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

[najaB]

IThe vibration from steel wheels on steel rails, no rubber tyre to absorb the shocks.

I can see that potentially being an issue with Pacers but I would've thought that the suspension in the bogies would absorb most of the vibration.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I can see that potentially being an issue with Pacers but I would've thought that the suspension in the bogies would absorb most of the vibration.

I agree and would have thought shocks up the transmission would be the only culprit. With electric transmission I am surprised that a problem still arises with shocks/vibration.

 

[KingDaveRa]

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?'

Sorry, 'blame' was a poor choice of word. The 230 is very much going to be a product of an iterative design process, and things will go wrong along the way. Most of those problems will never be seen, but unfortunately this was a rather large problem they can't exactly pretend never happened.

I guess the point I was making is it seems folk are expecting VR to fail, and it feels to me like this isn't *their* poor design.

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

Exactly, that's what I meant. I get the feeling from Revolve website that they are pretty new to rail tech, and if they did the design, that may explain a few things.

I'm little more than an interested bystander in all this. I'd like to see this succeed as it's a pretty nice idea.

 

[edwin_m]

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

Maybe so. I was thinking more of components fixed to bogies or even axleboxes, so without the protection of one or both sets of suspension. Any automotive component is protected at least by the flexibility in the tyres.

The environment on the underside of the body should be less severe than that so vibration may not actually be an issue. However the use of a gas rather than a foam fire bottle, which simply dissipated in the slipstream, suggests that whoever designed it did not fully appreciate the on-train environment at least in that respect.

 

[Taunton]

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 buses I think).

Not quite so. The SCG gearbox had a generation of rail experience in most of the Modernisation Plan dmus, and also in the smaller diesel shunters, Class 03 etc. SCG were owned by Leyland, who also provided much of the general design concept for Pacers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not quite so. The SCG gearbox had a generation of rail experience in most of the Modernisation Plan dmus

But not the automatic version - Modernisation Plan mechanical DMUs were all manual[1]. AIUI the big problem with the automatic version was gear hunting and lurching, neither of which occurred with a properly driven manual.

[1] More accurately semi-automatic as it's a clutchless epicyclic.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

They're Ford engines.

but who builds the rafts etc ... the engines will come from ford built up the level the customer requires ...

 

[D60]

but who builds the rafts etc ... the engines will come from ford built up the level the customer requires ...

Please see post #4973 on previous page, which links you to post #4919

 

[najaB]

but who builds the rafts etc ... the engines will come from ford built up the level the customer requires ...

This was already confirmed:

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

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

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My Feb/Mar 2017 copy of the RTM magazine came in the post today and on pp96-97, Adrian Shooter talks of the matter of the fire that affected the unit and of future matters concerning the Class 230 unit.

Sorry, not able to post a link.

 

[Clip]

My Feb/Mar 2017 copy of the RTM magazine came in the post today and on pp96-97, Adrian Shooter talks of the matter of the fire that affected the unit and of future matters concerning the Class 230 unit.

Sorry, not able to post a link.

Can you summarise at all for those of us who don't read the mags that much?

 

[HLE]

Let me guess - it's not far off being repaired and will soon begin testing again.

Any mention of where these orders for 230's that were reported a few months back are for?

 

[asylumxl]

My Feb/Mar 2017 copy of the RTM magazine came in the post today and on pp96-97, Adrian Shooter talks of the matter of the fire that affected the unit and of future matters concerning the Class 230 unit.

Sorry, not able to post a link.

Could you paraphrase what was said?

 

[WatcherZero]

Sorry, 'blame' was a poor choice of word. The 230 is very much going to be a product of an iterative design process, and things will go wrong along the way. Most of those problems will never be seen, but unfortunately this was a rather large problem they can't exactly pretend never happened.

The worrying thing though was it was only a week from receiving passenger certification, there wasnt to be future iteration this was the final design.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could you paraphrase what was said?

It was basically that how Adrian Shooter was taking the view that the fire in the unit was just something that occurred when the unit was almost ready to commence running on the Coventry to Nuneaton service. He feels that was something none too difficult to recover from and then said...
"So we began to build a new test car, work on which is nearly completed at our Long Marston base. The first new version will operate as battery train. Once this concept is proved, we can easily change the modules to test it in any variation"

I could see no mention made of any of the stated orders they are supposed to have already being mentioned anywhere in this article.

