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

[Camden]

In which case, one wonders why they're being replaced on the District line now !

Are they of monocoque construction ?

Because the 40 miles of route carries over 200 million passengers a year between its 60 stations, meaning therefore that brand new trains are highly affordable.

I like the D78s however a key point in terms of London is that they have single leaf doors, which have always been less than optimal for getting masses of people on and off them. This will only become more of an issue as use grows. This will obviously be less of an issue on routes that don't have 200 million passenger. I don't know whether this fact has anything to do with it, I think the first thing I wrote is sufficient reason.

 

[yorksrob]

Because the 40 miles of route carries over 200 million passengers a year between its 60 stations, meaning therefore that brand new trains are highly affordable.

I like the D78s however a key point in terms of London is that they have single leaf doors, which have always been less than optimal for getting masses of people on and off them. This will only become more of an issue as use grows. This will obviously be less of an issue on routes that don't have 200 million passenger. I don't know whether this fact has anything to do with it, I think the first thing I wrote is sufficient reason.

It might have 200 million passengers, but the Underground hardly makes a profit does it.Seems an extravagance to me.

The crux of it is that LU is a subsidised railway, just like Northern is.

 

[D365]

It might have 200 million passengers, but the Underground hardly makes a profit does it.Seems an extravagance to me.

It might seem like an extravagance to you, but a wholescale fleet replacement means that SSL maintenance depots only have to stock parts for one type of train. Units can be diagrammed more efficiently in a common fleet, which means fewer maintenance spares are needed. And that's without mentioning the forthcoming signalling upgrade. Which all contributes to overall efficiency and reduces operating costs.

 

[Camden]

Which all contributes to overall efficiency and reduces operating costs.

Although admittedly it probably doesn't help Northern who would be getting yet another type of train to add to their collection (14 or 15 types of train?)...

 

[D365]

Although admittedly it probably doesn't help Northern who would be getting yet another type of train to add to their collection (14 or 15 types of train?)...

Except that they're losing their 142s and 323s before 2020 - and decisions have to be made on the Porterbrook 143/144 Pacers... Obviously they'll be receiving more diesels as replacement, and a larger electric fleet has to be sourced. It all balances out in the end.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Although admittedly it probably doesn't help Northern who would be getting yet another type of train to add to their collection (14 or 15 types of train?)...

Though the SSL network, though it does vary, seems tailor-made for a uniform fleet. The Northern Rail network is much larger in terms of route miles, and has so much variation that it would be near-impossible to design any train that would be suitable for both the Manchester and Leeds commuter networks and equally at home on services like the Esk Valley or Little North Western routes*.

*Of course, 142s can be found on all of these services, though I'd argue they're not really suitable for either!

 

[yorksrob]

It might seem like an extravagance to you, but a wholescale fleet replacement means that SSL maintenance depots only have to stock parts for one type of train. Units can be diagrammed more efficiently in a common fleet, which means fewer maintenance spares are needed. And that's without mentioning the forthcoming signalling upgrade. Which all contributes to overall efficiency and reduces operating costs.

Paying for a brand new fleet when not needed is going to be rather more expensive than keeping an extra set of spares !

 

[D365]

Paying for a brand new fleet when not needed is going to be rather more expensive than keeping an extra set of spares !

Erm, London clearly isn't gorging through new trains unnecessarily. Just look at the 72TS... No point discussing this any further again, it's a done deal, the SSL upgrades are very much welcome.

 

[30907]

Of all the posts that show a need for RUK Forums to have a "like" button, this one takes the cake...

The correct Biblical reference for D78 stock is of course Isaiah chapter 6 verse 1, "and his train filled the Temple." ☺
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In which case, one wonders why they're being replaced on the District line now !

Because LU want a standardised sub surface fleet, or so it has been said several times on this thread?

 

[asylumxl]

It might have 200 million passengers, but the Underground hardly makes a profit does it.Seems an extravagance to me.

The crux of it is that LU is a subsidised railway, just like Northern is.

I was under the impression LU doesn't make a profit because more money is spent on a rolling programme of improvements than is generated from revenue. This is not the same as not being potentially profitable.

I think it is fair to say that when you have a train every few minutes and millions of passengers, it makes sense to invest back in to it

 

[yorksrob]

I was under the impression LU doesn't make a profit because more money is spent on a rolling programme of improvements than is generated from revenue. This is not the same as not being potentially profitable.

