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

[Clip]

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

I would love it but you know how these things go

 

[northwichcat]

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....

No I'm not. Harpers Tate's misquoted the wording of the ITT, so I simply posted the relevant section of the ITT.

 

[Harpers Tate]

You seem insistent that Northern cannot (within the terms of the ITT) have any D-Trains. I believe you to have misinterpreted the ITT.
Yes, they are required to have 120 brand new carriages (which by definition are not D-Trains)
Yes, they are required to do away with Pacers.
No, they are not (by virtue of the above) denied D-Trains.

 

[telstarbox]

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.

House!

 

[northwichcat]

You seem insistent that Northern cannot (within the terms of the ITT) have any D-Trains. I believe you to have misinterpreted the ITT.
Yes, they are required to have 120 brand new carriages (which by definition are not D-Trains)
Yes, they are required to do away with Pacers.
No, they are not (by virtue of the above) denied D-Trains.

If I was working on a bidding team I wouldn't propose any class of self-powered train not already used by Northern apart from Turbostars and the required proper new build without seeking DfT approval.

Section 5.4.2.2 states new build has to mean just that when referring to 120 new build carriages.

Section 5.4.2.26 starts by saying "Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the Northern Train Fleet." As the D-Trains will be diesel powered, aren't currently used by another operator, aren't 15xs or 17xs and won't be loco-hauled that means the only way D-Trains could qualify is under condition vi "Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure. "

But could the D-Trains be classed as new build? If Vivarail want to claim they are new build then surely they have to meet all the new build standards including crash worthiness.

 

[jcc]

Regardless of the fact that all it really shows is the front (avec un 3D model of a driver), sides and some more comfortable looking seating, a Vivarail promotional video:

[youtube]AUkD121i2zc[/youtube]

Personally, the front end to me looks a bit like plastic bolted onto a D-Stock front (which is probably is), and I find the paint job applied to the animation thing horrendous (yes, I know that the TOCs will stick vinyls all over it, but still, if you are trying to advertise a product, not sure that full on red's the way to go).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know of one TOC owner that likes red and white...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I know of one TOC owner that likes red and white...

...but could you see him placing an order for these units?

 

[Bletchleyite]

...but could you see him placing an order for these units?

No, not him, this lot:

http://www.crashbuffer.com/estcpp5861.jpg

 

[aylesbury]

The company must have received statements of intent from possible customers to have got so far on with this project.You don't spend millions when there is no chance of a return on investment they are not phillanthropists.Whos to say that the finished product will not be a good unit and provide passengers with what they need.The project needs to be looked at through passengers eyes and not through rose tinted enthusiast ones.

 

[martynbristow]

If I was working on a bidding team I wouldn't propose any class of self-powered train not already used by Northern apart from Turbostars and the required proper new build without seeking DfT approval.

Section 5.4.2.2 states new build has to mean just that when referring to 120 new build carriages.

Section 5.4.2.26 starts by saying "Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the Northern Train Fleet." As the D-Trains will be diesel powered, aren't currently used by another operator, aren't 15xs or 17xs and won't be loco-hauled that means the only way D-Trains could qualify is under condition vi "Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure. "

But could the D-Trains be classed as new build? If Vivarail want to claim they are new build then surely they have to meet all the new build standards including crash worthiness.

As was stated above that relates to the tender! The implementation can vary! If the dft don't like everyone's figures they can revise things slightly. The ITT wasn't written in the blood of a first born. Anyway 120 is only 40 3 car trains!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As was stated above that relates to the tender! The implementation can vary! If the dft don't like everyone's figures they can revise things slightly. The ITT wasn't written in the blood of a first born. Anyway 120 is only 40 3 car trains!

....or 30 4-car trains.

 

[Class377/5]

Rumours are the prices coming in for the next franchise are higher than expected. May be an interesting choice for who ever wins next month. Commit the the more expensive better quality bid or go for the best valve.

 

[northwichcat]

As was stated above that relates to the tender!

You're missing the point -as you always seem to.

Section 5.4.2.26 states the conditions for all rolling stock not just the required 120 new carriages. D-Trains have to meet one of the conditions in 5.4.2.26 to be used by Northern bidders.

Are there D-Trains in the Northern fleet already? No.
Are they EMUs? Not if they are converted to diesel-electric.
Are they 15xs or 17xs which will be off-lease? No
Are they loco-hauled? No
Are they new build? Debatable.
Are there any other conditions in 5.4.2.26 apart from new build which a D-Train could meet? No.

