Transport for Wales Class 230

[Northerngirl]

Wasn't the point of having batteries something to do with running services to Liverpool in the tunnel, or was that just a rumour

 

[craigybagel]

I'm not sure if there's any other industry where a customer buys a product, the product is clearly faulty, and yet it's somehow entirely the customers fault and we still need to praise the plucky little manufacturer for making the (faulty) product in the first place....

From what I recall, the original intention was they’d be used on the Blaenau branch (1), Crewe to Chester (1) and Wrexham to Bidston (2).

Things changed and the four diagrams were to be concentrated on the Bidston line with an enhanced service, but the way things are now four 230 would be required to cover just two full (all day) diagrams. Seems the batteries need significant time to cool after use.

Sort of.

The 230s were only ever meant to go on the other routes temporarily. It was expected that they'd be ready for service several years before the 197s, so using them on other routes would mean there wouldn't need to be any 150s in the North any more and they could all go to the valleys. The plan was always that when the 197s arrived they'd displace the 230s to Bidston to allow a half hourly service to run.

As things turned out, it was too logistically difficult to use the 230s on the other routes, and it took a lot longer than expected to get them into service at all. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Woods]

Presume Stadler signed a contract to support them with spares and training by Vivarail (before they went bust?) So will have to honour the contract and fix 230s.

GWR brought some Vivarail IP and spares and took on some staff, so could help Stadler and SWR (484s)?.

TfW are doing the maintenance themselves. They just happen to be using Stadler's depot.

Ex-Vivarail staff re-employed by GWR have been helping TfW and SWR wherever feasibly possible, with spares, technical documentation, and sharing of knowledge.

I would assume the SWR 484s are a lot simpler ?.

Yes and the 484s have already proven themselves to be very reliable. Showing that not everything Vivarail built was rubbish (not saying you've said this @Peter Sarf, but others definitely have!). Now it can legitimately be said, "Ah yes but the 484s are simpler than the TfW 230s" which is true; the gensets and the 'first generation' batteries on the TfW units are proving to be an endless nightmare. But it can't then be claimed in the same breath that Vivarail just pumped out rubbish; the 484s are the antidote to such sweeping and inaccurate generalisations (again, not made by you @Peter Sarf!)

The problem is they have spent over £30 million on these units and if they throw in the towel some people will have some serious questions to answer. Expect good money to be thrown after bad for the foreseeable.

Just because TfW spent £30m on the 230s, doesn't mean they spent it wisely. The true story of how much TfW splurged on VERY highly paid consultants (you should see the cars they drive....) who managed everything to a standstill for a period of time in 2020-21, and in part contributed to Vivarail running out of money, will probably never be told. Had Vivarail been allowed to get on and maintain/fix the units in the way they were originally contracted to do, the story might have been very different. TfW have, in that sense, reaped what they sowed; the death of the manufacturer and now the problem is all theirs.

With hindsight there is a lot that has has not gone right with this [and Porterbrook’s similar] rolling stock reengineering projects.

Yes and what a lot of highly qualified Hindsight Engineers there are on this forum! I'm sure they could all have done a better job.

Have you ever travelled on one? The IoW 230s are leagues below 144012 in almost every regard. From the significant lack of seating, lack of luggage space and overhead racks to the lack of toilet and thats before weve even considered the atrociousride quality of tube stock at speed. They're incomparable.

IoW Class 484s (230s on third rail): You can hardly blame Vivarail for the 'lack of seating', lack of luggage space and overhead racks, and lack of toilet. It wasn't in the spec for the 484s. It could have been; such options were offered. Are you saying that manufacturers should voluntarily just provide extras that aren't in the spec? I'm sorry but that isn't how it works in the real world. SWR opted for the plainest vanilla of plain vanilla interiors. They obviously concluded that it was sufficient for Island Line passengers. And even so, they have been well-received by passengers on the Island Line, so it was clearly a good call on their part.

I'm not sure if there's any other industry where a customer buys a product, the product is clearly faulty, and yet it's somehow entirely the customers fault and we still need to praise the plucky little manufacturer for making the (faulty) product in the first place....

