Class 230 units training/introduction on the Borderlands line: updates

[Bob Price]

So is the delivery to be rescheduled for next week.

 

[Energy]

The London northwestern units are a DMU nothing like the TFW fleet & ask the LNW staff about the units. Plus look at the reliability issues of their units.
The TFW units will be DEMU hybrid units of a totally different specification

No both are DEMUs and are fairly similar just different door and seating arrangements and the TfW units have added batteries and a slightly changed front end.

 

[Brissle Girl]

It's a safety matter painting the fronts yellow.

It's the fact you say vivarail are blameless in the delays which is baffling, as who else is to blame ? I admire optimism but maybe I'm more of a realist regarding rolling stock matters like this

It's no longer a safety requirement to paint the fronts yellow, as evidenced by quite a lot of new stock now running around without yellow fronts. If TfW chooses to continue to do so that is another matter.

By the way, I notice that amongst all your posts, you haven't commented on my point that if the trains are too long for the platforms that is hardly Vivarail's fault, as you seemed to imply.

Given the LNWR units have been running around in service for a year now, and were on test for a long time before that, I don't buy the argument that mainline crash testing has been a contributing factor to the delays, and neither it would seem does anyone else. As has been pointed out, the basic specification is the same - I don't think batteries or a change to the door configuration or seats will mean a new crash test was required.

 

[Energy]

I don't know the max speeds on the Marston vale line but on the borderlands it's 55mph & will rise to 60mph once line improvement so wouldn't you as a customer require the unit to be safe in a crash at 60mph the max speed of 230's..............

I would imagine for the 230s to have a max speed of 60mph their would be required to have tested it for 60mph, even if they don't run at that speed on the Marston Vale line.

 

[coppercapped]

That test was not for mailing 60mph running, as the units didn't have gangways welded in 2015 !
The yellow front is a TFW safety dept requirement which makes sense with TOCs rolling stock continuity

There seems to be some serious misunderstanding of the role of crash tests in this statement.

The front of the train was modified to meet the relevant requirements of the European standard EN 15227 Railway applications - Crashworthiness requirements for rail vehicles by, among other things, adding strengthening steel members and moving the drivers seat further away from the windscreen. All this is documented in publicly available sources.

The reference library of the IEEE (of which I am a member) has this to say about the standard:

This document specifies crashworthiness requirements applicable to new designs of:

• locomotives,
• driving vehicles operating in passenger and freight trains;
• passenger rail vehicles operating in passenger trains (such as trams, metros, mainline trains).

This document identifies common methods of providing passive safety that can be adapted to suit individual vehicle requirements.

This document specifies the characteristics of reference obstacle models for use with the design collision scenarios.

This document also specifies the requirements and methods for demonstrating that the passive safety objectives have been achieved by comparison with existing proven designs, numerical simulation, component or full-size tests, or a combination of all these methods.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_15227) gives a summary of the main definitions of EN 15277 which look at a number of crash scenarios:

• head impact of similar vehicles at a speed of 36 km/h (22 mph)
• impact on a freight wagon of 80 metric tons (79 long tons; 88 short tons) at a speed of 36 km/h (22 mph)
• impact on a lorry at a grade crossing at a speed of 110 km/h (68 mph)
• impact on a smaller object like a car at a grade crossing.

For each scenario and train class there are minimum requirements on the remaining space in the driver cabin after the crash. Due to the expensive equipment there are no full body crash tests in railway applications. Instead the impact is simulated with finite element analysis and parts of the structure are validated by a real crash test whereby simulation and test results may not differ more than ten percent.

EN 15227 was been made mandatory by the Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) decisions in 2008 - the 2008/232/CE for high-speed railways and 2008/57/EC for conventional rail, long before the concept of the Class 230 was worked up. While ongoing projects were allowed to be completed all new procurements since then had to include the requirement so Vivarail had to design the front of the train to meet the requirements of this standard.

Anything else you may have heard about crash tests is wibble.

 

[Neen Sollars]

They should have started to be delivered "early summer" 2019. In an earlier post I took this to be July 2019. Perhaps for introduction in December 2019? So in my book they are 12 months late , and counting. I think Peter Tandy said they have to do 2000 miles fault free running on test before accepted for delivery. It does look as if delivery of 230006 is not far off, and then driver training can commence?

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

 

[43096]

The line from TFW at present is the 230's won't be doing anything until 2021, they have lots of backlogged training issues with covid & that's the priority. It's approx 75 furloughed trainee drivers at various stages of training, no plans for social distancing for trainees yet never mind training drivers with the 230's.
The plan is once the first stage of testing of 2000 miles is successful, the 230's have to tested on the borderlands line then replicating service stopping etc !
Plus the 230's don't even have a maintenance depot built yet, the plan is Birkenhead North but plans can change

I suppose that is all VivaRail's fault as well, is it?

