Upcoming Games

No games to display

Full list
Add a game

Upcoming Events

No events to display

Who's Online

Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service

You are here: Home > Forum > Miscellaneous > The real thing (anything else rail-oriented) > Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service

Page 1 of 1

Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 14/06/2018 at 13:59 #109653
58050
Avatar
2644 posts
Just seen an article on BBC Look East this lunchtime showing for LUL District Line stock being converted by Vivarail into 2 car units to go into service in December 2018 on the Bedford - Bletchley - Bedford line. These will replace the current Cl.153 & Cl.150 units operated by London Midland. Even former Area Manager St. Pancras Adrian Shooter was interviwed about the unit conversions from 4DC to diesel. I remember a few years back when I was living in Chesterfield there was an article on BBC Look North about the very same thing, but having hybrid units converted from former LUL stock to work the Hull - Manchester - Hull services. Needless to say I don't think that has materialsed eyt! I would have thought it would have made more sense eletrifying the line between Bletchley & Bedford to co-incide with them eletrifying north to Corby atm. These new units are Class 230 apparently & there are some clips on YouTube.
Log in to reply
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 14/06/2018 at 17:10 #109656
Sacro
Avatar
1171 posts
Nope, not around Hull, Manchester trains are Transpennine 185s these days. Possibly to move to 68+MK5s, or perhaps 802s in the future.
Log in to reply
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 14/06/2018 at 18:25 #109658
58050
Avatar
2644 posts
Unless it was to replace the Cl.142, Cl.143 & Cl.144 units as an interim, but as I've not heard anymore that idea has no doubt been superseded. IIRC the stock was going to be upgraded at Horbury. Got to say the loco hauled formations will be alot better for the passengers. Come back loco hauled trains all is forgiven.
Log in to reply
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 14/06/2018 at 22:57 #109668
Steamer
Avatar
3913 posts
58050 in post 109653 said:
Just seen an article on BBC Look East this lunchtime showing for LUL District Line stock being converted by Vivarail into 2 car units to go into service in December 2018 on the Bedford - Bletchley - Bedford line. These will replace the current Cl.153 & Cl.150 units operated by London Midland. Even former Area Manager St. Pancras Adrian Shooter was interviwed about the unit conversions from 4DC to diesel.
<Snip>
These new units are Class 230 apparently & there are some clips on YouTube.
The project has been underway for a few years now, and a couple of prototypes have been produced- one of which toasted itself near Kenilworth a year or two ago. That said, they do seem to have recovered from the set back.

Quote:
I would have thought it would have made more sense eletrifying the line between Bletchley & Bedford to co-incide with them eletrifying north to Corby atm.
Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...

"Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q)
Log in to reply
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 15/06/2018 at 00:01 #109669
postal
Avatar
5189 posts
Wikipedia has a page devoted to the project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_230).

The intention is that the mechanics of the sets should be built up from modules which can be replaced by fork-lift truck avoiding the need for heavy lifting gear and indoor workshop attention. The engine comes on a raft that a forklift can replace in short order while for other variants of the project a battery pack on a raft fits into the same space so you can switch production between variants or even re-profile sets already in service a lot more easily than with current kit. The battery powered kit is designed to re-charge at charging points while turning round at the end of the route or by charging on the move from (comparatively) short lengths of overhead or third rail.

The project is moving forward to the extent that there is interest from the USA in providing something similar as an economic option for opening or revitalising some of their local routes.

“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe
Last edited: 15/06/2018 at 00:02 by postal
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: 58050
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 15/06/2018 at 12:01 #109680
trolleybus
Avatar
142 posts
230s have also been shortlisted for North Wales. See e.g. https://www.dailypost.co.uk/business/business-news/old-london-underground-trains-run-14757640.
Log in to reply
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 03:18 #109713
Guts
Avatar
584 posts
Steamer in post 109668 said:
[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...
I think you should do a little research before making these statements.
A lot of people don't know that a European change in the design of OHL has been the main issue with electrification, according to an article I read in RailEngineer.

The change in standard changed the height of OHL in stations and some minor changes elsewhere.

Electrification projects were designed and budgeted for about 2-3yrs if not 4yrs in advance. These normally set out, costs in terms of budget and materials, as well as equipment availabilities.
Much of the current schemes were based on the successful Edinburgh to Bathgate extension. This was done on-time and on budget.

Once these design changes were implemented and forced onto future projects, prices went up at least 3x the previous quotes and in some places 5x.

This has obviously blown every budget projection out of the water.
These electrification schemes were major undertakings so if the prices have rocketed so much, there is no way the company could keep to those projects and remain on budget.

It is a tragedy, but beyond the control of Network Rail in my humble opinion; if you've budgeted for example for an £11m project and then suddenly this cost rises to £33m then I'm sure everyone can understand that £22m isn't suddenly going to appear from no-where to fill in that gap.

Last edited: 17/06/2018 at 03:19 by Guts
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 04:40 #109715
clive
Avatar
2736 posts
Guts in post 109713 said:
Steamer in post 109668 said:
[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...
I think you should do a little research before making these statements.
A lot of people don't know that a European change in the design of OHL has been the main issue with electrification, according to an article I read in RailEngineer.

The change in standard changed the height of OHL in stations and some minor changes elsewhere.

A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.

As for the height changes themselves, it was open to NR to request derogations on the grounds that the existing heights had been shown to be safe. But they couldn't be bothered to.

