Vivarail 230 catches fire

[jamie92208]

I presume that each engine drove one bogie, so nothing fancy in the way of transmission required. A mechanical or hydraulic transmission for a three or more engine locomotive would get more interesting (unless you cheat by adding more bogies).

 

That's exactly what the Fell system did with four engines.

 

Jamie

[RANGERS]

They are using 3.2l Duratorq engines of the same type used in certain models of Transit Van. Assuming the standard method of reconditioning is used, the engines will be sent away and reconditioned in common with engines from other places, meaning that an engine that has come out of a Transit Van could be reconditioned and put under a Class 230. So I don't think it's a misnomer to refer to them as Transit Van engines, as in theory a Class 230 could end up with a reconditioned engine that has literally come from a Transit Van!

 

All the best,

 

Jack

Wouldn't be the first time road engines have ended up under trains. In the 70s and 80s there was a healthy industry rebuilding Leyland 600s that had come out of redundant buses. Many of these ended up in DMUs once reconditioning had been contracted out.

 

The only real difference between the vertical and horizontal engines was the sump so they were pretty much interchangeable.

[jjb1970]

They are using 3.2l Duratorq engines of the same type used in certain models of Transit Van. Assuming the standard method of reconditioning is used, the engines will be sent away and reconditioned in common with engines from other places, meaning that an engine that has come out of a Transit Van could be reconditioned and put under a Class 230. So I don't think it's a misnomer to refer to them as Transit Van engines, as in theory a Class 230 could end up with a reconditioned engine that has literally come from a Transit Van!

 

All the best,

 

Jack

 

If they're doing that, who allowed them to do so? Railway engines are within the scope of Directive 97/68/EC as amended, the indexing of emissions limits and test cycles are different to automotive engines. This is why companies establish separate power engine business units to sell the engines to non-automotive users. I had some dealings with the UK government three or four years ago as an intermediary when a client of my employer dropped a colossal clanger and ordered a batch of engines for a certain application which had been approved under 715/2007/EC as Euro 5 light vehicle engines. At that time the UK refused to accept Euro V in place of type approval under the non road machinery directive. These engines appear to be over 130KW so are above the lower threshold for power.

[JohnR]

If they're doing that, who allowed them to do so? Railway engines are within the scope of Directive 97/68/EC as amended, the indexing of emissions limits and test cycles are different to automotive engines. This is why companies establish separate power engine business units to sell the engines to non-automotive users. I had some dealings with the UK government three or four years ago as an intermediary when a client of my employer dropped a colossal clanger and ordered a batch of engines for a certain application which had been approved under 715/2007/EC as Euro 5 light vehicle engines. At that time the UK refused to accept Euro V in place of type approval under the non road machinery directive. These engines appear to be over 130KW so are above the lower threshold for power.

 

Either they're a bunch of shysters with no railway experience who bought a bunch of Tranny vans from the scrappy to bodge together this train with no inkling of all the regulations regarding engines for Rail use.  Or, hey are experienced railway engineers with massive experience of the UK rail system, have actually sought and obtained all the approvals they need? What category do you think they fall into?

[RANGERS]

If they're doing that, who allowed them to do so? Railway engines are within the scope of Directive 97/68/EC as amended, the indexing of emissions limits and test cycles are different to automotive engines. This is why companies establish separate power engine business units to sell the engines to non-automotive users. I had some dealings with the UK government three or four years ago as an intermediary when a client of my employer dropped a colossal clanger and ordered a batch of engines for a certain application which had been approved under 715/2007/EC as Euro 5 light vehicle engines. At that time the UK refused to accept Euro V in place of type approval under the non road machinery directive. These engines appear to be over 130KW so are above the lower threshold for power.

Its quite conceivable that the same engines are tested for both road and other applications and are compliant with the standards for both. They would be required to be subject to separate testing regimes but its possible.

 

One thing which could make a difference, and I'm not familiar with the regs for rail, but as this is an upgrade of existing vehicles built to a previous generation of regulations, they may have certain exemptions from current requirements.

[Davexoc]

Its quite conceivable that the same engines are tested for both road and other applications and are compliant with the standards for both. They would be required to be subject to separate testing regimes but its possible.

 

One thing which could make a difference, and I'm not familiar with the regs for rail, but as this is an upgrade of existing vehicles built to a previous generation of regulations, they may have certain exemptions from current requirements.

Let just take a step back and look at engine testing. Somebody in th US looked at what was going on in automotive testing and low and behold a certain German manufacturer had fiddled the software to lower their emissions. Several other manufacturers have been looked into as well, don't know what is going on but it seems to have gone very quiet.

The actual standard test involved is so unrealistic anyway it is pretty worthless.....

