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

[CdBrux]

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.

I think you're taking Camden somewhat out of context there, or at best taking a literal meaning as opposed to the point they were fairly obviously making!

 

[Camden]

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.

Who is talking about killing parts of the network?? We are talking about improving it by providing better trains so that people on the Northern Rail network don't have to use pacers. The point about LU usage is in response someone moaning that these improvements happen to be surplus to requirements LU trains, and so the point is completely valid.

As to your point about being one network, yes of course and I agree. That's why those billions of journeys that take place in London generate returns, and those lesser used services in the north receive subsidy already.

 

[northwichcat]

I think you're taking Camden somewhat out of context there, or at best taking a literal meaning as opposed to the point they were fairly obviously making!

If it look at Camden's posts a common theme emerges, he doesn't want to see the North getting any new trains despite the North having a large number of life expired diesel trains.

 

[CdBrux]

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.

The comical thing is you deliberately choosing an example that is so obviously nonsense to try and make your point!

 

[Camden]

If it look at Camden's posts a common theme emerges, he doesn't want to see the North getting any new trains despite the North having a large number of life expired diesel trains.

If you look at posts from people opposed to giving the D78s a go, a common theme emerges and that is the lack of willingness to listen to reason.

I haven't said I don't want the north to get new trains, in fact my understanding is there may be about to be an announcement this week or next about one of my most favourite areas of the north to that very end. And bravo to that. What I have said is that the D78 is a good train, will give a comfortable ride, that it's better than a pacer and so if you get all that without having your fares going through the roof, or instead of failing a business case for new trains, why get sniffy about it just because they are seconds?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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

My posting to which you allude was in direct response to a rhetorical question made by 67018 in his posting and made reference to his contention that the D-stock still had life in them, so why could they not stay where they were if they were so good.

Besides the Island Line and its operational reasons, name me the last time that stock from the London Underground system was "cascaded" onto the National Rail Network.

 

[Camden]

What would we think if old Paris Metro cars were deployed in the Pas de Calais?

On this bulletin board, or general public? One of them is probably uproar and ridicule, and other other is definitely absolutely nothing.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

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?

The Macclesfield lines, being 25kv electric, are unlikely to be on the list of routes that could get "230s"...
Would these repurposed underground trains be more of an embarrassment than 142s which were described by my French school exchange partner as seeming extremely old? (by the way this was in 1996, when the 142s were around a decade old!).

I think you're taking Camden somewhat out of context there, or at best taking a literal meaning as opposed to the point they were fairly obviously making!

Quite. I believe Camden's comments were to compare the difference between the LU network and the Northern network. He wasn't suggesting any closures!

 

[Philip C]

The comical thing is you deliberately choosing an example that is so obviously nonsense to try and make your point!

I'm sorry if you have already posted your list of preferred lines on which to deploy these units, but this is a lengthy thread.

I am struggling to imagine where, say, 70 units could be utilized that doesn't involve significant interaction with "the big railway" and, therefore, similar circumstances to those I describe. Even harder how to deploy 70 units and not to create multiple 'micro-fleets' that everyone seems to cite as being a 'bad idea'. I would content that there is nowhere that a fleet of, even, 25 could be deployed without major interaction with expresses and/or heavy freight.

Please feel free to show that I am wrong.

To my mind this whole project is very much scraping the barrel and is really rather sad.

 

[CdBrux]

Besides the Island Line and its operational reasons, name me the last time that stock from the London Underground system was "cascaded" onto the National Rail Network.

So because something has not been done before means it shouldn't be done now? A very nice example of looking for a reason why not to do something rather than how can we do something.

Please enlighten us why this point is important, and try to do without asking a question in reverse which is your usual cop-out!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

May I be so bold to ask why you specifically named Northern Rail in your posting above as many of the posters on this thread are referring the use of the Vivarail units to branch lines in the south-west?

If you read my posting response to 67018, his posting made a claim that the D-stock were good units. All I said was if that be the case, why was the decision taken by the operators of these units to divest themselves of them.

 

[northwichcat]

If you look at posts from people opposed to giving the D78s a go, a common theme emerges and that is the lack of willingness to listen to reason.

I haven't said I don't want the north to get new trains, in fact my understanding is there may be about to be an announcement this week or next about one of my most favourite areas of the north to that very end. What I have said is that the D78 is a good train, will give a comfortable ride, that it's better than a pacer and so if you get all that without having your fares going through the roof, or instead of failing a business case for new trains, why get sniffy about it just because they are seconds?

