Build Quality

[150001]

I went on 172331 last Wednesday and sat by the cab door; upon reaching about 40mph, a rather loud rattling was audible and it was the cab door. It was due I think to the cab windows being open. Also on some 168s and 172s the light panels will vibrate slightly, on some never or in the case of 172342 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_wgAsIEF9Q) very badly! How come Bombardier 170s and 172s seem to have pretty bad quality finishing. The CAF4000s for NIR have the same engine as the 172s but they have no vibration what so ever. Is it just that CAF seem to take more care on their quality? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XeXECIW4kI

Shame really the 172s aren't electric; they'd be no problem at all! What would you say the best and worst units for quality inside are?

 

[MCR247]

This is really a surprise as Bombardier are world renown for their amazing build quality. I am genuinely sat here in shock. [/sarcasm]

But seriously, if that is the only problem with 172s atm then someone must be looking down on us

 

[Royston Vasey]

This is really a surprise as Bombardier are world renown for their amazing build quality. I am genuinely sat here in shock. [/sarcasm]

But seriously, if that is the only problem with 172s atm then someone must be looking down on us

Gresley, and he's not impressed!!

 

[bronzeonion]

Class 458?

I've heard that the 334's are worse! Going on Pendolino's they feels really cheap.

 

[D365]

Maybe they couldn't afford to make larger windows :P

365s are alright but the windows never shut! Does this count for refurbishments/rebuilds as well?

 

[150001]

Refurbs and rebuilds can count too! The CAF 4000 look excellent units; well made; although I've just been noticing that Bombarider electrostar + Talent products have no rattling or vibrating (no engine of course). Siemens seem excellent too.

 

[455driver]

Class 458?

I've heard that the 334's are worse! Going on Pendolino's they feels really cheap.

The 458s are currently the most reliable units in the country!
Wait until they get "done" over the next few years!

 

[MCR247]

Refurbs and rebuilds can count too! The CAF 4000 look excellent units; well made; although I've just been noticing that Bombarider electrostar + Talent products have no rattling or vibrating (no engine of course). Siemens seem excellent too.

I've been on a rattling 377 and the doors on an electrostar when a train goes past are horrible!

 

[150001]

The Pendolinos are excellent; just need bigger windows!

 

[ainsworth74]

The Pendolinos are excellent; just need bigger windows!

I'm not sure they even need bigger windows, if you'd just get the seats to line up with the windows they already have I think that would go a long way to solving the interior problems of the 390s. Though really I'd be tempted to rip out the entirety existing interior and start again.

 

[MCR247]

Which would mean reducing the amount of seats which is already ridiculously low and this would probably mean that a 9 390 would have almost the same amount of standard class seats a 5 car XC 221...

 

[HSTEd]

Every unit has foibles like that.

This is what happens when you have highly complex bits of machinery and subject them to the abuse railway rolling stock is subjected to.

 

[ainsworth74]

Which would mean reducing the amount of seats which is already ridiculously low and this would probably mean that a 9 390 would have almost the same amount of standard class seats a 5 car XC 221...

True. To be honest I was just thinking out loud without any real thought to all the consequences

Though my thought is probably more practical that putting more/bigger windows into the 390s seeing as I was under the impression that they are the way they are due to the construction technique used?

 

[fgwrich]

Every unit has foibles like that.

This is what happens when you have highly complex bits of machinery and subject them to the abuse railway rolling stock is subjected to.

Yes...But Bombardiers machinery always seems to shake / rattle / roll / vibrate badly, which i woul say is a clear sign of poor build quality combined with poor materials.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes...But Bombardiers machinery always seems to shake / rattle / roll / vibrate badly, which i woul say is a clear sign of poor build quality combined with poor materials.

Well you have to remember how lightly built Electrostar/Turbostars are compared with Siemens units.
The Class 444 comes in at 2t per vehicle heavier than the Class 377, and the difference is even more pronounced between say a Class 185 and a Class 172. (Its more than ten tonnes apiece or something right? Which is only partly down to the engine weight since a QSK-19 only weighs 1900kg anyway).

