Class 180 Reliability Issues?

[Max]

I'm guessing Hull Trains are once again having reliability issues. The 0725 from KGX was cancelled this morning and I noticed FGW 180108 working the 2030 out of Kings Cross tonight! Is this the first time an FGW unit has been hired in?

 

[samuelmorris]

One odd failure does not 'reliability issues' make. With a fleet as small as Hull Trains have got, it's perhaps unsurprising that they'd have to suffer a hit if a unit failed. The FGW hire seems logical given they're the same parent company, though I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that

 

[Max]

One odd failure does not 'reliability issues' make.

Fair comment, though Hull Trains have suffered quite badly in the past. Was just curious to know what might have happened!

 

[samuelmorris]

Yeah I do read about a lot of historical issues with the 180s. That said, this seemed to be true of all the Alstom mainline stock, and the 458s have been turned around fairly successfully.

 

[Crossover]

Some strong defenders of the 180's on here in recent threads :P

Hopefully barring the odd failure, they're getting better.

How are the GC ones fairing? I don't tend to hear of too many cancellations with them

 

[lincolnshire]

I am curious as to what the failures are, is it engine / gearbox etc knackered or is it a problem with the controls of the said items?

Thats the other problem as against the old DMU.s of yesteryear where you could knock out an intermediate coach out and run the rest of the set or swap the driving end power car with another and be back in service in no time, the hazards of semi-permanently couped sets which means on failed coach the whole set and service cancelled.

 

[asylumxl]

One odd failure does not 'reliability issues' make. With a fleet as small as Hull Trains have got, it's perhaps unsurprising that they'd have to suffer a hit if a unit failed.

While this is true, unfortunately failures are all too common for the Class 180s. One would like to think the reliability of them has improved since last year as they had the worst reliability of any train with a failure every 4-5k miles. Even HST sets manage 3 times this.

 

[Erniescooper]

While this is true, unfortunately failures are all too common for the Class 180s. One would like to think the reliability of them has improved since last year as they had the worst reliability of any train with a failure every 4-5k miles. Even HST sets manage 3 times this.

I don't know where your figures are from but they are wrong , the period 10 rolling 12 month rolling MTIN for FHT was 14500 miles , the best HST fleet was 19500 miles and the worst 8500 miles and the worst intercity fleet was Chiltern with 2900 miles .

 

[222001]

Hull Trains never had this problem when they had the 222s - in fact they won the golden spanner. After 222103 was dropped form the jacks at Crofton they amazingly survived on having all 3/3 units available for service for nearly a year apart from the odd shortage here and there... In fact they did better on 3/3 222s than they are doing on 3/4 180s!

 

[asylumxl]

I don't know where your figures are from but they are wrong , the period 10 rolling 12 month rolling MTIN for FHT was 14500 miles , the best HST fleet was 19500 miles and the worst 8500 miles and the worst intercity fleet was Chiltern with 2900 miles .

From the last time such figures were published in Modern Railways. I'll dig it out at some point but last time I checked 19500 was still better than 14500? What about GC Class 180s?

 

[ainsworth74]

I'll dig it out at some point but last time I checked 19500 was still better than 14500? What about GC Class 180s?

This is true but is very different from what you were stating previously which was that the class was achieveing 5000 miles which is three times less than HSTs. Whilst the other figures suggest that they are in fact slapbang in the middle of the reliability range of HSTs. Which isn't great but not as bad as you suggested.

 

[asylumxl]

This is true but is very different from what you were stating previously which was that the class was achieveing 5000 miles which is three times less than HSTs. Whilst the other figures suggest that they are in fact slapbang in the middle of the reliability range of HSTs. Which isn't great but not as bad as you suggested.

I will find the issue and scan it if you require. Perhaps the information I remember is out of date, but it certainly was not in 5 figures as I remember not being at all surprised at the time.

Even FHT acknowledged the poor reliability of their Class 180s and hence posted this last year.

In my opinion the industry moved from MPC to MTIN to basically move the goal posts to make certain trains look better by comparison.

