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

[Bletchleyite]

Well you could scrub electrification of the Midland line in favour of more local schemes, but then you would need to look at what to replace the HST's with, you would probably still want to electrify to Corby at least as the plan is to significantly increase the capacity and frequency on the Corby service, and might provide a home for some of many redundant EMU's we will have by 2020.

Adding Corby to Thameslink might prove a significant regeneration benefit for Corby?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I take your point about some wages in the S/E, and it is a fair one. But generally prices in that region are driven by the market average, and that tends to be higher elsewhere. Is it fair, absolutely not and something that needs tackling. But that's for another thread.

For me the problem with the 230s has always been the economics of them. Initially they were touted as being possibly just 1/3rd of the cost of a new unit (although this may have been a misinterpretation of the original blurb). Then as the cost seemed to rise, VR laid on renders of totally refurbished units, inside and out, only mentioning deep in the small print that these were not the standard interiors but optional extras. And when the first test unit rolled out onto the tracks, it was really just a pair of slightly tarted up D-Stock carriages to be joined later by a slightly more tarted up again middle trailer. It looked nothing like the early renders that they tried to woo the TOCs with, but pretty much a D-Stock with some diesel engines slung underneath to provide power to the traction units. And for 2/3rds of the cost but with maybe half the expected life span of new units, not to mention the possible operational restrictions, it hardly looked like the answer to the prayers of TOCs.

The idea that Northern as one of the most heavily subsidised TOCs should take at least some to lower costs of some of their branches ignores the fact that in 10-15 years (admittedly outside of the franchise period) Northern would be stuck with the same problem again, units running into end-of-life and needing replacing, along with large portions of the rest of it's fleet. In other words they don't offer the long-term solution the franchise needs, being cheaper is meaningless if you have to replace far more frequently. So it makes sense for them to order new units and accept cascades rather than pay a heavy price for units that are seriously limited.

As for elsewhere on the network, well the same economics apply. An expensive for what it is unit, probably only capable of limited operation that will need replacing within a couple of franchise periods. LM were going to take a look, but a single fail has seen them back off. This really ought to be telling. Maybe VR need to look further afield where operators are prepared / forced to run units way beyond their expected life span?

For me I am not sure if the 2/3rds cost of a 230 is the annual cost or the total cost. If it is the annual cost then the TOTAL (edit) cost is *theoretically* spread over fewer years than an alternative DMU. So, if it is the annual cost, then the 230s are more tempting.

There is no saying how long a unit would last !. The Pacers are still going strong (oh er ?) long after they were intended in my view. But then the railways always did sweat the assets for as long as possible. If we were talking about cars then all those better off people buy a new car because they want to - that causes a cascade to benefit the likes of me !.

As I remember it the problem BR had was that all their original DMUs had been built over a rather short period of time (end of steam). So they were all coming up for replacement relatively close together time wise. One of BRs aims was to spread that demand for replacements next time round over a longer period of time - which is beginning to be now ?. The advantage being that then the railway manufacturing industry could gear up for a demand that was less but continued over a longer period of time. The period of time was hoped to be long enough that the first Sprinters would need replacements just as the orders would otherwise dry up. The advantage would be a regular supply of work for the workshops rather than train costs being higher to cover the setup costs of a workshop that was likely to fall into disuse too early to otherwise justify the set up costs. One argument in favour of the Pacers was that they were to be a short life solution so that they were just enough to get that building rate spread. As I understand it the Pacers were built outside the normal train building industry. For that to work the pacers need to be replaced before the 150s !.

I personally agree with the above aspiration. However I fear it is not what is really happening. But one hope, maybe, is that the 230s could spread that new build demand this time round. The whole plan is a mess anyway because electrification is not contributing to the solution. Its this damn reality again :roll:.

 

[A0]

Adding Corby to Thameslink might prove a significant regeneration benefit for Corby?

Relevant to the 230s how exactly?......

 

[Bletchleyite]

Relevant to the 230s how exactly?......

It's a reason not to use 230s to there I guess...

 

[47802]

The idea that Northern as one of the most heavily subsidised TOCs should take at least some to lower costs of some of their branches ignores the fact that in 10-15 years (admittedly outside of the franchise period) Northern would be stuck with the same problem again, units running into end-of-life and needing replacing, along with large portions of the rest of it's fleet. In other words they don't offer the long-term solution the franchise needs, being cheaper is meaningless if you have to replace far more frequently. So it makes sense for them to order new units and accept cascades rather than pay a heavy price for units that are seriously limited.

As for elsewhere on the network, well the same economics apply. An expensive for what it is unit, probably only capable of limited operation that will need replacing within a couple of franchise periods. LM were going to take a look, but a single fail has seen them back off. This really ought to be telling. Maybe VR need to look further afield where operators are prepared / forced to run units way beyond their expected life span?

Indeed as it is Northern is going have a large fleet of DMU's to replace in the mid 2020's. the D train would have just added more, given the new franchise doesn't start until 2025 then 2 to 3 years to build new trains means you would probably be still riding D trains in 2027 and for other franchises it could be longer, is that the sort of product we should be offering on the railways in the mid to late 2020's

Of course the idea was they would be replaced by electric trains or newer cascaded units from electrification projects but clearly that's not going to happen to any great degree now, so you might as well look at buying some new self powered trains now.

 

[A0]

It's a reason not to use 230s to there I guess...

Apart from Bedford-Bletchley as a suggestion, I don't think any suggestions have been made about 230s appearing anywhere near the MML.

And the current rolling stock changes don't alter that.

 

[kieron]

Anglia have ordered new stock
Anglia’s subsidy profile means that it may be cost effective for them to order additional new stock, over and above franchise commitments
Anglia’s new stock doesn’t rely on any infrastructure enhancements, so they won’t find that their sums are wrong because of any Network Rail delay

I'm struggling to follow the logic here. You assert that Anglia may find it cost effective to order additional stock (which would mean that they are more likely to wish to hire extra diesel trains in the future, such as 230s), and then that they don't expect any electrification in their franchise area (and so are less likely to wish to hire extra diesel trains in the future). Which franchise do you feel is more likely to hire 230s again?

Anglia have ordered versatile bi-modes

Anglia have ordered bi-modes so that they have trains capable of running to London along a congested mainline. That's not something any of the trains through Cantley need to do, so diesels could work better there.

 

[Hophead]

Seems to me that the Vivarail project has pretty much been overtaken by events. Partly this is due to the procurement of diesel units by Northern and Anglia, but also due to the rather sluggish performance of the project itself (a quick click on Page 1 has the first post in July 2014, so that's 2 1/2 years during which absolutely no passengers have been carried). I am now wondering if any of us will ever get the opportunity to sample the performance of the units themselves?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Seems to me that the Vivarail project has pretty much been overtaken by events. Partly this is due to the procurement of diesel units by Northern and Anglia, but also due to the rather sluggish performance of the project itself (a quick click on Page 1 has the first post in July 2014, so that's 2 1/2 years during which absolutely no passengers have been carried). I am now wondering if any of us will ever get the opportunity to sample the performance of the units themselves?

Well. The first post in the Class 800 thread was May 2014 so a little further back in time than for this 230 thread. Those trains have not carried fare paying passengers yet either. However I would expect them to be carrying passengers soon as a lot more money has been spent on them so far.

An awful lot of 800s/801s/802s have been ordered for such an unproven design and I would prefer the cautious approach of the 230 development although time is passing it by. Irony is that it is the 800s that could benefit from a less rushed development since there is very little electrification to justify them !. Its the cascades of older stock that are the urgency though.

 

[47802]

Well. The first post in the Class 800 thread was May 2014 so a little further back in time than for this 230 thread. Those trains have not carried fare paying passengers yet either. However I would expect them to be carrying passengers soon as a lot more money has been spent on them so far.

An awful lot of 800s/801s/802s have been ordered for such an unproven design and I would prefer the cautious approach of the 230 development although time is passing it by. Irony is that it is the 800s that could benefit from a less rushed development since there is very little electrification to justify them !. Its the cascades of older stock that are the urgency though.

Hmm not totally unproven as parts of it are based on the 395's, plus Hitachi are a large company with a track record of building reliable trains, while Vivarail is the Railway equivalent of a back street garage, and as they really meant to be an HST replacement which require significant upgrades to be retained I don't see how you can say there little to justify them

It does strike me that the Vivarail project has some parallels with Blackpools first prototype new tram built by some tin pot company which burst into flames(oh sounds familiar) Blackpool then with the help of a government grant eventually bought some decent trams from an established manufacturer.

 

[D60]

Hmm not totally unproven as parts of it are based on the 395's, plus Hitachi are a large company with a track record of building reliable trains, while Vivarail is the Railway equivalent of a back street garage, and as they really meant to be an HST replacement which require significant upgrades to be retained I don't see how you can say there little to justify them

It does strike me that the Vivarail project has some parallels with Blackpools first prototype new tram built by some tin pot company which burst into flames(oh sounds familiar) Blackpool then with the help of a government grant eventually bought some decent trams from an established manufacturer.

(Off topic, but.... The prototype tram that was trialled on the Blackpool tramway was just that and nothing more... In that it was not commissioned by Blackpool Transport, or trialled on behalf of Blackpool Transport... It was a private/independent initiative to break into the UK tram market as part of a wider aspiration to promote trams and light rail as a practical transport solution... Blackpool just happened to provide convenient infrastructure to trial it on...)

 

[47802]

(Off topic, but.... The prototype tram that was trialled on the Blackpool tramway was just that and nothing more... In that it was not commissioned by Blackpool Transport, or trialled on behalf of Blackpool Transport... It was a private/independent initiative to break into the UK tram market as part of a wider aspiration to promote trams and light rail as a practical transport solution... Blackpool just happened to provide convenient infrastructure to trial it on...)

OK I stand corrected but doesn't mean to say Blackpool wouldn't have looked at it had been any good, you could argue the same about the D train in that its a private initiative which may not be of any interest to the TOC's.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Fuel leak caused fire on Vivarail test train

02/02/2017 in Network

A fuel leak has been determined as the cause of a fire that broke out on-board Vivarail’s prototype D-Train while on test in Kenilworth on December 30.

This is the main conclusion of Vivarail’s final internal investigation report that was published today (February 2), and which lays the blame at a repair intervention made to one of the train’s engines by an external supplier.

The company says the fault was not spotted before the fire due to “a lack of suitable test procedures”, and has pledged to introduce more rigorous testing to components that have undergone repair.

It also proposes to improve the design of the vehicle, which failed to satisfy the testing requirement for new trains that stipulates trains must be able to run for a minimum of 15 minutes in the event of a fire. The D-Train’s brakes were instead applied automatically after the fire triggered a loss of air pressure.

Vivarail Chief Executive Adrian Shooter said: “We believe that we have found the root cause and a number of contributory factors which prolonged the fire.

“We are determined that there will never be a repetition and believe that the measures we have set out will achieve that end. As a minimum, they will all be put in hand before the train is put back in service. We are continuing to take advice in some areas and may make further improvements.

“One consequence of the fire, which burned for about 30 minutes, is that the measures we had installed to protect the car body were thoroughly tested and found to be very effective.”

A full analysis of the report will be available in RAIL 820, published on February 15.

Author: Paul Stephen
[email protected]
tel: 01733 468521

Source: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/fuel-leak-caused-fire-on-vivarail-test-train

The report itself is on Vivarail's website at:

http://www.vivarail.co.uk/wp-conten...01-Class-230-Full-Fire-Report-Action-Plan.pdf

(Large PDF)

 

[WatcherZero]

Ive done a long writeup on another forum, but suffice to say it was a mess of inappropriate and poorly designed hose layout, a recurring fuel leak problem that they didn't appear to be actively seeking the cause of just repairing it whenever it occurred (hoses fine at idle kept seriously leaking fuel at high revs but their static tests wernt testing high enough to identify it). Use of inappropriate materials (for example on several engines the compressor oil sight which is made of plastic had melted releasing flammable fluids). The Cabs were only wired to receive fault lights in the vehicle being driven and so a driver would not be aware of faults in other vehicles and the fault lights wouldn't be relayed to other cabs. Engine cut off lever was right next to the engine (unusable in a fire) and wouldn't have worked anyway as there were hoses between it and the valve which could melt/be damaged by track debris. They had repurposed the normal automotive hoses (operating range -40 to +100 degrees) which came with the engine which their raft supplier said (and still insists) are fine but the Ford technical manual they only checked afterwards says should be replaced. They didn't have a process to check that hoses were tightened to the correct torque. They should have been tightened to 30 Nm but in testing after the fire they were found to be only tightened to 20 Nm and had serious play.

While the engine fire wall held the cabling insulation in the underfloor cable ducts was found to have suffered serious heat damage and wouldn't have continued to operate much longer (close to itself igniting), it will need to be replaced before the vehicle can be used again.

It failed the TSI of being able to operate for 15 minutes during a fire (air hoses melted and air reservoir emptied after 4 minutes). There also appears to have been immediate smoke penetration of the saloon but Vivarail are trying to deflect that by blaming firemen and doors.

They seem to have had fires while testing on almost every one of the engines at some stage and all suffered from the fuel leaks.


All in all before it operates again its going to require serious redesign of all their hoses layout and spec and replacement of materials like the plastic compressor oil sight which melts at normal engine operating temperatures.

