• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What is the cause of unreliability of Vivarail Class 230 trains?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,872
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
That may be a long term aspiration. However what we want is a train to work on Monday morning. Can you get the electrification sorted by then?

The only answer to that issue is probably Class 153s and putting up with the overcrowding on a few trains. LNR could, presumably, short form some Birmingham area services and run a couple of 153s down Sunday afternoon if they wanted to. However, they demonstrably don't give a stuff.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,297
Location
Fenny Stratford
The only answer to that issue is probably Class 153s and putting up with the overcrowding on a few trains. LNR could, presumably, short form some Birmingham area services and run a couple of 153s down Sunday afternoon if they wanted to. However, they demonstrably don't give a stuff.

They seem determined not to do that.
 

SteadyReadyGo

Member
Joined
29 May 2019
Messages
9
What is wrong with the trains? A good question!

A 2 page leaflet I have seen a copy of ( they were given out yesterday but I didn't get to meet any managers due to, guess what, a train failure) was given out yesterday during the abortive meet the managers event. One page is give to the LNWR Customer Experience Director ( oh how I would like to direct him where he can shove his passenger experience!) with much of his section given over to bland platitudes. However he says :

The Class 230's previously worked on the London Underground District line , but were rebuilt..... This included the installation of power generators and door locking systems..... it is the poor reliability of this equipment which is causing trains to be taken out of service so often for repairs.

That doesn't tell us much of any use. However the following paragraph really annoys me:

Things aren't going to change overnight, and invetiably that means we'll sometimes have to run buses on the Marston Vale instead of trains. However we know that rail replacement replacement services need to run more smoothly, and were therefore devolving much more decision making to the local station team at Bletchley. That should mean buses turn up quicker, and taxis are more readily available when things go wrong.

No apology, no acknowledgement that the service is poor and they are failing to deliver yet taking our money, no acknowledgement of the delays and inconvenience, no acknowledgement that the bus service often doesn't turn up at the intermediate stations just a glib, almost smug, acceptance that buses will run. It is very poor and maddening. But hey, they have made it easier for the buses to turn up. FFS. Point missed.

The second page of the leaflet is given over to the chairman of Vivarail. Firstly, there is not one word of apology from him for his company failing to deliver a train that works, failing to rectify the relability problems between introduction at Easter and today nor any timescale when we can expect to receive the service we pay for. Disgraceful. Perhaps he simply doesn't care. Perhaps he isnt feeling any pain. Us mere passengers are.

He goes on to say that the difficulties we have had are primarily with the gensets ( power generators). Most issues relate to the cooling of the units, although some faults ( no examples given) have only become evident with longer-term use.

The following paragraph says:

performance to date has been hampered by having insufficient gensets to support failures. However, we are pleased to report that our maintenance team in Bletchley now has access to additional, Gensets with four spare units avialable.

So that tells us something at least. What it doesn't tell us is why insufficient spare capacity was provided or why it has taken this long to obtain extra spares! Perhaps they are unavailable in the market, perhaps sub contractors have let them down, perhaps there have been contractual arguments over funding. How about telling us this?

The next paragraph says: These spares, together with the team we have in place to effect repairs, are expected to have a significant impact on performance. In addition, we will bring extra support for the team at Beltchley whenever necessary.

No indication of when we can expect to see a "significant impact on performance" or the % increase to be delivered. It is worth noting that the trains are broken today. I wonder what the criteria for delivering extra staff to Bletchley are? One wonders how much worse it has to get before those criteria are met? I suggest they were needed months ago!

The final paragraph says: We have also set out a further medium-term plan to make additional resources available at Bletchley & Seaham ( our base where Gensets are repaired) and have started a programme of re-work on all Gensets, utilising the additional spares that are now available.

That is nice information. There is no indication when we will see the benefit! On what date will Vivarail be able to provide a working product to allow LNWR to deliver the whole Marston Vale timetable to us now extremely pi$$ed of passengers?

Further, this page suggests the only faults are with the Gensets. As a regular users I know there have been more failures than gensets yet no other failures are mentioned. I wonder why?

he signs of all the best. Thanks - we need it.

PS on the back cover of the leaflet is a route map. LNWR have spelled the name of one of their stations, Ridgmont, wrongly. That should tell you all you need to know about how much of a $hit they give about our line.


As you didn't manage to speak with a manager, you could always post your feedback here - just a thought -
https://www.londonnorthwesternrailway.co.uk/about-us/company-information/always-listening-survey
 

M1544

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2016
Messages
130
Given the unit length issues that led to the 230s being ordered in the first place, the only viable options are 153 or 150 I think.