I do recall you saying something about you not thinking the North should get the 120 proper new build carriages in another thread as in your opinion Patrick McLoughlin should not have overruled the civil servant who recommended not withdrawing Pacers which is what I was referring to before.

As my local line does have 75mph running and the final 10 or so miles is running on tracks alongside Intercity services to/from places including Birmingham and London, I wouldn't object to either getting cascaded 170s from Scotrail or some of the new builds, either would be an improvement on the current rolling stock. However, I can think of numerous disadvantages of using D-Trains most notably pathing issues on the WCML with using 60mph stock. Also platform length issues - 4 car D-Trains would be smaller than 4 car 150s, while 6 car D-Trains would require a significant amount of platform lengthening. It's no use finding a cheap rolling stock solution and then having to invest in a multi-million pound project to be able to use the cheap solution.

 

[Camden]

I do recall you saying something about you not thinking the North should get the 120 proper new build carriages in another thread as in your opinion Patrick McLoughlin should not have overruled the civil servant who recommended not withdrawing Pacers which is what I was referring to before.

As my local line does have 75mph running and the final 10 or so miles is running on tracks alongside Intercity services to/from places including Birmingham and London, I wouldn't object to either getting cascaded 170s from Scotrail or some of the new builds, either would be an improvement on the current rolling stock. However, I can think of numerous disadvantages of using D-Trains most notably pathing issues on the WCML with using 60mph stock. Also platform length issues - 4 car D-Trains would be smaller than 4 car 150s, while 6 car D-Trains would require a significant amount of platform lengthening. It's no use finding a cheap rolling stock solution and then having to invest in a multi-million pound project to be able to use the cheap solution.

Then you recall wrongly. What I said was that new trains will have a hard time getting a positive business case bearing in mind the report that said replacing the pacers had no case.

May I be so bold to ask why you specifically named Northern Rail in your posting above as many of the posters on this thread are referring the use of the Vivarail units to branch lines in the south-west?

Because it's northern rail area being spoken about. Use them wherever they fit. Use them on the District Line if you like (with the diesel engine's off for obvious reasons) it is all the same to me, I'm happy to get on them no qualms about it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So because something has not been done before means it shouldn't be done now? A very nice example of looking for a reason why not to do something rather than how can we do something.

Please enlighten us why this point is important, and try to do without asking a question in reverse which is your usual cop-out!

My intrinsically well-honed logic is well used to coping with somewhat simplistic answers to my posting queries (from usually southern-based forum members) that any politician worth his salt normally uses when being interviewed. Do not confuse a north of England residential address as bestowing the fallacious "flat cap and ferret" mantle upon my septuagenarian shoulders, as thirty-five years spent at the highest echelons of senior management until my retirement in 2010 meant that I am well aware to dealing with such postings as yours.

The scenario of a 1970-type answer suggested by you to a 2015 operational question by an organisation with a well-known British railway personage masking the ownership of a private equity organisation is, shall we say, "clutching at straws".

 

[67018]

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?

Not sure how people can be accused of lack of empathy in wanting to give a fair crack of the whip at something that might provide capacity where it's sorely needed. Lack of empathy would be 'forget it, let them eat cake (or Pacers)'

I am not convinced that the admiration of visitors is the highest priority consideration when looking at appropriateness of stock. 'Pride' is subjective; arguably you could be quite proud of the innovative thinking that potentially solves a short term DMU shortage using surplus LU stock.

My posting to which you allude was in direct response to a rhetorical question made by 67018 in his posting and made reference to his contention that the D-stock still had life in them, so why could they not stay where they were if they were so good.

Besides the Island Line and its operational reasons, name me the last time that stock from the London Underground system was "cascaded" onto the National Rail Network.

My original point was in response to an argument that we need new stock 'built to last'. No point building stock to last if people then get sniffy about getting them 25 years later and demand new trains.

As for the lack of precedent, "it's never happened before therefore we can't do it" isn't the strongest of arguments.

Interesting that, about 2,000 posts in, all we've really been able to conclude is:
- They might work, they might be cr@p
- To work, they are going to have to crack some interesting engineering challenges, but there seems no reason in principle why it can't be tried
- Low top speed is an issue although possibly partly mitigated by better acceleration
- Whatever happens, unless the DfT move the goalposts, Northern will get new trains (with D-trains possibly being additional to, but not instead of, the new ones)
- Some people are prepared to condemn them before a single one's been tried in service

 

[JamesRowden]

As my local line does have 75mph running and the final 10 or so miles is running on tracks alongside Intercity services to/from places including Birmingham and London, I wouldn't object to either getting cascaded 170s from Scotrail or some of the new builds, either would be an improvement on the current rolling stock. However, I can think of numerous disadvantages of using D-Trains most notably pathing issues on the WCML with using 60mph stock. Also platform length issues - 4 car D-Trains would be smaller than 4 car 150s, while 6 car D-Trains would require platform lengthening.

