Vivarail's 'D Train' - 'D' stock reborn

In other words they're suffering from hayfever

Or you could haul it to West Ealing ready for the day's service.

Thinking about it, no; I can't see such flexibility being available. The idea of being able to deliver a rail vehicle from one point on the network to another, by rail, is simply ludicrous.

Perhaps today's usual method, road transport, would be more feasible.

Hopefully serving the same strength tea as when we worked them in 1980!

Now this is just pollen your leg.

www.deeside.com/blooming-problem-new-transport-for-wales-class-230-trains-suffering-from-hayfever/

Although a month late, the dandelion type fluff has been an issue in North Wales for several years. Certainly after the 158s were given a new set of radiators / maintenance about 15 years ago, everything stopped on the Cambrian when it got warm because they got covered in fluff. At the end of May, the NG/G16 I was on looked more like a chicken below the solebar than a steam engine as it was covered in fluff!

According to a usually well informed source posting on WNXX (and duly acknowledged)


- expect train testing on the Greenford branch in second week in January ***

- preceded in December*** by some main line testing along the Oxford / Worcester line


*** means 12/23 and 01/24 before some joker enquires "which year"

Efficiency aside, the 'fixed' battery will be fine on charging, but deteriorate rapidly with each fast discharge.

Presumably this will only be for the trial period, after which a proper DC supply will be provided.

Brigham explicitly said "efficiency aside" so they were not disputing that energy is lost.
As I understand it the reason for the two battery solution is to allow trickle charging from the grid but allow very fast charging of the train's batteries - effectively acting as a buffer to protect the grid from spikes. The battery in the charging station will be designed specifically so that it will not rapidly deteriorate when discharging to the train (anything else will be pointless).

While charging two batteries is less efficient than charging one battery directly, this is not the whole story as the question is whether the whole system sufficiently efficient that it is both better for the environment and better value for money than fossil fuel, hydrogen or other battery-electric or OLE solutions. Upgrading the grid to cope with the massive spikes induced without a battery buffer between the grid and train would (presumably) be more efficient than having the buffer, the buffer is (presumably) calculated to be sufficiently cheaper that is outweighs the loss of efficiency.

Given that the purpose of the trial is to find what the answers to these questions are in practice, passing judgement now (on efficiency or value for money) is premature.

capacitors are better for fast discharge, I wish that these were at least tried here (as part of a process of discovery of best practise)

Update; same source posted third week in Jan now, so, 3 weeks to go?

Last time I travelled on one in December, the crew were very pleased with themselves as they were making up time. The trains themselves seem comfy and well received with passengers. Wrexham / Bidston as always run late because it was too tight which they've now resolved with a 45 minute timetable rather than the hour.

The only slight weird thing is listening to one coming down Harwarden Bank in to Shotton. If you close your eyes...you could be in London!

Always difficult trying to get back in the game, after so many generations of skills have been thrown away.

It can be done. Triumph motorcycles are back!

I am not sure the availability of input from ex LUL engineering staff is a very material concern for GWR.

The Greenford (DFT) test is really about proving that the fast charging concept and kit as devised by Vivarail is sufficiently safe and reliable to consider its wider application. That wider application may or may not involve Class 230/ex D Stock units.

Yes GWR got handed a heap of D78 stock thrown in as part of the deal to purchase the intellectual property rights. But be clear at this stage it is those intellectual rights which are primarily of value along with the 230001 battery prototype unit which they hope will serve as a suitable test mule and iron out any residual issues with the concept.

At the moment the ex Marston Vale kit and the masses of other unconverted D78 rolling stock which came as part of the deal might have a range of potential outcomes. Whilst the trial is ongoing I suspect it makes sense to retain them all if only to act as minimal cost parts suppliers(Christmas trees) in order to keep 230001 running right through the trial period.

However given their wholesale value as scrap and the ongoing security and storage costs I fear scrapping must be a fairly high probability outcome for most of that kit.

Whether any further D78-Class 230 variants are created is really all down to money and reliability.

Certainly the fossil fueled Class 230 variants (TFW & Marston Vale) have not covered themselves in glory. However again and again it appeared weaknesses with the fossil fuel kit was the primary reason the units failed. When they worked as intended the passenger experience was generally well received.

So if the Greenford trial goes well then I suspect there is a reasonable chance that modifying the Marston Vale units to a similar spec battery powered unit would be relatively cheap and potentially offer a far quicker entry into service date. Given the current shortages of GWR rolling stock this might offer a way to quickly augment their local services fleet and move to zero emissions.

For now - it seems that all is not lost on those units.

As for the rest - even with GWR having access to a source of free raw materials the cost of further D78 - Class 230 battery units is going to be a fairly large chunk of entirely new build battery units (quite probably using some or all of the fast charging tech being trialled at Greenford) but most importantly offering much longer life expectancy.