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

[SpacePhoenix]

Will they tow the 230 to the nearest place they can get a low loader to and then send it back by road?

 

[philthetube]

Is it likely to be able to make it to Long Marston under its own power?

Unless they know what caused the fire and are able to fix the problem I doubt if it will. I wouldn't expect either Vivarail or Network Rail to be happy about that happening.

 

[HSTEd]

St. Ives, maybe. Exmouth, I don't think so. Cutting the Exmouth branch back to Exeter Central (EXC) would be disastrous - I'm at Exeter St. Davids (EXD) fairly often and *masses* of people get on/off the Exmouth trains there. Having to get on a Waterloo train or a EXD/EXC shuttle at EXD and then change onto a tram (probably after going through the ticket barriers to a segregated tram stop) at Exeter Central would ruin this service for many of its users.

If you got very cheeky you could probably single between Central and St Davids using a Penryn style loop on the passing road space at Central.
But that is very cheeky.
Have a dedicated tram platform between the WoEML and GW platforms at St Davids.

 

[D365]

Unless they know what caused the fire and are able to fix the problem I doubt if it will. I wouldn't expect either Vivarail or Network Rail to be happy about that happening.

Just isolate/remove the charred engine?

 

[Domh245]

Just isolate/remove the charred engine?

And hope it hasn't taken any important wiring with it

 

[philthetube]

Just isolate/remove the charred engine?

only if you are 100% sure the other won't go the same way

 

[HLE]

only if you are 100% sure the other won't go the same way

This.

If it can be moved under its own power it will.

 

[kieron]

On that note, how about the Scottish Borders? allow 158s to be cascaded to more demanding routes in Scotland?

I had assumed that part of the reason for using 158s on "scenic" lines is for the vestibules. None of the 230 layouts I've seen have them, so I think you'll need a more imaginative proposal if you want to see 230s running up and down the ECML.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I had assumed that part of the reason for using 158s on "scenic" lines is for the vestibules. None of the 230 layouts I've seen have them, so I think you'll need a more imaginative proposal if you want to see 230s running up and down the ECML.

Class 230 running up and down the ECML, you say.....

When was it that the ECML suddenly had a 60mph speed restriction applied to meet that particular flight of fancy?

 

[D365]

As much as it is unlikely that any Class 230 units will be seen north of the border, I don't believe that the Borders Line shares much track with the East Coast line.

 

[Clip]

This.

If it can be moved under its own power it will.

Due to the ease of changing the engines(a selling point I do believe) maybe this gives them a good opportunity to show how quick this can be done as long as not much else is damaged under there of course

 

[43021HST]

My apologies if this has already been covered. But from the information I've been able to gather, from another railway forum and may possibly explain why the fire occurred; maybe down to the actual design of the engine used. This is the first time an automotive based diesel engine, of that size and RPM has been considered for use in a commercially viable, multiple unit.

The engine currently being used is a 3.2 litre, Duratorque engine and the least powerful engine used for this kind of application before was an 8.2 litre Leyland engine in the LEV1.

So the engine in question, is most likely far too underpowered and wouldn't have been designed for such long periods of running flat out, whilst powering such a heavy load, the engine would have been running flat out for such a long time, imagine the amount of heat that would have generated. Most engines typically designed for automotive applications would never have been designed for that kind of intensive running. No wonder it set fire!

I think Vivarail originally considered having a higher powered onboard engine located in a compartment, but I can't think for the life of me why they would give up such a common sense measure, except perhaps to increase passenger capacity, by having less room taken up by the engine cubicle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

740hp (over 4 engines) isn't underpowered for a unit like that - it's similar to what a 3-car Class 150 would have. And the engines run flat-out in Ford Transits up and down the motorways daily.

There may be a design issue in the engine rafts (e.g. inadequate cooling), or it may have been a failure of a fuel line or something - but I doubt it would be due to overuse of the engine.

We will no doubt find out in due course.

 

[Dstock7080]

Remember the Diesel engines do not provide the tractive effort, they supply the (nominal) 630vDC to the LU motors.

They have modern 'start-stop' technology that will turn off, idle unnecessary engines if output is not required.

 

[Bantamzen]

There's quite an interesting debate taking place over on WNXX on the 230 power units & their suitablility including possible modifications made to allow them to operate (or not) in their current function. I'm not totally savvy on engine design / suitability, but there are some doubts amongst some members. Worth a read through if anyone has signed up for it.