Hence, why I said if I was on a bidding team I would want clarification from DfT that D-Trains can be used before submitting a bid which proposed their use. Section 5.4.2.2 says new build has to mean new build, so why should it be presumed new build in section 5.4.2.26 includes rebuilt carriages if not referring to the 120 new carriages which must be delivered?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rumours are the prices coming in for the next franchise are higher than expected. May be an interesting choice for who ever wins next month. Commit the the more expensive better quality bid or go for the best valve.

Personally I think Govia are in a position to pull a rabbit out of the hat, given LM will in discussions with DfT over a LM Direct Award.

They are in a position to propose to DfT things such as:
* LM take on the LO 172s. LM release their 153s to Northern.
* LM take on the released Scotrail 170s. Northern take on the LO and LM 172s.
* D-Trains/ePacers for Bedford-Bletchley only. LM's 150s to Northern.
* Switching EMUs between franchises.

Not so easy for Arriva or Abellio to propose ideas like that.

 

[Clarence Yard]

If anybody has thought of trying to include them under the new build clause in 5.4.2.26, then they will be covering that idea in a CQ (clarification question). Sometimes these are timed into the CQ process very late into the bid, in order to cause maximum chaos in rivals bid teams.

Since the ICWC debacle, the DfT has taken the ITT procedure much more seriously and variances from it are strictly controlled. If you have a query that you have put into a confidential CQ to the DfT they can judge the answer to be disclosable to all bidders if it affects the legality of the competition.

I am taking the rumours of the bids coming in too expensive with a pinch of salt. Nobody outside of a very few in each bid team will know what the financials are at this stage (certainly nobody in the DFT will have a clue) so this is more likely some wishful thinking by pacer owning ROSCOs or a certain other rolling stock enterprise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

.The project needs to be looked at through passengers eyes and not through rose tinted enthusiast ones.

....and most certainly not the eyes of both the PR and the marketing arms of Vivarail...

Your mention of "enthusiast" and their "rose tinted vision" does reflect the views of a goodly number of contributors to this thread who would see these units in service irrespective of certain operational and top speed matters that have already been fully described upon this thread.

This is the reason where you will find postings supporting the totally opposite point to those mentioned above on view upon this thread, as a counterbalance of debate.

 

[Metrailway]

You're missing the point -as you always seem to.

Section 5.4.2.26 states the conditions for all rolling stock not just the required 120 new carriages. D-Trains have to meet one of the conditions in 5.4.2.26 to be used by Northern bidders.

Are there D-Trains in the Northern fleet already? No.
Are they EMUs? Not if they are converted to diesel-electric.
Are they 15xs or 17xs which will be off-lease? No
Are they loco-hauled? No
Are they new build? Debatable.
Are there any other conditions in 5.4.2.26 apart from new build which a D-Train could meet? No.

Hence, why I said if I was on a bidding team I would want clarification from DfT that D-Trains can be used before submitting a bid which proposed their use. Section 5.4.2.2 says new build has to mean new build, so why should it be presumed new build in section 5.4.2.26 includes rebuilt carriages if not referring to the 120 new carriages which must be delivered?

Yes bidders should raise a BCQ but 5.4.2.26 still does not preclude the acquiring of D-trains as stated in your posts #1393 and #1399. Indeed if you read the sections just before 5.4.2.26 you'll notice the mention of 'Metro-style' stock several times.

5.4.2.22

Bidders may propose the use of “metro-style” rolling stock that allows 0.25 m² per standing passenger, rather than the 0.45 m² generally assumed, if the rolling stock in question:
i. Has an interior layout that is thoroughly modern and comfortable, and purpose-designed for high-density standing (e.g. with sufficient grab-rails or poles to allow standing in reasonable comfort so as to encourage passengers to make use of all available standing space rather than clustering by the doors) and to facilitate quick boarding and alighting for increased numbers of passengers (e.g. with draught screens set back to provide a larger open space in the vicinity of the train doors - trains with end doors as opposed to “one-third two-thirds" doors are unlikely to be suitable);
ii. Is to be deployed on services for which such layouts are suitable (i.e. short-distance commuting; deployment outside of the Morning Peak and Evening Peak would only be allowable if there are sufficient seats to accommodate forecast passenger loadings); and
iii. Either is a new-build fleet, or is implemented as part of a transformational refurbishment that means passenger satisfaction with the stock (taking account of reduced seating capacity) should be comparable to that of a new or nearly-new fleet.​

