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

[Bletchleyite]

There is never going to be the demand for 1,900 seats an hour all day between London and Bristol

Perhaps not, but then dropping frequencies a bit off-peak is more efficient than running loads of short trains. I've said this before of the WCML London-Manchester services - 3tph at 11 car all day is overkill, but to me changing that to 2tph off peak and 4tph peak using 11-car sets is a better idea than having 5 car sets splitting and joining.

So TPE trains are busy - they were built too small to start with.

One of the many places where longer trains would fit. Seems to back up my point.

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.

While I would term "the south WCML" as meaning Northampton and points south, that is not my experience at all. There are almost universally standing passengers north of Coventry.

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

It does in a way...converting D78s means cheap capacity - longer trains on busier routes in an affordable way, which I think is definitely required.

 

[jimm]

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.

I didn't say they don't exist, I know full well about the aggregates trains and don't imagine pathing them is a picnic with all the other rather faster trains that are out there competing for space on the GWML, so why add to your burdens with a penny-packet of 60mph dmus when you already have 90mph units working in the area that are straightforward to path and the depot crews know their way around?

This is not the environment that Vivarail has in mind for its trains. With a 60mph top speed a 230 would slow down journeys on the Cotswold Line and I expect XC, Chiltern, Freightliner and DBS would have a collective fit if they were told a 230 was going to work the Oxford-Banbury diesel shuttles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps not, but then dropping frequencies a bit off-peak is more efficient than running loads of short trains. I've said this before of the WCML London-Manchester services - 3tph at 11 car all day is overkill, but to me changing that to 2tph off peak and 4tph peak using 11-car sets is a better idea than having 5 car sets splitting and joining.

Virgin went for the big train option, so this is an entirely academic point. And tales of half-empty Pendolinos running up and down are, of course, legion. So what does that tell us? And what size of Pendolino was Virgin proposing adding to its fleet at the last franchise round? That's right, six-car sets...

One of the many places where longer trains would fit. Seems to back up my point.

What point? That all trains everywhere should be 10-car all the time? Even on North TPE, I think you might struggle to fill six 10-car trains per hour, all day, every day, never mind that they wouldn't fit on the platforms at several places.

While I would term "the south WCML" as meaning Northampton and points south, that is not my experience at all. There are almost universally standing passengers north of Coventry.

Universally? At 11am or 11pm on a miserable winter Tuesday? Don't think so... Sorry but peak and off-peak have not seamlessly merged to produce the same loadings 24/7, nor will they so long as our working lives are organised in the traditional manner.

It does in a way...converting D78s means cheap capacity - longer trains on busier routes in an affordable way, which I think is definitely required.

We have yet to see how the numbers stack up. The conversion may be cheaper than a new train but how long will it last and what are the running costs going to be? Extra doors, bogies, engines and transmissions all have to be looked after. Until one has been run up and down in the real world and potential customers get some hard facts to look at, the jury is still out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Virgin went for the big train option, so this is an entirely academic point. And tales of half-empty Pendolinos running up and down are, of course, legion. So what does that tell us? And what size of Pendolino was Virgin proposing adding to its fleet at the last franchise round? That's right, six-car sets...

And anyone with any sense who knows the WCML knows they were mad to even propose that, given how much of the end vehicles don't contain passenger accommodation they would have fewer seats than the Voyagers they were to replace.

What happened, a timetable and diagram rejig to allow 9 and 11-car sets to run from Brum to Scotland, has been a far more sensible approach. And the remaining 5 car Voyagers? Still overcrowded.

What point? That all trains everywhere should be 10-car all the time? Even on North TPE, I think you might struggle to fill six 10-car trains per hour, all day, every day, never mind that they wouldn't fit on the platforms at several places.

Who said 10-car? I think I mentioned 8 as a useful number. And I think the TPE 6tph frequency is utter madness; 4 with proper length trains would be preferable.

Universally? At 11am or 11pm on a miserable winter Tuesday? Don't think so... Sorry but peak and off-peak have not seamlessly merged to produce the same loadings 24/7, nor will they so long as our working lives are organised in the traditional manner.

