-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
175010 engine fire
- Thread starter DRG
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
LOL The Irony
Established Member
Another one... (DJ Khaled intensifies)
On a serious note Alstom should be looking into this. Is this the 3rd or 4th fire this year?
Y Ddraig Coch
Established Member
They do love a good fire those 175's 
175109 @ Shrewsbury in November
175107 @ Deganwy in April
175010 @ Crewe today
**edited due to my earlier mistake **
175109 @ Shrewsbury in November
175107 @ Deganwy in April
175010 @ Crewe today
**edited due to my earlier mistake **
Last edited:
They do love a good fire those 175's
175109 @ Shrewsbury in November
175107 @ Deganwy in April
175110 @ Crewe today
175108 next for Bingo
Sorry, was it 175110 (message above) or 175010 (thread title) that caught fire today? Hopefully not both!!
I am sure they are, the cause of the Deganwy incident was I believe identified. Remember that mechanical incidents could originate in the design or choice of materials for same, or could be due to maintenance.
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
0538 Cardiff to Manchester Picc terminated Crewe and formed continuation
Y Ddraig Coch
Established Member
nat67
Established Member
Why is it that the Alstom DMU's are really bad but the Alstom EMU's are really good. The 180's where terrible from the start on FGW and 175's are too short and smoke in stations all the time.
GW43125
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,310
Just remember how crap the 458s were at the start...
458's were really really bad at the start, and I think the 334's had a hard start to life. By design the 460's were suitable for Gatwick Express but look what happened to them!
scotraildriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 1,846
The 334s were an absolute nightmare at first and took years of modifications to sort out. Even now they can be temperamental.
I guess it depends whether it’s found to be the same cause or not.
They were all temporarily withdrawn earlier this year weren’t they, due to damage to the points north of Newport? Would also be interesting to see how ATW would react. My betting is no service on the Marches with other services being heavily reduced.
Diddyness
Member
Someone informed me 175107 caught fire again at Shrewsbury on Friday 15th February 2019. Any confirmation of this? Quite some problem if they are "torching" every couple of years.
It did, but at Pontrilas in Herefordshire, not Shrewsbury. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-47258589
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
Here is the thread already been discussed:-
www.railforums.co.uk/threads/operational-incident-between-newport-and-hereford-15-02-19.178248/
Suraggu
Member
Alstom's UK built products were absolutely dire. Reminded me of MG Rovers best efforts from Longbridge.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,745
The Junipers are not dire as a design - quite the opposite in fact. SWT engineers will tell you that the Onix traction package is better than Siemens’ kit, for instance. It was Alstom’s support of the trains that was the issue: it was Porterbrook and Wimbledon depot that made the 458s very reliable, not the manufacturer.
The onix traction package was produced by Preston, and they did make quality products. Problem with Junipers and Coradias was the Washwood Heath effect. They turned out utter crap latterley, and they didnt care either. Which is why it closed in 2004 I think.
anamyd
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,038
An Alstom employee (engineer at Widnes) who briefly had an account on here recently, said this:
Andy25, 6/2/19:
"180's has been a funny one, we hadn't been involved with them for many years and the reliability compared to the 175 was terrible. We signed a tech support contract a few years ago and applied many of the modifications we'd done to 175 to solve a lot of the issues but as always cost comes in to it and what the owner/operator is willing to pay.
At the moment as the future of the fleet is uncertain you won't have anyone willing to put their hands in their pockets to pay for upgrades as there is no guarantee of a return."
"They were built before I joined but I'm aware from those involved that the Coradia fleets suffered because they were built to cost. Customers gave a low budget target and the only way to achieve it was to make compromises that Alstom wouldn't have normally made. Things like the level of corrosion protection on steel sections and not having air dryers on some pneumatic systems etc.
I would imagine knowing how it has affected our reputation on those fleets we would refuse to compromise if asked to do the same again.
It's probably cost the owners more in maintenance than they actually saved over the properly spec'd design."
"I think some of it (fire / overheating issues on 175s and 180s) is to do with how tightly packed some of the equipment rafts are, there isn't much room for airflow in some areas. The heat wash over the alternator powering the auxiliaries is something like 60 degrees and the rating was difficult to achieve based on the engine rpm driving it."
"I have heard many people speak in hushed tones about the stretch 30 initiative, it certainly didn't stick round for long."
"from what I understand it (stretch 30) was a drive to reduce costs by 30% across the board."
Andy25, 6/2/19:
"180's has been a funny one, we hadn't been involved with them for many years and the reliability compared to the 175 was terrible. We signed a tech support contract a few years ago and applied many of the modifications we'd done to 175 to solve a lot of the issues but as always cost comes in to it and what the owner/operator is willing to pay.
At the moment as the future of the fleet is uncertain you won't have anyone willing to put their hands in their pockets to pay for upgrades as there is no guarantee of a return."
"They were built before I joined but I'm aware from those involved that the Coradia fleets suffered because they were built to cost. Customers gave a low budget target and the only way to achieve it was to make compromises that Alstom wouldn't have normally made. Things like the level of corrosion protection on steel sections and not having air dryers on some pneumatic systems etc.
I would imagine knowing how it has affected our reputation on those fleets we would refuse to compromise if asked to do the same again.
It's probably cost the owners more in maintenance than they actually saved over the properly spec'd design."
"I think some of it (fire / overheating issues on 175s and 180s) is to do with how tightly packed some of the equipment rafts are, there isn't much room for airflow in some areas. The heat wash over the alternator powering the auxiliaries is something like 60 degrees and the rating was difficult to achieve based on the engine rpm driving it."
"I have heard many people speak in hushed tones about the stretch 30 initiative, it certainly didn't stick round for long."
"from what I understand it (stretch 30) was a drive to reduce costs by 30% across the board."
This would explain why they only fitted the compressor to the A car only, 3 car train with one compressor, always wondered the reasoning behind this thinking. Thanks.
One compressor is very sufficient for these units. They make air very quickly, and have addequate redundancy to cover for equipment failures. They are not the weak engine driven compressers as fitted to earlier units. They are the same is fitted to modern EMU stock.
LOL The Irony
Established Member
Error 404 - back-up not found (there isn't one)
They could send 175107 to rescue it I suppose.
- Status