Vivarail 230 catches fire

[newbryford]

; 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,

 

 

 

Vivarail may be a new company, but some of those involved with it aren't new kids on the block when it comes to the rail industry............

[wombatofludham]

 

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.

 

 

Other engines are available and are running under units across Britain other than Cummins.

 

Also, if the TOCs are "wary" of going to "new kids on the block" how come CAF and Stadler have both recently won major orders from basically nowhere and in the case of Stadler not having anything roughly UK sized in their portfolio, which at least CAF had some experience of with their Irish stock?  If a TOC needs urgent additional capacity as their planned DMU cascade has dried up because we've forgotten how to string up wiring, and can negotiate a favourable supply and maintenance deal at a good price from someone like Vivarail, then whether it has Ford, Cummins or clockwork motors won't matter, if the trains are there when needed.  The majority of TOCs new stock comes as a combined supply and maintain package nowadays where the TOC specifies how many units it needs and when.  It's up to the supply company to sort out the oily bits, the TOC doesn't give a fig so long as the finances are right.  That's why Stadler and CAF have come from nowhere to major supply deals on the British mainland despite Siemens and Bombardier being the two "go-to" suppliers of choice until now.

 

There's absolutely no reason why the Vivarail unit, once de-bugged, and if appropriate to a TOCs needs, shouldn't be considered if supplied as a supply and maintain contract.

[Zomboid]

My point about the wheel was a bit of an exaggeration, but it's still true that the only way to make progress in any field is to try things, including some which may fail.

I think one reason why they've gone with the Ford engines is because they have relatively high power density, and there wasn't a tried and tested engine & generator set available which would fit under the D stock whilst providing enough power to give reasonable performance. I'm sure they would have gone to Cummins or similar if those had been feasible.

[roger440]

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

 

I think what i have gleaned from your post is that you dont run/own your own business do you?

 

In your favour, at least you say its your "imagined Vivarail point of view". Which is exactly what it is.

[jjb1970]

CAF have UK experience via the 332 and 333 units (in conjunction with Siemens) and have a long heritage of building trains for a global export market. Stadler are one of the worlds more respected train builders, also with a long heritage of building trains for export markets. Neither could really be considered an unknown quantity.

[RANGERS]

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).

Putting it into a rail vehicle would have been the last thing on AEC engineers minds when the A219/ A220 range of engines were being developed, their priority was a range of engines to meet the needs of their bus and truck customers. In the case of the 9.6 used by BR for the first generation DMUs, it was the fact it was suitable for horizontal mounting thanks to the development of that layout in the Regal IV bus and came with a semi-auto transmission deemed suitable for rail use as well.

 

AEC engineers had very limited experience of rail applications for their engines beyond providing the individual manufacturers who were looking to use their engines with their back up gained from road vehicles.

 

In the case of the Albion engines, they were reputedly somewhat quirky in their maintenance needs but as well as being among the first to see use in the Derby heavies in 1956, lasted until those units were finally withdrawn almost 35 years later, long after the equivalent AEC and Leyland engines of the same period had been replaced with newer units.

 

The point is that none of those engines were developed for rail, the were virtually identical to their road equivalents and were used simply because they had the required output, a suitable transmission, fitted the space available and most importantly, were available off the shelf at a price which made the whole thing a viable proposition. Exactly what Vivarail have done with these.

 

The alternative is a rail network with trains which are so expensive that they simply cant generate the revenue to sustain their use. Result is line closure and a mode shift to road transport. They're not the best but against the alternatives, they may yet prove to be the best option.

[Edwin_m]

CAF have UK experience via the 332 and 333 units (in conjunction with Siemens) and have a long heritage of building trains for a global export market. Stadler are one of the worlds more respected train builders, also with a long heritage of building trains for export markets. Neither could really be considered an unknown quantity.

The Valencia factory that produced the class 67, 68 and 88 is now part of Stadler so I presume they have also inherited some people with experience of approvals for operation on Network Rail.  They also produced the more recent fleet of trams for Croydon. 

[The Stationmaster]

Putting it into a rail vehicle would have been the last thing on AEC engineers minds when the A219/ A220 range of engines were being developed, their priority was a range of engines to meet the needs of their bus and truck customers. In the case of the 9.6 used by BR for the first generation DMUs, it was the fact it was suitable for horizontal mounting thanks to the development of that layout in the Regal IV bus and came with a semi-auto transmission deemed suitable for rail use as well.

 

AEC engineers had very limited experience of rail applications for their engines beyond providing the individual manufacturers who were looking to use their engines with their back up gained from road vehicles.

 

In the case of the Albion engines, they were reputedly somewhat quirky in their maintenance needs but as well as being among the first to see use in the Derby heavies in 1956, lasted until those units were finally withdrawn almost 35 years later, long after the equivalent AEC and Leyland engines of the same period had been replaced with newer units.

