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

[Harpers Tate]

Maybe people should reserve judgement until we actually see how these D trains perform.

Exactly. So many seem to get all OCD about the single factor of top speed, when what is relevant is a composite assessment of speed, acceleration and dwell time, and consideration of the nature of the routes and proximity of stops, that these may be deployed. I suspect that giving them a higher top speed would do either or both of - increase cost; reduce acceleration (this INcreasing trip times on some routes).

 

[northwichcat]

Which other TOC would Vivarail also approach?

Adrian Shooter's claiming TOCs are approaching him rather than the other way around. All we know is the other 'interested' TOCs are in 'other parts of the country.'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly. So many seem to get all OCD about the single factor of top speed, when what is relevant is a composite assessment of speed, acceleration and dwell time, and consideration of the nature of the routes and proximity of stops, that these may be deployed. I suspect that giving them a higher top speed would do either or both of - increase cost; reduce acceleration (this INcreasing trip times on some routes).

For non-stop mainline running sections the top speed will be most important factor. Who would pay for the late running fines incurred as a result of 60mph DEMUs being used on mainlines? Some Northern services in the 'South Manchester' area are only 2-3 minutes ahead of XC and EMT services using a 75mph and running on-time. If a 60mph train is used that gap would be reduced to around 1 minute. How many Northern services run more than 60 seconds late?

 

[Harpers Tate]

For non-stop mainline running sections...

...of a certain distance (between stations) that has yet to be determined, at least as far as this thread is concerned. I don't know what that distance is, and I doubt most others do, either.

Until we know what that threshold distance is - the point at which different dwell times plus better acceleration (supposedly) vs. absolute top speed translates between overall faster to overall slower - then random predictions of possible delays and so on are just guesswork.

 

[edwin_m]

For non-stop mainline running sections the top speed will be most important factor. Who would pay for the late running fines incurred as a result of 60mph DEMUs being used on mainlines? Some Northern services in the 'South Manchester' area are only 2-3 minutes ahead of XC and EMT services using a 75mph and running on-time. If a 60mph train is used that gap would be reduced to around 1 minute. How many Northern services run more than 60 seconds late?

They would only be useable on routes where this sort of thing didn't happen, or perhaps the timetable could be revised to allow the odd minute of extra running time. This might mean having a few more units in total to make it less likely a D78 would have to sub for a 75mph unit, but would that be a bad thing?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe people should reserve judgement until we actually see how these D trains perform. In this day and age it would seem sensible to me to look at ways of re-using and re-engineering old trains, why wouldn't you try if it was a lot cheaper and you ended up with something useful? I do agree that a top speed of 60mph sounds a bit slow, why can't they be re-engineered to go faster?

Indeed so, we can't tell how good these are until we see a prototype and hopefully have it subjected to 24/7 testing for a couple of months to shake out any problems!

I'm sure the people behind this realise that the 60mph top speed is a major limitation and would have increased it if that was possible at reasonable cost. However Underground running gear tends to be robust but rather unsophisticated, and I suspect going to 75mph would involve uneconomic spend such as replacement of bogies.

 

[northwichcat]

...of a certain distance (between stations) that has yet to be determined, at least as far as this thread is concerned. I don't know what that distance is, and I doubt most others do, either.

Until we know what that threshold distance is - the point at which different dwell times plus better acceleration (supposedly) vs. absolute top speed translates between overall faster to overall slower - then random predictions of possible delays and so on are just guesswork.

I disagree.

On congested parts of the WCML (like the example I gave) using a train that doesn't do 75mph when the line speed is > 75mph for a few miles is simply not an option. There are insufficient paths as it is so limiting paths further by using slow trains would be very bad so hopefully Network Rail will refuse clearance for trains that require 60mph paths.

On less congested parts of mainlines where there's over 5 minutes between services (like Darlington-Newcastle) then maybe you could look at extending journey times by a couple of minutes.

Also note that the ORR sets maximum times services can take. Some of Northern's services are timed to take the almost maximum permitted time already e.g. for Manchester-Altrincham-Chester services aren't allowed to take over 92 minutes and some already take 92 minutes with around 12 miles of track having 75mph or above speed limits and the train reaching that 75mph speed. I don't know what it's like with every line Manchester-Altrincham-Chester may be an exception.

