Transport for Wales Class 230

Wyrleybart said:

I am really glad the 230s seem to have settled down relatively well, simply because the concept was pretty good. I

Click to expand...

Were you in agreement with the decision taken that concerned the Vivarail units on the Marston Vale line?

Wyrleybart said:

I suppose the question is actually - what lifespan do the 230s have in front of them ? AFAIK there is no TfW published long term plan for them to be replaced., but maybe once the Northern, Scotrail and GWR fleets of BEMUs are trial running, perhaps TfW will be considering similar as a way forward for both the 153s and the 230s.

Click to expand...

The long term replacement plan is a unit that can run all the way through to the Liverpool Loop line - which is likely to be some form of battery fitted EMU.

43096 said:

What was the plan then? Because as far as I can remember Birkenhead has always been the choice for 230 maintenance.

Click to expand...

I recall the depot for the 230s was to be a single siding with a hard standing alongside. Enough space for a forklift truck to exchange an engine raft (and battery raft) on the 230 with one in a small lorry. I think it was at/near Wrexham. The idea being no empty stock moves to an overcrowded Chester depot.

Wyrleybart said:

Absolutely. In my view DB had the right idea all those years ago. THe class 103 and 120 AC electrics had small preproduction runs to iron out the kinks in the major new design.

But 230001 was AIUI supposed to do that, and the spectacular fire at Kenilworth went a long way to proving that Automotive components do not always work for rail. In my opinion TfW were very trusting of Vivarail, maybe because of who Vivarail's boss was, after all, the Chiltern franchise was trvkoned to be doing very well.

I am really glad the 230s seem to have settled down relatively well, simply because the concept was pretty good. I wonder if anyone can confirm whether the diesels shut down like they were planned to, once batteries were "full". There was supposed to be a geofencing concept where the diesels didn't run in sensitive areas. If that has been achieved, and 230s are achieving their planned daily mileages, then I would say that Adrian Shooter and his team achieved what they set out to - albeit posthumously in his case.

I suppose the question is actually - what lifespan do the 230s have in front of them ? AFAIK there is no TfW published long term plan for them to be replaced., but maybe once the Northern, Scotrail and GWR fleets of BEMUs are trial running, perhaps TfW will be considering similar as a way forward for both the 153s and the 230s.

Click to expand...

It is hard to think of a new fleet introduction in the UK that has gone smoothly recently.

Of course there might have been problems decades ago but there was a lot less social media to pick open problems and expose them.

So we cannot compare with the past. I do believe increased use of technology nowadays makes things more risky in terms of reliability. There might also be higher expected standards.

With the 230s the demise of the manufacturer must have been a significant hurdle. Being such a small fleet but yet still persevered with suggests TfW did not have an easy way out other than to to stick with a promising concept. It meant no extra work load on Chester which was an important point I suspect.

Great Western did buy Vivarail - the intellectual property, some of the staff and all the spares including unconverted D-trains. I can guess that once GWRs own 230001 was up and running attention could be turned to TfWs 230006-230010. So, with hindsight, things might have been expected to improve even in the thick of this summer.

You are right and I always think innovation has to be found room to happen.

craigybagel said:

The long term replacement plan is a unit that can run all the way through to the Liverpool Loop line - which is likely to be some form of battery fitted EMU.

Click to expand...

It really means to me that TfW wanted a stopgap solution that would cover until hoped for battery range for 777s or similar was possible.
Through running to Liverpool must be a very attractive goal.

craigybagel said:

The long term replacement plan is a unit that can run all the way through to the Liverpool Loop line - which is likely to be some form of battery fitted EMU.

Click to expand...

Certainly won't be anything diesel

Djgr said:

Certainly won't be anything diesel

Click to expand...

... or any time soon!

Peter Sarf said:

You are right and I always think innovation has to be found room to happen.

Click to expand...

