The Great British (Rail) upcycling experiment.

[507021]

I was talking about upcycling with a friend of mine earlier in the week, and it got me thinking about the various locomotives and multiple units which have been upcycled in recent years.

While I think it's far too early to definitively (and fairly) determine whether the Class 69, Breeze, D-Train and Flex programmes can be considered a success or failure, I personally don't think it could be denied the Class 57s have been a success. With the number of redundant EMU fleets which are coming off lease, is it possible we could see further upcycling schemes in the future as cheaper, more environmentally friendly solutions to renewing fleets and boosting capacity?

For me personally, I'd really like to see 455s converted to DEMUs for Northern as replacements for the 150 and 155 fleets, because I think there'd be a few positive benefits to such a scheme, although I accept the chances of this happening is very unlikely!

I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on the subject.

 

[Domh245]

Unfortunately, as discussed in this thread, 'upcycling' has rather dug it's own grave - the fleets delivered have been late, not exactly high quality, and not much cheaper than buying new, that last point in particular being key. I'd personally like to see more of it, but given the track record it's an impossible sell, particularly when there are 3/4 factories clamouring for limited work and thus able to offer very competitive prices.

There's also a lack of suitable rolling stock - most stock coming off lease whilst it could be pressed back into service somewhere, is ultimately old and has done it's time. The only real opportunities are the 350/2 (for which porterbrook are proposing batteries) and 379s (which would seem an obvious fit to be subsumed into GTR somewhere to then internally cascade and get rid of one or both of their older BR fleets). The 365s at a push could also count as potentially convertible, but are not necessarily the best starting point compared to the "simple" mk3 fleets, or the "well-specced" post privatisation EMUs

 

[py_megapixel]

For me personally, I'd really like to see 455s converted to DEMUs for Northern as replacements for the 150 and 155 fleets, because I think there'd be a few positive benefits to such a scheme, although I accept the chances of this happening is very unlikely!

If any mk3 EMU is converted it'll be more 319s. The technology is already proven on those, plus the 319s already having pantographs gives them the advantage that they can act as bi-modes as well.

 

[JonathanH]

For me personally, I'd really like to see 455s converted to DEMUs for Northern as replacements for the 150 and 155 fleets, because I think there'd be a few positive benefits to such a scheme, although I accept the chances of this happening is very unlikely!

Huh? Most class 455s are older than the 150s. The 155 fleet can be removed using spare 156s.

 

[DustyBin]

Unfortunately, as discussed in this thread, 'upcycling' has rather dug it's own grave - the fleets delivered have been late, not exactly high quality, and not much cheaper than buying new, that last point in particular being key. I'd personally like to see more of it, but given the track record it's an impossible sell, particularly when there are 3/4 factories clamouring for limited work and thus able to offer very competitive prices.

There's also a lack of suitable rolling stock - most stock coming off lease whilst it could be pressed back into service somewhere, is ultimately old and has done it's time. The only real opportunities are the 350/2 (for which porterbrook are proposing batteries) and 379s (which would seem an obvious fit to be subsumed into GTR somewhere to then internally cascade and get rid of one or both of their older BR fleets). The 365s at a push could also count as potentially convertible, but are not necessarily the best starting point compared to the "simple" mk3 fleets, or the "well-specced" post privatisation EMUs

I'm inclined to agree although as I've said many times I'm dead against replacing decent trains for the sake of it. The 365s and Renatus 321s should find new homes but as a result of there being no national rolling stock strategy, and delays in electrification, I can't think of anywhere they could go. Reduced timetables don't help either....

 

[DarloRich]

The class 230 is a success, apart from it breaking down every 2 minutes.

Seriously - internally, comfort, ambiance ( it doesn't smell of pee pee like the 153!) and facilities wise it is light years ahead of the 150/153 combo. It is ( or was) so unreliable that the service had been destroyed. Great concept and could work well on its natural third rail but us Marston Vale customers have really suffered for being the guinea pig for the diesel conversion.

Verdict: FAIL

 

[47827]

I personally don't think it could be denied the Class 57s have been a success.

Depends which fleet and who you ask as some of the uses they have been given haven't been as successful as others. Freightliner couldn't get rid of theirs quick enough and the 57/0s only ever really acted as stop gap at DRS with them not really featuring in the long term plans in the end. So largely a no so far for that sub class and I'm unconvinced they may have bothered in hindsight.

