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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the meantime, has any updated technical news been "leaked" about the unit that is currently being prepared for trial evaluation purposes.

 

[Metrailway]

There has been an update on the 31/3/15 in the news/blog section of Vivarail's website: http://www.vivarail.co.uk/d-train-project-update-march-2015/

Day to day operations are under the control of General Manager Steve Rowell. He said, “I’ve worked on projects like this before at Tyne and Wear Metro but the D-train is something else. The design specification is incredibly high and the timescale tight, to say the least. But in just six weeks we have dismantled the interiors, appointed new suppliers, refined key elements, such as the air conditioning systems, and begun crash testing … the prototype will be on the test track early this summer.”

 

[edwin_m]

Air conditioning?

 

[WatcherZero]

I think they were offering it as an optional extra, not part of the base leasing cost.

 

[Domh245]

http://www.vivarail.co.uk/project-update-14-april-2015-from-the-midlands-to-the-netherlands/

Noticed this tonight. Looks promising, even if the post contains quite a bit of marketing speak

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think they were offering it as an optional extra, not part of the base leasing cost.

I wonder if the prototype will be incorporating the stated air-conditioning when it enters its period of official trials.

 

[northwichcat]

http://www.vivarail.co.uk/project-update-14-april-2015-from-the-midlands-to-the-netherlands/

Noticed this tonight. Looks promising, even if the post contains quite a bit of marketing speak

Almost ready then: http://www.vivarail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/WP_20150323_009.jpg

 

[THC]

I particularly like this piece. A real poke in the eye for those bleating about "London's cast offs" - and from someone who should know what they're talking about.

THC

 

[Bantamzen]

I particularly like this piece. A real poke in the eye for those bleating about "London's cast offs" - and from someone who should know what they're talking about.

THC

Why is it a poke in the eye? All it really says is that they might be a bit nicer inside than normal refurb jobs. And it still casts a doubt over the traction, and completely skips over the speed limitation, and presumably compatibility with all other existing stock which will limit their usefulness across the network. And it's still some time before they have to get over that slight hurdle of actually being tested...

 

[THC]

Because it demonstrates clearly the point that, bogies and bodyshell apart, the D-train will be a completely new animal rather than a "cast-off" or even "a bit nicer inside than normal refurb jobs".

While a different issue, its viability in service, as you rightly point out, remains to be seen.

THC

 

[WillPS]

I think this is shaping up to be one of the most interesting rolling stock developments of the privatised era. It always struck me as a shame the Networker Classic went no further than demonstrator stage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I particularly like this piece. A real poke in the eye for those bleating about "London's cast offs" - and from someone who should know what they're talking about.

THC

In the very first part of the preamble, it states that Vivarail plan to replace the Pacers with London Underground D78 stock.

I was unaware that Vivarail had any ownership of the any of the Pacer fleet to enable them to make such a statement. I feel that neither Angel Trains nor Porterbrook know of such a stated Vivarail ownership of their products.

Yet you end your posting with the words...."and from someone who should know what they're talking about".

 

[northwichcat]

In the very first part of the preamble, it states that Vivarail plan to replace the Pacers with London Underground D78 stock.

I was unaware that Vivarail had any ownership of the any of the Pacer fleet to enable them to make such a statement. I feel that neither Angel Trains nor Porterbrook know of such a stated Vivarail ownership of their products.

Yet you end your posting with the words...."and from someone who should know what they're talking about".

The TOCs with Pacers don't have to lease Pacer replacements off either Porterbrook or Angel. TPE replaced 158s leased from Angel Trains with 185s leased from Eversholt.

However, the Northern ITT states the Pacers must be withdrawn and replacements can be one of class 15x trains, class 17x trains or new build and D-Trains are ruled out, unless Northern bidders propose taking them on as additional carriages alongside the replacement carriages. On the other hand FGW will replace their 143s indirectly with cascaded 16xs, so that only leaves the ATW ones.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The TOCs with Pacers don't have to lease Pacer replacements off either Porterbrook or Angel. TPE replaced 158s leased from Angel Trains with 185s leased from Eversholt.

My comment was solely to do with the wording of the matter that I read from a submitted link in a posting. It concerned the current ownership of the existing Pacer fleet...nothing else. Nothing remotely was mentioned about any lease of REPLACEMENT units in my posting.

