Vivarail 230 catches fire

[298]

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.

 

Some preserved railways can offer faster test conditions of 45 or 60mph, and then there is Old Dalby like you've mentioned. But all of this costs money, and I'm starting to gather from information on other forums that there is a certain naivety around the funding and an assumption that it would work straight out of the box.

[PenrithBeacon]

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!!

Absolutely! I have always felt that although the 142s are pretty awful on jointed track they're fine on CWR. A lot better than the Underground stock including the new 'S' stock

[jim.snowdon]

Absolutely! I have always felt that although the 142s are pretty awful on jointed track they're fine on CWR. A lot better than the Underground stock including the new 'S' stock

Having driven D stock at over 60 on the Met when we were testing the first units, their ride was pretty good on good track. It's just that a lot of LT's track was not in good shape as a result of the traditional practices of only doing maintenance in Engineering Hours, which meant that such things as underlying deterioration of the track bed never got any attention.

 

Even 142s can ride well on jointed track provided it is well maintained, with no dipped joints. It's just that a lot of the remaining jointed track probably doesn't get the maintenance it needs, especially on the lower category lines.

 

Jim

[APOLLO]

Agree re Pacer's on CWR. A few weeks ago i was onboard a Northern 142 non stop Bolton to Manchester. The bit from Kearsley to Salford is a very fast downhill bit. We flew down- 75 mph (maximum) plus a bit I guess - noisy but the ride was very steady.

 

Brit15

[caradoc]

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

 

Sorry Brit15 but I have to disagree with some of your comments; My local railway (nowhere near London, in fact to Neilston in Scotland) will shortly be receiving brand-new trains for the first time since 1962; Although hopefully the introduction of the Class 385s will be less troublesome than that of the 303s ! In fact the problems which afflicted the 303s, ie blowing up, shows that perhaps everything wasn't always better in the past.

 

And while the GW electrification is certainly having major problems, other projects are proceeding largely unrecognised; The rebuilding of Glasgow Queen St station and the track renewal and electrification of Queen St Tunnel this year were completed on schedule, while the hugely amended (and complex) train service which operated while Queen St was closed ran pretty much like clockwork.

 

So I am looking forward to new trains on my local line, also new electric trains on the Queen St/Edinburgh route, and to other developments further afield, such as Trans-Pennine loco-hauled services. Roll on 2017 !  

 

Finally, 'superb new trains in Eastern Europe' but Romania (in Eastern Europe) is recycling Class 86 (50 years old) and Class 87 (40 years old) locos ? Surely they must be even more clapped out than D78 stock ?

[298]

Finally, 'superb new trains in Eastern Europe' but Romania (in Eastern Europe) is recycling Class 86 (50 years old) and Class 87 (40 years old) locos ? Surely they must be even more clapped out than D78 stock ?

It's Bulgaria and Hungary that have carried out "recycling" of BR traction, and largely because manufacturing and labour costs are significantly cheaper than anything connected with the rail industry in the UK.

 

DB Cargo has six 92s allocated to Romania and another five in Bulgaria, although I'm not sure how reliable they are.

[Butler Henderson]

Absolutely! I have always felt that although the 142s are pretty awful on jointed track they're fine on CWR. A lot better than the Underground stock including the new 'S' stock

Pretty awful on the ears though going round sharp curves like that next to Crimple Valley Viaduct on the Leeds-Harrogate line.,

[Fat Controller]

It's Bulgaria and Hungary that have carried out "recycling" of BR traction, and largely because manufacturing and labour costs are significantly cheaper than anything connected with the rail industry in the UK.

 

DB Cargo has six 92s allocated to Romania and another five in Bulgaria, although I'm not sure how reliable they are.

This has been accompanied by 'upcycled' 25kV French electrics to non-DB operators, and a lot of DMUs and non-powered push-pull sets from SNCF; all with an average age of 40+ years.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

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?

