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

[67018]

You poor soul. My hearts bleeds for you.

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

Aha, that old favourite of those who can't communicate, blame the listener.

Sadly it doesn't work. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say (maybe an indicator of defective reasoning in itself), but if you can't even explain it yourself, there's no alternative but to take it at face value and assume it's pure hogwash.

 

[FordFocus]

Haven't visited this thread for a while and I'm glad the Mid Cheshire line has been mentioned as I was worried it had been mothballed along with a quick mention about Paul's residence in an overrated part of Cheshire and Class 323s.... Moving along...

Apologies if asked but any word on when these green beautiful things are due out on mainline for testing, I'm very intrigued on the ride quality at 60mph!

 

[47802]

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!

Northern England has a population of about 15 Million as opposed to even Scotland with about 5 Million and doesn't have any Railbuses.

Its high time the North of England had better rail solutions, but apparently its ok to have a train which is older, slower and has less compatibility with existing stock than the trains they replace, and was designed for a light rail metro system NOT a mainline railway, and designed to be an EMU NOT a DEMU.

 

[Wolfie]

Its high time the North of England had better rail solutions, but apparently its ok to have a train which is older, slower and has less compatibility with existing stock than the trains they replace, and was designed for a light rail metro system NOT a mainline railway, and designed to be an EMU NOT a DEMU.

I agree with the first part of this sentence, as far as 'solutions'. While this thread is not solely about Northern rail the Vivarail proposal could be part of offering such solutions to the North - be open minded and wait to see what the product actually looks like. With respect to the part I have emboldened methinks this is deliberately disingenuous at best. Whatever London Underground is or is not, it certainly and absolutely is NOT a light rail system!

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.

Whereas, conversely, you appear to reject anything that isn't brand new regardless of the economics of the situation

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?

To me this is a well balanced approach...

 

[47802]

I agree with the first part of this sentence, as far as 'solutions'. While this thread is not solely about Northern rail the Vivarail proposal could be part of offering such solutions to the North - be open minded and wait to see what the product actually looks like. With respect to the part I have emboldened methinks this is deliberately disingenuous at best. Whatever London Underground is or is not, it certainly and absolutely is NOT a light rail system!


.

Well whatever you want to call its certainly not a Mainline railway, and from a crash worthiness viewpoint I suspect that the D78's should probably treated in a similar way to Tram Trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its high time the North of England had better rail solutions, but apparently its ok to have a train which is older, slower and has less compatibility with existing stock than the trains they replace, and was designed for a light rail metro system NOT a mainline railway, and designed to be an EMU NOT a DEMU.

It doesn't make a jot of difference what it was. It matters what it is.

Your argument would say that a van converted to a motorcaravan is less of a motorcaravan than one built as such, and that is total nonsense, depending of course on the quality of the job. We will not know the quality of the job until the full prototype is on the rails.

 

[47802]

It doesn't make a jot of difference what it was. It matters what it is.

Your argument would say that a van converted to a motorcaravan is less of a motorcaravan than one built as such, and that is total nonsense, depending of course on the quality of the job. We will not know the quality of the job until the full prototype is on the rails.

A motorcaravan conversion is hardly the same thing

 

[Clip]

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.

.

You know the answer to that - LUL have the money to spend on a new fleet to keep it uniform across all SSL lines - which actually lowers their costs from not having to buy different parts for different trains. At least thats how I understand it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A motorcaravan conversion is hardly the same thing

It isn't as big an undertaking, but in principle I disagree; it is converting one vehicle into something different, which is precisely what Vivarail is doing. It doesn't matter what it was, it matters what it is.

 

[Haydn1971]

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 suspect the real issue is context of use - travelling 20 minutes on a Pacer isn't really that much of a deal, however in the North we have become used to Pacer's being used point to point on Journeys between Leeds, Sheffield, Lincoln, Manchester, Liverpool - whilst it's fine saying there are faster options on most of these routes, many people need to park and ride, so do routes such as Hathersage-Manchester, Meadowhall-Leeds, Normanton-Sheffield etc etc etc so end up with Pacer based journeys - so when Vivarail come along with a swanky upcycling idea, many gasp at decades more hell rather than the comfort and pace of a rail train that the city-city passengers get. I'm fine with the D78's being used on short low BCR routes, like a Chesterfield-Sheffield stopper or a new service to Stocksbridge etc etc... But please, we don't wish to see a six car D78 doing the Leeds-Sheffield stopper or Doncaster-Cleethorpes or Sheffield-Manchester stopper.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

It doesn't make a jot of difference what it was. It matters what it is.