 

[D365]

Did the article state that there was a fundamental design flaw with the unit itself?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Did the article state that there was a fundamental design flaw with the unit itself?

Not at all, as he maintains that the root cause of the fire was a fuel leak. In fact the final section of the article, headed "The Future" reads as follows....

"There is no magic bullet that will solve every need across the network, but the Class 230 certainly gives operators new options for their fleet. Its different power options combined with flexible internal layout make it a train that will work for operators and passengers alike. So when we are asked what the future holds for Vivarail, we are confident to say it is business as usual for our innovative train"

 

[GusB]

Link here:

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Comment/where-next-for-the-d-train

 

[Clip]

Link here:

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Comment/where-next-for-the-d-train

Many thanks for the link.

 

[HLE]

Thanks for posting - so what's happened to the original 230 then?

Will it still be pushed out onto the mainlines or is the new battery test car the new project?

 

[D60]

Thanks for posting - so what's happened to the original 230 then?

Will it still be pushed out onto the mainlines or is the new battery test car the new project?

Seems it's about offering operators a range of options... (different interiors, different traction packages, different lease options..)..

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Seems it's about offering operators a range of options... (different interiors, different traction packages, different lease options..)..

With regards to the orders that Vivarail have said were already placed with them prior to the fire on the test unit, would these orders have been based upon one specific mode of traction or would there be the variable options that Vivarail are now putting forward, according to what Adrian Shooter states in the magazine article.

 

[Greybeard33]

Not at all, as he maintains that the root cause of the fire was a fuel leak. In fact the final section of the article, headed "The Future" reads as follows....

"There is no magic bullet that will solve every need across the network, but the Class 230 certainly gives operators new options for their fleet. Its different power options combined with flexible internal layout make it a train that will work for operators and passengers alike. So when we are asked what the future holds for Vivarail, we are confident to say it is business as usual for our innovative train"

So maybe one of the "different power options" now on offer is 630V fourth rail, in the hope that LUL might be among the potential customers queueing up for this "innovative train"? Oh, wait...!

 

[jopsuk]

can't wait to see a demonstrator with switchable 3rd 750V/4th 630V rail capability, 25kv AC and 1500V/750V DC pantographs on the centre car, a battery raft under one DM and a diesel raft under the other. Fitted with AWS, ATP, TPWS, ETCS Level 2, ATO and RETB. Throw everything at it!

 

[gage75]

can't wait to see a demonstrator with switchable 3rd 750V/4th 630V rail capability, 25kv AC and 1500V/750V DC pantographs on the centre car, a battery raft under one DM and a diesel raft under the other. Fitted with AWS, ATP, TPWS, ETCS Level 2, ATO and RETB. Throw everything at it!

Would there be any room left for a kitchen sink by any chance

 

[Nym]

can't wait to see a demonstrator with switchable 3rd 750V/4th 630V rail capability, 25kv AC and 1500V/750V DC pantographs on the centre car, a battery raft under one DM and a diesel raft under the other. Fitted with AWS, ATP, TPWS, ETCS Level 2, ATO and RETB. Throw everything at it!

You forgot Induktives Sicherungssystem, Seltrac S40, Seltrac S60, Westinghouse / Siemens DTG-R, TASS and KVB...

Not to mention the tram protection systems in use around the country.

 

[northwichcat]

Link here:

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Comment/where-next-for-the-d-train

So Shooter thinks people who were expecting electrification will prefer a D-Train to a new diesel train because it is greener!

 

[Clip]

So Shooter thinks people who were expecting electrification will prefer a D-Train to a new diesel train because it is greener!

It's my experience in life that more and more people are more environmentally aware and probably would prefer something greener than a full blown diesel train especially with the health warnings that are about now due to air quality.

I know I would, the same with more greener buses too.

 

[Chester1]

So Shooter thinks people who were expecting electrification will prefer a D-Train to a new diesel train because it is greener!

I think that was a PC tick box comment. He might have a point about battery powered 230s being quieter than diesels. The East Anglia trial train had a 11 mile range in 2015, D trains would need a much longer range, especially as they wouldn't be able to charge on AC sections of tracks e.g. services into Cardiff.

 

[jopsuk]

You forgot Induktives Sicherungssystem, Seltrac S40, Seltrac S60, Westinghouse / Siemens DTG-R, TASS and KVB...

Not to mention the tram protection systems in use around the country.

OK then, might as well go in, include some 3kV DC OHL, 15kV/16.7Hz and maybe a hydrogen fuel cell.