Hull Trains Problems , Stock Problems

[12CSVT]

They should hire out 86101 again, though this time with a 67 dragging between Doncaster and Hull

Or alternatively, 55002 should be back on the main line soon.

 

[jon0844]

But they would need a FGW driver that has signed to say that they know the Hull Trains routes.

Can't you just give em a TomTom (or should that be ThomThom?!)

 

[ainsworth74]

Or alternatively, 55002 should be back on the main line soon.

Allowing myself a moment of idle fantasy, there is still at least one shunt release at Hull station so it would be fairly easy for 55002 to run around the set without need for outside help.

 

[jimm]

It is a shame that none of the Hull Drivers sign for HSTS as they could possibly get a spare set from their sister company FGW?

what spare set? The FGW HST fleet is at full stretch.

The most obvious solution would be for FGW to loan HT a 180 for the time being

It is not obvious at all. HT is an open access operator, FGW is a franchised operator with all the strings that come attached with that. And in the case of the FGW 180s, there are a lot of strings, with months of negotiations with DafT about the funding arrangements for the 180s in the context of the need for the extra stock to deal with overcrowding in the Thames Valley, so there is no way on earth that FGW will be allowed to loan anything to HT - never mind a 180. Especially when there are days they struggle to operate all four FGW 180 diagrams anyway, through train faults and staffing issues.

 

[Qwerty133]

could EMT loan a HST to grand central who then Loan a 180 to HT

 

[Max]

could EMT loan a HST to grand central who then Loan a 180 to HT

Sounds rather convoluted...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Wouldn't that also mean EMT giving up their one free HST which is used as a standby during the week, called a hot spare isn't it?

Edit - After one went to EC, I can't remember if they have one at the depot (being serviced?) plus one on hot spare or if there's only one free one which is the hot spare.

 

[MCR247]

I'm sorry but some of these suggestions are ridiculous. We are talking about an OAO. Why are something like 5 TOCs going to take part in some complicated system of gaining 1 train and then losing 1 to someone else for a couple of weeks?

 

[johnnychips]

If Hull Trains' services don't run, and has happened to me twice in the last year, I am put on an East Coast, do East Coast get compensation?

 

[12CSVT]

I'm sorry but some of these suggestions are ridiculous. We are talking about an OAO. Why are something like 5 TOCs going to take part in some complicated system of gaining 1 train and then losing 1 to someone else for a couple of weeks?

It did happen with 3 TOCs earlier this year, EMT class 158 hired to SWT to operate FGW services.

 

[bolli]

It did happen with 3 TOCs earlier this year, EMT class 158 hired to SWT to operate FGW services.

I was under the impression that this was due to SWT running Class 158 services in 3rd rail land, and therefore have a door blocked off for driver access to the track- which the EMT unit didn't have.

I also think that it ran a few non-3rd rail SWT services, hence the loan to SWT, not FGW.

 

[robertclark125]

Is there a real danger of Hull Trains potentially losing custom, permanently, if this continues, with passengers switching to East Coast and First trans Pennine Express, with a change en route, or Northern, with a change en route. Yes, using TPE means Firstgroup stil lgets an income, but I'm just thinking, this happened about 6 months or so ago (correct me if I'm wrong, but on that occasion I started that thread), and people could lose patience, which then also, if they do what I have suggested, could threaten the frequent direct link with London.

 

[dstrat]

I sometimes do wonder how the 180s got signed off the production line. Sit in the wrong carriage and you will be bombarded with engine noise (doesn't even sound good at that) for a journey, or if your luck is really bad you may get one of the fold down seats in the vestibule.

That happened once to me, and whilst I like to hear a bit of noise here and there, this was mental - I've heard rattles on trains having reguarly travelled on the 395s, but the 180s take the absolute biscuit. Now whilst I know nothing mechanically about the 180s, if the 'customer experience' whilst the train is actually moving at 125 is anything to go by; doesn't surprise me that they done a poor job underneath as well.

 

[robertclark125]

My late dad told me how he heard of a friend, who was a mechanic, having to fix a car, and called the car a Friday Car. These 180s must be Friday trains.

And what do I mean by that? In the days when car factories only did Monday to Friday, with a finish early afternoon, the friday cars were those that were rushed jobs, i.e. little care was taken when building them, so that the workers could get home on time!

 

[Wath Yard]

Everything that was produced by Washwood Heath in its last years was poor quality. The 334s, 458s, 175s, 180s and 390s all had serious build quality problems. The main reason they persist with the 180s and not so much the others is the other classes (175s and 458s in particular) have had a lot of time and money spent on them sorting the problems out, whereas the 180s haven't.