 

The point is that none of those engines were developed for rail, the were virtually identical to their road equivalents and were used simply because they had the required output, a suitable transmission, fitted the space available and most importantly, were available off the shelf at a price which made the whole thing a viable proposition. Exactly what Vivarail have done with these.

 

The alternative is a rail network with trains which are so expensive that they simply cant generate the revenue to sustain their use. Result is line closure and a mode shift to road transport. They're not the best but against the alternatives, they may yet prove to be the best option.

 

Don't forget that AEC had been involved in rail traction with under body engines since the 1930s so they had plenty of past experience on which to build. 

[Arun Sharma]

Stationmaster said, "Don't forget that AEC had been involved in rail traction with under body engines since the 1930s so they had plenty of past experience on which to build". 

 

Additionally, AEC being a wholly owned subsidiary of the London General Omnibus Company, had since somewhere between 1905 and 1912 been an integral part of the Underground Electric Railway Group with free flow of engineers between bus and railway elements. 

 

It was only after de-facto [if not de-jure] nationalisation of LGOC/UERL to form the LPTB in 1933 that AEC became an independant company though it continued to receive orders and exchanged staff from/with the LPTB.

[RANGERS]

Don't forget that AEC had been involved in rail traction with under body engines since the 1930s so they had plenty of past experience on which to build. 

 

AEC saw the GWR and various other projects for rail as a "cash cow" outlet for their engines, their only experience in development for rail was with the 0-4-0 shunter, which granted was long lived and still lives at Didcot, showed little promise for them as a commercial venture and it wasn't a big decision to leave the rail stuff to those who knew something about it. Supply of the engines for rail was merely an add on to increase engine output, just as it was for cranes and industrial use, AEC devoted little engineering time to it and the engines were the same as those manufactured for buses. Alan Townsin's first hand experience of the business in the 1940s and 50s is probably definitive and he always played down the role of rail in AECs history and has made reference to this in various books he wrote on the company.

 

AEC (Associated Equipment Co) was a part of what became LT initially but I'd have to doubt that there was any crossover between the rail and road areas. AEC in the Walthamstow era was operated as a bus manufacturing operation and would probably have had close ties with bus operations engineers but very little in common with the underground spanner men. Even in those days there was virtually no crossover between road and rail divisions.

 

One area where AEC did get some input from the rail boys was in electric traction which was put to good use in trolleybus development but then thats another story...

[JohnR]

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

 

How do you know they didnt? The company is an engineering company, with a variety of highly respected and experienced rail engineers, and I'm sure they would have looked at all options before settling on this. There will be many factors to influence the final decision too. 

[Rods_of_Revolution]

I think what i have gleaned from your post is that you dont run/own your own business do you?

 

In your favour, at least you say its your "imagined Vivarail point of view". Which is exactly what it is.

 

I have done previously and currently do so, I have also overseen materials management across several railway depots, dealt first hand with most suppliers to the railway industry and worked alongside engineers to assess material specification and requirements for mods and refurbished stock, so I'm not completely without experience.

 

Yes, it's my imagined point of view, that's how many discussions occur; Someone puts themselves in an imaginary position, applies their knowledge and experience to that imagined position and then offers an opinion derived from such imaginings. Perhaps I'm right and perhaps I'm wrong about Avivarail, but ultimately it's just one man's contribution to the discussion, so indulge it or discard it as you please.

 

Best regards,

 

Jack

[Christopher125]

My main issue is not the reuse of old rolling stock in a new format, it is the fact that this is the D Stock that is being used.  They were totally unsuitable with terrible riding qualities on tiny wheels at no more than 35mph on the District Line so the thought of them being let loose on the National Rail network in any way, shape or form unless it is dead in tow to the scrappy is quite frankly horrifying!

 

Tiny wheels? As I understand it D78s are 790mm when new, slightly larger than the 780mm wheels under Voyagers (and 172s presumably) and only a little smaller than the 840mm wheels under the 156s etc.

[JohnR]

One of the advantages of the D78 stock is the low floor. That means level access (or nearly so) from platform. 

[Classsix T]

One of the advantages of the D78 stock is the low floor. That means level access (or nearly so) from platform.

Hmm. I seem to remember installation of "humps" on some platforms around the country to facilitate a more level platform-train interface, will this Dstock require use of the wheelchair ramps to get people from the carriage to the platform?!

 

C6T.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

One of the advantages of the D78 stock is the low floor. That means level access (or nearly so) from platform. 

 

From looking at the standards, the RSSB standard height is 915 +/-25mm for mainline rail, the height of the compromise surface stock platform is around 1028mm after imperial/metric conversion, so if anything the D-stock will sit slightly high on a standard platform but probably not high enough to require a ramp for most wheelchair access, if assistance is provided.

