Should TfW ditch the 230s and buy more 197s?

[Bletchleyite]

The 230 is not proving a successful design, and once again all manner of issues are coming up with this microfleet before it has even entered service.

Would it not make more sense to add 4 more 2-car 197s to the order and use those instead? (No need for a fifth as as they aren't a microfleet you wouldn't need a specific spare for this line).

 

[gordonthemoron]

Surely both fleets are a disaster area?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely both fleets are a disaster area?

Are they? Northern seem to be reliably operating 195s now, and there's not a lot different about 197s other than the gangway and orientation of the coupler.

 

[Zontar]

On a similar thread, I think it has turned in to this very question.

For me it's a case of when, not if.

P!55 poor planning and management from both sides of the fence has resulted in this fiasco, and yet still no signs of service introduction being a realistic possibility. They were sat in Chester today not doing anything, so another day of training missed.

Rumoura I've heard include, Extra 197s being ordered and Vivarail being bought out by TFW.

The cost spent to date must be eye watering.

 

[D365]

... and Vivarail being bought out by TFW.

Oooooh boy.

What exactly would a public transport body do with an engineering company?

 

[A0]

The 230 is not proving a successful design, and once again all manner of issues are coming up with this microfleet before it has even entered service.

Yawn. Not this *again*.

Loads of units over the years have had teething troubles which have taken time to address. Some of them went on to be long lived, reliable units.

I think this is more your personal antipathy to the Vivarail D trains (in their various guises) than anything else. I'd refer you to most of the Pacer and Sprinter classes which were endlessly being derided in the first couple of years after introduction due to teething problems with the inevitable demands they be replaced, usually with LHCS - conveniently forgetting the locos which would have been needed had, in the most part, had no shortage of issues when introduced 25 years before that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2021 ==

. They were sat in Chester today not doing anything, so another day of training missed.

Training needs people available to do it. If people aren't available - and Covid is still circulating - it's a bit difficult to do training.

 

[Zontar]

Oooooh boy.

What exactly would a public transport body do with an engineering company?

They just bought pulman rail?

 

[pdeaves]

Loads of units over the years have had teething troubles which have taken time to address. Some of them went on to be long lived, reliable units.

That is true. The difference here is that (I get the impression that *) the conversion was sold as a 'quick and easy' solution in a way that nothing before was considered. The fact that they haven't been nearly as quick nor as easy tells me 1) that the D78 derivatives are not a successful design (as Bletchleyite said) and/or 2) reengineering old stock is more hassle than it's worth overall (see also class 769).

* happy to accept if I am wrong, but that is how it appears to me, especially with Vivarail heavily pushing such things amongst certain companies I know

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this is more your personal antipathy to the Vivarail D trains (in their various guises) than anything else.

Which to be fair is from bitter experience. I loved the idea and quite liked them until they caused the Marston Vale service to fall apart due to chronic unreliability.

 

[tbtc]

The TfW franchise was set up with a combination of "cheap/old" and "new/expensive", seemingly with the priority of being able to claim that they were completely replacing the fleet inherited from Arriva (even though there didn't seem to be much advantage in bringing in a tiny fleet of 170s whilst getting rid of the established Sprinters)

So there are "up cycled" 319s and 230s on one hand but also brand new 197s/ 399s on the other hand

I don't think that many people would argue with "more brand new trains instead of accepting second hand ones" - but where's the jeopardy? The reason for ordering the 230s/319s was it was the price to pay to ensure some swanky new trains - it's a bit like ordering some Supermarket "Value" Range and some Supermarket "Finest" Range - saying that we should simply order everything from the "Finest" range sounds lovely but the budget was based on accepting some compromise between the two extremes

I'll admit that I liked the concept of 230s and 319s (and FWIW thought the ePacer was worth investigating), and I'll admit that they haven't worked as well as I'd have hoped - though there are many reasons for this (e.g. Northern seemed to take a loooong time to get their heads round how to operate 319s before reliability settled down, then the teething problems with the 769s started, I'm sure before long they'll settle down too, but it's taken longer than planned). However replacing all "old" trains with brand new ones seems a little... optimistic... that's not to say that it won't happen, there are a lot of strange decisions made in Cardiff Bay

I think this is more your personal antipathy to the Vivarail D trains (in their various guises) than anything else

Yeah, it feels a bit like a starting point of "I don't like Vivarail units on my local Bletchley line..." (as well as. perhaps a bit of "I want swanky new trains on the Conwy Valley line"?)

