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

[t_star2001uk]

Such as the bit from Aylesbury to Princes Risborough?

Nobody is suggesting running them down the mainline, are they? Though if the shoes were left in place, running them on electric on the Met might not be all that bad an idea. (Note: top speed of S-stock=62mph).

I think what was being inferred were the loco hauled freight from West Waste at Northolt for example.

 

[FordFocus]

Why test a 60mph train on a 40mph branch line?

Would Oxford - Worcester not be a better alternative considering the unit can potentially go to Long Marston from there easier?

I still don't get this fascination over trying to use the branch from Princes risborough to Aylesbury

 

[t_star2001uk]

Why test a 60mph train on a 40mph branch line?

Would Oxford - Worcester not be a better alternative considering the unit can potentially go to Long Marston from there easier?

I still don't get this fascination over trying to use the branch from Princes risborough to Aylesbury

I think that people seem to think that because Mr Shooter is the Ex-Chair of Chiltern then Chiltern is the ideal test spot for his new/old train. There are obviously places that are more suited to testing. But we will have to wait and see what happens.

 

[FordFocus]

Exactly my thinking t_star!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You cant polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter.

If you had made that comment on SSC, you would have had "likes" running into double figures by now...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They would be additional to the New Build. The new build will be very expensive compared to pacers; ITT requires an increase in capacity; and there's no opportunity to grab end-of-lease stock unless the current operator definitely has a replacement on order. The bidders need to save money, and get control of some trains - I still think the D78s have a chance here.

I have emboldened part of your posting and would ask you are there any other almost life-expired railbuses that are comparable to the Pacer fleet in capacity, age and general operational condition that are running on the national network that can be given a like for like comparison can be made.

For heavens sake, start comparing apples with apples, not over-ripe pears..:roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why test a 60mph train on a 40mph branch line?

Would Oxford - Worcester not be a better alternative considering the unit can potentially go to Long Marston from there easier?

I still don't get this fascination over trying to use the branch from Princes risborough to Aylesbury

Because it's already a bit standalone with an eccentric piece of rolling stock. It would do as a first testbed, certainly.

I also, as I've said before, think Bedford-Bletchley would be ideal, with the additional benefit of freeing up a 150 and a 153 for other uses, and (if they work well enough) solving the serious reliability problem the line is suffering as a diagram is lost for 3-4 hours every time a 15x breaks down because there is no spare closer than Tyseley. There might even be an option to move the Marston Vale to operation by Chiltern either for good (on the assumption that Chiltern is a not unlikely operator for East West Rail) or as a temporary contract, with one maintenance crew covering say 2 units at Aylesbury depot and 3 at Bletchley, and Chiltern drivers driving all of them.

The setup seems as good as you're likely to get.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For heavens sake, start comparing apples with apples, not over-ripe pears..:roll:

I love the idea of describing Pacers as "over-ripe pears". I think that may be excessively kind Unless you mean over-ripe as in covered in penicillin with flies buzzing around

 

[FordFocus]

Because it's already a bit standalone with an eccentric piece of rolling stock. It would do as a first testbed, certainly.

Just because it's currently got a 121 running up and down the branch doesn't mean it has to be a test bed for every new or "eccentric" piece of rolling stock Neil. It's interfering with an increased amount of traffic along that line in the form of more Calvert freight and more ECS workings. There maybe a few paths in the off peak but I'm positive it would do better on a different line. One for a start been 60mph minimum with gradients and long running to actually properly test the train. Not a 40mph branch line that's mostly flat with a couple of stations and a level crossing. I have doubts over road engines in rail vehicles so prolonged running will be interesting

I also, as I've said before, think Bedford-Bletchley would be ideal, with the additional benefit of freeing up a 150 and a 153 for other uses, and (if they work well enough) solving the serious reliability problem the line is suffering as a diagram is lost for 3-4 hours every time a 15x breaks down because there is no spare closer than Tyseley. There might even be an option to move the Marston Vale to operation by Chiltern either for good (on the assumption that Chiltern is a not unlikely operator for East West Rail) or as a temporary contract, with one maintenance crew covering say 2 units at Aylesbury depot and 3 at Bletchley, and Chiltern drivers driving all of them.

The setup seems as good as you're likely to get.

