Vivarail's 'D Train' - 'D' stock reborn

[spsmiler]

oh dear

RIP

[miff]

A detailed, and moving, obituary is published in today's Daily Telegraph and includes a final message, concerning his motor neurone disease, from Adrian Shooter to his friends one of whom must have written this piece:
www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2022/12/19/adrian-shooter-giant-rail-privatisation-who-british-rail-manager/

Registration with the website (email and payment details) required.

Edited details - attempted to read and website wanted email and payment details, albeit free for 3 months. Tom

[Tom]

To get around the Telegraph Paywall, it is possible to read a cached version here.

As miff says, a very moving obituary.

[d7666]

www.londonnorthwesternrailway.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/marston-vale-line-buses-replace-trains-until-further-notice

scroll down through the FAQ …….

….. one of those states they exchanged engines on 230s at the rate of THREE per week

each 230 has 4 engines

so the Bedford Bletchley trio averaged total engine replacement every 4 weeks

one can see why LNWR might have been looking for a get out anyway

[100andthirty]

That really does put the withdrawal into context!

[t697]

Indeed, what a shame. One might conclude that resources were no longer being put in to achieve reliability growth on these diesel units at least, for quite some time before the end of Vivarail.

[alpinejohn]

So near - so far.

The interiors of these recycled trains were really attractive and when they actually ran seemed well liked by passengers.

However from the outset the idea of converting a generally reliable LUL electric multiple unit to run on diesel power was risky. This was even more risky when they chose to shoe horn in road vehicle engines, generators, radiators and control gubbins all into very cramped rafts hung below the vehicle where there was often not sufficient air flow across the radiators.

Sadly towards the end of VivaRail, the right answer for Marston Vale was almost there. Dump the diesels, fuel tanks etc and fill those rafts with batteries making it a battery electric Class 230. The traction motors won't care where the power comes from and coupled with a fast charging system at each end of Bedford-Bletchley the line could have been among the first to enjoy emission free services without incurring the expense of knitting.

They were actually trialling the fast charging system at Bletchley. The 40 mile range they demonstrated by the class 230 battery demonstrator was more than adequate for a 32 mile round trip to Bedford without intermediate charging. Moving to battery power would however mean the trains would not suffer the infuriating reliability issues witnessed during the summer time whith overheating issues linked to the radiators getting clogged. It is also sad to think that the proposed Greenford battery trial using the demonstrator unit has also presumably been abandoned too. So near...

[goldenarrow]

My understanding is that the DfT has enabled GWR to take on the necessary staffing, operational and maintenance capabilities to ensure that the Greenford branch trial can continue

[pgb]

I believe that the TfW version resume driver training next week (or was it month?!). So they will still live on. Must admit when there were reports of a "Thermal Incident" outside Wrexham the other day, I did wonder! Turns out it was just 175008 having a trip down memory lane and BBQ itself (again!)

[jimbo]

Feb 9, 2023 19:10:43 GMT alpinejohn said:

..... They were actually trialling the fast charging system at Bletchley. The 40 mile range they demonstrated by the class 230 battery demonstrator was more than adequate for a 32 mile round trip to Bedford without intermediate charging. .....

Doesn't battery performance decline over time with recharging?

[Chris M]

Battery performance degradation is a real but very complex thing that depends on multiple things, the most significant being the battery chemistry and how it is treated (the best way depends on the chemistry). The effects differ depending on the different chemistries, but my understanding is that the performance of the batteries that would be used has almost no reduction in capacity until it relatively suddenly falls off a cliff, at which point it would be replaced.

[d7666]

Feb 9, 2023 20:07:17 GMT Chris M said:

Battery performance degradation is a real but very complex thing that depends on multiple things, the most significant being the battery chemistry and how it is treated (the best way depends on the chemistry). The effects differ depending on the different chemistries, but my understanding is that the performance of the batteries that would be used has almost no reduction in capacity until it relatively suddenly falls off a cliff, at which point it would be replaced.

Indeed that is a more or less correct overview. Sudden Battery failure over a cliff fall is dead right for a modern battery.

As a car driver your problem is you suddenly can't move, whereas an older battery maybe you could limp home or to garage or somewhere for new battery

[joshua]

Feb 9, 2023 19:34:59 GMT goldenarrow said:

My understanding is that the DfT has enabled GWR to take on the necessary staffing, operational and maintenance capabilities to ensure that the Greenford branch trial can continue

So when will it start? Where will the 230 get repaired?

[miff]

The Vivarail Administrators have filed a statement of their proposals for winding up the company. They have two preferred bidders in place (it doesn’t say who they are) for all tangible assets including 82 scrap-condition D78 cars; and for all intellectual property including patents etc.
The report also confirms the end came when the principal investor (RDC) decided they could not put in any more money, and Vivarail were unable to find any other investor or buyer.

Published on this page at Companies House:
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08661726/filing-history

[d7666]

Feb 9, 2023 13:13:24 GMT 100andthirty said:

That really does put the withdrawal into context!

I don't suppose we ever know the true facts down to this level of detail but it would be interesting to understand cause and effect here i.e. was engine unreliability a result of poor design or poor selection, then was inability to sort it out a contributor to collapse of the company, or a symptom of it if the company was already so low on resources as to be unable to sort it out.

And I do mean true facts. Anyone can sit at a keyboard and speculate or print canteen gossip or "my friends mate in the know says" stuff.

I doubt we will ever know the true sequence of events; apart from anything else too much will be bound up in confidentiality agreements even post bankruptcy as the other parties will hold to them.

All ways, you can understand why the Train Operating Company dropped it as soon as they could on simple reliability grounds. It almost gave them the ideal reason to drop it.

These ideas are all very nice - but look too at the (digression) of GW 769s (ex 319s) those too have been dropped and going off lease all 19 of them without ever turning a wheel in revenue service. One can argue all one likes about DfT instructing cuts and post covid impact, but the fact is all the testing never yet got GW 769s t work reliability, and the axe fell on them because of this.

Long ago there was a famous learned society technical paper by the BR SR CM&EE *** who was in charge at the time the 71s were converted into 74s _ which was another reliability disaster _ and a key point he was made was, in simple terms, if you want to rebuild something into something else, don't.


*** WJA Sykes ?

[spsmiler]

This might also explain why there were no sales of these trains anywhere else. Its a big shame.

I wonder, how are the pure electric trains on the Isle of Wight faring?

[d7666]

That is hard to say - because there are five units and almost the whole time they have been there the service has seldom used more than one unit a day.

OK someone will be along to point out that on days x y and z there were 2 out, but the general case has been 1 unit.

So on publicly visible trainspotter data can't tell it all 5 actually are in full working order and capable of work, or they can only manage one at a time.

Equally professional data like Roger Ford's Modern Railways golden spanner data things are distorted exactly because the fleet is more generously provided for - on the mainland a fleet of 10 units would have 9 diagrams, and 20 units 19 diagrams, and so on. Since they have at least 3 if not 4 not in traffic, there is plenty of time for TLC.

On top of that ongoing infrastructure work means reduced mileage; the current Pier work for example. OK it;s only half a mile per trip less, but nonetheless adds up over weeks.

On the whole I suggest 484s must work on the "no news is good news" basis - if they were a shambles there would be smoke signals across the Solent bringing news.

[miff]

Let’s hope there is a decent supply of spare parts for the 484s, and ability to support the software.

[alpinejohn]

Thus far the 484s seem to be reasonably reliable. Admittedly that should be fairly easy with ample back up units on the island. Yes the line was closed for several hours when a tree blocked the line in January - but that is hardly an issue with the 484s.

However there was a recent (also January) issue with the wrong kind of ice - which saw all trains suspended...

www.islandecho.co.uk/trains-between-ryde-and-shanklin-suspended-due-to-icy-conditions/

Amusing to see some responses suggesting the return of the 38 stock - which also struggled with poor rail adhesion issues.

The big challenge for Island Line is to negotiate with the staff to agree practical changes to significantly reduce platform dwell time (basically speed up the door release and closure process) which is a flaw with the 484.

Until the line offers reliable turn up and go services, or at least clockface services, which give time to link to ferry and hovercraft connections, sadly I don't see any prospect of significant traffic growth, as most people will choose taxis, private cars or the island bus network.

[t697]

Feb 10, 2023 17:05:55 GMT d7666 said:

Long ago there was a famous learned society technical paper by the BR SR CM&EE *** who was in charge at the time the 71s were converted into 74s _ which was another reliability disaster _ and a key point he was made was, in simple terms, if you want to rebuild something into something else, don't.

