwichcat]

And Vivarail nor anyone else apart from those who oppose these trains has ever said they would run on paths on the WC/ECML - that has been invented by the very people who have posted in this thread(maybe yourself who knows) as a reason why they should not be used up north!
People are inventing arguments for trains that don't even exist in places where rational people would understand they would never run!!

You may have noticed I added a quote from Tony Miles of Modern Railways which said the franchise bidders for the next Northern franchise are interested in using D-trains on routes in the far North of the franchise area. I don't know any reason why they can't be used on at least some routes in Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Teeside and Cumbria.

However, earlier someone suggested diesel routes out of Manchester Piccadilly for them where numerous issues would need to be addressed.

 

[Clip]

You may have noticed I added a quote from Tony Miles of Modern Railways which said the franchise bidders for the next Northern franchise are interested in using D-trains on routes in the far North of the franchise area. I don't know any reason why they can't be used on at least some routes in Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Teeside and Cumbria.

However, earlier someone suggested diesel routes out of Manchester Piccadilly for them where numerous issues would need to be addressed.

Yes I did notice it was you but at least you agree that they can be used somewhere in the North rather than everyone else automatically thinking the north yet again means the north west.

 

[edwin_m]

I would say the 60mph top speed is an issue for any service that runs at 75mph for more than say 5 miles (actually runs at 75mph, not is permitted to). This would take over a minute longer at the lower speed which starts looking like the sort of figure that can affect a timetable. There may be a few of those routes where slightly longer journey times would be acceptable without affecting any other trains or reducing turnaround times below workable levels. This was the thinking behind some of my earlier musings about where these might end up - and yes I stand by my suggestion of certain Piccadilly suburban services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say the 60mph top speed is an issue for any service that runs at 75mph for more than say 5 miles (actually runs at 75mph, not is permitted to). This would take over a minute longer at the lower speed which starts looking like the sort of figure that can affect a timetable. There may be a few of those routes where slightly longer journey times would be acceptable without affecting any other trains or reducing turnaround times below workable levels. This was the thinking behind some of my earlier musings about where these might end up - and yes I stand by my suggestion of certain Piccadilly suburban services.

Yes, I agree on the latter as well. It might mean the diagrams need to be changed to keep the New Mills/Rose Hill services self-contained (156s or a pair of 153s perhaps best on the Hope Valley services), but if these units are as cheap as is being suggested there is perhaps little need to obsess over getting the best mileage from them, and longer layovers would increase service resilience.

Neil

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes, I agree on the latter as well. It might mean the diagrams need to be changed to keep the New Mills/Rose Hill services self-contained (156s or a pair of 153s perhaps best on the Hope Valley services), but if these units are as cheap as is being suggested there is perhaps little need to obsess over getting the best mileage from them, and longer layovers would increase service resilience.

Neil

A agree. My hope is that the D-78s are cheap enough that complex diagrams can be avoided. Thus allowing for a more resilient service.

 

[RobShipway]

It might be me, but as I read this thread more and more i begin to think that it might be better to have a extended version of a class 139 on these routes rather than the Diesel/Electric D78 or have a battery operated Electrostar that also has the ability to collect both dc/AC power that also recharges the battery power such as the Class 379. This for me I think would be better for the environment.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would say the 60mph top speed is an issue for any service that runs at 75mph for more than say 5 miles (actually runs at 75mph, not is permitted to). This would take over a minute longer at the lower speed which starts looking like the sort of figure that can affect a timetable. There may be a few of those routes where slightly longer journey times would be acceptable without affecting any other trains or reducing turnaround times below workable levels. This was the thinking behind some of my earlier musings about where these might end up - and yes I stand by my suggestion of certain Piccadilly suburban services.

