Vivarail 230 catches fire

['CHARD]

Is it Burton power products from Maldon?

They did a lot for Ford's rally cars

 

It's actually Revolve Technologies of Brentwood, I understand.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

Does it really matter where the reconditioned engine comes from, as long as it meets the spec for the relevant duty?

 

It's not the first time diesels from other duties have been re-purposed. IIRC, there's an-ex marine spec Deltic engine running around in one of the preserved fleet.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

It doesn't. My original point was in response to the title of "Transit Van Engine" being used in reference to the engines and that it was a fair title, given that there is potential for a reconditioned engine that was literally used on a Transit Van to be fitted to the train. So it was a nomenclatural observation rather than a particular issue with the origin of the engine.

 

That said, I'm still dubious about the Duratorq 3.2l being up to the task, but that's based on the actual mechanics of the engine rather than it's origin, which is actually as an engine for a Ford Mondeo!

 

All the best,

 

Jack

[Talltim]

The test unit has now been returned by road to Long Marston. I liked the comment on FB by a guy from Allelys in reply to a question as to when they would be picking it up "It depends how much is left"
Its reported that the fire was due to a fuel leak, the fuel building up on the protection plate above the engine raft and below the body floor, so not an engine issue per se
On the WNXX forum Tony Miles of Modern Railways said

...the trial between Coventry and Nuneaton is very much at risk. The money [for the trial] has to be handed over by the DfT in this financial year and LM tell me it won't hand it [the unit] over to TfWM until the tests have been completed and DfT is satisfied that the trial is value for money, and there is no requirement (or interest) for whichever bidder wins the next franchise to use the unit.

 

[Talltim]

Now reported that the trial has been cancelled

http://m.nuneaton-news.co.uk/trial-to-boost-rail-services-between-nuneaton-and-coventry-has-derailed/story-30041689-detail/story.html

[CovDriver]

I really wouldn't take any notice of the local rag it's well known for printing rubbish at the best of times. I've not heard anything as yet to say the project is cancelled as we have about 15 new trainee drivers that are in various stages of training for when the service to Nuneaton goes half hourly and the Leamington work comes to fruition.

 

Cheers

Colin

[Talltim]

Rail/Liar also reporting it https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1256248504467969

[The Stationmaster]

Rail/Liar also reporting it https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1256248504467969

 

So it's definitely not true then. 

[Zomboid]

I wouldn't count chickens yet, but it would be a real shame if one failure of the prototype unit killed the project.

I get the feeling that the DfT are not really supportive - you can be sure that one of their ideas would get a lot more rope.

[The Stationmaster]

I wouldn't count chickens yet, but it would be a real shame if one failure of the prototype unit killed the project.

I get the feeling that the DfT are not really supportive - you can be sure that one of their ideas would get a lot more rope.

 

I'm increasingly wondering exactly what DfT are in favour of (except for the abysmal trains they order and expect others to pay for)?  I reckon that it's really a plot by the Dept of Roads to stop people travelling by train and make them use something else (like road coaches instead of trains on the Southern network).

[Talltim]

Correction to my previous post, it hasn't moved yet due to some sort of access permissions for the lorries, might move tonight

[jjb1970]

It's actually Revolve Technologies of Brentwood, I understand.

If they're using Revolve to manage the engine package then it is safe to asume that the necessary remapping and modifications to the engines along with certification has been done properly. They're a respected and competent outfit. Also it'd confirm the transit van tag is a misnomer.

 

On the suitability of the engine, if properly set up for the duty cycle then there is no reason why these engines shouldn't work. Long term durability won't be as good as a heavier duty engine but plenty of assets use the service exchange principle.

[Andy Y]

It seems like it's the end of the line - http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/trial-to-boost-rail-services-between-nuneaton-and-coventry-has-derailed/story-30041689-detail/story.html

 

 

But, in a joint statement, Coventry City Council, Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership, London Midland, Warwickshire County Council and the West Midlands Combined Authority, said: "We have been working with Vivarail on this innovative but technically challenging project to try and find a solution to the UK-wide shortage of diesel trains.

 

"Our goal throughout has been to provide passengers with an enhanced service on the Coventry to Nuneaton line and this remains the case.

 

"That's why it is so unfortunate that this fire and the subsequent investigation has led to a suspension of the trial that had been due to start in February.

 

"This delay means there is no longer enough time to run and evaluate a pilot service using these trains before the next local rail franchise starts in October. It is for this reason we have little choice but to reluctantly withdraw from the trial.

