GC 180's

[rmt-driver]

Made a return journey from London on GC West Riding route.

Went out on Wednesday where the train was delayed due to two engines failing , was about 55 minutes late on arriving (so no compensation could be claimed).

Then returning yesterday another delay of about 45 minutes, although this time slightly more dramatic.

I was in First Class, and suddenly noticed a smell of burning / diesel. I thought nothing of it but a few minutes later looked up from my laptop to see a really thick black substance had coated the windows along the sides of the train. It was either diesel or oil https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7DwskXNgkeB_GbZnwLorEm97paRkoKYix7keqOqUzx8?feat=directlink.

I was quite concerned by this and alerted an on-train host to the problem, who didn't seem as concerned as me. Next I saw the next coach was filling with smoke, passengers were frantically running to leave the coach. The train then made an emergency stop, and when the coach was evacuated carried on a very short distance to Hatfield station. There the external doors were opened but we couldn't leave the train, it was to clear the smoke from that coach. The engines there, we were told, were isolated. Then we carried on to Kings X approximately 45 minutes late (so again no compo).

Upon arrival we couldn't get out of the train straight away until station staff / BTP arrived to assist, due to the whole outside of the train being absolutely covered in diesel / oil .

Is this kind of thing regular with GC trains? I have never experienced this kind of train faults when travelling. And I do wonder if it was exactly the same unit, which makes one wonder if it was fixed correctly after our fault on the outbound journey.

 

[wensley]

Made a return journey from London on GC West Riding route.

Went out on Wednesday where the train was delayed due to two engines failing , was about 55 minutes late on arriving (so no compensation could be claimed).

Then returning yesterday another delay of about 45 minutes, although this time slightly more dramatic.

I was in First Class, and suddenly noticed a smell of burning / diesel. I thought nothing of it but a few minutes later looked up from my laptop to see a really thick black substance had coated the windows along the sides of the train. It was either diesel or oil https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7DwskXNgkeB_GbZnwLorEm97paRkoKYix7keqOqUzx8?feat=directlink.

I was quite concerned by this and alerted an on-train host to the problem, who didn't seem as concerned as me. Next I saw the next coach was filling with smoke, passengers were frantically running to leave the coach. The train then made an emergency stop, and when the coach was evacuated carried on a very short distance to Hatfield station. There the external doors were opened but we couldn't leave the train, it was to clear the smoke from that coach. The engines there, we were told, were isolated. Then we carried on to Kings X approximately 45 minutes late (so again no compo).

Upon arrival we couldn't get out of the train straight away until station staff / BTP arrived to assist, due to the whole outside of the train being absolutely covered in diesel / oil .

Is this kind of thing regular with GC trains? I have never experienced this kind of train faults when travelling. And I do wonder if it was exactly the same unit, which makes one wonder if it was fixed correctly after our fault on the outbound journey.

Interesting. Would appear that the engine decided to blow out its oil. I am guessing that the smoke was as a result of oil coming into contact with hot components of the engine.

With regards to GC reliability, to be fair, the majority of GC services do run to time and don't experience any problems. However, the small fleet and limited services make it especially noticable when something goes wrong as a contingency is sometimes hard to come by. Touch wood, the newly overhauled HST sets are more reliable than their Valenta forebearers (they still have their faults mind) but 180s do have a reputation for failing. In the main most of GC's behave OK. However, 180105 is the cursed unit in the Grand Central stable: I'm sure that a certain driver on here will agree. It is fairly well known for having just about every fault going at one time or another: I know there were some unexplained brake applications and a computer fault the other week but AFAIK they were addressed. It would be interesting to know if you had 105 either yesterday, or the day you say 2 engines were isolated as recently the 54 and 55 car engines on 105 have been dead on a few occasions. However, last time it worked 1A61 from SUN to KGX and then formed 1D77 to BDI it did have all 5 under power on the Southbound.

On an unrelated note the Sunderland's performed well yesterday despite diversions via Darlington and heavy passenger loadings. 1N26 (first train off The Cross) was absolutely rammed, full and standing in First, Std and vestibules. Plenty of drunks in the buffet as well!

 

[Capybara]

I was on this train and it was indeed 180105! However, I was in the front coach so knew nothing of the drama further back until we got an announcement. I'm reliably informed a Grauniad journalist was also on board and tweeted the whole thing. I don't know how to work Twitter but if you look for #trainonfire you will probably find it.

 

[wensley]

I was on this train and it was indeed 180105! However, I was in the front coach so knew nothing of the drama further back until we got an announcement. I'm reliably informed a Grauniad journalist was also on board and tweeted the whole thing. I don't know how to work Twitter but if you look for #trainonfire you will probably find it.

The fact that it was 105 does not surprise me in the slightest. May try and find that on Twitter later, would imagine it will be grossly exaggerated.

 

[Max]

It's not just GC 180s to be fair. I was on a Hull Trains 180 a couple of weeks ago when there was a problem with the engine in the first class carriage which caused the fire alarm to be activated. To make matters worse it happened at night in a very isolsted area between Gilberdyke and Broomfleet, so it was quite tricky for the staff to deal with. After the engine was isolated, we were able to continue about 20 minutes late.