In a less confrontational way than some of my recent postings, you have made the point that I was intending to make, which were spoilt by my cynical mood at the time of writing them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It might mean the diagrams need to be changed to keep the New Mills/Rose Hill services self-contained (156s or a pair of 153s perhaps best on the Hope Valley services), but if these units are as cheap as is being suggested there is perhaps little need to obsess over getting the best mileage from them, and longer layovers would increase service resilience.

Neil

May I offer up a thought for discussion. How do forum members feel about the possible introduction of new tram-trains on some the lines such the Rose Hill service mentioned above and others of the like. TfGM seem enamoured of the use of such units in future planning.

Could the D78 units be seen as detrimental to plans for the future employment of tram-trains in the near future?

 

[Domh245]

It might be me, but as I read this thread more and more i begin to think that it might be better to have a extended version of a class 139 on these routes rather than the Diesel/Electric D78 or have a battery operated Electrostar that also has the ability to collect both dc/AC power that also recharges the battery power such as the Class 379. This for me I think would be better for the environment.

The extended 139 would be during the entire life cycle, on par or worse environmentally compared to the D-train. You would need to extract, process and shape the raw materials to make your super-139 something that wouldn't need to be done with the D-train where the body, bogies, underframe, and a number of other components are there, ready for re-use. Then of course there is the issue that the super 139 would be even more of a P-I-T-A to integrate into a franchise as it would technically be a LRV, requiring segregation of whatever branch it is destined for, as well as the need to shuffle staff around which will lead to union action when a select few from a depot get put on lesser wages for driving the super 139 instead of 'proper' trains. And that's before you get to the cost!

As for the battery MU, that technology is still a way off, and what is needed is extra capacity - now! Not only that but the D-trains seem to mainly proposed for un-electrified branch line work - not miles of running under the wires before making a 5 mile return trip away from the power, and once again, the price would be extortionate.

I personally am in favour of the D-trains, it is a novel approach to the rolling stock shortage that we have in the country at the moment. People seem to be under the impression that these trains are going to be a long term solution, which they aren't intended to be. Of course, if they end up becoming a 'pacer mk2' in that they long outlive their design life, there will be nothing wrong with them if they are well made, and well maintained. They are (as people keep on pointing out) intended to be used to cascade other trains to other services where they are needed (ie where people are being left behind on the platform) Add to that the fact that the trains are going to be (in all likelihood) quite cheap to lease, and (for the environmentally concious) pretty environmentally friendly.

I think i will wait until there is a demonstrator built before making comments about the train itself or it's performance. I'll also wait until we hear from TOCs what routes they might be operating on before passing comment on that too!

 

[edwin_m]

Extended 139s do not meet crashworthiness standards so could only run on routes that are fully segregated from normal trains. There are very few of those, especially if you don't want to build a mini-depot on each one like they did at Stourbridge.

As far as I know the larger Parry vehicle is no more than an artist's impression, and part of the reason the 139 is relatively cheap is that the traction system doesn't allow for frills like multiple working. A larger vehicle would need two traction systems on its own, so would be a vastly greater technical risk than the D78 conversion.

 

[RobShipway]

Extended 139s do not meet crashworthiness standards so could only run on routes that are fully segregated from normal trains. There are very few of those, especially if you don't want to build a mini-depot on each one like they did at Stourbridge.

As far as I know the larger Parry vehicle is no more than an artist's impression, and part of the reason the 139 is relatively cheap is that the traction system doesn't allow for frills like multiple working. A larger vehicle would need two traction systems on its own, so would be a vastly greater technical risk than the D78 conversion.

It was just an idea, but I do not see the idea of the D78 being converted into a diesel train taking off to be honest.

Yes, buying the refurbished D78 stock trains is cheaper in the short term than buying new stock. However, I cannot see the frames of the D78's lasting another 40 years when they are already over 20 years old and by which time more costly maintenance woul dhave to be done on them to keep them going.

You have also got the point that some cities are planning on banning Diesel cars into their areas because of the pollution caused by them to CO2 levels. Diesel trains cause similar if not worse CO2 levels than cars do, so the Diesel D78's may not have a long life anyway and that cost could have been put into new trains.

