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

[D365]

SpacePhoenix asked for the title of the thread to be edited to include the confirmed TOPS class number for them.

However the conversion is more familiar to most under the name of D-Train.

I cannot help feeling a 2ltr trannie engine is not enough remember the slow performance of the 1st generation DMU with uprated bus engines
lets see give them a good trashing, how about the valley lines till they get the sparks!

Remember that the D-Train reuses the existing traction motors, the diesel engines do not provide the motive force directly at rail.

 

[northwichcat]

Amazing all the anti Pacer posts, a few years after they have gone you will get all the rose tinted glasses posts about pacers. Just like all the loving posts about 1st gen DMU's and EMU's o and lets not forget steam heat Mk1's.

There are a minority of enthusiasts who like Pacers but I think it's fair to say the overall opinion from passengers is they are unsuitable for the routes they run and they should have been replaced already.

Maybe it's a servicing issue out west.

With the exception of the end of the evening (occasionally) the loos on most Yorkshire services seem to be ok in my experience.

I wonder if they get more use on west side diagrams. I've don't recall ever going in to a Pacer toilet and finding it's run out of water in the morning but on services as early as 2pm I have found that.

 

[route:oxford]

This is going on and on a bit.
Lets hope they get one or two into a proper on the ground test service soon, so that we can see the reaction and what they can do in real service
I cannot help feeling a 2ltr trannie engine is not enough remember the slow performance of the 1st generation DMU with uprated bus engines
lets see give them a good trashing, how about the valley lines till they get the sparks!

"2ltr" isn't exactly helpful.

10 years ago, my Renault Megane 1.9ltr engine gave me 80ps
7 years ago, my Golf 1.9ltr engine gave me 110ps
3 years ago my Golf 1.6ltr engine gave me 106ps

Today I can buy a Golf with a 1.0ltr engine that gives 115ps

I suspect that a Petrol-Electric 101 running with 3 modern day 115ps turning the alternators would be a very comfortable beast.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I cannot help feeling a 2ltr trannie engine is not enough remember the slow performance of the 1st generation DMU with uprated bus engines lets see give them a good trashing, how about the valley lines till they get the sparks!

These 230's (which to me look like Marlards, because of the livery) would sound great with a Transit engine in. It'd remind me of my mates knackered Transit.

 

[Haydn1971]

These 230's (which to me look like Marlards, because of the livery) would sound great with a Transit engine in. It'd remind me of my mates knackered Transit.

Only difference is that the engines are brand spanking new, tuned for generating electric so purring along at low revs - I'm surprised but also pleased to read on Wikipedia that the units will be the 5 cylinder 3.2l Puma unit rather than one of the often suggested 2.0l units.

 

[Class 170101]

4. the D trains are basically Light rail units and certainly a lot concern has been expressed on the WNXX forum about the crash worthiness of these trains.

I thought this issue had gone away with Shooters team undertaking a test proving that they are safe?

 

[Haydn1971]

I thought this issue had gone away with Shooters team undertaking a test proving that they are safe?

Have any details or photos been released of that crash test ?

 

[CLH]

Yes. They crashed it into a 3ton tank of water - albeit only at 36kmh. It was certainly dinted but not smashed to pieces. Mind you I'm not sure I trust their crash test given it was only carried out at 22mph.

See here

 

[Haydn1971]

Indeed... Whilst it would cover some collisions, I'd be interested to see how an intercity hitting it at 90mph would go

To add... I recall some talk of the 125mph multiple units having passenger free crash zones for passenger safety - I'm baffled as to why a 75mph train doesn't need that same passenger free space when they run on the same lines as 125mph stock. Note to self, don't sit in the first half of the sprinter on my way to work

 

[HSTEd]

That would render multiple unit operation totally uneconomic.

Or more likely simply end 125mph operation.

 

[Domh245]

Indeed... Whilst it would cover some collisions, I'd be interested to see how an intercity hitting it at 90mph would go

I'd be interested in the scenario where any other train gets hit by another train with a closing speed of 90mph, there would have to be some very lax procedures and wrong side failures to allow that! I would also be interested in seeing the result of similar crash tests for other stock.

If anyone wants to do some more informed speculation on the crashworthiness of the Cl.230s, have a look at this little diagram, which summarises EN15227 (The much referred to 'crash regs' as certain members might say!) fairly well. I can't elaborate on said diagram, as I don't have £140 lying around to purchase the standards, but the Vivarail test would appear to be based on scenario 3. Needless to say, nowhere do I see a requirement for crash testing at 90mph!

As a side note, if anybody could actually explain the steps referred to in the diagram, it would be very much appreciated!

 

[Haydn1971]

Ah, interesting - cheers for that

To be fair, 90mph was simply plucked out the air by me. Interestingly it's 110kph rather than the over 100mph that's often been suggested as the point where the space is required. However I do have a dim recollection of someone clarifying the voyager situation as being a compromise at the time. Could that possibly have been because of the lack of a test at that time ???

My comment is rather poked at any train rather than just the 230. Yes, something would have to go massively wrong for a high speed collision, but it's possible, so if the 22x & 390's had to meet that extra space demand, why not the 180's or 395's ?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes. They crashed it into a 3ton tank of water - albeit only at 36kmh. It was certainly dinted but not smashed to pieces. Mind you I'm not sure I trust their crash test given it was only carried out at 22mph.

See here

Do Vivarail have any plans to conduct a second test at 50-60mph and if not, would any evaluating authority accept the test that has already been carried out as acceptable?

 

[gazthomas]

Do Vivarail have any plans to conduct a second test at 50-60mph and if not, would any evaluating authority accept the test that has already been carried out as acceptable?

