Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
To be honest, in more than twenty years of driving Pacers, I found them to be extremely reliable - once they had been fitted with Cummins engines and Voith transmissions. They were just damned uncomfortable and rough-riding, especially on worn-out jointed track!
To be honest, in more than twenty years of driving Pacers, I found them to be extremely reliable - once they had been fitted with Cummins engines and Voith transmissions. They were just damned uncomfortable and rough-riding, especially on worn-out jointed track!
It seems despite the slagging they get and the daily pounding they take (especially with XC), Voyagers seem to be pretty reliable units. They have always impressed me despite the fact they are way too small.
That was certainly true when introduced.
The SCG gearboxes were extremely flawed and around 50% of the Class 142 fleet was stored due to non availability of replacement gearboxes in the 1987-8 period. Reliability started to be vastly improved during the first few months of 1989, as lots of units received the tried and tested Voith gearboxes.
Dishonourable mention here to the Class 303 transformer explosions, necessitating a very hasty return to steam-hauled services while things were sorted out
As something of a bookend to this, a few 303s were withdrawn in the ScotRail (NX) era when fires started in their motor coaches. Not sure if the transformer was the source, but if this page is accurate, at least 4 303s are noted to have met their end in this way as the operations of the class were being wound down leading up to December 2002. These were (in order of occurrence):
303058 - Blantyre - September 2000
303010 - Bishopton - December 2000
303054 - Bellshill - March 2002
303009 - Springburn - August 2002
Also, the linked page notes that BR instituted a rule in 1991 that no 303 with it's pantograph raised was to be left unattended for more than 15 minutes after a fire eariler that year started in unit no. 038's motor coach (which left it a gutted wreck and damaged the units around it) after it was stabled at Shields Depot with it's pantograph up.
On the whole however, despite a rather ignominious start and the above incidents in the type's twilight years, the 303s served Glasgow and it's environs with little in the way of fuss for over 40 years. Hardly a suitable candidate for this thread in the grand scheme of things.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The 334s were pretty terrible during the first few years. Sometimes a train would go out of service half way down the Ayr line and everyone would be chucked off at Kilwinning. It was pretty common for a driver to "reboot" the train while stopped at a station. I remember sitting in a pitch-black 334 with the doors locked and the lights off while the thing rebooted. You knew the reboot was finished when the incredibly noisy ventilation kicked in.
They've improved massively since the early days, and as far as I know their mean time between failure is pretty decent these days.
Also, and in line with their 458 relatives, their introduction was heavily delayed (originally slated for 1999, in the event April 2001) as attempts were made to rectify the numerous faults. This delay forced the remaining 303s to remain in service for quite a bit longer than originally intended and, as you note, it took a good few years for their availabilty/reliability levels to reach acceptable levels. I've never had one 'sit down' on me across the numerous journeys I've made with them over the years and, while they're not perfect, they're far from the worst.
That was certainly true when introduced.
The SCG gearboxes were extremely flawed and around 50% of the Class 142 fleet was stored due to non availability of replacement gearboxes in the 1987-8 period. Reliability started to be vastly improved during the first few months of 1989, as lots of units received the tried and tested Voith gearboxes.
It seems despite the slagging they get and the daily pounding they take (especially with XC), Voyagers seem to be pretty reliable units. They have always impressed me despite the fact they are way too small.
Not that I am aware of but, at the roughly the same time as West Yorkshire had a batch of ex-LTS, Ex-GE 308s, Greater Manchester had a batch of ex-GE 305s and ScotRail had a small number of 305s for the Edinburgh-North Berwick service. When I was a driver at Skipton, I rather liked the 308s, even though they were on their last legs after a couple of years storage at Pig's Bay (Shoeburyness). Despite their unreliabilty, when on form, they were capable of a good turn of speed, especially after reduction from four to three cars. 308 163 was the best of the bunch and I once managed to get her up to 84 (tut! tut!) on a late-night Ilkley-Skipton ECS job (in the days before OTDR and TPWS).
Hi D6130, I’m an ex skipton driver and have to tell you I got 86 mph (indicated) out of a 308 once, my minder wasn’t too happy, another time on my penultimate drive of one I was caught by a DM doing 77 mph up towards Thackley tunnel, the bugger was in the back cab monitoring grrr! Good old bad old days
Class 180 is down to poor maintenance. They are effectively the same train as class 175, which are very reliable. But are maintained very well at Chester
Haven't the class 175's suffered issues of both rust and engine fires? I admit these may not be related to maintenance but haven't been the most reliable trains around.