Having to spoken to someone who worked at both depots in question, Aylesbury is rammed and is struggling that's the reason why Banbury Depot is been built. There is a shortage of space available especially now the 170s are arriving there. Like I said before (seems to reoccurring words) I can't see where these units would stable whilst the infrastructure and rolling stock remains the same. A clear out of old 1st gen stuff has happened to accommodate these new trains.

The suggestion made on here was that it was close to Long Marston. So in that case, 'like I said before', why not base them out of Long Marston and then run them up and down the Cotswolds line all day? Single line, longer railway and higher speed. Clip seems to think Shooter will pay for drivers, why not let the FGW have a blast at it

 

[Skutter]

I have emboldened part of your posting and would ask you are there any other almost life-expired railbuses that are comparable to the Pacer fleet in capacity, age and general operational condition that are running on the national network that can be given a like for like comparison can be made.

For heavens sake, start comparing apples with apples, not over-ripe pears..:roll:

I don't think there are anything as cheap as the Pacers out there, but price is everything for the bidders on the Northern franchise. Compared to the "no-growth, maybe cut some services, keep the same stock" bid from 10 years ago, there's going to be a big hike in subsidy requested this time. The only big cost reduction mentioned in the ITT was DOO, which seems unlikely on a lot of the network. So I reckon anything quick (to procure) and inexpensive that runs on bogies will be considered.

 

[Haydn1971]

There's a balance to be struck here, whilst people keep saying Pacers are essential to ensure the subsidy isn't too high, there's always a range of alternatives available that will find an objection somewhere, including;
- Dump the services and stations that are bleeding the franchise dry - Beeching Light
- Move to DOO with low paid revenue patrols and ticket machines on every station - Metrolink style
- Raise fares or price out casual cheap deals that fill peak services

Alternatively, you bite the bullet and Invest at a higher level than before to attract new passengers and encourage mode shift from car to rail - the costs of rail investment have to be looked at holistically in that improved transport drives economic growth, opens new opportunity and ultimately pays for itself in regained person hours that will ultimately be better put to use in billable time - I can't work on the train today, I've no connection to the internet, there aren't enough tables, the ride is too bouncy, I can't get power on many trains, it's too crowded, it's wasted time. I also can't work in a traffic jam, it's wasted time. Provide a better quality of infrastructure and rolling stock for a reasonable cost of travel and the costs are clawed back through other revenue streams due to less wasted time... This continues on into later life in that people live longer because they have less wasted time, so can use the regained time to either work or enjoy more home life.

Investment pays dividends.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Investment pays dividends.

But it'll be a *lot* of investment. To get that kind of modal shift, unless you just want to see full-and-standing 2-car 172s (or whatever) replacing full-and-standing 2-car Pacers, Northern needs to be looking at a massive capacity increase - i.e., South East style, at least 8x20m/6x23m on near enough all peak services, together with the relevant platform extensions - and a view to going 12x20m/10x23m at some stage.

That will cost, unless things like poshed up Pacers and D78s can be used. So it won't happen.

 

[LateThanNever]

But it'll be a *lot* of investment. To get that kind of modal shift, unless you just want to see full-and-standing 2-car 172s (or whatever) replacing full-and-standing 2-car Pacers, Northern needs to be looking at a massive capacity increase - i.e., South East style, at least 8x20m/6x23m on near enough all peak services, together with the relevant platform extensions - and a view to going 12x20m/10x23m at some stage.

That will cost, unless things like poshed up Pacers and D78s can be used. So it won't happen.

I'd venture to suggest that it has to - if Mr Osborne's Northern Powerhouse is to come about!

 

[Haydn1971]

That will cost, unless things like poshed up Pacers and D78s can be used. So it won't happen.

