Creation of class 230 DEMUs from ex-LU D78s by Vivarail

[The Planner]

What section lengths on the Coventry to Nuneaton line are above this 45mph limit and where are they?

None of it is above 45mph

 

[Clip]

To recap.

The 230 has been tested up to to 20 mph at Long Marston. It has proven running gear, structure and doors - all as used on London Underground. The engines are a proven automotive design. It has been confirmed it has a coupling adaptor for rescue.

The main areas of uncertainty it seems to me are the control module and how the engines behave under a rail vehicle. But it works up to 20 mph on ropey track.

So how to progress things ?. How about a faster line with real world passengers on it !. One that is off the route used by other services as far as possible. The Coventry to Nuneaton route is fairly self contained, has a line speed reaching 45 mph and is in need of an increase in capacity.

Currently the line is operated by a 153 - a single car. The 230 will be an improvement as it is longer. So if it breaks down the service will have to revert to the single car train CURRENTLY USED. I expect the 153 will be kept hanging around near Coventry/Nuneaton for an initial period until LM are more confident. If a 153 is not available for rescue (that can happen - other trains do break down) then it follows that the service will be disrupted if the 230 breaks down. BUT that is the same situation as if the 230 had never existed. However, while one or both of a 153 and the 230 are working, the service will be better.

Im pretty sure that now they have been given the go ahead with the trial train that they will be ramping up producing another one or two to ensure that any breakdowns or faults will just enable a simple switch of trains. Be foolish if they didnt do that.

 

[jimm]

To recap.

The 230 has been tested up to to 20 mph at Long Marston. It has proven running gear, structure and doors - all as used on London Underground. The engines are a proven automotive design. It has been confirmed it has a coupling adaptor for rescue.

Currently the line is operated by a 153 - a single car. The 230 will be an improvement as it is longer. So if it breaks down the service will have to revert to the single car train CURRENTLY USED. I expect the 153 will be kept hanging around near Coventry/Nuneaton for an initial period until LM are more confident. If a 153 is not available for rescue (that can happen - other trains do break down) then it follows that the service will be disrupted if the 230 breaks down. BUT that is the same situation as if the 230 had never existed. However, while one or both of a 153 and the 230 are working, the service will be better.

230001 has gone a tad faster than 20mph at Long Marston. There is a short section of modern track on the circuit there that has welded rail and the train can be taken up to something like 40mph for a short distance before needing to brake for a curve.

LM has already stated that, in the early days at least, the 153 will be kept in the area on standby.

Im pretty sure that now they have been given the go ahead with the trial train that they will be ramping up producing another one or two to ensure that any breakdowns or faults will just enable a simple switch of trains. Be foolish if they didnt do that.

If a traction pack fails, then they can do a simple switch of one of those in about 10 minutes using a forklift.

 

[Clip]

If a traction pack fails, then they can do a simple switch of one of those in about 10 minutes using a forklift.

Im well aware of that however this isnt much good if it goes up ****creek with no access to bring another in let alone have a forklift do its job either.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is a short LM has already stated that, in the early days at least, the 153 will be kept in the area on standby.

Sensible to keep the Class 153 on standby as there are rail passengers who need an assured service provision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a traction pack fails, then they can do a simple switch of one of those in about 10 minutes using a forklift.

Are there any areas on the Coventry to Nuneaton line where a Class 230 with such a problem would be difficult to access?

 

[D365]

Sensible to keep the Class 153 on standby as there are rail passengers who need an assured service provision.

Rather reminds me of the PPM trials on the Stourbridge Town line.

Are there any areas on the Coventry to Nuneaton line where a Class 230 with such a problem would be difficult to access?

One would assume that the 230, if it should run into any mechanical trouble, will be dragged back to base first.

 

[HLE]

Sensible to keep the Class 153 on standby as there are rail passengers who need an assured service provision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are there any areas on the Coventry to Nuneaton line where a Class 230 with such a problem would be difficult to access?

Yes several places I wouldn't like to have one fail.

