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

[Domh245]

Couple of points to make there - Firstly, all of the important structural bits are brand new steel, so there shouldn't be concern in terms of the performance of that. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with making assumptions in engineering, so long as you err on the side of caution - make those conservative estimates (which you can then put into the FEA software), do the development with them, and then verify that what you've done is better than expected (indeed, the structural integrity of the body is one of the things tested in the crash tests). Thirdly, the design of the reinforcing structure was done by Creactive, rather than Vivarail themselves, who I would expect have got some experience with engineering processes (or at least can call in relevant people)

Anyway, have Vivarail put up some more news about the Marston Vale trio (203-205)

It's never been exactly quiet in our workshops but this summer is the most exciting yet. Right now we are:

• building trains for the Marston Vale line
• working through the approvals for 230002 - the UK's first modern production battery train
• carrying out mainline testing and mileage accumulation for 230001
• starting work at our new Seaham plant

230003 back from the paint shop and ready for fit out ...

The interior layout is a bespoke design by WMTL specifically for passengers on the Marston Vale line, some aspects will be familiar from the design of 230001's middle car but some are brand new.

WMTL's design gurus have taken full advantage of the space available to put together something pretty special. And, most importantly for passengers, have done everything they can to make sure the seats are comfortable (including testing them in a snowy car park!)

They look ironing board-esque to me!

 

[class387]

They look ironing board-esque to me!

Quantum seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quantum seats.

Lack of a centre armrest is disappointing, though I guess they're going for maximising standing space?

 

[Bantamzen]

Anyway, have Vivarail put up some more news about the Marston Vale trio (203-205)

They look ironing board-esque to me!

So they are testing the seating for snowy car park conditions, doesn't bode too well for future passengers if the seats need to be comfortable in sub-zero conditions....

 

[mde]

Lack of a centre armrest is disappointing, though I guess they're going for maximising standing space?

Presumably they could be specified with a centre armrest, going by Quantum's website at least. Hopefully some interior pics will emerge soon…

 

[coppercapped]

Even finite element modelling requires a number of data points to be truly verified. A single point correlation is not a correlation. Although yes there are certain parameters and assumptions you can use in terms of the microstructure, tensile strength, assumed levels of fatigue, assumed integrity of the metal, bindings and fixings, corrosion, microcracks etc built up over 40 years, FEA is unable to perfectly model a used train built to looser specifications, with 40 years wear and tear, from a single data point. You absolutely do need to test to destruction, whatever it costs. A brand new train built from scratch to current standards with new parts and known tolerances, having been no doubt thoroughly modelled and tested from the bottom up, part by part, absolutely I trust the software and less stringent tests.

Like I say, these people are railway professionals, not finite element modellers or metallurgists.

Your argument also works in reverse...

...the FEA analysis of the structure may well correlate exactly with real crash test data on clean, fresh, uncorroded prototypes, but will the body still match the FEA analysis 40 years later?

To be on the safe side I suggest that every few years a real body should be crash tested to make sure the structure is still safe.

 

[Z12XE]

. Obviously you aren't going to send your train into a 100+ ton concrete block to prove that it crashes as intended, that is awfully expensive and wasteful - you simply create a crash condition in real life and in FEA software, and then compare the results. If the results are a good match, then the design (which you can test on the computer at far higher speeds/energies) works as intended.

Hmm, but the common reason for people putting these down apart from the "London's cast offs" has been the performance in a crash.

On the other hand Vivarail have been going on about how much better they are than Sprinters.
Crash one at 50mph into a loaded slurry tanker, then take the remains and put it back together . National Express and whoever owns the 156 that crashed, did this and its still in service today and no one died.

If Vivarail could manage the same with one of their trains, then they have the ultimate marketing material with hard evidence as they could compare it like for like with what they claim to be better than.

 

[DarloRich]

I cant wait to see the special features designed by WM trains especially for us Marston Vale line users. Imagine if they had actually talked to any of us............................

I guess they're going for maximising standing space?

on the Vale?

 

[Bletchleyite]

on the Vale?

