Creation of class 230 DEMUs from ex-LU D78s by Vivarail

[DarloRich]

It may not be why they exist, but they sure as hell come across that way. When was the last time a union said anything positive about anything in the railway industry?

All the time. But that isnt newsworthy and i doubt you would accept it anyway

According to this thread, the idea of Diesel Powered D78s, running on the National Rail network has existed for over 4 years. There has also been 21 months since the train made its first test outing (and set fire to itself). If ASLEF really do have 'numerous concerns about the 230s' , they have had plenty of time to make their opinions known in the intervening months. The timing of this coming out, when the refurbished units are at the depot waiting to be deployed on their test outings, lends me to the think there is a certain amount of:

ASLEF might not have seen the train in action until it arrived at Bletchley............................

 

[jimm]

ASLEF might not have seen the train in action until it arrived at Bletchley............................

As I noted above, Aslef visited Vivarail on a day when I was also there. The assistant general secretary of Aslef took the controls of 230001 on the Long Marston circuit and they spent a lot of time talking to Adrian Shooter and the engineering team in and out of the cab. So they have seen a 230 in action before, albeit not out on the main line unless they have made a further visit, and know plenty about the project.

There is an account of the visit in this edition of the Locomotive Journal

http://www.aslef.org.uk/visageimages/Publications/2016/1607_aslef_journal.pdf

Does anyone actually know what issue or issues Aslef may have? If not, perhaps we could call a halt to all the huffing and puffing seen on the previous page, which is just going round in a circle.

 

[43096]

All the time. But that isnt newsworthy and i doubt you would accept it anyway

Any evidence available?

 

[DarloRich]

As I noted above, Aslef visited Vivarail on a day when I was also there. The assistant general secretary of Aslef took the controls of 230001 on the Long Marston circuit and they spent a lot of time talking to Adrian Shooter and the engineering team in and out of the cab. So they have seen a 230 in action before, albeit not out on the main line unless they have made a further visit, and know plenty about the project.

there is a world difference between a 15mph demonstration trundle on a contained track and 60 mph on the live WCML.

Does anyone actually know what issue or issues Aslef may have? If not, perhaps we could call a halt to all the huffing and puffing seen on the previous page, which is just going round in a circle.

that would seem a key point!

BTW the ASLEF journal is a lot better than my union magazine!

Any evidence available?

loads thanks.

 

[jimm]

there is a world difference between a 15mph demonstration trundle on a contained track and 60 mph on the live WCML.

I'm well aware of that thanks - but my point that Aslef knows plenty about the 230 project stands. I am sure that if they have requested further information and visits at any stage in the past 30 months, Vivarail would have been happy to help and will be now.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm well aware of that thanks - but my point that Aslef knows plenty about the 230 project stands. I am sure that if they have requested further information and visits at any stage in the past 30 months, Vivarail would have been happy to help and will be now.

agreed - which suggest the issue, the yet to be confirmed it actually exists issue, is something that has only just come to light.

 

[mushroomchow]

Does anyone actually know what issue or issues Aslef may have? If not, perhaps we could call a halt to all the huffing and puffing seen on the previous page, which is just going round in a circle.

Anybody would think someone from ASLEF had been hovering on this thread and taken some of the wibble around hitting tractors on crossings or DCO then running with it?

I'd have thought we'd have heard something by now, otherwise we can just bin it off as rumour and conjecture - as it stands, Network Rail seem the most likely party to deny the approval of 230s on the network if anybody.

 

[The Planner]

They have passed through the Vehicle Change process to be used by LNWR on the Bedford Bletchley so no other operator or NR could have objected.

 

[craigybagel]

At the moment the Network Rail part is the only "rumour" here - as only one person here has mentioned it and their only source is an unspecified different forum.

Meanwhile, whilst we do not know the reasons why, it is a fact that notices have appeared in the messrooms of a TOC that has 230s on order. The notices are on ASLEF headed paper, and instruct ASLEF members not to drive 230s in passenger service. I'm happy to state that much as fact given I'm one of those people who have seen the notices with their own eyes!

 

[43096]

loads thanks.

Thanks - just the sort of response I’d expect from you.

As you’re not prepared to share it, we can only presume it doesn’t exist.

 

[philthetube]

Indeed but they appear to have raised concerns before testing and thats what people are wondering about

For all we know they might just want something testing.

 

[DarloRich]

Thanks - just the sort of response I’d expect from you.

As you’re not prepared to share it, we can only presume it doesn’t exist.