Reminds me of a line from the Apollo 13 film. I think they are trying to work out how to use the lunar lander to escape moon orbit and return to the earth:

I don't care what anything was designed to do. I care about what it can do.

And for good measure...

Chris KraftI know what the problems are, Henry. This could be the worst disaster NASA's ever experienced.
Gene KranzWith all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour.

 

[yorksrob]

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?



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

Frankly, if we're going to be in the business of life extending carriages to seventy odd years (and frankly, I believe this would be the case, as there is no such thing as "short term" solution on the railway), I'd rather we did a New Zealand and turned some Mk3's (when released from GEML and 125 duties) or even some Mk 2's if there are some around, and turned them into DMU's.

At least they have the sort of crash worthy construction that is suitable for mixed main line running.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Frankly, if we're going to be in the business of life extending carriages to seventy odd years (and frankly, I believe this would be the case, as there is no such thing as "short term" solution on the railway), I'd rather we did a New Zealand and turned some Mk3's (when released from GEML and 125 duties) or even some Mk 2's if there are some around, and turned them into DMU's.

At least they have the sort of crash worthy construction that is suitable for mixed main line running.

Would engines, fuel tanks etc be able to fit on one and could it take the weight of all that? If it were to be attempted would it be classed as a new train for the purpose of the emissions regs?

 

[route:oxford]

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.

I've found the answer to a question... One you haven't asked yet!

If you ever wondered why couldn't break through the glass ceiling of "senior management" during those 35 years.

The answer is this...

You spent too much of your working life asking questions. To progress to leadership, you have to not only ask questions but you have to make decisions and deliver answers and services.

 

[asylumxl]

At least they have the sort of crash worthy construction that is suitable for mixed main line running.

I was under the impression that the D-Stock mixed with "mainline" trains at the south westerly end of the District line. Why is it safe enough to mix with trains from the NR network there, but not elsewhere?

And come on, it's not like they are going to be used on lines with high speed trains shooting up and down every few minutes.

 

[yorksrob]

Would engines, fuel tanks etc be able to fit on one and could it take the weight of all that? If it were to be attempted would it be classed as a new train for the purpose of the emissions regs?

If they don't fit underneath, build an engine compartment and turn them into DEMU's.

Plus, with the exception of the electric motors, all these issues must exist with the underground trains.

 

[HSTEd]

People always act like the 70s were some sort of dark age esque nightmare.
It wasn't that bad.

Additionally cheap solutions have one important virtue - they are cheap.
Cheap today means we can get money for shiny tomorrow.

 

[67018]

Frankly, if we're going to be in the business of life extending carriages to seventy odd years (and frankly, I believe this would be the case, as there is no such thing as "short term" solution on the railway), I'd rather we did a New Zealand and turned some Mk3's (when released from GEML and 125 duties) or even some Mk 2's if there are some around, and turned them into DMU's.

At least they have the sort of crash worthy construction that is suitable for mixed main line running.

Not a bad idea. If this works, and in particular if the power packs prove economical and reliable, it opens up a whole load of possibilities.

Having said that, the main difference, of course, is that Mk3's don't have existing electric traction to re-use, or a cab for that matter.

'Seventy years' seems a bit extreme given that these units are barely half that old now. Although as someone posted on another thread, it's often more instructive to think of trains as equivalent to houses rather than cars - properly maintained, they can go on almost for ever. So why not provided they still do the job - the Bakerloo line has trains much older than D stock already, and they are expected to do another 10 years at least.

It's frequently been said that 'there's no such thing as a short term solution on the railway'. Is this true? Has anyone got any counter-examples where a short term solution did, indeed, get withdrawn after a limited time?

 

[Camden]

I'm fine with the D78's being used on short low BCR routes, like a Chesterfield-Sheffield stopper or a new service to Stocksbridge etc etc... But please, we don't wish to see a six car D78 doing the Leeds-Sheffield stopper or Doncaster-Cleethorpes or Sheffield-Manchester stopper.