 

[Emyr]

You have also got the point that some cities are planning on banning Diesel cars into their areas because of the pollution caused by them to CO2 levels. Diesel trains cause similar if not worse CO2 levels than cars do, so the Diesel D78's may not have a long life anyway and that cost could have been put into new trains.

Per passenger mile? :roll:

 

[Peter Sarf]

Wont get new diesel trains. In the long term more and more routes will get electrified. But in the short time we need extra diesel trains as electrification cannot be done fast enough. Brand new diesel trains are unlikely to get built and paid for because they will not be used for long enough for the Rolling Stock Company to get their money back. The prospect of electrification makes the building and financing of new diesel trains unattractive. The D-78s are a cheaper option as the bodies and bogies already exist (also less risk) and they do not have to last as long as a brand new train because they (hopefully) will not need to.

As for ecology. Surely a diesel train full of passengers is more ecological than the same number of passengers travelling in several cars. Just because an electric train is more ecological than a diesel train does not mean we should drive people onto the roads !. Incidentally I assume there is some ecological advantage to re-using these D-78s rather than melting them down and manufacturing something new.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Per passenger mile? :roll:

Exactly !. You've it the nail on head while I was composing my verbose answer .

 

[Greybeard33]

As for the battery MU, that technology is still a way off, and what is needed is extra capacity - now! Not only that but the D-trains seem to mainly proposed for un-electrified branch line work - not miles of running under the wires before making a 5 mile return trip away from the power, and once again, the price would be extortionate.

Actually 30 miles recharging under the wires before 30 miles on battery power. With better acceleration than a DMU and 100mph top speed. Now that the Class 379 IPEMU trial has been deemed a success, I think we could see a rapid push for this technology. The batteries are in production already for electric road vehicles and battery rafts could be retrofitted to existing EMUs.

Discontinuous electrification might be an option for some lines. By avoiding bridge raising, track lowering, tunnel enlarging and other difficult structures, the wires could strung up much more quickly and cheaply. It will be interesting to see what the Network Rail Electrification Refresh report has to say about this when it comes out.

 

[Frothy]

These D78s sound like the perfect candidate for the Tees Valley Metro!

 

[RobShipway]

Actually 30 miles recharging under the wires before 30 miles on battery power. With better acceleration than a DMU and 100mph top speed. Now that the Class 379 IPEMU trial has been deemed a success, I think we could see a rapid push for this technology. The batteries are in production already for electric road vehicles and battery rafts could be retrofitted to existing EMUs.

Discontinuous electrification might be an option for some lines. By avoiding bridge raising, track lowering, tunnel enlarging and other difficult structures, the wires could strung up much more quickly and cheaply. It will be interesting to see what the Network Rail Electrification Refresh report has to say about this when it comes out.

Thank you for making my point clearer.

To do the above, you would add on to existing train orders such as the Crossrail 345 order which can have the battery technology above built within it as has been done on the 379, as the 345 is the next step in the Electrostar family.

 

[HSTEd]

Discontinuous electrification has its own sets of problems.

Class 313 might be interesting if they can put some of these D78 rafts in one. As that would be a bimode unit afterwards.
Only need 4 to match Pacer levels of p:w ratio.

This might be plausible as the Class 313 concentrates the 750Vdc traction equipment into the outer vehicles, and D78s can apparently fit similar numbers of generator rafts (2 per vehicle) into the motor vehicles with similar electrical layout.
All depends on how big the rafts actually are.

It would have Class 313 performance on electrified routes and Pacer-esque performance on diesel - but it would be able to do 75mph and would thus be able to carry out operations on far more lines more easily.
Would also allow Manchester suburban to stop running diesels under the wires (Buxton and Marple/Rose Hill for example).