The 57/3s were never a roaring success for their original purpose involving hauling 390s under Virgin but a few of the firms inheriting some have done a little better, e.g ROG. DRS kept an increasingly smaller contract pool but aside from fulfilling a contract it's hard to measure them as highly successful or not as they are more at home on conventional stock where less can go wrong. Most of the 57/3s have never seen an arduous life to test the design fully but looking at the more successful 57/6 they are OK for doing what a 47/8 used to do for GW. It's hard to say whether as many 57s would have been done had the 57/0 and Virgin thunderbird issues both been anticipated.

 

[507021]

If any mk3 EMU is converted it'll be more 319s. The technology is already proven on those, plus the 319s already having pantographs gives them the advantage that they can act as bi-modes as well.

I personally expect all of the remaining 319s (obviously excluding the 319/6 parcel units) to end up as 769s at some point.

Huh? Most class 455s are older than the 150s.

That's correct, and the TfW Rail 230s are older than the 150s they're replacing. I hypothetically suggested the 455s because they're much larger units, would be available in large numbers and the SWR examples have been upgraded with new Vossloh traction packages in recent years. Like I said, I very much doubt it'll happen, I just think it'd be a decent cost effective way of replacing the older Sprinter fleets.

Depends which fleet and who you ask as some of the uses they have been given haven't been as successful as others. Freightliner couldn't get rid of theirs quick enough and the 57/0s only ever really acted as stop gap at DRS with them not really featuring in the long term plans in the end. So largely a no so far for that sub class and I'm unconvinced they may have bothered in hindsight.

The 57/3s were never a roaring success for their original purpose involving hauling 390s under Virgin but a few of the firms inheriting some have done a little better, e.g ROG. DRS kept an increasingly smaller contract pool but aside from fulfilling a contract it's hard to measure them as highly successful or not as they are more at home on conventional stock where less can go wrong. Most of the 57/3s have never seen an arduous life to test the design fully but looking at the more successful 57/6 they are OK for doing what a 47/8 used to do for GW. It's hard to say whether as many 57s would have been done had the 57/0 and Virgin thunderbird issues both been anticipated.

Fair points, I should probably have done a bit more research on the 57s before coming to a conclusion!

 

[43096]

That's correct, and the TfW Rail 230s are older than the 150s they're replacing. I hypothetically suggested the 455s because they're much larger units, would be available in large numbers and the SWR examples have been upgraded with new Vossloh traction packages in recent years. Like I said, I very much doubt it'll happen, I just think it'd be a decent cost effective way of replacing the older Sprinter fleets.

The 455s are in some ways a better bet for conversion than the 319s if you want extra DMUs: they still have the DC bus that the 319s have which makes conversion easier, but you could re-form them as 3-car sets to improve performance and they don't have a transformer to lug around which further reduces weight and improves performance.

 

[py_megapixel]

The 455s are in some ways a better bet for conversion than the 319s if you want extra DMUs: they still have the DC bus that the 319s have which makes conversion easier, but you could re-form them as 3-car sets to improve performance and they don't have a transformer to lug around which further reduces weight and improves performance.

But there's a massive tradeoff in that all of the places which operate DMUs of a similiar age or older have OHLE not third rail so they couldn't be run as bimodes.

 

[43096]

But there's a massive tradeoff in that all of the places which operate DMUs of a similiar age or older have OHLE not third rail so they couldn't be run as bimodes.

I did say "if you want extra DMUs"...

 

[py_megapixel]

I did say "if you want extra DMUs"...

Fair enough. But there's still an environmental and passenger experience advantage to being able to run your extra DMUs on electricity when it's available.

Is there any reason why the 319s couldn't be reformed to 3-cars? Is it just because the wheelchair accessible area & toilet are in the non-driving trailer (which of course is the only one you could remove without losing either a cab end or the traction motors!) or is there some other technical reason?

 

[507021]

The 455s are in some ways a better bet for conversion than the 319s if you want extra DMUs: they still have the DC bus that the 319s have which makes conversion easier, but you could re-form them as 3-car sets to improve performance and they don't have a transformer to lug around which further reduces weight and improves performance.

Absolutely, I think if the 455/7s were to lose the PEP trailer and have an engine fitted to each of the driving coaches, then there'd be a fleet of 43 trains which would (in my opinion) be perfectly adequate 150 replacements.

Fair enough. But there's still an environmental and passenger experience advantage to being able to run your extra DMUs on electricity when it's available.

Is there any reason why the 319s couldn't be reformed to 3-cars? Is it just because the wheelchair accessible area & toilet are in the non-driving trailer (which of course is the only one you could remove without losing either a cab end or the traction motors!) or is there some other technical reason?