 

[Buttsy]

I note that everyone is assuming that all the D78s are going to go to Northern, yet I feel that EMT could make some use of these instead of their 153s, allowing these to go elsewhere for strengthening. The fact that line speeds in Lincs have been increased doesn't negate the use of this stock if all trains over the routes are of similar speed.

Also, with the delay in GWML electrification, one could see these on the Cornwall branches for 2-3 years before 165s and 166s are released so as to allow strengthening of mainline services with units with a better top speed.

ATW could potentially make some use of them too, once again, in the short term, on Valley services and the Borderlands line.

LM could find use for some on the Marston Vale and Bedworth routes and possibly re-instate the Wolverhampton - Walsall shuttle.

My thinking does ignore the 'micro-fleet' idea and that TOCs don't like that, but if Vivarail take on a maintainence contract with them as well, that may be less of an issue.

Until we've seen one in action and can make fair comparisons, saying that they'll be useless on the mainlines for short distances is a total fallacy. I agree that running a D78 on the WCML , for example, from Preston to Lancaster (on a Barrow local) is not a good idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that running a D78 on the WCML , for example, from Preston to Lancaster (on a Barrow local) is not a good idea.

As do I, but on that line specifically I think there's more of a passing chance of it being cut back to Lancaster with the through services going to Windermere as an EMU instead.

This might not be disastrous with good timings, as in my experience (my sister lives in Ulverston) where there isn't a through service all the way to Manchester people tend to change at Lancaster and so the Barrow trains are very quiet between Preston and Lancaster.

Neil

 

[Harpers Tate]

...using a train that doesn't do 75mph when the line speed is > 75mph for a few miles is simply not an option...

Again...what is important here is not simply top speed.

On a given piece of track with stations at various intervals, the important thing is how long it takes a given train type to travel between stops, timed from arrival at a stand at a station, to arrival at a stand at the next, and the next, and so on, until it's out of the way of anything behind it. Out of the way might be - on a loop or slow line, or at a major station, or whatever. This is determined not by top speed alone.

If we assume that D-trains have better acceleration than 14x and 15x types then - if the stops are frequent and/or close enough together - the D-train may well clear the track more quickly - not less quickly -than an existing unit, despite never exceeding 60 m/h.

In another location, a greater spacing between and/or number of stops may well make the top speed become a limiting factor.

What is not evaluated here is the point at which the second of these scenarios comes into play. Until it is, predicting terrible hold-ups is completely moot.

And, on any given stretch of track, there may be a mixture of closer and more distant stations; the composite effect of a faster stop-stop time between two close stations might offset a slower stop-stop time elsewhere on the same track, and the overall time from clear to clear may be more, less or the same. It all depends on far more than just 60mph.

 

[northwichcat]

On a given piece of track with stations at various intervals

You're missing the point here.

A Northern service running express between Stockport and Manchester could have a XC or EMT service on the same line 2 or 3 minutes behind it. The Northern services which are operated by 75mph DMUs and run non-stop are around 90 seconds slower than a train capable of doing 100mph (whether that be a Pendolino, Voyager or 185.)

A Northern service which stops between Stockport and Manchester is on a slow line and won't have a regional/Intercity service following closely behind.

Most of the stopping services are operated by 323s (especially at peak times when paths are at a premium) due to their better acceleration. The DMUs need to get up to 75mph and stay at that sort of speed to not cause congestion.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I'm not missing anything. I'm merely contending that top speed is merely one of a number of factors that contribute to travel time (and thus the time the track is occupied by the train).

Put it this way: If the section of track on which high-speed running to which you refer is, say, 5 miles long, and the train you are travelling on takes
- 1.5 miles to get up to 60 mph and another 1.5 miles to get up to 75 and needs 1/2 mile to slow down again
compared to
- 1/4 mile to get up to 60 mph and stays there and needs 1/4 mile to slow down again
how can you state with certainty that the 75mph train is quicker and/or by how much?

These numbers are made up. I don't know what they really are - and nowhere else in this thread are they evaluated. End to end journey time is dependent on several factors of which top speed is just one.

 

[northwichcat]

- 1.5 miles to get up to 60 mph and another 1.5 miles to get up to 75 and needs 1/2 mile to slow down again
compared to
- 1/4 mile to get up to 60 mph and stays there and needs 1/4 mile to slow down again

Those sound like figures you've just plucked out of thin air that aren't realistic. Pacers may be slower to accelerate than other trains but they certainly don't take 3 miles to get up to 75mph!

