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

[t_star2001uk]

unless it concerns Vivarail in which case it's open season!".

Well how about mocking Vossloh for the 68 fire an Chiltern, or GE for the class 70 fire or, i cant believe im going to mention this, BREL for the 442 fires or any other rolling stock manufacturer that has had the misfortune to have a fire on board one of their vehicles. Test running is exactly what it says TEST RUNNING. Not every piece of new traction is guaranteed to work out of the box. Testing on the track at Long Marston is all very well but testing at speed is something completely different. It was better to find these issues now whilst the unit was being tested so a solution can be found and engineered in to the unit.

 

[kermit]

Ultra rare footage of the Mk 0.0 Vivarail prototype in action here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3EbPEqACrY

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Vivarail say that they already had some orders placed with them?

 

[birchesgreen]

Modern Railways reporting a single digit order but can't say with whom.

 

[TrainfanBen]

Modern Railways reporting a single digit order but can't say with whom.

Must be Eurostar then
Actually, given that it is ex-tube stock, it would be funny if it was.


I'm hoping its London midland but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[KingDaveRa]

I've only just seen the report. Full marks to Vivarail for being so publicly open about the issue. One thing I wondered about was who designed the Gensets? It certainly reads like the (seemingly unnamed) genset manufacturer were doing their own thing and shipping the units out no questions asked. Vivarail seem to do some basic tests and just shove them in. My understanding of the Vivarail design was it was all commodity parts, and I guess that includes the genset as a whole, and the whole point of the design is being able to buy off the shelf parts and plug them in. If the gensets are going to need redesigning and changing to suit, that undermines the whole point of the design somewhat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm hoping its London midland but I'm not holding my breath.

A single-figure order would sit well with LM (2 for Cov-Nun, 2 for Bedford-Bletchley, 1 spare, perhaps?)? It might also sit well with Chiltern - 2 to replace the bubble cars.

Odd without the trial though.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its likely to be one of the groups attempting to reopen lines for a trial rather than a major toc., e.g Go-Op.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Modern Railways reporting a single digit order but can't say with whom.

Island Line perhaps?

It'd be funny if it was GWR for the Melkshams to replace the 153 /150 which currently operates on the service.

 

[djpontrack]

It'd be funny if it was GWR for the Melkshams to replace the 153 /150 which currently operates on the service.

Not sure if that would go down well between Swindon and Thingley Junc.

 

[randyrippley]

Plenty of places they'd be suitable in single digit numbers
A new Yeovil shuttle maybe, or Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham (with Leeds trains terminating at Lancaster instead)

 

[jopsuk]

Island Line perhaps?

.

don't think they would fit through the tunnels, sub surface stock (A/C/D/S and earlier) is as tall as mainline trains.

 

[birchesgreen]

They won't, the Island Line is holding out for 1973 Tube Stock.

 

[MatthewRead]

They won't, the Island Line is holding out for 1973 Tube Stock.

They'll have to wait a long time then!

 

[D365]

They'll have to wait a long time then!

Not if the 73TS is first to be replaced under NTfL. The overhaul that the 72TS will receive (because of the delay in replacement rolling stock) will push it to the back of the queue.

 

[northwichcat]

A single-figure order would sit well with LM (2 for Cov-Nun, 2 for Bedford-Bletchley, 1 spare, perhaps?)? It might also sit well with Chiltern - 2 to replace the bubble cars.

Odd without the trial though.

Could be a provisional order which is subject to the trial being successful which VivaRail are over selling.

 

[northwichcat]

Its likely to be one of the groups attempting to reopen lines for a trial rather than a major toc., e.g Go-Op.

Go-op did report they were interested in 2 sets.

 

[birchesgreen]

Not if the 73TS is first to be replaced under NTfL. The overhaul that the 72TS will receive (because of the delay in replacement rolling stock) will push it to the back of the queue.

Yes the Piccadilly Line should be first to be changed as part of the Deep Tube Upgrade though its still going to be early 2020s. The 483s are getting refurbs so i guess they'll be able to solder on a few more yet.

 

[Mordac]

I've only just seen the report. Full marks to Vivarail for being so publicly open about the issue. One thing I wondered about was who designed the Gensets? It certainly reads like the (seemingly unnamed) genset manufacturer were doing their own thing and shipping the units out no questions asked. Vivarail seem to do some basic tests and just shove them in. My understanding of the Vivarail design was it was all commodity parts, and I guess that includes the genset as a whole, and the whole point of the design is being able to buy off the shelf parts and plug them in. If the gensets are going to need redesigning and changing to suit, that undermines the whole point of the design somewhat.

They're Ford engines.

 

[najaB]

They're Ford engines.

But did Vivarail build the 'raft' that contains the engine and generator, or a third-party?

 

[dgl]

But did Vivarail build the 'raft' that contains the engine and generator, or a third-party?

It's a third party but can't remember the name of the company.

 

[KingDaveRa]

But did Vivarail build the 'raft' that contains the engine and generator, or a third-party?

It's a third party but can't remember the name of the company.

And further more, who designed the raft? Was that VR, or the Genset manufacturer? At the very least, I'd guess - being a manufacturer of such things - they probably did it to VR's spec.

 

[ac6000cw]

And further more, who designed the raft? Was that VR, or the Genset manufacturer? At the very least, I'd guess - being a manufacturer of such things - they probably did it to VR's spec.

See this post - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2871042&postcount=4919

the engine rafts were developed and supplied by a company called Revolve Technologies of Brentwood, Essex

 

[KingDaveRa]

Thanks @ac6000cw

One would presume VR designed it then, based on their website, but it's not entirely clear. Point is, I wonder where the blame lays with this. The report reads very much like it's 50:50, in my humble opinion.

 

[coppercapped]

Thanks @ac6000cw

One would presume VR designed it then, based on their website, but it's not entirely clear. Point is, I wonder where the blame lays with this. The report reads very much like it's 50:50, in my humble opinion.

If you want to 'blame' people during engineering development you'd better stay well away from any risky job.

Things often don't work as expected - but that is why development and manufacturing things are amongst the hardest jobs on the planet. Armchair critics would be recommended to keep quiet.

I have nothing to do with Vivarail or any of its suppliers, but until I retired I spent my life in product development. Mistakes happen - but in most cases not publicly.

To make it very clear - the real, grown-up, question is not 'who is to blame?' but 'how do we reduce the chances of it happening again?'

 

[najaB]

To make it very clear - the real, grown-up, question is not 'who is to blame?' but 'how do we reduce the chances of it happening again?'

Well said. The closest you should ever get to 'blame' is asking 'Who's responsible for the redesign?'.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thanks @ac6000cw

One would presume VR designed it then, based on their website, but it's not entirely clear. Point is, I wonder where the blame lays with this. The report reads very much like it's 50:50, in my humble opinion.

If you want to lay blame somewhere then you really do not expect people to try and innovate. Its a thankless task and to avoid blame we should still be using steam engines !.

Alternative is - if you want progress then new things have to be tried and tested. If something were invented or designed perfect from scratch then I would be suspicious that not much real improvement/progress was likely to result.

In the case of the 230 Vivarail have at least proved the concept works. What they now need to do is only to make it more reliable really. It appears that there is nothing hopelessly wrong with the design. The engine rafts need to be laid out better perhaps. Definitely needs to be stricter procedures introduced for maintenance (torques and components to be viewed as not re-usable). Its a learning curve and the testing is supposed to show up problems before dozens are built or used.

 

[edwin_m]

Could be a classic interface issue. For example Revolve has no background in rail that I'm aware of. They might not have appreciated, or might not have been told, how the environment under a train is more severe than automotive in aspects such as vibration.

 

[najaB]

They might not have appreciated, or might not have been told, how the environment under a train is more severe than automotive in aspects such as vibration.

Is it really though? Railways don't, generally speaking, have potholes or sleeping policemen. Different, yes. More severe? Probably not.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Is it really though? Railways don't, generally speaking, have potholes or sleeping policemen. Different, yes. More severe? Probably not.

I seem to recall reading that some of the modernisation plan diesels were hopelessly unreliable because the rail environment was so harsh on the engine. The vibration from steel wheels on steel rails, no rubber tyre to absorb the shocks. But also the way power is demanded. Ticking over to full power to coasting/cooling introduces a lot of thermal cycling - the HSTs suffered with that and the solution was to tweak the cooling system so they ran hot. Then there was the gearbox for the pacers. BR wanted Voith (iirc) but they were persuaded to use a gearbox by a Coventry (iirc) company called "self changing gears". The gearbox was too fragile (getting shocks up the drive shaft from the wheels) even though it had been fine in its previous uses (in er busses I think).