Vivarail 230 catches fire

[JohnR]

Yes, apparently the 230s would have been passed by ORR for main line use without any structural changes, as they were already main-line passed. However, what VivaRail have done is add additional structural integrity to the cabs, to provide the driver with increased protection, above and beyond the minimum required. They didnt have to do that - and it adds to the cost and reduces the performance. So lets not knock them. 

[stewartingram]

Given the D stock has been passed to run over national rail lines in London which are used by freight trains and other heavy duty EMU stock, they are hardly as 'flimsy' as you imply.

 

Moreover through this forum (if nowhere else) you should be aware that the Vivarail has undertaken significant strengthening work to the cabs with lots of extra bracing and protective metalwork installed such that they now have the same crashworthiness as any 15X DMU unit. The national regulations and regulatory bodies are quite clear on this - the rebuilt D stock counts as 'new build' for registration purposes so must meet all the latest crashworthiness tests.

 

I would also challenge your dismissal of computer modelling - if its so unreliable why aren't their lots of pictures of TGVs, Siemens E320s,  Disero EMUs or Bombarider Electrostar EMUs having been smashed into solid objects to 'prove' their crashworthiness? Because computer modelling, with certain small scale tests has long been proven as acceptable to regulatory authorities as prof that sufficient impact protection has been provided. Also if you don't trust computer modelling then I amuse you won't be going over the new Queensferry road bridge in Scotland - because that has also been designed using computer modelling with very little practical testing. In short train testing is not the same as that used for motor vehicles (where volumes are such that a couple of cars smashed up is negligible in terms of the volumes manufactured.

 

I'm afraid far too many people seem to want to knock the project for things that have either already been addressed or are of very little severity / unusualness when it comes to new rolling stock design. The concept itself is fine - as is the work Vivarail has undertaken so far, you just need to remove the 'tube train fixation' from the mind and base your views on the real thing to date.

And I challenge the max 45mph for the Underground. The A stock used to travel daily at 70mph over the points at Neasden, though in latter days this was reduced to 60mph. (I believe the last day special had a dispensation though). I'm told by a number of sources that the fastest stretch on the whole Underground - in this particular case actually the tube - is between Manor House and Turnpike Lane (under the Green Lanes road). 60mph is regularly reached here by the now old Piccadilly stock.

The track on the Underground, as mentioned elsewhere, was actually in quite poor condition until recent times. A lot of upgrading has been done this century. The D stock, though introduced as (or at least called) 1978 stock, was refurbished extensively within the last 10 years. Everyday routine maintenance on the trains I have experienced to be very high preventative maintenance. A train leaving the depot and being in service will incur a fine to the depot of £1500 if 1 - yes one - interior light is found to be faulty by mystery shoppers! With a train basically at every station along the line, a single failure causes immense havoc to the service. Yes, they do happen, but they strive to avoid any. The Underground is frequently referred to as the "toy" train, but I feel they could teach the "big" railway a few things. Far from perfect, but a damn good player. The D stock is far from clapped out, and this rebuild is an innovative idea that deserves an innings. The main reason that the D stock was withdrawn  at this time, was the introduction of new S stock to the other sub-surface lines, an opportunity arose to standardise everything across SSL at the same time and they took advantage of that.

 

Stewart

[JohnR]

Exactly, Stewart. The bogies, in particular were brand new in 2005, and it was that, combined with the excellent condition of the bodywork (no corrosion, obviously), that made them suitable for the project. I believe the financial case for replacing them was very much borderline, and potentially they could have been kept in service on the District for many years to come. However, the big advantage of having stock with identical acceleration curves on the District/Circle/H&C lines outweighed the potential cost savings. 

[The Johnster]

Anything built for service in the Capital has to have been designed for a hard and intensive life during which it is expected to work continuously and unquestioningly.  The Underground network has to employ stock which would not normally be acceptable on main line railways, forgoing some of the sophistication in the interests of reliability and availability; London is a tough working environment.  What is considered life expired in London can be reasonably expected to provide many years of satisfactory service in semi-retirement out in the boonies where things are less intense; the IoW stock being a good example.

 

The idea of retrofitting diesels to 3rd rail stock is new, and has some potential on routes that require a low-cost train to keep going at all, but must be restricted to short runs in the interests of passenger comfort; I also have concerns about what happens when it buffers up to or otherwise contacts conventional railway stock and would be happier if it was used on 'one engine in steam' low speed lines shut away from the rest of the network.  The Cardiff Queen St-Cardiff Bay shuttle is ideal.

 

I am sorry this promising project has suffered what may prove to be a fatal setabck, especially if the concept is so wounded that others will be dissuaded from taking up the baton...

