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

[bramling]

My wife, who travels daily between Warrior Square and Rye, would not agree with you! In any case loadings east of Hastings are commonly also well in excess of seating capacity.

Yes so dividing the service would allow the 2 released 170s to lengthen both remaining Ashford-Hastings formations. (Subject to some complications with platform lenghts).

Of course all this assumes 2 Electrostars can be found from somewhere, which is by no means a given, although with all the new trains on this TOC in recent and forthcoming years I'm sure something could be worked out, even if it means retaining an extra 442 or two.

No point in having a through service if it's too short to board, and this is often the situation on this route.

 

[jimm]

I agree with your first point. We see 75mph, 90mph, 100mph and 110mph trains on sections of mainline with line speeds of up to 125mph.

And 125mph trains running many miles on routes where they get nowhere near that speed and never will...

How about we just wait a little longer and see whether this train lives up to the claims made for it in terms of acceleration, which is clearly the nub of the matter if it is to be used on routes with frequent stops and starts and where Pacers and Sprinters rarely, if ever, reach speeds above 60 anyway, just one or two of which have already been mentioned above...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Only the odd minute or so was spoken about, so if it gets commuters a decent train with plenty of seating capacity that gives a smooth comfortable ride, I would say that it's probably an acceptable trade off from a passenger's perspective.

Looked at another way, your choices
Choice One, retain pacers and do nothing
Choice Two, get converted D stock, have slightly longer journeys
Choice Three, get new trains, same journey times but much higher fares

Which do you think you should go for?

I hereby respond to your posting as follows:-

Choice One....This is a matter for Angel Trains when making reference to the Class 142 Pacer units and their stated position on non-refurbishment, to which I am sure you already are aware of. Porterbrook are the company to approach on the matter of the Class 143 and Class 144 Pacer units which are not often seen on the western side of the Pennines to the same extent as the Class 142 Pacer Units most certainly are.

Choice Two...It is not I, who has Class 323 units as the standard motive power on his local Macclesfield to Manchester line, who will be affected by the choices that you offer above, though I am emphatic that Class 323 units are a far better proposition in terms of both acceleration and speed on our line to that what I have been known to cruelly describe as "Shooter's Incubus". Do not forget that it was I who coined the phrase "Newton Heath's Finest" many years ago, which these days, many will automatically connect with the Class 142 Pacer fleet as I intended.

Choice Three...Can you confirm that the type of unit such as the converted D trains were covered by the exact wording used in the documentation for the next Northern Rail franchise.

Hypothetical and personal choices count for naught but what does count is that which is contained in the wording of the next Northern Rail franchise.

 

[Emblematic]

I agree with your first point. We see 75mph, 90mph, 100mph and 110mph trains on sections of mainline with line speeds of up to 125mph.

However, wouldn't it be a good thing to decrease the gap between the speed of the train and the line speed rather than say you can re-timetable services at the same time as others are saying there's no capacity for much needed additional services? And wouldn't it also be good to raise line speeds where possible to help provide additional capacity and to have trains which can make use of those higher line speeds?

In an ideal world, you would do exactly that, but engineering and cost considerations often intervene and you have to make compromises. Both Crossrail and Thameslink will be introducing brand-new units that will operate well below line speed for sections of their routes. Given that the D-trains are a low cost, dare I say interim, solution to DMU shortage, some compromise is inevitable.

 

[jimm]

Hypothetical and personal choices count for naught but what does count is that which is contained in the wording of the next Northern Rail franchise.

Well given the amount of debate about exactly what the said document did or did not mean, I'm not sure that it is any way a definitive answer in the way you suggest, especially if DfT's finances are under the cosh from the Treasury.

 

[Clip]

Hypothetical and personal choices count for naught but what does count is that which is contained in the wording of the next Northern Rail franchise.

With all respect Paul, you are obsessed and completely consumed that these are awful and will only be run on Northern services. The debate on the franchise has been done to death both on this thread and the other one so maybe go read them to find out?

The line speed argument has also been done to death with the idea of being quicker off the mark will give it a little boost without a higher top speed.

Speculation and discussion is fine - thats what these forums are for but you seem to want to pull the thread round in a big circle until you get the answer you want - which is that these should never be built. We get it, you dont like them, not that never being on one to actual make that decision means anything.

