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

[HSTEd]

They will regret that down the line.

They should have bought every single vehicle.
After all - if this fails they can just sell them for scrap and recoup most of their loss on them.

 

[TDK]

Why is the D-Train green? I thought Northern were getting them.

To promote the miniscule carbon footprint compared to a steam engine probably!

 

[Nym]

My understanding is that all of the UDMs are off to Rotherham for processing. Vivarail might have (rather, I hope they have!) come to some agreement to obtain the bogies and motors from the UDMs for use as spares later down the line.

Are you sure you mean UDM and not UNDM...?

 

[Dstock7080]

D Stock 3-car units are currently formed:
DM-T-UNDM or UNDM-T-DM
DM-T-DM

DM = Driving Motor
T = Trailer
UNDM = Uncoupling Non-Driving Motor

what is a UDM car in the D Stock fleet ?

 

[northwichcat]

The D-Train could probably manage 20 and 100mph isn't much use on some lines I could think of.
£2m for 54m is roughly £37k per metre, compared to well over £80k.
The interest payments alone would be crippling for the... one carriage Turbostar?

For example the timetable on the Nottingham-Skegness via Grantham route is so padded that they would probably be able to manage to keep to time there.

Difference is D-Train may only last 10 years maximum whereas a proper new build will last 30 or more years, so given the cost of a D-Train is more than a 1/3rd of the cost of new build and has a speed disadvantage I don't think it's a good long term investment. The problem with saying they are a good temporary solution for certain lines is not having versatility can prove to be a disadvantage in the long term if demand changes - just look at Pacers.

The thing with removing padding or saying it's only a short distance where the train can do 75mph is it makes it more difficult to make up late running. Liverpool-Norwich has generous padding and 156s can run the service without significant delays but when there are delays having 90mph 158s helps to make up lost time.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but I am referring to Nottingham-Skegness which is almost as heavily padded.
Which has only a few miles of practical 75mph running on the entire route.

As to the D-stock only lasting ten more years, it is likely they will be able to go on for 15 at the least as they will have no disability problems thanks to the refit and corrosion is rather slow acting on aluminium bodied vehicles such as these.

Remember additionally that interest becomes a killer at longer vehicle lives so 1/3rd price for 1/3rd the life is not really an apples to apples comparison. On a 30 year life vehicle the interest payments can easily be larger than the capital repayment itself.

 

[northwichcat]

Remember additionally that interest becomes a killer at longer vehicle lives so 1/3rd price for 1/3rd the life is not really an apples to apples comparison. On a 30 year life vehicle the interest payments can easily be larger than the capital repayment itself.

At present the rate of inflation is almost double the Bank of England Base Rate and people are predicting the base rate will remain low for longer with the Chinese situation, which makes now an excellent time to get a loan (as it can be paid off quicker) and a bad time to have money in an account doing nothing.

 

[CdBrux]

Another financial consideration is that, if all continues more or less to plan, then I suspect you can get D trains into service much quicker than new build and so earning additional revenue from extra services / increased capacity, or maybe providing an operational saving vs what they replace.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, but I am referring to Nottingham-Skegness which is almost as heavily padded.
Which has only a few miles of practical 75mph running on the entire route.

Skegness line could be a possibility, as could the Robin Hood Line.

 

[HSTEd]

Skegness line could be a possibility, as could the Robin Hood Line.

Indeed - any time lost on the Grantham-Nottingham leg would be wiped out by increasing the trains along the route from 2 to 3 (2tph instead of 1tph on the route).

How high could you push the frequency out to Skegness?

 

[Camden]

Difference is D-Train may only last 10 years maximum whereas a proper new build will last 30 or more years, so given the cost of a D-Train is more than a 1/3rd of the cost of new build and has a speed disadvantage I don't think it's a good long term investment. The problem with saying they are a good temporary solution for certain lines is not having versatility can prove to be a disadvantage in the long term if demand changes - just look at Pacers.

Where is it said that these trains will only last 10 years? The bodies are in good nick and aluminium, the motors are basically brand new, and the generators are obviously going to be brand new.

I see no reason why these couldn't keep going another 40 years.

 

[67018]

Remember additionally that interest becomes a killer at longer vehicle lives so 1/3rd price for 1/3rd the life is not really an apples to apples comparison. On a 30 year life vehicle the interest payments can easily be larger than the capital repayment itself.

