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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Being an in-house report, there is no guarantee that it will be released to the public. It is surely a question of if, not when.

Thankfully, it was released into the public domain with very little delay.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

"Inadequacies" indeed. Call it hyperbole if you will, but it doesn't distract from the fact that it seems that the design was seriously flawed and the maintenance was not up to scratch. The only saving grace for VR in all of this is that it wasn't in public service when the fault occurred. The media would have had a field day with it, 35 year old, ex-subsurface stock bursting into flames when being trialed as a cheap replacement for younger units. That would have been their angle at the very least.

 

[M7R]

There are a few things extra to pick up on.. i work in the approval field of the automotive world and from reading the reports the other bits that raise an eye brow for me (apart from the avboius ones like no eng test at full power before fitting, or the very obvious issue of the fuel cut off valve leaving a fuel filter and a good length of pipe full of fuel, with no way of stopping it emptying the tank....) is the fact that it would appear no one has done a detailed FMEA in the gen set. (Failure mode and effects analysis - basically a devil advocate of if this fails what happens etc). The report makes a passing mention of an extra 5l of engine oil being contained within the gen set, but in a plastic container. This implies no one has considered what happens should there be a fire within the genset, a metal fire box which will enevitably contain the fire.

The other issue is the lack of formal communication between genset supplier and vivarail. There is no change control process in place, or if there is they aren't working as the report also says that's the fire extinguisher was changed from gas to powder, but again vivarail did not know this. This is a fundamental part of any supplier / customer relationship, and is very important where things like approvals are concerened as any changes will need to be assessed to see if it invalidates the existing approvals and needs recertification. I do not know if the fire extinguisher systems are "approved" on rolling stock or if it is more of a self cert thing, but either way the fact vivarail did not know if not good. What else has the genset supplier changed??

 

[squizzler]

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.

You get the impression that your local garage will bother to dig out the torque wrench even where rail engineers just wing it. I think we all would like their number!

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.

It sounds like the genset supplier goofed (see next quote). Nonetheless an engine specialist would be assumed to follow workshop procedures more tightly than the average car garage. Yet vans don't catch fire all the time.

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...

Three car unit = 6 engines, one of which went pop. It sounds like Adrian (six) Shooter inadvertently a new variation of Russian roulette! Revolve technologies? Revolver technologies more like.

Joking aside the report gives the impression that main issues are addressed the learning curve is advanced and I hope the rail gods don't continue to wreak their vengeance on vulnerable automotive technology!

 

[A0wen]

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.

And your qualification for making such an assertion is.....?

Are you an engineer by chance?

 

[A0wen]

I have two thoughts:

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.

No - as someone else has pointed out some of the components had not been tightened to the manufacturers specification - if you under-tighten components such as injectors then you will end up with fuel leaks - that you've not followed the manufacturer's specification isn't the fault of the manufacturer or poor design.

 

[Dstock7080]

Three car unit = 6 engines, one of which went pop.

4 engines on 3-car unit, only on driving motor cars.

 

[reddragon]

Well the good news is . . as diesels are to be phased out in cars / vans over the next 10 years this problem will fade away and the D78s will have to find another power source!

It does mean though, our automotive industry has abandoned any further development of the small diesel engine and moved their efforts onto batteries & electrics.

Progress

 

[Bletchleyite]

And your qualification for making such an assertion is.....?

The fact that placing the fire isolation control in a place where it is likely to be inaccessible during a fire is blindly stupid to anyone who has ever seen a motor vehicle?

 

[47802]

So aside from the potential Fire issues what is clear when this thing is fixed that reliability needs to be very thoroughly tested and maintenance costs very closely investigated.

Meanwhile the new 195's are getting proven MTU engines.

 

[NickBucks]

I am not an engineer but I cannot believe it was not possible to test the engines and cabling on a test rig at VR before installing them. Surely the leaking fuel would have been revealed along with some of the other flaws if a proper test had taken place with the engine at full power for a suitable period.

 

[A0wen]

So aside from the potential Fire issues what is clear when this thing is fixed that reliability needs to be very thoroughly tested and maintenance costs very closely investigated.

Meanwhile the new 195's are getting proven MTU engines.

The basic engine reliability isn't in question - that Ford engine has a multitude of uses currently and appears to be capable of good service.

The problems experienced here appear to have been caused by not following the manufacturers maintenance guidelines - an MTU engine would go up in smoke if its injectors weren't tightened to correctly.

 

[A0wen]

I am not an engineer but I cannot believe it was not possible to test the engines and cabling on a test rig at VR before installing them. Surely the leaking fuel would have been revealed along with some of the other flaws if a proper test had taken place with the engine at full power for a suitable period.

