GWR Class 230 Information, Movements & Discussion.

[Woods]

I'd guess for Long Marston - Evesham - Moreton in the Marsh and back a couple of times a day

The planned Cotswold Line moves in the first two weeks of December were for 'shakedown running' of 230001 prior to it moving down to Reading depot (under it's own power, distance c. 66 miles), but they're likely to be postponed to the New Year now, due to a fault with the WSP system (Wheel Slide Protection) which requires a software patch that may only be available in January. The shakedown running / mileage accumulation is necessary due to the fact that the train has hardly turned a wheel for over a year (because of the Vivarail administration) so it needs to get some fault-free miles on the clock up to max speed (60mph) before putting it anywhere near Reading depot. Unlike the old commercial arrangements where Vivarail were contractually obliged to achieve a certain fault-free mileage before getting paid by the customer, this time round the train is now owned and maintained by GWR so as much time as necessary will be taken to achieve a reliable train; the team are acutely aware that an unreliable battery train could be the death of this project, even if the performance of the batteries / charging system as such are fine. The train is being thoroughly prepared at Long Marston by the GWR battery train team and some Reading techs on secondment to the team with a view to it being as good as possible before it moves to Reading. This time has also helped the Reading guys become familiar with maintaining the train. 'Phase 1' testing with the train on the Fast Charge system has nearly concluded at Long Marston, with about another week left to do.

Isn't West Ealing to Reading only around 30 miles?
If the battery can't do half its capacity that's surely a problem

Calculations suggest that West Ealing to Reading will be fine as long as the train is charged up at West Ealing before it departs. It will be re-charged at Reading via slower 'depot chargers' (plug in) before it returns to West Ealing. Time on depot will be allowed for this.

Mileage accumulation on the Cotswold Line will also provide validation of the performance calcs.

If we do see more battery trains created out of ex D78 Stock cars. Will GWR convert them, and will they be still designated Class 230s as apparently in the December edition of Todays Railways their are still enough D78 bodyshells to create at least seventeen three car units for branch line utilisation.

It's not as many as 17.....it's more like 13......limited by the number of surviving Driving Motor cars.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The planned Cotswold Line moves in the first two weeks of December were for 'shakedown running' of 230001 prior to it moving down to Reading depot (under it's own power, distance c. 66 miles), but they're likely to be postponed to the New Year now, due to a fault with the WSP system (Wheel Slide Protection) which requires a software patch that may only be available in January. The shakedown running / mileage accumulation is necessary due to the fact that the train has hardly turned a wheel for over a year (because of the Vivarail administration) so it needs to get some fault-free miles on the clock up to max speed (60mph) before putting it anywhere near Reading depot. Unlike the old commercial arrangements where Vivarail were contractually obliged to achieve a certain fault-free mileage before getting paid by the customer, this time round the train is now owned and maintained by GWR so as much time as necessary will be taken to achieve a reliable train; the team are acutely aware that an unreliable battery train could be the death of this project, even if the performance of the batteries / charging system as such are fine. The train is being thoroughly prepared at Long Marston by the GWR battery train team and some Reading techs on secondment to the team with a view to it being as good as possible before it moves to Reading. This time has also helped the Reading guys become familiar with maintaining the train. 'Phase 1' testing with the train on the Fast Charge system has nearly concluded at Long Marston, with about another week left to do.


Calculations suggest that West Ealing to Reading will be fine as long as the train is charged up at West Ealing before it departs. It will be re-charged at Reading via slower 'depot chargers' (plug in) before it returns to West Ealing. Time on depot will be allowed for this.

Mileage accumulation on the Cotswold Line will also provide validation of the performance calcs.


It's not as many as 17.....it's more like 13......limited by the number of surviving Driving Motor cars.

Thank you for your reports from the front line. It is good to see a pragmatic approach being taken with this new technology.

I feel a new class number being a sensible idea to distinguish these from the diesel powered/assisted cousins. Something more akin to 484 ?.

Conjecture/Questions/Running-Ahead-Of-Oneself :-

With a range of 60 miles - what chance these battery only ex-D78s being useful for the diesel islands in 3rd rail land ?.

These are now a GWR project so perhaps the 13 possible units are already going to be earmarked. North Downs line will be second in the queue behind the Thames branches so not much left for Uckfield or Ashford !.