 

[northwichcat]

And 125mph trains running many miles on routes where they get nowhere near that speed and never will...

Which would you prefer:

A) Buying new 110mph trains and then scrapping them 10 years later because there is now a requirement for 125mph running?
B) Buying new trains capable of 125mph running to allow for future line speed improvements, even though initially they'll be limited to 110mph?

Or would you buy a car limited to 60mph on the basis you have no plans to drive on a Motorway in the short term?

 

[Clip]

Or would you buy a car limited to 60mph on the basis you have no plans to drive on a Motorway in the short term?

My lass would love that

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With all respect Paul, you are obsessed and completely consumed that these are awful and will only be run on Northern services.

No so, young computer wizard. I live in the area of the Northern Rail franchise, which the person asking the three choices for me to make, so the only way that I could answer the query was by giving my views on these units as being in the said area.

I am well are of the ATW approach to Vivarail and of other areas many miles distant from the Northern franchise where these units, in expressed views of forum members may well be thought suitable.

I suspect that you are not totally enamoured with the nickname that I have bestowed upon them...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Speculation and discussion is fine - thats what these forums are for but you seem to want to pull the thread round in a big circle until you get the answer you want - which is that these should never be built. We get it, you dont like them, not that never being on one to actual make that decision means anything.

Not so, just expressing my own particular opinion on what I hold and one that most certainly was not likely to have been changed by the viewing of those most recent visual images of something from the 1960's in aesthetic viewing. On the International Forum, they may not look too out of place in some of the countries in the poorer EC expanded community, but as a 21st century offering from Britain, they could well make us the laughing stock of the most developed of the larger EC economies. It is like Angela Merkel remembering her heritage and persuading a large German car manufacturer to open a Trabant production line.

I stand accused of being "somewhat against the unit in question" but I will remind you that on the other side of the coin, there are those on this thread who view this product as being without any seeming problems whatsoever.

 

[Haydn1971]

The line speed argument has also been done to death with the idea of being quicker off the mark will give it a little boost without a higher top speed.

However, the quicker off the mark idea hasn't been proven yet

 

[HSTEd]

Which would you prefer:

A) Buying new 110mph trains and then scrapping them 10 years later because there is now a requirement for 125mph running?
B) Buying new trains capable of 125mph running to allow for future line speed improvements, even though initially they'll be limited to 110mph?

Or C) Buy the 110 trains and instead of spending the money on the 125 upgrade which will save a tiny amount of time since the vast majority of infrastructure that can be 125 is 125 - spend the money on holding down fares or simply using the paths saved by the lower speed to run more trains.

125mph for ten miles is not worth it.

 

[Philip C]

Yes so dividing the service would allow the 2 released 170s to lengthen both remaining Ashford-Hastings formations. (Subject to some complications with platform lenghts).

Of course all this assumes 2 Electrostars can be found from somewhere, which is by no means a given, although with all the new trains on this TOC in recent and forthcoming years I'm sure something could be worked out, even if it means retaining an extra 442 or two.

No point in having a through service if it's too short to board, and this is often the situation on this route.

I know that this can be done as, on occasions, it has been done on Saturdays to cope with football traffic to Falmer etc.

I would, however, point out that the change at Hastings option does have a number of downsides:

1. It requires through passengers to physically change trains - an unpopular move at the best of times.
2. It creates a service (Ashford-Hastings) which operates remotely from any Southern staff depot.
3. It requires three (not two) extra Electrostars. The Ashford-Hastings leg would require two trains crossing, as now, at Rye. This pretty much defines an arrival at Hastings at xx13 and return to Ashford at xx36. Allowing the fast connecting service to have a four minute connection at Hastings with these trains gives an eastbound arrival at xx32 and a westbound departure at xx17. With similar running to/from Brighton this would pinch the turnround time at Brighton from 12" to 6" but would require three trains (the Hastings-Brighton times are currently 66" westbound and 63" eastbound). Of course they could continue to Ore, though would necessarily be under the feet of the Ashford trains in the process, and become engaged in an even more involved merry-go-round of train formation there. One problem with such an approach being that the fairly generous existing turnrounds at Ore are a major factor in late running Victoria-Ore services (of which there are many) not being curtailed at Eastbourne.
4. What would be done with the terminating Electrostars at Hastings? Park Sidings seem to be in steady demand for South Eastern workings.
5. Southern's plans to split the service at Eastbourne fell foul of major opposition only a few years ago. I wonder if there is any will, by them, to re-enter the fray.