Years ago, to those who were members of this website at that time, I was viewed as the "Devil's Advocate" of the Vivarail Class 230 project as I appeared to be the only one who did not subscribe to the held-view that the Shooter involvement would be a guarantee of project success. It was in those early days of euphoria that the word "innovation" was oft cited in the thread postings.

Time passed with the "Day of Immolation" incident and the subsequent inability to carry out the 12-month trial project contract that was offered to Vivarail in the Coventry area. Then the matter of the Marston Vale debacle and the subsequent end to that matter. Eventually, the capital input from the North American organisation was brought to a sudden end to the Vivarail project.

"Innovation" as an aspiration is not anywhere as important as reliable rail units bought to provide a reliable rail service to passengers who relied on the service as part of their daily commuting.

Xenophon PCDGS said:

Years ago, to those who were members of this website at that time, I was viewed as the "Devil's Advocate" of the Vivarail Class 230 project as I appeared to be the only one who did not subscribe to the held-view that the Shooter involvement would be a guarantee of project success. It was in those early days of euphoria that the word "innovation" was oft cited in the thread postings.

Time passed with the "Day of Immolation" incident and the subsequent inability to carry out the 12-month trial project contract that was offered to Vivarail in the Coventry area. Then the matter of the Marston Vale debacle and the subsequent end to that matter. Eventually, the capital input from the North American organisation was brought to a sudden end to the Vivarail project.

"Innovation" as an aspiration is not anywhere as important as reliable rail units bought to provide a reliable rail service to passengers who relied on the service as part of their daily commuting.

Click to expand...

Innovation and a reliable (as in mature) product are always going to be working against each other. You are right to question where the balance should be.

I think as far as some, at least, of the routes planned for 230 use are concerned we have to throw in the phrase cheap and easy to run for a microfleet. Leading to No Alternative.


The fact is, in these cases, there was no alternative.

GWR have got 230001 working even though they had a viable alternative (165s). BUT, as @Woods would likely say, it is for proof of concept. But not really proof of a future life for D78s. Innovation.

The D78s provided an uncharacteristically healthy second hand coach and running gear for trials and testing of innovation. They were withdrawn prematurely in LUs (London Undergrounds) quest for a standard sub-surface fleet. In the spirit of recycling that was also virtuous and saved money (arguably).

Of course Vivarals demise has really made this innovation very difficult. It is lucky GWR (with DfT agreement/support I believe) took up the challenge. The result is a viable fast charge train and charging station that could be used for trains converted from D78 or other main line stock. Perhaps most likely new build stock (see below).

One other lesson is converting trains to a different traction type is not proving easy. Just look at the 769s converted from 319s by/for a far bigger player in the rail industry (Porterbrook iirc ?). Northern are really struggling with theirs. Worse still TfW and GWR never even started trying their examples once built !.

Innovation never was easy - ask Stephenson et al.
Furthermore comparing to the past we only ever use rose tinted spectacles and forget all the dead ends and failures.
If we avoided innovation we would still have static steam engines relying on low pressure steam to drag wagons and coaches along by cable. We should have nothing to do with this electrickery !.

230s will in the future be viewed as more successful than 769s BUT then only as a stepping stone to better things. Those better things are not yet in the present !.

Peter Sarf said:

Innovation and a reliable (as in mature) product are always going to be working against each other. You are right to question where the balance should be.

I think as far as some, at least, of the routes planned for 230 use are concerned we have to throw in the phrase cheap and easy to run for a microfleet. Leading to No Alternative.

Remember for Marston Vale (230003, 230004 & 230005) the alternative became a bus service. I hesitate to say (due to confidence in my memory) but was it for the best part of a year no trains ran. So in reality there was no reliable alternative to the Marston Vale 230s.​

​

Same goes for the TfW Borderlands route (230006-230010),.​

​

The two sent to America (230003 & 230011) are/were running where no passenger service was.​

The fact is, in these cases, there was no alternative.

GWR have got 230001 working even though they had a viable alternative (165s). BUT, as @Woods would likely say, it is for proof of concept not really proof of a future life for D78s. Innovation.