There's mechanical apparatus under the MSO and TSOL coaches, so taking the TSOL out isn't an option.

 

[DustyBin]

Absolutely, I think if the 455/7s were to lose the PEP trailer and have an engine fitted to each of the driving coaches, then there'd be a fleet of 43 trains which would (in my opinion) be perfectly adequate 150 replacements.

As per my previous post I’m all for reusing redundant trains where possible, and I rather like the 455s, but what are the advantages of replacing the 150s with them? You’d be replacing a MK3 based suburban DMU with a slightly older MK3 based suburban DEMU, at considerable expense. Why not simply refurbish or even re-engine the 150s?

 

[Noddy]

Depends which fleet and who you ask as some of the uses they have been given haven't been as successful as others. Freightliner couldn't get rid of theirs quick enough and the 57/0s only ever really acted as stop gap at DRS with them not really featuring in the long term plans in the end. So largely a no so far for that sub class and I'm unconvinced they may have bothered in hindsight.

I don’t think that’s entirely true for the 57/0s. They enabled Freightliner to expand into new ‘heavy haul’ markets with more powerful and reliable locomotives, without over investing in assets that might not have been super heavily used. The company was able to grow the successfully grow the business, ordering two separate batches of 57s, which were there for nearly 10 years and all the original batch are still, I think, in mainline service nearly 25 years later. I think they may have been at FL a lot longer if it hadn’t been for the fact that the EWS run of 66s was well underway at the same time, and EMD were able offer the 66s ‘off the shelf’ with no development costs and low leasing costs.

 

[colchesterken]

I think what is happening with rolling stock is a terrible waste of rolling stock
I was at a demo of the new stock for GA.Fleet. I asked what was wrong with rebuilding the whole 321 fleet into Renatus, he said with interest charges so low replacing the fleet was close to the hire cost of converted fleet.
That is just pennies what about the overall cost of building new stock and the resource cost of scrapping the old stock
Same with HST and Mk3 stock ,rebuild the power cars ( they had new engines ) and upgrade the coaches and reuse, we had the last MK3 on Anglia very nice ride up to the end

 

[507021]

As per my previous post I’m all for reusing redundant trains where possible, and I rather like the 455s, but what are the advantages of replacing the 150s with them? You’d be replacing a MK3 based suburban DMU with a slightly older MK3 based suburban DEMU, at considerable expense. Why not simply refurbish or even re-engine the 150s?

The way I see it, a re-engineered 455/7 would give Northern a three-car, 75mph commuter DEMU which would have more capacity, better acceleration and produce less emissions than a 150. I agree it would be an expensive undertaking, but it'd still cost considerably less than ordering bespoke, off the shelf units. It's not as if the 455s are in poor condition either, or at least they weren't when I last travelled on them.

I'm certainly not suggesting we start upcycling all of the redundant EMU fleets, because the likes of the PEPs and 317s are life expired, but I think the likes of the 365s and 455s have plenty of life left in them and would be ideal for conversion into bi-modes and DEMUs respectively.

I think what is happening with rolling stock is a terrible waste of rolling stock
I was at a demo of the new stock for GA.Fleet. I asked what was wrong with rebuilding the whole 321 fleet into Renatus, he said with interest charges so low replacing the fleet was close to the hire cost of converted fleet.
That is just pennies what about the overall cost of building new stock and the resource cost of scrapping the old stock
Same with HST and Mk3 stock ,rebuild the power cars ( they had new engines ) and upgrade the coaches and reuse, we had the last MK3 on Anglia very nice ride up to the end

I completely agree Ken, It makes absolutely no sense that the DfT have sanctioned new trains to replace the 350/2s and 379s when they're not even that old and there's no obvious place for them to go. I really don't think expensive leasing costs are a justification for buying brand new trains. Fair play to Porterbrook and Eversholt Rail for trying to do something useful with their redundant assets with the Flex and Breeze programmes respectively.

The DfT really needs to implement a robust, long term rolling stock strategy, tied in with rolling electrification programmes.

 

[43096]

Same with HST and Mk3 stock ,rebuild the power cars ( they had new engines ) and upgrade the coaches and reuse, we had the last MK3 on Anglia very nice ride up to the end

I take it you haven't been following the problems that Wabtec have had with the refurbishment programmes for ScotRail and GWR? The oldest vehicles are 45 years old this year - they are at the end of their life (and have been worked hard over their life). Those new MTU engines you mention in the power cars, the oldest are 15 years old this year and approaching their third full life overhaul already. Not really new any more.