 

[Eccles1983]

I can verify wobmans gen. I have also spoken to the people who's task it was to go and inspect the trains and they were appalled at them and protested instantly at the shoddy and off specification job vivarail had done.

It's like they ignored to job spec and expected tfw to just accept the slap dash work they had did.

This has caused delay. All because they didn't follow very simple specs. Such as Aircon etc.

The platform lengthening has come about as vivarail have failed to install sufficient asdo/ado capacity.

It's been as much a farce as the 769 debacle.

 

[hobbm013]

I see the vivarail fan club is back.......

No, just not all the issues you keep listing are Vivarails fault. It’s hardly Vivarails fault that training has slipped due to a global pandemic. The last I heard the units were to be stabled at Birkenhead before a facility is built at Dee Marsh sidings. Again, nothing to do with Vivarail. There have been several trials about restarting training In a safe manner and these have gone well apparently so TfW might be able to clear some backlog soon. It’s obvious you are against the whole 230 project and that’s fine, but many of us just want it to succeed and not lay pointless blame with Vivarail when they are not at fault for all the delays

 

[hobbm013]

But you see vivarail completely blameless, which you then contradict yourself time & time again, I hope the 230's work in a safe manner & I'm not a fan of the whole flawed project not vivarail particularly.
If the tech was so easily made to work, why haven't CAF / Hitachi / GEC or any rolling stock company made these hybrid trains ? It's new tech that even F1 Geniuses struggle with but a 40 yr old train built by a small unproven company can do it no problem !
Think about using a 5 set micro fleet of trains on a line that has a history of very poor adhesion coupled with lots of various gradients, then stopping & starting 15 times on each direction !
The line should not be a testbed for these I think instead use proven rolling stock that is most importantly RELIABLE..... That's what the customers want. But obviously you know better & I am not allowed my opinion in your eyes

Please point out where and when I have said Vivarail are blameless as I have not done that, neither has anyone else

 

[Brissle Girl]

I agree with the last comment. A more balanced (and informed) view tends to come across as more persuasive than we are seeing from wobman.

The latest post suggests it is the hybrid nature of the units that is causing the delays. Now this is more believable as, for the railways, it is new technology. However, F1 has had it for many years now and it works well in the context of the extremely stressed conditions in which F1 operates. Hybrid cars have also been around for years too, so it is hardly cutting edge.

I’d suggest that the nature of the route make it very suitable for hybrid operation, due to the frequent rapid acceleration and braking where the regeneration will be at its most effective and the acceleration most needed.

So I would be prepared to believe the latest claim, but to date I’ve seen so much unsubstantiated wibble that clearly has “an agenda” that means I take anything wobman says with a pinch of best Cheshire salt.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I've come to realise with this post that anyone with anything other than a certain opinion is not allowed to have a view, my comments have been called laughable & wibble as they don't agree with what you or others say or think.


But enthusiasts want these 230's more than the users of the line

I think if you look around this forum, in the main we tend to have good constructive debates with others respecting differing opinions. If you're feeling that it's to the contrary with your thoughts then you might consider why that is. If it helps I'd point to the lack of substance behind the content, the ways your views are presented and the dismissive tone to those who take a different view that is rubbing people up the wrong way.

As to the second point, as I recall it's TfW which has ordered the units, not enthusiasts in general or in particular on this forum.

I think we all want reliable, improved services, hence we're all hoping that the units will be a success. I'll admit that the use of the units on the Marston Vale line got off to a very inauspicious start, and I suspect (though it is only that) that is why TfW is (rightly) being very demanding in ensuring that Vivarail deliver a product which is fit for purpose. That may well be behind some of the delays, and if so all well and good if TfW is able to resource rolling stock in the meantime to keep the current service going.

 

[philthetube]

The borderlands line needs a reliable service with reliable trains as it's had a history of poor reliability, the present 150's are ideal & a more modern version of these would be perfect. But enthusiasts want these 230's more than the users of the line, with the 230 project is not suitable in the view of most of the train crew & the costs will be more expensive than any other alternative. The whole point of the railway is to get people from A to B as quickly as possible & as cheap as possible but this gets lost though

Many train crew don't like change, I have bee through two new stock introductions on the underground and in both cases a majority of drivers were not liking the idea at all, however after the new stock had been in for a couple of years tou could count in single figures the members who would like to revert back.

I would be interested to now how you know that the majority of train crew think they are not suitable in any case.

 

[43096]

But the facts I quote come from people who have visited the vivarail site & been on the actual units but then to be told it's laughable & unsubstantiated obviously is not constructive in my eyes.

But those issues you allege have been disproved by people with plenty of knowledge. At what stage did they visit VivaRail? Were the units still in build? Were those people just bigging up any issues for an audience?

As for your complaint about others way of responding: have a look in the mirror. It’s your attitude that gets people’s backs up.