Nobody is saying that Vivarail was perfect. There were definitely self-inflicted blows; the gensets were not properly developed, nowhere near enough time was built into the development programme to get the diesel/battery hybrid power architecture properly integrated and proven, due to the rush to get those trains 'to market' and to 'satisfy the programme', and there were dozens of build quality issues. But what you won't hear now, is their side of the story. Because the people that could have told it, could not tell it at the time when Vivarail still existed, due to 'commercial confidentiality'. If you knew the real story, of how Vivarail was treated by TfW, you'd be horrified. Massive changes of spec half way through the build (complete re-invention of the interior), couldn't make a decision, decisions that were made were subsequently overturned, wriggled out of signing a maintenance contract with Vivarail thinking they could do better themselves, original depot plan (TfW's responsibility) never materialised hence the fleet ended up at the very far from optimal Birkenhead depot. Endless time wasted on contractual negotiations, bureacracy, general messing about. The whole thing left a very, very bitter taste with those in Vivarail who went through it. And ultimately the mismanagement and brinkmanship was a significant factor in Vivarail running out of money. Maybe the true story will be told one day.

 

[craigybagel]

Nobody is saying that Vivarail was perfect. There were definitely self-inflicted blows; the gensets were not properly developed, nowhere near enough time was built into the development programme to get the diesel/battery hybrid power architecture properly integrated and proven, due to the rush to get those trains 'to market' and to 'satisfy the programme', and there were dozens of build quality issues.

My comment was in response to posts like:

You can’t blame Vivarail for trying. Entrepreneurism should be admired and a bit of wackiness makes the world a better place.

You can, however, blame certain TOCs and both local and national governments for throwing money at something that is more suited to Scrapheap Challenge than the 21st Century mainline railway.

and

It isn't Vivarail's for converting them and trying to make some money but the people who ordered them, especially TfW who only ordered them after the LM units were already very late and it was pretty obvious they weren't going to work very well.

At the end of the day, nobody forced Vivarail into signing the contract.

I have every sympathy with the folks at Vivarail, and I strongly supported the project earlier on. I've even travelled on the 230s and been impressed with what I've seen. I'm also sure that TfW did make mistakes along the way (and with the benefit of hindsight, probably wouldn't have ordered these units).

 

[Bertie the bus]

I'm not sure if there's any other industry where a customer buys a product, the product is clearly faulty, and yet it's somehow entirely the customers fault and we still need to praise the plucky little manufacturer for making the (faulty) product in the first place....

The product was obviously faulty before TfW ordered them. Just as the 769s were clearly faulty before TfW ordered them as the Northern units which had been ordered years before still hadn't been delivered and there were plenty of (crdible) reports that they were having serious problems. Vivarail created a poor product but people who spend large amounts of public money need to do due diligence and spend it wisely. TfW definitely didn't do that.

 

[Woods]

The product was obviously faulty before TfW ordered them. Just as the 769s were clearly faulty before TfW ordered them as the Northern units which had been ordered years before still hadn't been delivered and there were plenty of (crdible) reports that they were having serious problems. Vivarail created a poor product but people who spend large amounts of public money need to do due diligence and spend it wisely. TfW definitely didn't do that.

Both the 769s and the 230 projects suffered from optimism bias. Complicated machines, not enough time to develop and test them before trying to deploy them in passenger service. Literally 3 weeks in 2019 was all the time that the precusor to the TfW units, 230002 (then in it's 3-car diesel/battery formation), had for test running on the Cotswold Line. Too many people these days believe that you can just create something complicated and it'll work fresh out of the box. These people tend not to be Engineers. If you had a typical rolling stock project team in the UK with 10 people in the room, 8 out of 10 will be commercial/project manager/procurement/accountant-type people, and 2 may be Engineers. The Engineers will tell the truth about what needs to be done. But guess who gets listened to, guess who makes the decisions....

At the end of the day, nobody forced Vivarail into signing the contract.

True, but it was atleast expected that contracts would be honoured. Vivarail signed a contract with TfW to manufacture trains, and in that contract it required that a further contract would be signed to maintain them. TfW spent the best part of 2.5 years trying to wriggle out of the latter because they thought it would be cheaper to get somebody else to maintain them. TfW tried to competitively tender the maintenance (totally against the spirit and the letter of the contract) but after a while they came back to Vivarail with their tails between their legs when it was realised that, surprise surprise, nobody else was in the least bit interested in maintaining them! Vivarail then took the opportunity to charge TfW through the nose for maintaining the trains on an inflated short-term hourly rate until TfW could decide what they wanted to do next, so TfW ended up paying more than they would have done had they just honoured the original contract in the first place. Slow hand clap to TfW, well played indeed, a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Delay AND cost. Eventually TfW did succeed in getting what they had always wanted....by virtue of Vivarail going bust (partly because it wasn't getting the expected income from maintaining the trains), and now the problem is entirely theirs. This has all happened thanks to some allegedly very 'professional' people in TfW. It was a total shambles.