 

"The partners will, however, continue to discuss future opportunities with suppliers of diesel trains, including Vivarail, for this railway line and other routes in the region where the shortage of available rolling stock is impacting on capacity and service operation."

 

[phil-b259]

I'm increasingly wondering exactly what DfT are in favour of (except for the abysmal trains they order and expect others to pay for)?  I reckon that it's really a plot by the Dept of Roads to stop people travelling by train and make them use something else (like road coaches instead of trains on the Southern network).

 

Dare I say this is what happens when you get rid of a man interested in practicalities and realities in favour of an ideologue who is far more interested in playing party politics than any real concern for doing the best thing for users / the industry.

 

Please can we have Patrick McLoughlin back and dump Chris Grayling (who apparently caused no end of trouble when he was prisons minister - and whose boss was Mrs May herself).

 

The railway industry - like many others will come to rue the day when Cameron's EU referendum gamble failed - out went a whole host of broadly sensible characters in all sorts of departments, to be replaced with those looking to destroy whatever progress had been achieved under the previous regime and establish a pure' right wing Government.

[david.hill64]

I'm increasingly wondering exactly what DfT are in favour of (except for the abysmal trains they order and expect others to pay for)?  I reckon that it's really a plot by the Dept of Roads to stop people travelling by train and make them use something else (like road coaches instead of trains on the Southern network).

It's probably that the mandarins in DfT feel threatened by anybody who actually has more than a passing knowledge of rail and will do anything they can to prove who is in charge.

[PenrithBeacon]

I'm increasingly wondering exactly what DfT are in favour of (except for the abysmal trains they order and expect others to pay for)? I reckon that it's really a plot by the Dept of Roads to stop people travelling by train and make them use something else (like road coaches instead of trains on the Southern network).

Paranoia Gulch!

 

I think that the Vivarail experiment was one that was worth making and were it not for incompetence on the part of Vivarail it might well have worked. And, before anybody decides to have a go, incompetence is what it is; trains should not catch fire, new, reconditioned or old. When they do it's because of human incompetence, it's not just an accident.

 

I think the criticism of DfT in this matter is misplaced. I also think that there isn't too much wrong with the trains they approve either, excepting that they are over specified and therefore expensive.

 

I think that professional railwaymen amongst RMwebbers should look again at the way that DfT is organised. There will be loads of professional railwaymen on the staff at the DfT (as there are in other departments) to assist and advise the 'general' civil servants who are getting the flak over this and other matters. This professional advice is evident in a number of matters most notably in the choice of electro-diesel power for the GWML. Somebody in authority knew that the project was going to be a squib and took steps to mitigate the calamity. Good for them.

 

I imagine that this view is going to be controversial.

[Glorious NSE]

I think that the Vivarail experiment was one that was worth making and were it not for incompetence on the part of Vivarail it might well have worked. And, before anybody decides to have a go, incompetence is what it is; trains should not catch fire, new, reconditioned or old. When they do it's because of human incompetence, it's not just an accident.

I do think that's rather harsh. Do you *know* the exact cause of the failure? Do you *know* the failure was definitely down to Vivarail's design or installation and not a failed component or even external damage? 

 

 

 I also think that there isn't too much wrong with the trains they approve either, excepting that they are over specified and therefore expensive.

 

 

Personally I'd have said under-specified in several ways, but hey, whatever!

[The Stationmaster]

Paranoia Gulch!

 

I think that the Vivarail experiment was one that was worth making and were it not for incompetence on the part of Vivarail it might well have worked. And, before anybody decides to have a go, incompetence is what it is; trains should not catch fire, new, reconditioned or old. When they do it's because of human incompetence, it's not just an accident.

 

I think the criticism of DfT in this matter is misplaced. I also think that there isn't too much wrong with the trains they approve either, excepting that they are over specified and therefore expensive.

 

I think that professional railwaymen amongst RMwebbers should look again at the way that DfT is organised. There will be loads of professional railwaymen on the staff at the DfT (as there are in other departments) to assist and advise the 'general' civil servants who are getting the flak over this and other matters. This professional advice is evident in a number of matters most notably in the choice of electro-diesel power for the GWML. Somebody in authority knew that the project was going to be a squib and took steps to mitigate the calamity. Good for them.

 

I imagine that this view is going to be controversial.

 

The railway orientated part of the old Dept of Transport (as it was in the 1990s up to privatisation) consisted of less than20 people none of whom had ever worked in the railway industry however several of them were extremely helpful to BR and let BR run BR.  Apart from those who might have lost their jobs following railway privatisation I can't imagine where the DfT would have ether got people with railway experience or even why it would have wanted them.  

