Transport for Wales Class 230

[TonyColeman2]

230007 was working around 1300 today as I saw it at Bidston also 230008 was working but wasn’t prepared to wait for it

 

[Philip Roberts]

230006 is back out today (with 230010)

 

[Zontar]

230006 failed again today

 

[WirralLine]

230006 failed again today

Battery fault, replaced with 007

 

[MotCO]

Battery fault, replaced with 007

Nobody does it better?

 

[FrontSideBus]

Does the battery even get used much? The few times I've done the Borderlands line, the engines were running all of the time.

 

[WirralLine]

Does the battery even get used much? The few times I've done the Borderlands line, the engines were running all of the time.

The engines charge the batteries, which power the motors. The batteries are also charged under regenerative braking.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Ah right. Surely the whole idea would be to shut them down and go full battery mode? Would have been cheaper and less complex to operate as pure diesel-electric if the generating units are going to be running constantly?

 

[Zontar]

Ah right. Surely the whole idea would be to shut them down and go full battery mode? Would have been cheaper and less complex to operate as pure diesel-electric if the generating units are going to be running constantly?

This is exactly why they are a waste of money. The batteries can't cope with the gradients. The engines consume more fuel than a class67. See previous posts.

 

[WirralLine]

They wernt intended to run only on battery. They do have a GPS geofencing feature which would shut down the engines when braking into certain stations (allowing the regenerative braking to charge the batteries) then accelerate on battery until the engines kick back in between stations. This feature isn't currently used however.

 

[Richard Scott]

This is exactly why they are a waste of money. The batteries can't cope with the gradients. The engines consume more fuel than a class67. See previous posts.

I'm fairly sure the theory that they use more fuel than a 67 was said to not be correct. I really would like to see figures to prove your point.

 

[FrontSideBus]

It has basically has 4 Transit engines?, Surely those don't add up to the hulking big V12 in a 67!

 

[tfw756rider]

It has basically has 4 Transit engines?, Surely those don't add up to the hulking big V12 in a 67!

Exactly, 4x 3.2-litre 5-cylinder engines (optional in Rangers and medium-to-large Transits from 2008 to 2020 or so, rather than the standard 2.2/2.4-litre 4-cylinder).

These total 12.8 litres, the same as if it was a 1-car 197.

I'm not sure how that even consumes as much fuel as (let alone more than) a 67's 139.2-litre engine that has 11.6 litres per cylinder!

(My 197th post was in the 197 thread, so of course my 230th post is in the 230 thread )

 

[MotCO]

(My 197th post was in the 197 thread, so of course my 230th post is in the 230 thread )

You'll have a bit of a wait until you discuss the 80x class

 

[317 forever]

You'll have a bit of a wait until you discuss the 80x class

Even by the time you reach your 455th post, SWR455s will probably still be in service due to so few 701s being in service even by then

 

[Class15]

(My 197th post was in the 197 thread, so of course my 230th post is in the 230 thread )

You’ve missed an opportunity by not having your 231st post in the relevant thread!

 

[Anonymous10]

You’ve missed an opportunity by not having your 231st post in the relevant thread!

Guess there's always their cousins in the 745, 755 and 756

 

[Zontar]

230 006 woeful today. 30 mins late on the train I was on. Crawled up the bank at walking pace. Embarrassing

 

[WirralLine]

230 006 woeful today. 30 mins late on the train I was on. Crawled up the bank at walking pace. Embarrassing

Batteries not charging apparently. It's been taken to North depot now. 006 and 008 seem to be the problematic ones from what I've seen. 008 seems to like throwing emergency brakes in/dumping it's air though rather than engine/battery problems.

 

[david1212]

230 006 woeful today. 30 mins late on the train I was on. Crawled up the bank at walking pace. Embarrassing

I wonder how many engines were running?

From Wikipedia ( not always accurate I know ) each 3.2 litre engine for the Ranger/Transit is rated 200 PS (147 kW, 197 hp) so combined for a class 230 set almost 600kW / 800hp.

That is 25% more than the theoretical 450kW / 600hp output of the single English Electric 4SRKT Mark II for a 3-car 20x DEMU set, ~90% of the combined 640 kW / 858hp of a 3-car 150 set and ~75% of the 780 kW / 1050hp combined output in a 3-car 165/6 set.
None are exactly fast compared to recent builds but unless all of the combined 600kW / 800bhp was not available or can not be fed to the motors a 3-car 230 running as a DEMU ought not to be that slow.

 

[Sheridan]

I wonder how many engines were running?

From Wikipedia ( not always accurate I know ) each 3.2 litre engine for the Ranger/Transit is rated 200 PS (147 kW, 197 hp) so combined for a class 230 set almost 600kW / 800hp.

That is 25% more than the theoretical 450kW / 600hp output of the single English Electric 4SRKT Mark II for a 3-car 20x DEMU set, ~90% of the combined 640 kW / 858hp of a 3-car 150 set and ~75% of the 780 kW / 1050hp combined output in a 3-car 165/6 set.
None are exactly fast compared to recent builds but unless all of the combined 600kW / 800bhp was not available or can not be fed to the motors a 3-car 230 running as a DEMU ought not to be that slow.

From speaking to traincrew on the line it sounds like the batteries weren’t charging despite the engines running. That’s purely hearsay as I don’t know exactly how they work but I’ve no reason to doubt it.

 

[tfw756rider]

I wonder how many engines were running?

From Wikipedia ( not always accurate I know ) each 3.2 litre engine for the Ranger/Transit is rated 200 PS (147 kW, 197 hp) so combined for a class 230 set almost 600kW / 800hp.