I'd refer you to most of the Pacer and Sprinter classes which were endlessly being derided in the first couple of years after introduction due to teething problems with the inevitable demands they be replaced, usually with LHCS - conveniently forgetting the locos which would have been needed had, in the most part, had no shortage of issues when introduced 25 years before that

Can you imagine the hissy fits there'd have been on the Forum if it had existed in the 1980s, all of these newfangled Sprinters being taken out of service because of teething problems!

Very few trains work straight out of the box, something that keeps nonbeing forgotten (and yet the 150s are getting close to forty five years in squadron service, the much derided Pacers made around forty years - first impressions aren't always fair)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Conwy Valley is getting 197s anyway.

 

[Starmill]

Would it be better? Yes, of course. Without a doubt.

Would the whole life cost increase be the best use of that capital expenditure now, and/or the per year marginal operating expenditure over the whole life of the vehicles? Don't know.

It much depends on the price of the financing, the longevity of the 197s, and how many years in 230s can get before their opex increases so much that it's no longer worth keeping them going. The latter is more likely to be an issue than is currently being recognised, in my opinion.

 

[Caaardiff]

Rumoura I've heard include, Extra 197s being ordered and Vivarail being bought out by TFW.

They just bought pulman rail?

What benefit would Viva Rail bring to TfW? Long term 230s won't be in the fleet and they don't currently have any Depot or engineering presence in Wales.

If anything 197s will likely win an order just to keep the Newport factory going.

Pullman is a whole different story. They are desperate for space for Canton and mechanics. Pullman is right next to Canton Depot so makes perfect sense.

I can see Holyhead being expanded and Landore being invested in or bought completely.

 

[Starmill]

If anything 197s will likely win an order just to keep the Newport factory going.

Given our current political nood I think that "Welsh trains for Welsh people" is probably a stronger argument than economic ones now anyway.

 

[AM9]

... I'll admit that I liked the concept of 230s and 319s (and FWIW thought the ePacer was worth investigating), and I'll admit that they haven't worked as well as I'd have hoped - though there are many reasons for this (e.g. Northern seemed to take a loooong time to get their heads round how to operate 319s before reliability settled down, then the teething problems with the 769s started, I'm sure before long they'll settle down too, but it's taken longer than planned). However replacing all "old" trains with brand new ones seems a little... optimistic... that's not to say that it won't happen, there are a lot of strange decisions made in Cardiff Bay ...

This is so true. Its dangerous here trying to explain that teething troubles are taking a long time to resolve as you might get accused of 'blaming mintenance' by those who have some visceral hatred of a particular class of train. Northern have gradually worked their way through the learning curve with 319s and seem to be getting to grips with the 769s. So in turn will TfW home in on the types of failures that the 769s are encountering there. 'Old' electric trains have a remarkable longevity in tyerms of their abilities to keep running.
This has been known for decades, - I vaguely remember reading an article in one of the railway journals back in the '60s where somebody senior in BR SR was commenting that the ex-Southern EMUs could be made to run like new forever with a motor rewind/load resistor change/bearings overhaul and new shoes when needed. His problem was that the bodies deteriorated with time in ways that the passenger noticed. It seems that some posters here think that all of those problems just disappear when enough cash is blown on shiny new stock. The trouble is, as has been said above, new stock brings plenty of new (previously unknown) problems!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2021 ==

Given our current political nood I think that "Welsh trains for Welsh people" is probably a stronger argument than economic ones now anyway.

The problem there is that more pure DMUs are just worsening the problem of decarbonisation of the railway, especially as the el cheapo CAF units are being deployed on routes that start or end in city centre stations. At some point, those responsible for delivering the UK's commitment to carbon neutral status will focus on this practice of hard wiring mobile carbon/NOx generators that cannot be modified into rail operations into the 2050s and maybe even the 2060s.

