The derogation application specifically mentions the characteristics of the Greenford shuttle's platforms, so it probably won't be enough to allow wider use.
See https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...at-western-railway-class-230-fast-charge-unit as linked from #866
More likely to release the turbo for other work.
What gives you that idea, unless you mean a double set? Huge loss in capacity otherwise, on what is often a very packed shuttle.
I recall that somewhere up thread there is a very definitive statement from someone who is clearly closely involved in the project that there is no chance of further units being restored to service.
I concur. It would require an entirely new production line to be set up as the original manufacturing facility (and personnel) at Long Marston has been disbanded for several years now.
No, 230001 and the Welsh ones are 3 car
Though there was an equally definitive statement that this one was not going to enter passenger service, so who knows….
The is all in speculation territory about re-using further D-Trains and the ex Marston Vale 230s. Not sure I should add to it BUT there are plenty of indications that GWR only see 230001 as a test bed for proving the fast charging concept. Also lately there are indications that they will pursue using it (the one and only 230001) in service. Makes sense for GWR to use 230001 if it is usable (seems so) and see how it fares with the dreaded passengers using it. Especially if the Turbostar it replaces could be used elsewhere.
There is only one battery set in existence, no 001 tested at Greenford. GWR also have the ex Marston Vale diesel sets which have been stored OOU since Vivarail collapsed.
GWR had said originally that the turbo would be kept on standby locally when the battery set was in use. Though everything seems to be fluid with these plans ...
The ex Marston Vale 230s have the engines on removble rafts which I think leads people to think that it is just a matter of swapping the rafts for ones with batteries on. But there are plenty of differences - at least the rest of the control equipment. So I agree that makes the ex Marston Vale 230s very different.
The way I look at it is that if GWR use 230001 on the Greenford branch then it does not eliminate the need for a spare Turbo (class 165 unit) that was presumably covering the Turbo that was in use but it eliminates the need for the Turbo that was actually in use. So as long as GWR view 230001 as being as reliable as a Turbo then it follows, one way or another, that one less Turbo is required at the London end.
They can also run as two units coupled to make up longer trains. Island Line have run 484+484 formations in passenger service to make up a 4 coach train. So the 230 could potentially work fine on the Windsor branch if they did this.
I don't think there is a standby spare for the normal service (other than whatever is available at Reading). So using the battery set with a local standby wouldn't release a turbo set for use elsewhere.
Yes, I fully agree it would be desirable to use the unit in real world service. I think that a conversion programme to rebuild the D78s for use on the Thames Valley branches would have been good in principle, but it has to be admitted that both the 769s and the TfW hybrid 230s have been rather more troublesome than was envisaged when the conversions were begun. I don't think there's any possibility of such a programme going ahead now though.
I always interpreted the standy unit as an initial measure, during introduction when reliability was still low and problems were being ironed out, which would then be dropped after a while.
The tender process for new trains seems be halted (and speculative threads closed) I expect fast charge batteries (and hybrid power small diesel range extender engines?) will be included when tenders are issued, also tenders carefully worded in a way so the current UK factories will get orders.
As a Windsor branch commuter, it would actually be a net gain in capacity as the shuttle has been limited to two coaches for some time now. I believe it's due to an issue with the DOO monitors at Windsor & Eton Central, but I think I heard that from somewhere else on the forum, so am happy to be corrected if the situation has changed.
Much as I did wince at the rather cheesy wording here, I get your drift
I spent ages wondering if I should rephrase it, but decided eventually that nobody would notice my semantic steamrollering. Looking back at it now, I'm wincing just as much... Serves me right for being rhetorical!Much as I did wince at the rather cheesy wording here, I get your drift
Not when it's a 3-car 230 versus a 2-car Turbo, although I did forget that the ex-Marston Vale units are 2-car.
Indeed, hence my cheesy paragraph!
No the Slough / Windsor unit is booked to be a 2 car and has been for a while. Has to be a 2 car due to a restriction with the DOO monitors at Windsor.