 

If you are going to specify and design a train you need numerous inputs from people with a  wide range of railway backgrounds/experience and some non-railway backgrounds - you need a strong commercial input to ensure the train is marketable and will attract and retain potential passengers (not so essential for commuter trains but a pre-requisite for long distance trains), you need engineers (various)to ensure that you do your best to achieve something which will work and actually fit the network it is intended to run on, and you need operators to ensure it it is a practical operational proposition, will be economical (in the widest sense) to operate, and will fit the network it is designed to run on.

 

If you get the mix right you finish up with an HST and a BR Mk3 basic bodyshell, if something goes a little bit awry you get the few problems the HST did have or the odd problems the Mk4 coaches have had but BR got something which worked, was highly competitive in the market place at various levels of onboard fit and service and which has stood the test of time remarkably well.

 

If you decide to go for some sort of dual power concept you need considerable practical engineering and operational input to get it right for whatever you propose to do - I would suggest that shoving engines under passenger vehicle floors is hardly the best way to help passenger comfort over long journeys or even to necessarily make most economic use of required diesel horsepower and I have a better than strong suspicion that experienced railway operators and engineers, together with a  strong commercial input, know a heck of a lot more about that than some career Civil Servant polishing a chair in Marsham Street and who was probably in a totally different dept only months previously.

 

But then what do I know - I was only a simple railway operator. 

[Coryton]

 

But then what do I know - I was only a simple railway operator. 

 

From my ignorant point of view I agree with much of the above, but...

 

Suppose the DfT had gone for a small fleet of bi-mode trains with an above-floor engine, and a larger fleet of electric only trains (with or without an 'emergency' engine), wouldn't it have been a lot harder to convert the GWR fleet to bi-modes to deal with the electrification delays?

[The Stationmaster]

From my ignorant point of view I agree with much of the above, but...

 

Suppose the DfT had gone for a small fleet of bi-mode trains with an above-floor engine, and a larger fleet of electric only trains (with or without an 'emergency' engine), wouldn't it have been a lot harder to convert the GWR fleet to bi-modes to deal with the electrification delays?

 

Adam

 

Indeed it would.  But that supposes two things - firstly that mounting diesel engines on or under a basically electric train was the correct way of doing the job to cope with limited sections of non-electrified route, and secondly that the GWML electrification was always going to be the totally mismanaged shambles it has actually turned out to be.

 

Thus there might have actually been a greater incentive to get a grip of the GWML scheme and complete it properly instead of simply chucking the GWML electrification baby out with the bath water of DfT mismanagement of train procurement.  What nobody has - very conveniently - yet stated is the additional costs in both Variation Orders and ongoing impact on availability plus potential deceleration of services (compared with HSTs) that DafT's decisions will result in or how those costs have been accounted (or not) in the NAO's paper.

[Trevellan]

It's probably that the mandarins in DfT feel threatened by anybody who actually has more than a passing knowledge of rail and will do anything they can to prove who is in charge.

 

As one who joined DfT from outside, I found that process was often favoured over knowledge. The nature of the civil service is such that people tend to move between departments on a regular basis, with relatively few maintaining detailed modal knowledge.

[Coryton]

Indeed it would.  But that supposes two things - firstly that mounting diesel engines on or under a basically electric train was the correct way of doing the job to cope with limited sections of non-electrified route.

 

It clearly has disadvantages (noise, raised floors) but on the other hand it does give much more flexibility, not just as is being required now to turn electric trains into bi-modes, but further down the line to easily turn bi-modes into pure electric trains if required. The idea of a high speed DEMU with under-floor engines clearly works and has done in the UK for a while, although maybe it's not the optimal solution.

 

Of course the old-fashioned solution of separating out the locomotive and the bits the passengers go in also gave similar flexibility and let you change a train from pure electric to pure diesel without lugging around all the diesel engine kit when not needed.

 

 

secondly that the GWML electrification was always going to be the totally mismanaged shambles it has actually turned out to be.

 

 

I could argue here that you don't need to know what will go wrong to know that some flexibility might be a good thing in the future.

 

Thus there might have actually been a greater incentive to get a grip of the GWML scheme and complete it properly instead of simply chucking the GWML electrification baby out with the bath water of DfT mismanagement of train procurement.  What nobody has - very conveniently - yet stated is the additional costs in both Variation Orders and ongoing impact on availability plus potential deceleration of services (compared with HSTs) that DafT's decisions will result in or how those costs have been accounted (or not) in the NAO's paper.