 

[FenMan]

With a range of 60 miles - what chance these battery only ex-D78s being useful for the diesel islands in 3rd rail land ?.

These are now a GWR project so perhaps the 13 possible units are already going to be earmarked. North Downs line will be second in the queue behind the Thames branches so not much left for Uckfield or Ashford !.

These units would be unsuitable for the North Downs, due to lack of range, limited capacity and being far too slow.

I'd like to think the eventual replacements of the existing 165 fleet on the North Downs will be latest generation battery/3rd rail powered hybrids that can fit in with the complicated scheduling requirements and capable of carrying 250+ passengers. No doubt this is being looked into at the moment. However such speculation is for another thread!

 

[Dan G]

I would think the Cornish branches, along with the Thames Valley branches, would be the ultimate homes for 230s if this project proves successful.

The NDL would get whatever project Churchward delivers (if anything).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I would think the Cornish branches, along with the Thames Valley branches, would be the ultimate homes for 230s if this project proves successful.

The NDL would get whatever project Churchward delivers (if anything).

That’s the downside of the trial being a success. If it is, the line that gets these converted 70s tube trains misses out on the brand new trains that Churchward would have otherwise brought.

 

[Deepgreen]

I passed Reading on Saturday and a sad collection of D stock was there, covered in graffiti - another grand advert for the railway.

Thank you for your reports from the front line. It is good to see a pragmatic approach being taken with this new technology.

I feel a new class number being a sensible idea to distinguish these from the diesel powered/assisted cousins. Something more akin to 484 ?.

Conjecture/Questions/Running-Ahead-Of-Oneself :-

With a range of 60 miles - what chance these battery only ex-D78s being useful for the diesel islands in 3rd rail land ?.

These are now a GWR project so perhaps the 13 possible units are already going to be earmarked. North Downs line will be second in the queue behind the Thames branches so not much left for Uckfield or Ashford !.

Utterly unsuitable for the NDL - we need faster, longer trains not shorter, slower (and worse) ones. The 230s may be at home pottering along short branches, but not on an awkwardly-scheduled and increasingly-busy route like the NDL.

 

[norbitonflyer]

That’s the downside of the trial being a success. If it is, the line that gets these converted 70s tube trains misses out on the brand new trains that Churchward would have otherwise brought.

Or the 230s might be on a shorter lease, allowing Churchward deliveries to be spread over a longer period which will keep costs down compared to a boom and bust order. (Although such plans have a habit of getting derailed - Pacers were supposed to have a shorter design life than Sprinters so that the order books could be filled with Pacer replacements as a follow on to the first Sprinters: that didn't happen.

 

[43096]

Or the 230s might be on a shorter lease

The 230s are owned by GWR i.e. they are franchise assets.

 

[12LDA28C]

I feel a new class number being a sensible idea to distinguish these from the diesel powered/assisted cousins. Something more akin to 484 ?.

The 484s are 3rd rail units and so numbered due to the previous Island Line units being Class 485/486 then more recently Class 483. The Greenford battery Class 230 is a very different unit which has little in common with the IOW units so it would make zero sense to have a similar class number.

 

[D365]

That’s the downside of the trial being a success. If it is, the line that gets these converted 70s tube trains misses out on the brand new trains that Churchward would have otherwise brought.

But the only part of them which is 70s is the bodyshell…

 

[Woods]

But the only part of them which is 70s is the bodyshell…

And the bogies are approx. year 2000-ish vintage (original bogies were replaced) except the traction motors which were Vivarail replacements (AC traction motors instead of the old DC traction motors).

As for the class numbering of the 230s; it's completely awry and always has been, I don't think it was ever properly thought about as the various flavours were developed!

230001 in its original form was diesel electric so perhaps this should have been a 230/0
230002 in its original form was a battery electric so perhaps should have been a 230/1 and numbered 230100
230003 to 230005 are diesel electric, basically a continuation of 230001 in its original form so perhaps should have been numbered 230002, 230003 and 230004
230006 to 230010 are diesel/battery hybrids so perhaps should have been classified 230/2s and numbered 230200, 230201, 230202, 230203 and 230204
230001 is now the second battery electric class 230 should perhaps should have been numbered 230101
484s are 3rd rail electric and probably the only class numbering that actually makes sense!

