South Western Railway - Chaos

[The Stationmaster]

On 05/03/2024 at 09:41, Southernman46 said:

Re-assured by the info in 90136's post that the object wasn't in fact railway or NR related - changes the picture somewhat in terms of cause.

 

Have to say on arrival at Basingstoke - transfer and 25 minute wait to ride the GWR local up to Reading - not unpleasant - unlike Reading station which since the re-build is a draughty unwelcoming hole as yesterdays weather was showing. First ride in a GWR Hitachi thingy - bit worn already but speedy - some alarming crashes and bangs from the track though - overtook the EL train I was aiming for at Ealing Broadway which allowed me to nip down to the EL and catch it at Paddington - EL to Custom House and DLR to Gallions Reach - wasn't late for work at all - so big 👍 for the Western rail network and the EL proved how useful it's interchanges & connectivity is.

Also impressed that the ticket barrier at Paddington was clever enough to recognise my SWR Smartcard ticket too - I suppose that's to ensure GWR can recover the cost of all the ticket acceptance SWR passengers they carried from SWR ?

The IETs'  'alarming crashes and bangs' when traversing pointwork have been a feature since they first entered traffic (and no doubt before that)  but are particularly, and increasingly, a feature of their riding east of Reading on the Main Lines.   The telling thing is that the 'crashes and bangs' are not so frequent or noticeable once you get further west - while still travelling at the same sort of speeds - although the overall riding of the trains, measured in passenger comfort terms, is poor compared not only with HSTs but also compared with the Class 387 Electrostars' operated by GWR.

 

While the 387s ride pretty well the present timetable now has them on the Mains east of Dolphin (or West Drayton in some cases) and there are numerous spots where their riding is a long way from good and at times rather alarming.  Compared with their riding elsewhere - albeit at 90mph instead of 110 mph - this poor riding seems to be very much linked to track condition and the way in which it has rapidly deteriorated east of Reading since the middle of last year.

 

I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that both the IETs and the Liz Line 345s are 'hard riding' compared with earlier BR designed units.  And of course frequencies have increased as well as a result of the addition of Liz Line trains and their frequency forcing the GWR semi-fast Thames Valley trains onto the Mains east of Slough.  Clearly track attention and maintenance simply hasn't kept pace with either the increased use of all running lines east of Reading.  Add to that the seeming lack of ability of current NR staff to understand and properly rectify the huge increase in the number of wet spot breakdowns in the sub-infrastructure below the top ballast and problems are inevitable.

[Southernman46]

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The IETs'  'alarming crashes and bangs' when traversing pointwork have been a feature since they first entered traffic (and no doubt before that)  but are particularly, and increasingly, a feature of their riding east of Reading on the Main Lines.   The telling thing is that the 'crashes and bangs' are not so frequent or noticeable once you get further west - while still travelling at the same sort of speeds - although the overall riding of the trains, measured in passenger comfort terms, is poor compared not only with HSTs but also compared with the Class 387 Electrostars' operated by GWR.

 

While the 387s ride pretty well the present timetable now has them on the Mains east of Dolphin (or West Drayton in some cases) and there are numerous spots where their riding is a long way from good and at times rather alarming.  Compared with their riding elsewhere - albeit at 90mph instead of 110 mph - this poor riding seems to be very much linked to track condition and the way in which it has rapidly deteriorated east of Reading since the middle of last year.

 

I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that both the IETs and the Liz Line 345s are 'hard riding' compared with earlier BR designed units.  And of course frequencies have increased as well as a result of the addition of Liz Line trains and their frequency forcing the GWR semi-fast Thames Valley trains onto the Mains east of Slough.  Clearly track attention and maintenance simply hasn't kept pace with either the increased use of all running lines east of Reading.  Add to that the seeming lack of ability of current NR staff to understand and properly rectify the huge increase in the number of wet spot breakdowns in the sub-infrastructure below the top ballast and problems are inevitable.

I wonder if that is due to the pointwork E of Reading being the heavier RT60/NR60 design which has larger common crossing gaps than the standard 113lb designs - in my experience, the NR60 stuff always suffered from greater false flange damage, nose deformation, broken cover rail bolts opposite the nose and not a few breakages (Weybridge diamonds)  - and the P8 wheel profile stock (Desiros' etc) always rode hard through it too. 

