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

[Taunton]

I really find all this aggression against these trains extraordinary.

I've been around long enough to recall when the Wirral DC units from 1938 were replaced in 1978 by the 507s, and to the surprise of most the new trains were significantly less well endowed that the 40-year old ones, where to the end seats lined up with the windows, seats were far more comfortable, seats were sensibly arranged rather than squished around panels, draughts at stations were less intrusive, etc. So nothing to do with age.

These trains were some of the better Underground stock, and even now come over as modern and pleasant. They are way better than some nightmare 153 journeys I have experienced, and that is before their refurbishment. They also give way more space than what they are likely to replace. Positive move all round.

 

[Clip]

Even if put on the semi fast (heck why not the Birmingham - London service!!), the acceleration will probably be no better than the native DMUs which also have a higher top speed. Ignoring the aspect of passenger comfort and interior furnishings, a D train is probably downgrade in terms of line capacity if put on the Chiltern mainline. A stopping service is the only diagram where the existing trains may not achieve their top speed and hence a D train might be acceptable.

This is in the context of the Chiltern route. How timings compare will depend on the acceleration of a D train compared to the native stock. I would suggest that a D train would be an improvement on the Princes Risborough - Aylesbury shuttles but would be a downgrade for Banbury - Marylebone workings, for example.

Maybe you should read some of my posts a bit more before commenting. I haven't once mentioned it working a stopper on the Chiltern mainline - that was others who seemed to invent that I was saying - however I did mentioned the service into Paddington which starts and ends at WRU and can quite easily then run up to Aylesbury - but apparently that was turned into it being a stopping service for some reason - which I still don't understand. And nor have I or anyone else mentioned any other service suitable for testing than that or the shuttle.


But hey as with this and the other thread on these things - how anyone can just write them off before even the demonstrator has been built is stupid.

 

[Bantamzen]

But hey as with this and the other thread on these things - how anyone can just write them off before even the demonstrator has been built is stupid.

I don't think it's stupid at all, there are genuine concerns on just how useful these units will be for a start. They have already been pretty much relegated to the more isolated branch lines on here, remember towards the start of this thread these were being mooted as three maybe even 4 car "regional" units complete with full 2x2 table seating. Now it's pretty much 2 car branch workings. And if posters over on WNXX are to be believed, the 3 Northern franchise bidders pretty much ruled them out altogether, having been seriously touted for a large scale deployment on this part of the network. So it seems that the doubts extend beyond just some of us on here, if parts of the industry are poo-pooing them then you know there's a problem.

Maybe there is an ideal home for them somewhere, but with a very limited max speed, a rather limited expected lifespan, ever rising costs of them and a general cynical public view of them, it may well be that beyond a test unit these will never see the light of day. Just because one new rail company wants to churn out "cheaper" recycled units doesn't mean that a) the rail industry or general public should wax lyrical about them, and b) doesn't mean that in the long turn they will actually work out cheaper, especially when you consider that potentially 2 new franchises may well be putting in large orders for new trains from builders. Now would be a good time for other TOCs / ROSCOs perhaps wondering about the D78s to also consider if it would make more long term sense to lobby for bolt-on orders for new stock on the back of these potential orders, rather than taking a punt on older, re-engineered stock.

 

[Kneedown]

Keep the crappy things out of the East Midlands - we're quite happy with our nice guard operated Sprinters not DOO spec Underground tin cans

Given Matlock to Ambergate is operated by a no signaller key token I doubt you'll see DOO trains up there unless it's fitted with signalling.