 

[Smoggy]

This will explain why the 0651 ex Bradford terminated at Doncaster this morning with all passengers forced to wait for the delayed ex Sunderland service so the unit (114) could return to Bradford ECS to form the 1022 departure.

Lots of unhappy passengers who have been told they can't claim compensation as if the Sunderland had been ontime them they would have only been delayed 20mins, but the Sunderland was delayed by the Signalling problems at Ryhope Grange outside of GC's direct control!

 

[DarloRich]

They tend to be ok GC, but when things go wrong there isnt much slack to cover any issues. I use GC quite a bit and havent really had a problem . The only delays have been due to other third party failures.

I had one really bad ride sometime ago On 112 to the extent i thought we derailed at Colton Junction! However the next time i travelled by that unit the ride was fine.

I prefer the HST but the 180's are ( shudder - this is as good as it will get from me) not completely awful!

They run a good service and i am sure the Bradford one will get better if they can iron out the few operating/pathing problems they encounter

 

[43067]

as a regular user of GC as well, i don't mind the 180's but do prefer the Hst's. On the subject of engines if they are such a problem could they be changed for say an MTU variant of the cummins unit by the leasing company when they go for thier next major overhaul or is that just a pipe dream.

 

[Eng274]

as a regular user of GC as well, i don't mind the 180's but do prefer the Hst's. On the subject of engines if they are such a problem could they be changed for say an MTU variant of the cummins unit by the leasing company when they go for thier next major overhaul or is that just a pipe dream.

A thread started just a few days ago commended the 220/1/2 fleet for it's astounding relibility, and it was also remarked that they too suffered the odd engine failure which could be isolated, but allowed the train to continue. Since these units all have the same engine, I think a complete engine replacement is overkill.

The picture and anecdote does suggest a serious breach of the oil system, I'd hate to have been sat the head of a traffic queue at a level crossing when that went past! And having to spend 30 minutes wiping the oil off your windscreen.

 

[jopsuk]

Isn't the problem with 180s (and hasn't it always been the problem?) to do with the transmissionm, not the the engine itself, though it invariably means oil getting at hot bits of engine? Weren't they somewhat notorious at FGW, which in part is why there's not a heck of a lot more of them?

 

[ainsworth74]

Isn't the problem with 180s (and hasn't it always been the problem?) to do with the transmissionm, not the the engine itself, though it invariably means oil getting at hot bits of engine?

I was wondering that seeing as we have literally hundreds of exactly the same engines working on 22xs (which as we've seen have ludicrously high reliability figures) and 185s (which are also fairly reliable) without them regularly spewing oil all over the place.

 

[Lampshade]

I was wondering that seeing as we have literally hundreds of exactly the same engines working on 22xs (which as we've seen have ludicrously high reliability figures) and 185s (which are also fairly reliable) without them regularly spewing oil all over the place.

And 175s as well which is essentially the same train.

 

[4SRKT]

Was your northbound trip on Wednesday the 19:48 off the Cross? I saw 180105 on this that day and the front car was making a very unhealthy sounding noise.

 

[ainsworth74]

And 175s as well which is essentially the same train.

Different engines though, which was the point of comparison.

 

[asylumxl]

Isn't the problem with 180s (and hasn't it always been the problem?) to do with the transmissionm, not the the engine itself, though it invariably means oil getting at hot bits of engine? Weren't they somewhat notorious at FGW, which in part is why there's not a heck of a lot more of them?

I believe the main issue is the transmission. It eats through oil which in turn increases heat build up as the oil level gets lower. Alstom still seems to have failed to rectify it, which is why I think Alstom has lost out on orders (e.g. TL/Crossrail) recently.

 

[Lampshade]

Different engines though, which was the point of comparison.

Urgh, forgot about that

 

[rmt-driver]

Was your northbound trip on Wednesday the 19:48 off the Cross? I saw 180105 on this that day and the front car was making a very unhealthy sounding noise.

No the 1420

 

[ainsworth74]

Urgh, forgot about that

Don't think I didn't see your original post (before you edited it)

 

[Capybara]

180105 carried me northbound on the 14:20 on Friday and seemed absolutely fine. Incidentally, we boarded late because it was a late replacement for another 180 (111, I think) which was on one of the other platforms.

 

[Lampshade]

Don't think I didn't see your original post (before you edited it)

In my defence, I've been at Piccadilly where the 1650 to Llandudno (175) has departed just before the 1654 to Preston (180), both engines sound exactly the same

 

[route:oxford]

Could the 180s ever be converted from DHMU to DEMU?

 

[ainsworth74]

Could the 180s ever be converted from DHMU to DEMU?

It won't be impossible but it would probably be pretty expensive for what is a small fleet of trains. What would be the advantage, improved reliability? Not sure if that would outweigh the costs...