That is exactly the sort of response I'd expect from someone with your blinkered perceptions.

Have you much experience with unions? Perhaps you have been a local rep and worked on consultations and seen the good work that goes on. Perhaps you have been an HSEA rep and helped design many of the safety ideas that help keep people safe and empower them to report concerns. Perhaps you have worked to fix an issue with a piece of equipment to help people perform better and more safely in their roles. Perhaps, more likely, you simply base your stance on what your read in your favored newspaper and your own bias.

I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you. Others may feel differently but I can no longer be bothered.

 

[43096]

That is exactly the sort of response I'd expect from someone with your blinkered perceptions.

Have you much experience with unions? Perhaps you have been a local rep and worked on consultations and seen the good work that goes on. Perhaps you have been an HSEA rep and helped design many of the safety ideas that help keep people safe and empower them to report concerns. Perhaps you have worked to fix an issue with a piece of equipment to help people perform better and more safely in their roles. Perhaps, more likely, you simply base your stance on what your read in your favored newspaper and your own bias.

I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you. Others may feel differently but I can no longer be bothered.

Oh well, can't change the preconceptions that you preconceive that I have, then, can I?

Have a nice day and all that.

 

[sw1ller]

For all we know they might just want something testing.

The notice craigybagel mentions above, states a “list of concerns” so I think it’s more than just the one thing.

 

[Fincra5]

Indeed but they appear to have raised concerns before testing and thats what people are wondering about

They may have done. That all depends if Vivarail actually attended to the issues raised or just carried on regardless.. As pthers have said there's a difference between 15mph in a test environment and Line Speed on the Iron Road. I'm sure ASLEF were happy with the 385s when they say them prior to mainline testing - where the windscreen issues (at night mostly) were discovered.

 

[whhistle]

I've never known any driver to be especially keen on working 153s so I'm sure they will want them replaced just as quickly as the passengers and TOCs do - providing they are satisfied with the suitability and safety of the replacement units.

If there's an accident and people are killed, surely it isn't the responsibility of the Union? The blame would lie with the TOC (accepting the trains as safe)?

It *looks* like it's the Union being awkward as they're suggesting the trains are fine for their drivers to drive about all day but not customers. That says to me they don't value the drivers life as high as a customer.

Obviously you're not a Union man yourself. ASLEF don't just raise concerns for the sake of it. Issues will arise during testing (thats the point in it), a bit like the Cl385s and their windscreen, and the issues will need addressing before the unit should enter revenue service.
ASLEF don't just reject new (recycled trains) for the fun of it.

I wholeheartedly agree, but it's the issue of "safe for our drivers, not safe for passengers" statement.
You've said yourself, passengers are not the concern of the Union.
If a driver doesn't want to drive a train because of some sort of safety concern with the passenger saloon, fail it and report it.

Meanwhile, whilst we do not know the reasons why, it is a fact that notices have appeared in the messrooms of a TOC that has 230s on order. The notices are on ASLEF headed paper, and instruct ASLEF members not to drive 230s in passenger service. I'm happy to state that much as fact given I'm one of those people who have seen the notices with their own eyes!

Which surprises me that drivers are seemingly happy to blindly follow instructions without questioning why.

I don't really care either way but clear communication from Aslef would be better than hiding it, and so encouraging people to think they're up to no good.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does indeed seem strange. Surely if the trains are considered unsafe by the Union, there should be a complete block on their operation, not just a block on passenger operation.

 

[jopsuk]

on the other hand, perhaps the union have identified a problem potentially affecting passenger safety that they believe can be easily rectified but are happy to ensure that testing and driver training otherwise continues to minimise the hold ups to introduction

 

[mushroomchow]

Can we at least see the notice or have the list of concerns? Otherwise we're just going to go around in circles. It's like Schrodinger's Strike at the minute.

 

[boxy321]

So what does happen when a D train hits a tractor or lorry (or a Range Rover) at 60mph?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what does happen when a D train hits a tractor or lorry (or a Range Rover) at 60mph?

I'd imagine the lorry, tractor or Range Rover comes off very badly. Even a Mk1 DMU will make a mess of a much smaller vehicle.

 

[Clip]

So what does happen when a D train hits a tractor or lorry (or a Range Rover) at 60mph?

It goes bang and makes a mess and hopefully no one is injured.

 

[craigybagel]

I have no doubt that ASLEF will have communicated their concerns to the drivers at Bletchley who will be driving these units - and presumably also to LNWR/Viva Rail/RSSB any other concerned party. Beyond that it's not really their job to communicate the exact nature of the problems to anybody else. If they can be resolved before their planned introduction into service then it will make no difference anyway.