As long as they do what it says on the tin I would expect the performance of one of these on the Robin Hood line to be superior to a Sprinter. The increased acceleration would reduce jouney times and perform better on the heavy gradients, especially from Hucknall to Kirkby Lane End. Three car formation should eliminate overcrowding caused by short-forming.
I think they are a non-starter for the Matlocks though as it is now a through Matlock - Newark service, which could cause problems with the higher linespeeds between Derby and Nottingham, plus if three car units they wouldn't be able to turn back at Newark Castle due to available platform length after crossing over. It's a very tight squeeze with a 156.
As regards DOO, Sprinters were DOO capable from new, although the equipment has now been removed from most. The fact that it's DOO capable does not mean that it will be DOO in practice.
I think we should reserve judgement on them until we see the finished article. I certainly can't see them being worse than a 153.

 

[Harpers Tate]

a very limited max speed

..which will be largely irrelevant in real life

a rather limited expected lifespan

which, if the much touted mass electrification of the network does actually occur, will be another irrelevance

a general cynical public view of them

The only view any part of "the public" might have up to press is based entirely on theory, bias and preconception. "The public" (by which I do not mean the 10% or whatever of people who have any interest in Railways other than as a means of transportation) may well have a very different view to that expressed ad nauseam here when a (seemingly) nice brand new train, big enough for purpose, turns up on time, and brings them as swiftly as its predecessor to their destination.

 

[A0]

Derby-Matlock trains get up to a fair speed between Derby and Belper, which is about 10 miles with no significant restrictions except for the first bit out of Derby.

If - and it's a pretty big if - they were running flat out for those 10 miles, then the 75mph unit would cover the 10 miles in about 8 mins, the 60 mph unit in 10.

The reality is if the D trains have better acceleration than the Sprinters (or whatever else they're being compared to) then that 2 min loss on one fast stretch will almost certainly be outweighed by reductions in the achievable times between stations where top speed isn't required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we should reserve judgement on them until we see the finished article. I certainly can't see them being worse than a 153.

I agree. They might be terrible, they might be good, they might be decidedly average - just a 150-a-like with a different bodyshell, perhaps. But we can't know until one actually exists!

 

[D365]

Just a 150-a-like with a different bodyshell, perhaps. But we can't know until one actually exists!

A spiritual successor to the 210 prototype?

 

[FordFocus]

Maybe you should read some of my posts a bit more before commenting. I haven't once mentioned it working a stopper on the Chiltern mainline - that was others who seemed to invent that I was saying - however I did mentioned the service into Paddington which starts and ends at WRU and can quite easily then run up to Aylesbury - but apparently that was turned into it being a stopping service for some reason - which I still don't understand. And nor have I or anyone else mentioned any other service suitable for testing than that or the shuttle.


But hey as with this and the other thread on these things - how anyone can just write them off before even the demonstrator has been built is stupid.

Are you talking about replacing the current West Ruislip passenger service into Paddington or general testing along the Greenford branch empty stock?

I'll throw the question open to anyone here, who will crew them during testing and where will they be kept overnight?

 

[edwin_m]

I'll throw the question open to anyone here, who will crew them during testing and where will they be kept overnight?

Is there still a connection from the Chiltern line into Ruislip LU depot?

 

[Nym]

Is there still a connection from the Chiltern line into Ruislip LU depot?

Yes, it's how a significant amount of S Stock is delivered.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Who will actually decide what a "new" train is legally expected to be when entered in the legal wording that is contained within a tender document. Is there some legal arbiter who will make such a legal clarification, rather then members of the general and travelling public who feel that they know best what this means but have no powers in law to see their ideas used as a legal benchmark.

 

[northwichcat]

Who will actually decide what a "new" train is legally expected to be when entered in the legal wording that is contained within a tender document.

In the case of the Northern ITT it says:

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.

Then later on it says

Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within
the Northern Train Fleet:
...
vi. Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure.

I suspect if the winning bid included D-Trains in addition to the 120 new carriages it would be subject to a legal challenge from other bidders. In one place it defines new build as having to mean just that, in another place later on it doesn't define new build.

The actual tender will be more specific and will mention an exact number of carriages and types of trains. For instance in the Scotrail tender it mentions Hitachi AT200 trains with an exact number of carriages and delivery dates for each batch.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I really find all this aggression against these trains extraordinary.