 

 

[PenrithBeacon]

The railway orientated part of the old Dept of Transport (as it was in the 1990s up to privatisation) consisted of less than20 people none of whom had ever worked in the railway industry however several of them were extremely helpful to BR and let BR run BR. Apart from those who might have lost their jobs following railway privatisation I can't imagine where the DfT would have ether got people with railway experience or even why it would have wanted them.

 

If you are going to specify and design a train you need numerous inputs from people with a wide range of railway backgrounds/experience and some non-railway backgrounds - you need a strong commercial input to ensure the train is marketable and will attract and retain potential passengers (not so essential for commuter trains but a pre-requisite for long distance trains), you need engineers (various)to ensure that you do your best to achieve something which will work and actually fit the network it is intended to run on, and you need operators to ensure it it is a practical operational proposition, will be economical (in the widest sense) to operate, and will fit the network it is designed to run on.

 

If you get the mix right you finish up with an HST and a BR Mk3 basic bodyshell, if something goes a little bit awry you get the few problems the HST did have or the odd problems the Mk4 coaches have had but BR got something which worked, was highly competitive in the market place at various levels of onboard fit and service and which has stood the test of time remarkably well.

 

If you decide to go for some sort of dual power concept you need considerable practical engineering and operational input to get it right for whatever you propose to do - I would suggest that shoving engines under passenger vehicle floors is hardly the best way to help passenger comfort over long journeys or even to necessarily make most economic use of required diesel horsepower and I have a better than strong suspicion that experienced railway operators and engineers, together with a strong commercial input, know a heck of a lot more about that than some career Civil Servant polishing a chair in Marsham Street and who was probably in a totally different dept only months previously.

 

But then what do I know - I was only a simple railway operator.

With respect, you seem to be answering a totally different post, one I didn't write and neither did anyone else.

[Hesperus]

 

Of course the old-fashioned solution of separating out the locomotive and the bits the passengers go in also gave similar flexibility and let you change a train from pure electric to pure diesel without lugging around all the diesel engine kit when not needed.

 

 

 

 

It was almost certainly the best way for British Railways in the 1960's. Unfortunately on the overcrowded 21st century a platform that is as long as 10 coaches needs 10 coaches rather than 8 + 2 powercars.

[SwissRailPassion]

Paranoia Gulch!

I think that the Vivarail experiment was one that was worth making and were it not for incompetence on the part of Vivarail it might well have worked. And, before anybody decides to have a go, incompetence is what it is; trains should not catch fire, new, reconditioned or old. When they do it's because of human incompetence, it's not just an accident.

I think the criticism of DfT in this matter is misplaced. I also think that there isn't too much wrong with the trains they approve either, excepting that they are over specified and therefore expensive.

I think that professional railwaymen amongst RMwebbers should look again at the way that DfT is organised. There will be loads of professional railwaymen on the staff at the DfT (as there are in other departments) to assist and advise the 'general' civil servants who are getting the flak over this and other matters. This professional advice is evident in a number of matters most notably in the choice of electro-diesel power for the GWML. Somebody in authority knew that the project was going to be a squib and took steps to mitigate the calamity. Good for them.

I imagine that this view is going to be controversial.

There are very few experienced railwaymen at the DfT.

Procurement of the IEP was carried out at a time of staff turmoil and savage cuts.

The DfT resisted the advice of career railway experts throughout procurement. So much so that Hitachi finally had to let them know that the train they had specified simply would not work.

The fitting of Diesel engines is a panic move to provide something for service operation.

On diesel the IEP will not do as well as the HST so the the electrification is concentrated on the higher speed end of the line to minimise timetable problems.

The whole thing is a salvage exercise which will cost everyone dear and wreck the entire modernisation programme.

For those interested, the facts of the whole saga have been presented in Modern Railways since 2009. This esteemed professional magazine has openly ridiculed the DfT for the decisions taken as, at times, many of them have been unbelievable. Little of this is reported in mainstream media because it is too technical for modern journalists. However, the DfTs actions have made a straightforward procurement into one hell of an expensive solution for the next 27.5 years.

 

Meanwhile in another office at the DfT, a bloody minded civil servant on 265K per year is determined to smash the unions at the expensive of hundreds of thousands of people in the South.

 

And now the DfT propose to fit Diesel engines under class 365 units as they have just realised that all the new 387 units can't run to Oxford, Newbury or the branches without the wires.

The 'greatest investment since the Victorian times' has collapsed in farce.

[Suzie]

If they had actually reached a single destination with the electrification it would have been something.