Vivarail chosen for GWR fast charging trial.

[DarloRich]

Indeed while the original Vivarail idea of powering the D78s with Ford Transit engines seems a bit of a lemon all round

this is not quite correct - see @A0wn below for the gen!

It's a bit hard to see them when it's been replacement buses for several months, to be fair!

A fair point - the big issue is the bus is more reliable than the train - I cant be the only one who sees the issue with that!

BIB - not for the first time, these were not mechanically powering the units, instead they were acting as electrical generators. So the fact they were "only" Transit engines was kind of irrelevant. The issues that did occur tended to be around cooling and airflow - which with ground (or near) ground mounted engines running on a rural line where dust and pollen is more prevalent was a problem, it was exacerbated by a period of dry, hot weather in their early days.

Correct - although the problems do seem to have been more extensive than just "thermal" issues and they persisted well beyond early days! We can but hope that the long covid layoff has led to a proper engineering fix and that the new service will not be plagued by the kind of service delivery issues we saw prior to covid. You will forgive me if I don't hold my breath just yet!

Of course, and I can't blame you for being disappointed, but it was unfair to say 'vivarail lovers' were overlooking 'actual user testimony' - the 484s are proving very successful, better than I dared hope tbh, so I don't see why similar battery units on the mainland couldn't be too.

I REALLY want these trains to work on my line. If we can have battery one that works please send it now! I simply want to say that not everything Vivarail wise has been a success and something to be proud of, despite their good PR.

If the reliability issues have driven someone who was a user of the line every day (except Sundays) for the best part of a decade away something has gone very wrong with the service.

I must admit to not paying attention on this subject; what was the cause of their unreliability? If it was the power plant, then there’s not so much to worry about on the battery version.

See @A0wen above.

 

[Domh245]

Surely VIV would be more appropriate?

Not when you're trying to do a battery based pun, unless I'm missing something?

 

[edwin_m]

Not when you're trying to do a battery based pun, unless I'm missing something?

Are you positive about that?

 

[D365]

Not when you're trying to do a battery based pun, unless I'm missing something?

D-Cell Trains

 

[ABB125]

Not when you're trying to do a battery based pun, unless I'm missing something?

It appears that (unsurprisingly!) I'm the one who's missing something...

 

[Techniquest]

It appears that (unsurprisingly!) I'm the one who's missing something...

AA, AAA, C, D ring any bells?

I'm guessing the idea was to use the common battery types in the relevant post. I have to say, until Domh245 mentioned puns I hadn't twigged. Brain is still elsewhere tonight

Very clever though!

EDIT: I have no experience of 230s yet, apart from spitting one of the TfW lot at Birkenhead last month. So I can't comment on those. However, I can say that I like the idea of this trial and I want it to be a success. Plenty of places where it could be used, two in particular that came to mind (should the technology prove to be successful) were Preston to Blackpool South and Lancaster to Morecambe/Heysham Port.

 

[Taunton]

A line side battery bank that supplies 750Vdc to the unit via carbon-ceramic third rail shoes.

Oh No! A third rail! Quick, glass of water for the health & safety team at RSSB.

 

[Elecman]

Oh No! A third rail! Quick, glass of water for the health & safety team at RSSB.

You mean the ORR

 

[AzureOtsu]

Vivarail trains are quickly becoming the new Pacers, wouldn't be suprised if they had a similar lifespan.

 

[D365]

Oh No! A third rail! Quick, glass of water for the health & safety team at RSSB.

You mean the ORR

There has been a lot of work behind the scenes with the ORR directly involved.

 

[nw12398]

Can you substantiate ‘hugely loss making’? I doubt that’s a fair reflection of St Ives, Falmouth, Exmouth and Barnstaple. A regular oversight is that simplistic per mile infrastructure cost allocation overstates the cost of a rural branch line and understates the real cost of a complex inner city network.

Yes, I would be very surprised if the Exmouth-Paignton and St Ives services are serious loss makers, both of which are very well patronised and saw some of the smallest drops in passenger shares last year. Both the Falmouth and Barnstaple branches have decent passenger numbers although a bit less than the other two and in the case of Barnstaple, the ticket cost per distance travelled is very low.