I've been around long enough to recall when the Wirral DC units from 1938 were replaced in 1978 by the 507s, and to the surprise of most the new trains were significantly less well endowed that the 40-year old ones, where to the end seats lined up with the windows, seats were far more comfortable, seats were sensibly arranged rather than squished around panels, draughts at stations were less intrusive, etc. So nothing to do with age.

These trains were some of the better Underground stock, and even now come over as modern and pleasant. They are way better than some nightmare 153 journeys I have experienced, and that is before their refurbishment. They also give way more space than what they are likely to replace. Positive move all round.

I think there is some rather gratuitous cynicism going on on this thread. It can be hard to weed out the facts and relevant ideas/opinions which is why I find it an effort to read this thread. Some people on this forum are just burying the topic under a wall of negativity with little or no facts to base it on.

LETS WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE PROTOTYPE IS LIKE AND LET IT HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE ITS PROBLEMS IRONED OUT.

In the meantime there is some interesting discussion about where it could be tried out or even deployed. It is also clear that its strength will have to be its acceleration rather than top speed. I can understand therefore that on a stopping service it could have an advantage over other trains where their top speed is seldom achieved and then only for a short while. Some on here seem to persistently ignore this potential in favour of moaning. We will have to wait and see how good this performance is. Some were surprised by how good a class 68 locomotive is at getting on the move. So lets hope for similar and that it is cost effectively achieved.

Added 20:40 :- Some advantages of the D78 conversion I will add are the ecological one and risk. Since the body, bogies and traction motors already exist the Carbon footprint of this D78 conversion will be less than new build. There should be less engineering risk also - the main risk left is the novel power pack !.

 

[Monkey Magic]

It's quite a daunting prospect to try and break down the mark 3 fleet for analysis, but I've given it a go. Comparing 1991 levels with 2015, while we have lost 125 sleeper vehicles from the network, we have only lost 37 HST or loco-hauled "day" mark 3s. This can be accounted for by those HST vehicles scrapped following major accidents in the late nineties, and for the relatively small number of former West Coast mark 3a carriages and DVTs that have been cut up.

There are 1089 mark 3 vehicles (HST and loco hauled, but discounting royal and departmental vehicles) remaining registered on the national network, of which 51 are not in use with an operator (31 of which are loco-hauled day stock).

Interesting - thanks - 31 - well enough for 3 x 8 and 1 x7 coach set should anyone so choose (I've no idea what state the 31 are in)

OT and fanciful - Can we have them, 68s and DVTs on the Cotswold line?

 

[kieron]

In the meantime there is some interesting discussion about where it could be tried out or even deployed.

Shouldn't those also wait until we see what the prototype is like? It's just guesswork otherwise.

 

[D365]

Shouldn't those also wait until we see what the prototype is like? It's just guesswork otherwise.

Well we have a provisional specification for the final product, so I don't see what's wrong with brainstorming etc.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Have all the D-stock trains been retired yet from LU and replaced with S stock? If they have, how many units does that give Vivarail to be able to convert?

 

[jopsuk]

Still appeared to be D-Stock in service on Sunday- passed Wimbledon station there were two of each type in the Underground platforms

 

[Seaeagle]

Have all the D-stock trains been retired yet from LU and replaced with S stock? If they have, how many units does that give Vivarail to be able to convert?

No, only a handful of D stock has been withdrawn so far.

 

[tranzitjim]

why only a handful of D stock has been taken out so far?

Do you still have plenty of S stock stored in sidings?

 

[Domh245]

I'm not really sure. There isn't enough S stock to go to 100% S7 operation yet, but certainly enough to be able to run it in dribs and drabs. Slowly but surely, more and more trains are going over to S7 operation, but evidently, there is no real rush.