[roger440]

If you take the engine's designed application, it's to move a 3.5t van. The 230s have a pair of the engines under each 30t vehicle, so effectively each engine is moving 15t rather than 3.5t. Whilst there will be differences in the rolling resistance of the vehicles and stress on the engine with electrical vs mechanical transmission, I don't think they are sufficient differences to make the engines a viable option.

 

Lets say 230s are employed on a branchline, 25 miles long with 10 return trips a day, that's 500 miles a day; Lets say the service is Mon-Sat, that's about 150,000 miles in a year. I don't know how hard people are driving Transit Vans these days but I'd be surprised if many managed that sort of mileage in 5 years, let alone in less than a year.

 

Perhaps they plan to replace the engines every couple of years on the 230s? Either way it doesn't seem like a viable option for a reliable DMU to me.

 

Regards,

 

Jack

 

Hmmm, not sure you really grasp the concept. 2 x 130KW engines is roughly 350bhp. So pretty much the same as all the 15x fleet But in a vehicle several tons lighter. AND electric transmission. How exactly is this not able to move the train?

 

Yes, you are right, the life would be shorter than a conventional rail engine such as a cummins or Perkins on a 15X. You can get through a few transit engines before you reach the cost of one "conventional" engine. And the life of said "conventional" engines isn't that great either.

 

The latest issue is of course an unfortunate set back, but thats what prototypes are for.

[298]

Unfortunately it's not just about the horsepower, if all you need is 200hp then a motorbike engine might be sufficient but maybe there is a reason as to why previous rail vehicles have had 8 to 11 litre engines with the same power output...?

[russ p]

It's all about longevity of the engine'and torque

A class 03-06 engine is 204hp so is a Sierra cosworth engine at a fraction of the size as the railway Gardiner but the car engine would last in a car 80k miles and a lot less torque

[RANGERS]

It's all about longevity of the engine'and torque

A class 03-06 engine is 204hp so is a Sierra cosworth engine at a fraction of the size as the railway Gardiner but the car engine would last in a car 80k miles and a lot less torque

 

The principle of what you're saying is sound but I'm not sure the comparison between a 1930s designed unit and a high-tech, 1980s development of an engine from the 1970s is a good one!

 

The Ford engine used in this project has a good track record in it's previous incarnations although I understand those being used are EuroV level units whereas any production sets are likely to be the more up to date EuroVI units. Whether its man enough to cope with the very different profile of rail running whilst permanently coupled to a genset remains to be seen, but thats what prototypes and trials are for. I understand they are used in small industrial gensets so there is some pedigree but again the running profile of those is likely to be very different.

 

I'd be very surprised if the final investigation revealed the cause of the incident to be anything related to the actual type of engine used, more likely to be something related to the installation of it.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

Hmmm, not sure you really grasp the concept. 2 x 130KW engines is roughly 350bhp. So pretty much the same as all the 15x fleet But in a vehicle several tons lighter. AND electric transmission. How exactly is this not able to move the train?

 

Yes, you are right, the life would be shorter than a conventional rail engine such as a cummins or Perkins on a 15X. You can get through a few transit engines before you reach the cost of one "conventional" engine. And the life of said "conventional" engines isn't that great either.

 

The latest issue is of course an unfortunate set back, but thats what prototypes are for.

 

 

I was being overly simplistic in the comparison. Two smaller engines with fewer cylinders may have the same overall power output but they will have to rev higher to achieve it, reducing the time they can operate at peak RPM compared to a bigger slower revving engine, as well as creating a greater wear on parts (plus higher oil consumption) and more vibration (important to avoid for passenger comfort.) The point with the loading is that the engine is designed for accelerating a 3.5t van, the time it will operate at maximum rpm will be significantly less than where it's accelerating a 15t mass. Acceleration is the most stressful point in an engine's operation and having to accelerate a load over 4 times greater than the design load will no doubt take it's toll on a small high revving engine. There's a reason that DMUs generally use a single bigger engine per vehicle vs multiple smaller ones. If replacing a single bigger engine with multiple smaller engines was more beneficial it would have already been implemented by bigger rolling stock manufacturers.

 

I don't think there's an issue with refurbishing old tube stock for use on secondary lines, but I don't understand why there's a need to stray from tried and tested engine/transmission combinations. It's been my experience in engineering that if you use a product not designed for a particular application over a product that is designed for that application, in order to save money, it always ends up failing and costing more to put right in the long run.