It wouldn't have happened in the past... Times are changing

Investment in the Smart Motorway Programme has effectively come from nowhere on the back of the benefits they bring, similarly the Pinch Points funding, Regional Investment Strategies, City Regions.... All demonstrating that pumping billions into transport yields billions x multiplier returns

 

[Bantamzen]

There's a balance to be struck here, whilst people keep saying Pacers are essential to ensure the subsidy isn't too high, there's always a range of alternatives available that will find an objection somewhere, including;
- Dump the services and stations that are bleeding the franchise dry - Beeching Light
- Move to DOO with low paid revenue patrols and ticket machines on every station - Metrolink style
- Raise fares or price out casual cheap deals that fill peak services

Alternatively, you bite the bullet and Invest at a higher level than before to attract new passengers and encourage mode shift from car to rail - the costs of rail investment have to be looked at holistically in that improved transport drives economic growth, opens new opportunity and ultimately pays for itself in regained person hours that will ultimately be better put to use in billable time - I can't work on the train today, I've no connection to the internet, there aren't enough tables, the ride is too bouncy, I can't get power on many trains, it's too crowded, it's wasted time. I also can't work in a traffic jam, it's wasted time. Provide a better quality of infrastructure and rolling stock for a reasonable cost of travel and the costs are clawed back through other revenue streams due to less wasted time... This continues on into later life in that people live longer because they have less wasted time, so can use the regained time to either work or enjoy more home life.

Investment pays dividends.

Good post, and I totally agree that investment in the infrastructure for the long term is needed, not just papering over the cracks for a few years.

But it'll be a *lot* of investment. To get that kind of modal shift, unless you just want to see full-and-standing 2-car 172s (or whatever) replacing full-and-standing 2-car Pacers, Northern needs to be looking at a massive capacity increase - i.e., South East style, at least 8x20m/6x23m on near enough all peak services, together with the relevant platform extensions - and a view to going 12x20m/10x23m at some stage.

That will cost, unless things like poshed up Pacers and D78s can be used. So it won't happen.

Of course it will cost, and we see that in the infrastructure in the south east. But I'm afraid that you simply cannot continue to use the cheap option just because it costs more. Look at the roads around many northern towns and cities, they are packed every rush hour, sometimes even when there is still capacity on some rail routes. And the reason for this? Many would be rail commuters see Northern's trains as old & dirty, so they won't go near them. So how do you suppose the prospect of using 30+ year old stock will appeal to them? Is it likely to convince them to use the train instead? No of course it isn't. Remember most of the general public don't read up on VivaRail's plans for the insides of the D78s, all they know is that if they were used they are ex-LU trains with a Transit engine or two strapped underneath.

The network in the North has the potential to carry a lot more people than it currently does. Yes this will mean heavy investment in stock to increase the network's overall capacity. Yes it will mean sourcing new vehicles to replace the ever ageing units that are really starting to show their age. And yes it will mean investment in the infrastructure with things like electrification, platform lengthening and new stations. Where will the money come from? Well some will have to come from fare increases, that I don't doubt. But some could come from private industry in much the same way as the CrossRail projects, with the government & local authorities attracting investment into the network if properly sold. But to do that you have to show how investors will benefit from the improvements, and frankly telling them that their money is going towards some ex-LU units with a limited life-span, and limited usefulness isn't going to cut it. This is why, I believe, that the government has for once chosen a more expensive route, and it is why they ought to stick to it.

 

[47802]

I think any plan to use a D train on a franchise should be accompanied by a maximum time length they can be used on the franchise and some sort of commitment as to how they will be replaced by the end of that period even if its not totally binding commitment

So you could say D trains should be replaced by 2025 on Northern, and this will be achieved by say electrification of the next 2 highest priority lines on the Northern electrification list

 

[Bantamzen]

I think any plan to use a D train on a franchise should be accompanied by a maximum time length they can be used on the franchise and some sort of commitment as to how they will be replaced by the end of that period even if its not totally binding commitment

So you could say D trains should be replaced by 2025 on Northern, and this will be achieved by say electrification of the next 2 highest priority lines on the Northern electrification list

The trouble is that such plans often slip and so an 8 year or so stint could rapidly turn into much longer. This is already starting to impact the North TP sparks as we are seeing, so if the Ds were brought in on a limited plan I'd wager that they'd be around a fair bit longer than expected. And I'd also wager they would end up on routes not originally propsed for their use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The trouble is that such plans often slip and so an 8 year or so stint could rapidly turn into much longer. This is already starting to impact the North TP sparks as we are seeing, so if the Ds were brought in on a limited plan I'd wager that they'd be around a fair bit longer than expected. And I'd also wager they would end up on routes not originally propsed for their use.

The thing I don't get is why that actually matters, if they provide the comfort and the capacity required and are reliable?