 

[MCR247]

It did happen with 3 TOCs earlier this year, EMT class 158 hired to SWT to operate FGW services.

Well really it was just EMT loaning a 158 to SWT, who happened to use it on FGW services. It therefore gave benefit to SWT as they gained a 158, whereas some of these long awkward ideas have nothing but disadvantages for everyone but HT.

IMO, for the EMT/FGW/SWT example to be the same as some ideas suggested it, would have to involve SWT JUST being a middle man with there not being any benefit to them stock-wise.

 

[whhistle]

But they would need a FGW driver that has signed to say that they know the Hull Trains routes.

Not necessarily, unless the rules are different for freight operators?
I am certain one of them once had a driver who signed the stock but not the route and a driver who signed the route not the stock so both were required to take the train with one instructing the other on the route.

 

[jimm]

I sometimes do wonder how the 180s got signed off the production line. Sit in the wrong carriage and you will be bombarded with engine noise (doesn't even sound good at that) for a journey, or if your luck is really bad you may get one of the fold down seats in the vestibule.

That happened once to me, and whilst I like to hear a bit of noise here and there, this was mental - I've heard rattles on trains having reguarly travelled on the 395s, but the 180s take the absolute biscuit. Now whilst I know nothing mechanically about the 180s, if the 'customer experience' whilst the train is actually moving at 125 is anything to go by; doesn't surprise me that they done a poor job underneath as well.

Sorry but I simply don't recognise this characterisation of the 180s. I was on one yesterday morning, doing 90mph plus along the Cotswold Line with a rock-steady, smooth ride and not a hint of a rattle anywhere, and just a touch of engine noise when the driver then pushed it up to 100mph. Could say the same about recent runs all the way to London, hitting 125mph at times as well.

Yes, the engines can get noisier under hard acceleration but all in all a very different experience from my last few rides on XC Voyagers - lots of shakes and rattles - not forgetting sitting on top of a bogie with a wheel flat all the way from Wolverhampton to Oxford.

Just a shame that the mechanical problems continue to dog the 180s - which are in other respects a good train. Combine the body and passenger saloon of a 180 with the drive train of a 22x and you would be laughing.

And what do you expect in a vestibule - they aren't quiet on an HST or Voyager either, are they? And there isn't a perch seat to be seen.

 

[ainsworth74]

Combine the body and passenger saloon of a 180 with the drive train of a 22x and you would be laughing.

Or my preferred IEP alternative of a 180 body with a 390 electric drive. I have to say it is a real shame that they have such terrible reliability as a larger fleet of them deployed on a wider range of long distance service really would be great as I think they're very good on long distances (even with the engines which I think are quite quiet for a DMU).

 

[jon0844]

I've always been on a 180 that has been quiet, comfortable and has neither broken down, caught fire or run out of fuel.

But I still think it's amazing that they were signed off, and that the poor sods forced to use them can't claim back for all associated costs from Alstom.

As is stands, do HT, GC and EC have reciprocal arrangements to carry passengers? It makes sense as EC has probably had situations where it has needed to get people on to HT or GC services. Thus, HT might not be paying EC anything at the moment.

However, if EC is going to see that it is taking far more HT customers than the other way around due to ongoing problems with the 180s they might seek to end that arrangement.. and then HT will be in a bit of trouble.

FWIW, I never knew the 180s were built in Britain. Why is so sad that I find myself immediately thinking 'why doesn't that surprise me?'.

 

[sprinterguy]

Sorry but I simply don't recognise this characterisation of the 180s. I was on one yesterday morning, doing 90mph plus along the Cotswold Line with a rock-steady, smooth ride and not a hint of a rattle anywhere, and just a touch of engine noise when the driver then pushed it up to 100mph. Could say the same about recent runs all the way to London, hitting 125mph at times as well.

Yes, the engines can get noisier under hard acceleration but all in all a very different experience from my last few rides on XC Voyagers - lots of shakes and rattles - not forgetting sitting on top of a bogie with a wheel flat all the way from Wolverhampton to Oxford.

Just a shame that the mechanical problems continue to dog the 180s - which are in other respects a good train. Combine the body and passenger saloon of a 180 with the drive train of a 22x and you would be laughing.

And what do you expect in a vestibule - they aren't quiet on an HST or Voyager either, are they? And there isn't a perch seat to be seen.

I agree with this entirely. If we must have long distance DMUs, then the 180s are an excellent example of how to do these properly from a "customer experience" point of view, if not, unfortunately, from a mechanical one.

The soundproofing in the passenger saloon is far, far better than on a Voyager or Meridian, better insulating the passenger from engine noise, the suspension seems to be much smoother riding and there are far less noticeable vibrations caused by the underfloor engines. The internal layout is also far better planned out than that of the Voyagers and features a far better design of seating, arranged mostly around tables and that line up with the windows!