 

[Peter Sarf]

So that is relatively good news. A few lessons learned. It showed that the body withstood the fire OK. The most interesting lesson seems to be that the train automatically stopped when they would have preferred it to keep going. I presume that would be so that a driver would have a choice of where the passengers could be detrained from - I am thinking limping to a station platform is better than detraining on a plain bit of (busy) line in the middle of nowhere.

I have to enquire. Should consideration be given to the possibility of a similar scenario, exercised in the form of a test situation, to be urgently carried out on a Class 800. Wot with them engines aving to work arder than expected, if you get my drift :roll:.

EDIT :- Just seen WatcherZero's post which just got in ahead of me.

Is that too many hoses crammed in around an engine in a tight space ?.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've just had a read, and it seems to identify some appallingly dangerous design features (and obviously so) in the layout of the genset. Most concerning.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've just read Watcher's post over on WNXX and frankly it doesn't sound good. I'm no expert but it sounds to all intents that the design is basically flawed, and will require a fairly major redesign before going back out for some more rigorous testing.

It all sounds a bit like a back street garage job, and a rushed one at that, even though it took so long.....

(Dons tin hat)

 

[Peter Sarf]

I would hope that all it means is that better hoses are required - or proper pipes. Also clearer definitions of the torque required on hose connections. But if it involves changing the routes of hoses then its going to get "involved".

 

[superkev]

Ive done a long writeup on another forum, but suffice to say it was a mess of inappropriate and poorly designed hose layout, a recurring fuel leak problem that they didn't appear to be actively seeking the cause of just repairing it whenever it occurred (hoses fine at idle kept seriously leaking fuel at high revs but their static tests wernt testing high enough to identify it). Use of inappropriate materials (for example on several engines the compressor oil sight which is made of plastic had melted releasing flammable fluids). The Cabs were only wired to receive fault lights in the vehicle being driven and so a driver would not be aware of faults in other vehicles and the fault lights wouldn't be relayed to other cabs. Engine cut off lever was right next to the engine (unusable in a fire) and wouldn't have worked anyway as there were hoses between it and the valve which could melt/be damaged by track debris. They had repurposed the normal automotive hoses (operating range -40 to +100 degrees) which came with the engine which their raft supplier said (and still insists) are fine but the Ford technical manual they only checked afterwards says should be replaced. They didn't have a process to check that hoses were tightened to the correct torque. They should have been tightened to 30 Nm but in testing after the fire they were found to be only tightened to 20 Nm and had serious play.

While the engine fire wall held the cabling insulation in the underfloor cable ducts was found to have suffered serious heat damage and wouldn't have continued to operate much longer (close to itself igniting), it will need to be replaced before the vehicle can be used again.

It failed the TSI of being able to operate for 15 minutes during a fire (air hoses melted and air reservoir emptied after 4 minutes). There also appears to have been immediate smoke penetration of the saloon but Vivarail are trying to deflect that by blaming firemen and doors.

They seem to have had fires while testing on almost every one of the engines at some stage and all suffered from the fuel leaks.


All in all before it operates again its going to require serious redesign of all their hoses layout and spec and replacement of materials like the plastic compressor oil sight which melts at normal engine operating temperatures.

Sad that we seem to be having to 're learn how to do engineering again something the UK once excelled in. I hope they learn from there mistakes and the project ultimately gets a fair trial
K
K

 

[coppercapped]

I've just read Watcher's post over on WNXX and frankly it doesn't sound good. I'm no expert but it sounds to all intents that the design is basically flawed, and will require a fairly major redesign before going back out for some more rigorous testing.

It all sounds a bit like a back street garage job, and a rushed one at that, even though it took so long.....

(Dons tin hat)

You'll need it. Typical RUK hyperbole.

"The design" - with the implication that its the whole concept that is meant - is not flawed. There are inadequacies in the genset design which can be fixed by re-routing some pipework and in some cases changing the materials. The materials selected for some other components need to be changed. The need to change the extinguishing material in the fire bottles had already been identified.

The genset frame and the carrying structure under the coach did not distort.

A more significant change is that the control circuits need to be modified. This may be more time consuming than reworking the gensets depending on how easy it is to re-configure the wiring.

Maintenance activities need to be more tightly controlled.

That's why one builds prototypes.

 

[squizzler]

I have two thoughts:

1. The confirmation bias which means a technical report identifying weaknesses in a generator design along with recommendations to address said weaknesses is proof that housing a diesel generator in a metal box along with its ancillaries (a concept used for almost every genset built from hospital backup to travelling fair) is a potential death trap that must immediately be outlawed.