I even gave you an idea of how Pacers compare to faster trains on a section of mainline by saying they take around 90 seconds longer than trains capable of doing 100mph. Also that a 100mph class 185 isn't that different in timing to a 125mph class 390, so it seems having a top speed of 100mph is beneficial but the faster acceleration of a 390 over a 185 or having a top speed of 125mph doesn't create any real benefits on that section of the mainline.

If you're so confident about D78s potentially having vastly superior acceleration than maybe in your opinion they'll be suitable for any non-electrified service in the Greater London area?

 

[hwl]

Those sound like figures you've just plucked out of thin air that aren't realistic. Pacers may be slower to accelerate than other trains but they certainly don't take 3 miles to get up to 75mph!

I even gave you an idea of how Pacers compare to faster trains on a section of mainline by saying they take around 90 seconds longer than trains capable of doing 100mph. Also that a 100mph class 185 isn't that different in timing to a 125mph class 390, so it seems having a top speed of 100mph is beneficial but the faster acceleration of a 390 over a 185 or having a top speed of 125mph doesn't create any real benefits on that section of the mainline.

If you're so confident about D78s potentially having vastly superior acceleration than maybe in your opinion they'll be suitable for any non-electrified service in the Greater London area?

There soon won't be any non electrified stopping services in Greater London...

 

[D60]

On the question of rate of acceleration vs overall top speed, I understand computer simulations have been done for a particular route in Yorkshire (Huddersfield - Penistone - Barnsley?) and the results were positive..? Clearly different routes have different characteristics and different service patterns, and clearly the suitability of 60mph D78s is limited.. and thankfully there are people beyond this forum whose professional role in life is to make these calculations and determinations... And I strongly suspect that the people behind this project will have had enough in the way of conversations with TOCs and the Dft to make the investment they are making already seem "worth a punt"... But the proof will be in the demonstrator, when it emerges... Did the BBC report last night give us any actual "news" in respect of progress so far?

 

[northwichcat]

There soon won't be any non electrified stopping services in Greater London...

Really?

It seems Southern and Chiltern have secured Turbostars when they won't need them for long then. Also I missed any announcement that all of Thames Valley would become electrified.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did the BBC report last night give us any actual "news" in respect of progress so far?

From the look of it they've not got beyond removing stickers from the interior of the train which is going to be the demonstrator.

I understand computer simulations have been done for a particular route in Yorkshire (Huddersfield - Penistone - Barnsley?) and the results were positive..?

Shooter and other people involved with the project have been quoted as saying the Penistone Line was chose because it has a lot of stops close together (similar to a London Underground route?) and there "isn't much" running at over 60mph in the North.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Technically, the Uckfield line isn't a stopping service while in Greater London.

 

[northwichcat]

Technically, the Uckfield line isn't a stopping service while in Greater London.

Uckfield stopping pattern looks very similar to the Mid-Cheshire line stopping pattern up here. The Mid-Cheshire services stop at all stations in Cheshire, then once reaching Altrincham near the Cheshire/Greater Manchester border there are long sections with no stops. If more services are introduced on the Mid-Cheshire then it's very likely the average number of stations which services call at will go down.

 

[Wolfie]

You're missing the point here.

A Northern service running express between Stockport and Manchester could have a XC or EMT service on the same line 2 or 3 minutes behind it. The Northern services which are operated by 75mph DMUs and run non-stop are around 90 seconds slower than a train capable of doing 100mph (whether that be a Pendolino, Voyager or 185.)

A Northern service which stops between Stockport and Manchester is on a slow line and won't have a regional/Intercity service following closely behind.

Most of the stopping services are operated by 323s (especially at peak times when paths are at a premium) due to their better acceleration. The DMUs need to get up to 75mph and stay at that sort of speed to not cause congestion.

With respect, you are missing the point in two ways.

Firstly no-one has said that use of these trains would be restricted solely to Northern.

Secondly you cite the current Northern way of doing things, which is predicated on Northern's current rolling stock, and seem to think that is the only way it can be done. You talk about 323s operating the stopping services, due to their superior acceleration (presumably compared to current DMUs), and yet ignore the fact that many others have observed that these trains may not have a high maximum speed but will have good acceleration. If these are introduced onto Northern they may well be capable of running the stoppers, due to that acceleration, with 323s used on the expresses....