Would there be capacity on your local line for an increase in frequency which is presently unused due to the operating cost of the present stock (or capacity on another line that all of the services run to)? I think that the D-Trains are most useful for such routes. Pathing problems can be solved by splitting services, and where there is a great advantage to operating through services, running the D-Trains to a limited stopping pattern on the mainline and giving the mainline stations their own 75mph stock stopping service might be a good solution (if the stations are far enough apart that the 60mph stock would cause significant journey time increases and capacity loss).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you look at posts from people opposed to giving the D78s a go, a common theme emerges and that is the lack of willingness to listen to reason.

The reverse also applies to those people who take the opposite point of view, with their rider that as their point of view is totally any utterly correct in all respects, the need for willingness to listen to reason need not apply to them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

I really am most grateful to you for making this posting in response to a posting that made a totally fallacious comment about "wanting new stock". I am rather fond of the Class 323 units that run on the Macclesfield to Manchester line.

 

[67018]

My intrinsically well-honed logic is well used to coping with somewhat simplistic answers to my posting queries (from usually southern-based forum members) that any politician worth his salt normally uses when being interviewed. Do not confuse a north of England residential address as bestowing the fallacious "flat cap and ferret" mantle upon my septuagenarian shoulders, as thirty-five years spent at the highest echelons of senior management until my retirement in 2010 meant that I am well aware to dealing with such postings as yours.

The scenario of a 1970-type answer suggested by you to a 2015 operational question by an organisation with a well-known British railway personage masking the ownership of a private equity organisation is, shall we say, "clutching at straws".

I've read the first paragraph of this post several times and, for the life of me, can't make head nor tail of it. Can someone explain what point it's trying to make?

On the reference to a '1970-type answer', was it the practice in 1970 to put engines in surplus London Underground EMUs to operate as DMUs on the National Rail network? Or is this merely the application of a pejorative label to a project that the poster doesn't like?

The reverse also applies to those people who take the opposite point of view, with their rider that as their point of view is totally any utterly correct in all respects, the need for willingness to listen need not apply to them.

Well, the fact that we are still replying to each other's posts implies that everyone in this debate continues to listen, if not to agree...

Personally, I don't think either 'it's a terrible idea' or 'it's a great idea' is provable right now, despite the best efforts of many posters. We're effectively just whiling away the time before we actually see whether they work.

As for why the D stock is being disposed of in the first place, I think we've already covered that before. The only part that's relevant is that their disposal is not because they are unreliable, unsafe or life expired, and so there's no reason in principle why further use can't be considered.

 

[Camden]

Personally, I don't think either 'it's a terrible idea' or 'it's a great idea' is provable right now, despite the best efforts of many posters. We're effectively just whiling away the time before we actually see whether they work.

Exactly this! As someone who has used the D78s in their previous life, being that they will have the same traction just powered differently, I'm pretty certain people will like and appreciate them. Especially as I have also had the misfortune of experiencing some of the trains they might replace, like the pacers and the 150s. That's a personal hunch, my belief.

But even if someone feel the opposite, on a railway forum how can anyone not be in the least bit interested, intrigued or even excited to see the end product from this novel bit of engineering?

If they turn out to be awful fine don't touch them then. But if they turn out to be OK there is nothing wrong with making full use wherever its appropriate!

 

[northwichcat]

Would there be capacity on your local line for an increase in frequency which is presently unused due to the operating cost of the present stock (or capacity on another line that all of the services run to)? I think that the D-Trains are most useful for such routes. Pathing problems can be solved by splitting services, and where there is a great advantage to operating through services, running the D-Trains to a limited stopping pattern on the mainline and giving the mainline stations their own 75mph stock stopping service might be a good solution (if the stations are far enough apart that the 60mph stock would cause significant journey time increases and capacity loss).

Splitting commuter services has been tried and the results have been very poor. People don't like spending 25/55 minutes at an interchange station because their connecting service was late, so they re-time their journeys to ensure they travel on the direct services which then means the remaining direct services finish up needing more capacity. If we had London Underground style frequencies on all local services it might be a different matter but we don't and would need hundreds more carriages to allow that to happen.