That is 25% more than the theoretical 450kW / 600hp output of the single English Electric 4SRKT Mark II for a 3-car 20x DEMU set, ~90% of the combined 640 kW / 858hp of a 3-car 150 set and ~75% of the 780 kW / 1050hp combined output in a 3-car 165/6 set.
None are exactly fast compared to recent builds but unless all of the combined 600kW / 800bhp was not available or can not be fed to the motors a 3-car 230 running as a DEMU ought not to be that slow.

Don't forget the torque. There will be a relatively huge difference in torque capability between a 200hp 3.2-litre Ford Duratorq and a 285hp 14-litre Cummins, compared to that relatively small difference in their power ratings. And at that, it's not just about difference in maximum torque rating but also the difference between the torque curves of those very differently-sized engines.

 

[Richard Scott]

Don't forget the torque. There will be a relatively huge difference in torque capability between a 200hp 3.2-litre Ford Duratorq and a 285hp 14-litre Cummins, compared to that relatively small difference in their power ratings. And at that, it's not just about difference in maximum torque rating but also the difference between the torque curves of those very differently-sized engines.

Doesn't make a massive difference with an electric drive.

 

[Invincible]

Doesn't make a massive difference with an electric drive.

And the TfW 230s in hybrid mode use batteries to accelerate out of stations.

Could be even a control circuit or software bug if the batteries are not charging between stations or braking? (A recent software update not working properly?)
Hopefully will be sorted soon?

 

[Zontar]

And the TfW 230s in hybrid mode use batteries to accelerate out of stations.

Could be even a control circuit or software bug if the batteries are not charging between stations or braking? (A recent software update not working properly?)
Hopefully will be sorted soon?

These problems aren't new, they've had them since they got introduced 4 years ago with multi millions £ spent on them.

 

[Richard Scott]

These problems aren't new, they've had them since they got introduced 4 years ago with multi millions £ spent on them.

How much exactly has been spent? Multi millions is a little imprecise.

 

[Zontar]

Tfw stated £25 m on original purchase

 

[Invincible]

Tfw stated £25 m on original purchase

The idea sold was that the trains will cost less than new builds

Vivarail ready to start converting first LU D-Stock

The first London Underground D78-Stock train to be withdrawn from service is due to be delivered to Vivarail at Long Marston on January 19.

www.railmagazine.com

Only the bare bodyshell, traction motors and bogies from the D78-Stock will be re-used - the bodyshells are aluminium and free of corrosion, and the bogies are ten years old.
“These are, effectively, new trains made affordable by re-using long-life components like the body and bogies, and incorporating the most modern technology to benefit passengers,” said Shooter.
“We are creating a train that is, in all important respects, as good as new. We most certainly intend to produce a train which is perceived by passengers to be just like a new train.

The hybrid class 230s are servicable and may give long service?
In hindsight may just be easier to bid for new built battery trains, that is what GWR are now considering?

 

[Prime586]

I wonder how many engines were running?

From Wikipedia ( not always accurate I know ) each 3.2 litre engine for the Ranger/Transit is rated 200 PS (147 kW, 197 hp) so combined for a class 230 set almost 600kW / 800hp.

That is 25% more than the theoretical 450kW / 600hp output of the single English Electric 4SRKT Mark II for a 3-car 20x DEMU set, ~90% of the combined 640 kW / 858hp of a 3-car 150 set and ~75% of the 780 kW / 1050hp combined output in a 3-car 165/6 set.
None are exactly fast compared to recent builds but unless all of the combined 600kW / 800bhp was not available or can not be fed to the motors a 3-car 230 running as a DEMU ought not to be that slow.

Don't forget that the DEMUs were not hybrid drive - the output of the generator was sent directly to the motors, so no additional weight of batteries. The TfW 230 battery rafts weigh 1.7 tons each, so they have to lug 6.8 tons of batteries around. Also, instead of having a single engine, generator, fuel tank and and cooling system, the TfW 230s have four of each. Each genset raft weighs 1.3 tons, so a combined total of 12 tons of engine and battery rafts, which I bet is more than the powertrain in the DEMUs weighed. The 2-car Marston Vale 230s weighed 66 tons, fitted with 4 gensets and no battery rafts. The 3-car 20x DEMUs weighed around 55-60 tons.

Could be even a control circuit or software bug if the batteries are not charging between stations or braking? (A recent software update not working properly?)
Hopefully will be sorted soon?

They have had previous issues in warm weather with the (uncooled) battery rafts overheating, and the charge controller then goes into cutoff to protect the cells. I thought I'd seen mention that one of the mods that was being done over the winter was to put a cooling system in the battery rafts - if so (006 and 008 were the units mentioned that had received mods over the winter), it might not be working as well as they hoped.

 

[Richard Scott]

Don't forget that the DEMUs were not hybrid drive - the output of the generator was sent directly to the motors, so no additional weight of batteries. The TfW 230 battery rafts weigh 1.7 tons each, so they have to lug 6.8 tons of batteries around. Also, instead of having a single engine, generator, fuel tank and and cooling system, the TfW 230s have four of each. Each genset raft weighs 1.3 tons, so a combined total of 12 tons of engine and battery rafts, which I bet is more than the powertrain in the DEMUs weighed. The 2-car Marston Vale 230s weighed 66 tons, fitted with 4 gensets and no battery rafts. The 3-car 20x DEMUs weighed around 55-60 tons.

Power cars from 20x units were about 55tons alone and trailers 30tons or thereabouts so probably heavier than a 230 with battery packs.