Vivarail's 'D Train' - 'D' stock reborn

Firstly, I am not arguing that all existing stock, particularly Pacers, meet current standards. They are 30 years old and manifestly do not, although your point about bodies detaching is a little out of date. I presume you are referring to the Winsford incident, since which the method of attaching the bodies to the chassis has been completely revised.
As for D78s being cleared on the network, again you are missing a point. Network Rail appear to have confirmed that no assessment of crashworthiness is necessary as the units already co-exist with main line stock over a short distance of shared track in West London. The fact that tripcock protection applies here
seems to be overlooked when (or if) D78s are deployed elsewhere in the country.

I suppose it will have to be a case of waiting and seeing what transpires with Mr Shooter's enterprise.

The scrape marks are still there on the red column supporting the building! The barriers in that picture have now been replaced with concrete walls.

I seem to remember after the Winsford crash in 1999 when a Pacer SPAD-ed onto the WCML and was hit from behind by a West Coast express:



..there were a number of crash-worthyness modifications made to anchor the bodyshell to the underframe.

As far as I am aware only three Pacers have been written off: namely 142008 (Winsford), 142059 (Lime Street), and 143613 which was written off after a fire at Nailsea (near Weston super Mare) in 2004. Only the last of these was in passenger service at the time of the incident.

142069 sustained serious damage to its underframe in a derailment at Rhymney in 2009 (in an ECS movement), and 142091 had major front-end damage after hitting a landslide near Retford in 2012 (in passenger service), but both have been repaired and put back into service. It is perhaps a sign of the rolling stock shortage that such repairs are deemed worthwhile (the earlier incidents happened during periods when new dmus were being built, so it was easier to get a replacement (not like-for-like"!) built.

A couple of articles on progress with the trial conversion; one from Vivarail themselves and another from an environmental consultant welcoming the approach taken.

www.vivarail.co.uk/project-update-14-april-2015-from-the-midlands-to-the-netherlands/

diemltd.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/when-second-hand-can-be-new/

THC

The March update suggested early Summer

Thanks. This looks interesting aight changes to the exterior of the train far less than I expected however this is just a promotional video so the in the actual converted trains may well be different

XF

Haven't you missed the point? AIUI, lower crashworthiness standards are permitted on tripcock-fitted lines (including lines where where LU and NR trains currently co-exist) because the likelihood of collisions is deemed to be so low. Crashworthiness should therefore require upgrading if the D78s are intended to be used on non-tripcock lines. It should also be noted that although the D78s will not have their maximum speed increased, they will potentially find themselves on lines where other trains are permitted to go nearly twice as fast as they can, which will also make crashworthiness more important.

Did you notice the new front end said to improve crashworthiness?

Everyone seems to have forgotten that there's still a lot of heritage stock allowed on the main lines at up to 100mph that probably doesn't meet modern crashworthiness standards. I'd suggest there's "grandfather rights" for certain stock (VSOE Pullmans, Mk1 charter trains...) and that LU stock will come into that category.

The VSOE Pullman stock is top-and-tailed by mk1 or mk2 (I forget which) coaches with greater crashworthiness standards when it runs on the mainline.

The mods look very much less significant than the "Darth Vader"- style cladding shown in the artist's impression. I would assume from the damage sustained by 7056 in protecting its dummy occupant that it is to be written off, or is there enough of it undamaged to make an intermediate car?

Look at the in-cab picture - there's quite a lot of distortion. This is I assume intentional, to act as a crumple zone and protect the driver (whose position has been moved back relative to the LU driving position)

The higher standards of crashworthiness required on NR are presumably because on lines not fitted with trip cocks there is more risk of a collision, and some of the lines they might work have higher speed limits than LU experience. (The D trains won't be cleared for 100mph plus, but they might encounter trains which are).

If it does end up on the Harrogate Line, north of Headingley is more likely

I recall travelling on a D stock train on the day they were first introduced.

Never did I imagine that one day I might be travelling on the same trains in North Wales, at stations such as Blaenau Ffestiniog.

I think the view out the window will be prettier than the inside of the District Line tunnel wall.

Simon