FGW 57/6 (and DRS 57/3)s Unreliability

[PHILIPE]

Trouble again last night. 1C99, the Down, left Paddington with 57310 after having had repairs (involving cylinder head) with 57303 (Dead) on rear to act as insurance, but 310 failed at Swindon due cracked cylinder head (again). Necessary to run 303 round to haul. 63L but due to the time in it's schedule was RT Plymouth.

 

[LateThanNever]

Trouble again last night. 1C99, the Down, left Paddington with 57310 after having had repairs (involving cylinder head) with 57303 (Dead) on rear to act as insurance, but 310 failed at Swindon due cracked cylinder head (again). Necessary to run 303 round to haul. 63L but due to the time in it's schedule was RT Plymouth.

I wouldn't be driving my car with a cracked cylinder head - wonder why it is thought to be a reasonable idea to be operating a locomotive with one?!

 

[87015]

Trouble again last night. 1C99, the Down, left Paddington with 57310 after having had repairs (involving cylinder head) with 57303 (Dead) on rear to act as insurance, but 310 failed at Swindon due cracked cylinder head (again). Necessary to run 303 round to haul. 63L but due to the time in it's schedule was RT Plymouth.

Quality maintenance taking place then, no wonder they keep failing. Who is in charge of the hire one, FGW presumably if it had repairs at OC as above?

 

[windnoise69]

1A10 been allocated 57310 & 57303 again tonight

 

[fgwrich]

Trouble again last night. 1C99, the Down, left Paddington with 57310 after having had repairs (involving cylinder head) with 57303 (Dead) on rear to act as insurance, but 310 failed at Swindon due cracked cylinder head (again). Necessary to run 303 round to haul. 63L but due to the time in it's schedule was RT Plymouth.

Quality maintenance taking place then, no wonder they keep failing. Who is in charge of the hire one, FGW presumably if it had repairs at OC as above?

I gather 310 has known Power Unit Problems and is awaiting another reconditioned replacement 645 Engine, which would speak for the coolant issues it's been having lately which has included coolant leaking into the oil. All in all 310 Seems to be the worst of the /3 Fleet, which in part is probably one of the reasons why NR couldn't wait to get shot of them!

While some of the maintenance would be carried out by FGW, I'd expect the majority of the maintenance to be carried out by DRS as the loco's main leaser. Rather surprised that 310 still seems to be going out and about with 303 tucked in though, sounds a little as if DRS want FGW to continue with 310 and take 303 back. Equally I'm surprised 310 came back to FGW on hire - As it itself managed to fail on the Night Riviera during it's first run out as a DRS loco back in the summer, somewhat unfortunately and ironically failing with Low Power after rescuing 57603 - The usual candidate for suffering with Low Power issues.

 

[PHILIPE]

Severe delays again last night. 1A40 (57303 and 57310) delayed 150mins at Taunton with brake fault. I don't know the full details but there was mention of having to be propelled back into station and swap over locos with 57603 on the Down 1C99 due to being able to drive from one end only. Was diverted via B&H to regain time and 89L Paddington. 1C99 left Taunton 93L and arrived Penzance 19L. No doubt, will have more detailed facts later and what the position is tonight.

 

[83G/84D]

Severe delays again last night. 1A40 (57303 and 57310) delayed 150mins at Taunton with brake fault. I don't know the full details but there was mention of having to be propelled back into station and swap over locos with 57603 on the Down 1C99 due to being able to drive from one end only. Was diverted via B&H to regain time and 89L Paddington. 1C99 left Taunton 93L and arrived Penzance 19L. No doubt, will have more detailed facts later and what the position is tonight.

I will see what I can find out later when I go to work. To say the performance of the sleepers in recent months is not reflecting well on FGW is obvious, wonder what FGW intend to do longer term to improve things?

 

[455driver]

Quality maintenance taking place then, no wonder they keep failing. Who is in charge of the hire one, FGW presumably if it had repairs at OC as above?

