Which lines do you think could use Vivarail Class 230s?

[adrock1976]

Some routes that could use 230s are:

Oxenholme - Windermere
Lancaster - Morecambe and Heysham Harbour
Lancaster - Skipton (connecting into the Leeds and Bradford Forster Square services)

This would require 5 sets in total; 1 for Windermere, 1 for Morecambe, 2 for Skipton (1 hour 12 minutes running time each way, frequency to be every 2 hours), plus 1 spare.

The first Windermere bound train would start from Lancaster, with the last ex Windermere departure running to Lancaster.

Platforms 1 and 2 could be specially dedicated for the 230 services, with Platform 5 specially dedicated for the Barrow-in-Furness (BIF) services (unsure if the Lancaster - BIF would be suitable for 230 running - perhaps somebody local may know what the maximum linespeed is between Carnforth and BIF?).

 

[NoMorePacers]

Some routes that could use 230s are:

Oxenholme - Windermere
Lancaster - Morecambe and Heysham Harbour
Lancaster - Skipton (connecting into the Leeds and Bradford Forster Square services)

This would require 5 sets in total; 1 for Windermere, 1 for Morecambe, 2 for Skipton (1 hour 12 minutes running time each way, frequency to be every 2 hours), plus 1 spare.

The first Windermere bound train would start from Lancaster, with the last ex Windermere departure running to Lancaster.

Platforms 1 and 2 could be specially dedicated for the 230 services, with Platform 5 specially dedicated for the Barrow-in-Furness (BIF) services (unsure if the Lancaster - BIF would be suitable for 230 running - perhaps somebody local may know what the maximum linespeed is between Carnforth and BIF?).

IIRC it’s 60mph max between Carnforth and Barrow, although the 110 between Carnforth and Lancaster would probably put an end to using 230s there unless it was 4 tracked.

 

[tbtc]

I would be seriously against that.

Firstly, a micro fleet of 5 units would be really silly, especially for depots with serious staff shortages and ScotRail's current training problem.

Secondly, the dead mileage. The Caithness shuttle would have to dead run for 200 miles down to Inverness for servicing. Better to make it a 158 so it could interwork with the full length Far North services.

Far better to have more 158s.

I know that other people have answered this too but it's worth repeating that one of the benefits of 230s is that AIUI all of the stuff that needs attention (fuel etc) can be removed fairly simply and swapped over - e.g. we don't need to run them back from some branchline outpost back to the main depot in a city - we can have a bloke pick it up in a transit van - or even carried on a regular passenger train.

I'm not sure that 90mph 158s are really required on the Far North (almost four and a half hours to cover 175 miles - i.e. an average speed of under forty miles per hour) but there seems no problem with a "microfleet" of 153s in Scotland or a "microfleet" of a couple of loco hauled diagrams on Fife services etc etc.

One advantage of 230s is that you could refit them to whatever suited local conditions rather than a "one size fits all" DMU - Viva seem to encourage TOCs to use the blank canvas for something tailored to their needs.

 

[route101]

My guess would be a small fleet of battery ones for Barrhead, East Kilbride and Anniesland. Why? The Scottish Govt has been very careful in its aspirational wording to "green" more services around Glasgow without stating electrification. These routes don't need a high top speed (so 60mph limit is not a problem), and the Class 230 could achieve that aim quickly and at low cost. That together with the Battery trials in Scotland last year make me put 2 and 2 together. As I suspect those three branches couldn't be covered within the existing AC fleet (assuming retirement of the 314s) then it would probably be cheaper than a follow on order of 385s.

Wouldnt 230son EK branch be a huge reduction in capacity ?

 

[John R]

Wouldnt 230son EK branch be a huge reduction in capacity ?

That’s a fair question for a service which is apparently about to enjoy 6 car trains at peak times. I was assuming that 2x3 car 230 sets could operate the service (the TfW sets will be 3 car.) A mixture of 2 and 3 car units would probably be the optimum mix for the three lines.

