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

[DarloRich]

In other news, has testing been ongoing?

not on the Vale yet. The unit has been in the shed so there may be static training ongoing.

 

[trash80]

Isn't it quite common for a new type (and it is new for NR metals) having union concerns, might only be tweaks or more info required.

Went past the depot on Saturday, was hoping to see the 230 but it was hidden away

 

[Glenmutchkin]

In other news, has testing been ongoing?

Allellys are delivering the two coach battery demonstrator to Bo'ness at this very moment.

The plan is for gauging and test running this week with demonstration trips next week if all goes well. There should be the opportunity for the public to get a trip on Wednesday next week.

 

[Glenmutchkin]

First coach on the rails.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Hmmmm... Will it work in multi with the FrankenDVT?

 

[reddragon]

Wow that passed a lot of other Heritage Railways to get there!
None of those nearby any good?

 

[Glenmutchkin]

According to the internal briefing notice VivaRail have come to Bo'ness to demonstrate the train to "the Scottish Railway Industry, Government and Public".

They haven't passed too many Scottish Heritage lines to get to the B&KR.

 

[westcoaster]

not on the Vale yet. The unit has been in the shed so there may be static training ongoing.

Believe the unithas been out on test, seen video of it leaving Bedford.

 

[DarloRich]

Believe the unithas been out on test, seen video of it leaving Bedford.

yes but perhaps only one return trip

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has the "forum discussion" on another thread on whether or not the Class 230 units being under consideration for future use on the Island Line any definate statement of intent by the TOC that runs that line or is this just "forum chatter"?

 

[sprinterguy]

Has the "forum discussion" on another thread on whether or not the Class 230 units being under consideration for future use on the Island Line any definate statement of intent by the TOC that runs that line or is this just "forum chatter"?

Reputedly it was mentioned as SWRs' preferred option for Island Line in the October issue of Modern Railways. I can't answer definitively as I've not read it, but this article from March this year offers the following caveat:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/third-ryde-tube-transfer-troublesome/
Vivarail’s refurbished ex-D78 trains have often been suggested as a potential Island Line rolling stock solution. Being approximately the same height as mainline rolling stock, they would require the trackbed in Ryde Tunnel to be re-lowered, but even then they might not be suitable. The 1973 stock driving cars are 17.47m long. The D78 driving cars are 18.37m long. So if a 1973 stock carriage is too long for Ryde Esplanade station, a D78 is even longer. Until someone performs a proper gauging exercise, it’s impossible to rule replacement vehicles in or out.

 

[DarloRich]

They do seem like a sensible solution for the island line problem

 

[hwl]

Reputedly it was mentioned as SWTs' preferred option for Island Line in the October issue of Modern Railways. I can't answer definitively as I've not read it, but this article from March this year offers the following caveat:

There were quite a number of factual errors in the article (guest author and not enough editorial checking), the comments below are much better including pointing out the author didn't know enough about the tunnels, the problem low beams underneath the roundabout having been removed and a proper gauging study having been done.

 

[reddragon]

https://twitter.com/Vivarail/status/1047792081882759168

Please do RT - free rides on 230002 our battery train @bonessrailway next week - 10th, 11th and 12th October - all welcome!

 

[swt_passenger]

There were quite a number of factual errors in the article (guest author and not enough editorial checking), the comments below are much better including pointing out the author didn't know enough about the tunnels, the problem low beams underneath the roundabout having been removed and a proper gauging study having been done.

I think you’re referring to the March article quoted within the above post #6582. Because that has been removed by the forum software it now looks at first glance as though you’re also commenting on October’s MR...

 

[mushroomchow]

They could be a solution for Island Line, but I'm pretty sure that to do so would require work to Ryde Tunnel - at present they simply wouldn't fit and I can't see Network Rail stumping up the cash to do so for such a railway backwater. Closure beyond St. Johns has been mooted but would defeat much of the point of the railway's continued existence - namely, to link the east coast to day-trippers coming on the hovercraft and pier ferry.

Heck, about all you could get through there at present is existing Picadilly / Jubilee / Bakerloo stock and, if you're feeling adventurous, the Port of Par tank engines with some flat wagons.

I like the idea, but in reality 230s on the IoW are a non-starter. It's more likely they'll pick up some more modern ex-tube stock that will actually fit and give it the same treatment as the 38 stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They could be a solution for Island Line, but I'm pretty sure that to do so would require work to Ryde Tunnel - at present they simply wouldn't fit

They do fit, see the relevant thread. The beams in the tunnel have been replaced with narrower ones in recent years.

 

[mushroomchow]

They do fit, see the relevant thread. The beams in the tunnel have been replaced with narrower ones in recent years.

I was of the belief that the track level had been raised significantly to prevent tunnel flooding and that was the problem preventing anything taller than a subterranean unit operating? Isn't there a "hump" halfway through the tunnel that was the sticking point?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was of the belief that the track level had been raised significantly to prevent tunnel flooding and that was the problem preventing anything taller than a subterranean unit operating? Isn't there a "hump" halfway through the tunnel that was the sticking point?