With relation to my local line Network Rail actually examined what benefits tram-trains* would bring to the line in comparison to 170s (which were the newest DMUs at the time of the study) and decided 170s would be better at providing journey time improvements, even ignoring the part where the line speed is 75mph. Apparently 172s accelerate better than 170s so if they did it now the results may be even more favourable for Turbostars.

*I imagine the D-Trains would be similar performing to tram-trains.

 

[JamesRowden]

Splitting commuter services has been tried and the results have been very poor. People don't like spending 25/55 minutes at an interchange station because their connecting service was late, so they re-time their journeys to ensure they travel on the direct services which then means the remaining direct services finish up needing more capacity. If we had London Underground style frequencies on all local services it might be a different matter but we don't and would need hundreds more carriages to allow that to happen.

How do you know that an every 10 minute D-Train service would not have a business case?

 

[Camden]

How do you know that an every 10 minute D-Train service would not have a business case?

This is more like it, look at the advantages. A D78 has lower costs, so you can afford more of them and with more carriages. You can run them more often if you have the space on the line.

If you can do that you can build passenger numbers, if you can build passenger numbers eventually you might be able to justify nice new trains like the S stock!

 

[northwichcat]

How do you know that an every 10 minute D-Train service would not have a business case?

Currently 6 diagrams are required to provide an hourly service. Although it would probably be possible to provide a half-hourly service* with 7 diagrams and shorter turnaround times, so for a service every 10 minutes you'd need 21 diagrams so if you presume they are operated by 2 car D-Trains then that's 42 of the 150 available carriages used for one line in the Northern franchise. That's just for one line so like I said we'd need hundreds of additional carriages to start providing that level of service across the North, where would these all come from?

* A half-hourly service is written in to the ITT from December 2017.

 

[Camden]

I should point out that it is mostly those in the Northern Railway television region talking about these trains being used on their network... as someone else has observed, there are other places where they could be useful.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is more like it, look at the advantages. A D78 has lower costs, so you can afford more of them and with more carriages. You can run them more often if you have the space on the line.

If you can do that you can build passenger numbers, if you can build passenger numbers eventually you might be able to justify nice new trains like the S stock!

If you recall, there were preliminary discussions about the use of these Vivarail units in Wales (was there a thread about it?) and I wonder if you have any knowledge as to what was the outcome of these tentative approaches?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How do you know that an every 10 minute D-Train service would not have a business case?

Would paths be available for such a service?

 

[67018]

If they turn out to be awful fine don't touch them then. But if they turn out to be OK there is nothing wrong with making full use wherever its appropriate!

What appeals to me in particular is the possibility that, if they do really turn out to be a dog's dinner, it won't be at the taxpayer's expense. Unless, of course, the clever marketers at Vivarail manage to flog them to someone anyway, of course!

This is more like it, look at the advantages. A D78 has lower costs, so you can afford more of them and with more carriages. You can run them more often if you have the space on the line.

If you can do that you can build passenger numbers, if you can build passenger numbers eventually you might be able to justify nice new trains like the S stock!

Although you have to also consider the staff costs before you get too carried away. They might be a good way of running a 'proof of concept', though, to establish how much increas in revenue could be stimulated by an increase in frequency or capacity.

 

[northwichcat]

Would paths be available for such a service?

It's very unlikely there would be without infrastructure improvements, again requiring money to be invested.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What appeals to me in particular is the possibility that, if they do really turn out to be a dog's dinner, it won't be at the taxpayer's expense. Unless, of course, the clever marketers at Vivarail manage to flog them to someone anyway, of course!

Relations with Iran have improved again.

 

[67018]

I'm sorry if you have already posted your list of preferred lines on which to deploy these units, but this is a lengthy thread.

I am struggling to imagine where, say, 70 units could be utilized that doesn't involve significant interaction with "the big railway" and, therefore, similar circumstances to those I describe. Even harder how to deploy 70 units and not to create multiple 'micro-fleets' that everyone seems to cite as being a 'bad idea'. I would content that there is nowhere that a fleet of, even, 25 could be deployed without major interaction with expresses and/or heavy freight.

Please feel free to show that I am wrong.

To my mind this whole project is very much scraping the barrel and is really rather sad.

For the benefit of those coming late to the discussion, and for some accountable reason not wanting to read every single post from this sparkling debate, I have dug up this quote from Buttsy. It's not definitive or exhaustive but an example of what's been suggested so far.

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.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've read the first paragraph of this post several times and, for the life of me, can't make head nor tail of it. Can someone explain what point it's trying to make?

You poor soul. My heart bleeds for you.

However, I do not hold myself responsible for the development of your cognitive reasoning ability in any way whatsoever.