 

[driverd]

Regarding the 379 trial, AFAIK it was one very limited trial over how many days ? On one piece of railway ?
I have no doubt it worked well, and there is scope for a lot more battery operation.
It strikes me that at least some of the 325s could benefit from "last 1/2 mile" battery to shunt them into the new terminal at Daventry, but that is going O/T

I'm not too well versed on the duration but I think it was for a few months? I'm not entirely sure - other than to say it was broadly heralded as a success in the railway press and Vivarail were suitably impressed to go as far buying the battery packs and some of the tech (all disclosed in a press release on their website).

IoW Class 484s (230s on third rail): You can hardly blame Vivarail for the 'lack of seating', lack of luggage space and overhead racks, and lack of toilet. It wasn't in the spec for the 484s. It could have been; such options were offered. SWR opted for the plainest vanilla of plain vanilla interiors. They obviously concluded that it was sufficient for Island Line passengers. And even so, they have been well-received by passengers on the Island Line, so it was clearly a good call on their part.

See below re: my understanding of the spec. They may well be received well on the IoW but we're talking about a network than went from 80 year old trains to 40 year old trains - arguably you'd be hard pushed to find something that wasn't an upgrade.

Are you saying that manufacturers should voluntarily just provide extras that aren't in the spec? I'm sorry but that isn't how it works in the real world.

Ah we love the usual Internet forum, passive-aggresive personal attacks. Just because we're online, it's hardly appropriate to be unnecessarily pointed and patronising. You asked what I'm saying; why not just do that, rather than feel the need to talk down to me?

I'm well aware how a specification works. There was always the option of a bare minimum tube train for the North and there's no way of knowing what options may have been chosen, had the DfT not intervened. What I am saying is that this, bare minimum tube train re-hash was seriously proposed by vivarail for the North and would have been a marked step down from even a pacer.

 

[Woods]

Ah we love the usual Internet forum, passive-aggresive personal attacks. Just because we're online, it's hardly appropriate to be unnecessarily pointed and patronising. You asked what I'm saying; why not just do that, rather than feel the need to talk down to me?

Sorry.

I'm well aware how a specification works. There was always the option of a bare minimum tube train for the North and there's no way of knowing what options may have been chosen, had the DfT not intervened. What I am saying is that this, bare minimum tube train re-hash was seriously proposed by vivarail for the North and would have been a marked step down from even a pacer.

To be fair, the customer gets what the customer specifies. No good blaming the manufacturer for that. The interiors of all the 230 / 484 variants have been generally well received by passengers, and that I'd say is a fact. A lot of thought and effort went into making them feel, to the passenger, like a new train. There is little to suggest that passengers would have resented an upgraded 40-year old tube train, had they (in an alternative universe) operated reliably from day 1. Unfortunately, after the Bedford-Bletchley experience, and then the TfW experience, the bad reputation die was cast. Despite the success of the 484s.

See below re: my understanding of the spec. They may well be received well on the IoW but we're talking about a network than went from 80 year old trains to 40 year old trains - arguably you'd be hard pushed to find something that wasn't an upgrade.

Ask the average passenger on the IoW and they'd tell you it's like a new train. Yes I know they only had 80 year old trains to compare it with, but that's beside the point. On the IoW, the 484s have done what they set out to achieve - provide a more attractive service.

 

[Invincible]

TfW are doing the maintenance themselves. They just happen to be using Stadler's depot.

Ex-Vivarail staff re-employed by GWR have been helping TfW and SWR wherever feasibly possible, with spares, technical documentation, and sharing of knowledge.

Thanks, I expect the TfW engineering staff will be able to get all the 230 units back in service after the wheel turning is sorted.
Then can concentrate on fine tuning the hybrid operation, and a way to keep the pollen out of the engine radiators?

 

[driverd]

Sorry.

Appreciate it - thank you

To be fair, the customer gets what the customer specifies. No good blaming the manufacturer for that. The interiors of all the 230 / 484 variants have been generally well received by passengers, and that I'd say is a fact.

Yeah I would accept that fully. I think the point I'm more making is, seen as a direct pacer replacement, we could have ended up with people being rattled along jointed track at 60mph in ex-underground stock for in excess of 90 minutes as a matter of course.

A lot of thought and effort went into making them feel, to the passenger, like a new train. There is little to suggest that passengers would have resented an upgraded 40-year old tube train, had they (in an alternative universe) operated reliably from day 1. Unfortunately, after the Bedford-Bletchley experience, and then the TfW experience, the bad reputation die was cast. Despite the success of the 484s.

From my perspective, the main problem with the D-Train concept was that it was a product with a very limited market. Its only truly appropriate for a handful of locations - certainly, where they have been deployed they seem sensible enough, but beyond short branch lines and short commuter runs, they really didn't have a logical home. Certainly, they would never have represented a long term solution on, for example, the Calder valley or a Whitby run - both of which often saw pacer workings.