Possibly not at the times you state, but certainly most of the time. Sufficiently so that Thameslink are going to be using fixed formations, for instance. And that LM have started forming most Sunday trains south of Northampton of 8 cars, and it is very much necessary. And the 0010 "vomit comet" off Euston on a Saturday, nominally off peak, is now 12-car - and still full and standing.

We have yet to see how the numbers stack up. The conversion may be cheaper than a new train but how long will it last and what are the running costs going to be? Extra doors, bogies, engines and transmissions all have to be looked after. Until one has been run up and down in the real world and potential customers get some hard facts to look at, the jury is still out.

Back on topic...I agree, however I am inclined, given who is involved in the project, to think positively rather than negatively about the plans.

 

[gazthomas]

Can we stick to the main discussion please?

 

[lfc2014uk]

The D78's would be a good addition to the networks shortage of rolling stock. But the problem is that the top speed of these trains is only 60mph.

Therefor the D78's would only be able to run on branch lines that have limited number of services such as the Bidston - Wrexham line.

They could also be used on a limited number of lines within the Northern Franchise such as Huddersfield - Halifax or Colne - Preston.

With regards to the Pacers 142/3/4 after visiting porterbrook Depot and seeing the 144 Evo. I feel these trains could be redesigned and refurbished and also run on B class branchlines at £320,000 per 2 car unit. According to Porterbrook the 144 Evo would last for 10yrs.

In the longterm:-

Northern Franchise must get new trains and further electrification

Once the Midland Mainline is electrified the Meriden 222 will be cascaded to the East Midlands Trains: Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich Service

Excisting East Midlands Trains 158s on the Liverpool - Norwich route half will go to Northern and the other half will go to Arriva Trains Wales routes across the North Wales between Holyhead and Chester lines

 

[Camden]

Once the Midland Mainline is electrified the Meriden 222 will be cascaded to the East Midlands Trains: Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich Service

Excisting East Midlands Trains 158s on the Liverpool - Norwich route half will go to Northern and the other half will go to Arriva Trains Wales routes across the North Wales between Holyhead and Chester lines

This is the issue though, electrification. The Midland Mainline may well not be electrified, in part or in whole. Even if it is electrified to Northamptonshire that may still not free up enough rolling stock to run services, bearing in mind that some of these services are being run by HSTs which no doubt the TOC would like to replace with Meridians.

I suspect you may be seeing class 158s on the Liverpool to Norwich route for some time yet, and that the wider network may be grateful for any spare capacity it can lay its hands on. There are two routes around you where these D78s might fit, one is the one you mentioned and the other is the Ormskirk shuttle. If your expansion to Skelmersdale goes ahead possible another shuttle from there to Wigan or possibly right into Manchester Victoria. All of these would free up faster diesel units would could then be deployed elsewhere.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With regards to the Pacers 142/3/4 after visiting porterbrook Depot and seeing the 144 Evo. I feel these trains could be redesigned and refurbished and also run on B class branchlines at £320,000 per 2 car unit. According to Porterbrook the 144 Evo would last for 10yrs.

I see you mention the Class 142 units above which are nothing whatsoever to do with Porterbrook. These are numerically greater than the other two classes.

Are you aware of what Angel Trains have said about the Class 142 units?

 

[Xavi]

DfT will push the case for more and more AT-300s. Even Roger Ford says the unit price is now reasonable. I'd say Midland Main Line, TPE and Cross Country are all likely candidates to keep Newton Aycliffe turning out 5-car versions beyond the ECML fleet of IEPs. All routes can take advantage of existing OHLE and it takes the pressure off completion dates for future electrification schemes. Meridians and Voyagers will have engines downrated and see their time out on secondary routes like Cardiff - Crewe / Nottingham / Portsmouth and Norwich - Liverpool. A DMU cascade and capacity increase will then be possible.

Strange as it seems, a 5-car AT-300 will offer a considerable capacity increase over a lot of existing XC and MML stock.

 

[gazthomas]

I see you mention the Class 142 units above which are nothing whatsoever to do with Porterbrook. These are numerically greater than the other two classes.

Are you aware of what Angel Trains have said about the Class 142 units?