 

[keith1879]

Sensible to keep the Class 153 on standby as there are rail passengers who need an assured service provision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are there any areas on the Coventry to Nuneaton line where a Class 230 with such a problem would be difficult to access?

In the nature of these things it is inevitable that on the very first day one of these will break down on a bridge but.......surely the whole point of this design is that a failed "traction pack" won't usually matter as the train will be able to get back to depot on the remaining power.

 

[edwin_m]

Doesn't it have two engines on each of two power cars? I imagine it could limp home on two or even one of the four so the chances of an engine failure bad enough to strand the train are pretty small - unless the engines are really chronic and that would have been discovered already on the test track.

Conversely if it does fail I don't rate the chances of a 153 being able to rescue it. A 153 seems to have considerable difficulty moving itself...

 

[D365]

In the nature of these things it is inevitable that on the very first day one of these will break down on a bridge but.......surely the whole point of this design is that a failed "traction pack" won't usually matter as the train will be able to get back to depot on the remaining power.

As logical an explanation as it is, I still fear it will fall flat on those wishing doom and gloom upon this enterprise.

 

[randyrippley]

"The engines are a proven automotive design"

And so were all the engines in the modernisation-era DMUs, and none of them were any good.
The Rolls-Royce, Albion, AEC and Leyland engines were all bus/truck derived and all were useless in a rail environment, the Leyland ones maybe surviving longer simply because there were more of them and so became "standard".

Engines optimised for road use may be totally unsuitable for rail use

 

[jimm]

Im well aware of that however this isnt much good if it goes up ****creek with no access to bring another in let alone have a forklift do its job either.

Eh?

As others have noted, if the 230 fails, it will get dragged back to somewhere it can be worked on - same as happens when trains of other types fail... and unless it suffers some absolutely catastrophic failure, it is highly likely to be able to limp home by itself, given the nature of the traction set-up, using multiple power packs.

Like I said, LM will have a 153 on standby locally in the early stages. And even if that does get withdrawn eventually, all it will mean is things reverting to how they are now if a unit working Coventry-Nuneaton fails - LM has to rustle up another unit from Tyseley.

Or is Vivarail supposed to abide by some special gold standard dictated by you, with a standby train and a squad of engineers on hand just in case, whenever 230001 turns a wheel?

 

[A0]

"The engines are a proven automotive design"

And so were all the engines in the modernisation-era DMUs, and none of them were any good.
The Rolls-Royce, Albion, AEC and Leyland engines were all bus/truck derived and all were useless in a rail environment, the Leyland ones maybe surviving longer simply because there were more of them and so became "standard".

Engines optimised for road use may be totally unsuitable for rail use

Some of those engines weren't that reliable in road use either.

And there's one very big difference - the unit being used in the 230 is not driving a mechanical transmission. Instead it's being used to generate power for the electric motors. That should be less stressful to the engine than is the case in its road use.

 

[keith1879]

As logical an explanation as it is, I still fear it will fall flat on those wishing doom and gloom upon this enterprise.

I like logic - Mr Spock was my hero

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the nature of these things it is inevitable that on the very first day one of these will break down on a bridge but.......surely the whole point of this design is that a failed "traction pack" won't usually matter as the train will be able to get back to depot on the remaining power.

Where exactly will "the depot" be?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hence the upcoming year-long trial!

Noting that today is the last day of September 2016, can I ask how near are we now to the commencement of this "one year period"?

 

[HLE]

Where exactly will "the depot" be?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Noting that today is the last day of September 2016, can I ask how near are we now to the commencement of this "one year period"?

I doubt anyone knows a firm date, even Vivarail.

The unit still needs work completing and equipment installing before it can even begin the trial.

 

[The Planner]

Where exactly will "the depot" be?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Noting that today is the last day of September 2016, can I ask how near are we now to the commencement of this "one year period"?

It will get based at Coventry North Yard, nowhere else to put it.

 

[coppercapped]

"The engines are a proven automotive design"

And so were all the engines in the modernisation-era DMUs, and none of them were any good.
The Rolls-Royce, Albion, AEC and Leyland engines were all bus/truck derived and all were useless in a rail environment, the Leyland ones maybe surviving longer simply because there were more of them and so became "standard".