 

[The Planner]

Portishead and Severn Beach. People also need to get out of the mind frame of its too slow on a fast line, if it fits then it fits. NR would have to argue against it on the basis of strategic use of capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've said it on other threads but nobody has on here that I can see - the Windsor shuttle would be absolutely ideal for a 3-car battery unit with the original Tube interior. It's to all intents and purposes a Tube line in how it's used anyway.

Would probably work on other Thames Valley branches too.

 

[DarloRich]

These trains are ideal for any low speed, stop/start, rural branchlike or short distance commuter shuttle route that needs a capacity boost.

The trains don't seem to need a massive TMD base and can operate in "rough field" conditions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

These trains are ideal for any low speed, stop/start, rural branchlike or short distance commuter shuttle route that needs a capacity boost.

The trains don't seem to need a massive TMD base and can operate in "rough field" conditions.

Were it not for the WCML stretch they'd be ideal for the stopping services on the CLC line from Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington - the EMU like acceleration would potentially make big differences to journey times if the slow doors issue can be solved. That said, the WCML from Liverpool to Allerton Junction is 4-tracked with 2 of them barely used at all, so there could be a workaround there.

 

[Bevan Price]

You consider the 230 to be unsuitable for the service to Newcastle from Teeside? Or even Hexham? I wonder what is so appealing about a 156 in this context.

Class 156 are not limited to 50 mph.
And in my opinion, they are the best of the 2nd generation (1980s) dmus. (Although some of the refurbished 156s seem to have inferior leg space, and table legs positioned to make access to seats more difficult. )

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 156 are not limited to 50 mph.
And in my opinion, they are the best of the 2nd generation (1980s) dmus. (Although some of the refurbished 156s seem to have inferior leg space, and table legs positioned to make access to seats more difficult. )

The Class 156 is a great regional express unit, albeit a bit dated. Its end doors are very poor for stopping services with high loadings.

 

[Jonny]

Class 156 are not limited to 50 mph.
And in my opinion, they are the best of the 2nd generation (1980s) dmus. (Although some of the refurbished 156s seem to have inferior leg space, and table legs positioned to make access to seats more difficult. )

The Class 156 is a great regional express unit, albeit a bit dated. Its end doors are very poor for stopping services with high loadings.

My understanding is that the highest limits are 70mph sections on the Durham Coast Line and 65mph max on the Tyne Valley lines (edit: many of the 70mph sections are shared with the ~50mph Metro services and most of the rest is 60mph or below (via Seaham) and the Hexham services are often stoppers anyway). Also most of Teesside and the Bishop Auckland line is 60mph or less (often less).

 

[John R]

All of the branch lines west of Plymouth would seem suitable candidates, especially as the short journeys would lend themselves to battery operation (even Newquay, where the layovers are slightly longer to enable a full recharge each round trip.) Though that ship appears to have sailed, so I'm not expecting them to be used there.

 

[boing_uk]

There are plenty of lines out there where this type of stock would be absolutely ideal for to free up “mainline” units for higher speed, longer distance runs. Just off the top of my head based on experience;

Cleethorpes - Barton (2 car)
Blackpool South - Preston (3 car)
Colne - Ormskirk (3 car)
Gainsborough Central - Sheffield (3 car)

All shacks stoppers, most stations around 5 mins apart and on lines with few sections where +60mph is achievable in practice.

This freeing up the “mainline” stock for the high speed turns elsewhere / the scrap yard.

As for reliability of these units on the Vale; weren’t the 153s (obviously as 155s) out of action in their early years because the doors opened in service? That’s a pretty major design flaw I would have thought - certainly more worrying than some power pack niggles in the early months of operation. But the 153/155s have settled down to become pretty average steeds and mainstay of certain routes.

The 230s will do pretty much the same. Except they are sturdier beasts with seemingly outstanding customer facilities - which is more than you can say for the 153s. They’re not a “go anywhere” unit but for certain types of service, a “go anywhere” unit is a waste of resource.