At present the rate of inflation is almost double the Bank of England Base Rate and people are predicting the base rate will remain low for longer with the Chinese situation, which makes now an excellent time to get a loan (as it can be paid off quicker) and a bad time to have money in an account doing nothing.

Financial calculations depend a lot on what discount rate you use, since £1 earned in 30 years time is worth less than £1 paid out now. A quick calculation suggests that a train 3 times the price lasting 30 years instead of 10 works out 30-60% more expensive, using a 2-5% discount rate (don't know what rates DfT uses but these are themselves very low)

It would be a brave person that bet on interest rates staying as low as they are now for 30 years - look at what they have done over the last 30!

And, the government don't seem to have money in an account doing nothing, given the size of the current deficit.

In reality, there's likely to be a limit on the amount of money there is to go round. Some new trains and some D-trains could well offer more benefit to more people than all new trains but fewer overall.

 

[northwichcat]

Financial calculations depend a lot on what discount rate you use, since £1 earned in 30 years time is worth less than £1 paid out now. A quick calculation suggests that a train 3 times the price lasting 30 years instead of 10 works out 30-60% more expensive, using a 2-5% discount rate (don't know what rates DfT uses but these are themselves very low)

It would be a brave person that bet on interest rates staying as low as they are now for 30 years - look at what they have done over the last 30!

And, the government don't seem to have money in an account doing nothing, given the size of the current deficit.

In reality, there's likely to be a limit on the amount of money there is to go round. Some new trains and some D-trains could well offer more benefit to more people than all new trains but fewer overall.

A couple of flaws in your argument:

1. Buying D-Trains may result in new trains have to be purchased in 10 years time at a much higher price and at a much worse interest rate.
2. ROSCOs certainly wouldn't plan on it taking 30 years worth of leasing costs to get back the cost of what was paid for the train, otherwise they might finish up with no profits!

 

[47802]

A couple of flaws in your argument:

1. Buying D-Trains may result in new trains have to be purchased in 10 years time at a much higher price and at a much worse interest rate.
2. ROSCOs certainly wouldn't plan on it taking 30 years worth of leasing costs to get back the cost of what was paid for the train, otherwise they might finish up with no profits!

Indeed and that also coincides with potentially having to replace large numbers of Sprinters so that could be a hell of a lot of Diesel trains to replace then unless electrification really progresses which seems less and less likely

 

[yorksrob]

Difference is D-Train may only last 10 years maximum whereas a proper new build will last 30 or more years, so given the cost of a D-Train is more than a 1/3rd of the cost of new build and has a speed disadvantage I don't think it's a good long term investment. The problem with saying they are a good temporary solution for certain lines is not having versatility can prove to be a disadvantage in the long term if demand changes - just look at Pacers.

Indeed. And on the railway, stop-gap solutions tend to end up as anything but, so you might as well build things to last.

 

[67018]

A couple of flaws in your argument:

1. Buying D-Trains may result in new trains have to be purchased in 10 years time at a much higher price and at a much worse interest rate.
2. ROSCOs certainly wouldn't plan on it taking 30 years worth of leasing costs to get back the cost of what was paid for the train, otherwise they might finish up with no profits!

1. But the trains bought in 10 years time will last 30 years - so until 2055. You've still got 10 years of useful work at a lower cost. Interest rates may be worse; conversely economic recovery may mean the government's less strapped for cash - the argument's purely hypothetical.
2. If the costs of a new train have to be amortized over less than 30 years, that will make the cost even higher and so makes any cheaper alternative even more attractive.

Indeed. And on the railway, stop-gap solutions tend to end up as anything but, so you might as well build things to last.

This argument's been put forward several times, but the possibility that a solution is misused (by being used beyond its intended lifespan) does not make it a bad solution - it's an argument for not misusing it.
Anyway, D stock *was* built to last - why build something to last then chuck it out early when there's still a potential use for it?

Another argument aired regularly on here is why everything is so expensive and takes so long to deliver. Maybe the answer is because of this 'all or nothing' attitude where it's either shiny new trains or nothing and potential cheaper interim fixes are treated with suspicion. The trouble with 'all or nothing' is that often you get nothing!