 

[Eng274]

The 175 has a Cummins engine, but it is a different model (according to Wikipedia its an N14 rated at 450hp, as opposed to the QSK-19 of 750hp on Bombardier units and 180s)

Could the 180s ever be converted from DHMU to DEMU?

As ainsworth74 has mentioned a conversion might be possible but expensive. I am surprised Alstom haven't pressed Voith to co-operate in fixing the problem, unless there's some fallout between the two that isn't well known..

The same transmission is found on 185s and appears to work perfectly fine (retarder included), wonder if the extra 25mph speed is what pushes the 180s' fitted transmissions beyond normal reliability, both at transmitting torque and braking.

 

[tbtc]

It won't be impossible but it would probably be pretty expensive for what is a small fleet of trains. What would be the advantage, improved reliability? Not sure if that would outweigh the costs...

This makes me wonder whether it'll be worth trying to maintain the 180s longer term. Once things start to go wrong with them as they pass "mid life" will it really be worth sorting out their problems?

 

[ainsworth74]

Once things start to go wrong with them as they pass "mid life" will it really be worth sorting out their problems?

Start to go wrong? Start?

But seriously I agree in about 10 years maybe a little less the 180s are going to need a mid-life refurb. Will it be worth it bearing in mind their chronic reliability problems and the fact that it is a really small fleet? Personally I have some serious doubts as to the longevity of this particular class.

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sure if Voith were asked with enough €, they'd have a go at fitting an electric generator/motor set where the hydraulic transmission is- the Voyagers don't just have the same engines, they have a final drive and cardan shaft that is just an evolution of the one fitted to the slightly earlier Adelantes- so essentially the in and out are the same, it's "just" the in between part that needs changed.

(this might be of interest, especially the B&W mock up of the livery!)

 

[tbtc]

Start to go wrong? Start?

But seriously I agree in about 10 years maybe a little less the 180s are going to need a mid-life refurb. Will it be worth it bearing in mind their chronic reliability problems and the fact that it is a really small fleet? Personally I have some serious doubts as to the longevity of this particular class.

Yeah, apologies for my hopelessly optimistic use of the word "start" there

Honestly though, instead of trying to fix a tiny class of unreliable units, it may be cheaper to just order an equivalent number of a tried and tested class (222s) which would have a much better life expectancy.

 

[junglejames]

I thought the problem was the engine management system? Thats why they always have their cummins engines shutting down.
Not heard of the transmissions being a major problem on them before. Makes sense i suppose though considering the speed of them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 175 has a Cummins engine, but it is a different model (according to Wikipedia its an N14 rated at 450hp, as opposed to the QSK-19 of 750hp on Bombardier units and 180s)



As ainsworth74 has mentioned a conversion might be possible but expensive. I am surprised Alstom haven't pressed Voith to co-operate in fixing the problem, unless there's some fallout between the two that isn't well known..

The same transmission is found on 185s and appears to work perfectly fine (retarder included), wonder if the extra 25mph speed is what pushes the 180s' fitted transmissions beyond normal reliability, both at transmitting torque and braking.

Alstom are apparently a nightmare to work with. Customer aftercare is none existent. Thats part of the reason nothing has ever been done. Also part of the reason why FGW went with MTU for the HST re-engining. The other option was dealing with Alstom again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah, apologies for my hopelessly optimistic use of the word "start" there

Honestly though, instead of trying to fix a tiny class of unreliable units, it may be cheaper to just order an equivalent number of a tried and tested class (222s) which would have a much better life expectancy.

Noo. Please dont do that to me!! 180s are much more pleasant to travel on!!

 

[Eng274]

I'm sure if Voith were asked with enough €, they'd have a go at fitting an electric generator/motor set where the hydraulic transmission is- the Voyagers don't just have the same engines, they have a final drive and cardan shaft that is just an evolution of the one fitted to the slightly earlier Adelantes- so essentially the in and out are the same, it's "just" the in between part that needs changed.

(this might be of interest, especially the B&W mock up of the livery!)

Electric generator/motor fitting wouldn't be Voith's thing, if asked they would probably rather try to fix their own kit rather than rip it out and replace it with someone elses gear. That sort of replacement work would be best left with Alstom - could you imagine taking your Audi back to the Audi dealer and saying "I don't like this modern Audi engine, can you fit a GM pushrod-V6 instead?" They'd tell you to get lost I'm sure, regardless of whether it's a positive or negative change.

Alstom are apparently a nightmare to work with. Customer aftercare is none existent. Thats part of the reason nothing has ever been done. Also part of the reason why FGW went with MTU for the HST re-engining. The other option was dealing with Alstom again.

That is a shame, it would do their image and reputation no harm at all to try and fix their product, even if it is a box full of other manufacturers' tricks (Voith, Cummins, SKF [bearings?]) they seem to do a decent enough job looking after the Pendolinos, although there are 50-odd sets and more ££ involved..

 

[Blindtraveler]

my theory is that in 5 to 10 years they'll be transfered lock stock and 5 smoking engines each to northern for capacity increases and that there mid life refurb wil see them internally redesigned with comuter runs in mind.