Yes, I like new 350s as much as anyone else. But I wouldn't overly care if LM's entire fleet was replaced with a load of 319s or something, provided they fitted decent 2+2 seating to them. In Germany there are loads of 1960s and 1970s loco-hauled coaches knocking around with brand-new interiors. Why does it matter how old the shell is provided the comfort and capacity is up to scratch? Is it that typical UK obsession with new cars transferring to rail?

As I've said I would welcome them on Bedford-Bletchley, so it isn't just a "suck it up, North" thing. But for some nothing other than brand new stock will do. Why? If it was a choice between 4x20m brand new DMUs or 8x20m second-hand ones, I'd choose the used ones every time. The biggest thing we want is a seat for everyone.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Of course it will cost, and we see that in the infrastructure in the south east. But I'm afraid that you simply cannot continue to use the cheap option just because it costs more. Look at the roads around many northern towns and cities, they are packed every rush hour, sometimes even when there is still capacity on some rail routes. And the reason for this? Many would be rail commuters see Northern's trains as old & dirty, so they won't go near them. So how do you suppose the prospect of using 30+ year old stock will appeal to them? Is it likely to convince them to use the train instead? No of course it isn't. Remember most of the general public don't read up on VivaRail's plans for the insides of the D78s, all they know is that if they were used they are ex-LU trains with a Transit engine or two strapped underneath.

The network in the North has the potential to carry a lot more people than it currently does. Yes this will mean heavy investment in stock to increase the network's overall capacity. Yes it will mean sourcing new vehicles to replace the ever ageing units that are really starting to show their age. And yes it will mean investment in the infrastructure with things like electrification, platform lengthening and new stations. Where will the money come from? Well some will have to come from fare increases, that I don't doubt. But some could come from private industry in much the same way as the CrossRail projects, with the government & local authorities attracting investment into the network if properly sold. But to do that you have to show how investors will benefit from the improvements, and frankly telling them that their money is going towards some ex-LU units with a limited life-span, and limited usefulness isn't going to cut it. This is why, I believe, that the government has for once chosen a more expensive route, and it is why they ought to stick to it.

You're quite right, the reputation is for "old and dirty". But the thing is, if you provide a reliable train with a nice interior, it'll seem new, regardless of how old it actually is. It's not as if people complain much about HSTs, despite them being 40 years old. They're reliable and their interiors are nice, with the one thing that lets them down being the doors.

As for limited usefulness, sure, their usefulness is limited, as is every other train's. Different units have different purposes - you wouldn't see a Voyager operating the Stourbridge Branch for instance. But what they do is provide a low cost, comfortable DMU to tide over until electrification becomes more widespread allowing new-build EMUs. Perhaps they're not ideal, but unless you really want to keep Pacers...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think there are anything as cheap as the Pacers out there, but price is everything for the bidders on the Northern franchise. Compared to the "no-growth, maybe cut some services, keep the same stock" bid from 10 years ago, there's going to be a big hike in subsidy requested this time. The only big cost reduction mentioned in the ITT was DOO, which seems unlikely on a lot of the network. So I reckon anything quick (to procure) and inexpensive that runs on bogies will be considered.

Would you then say that you wish to carry forward the same "cheap" type of rolling stock that is the bête noir of Northern Rail that is the result of the "no growth" franchise last so awarded? Where does the application to tender state that "the lowest common price factor" concerning the tender submission will be an accepted norm?

Is it not the time for that matter to end when the current Northern Rail franchise ends, the slate wiped clean and with help from the large Northern cities who it is said will be having their own input soon, a "normal" modern franchise is then brought into play.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

you cant polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter.

Mythbusters proved otherwise

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As for limited usefulness, sure, their usefulness is limited, as is every other train's. Different units have different purposes - you wouldn't see a Voyager operating the Stourbridge Branch for instance.

One could well look upon the other side of the coin and state that Pacers would not be expected to be seen on some long-distance services in the Northern Rail franchise area. But as a recent thread upon this matter went on to show, that indeed does happen.

