London Midland unit fire 26/11/15

[CharlieSpotted]

BBC Local Live are reporting that another LM unit has been evacuated with smoke issuing at Lapworth.

There are more photos appearing from Twitter on the Live feed...

http://bbc.in/1Nv6brr

Seems very similar to the previous incident in September.

Same line, same unit type, isn't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Crikey, that's more than "smoke issuing', that's properly on fire! Visible flames and everything.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Crikey, that's more than "smoke issuing', that's properly on fire! Visible flames and everything.

You know, I didn't even see the flames until you mentioned it!

 

[hassaanhc]

Crikey, that's more than "smoke issuing', that's properly on fire! Visible flames and everything.

That is where the engine is positioned as well. Driving vehicle this time so whole unit out of service. Wasn't the previous one an intermediate vehicle?

 

[sprinterguy]

That is where the engine is positioned as well. Driving vehicle this time so whole unit out of service. Wasn't the previous one an intermediate vehicle?

Yeah, the affected unit (172338) has been running around as a 2-car for a while.

Bad news for the fleet availability on the Snow Hill lines (with their high utilisation) if there will be a full unit out of service now, as well as one short-formed.*

*I wonder whether the centre car out of this latest damaged unit could be salvaged, to be inserted into 172338 if its' own centre car is not due back in service anytime soon? Too early to say what the repercussions of this latest incident will be on the fleet, just idle speculation...

 

[DarloRich]

I wonder if this might see another of the 150's work in the West Midlands. They could swap ours on the Marston Vale for another 153 for a short while to cover any gaps

 

[Bletchleyite]

*I wonder whether the centre car out of this latest damaged unit could be salvaged, to be inserted into 172338 if its' own centre car is not due back in service anytime soon? Too early to say what the repercussions of this latest incident will be on the fleet, just idle speculation...

Might be a slightly easier shunt to swap the driving car?

Though two in this short space of time suggests a design fault...anybody got any buses?

 

[XCTurbostar]

Another one?
This isn't doing Bombardier's build quality any good!
Thanks,
Ross

 

[Sparks807Evo]

Not good to see - just hope LM and Bombardier can determine the cause as soon as possible. Suppose they could put the centre carriage into 172338 for a period - at least solves the issue of a short formed set.

 

[SeanG]

Could the still serviceable driving car be stuck on the end of one of LM's 2 car 172s? Similar to what has happened with 158s & 150s?

 

[sprinterguy]

Could the still serviceable driving car be stuck on the end of one of LM's 2 car 172s? Similar to what has happened with 158s & 150s?

The 172s use BSI couplers at the outer ends of the unit, but bar couplers between vehicles. Also the inter- and intra-unit gangways on LMs' 172 units look to be of entirely different designs and dimensions. Ergo, I don't think the units can demonstrate the same level of flexibility as the various Sprinter classes.

 

[Murph]

Though two in this short space of time suggests a design fault...anybody got any buses?

This isn't doing Bombardier's build quality any good!

In fairness to Bombardier, this could very easily be either a design or maintenance issue with the MTU engines in the 172s, rather than a fault with the overall unit's design or build quality. So, without detail on exactly what caused the units to self-immolate, there's basically 3 more or less equally likely suspects to pin the blame on:

1. Bombardier
2. MTU
3. The maintainers
4. And maybe an outside chance of "none of the above"

 

[185143]

Which unit is it please?

 

[222001]

172333

 

[SeanG]

The 172s use BSI couplers at the outer ends of the unit, but bar couplers between vehicles. Also the inter- and intra-unit gangways on LMs' 172 units look to be of entirely different designs and dimensions. Ergo, I don't think the units can demonstrate the same level of flexibility as the various Sprinter classes.

That is a shame

 

[CharlieSpotted]

West Midlands Ambulance service just tweeted about this, and described a fire "in the wheels". They add that no-one was hurt.

https://twitter.com/OFFICIALWMAS/status/669913010274631681

 

[transportphoto]

West Midlands Ambulance service just tweeted about this, and described a fire "in the wheels". They add that no-one was hurt.

https://twitter.com/OFFICIALWMAS/status/669913010274631681

Given there doesn't seem to be any wheels where the firefighters are, I'd be amazed if that is anything more than poor reporting by WMAS there!

Their press release says that passengers were evacuated into a local school, I find it interesting how soon arrangements such as this can be made.

TP

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Might have been a bit of opportunism perhaps? I know the area, the school is two minutes walk from the station (it's on Station Lane in fact) and presumably quite a few people on the train would be locals, maybe one of them has a connection at the school and just decided to go up there and ask for a bit of sanctuary from the elements?

 

[Crossover]

Looks like it went back to Tyseley as 5V10
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O46860/2015/11/26/advanced

 

[superkev]

In fairness to Bombardier, this could very easily be either a design or maintenance issue with the MTU engines in the 172s, rather than a fault with the overall unit's design or build quality. So, without detail on exactly what caused the units to self-immolate, there's basically 3 more or less equally likely suspects to pin the blame on:

1. Bombardier
2. MTU
3. The maintainers
4. And maybe an outside chance of "none of the above"

The ZF mechanical transmission is the main difference from previous turbostars.
K

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could a hot axle box get hot enough to set the lube oil alight?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-e...&10:06&ns_fee=0#post_5656d7ee3e0000851bb3b77a

If you scroll down to the video at 11:32 and then fast-forward the video to 0:18 it looks odd, I didn't think that any Turbostars had corridor connections at the cab ends

 

[sd0733]

Was a 5-car formation with the previous fire victim 172338 as the other unit.

The '50' vehicle of 172333 was the one with the fire.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Given there doesn't seem to be any wheels where the firefighters are, I'd be amazed if that is anything more than poor reporting by WMAS there!

Their press release says that passengers were evacuated into a local school, I find it interesting how soon arrangements such as this can be made.

TP

They probably would call anything below the solebar "in the wheels"

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Could a hot axle box get hot enough to set the lube oil alight?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-e...&10:06&ns_fee=0#post_5656d7ee3e0000851bb3b77a

If you scroll down to the video at 11:32 and then fast-forward the video to 0:18 it looks odd, I didn't think that any Turbostars had corridor connections at the cab ends

172's have through gangways. They also use voyager bogies

 

[fgwrich]

Was a 5-car formation with the previous fire victim 172338 as the other unit.

The '50' vehicle of 172333 was the one with the fire.

Unlucky pairing then! I think 338 must be the 'black sheep' of the fleet if it's claimed another one with Fire!

 

[Crossover]

Was a 5-car formation with the previous fire victim 172338 as the other unit.

The '50' vehicle of 172333 was the one with the fire.

Is it going to be like 91023 all over again? :P

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Maybe renumber it 172 666...?

 

[185143]

Maybe renumber it 172 666...?

that's reserved for 158820

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Nah, already used it on 47 299!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Quite a few people do refer to the aforementioned 91 as 91 666. I'm one of the guilty ones in this instance...