The St Ives, Falmouth and Exmouth-Paignton services are definitely worthy of new rolling stock IMO. The first two are prime cases for battery trains, but I worry the Exmouth-Paignton services are too long. When electrification finally reaches the Devon main line, there would be a good case for trying hybrid wires/battery running, similar to what is being considered in the borderlands. I think the Barnstaple line, as well as Okehampton and Newquay, are pretty low priority for alternative traction and would be well served by 158s for a while yet, cascaded to make sure there are sufficient numbers. These battery D trains seem pretty well fit for Looe and Gunnislake (and even St Ives and Falmouth, to be honest).

 

[RPI]

Yes, I would be very surprised if the Exmouth-Paignton and St Ives services are serious loss makers, both of which are very well patronised and saw some of the smallest drops in passenger shares last year. Both the Falmouth and Barnstaple branches have decent passenger numbers although a bit less than the other two and in the case of Barnstaple, the ticket cost per distance travelled is very low.

The St Ives, Falmouth and Exmouth-Paignton services are definitely worthy of new rolling stock IMO. The first two are prime cases for battery trains, but I worry the Exmouth-Paignton services are too long. When electrification finally reaches the Devon main line, there would be a good case for trying hybrid wires/battery running, similar to what is being considered in the borderlands. I think the Barnstaple line, as well as Okehampton and Newquay, are pretty low priority for alternative traction and would be well served by 158s for a while yet, cascaded to make sure there are sufficient numbers. These battery D trains seem pretty well fit for Looe and Gunnislake (and even St Ives and Falmouth, to be honest).

I'd disagree with St Ives and Falmouth, both have incredibly tight turnarounds (particularly St Ives) and with the St Ives 30MPH line speed i doubt the marginally faster acceleration would help, as most trains only stop at Carbis Bay now (and one every two hours request at Lelant), the Cornish branches would be much better served with some form of Hybrid similar to the 168 Chiltern are trialling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh No! A third rail! Quick, glass of water for the health & safety team at RSSB.

Presumably these "third rails" have something that turns them off unless a unit is there?

 

[zwk500]

Presumably these "third rails" have something that turns them off unless a unit is there?

They probably do, but even if they don't, a 3-car length is perfectly possible to protect appropriately with wooden or fibreglass shrouding, and to provide safe walking routes away from anything that may be live at any point.

 

[RPI]

Having had a good read of the press release I think the technology itself (which ultimately is what is being tested) could be very useful if it works, I just hope that this technology is applied to a batch of new build stock eventually rather than this merry-go-round of applying new technologies to redundant stock such as D Stock/319's.

 

[John R]

I'd disagree with St Ives and Falmouth, both have incredibly tight turnarounds (particularly St Ives) and with the St Ives 30MPH line speed i doubt the marginally faster acceleration would help, as most trains only stop at Carbis Bay now (and one every two hours request at Lelant), the Cornish branches would be much better served with some form of Hybrid similar to the 168 Chiltern are trialling.

It would take less than 90 secs to top up the battery with enough charge for a return trip on the St Ives line, so I really don’t think short turnarounds are an issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They probably do, but even if they don't, a 3-car length is perfectly possible to protect appropriately with wooden or fibreglass shrouding, and to provide safe walking routes away from anything that may be live at any point.

Or even to use bottom-contact.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2022 ==

Having had a good read of the press release I think the technology itself (which ultimately is what is being tested) could be very useful if it works, I just hope that this technology is applied to a batch of new build stock eventually rather than this merry-go-round of applying new technologies to redundant stock such as D Stock/319's.

I think that having failed to flog off used D78s, Vivarail's business is now very much moving towards developing technology like this to be put in new stock, yes. The D78s are just a disposable testbed now.

 

[100andthirty]

Presumably these "third rails" have something that turns them off unless a unit is there?

The charging rails are only energised when a train is over them and the collector shoes are in contact. The rails have to be discharged before the train can move.
There is precedent. In the architecturally sensitive areas of Bordeaux, France, the tramway uses a 3rd rail system to power the trams. It is only energised only when a tram is over it and if it doesn't de-energise in time the tram makes an emergency brake application. Speeds are low. More information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_APS

 

[Taunton]

Or even to use bottom-contact.

