Marston Vale line suspension over - FULL services start running 19/02/24

[170UTD]

Surely Northern could just take a lease for some redundant 156s straight away then loan West Midlands Trains some 150s straight away, save waiting all that time.

Or perhaps West Midlands Trains lease the 156s and sub lease them to Northern.

Given that the staff already knows about the 150s, it will probably take things easier than introducing "new" stock.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Given that the staff already knows about the 150s, it will probably take things easier than introducing "new" stock.

Especially in this regulated railway when you have to go through "vehicle change" processes and amend the safety case.

 

[DanNCL]

Realistically how long would a traction refresher course on stock that a driver or guard last signed 3 years prior take? That of course assumes that all crews on the Marston Vale were there when 150s last worked the route, in the likely event that some joined more recently they’d need a full traction course rather than a refresher.

Is the safety case still in place on the Marston Vale for 150s or would they need to be re-done?

Surely Northern could just take a lease for some redundant 156s straight away then loan West Midlands Trains some 150s straight away, save waiting all that time.

Or perhaps West Midlands Trains lease the 156s and sub lease them to Northern.

There are no redundant 156s at the moment, or indeed any available PRM compliant DMUs other than a pair of 221s - pretty safe assumption that they’ll have nothing to do with getting the Marston Vale running again!

 

[Grumpy]

I am never knowingly fair to a Tory so I don't agree. As chair of the transport select committee he MUST have facilitated loads of discussions in recent times about train crew availability, competence rules, regulations, rolling stock availability and costs.

It’s the Transport committee, not just railways. So by the same logic you would have expected him to have had similar discussions with all the likes of Loganair about flight crew availability, crew licensing, aircraft availability etc. Similarly each of the bus companies, road haulage companies, white van men etc.

 

[DarloRich]

Does that mean they were burning through 3 engines a week, for a fleet of 3 trains?

I don't think they were destroying 3 engines a week. i suspect they replaced/swapped out 3 a week form thier float of units.

Trains are coming back and you’re getting proper BR heritage traction, not inflammable LU knock offs! What’s not to like!?

I am quite happy with that - i just would prefer to see them before the next geological age.

It's appalling. I thought things were bad with the level of delays and cancellations, but that's a proper "lemon".

Terrible - incredible they kept any service running!

If that's the way it turned out, the "three swaps per week" may just mean three exchanges between engines under the train and engines in the workshop - which isn't good, but isn't as bad as needing three new engines from the manufacturer.

I agree this is more likely.

They would work on the unserviceable unit, get it back into traffic the following day and then work on the next one, and so on and so on. Actually though, reliability seemed to be improving leading up to VivaRails demise.

That is my perception also. The fitters often travelled to Bedford and back working on the train to keep them in service

Given that the staff already knows about the 150s, it will probably take things easier than introducing "new" stock.

Will they still have competency?

It’s the Transport committee, not just railways. So by the same logic you would have expected him to have had similar discussions with all the likes of Loganair about flight crew availability, crew licensing, aircraft availability etc. Similarly each of the bus companies, road haulage companies, white van men etc.

Absolutely - my point being that the committee has heard a great deal of evidence on railway operations, staffing and service over the last few months. I assumed some of it might have stuck.

 

[43066]

I am quite happy with that - i just would prefer to see them before the next geological age.

I’ll be interested to know how they handle the drivers’ route refreshers when nobody has turned a wheel on the route for months.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ll be interested to know how they handle the drivers’ route refreshers when nobody has turned a wheel on the route for months.

How is initial training carried out when a new route is opened and nobody has yet driven it at all?

 

[43066]

How is initial training carried out when a new route is opened and nobody has yet driven it at all?

I’ve never done an entire new route, but simulations would likely be heavily used - I’ve certainly seen complex remodelling taught using these, eg the approaches to London Bridge during the Thameslink rebuild. How effective/accurate they are is another question!

For an entire route perhaps a dedicated route learning train would also be used - a few (slow) trips over it initially to get some instructors trained up, then train the rest of the driver population up from there.

Obviously easier where there will be people knocking around with out of date knowledge than for an entirely new route!

 

[DarloRich]

I’ll be interested to know how they handle the drivers’ route refreshers when nobody has turned a wheel on the route for months.

Surely just repeat whatever they did after the c2 year covid shut down - the issue might be instructor knowledge to start the process - it took a while to get the service back up and running.

 

[12LDA28C]

How is initial training carried out when a new route is opened and nobody has yet driven it at all?

Simulations and classroom-based briefing used initially, then assessors and instructors with driving competence would physically drive the route first to learn it, then the rank-and-file drivers would follow the same process. Everyone would have a written and practical assessment over the route before being passed competent to drive it.

For an entire route perhaps a dedicated route learning train would also be used - a few (slow) trips over it initially to get some instructors trained up, then train the rest of the driver population up from there.

Indeed. The route learning trains should travel over all necessary lines, carry out reversing moves, shunts etc as required to replicate all possible moves that a driver might encounter once trains are in passenger service.