Was one ever done for a Pacer? I think it would not fair too well!

 

[CLH]

Do Vivarail have any plans to conduct a second test at 50-60mph and if not, would any evaluating authority accept the test that has already been carried out as acceptable?

I wouldn't say the test they did was acceptable - if you look at the pictures, the tank of water moved away from the train, while at the same time the train must have stopped almost immediately. If they'd used a solid object which wouldn't take the momentum of the train (I've a great big concrete block), I think the outcome would have been quite different - the cab might not deform but the crash would be horrific for anybody on board.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't say the test they did was acceptable - if you look at the pictures, the tank of water moved away from the train, while at the same time the train must have stopped almost immediately. If they'd used a solid object which wouldn't take the momentum of the train (I've a great big concrete block), I think the outcome would have been quite different - the cab might not deform but the crash would be horrific for anybody on board.

Any train crash involving an immovable object is going to be horrific for anybody on board.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is both interesting and slightly chilling - presumably it's designed so that when it crumples the driver is thrown back into the "survival space"?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Aren't most "crash tests" done using computer modelling and/or mock-ups of vehicles on a test-rig? Otherwise, every new design would require at least one extra vehicle to be built and then written off...

 

[HSTEd]

Do we have any dimensions on those 200hp 'generator rafts'?
I know they are 900mm or less tall but what about width of length.

Trying to eyeball any empty space below the solebar of the PEP EMUs.
Class 315 electrodiesel....

 

[Haydn1971]

As a side note, if anybody could actually explain the steps referred to in the diagram, it would be very much appreciated!

Downloaded the EN for reading on the train... If it's anything like other EN's I've read, I'll be none the wiser after reading

 

[route:oxford]

Do we have any dimensions on those 200hp 'generator rafts'?
I know they are 900mm or less tall but what about width of length.

Trying to eyeball any empty space below the solebar of the PEP EMUs.
Class 315 electrodiesel....

I'm thinking of severely flood damaged 156...

Pair of these slung beneath each carriage and conversion to electric traction package.

800hp of Class 156. That would move...

 

[HSTEd]

I'm thinking of severely flood damaged 156...

Pair of these slung beneath each carriage and conversion to electric traction package.

800hp of Class 156. That would move...

Could probably splice an ex HST Mark 3 into that

2 car 156 into a 3 car unit.

 

[Haydn1971]

Reading between the lines, EN15227 essentially says that crash mitigation is the last step and passive safety (avoidance) is what's aimed for - this scenarios are typically the most common collision types, rather than all possible collision types.

My reading of the standard is that the testing at 110kph only required for "TEN and similar operation with level crossings" - TEN being Trans European Network. Put simply, I'm reading this as the 230 doesn't have to pass the 110kph test if it's not using a level crossing on the TEN.

The document does go on to outline risk process, which does explicitly refer factors such as operational speed, use on lines with level crossings and signal control methods etc, so I'd imagine the "approval" process for running on the network would have a whole host of risk assessment process and documentation far in excess of the guff I have to do for Highways England projects.

The TEN is outlined on page three of this (for passenger trains) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-guidelines/doc/maps/ie-uk.pdf

 

[Class377/5]

That is both interesting and slightly chilling - presumably it's designed so that when it crumples the driver is thrown back into the "survival space"?

No, the drivers seat is shown to be behind the dotted line, ie his seat is in the "survival space". Idea is cab protrudes out and crumples to near the drivers seating position, leaving his cab area safely alone.

Aren't most "crash tests" done using computer modelling and/or mock-ups of vehicles on a test-rig? Otherwise, every new design would require at least one extra vehicle to be built and then written off...

Correct.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah I see, missed the dotted line.

 

[northwichcat]

If the D-Train doesn't work out an alternative use has been found for old Tube carriages. Instead of Londoners using them to get to work, Londoners work in them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34073082

 

[THC]

If the D-Train doesn't work out an alternative use has been found for old Tube carriages. Instead of Londoners using them to get to work, Londoners work in them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34073082

They've been there for a few years now. Visible from the London Overground between Hoxton and SHS, on the old Broad Street formation.

If the D-Train doesn't work out then a great home for the prototype would be the Epping & Ongar Railway. While D stock never worked that far, at least the EOR would have a genuine Underground train in its fleet!

THC

 

[D365]

If the D-Train doesn't work out then a great home for the prototype would be the Epping & Ongar Railway. While D stock never worked that far, at least the EOR would have a genuine Underground train in its fleet!

Not quite genuine now that Vivarail are sawing through them... But if they (or another heritage railway) can get hold of some D-Trains in a few years time they'll be pretty good runners!

 

[Clip]

Do Vivarail have any plans to conduct a second test at 50-60mph and if not, would any evaluating authority accept the test that has already been carried out as acceptable?

Did anyone crash a pendo at full whack before they were let onto our network?

I wouldn't say the test they did was acceptable - if you look at the pictures, the tank of water moved away from the train, while at the same time the train must have stopped almost immediately. If they'd used a solid object which wouldn't take the momentum of the train (I've a great big concrete block), I think the outcome would have been quite different - the cab might not deform but the crash would be horrific for anybody on board.

Out of interest how qualified are you in crash testing to make such a statement? And why would they write off a vehicle just to appease someone on a forum?

 

[HSTEd]

As Eschede demonstrates - a high speed crash into a non moveable mass of concrete translates as 'everybody dead'

 

[northwichcat]

Apparently Abellio Anglia are looking at the possibility of using D-Trains and also Southern for Marshlink services.