The trouble with bottom contact, as the DLR has found, is that the train collector shoes then point upwards. Notwithstanding that the conductor rail is always placed on the side away from the platform, given that the shoes need to be on both sides of the train, and are connected and live at all times, this leaves them just inches below the platform, pointing upwards towards those boarding and alighting. What was that about PTI incidents? The DLR had to install protectors at platforms for this, which have been an additional cost, plus (unintended consequences) they soon were found to be impromptu steps down to the track., and undisciplined passengers use them to cross from one platform to the other - have now seen this happen multiple times.

 

[100andthirty]

In addition, I'd add that the charging system uses two rails and both are intended to be placed between the running rails.

 

[BayPaul]

Yes, I would be very surprised if the Exmouth-Paignton and St Ives services are serious loss makers, both of which are very well patronised and saw some of the smallest drops in passenger shares last year. Both the Falmouth and Barnstaple branches have decent passenger numbers although a bit less than the other two and in the case of Barnstaple, the ticket cost per distance travelled is very low.

The St Ives, Falmouth and Exmouth-Paignton services are definitely worthy of new rolling stock IMO. The first two are prime cases for battery trains, but I worry the Exmouth-Paignton services are too long. When electrification finally reaches the Devon main line, there would be a good case for trying hybrid wires/battery running, similar to what is being considered in the borderlands. I think the Barnstaple line, as well as Okehampton and Newquay, are pretty low priority for alternative traction and would be well served by 158s for a while yet, cascaded to make sure there are sufficient numbers. These battery D trains seem pretty well fit for Looe and Gunnislake (and even St Ives and Falmouth, to be honest).

The advantage that Exmouth - Paignton has is that it has 3 reversal points. If charging infrastructure was also provided at St Davids as well as the termini, that should be enough charging time

 

[zwk500]

The trouble with bottom contact, as the DLR has found, is that the train collector shoes then point upwards. Notwithstanding that the conductor rail is always placed on the side away from the platform, given that the shoes need to be on both sides of the train, and are connected and live at all times, this leaves them just inches below the platform, pointing upwards towards those boarding and alighting. What was that about PTI incidents? The DLR had to install protectors at platforms for this, which have been an additional cost, plus (unintended consequences) they soon were found to be impromptu steps down to the track., and undisciplined passengers use them to cross from one platform to the other - have now seen this happen multiple times.

Given that the shoes would only be active at specified points, side-contact with retractable shoes is a perfectly possible arrangement. The live part would be shrouded on 3 sides to mitigate safety issues and the shoes can be set up to automatically retract after loss of current to prevent fouling the lower sector gauge.
Although top-contact would seem to be perfectly manageable from a safety viewpoint for a length of c.60m.

 

[Taunton]

The charging rails are only energised when a train is over them and the collector shoes are in contact. The rails have to be discharged before the train can move.
There is precedent. In the architecturally sensitive areas of Bordeaux, France, the tramway uses a 3rd rail system to power the trams. It is only energised only when a tram is over it and if it doesn't de-energise in time the tram makes an emergency brake application. Speeds are low. More information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_APS

Oh, well done ORR, for insisting on such a complex and failure-prone technical system, doubtless with multiple checks and prevention of any movement if it doesn't work perfectly. The sort of thing that causes more failures than the basic project.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2022 ==

You mean the ORR

I thank you for the correction. Although, in truth, they appear to be two parallel organisations and bureaucratic empires, each duplicating the function of the other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh, well done ORR, for insisting on such a complex and failure-prone technical system, doubtless with multiple checks and prevention of any movement if it doesn't work perfectly. The sort of thing that causes more failures than the basic project.

Did ORR insist on it or was it Vivarail's potentially patented design?

Logic would say to use standard bottom-contact as per the DLR, Hamburg U-Bahn and a number of other systems internationally (keeping it live reduces the risk of it getting nicked for scrap), but that is probably well out of patent so less profitable for Vivarail.

Actually, to be honest, if you were designing one for that specific location logic would be to use 25kV and a pantograph! But obviously it's not just for electrified routes.

 

[Recessio]

This is probably cheaper and easier than my dream the line becoming a Central line branch/shuttle. Look forward to seeing this progress further.