The D78s provided a uncharacteristically healthy second hand coach and running gear for trials and testing of innovation. They were withdrawn prematurely in LUs (London Undergrounds) quest for a standard sub-surface fleet.

Of course Vivarals demise has really made this innovation very difficult. It is lucky GWR (with DfT agreement/support I believe) took up the challenge. The result is a viable fast charge train and charging station that could be used for trains converted from D78 or most likely other main line stock.

One other lesson is converting trains to a different traction type is not proving easy. Just look at the 769s converted from 319s by/for a far bigger player in the rail industry (Porterbrook iirc ?). Northern are really struggling. Worse still TfW and GWR never even started trying them once built !.

Innovation never was easy - ask Stephenson et al.
Furthermore comparing to the past we only ever use rose tinted glasses and forget all the dead ends and failures.
If we avoided innovation we would still have static steam engines relying on low pressure steam to drag wagons and coaches along by cable. We should have nothing to do with this electrickery !.

230s will in the future be viewed as more successful than 769s BUT then only as a stepping stone to better things. Those better things are not yet in the present !.

Click to expand...

Exactly this - overall, the world (and particularly the social media world) expects near instant results. The bean counters no longer seem to accept the need for a long prototype period so we stick things into passenger service that haven’t yet been tested to destruction over and over again over a period of years.

The exile said:

Exactly this - overall, the world (and particularly the social media world) expects near instant results. The bean counters no longer seem to accept the need for a long prototype period so we stick things into passenger service that haven’t yet been tested to destruction over and over again over a period of years.

Click to expand...

Yep. Everyone expects perfection and "now" !.

Peter Sarf said:

Worse still TfW and GWR never even started trying their examples once built !.

Click to expand...

That's strange. Could have sworn I rode on a 769 between Cardiff and Penarth...

John R said:

That's strange. Could have sworn I rode on a 769 between Cardiff and Penarth...

Click to expand...

Talking of the Class 769 units, what is the current state-of-play with the Go-Op proposal to use these units between Swindon to Taunton, via Melksham?

Xenophon PCDGS said:

Talking of the Class 769 units, what is the current state-of-play with the Go-Op proposal to use these units between Swindon to Taunton, via Melksham?

Click to expand...

Try the thread on that topic: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...roved-by-orr-access-rights-now-lapsed.277000/

John R said:

That's strange. Could have sworn I rode on a 769 between Cardiff and Penarth...

Click to expand...

You did, TfW ran their diesel only 769s for a while. They just broke down frequently and so they binned them "early".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2026 ==

Frankly any proposal to use the 769s for anything isn't worth a first look let alone a second look. They're a failure and unfortunately for whatever reasons the 230s (which are better) seem to be one too. Perhaps with a hypothetical future GBR R&D department behind them they could have worked through the issues. But even BR didn't always succeed (see APT).

John R said:

That's strange. Could have sworn I rode on a 769 between Cardiff and Penarth...

Click to expand...

You are right in as much as the 769s ran in South Wales but only in diesel mode. TfW avoided using their AC capability. Then TfW handed them back and some have helped out at Northern. I should have been clearer.

It does seem, looking at Northerns experience that switching from Diesel mode to Electric mode and/or vice versa is the 769s Achilles heel.

GWR never even tried their 769s in any mode.

But it is a shame to justify something by saying it is less bad than something else. Which is what I did.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2026 ==

positron said:

You did, TfW ran their diesel only 769s for a while. They just broke down frequently and so they binned them "early".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2026 ==

Frankly any proposal to use the 769s for anything isn't worth a first look let alone a second look. They're a failure and unfortunately for whatever reasons the 230s (which are better) seem to be one too. Perhaps with a hypothetical future GBR R&D department behind them they could have worked through the issues. But even BR didn't always succeed (see APT).

Click to expand...

I think GBRs R&D department is the remnants of Vivarail taken over by GWR. It does seem GWR are looking to exploit the technology in their version of a 230.

Meanwhile TfW are obviously committed to persevering with their 230s and do seem to be winning at last.