Isn't the typical loading on the Vale "one man and his dog and bicycle[1] at most times, but fairly heavy on the school trains"? That's why I thought the original LU layout would actually be perfect.

[1] There is a disproportionately large amount of cycle carriage on the Vale - I would suggest providing for 6 would not be wide of the mark. They even allow both ends of the 153 to be used for cycles provided you agree to get off if a wheelchair user turns up, or at least did.

 

[DarloRich]

Isn't the typical loading on the Vale "one man and his dog and bicycle[1] at most times, but fairly heavy on the school trains"? That's why I thought the original LU layout would actually be perfect.

[1] There is a disproportionately large amount of cycle carriage on the Vale - I would suggest providing for 6 would not be wide of the mark. They even allow both ends of the 153 to be used for cycles provided you agree to get off if a wheelchair user turns up, or at least did.

I think the bike space is a really important point that i hope has been considered. Many cycle to the stations

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I cant wait to see the special features designed by WM trains especially for us Marston Vale line users. Imagine if they had actually talked to any of us............................



on the Vale?

Northern held a road show (rail show surely?) where we could test the seats and vote for the best... for all the good it did!

As for "maximising standing space", I'd read that as "sticking as much as possible to the legacy LU layout". Presumably to minimise costs, with a hint of "if it ain't broke..."

 

[D365]

Presumably to minimise costs, with a hint of "if it ain't broke..."

Why would that be? The trains will have been totally refitted, no?

 

[AndyW33]

Not necessarily, no. Interior options vary between total replacement of everything and a general tidyup of how LUL left them. All depends what the TOC has selected.

 

[mushroomchow]

I'm curious to see how those seats they "tested in a snowy car park" hold up. Given their shape, hopes aren't high but anything north of a 700 ironing board standard will be considered a victory.

As an aside, why has the in-vogue stick to beat the 230 with now turned to crashworthiness? I can understand the concern given the number of level crossings on the Marston Vale, but since none of us are crash test experts or have access to the relevant data I find it baffling that anybody can claim they're somehow less safe than the 153s they're replacing.

It smacks to me of clutching at straws now that the primary claim of their detractors - namely, that nobody is going to order any - has proven unfounded.

 

[SamYeager]

It smacks to me of clutching at straws now that the primary claim of their detractors - namely, that nobody is going to order any - has proven unfounded.

Surely not!

 

[swt_passenger]

As an aside, why has the in-vogue stick to beat the 230 with now turned to crashworthiness?

Turned back to crashworthiness maybe? I seem to recall it was probably one of the most regular 'doubts' by the unqualified trainspotter tendency when the project first surfaced.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It smacks to me of clutching at straws now that the primary claim of their detractors - namely, that nobody is going to order any - has proven unfounded.

I suppose that I have been, to use your terminology, one of those referred-to detractors. I withdrew from this thread some months ago after following matters in the years that this thread has been running, as my views based upon my actual commercial project viability knowledge and an order book based upon acceptance of the Class 230 units by interested TOCs on the types of routes where top speed was not a consideration were not those wanted to be heard by those website members.

So to make the type of statement that you have above in the year 2018 shows that a single order of very small number of the said units is not one to trumpet any form of commercial success considering the time passed to date. Vivarail purchased their stocks of the LU units in order that they might enter the rail market with a product that would turn these conversions into a total figure of "X" units that would all be quickly accepted by TOC at the time and production based upon total sale of all the said units could then be duly programmed. History now shows their aspirations were unfounded by TOC not flocking to Vivarail in the following time period to place sizeable orders.

 

[mushroomchow]

Heheh... knew I'd get a bite or two.

I'm not claiming they're a commercial success by any means, I just find it funny that we seem to be going around in circles and recycling strange arguments which don't have any basis in reality over the 230s. I guess it's just endemic to the rail enthusiast world, especially when we're left twiddling our thumbs waiting for new, tangible information. The 769 thread is much the same, but with the added bonus that nobody has ever even seen one of them in the flesh.