 

[Haydn1971]

Did the BBC report last night give us any actual "news" in respect of progress so far?

They showed a man undoing a bolt too ! I may have been mistaken but the guy being interviewed mentioned new traction gear which isn't what I understood to be happening

 

[The Ham]

That was my thought SpacePhoenix. Electrification and IEP are going to free up lots of loco hauled stock, midland main line and Southampton northward freight core electrification will free up lots of Voyagers and Northern Hub will free up lots of 185s. None of these seem terribly suited to the Northern metro stopping services. I suppose some of these could go to the SWT Devon route freeing up 158 and 159s...

SWT's Devon route are rammed as the go into London in the peaks, therefore given the loss of capacity by replacing the 159's with 185's or 22x's it's unlikely to happen until more services can run (i.e. post Crossrail 2), however by then chances are the 159's will be up for retirement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you're so confident about D78s potentially having vastly superior acceleration than maybe in your opinion they'll be suitable for any non-electrified service in the Greater London area?

They could be suitable for non-electrified services in the Greater London area, however given the high frequency of services it is more likely that they would end up with following trains catching them up than elsewhere on the network.

 

[Clip]

With respect, you are missing the point in two ways.

Firstly no-one has said that use of these trains would be restricted solely to Northern.

...

Its quite amazing how many times this has been pointed out yet still isn't being taken notice of.

Im still amazed that before anything has even been built that you have people who are so dead against them.

 

[northwichcat]

Secondly you cite the current Northern way of doing things, which is predicated on Northern's current rolling stock, and seem to think that is the only way it can be done. You talk about 323s operating the stopping services, due to their superior acceleration (presumably compared to current DMUs), and yet ignore the fact that many others have observed that these trains may not have a high maximum speed but will have good acceleration. If these are introduced onto Northern they may well be capable of running the stoppers, due to that acceleration, with 323s used on the expresses....

Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme have 4tph to and from Manchester. So to do what you propose would require 4 diesel services per hour at peak times between Stockport and Manchester - that could work - two to Chester and two to Buxton. However, for Buxton services to stop at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme in the northbound direction would require them to cross all the lines and the same applies to Chester services in the southbound direction, which obviously isn't good for maximising the number of available paths.

Then to put converted D78s on Chester and Buxton services they would need to be cleared for both lines - clearance for the Buxton line would be unlikely due to D78s being wider than conventional trains and 142s and 153s already failing tunnel clearance.

Then the platforms on the Chester and Buxton lines take up to 4 car Sprinters, so to use D78s the longest formation they would take would be a pair of 2 car D-Trains which would provide just 200 seats, opposed to the 260-300 seats a 4 car Sprinter provides.

Also could a 60mph D78 do Chester-Manchester stopping at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme without taking more than the permitted 92 minutes?

So there's loads of reasons not to use converted D78s on South Manchester services and just one benefit - they are cheap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They could be suitable for non-electrified services in the Greater London area, however given the high frequency of services it is more likely that they would end up with following trains catching them up than elsewhere on the network.

So you're completely unaware of the situation between Stockport and Manchester currently, whereby since December 2008 two morning peak northbound services terminate at Stockport and two evening peak southbound services start at Stockport due to a lack of paths. How many trains currently terminate short of London due to a lack of paths?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its quite amazing how many times this has been pointed out yet still isn't being taken notice of.

Im still amazed that before anything has even been built that you have people who are so dead against them.

The problem is posters on here are proposing they can potentially be suitable for most DMU operated services, so these posters are obviously unaware of numerous constraints which exist on some lines.

 

[tbtc]

I suspect that the old question about “could Messi/ Ronaldo do it on a wet Wednesday night in Stoke” argument about talented footballers slumming it in unspectacular surroundings is being replaced by “could a cascaded train from London do it on a Northern Rail diagram to Stoke”. We’ve already had hundreds of posts pointing out that 100mph 319s couldn’t, now the D78s are getting the same complaints (DESPITE THERE BEING NO SUGGESTION THAT THEY’LL BE USED ON FAST SERVICES ON THE WCML :roll.