DRSo are responsible for all maintenance, OOC not allowed to touch them.

 

[83G/84D]

Severe delays again last night. 1A40 (57303 and 57310) delayed 150mins at Taunton with brake fault. I don't know the full details but there was mention of having to be propelled back into station and swap over locos with 57603 on the Down 1C99 due to being able to drive from one end only. Was diverted via B&H to regain time and 89L Paddington. 1C99 left Taunton 93L and arrived Penzance 19L. No doubt, will have more detailed facts later and what the position is tonight.

It would appear that the fault was with No 2 end on 57303 (leading) and the brake pressure could not be raised. As stated 57303 was swapped with 57603on 1C99.

 

[CosherB]

I will see what I can find out later when I go to work. To say the performance of the sleepers in recent months is not reflecting well on FGW is obvious, wonder what FGW intend to do longer term to improve things?

i'd be surprised if a phone call hasn't been made by FGW to DBS to begin contract talks for some 67's to take over! or will DRS bite the bullet and offer a 68 instead?

 

[83G/84D]

i'd be surprised if a phone call hasn't been made by FGW to DBS to begin contract talks for some 67's to take over! or will DRS bite the bullet and offer a 68 instead?

Someone claimed on another forum that the DBS 67's were not able to work with the FGW sleeper coaches due to electrical compatability issues.

 

[CosherB]

Someone claimed on another forum that the DBS 67's were not able to work with the FGW sleeper coaches due to electrical compatability issues.

well some management type at FGW will be asking these questions to prevent the sleepers reputation being ruined by crap locos!

 

[83G/84D]

well some management type at FGW will be asking these questions to prevent the sleepers reputation being ruined by crap locos!

Some will say it already has been.

 

[FQ]

Get 47s, which are, currently more reliable!

 

[fgwrich]

Get 47s, which are, currently more reliable!

I'm sure a few people would like to, but unfortunately I gather that the Brush Type 4s have lapsed and come off FGWs safety case.

Someone claimed on another forum that the DBS 67's were not able to work with the FGW sleeper coaches due to electrical compatability issues.

Electrical Compatibility issues is one problem, the other is the need to train staff up on them. But then you've got to ask the question (if not asked on here already) is that is the cost of the unreliability of the 57s & Subsequent subleasing from DRS comparable to the cost of bringing in the Class 67s, training staff up on them, and arranging a lease and possible repaint into FGW fleet colours.

Then the other question you've got to ask is as to why operators such as Chiltern so eager to ditch the 67s in the first place... reliability has never been included in their name either... Though perhaps, a little more reliable than some of the 57s have been lately - Although not quite FGWs fault with the delays from Wabtec & RVEL.

 

[alexl92]

What amazes me is that 57s are technically only 10-15 years old - surely they shouldn't have so many issues at that age?

 

[matt]

What amazes me is that 57s are technically only 10-15 years old - surely they shouldn't have so many issues at that age?

They are however based on a 1960's loco body plus the EMD engines were not new but refurbished.

 

[Ash Bridge]

They are however based on a 1960's loco body plus the EMD engines were not new but refurbished.

Probably the original, bogies and I believe reconditioned class 56 traction motors also?

 

[fgwrich]

Probably the original Brush traction motors, bogies etc. also?

Yep. But with reconditioned Alternators from Class 56s and 1970s built EMD 645-12E3 Power Units. They certainly met Porterbrook's plan from the outset of being a cheaper than new loco, but I doubt anyone had this level of failure rate in mind!

 

[Ash Bridge]

Yep. But with reconditioned Alternators from Class 56s and 1970s built EMD 645-12E3 Power Units. They certainly met Porterbrook's plan from the outset of being a cheaper than new loco, but I doubt anyone had this level of failure rate in mind!

If these are similar power units as fitted to 59/66s why do they not suffer similar engine problems?

 

[455driver]

Someone claimed on another forum that the DBS 67's were not able to work with the FGW sleeper coaches due to electrical compatability issues.