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: postal
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 06:17 #109716
Guts
Avatar
584 posts
clive in post 109715 said:
Guts in post 109713 said:
Steamer in post 109668 said:
[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...
I think you should do a little research before making these statements.
A lot of people don't know that a European change in the design of OHL has been the main issue with electrification, according to an article I read in RailEngineer.

The change in standard changed the height of OHL in stations and some minor changes elsewhere.

A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.

As for the height changes themselves, it was open to NR to request derogations on the grounds that the existing heights had been shown to be safe. But they couldn't be bothered to.
That's business. Always happens. When NR want to change something the price goes up. The contract changes so any inflation or price hike gets added.

To my understanding it was an insistence that the changes were to be made for any new project. There was only derogation on existing OHL

Last edited: 17/06/2018 at 06:19 by Guts
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 07:52 #109717
postal
Avatar
5189 posts
Guts in post 109716 said:
To my understanding it was an insistence that the changes were to be made for any new project. There was only derogation on existing OHL
If you have access to back copies of Modern Railways, you will see that more than one informed commentator holds a different view to that.

“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe
Log in to reply
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 13:32 #109728
Albert
Avatar
1313 posts
Rail Engineer at https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/06/04/getting-electrification-right/ has the same opinion.
AJP in games
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Guts
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 18:37 #109736
kbarber
Avatar
1708 posts
clive in post 109715 said:
Guts in post 109713 said:
Steamer in post 109668 said:
[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...
I think you should do a little research before making these statements.
A lot of people don't know that a European change in the design of OHL has been the main issue with electrification, according to an article I read in RailEngineer.

The change in standard changed the height of OHL in stations and some minor changes elsewhere.

A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.

As for the height changes themselves, it was open to NR to request derogations on the grounds that the existing heights had been shown to be safe. But they couldn't be bothered to.
My understanding is that the increased clearances were in a new European standard. Electrification clearances on the Mainland were already pretty much compliant without needing huge amounts of redesign. There was a specific section of the standard produced especially for the UK, mandating approximately the existing UK clearances, but ORR decided in their infinite wisdom that this section of the standard should not be applied! I get the impression (from Modern Railways, of course) that NR was given an impression that derogations would not be looked upon favourably (and in any case any application for a derogation would require a detailed safety case for every structure). So I think this one goes down to Sir Humphrey.

Last edited: 17/06/2018 at 18:38 by kbarber
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Guts
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 18/06/2018 at 22:18 #109762
Peter Bennet
Avatar
5354 posts
kbarber in post 109736 said:
clive in post 109715 said:
Guts in post 109713 said:
Steamer in post 109668 said:
[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...
I think you should do a little research before making these statements.
A lot of people don't know that a European change in the design of OHL has been the main issue with electrification, according to an article I read in RailEngineer.

The change in standard changed the height of OHL in stations and some minor changes elsewhere.

A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.

As for the height changes themselves, it was open to NR to request derogations on the grounds that the existing heights had been shown to be safe. But they couldn't be bothered to.
My understanding is that the increased clearances were in a new European standard. Electrification clearances on the Mainland were already pretty much compliant without needing huge amounts of redesign. There was a specific section of the standard produced especially for the UK, mandating approximately the existing UK clearances, but ORR decided in their infinite wisdom that this section of the standard should not be applied! I get the impression (from Modern Railways, of course) that NR was given an impression that derogations would not be looked upon favourably (and in any case any application for a derogation would require a detailed safety case for every structure). So I think this one goes down to Sir Humphrey.
I'm just bewildered that the EU has competence to tell us where to stick our wires.

Peter

I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs!
Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: Stephen Fulcher, Guts
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 18/06/2018 at 22:36 #109763
Stephen Fulcher
Avatar
2007 posts
I can understand standardisation on internationally used lines on the continent, but for it to apply here anywhere than in the new high speed routes is nonsensical
Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: Peter Bennet, Guts
Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 19/06/2018 at 09:39 #109765
kbarber
Avatar
1708 posts
Peter Bennet in post 109762 said:
kbarber in post 109736 said:
clive in post 109715 said:
Guts in post 109713 said:
Steamer in post 109668 said:
[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...
I think you should do a little research before making these statements.
A lot of people don't know that a European change in the design of OHL has been the main issue with electrification, according to an article I read in RailEngineer.

The change in standard changed the height of OHL in stations and some minor changes elsewhere.

A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.

As for the height changes themselves, it was open to NR to request derogations on the grounds that the existing heights had been shown to be safe. But they couldn't be bothered to.
My understanding is that the increased clearances were in a new European standard. Electrification clearances on the Mainland were already pretty much compliant without needing huge amounts of redesign. There was a specific section of the standard produced especially for the UK, mandating approximately the existing UK clearances, but ORR decided in their infinite wisdom that this section of the standard should not be applied! I get the impression (from Modern Railways, of course) that NR was given an impression that derogations would not be looked upon favourably (and in any case any application for a derogation would require a detailed safety case for every structure). So I think this one goes down to Sir Humphrey.
I'm just bewildered that the EU has competence to tell us where to stick our wires.

Peter
Actually I believe it's the successor to UIC (which preceded the EU by many years, and which this country was always a member of) who developed the standard. With the very sensible aim of ensuring maximum freedom to inter-run across national systems throughout the Mainland. And the EU, very sensibly, made it clear we could put our wires where they have always been put (with clearances validated by tests in the Independent Lines tunnels at Crewe back in the early '60s). It's ORR who decided our wires have to go where they would be able to go if we'd had the foresight to build our entire network to European gauge, and unfortunately they do have competence (legally, even though clearly not practically or scientifically).

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: postal, WesternChampion