I like the idea of four-car working between Brighton and Ashford but splitting the service would bring a new bundle of issues.

For my money there will be no satisfactory solution this side of electrification or additional stock being found. This thread relates to the 'D Stock' and, as I've already posted I cannot see how that would help.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Choice Two...It is not I, who has Class 323 units as the standard motive power on his local Macclesfield to Manchester line, who will be affected by the choices that you offer above, though I am emphatic that Class 323 units are a far better proposition in terms of both acceleration and speed on our line to that what I have been known to cruelly describe as "Shooter's Incubus".

I'm not clear what 323s have to do with lines that are not and will not be wired.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not clear what 323s have to do with lines that are not and will not be wired.

I was being asked for my opinions on three options put to me in a posting and I just made the point that my local line is run by Class 323 units, hence the Vivarail units are not likely to bother me on my local line, which incidentally also sees regular high speed unit operated services by both Virgin Trains West Coast and by Cross Country.

 

[northwichcat]

Or C) Buy the 110 trains and instead of spending the money on the 125 upgrade which will save a tiny amount of time since the vast majority of infrastructure that can be 125 is 125 - spend the money on holding down fares or simply using the paths saved by the lower speed to run more trains.

125mph for ten miles is not worth it.

Then you finish up spending billions on a new high speed line because the existing lines reach maximum capacity faster.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well given the amount of debate about exactly what the said document did or did not mean, I'm not sure that it is any way a definitive answer in the way you suggest, especially if DfT's finances are under the cosh from the Treasury.

Is the tender documentation not a matter which is covered by law in what is stated therein?

Surely, tenders would have to be re-submitted if the DfT change matters either during the period of tender submission or in a post-submitted tender scenario.

 

[HSTEd]

Then you finish up spending billions on a new high speed line because the existing lines reach maximum capacity faster.

A line with greater capacity fills up faster?
What?
110mph saves paths compared to 125mph.

 

[Emblematic]

Is the tender documentation not a matter which is covered by law in what is stated therein?

Surely, tenders would have to be re-submitted if the DfT change matters either during the period of tender submission or in a post-submitted tender scenario.

The ITT is not a precise specification, and the DfT has the right to make updates and amendments as part of the process. Provided this does not unfairly disadvantage any bidder there's no need to re-tender, the DFT can make changes and simply request bidders to submit revisions to their bids. The ITT also does not prescribe what must be supplied, only what specifications must be met and what existing contracts mandate. If savings are being sought, the new carriage requirements look an obvious area where requirements could be lowered or dropped.

 

[Camden]

No so, young computer wizard. I live in the area of the Northern Rail franchise, which the person asking the three choices for me to make, so the only way that I could answer the query was by giving my views on these units as being in the said area.

I am well are of the ATW approach to Vivarail and of other areas many miles distant from the Northern franchise where these units, in expressed views of forum members may well be thought suitable.

I suspect that you are not totally enamoured with the nickname that I have bestowed upon them...

When I provided you with the three choices:

Choice One, retain pacers and do nothing
Choice Two, get converted D stock, have slightly longer journeys
Choice Three, get new trains, same journey times but much higher fares

I think you perhaps took me a bit too literally. As you say you're not going to be using them, and when I say "which would you choose" what I really meant was "which would a passenger choose".

The passengers using these won't come out with talk about the Northern franchise or ITT documents, or talk about Porterbrook which is a company the majority won't even know exists.

The passengers would consider those three options and, provided they haven't been given a slanted view before hand, would in all likelihood say "Yes please" to option Two.

Not so, just expressing my own particular opinion on what I hold and one that most certainly was not likely to have been changed by the viewing of those most recent visual images of something from the 1960's in aesthetic viewing. On the International Forum, they may not look too out of place in some of the countries in the poorer EC expanded community, but as a 21st century offering from Britain, they could well make us the laughing stock of the most developed of the larger EC economies. It is like Angela Merkel remembering her heritage and persuading a large German car manufacturer to open a Trabant production line.

