A rumour about future use of D stock

I read about this elsewhere. It does seem like a crazy idea. In a fantasy world, it would be interesting to do and as long as the bodies are in good condition could make for a novel re-use of old trains. But the costs of conversion vs. new build would have to be taken into consideration, as would costs of making them properly DDA compliant, etc, etc.

Would be neat to see tho.

all aluminium structure may not support diesel engines

I wouldn't have thought that there would be that many DMUs properly displaced. Any DMUs displaced by the 319s off of thameslink will be used to strengthen other services, and run new services. As for crossrail, the only units being displaced are the turbos, which will again be used for service strengthening, and when the reading electrification is done, will be cascaded internally to west country services. The main reason for trying to get these new DMUs is because (AIUI) the 142s, which make up a bulk part of the northern fleet, are not going to get an upgrade from their owners (Angel Trains) to make them compliant past 2020, something that I think will also be happening with 153s. So even though lots of units will be displaced and cascaded, there is an ever growing need for new units.

Yes how about some 12 car D stock on the SWT suburban routes that are overcrowded??

I thought electrifying routes using additional rails was now frowned upon though?

You must remember the overwhelming majority of EMU and DMU stock have two double doors per car. The D stock having four single yet wider doors per car will likely represent an increase in on/off loading rate. Not to mention the D stock cars are shorter so more doors per train length...

All in all, it would *actually* result in a reducion in station stop time. Id be very confident in that.

What aspects of the design would limit the train to 60? The motors? The bogies? Would the bodyshell be suitable for running at more than 60? Maybe some aerodynamic mods on the front end, which would double as a crumple, much like the TGV units.

Are those services self contained metman? I was toying with the idea of the ELL. Its a pity the NLL is now in places OHLE only otherwise the whole of the Overground could just take them.

Aside from that I would like to look at a few timetabls to work out what the inner suburban services are and if they are seperate from the long turns first before suggesting line or other.

its a nice thought Ben but there's no way you'd get me on one in between some nice air conditioned 378s. I'd rather wait! ;-)

Unless of course they were re-equipped with air con themselves, in which case I may re-evaluate my stance!

The new issue of Modern Railways indicates that this project may be a runner with at least one conversion to create a two engined four car unit or a single engined two car unit.

The engines will be new compartments in the cab part of the train.

The article states that the trains could have run for another 15 years.

The engine space will allow a diesel that will meet the new EU standards.

I just can't see it. Apart from the cost and practicality of conversion, for a train which by then will be nearly 40 years old, there would surely be a massive issue getting certification for mainline running. The trains may have 'grandfather rights' for the lines where they currently operate, but I can't see that extending to new routes. Meanwhile in the cab alone a whole load of new equipment would be required - AWS, TPWS, OTMR, DSD, DRA. None of this is impossible, but there will come a time when the cost makes the whole idea out of the question.

The shortage of DMUs is potentially simple to resolve - find a political solution to the emissions issue and build a new batch akin to the class 170 design. If the current shortage of DMUs continues over a number of years, either this or the disability regulations will have to give in some way or other. As usual for Britain, no doubt the politicians will wake up to this too late. The current round of electrification will not release enough DMUs to make a meaningful difference, not for a few years at least, whilst by this time the older class 14X units will be approaching 35-40 years, which in DMU terms is way past their expected lifespan, especially as generally these units have been intensively worked, unlike some of the London EMUs where large proportions of the fleet sit spare off-peak. Remember many of the first-generation DMU and DEMU fleets started to deplete their numbers from the 1980s onwards, whereas the current fleets have already gone past this and are still generally running in their original numbers barring a handful of accident write-offs.

The only re-use of D stock that I could see being remotely feasible would be on a more 'closed' 3rd-rail system such as Merseyrail, but this operator has already had the opportunity to take on units to the same basic design as their current fleet, and declined the chance, so I can't see them taking on a re-engineering project for different and highly non-standard trains that are marginally older.

If the dates had worked out, there might just have been an opportunity for D stock to find a use on the East London Line, if inter-running over the NR parts was deemed permissible, however this too might have been politically unacceptable to use second-hand trains on a 'new' railway, and in any case they weren't available at the time required.

Realistically, I can't see LUL spending money storing these trains securely once they start to be withdrawn. Storing redundant trains is expensive, and they certainly won't repeat what happened with some of the 72MkI and 83 stock where the trains are stored in out-of-the-way locations, become heavily vandalised as well as suffer deterioration, and then cost a lot more to remove than would originally have been the case.

OTMR - On Train Monitoring and Recording [The railway equivalent of the "black box"]
DSD - Driver Safety Device [A system checking that the Driver is still alive; if there has been no operation of any control for a set period of time an alarm sounds, failure to respond to the alarm results in an emergency brake application. The response in most situations is to lift your foot from the 'deadmans pedal' and then immediately replace it; this prevents a driver placing their bag (or similar) on the deadman's pedal and maintains their attentiveness.

Thanks to both of you

Don't the D stock have something similar to the DSD - at least similar principle and purpose?


It does indeed, I seem to remember that was a common problem with the design of deadman's handles - they were being circumvented and so failed to fulfil their protective function when they were required. I understand this was involved in a number of accidents. Thanks a lot I was unfamiliar with the acronym.

Additionally, as you alluded to, it's designed so that if a driver becomes incapacitated - e.g. has a heart attack - and slumps onto the handle/pedal and so holds it in place (another problem that was involved in accidents) this can be partially mitigated against as the failure to respond to the DSD by the incapacitated driver will bring the train to a stop as per the original intentions of the deadman's device. Of course, if the driver becomes incapacitated and slumps onto the handle only a short time after the last control input, there might be quite some time before the DSD alarm sounds, in which time an incident could conceivably occur (e.g. failure to stop at a danger signal, failure to observe a PSR and subsequent derailment). AWS helps a bit as it must be acknowledged else there will be an emergency brake application (although the magnets are very close to the signals they correspond to) and TPWS also helps a lot.

I wonder if there's another barrier to D stock use outside of LU - wouldn't D stock's tube sized wheels ultimately have a bearing on what can be achieved speed wise?