The 180s are great trains from the point of view of the travelling public, it is such a shame that they are so hamstrung by their woeful unreliability (Although I haven't had one fail on me during my sporadic travels on them - Yet).

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I have to say it is a real shame that they have such terrible reliability as a larger fleet of them deployed on a wider range of long distance service really would be great as I think they're very good on long distances (even with the engines which I think are quite quiet for a DMU).

There is apparently nothing particularly wrong with these trains but they suffer from a variety of unrelated problems. It seems that they have not always had the best of attention. Look at the differences in performance between fleets of other classes of rolling stock depending on where they are stationed and maintained. And don't ask me for sources.

From the point of view of their basic layout, they are the best inter city vehicles in the UK, with the ideal bay spacing of 1.90 metres and windows at the right height, nearly all aligned to seats. Nothing to complain about on that score. Pity about the underfloor engines.

 

[HSTEd]

They have serious interior issues though.

For instance in first class some of the plug sockets are obscured by table supports so you can't actually use them..... and for some reason known only to the designer the tables are not secured to the bodysides.... so they shake like mad when they hit the resonant frequency of said tables.

 

[jimm]

They have serious interior issues though.

For instance in first class some of the plug sockets are obscured by table supports so you can't actually use them..... and for some reason known only to the designer the tables are not secured to the bodysides.... so they shake like mad when they hit the resonant frequency of said tables.

And how often do you travel on them? You make it sound like they are shaking themselves to bits. As I said above, they aren't. Occasionally, under very hard acceleration, one or two things on the FGW sets I use pretty much every day of the week may rattle, but that's about it.

If the positioning of the odd (fitted post-original build) plug socket (and do you mean obscured or obstructed?) is "a serious interior issue", what on earth does that make the dreadful interior design of Voyagers or the tombstone seats in FGW HSTs?

It seems that they have not always had the best of attention

They have had a great deal of attention, largely to try to overcome the lousy initial build quality and underfloor design flaws and keep them running in spite of it.

Pity about the underfloor engines.

Oh dear, the record has got stuck again. Where have the engines on most dmus been, all over the world, pretty much ever since they were invented? Or is it just that train designers the world over are wrong?

 

[HSTEd]

And how often do you travel on them? You make it sound like they are shaking themselves to bits. As I said above, they aren't. Occasionally, under very hard acceleration, one or two things on the FGW sets I use pretty much every day of the week may rattle, but that's about it.

If the positioning of the odd (fitted post-original build) plug socket (and do you mean obscured or obstructed?) is "a serious interior issue", what on earth does that make the dreadful interior design of Voyagers or the tombstone seats in FGW HSTs?

Quite regularily actually since they are the fastest way into London and the first class is often less crowded than on East Coast, although I admit I often just stand on Platform 1 at Grantham and get on the first London train that appears.

When travelling on them northbound the shaking issue becomes extremely noticeable as the tables shake excessively on the single seat side of the 2+1 at the RPM range used approximately at idle, such as when sitting in stations or at signal checks.
This might not be noticeable with the larger tables fitted in Standard and on the other side of the coach.

And what is the point of providing plug sockets if they are going to be positioned so you can't fit plugs into many of them because there is only half an inch between said socket and the table support? (I mean you physically can't get plugs into many of them)

There is nothing really that wrong with the interior design of the Voyagers or the "tombstone seats" on FGW HSTs.... my main gripe about sitting for hours on an FGW HST at this point to reach Cornwall is that they do not yet provide WiFi, so next time I am seriously considering going via Birmingham and XC to get wifi for the entire trip.
The only serious problem Voyagers have is overcrowding, the internal shaking and noise issues are no worse than, say, an Express Sprinter, which everyone here seems to believe are suitable for multiple hour journeys.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

They have had a great deal of attention, largely to try to overcome the lousy initial build quality and underfloor design flaws and keep them running in spite of it.

Oh dear, the record has got stuck again. Where have the engines on most dmus been, all over the world, pretty much ever since they were invented? Or is it just that train designers the world over are wrong?

When first built, Alstom was putting all its resources into getting the Pendolinos working. So it apparently did not have enough over to solving the teething troubles of its other types. Class 458 eventually settled down to become quite a reliable unit but too late as Siemens got the rest of the SWT order which Alstom was hoping for and had purchased Eastleigh on the strength of that expectation.

That left the 180s as a small fleet with the usual problems that involves. Where do the Hull Trains fleet go to get their regular servicing and how often do they get it? The problem may be that there is not the opportunity to fix problems soon enough or even a shortage of spare units so they have to be kept going.