For the 142's get a steering rack and some tyres and they can be Leyland National 3's. I'm sure CentreBus would take them on, they love knackered kit

 

[Domh245]

The problem is that in the Northern ITT, it effectively ruled out use of pacers (I think the phrase they used was non-bogied stock) so no matter how much porterbrook pour into the e-pacer scheme, they can't be used on Northern, so the only way in which a pacer would work is as a key to unlocking a whole bunch of cascades sending fleets all around the country. A similar thing happened with the FGW direct award, so we may see all of the 3rd generation pacers living out the rest of their lives in the welsh valleys until electrification gets rid of them once and for all, with some of their sprinters being sent to other TOCs, but with the 142s due to disappear once and for all, something tells me we will still end up with a rolling stock shortage, and these trains, whilst not the best solution, appear to be the only sensible solution!

 

[Haydn1971]

This is the issue though, electrification. The Midland Mainline may well not be electrified, in part or in whole.

I strongly believe that this will be the case now, the closer that electrification creeps towards the completion date for HS2, the worse that business case and urgency becomes for electrifying all the way to Sheffield. I fully expect wires to happen eventually though.

What I'm uncertain of is the way this will be managed moving forward - clearly running diesel units under wires isn't great, but there's only so many express bi-mode units needed post HS2 - it's regional/commuter stuff we are screaming out for given the ageing fleets.

The 222's aren't that bad a unit, despite what many scream on about, perhaps there is scope moving forward to midlife refurb, derate the power of the 220/221/222 fleet, consolidate into revised fleets, remove first and the big luggage spaces, add seats, tipups or cycle space in the front cabs where possible and use these to replace the 156/158/159's on 75/90/100mph lines in the medium term, with newer bi-mode units from whoever taking the strain on 110/125/140mph intercity services on MML & XC services, eventually reforming these midlife to EMU's as more routes become wired.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem is that in the Northern ITT, it effectively ruled out use of pacers (I think the phrase they used was non-bogied stock) so no matter how much porterbrook pour into the e-pacer scheme, they can't be used on Northern

Given the needs of Wales and Great Western, I'm pretty sure the 143/144 fleets could find homes away from the Northern Franchise - but I'm not convinced that the Northern ITT will keep them away from Northern, it's more likely that as these units become older, there's a push to keep the fleet operations from less depots to ease maintenance issues.

 

[northwichcat]

Given the needs of Wales and Great Western, I'm pretty sure the 143/144 fleets could find homes away from the Northern Franchise - but I'm not convinced that the Northern ITT will keep them away from Northern, it's more likely that as these units become older, there's a push to keep the fleet operations from less depots to ease maintenance issues.

ATW have 15 x 142s and 15 x 143s so the options are:
1. Keep Pacers. Replace the 142s with a greater number of refurbished 143/4s. Maybe take on all the 144s and the FGW 143s and release some 153s?
2. Take on D-Trains.
3. Order new stock with the intention of cascading it to other routes once Valley Lines are electrified.
4. Cascade existing stock to ATW.
5. Order bi-mode.
6. Exemption order for Pacers until Valley Lines are electrified.

I can't see the 3rd option being taken up, while the 4th option would need more new diesels for other franchises (unlikely) and the 5th would likely be too pricey for local lines.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

And since when did you become Mr extravagant ? You're usually waxing lyrical about how things are too expensive (particularly in Regional land) and not worth spending the money on.

The point about re-conditioning stock is that it's a cost-effective way of making things last longer so that money can be spent instead on real improvements such as increased capacity and better rail links in the regional railway.

With regard to D stock conversion and conversion of carriages in general, the aluminium stock may be lighter, but wouldn't it also be less crashworthy on a mixed railway than something Mk2 or 3 based ?

Also, in my wide experience of travelling on Northern Rail, I feel that something with a layout akin to a 158 or 156 would be better for a lot of our sevices that are unlikely to be electrified in the near future, and Mk2/3 type stock would be more suited to this.

 

[HSTEd]

Railway passenger mileage is growing at several percent per year.
I don't think we need to be spending lots of money to attract new people to the service.

 

[yorksrob]

Railway passenger mileage is growing at several percent per year.
I don't think we need to be spending lots of money to attract new people to the service.

Yes, but "real improvements" often mean capacity for the increased numbers that are happenning anyway, hence our discussion now.