 

[Failed Unit]

Realistically how long would a traction refresher course on stock that a driver or guard last signed 3 years prior take? That of course assumes that all crews on the Marston Vale were there when 150s last worked the route, in the likely event that some joined more recently they’d need a full traction course rather than a refresher.

Is the safety case still in place on the Marston Vale for 150s or would they need to be re-done?


There are no redundant 156s at the moment, or indeed any available PRM compliant DMUs other than a pair of 221s - pretty safe assumption that they’ll have nothing to do with getting the Marston Vale running again!

I thought 4 of the ex-EMR 156s were of lease (Angel trains ones) - I originally thought that Northern could take these to release 150/1

 

[Bikeman78]

Why on earth such a complex cascade? Are TfW holding onto theirs for longer?

I think that cascade was happening anyway. I don't think you appreciate the extent to which the 150s are keeping TfW afloat. Sending some elsewhere would be madness. There are at least six out covering mainline diagrams today.

There are no redundant 156s at the moment, or indeed any available PRM compliant DMUs other than a pair of 221s - pretty safe assumption that they’ll have nothing to do with getting the Marston Vale running again!

Aren't some or all of the four class 156 that transferred from Northern to EMT now stored at Ely? Note sure what state they are in.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think that cascade was happening anyway. I don't think you appreciate the extent to which the 150s are keeping TfW afloat. Sending some elsewhere would be madness. There are at least six out covering mainline diagrams today.


Aren't some or all of the four class 156 that transferred from Northern to EMT now stored at Ely? Note sure what state they are in.

It was suggested, in an EMR thread, that they needed corrosion repairs and didn't have WSP. I assume WSP means wheel slide/slip protection but didn't ask. If usable I would prefer EMR keep them as they are supposedly short of units so can't reinstate my train!

 

[newtownmgr]

I don't think they are trying with these units. TfW and SWR are managing to run/introduce these trains to their service. Poor show from WMR/LNWR.

They are leased from Vivarail who also had the maintenance contract. Therefore the units & the parts are now property of the administrators dealing with vivarail & can’t be used. Maintenance staff have been made redundant. Nothing WMR can do about it. Other operators such as SWR/TfW lease via rolling stock companies & do maintenance in house.

 

[Trainbike46]

It was suggested, in an EMR thread, that they needed corrosion repairs and didn't have WSP. I assume WSP means wheel slide/slip protection but didn't ask. If usable I would prefer EMR keep them as they are supposedly short of units so can't reinstate my train!

Based on the EMR 170s thread, they have recently received a number of extra 170s, which should help with regional stock shortages no?

If the 156s are available (and according to wikipedia there are 5 ex-EMR ones stored), however wikipedia also states EMR send some to Northern in december, and is due to send over more. so possibly northern could miss some 150s?

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think they are trying with these units. TfW and SWR are managing to run/introduce these trains to their service. Poor show from WMR/LNWR.

On the linked LNWR web page, they do explain exactly why SWR’s situation is completely different, especially that theirs are not diesel powered.

 

[A0wen]

Those transit engines nearly always did sound like they were being revved pretty hard.It's not exactly a surprise that they were giving up on such a frequent basis.

With regard to the "failures", I was very much of the understanding that the defective ones were rotated out,but I think it equally true that vivarail would have been better off using one bigger block than 2 smaller engines per carriage.
Much less to go wrong that way,,and slower revs means less wear and cooler running.According to the stats ,these were producing nearly 400bhp per vehicle..about half as much again as a sprinter uses, so those poor 3.2L units must have had the nuts thrashed off them!

Bit in bold - not a valid comparison though. A Sprinter uses a mechanical drive e.g. engine drives gearbox, whereas in the 230 the engine is the generator for an electric motor so the power demands are quite different.

 

[Egg Centric]

Sure I could figure it out but since there's so many knowledgeable people here - is this the same wet cambelt Transit engine that notoriously constantly seizes in the vans themselves? Would be same kind of age.

 

[tomuk]

Sure I could figure it out but since there's so many knowledgeable people here - is this the same wet cambelt Transit engine that notoriously constantly seizes in the vans themselves? Would be same kind of age.

The 230s use the 3.2L five cylinder engine that was fitted to 'top of the range' Transits and Ranger pickups.

 

[100andthirty]

Back in the early days of Vivarail when the Ford engine was being considered, the late Adrian Shooter bought a Ranger as his 'daily drive'. He was still using it in August 2022.

 

[Amateurish]

They are pretty agricultural units (I have one in my Ranger) and have been dropped from the lineup now, in favour of more modern 4 cylinder 2.0 engines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting side-mention of these on p38 of Modern Railways this month by Roger Ford in the context of Vivarail's break-up and sale:

Complicating matters is the £3.95 million held in a blocked account in connection with the purchase by Lombard of the West Midlands Trains Class 230 units

I guess that means they're still owned by Vivarail, which makes reinstatement even more complex - another reason it's not the plan, perhaps?

 

[zwk500]

Interesting side-mention of these on p38 of Modern Railways this month by Roger Ford in the context of Vivarail's break-up and sale:

I guess that means they're still owned by Vivarail, which makes reinstatement even more complex - another reason it's not the plan, perhaps?