5.4.2.23

Bidders who intend to propose “metro-style” rolling stock may share their proposals in confidence with the Department via the BCQ process. As part of any such BCQ, Bidders must submit to the Department an A3 scale drawing for each vehicle type, clearly indicating the vehicle length and width). Subject to the Bidder providing this drawing and such other additional information as the Department may reasonably request, the Department will provide its view as to whether or not the layout would be consistent with a standing allowance of 0.25 m² per passenger.​

5.4.2.24

To utilise a “metro-style” measure of 0.25m² per standing passenger, the vehicle is measured at the waist line and inaccessible areas deducted as set out above. The seats are counted separately and it is assumed that all seats (including required wheelchair provision) will be occupied, and all are measured at 0.45 m² per seat. The remaining area which can be occupied is then measured at 0.25 m² per standing passenger. Standing areas include door areas and vestibules, corridors and aisles, provided that they are suitable for high-density standing. For the avoidance of doubt, the “metro-style” classification is applied to the vehicle,
therefore all accessible standing areas must comply with the higher-density provisions otherwise capacity will be calculated using the standard 0.45 m²​

I speculate that the DfT did have the D78s in mind when writing this section particularly considering section 5.4.2.22. AFAIK the only rail stock in the country with such a door layout is LU or ex-LU stock and the only one being proposed for a "transformational refurbishment" is the D78 stock.

 

[northwichcat]

I am taking the rumours of the bids coming in too expensive with a pinch of salt. Nobody outside of a very few in each bid team will know what the financials are at this stage (certainly nobody in the DFT will have a clue) so this is more likely some wishful thinking by pacer owning ROSCOs or a certain other rolling stock enterprise.

The D-Train idea and the ePacer were both proposed before the ITT was released. There was a rumour circulating that the ITT would say something along the lines of bidders should look to move towards a fleet of properly bogied stock, which wouldn't have ruled out keeping 144s or taking on a small number of D-Trains for suitable routes.

The rumour to bids being too expensive seems to relate to a combination of Labour saying they will conduct a "Zero-Based Review of public spending" if they take office and the letter from a civil servant to Patrick McLoughlin recommending not to specify Pacer withdrawal in the Northern ITT. However, Rail North, who agreed the franchise spec with DfT, are body of mainly Labour councils and both Cameron and Clegg have committed to Pacers being withdrawn in the North, which makes it difficult for any of the main parties to say Pacers can be used after all without repercussions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes bidders should raise a BCQ but 5.4.2.26 still does not preclude the acquiring of D-trains as stated in your posts #1393 and #1399. Indeed if you read the sections just before 5.4.2.26 you'll notice the mention of 'Metro-style' stock several times.

I speculate that the DfT did have the D78s in mind when writing this section particularly considering section 5.4.2.23. AFAIK the only rail stock in the country with such a door layout is LU or ex-LU stock and the only one being proposed for a "transformational refurbishment" is the D78 stock.

After re-checking I'm saying it's debatable. D-Trains would be allowed only only if they are classed as new build. Like I already asked are Vivarail building D-Trains to the crash worthiness required for new build trains?

A few points to note regarding Metro stock:
1. The ITT only requires the new minimum 120 carriages to be able to run on routes not fully electrified. It doesn't say they have to be Metro standard trains, Regional standard trains or somewhere between the two - it's up to bidders to decide. They are allowed to propose new build Metro stock which can have as many doors as required.
2. Mainlines in to the big cities are where the use of 60mph stock is most likely to cause pathing issues
3. The bit you quote states Metro stock must have enough seats for everyone at off-peak times and must only be used on very short services. Vivarail are proposing 88 and 136 seater options for 'city' layouts with total capacities of 194 and 297. Short services in to major cities where off-peak loadings don't exceed 88/136 would be difficult to find.
4. A full refurbishment of all older stock is required. It could be bidders propose giving some 319s Metro style interiors.

 

[jcc]

I am most definitely no expert on understanding ITTs, but the Vivarail twitter feed has in fact retweeted section 5.4.2.22 of the ITT mentioned above, quoted below again, which in my opinion, does possibly leaves some leeway for a D-Train?