 

[CBlue]

I think what is happening with rolling stock is a terrible waste of rolling stock
I was at a demo of the new stock for GA.Fleet. I asked what was wrong with rebuilding the whole 321 fleet into Renatus, he said with interest charges so low replacing the fleet was close to the hire cost of converted fleet.
That is just pennies what about the overall cost of building new stock and the resource cost of scrapping the old stock
Same with HST and Mk3 stock ,rebuild the power cars ( they had new engines ) and upgrade the coaches and reuse, we had the last MK3 on Anglia very nice ride up to the end

Sorry, but I can't agree about the Anglia Mk3s being a "nice ride up to the end" - even in the National Express days they were getting worn out and by the time GA had replacements lined up they were woeful in just about every way. Knackered old seats, squeaking from that infernal gangway and a severely outdated design whichever way you looked at it. The Stadlers are space-age by comparison.

 

[DustyBin]

Sorry, but I can't agree about the Anglia Mk3s being a "nice ride up to the end" - even in the National Express days they were getting worn out and by the time GA had replacements lined up they were woeful in just about every way. Knackered old seats, squeaking from that infernal gangway and a severely outdated design whichever way you looked at it. The Stadlers are space-age by comparison.

The case for the loco hauled (or HST for that matter) MK3s is rather weaker for the reasons already stated. The 321s are still decent trains though and the Renatus units could easily be mistaken for new by the general public. I’d like to have seen a “Renatus MK2” with lessons learned from the original (it’s not perfect, let’s be honest) but that’s clearly not going to happen now. What of the existing Renatus units though?

 

[507021]

What of the existing Renatus units though?

I think they're probably the prime candidates for Class 600 donor units, and perhaps the 321/9s and 322s as well considering they're PRM compliant.

Speaking of the 600s, does anyone know why 321437 still has a motor coach and 321448 doesn't?

 

[danielnez1]

One problem with re-purposing Mk3 vehicles will be corrosion issues.

Historically smaller scale conversions that focus on above the solebar (i.e. conversion to Parcel/light freight units) seem to have worked reasonably well, though (and I feel I am stating the obvious), it does seem that with the 230 and 769, major changes below the solebar are extremely problematic. That's no surprise as I imagine the original designers would have envisioned, nor provided structural provision for drastic changes or additional equipment (i.e diesel engines) to be added.

 

[507021]

One problem with re-purposing Mk3 vehicles will be corrosion issues.

A fair point, in fact I'm fairly sure a small number of 319s were rejected as donor units because of their condition.

Historically smaller scale conversions that focus on above the solebar (i.e. conversion to Parcel/light freight units) seem to have worked reasonably well, though (and I feel I am stating the obvious), it does seem that with the 230 and 769, major changes below the solebar are extremely problematic. That's no surprise as I imagine the original designers would have envisioned, nor provided structural provision for drastic changes or additional equipment (i.e diesel engines) to be added.

Another good point. I think it'll be interesting to compare how the 319/6 and 769/5 units perform, particularly as it's only the latter which have had modifications above and below the solebar. I'll be watching the 321 parcel unit scheme with interest too, considering those and the 319/6s will be pretty much identical units.

 

[squizzler]

I think that the upgrade of trains with common sense things like better interiors mid-life is entirely justified, and in the right instances major work like power doors, controlled emission toilets, and EMUs getting 'self-power' can make sense. There is also the fact that some bits of trains wear out faster than others and it makes sense to replace the seat coverings for instance several times over the life of the structure and key components.

On the other hand, trains are in use more than they are not, and after quarter of a century of hard use, they will have got closer to justifying their existence than most manufactured products. I think that it makes more sense to remanufacture motorcars after their service life, as many vehicles go to the scrappy with - amongst the interior - only the drivers seat and the carpet in its footwell showing material wear and tear. I understand most private cars are only in motion 4% of the time and sit idle for the remaining 96%. There are many more cars than there are trains, so the motoring equivalent of, say, the Eversholt Renetus or Breeze 321 conversion but done on ford Focuses, for instance, would be amortised over hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of vehicles and keep much more material from recycling than would be the case for a few hundred EMU cars.

 

[danielnez1]

A fair point, in fact I'm fairly sure a small number of 319s were rejected as donor units because of their condition.



Another good point. I think it'll be interesting to compare how the 319/6 and 769/5 units perform, particularly as it's only the latter which have had modifications above and below the solebar. I'll be watching the 321 parcel unit scheme with interest too, considering those and the 319/6s will be pretty much identical units.