So a loco with a 1000V supply cannot work with coaches which need a 1000V supply!

Did he go into specifics or was it just what the bloke on the end of the platform told him?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Probably the original, bogies and I believe reconditioned class 56 traction motors also?

Original TMs, they were fitted wit a modified class 56 Alternator though.
The Engines are oldest components fitted to them.

 

[Ash Bridge]

So a loco with a 1000V supply cannot work with coaches which need a 1000V supply!

Did he go into specifics or was it just what the bloke on the end of the platform told him?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Original TMs, they were fitted wit a modified class 56 Alternator though.
The Engines are oldest components fitted to them.

So that makes the currently fitted GM engines older than the original Sulzer engines then? No wonder the failure rate is so high,even if they are reconditioned! What was the real advantage of replacing the original engine with these US jobs anyway?

 

[83G/84D]

So a loco with a 1000V supply cannot work with coaches which need a 1000V supply!

Did he go into specifics or was it just what the bloke on the end of the platform told him?

Don't know anything about this myself but someone said elsewhere that the FGW stock "would need to be through wired to 415 AC".

 

[fgwrich]

Sounds like more fun out there tonight. Quoted from Dawlish Beach Cam:

Last weeks HST sleeper is about to be outdone tonight! Early indications are that two HST power cars will be on the front of tonights down sleeper with the troublesome 57310 and 57603 on the rear. I expect it will be far too dark for us to catch any meaningful footage but if anyone else does then please feel free to share it. SD

So the power cars are to lead with the least two reliable 57s tagging along? Or will the power cars be removed at Plymouth to drop them back to Laira I wonder?

 

[455driver]

Don't know anything about this myself but someone said elsewhere that the FGW stock "would need to be through wired to 415 AC".

The HSTs use a 415V 3 phase AC supply, the loco hauled sets use the normal BR spec 1000V DC supply.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sounds like more fun out there tonight. Quoted from Dawlish Beach Cam:



So the power cars are to lead with the least two reliable 57s tagging along? Or will the power cars be removed at Plymouth to drop them back to Laira I wonder?

Genius is showing 43143,43130,57310 on the front and 57603 on the back.
Power cars booked to come off at Plymouth.
8 coaches on tonight as well-
10594,10612,10563,10589,10584,10219,12100,17174.

PCs could be the other way round with 130 leading.

 

[cjmillsnun]

So that makes the currently fitted GM engines older than the original Sulzer engines then? No wonder the failure rate is so high,even if they are reconditioned! What was the real advantage of replacing the original engine with these US jobs anyway?

How would the GM engines (from the '70s), be older than the Sulzer engines (from the '60s)?

 

[455driver]

How would the GM engines (from the '70s), be older than the Sulzer engines (from the '60s)?

Its me, the class 57 GM engines are a little bit newer than the class 47 Sulzer engines, I thought they were older.

 

[Ash Bridge]

How would the GM engines (from the '70s), be older than the Sulzer engines (from the '60s)?

Its me, the class 57 GM engines are a little bit newer than the class 47 Sulzer engines, I thought they were older.

Thanks for owning up to that! Thought I was going to have to take the blame for it

 

[PHILIPE]

The HSTs use a 415V 3 phase AC supply, the loco hauled sets use the normal BR spec 1000V DC supply.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Genius is showing 43143,43130,57310 on the front and 57603 on the back.
Power cars booked to come off at Plymouth.
8 coaches on tonight as well-
10594,10612,10563,10589,10584,10219,12100,17174.

PCs could be the other way round with 130 leading.

After the HST PCs were detached at Plymouth, it was discovered 57310 had lost 3/4 of it's coolant so had to run 57603 round.

 

[CC 72100]

After the HST PCs were detached at Plymouth, it was discovered 57310 had lost 3/4 of it's coolant so had to run 57603 round.

You just couldn't make it up! :roll: