Greenford Branch Class 230 Battery Train Trial
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2024
- In today's video we take a look at the Greenford Branch line Class 230 battery train trail, that will see GWR operating 230 001 battery EMU between West Ealing and Greenford.
You can help support the channel over on Patreon: / chris_rail_focus
alternatively if you'd like to buy me a coffee you can do so on my Ko-Fi page: ko-fi.com/chri...
or by making a purchase on my Redbubble photography page: Prints, Mugs, T-shirts and much more:
www.redbubble....
Blog: engineeringfoc...
Twitter: / engfocus
Facebook / engineeringfocus
Discord: / discord
Instagram: engfocus
#Rail #GreatWesternRailway #BatteryTrain
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
Rail photography on Redbbuble, prints, mugs, t-shirts and much more: www.redbubble.com/people/EngPhotography/explore?page=1&sortOrder=recent
Rail focus which date the class 230 is gonna come to the Greenford branch line due 2024 of which date and month
They didn't say, just early 2024.
I know not early 2024 but which date and which month the 230 is gonna come
I'm not sure, GWR hasn't said yet.
Ok
I think this is a great idea - fingers crossed it works. I’m sure GWR must have a number of short branches where this would work
I think a lot of people will be watching this trial very closely and GWR seems to be keen to use the system elsewhere on its network.
The Henley branch probably wouldn’t work simply because the half-hourly frequency doesn’t allow for enough dwell time. I think the Marlow and Windsor branches might have just enough dwell time to make it feasible.
From approximately 1958-1966, BR Scottish region had a two car battery train running on the Deeside line from Aberdeen to Ballater. This was pioneered in conjunction with the North of Scotland Hydro Board and charging points were put in at both ends. AFAIK it was a relatively successful venture, until sadly the line closed.
The units were converted from Derby Light-weights from memory.
Unfortunate that it has taken so long for battery trains to be taken seriously once again.
@@Rail_Focus Indeed. My thought exactly. A bit of co-operation between rail company and power supplier was what was needed.
We’re over the moon to have had them on the Bedford to Bletchley. Great service. Buses for months now and 150s making yet another comeback….. eventually
No date announced for the 150s yet? And which TOC they’ll come from?
Believe they're coming from Northern, hopefully by the Autumn
It's nice that GWR purchased all of the 'D-trains' and not just the one or two which would be needed to operate the Greenford Branch.
This makes me hope that they plan on using these units on some other branch lines, of which GWR has a lot!
I'm not sure if they had much choice, feels like it was part of the agreement for the intellectual property, but it is good that they have a number of units and definitely seem keen to use them elsewhere.
@@Rail_Focus well let's hope this trial is successful, and that we might see these battery trains deployed onto some of GWR's other numerous branch lines!
This could also have the benefit of displacing some of GWR's 165s and 150s, which could be used to help address the DMU shortage you keep talking about!
@@MikeWillSee I believe GWR are more interested in applying the battery tech to new build units later this decade.
@@railotaku that would be interesting to see as well!
They could use them on the GWR main lines which are still not electric, like the Bristol line
They’re coming home ,they’re coming home ,they’re coming ….D stock coming home …..,hope they succeed 😊
Cheers 😊😊
I’ve always been a supporter of battery trains on branch lines so this is great. Sad that Vivarail couldn’t do it under their name but they should be proud of what they achieved.
Modifying existing rolling stock is like modernising a building. There are so many unknowns that can come out to bite you as work progresses. We live in Merseyside and have experienced both the 230s to Wrexham and the 769s from Southport. Both are great concepts when they work. One TfW guard I spoke to said they were good when they worked. Internally you wouldn't really know it was ex District Line stock. The interiors are quite pleasant for an hours journey from Bidston to Wrexham. We will also be getting battery powered stock in service when the non electrified extension on Merseyrail from Kirkby to the new station at Headbolt Lane later this year. There is a sub fleet of 777/1s with lithium titanate traction batteries for the service.
Shame GWR gave up on the 769s, Northern have theirs performing quite well. One staff member did say it was a learning curve and patrs of the manual have been rewritten as time has gone on and they've got to know the units. I do wonder in this world of privatised railways whether any insights and understanding into operation of the 769s was ever shared with GWR? Strange how Northern have faired better with them than GWR have.
I hope the Greenford plan succeeds, and as others have suggested goes on to be used on other branches like Windsor, Henley and Marlow. It would also be a great legacy for Adrian Shooter and all the staff from Vivarail if these did succeed in service.
Live on the Wrexham-Bidston line so all too familiar with the failings of TfW's units. It's incredibly frustrating for passengers. But I think most of the issues with TfW's units comes down to the engines, so hopefully the battery trains will be more successful and will work to demonstrate the potential for the rapid charging system, which could potentially be applied to the battery variants of the 777/1s, to maybe work one day on the Wrexham-Bidston line.
The GWR 769s were more complex than the Northern units and the northern units aren't the most reliable units.
Great summary. I hope this is a success and may offer some future hope for battery units across the country
Cheers, I'm sure many in the industry will be paying close attention to this.
67 vehicles 😮 thats great news! Aylesbury to Princess Risborough branch would be perfect for these
Greenford branch class 165 (1992-2024) , I’m gonna miss the class 165 but I’m excited for seeing the class 230 in the future
I can’t wait to see this new class 230 coming into Greenford branch line due to 2024 and replacing the class 165 and I’m excited for it
Ex District line D78 stock working on GWR, nice they are still working at various locations around the UK
This is like putting a plaster on a bullet wound.
If we are to run trains on electricity we need to electrify the line.
Batteries are great for shunting and all that but in actual use they are a very dirty way of trying to look clean.
Loads of the damage is done by the making and disposal of batteries and plenty of electricity is lost in charging, keeping them warm/cool, etc.
Sooner or later the batteries get old and need replacing and we're then left with the options of either retiring the stock which would usually have many years left in it or throwing a whole load more pollution in there with new batteries again.
Electric trains are some of the most efficient transport devices we have. This is not that by a very long way.
The batteries on these units are safer and have longer lives than lithium ion batteries and do not contain cobalt. They can last at least 8 to 10 years in primary use and another 10 years as static batteries. And according to GWR will repay the embedded carbon within a year. Even if the DfT gets its act together regards a proper electrification strategy it'll be decades before branch lines are electrification, which means decades of burning diesel while we wait. Battery trains aren't perfect but are better than diesel
@@Rail_Focus Better than diesel? Sure about that?
On nuclear or renewables yes. On a coal or gas based grid not at all. Take a look at the emissions produced by a modern diesel with all its aftertreatments and then compare that to grid based electricity after you deduct for the losses from the various delivery switchovers then the charging losses and keep the battery happy losses.
You might be surprised to see just how dirty battery powered vehicles are and thats before we get into how much worse they are in the build/recycle phases and how much shorter lived they generally are.
We've also seen the claims about magic batteries before but they never turn out to be true. There will be a few stand out units which get close to those claims and a lot which get nowhere near. We've been there multiple times.
By the time the chargers and infrastructure are in place you already did most of the work to feed electric to the line. The last part would be the overheads but then you wouldn't need to build all the stock with relatively short-lived batteries in the first place.
The frustrating part is that we all know there is a better way which long term wouldn't be anywhere near as damaging. Its the usual story. No one wants to spend the money on something as unimportant (sarc) as moving thousands of people reliably and as cleanly as possible for many years to come.
The doubly frustrating part is that we all know these are a temporary measure which makes them an even worse idea because that means less time for them to absorb their massive initial footprint.
As for GWR saying they will repay their embedded footprint in a year - I would dearly love to see how they managed to spin that one. Maybe they are "forgetting" that they still need charging to work? I have no doubt they would pay back in a year if the electric came from renewables but thats certainly not going to be the case unless they build a solar farm about half a mile wide and along the entire length of the track.
@@siraff4461: catenaries represent huge embedded carbon, require maintenance, have reliability problems, are fairly intrusive in the landscape.