Engines optimised for road use may be totally unsuitable for rail use

You think that no progress has been made in engine design and manufacture in the last 70 years?

 

[boxerdog]

It will get based at Coventry North Yard, nowhere else to put it.

There is currently no room in Coventry North Yard for a class 230 as it currently stables 3x350 and 2x323 plus a 153. On roads 1 & 2.

Other future problems would be the work being done on the North Yard in preparation for the bay platform.

 

[The Planner]

Documentation I have seen says its going in there. Bay platform is the last of the worries as there is no money for it...

 

[boxerdog]

Documentation I have seen says its going in there. Bay platform is the last of the worries as there is no money for it...

The yard has had surveys done and information regarding signal positioning has appeared on the rails.

I have seen a document that shows the new Yard and dimensions of Kemp's road (bay platform) signal positioning and routing of the various roads in the yard. Unless extra work is done to the yard the only place the unit can go is in the NR compound or stabled in the south yard and both of those options also require works to be completed. Even stabling in Kemp's siding would require works to be completed.

 

[The Planner]

Signalling diagram for the bay platform has been doing the rounds for a couple of years and considering the documentation saying its going in the North yard is from LM then I would assume there is some truth in it.

 

[boxerdog]

Signalling diagram for the bay platform has been doing the rounds for a couple of years and considering the documentation saying its going in the North yard is from LM then I would assume there is some truth in it.

I would assume there is some truth in it too, but, there also has to be work done to the yard or other units displaced. As units can only be stabled on roads 1 & 2 currently.

 

[HLE]

Signalling diagram for the bay platform has been doing the rounds for a couple of years and considering the documentation saying its going in the North yard is from LM then I would assume there is some truth in it.

It'll be in the yard alright.

 

[Clip]

Eh?

As others have noted, if the 230 fails, it will get dragged back to somewhere it can be worked on - same as happens when trains of other types fail... and unless it suffers some absolutely catastrophic failure, it is highly likely to be able to limp home by itself, given the nature of the traction set-up, using multiple power packs.

Like I said, LM will have a 153 on standby locally in the early stages. And even if that does get withdrawn eventually, all it will mean is things reverting to how they are now if a unit working Coventry-Nuneaton fails - LM has to rustle up another unit from Tyseley.

Or is Vivarail supposed to abide by some special gold standard dictated by you, with a standby train and a squad of engineers on hand just in case, whenever 230001 turns a wheel?

You may have missed it but I am one of the people who has been for this project right from the start and it makes sense for them to get started on a second one not only to use as a rescue train but also for when people see it working in real time other TOCs may change their mind and want to test one themselves.

 

[randyrippley]

You think that no progress has been made in engine design and manufacture in the last 70 years?

I suspect little progress has been made in modifying engines optimised for road use to rail use. The applications are fundamentally different, with completely separate use regimes.

 

[A0]

I suspect little progress has been made in modifying engines optimised for road use to rail use. The applications are fundamentally different, with completely separate use regimes.

Go on - humour us - what do you believe is the difference between road and rail use in this specific instance which means changes are needed to the engines. I'm intrigued.

 

[jimm]

You may have missed it but I am one of the people who has been for this project right from the start and it makes sense for them to get started on a second one not only to use as a rescue train but also for when people see it working in real time other TOCs may change their mind and want to test one themselves.

Maybe Vivarail think it would make sense to save their pennies until they see what way the wind is blowing in terms of any other interest. And there are cheaper ways of rescuing a failed train than building another one - such as an emergency coupler.

 

[pompeyfan]

Both Cummins and Perkins engines can be found in road vehicles and rail vehicles...

 

[47802]

I still don't see where Vivarail are going to be able to shift these trains in reasonable numbers to make the project viable, now that the doors been closed at both Northern and Anglia and even a reasonable number of units are now going to be freed up over the next few years

For instance if EMT can get hold of all the spare 156's and maybe some of the 170/185's etc are they really going to be interested in 230's