Classsix T Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 http://m.nationalrail.co.uk/pj/disruption/details/B855EEA41C6E462EB5FD7BD19DB76294 C6T. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 A person reportedly climbed onto the roof of a train in Norwich station and due to the proximity of the overhead wires, it didn't end well. Lots of delays and cancellations this morning but for once the Basils aren't to blame. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY444 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ridiculous? I've not been keeping a detailed count but 2 or 3 failures a day seems quite common and there was a report a week or so ago of one day with 7 failures. I can't remember a previous new fleet having had such a disastrous introduction arguably since the AC emu problems in the early 60s (and they had the excuse that they had no previous experience with AC traction). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Receiving a shock from the 25kV OLE is a most horrible experience, whatever the motives of the person involved I hope they are OK, as much as they can be after that. One wonders how they managed to climb onto the train roof; Given the issue identified with the inter-coach cables on the Class 80x fleet, is there any similar feature on these new trains ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 38 minutes ago, DY444 said: Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ridiculous? I've not been keeping a detailed count but 2 or 3 failures a day seems quite common and there was a report a week or so ago of one day with 7 failures. I can't remember a previous new fleet having had such a disastrous introduction arguably since the AC emu problems in the early 60s (and they had the excuse that they had no previous experience with AC traction). They've got some way to go before they're worse than the Networkers were, apparently. And the bi mode technology involved isn't exactly tried and tested. Though whether that's relevant or not would depend on exactly what these are failing on, which isn't public knowledge as far as I know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted February 26, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 26, 2020 13 minutes ago, caradoc said: Receiving a shock from the 25kV OLE is a most horrible experience, whatever the motives of the person involved I hope they are OK, They aren't. 48 minutes ago, DY444 said: I've not been keeping a detailed count but 2 or 3 failures a day seems quite common no failures as such yesterday although there were some reboots required. Apparently one unit decided to apply full emergency brakes while heading into Saxmundham so it can't be much fun for the staff either. And in todays news - 37800 has moved from Manningtree (The latest perch) to Ipswich to .... yep, you've guessed it, drag a unit to Norwich. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY444 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Zomboid said: They've got some way to go before they're worse than the Networkers were, apparently. And the bi mode technology involved isn't exactly tried and tested. Though whether that's relevant or not would depend on exactly what these are failing on, which isn't public knowledge as far as I know. I'm pretty sure the Networkers were not this bad. There were some traction pack issues and ICMU problems but I would seriously doubt the early month miles per casualty figures were anything like we're seeing here. I don't see the bi-mode technology as being an issue at all. Powering an AC motor traction pack DC link from either diesel alternator sets or transformer/rectifiers has been around for years so the only new stuff in a bi-mode is a mechanism to select which power source is being used. The problem with the IETs for example was the packaging of the diesel engines causing them to overheat. That's not a technology issue that's design of the train. My view is that the real problem is dependence on hardware and software systems in which insufficient thought has been given to recovering a train when one or more of those systems are in a degraded state. For example how may times have we heard that a thunderbird can't get brake release on a failed unit resulting in the delay growing exponentially? It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a mechanism to isolate all the electronics and convert a unit into a simple air braked rake so it can be moved irrespective of how much the TMS is whining. I think it's pretty clear that these trains were rushed into service before they were ready. I know why that was and that the DfT's incompetence is all over it but GA also made the mistake of shunning the established ROSCOs when procuring these units against the advice of many old hands who'd been round the block a few times. There are plenty around who think this might have turned out differently had GA listened. I reckon Stadler have got a lot of work to do quickly on the issues to avoid long term reputational damage. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 2 hours ago, Zomboid said: They've got some way to go before they're worse than the Networkers were, apparently. Indeed, although the Networkers had a few advantages over the Basils: 1. The 465 build was split half and half with two different manufacturers. Whilst this meant that there was hardly a single item that was common to each - even the windows were different - that meant that when a major safety issue was discovered only half the fleet needed to be withdrawn from service. 2. They had EPB's as back up. Several were put on life extension programmes to tide them over the transition as many were still in service two years after their expected withdrawal date. End result was that although Networker reliability was dire, it did not affect the services anywhere nearly as badly as it could have done. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, DY444 said: I'm pretty sure the Networkers were not this bad. There were some traction pack issues and ICMU problems but I would seriously doubt the early month miles per casualty figures were anything like we're seeing here. The figures for one day were as low as 46 miles per casualty. I don't know how this was achieved - every single train must have broken down at least twice that day. I got that figure first hand directly from the fleet manager at the time, so it is authentic. Monthly average was hovering around the 1000 miles per casualty, with a target of trying to get it up to 1600 miles per casualty. Whilst I don't know of the exact figures for the basils, If there are only two or three failures per day for the fleet then they are doing much better than the Networkers... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY444 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Titan said: The figures for one day were as low as 46 miles per casualty. I don't know how this was achieved - every single train must have broken down at least twice that day. I got that figure first hand directly from the fleet manager at the time, so it is authentic. Monthly average was hovering around the 1000 miles per casualty, with a target of trying to get it up to 1600 miles per casualty. Whilst I don't know of the exact figures for the basils, If there are only two or three failures per day for the fleet then they are doing much better than the Networkers... Rather depends on how many diagrams were being covered but ok fair enough. However the traction technology on the Networkers was relatively new at the time of its introduction. These units don't have that excuse and however you look at it their performance is dreadful for what is supposed to be a proven product. The last issue of Modern Railways showed Flirts at 2155 MTIN. By comparison the much maligned Class 710s were at 5145. Edited February 26, 2020 by DY444 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siggie in the east Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, Pete 75C said: Anyone know what this is about? Person was on the canopy roof, didnt climb up the train. Got access via the station some how and tried to get on the roof of 1P72 just after arrival at 1:40am. As he got on the roof of the carriage he got zapped. Was on Ipswich Panel when the emergency call came in. It got worse as we then had to have all the ohle turned off asap which meant hale st. To norwich including crown point was turned off and no trains were permitted to move untill BTP were satisfied with the scene. Downside was, the poor person couldn't be moved until they were "extinguished" by fire and rescue and that took a LONG time. subsequent delays to today's services mai ly came from the lack of train movements to and from C.point. 755338 5Q46 failed for me 3 times between ipswich platform 3 and east Suffolk jn at 5am with multiple speedo failures so was a busy night all round. thanks Edited February 26, 2020 by Siggie in the east 2 1 3 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siggie in the east Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Apologies if any content in my last post may alarm or offend anyone. I did try to word it as best as I could. It was a horrible situation and difficult to describe to people without mentioning any graphic details. Hopefully everyone who was involved woke up today in a good place. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classsix T Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 4 hours ago, DY444 said: These units don't have that excuse and however you look at it their performance is dreadful for what is supposed to be a proven product. Biting my lip, but suffice it to say from what I'm told, this is a problem where the culpability falls firmly on AGA's shoulders. I have some sympathy for Stadler too because this fiasco hasn't done them any favours in the marketplace either. C6T. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBB Crocodile Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) The latest Modern Railways figures for the 755 are 7660 miles per technical incident for period 10 with a moving annual average of 3698. The figures for the 710 are 8223 and 3721. In the table the 755 is 15th out of 22 if you omit the Merseyrail 508. The 745 have not arrived yet. Class 755 had racked up 352,340 miles. Edited February 26, 2020 by SBB Crocodile Added total mileage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 If those numbers are right then they're not especially bad. Not particularly good either, but they don't really align with the anecdotal evidence. Maybe the nature of the failures is more binary, and most other trains can be recovered by the driver when a "Technical Incident" occurs? Or perhaps GA are just throwing in the towel when other operators would recover the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 26, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 26, 2020 It might actually seem worse than it is because the number of knock on effects to the service over the whole region when there is a failure. Reading the few drips of info that gets circulated in work, it does appear that there are also non-technical failures as well, the most common being lack of fuel. The relatively small size of the fleet also doesn't help, as GA has very few (if any) spare units to cover any failures, and its this is probably making things more difficult for everyone. Andy G 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBB Crocodile Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 A Technical incident is defined in the column as "...where a train is stopped for three minutes or more due to a vehicle problem". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
friscopete Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Saw one today at Brundall ...just saying . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted February 26, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 26, 2020 16 minutes ago, uax6 said: the most common being lack of fuel. I believe they are prone to reporting fuel shortages when the fuel isn't actually short. Not using the OHLE means they are using more fuel than expected and the tanks are not very big - double jepardy Mr Bond 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Trainshed Terry Posted February 26, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, friscopete said: Saw one today at Brundall ...just saying . What was you drinking at the time ! Hat, coat and run. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted February 26, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 26, 2020 Todays Basil drag 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted February 26, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 26, 2020 I suppose there is a certain irony in a basil failing with speedometer faults given their current tendency to ‘sit down’ and register zero miles per hour. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Smoggy Posted February 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2020 14 hours ago, beast66606 said: I believe they are prone to reporting fuel shortages when the fuel isn't actually short. Not using the OHLE means they are using more fuel than expected and the tanks are not very big - double jepardy Mr Bond Need to keep the AdBlue topped up as well! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY444 Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Reported that there were another 7 failures yesterday 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Trainshed Terry Posted February 27, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2020 Oh good grief. They did not think this through regarding fuel use age. Terry. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now