Horse for courses, of course, but autonomous battery trains with a bulk electricity requirement at just a few nodes for recharging is a no-brainer.
@@siraff4461 The FUD is strong with this one.
@@charlesball6519 Great comment. Well thought out and structured with plenty of content to provoke thought on the subject.
Does your mom still dress you?
Brilliant Video,, honestly cannot wait to see these in service next year
Thanks Simon. I'll definitely be heading down to ride on it when it enters service.
This is such a great channel..keep up the good work
Thank you 🙂
I went to Google and they just said that the GWR class 230 will have a trip to west Ealing in 2nd January 2024 and I saw it and they said that the class 230 will be in passenger service in spring 2024 so happy new year ❤️👍
Of course, they could just electrify the line...
They could do that, if the DfT had a proper electrification strategy.
@@Rail_FocusWhich they don’t and never will because they’re the DfT which needs to be scrapped and restructured top to bottom so actual competence becomes key.
Electrify Bristol, Chiltern Malinline and Newbury to Penzance please
@@alexpeak16The Cambridge Oxford line that is being built; will not have electrification or have ETCS - which I've been told if the future of signalling .
Sure ETCS may not be totally needed why do we keep building things to old out dated specs.
@@alexpeak16 Can't the GWR simply buy the Dft? It's England, after all, where any organisation can be bought
@@kmcat More to the point, did anyone even ask for an Oxbridge line?
Once upon a time, the original GWR ran steam locomotives on what would become the London Underground. Now, you have (former) London Underground stock running on a GWR line.
The Class 230s Running GWR Services Between West Ealing and Greenford Will Allow For The Networker Turbo's To Go To The Bristol Area 👍
Here’s to hoping that the D-Train gets picked up by more operators in future
I really hope so. I still believe the D train concept was a good idea and there are plenty of routes that would benefit from battery trains.
Bringing a bit of excitement to the Greenford Branch
This Means More Class 165s and 166s Would Be Welcomed To The Bristol Area 👍
The Marston Vale line seems to be about 8 times the length of the Greenford line - 16 miles vs 2. So replacing those M Vale diesel D stock in turn currently replaced by a bus with battery Ds might need a few more batteries than the 6 or at least a 5 min top up half way. But it'd be a good advert for going electric being along part of the under construction Varsity Line. And of course be maintainable with GWR's help. Won't happen of course
Marston Vale line is going to become part of EWR so unfortunately that wouldn't be much appetite for using battery trains for just a few years. It's just frustrating that passengers are having to wait for cl150 to be cascaded in the meantime.
@@Rail_FocusIt’s been reported that Northern intends to release 3 x Class 150 this month.
Would be interesting to see these trialled on Marshlink and the Uckfield line. They could charge at either end from the existing 3rd rail or using the rapid charge system at Uckfield.
FINALLY WE HAVE THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CLASS 230
If Vivarail was still around they could of converted some of the Class 230s for GWR to operate on West Ealing-Greenford, Slough-Windsor & Eton Central, Maidenhead-Bourne End/Marlow, Twyford-Henley-on-Thames and Reading-Basingstoke routes.
And London Northwestern Railway would of kept the Class 230 used on the Marston Vale line.
GWR have most of the D78 units and the rights to the fast charging system, so I think they're keen to introduce more 230s on other branches
In other words: GWR’s new underground trains
Hopefully see some on the Looe Branch
there goes the infamous class 165
Bring them back for East West rail
Wish that GWR would of retained the Class 769s which would of been used on the North Downs Line (Reading-Gatwick Airport via Redhill) and Reading-Basingstoke line. If GWR are to inherit the Class 230s including from London Northwestern Railway. And to be converted to battery power or hybrid-battery.
I do think that these would be used on the West Ealing-Greenford, Windsor & Eton Central, Maidenhead-Bourne End & Marlow and Twyford-Henley-on-Thames branch lines. And even used on the Reading-Redhill/Gatwick Airport service.
Let's hope the trial is successful and GWR use them on other branch lines 🤞
Indeed 👍
@@Andrewjg_89The 769s are so unreliable that they could not work a full diagram without failing.