 

[67018]

You have also got the point that some cities are planning on banning Diesel cars into their areas because of the pollution caused by them to CO2 levels. Diesel trains cause similar if not worse CO2 levels than cars do, so the Diesel D78's may not have a long life anyway and that cost could have been put into new trains.

Surely a contradiction here: if diesel trains were going to be phased out for environmental reasons, there's even less value in spending a lot of money on new diesel stock, and it would make much more sense for a short term fix with D78s pending electrification.

The D78s aren't intended for a 40 year life, but as a stopgap to fill in for a temporary shortage.

 

[RobShipway]

Surely a contradiction here: if diesel trains were going to be phased out for environmental reasons, there's even less value in spending a lot of money on new diesel stock, and it would make much more sense for a short term fix with D78s pending electrification.

The D78s aren't intended for a 40 year life, but as a stopgap to fill in for a temporary shortage.

But things that are suppose to be a stop gap end up running for 40 - 50 years as nothing comes along to replace them.

A good example of this is HST, which was suppose to be a stop gap until the APT trains came along and look what happened there!

 

[jopsuk]

You have also got the point that some cities are planning on banning Diesel cars into their areas because of the pollution caused by them to CO2 levels. Diesel trains cause similar if not worse CO2 levels than cars do, so the Diesel D78's may not have a long life anyway and that cost could have been put into new trains.

The major problem with diesels in cities is the sheer number of them, often sat idling. Diesel trains are generally much less of an issue, as there's usually a lot less of them and they tend not to form multi-lane traffic jams in towns. Though certainly I remember what stations such as Edinburgh Waverly and Kings Cross used to be like before ventilation was improved and the HST's smoke belching Valentas replaced with more modern diesels.

particulate pollution is much less of an issue from rural trains than from city road vehicles.

 

[northwichcat]

But things that are suppose to be a stop gap end up running for 40 - 50 years as nothing comes along to replace them.

A good example of this is HST, which was suppose to be a stop gap until the APT trains came along and look what happened there!

I don't think the plan was to scrap HSTs when APT came along but to cascade the HSTs to other services.

However, I do think a stop-gap D-Train would finish up spending 25-30 years or so in service. Look at how many DMUs were built in the 1980s and the rate of passenger growth and rate of electrification. At the rate it's going it's going to take 15 years to withdraw all the Pacers without obtaining more self-powered trains and then once you've achieved Pacer withdrawal you'll have 130+ class 150s almost 50 yrs old in need of immediate replacement.

 

[47802]

This may not be a popular viewpoint but comes from someone living in Yorkshire not down south.

Yesturday I was on a Merseyrail 142 on a Bradford to Huddersfield working, This train was dirty and smelly and probably one of the worst trains on the network well I was a GN 313 a few months ago that was pretty bad, but the thing about it was for a relatively short run with a decent interior that didn't smell it would be perfectly OK for the job, the problem has always been for me that they still turn up on too many long distance trains which you would expect to reduce as electrification replaces the fleet, therefore to me depending on cost life extension may be the better option for 143/144 150's and maybe even some 142's.

If some of these trains were kept going another 10 years then would perhaps require a better solution for those that remain and other 1st gen sprinters depending on how well electrification has progressed, but you would have hoped that electrification and possibly battery trains and hybrids would have enabled to have them phased out by then. The Vivarail trains if successful may be seen as cop out to reduce momentum in these area's

Anyway before people get carried away one way or the other the prototype Vivarail unit has to prove its self, On the other hand maybe we just need to bite the bullet and buy some new DMU's, but then we don't know the situation with TPX electrification, how much it is delayed, possible suggestion of using bimode's which could clearly make a significant dent in the numbers.

 

[northwichcat]

therefore to me depending on cost life extension may be the better option for 143/144 150's and maybe even some 142's.

Porterbrook have looked at the option of such work for 143/4s but it would reduce the capacity. I think it would leave around 85 seats, meaning a 4 car Pacer would only provide a small number of extra seats over a 2 car 155/6.

