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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No, just utterly predictable and wearing in the extreme.

As you well know, the life cycle of a coach and of a train can't be compared, with the former being considerably shorter, about 12 years, so we have 40 year old class 43s on the East Coast mainline buy National Express don't run 40 year old coaches down the A1, as such coaches will inevitably look more modern than most trains.

But why miss any chance to aim another dig at a project you've set your face against from day one.

It needs someone to provide a check and balance against the euphoria that has so prevailed since this thread was first opened. As each month has passed and even an abortive actual allowance to run services on the Coventry to Nuneaton line ensued, excuses are always found by some on this thread to talk of innovation....to use your phrase above, "just utterly predictable and wearing in the extreme".

 

[Rail Blues]

It needs someone to provide a check and balance against the euphoria that has so prevailed since this thread was first opened. As each month has passed and even an abortive actual allowance to run services on the Coventry to Nuneaton line ensued, excuses are always found by some on this thread to talk of innovation....to use your phrase above, "just utterly predictable and wearing in the extreme".

Strawman argument.

The euphoria exists only in your own mind.


Plenty of people on this thread are interested to see how it pans out and are prepared to watch this space and see what comes of it.

Your mind was seemingly made up beforehand and you've proved utterly impervious to facts, argument and events. Any opportunity, however slight, to knock the project sees you scurrying to this thread like a giddy schoolboy: your last but one post complaining about the aesthetics of the class 230 compared to a coach is a new low.

 

[MML]

When Pacers were first introduced I supported the idea as a way of minimising cost on the smaller branch lines as a way of allowing the re-introduction or expansion of services within local communities.
I never supported their use on metropolitan commuter services or trunk routes between larger cities.

The aim should be the same for the Class 230. They shouldn't be seen entering Manchester Piccadilly or Leeds. There are better suited, modern, faster DMU or EMU stock for this purpose. It is the opening or restoration of branch line services for which they are most suited so long as they can be delivered at a low cost of ownership and economic operating costs.

The Marston Vale is a perfect example. Improved reliability with the addition of a 3rd unit, and potential for improved frequency in the future. Middlesborough to Whitby would be another, but only if the operation of a Class 230 offers lower costs than a Sprinter unit.

There are many branch lines which would benefit from this development, so long as the units can be delivered as a low cost alternative to existing and new diesel units.

 

[Grimsby town]

I'm looking forward to the D train running on the national network. Yes they may not be suitable for some lines but there are other lines where 60mph is not an issue.

Lets compare a single class 158. A D train will have a DDA compliant toilet, USB charges and potentially more capacity. In addition for branches that are remote to a depot like the Barton upon Humber Line, the ability to perform maintence and refuel in the case of the battery mode practically anywhere will be invaluable.

Even if the d train itself doesn't come to fruition it may mean another rollingstock company can create a new build with these desirable traits.

 

[Tomnot27]

The Marston Vale is a perfect example. Improved reliability with the addition of a 3rd unit, and potential for improved frequency in the future. Middlesborough to Whitby would be another, but only if the operation of a Class 230 offers lower costs than a Sprinter unit.

Middlesbrough to Whitby is a bit long as it takes nearly an hour and half. A 156 is what it needs as is

How would a 4 car 230 compare to a 4 car 150 on the st Ives branch in the summer?

 

[Domh245]

Personally, whilst I am not against the engineering, I question the economics.

I'm beginning to agree with that. We've already heard that they aren't as cheap as they'd initially hoped, and they're now showing that units will be fitted with full width gangways. It certainly seems that the cheap aspect of them has been abandoned, leaving them to rely on their other benefits

 

[Non Multi]

So Vivarail could build a REx 230; a range extender battery train, possibly the most intriguing option of all.

 

[Rail Blues]

So Vivarail could build a REx 230; a range extender battery train, possibly the most intriguing option of all.

I
I think so, too. (drifts into state of euphoria)

 

[gazthomas]

I'm beginning to agree with that. We've already heard that they aren't as cheap as they'd initially hoped, and they're now showing that units will be fitted with full width gangways. It certainly seems that the cheap aspect of them has been abandoned, leaving them to rely on their other benefits

I hope Vivarail have “frozen” their specification now. Ongoing last minute revisions tend to increase cost

 

[D365]

To be fair, that's essentially what the Class 139 Parry People Movers are. The flywheel in this case being the energy storage medium of choice.

