I cannot remember the last time any of Northern's 250+ DMUs ran out of fuel. Yet this is not the first time it has happened to one of the eight 769s. Clearly the tiny fuel tanks (a consequence of shoehorning so much equipment under the floor of the driving trailers) make such an incident vastly more likely.
According to posts here, all 769s are currently required to run on diesel even when under wires. I presume that it was an official requirement and had been diagrammed, and of course there were specific instructions for appropriate diesel quantities to be in the tanks. So, if a train runs so low that it fails to reach its destination, at least one of the following must be true:
I can... 170s went through a phase of it at one point. I've also had 195s delayed because they had to go into the depot for an unscheduled fuel stop before continuing. It does happen occasionally.
The 769 when requiring fuel during the day at present are taken off the diagram at either Wigan Wallgate and sent to Springs Branch depot to be fuelled or Manchester Victoria and sent to Newton Heath.
According to RTT, on Thursday 16th only two 769s, 450 and 456, were in service, both on the Alderley Edge route. Today four are in service, 442 on Stalybridge and 450, 456 and 458 on Alderley Edge.
I guess I was there a total of 4 - 5 hours, only one 769 about, late afternoon. In the morning, however, there hadn't been, nor was there any sign of, a 769 even on RTT. There was diversionary activity in evidence, but that shouldn't have impacted Thameslink's finest
769450 through Lostock at 10:18 on 16th:I guess I was there a total of 4 - 5 hours, only one 769 about, late afternoon. In the morning, however, there hadn't been, nor was there any sign of, a 769 even on RTT. There was diversionary activity in evidence, but that shouldn't have impacted Thameslink's finest
I’m guessing they don’t have much if anything positive to say about them. Is there any sign of them running in electric mode again any time soon?
Good to hear - I need to catch up with the NIR (incident report) when I return to work.
I have no inside knowledge of the 769s but what we do know is that in each unit, both diesel engines are nearly new and likely to be in very similar conditions of tune and wear and tear so consumption would also be similar.
A good few years ago a 142 arrived on Longsight Depot with one vehicle out of fuel, so yes it does happen and it was with Northern at the time.
If that is true, then there has been a failure to ensure that the diagrams are viable. It's fairly basic planning to determine how frequently the units need to be fuelled. To use a hackneyed expression, they should cut their coat according to their cloth.
That's what I was wondering. I'm assuming an engine failure would be noticed by the driver and the train worked out of service as soon as practical. The question would then be, do the remaining engine(s) also run out of fuel before the train can be worked out of service. It would seem the better "balanced" the engines are, the less margin you would have to get the train out of service.
Do these trains not have fuel gauges fitted? If not why not? If they do, does anybody bother to read them?
Most trains only have fuel gauges fitted on the outside of the train somewhere near the fuel tank itself rather than in the cab. Normally it relies on train planning ensuring that the unit only does so many miles between fueling.
There's a diagnostic screen in a body end cupboard on 769s that includes all sorts of info like fuel/coolant/lubricating oil levels. I know of one occasion on a GWR 769 where the fuel level shown on the diagnostic screen was something like -100l (yes, minus!), but the external sightglass on the fuel tank was showing nearly full. I think it came down to a sensor fault. So I suppose in theory using the screen to check fuel levels could result in a train leaving depot with less or more fuel in the tank than the level indicated by the screen.
There is inevitably some difference in fuel consumption between individual vehicles in a unit. I imagine this is typically greater, percentage-wise, in a 15x, with relatively old engines and hydraulic transmission, than in a 769, where the two diesel generators are electronically controlled to share the electrical load equally.
Which underlines my point, the fuel capacity of the trains is known, which equates to a know range. Whatever that range is, operational planning's responsibility is to manage the train's diagram in order that a quite predictable failure in service is avoided. However inconvenient it is having to deal with this issue, unless this unit had a specific random fuel measurement failure or a member of crew/depot staff failed in their duty, this issue is clearly in the lap of those who determine the allocation of trains in the diagram. Why does it seem that some here just want to blame the inanimate object in the equation, i.e. the train?
Does this mean the passengers were moved through to the other unit via the rarely used staff only front doors?
Apparently it has been cleared so the operational error should be swept under the carpet for a while.
