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

[D365]

Is it not a fact that trams are more expensive to operate than a heavy rail solution with equivalent capacity/performance?

 

[HSTEd]

Is it not a fact that trams are more expensive to operate than a heavy rail solution with equivalent capacity/performance?

That rule only holds above a capacity threshold - for example if your route demand only requires a single unit compact tram, it doesn't matter much if your heavy rail option is cheaper per seat because the heavy rail option will run at a lower capacity factor.

You can't run half-car trains essentially.

 

[furnessvale]

Being in the field of senior management for over thirty years, the only way that I would view this is from the perspective of a business model. Successful businesses do not thrive on sentiment. The question to be asked is if the said branch line is profitable or not. If not, it is meaningless to replace a Class 142 Pacer with another unit. The most sensible financial thing to do is just close down the branch line service, that point being the alternative that you state. That then brings into equation of the actual reality of the franchise requirements.and how the wording of that actually reads, in terms of what action would be allowed.

Let us not enter into "Titfield Thunderbolt" reasoning, which was purely based on sheer emotive sentiment.

I'll give it one last go.

No sentiment is involved. The existing units on the line are life expired. New units would be too expensive and tip the line into a loss, however 230s are cheap enough to keep the line open. Would you use them or see the line closed?

Remember this whole conversation started from your comment in #4461.

 

[edwin_m]

But it wouldn't be tram-trains.... it would be trams?

Delta-RAil came to the conclusion that a low performance electric traction supply would be inexpensive to provide - at which point the lower performance and structural demands of a tram will start to tell against a heavy rail diesel unit. If we were permitted third rail it might be a different story - but we aren't.

But how many branch lines are totally segregated from the rest of the network, such that a tram or similar would never have to share track with anything else? There is also the question of how a unit gets to a depot (unless money is spent on building one on the branch itself) and how a spare unit would be provided for maintenance and breakdown cover. In short, it's been looked at and it doesn't work except for very special cases such as Stourbridge.

The remit for the Delta Rail report was flawed, in that it only considered electrifying the branch itself and not network issues such as these, or indeed the likelihood of the main line being electrified at 25kV allowing power to be fed onto the branch.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is it not a fact that trams are more expensive to operate than a heavy rail solution with equivalent capacity/performance?

Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge that I could answer your query, but current systems in operation are:-
Sheffield Supertram
Manchester Metrolink
Edinburgh Trams
Croydon (?) Tramlink
Midland Metro
Nottingham Express Transit

Do not forget that these tramways can all serve parts of city cores in more depth than heavy rail, which is a matter that should not be overlooked. Service frequencies of trams are far better than their heavy rail equivalents, when calculating passengers numbers being carried.

 

[southern442]

As for simply culling branch lines, rather than providing a low-cost solution... eh?

Closing branch lines would mean that people on the branch lines would drive to the nearest station and then get the train from there. I won't explain why this is a bad thing because most of the people on this forum will be able to figure it out.

As for the 230's being used, why exactly do we need to tell people they are ex-LU? Just give them a new seating layout, a fresh coat of paint, maybe incorporate some 'new technology' such as plug sockets and wifi, and your average passenger will have no idea. (Likewise, building new trains and then telling people they are old will lead to complaints about old trains, but that won't ever happen). I'm not saying we should start to capitalise on the ignorance of the general public, but if the train is rebuilt to a good standard and is fitted out in a way that pleases the public, then it could do the job of a new train just as well for 10-15 years.

It has been said before that they won't be used on branch lines in Cornwall, but I think that if it means that trains on other, busier routes could be lengthened from 2 or 3 to 4 or 5 carriages, then it is a sensible idea and one that should really be at least looked into in more depth. As for their use on Northern, we should give the 195's, 319's and 331's a chance first before other trains are considered. Personally, I don't think it would be a bad idea, although I am from darn sarf and I know that certain people from the north are understandably touchy about getting second-hand trains as a 'temporary' measure, especially if the past is anything to go by! I would really like to see these trains used on any lines near me, but we are pretty much sorted as far as new trains go for now.

 

[northwichcat]

Are you aware of how the Manchester Metrolink system is funded?

After £84m was provided for conversion of the Oldham Loop TfGM claim it doesn't require a 'subsidy' to operate.

 

[najaB]

I have emboldened the most relevant part of your posting.

History has shown us that a 'lack of demand' can be engineered when it suits the powers that be.