My head is now hurting.

That’s the downside of the trial being a success. If it is, the line that gets these converted 70s tube trains misses out on the brand new trains that Churchward would have otherwise brought.

That depends whether you believe that this dying anti-rail government are in any mood to approve a fleet of new trains any time soon. I suspect sadly not, so wholesale diesel replacement of the GWR fleet under Churchward will probably remain a pipe dream for now. Whereas on the other hand atleast it's more within GWR's gift to do something with 230s and the branch lines in the slightly shorter term (subject to successful outcome of the Greenford trial). A question of 'jam today' (depending on what sort of jam you like). The 230s are not seen as 'competition' for Churchward anyway. It's about having 230s in the short to medium term in the appropriate places (i.e. sub-60mph short distance branch line services), Churchward new trains in the long term for everywhere else. 230s on the North Downs Line isn't going to happen, don't worry.

I passed Reading on Saturday and a sad collection of D stock was there, covered in graffiti - another grand advert for the railway.


Utterly unsuitable for the NDL - we need faster, longer trains not shorter, slower (and worse) ones. The 230s may be at home pottering along short branches, but not on an awkwardly-scheduled and increasingly-busy route like the NDL.

That is a bit sad. Those trains covered in graffiti are the ex-WMT units purchased by GWR earlier this year. I suspect the graffiti was done when they were still at Bletchley. There is currently no future plan for these units. Their future depends on the outcome of the Greenford trial. Most likely is that they'll be converted to battery in one way or another. Very unlikely that they'll ever operate as diesels again, not least because the diesel gensets are a pain in the backside to maintain that Reading doesn't need.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

But the only part of them which is 70s is the bodyshell…

I personally think the 230s and 483s both feel very SWR 455/GA 321-esque inside, IE pretty old but refurbished heavily. Opinions will of course vary.

 

[Woods]

I personally think the 230s and 483s both feel very SWR 455/GA 321-esque inside, IE pretty old but refurbished heavily. Opinions will of course vary.

That's what they are....

 

[Peter Sarf]

I passed Reading on Saturday and a sad collection of D stock was there, covered in graffiti - another grand advert for the railway.


Utterly unsuitable for the NDL - we need faster, longer trains not shorter, slower (and worse) ones. The 230s may be at home pottering along short branches, but not on an awkwardly-scheduled and increasingly-busy route like the NDL.

Not just the railways but a sad reflection on the country imo.

Or the 230s might be on a shorter lease, allowing Churchward deliveries to be spread over a longer period which will keep costs down compared to a boom and bust order. (Although such plans have a habit of getting derailed - Pacers were supposed to have a shorter design life than Sprinters so that the order books could be filled with Pacer replacements as a follow on to the first Sprinters: that didn't happen.

Yes, the Pacers were promised as a short term fix. Mind you they improved once BR got rid of the feature that the media (BBC Nationwide) forced BR to buy - the Self Changing Gearbox.

The 484s are 3rd rail units and so numbered due to the previous Island Line units being Class 485/486 then more recently Class 483. The Greenford battery Class 230 is a very different unit which has little in common with the IOW units so it would make zero sense to have a similar class number.

Not suggesting 484 exactly but something other than 230.

And the bogies are approx. year 2000-ish vintage (original bogies were replaced) except the traction motors which were Vivarail replacements (AC traction motors instead of the old DC traction motors).

As for the class numbering of the 230s; it's completely awry and always has been, I don't think it was ever properly thought about as the various flavours were developed!

230001 in its original form was diesel electric so perhaps this should have been a 230/0
230002 in its original form was a battery electric so perhaps should have been a 230/1 and numbered 230100
230003 to 230005 are diesel electric, basically a continuation of 230001 in its original form so perhaps should have been numbered 230002, 230003 and 230004
230006 to 230010 are diesel/battery hybrids so perhaps should have been classified 230/2s and numbered 230200, 230201, 230202, 230203 and 230204
230001 is now the second battery electric class 230 should perhaps should have been numbered 230101
484s are 3rd rail electric and probably the only class numbering that actually makes sense!

That is one way of differentiating them. I would have kept the last two digits unique so as to avoid clashes when a 230 changed sub class.

btw Is there a 230011 in the USA with 230002 ?.

My head is now hurting.


