Transport for Wales Class 230

[The exile]

Strange -RTT showing it (assuming you mean the 14.35 ex Central) running from General to Bidston. Just cancelled from Central to General (ok - not much good if all you wanted was to do General to Central and back).

 

[eastwestdivide]

Yes I think the plan changed while it was in the platform and I had already disappeared. The staff member who turfed me off definitely thought the return working to Bidston was cancelled, as I asked; and there was also a class 5 empty working to Bidston in RTT when I abandoned.
Now on board the next northbound, a 197.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Yes I think the plan changed while it was in the platform and I had already disappeared. The staff member who turfed me off definitely thought the return working to Bidston was cancelled, as I asked; and there was also a class 5 empty working to Bidston in RTT when I abandoned.
Now on board the next northbound, a 197.

So I can give some context for you.
230009 was reported to have failed on Birkenhead depot and meant that 230008 was the only working 230.
This means that if it was to fail in service there is absolutely no way to rescue it. So TFW control will not risk allowing it into passenger service.

Shortly after it was planned to run it back to depot empty 230007 had been made available as a rescue unit and hence why they could reinstate 230008 into passenger service.

 

[The exile]

So I can give some context for you.
230009 was reported to have failed on Birkenhead depot and meant that 230008 was the only working 230.
This means that if it was to fail in service there is absolutely no way to rescue it. So TFW control will not risk allowing it into passenger service.

Shortly after it was planned to run it back to depot empty 230007 had been made available as a rescue unit and hence why they could reinstate 230008 into passenger service.

What price a coupling adapter to permit emergency tow-away by a 197?

 

[Lurcheroo]

What price a coupling adapter to permit emergency tow-away by a 197?

No idea.
But the ones to allow rescue between 197’s and 158’s apparently need a forklift to get into place.

 

[The exile]

So much for group standards!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So I can give some context for you.
230009 was reported to have failed on Birkenhead depot and meant that 230008 was the only working 230.
This means that if it was to fail in service there is absolutely no way to rescue it. So TFW control will not risk allowing it into passenger service.

Shortly after it was planned to run it back to depot empty 230007 had been made available as a rescue unit and hence why they could reinstate 230008 into passenger service.

Doesn't say much for "innovative" British trains in the 21st century.

 

[Lurcheroo]

So much for group standards!

Yep! Gone are the days of one coupler type being made for all.
Now, let me tell you where it gets really mad, 195’s can’t couple to 196/7’s at all.

Whilst 196’s and 197’s can couple mechanically they can’t electrically. There is a special mode on the TCMS to allow it but i was told it’s not allowed to be used.
Genius design.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst 196’s and 197’s can couple mechanically they can’t electrically. There is a special mode on the TCMS to allow it but i was told it’s not allowed to be used.

Who was it who refused the said allowance and the reason why?

 

[eastwestdivide]

So I can give some context for you.
230009 was reported to have failed on Birkenhead depot and meant that 230008 was the only working 230.
This means that if it was to fail in service there is absolutely no way to rescue it. So TFW control will not risk allowing it into passenger service.

Shortly after it was planned to run it back to depot empty 230007 had been made available as a rescue unit and hence why they could reinstate 230008 into passenger service.

Thanks for the context. Makes some kind of sense of it all. But to echo the other comments, "my standard's better than your standard"!

 

[Zontar]

No comments on the 230s since May.....does this mean they are now working as required?

I've been critical in the past, but if these are working to spec, this should be a recognised achievement for tfw

 

[Woods]

No comments on the 230s since May.....does this mean they are now working as required?

I've been critical in the past, but if these are working to spec, this should be a recognised achievement for tfw

I'm predicting words to the effect that they're still swapping units halfway through the day to manage their performance and if this is what is required to keep them going then they're still awful. Ready, steady.....

p.s. I don't know for sure whether a unit swap is still happening half way through the day

p.p.s. I'm not saying I disagree with the usual detractors, merely making the point that even if the units started performing absolutely faultlessly, which is very unlikely, it would probably never be enough to right the wrongs of the past.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has this short-lived mini-heatwave and the associated high pollen count had any effect on the Class 230 units?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

p.s. I don't know for sure whether a unit swap is still happening half way through the day

Unit swap is still happening, todays was 15 minutes late (And has since recovered all lost time)

Realtime Trains | 5J75 1449 Birkenhead North E.M.U.D to Bidston | 23/06/2024

Real-time train running information for 5J75 1449 departure from Birkenhead North E.M.U.D to Bidston on 23/06/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[simonmpoulton]

The way I see it if there are 2x 197's and only 1 230 running on the line then the reliability still isnt sorted out!