Xenophon PCDGS said:

Talking of the Class 769 units, what is the current state-of-play with the Go-Op proposal to use these units between Swindon to Taunton, via Melksham?

Click to expand...

That scheme is completely dead... they failed to raise enough money and their access rights have lapsed.

Does anyone know when 007 is due back in service? The others seem to be coping (again, hope this is not too celebratory)

Philip Roberts said:

Does anyone know when 007 is due back in service? The others seem to be coping admiralty (again, hope this is not too celebratory)

Click to expand...

Admiralty?

All plain sailing, then!

TheSel said:

Admiralty?

All plain sailing, then!

Click to expand...

Carefull - your humour will get you into deep water .

TheSel said:

Admiralty?

All plain sailing, then!

Click to expand...

Not sure water you're referring to

Philip Roberts said:

Does anyone know when 007 is due back in service?

Click to expand...

I don't think that "M" would allow such information...

Xenophon PCDGS said:

I don't think that "M" would allow such information...

Click to expand...

Oh an absolute killer !. You do have a licence for that do you !.

I might add an admiral twist you placed on his first sentence.

Peter Sarf said:

Remember for Marston Vale (230003, 230004 & 230005) the alternative became a bus service. I hesitate to say (due to confidence in my memory) but was it for the best part of a year no trains ran ?. So in reality there was no reliable alternative to the Marston Vale 230s.​

​

Same goes for the TfW Borderlands route (230006-230010),.​

Click to expand...

Was the idea of using buses to serve what they could of the Wrexham–Bidston line every seriously considered?

The line is due to close for 15 days from Sunday. As a result, end-to-end times are doubled, and nothing serves Hawarden Bridge station. The latter is especially true next week as the walking route across Hawarden Bridge is closed, meaning the shortest route involves a 2 1/2 mile walk via Queensferry.

I'm struggling with the idea that anyone would be happy with the idea of making that the normal service. Not when there are 150s and 197s in the fleet they could use.

kieron said:

Was the idea of using buses to serve what they could of the Wrexham–Bidston line every seriously considered?

The line is due to close for 15 days from Sunday. As a result, end-to-end times are doubled, and nothing serves Hawarden Bridge station. The latter is especially true next week as the walking route across Hawarden Bridge is closed, meaning the shortest route involves a 2 1/2 mile walk via Queensferry.

I'm struggling with the idea that anyone would be happy with the idea of making that the normal service. Not when there are 150s and 197s in the fleet they could use.

Click to expand...

What is actually happening next week, its hardly been published anywhere

Northerngirl said:

What is actually happening next week, its hardly been published anywhere

Click to expand...

Two places which have described some of it are deeside.com and nre.co.uk.

Both list the effect of the bridge closure and a simultaneous line closure between Wrexham and Shrewsbury. The former gives more information about what's happening with the bridge, but the latter seems to describe the effects of the closure south of Wrexham more clearly.

Northerngirl said:

What is actually happening next week, its hardly been published anywhere

Click to expand...

Published on the Network Rail site.

Where would you prefer it to be publicised?


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2026 ==

kieron said:

Was the idea of using buses to serve what they could of the Wrexham–Bidston line every seriously considered?

The line is due to close for 15 days from Sunday. As a result, end-to-end times are doubled, and nothing serves Hawarden Bridge station. The latter is especially true next week as the walking route across Hawarden Bridge is closed, meaning the shortest route involves a 2 1/2 mile walk via Queensferry.

I'm struggling with the idea that anyone would be happy with the idea of making that the normal service. Not when there are 150s and 197s in the fleet they could use.

Click to expand...

150s and 197 are equally unlikely to be able to run during the engineering works.

But hey-ho, let's not miss a chance to complain about the 230s. It makes some people happy, I guess.

The Marston Vale 230s were withdrawn because the maintenance was with Vivarail and there was no one to certify them for service. WMR were short of stock so had no alternative but to provide a long term bus replacement. Eventually they sourced some 150s.