Future uses for existing or more 230s

[Peter Sarf]

I went to college during COVID and near the end, a three car 165 was needed most days.

For the capacity, I heard it somewhere on here, I have no idea about if it included standing

If a three car 165 was formerly used - presuming not the Marlow branch, then nothing to say a 3-car 230 could not be created. More likely a pair of 2-car 230s running in multiple. Depends on platform lengths. Oh, and cost.

 

[FlyingPotato]

If a three car 165 was formerly used - presuming not the Marlow branch, then nothing to say a 3-car 230 could not be created. More likely a pair of 2-car 230s running in multiple. Depends on platform lengths. Oh, and cost.

I don't think Twyford can't take a four car train on the bay (this is from memory). Also the turn arounds are quite tight on the Henley. Henley branch will probs stay dmu for a long time.
Again, it depends on the capacity difference between the two units, Henley is a tory stronghold and they won't like reduced capacity

 

[RobShipway]

From the GWR Class 230 Information, Movements and Discussion Thread.

Somewhere else it does say that the 67 ex LU D78 vehicles acquired at scrap value were included in the purchase price for 230001 and the fast charge technology. So options for more 230s are open.

Yes, confirmed on page 12 of Modern Railways April edition. 230001 is a three car unit. So I suspect that where the D78 vehicles have been purchased, that some of those can be inserted into 230003 - 230005?

Are 230002 and 230011 still in Pennsylvania?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

...or they want to secure a reasonable stock of spare parts once they've all gone to a certain Mr Booth in the South Riding.

Thirty-three and a half additional 230s to keep their single Greenford 230 topped up seems very excessive.

 

[Dstock7080]

Thirty-three and a half additional 230s to keep their single Greenford 230 topped up seems very excessive.

I calculate only 34 DM cars survive at Long Marston, so maximum 17 trains.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I calculate only 34 DM cars survive at Long Marston, so maximum 17 trains.

If Mark Hopwood's statement that 67 cars have been bought is correct then, which I suppose it would be, some of these must be intermediates then.
Still, that's irrelevant to what I was saying. Whether they're intermediates or not, or whether they make up 33.5 whole two-carriage 230s or not (that was just how I chose to word it vice 67 carriages), 67 carriages is an awful lot just to cannibalise and use to top up 2 carriages.

There are two threads discussing this at once which is causing me much confusion.

If as @12LDA28C says, this is GWR's commitment to the fast charge battery concept on their branch lines, seventeen would admittedly be a suitable number to cover Greenford (1), Marlow (2), Windsor (1), Henley (1), Gunnislake (1), Looe (1), Newquay (2 in future), Falmouth (2) and St Ives (2). That's 12 in use, or 13 when the Atlantic Coast Line works are complete, with four unallocated for maintenance or spare, per day.

BUT:
Windsor is extremely busy and the current 2-165s are often full and standing pre AND post COVID - the 230s will be a reduction in capacity at 18m vs 23m per carriage.
Henley until recently was booked a 3-165, I don't think the line can take 4-230 (though I'd be delighted to be proved wrong), and from 3-23m to 2-18m seems a very unfortunate reduction in capacity over a few years, admittedly perhaps in line with commuter habits. For these two, perhaps a 3 car variant would be needed, but then there wouldn't be enough of the 67 carriages to extend to all of the above branches.
St Ives has just had work done for 5 cars, again a 3 car variant would be needed which would mean more than 67 carriages used.
These lines getting 70s tube trains while Thames Valley gets new 387s, HSS gets new IETs and the rest of regional GWR gets brand new **whatever the recently announced tender brings up**, seems ridiculously unfair.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[driverd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the plan not expand to Cornish/Devon branches? Looe/St Ives/Falmouth/Gunnislake all seemingly good candidates. That'd make for 5 units per day plus the Greenford unit. Being generous (3 car sets) that'd mean 18 vehicles in service plus spares (maybe 24 required?).

Additional units could be to sell - if First group/GWR now own the project, it would seem to me it has potential to be deployed elsewhere/sold as vivarail would have.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the plan not expand to Cornish/Devon branches? Looe/St Ives/Falmouth/Gunnislake all seemingly good candidates. That'd make for 5 units per day plus the Greenford unit. Being generous (3 car sets) that'd mean 18 vehicles in service plus spares (maybe 24 required?).

Additional units could be to sell - if First group/GWR now own the project, it would seem to me it has potential to be deployed elsewhere/sold as vivarail would have.

It's worth remembering that two units required for Falmouth will in a few years become four to five units required for Newquay-Falmouth as part of the Cornish improvements.

 

[D365]

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yep - there’s not much else to be said without turning this into further speculation.

 

[cactustwirly]

If Mark Hopwood's statement that 67 cars have been bought is correct then, which I suppose it would be, some of these must be intermediates then.
Still, that's irrelevant to what I was saying. Whether they're intermediates or not, or whether they make up 33.5 whole two-carriage 230s or not (that was just how I chose to word it vice 67 carriages), 67 carriages is an awful lot just to cannibalise and use to top up 2 carriages.