 

Relevant spec from their introduction in 1978:

 

 

Regards,

 

Jack

[Suzie]

A bit bonkers that when specifying the Coventry stadium station they did not include wiring it to Coventry so the odd 321, 350 or Pretendolino could pop in for a Saturday excursion or two.

 

I don't really see what all the fuss is about the capability of modern 3l diesel engines. They are designed to be run at 3000rpm continuously on the motorway and do that very well and the predicted fuel consumption figures for the 230 suggest that the engines will be generating a similar amount of power on average to a motorway run. With diesel engines in road use being good for at least 200 000 miles without any routine inspection required beyond oil, filter and belt changes these engines are going to last a long time given the service the 230s are likely to be put to if properly looked after.

[Dave47549]

.

[PenrithBeacon]

... their only experience in development for rail was with the 0-4-0 shunter, which granted was long lived and still lives at Didcot ...

Doesn't seem to be there now, and I can't remember ever seeing it.

 

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/guide/locomotives.html

[Edwin_m]

From looking at the standards, the RSSB standard height is 915 +/-25mm for mainline rail, the height of the compromise surface stock platform is around 1028mm after imperial/metric conversion, so if anything the D-stock will sit slightly high on a standard platform but probably not high enough to require a ramp for most wheelchair access, if assistance is provided.

 

Relevant spec from their introduction in 1978:

 

 

Regards,

 

Jack

This diagram shows that the floor height of LU surface stock is around 1100mm, the same as a modern suburban unit on the main line.  All these have a step up at a traditional platform, although some platforms have been re-built to 1100mm where there are no passing freight trains that would foul them. The Stadler units just ordered for Anglia are the first on the main line network to offer level boarding from a 915mm platform. 

 

However I recall reading when they were first introduced that the D78 has smaller wheels (Tube sized) than older sub-surface stock allowing a lower floor, and I read somewhere that the conversion to class 230 included lifting them slightly to stay within the Network Rail loading gauge. Many stations on the sub-surface network allow level boarding to S stock but I believe this also has a floor below the traditional height. 

[2mm Andy]

Doesn't seem to be there now, and I can't remember ever seeing it.

 

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/guide/locomotives.html

 

The AEC shunting loco is at Southall, not Didcot.

 

http://www.gwrpg.co.uk/about-gwrpg/locomotives/

 

Andy

[w124bob]

The Coventry staduim station b**** up can be easily solved if the will is there. Since match days are rarely at rush hours Tyesley usually has a few spare 170's I really fail to see why a shuttle could not be run. I know there maybe an issue of traction knowledge for Coventry crews but surely this not a one off service, so worth investing in a little training. The proposed service from Leamington to Nuneaton would further justify traction training as demand in the future on that line may outstrip the D stock option. As an alternative it's a pity XC are so blinkered as they have crews at New st with both route and traction knowledge to provide a shuttle service. How many services nationwide would the D stock be suitable for?Sorry couldn't resist this.

[Christopher125]

A bit bonkers that when specifying the Coventry stadium station they did not include wiring it to Coventry so the odd 321, 350 or Pretendolino could pop in for a Saturday excursion or two.

Coventry-Nuneaton was due to be electrified as part of the 'Electric Spine'.

 

However I recall reading when they were first introduced that the D78 has smaller wheels (Tube sized) than older sub-surface stock allowing a lower floor

I believe that's still the case - as shown by this TfL data sheet the D78s have the same 790mm wheels as the 'deep tube' 67/72/73TS designs, which are on a par with conventional mainline designs like the 150s, 156s, 172s and even Voyagers whereas the 'Sub Surface' A and C stocks had 915mm wheels.

[Grovenor]

 

They were totally unsuitable with terrible riding qualities on tiny wheels at no more than 35mph on the District Line

So totally unsuitable stock has run successfully for 38 years, doing long runs out to Upminster, carrying millions. My journeys on them over the last 25 years have been smooth and comfortable with no noticeable ride issues. Where are you coming from?

Regards

[Shropshire Lad]

The Coventry staduim station b**** up can be easily solved if the will is there. Since match days are rarely at rush hours Tyesley usually has a few spare 170's I really fail to see why a shuttle could not be run. I know there maybe an issue of traction knowledge for Coventry crews but surely this not a one off service, so worth investing in a little training. The proposed service from Leamington to Nuneaton would further justify traction training as demand in the future on that line may outstrip the D stock option. As an alternative it's a pity XC are so blinkered as they have crews at New st with both route and traction knowledge to provide a shuttle service. How many services nationwide would the D stock be suitable for?Sorry couldn't resist this.

wassertalbahn-ein-alter-ford-transit-761683.jpg

If XC could find some more Voyagers they wouldn't be wasting them on local shuttles.