 

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

[Guest 40-something]

Sorry Brit15 but I have to disagree with some of your comments; My local railway (nowhere near London, in fact to Neilston in Scotland) will shortly be receiving brand-new trains for the first time since 1962; Although hopefully the introduction of the Class 385s will be less troublesome than that of the 303s ! In fact the problems which afflicted the 303s, ie blowing up, shows that perhaps everything wasn't always better in the past.

 

And while the GW electrification is certainly having major problems, other projects are proceeding largely unrecognised; The rebuilding of Glasgow Queen St station and the track renewal and electrification of Queen St Tunnel this year were completed on schedule, while the hugely amended (and complex) train service which operated while Queen St was closed ran pretty much like clockwork.

 

So I am looking forward to new trains on my local line, also new electric trains on the Queen St/Edinburgh route, and to other developments further afield, such as Trans-Pennine loco-hauled services. Roll on 2017 !  

 

Finally, 'superb new trains in Eastern Europe' but Romania (in Eastern Europe) is recycling Class 86 (50 years old) and Class 87 (40 years old) locos ? Surely they must be even more clapped out than D78 stock ?

We've had a lot of new build stock in Scotland over the past 40 years.  156/158/314/318/320/334/380, i still miss the 303/311's though!!

[HillsideDepot]

I believe that is the plan, the engines are easily available, and will be replaced frequently.

 

In the bus world Optare vehicles have long been designed to have the engine and associated ancillaries on a separate frame so a fresh unit can be kept, ready to go, at the depot and be swapped in less than a shift. The bus is then back out earning money, and the engine can then be overhauled/have components replaced with less time pressure, and with easy access all round the unit. As I understand it, the 230 is designed on the same principle.

 

Whether a van engine is up to rail use I don't know; maybe we are beginning to find out.

[Guest 40-something]

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

The transit we hired to take us to Warley this year was a 65 plate with 62k on the clock.  Still pulled like a new van.

 

The question is are the van engines up to cyclic rapid revving and sustained high revs to power the traction motors, rather than the low down mechanical grunt required for a fully laden van

 

Mind you, the speed transits fly past on the motorway, sustained high revs shouldnt be a problem!!!

[phil-b259]

 

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

 

That was exactly the idea!

 

The concept was that each engine 'tray' could be disconnected with a few bolts and uncoupling a few cables with a freshly overhauled replacement swapped in. This compares favourably with a conventional DMU where the engine mounting / drive arrangements are much more complex and mean the vehicle is out of use while bits are changed.

 

The choice of the Ford Transit engine was due to its compact size plus the easy availability of spares etc. The other advantage is that when Ford upgrades the engine to the next variant, modifying the tray design is a straightforward affair and shouldn't mean any alterations are necessary to the train.

 

All in all a sound concept - something those that like to sneer at it on here and elsewhere constantly fail to recognise. Whether the engineers can refine it sufficiently for it to prove its worth is naturally still to be proved - but a single fire on the prototype in no way means they will not succeed, particularly given those responsible are well respected within the industry (where it counts) - even if they are not on internet forums

[Mark Saunders]

We've had a lot of new build stock in Scotland over the past 40 years.  156/158/314/318/320/334/380, i still miss the 303/311's though!!

 

This Years new stock is the next generation of tat that needs replacing!

 

Mark Saunders

[JohnR]

Bear in mind that a) some of the people involved are highly experience engineers, with bags of experience on the railway, and in other applications. Also b) that these units will cost less than half that of a brand new train - and at a time when finances are tight, that could make the differene between a project going ahead or not. The Ricoh stadium service is a case in point. There is no way that brand new conventional stock would be supplied for this service. So the choice is something like the 230 - or no train service.

 

I think there is scope for use of these units on other services which would otherwise be financially unviable. If we think out of the box, perhaps even reopenings could be possible using them. If the choice is between No railway and Class 230, I know which I'd prefer.

[Oldddudders]

I believe Adrian Shooter is behind this project, which should give confidence. He was, after all, a senior rolling stock engineer on Southern Region before his move to Area Manager at St Pancras. I think Phoenix will arise fitter and stronger.

[Davexoc]

It's Bulgaria and Hungary that have carried out "recycling" of BR traction, and largely because manufacturing and labour costs are significantly cheaper than anything connected with the rail industry in the UK.