I hope Vivarail have “frozen” their specification now. Ongoing last minute revisions tend to increase cost

I believe their focus is entirely on production at this time, so I would say so, yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s definitely not an alternative to the 769, that I can grant. I imagine the 25kV charging facility will be only for use at low speeds; in fact I wouldn’t be surprised to see the “Bletchford” fleet be converted to battery operation.

The route would seem to fit the requirements pretty much exactly. They'd probably need to tweak the times to allow a longer layover at Bedford but that shouldn't be a problem, it hardly interacts with anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A case of customers looking forward to a rail replacement bus service. Haha.

I hope the units used for the Marston Vale have an interior arrangement which doesn't look like an underground train.
Those higher backed seats in 'country' style, look far better than the longitudinal low back seats which were present on the D78.

It may look externally like an underground train, it may ride like an underground train - please don't make the interior look like one.

I actually think the as-built D78 layout is spot on for the Marston Vale.

It has:-
- Generously spaced 2+2 facing seating with comfortable sprung seats for end to end passengers
- Longitudinal seating for easy access for short journeys
- Excellent standing capacity for the skoolkydd speshuls

It really doesn't need changing.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

(Totally off-topic, but does anyone know the story with the Sprinter Express vehicle? I have some very vague recollection of the existence of such a vehicle but can't remember anything meaningful..!?)

It's probably the spare bodyshell that used to be parked at Crewe works?

 

[whhistle]

Whats the acceleration like on these units?
If they're what the Underground is, that could be a winner for Coventry - Nuneaton; you might get nearly twice as many services in the same amount of time.

This could then easily be replicated (Leicester - Loughborough for example in the same area).
BUT, if the acceleration isn't 0-40 within 5-10 seconds, it's not a huge improvement.

Low top speed, high acceleration will always be a big winner on local lines with many stops.

 

[samuelmorris]

0-40 in 5 seconds? Don't think anything on LU will ever come even close to that!

 

[Dstock7080]

Whats the acceleration like on these units?

On the recent visit mentioned above, although no exact figures were given, we were told that higher acceleration rates at stations and signals gave comparable running times on typical NR stocks, although the maximum speed was indeed lower.

The battery version train 230002 has new AC motors fitted rather than the DC LT118s it arrived with.

 

[squizzler]

I'm beginning to agree with that. We've already heard that they aren't as cheap as they'd initially hoped, and they're now showing that units will be fitted with full width gangways. It certainly seems that the cheap aspect of them has been abandoned, leaving them to rely on their other benefits

I like the replies to that tweet:

1. ren ‏ @Woof1972 16h16 hours ago
   Replying to @Vivarail
   And how exactly will you achieve this ?
   
   1 reply .0 retweets0 likes
   
2. 
   Vivarail‏ @Vivarail 14h14 hours ago
   Erm quite easily really - you cut the hole, install the connector and seal it all up
   
   3 replies .1 retweet8 likes
   

 

[mushroomchow]

An 8-minute turnaround for a 40-mile range on these BEMUs is quite impressive so soon in development. I don't imagine many of the routes they're mooted to operate will have particularly short dwell times at each end of the line? What's the current turnaround on the Marston Vale out of interest?

The issue comes if your train is running late - that charge time is non-negotiable, so a quicker turnaround will not be possible.

 

[northwichcat]

An 8-minute turnaround for a 40-mile range on these BEMUs is quite impressive so soon in development.

They haven't said what variables that 40 mile claim is based on e.g. what average speed, how many stops, how much climbing, whether it allows for the train to be stopped at red signals for a few minutes etc.

 

[mushroomchow]

They haven't said what variables that 40 mile claim is based on e.g. what average speed, how many stops, how much climbing, whether it allows for the train to be stopped at red signals for a few minutes etc.