The notices at the other TOC don't mention the exact nature of the problems, but given the units are not due to arrive there until next year, and publicly at least it hasn't been announced which drivers will be getting trained on them, there's nothing more the traincrew there need to worry about right now either. I'm sure it will come out in time.

To be honest, I'm more interested in these alleged concerns that NR have with the units, and what impact that will have on the routes they're used on.

 

[mushroomchow]

See, I work in Risk Assessing and would like to know the actual likelihood of a vehicle strike occurring at 60mph as has been bandied around here.

For starters, how many historic vehicle strikes have occurred on the Marston Vale line? If so, what has been the velocity of the train involved? And what was the result?

At a glance, I can pick out maybe 2 or 3 crossings along the entire route at which a train would be even close to the maximum 60mph speed mentioned - Marston Road, Lidlington, a gated crossing between Caldecotte and Woburn Sands and Broadmead Road, Stewartby. Of those, Broadmead Road has full barriers and is not likely to pose a risk of people jumping the barriers, and Marston Road in Lidlington is arguably close enough to the station that the train is unlikely to be doing its maximum speed anyway.

There is a pedestrian crossing on the edge of Caldecotte, but that is irrelevant in a crashworthiness discussion unless you have the combined forces of Daniel Lambert and Big Daddy crossing simultaneously.

That just leaves the farm crossing between Caldecotte and Woburn sands as the concern - otherwise, crashworthiness should not be a consideration in the refusal to drive them.

Every single other crossing is in close enough proximity to a station that, at most, the train will be doing 40mph. Any concerns about crashworthiness should take that into account.

If there really were genuine concerns then Network Rail would be forcing Vivarail to carry out more robust crash testing.

 

[sw1ller]

Every single other crossing is in close enough proximity to a station that, at most, the train will be doing 40mph. Any concerns about crashworthiness should take that into account.

I’m not a big fan of this line of thinking. ECS moves can and will happen, crossing proximity to stations mean nothing so these need to be considered as high a risk as any other. Sure, the likelihood of a 60mph collision is lowered, but the risk is still as high.

 

[coppercapped]

Good stuff SNIPPED

If there really were genuine concerns then Network Rail would be forcing Vivarail to carry out more robust crash testing.

I’m not a big fan of this line of thinking. ECS moves can and will happen, crossing proximity to stations mean nothing so these need to be considered as high a risk as any other. Sure, the likelihood of a 60mph collision is lowered, but the risk is still as high.

It is necessary to distinguish between the likelihood of an event occurring and the consequences that may occur as a result of such an event.

In train collisions it is the kinetic energy of the vehicle(s) which has to be dissipated which causes damage. In the case quoted increasing the speed from 40mph to 60mph increases the train's kinetic energy by 2 1/4 times as kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.

So although the likelihood of a collision may not change, the consequences of a 40mph collision will be significantly less than one occurring at 60mph. However once an accident has started it is, to a large extent, in the lap of the gods how it plays out.

Nevertheless the likelihood of a collision is very low, so the overall risk to life and limb is also low.

I would also point out that it has been reported that the testing was carried out in accordance with the European TSI and EN15227 standards. There is nothing that Network Rail can legally request in terms of structural integrity in addition to these tests.
There are of course still the requirements that are infrastructure specific (electromagnetic compatibility, loading gauge and so on) that have to be met, but structural integrity and crash testing are not amongst them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not a big fan of this line of thinking. ECS moves can and will happen, crossing proximity to stations mean nothing so these need to be considered as high a risk as any other. Sure, the likelihood of a 60mph collision is lowered, but the risk is still as high.

Risk assessment combines severity and likelihood. If it were only on severity, nobody would ever go near a road because the severity is death.

 

[reddragon]

These trains passed their crash-worthiness test as part of type approval for NR, so this debate is irrelevant to the points raised

 

[Bantamzen]

These trains passed their crash-worthiness test as part of type approval for NR, so this debate is irrelevant to the points raised

Has it been established that the union concerns are around crash-worthiness yet? I fear the thread is getting ahead of itself.

 

[mushroomchow]

Has it been established that the union concerns are around crash-worthiness yet? I fear the thread is getting ahead of itself.

That was kind of my point - there seems to be an assumption that it is one of the union concerns, but I can't see a logical reason why it would be.

In other news, has testing been ongoing?