Ask the average passenger on the IoW and they'd tell you it's like a new train. Yes I know they only had 80 year old trains to compare it with, but that's beside the point. On the IoW, the 484s have done what they set out to achieve - provide a more attractive service.

Absolutely, and over a 25 minute run it's highly suitable. But take a Leeds - Lancaster/Morecambe service; even with the pacers ride quality, I don't think many would say a D train would have improved on the general customer experience, especially compared to 144012 (the e-pacer), which was also mistaken by many customers for a brand new train. I'm not saying pacers (refurbed or otherwise) would have presented a long term solution either - just they were a much cheaper and more suitable, ready to go option if you wanted to make do and mend for a few more years. The D-train would never have represented a long term answer to the problem (either in the North or the Welsh valleys), so aside from a handful of niche branch lines, what problem was it actually attempting to solve?

As a proof of concept for new innovations it was superb, but until Vivarail could fit this tech to something like a 350, 321 or 456, it would never have been anything more than a short term sticking plaster.

 

[33017]

Both the 769s and the 230 projects suffered from optimism bias. Complicated machines, not enough time to develop and test them before trying to deploy them in passenger service. Literally 3 weeks in 2019 was all the time that the precusor to the TfW units, 230002 (then in it's 3-car diesel/battery formation), had for test running on the Cotswold Line. Too many people these days believe that you can just create something complicated and it'll work fresh out of the box. These people tend not to be Engineers. If you had a typical rolling stock project team in the UK with 10 people in the room, 8 out of 10 will be commercial/project manager/procurement/accountant-type people, and 2 may be Engineers. The Engineers will tell the truth about what needs to be done. But guess who gets listened to, guess who makes the decisions....

True, but it was atleast expected that contracts would be honoured. Vivarail signed a contract with TfW to manufacture trains, and in that contract it required that a further contract would be signed to maintain them. TfW spent the best part of 2.5 years trying to wriggle out of the latter because they thought it would be cheaper to get somebody else to maintain them. TfW tried to competitively tender the maintenance (totally against the spirit and the letter of the contract) but after a while they came back to Vivarail with their tails between their legs when it was realised that, surprise surprise, nobody else was in the least bit interested in maintaining them! Vivarail then took the opportunity to charge TfW through the nose for maintaining the trains on an inflated short-term hourly rate until TfW could decide what they wanted to do next, so TfW ended up paying more than they would have done had they just honoured the original contract in the first place. Slow hand clap to TfW, well played indeed, a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Delay AND cost. Eventually TfW did succeed in getting what they had always wanted....by virtue of Vivarail going bust (partly because it wasn't getting the expected income from maintaining the trains), and now the problem is entirely theirs. This has all happened thanks to some allegedly very 'professional' people in TfW. It was a total shambles.

Without wishing to be too negative, the way you tell it seems TfW are to blame for expecting the trains to perform? I’ve been told they need 16 hours for the batteries to cool down between use - if true, surely that’s unacceptable?

Pretty hard to justify the £5 million per unit to Welsh taxpayers when they were sold as a cheap alternative to new trains.

 

[L401CJF]

Without wishing to be too negative, the way you tell it seems TfW are to blame for expecting the trains to perform? I’ve been told they need 16 hours for the batteries to cool down between use - if true, surely that’s unacceptable?

Pretty hard to justify the £5 million per unit to Welsh taxpayers when they were sold as a cheap alternative to new trains

It was mentioned recently that the batteries are in steel containers with no sort of cooling/ventilation which was a massive oversight.

Also mentioned earlier in thread they're using older batteries, apparently they're due new sets now anyway and alternative more efficient type of batteries were being considered.

Again, all second hand info so may well be incorrect - happy to be corrected.

I'm convinced if they had been properly refined they could be brilliant, when they work they are great, they go through spells of just working then suddenly spells of awful!

 

[Woods]

Without wishing to be too negative, the way you tell it seems TfW are to blame for expecting the trains to perform? I’ve been told they need 16 hours for the batteries to cool down between use - if true, surely that’s unacceptable?

Pretty hard to justify the £5 million per unit to Welsh taxpayers when they were sold as a cheap alternative to new trains.

Of course, it wasn't unreasonable for TfW to expect the trains to perform. What I think was unreasonable was the unholy rush to get them designed and built; for that, both parties (Vivarail and TfW) were equally to blame. The technology, in particular the key parts - the gensets and the batteries, and the integration of them, were entirely untested - not in any meaningful sense anyway. The whole system had never been properly shaken down. That's what you've got to do if you want something to work out of the box when it's handed over to the customer, particularly when 'new' technology is involved. The battery rafts, in particular, have no force-cooling. The battery manufacturer insisted that it wasn't necessary at the time. This has turned out to be wildly optimistic. Six months of testing, rather than 3 weeks, might have identified that problem sooner, and it could have been addressed through mods before the trains went into service. Equally, the gensets, famously the achiliies heel of the WMT 230s, have also been a continuous drain on time and resources (for both Vivarail and now TfW). On top of that, the units were built in a rush by an overstretched workforce in substandard facilities at Long Marston; compounded by Covid happening right in the middle of it. So I'm not placing the blame entirely on TfW, although for reasons I've already explained, I think they certainly compounded a bad situation. Neither Vivarail or TfW covered themselves in glory, and I do appreciate that nothing will ever be enough to right that reputational damage now.

p.s. the original sales price was £17.5m for 5 trains, if I remember rightly, roughly £3.5m per train. Given that Vivarail never got fully paid for the units, if £25m (5 trains x £5m) is what's been spent on these units by TfW, then the interesting question for TfW ought to be where on earth did the additional £7.5m go? That's equivalent to building 2 more of them! Can all that money REALLY have gone on trying to fix up the units to date? I can't believe it myself.

It was mentioned recently that the batteries are in steel containers with no sort of cooling/ventilation which was a massive oversight.

Also mentioned earlier in thread they're using older batteries, apparently they're due new sets now anyway and alternative more efficient type of batteries were being considered.

Yes, having no forced cooling/ventilation on those batteries was indeed an oversight. The batteries should have had a 7(ish) year lifespan. Not sure what the latest predictions now are. The batteries used on the GWR Class 230 (230001) are a lot more sophisticated; they have a very different architecture to those on the TfW units, and each one is equipped with its own thermal management system (essentially an HVAC unit to keep the batteries at a reasonably steady-state temperature; cools them in summer, keeps them warm in winter). So hopefully that oversight with the earlier first-gen TfW batteries will be avoided. TfW units could in theory be retrofitted with the latest generation 230001-type batteries, but each battery is not cheap, they are heavier, and it's not quite a straight swap, there would be electrical and mechanical mods involved. TfW will probably be watching the performance of 230001 with interest. Whether they could justify the additional spend on the units to equip them with the more sophisticated batteries, is another matter altogether. I am sure many people would see it as throwing good money after bad.

Yeah I would accept that fully. I think the point I'm more making is, seen as a direct pacer replacement, we could have ended up with people being rattled along jointed track at 60mph in ex-underground stock for in excess of 90 minutes as a matter of course.

You can rattle about at much higher speeds on some sophisticated modern new build stock as well if you like, mentioning no names

From my perspective, the main problem with the D-Train concept was that it was a product with a very limited market. Its only truly appropriate for a handful of locations - certainly, where they have been deployed they seem sensible enough, but beyond short branch lines and short commuter runs, they really didn't have a logical home. Certainly, they would never have represented a long term solution on, for example, the Calder valley or a Whitby run - both of which often saw pacer workings.

Absolutely, and over a 25 minute run it's highly suitable. But take a Leeds - Lancaster/Morecambe service; even with the pacers ride quality, I don't think many would say a D train would have improved on the general customer experience, especially compared to 144012 (the e-pacer), which was also mistaken by many customers for a brand new train. I'm not saying pacers (refurbed or otherwise) would have presented a long term solution either - just they were a much cheaper and more suitable, ready to go option if you wanted to make do and mend for a few more years. The D-train would never have represented a long term answer to the problem (either in the North or the Welsh valleys), so aside from a handful of niche branch lines, what problem was it actually attempting to solve?

As a proof of concept for new innovations it was superb, but until Vivarail could fit this tech to something like a 350, 321 or 456, it would never have been anything more than a short term sticking plaster.

The D-Train project was originally conceived as a reasonably short-term solution to fill the gap in the market left by not enough DMUs at the time (2015-2016ish), I don't think it was ever seen as anything grander than that, not even by Vivarail. But by the time the first 3 WMT units finally went into service (badly) in 2019, the world had moved on, purchased hundreds of new DMUs, and it was all too little too late. And batteries never really featured in the thinking at first; that came along later, when money was available from Innovate UK to try it out. It will be interesting to see whether GWR eventually roll out battery 230s on their branch lines, but I can't see it going any further than that. Aside from anything else, there aren't enough donor D78 vehicles left now anyway, Vivarail having scrapped half the stock in their final year of existence to try and keep the wolves from the door!