 

[Zontar]

The way I see it if there are 2x 197's and only 1 230 running on the line then the reliability still isnt sorted out!

So in actual fact the 230s have failed.....they're being swapped out after half a day and the 197s taking the bulk of the work? Or is there more to it?

 

[TheSel]

No comments on the 230s since May.....does this mean they are now working as required?

I've been critical in the past, but if these are working to spec, this should be a recognised achievement for tfw

If the specification was for each set to work a maximum of half of a dece!erated diagram, requiring a second to replace it for the remaining half; and one set in particular to rust away peacefully without use in service, then yes - they've been a roaring success. Anyone got a copy of the original spec that they'd like to share?

 

[Lurcheroo]

Quite simply, nothing has changed.

The setup is exactly the same as it has been for a little while now with 1 diagram covered by the 230’s and a unit swap half way through the day. Whilst the other 2 diagrams are covered by 197’s.

I’m sure I wrote earlier up thread that there is an ongoing improvement plan to make changes to resolve the battery overheating problems.

The 230’s have been an abysmal failure so far, absolutely no arguments there.
But I think we should all at least wait and see if this does fix the issue before we write them off.
And if it does fix them then, credit where credit is due.
Will it right the wrongs of the past ?I don’t think wholly, but if they come to provide a reliable full 2tph service on the line then, I think it would go some way,

Clearly TFW are sticking with them.

 

[Northerngirl]

If the specification was for each set to work a maximum of half of a dece!erated diagram, requiring a second to replace it for the remaining half; and one set in particular to rust away peacefully without use in service, then yes - they've been a roaring success. Anyone got a copy of the original spec that they'd like to share?

I'm not actually a tfw manager, but I can definitely confirm that wasn't what the contract said

 

[cole_peter5@]

there is is a way around a nice pair of class 153 plenty at Long Marsdan then a one way trip for these class 230 to Mr Simms at Newport get rid of them
not spend more money on them - this wouldn't happen France or Germany they be gone.

 

[leomartin125]

Quick question… would the 230s be more reliable on services that aren’t stopping and starting, like the Bidston to Wrexham trains? Perhaps using them between Crewe and Chester where it’s a very simple non stop run would prevent issues from happening (so often)?

The way I see it, it isn’t that the ‘230s are an abysmal failure’ as such, don’t get me wrong they are extremely poor in reliability, but the GWR ones are showing a much better success rate with their battery charging idea on 230001. Perhaps this is something that TfW should consider IF they are wanting to keep the 230s.

At the moment, if they can manage two diagrams with 197s, then what harm is another one? If the 230s just aren’t working, then perhaps try them elsewhere (as I proposed above).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At the moment, if they can manage two diagrams with 197s, then what harm is another one? If the 230s just aren’t working, then perhaps try them elsewhere (as I proposed above).

Like setting them up as a new ride attraction on Blackpool Pleasure Beach

 

[cole_peter5@]

I think my idea is best - tow them to Mr. Simm at Newport scrap prices are good at the moment - don't waste any more time and money on them.

 

[800301]

Quick question… would the 230s be more reliable on services that aren’t stopping and starting, like the Bidston to Wrexham trains? Perhaps using them between Crewe and Chester where it’s a very simple non stop run would prevent issues from happening (so often)?

There shouldn’t be any compromise with changing the workload of the train, it should do what it’s designed to do, this country gives in far too much when things don’t go to plan and always look at the easy or cheap option of getting out rather than fixing the problem in the first place.