 

[D365]

With regard to D stock conversion and conversion of carriages in general, the aluminium stock may be lighter, but wouldn't it also be less crashworthy on a mixed railway than something Mk2 or 3 based ?

The last steel-bodied passenger stock introduced in the UK was the Class 222. Even the Hitachi 'AT300 family' trains are aluminium-bodied, so I'm not not sure what your point is.

 

[FordFocus]

Yes the D-Train is in the Bible

Good quote

This is a new one on here, religion about old LUL stock

 

[NotATrainspott]

I strongly believe that this will be the case now, the closer that electrification creeps towards the completion date for HS2, the worse that business case and urgency becomes for electrifying all the way to Sheffield. I fully expect wires to happen eventually though.

What I'm uncertain of is the way this will be managed moving forward - clearly running diesel units under wires isn't great, but there's only so many express bi-mode units needed post HS2 - it's regional/commuter stuff we are screaming out for given the ageing fleets.

The 222's aren't that bad a unit, despite what many scream on about, perhaps there is scope moving forward to midlife refurb, derate the power of the 220/221/222 fleet, consolidate into revised fleets, remove first and the big luggage spaces, add seats, tipups or cycle space in the front cabs where possible and use these to replace the 156/158/159's on 75/90/100mph lines in the medium term, with newer bi-mode units from whoever taking the strain on 110/125/140mph intercity services on MML & XC services, eventually reforming these midlife to EMU's as more routes become wired.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Given the needs of Wales and Great Western, I'm pretty sure the 143/144 fleets could find homes away from the Northern Franchise - but I'm not convinced that the Northern ITT will keep them away from Northern, it's more likely that as these units become older, there's a push to keep the fleet operations from less depots to ease maintenance issues.

HS2 doesn't worsen the business case for electrifying the MML. If anything, by making the route more regional, it improves the case as there would be more stopping services which would be more improved by electrification than the current long distance MML services using their modern rolling stock. It's pretty much impossible to wire the MML for electrified regional services without that enabling electrified long distance services as well. Think about it: there will need to be wires in and around Derby and Nottingham for Toton shuttles and wires in and around Sheffield for Meadowhall shuttles. The East Midlands local wiring would have to end up going south to Leicester and the Sheffield wires would have to go to Dore and Chesterfield, leaving you with rather small gaps between the suburban wired sections if there are also wires to Corby.

 

[Haydn1971]

HS2 doesn't worsen the business case for electrifying the MML. If anything, by making the route more regional, it improves the case as there would be more stopping services which would be more improved by electrification than the current long distance MML services using their modern rolling stock.

Perhaps I was unclear in what I was getting at... The later that electrification is left, the more difficult and costly it becomes because of the increasing impact on services running on it, the urgency reduces as the light at the end of the tunnel creeps closer. It's clear the line needs electrification, that case becomes clearer once more regional services are made possible after long distance move to HS2 - the best time to do this isn't when MML is at peak passengers, but immediately post the big transfer of passengers to HS2 when the impact of construction will have less overall impact.

 

[D365]

It's clear the line needs electrification, that case becomes clearer once more regional services are made possible after long distance move to HS2 - the best time to do this isn't when MML is at peak passengers, but immediately post the big transfer of passengers to HS2 when the impact of construction will have less overall impact.

Assuming in this instance that MML electrification works will begin after HS2 Phase 2, can we assume it to be completed in good time to phase out the Class 222s and replace with new regional/electric 125mph units?

 

[yorksrob]

The last steel-bodied passenger stock introduced in the UK was the Class 222. Even the Hitachi 'AT300 family' trains are aluminium-bodied, so I'm not not sure what your point is.

If the carriage design is light weight, isn't there a possibility that it will be less sturdy?

Obviously there are more sturdy light-weight designs possible, but bearing in mind these units were built in the 70's, I'm guessing they're not one of them, particularly in comparison to Mk3 build.

 

[jopsuk]

The whole point of using materials other than steel is that it is possible to be as sturdy (or even sturdier) using clever design

 

[yorksrob]

The whole point of using materials other than steel is that it is possible to be as sturdy (or even sturdier) using clever design

Yes, but does a 1970's metro train have a clever design.

 

[asylumxl]

If the carriage design is light weight, isn't there a possibility that it will be less sturdy?