 

All the best,

 

Jack

[Zomboid]

I'm sceptical about the use of auto engines in this, but no one is expecting them to be the same as a rail engine, so if 3 monthly engine swaps (for example, I'm making up numbers here) are planned for, and the finances still add up, that's not bad engineering. The problem would be if they planned for 3 monthly swaps and then needed them 4 weekly.

A failure of a prototype is what you expect, and indeed is the whole point of a prototype.

[Talltim]

One of the main issues with the fire is not technical, it's funding. The trial is being paid for Transport for West Midlands with a one off grant from the DfT from the 2016-17 budget. If the unit isn't in service by the end of the financial year it's not going to happen.

[RANGERS]

I'm sceptical about the use of auto engines in this, but no one is expecting them to be the same as a rail engine, so if 3 monthly engine swaps (for example, I'm making up numbers here) are planned for, and the finances still add up, that's not bad engineering. The problem would be if they planned for 3 monthly swaps and then needed them 4 weekly.

A failure of a prototype is what you expect, and indeed is the whole point of a prototype.

Virtually every engine ever fitted to a DMU in this country was derived from a road vehicle unit, mostly with little or no modification.

[Edwin_m]

There's a reason that DMUs generally use a single bigger engine per vehicle vs multiple smaller ones. If replacing a single bigger engine with multiple smaller engines was more beneficial it would have already been implemented by bigger rolling stock manufacturers.

 

I don't think there's an issue with refurbishing old tube stock for use on secondary lines, but I don't understand why there's a need to stray from tried and tested engine/transmission combinations. It's been my experience in engineering that if you use a product not designed for a particular application over a product that is designed for that application, in order to save money, it always ends up failing and costing more to put right in the long run.

"Tried and tested combinations" for UK DMUs use mechanical or hydraulic transmissions (and incidentally most first-generation DMUs had two engines per power car).  The 230 uses an electric transmission for the good reason of re-using the electric motors in the power bogies.  Trying to fit a different drive would involve more costly modifications and probably increase the risk of failures which can be as dangerous as the cardan shaft coming through the floor.  Furthermore the space underneath the car is probably not big enough to fit a traditional DMU powertrain, as the coaches are shorter than say a 150 and a new engine also needs space for exhaust treatment to reduce emissions. 

[The Stationmaster]

Virtually every engine ever fitted to a DMU in this country was derived from a road vehicle unit, mostly with little or no modification.

 

And some of them worked very well because they'd had years of development and were designed by people with rail experience (e.g AEC) while others were far less successful and and were heavy on maintenance and not ideally suited to rail application (e.g. a former Albion design).

['CHARD]

I can't say too much about this or get involved in the detail (or that of 319D) for reasons of confidentiality etc, but both designs/ concepts share the fundamental principle of mimicking the DC supply by using an on board van or truck engine and alternator (Ford, CAT, whatever).  

 

Retaining the existing transmission (i.e. traction motors) was key, for the connected reasons of cost, certification and complexity.  At the core of both ideas was the basic premise 'don't touch the bogies.'

[jjb1970]

The thing about engines is that engines of the same basic design set up for different applications and duty cycles may look identical (as they would if they're the same platform set up differently) but those changes are critical to engine life and reliability. Not to mention that if the emissions certification is not appropriate to the application then the certification is invalid and the engine is illegal for use.

 

This is the underlying problem that is often described of in terms of "the engine worked on a ship but trains are different". This is actually saying the duty cycle is different and that an engine designed for one duty cycle was used in an application where that duty cycle was not appropriate.

['CHARD]

At the core of both ideas was the basic premise 'don't touch the bogies.'

 

Importantly too, don't increase the axle load such that wheelsets need to be replaced.

[jjb1970]

Purely out of interest, I just looked in a Cat catalogue to see how much variation they offer in terms of engine size for a given power. I picked a power which is way above the D Train but a relatively small (in today's world) output for a locomotive and got the following engines rated at 2MW;

 

M25C - 23.5T/750rpm

C280 - 15.5T/1000rpm

C175 - 13T/1600rpm

 

The M25C is a MaK engine, the other two are yellow Cat engines. As you'd expect, the lower revving MaK intended primarily for marine and stationary use is a lot heavier than the more multi-purpose Cat engines which are higher revving. A variation of 10.5T in weight is a lot on such modest size engines.

 

At one time I did a lot with MTU (the engines now part of RR) and their engineers were quite candid that they'd traded durability and service/maintenance requirements for very high ratings from compact engines.

[BrushVeteran]

The Cummins 3.9 litre 4 cyl ISBE has performed very well in the ADL E400H buses for the last six years and as far as I know none of the 18 examples at Oxford Bus Company have required engine changes...............having now accumulated individual mileages of between 350-400K. Modern automotive engines, providing they're fed and watered properly, are now more robust and seem to require less maintenance than of years gone by.

