• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 484 replacing class 483 on the island line: progress updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
I do find it amazing that this seems to be the case in the rail industry - for almost every new build fleet. I'm in the shipping industry, where very complicated vehicles, often one of a kind, are routinely* delivered on time, to spec, on budget with crew already trained (crew training normally happens whilst the ship is still owned by the shipyard, and then on passage from the yard to the home port), and the ship enters service a few days after delivery. No doubt there is a good reason why this doesn't happen for trains, but as an outsider looking in it is difficult to see what it is.
*There have been a couple of high-profile exceptions recently - Caledonian MacBrayne's Glen Sannox is a good example of what happens if you let politics mix with shipbuilding (perhaps it helps explain the issues for trains, and recent deliveries from Flensburger shipyard, but since delays to Honfleur and WB Yeats led to the collapse of the yard, it perhaps just underlines the point.

What's the lead time on a new ship from design to delivery and entering service?

I made this point when somebody else mentioned aviation - but look at the Airbus A380 as an example - project announced in 1994, first prototype unveiled in 2005 (11 years later) with first (test) flight in 2005 - there was a 2 year delay due to wiring problems - it finally received its type approval from the EASA and FAA (European and US regulators) at the end of 2006 and the first delivered aircraft was in October 2007.

Compare that with the 230s - 2014 the D78s were bought by Vivarail, 2015 a prototype was produced and in 2016 mainline testing on the Coventry - Nuneaton line, ordered by WMT in October 2017 and entered service in April 2019.

Hmm, but the efficiency improvement with a new electric traction package is going to be nowhere near that from a 40 year old IC engine to a modern IC engine. Especially on a relatively low speed route like Island Line.
A more pragmatic solution might have been to introduce a couple of unrefurbished D stock trains whilst the "new" trains were being built and tested.

But may not work with the other infrastructure works being carried out.

Having an uncommon fleet would have added cost and complexity - and no guarantee it would have worked in any case.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What's the lead time on a new ship from design to delivery and entering service?

I made this point when somebody else mentioned aviation - but look at the Airbus A380 as an example - project announced in 1994, first prototype unveiled in 2005 (11 years later) with first (test) flight in 2005 - there was a 2 year delay due to wiring problems - it finally received its type approval from the EASA and FAA (European and US regulators) at the end of 2006 and the first delivered aircraft was in October 2007.

Compare that with the 230s - 2014 the D78s were bought by Vivarail, 2015 a prototype was produced and in 2016 mainline testing on the Coventry - Nuneaton line, ordered by WMT in October 2017 and entered service in April 2019.

Though I think it's fair to say that designing a new airliner from scratch and making modifications to an existing train are in totally different levels of complexity.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Though I think it's fair to say that designing a new airliner from scratch and making modifications to an existing train are in totally different levels of complexity.

But with very different safety standards built in - both airlines and ships have *far* more rigorous safety standards than rail, for the simple virtue that a failure is far more likely to kill those on board - i.e. an engine failure on a train will probably inconvenience a couple of hundred people. An engine failure on an aircraft at 30,000 feet stands a good chance of killing all on board.

The rail industry *could* mandate much higher reliability at day one - but the additional cost of achieving this along with the extended time-frame to deliver the new units would render it somewhere between a waste of money and uneconomic.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
Because leaving 40 year old running gear in situ would have been less efficient
What can be less efficient than not working at all? This is a handful of trains running over a handful of miles. Putting in complete replacements of what, by all accounts, worked perfectly well and reliably up to the end of service in London, and then having big issues with the new replacement bits, is just silly.

Did anyone ever look at the minimum cost of just taking the trains as is. Not repainted, no green handrails replaced with blue handrails, nothing.

Incidentally, my house is 40 years old, with 40 year old electrics. Nobody would ever think to say it all had to be replaced, unless there was an issue.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
What can be less efficient than not working at all? This is a handful of trains running over a handful of miles. Putting in complete replacements of what, by all accounts, worked perfectly well and reliably up to the end of service in London, and then having big issues with the new replacement bits, is just silly.

Did anyone ever look at the minimum cost of just taking the trains as is. Not repainted, no green handrails replaced with blue handrails, nothing.