 

Dave

[roger440]

If they're doing that, who allowed them to do so? Railway engines are within the scope of Directive 97/68/EC as amended, the indexing of emissions limits and test cycles are different to automotive engines. This is why companies establish separate power engine business units to sell the engines to non-automotive users. I had some dealings with the UK government three or four years ago as an intermediary when a client of my employer dropped a colossal clanger and ordered a batch of engines for a certain application which had been approved under 715/2007/EC as Euro 5 light vehicle engines. At that time the UK refused to accept Euro V in place of type approval under the non road machinery directive. These engines appear to be over 130KW so are above the lower threshold for power.

Nobody is allowing anything. Its just rods of revolutions over active imagination running away with him!

[roger440]

They are using 3.2l Duratorq engines of the same type used in certain models of Transit Van. Assuming the standard method of reconditioning is used, the engines will be sent away and reconditioned in common with engines from other places, meaning that an engine that has come out of a Transit Van could be reconditioned and put under a Class 230. So I don't think it's a misnomer to refer to them as Transit Van engines, as in theory a Class 230 could end up with a reconditioned engine that has literally come from a Transit Van!

 

All the best,

 

Jack

 

a large proportion of what you have said above  is just plain wrong. 

 

But this is the internet, never let the facts get in the way

[roythebus]

Despite all this talk, is there any news yet of what caused the fire? It may have been something simple like a battery lead fire.

 

I understand the Trnasit van engine is also used in the Land Rover discovery and puts out something like 258bhp. it certainly propels the Disco along at a rapid rate of knots and hasn't caught fire yet.

[wombatofludham]

Sadly nothing on the Vivarail site or blog to say what has happened.  I hope they find the cause soon and that it's nothing too serious. 

[ColinK]

Perhaps they are working on a minor redesign to include a double chimney, so any smoke comes out of the chimney and everyone thinks its a steam train coming. Has to be a double chimney so there is one smoke outlet for each engine.

[JohnR]

a large proportion of what you have said above  is just plain wrong. 

 

But this is the internet, never let the facts get in the way

I note that the same engine is tweaked to meet emissions standards in the US, so no reason why it cant be changed to meet any standards required here - always assuming it doesnt already.

[stewartingram]

Either they're a bunch of shysters with no railway experience who bought a bunch of Tranny vans from the scrappy to bodge together this train with no inkling of all the regulations regarding engines for Rail use.  Or, hey are experienced railway engineers with massive experience of the UK rail system, have actually sought and obtained all the approvals they need? What category do you think they fall into?

 

Read the latest Rail and you will find out!

 

Stewart

[jjb1970]

I note that the same engine is tweaked to meet emissions standards in the US, so no reason why it cant be changed to meet any standards required here - always assuming it doesnt already.

 

I dare say the engine can be remapped to meet most emissions standards, that is normal for most engines which are designed so as to be adaptable for a range of applications. What is a lot less easy is getting a re-mapped engine through the emissions tests, type approval process, conformity of production processes etc retrospectively. Especially for a mass produced engine. If the Ford automotive engines come with multiple engine certification for a range of test cycles then it would be fine, otherwise I cannot see that recycled old van engines would make any sense at all. Especially when Ford power products would sell you the same underlying engine with all of the necessary type approvals and with the control mapping etc set up for a genset, or via a packager you'd get the engine and generator and auxiliary services as a fully packaged unit. 

[jjb1970]

Let just take a step back and look at engine testing. Somebody in th US looked at what was going on in automotive testing and low and behold a certain German manufacturer had fiddled the software to lower their emissions. Several other manufacturers have been looked into as well, don't know what is going on but it seems to have gone very quiet.

The actual standard test involved is so unrealistic anyway it is pretty worthless.....

 

Dave

 

To say the test is worthless is not quite true, and the test cycles for industrial engines tend to be a bit more representative than the automotive cycle, primarily as a result of the different operating regime. One reason that the testing for NOx in particular can be so different to in-service emissions is the sensitivity of that emission to ambient conditions. A change in ambient temperature and/or humidity alters NOx formation significantly. Fuel bound nitrogen also has quite an effect (although that shouldn't be an issue for automotive or rail engines). That means that testing done at standard testing conditions will differ significantly if the conditions during normal driving differ. That is changing as more stringent controls force manufacturers to use active emissions abatement controls such as SCR which can operate with a closed control loop. Even with all the well recognised deficiencies of testing it can't be that worthless otherwise VW wouldn't have had to resort to fraud to get their diesels engines approved.

[Phil Bullock]

That's exactly what the Fell system did with four engines.

 

Jamie

 

And funnily enough a colleague was only telling me yesterday that her husband had retired from work at Ricardo engines... she was most impressed when I told her I had heard of them (as fitted to the Fell) but I think slightly less so when I told her why and what had happened to it...

 

Phil

[Coryton]

You think so?