 

[sefyllian]

The reason for ordering the 230s/319s was it was the price to pay to ensure some swanky new trains

Maybe true of the 230s, but to be fair most of the 769s were ordered during the previous franchise, and they’ve always been intended as a short term measure while PRM work was done on the rest of the fleet. When the TfW Rail franchise was awarded they promised they’d be gone by Q2 2022. Probably will be a bit later than that now, but I’m sure they’ll be glad to see the back of them – they just don’t have any alternative at the moment.

What benefit would Viva Rail bring to TfW?

I think Zontar meant “bought out” in the sense of buying them out of the contract (ie. paying a penalty to end it early), rather than buying the company.

 

[A0]

Which to be fair is from bitter experience. I loved the idea and quite liked them until they caused the Marston Vale service to fall apart due to chronic unreliability.

The Marston Vale line was the ideal line to try these on. It's had an appalling service for years using various forms of decrepit stock most of which had its own reliability issues as well - be it knackered Class 104 DMUs, the top'n'tail Class 31s or even the patchy reliability of the Sprinters.

As a line it's self contained so any failure on route has *minimal* impact on the mainlines it connects. And its passenger numbers are relatively low in the scheme of things.

Yes, in their first year the 230s had a number of faults. What we don't know is how they would have performed over the last 18 months, mainly because the bulk of the train services have been bus replaced which was a conscious decision by LNWR given driver absences, so they quite rightly focused on putting their resources where they would do the most good - maintaining the main London - Northampton - Birmingham service, not some rural backwater which carries a handful of people on each journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, in their first year the 230s had a number of faults. What we don't know is how they would have performed over the last 18 months, mainly because the bulk of the train services have been bus replaced which was a conscious decision by LNWR given driver absences, so they quite rightly focused on putting their resources where they would do the most good - maintaining the main London - Northampton - Birmingham service, not some rural backwater which carries a handful of people on each journey.

To give you an idea they are still losing time against a slackened timetable with long layovers, and they are still, I believe, on occasions having trouble getting one out even though they have three. They are a great idea, but in implementation they are junk.

150s were reliable (though 153s less so).

 

[A0]

To give you an idea they are still losing time against a slackened timetable with long layovers, and they are still, I believe, on occasions having trouble getting one out even though they have three. They are a great idea, but in implementation they are junk.

150s were reliable (though 153s less so).

A quick look over realtraintimes over the last week or so didn't show up anything untoward - a minute or two one way or the other. Certainly not the doom and gloom story you're portraying.

 

[Starmill]

A quick look over realtraintimes over the last week or so didn't show up anything untoward - a minute or two one way or the other. Certainly not the doom and gloom story you're portraying.

There's currently one unit out of three diagrammed daily though, and that's only for six round trips a day, on six days a week. Weekdays there's no train departure from Bletchley after 1153 until 1632. The majority of the service is still provided by rail replacement buses.

 

[A0]

There's currently one unit out of three diagrammed daily though, and that's only for six round trips a day, on six days a week. Weekdays there's no train departure from Bletchley after 1153 until 1632. The majority of the service is still provided by rail replacement buses.

Completely agree - which makes the claim that they are 'losing time against long layovers' somewhat spurious as there isn't a representative service operating.

To make an informed comment, they really need to be running a 75% or more service, which isn't currently happening. And that's got less to do with the units and more to do with Covid and how LNWR has chosen to use its available drivers.

 

[Kite159]

I agree with you @Bletchleyite TfW should order extra 197s to run on the Wrexham - Bidston line, solely to get rid of the microfleet of 230s.

It's a line where the 2 coach units make sense, especially if it goes up to 2tph. The improved acceleration (based on a 195) will also benefit the line with the multiple stops.

 

[AM9]

I agree with you @Bletchleyite TfW should order extra 197s to run on the Wrexham - Bidston line, solely to get rid of the microfleet of 230s.

It's a line where the 2 coach units make sense, especially if it goes up to 2tph. The improved acceleration (based on a 195) will also benefit the line with the multiple stops.

More diesel only trains for the next 30-40 years.

 

[mmh]

I think this is more your personal antipathy to the Vivarail D trains (in their various guises) than anything else

I think you may be confusing @Bletchleyite with another forum member local to the Marston Vale. I remember the former being very positive about the project, at least until it proved to have so many issues.

Feels like unfair criticism of just and reasoned criticism to me, I'm afraid.