Granted, it's probably based on the units pottering around the Long Marston test site - but I don't imagine that range would decrease so significantly that BEMU use on the 24 mile Marston Vale wouldn't be achievable - hence my question about current dwell times at each end. For the arboreal, self-contained branch lines most likely to see 230 service - the Liskeard to Looes and St Erth to St. Ives' of this world - the range is even less important and I've no doubt multiple round trips could be completed before a charge was necessary.

And that's to say nothing of the constantly improving tech available for battery operation. Give it a year, and that range could be 10 or more miles longer.

We should once again reiterate that 230s are not suitable, and will not be procured for, long distance / 75mph+ services, since people still seem to struggling to grasp that after all this time. In the medium term, there's no chance of a BEMU being pressed into service on anything but a short-distance line with minimal risk of "stranding".

 

[B&I]

Ormskirk-Preston is about to get a frequency increase to hourly by way of a Blackpool South-Preston-Colne-Preston-Ormskirk-Preston-Blackpool South circuit as used to operate in the late 1990s. I doubt the circuit would have enough layover (I think the idea is to increase frequency without an extra unit and crew, otherwise they'd just put a second unit on the branch and leave Blackpool S-Colne as it is). But if you dedicated two units to the branch for an hourly service there would be plenty of layover for it.

Kirkby-Wigan I thought of as an option but it'd lose its through Manchester service which might be unpopular.

Bidston-Wrexham...interesting idea.

Fairly dos. With all of those, I was thinking that 230s would be a cheap way of increasing frequency, pump-priming demand and suppirtung their eventual incorporation into Merseyrail, either with extended electrification or using 3rd rail / battery hybrids.

 

[samuelmorris]

For the arboreal, self-contained branch lines most likely to see 230 service - the Liskeard to Looes and St Erth to St. Ives' of this world - the range is even less important and I've no doubt multiple round trips could be completed before a charge was necessary".

True, but you don't get anything like 8 minutes of dwell time at St. Ives. I'm not sure what proportion of that figure is energy transfer and how much is 'hooking it up' but I'm not honestly sure the units would suit that route without a cost-effective way of passively charging it simply by having arrived at the station. As it is, even with 4-car DMUs they're running multiple staff so they don't have to wait for the driver to walk 80 metres to the other end. You'd also need two units coupled together to run the peak summer season services, even in 3-car guise. As one of the few branch line services I do actually use, at least annually, it'd certainly be an experience to see them down at St Erth, but I can't see it happening in battery format. The diesel version seems more likely.

 

[DarloRich]

But your basically spending a lot of money to turn into something roughly the equivalent of a 150 which is hardly state of the art in terms of modern day passenger environment, and potentially still has less flexibility to an operator in terms of lower top speed and no compatibility with the existing fleet something which even Railbuses have.

The Battery unit well I guess the D-train being light is advantageous to the battery train, but with various limitations I don't a great deal of use for it on the Network but maybe I will be proved wrong, also personally I think if your going to come up with a new technology train you want it to look like its from this century not the 1980's.

The Vale stops and starts ever half inch. I have run a speed test along the route and the 150 touched 60 once, for about half a second. The speed isnt the problem. The service is stand alone already and doesn't inter work with the rest of the network. The compatibility of the units with the main line isnt the problem as long as they can be rescued by one of their brothers. The reliability is the big issue and the main reason I am against a battery trial until it can be shown to deliver.

As mere users of the train service on our little line we want to see the reliability improved. I want a timetable that is a promise not a suggestion of the earliest time a train will arrive.

 

[samuelmorris]

That's also a fair concern. The 230s have as many hurdles to jump through as newly designed 'proper' trains if you will, and let's face it, none of the recently introduced fleets have had a particularly trouble-free introduction to service. Vivarail I imagine also have a smaller team of staff behind them to deal with any issues identified in revenue service that couldn't be spotted in prior testing. Whether that's a good or bad thing I'm not sure.

 

[mushroomchow]

True, but you don't get anything like 8 minutes of dwell time at St. Ives. I'm not sure what proportion of that figure is energy transfer and how much is 'hooking it up' but I'm not honestly sure the units would suit that route without a cost-effective way of passively charging it simply by having arrived at the station. As it is, even with 4-car DMUs they're running multiple staff so they don't have to wait for the driver to walk 80 metres to the other end. You'd also need two units coupled together to run the peak summer season services, even in 3-car guise. As one of the few branch line services I do actually use, at least annually, it'd certainly be an experience to see them down at St Erth, but I can't see it happening in battery format. The diesel version seems more likely.