 

[TEW]

2013-14 MTIN MAA:
First Hull Trains 15550
Grand Central 8621
First Great Western 3264

The 2012-13 figure for Hull Trains was 13568.

 

[asylumxl]

2013-14 MTIN MAA:
First Hull Trains 15550
Grand Central 8621
First Great Western 3264

The 2012-13 figure for Hull Trains was 13568.

This will be where I got the 4k from. Looking at the issues of MR, 2012-13 MTIN MAA was:

First Hull Trains 13568
Grand Central 8028
First Great Western 2036

Simple fact is that the exact figures for FHT do not detract from the fact the Class 180 fleet has awful reliability.

 

[TEW]

Also worth pointing out that for Period 7 2013-14 the Hull Trains units managed 74642 MTIN, so it looks like reliability is on an upwards trend.

 

[Erniescooper]

Also worth pointing out that FGW were left with 3 barely maintained trains from Newton Heath and 2 semi demic trains that had been stripped for spares at Bounds Green ,so they were starting off from a very low point . The rolling MTIN figure has doubled since period since period 1 and the number of delays has reduced month on month culminating with just one 3 minute delay and no capes for the month of December .

 

[samuelmorris]

2013-14 MTIN MAA:
First Hull Trains 15550
Grand Central 8621
First Great Western 3264

The 2012-13 figure for Hull Trains was 13568.

3264MTIN on a fleet of 5 - by all accounts then on average a unit should have been failing almost daily?

 

[ainsworth74]

Unless I'm wide of the mark that isn't the the MTIN for the fleet but a unit. So a unit should be failing every 3000 odd miles. Seeing as HT units don't get anywhere near 3000 miles per day the answer to that is no. However my understanding could be wrong so if someone could confirm (or deny ) that would be good.

 

[Erniescooper]

MTIN is worked out by dividing the total fleet mileage for one railway period (4 weeks) by the number of technical incidents of the fleet for that period , eg Hull Trains MTIN for period 7 of 74642 miles is just one technical incident .

 

[cj_1985]

3264MTIN on a fleet of 5 - by all accounts then on average a unit should have been failing almost daily?

Pretty sure FHT have a dedicated fleet of 4x class 180s... NOT 5

 

[samuelmorris]

Bah, wikipedia let me down then.

nless I'm wide of the mark that isn't the the MTIN for the fleet but a unit. So a unit should be failing every 3000 odd miles. Seeing as HT units don't get anywhere near 3000 miles per day the answer to that is no. However my understanding could be wrong so if someone could confirm (or deny ) that would be good.

Yes, but surely if each unit in isolation fails on average every 3000 miles, if 5 were in traffic (granted I now realise it's 4) then they would only have to do 600 miles a day to expect one of the 5 to fail roughly once a day. The following day probably a different one, etc. but still, that's what i was getting at.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Pretty sure FHT have a dedicated fleet of 4x class 180s... NOT 5

The figure of 3624 MITN was for FGW not FHT. FGW do have a fleet of 5x class 180s

 

[No Fault Found]

180113 is the unit that failed with a failed wheel bearing, hence the need to hire in 180108.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also worth pointing out that FGW were left with 3 barely maintained trains from Newton Heath and 2 semi demic trains that had been stripped for spares at Bounds Green ,so they were starting off from a very low point .

Very, very true!

 

[lincolnshire]

180113 is the unit that failed with a failed wheel bearing, hence the need to hire in 180108.

Well a failed wheel bearing certainly means your not going anywhere in a rush especially at 125 mph. So thats just one of them things, so all the people who have been working out how aften they fail per miles travelled I don,t think this is in the same league for a failure.

I keep seeing certain people who keep going on about them getting on fire. I have never been on one as yet where that has happened as been on Hull Trains and Grand Central plenty of times over the years.

Would rather travel on one these than East Coast who,s seats are as hard as hell and uncomfy too, I dread to think doing Inverness to Kings Cross on one of them seats, definatly a numb bum after all that distance.