I stand accused of being "somewhat against the unit in question" but I will remind you that on the other side of the coin, there are those on this thread who view this product as being without any seeming problems whatsoever.

As someone who has regularly used the trains in question on the District Line I find the way they are being discussed daft. To read some of the comments you'd think they were awful third rate vehicles replacing modern trains, but in fact they are well built machines that are potentially replacing pacers! They are getting interior refurbs so they'll be nice inside, the motors on them are practically new and the only real thing that is different about these trains than when they were on the District is the way the electricity to power those motors is generated! And they are cheap to acquire. It's nonsense to suggest these trains are trabants, or that they might make us a laughing stock. Until very recently these trains were considered good enough to travel the tracks of the world's number 1 city and financial centre, on one of the world's busiest railway systems. But they're not good enough for giving a quiet smooth and comfortable ride through rural cheshire? Come off it

Do not forget that it was I who coined the phrase "Newton Heath's Finest" many years ago, which these days, many will automatically connect with the Class 142 Pacer fleet as I intended.

And a D78 beats "Newton Heath's Finest" any day of the week on any line. It's the passenger that matters. If you were to say "Newton Heath's Finest" to most people, they would draw a complete blank.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When I provided you with the three choices:

Choice One, retain pacers and do nothing
Choice Two, get converted D stock, have slightly longer journeys
Choice Three, get new trains, same journey times but much higher fares

I think you perhaps took me a bit too literally. As you say you're not going to be using them, and when I say "which would you choose" what I really meant was "which would a passenger choose".

The passengers using these won't come out with talk about the Northern franchise or ITT documents, or talk about Porterbrook which is a company the majority won't even know exists.

The passengers would consider those three options and, provided they haven't been given a slanted view before hand, would in all likelihood say "Yes please" to option Two.

You are correct in that you could have worded your rhetorical questions somewhat clearer, as I, on reading your posting submission, took it that you were asking my personal views and I answered in that respect when I made my posting. I note that my response to the Angel Trains current view of their Class 142 fleet has remained unanswered.

In answer to the final part of your quote above, I respect your estimation of what passengers may think in such a case but I take the opposite view to that.
Not all "slanted views" are against the project of Vivarail, as there are some who seem quite enamoured of the idea. However, it would be naive to assume the the press would not seize upon the matters and give a "negative slant" to it.

 

[Camden]

I note that my response to the Angel Trains current view of their Class 142 fleet has remained unanswered.

I didn't respond because it's not relevant. A D78 is better than a pacer, and I believe a D78 will provide a better experience than many 15x DMUs too. Ultimately the ability to withdraw pacers depends on the availability of stock to run the services instead. With much electrification in danger, there are obvious knock on consequences with regard to cascading. So do you want a better train ride or not, is what I think it comes down to.

There may be some who aren't enamoured with the concept of receiving hand-me-downs, of course, however the passengers riding these trains are the ones that matter and they are the ones who will receive a superior ride when they otherwise would be faced with either continuing to ride pacers or facing steep fare rises to pay for brand new trains, which are used only marginally compared to those in London (hence the economics). I think it's worth noting the advice given to the government regarding the lack of business case for replacing pacers, yet I'm sure 99% of people will be happy to see them go and replaced by something better. The D78 is better.

 

[northwichcat]

What?
110mph saves paths compared to 125mph.

How on earth can you come to a conclusion like that? In your opinion the solution to WCML capacity issue is for Virgin to limit their Pendolinos to 110mph as that would create more paths!

The only logic I can see to your thinking is if you think faster trains are always slower to accelerate and require longer dwell times than slower trains, which may be the case with some trains but isn't always the case.

 

[Wolfie]

The ITT is not a precise specification, and the DfT has the right to make updates and amendments as part of the process. Provided this does not unfairly disadvantage any bidder there's no need to re-tender, the DFT can make changes and simply request bidders to submit revisions to their bids. The ITT also does not prescribe what must be supplied, only what specifications must be met and what existing contracts mandate. If savings are being sought, the new carriage requirements look an obvious area where requirements could be lowered or dropped.

Most Govt tender documents I have seen (and I've written a few!) seek to encourage innovation by asking bidders to offer possibly non-compliant solutions as options where such solutions would potentially yield large savings....

