The thing is is that it is the “innovative elements” that have caused the problems. From an ambience perspective (yes, I know that is to a certain extent subjective) they are pretty good - certainly an improvement on pacers. As for taking something like the 456, the bi-mode conversion of another mainline emu for TfW didn’t exactly cover itself in glory either.A ridiculous idea from the start, it's nice to see it come to a ridiculous conclusion. I think I'm quite passionate about this one, because the idea of these things giving a better passenger experience than the (younger) pacers was insane from the outset.
Hyperbole aside, it's a shame some of the more innovative elements haven't proven successful, as wider deployment of battery tech onto other units would have been really great to see, along with things like the pretty unique and industry leading rapid charge. Its just unfortunate vivarail decided old underground units were they best place for it. Heck, if they had chosen something like the 456s and just used the old tube trains as technology demonstrators, I could even have got behind it.
I think, as with the Mk5s at TPE, there's going to be one predictable conclusion for these. A follow on 197 order would seem to make further logical sense.
You can’t blame Vivarail for trying. Entrepreneurism should be admired and a bit of wackiness makes the world a better place.A ridiculous idea from the start, it's nice to see it come to a ridiculous conclusion. I think I'm quite passionate about this one, because the idea of these things giving a better passenger experience than the (younger) pacers was insane from the outset.
Hyperbole aside, it's a shame some of the more innovative elements haven't proven successful, as wider deployment of battery tech onto other units would have been really great to see, along with things like the pretty unique and industry leading rapid charge. Its just unfortunate vivarail decided old underground units were they best place for it. Heck, if they had chosen something like the 456s and just used the old tube trains as technology demonstrators, I could even have got behind it.
I think, as with the Mk5s at TPE, there's going to be one predictable conclusion for these. A follow on 197 order would seem to make further logical sense.
Completely agree.A ridiculous idea from the start, it's nice to see it come to a ridiculous conclusion. I think I'm quite passionate about this one, because the idea of these things giving a better passenger experience than the (younger) pacers was insane from the outset.
What I’ve still not had answered is why 197s weren’t ordered for this line in the first place? What good was randomly ordering a microfleet for one line, while the rest of the network gets big homogeneous fleets with operational flexibility?I think, as with the Mk5s at TPE, there's going to be one predictable conclusion for these. A follow on 197 order would seem to make further logical sense.
It doesn’t when it means you get ancient recycled stock instead of the alternative - new build. And look what it’s lead to for both customers of the 230 - a year long shut down of service for LNR, and a completely unusable (or would be without the saviour of the 197s) for TfW.You can’t blame Vivarail for trying. Entrepreneurism should be admired and a bit of wackiness makes the world a better place.
Don't just quote part of what I wrote and then argue when the bit you didn't quote quite clearly shows whose fault all this is. It isn't Vivarail's for converting them and trying to make some money but the people who ordered them, especially TfW who only ordered them after the LM units were already very late and it was pretty obvious they weren't going to work very well.It doesn’t when it means you get ancient recycled stock instead of the alternative - new build. And look what it’s lead to for both customers of the 230 - a year long shut down of service for LNR, and a completely unusable (or would be without the saviour of the 197s) for TfW.
I didn’t mean to crop the quote. I actually agree.Don't just quote part of what I wrote and then argue when the bit you didn't quote quite clearly shows whose fault all this is. It isn't Vivarail's for converting them and trying to make some money but the people who ordered them, especially TfW who only ordered them after the LM units were already very late and it was pretty obvious they weren't going to work very well.
I completely agree TfW, WMT and Welsh Government should never have given them the time of day, yes.You can, however, blame certain TOCs and both local and national governments for throwing money at something that is more suited to Scrapheap Challenge than the 21st Century mainline railway.
BIB - this was Vivarail’s plan. Before they went under, Vivarail had announced a agreement with Eversholt to fit the Class 321 “Renatus” units with traction batteries.A ridiculous idea from the start, it's nice to see it come to a ridiculous conclusion. I think I'm quite passionate about this one, because the idea of these things giving a better passenger experience than the (younger) pacers was insane from the outset.
Hyperbole aside, it's a shame some of the more innovative elements haven't proven successful, as wider deployment of battery tech onto other units would have been really great to see, along with things like the pretty unique and industry leading rapid charge. Its just unfortunate vivarail decided old underground units were they best place for it. Heck, if they had chosen something like the 456s and just used the old tube trains as technology demonstrators, I could even have got behind it.
Not for those passengers who expect a TOC to provide a reliable form of traction.You can’t blame Vivarail for trying. Entrepreneurism should be admired and a bit of wackiness makes the world a better place.
With hindsight there is a lot that has has not gone right with this [and Porterbrook’s similar] rolling stock reengineering projects.Not for those passengers who expect a TOC to provide a reliable form of traction.
I am sure that you will recall from the very first postings ever made on the "innovative" Vivarail "new trains for old" project that certain members on this website expressed reservations. Well before any hindsight.With hindsight there is a lot that has has not gone right with this [and Porterbrook’s similar] rolling stock reengineering projects.