Edited March 6 by Southernman46

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Southernman46 said:

That bridge "repair" in 1957 was always considered by the SE Bridge Engineers to be "temporary" ..........................

ISTR being told the bridge had been taken into Permanent Structures in the 1980s, so probably after my little tale. 

[The Stationmaster]

On 06/03/2024 at 17:28, Southernman46 said:

I wonder if that is due to the pointwork E of Reading being the heavier RT60/NR60 design which has larger common crossing gaps than the standard 113lb designs - in my experience, the NR60 stuff always suffered from greater false flange damage, nose deformation, broken cover rail bolts opposite the nose and not a few breakages (Weybridge diamonds)  - and the P8 wheel profile stock (Desiros' etc) always rode hard through it too. 

Twyford West (aka Lands End to the locals in days of yore) on the Up Main is a particularly n bad one and always has been since the introduction of IETs.

[ess1uk]

On the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckrxzz42x5eo

[DY444]

On 06/03/2024 at 17:22, The Stationmaster said:

The IETs'  'alarming crashes and bangs' when traversing pointwork have been a feature since they first entered traffic (and no doubt before that)  but are particularly, and increasingly, a feature of their riding east of Reading on the Main Lines.   The telling thing is that the 'crashes and bangs' are not so frequent or noticeable once you get further west - while still travelling at the same sort of speeds - although the overall riding of the trains, measured in passenger comfort terms, is poor compared not only with HSTs but also compared with the Class 387 Electrostars' operated by GWR.

 

While the 387s ride pretty well the present timetable now has them on the Mains east of Dolphin (or West Drayton in some cases) and there are numerous spots where their riding is a long way from good and at times rather alarming.  Compared with their riding elsewhere - albeit at 90mph instead of 110 mph - this poor riding seems to be very much linked to track condition and the way in which it has rapidly deteriorated east of Reading since the middle of last year.

 

I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that both the IETs and the Liz Line 345s are 'hard riding' compared with earlier BR designed units.  And of course frequencies have increased as well as a result of the addition of Liz Line trains and their frequency forcing the GWR semi-fast Thames Valley trains onto the Mains east of Slough.  Clearly track attention and maintenance simply hasn't kept pace with either the increased use of all running lines east of Reading.  Add to that the seeming lack of ability of current NR staff to understand and properly rectify the huge increase in the number of wet spot breakdowns in the sub-infrastructure below the top ballast and problems are inevitable.

 

On 06/03/2024 at 17:28, Southernman46 said:

I wonder if that is due to the pointwork E of Reading being the heavier RT60/NR60 design which has larger common crossing gaps than the standard 113lb designs - in my experience, the NR60 stuff always suffered from greater false flange damage, nose deformation, broken cover rail bolts opposite the nose and not a few breakages (Weybridge diamonds)  - and the P8 wheel profile stock (Desiros' etc) always rode hard through it too. 

 

On 07/03/2024 at 19:22, The Stationmaster said:

Twyford West (aka Lands End to the locals in days of yore) on the Up Main is a particularly n bad one and always has been since the introduction of IETs.

 

I haven't had the "pleasure" of an IET on the GWML but I've done a handful of trips up the ECML, all on 801s, and the ride was terrible at speed.  It felt like continuous hunting to me. 

 

I've not been on a bi-mode but I've seen reports that the GU sets can move relative to the vehicle body and make a banging noise when they do.

Edited March 10 by DY444

[Mallard60022]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

I haven't had the "pleasure" of an IET on the GWML but I've done a handful of trips up the ECML, all on 801s, and the ride was terrible at speed.  It felt like continuous hunting to me. 

 

I've not been on a bi-mode but I've seen reports that the GU sets can move relative to the vehicle body and make a banging noise when they do.

Try a Hull Trains Set. I think they are far better.

Phil

[Not Jeremy]

3 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Try a Hull Trains Set. I think they are far better.

Phil

 

That's great Phil, but try as I might, I couldn't find one  anywhere between Bath and Paddington yesterday(!)

 

It was a quick journey in each direction, but between the overcowding, hard seats and yes, some quite "bangy" running, it was quite a dispiriting experience when compared to many journeys from the past.

 

It would be great to look forward to the future again, I think some of us used to!!

 

From slightly glum of Bath.

 

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

Is it really beyond today's train builders to produce stock that can match up to the comfort standards of predecessors getting on for half a century old that have covered many millions of miles?