[RANGERS]

The Cummins 3.9 litre 4 cyl ISBE has performed very well in the ADL E400H buses for the last six years and as far as I know none of the 18 examples at Oxford Bus Company have required engine changes...............having now accumulated individual mileages of between 350-400K. Modern automotive engines, providing they're fed and watered properly, are now more robust and seem to require less maintenance than of years gone by.

And of course hybrid buses have to cope with frequent engine stop-starts. Interestingly the Ford engine has been used successfully in hybrid buses.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

"Tried and tested combinations" for UK DMUs use mechanical or hydraulic transmissions (and incidentally most first-generation DMUs had two engines per power car).  The 230 uses an electric transmission for the good reason of re-using the electric motors in the power bogies.  Trying to fit a different drive would involve more costly modifications and probably increase the risk of failures which can be as dangerous as the cardan shaft coming through the floor.  Furthermore the space underneath the car is probably not big enough to fit a traditional DMU powertrain, as the coaches are shorter than say a 150 and a new engine also needs space for exhaust treatment to reduce emissions. 

 

220/221/222 family have electrical transmission so not all modern DMUs have mechanical or hydraulic transmissions. I'm suggesting using tried and tested engine/generator combinations, of which there are many available and proven in industrial applications as well as some specifically in rail applications.

 

I see issues just moving the vehicles reliably with Transit engines, that's before the power draw for lights/heating/aircon/compressors etc is considered. The more I think about it, the more unsuitable the engines seem. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on the concept being ditched after testing, I'm actually surprised that the idea left the paper phase in the first place.

 

All the best,

 

Jack

[Zomboid]

At one point, the 22x combination wasn't tried and tested. Maybe this combination will succeed, maybe it won't, but it's an unknown right now. If we only ever used tried and tested technology, we'd never have invented the wheel, never mind the train.

[Edwin_m]

220/221/222 family have electrical transmission so not all modern DMUs have mechanical or hydraulic transmissions. I'm suggesting using tried and tested engine/generator combinations, of which there are many available and proven in industrial applications as well as some specifically in rail applications.

 

I see issues just moving the vehicles reliably with Transit engines, that's before the power draw for lights/heating/aircon/compressors etc is considered. The more I think about it, the more unsuitable the engines seem. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on the concept being ditched after testing, I'm actually surprised that the idea left the paper phase in the first place.

 

All the best,

 

Jack

The 22x family is the only DEMU traction package in the UK and it would be far to big for the 230, both in physical size and in power. 

 

I suspect automotive use is closer to the punishing environment of rail than most industrial gensets are, as the latter probably run at a steady speed for most of their duty cycles. 

[roger440]

 

 

Retaining the existing transmission (i.e. traction motors) was key, for the connected reasons of cost, certification and complexity.  At the core of both ideas was the basic premise 'don't touch the bogies.'

 

Thus ^^^^  Start messing with bogies and wheels is when costs really start to rack up.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

At one point, the 22x combination wasn't tried and tested. Maybe this combination will succeed, maybe it won't, but it's an unknown right now. If we only ever used tried and tested technology, we'd never have invented the wheel, never mind the train.

 

You're taking my point and extrapolating it across the whole industry, but really I'm just looking at things from my imagined Vivarail point of view. Yes, things would stagnate without innovation and with companies always playing the safe bet, but in Bombardier's case with the 220 if it didn't work out they could take the hit. Vivarail on the other will potentially go bust if the D-Train doesn't pan out, as it's effectively their only project and the future of the company is pinned to it; Hence they should stick with tried and tested, rather than rolling a die on the future of the company.

 

They should go to several companies with rail pedigree like Cummins and spec the requirements for the project, from there selecting a couple of viable options and testing them on prototypes with the assistance of the manufacturers, whose input and experience is very valuable. In the short term it may well cost more, but longer term it would be a safer option and potentially cheaper. Going to a company without rail pedigree and putting all your eggs in one basket with a single engine that's not designed for rail use seems very risky for a start up company.

 

Another point regarding tried and tested, is that by selecting such a risky course for the project, TOCs are going to be very wary about leasing/buying/operating these units, especially when they have people in engineering and commercial that already have a good relationship with Cummins' men and machinery and established Rolling Stock Builders; Those relationships in the industry are very valuable and so having to take on units from a new kid on the block, Vivarail, and building relationships with a new supplier, Ford, may well contribute to discouraging TOCs from taking on the units.

 

All the best,

 

Jack