Don't you feel that TfW have already spent more than enough money on these "innovative" items, without spending even more money on them?Maybe tfw should look at converting theirs to batteries if the gwr trial works
Regardless, what other choice would you suggest ?Don't you feel that TfW have already spent more than enough money on these "innovative" items, without spending even more money on them?
To be honest if there is funding I would go for it. Better to get 197s that will last for 20-30 years, than continue with these for 5 and then buy new ones anyway.Regardless, what other choice would you suggest ?
5 more 197’s to replace the 5 230’s ? A very expensive proposition.
What recent official statement has been made that would suggest the Welsh Government intends funding?To be honest if there is funding I would go for it. Better to get 197s that will last for 20-30 years, than continue with these for 5 and then buy new ones anyway.
Of course it’s probably not that simple and perhaps there is a plan to make this reliable. But as it stands it must be under consideration
If there is funding, and the battery 777's settle down, I would trial and then go for them. That way the line could be brought into LiverpoolRegardless, what other choice would you suggest ?
5 more 197’s to replace the 5 230’s ? A very expensive proposition.
They need battery fast charging abilities to get too and from Wrexham. Once the trial is done and if the concept is proven this is a very likely step.If there is funding, and the battery 777's settle down, I would trial and then go for them. That way the line could be brought into Liverpool
Wonder if damage to wheels was caused by training, or "wear and tear"?008 and 009, passed Crewe webcams, as you say gone for tyre turning.
From what I recall, the original intention was they’d be used on the Blaenau branch (1), Crewe to Chester (1) and Wrexham to Bidston (2).Completely agree.
What I’ve still not had answered is why 197s weren’t ordered for this line in the first place? What good was randomly ordering a microfleet for one line, while the rest of the network gets big homogeneous fleets with operational flexibility?
It doesn’t when it means you get ancient recycled stock instead of the alternative - new build. And look what it’s lead to for both customers of the 230 - a year long shut down of service for LNR, and a completely unusable (or would be without the saviour of the 197s) for TfW.
The biggest issue is funding. ImTo be honest if there is funding I would go for it.
You wouldn't need 5 extra 197s, maybe just an extra 3 as they can be maintained alongside the other 197s at Chester and rotate with the other units.Regardless, what other choice would you suggest ?
5 more 197’s to replace the 5 230’s ? A very expensive proposition.
ok but TFW want to run a half hourly service which requires 4 diagrams so 4 units minimum.You wouldn't need 5 extra 197s, maybe just an extra 3 as they can be maintained alongside the other 197s at Chester and rotate with the other units.
Probably would be cheaper for TfW to order them when the production line is still running.
Why was that not the first choice back when the orders were made?Regardless, what other choice would you suggest ?
5 more 197’s to replace the 5 230’s ? A very expensive proposition.
I couldn’t say as I was not involved in the procurement process as to why these were given the time of day.Why was that not the first choice back when the orders were made?
From looking at journey check there only appears to be 2 cancelled trains our of Chester - both being chester to Liverpool services and a 9 altered services. All things considered not a bad day.230010 has failed again this morning, i’ve heard again also there are problems at Chester on the mainline because of a shortage of 197 and we have two here instead of 230, pathetic
The thing is is that it is the “innovative elements” that have caused the problems. From an ambience perspective (yes, I know that is to a certain extent subjective) they are pretty good - certainly an improvement on pacers.
As for taking something like the 456, the bi-mode conversion of another mainline emu for TfW didn’t exactly cover itself in glory either.
You can’t blame Vivarail for trying. Entrepreneurism should be admired and a bit of wackiness makes the world a better place.
You can, however, blame certain TOCs and both local and national governments for throwing money at something that is more suited to Scrapheap Challenge than the 21st Century mainline railway.
What I’ve still not had answered is why 197s weren’t ordered for this line in the first place? What good was randomly ordering a microfleet for one line, while the rest of the network gets big homogeneous fleets with operational flexibility?
BIB - this was Vivarail’s plan. Before they went under, Vivarail had announced a agreement with Eversholt to fit the Class 321 “Renatus” units with traction batteries.
Not sure what your comment about better passenger experience means. Of all the criticisms levelled at the Vivarail vehicles, passenger environment has never been one of them.
I'm referencing the battery and fast charge more than the diesel power packs. They were the more revolutionary elements and have been, in part, demonstrated to work well (379 IPEMU). It's my suspicion that vivarail were in some regards too ambitious (ie: going for diesel and electric and battery and fast charge projects rather than focusing on one) and also underestimated the level of red tape a 2020s TOC can surround a project in.
Yet the 379 was considered a success. The 319 project was again a case of all things to all men and, yes, hasn't exactly been a success story.
Have you ever travelled on one? The IoW 230s are leagues below 144012 in almost every regard. From the significant lack of seating, lack of luggage space and overhead racks to the lack of toilet and thats before weve even considered the atrociousride quality of tube stock at speed. They're incomparable.