 

[Lurcheroo]

So hopefully that oversight with the earlier first-gen TfW batteries will be avoided. TfW units could in theory be retrofitted with the latest generation 230001-type batteries, but each battery is not cheap, they are heavier, and it's not quite a straight swap, there would be electrical and mechanical mods involved. TfW will probably be watching the performance of 230001 with interest. Whether they could justify the additional spend on the units to equip them with the more sophisticated batteries, is another matter altogether. I am sure many people would see it as throwing good money after bad.

As I said earlier, there supposedly is a fix but it’s about £200K per unit. I wonder if this is what that fix is.
If 230001 ends up working well and spending that ~£1m would make all 5 TFW units reliable then it may be worthwhile.

Anyone happen to know the cost of a 197

 

[Woods]

As I said earlier, there supposedly is a fix but it’s about £200K per unit. I wonder if this is what that fix is.
If 230001 ends up working well and spending that ~£1m would make all 5 TFW units reliable then it may be worthwhile.

Anyone happen to know the cost of a 197

That's probably what the £200k per unit was yes.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A ridiculous idea from the start, it's nice to see it come to a ridiculous conclusion. I think I'm quite passionate about this one, because the idea of these things giving a better passenger experience than the (younger) pacers was insane from the outset.

Hyperbole aside, it's a shame some of the more innovative elements haven't proven successful, as wider deployment of battery tech onto other units would have been really great to see, along with things like the pretty unique and industry leading rapid charge. Its just unfortunate vivarail decided old underground units were they best place for it. Heck, if they had chosen something like the 456s and just used the old tube trains as technology demonstrators, I could even have got behind it.

I think, as with the Mk5s at TPE, there's going to be one predictable conclusion for these. A follow on 197 order would seem to make further logical sense.

Innovation leads to a number of blind alleys. If we turned our back on innovation we would still be travelling behind steam engines. In fact I doubt the railways would exist or even the canals before them !.

I think too much hope was pinned on something that needed longer to mature or evolve. But then Vivarail had to raise money somehow.

I feel that now the battery variant is being pursued by GWR themselves there will be more room for development without commercial pressures getting in the way.

Completely agree.


What I’ve still not had answered is why 197s weren’t ordered for this line in the first place? What good was randomly ordering a microfleet for one line, while the rest of the network gets big homogeneous fleets with operational flexibility?


It doesn’t when it means you get ancient recycled stock instead of the alternative - new build. And look what it’s lead to for both customers of the 230 - a year long shut down of service for LNR, and a completely unusable (or would be without the saviour of the 197s) for TfW.

At the time the 197s would have been a distant dream. What was needed was a solution for the Borderlands line and a selling point was that a local maintenance facility could be set up (wich TfW seemed to back out of).

With hindsight there is a lot that has has not gone right with this [and Porterbrook’s similar] rolling stock reengineering projects.

Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

What i see is the pressure was too great to get these new ideas into service (230s, 769s etc).

If there is funding, and the battery 777's settle down, I would trial and then go for them. That way the line could be brought into Liverpool

It seems obvious to me that the 230s may well have been intended as a stopgap until Mersey Rails battery 777s were ready (and any political negotiations).

.....................

See below re: my understanding of the spec. They may well be received well on the IoW but we're talking about a network than went from 80 year old trains to 40 year old trains - arguably you'd be hard pushed to find something that wasn't an upgrade.

Don't forget the 230s for TfW have a different passenger environment spec so comparing to the Isle of Wight 484 is pointless.

The advantage of the D78s was they were in good condition. The running gear was only about ten years old. The 40 year old bodies are alluimium so no corrosion to deal with. They were a good choice considering what was available back at the beginning.

........................
I'm well aware how a specification works. There was always the option of a bare minimum tube train for the North and there's no way of knowing what options may have been chosen, had the DfT not intervened. What I am saying is that this, bare minimum tube train re-hash was seriously proposed by vivarail for the North and would have been a marked step down from even a pacer.

Again - I don't think that spec is relevant to the actual 230s on the Borderlands line ?.