144e pacers which are DDA compliant could be another option as they are shorter length so would fit the platforms?
 

pieguyrob

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2018
Messages
571
The Ford Durateq engines, had cooling issues when used in the LTI TX2. They weren't popular with cabbies due to not being high mileage engines when compared to the Nissan TD27 it replaced. They didn't last long, before the TX4 replaced it.
Maybe Vivarail should have read the taxi forums and ordered an engine of someone other than
Fix Or Repair Daily?
 

nuts & bolts

Member
Joined
24 Jan 2015
Messages
244
Location
B & H
The Ford Durateq engines, had cooling issues when used in the LTI TX2. They weren't popular with cabbies due to not being high mileage engines when compared to the Nissan TD27 it replaced. They didn't last long, before the TX4 replaced it.
Maybe Vivarail should have read the taxi forums and ordered an engine of someone other than
Fix Or Repair Daily?

It was the cabs with air con fitted had the problems, due to the compressor unit fitted high up in (no room elsewhere) the engine bay and a very long toothed belt & ex amount of tension roller bushes which would occasionally slip a tooth:(
 
Last edited:

nuts & bolts

Member
Joined
24 Jan 2015
Messages
244
Location
B & H
It was the cabs with air con fitted had the problems, due to the compressor unit fitted height up in (no room elsewhere) the engine bay and a very long toothed belt & ex amount of tension roller bushes which would occasionally slip a tooth:(

The Nissan engine was a Swiss Timepiece compared with the Ford duroteq, Fitted in either a Mondeo or Transit the duroteq wasn't a problem.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
It was the cabs with air con fitted had the problems, due to the compressor unit fitted height up in (no room elsewhere) the engine bay and a very long toothed belt & ex amount of tension roller bushes which would occasionally slip a tooth:(
Same problem that affected all the other vehicles with that engine then?
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
The Nissan engine was a Swiss Timepiece compared with the Ford duroteq, Fitted in either a Mondeo or Transit the duroteq wasn't a problem.
well your post pretty much nails it.

the engine was designed for a loading of 3.5 tonnes, not 30.
perhaps they should have been looking at truck(or at least bus) engines to begin with.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,297
Location
Fenny Stratford
As you didn't manage to speak with a manager, you could always post your feedback here - just a thought -
https://www.londonnorthwesternrailway.co.uk/about-us/company-information/always-listening-survey

Thanks - but that is a waste of time.

You get fobbed off with pr responses. That is why it was essential to be able to talk to people face to face so they very clearly understand how unhappy us paying customers are and hold their feet to the fire so to speak.
 

westcoaster

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2006
Messages
4,236
Location
DTOS A or B
Can't bring back the 150's due to crew knowledge lapsing, and only a short while till 153 knowledge lapses.

Lay over at the bletchley end for crew swaps and PNB's.

Could they fit a baffle plate to the engine to increase the air flow rate.
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
The loading has little to do with it because the engine is not directly connected to the wheels.
nope, but in order to achieve maximum output( basically driving a huge alternator,feeding the battery), then engines of this type will be running around 4-5000 rpm,whereas the truck engine will be doing the rated load around 1500-2000rpm, which means the engine is running a lot cooler.
 

Class172

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
20 Mar 2011
Messages
3,776
Location
West Country
The only answer to that issue is probably Class 153s and putting up with the overcrowding on a few trains. LNR could, presumably, short form some Birmingham area services and run a couple of 153s down Sunday afternoon if they wanted to. However, they demonstrably don't give a stuff.
I fear that WMR/LNR are rather hamstrung currently with regards to DMU availability. As much as I would support sending a 153 down to allow some breathing space for Vivarail to properly engineer a solution, it seems unlikely to be possible due to changes that occurred at the May timetable change. The New St.-Shrewsbury service increased to 2tph with the side-effect that a number diagrams on the Hereford services have switched to either 2*153 or 172 operation (the 170s going to the new Shrewsbury services). WMR have already acknowledged that there are significant overcrowding problems on the route (see here) so taking 153s from here is highly unlikely to be seen as an option (most services are only 2 carriages currently).
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
Can't bring back the 150's due to crew knowledge lapsing, and only a short while till 153 knowledge lapses.

Lay over at the bletchley end for crew swaps and PNB's.

