Vivarail 230 catches fire

[Talltim]

67s used for pushpull are fitted with full automatic fire extinguisher systems, as are HST power cars. Any locos that are running that don't have automatic fire extinguishers must be manned (e.g. When running in multiple)

[wombatofludham]

How about waiting to see what the cause of the fire was, and the resulting damage rather than write the idea off completely?  Or do you have a better product ready for the rails?

 

People scream and shout about no new trains being designed and built in the UK but when a British company tries a new avenue they get slated for it, this attitude really p's me off.  Give them a chance, the unit is a prototype and is supposed to show problems in testing before being put into daily service.  Or would you rather the unit was filled with fare paying passengers young and old when it caught fire?

 

Why should the D stock be sent to the scrappy?  Because its of a certain age?  If the structure is good, then there is no need to scrap it.  The class 313 units on your avatar are older than the D stock, and still in service, should they be sent for scrap too?  Should a house be reduced to rubble because its 40 years old? There are plenty of loco's out there that are a damn sight older that are still giving sterling service, with original design power units.

 

If this problem cant be surmounted then the project will die, but if succeeds then a fleet of badly needed units will be available at a greatly reduced cost, and quicker, than completely new units

 

All those wishing the project ill think on this.  The unit was, in the short term, the ONLY way Coventry Ricoh Arena station was going to get a service on match days, the purpose the station was built for in the first place, thanks to the lack of other affordable units to provide capacity beyond the franchised single car 153.  So, by condemning this venture, you are effectively saying that the existing farcical situation is fine, where a station, built as part of a planning agreement for the new arena to serve it, can't have a service stopping there for an hour after an event whilst buses mop up the crowds, so long as the users don't have to put up with recycled second hand stock.

 

Given the chaos that is now overwhelming the electrification programme and associated dmu cascade, the growth in demand and the need to replace 14X railbuses, would those of you bemoaning this project rather put up with overcrowded trains and a standstill in capacity improvements, or the deployment of Vivarail units where appropriate given the Treasury is trying to cut the cost of the railway and if Phillip Hammond has his way the munificence afforded to Northern and Greater Anglia in terms of new stock replacement won't become the norm? 

 

In any case new trains will take a number of years to enter service and for routes like Nuneaton-Coventry capacity is needed yesterday. 

[russ p]

67s used for pushpull are fitted with full automatic fire extinguisher systems, as are HST power cars. Any locos that are running that don't have automatic fire extinguishers must be manned (e.g. When running in multiple)

Not strictly true, 66s on rhtt are in multiple but the rear loco is unmanned.

37s doing too and tail passenger work must have the rear loco manned if it is not fitted with remote control fire fighting equipment

[4630]

The following is from a news release issued by Vivarail after todays incident;

 

 

Class 230 incident
30th December 2016

Whilst undertaking a test run today a fire started in one of the detachable engine modules on one of the power cars.  There were no passengers on the train and Vivarail staff were able to get off the train without a problem.

This has now been extinguished by the Fire Service and the train is being prepared to move back to Tyseley. 

Until it it is possible to access the engine module the cause of the fire can not be determined.

A thorough investigation will take place in conjunction with the Railway Accident Investigation Bureau and whatever steps necessary will be undertaken.

Vivarail regrets that this means the planned trial on the Coventry to Nuneaton line will be postponed.

Further information will be provided when available.

[APOLLO]

Yet we have scrapped perfectly good Mk 2 & 3 carriages the last few years, many serviceable locos gone early also, particularly the 86 & 87 Electrics given or sold to Romania etc.

 

I'm not keen on the 230 project, but not totally against it as we need "new" trains urgently.

 

Just google a few Eastern European railways and see what superb NEW trains they have - and we, a "World leading" G8 country are recycling clapped out tube trains. We can't even electrify our existing lines properly these days.

 

Bad to worse, with more bad news in 2017 I fear.

 

Brit15

[PaulRhB]

Note there have been at least 2 159's catch fire and they had to go away to be rebuilt due to the body damage. The engine caught fire but the passengers got out safe so it's an extreme test but at least they really know it's survivable!

It could be as simple as a failed component spraying oil or a design issue with siting of pipes.

The driveshaft coming through the floor has happened on a 158 and 159, a flywheel and even an engine have fallen off at speed too and we still use them with the mods to prevent recurrence.