 

[Taunton]

Nothing is new. The surface contact "only alive when vehicle is over it" approach has been around for well over a century. It was installed in London around 1900 on the tramway in the Mile End Road when it changed over from horse to electricity, and elsewhere (Wolverhampton and others). There were multiple different systems. Each of these was abandoned because the reliability of disconnecting when the vehicle had passed was just not there once components, which of course initially tested perfectly, started to wear over time, were penetrated by the weather, etc. Each was abandoned after horses, etc, got electrocuted following the passing of a tram.

Dolter System (Surface Contact Current Collection) -

The history of the Dolter system, the surface contact method of tramway current collection.

wpehs.org.uk

 

[edwin_m]

Nothing is new. The surface contact "only alive when vehicle is over it" approach has been around for well over a century. It was installed in London around 1900 on the tramway in the Mile End Road when it changed over from horse to electricity, and elsewhere (Wolverhampton and others). There were multiple different systems. Each of these was abandoned because the reliability of disconnecting when the vehicle had passed was just not there once components, which of course initially tested perfectly, started to wear over time, were penetrated by the weather, etc. Each was abandoned after horses, etc, got electrocuted following the passing of a tram.

Dolter System (Surface Contact Current Collection) -

The history of the Dolter system, the surface contact method of tramway current collection.

wpehs.org.uk

I don't think it's fair to judge a modern technical solution from something that's been around for over a century, especially when you probably needed every one of however many hundred along the route to be working or the tram couldn't run. I assume there's some sort of secure wireless "handshake" between the train and the charger, so the live rails are only energised when under the train.

Did ORR insist on it or was it Vivarail's potentially patented design?

Logic would say to use standard bottom-contact as per the DLR, Hamburg U-Bahn and a number of other systems internationally (keeping it live reduces the risk of it getting nicked for scrap), but that is probably well out of patent so less profitable for Vivarail.

If the system is indeed live only when the train is present, as suggested in previous posts and assumed in my comment above, then top contact is actually safer because it's wholly under the train. Bottom contact rails and their pickups wouldn't fit in the clearance between top of rail height and the bottom of the kinematic envelope of a passing train, so would have to be off to one side where they and their pickups are more exposed when live.

You may think keeping it live is a good deterrent but safety legislation doesn't work that way, in the UK at least. And removing all the dead bodies would be a big hassle with lots of paperwork.

 

[Woods]

If I may pick up on a few technical points:

1) The charging rails will be in the four foot. These will basically be lengths of standard conductor rail as used in normal third rail territory. The rails will be earthed when there is no train above them (i.e. not live). Right from when Vivarail first started developing the system over 3 years ago, this modus operandi was agreed with ORR, who despite rumours have in fact been very sensible about this all along. The charging rails will only be energised once a series of Wifi interlocks combined with hard-wired position sensors has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the train is the correct train, has stopped in the right place, and is safe to receive charge.

2) The pickup shoes will be 'top contact' and retractable. They will be deployed just before the train comes to a halt. They will then be retracted before the train departs from the charging station.

3) The charging point will be at West Ealing station, in the bay platform. It will consist of two separate trackside charging containers (with storage batteries and switchgear inside them), each connected with a set of charge rails, one serving each Driving Motor car (where the onboard batteries are). This allows for some redundancy, i.e. if one trackside charger fails, the train could still be charged from the other one. There will not be a charging point at Greenford.

4) It is all Vivarail's design, has nothing to do with Alstom etc.

5) The train for the GWR trial will be 230001, in 3-car formation with a toilet in the middle car. It's the same train as demonstrated by Vivarail at COP26 back in November, with very little mods to the interior layout, except for the reinstatement of a few extra seats. The toilet is basically only there because all trains operated by GWR have to have a toilet regardless of the route they are operating on. However, because of this, it will be ever so slightly too long for some of the platforms therefore the outermost passenger doors will become 'crew only' doors.

6) It is the hope, certainly from Vivarail's perspective, that this system will be rolled out to many more rail routes in the UK and possibly abroad in order to provide 'electrification by other means'. Whether that is with Class 230s is another matter. In principle the technology could be fitted to other types of rolling stock.

 

[zwk500]

Many thanks for the clarifications!

 

[Woods]

Many thanks for the clarifications!

My pleasure!