Of course, it wasn't unreasonable for TfW to expect the trains to perform. What I think was unreasonable was the unholy rush to get them designed and built; for that, both parties (Vivarail and TfW) were equally to blame. The technology, in particular the key parts - the gensets and the batteries, and the integration of them, were entirely untested - not in any meaningful sense anyway. The whole system had never been properly shaken down. That's what you've got to do if you want something to work out of the box when it's handed over to the customer, particularly when 'new' technology is involved. The battery rafts, in particular, have no force-cooling. The battery manufacturer insisted that it wasn't necessary at the time. This has turned out to be wildly optimistic. Six months of testing, rather than 3 weeks, might have identified that problem sooner, and it could have been addressed through mods before the trains went into service. Equally, the gensets, famously the achiliies heel of the WMT 230s, have also been a continuous drain on time and resources (for both Vivarail and now TfW). On top of that, the units were built in a rush by an overstretched workforce in substandard facilities at Long Marston; compounded by Covid happening right in the middle of it. So I'm not placing the blame entirely on TfW, although for reasons I've already explained, I think they certainly compounded a bad situation. Neither Vivarail or TfW covered themselves in glory, and I do appreciate that nothing will ever be enough to right that reputational damage now.

p.s. the original sales price was £17.5m for 5 trains, if I remember rightly, roughly £3.5m per train. Given that Vivarail never got fully paid for the units, if £25m (5 trains x £5m) is what's been spent on these units by TfW, then the interesting question for TfW ought to be where on earth did the additional £7.5m go? That's equivalent to building 2 more of them! Can all that money REALLY have gone on trying to fix up the units to date? I can't believe it myself.


Yes, having no forced cooling/ventilation on those batteries was indeed an oversight. The batteries should have had a 7(ish) year lifespan. Not sure what the latest predictions now are. The batteries used on the GWR Class 230 (230001) are a lot more sophisticated; they have a very different architecture to those on the TfW units, and each one is equipped with its own thermal management system (essentially an HVAC unit to keep the batteries at a reasonably steady-state temperature; cools them in summer, keeps them warm in winter). So hopefully that oversight with the earlier first-gen TfW batteries will be avoided. TfW units could in theory be retrofitted with the latest generation 230001-type batteries, but each battery is not cheap, they are heavier, and it's not quite a straight swap, there would be electrical and mechanical mods involved. TfW will probably be watching the performance of 230001 with interest. Whether they could justify the additional spend on the units to equip them with the more sophisticated batteries, is another matter altogether. I am sure many people would see it as throwing good money after bad.

All things that needed more development and testing time. But where was the money ?.

You can rattle about at much higher speeds on some sophisticated modern new build stock as well if you like, mentioning no names


The D-Train project was originally conceived as a reasonably short-term solution to fill the gap in the market left by not enough DMUs at the time (2015-2016ish), I don't think it was ever seen as anything grander than that, not even by Vivarail. But by the time the first 3 WMT units finally went into service (badly) in 2019, the world had moved on, purchased hundreds of new DMUs, and it was all too little too late. And batteries never really featured in the thinking at first; that came along later, when money was available from Innovate UK to try it out. It will be interesting to see whether GWR eventually roll out battery 230s on their branch lines, but I can't see it going any further than that. Aside from anything else, there aren't enough donor D78 vehicles left now anyway, Vivarail having scrapped half the stock in their final year of existence to try and keep the wolves from the door!

People seem to forget the the 230s have quite large differences within the same class. The possibilities have evolved over time from what was originally just a diesel engine under the floor.

 

[Greybeard33]

The product was obviously faulty before TfW ordered them. Just as the 769s were clearly faulty before TfW ordered them as the Northern units which had been ordered years before still hadn't been delivered and there were plenty of (crdible) reports that they were having serious problems.

While the 769 project has clearly had serious problems, I think those of the 230 are on a different scale. This week Northern has got six of its fleet of eight 769s into traffic on three successive days. That is availability that TfW can only dream of for the 230s.

The difference is that the worst of the 769 issues have been slowly but surely addressed by mods programmes.

 

[Peter Sarf]

While the 769 project has clearly had serious problems, I think those of the 230 are on a different scale. This week Northern has got six of its fleet of eight 769s into traffic on three successive days. That is availability that TfW can only dream of for the 230s.

The difference is that the worst of the 769 issues have been slowly but surely addressed by mods programmes.

I imagine the 769 project had more financial clout behind it. The work was being done for the Rolling Stock Company (Porterbrook ?) who had an interest in seeing their assets continue to earn money.

For the 230s it was being done by a small start up by comparison.

Innovation is always going to be a financial drain at first otherwise it would not be innovation !. The 230s needed to have a bit more time and money before deployment - a luxury that was not available.

I think the 769 project had been a bigger up hill struggle but with (or had) more prospects of ongoing financial support.

I also feel the use of second hand units is/was causing unnecessary pessimism. That was unnecessary snobbery. Most (all) of the problems with the 230s were to do with the new technology. Except for the deliberate slowing down of the door opening/closing speed which I think would have put more pressure on the units to keep time between stations !.

What has come out out of the D-train to class 230 or 484 conversions is the battery fast charge technology for certain of the 230s - at GWR. This looks to be becoming positive and will then see itself installed in secondhand OR new trains. I have a hunch that Great Western Railway are the right setting for this innovation to get a proper chance of developing and working.