 

[northwichcat]

1. But the trains bought in 10 years time will last 30 years - so until 2055. You've still got 10 years of useful work at a lower cost. Interest rates may be worse; conversely economic recovery may mean the government's less strapped for cash - the argument's purely hypothetical.

So what do your propose in 10 years time if we need more replacement diesel trains? Another set of D-Trains (at increased costs) and then maybe another set in another 10 years (at increased costs)?

2. If the costs of a new train have to be amortized over less than 30 years, that will make the cost even higher and so makes any cheaper alternative even more attractive.

Definitely not because exactly the same is true of D-Trains. The leasing costs may have to recover the cost over 5 or less years to ensure the cost is recovered as well as making profits.

Are you seriously under the impression Ian Shooter and his American financial backers (a company owned by Henry Posner III) proposed D-Trains are a not-for-profit who aren't in it for the money? Henry Posner III is a person who sued Guatemala for $14.6m because his company was awarded a 50 year operating concession and Guatemala pulled out after 10 years.

 

[CdBrux]

So what do your propose in 10 years time if we need more replacement diesel trains? Another set of D-Trains (at increased costs) and then maybe another set in another 10 years (at increased costs)?

This assumption of 10 years of yours seems to be heavily challenged here. Anyway the companies involved as the customers / risk takers will have a look at the state of the things and make their own professional judgement. The people on the financial side will, amongst other things, make some sensitivity analysis on a what-if of the D trains lasting 10, 15, 20 years and being replaced with more DMU or EMU or some combination

Are you seriously under the impression Ian Shooter and his American financial backers (a company owned by Henry Posner III) proposed D-Trains are a not-for-profit who aren't in it for the money? Henry Posner III is a person who sued Guatemala for $14.6m because his company was awarded a 50 year operating concession and Guatemala pulled out after 10 years.

Does it matter if Vivarail make a profit if it is still shown to be the best outcome to use some or all of these trains?
Is your opposition based on the involvement of Henry Posner III or on the financial & societal benefits the project is judged to bring?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Anyway, D stock *was* built to last - why build something to last then chuck it out early when there's still a potential use for it?

This question should be addressed to the original owners of the D-stock, but if you do so, you will be given a most plausible reason why THEY cannot use these, but they will have many plausible reasons why anyone else but them SHOULD use them.

 

[northwichcat]

This assumption of 10 years of your seems to be heavily challenged here. Anyway the companies involved as the customers / risk takers will have a look at the state of the things and make their own professional judgement. The people on the financial side will, amongst other things, make some sensitivity analysis on a what-if of the D trains lasting 10, 15, 20 years and being replaced with more DMU or EMU or some combination

Vivarail have sold them in as a low cost short term solution. They are claiming they will cost 1/3rd of the cost of new build to procure (which is a misleading claim as they are comparing new carriages of just under 24m in length with rebuilt carriages just over 18m in length.)

Question is why do we want a low cost short term solution at a time when passenger numbers are higher than they were in the 1930s, electrification is progressing slowly and we have large numbers of diesel carriages built in the 1980s due for withdrawal over the next c.10 years?

Does it matter if Vivarail make a profit if it is still shown to be the best outcome to use some or all of these trains?

Is your opposition based on the involvement of Henry Posner III or on the financial & societal benefits the project is judged to bring

The point I'm making is Vivarail will want to see a profit. If they sell them to the ROSCOs they will want to see a profit as well. 67018 originally suggested the cost of proper new build would be recovered over 30 years but when I questioned that 67018 then used profitability as a disadvantage of new build over D-Trains which made no sense!

I mentioned Henry Posner III because it's clear he will want a return on his investment in Vivarail, his history proves he's a successful businessman not a charity worker.

 

[Camden]

This question should be addressed to the original owners of the D-stock, but if you do so, you will be given a most plausible reason why THEY cannot use these, but they will have many plausible reasons why anyone else but them SHOULD use them.

When the Northern Rail network shrinks to 10 times smaller than it is and gets used for over a billion journeys per year, then I think you might have more justification for pointing at why LU is able to get new trains while you get a use of the perfectly OK old ones.

 

[northwichcat]

When the Northern Rail network shrinks to 10 times smaller than it is and gets used for over a billion journeys per year, then I think you might have more justification for pointing at why LU is able to get new trains while you get a use of the perfectly OK old ones.