 

[Buttsy]

Looking at the rail map, I feel that the D78s will potentially be of best use on the following routes (disregarding micro-fleets within TOCs, future electrification and hill-climbing capabilities):

St Ives
Falmouth
Looe
Gunnislake
Exmouth - Exeter
Fishguard - Carmarthen
Pembroke Dock - Carmarthen
Milford Haven - Carmarthen
Heart Of Wales
Severn Beach once Filton Bank quadrupled
Valley lines
Thames Valley branches
Romsey '6'
Lymington (leaving shoegear in place)!
Lincolnshire away from Nottingham/Sheffield - Skegness/Cleethorpes
Nottingham - Worksop
Matlock - Derby
Norfolk branches
Felixtowe
Hull - Scarborough
Penistone
Knottingley - Leeds/Wakefield
Preston - Colne
Preston - Ormskirk
Blackpool South (only as a shuttle to Kirkham)
Morecambe
Windermere shuttles
Cumbrian coast
Queen Street High Level - Anniesland
Borderlands line
Blaenau line
Llandudno shuttles
Ellesmere Port - Helsby
Ivanhoe line (if there is sufficient amount of 3/4 tracking)
Manchester South surburban through Romiley, but no further than New Mills
Stockport - Stalybridge (improved service)
Bishops - Saltburn
Sudbury

No doubt there will be reasons why certain of these routes wouldn't work and I may have missed a couple of obvious routes. Some of the above would be short-term measures to allow capacity enhancements elsewhere while awaiting electrification.

Re-iterating my earlier comments (with amendments) about potentially suitable routes.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Re-iterating my earlier comments (with amendments) about potentially suitable routes.

With regard to the Windermere branch, has there not been recent proposals that will require a different type of unit traction?

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to the Windermere branch, has there not been recent proposals that will require a different type of unit traction?

Class 319 - it's being wired.

 

[Buttsy]

With regard to the Windermere branch, has there not been recent proposals that will require a different type of unit traction?

I was disregarding future electricfication and caveating that some were short term awaiting electrification.

 

[HilversumNS]

Re-iterating my earlier comments (with amendments) about potentially suitable routes.

2 more possibilites are:
Coventry - Nuneaton
Leamington Spa - Kenilworth - Coventry (whenever that is due to start)

 

[47802]

Re-iterating my earlier comments (with amendments) about potentially suitable routes.

Personally I would say about 50% of those are not valid for a variety of reasons, including long journey time on a tube train, top speed? and currently operated as part of longer distance trains to other destinations.

Around Yorkshire you put Penistone but they could also potentially do the Leeds to Sheffield via Castleford stopper, Leeds to Huddersfield via Bradford, maybe Harrogate services as well.

I'm not sure we should be sticking these on long distance services like the Heart of Wales line either.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

....maybe Harrogate services as well.

Ex-London Underground units on the Harrogate line.....

News of that possibility will most certainly have the Harrogate Chamber of Trade and Commerce jubilationly trumpeting to the local media that they were right all along with that proposal of theirs so very months ago...

 

[47802]

Ex-London Underground units on the Harrogate line.....

News of that possibility will most certainly have the Harrogate Chamber of Trade and Commerce jubilationly trumpeting to the local media that they were right all along with that proposal of theirs so very months ago...

Well the Harrogate line used to be worked by 141's

 

[Buttsy]

Personally I would say about 50% of those are not valid for a variety of reasons, including long journey time on a tube train, top speed? and currently operated as part of longer distance trains to other destinations.

Around Yorkshire you put Penistone but they could also potentially do the Leeds to Sheffield via Castleford stopper, Leeds to Huddersfield via Bradford, maybe Harrogate services as well.

I'm not sure we should be sticking these on long distance services like the Heart of Wales line either.

My thinking was that the ones that are part of a longer distance service (such as West of Carmarthen) possibly don't need those through services as I doubt there are many taht go beyond Swansea on those. By cutting the Manchester -Milford services back to Carmartrhen, you may be able to eke out a free DMU for enhancements elsewhere.

 

[47802]

My thinking was that the ones that are part of a longer distance service (such as West of Carmarthen) possibly don't need those through services as I doubt there are many taht go beyond Swansea on those. By cutting the Manchester -Milford services back to Carmartrhen, you may be able to eke out a free DMU for enhancements elsewhere.

Maybe not, but I'm sure many west of Carmarthen would want a decent number of through services to Swansea at least.