The bottom line is that there will more than likely be three of them running on the Marston Vale line by the end of the year, and no amount of hopping up and down about what will happen if some muppet in a Fiesta pulls out in front of them is going to change that.

 

[jdxn]

Your argument also works in reverse...

...the FEA analysis of the structure may well correlate exactly with real crash test data on clean, fresh, uncorroded prototypes, but will the body still match the FEA analysis 40 years later?

To be on the safe side I suggest that every few years a real body should be crash tested to make sure the structure is still safe.

What a load of rubbish. Modelling is used all the time on structures and machines and can use assumptions based on the experience of engineers and products. Should we break the Forth bridge every few years so we know it wont fall down? Shall we crash a Pacer every year to see what happens? What about a 5 year old Ford Focus? Aeroplane manufacturers use analysis based on data to determine the number of pressurisation cycles that a plane can manage.

I am going to promise myself not to look at this thread again as the doubters just want to throw everything at Vivarail as they would like them to fail. A British company with an idea, entirely funded by themselves. Why don't people trust them to have decent engineers, when they never question that of Bombardier or Siemens? If they sell product they may make money, if they don't they will lose it!

 

[Domh245]

What a load of rubbish. Modelling is used all the time on structures and machines and can use assumptions based on the experience of engineers and products. Should we break the Forth bridge every few years so we know it wont fall down? Shall we crash a Pacer every year to see what happens? What about a 5 year old Ford Focus? Aeroplane manufacturers use analysis based on data to determine the number of pressurisation cycles that a plane can manage.

I am going to promise myself not to look at this thread again as the doubters just want to throw everything at Vivarail as they would like them to fail. A British company with an idea, entirely funded by themselves. Why don't people trust them to have decent engineers, when they never question that of Bombardier or Siemens? If they sell product they may make money, if they don't they will lose it!

I think @coppercapped's post was a little bit tongue in cheek!

 

[Rail Blues]

I suppose that I have been, to use your terminology, one of those referred-to detractors. I withdrew from this thread some months ago after following matters in the years that this thread has been running, as my views based upon my actual commercial project viability knowledge and an order book based upon acceptance of the Class 230 units by interested TOCs on the types of routes where top speed was not a consideration were not those wanted to be heard by those website members.

So to make the type of statement that you have above in the year 2018 shows that a single order of very small number of the said units is not one to trumpet any form of commercial success considering the time passed to date. Vivarail purchased their stocks of the LU units in order that they might enter the rail market with a product that would turn these conversions into a total figure of "X" units that would all be quickly accepted by TOC at the time and production based upon total sale of all the said units could then be duly programmed. History now shows their aspirations were unfounded by TOC not flocking to Vivarail in the following time period to place sizeable orders.

That isn't what happened.

I amongst others got frustrated with your constant and almost monomonical determination to find fault with aspects of the project which simply didn't exist and an almost gleeful determination for it to fail.

Most of your site predictions and fault finding haven't come to pass. I am sure we will be watching how the 230s perform in revenue earning service. I still have a genuinely open mind on the project, especially the work on the battery powered variant.

The reason people got frustrated with some of your posts was that you didn't want to to discuss anything, but would high handedly set yourself up as an authority (on the spurious basis of expertise in a wholly unrelated field) and dismiss people in what came across as a patronising, arrogant and at times downright rude manner, should they disagree with you.

I'd hoped -seemingly in vain - that your time away from this thread might have heralded a willingness to consider the limits of your knowledge, listen to others and an awareness of how your posts can come across on occasions.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'd hoped -seemingly in vain - that your time away from this thread might have heralded a willingness to consider the limits of your knowledge, listen to others and an awareness of how your posts can come across on occasions.

I am not at all fazed by your comments as my sole contention since the inception of this thread some years ago was based upon a cold hard look at the project viability of something totally new to the rail market. To ask me not to base my reasoning garnered upon over thirty years of actuality in a senior management role in a commercial field is one that you are churlish to put forward. Commercial management knowledge is the same in any industry.