Don't write it off yet.

[phil_sutters]

How many of the Mercedes Citaro 'bendy buses' burst into flames in traffic?

[stewartingram]

Fix Or Repair Daily?

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

Found On Roadside Dumped

[paulbb]

Old  trains with new and untested (in rail application) engine  equipment- sounds like the worst of all worlds.  We DO need diesels on the network for some time

-for a variety of reasons - but not this. Even if they perservere with it - whats the betting it goes nowhere near the home counties where many (all?) of the DfT staff live.

[Bon Accord]

Yet we have scrapped perfectly good Mk 2 & 3 carriages the last few years, many serviceable locos gone early also, particularly the 86 & 87 Electrics given or sold to Romania etc.

 

I'm not keen on the 230 project, but not totally against it as we need "new" trains urgently.

 

Just google a few Eastern European railways and see what superb NEW trains they have - and we, a "World leading" G8 country are recycling clapped out tube trains. We can't even electrify our existing lines properly these days.

 

Bad to worse, with more bad news in 2017 I fear.

 

Brit15

 

Some of that new stock in Eastern Europe has in part been funded by grant from the EU, particularly in rural areas and those in need of regeneration. I suppose we could always swallow some pride and apply for the same.

Oh wait a minute, there's a flaw in that plan.....

 

[JohnR]

Old  trains with new and untested (in rail application) engine  equipment- sounds like the worst of all worlds.  We DO need diesels on the network for some time

-for a variety of reasons - but not this. Even if they perservere with it - whats the betting it goes nowhere near the home counties where many (all?) of the DfT staff live.

Its unlikely to go near the Home Counties because most of their lines are electrified. 

[Jim Martin]

How about waiting to see what the cause of the fire was, and the resulting damage rather than write the idea off completely?  Or do you have a better product ready for the rails?

 

People scream and shout about no new trains being designed and built in the UK but when a British company tries a new avenue they get slated for it, this attitude really p's me off.  Give them a chance, the unit is a prototype and is supposed to show problems in testing before being put into daily service.  Or would you rather the unit was filled with fare paying passengers young and old when it caught fire?

 

Why should the D stock be sent to the scrappy?  Because its of a certain age?  If the structure is good, then there is no need to scrap it.  The class 313 units on your avatar are older than the D stock, and still in service, should they be sent for scrap too?  Should a house be reduced to rubble because its 40 years old? There are plenty of loco's out there that are a damn sight older that are still giving sterling service, with original design power units.

 

If this problem cant be surmounted then the project will die, but if succeeds then a fleet of badly needed units will be available at a greatly reduced cost, and quicker, than completely new units

The reason that people are agin the D-train is quite simple: it's the very embodiment of the principle that London gets new stuff and everybody else gets London's cast offs. It's as simple as that. Whether you think that's justified or not is immaterial (I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other, although I do have one): that's what the issue boils down to.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

And history tells us that under similar circumstances (such as the Tram Power Limited Citytram for Blackpool fire), the underdog has usually disappeared without trace...

Comparing Vivarail's efforts with those of Tram Power is worse than comparing chalk and cheese. They will have had to do a lot of serious engineering just to get the certification to run on Network Rail's tracks; Tram Power had to argue their case with HM Railway Inspectorate, whom I recall having a very trying relationship with Tram Power. Their tram barely achieved clearance to run up and down Blackpool Prom, and was positively barred from carrying passengers. The reports into the City Tram's misdemeanours make interesting reading.

 

Jim

[Davexoc]

They'll probably find some Vauxhall Zafira cabin ventilation parts fitted in the module somewhere..........

 

Dave

[Guest 40-something]

The reason that people are agin the D-train is quite simple: it's the very embodiment of the principle that London gets new stuff and everybody else gets London's cast offs. It's as simple as that. Whether you think that's justified or not is immaterial (I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other, although I do have one): that's what the issue boils down to.

 

Jim

I havent heard of anyone having that opinion over these trains, most probably because these arent London's cast offs, and this isn't the stock leasing companies re-distributing 'londons cast offs'.  The D stock hasnt been cascaded to other regions/operators, it was owned by TFL.  They have been withdrawn from service, replaced with new TFL owned/sources trains, and a private company has seen a gap in the market to produce additional stock at reasonable costs and timescales.  Re-engineering old shells to take new prime movers is not a new idea (HST's, 57s, 74s) but it is a much cheaper and quicker way to provide much new trains.