However, the 153s would also need a lot of work to keep them in service for more than a few more years. Porterbrook have declared that doing that level work to single car trains wouldn't be economically viable - which perhaps leaves the option of them being converted back to 155s.

However, if Porterbrook eliminate single car 153s what do they offer TOCs who still require some low capacity trains for branch lines? There certainly aren't going to be new standard single car DMUs, so a low cost solution is needed - one option could be refurbished 143/4s. I'm of the opinion Porterbrook have come up with the refurbished Pacer because they want a product to offer in lieu of the 153s. If they don't offer a solution then they could lose money if something like the PPM 175 goes to market: http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM175-spec.htm and TOCs instead opt for that.

 

[67018]

I think don't think the plan was to scrap HSTs when APT came along but to cascade the HSTs to other services.

However, I do think a stop-gap D-Train would finish up spending 25-30 years or so in service. Look at how many DMUs were built in the 1980s and the rate of passenger growth and rate of electrification. At the rate it's going it's going to take 15 years to withdraw all the Pacers without obtaining more self-powered trains and then once you've achieved Pacer withdrawal you'll have 130+ class 150s almost 50 yrs old in need of immediate replacement.

Indeed. If stop-gaps end up lasting for 40 years, that's not an argument against the stop-gaps, it's an argument in favour of making sure they are replaced on time.

My suspicion is that the D-trains *and* a new DMU order will be needed in the end - but it's going to take much more evidence of delays to electrification and/or continued passenger growth before the powers that be will admit it. Or it will be admitted at the cost of cancelling the rolling electrification programme to free up the money.

So, if (still a big 'if') this idea works, it's better than the alternative which is muddling along with what we have.

 

[47802]

Porterbrook have looked at the option of such work for 143/4s but it would reduce the capacity. I think it would leave around 85 seats, meaning a 4 car Pacer would only provide a small number of extra seats over a 2 car 155/6.

However, the 153s would also need a lot of work to keep them in service for more than a few more years. Porterbrook have declared that doing that level work to single car trains wouldn't be economically viable - which perhaps leaves the option of them being converted back to 155s.

However, if Porterbrook eliminate single car 153s what do they offer TOCs who still require some low capacity trains for branch lines? There certainly aren't going to be new standard single car DMUs, so a low cost solution is needed - one option could be refurbished 143/4s. I'm of the opinion Porterbrook have come up with the refurbished Pacer because they want a product to offer in lieu of the 153s. If they don't offer a solution then they could lose money if something like the PPM 175 goes to market: http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM175-spec.htm and TOCs instead opt for that.

Well the above may well be true, less seats will presumably an issue for all units to some degree the Vivarail units don't have that many more seats per 2 car unit, the PPM has an even lower top speed than the Vivarail unit, and will presumably be classed as a tram train light rail vehicle and where ever it runs will have to meet the regulations required for that type of operation.

 

[northwichcat]

the Vivarail units don't have that many more seats per 2 car unit

Personally I think we'll just see the 3 car 'Country' option of the Vivarail train. That would then be similar to a 3 car 144 in terms of seated capacity. Building 75 x 2 car D-Trains would create too many to find suitable routes for, unless you run a lot of them doubled up - in which case why not just have longer trains in the first place?

the PPM has an even lower top speed than the Vivarail unit, and will presumably be classed as a tram train light rail vehicle and where ever it runs will have to meet the regulations required for that type of operation.

I'm not saying it's an option for many lines but it could replace 153s on some lines and it's a larger, faster unit than the 139s on Stourbridge so it would be more versatile than that even if not as versatile as a 153 or Pacer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My suspicion is that the D-trains *and* a new DMU order will be needed in the end - but it's going to take much more evidence of delays to electrification and/or continued passenger growth before the powers that be will admit it.

They'd also need to consider whether to go for a standard DMU order for local routes or to go for a more costly DEMU option which is either dual-powered or can be converted to electric at a later date.