Is the tender documentation not a matter which is covered by law in what is stated therein?

Surely, tenders would have to be re-submitted if the DfT change matters either during the period of tender submission or in a post-submitted tender scenario.

Hum... IEP spec...

I was being asked for my opinions on three options put to me in a posting and I just made the point that my local line is run by Class 323 units, hence the Vivarail units are not likely to bother me on my local line, which incidentally also sees regular high speed unit operated services by both Virgin Trains West Coast and by Cross Country.

Currently....but not for much longer if Porterbrook have their way!

 

[47802]

I didn't respond because it's not relevant. A D78 is better than a pacer, and I believe a D78 will provide a better experience than many 15x DMUs too. Ultimately the ability to withdraw pacers depends on the availability of stock to run the services instead. With much electrification in danger, there are obvious knock on consequences with regard to cascading. So do you want a better train ride or not, is what I think it comes down to.

There may be some who aren't enamoured with the concept of receiving hand-me-downs, of course, however the passengers riding these trains are the ones that matter and they are the ones who will receive a superior ride when they otherwise would be faced with either continuing to ride pacers or facing steep fare rises to pay for brand new trains, which are used only marginally compared to those in London (hence the economics). I think it's worth noting the advice given to the government regarding the lack of business case for replacing pacers, yet I'm sure 99% of people will be happy to see them go and replaced by something better. The D78 is better.

right a few points

1. The Northern ITT clearly states 120 new vehicles are required and pacers replaced. Possibly D trains might be allowed in addition to 120 new vehicles.
Now any change to the above would be pure speculation and I prefer to see what actually happens with the Northern Franchise, and if you want to speculate on that there are plenty of Northern Threads which might be more appropriate.

2. Better value, I think that depends a cheaper train with a lifespan of 10 to 15 years or a new train with a lifespan of 30 to 40 years. If electrification was progressing at the rate and costs originally envisaged then that might favour the D train but the way electrification is going now was probably a contributory factor in asking for new trains in the Northern ITT.

3. I D train is better than a Pacer, that a big claim to make, have you travelled on one of these D trains at 60 mile per hour to make that assessment? also the reliability and performance of these trains is still somewhat unproven. Interior wise the prototype looks pretty naff, which I gather will be the base interior and the nice interior will be extra.

4. the D trains are basically Light rail units and certainly a lot concern has been expressed on the WNXX forum about the crash worthiness of these trains.

5. My own view is that the number of Railbuses on Northern should be significantly reduced, but that overall a smaller number of refurbished railbuses might be a better option than D trains, perhaps trading an inferior ride for trains that have a higher top speed and compatibility with all of Northerns current Diesel Units.

 

[northwichcat]

1. The Northern ITT clearly states 120 new vehicles are required and pacers replaced. Possibly D trains might be allowed in addition to 120 new vehicles.
Now any change to the above would be pure speculation and I prefer to see what actually happens with the Northern Franchise, and if you want to speculate on that there are plenty of Northern Threads which might be more appropriate.

The way I interpret the Northern ITT is for non-electrified lines bidders were permitted to propose using any Pacers in the existing Northern fleet (until December 2019 only), any Sprinters in the existing fleet, Sprinters and Turbostars which will become surplus to requirements elsewhere, loco-hauled and proper new build (a minimum of 120 vehicles required with IPEMU and available option if suitable routes could be identified.)

Vivarail argued the Northern ITT does permit D-Trains as long as they aren't in lieu of the required 120 proper new build vehicles and the reference to bidders being allowed to propose metro style interiors is a hint for them to consider D-Trains. Although, on the day the ITT was announced a journalist questioned Patrick McLoughlin on whether bidders are allowed to propose using old Underground Trains and he replied with a firm no.

 

[Clip]

No so, young computer wizard. I live in the area of the Northern Rail franchise, which the person asking the three choices for me to make, so the only way that I could answer the query was by giving my views on these units as being in the said area.

I am well are of the ATW approach to Vivarail and of other areas many miles distant from the Northern franchise where these units, in expressed views of forum members may well be thought suitable.