It was that combined with the beams. With the beams narrowed mainline stock will fit as long as it doesn't clout the sides on the reverse curve, a problem D-stock won't have as it has very short vehicles (18m).

I believe PEP stock will also fit, though is unlikely to be used due to its condition.

Anyway, there's a thread for that!

 

[hwl]

I was of the belief that the track level had been raised significantly to prevent tunnel flooding and that was the problem preventing anything taller than a subterranean unit operating? Isn't there a "hump" halfway through the tunnel that was the sticking point?

The "hump" was actually in the roof height due to the former beams.

 

[hwl]

I think you’re referring to the March article quoted within the above post #6582. Because that has been removed by the forum software it now looks at first glance as though you’re also commenting on October’s MR...

Correct I was.

 

[mushroomchow]

It was that combined with the beams. With the beams narrowed mainline stock will fit as long as it doesn't clout the sides on the reverse curve, a problem D-stock won't have as it has very short vehicles (18m).

I believe PEP stock will also fit, though is unlikely to be used due to its condition.

Anyway, there's a thread for that!

If that's the case, gerremin! I can't think of many better candidates for the BEMU model to be honest - closed system, relatively long turnaround at each end for charging and a low-density timetable. There could be a case for the 3-car models too? The platforms are certainly long enough for 4-car trains as evidenced by them sometimes running in multiple at peak times in summer.

Even if it's not an economic line, it is at the very least one with potential as a testbed for the concept and could finally let the 38 stock retire after a noble run.

Now if the IOWSR could extend to the edge of Newport too, that would make me a happy mushroom.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that's the case, gerremin! I can't think of many better candidates for the BEMU model to be honest - closed system, relatively long turnaround at each end for charging and a low-density timetable. There could be a case for the 3-car models too?

Yeah, I'd go 3-car, even if the middle car ends up shunted out for the winter. With the Tube layout they would be able to absorb any crowds from the ferry with the guard still able to walk through all coaches to do tickets (he can't at present so money is being lost). No need for new seats, and no need for toilets (the present trains don't have them anyway) - just tart them up a bit and fit the batteries and gangway surrounds. Arguably no need for most of the crashworthiness work either, as they'll never meet any other type of stock head-on.

 

[adc82140]

Why would they need batteries? I didn't think there were any plans to de-electrify the line.

 

[gordonjahn]

It’s been reported a few times that the power supply isn’t robust so options cheaper than full-scale replacement of the third rail system (including converters) are being looked at.

Putting new supplies for charging at either end should be cheaper than fully refurbishing the 650V third rail system.

 

[Chris125]

Putting new supplies for charging at either end should be cheaper than fully refurbishing the 650V third rail system.

I find it very hard to believe that the whole-life costs of using heavy, expensive batteries would be any cheaper than renewing the 3rd rail infrastructure as and when necessary.

IMO it's probably suffered the same fate as all the other 'innovative' solutions proposed for Island Line, especially as recent reports about the 'costed option' by SWR and others made no mention of batteries while Heritage Railway supposedly reported that the 3rd rail would be retained.

 

[Clip]

I find it very hard to believe that the whole-life costs of using heavy, expensive batteries would be any cheaper than renewing the 3rd rail infrastructure as and when necessary.

IMO it's probably suffered the same fate as all the other 'innovative' solutions proposed for Island Line, especially as recent reports about the 'costed option' by SWR and others made no mention of batteries while Heritage Railway supposedly reported that the 3rd rail would be retained.

but the heavy batteries you mention would be maintained by the TOC and not NR so has more of a hance than trying to find the money in NR budget to replace the 3rd rail

 

[A0wen]

I find it very hard to believe that the whole-life costs of using heavy, expensive batteries would be any cheaper than renewing the 3rd rail infrastructure as and when necessary.

IMO it's probably suffered the same fate as all the other 'innovative' solutions proposed for Island Line, especially as recent reports about the 'costed option' by SWR and others made no mention of batteries while Heritage Railway supposedly reported that the 3rd rail would be retained.

There's also a number of infrastructure changes needed - e.g. if they want to move to a 'clockface' 30 min timetable rather than the current 20/40 the passing loop at Brading needs to be reinstated. There's also the oft talked about extension of the IoWSR to Ryde St Johns. In that context removal of the 3rd rail and use of battery or hybrid trains would seem to make alot of sense. It also removes the need to have 750v third rail above water along the pier head.

The way battery technology is evolving there's every chance these units could do 20 years service and the powerpacks be changed for later, more efficient versions every 5 years.

 

[jopsuk]

Found a video of the battery powered 230002 under test at Bo'ness on Friday

 

[samuelmorris]

Without the engine noise masking it, the traction kit really does sound loud doesn't it. That was obvious from even the diesel version but given the relatively modest soundproofing in the D stock, that's going to permeate into the cabin quite a bit.