I watched the Look North feature on them last night, pretty unremarkable – they pointed out that they still had copies of the Evening Standard strewn about on them and District Line diagrams on the wall – as if anyone would be daft enough to think that they’d go into service elsewhere in the UK in such condition... (oh, wait...)

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

Agreed – the “they’re not fit to last another forty years” argument is as thin as the “they’re not going to be able to cope with 125mph paths on the ECML/WCML” argument – people opposing D78s are really exaggerating in their arguments against them (which is why I’m coming round to be in favour of D78s) they are intended as a short term solution to specific lines only.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see more 317s (both those currently with GN and those with LO) end up with GA

If I were organising the many cascades that’ll happen over the rest of the decade then I’d put all the 317s with GA since it’d make more sense to have eight/twelve coach services on the GEML run by units with corridor connections (compared to a 321).

I will return to this thread, somewhat in a better frame of mind than two weeks ago, just to make the point that having a unit with a top speed of 60mph does not automatically mean that this will be treated as the average speed during a journey.

Well, yes, obviously, just like the top speed of a Pacer/Sprinter does not mean that they reach 75mph on each journey.

I’ve previously said on this thread that I don’t think that Pacers are timed to get above 60mph around Sheffield (am talking about what the speeds the services are timed to do, which isn’t necessarily the same as the top speed of the units or the line speed) – I could be wrong – there are obviously some routes diagrammed for Northern’s 158s that see higher speeds and I think that there are some Pacer run services that do require fast running (the Dearne Valley service from Sheffield to Leeds being one) - but I think that a significant number of Northern’s diesel services *could* be run with a 60mph top speed.

If people were proposing D78s for Nottingham – Leeds or Stoke – Manchester then it’d be A Bad Idea, but I think that there are plenty of slower routes that they could cope with.

Turns out the reason the mock ups have Huddersfield on them and the computer simulated trials were on the Penistone Line was because the idea was first presented at Connected North rail conference held at Huddersfield University.

I wondered if it was because “Huddersfield” is a nice neutral destination to show since it may relate to a service from Manchester, from Leeds or from Sheffield – i.e. they aren’t limiting it to one route/depot.

Speaking of which, I’ve not heard of that opinionated professor from Huddersfield for a while...

Just seen the BBC report.
Apparently they'll be used for '2 or 3 years or until the lines are electrified'
2/3 years fine, but 20-40 years until lines are electrified, erm... haven't we already had one long-lived poor quality cheap solution

They won’t be required in forty years time, despite how many times people on this thread claim it. I don’t think they’ll be required in ten years time tbh.

I honestly don't get it. People on this forum seem to be angry at the thought of more carriages coming to help relieve overcrowding through a series of cascades. They aren't replacing pacers like for like, they are replacing pacers on certain lines so that these displaced pacers can be sent to strengthen diagrams where people are getting left behind on the platform

Basically, it’s an excuse for the Chip On The Shoulder brigade to complaint about something else (despite these being additional capacity, i.e. to provide extra DMUs over the next five years, before electrification starts allowing withdrawals).

Maybe people should reserve judgement until we actually see how these D trains perform. In this day and age it would seem sensible to me to look at ways of re-using and re-engineering old trains, why wouldn't you try if it was a lot cheaper and you ended up with something useful?

Agreed about waiting until we have more evidence, but some on here are more knee-jerk than others...

As for re-engineering, this is a good point – I’ve seen many people talk about how the HSTs could be patched up for another thirty years (following the Trigger’s Broom approach) – the D78s have still got some life in them, though aren’t needed on their current line(s) around London - same principal applies.

Electrification and IEP are going to free up lots of loco hauled stock, midland main line and Southampton northward freight core electrification will free up lots of Voyagers and Northern Hub will free up lots of 185s. None of these seem terribly suited to the Northern metro stopping services

One of the problems I’ve had with CP5 electrification is that it’s more about the “main” lines than the “branches” (GWML, MML, Transpennine etc – not the lines where the 75mph DMUs are located in large numbers), so the DMUs directly replaced by EMUs will be dominated by 170/180/185/220/221/222s.

There are some cascades that could be done to facilitate Pacer replacement, but few Pacers will be directly replaced by EMUs (other than on the Valley Lines).

However, if D78s can tackle the “quieter/slower” end of the spectrum then maybe we’ll be able to withdraw Pacers sooner.