[APOLLO]

Russians and Yanks do it differently !!!

 

 

Brit15

[ColinK]

How many of the Mercedes Citaro 'bendy buses' burst into flames in traffic?

Quite a few. Why this happened was explained to me some time ago, possible to do with sound deadening material.

[Captain Kernow]

This is an unfortunate set-back and the investigation will clearly be thorough. In terms of being realistic about the prospects of 'Community Rail' type lines getting brand new rolling stock as well as London (ie., they won't), I think this project deserves to succeed, as it does show original thinking and these units (which I've not seen in the flesh) cannot be any worse than the aging 14X 'Pacers', can they?

[298]

Comparing Vivarail's efforts with those of Tram Power is worse than comparing chalk and cheese. They will have had to do a lot of serious engineering just to get the certification to run on Network Rail's tracks; Tram Power had to argue their case with HM Railway Inspectorate, whom I recall having a very trying relationship with Tram Power. Their tram barely achieved clearance to run up and down Blackpool Prom, and was positively barred from carrying passengers. The reports into the City Tram's misdemeanours make interesting reading.

Jim

And I seriously doubt that a 230 will now be allowed out on the network until it has gained a considerable trouble free mileage, there is something inherently wrong with the concept for it to be eating engines at the rate it has been and it doesn't exactly give confidence to other potential operators.

[jjb1970]

Not quite to that standard - certainly on earlier designs.  But they do have fire suppression systems for internally mounted engines and presumably the same principle is applied to modern dmus.

 

But whatever exists or doesn't exist for fire suppression (and there should be hand extinguishers if nothing else) I find it slightly disconcerting that a 21st century train can, seemingly, catch fire, while running and the fact that it is only at a trial stage does nothing to alter that view.  We are, as a country and what's left of our railway industry, surely capable of engineering something which won't catch fire in normal operation (after all there are many years of experience in dmu design still available)?  According to Vivarail's own website 'the fire started in one of the engine modules' and they have said also that the cause cannot be established until it is possible to access the engine module.

 

Thanks for that, interesting. Normally, engine fires are caused by a loss of containment of either fuel or lube oil which makes contact with a surface above the auto ignition temperature.

 

Given that both the causes of engine fires are both well understood and the mitigation measures long established, and that fire suppression is also a mature science it is quite sad that engine fires still happen in industrial applications like this..

[jjb1970]

I know this is a blindingly obvious question, but presumably those behind the project did confirm that the engine was suitable for the duty cycle of this application?

[Davexoc]

And I seriously doubt that a 230 will now be allowed out on the network until it has gained a considerable trouble free mileage, there is something inherently wrong with the concept for it to be eating engines at the rate it has been and it doesn't exactly give confidence to other potential operators.

Where is it going to accumulate mileage then? The Long Marston test track is hardly representative of the mainline, I suppose there is always Old Dalby if its not being used by TfL.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept, possibly just something minor in the execution. It could also turn out to be a simple component failure, even F1 has seen 8p circlips fail leading to a catastrophic engine failure.

Lets wait for the post-mortem and see, afterall, both 68s and 70s toasted themselves amongst others.

 

Dave

[John M Upton]

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.

 

The Class 142 Nodding Donkeys have better ride qualities than the D Stock!!

[The Stationmaster]

I know this is a blindingly obvious question, but presumably those behind the project did confirm that the engine was suitable for the duty cycle of this application?

 

I would sincerely hope so as the matter of heavy rail duty cycles for diesel engines (with whichever transmission) is certainly well enough understood for the necessary background data to be available.

 

As others have pointed out there have been over the years issues and incidents with various second generation BR units but let's not overlook the fact that we are considerable distance forward in years, and hopefully design and understanding, from the time those units came off the drawing board and even in the rail industry I would believe that most, if not all likely causes of underframe/engine etc fires have been well understood for a long time.  This project has, I understand, some experienced railway rolling stock engineers associated with it who, one would assume, would be well acquainted with potential problems - it will be interesting to see what emerges from their investigation. 

[Titan]

Don't forget that the raft is an engine and generator package. It could be an electrical fire - although admittedly less likely.