 

[fgwrich]

Wrong on the Desiro v Electrostar argument, complete with electrical equipment an Electrostar is actually heavier than a Desiro. That was published, with figures in one of the Modern Railway magazines sometime in the past year - which i will try to find later. It is also rather unfair trying to compare the weight of a 20.4m 377 with a 23m 444. 450s are 20.3m however.

I would still not say though, that the constant vibrating rattling panels in bombardier products are because of their weight. This is simply a build / materials quality issue - Otherwise, why would a 168 / 170 / 171 / 172 Vibrate when pulling away, each engine and transmission set up will weigh differently, but they still vibrate. And just like MCR247, i too have been on rattling 375 / 377s too - and i too find the door rattle rather annoying, considering it's about as bad as the BR MK3 EMUs, and yet strangely dosent happen on Desiros...

Sadly, Bombardier seems to be good at recycling - as per previous threads: Turbostar is the evolution of the Networker Tubro, Electrostar is the evolution of the Networker, 2009 Stock is the evolution of the 1992 stock, Manchester trams are evolution of the Croydon Trams, Even the Eco Flexx isnt Bombardiers - This started as the BR Research Advanced Suburban Bogie in the 1980s as part of Chris Greens Networker programme, continued by ABB, it is now its an international product.

>> Short figures - I will try to find the Modern Railways article in the morning. In short:

Siemens Class 450 Desiro: Total: 170 tonnes (167 long tons; 187 short tons)
Bombardier class 377 Electrostar: Total: 173.6 t (170.9 long tons)

If you want some regular informative reading, read either Modern Railways Magazine, and or sign up to Roger Fords monthly INFORMED SOURCES email ezine.

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-p1659409.htm

http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON RAIL/Informed Sources Directory.htm

 

[Skoodle]

On a 378 with the cab windows open, the rattling comes more from the shoe paddle and DC bar stored in the door than the door itself.

 

[150001]

The 378s are the best Bombardier electrostar; the Siemens and CAF products certainly are better in quality than Bombardier, for example the 185 is better in quality than the 170 as there is no rattling or vibrating.

 

[Flying Snail]

I'm not sure they even need bigger windows, if you'd just get the seats to line up with the windows they already have I think that would go a long way to solving the interior problems of the 390s. Though really I'd be tempted to rip out the entirety existing interior and start again.

I am in no way a fan of the pendo interiors layout wise but in general they are built quite well, the only thing that is a major cause of rattles are those stupid window blinds.

Every unit has foibles like that.

This is what happens when you have highly complex bits of machinery and subject them to the abuse railway rolling stock is subjected to.

To be fair the abuse is not an unexpected occourence, it shoud be taken into account when designing that a railway carriage will be subject to vibration, flexing and twisting forces constantly. In comparison to road coaches and buses the stresses on rail carriage bodies are far less severe but in both cases the difference between good and bad design is the same.

IMO the main culprit is designers who seem incapable of understanding the materials they are using and the way they interact with each other. Bodywork flexes and vibrates, there is no getting around that. That means any part that is not 100% fixed to any other needs to be able to rub, touch or vibrate at a different frequency against it's neighbour without creating noise.

The likes of Bombardier do not seem to understand or care so as the bodywork gets looser over time there are more and more parts creating noise, many of the older turbostar units now create a symphony of rattles as numerous bits vibrate at different engine speeds, not to mention the various bits that have worked themselves loose and fallen off altogether.

 

[Blindtraveler]

the glass particians and luggage racks on the Inverness bassed 158s which were gutted and refurbed a few years back rattle esp on the jointed track on which they earn there keep.

 

[fgwrich]

I am in no way a fan of the pendo interiors layout wise but in general they are built quite well, the only thing that is a major cause of rattles are those stupid window blinds.



To be fair the abuse is not an unexpected occourence, it shoud be taken into account when designing that a railway carriage will be subject to vibration, flexing and twisting forces constantly. In comparison to road coaches and buses the stresses on rail carriage bodies are far less severe but in both cases the difference between good and bad design is the same.

IMO the main culprit is designers who seem incapable of understanding the materials they are using and the way they interact with each other. Bodywork flexes and vibrates, there is no getting around that. That means any part that is not 100% fixed to any other needs to be able to rub, touch or vibrate at a different frequency against it's neighbour without creating noise.

The likes of Bombardier do not seem to understand or care so as the bodywork gets looser over time there are more and more parts creating noise, many of the older turbostar units now create a symphony of rattles as numerous bits vibrate at different engine speeds, not to mention the various bits that have worked themselves loose and fallen off altogether.

Exactly, that's one reason why i try to avoid 168s & 170s. When SWT had their turbostars, i remember one of them purely because of the excessive vibrations put out by those things - it was so bad, you could leave your phone in the middle of the table as you departed, and have it sat in your lap or on the nearby seat about 5 minutes later. I also remember one of Chilterns 168s, which had something like a screw loose in one of the main ceiling panels. Cue constant rattling all the way from Marylebone to Moor Street as this screw vibrated its way around the panel.

Equally, some of the new 172s are becoming just as bad, yet their less than a year old!

 

[150001]

Meanwhile the CAF 4000 with the same engine type and setup as the 172s has no vibration at all! The 185s are an equivalent to the 170s, no rattle!

 

[HSTEd]

Meanwhile the CAF 4000 with the same engine type and setup as the 172s has no vibration at all! The 185s are an equivalent to the 170s, no rattle!

The 185s are ten tonnes, or more, per vehicle heavier than the 170 and guzzle 25% more fuel, are unable to use SP differentials and have numerous other flaws, including no gangways.

They are a disaster of a procurement process.

The Class 172 is even lighter and has more power, as well as gangways and would probably be able to match the current Class 185 timings.

It would also enable the 100mph TransPennine north route speed limits to be downgraded to MU100.

 

[150001]

We're talking about the build quality, not their usefulness on routes or fuel.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Currently onboard a Scotrail 380 and the doors, walls and fittings are shaking and rattling away. They are, like all other desiro builds not worth the extra weight etc in my opinion. Never yet had a seriusly rattly 170.

 

[150001]

A 380 rattling? Never heard about that before.

 

[87015]

We're talking about the build quality, not their usefulness on routes or fuel.

Turbostars have all been built to a specification. A very, very cheap specification - thats far more the issue than any perceived build quality issues.

 

[richw]

Typical Midlands build quality really...British Leyland cars being another prime example

 

[Nym]

Not really a fair comparison on weight between the 444 and 377 though is it? 450 and 377 maybe...

And yes, the 185s are right lard butts, but still, I much prefer the build quality of the 185s compared with the 170, only one gripe I have is on the 185s the axillary compressor spring/damper mounts wear down quick and when they start to wear and squeak in exact resonance onto the steel of the body/frame mounts, it's REALLY annoying!

The satisfying door clunks make up for it

 

[mallard]

Sadly, Bombardier seems to be good at recycling - as per previous threads: Turbostar is the evolution of the Networker Tubro, Electrostar is the evolution of the Networker, 2009 Stock is the evolution of the 1992 stock, Manchester trams are evolution of the Croydon Trams, Even the Eco Flexx isnt Bombardiers - This started as the BR Research Advanced Suburban Bogie in the 1980s as part of Chris Greens Networker programme, continued by ABB, it is now its an international product.

That's a rather "nice" way to say that they have no creativity or innovation and are pretty much just 'coasting' off the work that BR did in the 80s/90s!

Then they have the nerve to complain when they fail to sell their shoddy and out-of-date products.