 

http://www.prestontrampower.co.uk/

 

Just got planning permission to build a test route too.  Just because Blackpool conned the DfT to upgrade their line to semi-light rail standards doesn't mean Lewis Lesley and his happy gang have gone away, self-combusting prototype or no.

 

Interesting.

 

They might want to update their web site - from their home page: "The aim is to have the Guild Line open in 2012."

 

It seems to have taken a long time to get planning permission for a test track because of concerns that it might generate too much road traffic and cause a noise nuisance (by running trams over a railway line that formerly had diesel trains running on it...)

[big jim]

there is a pic on the freightmaster forum of the unit dumped in coventry yard, unfortunatly its now also covered in graffiti too

 

hopefully this link may work, not my picture

 

https://canonburyjct.smugmug.com/D-M-U/i-3d4V6xD/A

[russ p]

Although I've never thought that using van engines in a train is a good idea it's a shame to see it dumped.

I suppose the problem is nothing on the network can assist it but it would be nice to see it get another chance as it isn't some horrible faceless multi national company behind it it's a group of BRITISH railwaymen

[Wild Boar Fell]

Saw a similar photo over on WNXX, shame what has happened and hopefully the team behind it can end up with something to show for their efforts. 

 

One thing that I did notice, note how the cantrail stripe finishes before the cab, I have seen the latest guidelines on them (some pun intended) but don't know them by memory but thought the maximum gap was considerably shorter?

 

Wild Boar Fell

[Rods_of_Revolution]

One thing that I did notice, note how the cantrail stripe finishes before the cab, I have seen the latest guidelines on them (some pun intended) but don't know them by memory but thought the maximum gap was considerably shorter?

 

Wild Boar Fell

 

Reading the RSSB documents suggests that the Cantrail Stripe, or Warning Line as it's now called, should be continuous, except for a few criteria which permit otherwise, none of which seem to be applicable on the Class 230. To be compliant with the standard the stripe should continue around the front of the cab and dip a little to go under the destination board.

 

D.4.2 Except under the conditions set out in D.4.4, the warning line should be continuous and positioned so that it is not less than 3100 mm above rail level, when the rail vehicle is in tare condition with new wheels and the suspension is in the service condition.

 

 

Source: http://www-uat.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GMGN2611%20Iss%201.pdf

 

Best Regards,

 

Jack

['CHARD]

What's all this nonsense about using second-hand engines?  

 

The Duratorq engines are brand new and remapped by the Essex oufit whose name eludes me, before installation in the powerpack rafts.

[russ p]

Is it Burton power products from Maldon?

They did a lot for Ford's rally cars

[Rods_of_Revolution]

What's all this nonsense about using second-hand engines?  

 

The Duratorq engines are brand new and remapped by the Essex oufit whose name eludes me, before installation in the powerpack rafts.

 

Not secondhand, but I assume the engines will be reconditioned at least once, rather than being scrapped once they reach the relevant point in their life cycle, as it wouldn't make financial sense to keep buying new Duratorqs. Assuming this is done in a manner similar to other engines in railway use, the engines will probably be reconditioned by a company which also reconditions Duratorqs from other applications and thus an engine previously used in a Transit Van could end up being reconditioned and put under a Class 230. If you send an engine away to MTU or Cummins to be reconditioned you may not receive the same engine back and you could in fact receive one that's previously been used by a different TOC on a different vehicle type. I assume the remapping is purely a software change and that almost all, if not all, mechanical parts will remain the same; If that is the case, I expect whomever is contracted to overhaul the rafts will subcontract the overhaul of the engines to a company who already does such things with Duratorqs that have been used in other applications previously e.g. large van fleets.

 

All the best,

 

Jack

[newbryford]

Not secondhand, but I assume the engines will be reconditioned at least once, rather than being scrapped once they reach the relevant point in their life cycle, as it wouldn't make financial sense to keep buying new Duratorqs. Assuming this is done in a manner similar to other engines in railway use, the engines will probably be reconditioned by a company which also reconditions Duratorqs from other applications and thus an engine previously used in a Transit Van could end up being reconditioned and put under a Class 230. If you send an engine away to MTU or Cummins to be reconditioned you may not receive the same engine back and you could in fact receive one that's previously been used by a different TOC on a different vehicle type. I assume the remapping is purely a software change and that almost all, if not all, mechanical parts will remain the same; If that is the case, I expect whomever is contracted to overhaul the rafts will subcontract the overhaul of the engines to a company who already does such things with Duratorqs that have been used in other applications previously e.g. large van fleets.

 

All the best,

 

Jack

 

 

Does it really matter where the reconditioned engine comes from, as long as it meets the spec for the relevant duty?

 

It's not the first time diesels from other duties have been re-purposed. IIRC, there's an-ex marine spec Deltic engine running around in one of the preserved fleet.

 

Cheers,

Mick