A large number of routes would be potentially profitable but for the pesky cost of maintaining the infrastructure !

I think it is fair to say that when you have a train every few minutes and millions of passengers, it makes sense to invest back in to it

Indeed, when the investment is required.

Anyway, as DAB_Move has pointed out, I digress.

My main thoughts are that there are more suitable stock that could be converted.

 

[D365]

A large number of routes would be potentially profitable but for the pesky cost of maintaining the infrastructure !

It's far more than maintaining the infrastructure in the case of London Underground...

My main thoughts are that there are more suitable stock that could be converted.

In the case of the Class 442s due to be replaced, as has been discussed so many times, the only conversion that may realistically happen would be to LHCS with Class 67/68 diesel haulage.

 

[yorksrob]

It's far more than maintaining the infrastructure in the case of London Underground...

The London Underground hasn't been profitable for decades, even before the current investment programme

In the case of the Class 442s due to be replaced, as has been discussed so many times, the only conversion that may realistically happen would be to LHCS with Class 67/68 diesel haulage.

As I've mentioned previously, there are lots more very solid carriages about to become surplus that could be rebuilt into high quality trains with the potential to last decades.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I've mentioned previously, there are lots more very solid carriages about to become surplus that could be rebuilt into high quality trains with the potential to last decades.

Which ones? Yes, the 442s could become power-door Mk3s, basically, and I have a feeling they will, but other EMUs? Aren't they as much use staying as (OHLE) EMUs?

 

[HSTEd]

Which ones? Yes, the 442s could become power-door Mk3s, basically, and I have a feeling they will, but other EMUs? Aren't they as much use staying as (OHLE) EMUs?

Except there is no OHLE to run them on.

And we have hundreds of potentially solid Mark 3 vehicles about to come free that we should probably work out a use for.

They could eliminate pacers themselves.
Just need to build them into something that looks like a Class 210....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except there is no OHLE to run them on.

There is a bit of it if you are willing to recast timetables to stop running DMUs under the wires. For instance, there is no need for DMUs serving Hazel Grove.

 

[HSTEd]

There is a bit of it if you are willing to recast timetables to stop running DMUs under the wires. For instance, there is no need for DMUs serving Hazel Grove.

That does not come close to addressing the huge EMU surplus available.
Even the PEPs are probably good for another decade, to say nothing of the hordes of Mark 3 derived units.

Or the HST trailers, or even the surplus loco hauled stock once the Class 91s are shortened/axed and the Class 90s get replaced with units on GEML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or the HST trailers, or even the surplus loco hauled stock once the Class 91s are shortened/axed and the Class 90s get replaced with units on GEML.

To me it would make sense to use electric locomotives, coaches and DVTs on the Manchester to Scotland services. But equally more Chiltern-style 67 and 68-hauled sets could be formed.

 

[HSTEd]

To me it would make sense to use electric locomotives, coaches and DVTs on the Manchester to Scotland services. But equally more Chiltern-style 67 and 68-hauled sets could be formed.

Where will the electric locomotives come from?
There are dozens of sets worth of HST trailers available (especially since the Scotrail service will only use half the trailers from those sets).

And Chiltern style is very expensive and loco hauled operation is hardly desirable, we have no need for eight or nine car trains after all - most trains in Britain or three or four cars now.
I am leaning towards either newbuild or converted driving motors attached to three Mark 3s (one fitted with a 153 esque cab) to make 4-car Cl210-alikes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where will the electric locomotives come from?

I was talking about 91+LHCS+DVT sets from East Coast. But there are plenty of electric locomotives knocking about the place, and if necessary it would be cheaper to build some than to build more EMUs.

And Chiltern style is very expensive and loco hauled operation is hardly desirable, we have no need for eight or nine car trains after all - most trains in Britain or three or four cars now.

Except on branch lines, nigh on every single 3 car train is *too short*. We *do* need eight or nine car trains throughout much of the network to cater for overcrowding and growth. 3- and 4-car trains are only of use for working in multiple most of the time.

 

[HSTEd]

What network are you travelling on?
4 x 23m (or even 3.67 x 23m) trains are sufficient on most of the routes I regularly travel on.
Good luck additionally getting loco hauled eight or nine carriage sets to stick to Sprinter timetables - I am not even sure if four motor axles across four cars is enough, even with an electric transmission.