Does the article say who's money is held in the blocked account and why it's blocked?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does the article say who's money is held in the blocked account and why it's blocked?

Unfortunately not, that sentence is the only thing significant about it in the article, which mostly talks about other aspects of the bankruptcy. Non disclosure agreements are mentioned in general passing, which probably apply to further details on this, perhaps?

 

[A0wen]

Interesting side-mention of these on p38 of Modern Railways this month by Roger Ford in the context of Vivarail's break-up and sale:

"Complicating matters is the £3.95 million held in a blocked account in connection with the purchase by Lombard of the West Midlands Trains Class 230 units"

I guess that means they're still owned by Vivarail, which makes reinstatement even more complex - another reason it's not the plan, perhaps?

I think you're misreading it - it appears to suggest that Lombard had purchased the units which suggests they were leasing them back to Vivarail presumably to unlock capital for Vivarail.

There's every chance that capital (or at least a %age of it) was placed in ESCROW (or similar) so that if Vivarail failed then Lombard wouldn't be left with valueless assets. And that's what I'd expect to be the "blocked" account and it can only be addressed by the administrators / receivers.

 

[Stephen42]

Unfortunately not, that sentence is the only thing significant about it in the article, which mostly talks about other aspects of the bankruptcy. Non disclosure agreements are mentioned in general passing, which probably apply to further details on this, perhaps?

The funds are/were held on trust in connection with a sale and purchase agreement with Lombard. The administrators anticipate Lombard might return the trains to Vivarail to get the money back, would depend on what's in the agreement. It makes the administration process more complicated but probably isn't the main blocker behind using the class 230s.

The other notable point is the contracts for aftercare/maintenance were considered unprofitable. For someone else to take over they'd require greater payment increasing cost to the train operator.

 

[6Gman]

Simulations and classroom-based briefing used initially, then assessors and instructors with driving competence would physically drive the route first to learn it, then the rank-and-file drivers would follow the same process. Everyone would have a written and practical assessment over the route before being passed competent to drive it.



Indeed. The route learning trains should travel over all necessary lines, carry out reversing moves, shunts etc as required to replicate all possible moves that a driver might encounter once trains are in passenger service.

That's pretty much how we did the opening of Manchester Airport - though that was also short enough to allow it to be walked.

 

[DarloRich]

interesting information - thank you all for sharing

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The funds are/were held on trust in connection with a sale and purchase agreement with Lombard. The administrators anticipate Lombard might return the trains to Vivarail to get the money back, would depend on what's in the agreement. It makes the administration process more complicated but probably isn't the main blocker behind using the class 230s.

The other notable point is the contracts for aftercare/maintenance were considered unprofitable. For someone else to take over they'd require greater payment increasing cost to the train operator.

In the Statement of Affairs reported to Companies House its clear that the manufacturing side was sacrificed straight away but they saw an opportunity to continue trading the maintenance and servicing side if it was made profitable. They state they consulted potentential customers, although did not directly name WMT, no customer was prepared to pay more so they made those staff redundant as well. So how have SWR and TfW carried on yet WMT hasn't.

As an aside four companies were shortlisted to acquire the business but none made a formal offer but two were interested in parts (one of which we know now is GWR) but looks like teh Fast Charge had been externally funded so Vivarail creditors wont benefit.

3.9m is owed to creditors nearly 2m of it is to their battery and traction inverter supplier and nobody is likely to receive anything back unless something happens with WMT vehicles.

As an side 82 carriages are available for sale.

Cost of administering the winding up is 1.5m let alone the millions RDC injected into this enterprise.

 

[AndyW33]

In the Statement of Affairs reported to Companies House its clear that the manufacturing side was sacrificed straight away but they saw an opportunity to continue trading the maintenance and servicing side if it was made profitable. They state they consulted potentential customers, although did not directly name WMT, no customer was prepared to pay more so they made those staff redundant as well. So how have SWR and TfW carried on yet WMT hasn't.

As an aside four companies were shortlisted to acquire the business but none made a formal offer but two were interested in parts (one of which we know now is GWR) but looks like teh Fast Charge had been externally funded so Vivarail creditors wont benefit.

3.9m is owed to creditors nearly 2m of it is to their battery and traction inverter supplier and nobody is likely to receive anything back unless something happens with WMT vehicles.

As an side 82 carriages are available for sale.

Cost of administering the winding up is 1.5m let alone the millions RDC injected into this enterprise.

Well, SWR carry out their own maintenance at Ryde St Johns Road depot, where the staff have years of experience with ex-LU stock, and TfW contracted out maintenance of their units to Stadler from the beginning, Stadler use Birkenhead depot for this. VivaRail never had maintenance contracts for either fleet, so their closing down has had no effect on operations. The Marston Vale trains were maintained by VivaRail at Bletchley, and obviously WMT have not been authorised by the DfT to take over the staff, spares, and equipment used. Interestingly the fourth service intended to use VivaRail's D-trains is the experimental fast-battery-charge unit for the Greenford branch. The DfT have authorised GWR to take this in-house and transfer the VivaRail staff involved, presumably because the experiment is considered very important for possible use by other stock types.