Edited March 10 by Dunsignalling

[John M Upton]

5 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Is it really beyond today's train builders to produce stock that can match up to the comfort standards of predecessors getting on for half a century old that have covered many millions of miles?

 

Because the DfT's crack team of Accountants are not prepared to pay for it?  Yes....

[Northmoor]

40 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

 

Because the DfT's crack team of Accountants are not prepared to pay for it?  Yes....

It's easy to point the finger at the purse-string holders but what is to stop train builders designing trains to use BT10/BT15 or T4 bogies, all of which are proven to ride well and reliably at over 125mph, without destroying the track?  Nothing, they'd rather "innovate" to produce something that is 2% better in one specific measure but at least 5% worse in every other one.  And all the design, testing and approval costs have to be written off over what are in historic terms, very small fleets.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

... BT10/BT15 or T4 bogies, all of which are ...

... unpowered - and probably incompatible with 'distributed' power ....... unfortunately.

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, Northmoor said:

It's easy to point the finger at the purse-string holders but what is to stop train builders designing trains to use BT10/BT15 or T4 bogies, all of which are proven to ride well and reliably at over 125mph, without destroying the track?  Nothing, they'd rather "innovate" to produce something that is 2% better in one specific measure but at least 5% worse in every other one.  And all the design, testing and approval costs have to be written off over what are in historic terms, very small fleets.

 

The motivation of train builders are, unsurprisingly to provide maximum financial return to their shareholders. You don't do this by sitting back and simply offer the same old thing time after time - just as in the world of model railways, mobile phones, cars or just about any other facet of life if you offer 'something new' on each product line you can charge your consumers more.

 

As such its down to the consumer to know what they are doing - why do you think Apple still churn out new i-phones every year with seemingly very little difference between each model? answer, because there are enough 'I must have the latest' consumers out there willing to buy the things....

 

Under British Rail, the procurement process tended to be driven by people who only had limited money to spend and understood their product requirements very well indeed and thus tended not to be blindsided by 'innovations' and focused on the more boring, yet arguably more essential aspects of train design.

 

Under privatisation train procurement is driven by a combination of franchise owners and DfT mandarins - neither of whom have much clue about railway engineering and are therefore easily taken advantage off by manufacturers looking to keep shareholder returns high

Edited March 10 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

... unpowered - and probably incompatible with 'distributed' power ....... unfortunately.

 

This is an important point which must not be overlooked! Back in BR days High speed trains were all of the dedicated locomotive and free wheeling passenger cars (even when in a fixed formation like the HST sets.

 

These days with the move to hybrid technology and a desire to maximise train flexibility / passenger usage high speed trains are all of the multiple unit type with at least 50% or more of the bogies under the passenger accommodation being driven by traction motors.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

... unpowered - and probably incompatible with 'distributed' power ....... unfortunately.

What's under the Networker (365s) which worked well?  The T4 is certainly capable of being powered, as it is under the 158/159, even if via a gearbox and cardan shaft rather than a motor parallel with the axles.

Thanks @phil-b259for the explanation of how Capitalism works.........  Regardless of cause/blame, that same constant need for "innovation" is why we have so many unit types in a relatively small country, many incompatible with each other to some degree, with all the increased costs of spares support and driver/maintainer training that this creates.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Thanks @phil-b259for the explanation of how Capitalism works.........  Regardless of cause/blame, that same constant need for "innovation" is why we have so many unit types in a relatively small country, many incompatible with each other to some degree, with all the increased costs of spares support and driver/maintainer training that this creates.

 

Well if you know how Capitalism works why exact did you feel the need to question why firms 'innovate'? Its hardly rocket science to realise that making money is far more important than anything else...Thats why in any capitalist society strong regulation and informed customers who can spot unnecessary 'innovation' is needed.

 

As regards UK railways We used to have such an entity which ticked both those boxes - it was called the British Railways Board!

 

However for purely ideological reasons that was dismantled - and one of the claims made by the Government (a claim still trotted out by ministers when they offload state responsibilities to the private sector is that Government bodies are not innovative enough!

 

In other words stop whinging about business doing what business do and focus on the real nub of the problem - namely the Politicians and in particular the party who the privatised the railways for ideological / party political reasons back in 1994 which ripped the backbone out of the industry and left it fatally exposed to the worst of capitalism!