 

[jimm]

With the glacial acceleration of the 16x, I really don't see that that is going to be a problem.

Hardly glacial and once a 16x it gets to 60mph, it can keep going all the way to 90, so doesn't form a kind of rolling roadblock, which a 230 most certainly would be on the GWML relief lines.

Well if the West Country are happy with 40m trains with seats removed to allow for accessibility improvements and don't want 55m trains which would have additional seats and accessibility improvements.

55m trains with, as I keep saying, more things to maintain. Bigger is not always better and just because a 230 is apparently going to potter up and down the Gunnislake branch for a while should not be taken as a signal more will follow it to the area. The choice of line probably has as much to do with being able to get it back to a major depot to give it some tlc every night and easily swop it for another type of train should problems arise, factors which would also apply if it does spend time on Mr Shooter's old patch working Aylesbury-Princes Risborough at some point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was talking about 91+LHCS+DVT sets from East Coast. But there are plenty of electric locomotives knocking about the place, and if necessary it would be cheaper to build some than to build more EMUs.



Except on branch lines, nigh on every single 3 car train is *too short*. We *do* need eight or nine car trains throughout much of the network to cater for overcrowding and growth. 3- and 4-car trains are only of use for working in multiple most of the time.

Most of what time? Have you ever heard of off-peak? That's the time of day when there are rather fewer people travelling. Where I live you can fill an HST in the peaks, no problem. Outside those times, a 180 or 166 is more than adequate provision and there is no need for an eight or nine-car train at such times and never will be, whereas with shorter multiple units you can couple them up to make a big train for the times you need one.

And if you want to talk about TPE Manchester-Scotland rolling stock, there is a thread for that...

 

[MarkyT]

. . . And that's without mentioning the forthcoming signalling upgrade.

Adapting older trains to work with a modern ATP/ATO signalling system like Seltrac is both expensive and very risky. For a low tech train like the D78 in its current form, that work would likely require a completely new onboard traction control system and very heavily modified cabs, all for a train with only a limited remaining life. If the units were to have stayed with LU it's likely some new stock would have been required anyway to cover the units' time out of traffic during a programme of modification. Similarly costly and risky modification of existing Piccadilly Line trains to work over the sections of the resignalled SSL network shared with the new District Line S stock will be avoided by overlaying new conventional colour light signals and trains-stops as required through the shared areas, equipment that can be removed later when the new Seltrac-capable Piccadilly Line trains eventually arrive.

 

[JamesRowden]

Hardly glacial and once a 16x it gets to 60mph, it can keep going all the way to 90, so doesn't form a kind of rolling roadblock, which a 230 most certainly would be on the GWML relief lines.

An out of service Maidenhead to Reading train http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P04745/2015/08/28/advanced is currently timetabled to take 17 minutes. A D-Train should be able to do the just under 12 miles in that time (and I would guess the D-Train could do it in 14 minutes).

And 60mph max freight services do operate on the GWML http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H41854/2015/08/28/advanced.

 

[Nym]

Adapting older trains to work with a modern ATP/ATO signalling system like Seltrac is both expensive and very risky. For a low tech train like the D78 in its current form, that work would likely require a completely new onboard traction control system and very heavily modified cabs, all for a train with only a limited remaining life. If the units were to have stayed with LU it's likely some new stock would have been required anyway to cover the units' time out of traffic during a programme of modification. Similarly costly and risky modification of existing Piccadilly Line trains to work over the sections of the resignalled SSL network shared with the new District Line S stock will be avoided by overlaying new conventional colour light signals and trains-stops as required through the shared areas, equipment that can be removed later when the new Seltrac-capable Piccadilly Line trains eventually arrive.

Could I point out that the D78 RAT units will need to be fitted with this signalling system in order to run in Protected Manual...

As will...