Leaking fuel caused by not following the manufacturers guidelines.

Frankly it comes down to who did the maintenance on the day - if it had been correctly installed in a test rig, but incorrectly in its final use, you'd never have found the problem on the test rig.

 

[47802]

The basic engine reliability isn't in question - that Ford engine has a multitude of uses currently and appears to be capable of good service.

The problems experienced here appear to have been caused by not following the manufacturers maintenance guidelines - an MTU engine would go up in smoke if its injectors weren't tightened to correctly.

Still not proven in a Rail environment which it needs to be.

 

[boxy321]

Keep calm and CE mark! I wonder what that big 100W power resistor is for bolted near the red mug on page 9. Has (burnt) wires coming from each end.

Page 13. Fuel syphoning from the tank. Astonishing.

Page 14. Nice BIC 4-colour pen. Hose quality - Incredible. Fuel isolation valve position - laughable. I had a toy Mamod model traction engine as a child - the sight glass was made of glass, incredibly. Oil tank - next to the engine in a plastic container - cracking source of combustable material.

Torque settings - my mate's boat never had a fuel leak after I bled the system.

Gas fire extinguisher - blown away by the cooling fans! I expect the blowers are electric too meaning they continued running, fanning the flames for a better blazing effect.

Given the evidence I'll be taking a frying pan with me to use on the saloon floor next time.

Seriously, I also work in automotive safety systems and the report amazes me. Total lack of an FMEA or FTA (nada nada nada) is evident.

 

[squizzler]

I am not an engineer but I cannot believe it was not possible to test the engines and cabling on a test rig at VR before installing them. Surely the leaking fuel would have been revealed along with some of the other flaws if a proper test had taken place with the engine at full power for a suitable period.

The automotive origin of the engine leads me to suspect the inclusion of "defeat device" ECU software that helps pass air quality tests by detecting when the engine is being tested on a rig and resisting the urge to immolate itself during the test.

 

[JohnElliott]

It obviously is possible to test the engines on the load bank before installing them, because the report says that's what they're going to do from now on.

 

[lord rathmore]

As an outside observer & former Quality Manager I'm surprised these faults occured; was there an effective Quality programme? Verifying torque settings against source spec (in this case the Ford manual) and checking on the job against a sign-off inspection plan?

 

[coppercapped]

As an outside observer & former Quality Manager I'm surprised these faults occured; was there an effective Quality programme? Verifying torque settings against source spec (in this case the Ford manual) and checking on the job against a sign-off inspection plan?

In principle, you are correct - and certainly if this had been a production train in daily service such errors would be unforgivable. However, it should not be forgotten that this train is a prototype and some of the reasons for building prototypes are to develop manufacturing procedures and processes, identify weak points in the design and assembly processes, use the experiences to prepare the production design as well as to write the maintenance and repair manuals for operational use.

This is not to say that, in retrospect, the genset design and the control and fault finding schemes on the train itself and the attention paid to existing manuals need no improvement. Quite the opposite. However it is much cheaper to have to do such re-work on one train than to discover these faults when 50 are in service.

The quality of the report gives confidence that Vivarail will solve these issues.

 

[lord rathmore]

In principle, you are correct - and certainly if this had been a production train in daily service such errors would be unforgivable. However, it should not be forgotten that this train is a prototype and some of the reasons for building prototypes are to develop manufacturing procedures and processes, identify weak points in the design and assembly processes, use the experiences to prepare the production design as well as to write the maintenance and repair manuals for operational use.

This is not to say that, in retrospect, the genset design and the control and fault finding schemes on the train itself and the attention paid to existing manuals need no improvement. Quite the opposite. However it is much cheaper to have to do such re-work on one train than to discover these faults when 50 are in service.

The quality of the report gives confidence that Vivarail will solve these issues.

OK of course it was a prototype, but it was going on the main line with all the safety connotations of that fact. I worked many years in a safety- regulated industry and prototypes of anything got extra special QA scrutiny - we called any new work process or item "FOOK" - first of a kind. I wish Vivarail well but I worry about their quality arrangements and I'd want proof they'd improved before letting them anywhere near my Railway (if I had one!)

 

[M28361M]

Charlie Hulme's North Wales Coast Noticeboard is reporting (link) a possible new home for 230s:

News from the politicians is that Flintshire and Cheshire county councils, with Merseytravel will back proposals for a new Deeside Parkway Station at Deeside Industrial Estate and work together on a bid for funding in the next round of station funding for 2017/18.