Interesting.  Perhaps it varies with just how much change your rebuild involves.  Let's look at some LT/LUL examples;

- Re-tractioning the Metadyne O & P trains with 'conventional' camshaft control gear in the '50s.  Quite a reasonable success that one I think.

- Converting some D78 stock trains into 'new' Rail Adhesion Trains.  Well it took quite an effort but they seem reasonable in practice.

- Reworking 83TS with wider doorways and new propulsion and other kit.  Fortunately we'll never know for sure!

- Re-tractioning and other major updates of 92TS under the CLIP programme.  Hmm, should we worry?

[jimbo]

A stock OPO conversion worked well. The 59/62 stock was just replaced.

[quex]

But, as t697 says, I think it's the scale of the conversion that makes the difference. There's plenty of examples of retractioning, such as the 455s to AC, that seem to be working reasonably well.

But the key thing with the 71s/74s, the D-trains and for that matter 769s is they were a full conversion from electric to diesel electric, ie. a complete change of prime mover. None of them can really be said to have been a success, and I think it's telling that the only D-trains in service are the 484s, a "straight" electric conversion.

I think OPO conversion is a completely different matter entirely.

[d7666]

Feb 14, 2023 19:10:13 GMT t697 said:

Feb 10, 2023 17:05:55 GMT d7666 said:

Long ago there was a famous learned society technical paper by the BR SR CM&EE *** who was in charge at the time the 71s were converted into 74s _ which was another reliability disaster _ and a key point he was made was, in simple terms, if you want to rebuild something into something else, don't.

Interesting.  Perhaps it varies with just how much change your rebuild involves.  Let's look at some LT/LUL examples;

- Re-tractioning the Metadyne O & P trains with 'conventional' camshaft control gear in the '50s.  Quite a reasonable success that one I think.

- Converting some D78 stock trains into 'new' Rail Adhesion Trains.  Well it took quite an effort but they seem reasonable in practice.

- Reworking 83TS with wider doorways and new propulsion and other kit.  Fortunately we'll never know for sure!

- Re-tractioning and other major updates of 92TS under the CLIP programme.  Hmm, should we worry?

None of your examples are as drastic.

Repowering / retractioning an EMU to make an EMU (three times) ? Converting passenger stock to departmental ? Done routinely.

74s / 230s / 769s all involved changing the underlying traction type - from straight electric to assorted forms of diesel + electric. Not done regularly. Or to my knowledge, successfully.

Sykes was the same engineer at SR CM&EE who got Rep and TC out of LH stock, converted 33s to push pull, and so on, and must have been around for the pre-27 stock for IOW. That level of modification worked.

[t697]

I think the "Don't" advice won out on the 83TS conversion twice over, Jub and Picc versions. I wasn't rubbishing the sentiment!

And another case of the "Don't" route winning was abandoning the plan to equip the whole Central line with 1960TS motor cars and mildly modernised Standard stock trailer cars.

[100andthirty]

In all my experience, though, large modifications always end up taking longer and costing more than expected even when an allowance has been made for this truism.

[t697]

Certainly delays have plagued CLIP. I do hope the outcome is worth it though.

[spsmiler]

Feb 14, 2023 21:14:15 GMT quex said:

But the key thing with the 71s/74s, the D-trains and for that matter 769s is they were a full conversion from electric to diesel electric, ie. a complete change of prime mover. None of them can really be said to have been a success, and I think it's telling that the only D-trains in service are the 484s, a "straight" electric conversion.

Ditto the standard and 1938 tube stock trains which went to the IOW - very successful

I wonder how the battery trial on the Greenford branch will fare

[brigham]

With hindsight, it may have been better to convert some ex-LU D-stock to third rail at Eastleigh, for use on the Isle of Wight.

The idea has quite a history of success.

The Vivarail scheme seems to have been another Hesketh motorcycle; simply a great man's dream.

[piccboy]

Looks like there is still some life left in this project.

[t697]

I was somewhat surprised the IoW trains got new traction kit. I'd have thought the camshaft kit and DC motors would have been simpler to retain and need no development period. I appreciate the slight efficiency gain theoretically possible with the new drives but I'd doubt the Regen brake benefit was all that great with hardly any other trains running.