1973 Tube Stock
Sarah Siddons
Steam Locos
Battery Locomotives
Schoma Locomotives
Assset Inspection Train
Class 20 Locos
GBRf Class 66 Locos

As well as possibly;
Motive Power Units
62TS Pilot Units
38 Tube Stock
Q Stock

And provision of fittment to;
1972 Tube Stock

 

[telstarbox]

I know analogies can be dangerous, but just because the trains are old and refurbished doesn't necessarily make them worse than new stock. I would point out that millions of us in the UK live in Victorian and Edwardian houses which have been modernised with central heating, electricity and double glazing to give them a new lease of life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most of what time? Have you ever heard of off-peak? That's the time of day when there are rather fewer people travelling. Where I live you can fill an HST in the peaks, no problem. Outside those times, a 180 or 166 is more than adequate provision and there is no need for an eight or nine-car train at such times and never will be, whereas with shorter multiple units you can couple them up to make a big train for the times you need one.

I'm guessing from your description that's the Cotswold Line? It's increasingly atypical; south WCML services are almost always very busy if a 4-car, it's increasingly the case that 8 are needed all the time except Sunday early mornings. TPE is overcrowded pretty much at all times of day and night. The days of short trains have to be numbered except on very rural services, and even those are getting busier (I hear standing passengers are quite usual on some Ormskirk-Preston services, for instance, whereas when I was a kid not getting a table to yourself was near enough unknown).

 

[47802]

I know analogies can be dangerous, but just because the trains are old and refurbished doesn't necessarily make them worse than new stock. I would point out that millions of us in the UK live in Victorian and Edwardian houses which have been modernised with central heating, electricity and double glazing to give them a new lease of life.

Doesn't alter the fact that new trains may be cheaper to run, more reliable, attract more customers, and if you want to implement new signalling and control systems old trains will be costly to update Some of those things can also apply to houses if you want to use that slightly bizarre comparison.

There is an obsession for re using trains that are essentially life expired on this forum, hopefully those that make the decisions don't have the same mentality, why are discussing TFL decision to replace the D trains, TFL have made that decision its being implemented end of.

Oh and before the we get the idea of sticking transit engines under just about any train, the thing about the D train carriages is that they are fairly light compared to most mail line carriages.

 

[jimm]

I'm guessing from your description that's the Cotswold Line? It's increasingly atypical; south WCML services are almost always very busy if a 4-car, it's increasingly the case that 8 are needed all the time except Sunday early mornings. TPE is overcrowded pretty much at all times of day and night. The days of short trains have to be numbered except on very rural services, and even those are getting busier (I hear standing passengers are quite usual on some Ormskirk-Preston services, for instance, whereas when I was a kid not getting a table to yourself was near enough unknown).

Yes, the Cotswold Line, but on GW route the 800s will work, the same kind of loadings imbalance between peak and off-peak loads applies elsewhere, such as the Gloucester/Cheltenham, where the London service will be increased to hourly, again on the back of using five-car sets suited to likely loadings. The five-car sets will also enable the step up in frequency for Bristol. There is never going to be the demand for 1,900 seats an hour all day between London and Bristol, which running three big trains would deliver, just as the Cotswold Line outside the peak does not fill a 166 or 180, never mind an HST, so there is no point providing something with 600-plus seats west of Oxford (from which point there are lots of other London trains and more to come with electrification) - unless you think burning lots of fuel to cart around empty coaches makes sense.

So TPE trains are busy - they were built too small to start with. Somehow I don't expect any of the bidders for the new franchise will be offering a fleet of three-car trains, do you? Which bit of the WCML do you mean? Near London perhaps but north of Rugby I've yet to encounter a four-car 350 where I couldn't find a seat outside the peak even on a busy Saturday for football.

None of which has anything to do with turning D78s into dmus.

 

[northwichcat]

There is a bit of it if you are willing to recast timetables to stop running DMUs under the wires. For instance, there is no need for DMUs serving Hazel Grove.

Actually there is for two reasons:
1. Services continuing beyond Hazel Grove. Even if you split services at Hazel Grove (which would be a terrible idea) you can't terminate diesel services at the station before Hazel Grove and expect people to walk to Hazel Grove for onward services.
2. Pathing/diagramming reasons. Due to a current shortage of paths in to Piccadilly one diagram involves Chester-Stockport, Stockport to Hazel Grove ECS, then Hazel Grove to Preston, while another does Piccadilly to Hazel Grove, Hazel Grove to Stockport ECS, Stockport to Chester. If you were to put EMUs on those Hazel Grove services you'd just have DMUs spending more time at the depot and Northern overall requiring more trains - increasing the subsidy.