 

[HSTEd]

But how many branch lines are totally segregated from the rest of the network, such that a tram or similar would never have to share track with anything else?

Several lines are effectively already completely segregated or could (fairly) easily be made so, for example the St Ives Branch and the Exmouth Branch (you could single the section between Central and Exmouth junction and run a tram on the other track).
You could also do something with the Thames Valley branches and some other minor routes like that.

There is also the question of how a unit gets to a depot (unless money is spent on building one on the branch itself)

Probably on the back of a low loader.

and how a spare unit would be provided for maintenance and breakdown cover.

Why bother?
Just run a bus if the unit breaks down - breakdowns should be (relatively) rare.
And even if you do - two tram cars are not going to come out that expensive.

The remit for the Delta Rail report was flawed, in that it only considered electrifying the branch itself and not network issues such as these, or indeed the likelihood of the main line being electrified at 25kV allowing power to be fed onto the branch.

Well for one thing it won't make any difference, because at £2.5m/track-km it comes out orders of magnitude higher than the proposals in that document anyway.
And that assumes that these branch lines are going to be on lines which are electrified at 25kV or will be (almost everything that will be electrified at 25kV in the next 30 years will soon be electrified I think).

 

[najaB]

The question to be asked is if the said branch line is profitable or not. If not, it is meaningless to replace a Class 142 Pacer with another unit.

Let's say that the line is profitable, but not excessively so. And you have a choice between a lease of a brand new unit which would eliminate the profit, or a cheaper re-purposed one that would leave a surplus? What then?

 

[Elecman]

Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge that I could answer your query, but current systems in operation are:-
Sheffield Supertram
Manchester Metrolink
Edinburgh Trams
Croydon (?) Tramlink
Midland Metro
Nottingham Express Transit

Do not forget that these tramways can all serve parts of city cores in more depth than heavy rail, which is a matter that should not be overlooked. Service frequencies of trams are far better than their heavy rail equivalents, when calculating passengers numbers being carried.

Blackpool is missing from your list

 

[D365]

Closing branch lines would mean that people on the branch lines would drive to the nearest station and then get the train from there. I won't explain why this is a bad thing because most of the people on this forum will be able to figure it out.

As history shows, that is not a safe assumption to be had.

Let's say that the line is profitable, but not excessively so. And you have a choice between a lease of a brand new unit which would eliminate the profit, or a cheaper re-purposed one that would leave a surplus? What then?

Furthermore, if traffic on this line increases significantly following introduction of the refurbished stock, this may enable higher specification units to be introduced in order to meet demand.

 

[HSTEd]

Blackpool is missing from your list

Although it has now become something of a modern tramway it is still significantly different from the others. And would not exist if it did not already exist.

 

[southern442]

As history shows, that is not a safe assumption to be had.

It's safe to say that back then, there was a severe lack of forward-planning. Closing lines should never happen, unless they are converted into light-rail, as trams have given a massive new lease of life to lines such as the Oldham loop and the West Croydon to Wimbledon Line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'll give it one last go.

No sentiment is involved. The existing units on the line are life expired. New units would be too expensive and tip the line into a loss, however 230s are cheap enough to keep the line open. Would you use them or see the line closed?

Remember this whole conversation started from your comment in #4461.

I thought that I had covered all possible questions on this matter in previous postings and I have neither reason nor intention to continue to reiterate matters, especially my business case view of matters, which is totally and utterly devoid of any sentimentality whatsoever.

However, you make the hypothetical point above that the existing units on the line are life expired. There is no current real-life scenario where this is the case, so I reiterate that you are using a hypothetical premise.

You continue then to state that Class 230 units are cheap enough to keep the line open. Given the fact that only a solitary Class 230 is still in its testing stage, there are no spare Class 230 units to fulfil the task that you envisage. Where your detailed costing knowledge regarding "cheapness" comes from, heaven only knows.

You make comment about new units and their cost, but in the case of Northern, orders have actually been placed for these new units, many of which are intended to replace the existing Class 142 Pacer fleet, which may I remind you are still a few years away from being withdrawn.

Let us close this hypothetical flight of fancy by quoting the famous statement from "'Allo 'Allo"....."Listen carefully, I shall say this only once"

 

[najaB]

However, you make the hypothetical point above that the existing units on the line are life expired...

2019 isn't that far away. I dare say that Booths are already making space for all the Pacers that'll be heading their way.

 

[D365]

However, you make the hypothetical point above that the existing units on the line are life expired. There is no current real-life scenario where this is the case, so I reiterate that you are using a hypothetical premise.