It seems obvious there are serious problem with reliability which need to be addressed

 

[Zontar]

Quick question… would the 230s be more reliable on services that aren’t stopping and starting, like the Bidston to Wrexham trains? Perhaps using them between Crewe and Chester where it’s a very simple non stop run would prevent issues from happening (so often)?

The way I see it, it isn’t that the ‘230s are an abysmal failure’ as such, don’t get me wrong they are extremely poor in reliability, but the GWR ones are showing a much better success rate with their battery charging idea on 230001. Perhaps this is something that TfW should consider IF they are wanting to keep the 230s.

At the moment, if they can manage two diagrams with 197s, then what harm is another one? If the 230s just aren’t working, then perhaps try them elsewhere (as I proposed above).

Their top speed is 60 or 70....I'm sure someone will clarify.

The line to crewe is a 90mph line, although they could run on it, its not exactly progress

 

[Cambrian359]

Quick question… would the 230s be more reliable on services that aren’t stopping and starting, like the Bidston to Wrexham trains? Perhaps using them between Crewe and Chester where it’s a very simple non stop run would prevent issues from happening (so often)?

The way I see it, it isn’t that the ‘230s are an abysmal failure’ as such, don’t get me wrong they are extremely poor in reliability, but the GWR ones are showing a much better success rate with their battery charging idea on 230001. Perhaps this is something that TfW should consider IF they are wanting to keep the 230s.

At the moment, if they can manage two diagrams with 197s, then what harm is another one? If the 230s just aren’t working, then perhaps try them elsewhere (as I proposed above).

The original short term plan was for them to work the Conwy valley, Crewe shuttle and Bidston line with 4 of 5 in service daily before all moving to the Bidston line permanently for the proposed half hourly service.
I’m not sure if it was delivery delays, pandemic, reliability or all the above that meant the original plans never came to happen.

 

[Northerngirl]

I don't understand why aren't they atleast trying to get them on 2 of the diagrams, even with swapping they have enough of them, and it would free up a much needed 197

 

[craigybagel]

Quick question… would the 230s be more reliable on services that aren’t stopping and starting, like the Bidston to Wrexham trains? Perhaps using them between Crewe and Chester where it’s a very simple non stop run would prevent issues from happening (so often)?

Their top speed is 60 or 70....I'm sure someone will clarify.

The line to crewe is a 90mph line, although they could run on it, its not exactly progress

The original short term plan was for them to work the Conwy valley, Crewe shuttle and Bidston line with 4 of 5 in service daily before all moving to the Bidston line permanently for the proposed half hourly service.
I’m not sure if it was delivery delays, pandemic, reliability or all the above that meant the original plans never came to happen.

The original plan was indeed for 230s to temporarily go on Crewe - Chester shuttles, and as I said at the time it was hard to think of a worse train for that service. A unit with a 60mph limit on a 90mph line isn't ideal, but you've also got a seating and door layout that isn't really what you'd want for that service.

I think the real deal breakers in the end though were Avanti's (fairly justified as things turned out) fears about the difficulties of rescue if a unit failed, and also the logistics of operating the route itself - 5 different driver and 6 different guard depots work the shuttle at different times during the day. It's either a lot of training, or a lot of diagram unpicking, to fix that issue.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I think my idea is best - tow them to Mr. Simm at Newport scrap prices are good at the moment - don't waste any more time and money on them.

Yawn.
They’re nice to travel on and would be well suited to the Bidston line.

I think the real deal breakers in the end though were Avanti's (fairly justified as things turned out) fears about the difficulties of rescue if a unit failed, and also the logistics of operating the route itself - 5 different driver and 6 different guard depots work the shuttle at different times during the day. It's either a lot of training, or a lot of diagram unpicking, to fix that issue.

Sounds like that was the right call then.

 

[sansyy]

Depending on the reliability on the next few weeks during this heatwave and if it’s positive and promising we might see changes to the diagrams in the November timetable change as it is a more significant one and TfW could do with sparing the 197 on a more practical line for it. The 230s are nice and so far they’re working their diagrams allocated correctly even with the unit swap but again I got no problem with a unit swap if the line runs on time. They could do with sorting out some of the platforms though very uneasy waiting at stations like Heswall since it’s a floating platform that can barely fit the 230.