Do you feel that I could have worded my posting any clearer considering the point that I had endeavoured to make in my posting?

 

[asylumxl]

Despite all the possible issues people have raised regarding these trains, I feel Vivarail should be praised for their ingenuity and clever design. The amount of modularisation in the design is impressive and is something the rest of the rail industry should be striving for.

 

[WatcherZero]

The concept of a raft module that can be seperately maintained is pretty much standard on all the new generation designs.

 

[Bantamzen]

Because it demonstrates clearly the point that, bogies and bodyshell apart, the D-train will be a completely new animal rather than a "cast-off" or even "a bit nicer inside than normal refurb jobs".

While a different issue, its viability in service, as you rightly point out, remains to be seen.

THC

Fair enough. To be honest part of me does like the idea of recycling as much as possible, my cynicism stems mainly from the fact that these units are speed restricted. If they had been able to re-engineer them to allow 75mph + it would be far less opposed to the principle. I'm of the opinion that if large numbers of any stock are to be procured, they should be able to be used across the network and not limited to a few sections.

 

[Harpers Tate]

T...the Northern ITT states the Pacers must be withdrawn and replacements can be one of class 15x trains, class 17x trains or new build and D-Trains are ruled out, unless Northern bidders propose taking them on as additional carriages alongside the replacement carriages.

I read it as

- no non-bogied stock (so, no Pacers); any such stock to be replaced by new trains and those classes you list
- A number (120 was it?) of brand new trains.

I don't see how these two statements can be conjoined as to preclude D-Trains in the fleet. And it's a reasonable assumption that Northern will require more going forward.

 

[northwichcat]

I read it as

- no non-bogied stock (so, no Pacers); any such stock to be replaced by new trains and those classes you list
- A number (120 was it?) of brand new trains.

I don't see how these two statements can be conjoined as to preclude D-Trains in the fleet. And it's a reasonable assumption that Northern will require more going forward.

The actual wording is the below, so it excludes D-Trains.

The Department requires a Franchisee who will procure and bring into service, no
later than 1 January 2020, a minimum of 120 new carriages that are capable of
being used to operate Passenger Services on non-electrified routes. They must
be designed with future demand and users’ needs in mind, with a clear focus on
passenger comfort and with a thoroughly modern passenger environment and
exterior look. These must be newly-built (not re-using components from existing
rolling stock) and, unless the Bidder intends for them to be hauled by a locomotive,
must be capable of operating under their own power for significant distances on
non-electrified routes.

 

[THC]

In the very first part of the preamble, it states that Vivarail plan to replace the Pacers with London Underground D78 stock.

I was unaware that Vivarail had any ownership of the any of the Pacer fleet to enable them to make such a statement. I feel that neither Angel Trains nor Porterbrook know of such a stated Vivarail ownership of their products.

Yet you end your posting with the words...."and from someone who should know what they're talking about".

You know as well as I do that the opening comment is shorthand. If the blog author was to explain the convolutions of thought of, inter alia, the erstwhile MP for Devizes and the Northern Rail ITT then the blogpost would have run to several pages.

To your reply, which is a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees. If you seriously think that, if GB trials are successful, the D-Train will not in some way be used as a replacement for Pacers, then I have a bridge I can sell you.

THC

 

[martynbristow]

The actual wording is the below, so it excludes D-Trains.

The ITT excludes Pacers and D-trains potentially but as we mentioned above its an ITT and won't necessarily reflect the finished franchise.
Although politically it would be best to honour this on core routes.
D-trains are designed to be maintained remotely so potentially they could add top up the franchise commitment in isolated areas

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You know as well as I do that the opening comment is shorthand. If the blog author was to explain the convolutions of thought of, inter alia, the erstwhile MP for Devizes and the Northern Rail ITT then the blogpost would have run to several pages.

To your reply, which is a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees. If you seriously think that, if GB trials are successful, the D-Train will not in some way be used as a replacement for Pacers, then I have a bridge I can sell you.

THC

I had pondered awhile in the formulation of a response to such a posting as yours but such is my command of the English Language, I may well mentally understand the reasons why such "shorthand" (to use your own description) is used by those charged with such releases for consumption by the public at large, but there is no way that I would let such a statement pass without comment upon the fallacious intimations of ownership so inferred therein.