But can you tell me why? I'm thinking that six carriages of D78 will be provided a lot more seats than you get at the moment. And possibly on a more comfortable, quieter train than you have at the moment too? (Never used these lines so apologies if not the case). I can tell you a lot of people were heartbroken when the A stock (an older cousin of the D) was retired, they were the most comfy way to get to Amersham. Stopping services are the ideal candidate for these because of the superior acceleration.

 

[yorksrob]

It's frequently been said that 'there's no such thing as a short term solution on the railway'. Is this true? Has anyone got any counter-examples where a short term solution did, indeed, get withdrawn after a limited time?

I suppose my point is, I'm not against cascades and rebuilds. It's just why not rebuild into something that will definately last a long time and be suitable for the wide range of services that we have in the North (such as the 156's are for example).

I can't really think of anything built as a stopgap and withdrawn within a short time. The HST's, Hastings thumpers were built as stop gaps and have ended up lasting as long as any other train.

Those that didn't last very long weren't built as stop-gaps but fell foul of being non-standard, unsuccessful design, built with asbestos and not worth stripping etc

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've found the answer to a question... One you haven't asked yet! If you ever wondered why couldn't break through the glass ceiling of "senior management" during those 35 years.

The answer is this...You spent too much of your working life asking questions. To progress to leadership, you have to not only ask questions but you have to make decisions and deliver answers and services.

What on earth do you mean by "couldn't break through the glass ceiling of "senior management" during those 35 years". I have far more personal finance now at my disposal then ever and could have become a partner at any time that I wished, but decided to keep my monetary assets fluid which enabled me to move from market to market. An asset valuation on my 18th century property on the Prestbury/Mottram St Andrew border together with its associated land had a valuation in 2014 of £6.75 million. Many forum members are aware of this matter.

You have the temerity to lecture me on leadership solely based upon my recent contributions to an online website for purposes of my own amusement in my current post-stroke condition at the age of 70 (the stroke was at the age of 67 in July 2012) when I am not the same dynamic person who headed our Toronto office from 1995 to 2004 on the Canadian Hydro project. I earned a six-figure salary as Senior Head of Projects, so your contention that I could neither make decisions at the highest level nor deliver answers and services is quite frankly the most laughable thing that I have heard in many a long year.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cheap today means we can get money for shiny tomorrow.

That could well have been the mantra when the Class 142 Pacer fleet were first introduced. Yet there are those on this thread who seem obsessed with Northern Rail receiving the "Shooter offering" which most certainly is not "shiny tomorrow".

 

[NotATrainspott]

Would it be a fundamentally difficult job to do the D-Train conversion to surplus aluminium-bodied mainline stock? If you ripped out the pantograph and transformer, I can't see it being much more difficult to rebuild one of the Class 314s that will be surplus to requirements in Strathclyde. The 14 of them will be heading to the scrapyard within the next few years so there would be little upfront cost. Since they're already proper mainline trains, they wouldn't look wrong to most passengers even if mechanically they were quite different to other trains and limited to 60mph.

 

[Nym]

Are the 314s the same type of aluminum body as D78 stock though?

62 Tube Stock is aluminum bodied...(!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

But please, we don't wish to see a six car D78 doing the Leeds-Sheffield stopper or Doncaster-Cleethorpes or Sheffield-Manchester stopper.

Whyever not? I can't see any issue with that at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If they don't fit underneath, build an engine compartment and turn them into DEMU's.

Plus, with the exception of the electric motors, all these issues must exist with the underground trains.

There already are Mk3-based EMUs which are about to become available if people *really* wanted to make a Mk3-based DEMU. I shan't say which ones but I think we all know

There are also already a load of Mk3-based "DEMUs". They're called HSTs, and they are going to get tarted up and deployed on Scottish InterCity services for many years to come.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That could well have been the mantra when the Class 142 Pacer fleet were first introduced. Yet there are those on this thread who seem obsessed with Northern Rail receiving the "Shooter offering" which most certainly is not "shiny tomorrow".

Commuter and regional rail isn't there to do "shiny" anything, least of all when it is so overcrowded. What is needed is cheap capacity, and lots of it. I think there should be new stock *and* D-trains, personally.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suppose my point is, I'm not against cascades and rebuilds. It's just why not rebuild into something that will definately last a long time and be suitable for the wide range of services that we have in the North (such as the 156's are for example).