 

[najaB]

So the engine in question, is most likely far too underpowered and wouldn't have been designed for such long periods of running flat out, whilst powering such a heavy load, the engine would have been running flat out for such a long time...

I could well be wrong, but my understanding is that one of the main advantages of the railway is that, once moving, very little energy is required to keep moving. So the engines would only be running 'flat out' when starting from stations or signals.

 

[43021HST]

There's quite an interesting debate taking place over on WNXX on the 230 power units & their suitablility including possible modifications made to allow them to operate (or not) in their current function. I'm not totally savvy on engine design / suitability, but there are some doubts amongst some members. Worth a read through if anyone has signed up for it.

That's where I got my information from

Some of the members on there seem to be very knowledgeable in regards to engine design. I was basically re-iterating what they were saying. I was also trying to steer the conversation away from toilets and hypothetical operational constraints and back onto the topic at hand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I could well be wrong, but my understanding is that one of the main advantages of the railway is that, once moving, very little energy is required to keep moving. So the engines would only be running 'flat out' when starting from stations or signals.

If the engine is based on a Ford Pickup engine, like those are saying on WNXX, I'd still say the amount of time spent running full whack, whilst accelerating would be considerably more than in your average pickup truck, with far higher loads, hence the cause of the problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the engine is based on a Ford Pickup engine, like those are saying on WNXX, I'd still say the amount of time spent running full whack, whilst accelerating would be considerably more than in your average pickup truck, with far higher loads.

It's a Ford engine used in a number of applications. And plenty of pickups will be running at full revs along motorways/highways.

The only things I'd be concerned about is the way it is mounted and the very different types of shock and vibration (and muck) you get from steel wheel/rail as compared to a road vehicle.

 

[A0]

My apologies if this has already been covered. But from the information I've been able to gather, from another railway forum and may possibly explain why the fire occurred; maybe down to the actual design of the engine used. This is the first time an automotive based diesel engine, of that size and RPM has been considered for use in a commercially viable, multiple unit.

The engine currently being used is a 3.2 litre, Duratorque engine and the least powerful engine used for this kind of application before was an 8.2 litre Leyland engine in the LEV1.

So the engine in question, is most likely far too underpowered and wouldn't have been designed for such long periods of running flat out, whilst powering such a heavy load, the engine would have been running flat out for such a long time, imagine the amount of heat that would have generated. Most engines typically designed for automotive applications would never have been designed for that kind of intensive running. No wonder it set fire!

I think Vivarail originally considered having a higher powered onboard engine located in a compartment, but I can't think for the life of me why they would give up such a common sense measure, except perhaps to increase passenger capacity, by having less room taken up by the engine cubicle.

Not a correct comparison - the Leyland engine in LEV was driving a mechanical transmission. The Ford engine in the D78 is effectively acting as a generator and providing electrical power to drive the existing electrical motors.

A mechanical engine is far more stressed and affected by acceleration / deceleration - whereas an engine acting as a generator is far less stressed.

It's also worth noting the 8.2 litre Leyland 510 engine as used in LEV1 was also used in the Leyland National. Whereas the latest Volvo B5TL (which is a double deck chassis) is using a 5 litre engine.

The new Routemaster is also using a much smaller engine that its forebears - in this case a 4.5 litre 4 cylinder engine.

Engine down-sizing is happening in many areas - just because 40 years ago an 8 litre engine was used doesn't mean a 3.2 litre isn't appropriate now.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's a Ford engine used in a number of applications. And plenty of pickups will be running at full revs along motorways/highways.

The only things I'd be concerned about is the way it is mounted and the very different types of shock and vibration (and muck) you get from steel wheel/rail as compared to a road vehicle.

Looking at the WNXX debate, and bearing in mind I'm no expert in this field, but some doubts are not about the engine running at full revs but the cycle of acceleration / deceleration that might introduce different stresses on the engine compared to a van on a motorway. Some have also suggested that modifications have been made to the engine to allow it to power the traction unit, and that these as well could be contributing towards the issue that 230001 had.

