LH Traction Unreliability: Why?

[alexl92]

The thread about the FGW 57/6s I started a few weeks ago partly covers this, but I'm also interested in the GA Short set and others.

What I don't understand is: These are locomotives belonging to large companies with extensive experience in operating them. They may be old but they're in regular service and being maintained by professional fitters, not volunteers. So why are the Night Riviera & GA short set amongst others suffering with such unreliability?

I'm not local to East Anglia and I haven't heard more recently but I occasionally pick up a copy of Railways Illustrated and it seems that that service quite regularly sees 47s failing in service.

- Is it due to lazy or improper maintenence either currently or in the past?
- Is it because in some cases, you have DRS machines normally based at Carlisle being maintained at the depots of other TOCs who wouldn't normally operate those specific classes - so the fitters haven't been fully trained on them?
- Is it because the locos are not well-suited to the services they operate?
- Is it because money means that they don't get the full treatment they need?

Or is it something else?

If I may, please can we keep the discussion on topic (the reasons why) rather than discussing for example, the pros and cons of LH services.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[HSTEd]

The locos are very long in the tooth.

 

[Z12XE]

Or is it something else? .

Is it possibly because the GA loco set is such a rare example, it gets reported about more, or more people are watching?

Maybe it's because <insert railway news publication> Doesn't report every time a 153 or 156 comes off a diagram for a broken wiper or the need for coolant the way the 47s get reported?

Late last year a GA 153 struggled in service all weekend with a hole in an air line and then failed at Colchester of the Monday because of it , if the 47s had run into this trouble it would have been front page news.

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I don't know the answer to this (I suspect HSTEd has hit one of the nails on the head anyway) but I wonder if it could be partly related to what I see in my line of work. I am involved with a fleet of aircraft which comprises 25 airframes. The routine tasks require 17 of these aircraft to be available daily, with the other 8 in planned maintenance, upgrade programmes etc. However some of the management view this situation (ie having one third of the fleet unavailable) as inefficient use of the airframes and try to get more out of the fleet by taking on extra tasks requiring some planned maintenance/upgrades to be delayed (to be fair, not the safety-critical stuff). Equally, when several of the active 17 need unexpected maintenance, the others have to work harder to maintain the overall output. As a result, the elderly airframes are often worked at a higher rate than planned, with less time for TLC; in the long run, this accelerates the gradual deterioration in the condition of the fleet. Could something similar be happening with the loco fleets/operators?

 

[alexl92]

Is it possibly because the GA loco set is such a rare example, it gets reported about more, or more people are watching?

Maybe it's because <insert railway news publication> Doesn't report every time a 153 or 156 comes off a diagram for a broken wiper or the need for coolant the way the 47s get reported?

Late last year a GA 153 struggled in service all weekend with a hole in an air line and then failed at Colchester of the Monday because of it , if the 47s had run into this trouble it would have been front page news.

Obviously other units fail too - but at one point it appeared that the 47s were struggling to complete a full day in service. That's more what I'm getting at. You may be right about the media spotlight though.

I don't know the answer to this (I suspect HSTEd has hit one of the nails on the head anyway) but I wonder if it could be partly related to what I see in my line of work. I am involved with a fleet of aircraft which comprises 25 airframes. The routine tasks require 17 of these aircraft to be available daily, with the other 8 in planned maintenance, upgrade programmes etc. However some of the management view this situation (ie having one third of the fleet unavailable) as inefficient use of the airframes and try to get more out of the fleet by taking on extra tasks requiring some planned maintenance/upgrades to be delayed (to be fair, not the safety-critical stuff). Equally, when several of the active 17 need unexpected maintenance, the others have to work harder to maintain the overall output. As a result, the elderly airframes are often worked at a higher rate than planned, with less time for TLC; in the long run, this accelerates the gradual deterioration in the condition of the fleet. Could something similar be happening with the loco fleets/operators?

Sounds like quite a reasonable explanation to me. I imagine this could be a big part of it.

 

[jopsuk]

Crown Point, where the GA locos are maintained, seems to be a struggling depot- it's had lengthy issues with not just loco but carriage reliability on the mainline, and the DMU fleet is ridden with serious issues.

 

[scotraildriver]

Remember a LH train has one power source - the loco. If it stops for any reason its game over. A multiple unit, say a 170, has 3 power sources so can almost always get to where its going, albeit slowly if 1 or even 2 engines chuck it.