There must have been enough interest/positivity for GWR to have taken over the challenge.

 

[Bob Price]

The 769's were brought in as they were about the only option to get the 150's PRM ready. At the time no one knew the Pacers would have to go. The 230's were chosen as they needed something that would cope with the topology of the Borderlands line and the battery acceleration was the feature they wanted. Buying 5 more 197's, knowing in a few years they may not be needed didn't make sense at the time.

 

[Wyrleybart]

The 769's were brought in as they were about the only option to get the 150's PRM ready. At the time no one knew the Pacers would have to go. The 230's were chosen as they needed something that would cope with the topology of the Borderlands line and the battery acceleration was the feature they wanted. Buying 5 more 197's, knowing in a few years they may not be needed didn't make sense at the time.

I am not sure you are correct there Bob.
Pacers (class 142s) were not PRM ready as IIRC they had a step, as well as all the other non PRM signage etc.

The plan was for pacers to remain in traffic right up until the absolute end of service pre PRM introduction, but as there as no intention to PRM the 142s they would be toast anyway. AIUI the 143s and 144s didn't have the step, so it as possible the Rosco could pay for a PRM upgrade to them and keep them, but AIUI that was the main difference between the 142 and the 143/144 bodyshell.

 

[CaergwrleKen]

No 230 again today, all trains are 197

 

[sd0733]

Seems that 230007 and 010 also have wheelset issues that need attention. Not sure if they also need a trip to the lathe or not bur did mean 0 230s were available this morning.

 

[meld3]

Surely 006 has unused wheels.....

 

[TheSel]

Surely 006 has unused wheels.....

No - just flat and possibly seized!

 

[Ribbleman]

Wasn't the point of having batteries something to do with running services to Liverpool in the tunnel, or was that just a rumour

Passenger trains carrying fuel oil are not permitted in the underground sections so that was never an option. If through trains from Wrexham to Liverpool ever come about they will need to be battery fitted Class 777 or something similar. That is one of the options currently being considered.

 

[childwallblues]

Passenger trains carrying fuel oil are not permitted in the underground sections so that was never an option. If through trains from Wrexham to Liverpool ever come about they will need to be battery fitted Class 777 or something similar. That is one of the options currently being considered.

777s to Wrexham has long been talked about. The line has massive potential for through trains to/from Liverpool.

 

[paddyb6]

Passenger trains carrying fuel oil are not permitted in the underground sections so that was never an option. If through trains from Wrexham to Liverpool ever come about they will need to be battery fitted Class 777 or something similar. That is one of the options currently being considered.

Also need a front/rear exit, as the 50x and 777s do, in case of evacuation in the loop and dive-under from Hamilton Sq.

 

[L401CJF]

I spent 5 hours working 230010 today - the new timetable is much better with a bit of extra slack thrown in - something that has been long overdue on this line.

Unit performed faultlessly with a decent turn of speed/acceleration even with the rain and strong winds battering it and the line. Kept to time with the exception of a track circuit failure at Dee Marsh losing about 5 minutes. I even had to wait time at a few stops on a couple of trips - something unheard of on the Bidston line!

The train crew diagrams still read a minute or 2 later than the times shown on the customer screens and public timetables for some reason.

It seems I'm one of the few who whenever I work a 230 it just behaves faultlessly! When will my luck run out...

 

[Lurcheroo]

I spent 5 hours working 230010 today - the new timetable is much better with a bit of extra slack thrown in - something that has been long overdue on this line.

Unit performed faultlessly with a decent turn of speed/acceleration even with the rain and strong winds battering it and the line. Kept to time with the exception of a track circuit failure at Dee Marsh losing about 5 minutes. I even had to wait time at a few stops on a couple of trips - something unheard of on the Bidston line!

The train crew diagrams still read a minute or 2 later than the times shown on the customer screens and public timetables for some reason.

It seems I'm one of the few who whenever I work a 230 it just behaves faultlessly! When will my luck run out...

That’s really great to hear !!
Would love to see the fleet become fully useable

 

[sansyy]

Really hoping one day the 230s become a good fleet, they're perfect for quite a few lines on the TfW network. I really hope that GWR comes out with their fast recharging unit with a gem and can hopefully bring some life to the 230s as I personally find them really comfortable and nice to ride, even if the doors are a little slow to open and close.

Also how many class 230s still operate on the Bidston line? I've travelled on 230006, 230008, 230009, 230010. Wondering how many more there is for me to catch!

And any idea what happened to the ones that aren't running, I am aware of their reliability problems but what specifically would be good to know.