That depends whether you believe that this dying anti-rail government are in any mood to approve a fleet of new trains any time soon. I suspect sadly not, so wholesale diesel replacement of the GWR fleet under Churchward will probably remain a pipe dream for now. Whereas on the other hand atleast it's more within GWR's gift to do something with 230s and the branch lines in the slightly shorter term (subject to successful outcome of the Greenford trial). A question of 'jam today' (depending on what sort of jam you like). The 230s are not seen as 'competition' for Churchward anyway. It's about having 230s in the short to medium term in the appropriate places (i.e. sub-60mph short distance branch line services), Churchward new trains in the long term for everywhere else. 230s on the North Downs Line isn't going to happen, don't worry.

I also suspect a Churchward type unit might not be suitable for shorter platforms, one of which is impossible to lengthen at Bourne End on the Maidenhead to Marlow branch. About the only thing that will fit is a two car 20m coach unit.

That is a bit sad. Those trains covered in graffiti are the ex-WMT units purchased by GWR earlier this year. I suspect the graffiti was done when they were still at Bletchley. There is currently no future plan for these units. Their future depends on the outcome of the Greenford trial. Most likely is that they'll be converted to battery in one way or another. Very unlikely that they'll ever operate as diesels again, not least because the diesel gensets are a pain in the backside to maintain that Reading doesn't need.

Yes I think GWR will be avoiding Diesel Gensets - unless a better engine comes along. I assume 230003, 230004 & 230005 will be first in the queue for conversion to Battery units.

Incidentally what is happening with 230002 & 230011 ?.
Will they come back from the USA ?.
Are they former Vivarail assets so now belong to GWR ?.
Are they worth more than the cost of bringing them back to the UK ?.
(the answer to that probably depends on progress with the UK battery trial).

 

[TurboMan]

Incidentally what is happening with 230002 & 230011 ?.
Will they come back from the USA ?.
Are they former Vivarail assets so now belong to GWR?

GWR didn't buy all Vivarail's assets from the receiver, so no they're not GWR's.

 

[Peter Sarf]

GWR didn't buy all Vivarail's assets from the receiver, so no they're not GWR's.

Are they just rotting in the USA or is there an interesting (competing ?) story to be heard from there ?.

 

[TurboMan]

Are they just rotting in the USA or is there an interesting (competing ?) story to be heard from there ?.

No idea. But GWR won't be doing anything with them.

 

[Woods]

230002 and 230011 belong to the Railroad Development Corporation (RDC). They were paid for by RDC and delivered before Vivarail went bust. They are operational, at the Rockhill Trolley Museum in Pennsylvania:

230011 was actually formed by taking the original 230002 (2-car battery train, formed of 2 x Driving Motor cars DM-DM, each Driving Motor carries two batteries), then 230002 was split in half and a Driving Trailer car (DT) was inserted, so now you have 2 trains with half the range each!!

230002 = DM-DT (2 batteries)
230011 = DM-DT (2 batteries)

They're not fitted with 'Fast Charge'. They've got the same batteries as the TfW units. They can only be slow-charged by plugging them in.

 

[Peter Sarf]

230002 and 230011 belong to the Railroad Development Corporation (RDC). They were paid for by RDC and delivered before Vivarail went bust. They are operational, at the Rockhill Trolley Museum in Pennsylvania:

230011 was actually formed by taking the original 230002 (2-car battery train, formed of 2 x Driving Motor cars DM-DM, each Driving Motor carries two batteries), then 230002 was split in half and a Driving Trailer car (DT) was inserted, so now you have 2 trains with half the range each!!

230002 = DM-DT (2 batteries)
230011 = DM-DT (2 batteries)

They're not fitted with 'Fast Charge'. They've got the same batteries as the TfW units. They can only be slow-charged by plugging them in.

Thanks, I had forgotten about the RDC. GWR will only want them if all the D78 Driving coaches get used up !.

 

[Woods]

Thanks, I had forgotten about the RDC. GWR will only want them if all the D78 Driving coaches get used up !.

I think they'd have a job persuading Henry Posner (owner of RDC who pumped tens of millions into Vivarail) to sell them back

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think they'd have a job persuading Henry Posner (owner of RDC who pumped tens of millions into Vivarail) to sell them back

I can only imagine it would be if RDC no longer wanted them and Henry Posner wanted to cut his losses a wee bit !.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Does anyone think that if GWR convert any remaining D78 bodyshells to battery power, will the class be given a new TOPS designation. For example Class 232 or 234?