Obviously there are more sturdy light-weight designs possible, but bearing in mind these units were built in the 70's, I'm guessing they're not one of them, particularly in comparison to Mk3 build.

Do you actually have any empirical evidence to support the idea that they are less sturdy?

While an equiv piece of aluminium has 1/2 the strength of steel it is also 1/3 the weight. Obviously this means the structure can be designed to match the strength of steel carriage while still being significantly lighter.

I think it's pointless to compare the crash-worthiness of the D-train to the MK3s, as they're both poor when compared to modern carriages.

 

[HSTEd]

Aluminium carriage bodies are also significantly more rigid than steel designs of similar design strength - due to the thicker aluminium having superior buckling resistance.

 

[MarkyT]

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...

Good point but for all of those special cases, full speed and track capacity would not be achieved or required. If the entire fleet of D78s were equipped with this protected manual mode (overspeed and trainstop functionality presumably in modern form like ETCS limited supervision mode) I assume they would not be able to interrun with S units on Seltrac-only infrastructure at the full speed and capacity envisaged for the core parts of the network.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If the carriage design is light weight, isn't there a possibility that it will be less sturdy?

It depends on the design. Aluminium is considered, incorrectly, to be a soft, weak metal, but when it's welded or bonded correctly, used in carefully designed components and used together with other aluminium based alloys, it's capable of providing a vehicle that's much lighter than a comparable steel vehicle and providing a far superior crash performance.

Obviously there are more sturdy light-weight designs possible, but bearing in mind these units were built in the 70's, I'm guessing they're not one of them, particularly in comparison to Mk3 build.

You're right, but it's nothing to do with what the carriages are built from, and everything to do with how they're built, what crash and deformation structures are built into the design.

The key thing in any case isn't about the stock, but about human survivability, now the first thing is to keep the passenger saloon as intact as possible, but then you need to consider the sort of blunt force trauma you can inflict on passengers if the train doesn't do any sort of energy absorption work during a collision. There's no point having a steel box that doesn't deform if it then kills all the passengers inside.

 

[yorksrob]

Do you actually have any empirical evidence to support the idea that they are less sturdy?

While an equiv piece of aluminium has 1/2 the strength of steel it is also 1/3 the weight. Obviously this means the structure can be designed to match the strength of steel carriage while still being significantly lighter.

I think it's pointless to compare the crash-worthiness of the D-train to the MK3s, as they're both poor when compared to modern carriages.

I don't. My point is that they are supposedly light weight, which suggests possibly less sturdy (without clever design as someone put it).

I'd be interested to know how these compare with mk 3 in terms of robustness.

 

[asylumxl]

I don't. My point is that they are supposedly light weight, which suggests possibly less sturdy (without clever design as someone put it).

I'd be interested to know how these compare with mk 3 in terms of robustness.

It doesn't require clever design or any trickery. A carriage structures will be designed by an engineer within specific constraints. I doubt the Metro Cammell engineers that designed the D78 would design something sub-standard. Over-engineering is the norm for engineers.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't require clever design or any trickery. A carriage structures will be designed by an engineer within specific constraints. I doubt the Metro Cammell engineers that designed the D78 would design something sub-standard. Over-engineering is the norm for engineers.

No, of course not. They would have designed something perfectly appropriate for a relatively slow moving metro train in the 1970's. My hunch is that that standard would have been a lesser specification than a carriage designed for high speed running on the main line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It depends on the design. Aluminium is considered, incorrectly, to be a soft, weak metal, but when it's welded or bonded correctly, used in carefully designed components and used together with other aluminium based alloys, it's capable of providing a vehicle that's much lighter than a comparable steel vehicle and providing a far superior crash performance.



You're right, but it's nothing to do with what the carriages are built from, and everything to do with how they're built, what crash and deformation structures are built into the design.

The key thing in any case isn't about the stock, but about human survivability, now the first thing is to keep the passenger saloon as intact as possible, but then you need to consider the sort of blunt force trauma you can inflict on passengers if the train doesn't do any sort of energy absorption work during a collision. There's no point having a steel box that doesn't deform if it then kills all the passengers inside.

I'm sure that's perfectly true. It comes down to how the one particular design of carriage would outperform the other.