 

[Emblematic]

10 trains of D78 stock have been withdrawn to date, from 75 total. The DMs and most of the trailers have gone to Vivarail, the UNDMs to scrap.
Still around 60 S7 trains yet to be be built and commissioned, will probably be another 18 months before complete.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

10 trains of D78 stock have been withdrawn to date, from 75 total. The DMs and most of the trailers have gone to Vivarail, the UNDMs to scrap.
Still around 60 S7 trains yet to be be built and commissioned, will probably be another 18 months before complete.

It slightly surprised me that the non driving motor cars weren't taken on by Vivarail, surely if a 3-car unit is required it's better to have all vehicles powered, rather than Ford Transit engines having to drag a dead weight? Of course, it's likely too late to change now.

 

[Dstock7080]

why only a handful of D stock has been taken out so far?

Do you still have plenty of S stock stored in sidings?

10 D Stock trains have so far been withdrawn, one of which to Acton Works for R.A.T conversion.

Excluding the two S7+1 trains still on the MET, 52 S7 trains are required for service on the District and H&C (excluding spares).
72 S7 trains have been delivered to London, 60 still to be delivered.

Currently, 19 roads within Ealing Common depot that can handle D Stock cannot accommodate S7 trains, at Upminster depot there are 12 such roads.

It slightly surprised me that the non driving motor cars weren't taken on by Vivarail, surely if a 3-car unit is required it's better to have all vehicles powered, rather than Ford Transit engines having to drag a dead weight? Of course, it's likely too late to change now.

How would you drive the train at the end of the 3-car unit without a cab ?
Each VivaRail train will have a cab and motor cars at each end.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

10 D Stock trains have so far been withdrawn, one of which to Acton Works for R.A.T conversion.

Excluding the two S7+1 trains still on the MET, 52 S7 trains are required for service on the District and H&C (excluding spares).
72 S7 trains have been delivered to London, 60 still to be delivered.


How would you drive the train at the end of the 3-car unit without a cab ?
Each VivaRail train will have a cab and motor cars at each end.

I meant that in the case of three car units, the formation would be DM-NDM-DM rather than DM-T-DM. Surprised I needed to clarify that really, but never mind... :roll:

 

[Dstock7080]

I meant that in the case of three car units, the formation would be DM-NDM-DM rather than DM-T-DM. Surprised I needed to clarify that really, but never mind... :roll:

Probably due to expense and difficulty of providing a suitable coupling between UNDM and DM cars.

 

[Metrailway]

Vivarail have confirmed on their website that the converted D stock will be fitted with gangways.

 

[A0]

It slightly surprised me that the non driving motor cars weren't taken on by Vivarail, surely if a 3-car unit is required it's better to have all vehicles powered, rather than Ford Transit engines having to drag a dead weight? Of course, it's likely too late to change now.

You're making a mistake about being dismissive of a "Ford Transit engine".

The unit isn't proposed to be a DMMU - i.e. whereby the engine is driving a gearbox. My understanding is it will be used as a 'generator' to provide electricity to the existing motors, so the engine should be relatively unstressed - and certainly not mechanically stressed as it would be in a DMMU.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Probably due to expense and difficulty of providing a suitable coupling between UNDM and DM cars.

Ah. I'm not familiar with the coupling systems of D-stock, and didn't really think of that.

You're making a mistake about being dismissive of a "Ford Transit engine".

The unit isn't proposed to be a DMMU - i.e. whereby the engine is driving a gearbox. My understanding is it will be used as a 'generator' to provide electricity to the existing motors, so the engine should be relatively unstressed - and certainly not mechanically stressed as it would be in a DMMU.

I was aware of the role the engines play in the D-train concept, but I was still surprised that there was no plan to utilise the non-driving motor cars. I'd have thought the extra dead weight of a trailer car would have a noticeable effect on performance compared to the 2-car versions. Even if this would be less than the effect of, say, a 144 if the engine in the MS vehicle was shut down (though that would still have the weight of the dead engine, of course).