Adrian Shooter's claiming TOCs are approaching him rather than the other way around. All we know is the other 'interested' TOCs are in 'other parts of the country.'

Bloke paid to promote D78s is boasting that lots of people are keen to use D78s in their franchise bids?

Yet despite this, some on here seem to think that the only franchise they’ll go to is Northern and that the only routes they’ll be used on are express ones where they can clog up 390s?

For non-stop mainline running sections the top speed will be most important factor. Who would pay for the late running fines incurred as a result of 60mph DEMUs being used on mainlines? Some Northern services in the 'South Manchester' area are only 2-3 minutes ahead of XC and EMT services using a 75mph and running on-time. If a 60mph train is used that gap would be reduced to around 1 minute

On congested parts of the WCML (like the example I gave) using a train that doesn't do 75mph when the line speed is > 75mph for a few miles is simply not an option

You're missing the point here.

A Northern service running express between Stockport and Manchester could have a XC or EMT service on the same line 2 or 3 minutes behind it. The Northern services which are operated by 75mph DMUs and run non-stop are around 90 seconds slower than a train capable of doing 100mph (whether that be a Pendolino, Voyager or 185.)

A Northern service which stops between Stockport and Manchester is on a slow line and won't have a regional/Intercity service following closely behind.

Most of the stopping services are operated by 323s (especially at peak times when paths are at a premium) due to their better acceleration. The DMUs need to get up to 75mph and stay at that sort of speed to not cause congestion.

If paths are for 75mph trains, in some instances there may be less paths if 60mph trains are used in lieu. Less paths could result in fewer services at peak times (even if the services that run have more carriages) and then that would mean less work for ASLEF members.

Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme have 4tph to and from Manchester. So to do what you propose would require 4 diesel services per hour at peak times between Stockport and Manchester - that could work two to Chester and two to Buxton. However, for Buxton services to stop at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme in the northbound direction would require them to cross all the lines and the same applies to Chester services in the southbound direction, which obviously isn't good for maximising the number of available paths.

Then to put converted D78s on Chester and Buxton services they would need to be cleared for both lines - clearance for the Buxton line would be unlikely due to D78s being wider than conventional trains and 142s and 153s already failing tunnel clearance.

Then the platforms on the Chester and Buxton lines take up to 4 car Sprinters, so to use D78s the longest formation they would take would be a pair of 2 car D-Trains which would provide just 200 seats, opposed to the 260-300 seats a 4 car Sprinter provides.

Also could a 60mph D78 do Chester-Manchester stopping at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme without taking more than the permitted 92 minutes?

So there's loads of reasons not to use converted D78s on South Manchester services and just one benefit - they are cheap

Who’s talking about putting D78s on fast services from Stockport to Manchester though?

You’re finding strawmen to argue with...

When FGW took on a load of 75mph 150s from LM/LO a couple of years ago, nobody was naive enough to complain that they’d end up on Bristol – Paddington expresses deputising for HSTs!

 

[northwichcat]

Who’s talking about putting D78s on fast services from Stockport to Manchester though?

You’re finding strawmen to argue with...

When FGW took on a load of 75mph 150s from LM/LO a couple of years ago, nobody was naive enough to complain that they’d end up on Bristol – Paddington expresses deputising for HSTs!

I was using that as an example of where a converted D78 could not just replace existing Pacers and Sprinters but two posters on here were suggesting there would be solutions to make them work on such lines like ensuring the converted D78s have faster acceleration and switching which services are the fast and which are the slow.

If you want to call other posters strawmen then I'm not going to get involved.

The difference is converted D78s would replace 75mph trains unless they just replace the 121s and 139s and/or provide new services.

I wondered if it was because “Huddersfield” is a nice neutral destination to show since it may relate to a service from Manchester, from Leeds or from Sheffield – i.e. they aren’t limiting it to one route/depot.

Most of the services from Huddersfield which aren't TPE services would potentially be suitable for converted D78s. Although, I do think improvements are needed to services from Huddersfield which don't go to Leeds/Manchester. It seems a lot of people from Huddersfield go to Wakefield/Meadowhall/Sheffield (and beyond) via Leeds due to it being quicker than using the hourly stopper on the direct lines.

Speaking of which, I’ve not heard of that opinionated professor from Huddersfield for a while...