 

DB Cargo has six 92s allocated to Romania and another five in Bulgaria, although I'm not sure how reliable they are.

If they are as reliable as the first 30 classes 56s to hit theses shores, then what goes around, comes around......

 

Dave

[royaloak]

The available pictures seem to show very little if any damage inside, not even smoke damage.

 

As others have said, lets wait ad see what the report says.

[royaloak]

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

As a train driver I dont care what I drive as long as it is safe and reliable, this Vivarail project has not undergone the same crash tests as a mainline train BUILT AT THE SAME TIME would have had to undergo because it would fail them miserably because it wasnt built to that standard but the much lower London Underground requirements for a train with a 45mph max speed. Now that same train is having some transit van engines bolted to the underframe and is expected to run at 60mph without undergoing further crash tests, that farcical rolling into a big bath of water at 10mph test doesnt count, I dont care how good your computer model is!

 

I will be the one sat in the front and I would much rather be in the cab of a 143 than in the cab of this thing in the event of a significant collision simply because the cab of the 143 has been tested at its design maximum speed, unlike the Vivarail 230.

 

Saying that I do actually believe this project does have a future and it could be a viable solution for some lines when used appropriately,which unfortunately isnt something we do in this Country where a one size fits all is the normal 'solution'!

[jjb1970]

Rebuilding old assets or keeping them going for far longer than you might expect specifically to take advantage of grandfather rights is very common in some industries.

[Davexoc]

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

I think you'll find that there are vans out there doing close to or more than 500 miles a day. I used to put over 40,000 miles a year on a company car, and that was not deliving stuff all day. Modern engines are quite happy doing high mileages and prefer revving rather than running at low rpm. I would have thought that revving to accelerate via an electric drive was easier on the engine than having several gear changes via a mechanical output.

 

If you can re-engine a unit overnight, then servicing it on the bench, it is alot easier than from within the confines of an inspection pit. Why wouldn't you change the whole unit regularly?

 

Dave

[phil-b259]

As a train driver I dont care what I drive as long as it is safe and reliable, this Vivarail project has not undergone the same crash tests as a mainline train BUILT AT THE SAME TIME would have had to undergo because it would fail them miserably because it wasnt built to that standard but the much lower London Underground requirements for a train with a 45mph max speed. Now that same train is having some transit van engines bolted to the underframe and is expected to run at 60mph without undergoing further crash tests, that farcical rolling into a big bath of water at 10mph test doesnt count, I dont care how good your computer model is!

 

I will be the one sat in the front and I would much rather be in the cab of a 143 than in the cab of this thing in the event of a significant collision simply because the cab of the 143 has been tested at its design maximum speed, unlike the Vivarail 230.

 

Saying that I do actually believe this project does have a future and it could be a viable solution for some lines when used appropriately,which unfortunately isnt something we do in this Country where a one size fits all is the normal 'solution'!

 

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.

[jjb1970]

An engine see's an output torque and power and loading cycle. Whether it is in a truck, train, ship or power plant doesn't matter in many respects. What is critical is the suitability of the engine for the load cycle, its why engine builders offer a range of configurations of the same base engine for different applications. This can affect the engine ratings. Another major influence over engine life is the mass-elastic values of the power train system but usually that isn't such an issues for diesel electric applications.

[jjb1970]

Thinking about it they'd have to get engines with the correct emissions certification. These engines would be within the scope of the directive on non-road engines and the duty cycle is linked to the emissions certification. So somebody must have considered it at a certain level as the engines are above 130KW, indicating that either these are not transit van engines strictly speaking in having been certificated as non-road engines or Viva have paid for transit engines to be re-certificated.

[stewartingram]

I believe Adrian Shooter is behind this project, which should give confidence. He was, after all, a senior rolling stock engineer on Southern Region before his move to Area Manager at St Pancras. I think Phoenix will arise fitter and stronger.

 

And hopefully it will arise, and perhaps receive the name Phoenix as well? Would be a nice touch for a number of reasons!

 

Stewart