This will also support a half-hourly service between Bidston - Wrexham using either 'cascaded' 150 units from other companies or the 'new' class 230 if they are successful in testing. The class 230 concept is a rebuild of redundant but not life-expired London Underground 'D-stock' carriages into diesel units.

 

[Clip]

OK of course it was a prototype, but it was going on the main line with all the safety connotations of that fact. I worked many years in a safety- regulated industry and prototypes of anything got extra special QA scrutiny - we called any new work process or item "FOOK" - first of a kind. I wish Vivarail well but I worry about their quality arrangements and I'd want proof they'd improved before letting them anywhere near my Railway (if I had one!)

Quite, however, as many many people seem to have forgotten, it had been trundling around on the test track for a fair few weeks(and also had a couple of journeys late at night whilst on the mainline) gaining its approval to work on the mainline so something obviously went wrong between its initial testing and the extra carriage being inserted.

That doesnt mean it was an inherent problem but as it happens something to do with its maintenance after the testing.

 

[Clip]

And just to highlight my previous post here it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Yt7oxYWcM

 

[mickulty]

The automotive origin of the engine leads me to suspect the inclusion of "defeat device" ECU software that helps pass air quality tests by detecting when the engine is being tested on a rig and resisting the urge to immolate itself during the test.

Ford (who make the engines), at the time of the original VW scandal, came out and categorically stated that they do not do that. I know it seems odd to suggest taking a corporation's word on whether it's being dishonest but such a direct lie with all the extra legal exposure it carries would be very unlikely.

 

[M7R]

The automotive origin of the engine leads me to suspect the inclusion of "defeat device" ECU software that helps pass air quality tests by detecting when the engine is being tested on a rig and resisting the urge to immolate itself during the test.

Ford (who make the engines), at the time of the original VW scandal, came out and categorically stated that they do not do that. I know it seems odd to suggest taking a corporation's word on whether it's being dishonest but such a direct lie with all the extra legal exposure it carries would be very unlikely.

It would also depend on the base engine, Light duty engines have a rolling road test, heavy duty have a bench test for the emissions. The Ford Transit could cover both light and heavy duty due to there being N1 and N2 versions of vehicles with the same engines. I do not know which engines are being used, or if they are actually transit engines, i.e. they are from the transit production line pool of engines, or they could be power generation engines for static install / heavy duty applications, that just happen to be the same basic engine that goes into a transit, and therefore that is why everyone says they are transit engines.

The engines would only know they are on a "rig" if they are the heavy duty ones, and even then I am not sure what would be gained from that... if they are light duty then any "defeat device" would be set up to look for things like front wheels not turning, no steering input, a very tightly controlled set of atmospheric conditions with regards to temp, humidity, and soaking time at set temps... all things that an engine that has been plucked from an engine bay, put into a rig and then run up would not really see.

so in short...the idea of a defeat device is slim to none..at best.

 

[HLE]

Quite, however, as many many people seem to have forgotten, it had been trundling around on the test track for a fair few weeks(and also had a couple of journeys late at night whilst on the mainline) gaining its approval to work on the mainline so something obviously went wrong between its initial testing and the extra carriage being inserted.

That doesnt mean it was an inherent problem but as it happens something to do with its maintenance after the testing.

Don't forget the ECS moves to Nuneaton and back. It made it that far!

 

[Clip]

Don't forget the ECS moves to Nuneaton and back. It made it that far!

Yup include those moves too. As I asked way back in this thread when it first happened could it have been the third coach being inserted and turns out it was. And not a failure of the project just a failure of someone who doesnt quite understand righty-tighty properly.

 

[eriks]

The automotive origin of the engine leads me to suspect the inclusion of "defeat device" ECU software that helps pass air quality tests by detecting when the engine is being tested on a rig and resisting the urge to immolate itself during the test.

I would suspect that some people (Ford) might consider that statement a defamatory one and without any evidence. I wouldn't do that on a public forum.

 

[t_star2001uk]

The automotive origin of the engine leads me to suspect the inclusion of "defeat device" ECU software that helps pass air quality tests by detecting when the engine is being tested on a rig and resisting the urge to immolate itself during the test.

As Ford have categorically stated that they do not use Defeat Devices where do you get your assumption from..

 

[squizzler]

As Ford have categorically stated that they do not use Defeat Devices where do you get your assumption from..

The suggestion that the engine is programmed to not catch fire only so that it passes emissions tests was, I thought, self evidently absurd and intended in humour.

I would suspect that some people (Ford) might consider that statement a defamatory one and without any evidence. I wouldn't do that on a public forum.

I think you need to add "...unless it concerns Vivarail in which case it's open season!".