156s are not suitable for commuter services, having an end-doored layout. They are fine for branch lines and for regional expresses, but that is not the only requirement for rolling stock for the North.

 

[najaB]

There already are Mk3-based EMUs which are about to become available if people *really* wanted to make a Mk3-based DEMU. I shan't say which ones but I think we all know

Nooooooo!!

 

[Fincra5]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrm

http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/business/proposed-recycled-trains-to-help-overcrowded-east-sussex-service-1-6911736

 

[67018]

I suppose my point is, I'm not against cascades and rebuilds. It's just why not rebuild into something that will definately last a long time and be suitable for the wide range of services that we have in the North (such as the 156's are for example).

I can't really think of anything built as a stopgap and withdrawn within a short time. The HST's, Hastings thumpers were built as stop gaps and have ended up lasting as long as any other train.

Those that didn't last very long weren't built as stop-gaps but fell foul of being non-standard, unsuccessful design, built with asbestos and not worth stripping etc

I suppose we have been talking about these as stopgaps mainly in the expectation that, eventually, the long awaited electrification programme and resultant cascades will eliminate them alongside most of the ageing DMU fleet, and the rest will be replaced as they expire by new build (possibly with alternative self-powered technology by then).

The way things are going, though, you may have a point. Delayed electrification projects may get delayed further or cancelled, while increasing demand keeps raising pressure to provide new capacity. So these might end up lasting longer than 10 years - which is OK provided they are up to it. If those who make the decisions were convinced this would happen, a different solution might be more appropriate - but in the absence of that, these might be as good as we get.

My question about stopgaps was a genuine one to see if anyone could think of any examples. Maybe a subject for another thread, though, this one is long enough!

 

[Haydn1971]

But can you tell me why? I'm thinking that six carriages of D78 will be provided a lot more seats than you get at the moment.

It's not just about the seats - the current Pacers and 150's feel tired, they scream along at a maximum of 75mph on lines where 90/100/110/125mph is possible in quiet bliss - wrap up the D78's whichever you like, they are yet another compromise, that whilst they have their uses, may well end up, like the Pacers being used to deliver peak services on very busy lines, further down the timeline - it is that what's playing at the back of most objectors - ride a year in a pacer travellers seat and tell me your happy for yet another compromise !

And possibly on a more comfortable, quieter train than you have at the moment too? (Never used these lines so apologies if not the case).

That we don't really know, because the D78's aren't yet proven, plus the Pacers and 150's are that knackered out, us in the north, haven't an idea just how nice a Pacer or 150 could really be if the same amount of cash was spent on them as is being spent on a D78 - for example, fitting 2+2 seating, less harsh lighting, more sound insulation, carpets, heating and ventilation that did what is was supposed to do, better standing space in doorways, toilets that didn't stink, decent passenger information displays, free wifi that matched 4G speeds along the full route, perhaps even a nice seat for the guards so they smile more - new trains provide much of this.

I can tell you a lot of people were heartbroken when the A stock (an older cousin of the D) was retired, they were the most comfy way to get to Amersham. Stopping services are the ideal candidate for these because of the superior acceleration.

Whilst I know stock consistency is why they are being replaced - but please, if they are that good, why not keep them in the SE in their current form on a less busy line ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I know stock consistency is why they are being replaced - but please, if they are that good, why not keep them in the SE in their current form on a less busy line ?

Because there aren't quite so many "less busy lines" in the Sarfeast. However there are some, and for example I would welcome D78s on Bedford-Bletchley, particularly if it meant we could have a third unit kept at Bletchley to solve the terrible reliability problem the line has at present by only having two units for two diagrams.

 

[67018]

Whilst I know stock consistency is why they are being replaced - but please, if they are that good, why not keep them in the SE in their current form on a less busy line ?

Given the trials at Gunnislake and the post from earlier this evening about the Brighton-Ashford story in the one of the local papers, they may well be. It would be quite ironic, after all this angst about their use in the North, if they ended up running along the South coast! Or would the complaints then be about extra capacity being provided in the South while the North slums it on crammed Pacers?