2. The quality of automotive engines - or perhaps just Ford ones - leaves something to be desired. The high incidence of leaks found on engines subject to a technically monitored trial suggests that in the real world these things must be squirting fuel all over the place. I guess that slipstream around the front of vans must be blasting the fuel away before it does too much harm.

I wonder if, in practice, these engines need to be completely blueprinted (i.e. rebuilt to superior tolerance) for rail use - which would reduce their appeal as a cheap-as-chip alternative to the serious engines normally used on trains.

 

[edwin_m]

I have to agree with those that are saying this is bad news for Vivarail. The items posted look to me like elementary mistakes that anyone with rolling stock design experience shouldn't have made. Maybe finding one design slip-up and a few maintenance instructions during testing would be acceptable but this number of mistakes really isn't.

The most concerning to me is the fact that fault indications weren't displayed in other vehicles - meaning that with DOO or with the guard going through the train the driver could be unaware of something serious developing further back. The fault light circuit is a basic bit of engineering that provides a defence against lots of other problems turning into major hazards.

So despite thinking this could be a good idea in principle, I suspect Vivarail have shot themselves in the foot with the implementation.

 

[WatcherZero]

2. The quality of automotive engines - or perhaps just Ford ones - leaves something to be desired. The high incidence of leaks found on engines subject to a technically monitored trial suggests that in the real world these things must be squirting fuel all over the place. I guess that slipstream around the front of vans must be blasting the fuel away before it does too much harm.

I wonder if, in practice, these engines need to be completely blueprinted (i.e. rebuilt to superior tolerance) for rail use - which would reduce their appeal as a cheap-as-chip alternative to the serious engines normally used on trains.

The fuel leaks arent occuring in the engine blocks but in the high pressure fuel pipework. The report suggests the vivarail engineers didnt have the correct tools and experience and so they were not being tightened to the correct torque and thus loose, leaking at high engine revs. There are several incidents of fuel leaks (including one after the fire!) and the pipework in the burnt genset was tightened to a torque of around 20 Nm when the Ford specs say it should have been tightened to 30.

 

[47802]

In other words a second rate under engineered product from a tin pot company. Hopefully the TOC's will give it the short shrift it deserves.

 

[D365]

In other words a second rate under engineered product from a tin pot company. Hopefully the TOC's will give it the short shrift it deserves.

:roll: Would you have said the same about the Class 73 rebuilds, for example?

 

[Bletchleyite]

:roll: Would you have said the same about the Class 73 rebuilds, for example?

Were they by Vivarail?

 

[Bletchleyite]

the pipework in the burnt genset was tightened to a torque of around 20 Nm when the Ford specs say it should have been tightened to 30.

I can't help but think they were just going to "quarter turn past b----y tight" or somesuch. Anyone got a torque wrench? Not as if they are actually expensive.

 

[47802]

:roll: Would you have said the same about the Class 73 rebuilds, for example?

I think the jury is still out on that one, to be fair new and rebuilt trains me have some teething issues, but if you have potentially got shoddy engineering to start with it doesn't bode well.

 

[D60]

In other words a second rate under engineered product from a tin pot company. Hopefully the TOC's will give it the short shrift it deserves.

It might be worth mentioning (again) that the engine rafts were developed and supplied by a company called Revolve Technologies of Brentwood, Essex, who apparently are engine and transmission specialists, albeit in the automotive field...
But yes, it would've been hoped or expected that the experienced railway engineers at Vivarail would've had more rigorous critical oversight over what was being installed...

 

[tsr]

Aside from the considerations of engine design, can anybody think of any passenger train which has successfully run for 15 minutes whilst on fire, perhaps excluding those trains which have accidentally carried burning cargo in the Channel Tunnel?

Again excluding the special case of said Tunnel, can anyone think of any situation in which you'd be likely to want to run for that long whilst on fire? Surely the regular national network routes don't comprise that many locations where you can't stop for quarter of an hour? On my patch I think the longest distance (even a few tens of mph below linespeed) would take about half that time to cover. And I live in a part of the world with quite a few lengthy tunnels!

Lastly, I should make members aware that there are plenty of trains which transmit extremely vague fault light information back to the driver, in some cases such that it is impossible to tell where the problem on the train actually is, including but not limited to a good chunk of the Turbostar family.

I am not denying that current best practice for rolling stock is a good thing, but it is perhaps unrealistic to expect all trains accepted to public passenger service to be capable of performing so well, and maybe we should have graduated milestones within a broader spectrum of categories of usage. I am glad we have moved in the direction of scrutinising things like the hoses, as that's more realistic for day-to-day use.