Maybe the Vivarail presentation made him speechless for once?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The difference is converted D78s would replace 75mph trains unless they just replace the 121s and 139s and/or provide new services.

And the point is that not all services require the 75mph capability. And there is scope to adjust diagrams if there are plenty of these units and they are cheap.

Neil

 

[The Ham]

So you're completely unaware of the situation between Stockport and Manchester currently, whereby since December 2008 two morning peak northbound services terminate at Stockport and two evening peak southbound services start at Stockport due to a lack of paths. How many trains currently terminate short of London due to a lack of paths?

OK, you have me there. I admit that I am unaware of any trains which stop short of London because of a lack of paths on a daily basis.

Although I would also like to suggest that many TOC's within Greater London have little or no spare paths ALL DAY and not just in the peaks. For instance if there is a major problem with the line into Waterloo it is not until late evening when the service frequency starts to drop that things to improve. That is unless several services an hour stop short (i.e. it is standard practice for all the WofE services to stop at Basingstoke during times of disruption).

 

[northwichcat]

Although I would also like to suggest that many TOC's within Greater London have little or no spare paths ALL DAY and not just in the peaks. For instance if there is a major problem with the line into Waterloo it is not until late evening when the service frequency starts to drop that things to improve. That is unless several services an hour stop short (i.e. it is standard practice for all the WofE services to stop at Basingstoke during times of disruption).

With London it's more common for the service frequency to be higher so longer trains is a better solution than more trains. An 8 car train departing Manchester for Buxton at 17:15, with the next one at 18:15 wouldn't be a suitable solution.

While with a greater percentage of lines electrified and less of a mixture of rolling stock at London terminus' it should also make portion working options easier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While with a greater percentage of lines electrified and less of a mixture of rolling stock at London terminus' it should also make portion working options easier.

I was with you until then - all of Northern's 14x and 15x stock can be worked in multiple with other units of different 14x and 15x classes.

On your other point, I agree but when you start going above 2tph it's less sensible to up frequencies. The south WCML may seem intensively served, say, but in a typical off-peak hour (there are peak extras) there are 2tph fast, 2tph slow to most destinations, and it's often not worth catching the slow ones.

Neil

 

[jcc]

For those that missed the BBC "Look North" news report on Vivarail's plans, I put it on YouTube, as apparently iPlayer says that it will be taken down this evening. It includes an interview with Adrian Shooter. I've put subtitles on it. He mentioned them running to Penistone, Harrogate, Scarborough and Bridlington.

[youtube]BdVyZUS3Wpc[/youtube]

 

[northwichcat]

I was with you until then - all of Northern's 14x and 15x stock can be worked in multiple with other units of different 14x and 15x classes.

Like I said you can't mix DMUs and EMUs.

142s and 153s aren't go anywhere (neither can go to Buxton for instance), while attaching a 75mph DMU to a 158 limits the 158 to 75mph (not ideal for Leeds-Nottingham for instance.) So very careful diagramming would be required to ensure suitable stock is used and formations aren't sent the wrong way around e.g. if there was a 142+150 formation supposed to split at Hazel Grove for Buxton/Sheffield.

but in a typical off-peak hour (there are peak extras) there are 2tph fast, 2tph slow to most destinations, and it's often not worth catching the slow ones

That would be a massive improvement for most commuter lines outside the South East.

 

[The Ham]

While with a greater percentage of lines electrified and less of a mixture of rolling stock at London terminus' it should also make portion working options easier.

Other than often the trains coming out of London terminus are either fairly long anyway (8 to 12 coach trains are not uncommon) and/or are all going along the same line but with a different calling pattern.

For instance to get to Woking (off peak) you have 14 trains an hour (which ignores the trains which do not stop at Woking), four an hour are going to Portsmouth (3 via Guildford 1 via Basingstoke), one an hour to Haslemere (also served by Portsmouth Trains via Guildford), two an hour to Basingstoke (semi fast to Woking and then stopping Basingstoke), two an hour to Salisbury/Exeter (also serves Basingstoke, some portion working to Bristol) two an hour stopping services to Woking, two an hour to Alton (semi fast to Woking then stopping to Alton) and one train an hour to Weymouth (often these train splits at Southampton to act as fast and semi fast services between Southampton and Bournemouth). Most, if not all, of those services will be longer than one set, making working out portion working beyond what already happens at Salisbury and Southampton difficult.