Class 484 replacing class 483 on the island line: progress updates

[Speed43125]

While it's good to see progress, if that's the first pair of bodies I think we can rule out testing in April...



Island Line is 3rd rail?

Ah. My bad. Didn't realise...

 

[swt_passenger]

Island Line is 3rd rail?

Of course it is. At the very least they need a traction return circuit via the wheels adding. That will need new brush gear, which is usually fitted on the axle ends of third rail stock.

 

[D365]

(if I remember correctly the majority of the problems on the 230s related to cooling the diesel engines?).

And thankfully no traction batteries to worry about either as was proposed at one time.

 

[Nym]

And thankfully no batteries to worry about either as was proposed at one time.

Except the Control Supply ones.

I am wondering if they're even going to replace the traction equipment...

 

[D365]

I am wondering if they're even going to replace the traction equipment...

Unless plans have changed since 2018, all production D-Trains are receiving the TSA AC motors.

 

[swt_passenger]

And thankfully no traction batteries to worry about either as was proposed at one time.

Do random suggestions in these forums about battery power actually count as real proposals?

 

[D365]

Do random suggestions in these forums about battery power actually count as real proposals?

There’s a reason we have a “Speculative Ideas” subforum

Although, when it comes to Island Line, some thought was given to it in official quarters, so it wouldn’t have been entirely speculative...

 

[Chris125]

Do random suggestions in these forums about battery power actually count as real proposals?

Initially SWR seemed keen on of self-powered trains due to the condition of the 3rd rail infrastructure but that never made much sense to me - much more straightforward to renew as-is, especially if NR end up paying?

 

[swt_passenger]

Initially SWR seemed keen on of self-powered trains due to the condition of the 3rd rail infrastructure but that never made much sense to me - much more straightforward to renew as-is, especially if NR end up paying?

Were they keen, or was it rumour or misreporting? Water under the pier by now though...

 

[MarkyT]

While I don't think the 484s ARE getting traction batteries, as far as I know, I think onboard storage COULD be useful to regulate power load on a ropey old low capacity third rail system enabling maximum power to be available for acceleration at all times even when the supply voltage is low. They could absorb regenerated braking energy without any substation modifications, eliminate gapping problems in junctions, allowing simpler power rail configuration in those areas, and even permit long gapped sections through troublesome plain track areas, subject to flooding perhaps. In addition, they could provide enough energy to motor to the next station, at least, in the event of an unplanned power outage, and to allow operations to continue through areas deliberately isolated for maintenance work. They would add some weight to an otherwise pure electric train clearly, but an optimum weight/capacity balance could be arrived at for the particular duties planned and depot charger systems can be provided for an overnight top-up, permitting low-speed off-grid shunting without significant lengths of dangerous exposed live rails in the stabling and maintenance sidings.

 

[Chris125]

Were they keen, or was it rumour or misreporting? Water under the pier by now though...

SWR in the 2017 consultation (PDF) suggested the 'most appropriate way forward' was:

...a self-powered train which can be accommodated on the exisiting infrastructure. This would save the cost of replacing the existing electrical equipment which a recent dilapidation report revealed is in a poor state, with the third rail in need of replacement and substations in poor condition. It would also avoid the storage and air pollution concerns associated with a diesel powered train.
​

This was early days for SWR however, and they probably lacked a detailed understanding of the infrastructure, lease and battery operation.

 

[swt_passenger]

SWR in the 2017 consultation (PDF) suggested the 'most appropriate way forward' was:

...a self-powered train which can be accommodated on the exisiting infrastructure. This would save the cost of replacing the existing electrical equipment which a recent dilapidation report revealed is in a poor state, with the third rail in need of replacement and substations in poor condition. It would also avoid the storage and air pollution concerns associated with a diesel powered train.
​

This was early days for SWR however, and they probably lacked a detailed understanding of the infrastructure, lease and battery operation.

Fair enough, I’d completely missed that...

 

[hwl]

Except the Control Supply ones.

I am wondering if they're even going to replace the traction equipment...

Reducing traction motor and control equipment issues and maintenance requirements would be good.

 

[D365]

Reducing traction motor and control equipment issues and maintenance requirements would be good.

Even if the Brush DC motors were being retained (I’m fairly confident they will be replaced), the motor control equipment was going to be changed in any case.

 

[hwl]

Even if the Brush DC motors were being retained (I’m fairly confident they will be replaced), the motor control equipment was going to be changed in any case.

I have feeling the increased real efficiency from the AC motors and drive system may well reduce some to the "power supply issues" on the line.

 

[Nickporter]

Just wandering if anyone knows if they are still on track for a supposed May delivery of the first unit? I would assume that the covid19 outbreak may be setting this back.

Just curious as I would like to have a last ride but am quarantined now until mid June.

 

[JonathanH]

Just wandering if anyone knows if they are still on track for a supposed May delivery of the first unit? I would assume that the covid19 outbreak may be setting this back.

Just curious as I would like to have a last ride but am quarantined now until mid June.

VivaRail haven't delivered the 230s for TfW yet so it seems a bit unlikely that the full 484 fleet will be in place for a while yet. Driver training on new fleets is reported elsewhere to be an issue with social distancing as well.

 

[pompeyfan]

It’s difficult to fit a driving instructor and driver in the cab at the same time as they’ll be within 2 meters of each other for long periods of time. Same goes for route conducting etc etc. Guards training also affected as guards instructor wouldn’t be able to look over your shoulder while playing with buttons.

 

[Mikey C]

VivaRail haven't delivered the 230s for TfW yet so it seems a bit unlikely that the full 484 fleet will be in place for a while yet. Driver training on new fleets is reported elsewhere to be an issue with social distancing as well.