Incidentally, my house is 40 years old, with 40 year old electrics. Nobody would ever think to say it all had to be replaced, unless there was an issue.
Agreed

The D78s were in excellent condition when they left service, LU had given them a really nice refurbishment, and they were in good mechanical condition too. Nobody on the IoW would have complained if they had gone into service as they were.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
Agreed

The D78s were in excellent condition when they left service, LU had given them a really nice refurbishment, and they were in good mechanical condition too. Nobody on the IoW would have complained if they had gone into service as they were.
You know that the headlines would have referred to untouched London cast-offs. They also likely didn't comply with many National Rail standards.
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,219
What's the lead time on a new ship from design to delivery and entering service?
Typically it would be about 3-4 years. To avoid going further off topic, I have created a new thread -
 

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
Did anyone ever look at the minimum cost of just taking the trains as is. Not repainted, no green handrails replaced with blue handrails, nothing.
In think SWR did look at them, decided 3-car units were too long for St. John's Road shed etc.
Shortening to 2-car wouldn't have been easy, finding place to put compressors, probably would've required removal of the heavy PCM equipment anyway.
 

tom1649

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2010
Messages
961
The D78 were one of the most reliable and comfortable fleets right up until they were withdrawn. They operated over Network Rail infrastructure to Richmond for years without any issue whatsoever, so what's the problem on a self contained line that's far less intensive than the District Line? The DC traction equipment was simple and not difficult to maintain. I think it was foolish to try and fix something that wasn't broken by installing complicated electronics.
In think SWR did look at them, decided 3-car units were too long for St. John's Road shed etc.
Shortening to 2-car wouldn't have been easy, finding place to put compressors, probably would've required removal of the heavy PCM equipment anyway.
Has the layout of the shed changed since the days of 485s and 486s? Some were 5 cars long.
 
Last edited:

GC class B1

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2021
Messages
443
Location
East midlands
You know that the headlines would have referred to untouched London cast-offs. They also likely didn't comply with many National Rail standards.
As the IOW network is functionally separate from the rest of the GB network and is a ‘local‘ operation the Interoperability Regulations do not apply. It should therefore be reasonably easy to make the units compliant with those Regulations that were necessary for safety and operational reasons. As they operated on London Underground they would probably comply with most if not at all of these already. It is interesting to note that D78 were fitted with a braking control that complied with TSI Loco and Pass, and on the class 230 this was modified to be the same from the Driver’s point of view as the units they replaced.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
I do find it amazing that this seems to be the case in the rail industry - for almost every new build fleet. I'm in the shipping industry, where very complicated vehicles, often one of a kind, are routinely* delivered on time, to spec, on budget with crew already trained (crew training normally happens whilst the ship is still owned by the shipyard, and then on passage from the yard to the home port), and the ship enters service a few days after delivery. No doubt there is a good reason why this doesn't happen for trains, but as an outsider looking in it is difficult to see what it is.
Off the top of my head: ”interfacing” with water, and with a handful of ports, seems less technically challenging* than interfacing with a pair of steel rails, conductor, signalling system, platforms...

*Not saying that the shipping industry doesn’t have its own challenges to contend with. But the amount of complexity (mechanical, electrical, software) that exists in the railway is staggering.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Has the layout of the shed changed since the days of 485s and 486s? Some were 5 cars long.

I can't find the car lengths for the 485/6s but the 483 car lengths were ~16m, whereas the 484s are ~18.5m - so a 2 car 484 is 5m longer than its predecessor.

For most of their life the original tube stck ran as 4/3 cars - it was only in 1985 did they get reformed into 5/2 - and their replacements arrived in 1989.
 

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
Has the layout of the shed changed since the days of 485s and 486s? Some were 5 cars long.
Standard Stock were known as ‘car Stock’ individual cars with removable jumper leads between cars that can be made into any combination to form a train.
1938 and D Stock were ‘unit Stock’ semi-permanently coupled cars forming part or all of a train.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
In think SWR did look at them, decided 3-car units were too long for St. John's Road shed etc.
Shortening to 2-car wouldn't have been easy, finding place to put compressors, probably would've required removal of the heavy PCM equipment anyway.
Have discussed this before, is actually a lot less challenging than most think due to the exceedingly simple design principals of the underframes, and that NR is happy for single compressors to be used on units. The motor cars have a surprising amount of space downstairs. If you really wanted to retain two motor cars, fitting VRS20 compressors in place of the existing 3HC43 would have probably saved enough space.

Standard Stock were known as ‘car Stock’ individual cars with removable jumper leads between cars that can be made into any combination to form a train.
1938 and D Stock were ‘unit Stock’ semi-permanently coupled cars forming part or all of a train.

And actually still quite simple to re-form with some good spanners and a ready source of spares, like oh, a load of trailers and NDMs being scrapped...