@@A-Trainspotter-From-BerkshireAgreed And That's Why The Turbo's Were Brought Back Into Service Because The 769s Were Not Good
@@DonaldTrumpIsGreat the Turbos never left service.
I can see that these trains could be used on the Twyford-Henley, Maidenhead-Marlow and Slough-Windsor lines too. It just makes sense.
I'm not a train geek but living in Maidenhead perhaps GWR could be using battery trains on the Maidenead Marlow, Slough Windsor and Twyford Henley branch lines which are diesel operated.
There seems to be plenty of potential for the units, so fingers crossed this trial is successful 🤞
That looks really good! Even though I'm a local of the Marston vale line, I prefer the GWR Livery!
I quite liked the LNR livery, but they do look good in the GWR livery.
I’d like to see these on TfW’s Heart of Wales line - quiet, comfortable, quick acceleration, good torque, with appropriate staged charging points
Would have to be the diesel electric hybrids like on the Wrexham-Bidston line, but they have been struggling lately with timing and reliability. But it does seem unfair that the HoW line is being lumbered with cl153s indefinitely.
Yay
Fun Fact: to charge those LiFePO4 batteries (504,000w/h) from 0-100 in 10 minutes you need 3,024,000 watts to charge those batteries...
I guess that's what the static batteries are for
Old hat. I remember seeing a battery train on the Deeside line in the 1950s.
But could it charge in less than 10 minutes? 🤔
Took the D-Train from Bedford to Bletchley. A very pleasant ride. Shame Vivarail came unstuck,
Nice to see this but i think it would be better on the line up to Barnstaple
Hopefully the trial is successful and rolled out onto other routes
Thank you for this. My opinion, train and bus battery power and (resistive or heat-pump) heating are too heavy and inefficient, and probably only useful for emergency service if electric power is lost. Experimental use is interesting and maybe for operational use one day...
I think batteries will definitely have a place for shorter local routes. Merseyrail already has ambitious plans for how it could deploy battery units.
Just need to see how the Class 777/1s work out on the new extension to Headbolt Lane.
I Recommend 2 trains on the Line so we have a Train every 10 - 15 Mins, More frequency.
I realise it’s old fashion thinking but electrification overhead could be an option?
Trying telling the DfT that. In the absence of an proper electrification strategy or funding this is the next best thing, especially for smaller branch lines which are at the bottom of the priority list.
Why not fit them with pantographs and have them charge and operate on AC from Paddington-West ealing then go battery to greenford?
It wouldn't be able to provide the current needed to charge the batteries in under 10 minutes. The static battery is needed and the shoe gear has a much larger contact area. They would also need to install inverters underneath, which I'm not sure there would be space for.
@@Rail_Focus Oh ok, fair enough
Vivarail did consider that option. But it’s not feasible to make structural roof modifications on vehicles that are already built.
The GWR class 230 will have 3 coaches not 2 with them being shorter the length will be the same
Indeed
Interesting. Tech query... With LT 4-rail dc at Greenford, and Eliz Line 25kV ac at West Ealing, why was it necessary to have a third electric system just to power a 2-mile branch?
I'm guessing the avoidance of dealing with High voltages on the 230s, and there isn't a connection to the Central at Greenford. It's just a trial, long term GWR would like some 25kV/750V/Battery units based on the charge tech.
@@railotaku O yes. Clearly 25kV retrofit would be nonsense. Easier to lease a 'used' 25kV emu. But the Hispeed charger Unit clearly doesn't plug into a 240V squarepin 😎. Surely easier to get power at Greenford? More politics? Or VoltAmp mysteries?
@@railotaku yes Having lived locally it's a long-term issue in Ealing to understand why the service from Ealing Bdy and Greenford could not be operated as a free-standing minubranch of the Central Line. Like Epping-Ongar used to, at the other end. The Drayton line uses a criss-platform connection to Central at Greenford without a barrier (unless v recently changed).