So even making that recent solitary posting upon this thread to which you so allude, I am sitting back watching how matters still progress with not a little interest, but I can only base my views on the actual sales/leases of the Class 230 product referred to in this thread and of the other recent postings from other thread contributors who give their views on TOC not making sizeable purchases of any Class 230 with the choices of motive power afforded.

So forget any of my past seemingly "patronising, arrogant and at times downright rude" postings to which you so allude and we shall both see how many future orders will be placed by TOC which will reduce the stocks of those currently-dormant Vivarail LU units still to receive conversion.

 

[reddragon]

So forget any of my past seemingly "patronising, arrogant and at times downright rude" postings to which you so allude and we shall both see how many future orders will be placed by TOC which will reduce the stocks of those currently-dormant Vivarail LU units still to receive conversion.

No seemingly about it.

Those posts to which you allude were reported by members on this site and they were removed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No seemingly about it.

Those posts to which you allude were reported by members on this site and they were removed.

That being the case, shall we agree to see how Class 230 sales/leases matters proceed from this point onward in time, as I said at the end of my last posting made upon this thread.

 

[squizzler]

I am not at all phased by your comments as my sole contention since the inception of this thread some years ago was based upon a cold hard look at the project viability of something totally new to the rail market. To ask me not to base my reasoning garnered upon over thirty years of actuality in a senior management role in a commercial field is one that you are churlish to put forward. Commercial management knowledge is the same in any industry.

Whilst the opinions us forum members might arguably be for the birds, you might be more "phased" by the response of respected rail industry commentators and indeed the wider press.

That being the case, shall we agree to see how Class 230 sales/leases matters proceed from this point onward in time, as I said at the end of my last posting made upon this thread.

Indeedy. Although forum members can probably assume the project will be labelled a failure if there are any D78 left over after production has finished.

 

[D365]

That being the case, shall we agree to see how Class 230 sales/leases matters proceed from this point onward in time, as I said at the end of my last posting made upon this thread.

There will be some very interesting developments related to the battery train over the summer. Assuming that we expand discussion on this thread from solely the DEMU variant, I can see there being a lot of interest in the wider market, and not just from TOCs.

The advantage of having purchased this rolling stock at scrap value is that there is a lot of scope for technical development without any urgent pressure for the upfront costs to be recouped.

 

[mushroomchow]

The advantage of having purchased this rolling stock at scrap value is that there is a lot of scope for technical development without any urgent pressure for the upfront costs to be recouped.

And, of course, the oft-mentioned fact that, since they're aluminium bodied, they could potentially sit outside at Long Marston, at favourable storage rates, for years without any real structural damage or corrosion.

VivaRail are in no real rush to get additional units produced until the orders come in. If anything, they perhaps jumped the gun with the Nuneaton - Coventry trial to try and beat to market alternatives that still haven't materialised, and shot themselves in the foot by failing to address design issues with the engine module.

The only comparable unit on the market is the 769, which isn't entirely comparable to the original DEMU and which by all accounts they'll still beat to revenue-earning service. In the meantime, as you said, they've got an ideal testbed in Long Marston, cheap storage and development funding secured.

Unless the Marston Vale units prove to be an absolute disaster that kills the development process dead, the company certainly doesn't seem likely to be in any turmoil on the face of it. There are tentative hints that they could look overseas for business should the domestic market not open to them following this initial batch's reception, though I'd take that with a pinch of salt or six.

Worst comes to the worst, they've still got a good deal of potentially lucrative developmental expertise to take forward in terms of battery, hybrid and modular vehicle design. Oh, and lots of aluminium to develop a beer can manufacturing business with.

 

[Southsider]

I’m fazed by the use of the word “phased”.

 

[bastien]

I’m fazed by the use of the word “phased”.

All those years of experience, but he never learned not to use run-on sentences.

 

[El Magnifico]

All those years of experience, but he never learned not to use run-on sentences.

I too am not a little fazed by his incredibly long sentences. Perhaps he is intoxicated by the exuberance of his own verbosity.

Delete. Off topic!