Could they fit a baffle plate to the engine to increase the air flow rate.
if they've been trained on them before then how long is a refresher course? 1 day?,perhaps 2?
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
I fear that WMR/LNR are rather hamstrung currently with regards to DMU availability. As much as I would support sending a 153 down to allow some breathing space for Vivarail to properly engineer a solution, it seems unlikely to be possible due to changes that occurred at the May timetable change. The New St.-Shrewsbury service increased to 2tph with the side-effect that a number diagrams on the Hereford services have switched to either 2*153 or 172 operation (the 170s going to the new Shrewsbury services). WMR have already acknowledged that there are significant overcrowding problems on the route (see here) so taking 153s from here is highly unlikely to be seen as an option (most services are only 2 carriages currently).

a few GA/EMR 153's will be available shortly,so could theoretically be drafted in for a couple of months(end of year) as a stop gap.
that would give vivarail a bit of breathing space to get the new caterpillar blocks tested out.

worst case would be the cl37+2*mk2 short set!(marston vale has been operated by 2*cl31 before)
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
nope, but in order to achieve maximum output( basically driving a huge alternator,feeding the battery), then engines of this type will be running around 4-5000 rpm,whereas the truck engine will be doing the rated load around 1500-2000rpm, which means the engine is running a lot cooler.
Maximum rated output of the engine fitted to the 230s is at 3000rpm (which is well below the redline) - this is also the speed the engines run at when used in the 230s at full power.
 

Harpers Tate

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2013
Messages
1,705
nope, but in order to achieve maximum output( basically driving a huge alternator,feeding the battery), then engines of this type will be running around 4-5000 rpm,whereas the truck engine will be doing the rated load around 1500-2000rpm, which means the engine is running a lot cooler.
And you know this how? If it's in a spec somewhere, then all well and good.

Otherwise - all and any direct comparision between any given engine's use in a conventional transmission (i.e. with a gearbox, manual or auto) and in an electric genset is fundamentally flawed. Much of the available power curve is needed when conventionally geared as RPM by necessity needs to keep changing and the thing has to be tuned to maximise the width of the high point in the torque curve. Whereas, in a genset, it needs only to turn at a more or less constant RPM, plus idle when there is little/no power use.

I can't speak for the specific Ford item in question here, but small diesel engines typically offer their highest torque at 2.5 or 3k RPM. Bigger ones, probably lower. I didn't design the power sledges in the 230, but if I did, I expect I'd gear the engine to the generator such that it turns more or less constantly at whatever RPM its optimum output can be found. And I'd tune the engine, not to give a broad output curve, but to maximise output at whatever this optimum RPM happens to be.

As to these things (un)reliability - I'm old enough to have been commuting when the 1960s DMUs were summarily withdrawn on my route to be replaced by Pacers and 150s. You know - those "reliable" trains we enjoy today. And I'm old enough to remember how it was literally months before the "service" recovered in its reliability to levels immediately before the change. How long did it take "them" to chuck the self-changing gearboxes in Pacers in favour of torque converters? Different time, different cause, same outcome. So - nothing new here.
 

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
If a 755/3 could fit, then so too could a 156, which would be far more easily obtainable. As I understand it, neither of them would.
I meant an improvised 755/2, aka the 755/3 with the "middle" carriage removed. Not realistic for obvious reasons, and even more so since the pantograph is on that middle carriage (Stadler are able to stick pantographs on the end carriage, but generally don't except for actual intended 2-car units).

But even if a 755/3 doesn't fit, is the issue train length, or platform length? If the latter, the door spacings might mean a 755/3 could fit.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,297
Location
Fenny Stratford
Can we please try to sensible. The only possilge replacement is a 153. Anything else will mean the service being turned off to allow for training.

I pay for a train not a bus

worst case would be the cl37+2*mk2 short set!(marston vale has been operated by 2*cl31 before)

Sadly they wont fit in the platforms since the signalling was changed
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,471
well your post pretty much nails it.

the engine was designed for a loading of 3.5 tonnes, not 30.
perhaps they should have been looking at truck(or at least bus) engines to begin with.

You're showing a lack of understanding about how the engine is being used. In road use it is driving a mechanical transmission, so whilst not the be all and and all, the weight may be relevant. In the case of the 230s they are providing electrical power to a gen set - so the weight of the unit isn't relevant, the ability of the engine to provide electricity is. Either way it sounds like cooling is the main issue, effectively causing either the engine or gen set to shut down because they are getting too hot - that's not a failing of the engine per se, nor is it necessarily the fault with the use i.e. rail rather than road.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,872
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You're showing a lack of understanding about how the engine is being used. In road use it is driving a mechanical transmission, so whilst not the be all and and all, the weight may be relevant. In the case of the 230s they are providing electrical power to a gen set - so the weight of the unit isn't relevant, the ability of the engine to provide electricity is. Either way it sounds like cooling is the main issue, effectively causing either the engine or gen set to shut down because they are getting too hot - that's not a failing of the engine per se, nor is it necessarily the fault with the use i.e. rail rather than road.

Though it may be related to that, not because of loading, but in that a road vehicle engine tends (other than buses) to be at the front and in a direct airflow as a result, meaning that even if the engine's water cooling system is inadequate it is still cooled by the flow of air (and indeed there are older air-only cooled engines like some VW ones). Under the unit there is far less airflow and it can be far more disrupted.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,134
With Ford running down the Bridgend plant, whats the future availability of this engine going to be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top