(Take my terminology with a pinch of salt and the meaning with which it was intended - I have no wish to deal with pedantry and nit picking. For example: Yes I know Gainsborough to Sheffield hasn’t started yet, but I know the stations on that route).

 

[apk55]

With lots of low speed tractive effort (so high initial acceleration) I would expect them to be good on hilly lines particularly where hill starts are required. Near where I live I think of the Buxton line, Marple & New Mills lines and the Calder Valley line. Many DMUs on these lines struggle to get to get to torque converter lock up so they spend much time running inefficiently running on the torque converter.

 

[Meerkat]

How about the Cumbrian Coast? Not needing to return south for maintenance would be handy, could even get DRS to look after them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about the Cumbrian Coast? Not needing to return south for maintenance would be handy, could even get DRS to look after them.

This would fit with my proposals for the Barrow/Windermere lines.

Barrow/Windermere to be served hourly "pure clockface" with a pair of bi-mode units from Manchester Airport (either 3x23m or 4x20m) splitting/joining at Lancaster. Or DMUs if Northern *must*. All trains to call at all stations, as that barely makes any difference to running times, and the consistent timetable would have far more value than saving 5 minutes.

Cumbrian Coast to be an hourly connectional service, again "pure clockface" (possibly with Sellafield shift extras) using 3-car 230s designed specifically for that use, e.g. a decent number of bicycle spaces (for both tourists and Sellafield commuters) and bus-style "stop" buttons for all the request stops. Possibly even consider battery power if viable.

 

[adrock1976]

This would fit with my proposals for the Barrow/Windermere lines.

Barrow/Windermere to be served hourly "pure clockface" with a pair of bi-mode units from Manchester Airport (either 3x23m or 4x20m) splitting/joining at Lancaster. Or DMUs if Northern *must*. All trains to call at all stations, as that barely makes any difference to running times, and the consistent timetable would have far more value than saving 5 minutes.

Cumbrian Coast to be an hourly connectional service, again "pure clockface" (possibly with Sellafield shift extras) using 3-car 230s designed specifically for that use, e.g. a decent number of bicycle spaces (for both tourists and Sellafield commuters) and bus-style "stop" buttons for all the request stops. Possibly even consider battery power if viable.

Regarding Barrow/Windermere, would it be better to be Lancaster - Barrow and Oxenholme - Windermere (the first train of the day starting from Lancaster and the last ex Windermere running to Lancaster), with the Barrow trains connecting into the Glasgow/Edinburgh - Manchester Airport trains being as they will soon be 5 coach trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding Barrow/Windermere, would it be better to be Lancaster - Barrow and Oxenholme - Windermere (the first train of the day starting from Lancaster and the last ex Windermere running to Lancaster), with the Barrow trains connecting into the Glasgow/Edinburgh - Manchester Airport trains being as they will soon be 5 coach trains?

No, this would be inadequate capacity.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

In electric-only mode, they could be very useful on the Medway Valley, Bromley North and Sheerness branches so that if the new Southeastern franchise actually gets 'up and running' with new, decent-length units, they aren't stuck on mundane Branch work.

A diesel/battery version for the Marshlink could also work with reasonable sources of spare parts available at a single maintenance depot such as Gillingham.

 

[Doomotron]

I second the Marshlink idea. They might have better acceleration than the 171s (which could go completely to Uckfield), and can run on the third rail between Ore and Brighton Eastbourne.

 

[yorksrob]

I second the Marshlink idea. They might have better acceleration than the 171s (which could go completely to Uckfield), and can run on the third rail between Ore and Brighton Eastbourne.

If you're going to have re=conditioned stock, why not have enough to go all the way to Brighton. The original through service wasn't cancelled due to lack of popularity - it was because the 171's couldn't cope with loadings. I'm guessing one of these carriages is shorter than a 171 carriage, so you would probably need three to replicate the capacity of a two carriage 171. Given these are already often quite crowded, make them four carriages as well.

Also, perhaps have some 2 carriage ones to run a shuttle to Lydd.