@@ReprievedSoul I think the intention for the Vivarail kit was something that could be dropped in anywhere where there isn't existing electrification infrastructure, say for example a branch terminus for the train to topup before the return leg. The fixed battery trickle charging before dumping power in the unit seems to suggest they are wanting to avoid needing grid upgrades for the power levels
The fast charging system uses 2 very short sections of rail, less than 2 metres long. So couldn't really be classed as electrification. Cheaper and safer than full 4-rail electrification.
Hope these end up getting used on the Avocet Line
Bramley Hampshire train station to Basingstoke Hampshire?
I like my d stock London underground District line and the d trains of the rail services.
I often still call the 230s and 484s D78 Stock or D Stock because of what they originally were and it's stuck with me.
Just hope that GWR will bring back more D Stocks to revenue service.
I still use Class 230 and D train interchangeably 😉
So GWR are going to run D stock trains on the Greenford shuttle? I’m kinda confused with the 230s, i just want to ride one :(
Class 230s are converted from D78 Stock units.
I know but are they going to br used on the Greenford shuttle?@@Rail_Focus
Yes, as explained in the video 🙃
yay
sorry i didnt really understabd it too much
@@Rail_Focus
Could this class 230 train 🚊 go to GWR - Great Western Railway 🚃 in the future when the time 🕰️ comes. Also class 230003-005 are honestly hoped will go to GWR - Great Western Railway 🚃 since they were withdrawn from WMR - West Midlands Railway 🚃 on Thursday 1st December 2022. Class 230s are former LU - London Underground 🚊 🚋 trains 🚂 🚊 🚆 . Class 230s now has a toilet 🚻 🚽 added to the train 🚂 🚊 🚆 because railway 🚃 staff and passengers could be desperately to go to the toilet 🚻 🚽. Class 230006-010 are based on a 3 car train 🚊 is currently allocated to TFW - Transport For Wales 🏴. 👍 🤝 🤛 🤜
Oh I fell asleep during the first minute.
Glad I helped you get to sleep
GWR have made so many questionable choices about their rolling stock, fitting the 800s with the worst seats imaginable, which are now so worn out your sitting on the hard plastic structure beneath the seats, Transferring the 166s west only to change their minds because they got rid of the 769s which they never even ran in public service, and now Battery Trains 😬 It makes me nervous ngl.
Just looking at the rolling stock reliability chart in Modern Railways and the Class 484 Vivarail units in the Isle of Wight are fairing much better than the Class 230 counterparts, so it seems at least that all electric variants can be reliable.
Tfw ones are in service
They are indeed
You’re right, but the electrical arrangement is fundamentally different.
Patreon t.co/gLwX7OzgwO
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to electrify the line on the LUL's own 4 rail system?
Unlikely. I know it's only 4 linear miles of track, but it would still be costly. The rapid charging system only requires a static battery and 2 very short sections (only a few metres) of rail.
@@Rail_FocusAlso would it not be a non standard system and what about the level crossing and freight traffic?
I think the unit could still operate on standard 3rd rail. But the 4 rail system is needed to charge the batteries quickly.
@@Rail_Focus If you are electrifying the branch, why not use OLE? Since is there a ban on new third rail according to the ORR and RSSB?
There's no ban as such, but guidance from the ORR against new 3rd rail and Network Rail is less than keen to install new 3rd rail.
However, the ORR has recently softened its view but only in the South East.
I think in this particular instance 3rd/4th Rail would be preferable so it's compatible with LU stock, would make sense for the branch to be taken over by LU. But in the absence of any plan to electrify the line then this trial is the best alternative
join the movement, return the much beloved pacers #blovedpacers
The Bedford to Bletchley line wasn't a success. They had to add a desiel engine to make it more reliable, but this made it worse! The line no longer runs because of the failures.
LNRs 230s were just diesel electric, with power going directly from the engines to the traction motors. TfW's 230s are the diesel electric hybrids.
LNR's 230 were diesel electric from the get go and reliability was starting to improve. The reason for their withdrawal was the collapse of Vivarail.
J
👍
Why don't they put a diesel engine in it to power a generator that can charge the trains battery. Seems like a good idea to me .