The 484s are a lot simpler though, seeing that they have none of the complex bimode equipment.

 

[Journeyman]

The 484s are a lot simpler though, seeing that they have none of the complex bimode equipment.

I don't think any of the original traction equipment is being retained, though, so it still involves quite a significant conversion job.

 

[D365]

I don't think any of the original traction equipment is being retained, though, so it still involves quite a significant conversion job.

Yep, the Class 484s are also going over to AC motors and modern control systems. But Viva should have gotten the hang of it by now, seeing as all production units are fitted with this.

 

[Nym]

Not that (personally) I see too much point in such a severe conversion.

The under frames of D78 stock are a massive meccano kit so it woulnd't be too hard to re-use the existing traction equipment and support it using the same routes to market as 73TS (identical traction, MAs, etc) until that dies, then slowly convert the fleet over to some form of AC traction.

Would have been a much quicker way to deploy it, but then again, I doubt that anyone in VivaRail understands how the old kit works, or what would be needed to convert a D78 to 2 car operation from 3 car (or tbh, that there are even such things as UNDMs, since they didn't buy them and they'd have been VERY helpful indeed in producing units longer than two or three cars.

Oh well, there's only four left in existence now with the rest scrapped, and I don't think LUL want to sell their newly converted NDMs (converted from UNDM).

 

[Speed43125]

Not that (personally) I see too much point in such a severe conversion.

The under frames of D78 stock are a massive meccano kit so it woulnd't be too hard to re-use the existing traction equipment and support it using the same routes to market as 73TS (identical traction, MAs, etc) until that dies, then slowly convert the fleet over to some form of AC traction.

Would have been a much quicker way to deploy it, but then again, I doubt that anyone in VivaRail understands how the old kit works, or what would be needed to convert a D78 to 2 car operation from 3 car (or tbh, that there are even such things as UNDMs, since they didn't buy them and they'd have been VERY helpful indeed in producing units longer than two or three cars.

Oh well, there's only four left in existence now with the rest scrapped, and I don't think LUL want to sell their newly converted NDMs (converted from UNDM).

I seriously doubt they are going to sell 4 or 5 car 60 mph diesel units. Having an extra type complicates things and it's the diesel generators that are usually the limiting factor rather than a lack of motors. The Island Line is only getting 2 car trains, and I doubt anywhere else will really need them to be 3rd rail units. So I fail to see how having extra intermediate cars would be benefitial, even if the extra shunting 'cab' may occasionally be useful if you were somehow unable to store 4 car units as a whole?
I feel like I've missed something here, what's your motivation for the UNDMs?

 

[Nym]

I seriously doubt they are going to sell 4 or 5 car 60 mph diesel units. Having an extra type complicates things and it's the diesel generators that are usually the limiting factor rather than a lack of motors. The Island Line is only getting 2 car trains, and I doubt anywhere else will really need them to be 3rd rail units. So I fail to see how having extra intermediate cars would be benefitial, even if the extra shunting 'cab' may occasionally be useful if you were somehow unable to store 4 car units as a whole?
I feel like I've missed something here, what's your motivation for the UNDMs?

You could have formed up a unit of three motor cars rather than two motor cars and a trailer...

Hence, maintaining similar performance for someone operating a mixed fleet of 2 and 3 car units.

 

[D365]

Vivarail’s share of the Long Marston sidings are already full up with the D Stock carriages that they did purchase. It would have been very impractical to purchase and store UNDMs on top of that.

One of the advantages of the trailer cars is that they are able to fit four diesel or battery rafts underneath them (as seen on the Wales units), instead of just two rafts in each motor car.

But obviously this is off-topic for the Class 484s.

 

[Neen Sollars]

If you visit Peter Tandy`s photo site there are a few background images which appear to show class 484`s starting to be painted in Island Line livery.

http://www.petertandy.co.uk/230_Primer_LM_030320

The above image looks to me to be a class 484 car.

 

[Dstock7080]

If you visit Peter Tandy`s photo site there are a few background images which appear to show class 484`s starting to be painted in Island Line livery.

http://www.petertandy.co.uk/230_Primer_LM_030320

The above image looks to me to be a class 484 car.

This post already had the same image: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...on-the-island-line.192181/page-7#post-4470430

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Would have been a much quicker way to deploy it, but then again, I doubt that anyone in VivaRail understands how the old kit works, or what would be needed to convert a D78 to 2 car operation from 3 car (or tbh, that there are even such things as UNDMs, since they didn't buy them and they'd have been VERY helpful indeed in producing units longer than two or three cars.

The first D-Train used the original DC motors, so yes, they do understand the original traction equipment.

Vivarail have converted D78s to two car operation. They just did it as an integral part of the D-Train rebuilding process.

For what it's worth, here's the battery prototype operating as a single car.

 

[D365]

The first D-Train used the original DC motors, so yes, they do understand the original traction equipment.

Vivarail have converted D78s to two car operation. They just did it as an integral part of the D-Train rebuilding process.

For what it's worth, here's the battery prototype operating as a single car.

Completely forgot about that video. Thanks for posting it.

The Class 484s, in my view, will be a great step step up. As you can hear in the video, virtually all the noise comes just from the track.

 

[DelW]

If you visit Peter Tandy`s photo site there are a few background images which appear to show class 484`s starting to be painted in Island Line livery.

http://www.petertandy.co.uk/230_Primer_LM_030320

The above image looks to me to be a class 484 car.

A later photo of his was linked from a post on the TfW 230s thread, and shows what appear to be four Island Line cars sandwiching a TfW pair:

http://www.petertandy.co.uk/230s_LM_230320