When DMUs first came out in the 1930s they had bus engines, sometimes in a compartment above the floor and usually only in 50% of the vehicles. They were used for short distance services. The GWR units and most of the first generation BR DMUs were pleasant vehicles though some of them rattled horribly.

But that is a big difference from having DMUs with engines several times the size and under every vehicle, using them and then failing to isolate the resulting noise and vibration effectively. The Danish IC3 trains are a different kettle of fish, and they date from the late 1980s, so there is no excuse for not getting these things right.

 

[Rich McLean]

When first built, Alstom was putting all its resources into getting the Pendolinos working. So it apparently did not have enough over to solving the teething troubles of its other types. Class 458 eventually settled down to become quite a reliable unit but too late as Siemens got the rest of the SWT order which Alstom was hoping for and had purchased Eastleigh on the strength of that expectation.

That left the 180s as a small fleet with the usual problems that involves. Where do the Hull Trains fleet go to get their regular servicing and how often do they get it? The problem may be that there is not the opportunity to fix problems soon enough or even a shortage of spare units so they have to be kept going.

When DMUs first came out in the 1930s they had bus engines, sometimes in a compartment above the floor and usually only in 50% of the vehicles. They were used for short distance services. The GWR units and most of the first generation BR DMUs were pleasant vehicles though some of them rattled horribly.

But that is a big difference from having DMUs with engines several times the size and under every vehicle, using them and then failing to isolate the resulting noise and vibration effectively. The Danish IC3 trains are a different kettle of fish, and they date from the late 1980s, so there is no excuse for not getting these things right.

The Hull Trains 180's are maintained at OOC

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The Hull Trains 180's are maintained at OOC

Which could be part of the problem, then. No criticism of OOC but it a detour to get the trains there so perhaps they do not visit as often as they need to.

 

[Nym]

Which could be part of the problem, then. No criticism of OOC but it a detour to get the trains there so perhaps they do not visit as often as they need to.

Is less of a detour than when the 222s used to go to Central Rivers though...

 

[jimm]

HSTEd, all I can say is all this shaking must be an east coast phenomenon, as I simply don't recognise it as an issue on FGW 180s.

There is nothing really that wrong with the interior design of the Voyagers or the "tombstone seats" on FGW HSTs.... my main gripe about sitting for hours on an FGW HST at this point to reach Cornwall is that they do not yet provide WiFi, so next time I am seriously considering going via Birmingham and XC to get wifi for the entire trip.
The only serious problem Voyagers have is overcrowding, the internal shaking and noise issues are no worse than, say, an Express Sprinter,

So there are a few plug sockets that need repositioning (have you actually bothered to raise the problem with HT?) but this is apparently a serious interior design issue, while the ludicrous over-provision of disabled toilets in Voyagers, with the resulting loss of seats, isn't a serious problem? And you must be very lucky with the Voyagers you ride on, because I'm afraid my experience of noise generally, and things rattling and shaking on them, is far worse than on FGW 180s, or 158s, come to that.

As for wi-fi, FGW's franchise agreement did not require them to fit it and much of the HST fleet was due to be heading off into the sunset round about now, were it not for the pig's ear DfT made of ordering IEP, so wi-fi wasn't specified for the refresh programme. Whereas XC's franchise did require the kit to be fitted and the saintly XC stalled on doing so and paid penalties as a result of failing to meet deadline after deadline to carry out installation.

When DMUs first came out in the 1930s they had bus engines, sometimes in a compartment above the floor and usually only in 50% of the vehicles. They were used for short distance services. The GWR units and most of the first generation BR DMUs were pleasant vehicles though some of them rattled horribly.

Which trains would these be? The 1937 LMS unit, with three coaches, each with an engine under the floor, used between 1937 and 1939 on those well-known short-distance routes between Oxford and Cambridge and St Pancras and Nottingham? Or the GWR units, again with engines under the floor of each coach, many of which were used between Birmingham and Cardiff, or the German Fliegender Hamburger sets, running between Berlin and Hamburg, etc, etc

Which could be part of the problem, then. No criticism of OOC but it a detour to get the trains there so perhaps they do not visit as often as they need to.

For pity's sake. It's a few miles across London. A sight fewer miles than XC Voyagers run empty between Birmingham and Central Rivers every day. And have you ever heard of programmed maintenance? It's what railways do, not just think 'oh, maybe it should go to the depot tonight'.

Is less of a detour than when the 222s used to go to Central Rivers though...

But did they ever go there? Regular maintenance of 222s when with HT was carried out by Bombardier at Crofton, near Wakefield, scene of the 'oops we've dropped the train off the jacks' incident.