Look at it another way. In October I'll be in London and I'm planning to use London Underground and South West Trains services (both of which are seen as profitable franchises) but without a local Northern Rail service (seen as a loss making franchise) I wouldn't get to London in the first place! The railways are one big network and if you kill off one bit it can directly harm another bit in another area of the country.

 

[CdBrux]

Vivarail have sold them in as a low cost short term solution. They are claiming they will cost 1/3rd of the cost of new build to procure (which is a misleading claim as they are comparing new carriages of just under 24m in length with rebuilt carriages just over 18m in length.)

Question is why do we want a low cost short term solution at a time when passenger numbers are higher than they were in the 1930s, electrification is progressing slowly and we have large numbers of diesel carriages built in the 1980s due for withdrawal over the next c.10 years?
.

Are they claiming 1/3rd per carriage or per person carried?
What we want is the best solution over the next 10 or 20 or more years bearing in mind, but not limited to, such things as:
* purchase cost, including replacements after x years (as I say with a sensitivity on the x as it appears this could be a key driver of the project economics)
* financing costs (borrowing with some assumptions and sensitivities against future interest rates)
* lead-time to availability (i.e. to generate an income, provide extra capacity, ...) - i.e. if D trains are available 2 years before new build then then get a 2 years extra benefit however it is used
* if capacity available earlier vs new build then this is surely valuable to the travelling public who, assuming the D train is considered acceptable quality, would probably view hanging on an extra year or two to buy brand new as not being their first priority. Indeed if it does get into service erlier then this helps to deal with record passenger numbers quickly which as you rightly highlight is a major issue today.
* maintenance costs of the stock to be used (vs any stock withdrawn if that is to be the case)
* other operating costs


To be clear I am not saying the use of D stock is the right or wrong financial choice over the time period - I haven't a good enough clue about the numbers involved, but neither do I think it's so obviously bad as you seem to make out.

It seems to me that there are people on this thread, Paul Sidorczuk is well known for being one, who just want brand new all, or nearly all, the time so close their minds to the possibility that this could be a viable solution. They look to find all the ways that it could fail (and I think some people would be overjoyed if it did) rather then seeing how / if it could be made to work and if it could for an acceptable cost.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Look at it another way. In October I'll be in London and I'm planning to use London Underground and South West Trains services (both of which are seen as profitable franchises) but without a local Northern Rail service (seen as a loss making franchise) I wouldn't get to London in the first place! The railways are one big network and if you kill off one bit it can directly harm another bit in another area of the country.

How would the introduction of D trains on suitable routes accross the country 'kill off' that part of the network?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would the introduction of D trains on suitable routes accross the country 'kill off' that part of the network?

Quite the opposite, indeed; Northern needs cheap capacity. D-trains are precisely that.

 

[northwichcat]

Are they claiming 1/3rd per carriage or per person carried?

Per carriage.

http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/news/OTM/richedit/TRAINSSIDEBAR.jpg

How would the introduction of D trains on suitable routes accross the country 'kill off' that part of the network?

That's quoting me out-of-context. Camden suggested an option of making the Northern network 10 times smaller (presumably because Northern is loss making and he's anti-rail investment in the North) but I'm saying that would affect his beloved profitable London services.

It seems to me that there are people on this thread, Paul Sidorczuk is well known for being one, who just want brand new all, or nearly all, the time so close their minds to the possibility that this could be a viable solution. They look to find all the ways that it could fail (and I think some people would be overjoyed if it did) rather then seeing how / if it could be made to work and if it could for an acceptable cost.

You mean the same Paul Sidorczuk who wants to keep 323s from the early 1990s?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's quoting me out-of-context. Camden suggested an option of making the Northern network 10 times smaller (presumably because Northern is loss making and he's anti-rail investment in the North) but I'm saying that would affect his beloved profitable London services.

It wouldn't to any noticeable extent. People would find other ways of getting to the station, e.g. commercially-operated bus and minicab services, or driving their car.

 

[Nym]

D Stock 3-car units are currently formed:
DM-T-UNDM or UNDM-T-DM
DM-T-DM

DM = Driving Motor
T = Trailer
UNDM = Uncoupling Non-Driving Motor

what is a UDM car in the D Stock fleet ?

Uncoupling Driving Motor, both outer ends of a double ender.