 

[Bob Price]

In the meantime the testing paths are still in for next week should they need them. Possibly when 007 is ready.

 

[sw1ller]

Is it really 2000 hours of fault free running required? Or 2000 miles...

Gotta be miles, surely. Even at 15 miles an hour it would be 30,000 miles or at any speed it would take 83-84 days of fault free testing non stop!

 

[Chris217]

I hope the 230s are a success
Vivarail deserve that at least.

The only other plan would be is to
retain the 150s for the Borderlands line thus
not replacing the Pacers on the Valley lines.
Win win lol.

 

[43096]

Because I speak to them in messrooms is the reason I know what they think about the 230's

So your "facts" are based on messroom gossip about units that crews haven't even seen properly yet. I think we know where to file such gossip.

Your attitude is very poor towards anyone that doesn't share you view on matters, how come you are so knowledgeable about the 230's ?? You seem to know more about these units than anybody else

How ironic.

 

[hobbm013]

Your attitude is very poor towards anyone that doesn't share you view on matters, how come you are so knowledgeable about the 230's ?? You seem to know more about these units than anybody else

Whilst I’m not disputing your sources, a lot of what you said has been disproved. You’ve gone quiet on the crash test issue when corrected, and the yellow ends.

I repeat no one is saying vivarail are blameless, but issues such as trains being too long for platforms, lack of servicing facilities, changing specifications are not the fault of Vivarail. Transport for Wales ordered them, not enthusiasts. If they’re unsuitable than that particular issue lies with TFW rather than vivarail. Vivarail are making a product and if it really isn’t as suitable as you’re saying then TfW or any other TOC shouldn’t have ordered it. Vivarail are hardly gonna stop orders are they

 

[Energy]

I would also not call them unsuitable yet, I think the people higher up at TfW who ordered the units would know more about them than people in the messroom.

 

[Energy]

But we're do you get your facts ?? You never answer this question

The facts I've seen from him are all publicly available information from reliable sources.

 

[Ribbleman]

To a degree these units are an experiment. They may work well or they may not. The transmission is different to the Marston Vale sets so a direct comparison is not possible. Might I suggest that folks wait until they have entered traffic before judging their suitability? Given that there has been nothing else running on batteries with which they may be compared, it is rather too early to jump to conclusions.

 

[Energy]

To a degree these units are an experiment. They may work well or they may not. The transmission is different to the Marston Vale sets so a direct comparison is not possible. Might I suggest that folks wait until they have entered traffic before judging their suitability? Given that there has been nothing else running on batteries with which they may be compared, it is rather too early to jump to conclusions.

I don't think they have a too difference transmission? Still new motors on the bogeys which are powered by the engine rafts which have generators its just the TfW units have batteries for added performance.

 

[Ribbleman]

I don't think they have a too difference transmission? Still new motors on the bogeys which are powered by the engine rafts which have generators its just the TfW units have batteries for added performance.

As I understand it, when engaged, the engines will be running at a constant speed in order to generate power to top up the batteries. The batteries in turn feed the traction motors. This, it is hoped, will lead to greater reliability than the cycling up and down through the revolution range that occurs on the Marston Vale units which have experienced considerable overheating problems.

 

[Energy]

As I understand it, when engaged, the engines will be running at a constant speed in order to generate power to top up the batteries. The batteries in turn feed the traction motors. This, it is hoped, will lead to greater reliability than the cycling up and down through the revolution range that occurs on the Marston Vale units which have experienced considerable overheating problems.

It also gives better acceleration as batteries will be able to delivery power to the motors quicker.

 

[Camden]

As I understand it, when engaged, the engines will be running at a constant speed in order to generate power to top up the batteries. The batteries in turn feed the traction motors. This, it is hoped, will lead to greater reliability than the cycling up and down through the revolution range that occurs on the Marston Vale units which have experienced considerable overheating problems.

Sounds interesting, and clever. Do I take it that these trains need fully recharging every now and then in that case? If so, do you know what the local arrangements are to facilitate that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds interesting, and clever. Do I take it that these trains need fully recharging every now and then in that case? If so, do you know what the local arrangements are to facilitate that?

The engines will recharge the batteries. It's basically a bit like the Parry People Mover, except that uses the engine to spin up a flywheel rather than charge batteries.

FWIW with all 4 engines running the Marston Vale units perform very well - they accelerate easily as well as they did as D-stock on LU, though sadly the extremely slow door operation throws those gains away rather than allowing a timetable speed-up. But engines overheat and stop, then the remaining ones work harder, then overheat.... Hopefully the batteries will break this cycle.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Are they using the same engines in the TfW units? I recall a statement a while back that they were going to switch to Caterpillar units.

 

[Energy]

Are they using the same engines in the TfW units? I recall a statement a while back that they were going to switch to Caterpillar units.

I think they are due to the issues with the Ford engines in the LNWR units but I can't remember.