What about at St. Erth? It's only an 8 mile round trip, and having ridden it I don't recall it having a particularly insane frequency, so there must be some decent dwell time at the "main line" end. my memory fails me and somehow a backwater Cornish branch line has a higher service frequency than many far busier routes!

In any sense, by the range specified you would only need something silly like 30 seconds to 1 minute of battery charge at either station to get you there and back, and from what Vivarail have been saying, their system is as simple as the unit parking in a certain place and charging automatically. One charge point at each station would do the job no problem.

Edit - Just looked up the service frequency - 30 minutes each way, all week! That really surprises me! I still don't doubt the turnaround would be long enough for the train to top up sufficiently during turnaround, though.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I wonder what potential for technology sharing this project has. Could the learnings from this result in a battery pack being fitted to tube trains, for example, perhaps to get them to the nearest station if the power supply failed?

 

[D365]

Could the learnings from this result in a battery pack being fitted to tube trains, for example, perhaps to get them to the nearest station if the power supply failed?

The Crossrail Class 345s will be fitted with enhanced backup batteries to power the climate control in the event of a power outage, though the policy will be to not evacuate unless there is an immediate danger.

I imagine this will be considered for the 2020s Tube train programme, whatever it is called now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Crossrail Class 345s will be fitted with enhanced backup batteries to power the climate control in the event of a power outage, though the policy will be to not evacuate unless there is an immediate danger.

I imagine this will be considered for the 2020s Tube train programme, whatever it is called now.

Really they won't be able to leave it hours, otherwise people will end up "using" the gangways absent any toilets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An 8-minute turnaround for a 40-mile range on these BEMUs is quite impressive so soon in development. I don't imagine many of the routes they're mooted to operate will have particularly short dwell times at each end of the line? What's the current turnaround on the Marston Vale out of interest?

10 minutes at Bedford, 23 at Bletchley. Loads of time.

 

[Bantamzen]

When Pacers were first introduced I supported the idea as a way of minimising cost on the smaller branch lines as a way of allowing the re-introduction or expansion of services within local communities.
I never supported their use on metropolitan commuter services or trunk routes between larger cities.

The aim should be the same for the Class 230. They shouldn't be seen entering Manchester Piccadilly or Leeds. There are better suited, modern, faster DMU or EMU stock for this purpose. It is the opening or restoration of branch line services for which they are most suited so long as they can be delivered at a low cost of ownership and economic operating costs.

The Marston Vale is a perfect example. Improved reliability with the addition of a 3rd unit, and potential for improved frequency in the future. Middlesborough to Whitby would be another, but only if the operation of a Class 230 offers lower costs than a Sprinter unit.

There are many branch lines which would benefit from this development, so long as the units can be delivered as a low cost alternative to existing and new diesel units.

And herein lies the problem. As has been shown time and again the Northern franchise has utilised its units pretty much right across the network, regardless of the stock being suitable. The 230s were predominately designed as Pacer replacements, but the Pacers were already unsuitable for many routes they were being worked on so it wasn't a simple replacement that was needed, it was an upgrade. And the 230s simply aren't that, no matter how they are dressed up, and lets face it they are not that dressed up.

Had Arriva bought into the project not only would they have faced severe criticism from the public but have been left with a series of units unsuitable once again for most of their network, solving absolutely nothing and creating more problems especially given that VivaRail are still to deliver even a single revenue earning unit still.

In his video Geoff Marshall unwittingly highlighted the problem I see with the support for this project here. Towards the end he approaches a carriage, strokes it an declares he misses the D-Stock. For me this project feels more like a restoration project, to keep alive the units that we are constantly reminded have bodywork in reasonably good condition and the popular longitudinal seating layout. They may be suitable for a small number of short branches, but they certainly aren't the answer to the DMU issue and as a battery powered concept they have't even been proven yet.