Class 180 is down to poor maintenance. They are effectively the same train as class 175, which are very reliable. But are maintained very well at Chester
To be fair, I'd say it's less down to the quality of the maintenance itself and more down the familiarity of the staff. The 175s have been based out of the same depot from day one, and over time the staff at Chester have gotten pretty used to their foibles and made a pretty decent fleet out of them. It probably helps that the staff at Chester don't really do and work on anything else - Sprinters can get fuelled there if required but any maintenance work in the North for TfW sprinters gets performed down the road in Crewe instead.
The 180s have been bounced around from operator to operator, often via periods of storage in between, and haven't had the same settled home where maintenance staff could get used to them.
Haven't the class 175's suffered issues of both rust and engine fires? I admit these may not be related to maintenance but haven't been the most reliable trains around.
They have had issues with that to be fair. It doesn't tend to affect their day to day reliability, they don't tend to fail very often compared to other stock, but it is an issue from time to time.
Well I looked at the tables and as of 2016-17, the Class 700 is the least reliable EMU with a shockingly poor figure of 2,390 miles between failures. How can they still run with reliability as bad as that - or is it improved now?
Oh, yeah, I will add that I have nothing but respect for the depots who have had to deal with an aging fleet with effectively zero spares and duds from other TOCs.
Especially with the 153 fleet, I remember when I was commuting on the Matlock line how just one of the two booked 153 units would arrive, leading people to be left on the platforms once we left Belper.
Peak time cancellations were a couple of times a year, commuting about four days a week.
Considering many of the areas see an hourly service, the pressure of making sure it runs is pretty immense!
But yeah, it's not the fault of EMT (now EMR), it was the fault of government locally and nationally that ignores the needs of the railways and the people who rely on it.
I hope the 170's will provide a needed boost in capacity, speed and reliability, even if they are aging somewhat too.
Haven't the class 175's suffered issues of both rust and engine fires? I admit these may not be related to maintenance but haven't been the most reliable trains around.
How about the Rolls Royce hydraulic class 125 DMUs that ran on the Lea Valley and later the GN suburban seeviea from Broad St and Kings X? They were withdrawn en masse after GN electrification. I think that Stratford was prob pleased to see them go
How about the Rolls Royce hydraulic class 125 DMUs that ran on the Lea Valley and later the GN suburban seeviea from Broad St and Kings X? They were withdrawn en masse after GN electrification. I think that Stratford was prob pleased to see them go
This was because the Class 141s (with the exception of 141113), soldiered on with their original Leyland TL11 engines and SCG gearboxes, whereas the later Pacer classes were upgraded to Cummins LTA10R engines and Voith transmission.
Presumably, the cost to upgrade them was not justifiable, as surplus Class 142s and 144s became available following the completion of the Airedale electrification scheme in the mid 1990s.
Well I looked at the tables and as of 2016-17, the Class 700 is the least reliable EMU with a shockingly poor figure of 2,390 miles between failures. How can they still run with reliability as bad as that - or is it improved now?
What was the nature of their failures in 2016-7? Do you realise that they were only introduced in mid 2016? The are (by some accounts) among the most reliable EMUs in service at the moment.
Well I looked at the tables and as of 2016-17, the Class 700 is the least reliable EMU with a shockingly poor figure of 2,390 miles between failures. How can they still run with reliability as bad as that - or is it improved now?
To be fair, I'd say it's less down to the quality of the maintenance itself and more down the familiarity of the staff. The 175s have been based out of the same depot from day one, and over time the staff at Chester have gotten pretty used to their foibles and made a pretty decent fleet out of them. It probably helps that the staff at Chester don't really do and work on anything else - Sprinters can get fuelled there if required but any maintenance work in the North for TfW sprinters gets performed down the road in Crewe instead.
The 180s have been bounced around from operator to operator, often via periods of storage in between, and haven't had the same settled home where maintenance staff could get used to them.
They have had issues with that to be fair. It doesn't tend to affect their day to day reliability, they don't tend to fail very often compared to other stock, but it is an issue from time to time.
I always think ATW should have got some 180's when they were off lease and sitting at oxley depot looking for a new home, the ATW management opted for the unreliable MK3 stock instead.
The Alstom depot have worked hard to get the 175's reliability issues fixed, they are now TFWs best units. They could have sorted out the 180's if they had the chance, plus all depots could have signed the units instead of the loco staffing problems that TFW now have.
The last entry for the Class 700 in Modern Railways 'Informed Sources' is for Period 12 of Financial Year 2020-21, that is for the 4 week period beginning on 7 February 2021. The Moving Annual Average for the Miles per Technical Incident (MTIN) at this point had reached 19,806.
The Class was promoted out of the monthly new train statistics in the following period when the MAA exceeded 20,000 MTIN.
For what it's worth, the whole class averages some 1.1 to 1.2 million miles in a four week period. That's some 400 miles per unit per day.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