Tried that with TfW's units, they're not working that well. Having engines adds more complications and more to go wrong,
@@Rail_Focus to be honest I was joking.
🤦🤣, it's difficult to tell, the comments on this have been all over the place.
Isn’t the idea to decarbonise?
@@chriswalford4161 did you not read my previous comment ?
Honestly wish they’d just get rid of these 230’s… you can only polish a turd so much, at the end of the day it’s still a turd…
GWR's 230 which should be seen really as a testbed for the rapid charging system can't really be compared to TfW's diesel Class 230s, which have been unreliable mostly due to the gen sets.
This is just truly horrific. Instead of spending the relatively small amount of money investing in overhead wire electrification, the UK is doing the terminally short term bullshit of battery trains. Its almost unbelievable. Until you consider the state of the UK in general and infrastrucutre in particular and it all makes sense.
These are environmentally catastrophic, inefficient disasters.
🙄, having a relatively small number of battery trains is better than having millions of electric cars. Yes they're not perfect, but "Catastrophic" is just nonsense, better than burning diesel indefinitely and will be needed until the DfT gets its act together re electrification.
@@Rail_Focus Your video certainly isnt indicating a small scale. Its multiple companies all appearing to develop battery solutions instead of demanding electrification.
But more to the point, battery trains have significant weight issues over catenary wire electrification and those batteries and the extra weight are probably at the heart of the technical problems they are encountering if they havent upgraded the motors on the purchased stock.
This entire project looks like the typical botched way UK infrastructure projects avoid the necesasry cost of investment and end up with a solution thats worse in every way than just spending the necessary money in the first place.
@@dairallan relatively few rail vehicles, compared to the 33,000,000 cars on UK roads. Using battery trains to improve public transport and increase ridership is better than trying to convert all of the UK's cars to EVs. Yes lines should be electrified, but you can't criticise a company for trying to improve services in the absence of a proper electrification strategy from the Government. Even if there were a strategy, at current electrification rates it'd take decades to electrify the remaining network, that's decades more of burning diesel.
@@Rail_Focus putting batteries on retired rolling stock to replace existing rolling stock isnt going to make any difference to the level of public transport usage. That comes from increasing frequency, lowering price and making car use less attractive. Its not an argument for these monstrosities.
The equation here is what is a better choice. Replacing diesel stock with battery trains which lose almost all their environmental benefits due to the very serious flaws of the design, construction and use. Or to not spend that money which, at the end of the day, is coming out the pockets of consumers or government.
What we have here is another example of how badly run the UK railways are, along with the wider issues with infrastructure and the UK in general. This doesn't tally with a video which is apparently trying to put a positive spin on a really, really terrible development.
@@Rail_Focus think of all the lines they could of electrify if it wasn't for the hs 2 disaster all that money wasted just to save ten minutes from London to Birmingham total madness, read on Google this week ewr haven't given up on Aylesbury to bletchley there doing a business studies on it so here's hoping they give it the go ahead,
All that child labor in the Congo to dig out the minerals needed for those batteries is surely worth it so a few Londoners can tell their friends at a dinner party that they personally saved the planet from the utter destruction that was predicted to occur several times already.
🙄, having a relatively small number of battery trains is better than having millions of electric cars. But maybe we should just continue to burn diesel indefinitely instead, but oil producers have great human rights records.
The commentary said that lithium ferrous phosphate - LiFePO4 - was the battery chemistry being used. There is no cobalt in those batteries.
@@Rail_Focus OK, yeah change the subject why don't you, that's called a straw man as I made no defense for oil production, though if you want go there, let's look at modern oil production facilities in the West and see how safe they are. How many child laborers are you willing to employ indirectly to dig out the minerals for your new toy train? Just give a number, 1, 2, 3, 10?
"toy train" FFS 🤦. This sort of nonsense doesn't deserve a reply.
The type of battery used in these trains does not contain rare earth matierials.
What a complete waste of money
Not really, if it works it could unlock the benefits of electrification for small branch lines that even if the DfT planned to electrify, wouldn't be electrified for decades.