 

[tomuk]

'Old' electric trains have a remarkable longevity in tyerms of their abilities to keep running.
This has been known for decades, - I vaguely remember reading an article in one of the railway journals back in the '60s where somebody senior in BR SR was commenting that the ex-Southern EMUs could be made to run like new forever with a motor rewind/load resistor change/bearings overhaul and new shoes when needed.

The problem is that 319s are a whole lot more complicated then a DC motor camshaft controlled 4xx. Their DC Motored GTO Chopper control traction electronics are both the first of type and as things quickly moved to AC motors last of type.

 

[AM9]

The problem is that 319s are a whole lot more complicated then a DC motor camshaft controlled 4xx. Their DC Motored GTO Chopper control traction electronics are both the first of type and as things quickly moved to AC motors last of type.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2021 ==

We're way off topic here, but the rarity of the GTO chopper traction control would be significant if it was prone to failure, (particularly if it was the root cause of 769 failures. I've not seen anything that indicates that and information on their issues isn't really in the public domain so far.

 

[wobman]

I agree with you @Bletchleyite TfW should order extra 197s to run on the Wrexham - Bidston line, solely to get rid of the microfleet of 230s.

It's a line where the 2 coach units make sense, especially if it goes up to 2tph. The improved acceleration (based on a 195) will also benefit the line with the multiple stops.

The 230's (006 & 008) failed again at Chester yesterday, so training cancelled for another week until this latest issue is resolved.
They are the only units available as there's a shortage of gen sets and vivarail are unable to source / replace any at this time.

The lease costs are huge at Birkenhead North depot, TFW can't be happy with what's going on with these units. They were a short term fix and have turned into a long term problem.
It's a shame as the idea is great but these issues are not teething problems, they are major issues that keep happening week in week out unfortunately.

I'm agree TFW should order 4 more 197's until merseytravel get the battery 777 units running, them they can run on the borderlands line. The customers want a Wrexham-liverpool service which only the 777 units can give on this line.

 

[coppercapped]

To give you an idea they are still losing time against a slackened timetable with long layovers, and they are still, I believe, on occasions having trouble getting one out even though they have three. They are a great idea, but in implementation they are junk.

150s were reliable (though 153s less so).

The latest monthly statistics on new train reliability published in Modern Railways show that in period 4 (the 4 weeks from 27th June to 24th July) the fleet of three trains suffered two Technical Incidents. (I.e., the train was delayed by 3 minutes or more due to an on-board fault).

In that period they ran a total of 4636 miles giving a Moving Annual Average of Miles per Technical Incident of 4387, which isn't a million miles removed from the results of Greater Anglia's Class 720/5 at 4397. Each Class 230 set ran an average of 55 miles per day which is consistent with the level of bustitution.

So, not all doom and gloom but could, without doubt, be better.

 

[wobman]

The latest monthly statistics on new train reliability published in Modern Railways show that in period 4 (the 4 weeks from 27th June to 24th July) the fleet of three trains suffered two Technical Incidents. (I.e., the train was delayed by 3 minutes or more due to an on-board fault).

In that period they ran a total of 4636 miles giving a Moving Annual Average of Miles per Technical Incident of 4387, which isn't a million miles removed from the results of Greater Anglia's Class 720/5 at 4397. Each Class 230 set ran an average of 55 miles per day which is consistent with the level of bustitution.

So, not all doom and gloom but could, without doubt, be better.

55 miles a day isn't much mileage compared to other types of traction on a daily basis, the TFW 230's probably do that mileage just going to be fueled.

 

[coppercapped]

55 miles a day isn't much mileage compared to other types of traction on a daily basis, the TFW 230's probably do that mileage just going to be fueled.

You are correct, but is is an artefact of the way the service is now operated. The 55 miles per day is an average based on the miles covered in the period divided by 28 (days) and divided again by 3 (units).

Several services are still bustituted because of train crew shortages and low passenger numbers because of the pandemic. It's also a very short route - it's only about 15 or 16 miles from Bletchley to Bedford with many stops so there is little opportunity to build up high mileages in a day.

It is the perfect route for the Class 230. All that is needed is that the number of TINs per period drops from 2 or 3 to 0 or 1 and nobody would complain.