Of course all this is pre-guessing what actually happened, but I’d imagine using a basic design of engine, fitting it into a different environment from it’s original design spec (with potentially additional mods), with different running cycles could expose a stress that causes such failures that nobody had previously imagined. I think the fact that this modular engine block hasn’t just been swapped out on site means that VR are concerned that there could be a more complex issue at hand that needs further investigation.

Whatever the reason, it is clear 230001 won’t be back in testing for a bit which is eating into the time they have to prove the concept, let alone sell it to companies preparing bids for franchises.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course all this is pre-guessing what actually happened, but I’d imagine using a basic design of engine, fitting it into a different environment from it’s original design spec (with potentially additional mods), with different running cycles could expose a stress that causes such failures that nobody had previously imagined. I think the fact that this modular engine block hasn’t just been swapped out on site means that VR are concerned that there could be a more complex issue at hand that needs further investigation.

There's also the complication that it has been on fire - the mountings or even body and underframe may have weakening or damage. They might even find themselves having to build a new end coach - not as if they're short of them.

 

[Bantamzen]

There's also the complication that it has been on fire - the mountings or even body and underframe may have weakening or damage. They might even find themselves having to build a new end coach - not as if they're short of them.

Very true, there could be additional damage to the mountings and/or frame as you say. Were they already working on a second unit, or has that work not yet started do we know (I'm just wondering if they could quickly turn around an end coach)?

 

[43021HST]

What I don't understand is why go for an engine type that's untried in rail applications, if you're trying to design a train that's cost effective.

Would it not be more reliable to mount the engine onboard in it's own cubicle and use a standard DMU engine type. That's assuming there's not enough space below the underframe for a standard DMU engine.

 

[najaB]

That's assuming there's not enough space below the underframe for a standard DMU engine.

I suspect that is the case.

 

[D60]

What I don't understand is why go for an engine type that's untried in rail applications, if you're trying to design a train that's cost effective.

Would it not be more reliable to mount the engine onboard in it's own cubicle and use a standard DMU engine type. That's assuming there's not enough space below the underframe for a standard DMU engine.

As I understand it, back when the D-train proposal was first announced nearly 2 1/2 years ago (!) one of the perceived problems back then was the difficulty in sourcing emissions-compliant underfloor engines for the UK market.. and that pairs of automotive engines that were compliant, was one of the key features of the D-train proposal...
This, and many other aspects surrounding the application of the Ford Duratorq engine in the D-train, have indeed been discussed at considerable length much earlier in the 300+ pages of this thread... but obviously before one went on fire..

 

[Mikey C]

As I understand it, back when the D-train proposal was first announced nearly 2 1/2 years ago (!) one of the perceived problems back then was the difficulty in sourcing emissions-compliant underfloor engines for the UK market.. and that pairs of automotive engines that were compliant, was one of the key features of the D-train proposal...
This, and many other aspects surrounding the application of the Ford Duratorq engine in the D-train, have indeed been discussed at considerable length much earlier in the 300+ pages of this thread... but obviously before one went on fire..

Indeed, has the engine choice for the new Caf DMUs and Stadler bi-modes been confirmed yet?

 

[WatcherZero]

Not been confirmed but the current model of the engine used in the Turbostars is now fully compliant, would probably be a shoein since similar was used in the Irish versions of the Civity.

 

[FordFocus]

Transit vans has air flow going though the engine bay because of the front grills on the vehicle. What form of air flow has the engine got when fitted in this raft on the D train? I suspect it's very little.

 

[D365]

Transit vans has air flow going though the engine bay because of the front grills on the vehicle. What form of air flow has the engine got when fitted in this raft on the D train? I suspect it's very little.

Why do you think that adequate ventilation is not provided?

 

[coppercapped]

All this supposition about the 'engine fire' is just - guesswork.

It is not clear which component caused the fire. Was it

• a failure within the engine itself
• a fracture in a fuel or oil feed
• an overheated electrical connection (200bhp at 660v is 225amps - a high resistance connection can get very hot very quickly)
• a blow-by in the exhaust system
• or something else?

The reason for the failure is also not clear, whether it was:

• a design error
• a manufacturing/assembly error
• a materials failure
• a maintenance issue
• a component failure due to body/vehicle resonance
• or something else
• an unfortunate combination of two or more of any of the above.

Until the investigation has been completed then pure speculation is pointless. Not that it stops anybody from doing it...