I suspect that you are not totally enamoured with the nickname that I have bestowed upon them...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not so, just expressing my own particular opinion on what I hold and one that most certainly was not likely to have been changed by the viewing of those most recent visual images of something from the 1960's in aesthetic viewing. On the International Forum, they may not look too out of place in some of the countries in the poorer EC expanded community, but as a 21st century offering from Britain, they could well make us the laughing stock of the most developed of the larger EC economies. It is like Angela Merkel remembering her heritage and persuading a large German car manufacturer to open a Trabant production line.

I stand accused of being "somewhat against the unit in question" but I will remind you that on the other side of the coin, there are those on this thread who view this product as being without any seeming problems whatsoever.

Christ that's some waffle Paul. You were given 3 choices which you were asked to pick which you would prefer not a page of war and peace

The others you speak of seem to be of the opinion that we should give them a try as they sound suitable for certain areas and as a replacement for the pacers they seem an ideal solution for not a lot of money

However, the quicker off the mark idea hasn't been proven yet

Nothing has been proven yet which is my point - you cant say they re great nor bad when its not bloody built fully yet.

 

[glbotu]

When I provided you with the three choices:

Choice One, retain pacers and do nothing
Choice Two, get converted D stock, have slightly longer journeys
Choice Three, get new trains, same journey times but much higher fares

I think you perhaps took me a bit too literally. As you say you're not going to be using them, and when I say "which would you choose" what I really meant was "which would a passenger choose".

The passengers using these won't come out with talk about the Northern franchise or ITT documents, or talk about Porterbrook which is a company the majority won't even know exists.

The passengers would consider those three options and, provided they haven't been given a slanted view before hand, would in all likelihood say "Yes please" to option Two.

I'd suggest not being so hasty in suggesting passengers would prefer slower journeys that are cheaper. Generally speaking, journey time reductions are not popular and railways tend to go for advertising speed ahead of more useful metrics (like frequency - which is way more useful in figuring out if you have a decent service). It's why the "High Speed" aspect of HS2 was promoted, rather than calling it the West Coast Main Line Capacity Improvement Project.

While everyone complains about fares, the elasticity of rail demand is practically 0, where people will just take what's given to them, because it's all they can use to get to work.

If people always chose 2 over 3, they'd always get the bus (it's cheaper but has a time penalty). I could take the bus too, but my hour-ish commute would go to an hour and a half/2 hour commute.

Choice 1 isn't a choice. MAYBE the 144e will prove successful enough to be retained, but it's not likely, especially how much political outcrying has gone on about how awful Pacers are.

 

[47802]

The way I interpret the Northern ITT is for non-electrified lines bidders were permitted to propose using any Pacers in the existing Northern fleet (until December 2019 only), any Sprinters in the existing fleet, Sprinters and Turbostars which will become surplus to requirements elsewhere, loco-hauled and proper new build (a minimum of 120 vehicles required with IPEMU and available option if suitable routes could be identified.)

Vivarail argued the Northern ITT does permit D-Trains as long as they aren't in lieu of the required 120 proper new build vehicles and the reference to bidders being allowed to propose metro style interiors is a hint for them to consider D-Trains. Although, on the day the ITT was announced a journalist questioned Patrick McLoughlin on whether bidders are allowed to propose using old Underground Trains and he replied with a firm no.

I take your point on that about the 'D' trains although I think it remains to be seen in reality, 'Camden' seems to be suggesting that the 120 New should in fact be 'D' trains I very much hope that doesn't happen as I think the North is long overdue for a better deal. Even if the North does get the 120 new as planned and gets rid of all the Railbuses, chances are many lines will still be worked by 30+ year old 150's and maybe even some 40 year Tube stock so it will hardly be opulent spending on the North.

 

[glbotu]

I take your point on that about the 'D' trains although I think it remains to be seen in reality, 'Camden' seems to be suggesting that the 120 New should in fact be 'D' trains I very much hope that doesn't happen as I think the North is long overdue for a better deal. Even if the North does get the 120 new as planned and gets rid of all the Railbuses, chances are many lines will still be worked by 30+ year old 150's and maybe even some 40 year Tube stock so it will hardly be opulent spending on the North.

So, I think (not sure, haven't read the ITT in a while), that the 120 new carriages can't be D78s. However, nothing is suggesting that D78s can't be in addition to those.