Yes I am looking forward to seeing how those work out, I hope they are a success.

I think that the upgrade of trains with common sense things like better interiors mid-life is entirely justified, and in the right instances major work like power doors, controlled emission toilets, and EMUs getting 'self-power' can make sense. There is also the fact that some bits of trains wear out faster than others and it makes sense to replace the seat coverings for instance several times over the life of the structure and key components.

On the other hand, trains are in use more than they are not, and after quarter of a century of hard use, they will have got closer to justifying their existence than most manufactured products. I think that it makes more sense to remanufacture motorcars after their service life, as many vehicles go to the scrappy with - amongst the interior - only the drivers seat and the carpet in its footwell showing material wear and tear. I understand most private cars are only in motion 4% of the time and sit idle for the remaining 96%. There are many more cars than there are trains, so the motoring equivalent of, say, the Eversholt Renetus or Breeze 321 conversion but done on ford Focuses, for instance, would be amortised over hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of vehicles and keep much more material from recycling than would be the case for a few hundred EMU cars.

So far it looks like the Renetus 321s seem to be the current pinnacle for successfully pushing the limit for extensive refurbishments. On a side note, the 317/7 refurb is probably an earlier example of this kind of refurb (minus the new traction motors), though I don't understand their wisdom in fitting new hopper window units when they had air conditioning fitted too.

 

[greatvoyager]

I was talking about upcycling with a friend of mine earlier in the week, and it got me thinking about the various locomotives and multiple units which have been upcycled in recent years.

While I think it's far too early to definitively (and fairly) determine whether the Class 69, Breeze, D-Train and Flex programmes can be considered a success or failure, I personally don't think it could be denied the Class 57s have been a success. With the number of redundant EMU fleets which are coming off lease, is it possible we could see further upcycling schemes in the future as cheaper, more environmentally friendly solutions to renewing fleets and boosting capacity?

For me personally, I'd really like to see 455s converted to DEMUs for Northern as replacements for the 150 and 155 fleets, because I think there'd be a few positive benefits to such a scheme, although I accept the chances of this happening is very unlikely!

I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on the subject.

I think most of these projects have not been successful, having said that, the 57s were okay as Thunderbirds, although the GWR ones seem less reliable.

 

[43096]

the GWR ones seem less reliable.

I think "seem" is the key word there. As they only operate two, high profile trains per day, any and every failure gets magnified and reported on. In reality, failures don't often happen.

 

[507021]

I think most of these projects have not been successful, having said that, the 57s were okay as Thunderbirds, although the GWR ones seem less reliable.

I respect your opinion, but I'd like to point a few things out here.

• Class 69 - Only two have been built so far and neither has entered service yet.
• Class 230 - The WMT units have had their issues, but we don't know what the TfW Rail ones are like in service yet.
• Class 484 - I think they've all been built now, but like the Class 69s, they haven't entered service yet.
• Class 600 - The prototype units haven't been completed yet.
• Class 769 - Although we're still waiting for the GWR, Northern and ROG units to enter service, the TfW Rail allocation seems to be settling into service.

The Class 319 and Class 321 freight conversions should work out, in theory, but a lot depends on the level of demand for them. We shall see.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 230 - The WMT units have had their issues, but we don't know what the TfW Rail ones are like in service yet.

Other than slow doors (which are annoying, but it just needs them to change the timetable to suit), the main issue with the WMT units has been engines shutting down due to overheating. The batteries fitted to the TfW units may well help mask this if it is similarly an issue, as if an engine shuts down it won't cause immediate power loss.

 

[greatvoyager]

I think "seem" is the key word there. As they only operate two, high profile trains per day, any and every failure gets magnified and reported on. In reality, failures don't often happen.

I respect your opinion, but I'd like to point a few things out here.

• Class 69 - Only two have been built so far and neither has entered service yet.
• Class 230 - The WMT units have had their issues, but we don't know what the TfW Rail ones are like in service yet.
• Class 484 - I think they've all been built now, but like the Class 69s, they haven't entered service yet.
• Class 600 - The prototype units haven't been completed yet.
• Class 769 - Although we're still waiting for the GWR, Northern and ROG units to enter service, the TfW Rail allocation seems to be settling into service.

The Class 319 and Class 321 freight conversions should work out, in theory, but a lot depends on the level of demand for them. We shall see.

Fair enough, I suppose is based on what I’ve read rather than the full picture, which is why I said it seems less reliable, which is based on perception not facts.