Your comment suggesting myopian arborational connectivity is one that you make at your peril, suggesting as you do that I have no cognitive ability to differentiate between such matters. I refute such a supercilious puerile statement.

If you read the posting # 1399 on the thread made today by jcollins, you will find that his posting explains the matter of the D-train exclusion, as it appears that you labour under a misapprehension.

With regard to the sale of a bridge you make in your posting, you obviously are unaware of the seven-figure price property that I own in the rural parts of an exceedingly exclusive part of Cheshire East with much land contained, but I do so assure you that the stone-built bridge which was constructed by us in 2007 over the brook on the eastern elevation of the paddock is in excellent condition, so I seek no such replacement.

 

[THC]

I had pondered awhile in the formulation of a response to such a posting as yours but such is my command of the English Language, I may well mentally understand the reasons why such "shorthand" (to use your own description) is used by those charged with such releases for consumption by the public at large, but there is no way that I would let such a statement pass without comment upon the fallacious intimations of ownership so inferred therein.

Your comment suggesting myopian arborational connectivity is one that you make at your peril, suggesting as you do that I have no cognitive ability to differentiate between such matters. I refute such a supercilious puerile statement.

If you read the posting # 1399 on the thread made today by jcollins, you will find that his posting explains the matter of the D-train exclusion, as it appears that you labour under a misapprehension.

Au contraire. "The matter of D-train exclusion" is not cast in stone for two reasons; i) the Northern Rail documents form an invitation to tender, not a legally-binding contract, for one TOC only - others of course being available, and ii) the small matter of the outcome of the forthcoming General Election trumps all. A new administration, with new priorities, is perfectly at liberty to change what it sees fit, and it is not without precedent that franchising arrangements, both direction and detail, are placed immediately under review. In any case, as others have pointed out, there is nothing to stop the sucessor Northern franchisee - or any other TOC - procuring whatever additional rolling stock it sees fit, and a successful D-train would offer a very cost-effective option.

With regard to the sale of a bridge you make in your posting, you obviously are unaware of the seven-figure price property that I own in the rural parts of an exceedingly exclusive part of Cheshire East with much land contained, but I do so assure you that the stone-built bridge which was constructed by us in 2007 over the brook on the eastern elevation of the paddock is in excellent condition, so I seek no such replacement.

Such a "supercilious puerile" willy-waving statement may impress the ladies but it does nothing for me.

It is probably better that we end this discourse here, entertaining as it has been. Good day to you.

THC

 

[Clip]

So, we should really just wait for the demonstrator before we pass judgement and whether or not they will replace the pacer fleet on Northerns routes?

Simple and no fancy sentences with big words

 

[Harpers Tate]

The actual wording is the below, so it excludes D-Trains.

IT is the definition of the 120 new carriages. Agreed.
That still doesn't preclude Northern from procuring D-Trains alongside.

 

[ainsworth74]

So, we should really just wait for the demonstrator before we pass judgement and whether or not they will replace the pacer fleet on Northerns routes?

Ooh could we do the same with Hitachi's SETs?

 

[ac6000cw]

IT is the definition of the 120 new trains. Agreed.
That still doesn't preclude Northern from procuring D-Trains alongside.

It's "a minimum of 120 new carriages" (not trains, unless they are all going to be 153-equivalents which is very unlikely).

 

[Murph]

IT is the definition of the 120 new trains. Agreed.
That still doesn't preclude Northern from procuring D-Trains alongside.

It also doesn't preclude anyone from submitting a tender with options for the DfT to choose from, e.g. one option with 120 shiny new trains, and an alternative vastly cheaper option with 120 D-trains. I would not interpret that part of the ITT as being even remotely close to a guarantee that the final Northern franchise won't include D-Trains, it's simply far too early in the process to conclude that. A change in government could also move the goalposts in just about any direction.

 

[Wolfie]

The actual wording is the below, so it excludes D-Trains.

I am afraid you are guilty of a logical fail! The wording you quote refers to the 120 "new" carriages (not trains as has been pointed out earlier) not more broadly....

Also an ITT is not legally binding as has been explained at great length before....

 

[Harpers Tate]

It's "a minimum of 120 new carriages" (not trains, unless they are all going to be 153-equivalents which is very unlikely).

Edited thx.