EDIT: And also a competent spark who knows how they need re-wiring at the body ends.
 
Last edited:

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
What can be less efficient than not working at all? This is a handful of trains running over a handful of miles. Putting in complete replacements of what, by all accounts, worked perfectly well and reliably up to the end of service in London, and then having big issues with the new replacement bits, is just silly.

Did anyone ever look at the minimum cost of just taking the trains as is. Not repainted, no green handrails replaced with blue handrails, nothing.

Incidentally, my house is 40 years old, with 40 year old electrics. Nobody would ever think to say it all had to be replaced, unless there was an issue.le fuses

40 Year old electrics? So rewireable fuses and no RCD protection... I would suggest you get an inspection done. Cables can degrade, certainly RCD protection is a very good idea and you may find other things that actually aren't right.

As regards doing nothing to the stock. What maintenance was LUL doing on the stock near the end? It's been over 4 years since they ran in service in London, so yes actually ripping things out may be necessary.
 
Last edited:

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
40 Year old electrics? So rewireable fuses and no RCD protection... I would suggest you get an inspection done. Cables can degrade, certainly RCD protection is a very good idea and you may find other things that actually aren't right.

As regards doing nothing to the stock. What maintenance was LUL doing on the stock near the end? It's been over 4 years since they ran in service in London, so yes actually ripping things out may be necessary.
I understand LUL are different to your typical TOC, who do blow all maintenance in the last five years of a lease; others above, more informed, state that they had been in excellent mechanical condition to the end of District Line service. If we are citing specifics, bear in mind they are newer than what currently provides the full service on the Bakerloo and Piccadilly Lines, plus a substantial mid-life fleet heavy refurbishment in 2004-8. They were intended to stay in full Underground service to around 2030, and were refurbished to this standard, but there was a change of policy.
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,771
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
An encouraging sight.

The motor sound reminds me more of the Standard Stock than the 483 stock - but my recollection of sounds heard more than 60 years ago on the Piccadilly Line may not be entirely reliable.

My recollection of the sounds on the Piccadilly Line is as ancient as yours, but I think you're right - the sound is (surprisingly) "traditional" and "authentic", and takes you back to a pre-1938 stock era.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
Why do the 1st,3rd, and 4th vehicles have a yellow stripe along the bottom of the body side between doors, whereas the 2nd vehicle doesn't?
The yellow stripe is part of SWR livery so one car would appear to be incomplete in that respect.
 

Nogoohwell

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2020
Messages
52
Location
London
Then change the standards.
Vivarail had to re-engineer the cab design to improve crash worthiness, which would have meant a lot of structural changes.

If I remember correctly, the D-Stock were designed nearly 40 years ago for a closed network and so did not have to built to absorb the same crash energies that main line stock have to cope with today.

They did change the rules, to improve passenger and driver safety.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
Vivarail had to re-engineer the cab design to improve crash worthiness, which would have meant a lot of structural changes.

If I remember correctly, the D-Stock were designed nearly 40 years ago for a closed network and so did not have to built to absorb the same crash energies that main line stock have to cope
I wonder what part of "a closed network" I am missing about the Isle of Wight. Certainly more closed than the District Line extremities at Wimbledon and Richmond, shared with main line trains.

But more particularly, London Underground, which is far more susceptible to serious collisions that the Isle of Wight, could apparently have carried on with these trains perfectly well on their own high intensity system. In the big rebuilding in 2004-8 they were not required to do all this. I'm just trying to look at expenditure (and reliability) squandered in pursuit of some inappropraitely assessed theoretical goal.
 

GC class B1

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2021
Messages
443
Location
East midlands
I wonder what part of "a closed network" I am missing about the Isle of Wight. Certainly more closed than the District Line extremities at Wimbledon and Richmond, shared with main line trains.

But more particularly, London Underground, which is far more susceptible to serious collisions that the Isle of Wight, could apparently have carried on with these trains perfectly well on their own high intensity system. In the big rebuilding in 2004-8 they were not required to do all this. I'm just trying to look at expenditure (and reliability) squandered in pursuit of some inappropraitely assessed theoretical goal.
New standards are not usually retrospective and only apply to renewal, major upgrades and change of use. It is correct that the D stock could have continued to operate on LUL, but the changes necessary to operate on the Isle of Wight required them to comply with modern safety standards. As I have mentioned before although my understanding is that the Railway Interoperability Regulations do not apply on the IOW, the requirement for a suitable and sufficient Risk Assessment does apply and this would necessitate some changes to the units to comply with current safety standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top