There are two threads discussing this at once which is causing me much confusion.

If as @12LDA28C says, this is GWR's commitment to the fast charge battery concept on their branch lines, seventeen would admittedly be a suitable number to cover Greenford (1), Marlow (2), Windsor (1), Henley (1), Gunnislake (1), Looe (1), Newquay (2 in future), Falmouth (2) and St Ives (2). That's 12 in use, or 13 when the Atlantic Coast Line works are complete, with four unallocated for maintenance or spare, per day.

BUT:
Windsor is extremely busy and the current 2-165s are often full and standing pre AND post COVID - the 230s will be a reduction in capacity at 18m vs 23m per carriage.
Henley until recently was booked a 3-165, I don't think the line can take 4-230 (though I'd be delighted to be proved wrong), and from 3-23m to 2-18m seems a very unfortunate reduction in capacity over a few years, admittedly perhaps in line with commuter habits. For these two, perhaps a 3 car variant would be needed, but then there wouldn't be enough of the 67 carriages to extend to all of the above branches.
St Ives has just had work done for 5 cars, again a 3 car variant would be needed which would mean more than 67 carriages used.
These lines getting 70s tube trains while Thames Valley gets new 387s, HSS gets new IETs and the rest of regional GWR gets brand new **whatever the recently announced tender brings up**, seems ridiculously unfair.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Henley can take 5 car turbos, or 7 cars if platform 4 at Twyford is used.

I don't see how it's viable as the Henley service has very short turnarounds at each end so it wouldn't have enough time to charge

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Henley can take 5 car turbos, or 7 cars if platform 4 at Twyford is used.

I don't see how it's viable as the Henley service has very short turnarounds at each end so it wouldn't have enough time to charge

A return to every 40 minutes, I expect. A silly part of me thought it would still be electrified. I suppose no chance these days.

 

[zwk500]

A return to every 40 minutes, I expect. A silly part of me thought it would still be electrified. I suppose no chance these days.

The Henley branch does have a level crossing at Shiplake that may be a problem, and a couple of overbridges. However it's not impossible that it could be wired halfway so that the batteries had ample time to charge.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The Henley branch does have a level crossing at Shiplake that may be a problem, and a couple of overbridges. However it's not impossible that it could be wired halfway so that the batteries had ample time to charge.

Sure, but while this would save a bit of money it'd limit the branch to these hand-me-down 70s conversions, whereas full electrification would allow for 387 operation.

 

[Benjwri]

Sure, but while this would save a bit of money it'd limit the branch to these hand-me-down 70s conversions, whereas full electrification would allow for 387 operation.

Any type of wiring would rule out the D-Stock. They don't have pantographs, and there isn't anywhere near enough space to install one. They'd need to third rail it, which is hugely unlikely.

 

[cactustwirly]

Sure, but while this would save a bit of money it'd limit the branch to these hand-me-down 70s conversions, whereas full electrification would allow for 387 operation.

Or just keep the status quo the 165s don't need replacing

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes, confirmed on page 12 of Modern Railways April edition. 230001 is a three car unit. So I suspect that where the D78 vehicles have been purchased, that some of those can be inserted into 230003 - 230005?

Are 230002 and 230011 still in Pennsylvania?

I believe 230002 and 230011 are still in the USA. Indeed maybe 230011 only just went there ?.

If Vivarail thought the D78 non-driving cars might be useful then it follows GWR could be.

For comparison on lengths my arithmetic is :-

3-car class 165 = 3 * 23m = 69m
4-car class 230 = 4 * 18m = 72m
So only 3m longer, cannot be too bad ?.

2 x 2-car class 165 = 4 * 23m = 92m
3-car + 2-car class 230 = 5 * 18m = 90m
Bingo - more food for speculation !.

 

[12LDA28C]

Or just keep the status quo the 165s don't need replacing

Apart from the fact that they're 30 year-old inefficient diesels...

 

[Benjwri]

Apart from the fact that they're 30 year-old inefficient diesels...

And there aren’t enough of them to serve the whole network

 

[Peter Sarf]

Sure, but while this would save a bit of money it'd limit the branch to these hand-me-down 70s conversions, whereas full electrification would allow for 387 operation.

In the headlong rush to get rid of dirty diesel I fear the money for electrification of little branches will not be forthcoming. I worry about mainlines !. Besides a fast charge battery electric will be fine (fingers crossed), it is the whole reason GWR got interested in 230001.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I hoped this trial would be used to familiarise the British railway network with battery technology that could then be used in new build trains, not to be extended to other old ex-D78 stock.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I hoped this trial would be used to familiarise the British railway network with battery technology that could then be used in new build trains, not to be extended to other old ex-D78 stock.

