New trains from old?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

London Underground D78 tube stock is due to be replaced with new "S" stock from next January, and there's talk in the railway press (Modern Railways) of adding diesel engines into the withdrawn trains and making units which help meet the current stock shortage.   They would be limited to 60 m.p.h., and I can think of certain lines where plenty of doors and large lobby areas would make sense. Would you welcome "new" 30 year old trains of class 278?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_D78_Stock

[Network SouthEast]

What impresses me is that this idea actually has something many ideas do not - money to back it up.

Roger Ford writes in the December issue of Modern Railways that Vivarail (run by UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railway engineers, funded from RRDC (a Pittsburgh company)) has bought all 150 DM cars of D-Stock, plus another 150 cars. The plan is to form 75 units, which would suggest to me 4 car trains and some spares.

The D stock cars are 18m long, so longer than the Pacers. They'll be a smoother ride too.

No toilets or through gangways mind, I suspect they'll be added at refurbishment. I'll also be surprised if the current 4 doors per car are reduced to 2 doors.

Underground trains seeing out their retirement on the mainlines has certainly be done before - see Isle of Wight. But the difference here is that the Standard Stock and 1938 Stock on the Isle of Wight never had any radical re-engineering done to them!

[ChrisB]

Adrian Shooter is involved at a high level - indeed, it was he who provided Roger with the info you read above.

Apparently there are some guaving issues too - the floors of the D78s are 2inches wider than conventional stock. In his email, Roger looked forward to a seeing a mock up once ready at Kinetin. I assume this is where they are being stored?

There's talk of them being Pacer replacements

[Rhydgaled]

Over on the RailUK Forums somebody suggested that, if these D78 thingys come off, and can keep the 3rd rail capability, some could be used to extend the Wrexham Central - Bidston service into Liverpool. I'm not sure how comfortable they would be, but provided they have toilets I would probably be supprised if they are much worse than class 150s so I think that would probably be a good idea. Not suitable for 'my' lines (Aberystwyth and Carmarthen/Fishguard/Haverfordwest) though I expect.

[eightf48544]

Ian Walmsley wrote in Septembers Modern Railways an article called "Yorkshire Tripe" referring to their use on the Leeds Harrogate trains.

He gives 10 reasons why they are not suitable starting with age and including structural weakness, lack front crashworthiness, floor not strong enough tos upport diesel engine etc.

May be as straight electrics they could do Wrexham Bidston it's relatively short and flat.Bt woudl possibly need toilets more seats etc.

As diesels there are a few services they might do Ashford Hastings but not through to Brighton. As they are quite short 3 car on the Marlow or 4 on the Windsor/Henley branches

[paul7575]

Ian Walmsley wrote in Septembers Modern Railways an article called "Yorkshire Tripe" referring to their use on the Leeds Harrogate trains.

Yes, and didn't it draw an OTT^▸ (Open Train Times website) reaction from Alan Williams in the next issue.  Handbags at ten paces... 

Interesting that you can get so many different views about the same proposal in such a relatively short time...

Paul

[onthecushions]

It must be a good idea to re-use redundant but basically modern, servicable stock, where it is superior to existing units out in the sticks. Rail vehicles have a near indefinite life if given proper maintenance.

The Isle of Wight springs to mind, where two generations of tube stock made their home.

The lack of electrification is a problem and I can't see underfloor diesels being a solution. Better would be to build a new vehicle, like the old loco brake tenders but loaded with traction batteries and a charging diesel engine. This could be operated as a hybrid, allowing units to accelerate and climb using engine +battery current, batteries on level and charging on lay-over. It would need a power train line connection (traction cable) so might be restricted from a few single line tunnels. I would rather have this than a pacer.

Thoughts?

OTC

[grahame]

Thoughts?

My thoughts went to tadpoles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_206

Not a full battery / diesel engine vehicle in that case, but ... and they were useful for a number of years, even though they looked really odd.

[eightf48544]

The southern often used old coach underframes and put new bodies on them a lot of the early electric units used ex steam coach underframes.

I have a feeling that at least some of the Hastings 206 trailer coaches were ex steam hauled stock from the line.

[grahame]

Looks like the consensus is "go for it ..." 

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14985.msg166535#msg166535

Bristol - Keynsham - Saltford - Oldfield Park - Bath Spa - Batheaston (pause in loop to let 800 pass) - Box - Corsham - Chippenham (reverse in platform 0) - Melksham - Holt New Town - Bradford-on-Avon - Avoncliff - Freshford - Limpley Stoke - Batheaston - Bath Spa - Oldfield Park - Saltford - Keynsham - Bristol

[eightf48544]

From December Modern Railways it appears that another  consortium has bought most of the D78 stock and are proposing a different solution to the 278 with the use of an underfloor Ford truck engine power package with two under each motor coach, rather than  the previous idea of an above floor engine like the Thumpers. Roger Ford doubts the robustness of a highly stressed engine in rail use with constant cycle of acceleration and idiling.

[ChrisB]

Same article as referred to in post 1....

Adrian Shooter involved, money coming from a Pittsburgh Transport Company

[eightf48544]

Looks like the consensus is "go for it ..." 

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14985.msg166535#msg166535

Bristol - Keynsham - Saltford - Oldfield Park - Bath Spa - Batheaston (pause in loop to let 800 pass) - Box - Corsham - Chippenham (reverse in platform 0) - Melksham - Holt New Town - Bradford-on-Avon - Avoncliff - Freshford - Limpley Stoke - Batheaston - Bath Spa - Oldfield Park - Saltford - Keynsham - Bristol

Not sure if the 278 is the right vehicle for this service being  limited to  60mph it would need phenominal acceleration to keep out of the way  of the 800s. Or the new stations will have to be built with 4 tracks as per the 1906 GW^▸ (Great Western)/GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) joint line from South Ruslip to Ashendon Jn where most stations were 4 track with loops and platforms either side. Chiltern would dearly love at least some of those loops still to be in place now so they could speed up their fast services to Birmingham.

They'd learnt a thing or two about building a multipurpose railway to cater for fast expresses, commuter services local stoppers and freight by 1906.

[onthecushions]

Roger Ford doubts the robustness of a highly stressed engine in rail use with constant cycle of acceleration and idiling.

...which is why the hybrid system of a smaller engine working at mostly constant output for longer periods charging a battery pack would be more suitable for rail than a directly coupled diesel.

C'mon Hitachi!

OTC

[chrisr_75]

Roger Ford doubts the robustness of a highly stressed engine in rail use with constant cycle of acceleration and idiling.

Presumably he has failed to notice the relatively reliable use of marine & bus/truck derived diesel engines in assorted diesel-electric, -hydraulic & -mechanical trains over the last 60 years or so