Is (mostly) switch isolated when coupled with the uncoupler switch for the inner cab, the same as the shunting positions are.

It distinguishes between the Auto Coupler on UDMs that is fully populated, and the Emergency Coupler on DMs that will only pass through voice, comms data and air.

 

[67018]

Vivarail have sold them in as a low cost short term solution. They are claiming they will cost 1/3rd of the cost of new build to procure (which is a misleading claim as they are comparing new carriages of just under 24m in length with rebuilt carriages just over 18m in length.)

Question is why do we want a low cost short term solution at a time when passenger numbers are higher than they were in the 1930s, electrification is progressing slowly and we have large numbers of diesel carriages built in the 1980s due for withdrawal over the next c.10 years?



The point I'm making is Vivarail will want to see a profit. If they sell them to the ROSCOs they will want to see a profit as well. 67018 originally suggested the cost of proper new build would be recovered over 30 years but when I questioned that 67018 then used profitability as a disadvantage of new build over D-Trains which made no sense!

I used 30 years in response to:

Difference is D-Train may only last 10 years maximum whereas a proper new build will last 30 or more years

and just used 10 and 30 years to crunch some numbers. You could use other periods, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to show was the problem with your original assertion that new build was better value, as you would get 3 times the life out of trains 3 times the cost. It's not as simple as that as it does not discount the relevant cash flows.

On your second point, I think it's becoming increasingly evident that relying on electrification to free up enough DMUs to avoid a new build is simply not going to work. But, the process of (a) the penny dropping with the decision makers, (b) getting money/approval for a new build and (c) time taken to get them procured, built and in service doesn't look like a quick one. In the meantime, why not look at a short term fix?

In any case, passenger numbers may be higher than for years, but most of the lines these trains would be used on require subsidy even at current passenger numbers. So why should we demand the taxpayer stump up for new trains if a cheaper option is available?

This question should be addressed to the original owners of the D-stock, but if you do so, you will be given a most plausible reason why THEY cannot use these, but they will have many plausible reasons why anyone else but them SHOULD use them.

So, you disagree in principle with the idea of cascading stock between regions?

 

[northwichcat]

It wouldn't to any noticeable extent. People would find other ways of getting to the station, e.g. commercially-operated bus and minicab services, or driving their car.

I was going to go in to detail but when I'll be returning from London there would be 2 options:
1. Travel in the evening peak to Hartford using LM, walk to Greenbank then get a Northern service home.
2. Wait until after the evening peak and use Virgin to Stockport/Chester then get a Northern train home.

Now if the Northern options didn't exist I'd have to get to Macclesfield or Wilmslow for a bus before the last bus, which would mean I can't wait until after the evening peak to get a train back.

That means the cost is substantially increased so I might as well not bother going to London.

Also worth remembering a late bus doesn't allow you to travel on the next train if you have an Advance ticket, so withdrawing trains could easily put people off travelling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

but most of the lines these trains would be used on require subsidy even at current passenger numbers. So why should we demand the taxpayer stump up for new trains if a cheaper option is available?

The thing is we don't have subsidy levels on a line by line basis. If we did there might be a few shocks as it might reveal some of the lines Northern use Pacers on are profitable while some of the SWT lines may be loss-making and be relying on other SWT lines to subside them.

 

[Philip C]

Quite the opposite, indeed; Northern needs cheap capacity. D-trains are precisely that.

When I close my eyes and envisage the "D" Stock rolling out of Piccadilly to share tracks alongside Pendolinos and Freightliners or picking its way down the Macclesfield Line, with expresses whizzing past in the opposite direction, I find it all rather comical.

Perhaps there are lines so independent, and with access to depots so local, that there is a place for these units; but we seem to be struggling to create a decent shortlist that isn't very very short.

People who live in areas that would never conceivably experience these units seem to take great delight in wishing them on lesser beings who might, after a boozy dinner at the DfT, have some despatched to their area. Few are showing any empathy or taking a British (rather than a localist) view.

Does anybody really feel that these units will cause visitors to admire our wisdom in deploying them or, like me, do people feel that they will hold our towns/cities/nation up to ridicule? What would we think if old Paris Metro cars were deployed in the Pas de Calais? Is the Isle of Wight to be the preferred model for the future? Have we no pride?