It could go either way OR both D78s and new build.

Or some other stock - is it time to mention my beloved 442s ........

I just remembered. Don't forget the 230s are effectively not that old - the bogies are very recent, aluminium bodies will last and the motive power bit is of course brand new.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not much point in battery 230s as the island line has third rail already installed. A possibility is that more D78s could be converted to 484s or at least kept for parts.

Does anyone know what official asset disposal decision was made by the liquidators with regards to the unused LU stock that Vivarail had?

 

[cactustwirly]

Apart from the fact that they're 30 year-old inefficient diesels...

Compared to clapped out 40 year old tube trains with dodgy battery technology.
They are a cut in capacity over the 165s unless you run them as double sets

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Apart from the fact that they're 30 year-old inefficient diesels...

Compared to clapped out 40 year old tube trains with dodgy battery technology.
They are a cut in capacity over the 165s unless you run them as double sets

Would be absolutely outrageous to run as single 230 sets on Windsor certainly.
Mind you, we shouldn’t forget 230s do not always have to be 2 cars. TfW’s for example is 3.

I’m conscious that this thread is specifically for the Greenford line trial, but there is a thread for GWR’s D Stock carriages in general here:

GWR Class 230 Information, Movements & Discussion.

Whilst there is a separate thread specifically for the Greenford Battery Trial, I thought I would start a more general information, movements & discussion thread for the GWR Class 230. Possibly 3 units (numbers n/k at this time) will be moving to Reading TCD in the latter half of this month...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Peter Sarf]

Does anyone know what official asset disposal decision was made by the liquidators with regards to the unused LU stock that Vivarail had?

Over on another thread GWR seem to have ended up with 67 D78 vehicles as part of the deal to buy 230001 and its fast charge battery technology. Seems 230003, 230004 & 230005 (Marston Vale units) were included in this as well.

From another thread

Looks like GWR has bought a lot of D-Stock coaches:

Mark Hopwood CBEMark Hopwood CBE• 2nd• 2ndManaging Director Great Western Railway & President at Cholsey & Wallingford RailwayManaging Director Great Western Railway & President at Cholsey & Wallingford Railway
15h • 15h •
Follow

Possibly one of my less conventional decisions - buying 67 former LUL vehicles!

But I believe we can make this project work and get a battery train up and running later this year with more to follow!

It feels exciting to be innovating and pushing boundaries.

Watch this space ….

Dave HortonDave Horton• 3rd+• 3rd+ACGI, CEng, MIMechE, Chief Mechanical Engineer (Battery Train Fast Charge Project) at GWRACGI, CEng, MIMechE, Chief Mechanical Engineer (Battery Train Fast Charge Project) at GWR
15h • 15h •
Follow
It was interesting to visit the home for temporarily-retired D78 cars at a not-so-top-secret location in Warwickshire earlier. GWR are now the proud owner of 67 of these cars, some of which I hope will see new life as Fast Charge-equipped battery trains on branch lines in the future. Meanwhile initial testing of our class leader battery train 230001 and its accompanying Fast Charge system is now wrapping up at Bletchley TMD, and will recommence next month at Porterbrook's Rail Innovation Centre at Long Marston; talk about coming full circle in this strange story!
Activate to view larger image,

 

[D365]

I hoped this trial would be used to familiarise the British railway network with battery technology that could then be used in new build trains, not to be extended to other old ex-D78 stock.

… or both?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 May 2023 ==

Compared to clapped out 40 year old tube trains with dodgy battery technology.

To counteract your assertion - batteries and battery management systems are supplied by established manufacturers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Over on another thread GWR seem to have ended up with 67 D78 vehicles as part of the deal to buy 230001 and its fast charge battery technology. Seems 230003, 230004 & 230005 (Marston Vale units) were included in this as well.

Where are those three units emboldened above at this moment in time?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

… or both?

No. How can you attempt to say what I hope? Notice the contrast in what I posted. I hoped the very old train would be used to pioneer what can be used in new trains, as opposed to more old trains. Lots more 70s trains is not something I can see as a particularly good thing.

Now that is just my opinion and you may feel differently.

Where are those three units emboldened above at this moment in time?

Sat doing jack all at Bletchley.

 

[D365]

No. How can you attempt to say what I hope? Notice the contrast in what I posted. I hoped the very old train would be used to pioneer what can be used in new trains, as opposed to more old trains. Lots more 70s trains is not something I can see as a particularly good thing.

Now that is just my opinion and you may feel differently.

I didn’t realise that our posts have been moved to the speculative subforum, so I was writing with respect to the most likely real world scenarios.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Henley can take 5 car turbos, or 7 cars if platform 4 at Twyford is used.

I don't see how it's viable as the Henley service has very short turnarounds at each end so it wouldn't have enough time to charge

Platform four wouldn't be used due to the frequency of mainline GWR trains, especially since the Elizabeth line train is used to connect with the Henley train