Are the Pacers not long overdue for withdrawal? Do not forget that there exists a franchise currently operating a number of Pacer units for which replacement plans have not been finalised. To add to this, a number of the earlier Sprinter-type classes will only have a limited lifespan beyond 2020, if indeed they are to be made compliant.

 

[47802]

Oh dear, I can well imagine how that particular Class 230 aspiration would be received by certain political parties over the border...

Isn't there also the slight issue that the speed limits on significant sections of the route are well above 60mph with some sections up to 90mph and hence presumably why 158/170's are used.

Also why has this thread suddenly degenerated into branch lines apparently now being under threat of closure that can only be saved by a cheap 230? and with actual regard to the 230's cheapness which has already been discussed at length comments from knowledgeable people elsewhere have suggested that the overall costs of this train are not that cheap if properly refurbished, hence presumably why TOC's so far have gone for better alternatives.

 

[47802]

Are the Pacers not long overdue for withdrawal? Do not forget that there exists a franchise currently operating a number of Pacer units for which replacement plans have not been finalised. To add to this, a number of the earlier Sprinter-type classes will only have a limited lifespan beyond 2020, if indeed they are to be made compliant.

I think its fairly obvious that most sprinter types will be around to at least the mid 2020's and any proposed replacement for them isn't going to be a D train.

 

[WatcherZero]

Is it not a fact that trams are more expensive to operate than a heavy rail solution with equivalent capacity/performance?

No, generally a tram would be between a third and half the running cost of a comparative heavy rail system until you get up in to heavy metro train length systems.

 

[bramling]

Are the Pacers not long overdue for withdrawal? Do not forget that there exists a franchise currently operating a number of Pacer units for which replacement plans have not been finalised. To add to this, a number of the earlier Sprinter-type classes will only have a limited lifespan beyond 2020, if indeed they are to be made compliant.

I'd place a small bet that, in the end, most Sprinters will be made complaint. I'd also bet that it'll be a bare-minimum job where nothing is really done to make up for seating (or overall) capacity being reduced to make way for the large toilets.

The elephant in the room still seems to be the 153s, who can still be found operating singly in a fair few places. There are various things that can be done with them, but in all cases it represents a headache for the owners/operators.

 

[HSTEd]

The likely solution for Sprinters is that the toilets will simply be locked OOU.
Job done.

 

[northwichcat]

No, generally a tram would be between a third and half the running cost of a comparative heavy rail system until you get up in to heavy metro train length systems.

So you're saying Metrolink would be able to run 6 x M5000s for the price LO can run a 5 car 378?

 

[HLE]

The likely solution for Sprinters is that the toilets will simply be locked OOU.
Job done.

Yep, keep them I say, reliable units

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are the Pacers not long overdue for withdrawal? Do not forget that there exists a franchise currently operating a number of Pacer units for which replacement plans have not been finalised.

Despite people making similar comments, Angel Trains will make the decision on the Class 142 type, which are numerically greater than the Classes 143 and 144 of Porterbrook.

 

[Mordac]

Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge that I could answer your query, but current systems in operation are:-
Sheffield Supertram
Manchester Metrolink
Edinburgh Trams
Croydon (?) Tramlink
Midland Metro
Nottingham Express Transit

Do not forget that these tramways can all serve parts of city cores in more depth than heavy rail, which is a matter that should not be overlooked. Service frequencies of trams are far better than their heavy rail equivalents, when calculating passengers numbers being carried.

You forgot Blackpool!

 

[fredk]

The likely solution for Sprinters is that the toilets will simply be locked OOU.
Job done.

Is this due to disability regulations requiring a disabled toilet for stock if they have toilets installed? If so that would be quite a shame, almost the opposite of what disability regulations are trying to achieve.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You forgot Blackpool!

May I be so bold as to refer you to posting # 4511 by Elecman and then posting # 4513 by HSTEd with regards to that matter.

 

[Class 170101]

Is this due to disability regulations requiring a disabled toilet for stock if they have toilets installed? If so that would be quite a shame, almost the opposite of what disability regulations are trying to achieve.

No requirement for a loo to be provided. Look at the Class 345s for Crossrail - no toilets provided.

 

[najaB]

If so that would be quite a shame, almost the opposite of what disability regulations are trying to achieve.

It's one way to ensure that able-bodied and disabled have equal access to toilet facilities. So, technically, the law has had its intended effect.