While many people put forward the point about current service diagrams on Northern, meaning you'll get stock transferring all the way from Heaton to Allerton, in the event that additional stock is purchased on top of what is required, that could mean that certain lines could suddenly become self-contained, not requiring movement of 60 mph stock over faster lines (except for early morning/late evening ECS moves - which wouldn't really impact anything). This would be their best bet for an existence in the North. It's also more likely that if they're dirt cheap to bring in (as opposed to new stock), that it could be better value to make an order for 20 D-Trains to improve timetable resilience than to take the penalties every time one of the brand new trains*** or ancient Sprinter breaks down.

***Bathtub curve and all

 

[northwichcat]

So, I think (not sure, haven't read the ITT in a while), that the 120 new carriages can't be D78s. However, nothing is suggesting that D78s can't be in addition to those.

ITT wording

Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within
the Northern Train Fleet12:
i. The rolling stock that is currently comprised within the Northern Train Fleet
(including the Class 156 vehicles that are to be sub-leased to or hired by, the
TPE franchisee for a period prior to the Start Date), (save that one Class 153
vehicle must be released with effect from the start of the new East Midlands
franchise (currently scheduled for October 2017) to coincide with remapping of
Barton-on-Humber services to the East Midlands franchise);
ii. The locomotives and coaching stock that are to be leased by the current
Northern Franchisee;
iii. Electric multiple units of any class that are not currently leased by any relevant
operator;
iv. Diesel multiple units of Class 15x or class 17x that are currently leased by a
relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern Franchisees but that
will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, either
because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel
stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because
other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it;
v. Electric multiple units that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than
the current TPE and Northern Franchisees but that are not of Class 442, and
that:
• Either will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that franchisee
because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it; or
• Will not be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, but
the Bidder can demonstrate that it will be feasible for that operator to secure
alternative rolling stock in sufficient time to enable that operator to maintain
the operation of its train services to at least current standards. Such
alternative rolling stock must be capable of delivering comparable or better
operational performance characteristics, and of achieving comparable or
better levels of passenger satisfaction with the quality of rolling stock. For
these purposes the Bidder must demonstrate that it has allowed an
appropriate lead time for any modifications that may be needed to the
alternative rolling stock to enable it to meet the stated operational and
quality requirements, for the training of drivers, and a reasonable
contingency margin; and
vi. Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure.*
In addition, Bidders may include existing locomotives and/or coaching stock within
their Bids, but only if either Condition 1 or Condition 2 or Condition 3 below is met.
.....

* 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. This means that DMUs or IPEMUs with battery range
broadly comparable to or better than the unit currently being trialled in the Anglia
Franchise could contribute to meeting this requirement, but conventional EMUs or
EMUs with a “last mile diesel” capability would not. They must remain part of the
Train Fleet until the end of the Franchise Term. Bidders proposing to meet some
or all of this requirement with vehicles other than conventional DMUs, may (but
are not obliged to) raise a confidential BCQ and if they do the Department will
provide a view on whether the proposal would be acceptable in fulfilment of this
requirement.

So if Vivarail think Northern bidders can take them on that the D-Trains count as "new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure" which is a very optimistic view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I take your point on that about the 'D' trains although I think it remains to be seen in reality, 'Camden' seems to be suggesting that the 120 New should in fact be 'D' trains I very much hope that doesn't happen as I think the North is long overdue for a better deal. Even if the North does get the 120 new as planned and gets rid of all the Railbuses, chances are many lines will still be worked by 30+ year old 150's and maybe even some 40 year Tube stock so it will hardly be opulent spending on the North.

Indeed. FGW will be releasing their 150/1s and it's envisaged they'll join most of the rest of the 150s at Northern. Northern will have plenty of DMUs which should be withdrawn over the course of the next franchise (which aren't Pacers) and electrification progress is slowing down meaning it won't be possible to replace the majority of them as a result of electrification.

The poor business case for replacing Pacers was a flawed argument and the civil servant even admitted he hadn't considered if newer better trains might attract more passengers. That makes the document as much of a joke as the McNulty review on ticket offices which used out-of-date passenger figures and didn't take in to account the number or value of tickets sold in the ticket offices. No wonder McLoughlin decided it was sensible to overrule the civil servant.