Bidders may propose the use of “metro-style” rolling stock that allows 0.25m2 per standing passenger, rather than the 0.45 m2 generally assumed, if the rolling stock in question:
i. Has an interior layout that is thoroughly modern and comfortable, and purpose designed for high-density standing (e.g. with sufficient grab-rails or poles to allow standing in reasonable comfort so as to encourage passengers to make use of all available standing space rather than clustering by the doors) and to facilitate quick boarding and alighting for increased numbers of passengers (e.g. with draught screens set back to provide a larger open space in the vicinity of the train doors - trains with end doors as opposed to “one-third two-thirds" doors are unlikely to be suitable);

ii. Is to be deployed on services for which such layouts are suitable (i.e. shortdistance commuting; deployment outside of the Morning Peak and Evening Peak would only be allowable if there are sufficient seats to accommodate forecast passenger loadings); and

iii. Either is a new-build fleet, or is implemented as part of a transformational refurbishment that means passenger satisfaction with the stock (taking account of reduced seating capacity) should be comparable to that of a new or nearly new fleet.

(my bold)

Rail Technology Magazine has also shared this, but I am not overly sure whether this is a reference to the D-Train's proposed "metro" configuration by the DfT (as claimed by the RMT) as this section seems contrary to the section posted by jcollins 2 posts up?

 

[Haydn1971]

Whilst there is a direct assumption that the D-Trains would go to a train operating company, there is the possibility that these trains may be deployed by the city regions - for example, a new very short length local stopping service on routes that "Northern" couldn't afford to run. For example, Killamarsh to Stocksbridge in Sheffield via Sheffield Victoria ?

 

[Nym]

I speculate that the DfT did have the D78s in mind when writing this section particularly considering section 5.4.2.22. AFAIK the only rail stock in the country with such a door layout is LU or ex-LU stock and the only one being proposed for a "transformational refurbishment" is the D78 stock.

Umm...

If you blank up the C/D and E/F doors on D78 Stock you have basically the same layout as the 395s...

 

[swt_passenger]

The SWT modified 455 fleet, and their newly modified 456s are both existing stock types that already meet the DfT's definitions for 0.25 sq m per passenger standing allowance.

There must therefore be other similarly aged DMU stock that can also be converted in the same way?

 

[ScotGG]

Whilst there is a direct assumption that the D-Trains would go to a train operating company, there is the possibility that these trains may be deployed by the city regions - for example, a new very short length local stopping service on routes that "Northern" couldn't afford to run. For example, Killamarsh to Stocksbridge in Sheffield via Sheffield Victoria ?

Would they be suitable for future Bristol Metro routes to Portishead and Severn Beach?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If an engine can be made to fit the D stock and meet the emissions regs, could the same engine be used to create a DMU version of a Movia or as a "hybrid"?

 

[northwichcat]

If an engine can be made to fit the D stock and meet the emissions regs, could the same engine be used to create a DMU version of a Movia or as a "hybrid"?

Apparently Bombardier have offered a DEMU version of the Electrostar to bidders. Possibly that's the most cost effective option considering the order might only be for 120 carriages, while the 172 doesn't comply, Aventra only exists on paper and Movia hasn't been designed for National Rail.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Umm... If you blank up the C/D and E/F doors on D78 Stock you have basically the same layout as the 395s...

I am somewhat in need of some information on the bodyshell conversion of the D78 that will be used in the trials. Where door sections that previously existed are to be removed, will the subsequent gaps be filled to ensure a smooth flush finish on the sides. The earlier posting that showed a link to a short video clip appears to show a most unsightly bodyshell side.

 

[Brian Aylott]

I am somewhat in need of some information on the bodyshell conversion of the D78 that will be used in the trials. Where door sections that previously existed are to be removed, will the subsequent gaps be filled to ensure a smooth flush finish on the sides. The earlier posting that showed a link to a short video clip appears to show a most unsightly bodyshell side.

Does it matter?
Brian

 

[Nym]

I am somewhat in need of some information on the bodyshell conversion of the D78 that will be used in the trials. Where door sections that previously existed are to be removed, will the subsequent gaps be filled to ensure a smooth flush finish on the sides. The earlier posting that showed a link to a short video clip appears to show a most unsightly bodyshell side.

Designs exist for plating over the doors on D78 Stock, using two different methods to produce different results, I doubt that VivaRail will use them though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does it matter?
Brian

I was thinking in terms of being aerodynamic.

 

[najaB]

I was thinking in terms of being aerodynamic.

I believe that the contribution to overall drag would be negligible, compared to the form drag of the flat front.