 

[birchesgreen]

If they are battery only then a DC EMU classification, such as 530 perhaps but who knows what random number they'll choose these days?

 

[12LDA28C]

I also suspect a Churchward type unit might not be suitable for shorter platforms, one of which is impossible to lengthen at Bourne End on the Maidenhead to Marlow branch. About the only thing that will fit is a two car 20m coach unit.

The 165s that currently operate the Bourne End service are 23m long per coach and indeed the Sectional Appendix gives the length of the Down platform as 47m (The Up platform is 125m).

 

[aem7ac]

230002 and 230011 belong to the Railroad Development Corporation (RDC). They were paid for by RDC and delivered before Vivarail went bust. They are operational, at the Rockhill Trolley Museum in Pennsylvania:

230011 was actually formed by taking the original 230002 (2-car battery train, formed of 2 x Driving Motor cars DM-DM, each Driving Motor carries two batteries), then 230002 was split in half and a Driving Trailer car (DT) was inserted, so now you have 2 trains with half the range each!!

230002 = DM-DT (2 batteries)
230011 = DM-DT (2 batteries)

They're not fitted with 'Fast Charge'. They've got the same batteries as the TfW units. They can only be slow-charged by plugging them in.

RDC plans to attempt to use them for a trial commuter service on the Iowa Interstate Railroad.
It appears some other local governmental agencies with an interest in reactivating abandoned rail connections have taken an interest in the RDC 230s as well.

 

[steeevooo]

Regarding the Thames Valley branches, do we know if it can meet the current timetable? I'm thinking specifically of the Slough -> Windsor & Eton Central branch - a range of 60 miles allows about 21 or 22 single-leg trips. With only 3 or 4 min turnarounds at each end, does this allow enough time for the unit to maintain sufficient charge to keep going all day?

 

[JN114]

Regarding the Thames Valley branches, do we know if it can meet the current timetable? I'm thinking specifically of the Slough -> Windsor & Eton Central branch - a range of 60 miles allows about 21 or 22 single-leg trips. With only 3 or 4 min turnarounds at each end, does this allow enough time for the unit to maintain sufficient charge to keep going all day?

The short answer is we have no idea.

That’s why this is only committed as a technology demonstration on the Greenford branch. Nothing more than that. Everything else picked up from Vivarail was going for pennies, so it was worthwhile picking them up for IF the Greenford trial yields results that show it is suitable for elsewhere. They’re just as likely to all go for scrap.

 

[The_Train]

230002 and 230011 belong to the Railroad Development Corporation (RDC). They were paid for by RDC and delivered before Vivarail went bust. They are operational, at the Rockhill Trolley Museum in Pennsylvania:

230011 was actually formed by taking the original 230002 (2-car battery train, formed of 2 x Driving Motor cars DM-DM, each Driving Motor carries two batteries), then 230002 was split in half and a Driving Trailer car (DT) was inserted, so now you have 2 trains with half the range each!!

230002 = DM-DT (2 batteries)
230011 = DM-DT (2 batteries)

They're not fitted with 'Fast Charge'. They've got the same batteries as the TfW units. They can only be slow-charged by plugging them in.

Do you happen to know the breakdown of carriage numbers for these 2 units please?

 

[steeevooo]

The short answer is we have no idea.

That’s why this is only committed as a technology demonstration on the Greenford branch. Nothing more than that. Everything else picked up from Vivarail was going for pennies, so it was worthwhile picking them up for IF the Greenford trial yields results that show it is suitable for elsewhere. They’re just as likely to all go for scrap.

Thanks - reading some of the responses on this thread somewhat gave the impression that they've been near-as-dammit earmarked for the Thames Valley branches already!

 

[JN114]

Thanks - reading some of the responses on this thread somewhat gave the impression that they've been near-as-dammit earmarked for the Thames Valley branches already!

Lots and lots of posts on the subject getting way, way out of hand.

The managing director made one, offhand comment in an interview with one of the rail magazines, and the whole world and his dog have latched onto it as some gospel truth from upon high.

I feel collective expectations need to be somewhat tempered.