 

 

 

 

Edited March 10 by phil-b259

[Wickham Green too]

While the 158s/159s - whatever the fundamental difference IS - are, indeed carried on one T4 bogie, the P4 obviously differs in some way that makes it powerable. The various Networkers have a variety of P3/T3 variants or BP62/BP52 bogies.

[Northmoor]

Oh dear.  It looks like we're well on the way to having another thread locked.  See if anyone can spot the common factor.

[phil-b259]

32 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Oh dear.  It looks like we're well on the way to having another thread locked.  See if anyone can spot the common factor.

 

So we are all supposed to shut up about the fact that the 'controlling mind' - which could have easily prevented 90% of the things folk have been moaning about (seating quality, types of couplers, types of bogie, trains ordered then binned after a couple of years use, etc) was deliberately smashed into so many pieces solely for party political / ideological reasons.

 

Even after 30 years I have no intention of letting the Politicians (or the party which did it) off the hook for that action!

 

Pick your saying- "Old Sins have long shadows", "you reap what you sow" the bottom line is that the majority of the railways woes can be traced directly due to its privatisation - and specifically the manor of its privatisation in 1994 whose overarching goal seems to have been to smash it into so many bits it would be impossible to put it back together again in 1994! 

 

 

Edited March 10 by phil-b259

[Dunsignalling]

31 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

So we are all supposed to shut up about the fact that the 'controlling mind' - which could have easily prevented 90% of the things folk have been moaning about (seating quality, types of couplers, types of bogie, trains ordered then binned after a couple of years use, etc) was deliberately smashed into so many pieces solely for party political / ideological reasons.

 

Even after 30 years I have no intention of letting the Politicians (or the party which did it) off the hook for that action!

 

Pick your saying- "Old Sins have long shadows", "you reap what you sow" the bottom line is that the majority of the railways woes can be traced directly due to its privatisation - and specifically the manor of its privatisation in 1994 whose overarching goal seems to have been to smash it into so many bits it would be impossible to put it back together again in 1994! 

 

 

 

Mostly true, but Privatisation, albeit wastefully, has led to the replacement of far more old stock than British Rail could ever have wrung sufficient funds for out of UK governments of any complexion. 

 

Now most of the privatised structure is going tits up, a revived-but-disguised state-operated network is going to be lumbered with penny packet numbers of flimsy, uncomfortable and (at best) semi-compatible trains that look unlikely to last even half as long as HSTs or 150/156/158/159 units or their electric derivatives.

 

Suddenly, the much-maligned Voyager is beginning to look like a class act (so long as you keep them off the sea wall in rough weather).

 

John 

 

 

Edited March 10 by Dunsignalling

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Mostly true, but Privatisation, albeit wastefully, has led to the replacement of far more old stock than British Rail could ever have wrung sufficient funds for out of UK governments of any complexion. 

 

 

That is true - but you have to ask was it a wise trade off....

 

Particularly as there is a fair amount of late 1980s BR stock which could have been refurbished (and achieved much the same effect) rather than replaced (the 321s for example....)

[62613]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That is true - but you have to ask was it a wise trade off....

 

Particularly as there is a fair amount of late 1980s BR stock which could have been refurbished (and achieved much the same effect) rather than replaced (the 321s for example....)

The trains used on my local line date to 1992; 32 years old. We've just had a transfer in of the remainder of the class from the West Midlands. That's not to say they don't do the job; they do!

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That is true - but you have to ask was it a wise trade off....

 

Particularly as there is a fair amount of late 1980s BR stock which could have been refurbished (and achieved much the same effect) rather than replaced (the 321s for example....)

 

TBH, I'm dreading the day we lose the 159's off the WoE.

 

Whatever replaces them will need to be bi-mode once London goes all-electric. 

 

 

[APOLLO]

15 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

... unpowered - and probably incompatible with 'distributed' power ....... unfortunately.

 

Pendolino bogies are powered, and in my experience they run smooth and quiet at all speeds, and through point work etc. Also they are getting on a bit in age now.

 

NOT looking forward to their replacements.

 

And HOW will HS2 stock perform ?

 

Brit15

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

 

.....And HOW will HS2 stock perform ?

 

Brit15

 

 

 

Given that HS2's been cut back to a glorified branch line, will anybody be on them long enough to care?

 

Edited March 11 by Dunsignalling