Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[DJH1971]

Hilarious! He clearly has no idea where these trains operated, south of Blackfriars they are predominantly on stopping services, on some routes with stops every 2-3 minutes. Just check the timetable (pdf)

Point taken, but even so there seems to be a real spate of 319 failures at Northern.

 

[Emblematic]

Point taken, but even so there seems to be a real spate of 319 failures at Northern.

I wouldn't doubt that, but I think it's safe to rule out anything as straightforward as the brakes not coping with the stopping services.

 

[AM9]

Point taken, but even so there seems to be a real spate of 319 failures at Northern.

Well I've travelled on every part of the 319's normal Thameslink services (with the exception of the Sevenoaks service south of Elephant and Castle) and can confirm that they are quite capable of continuous stop/start service on both DC and AC. They frequently accelerate continuously up to line speed limits75-100mph, then apply steady braking to stop. They also thread their way through the core and the metro tracks between Blackfriars and East Croydon with its constant signal checks and many complex junctions. On the bit that you seem to know about, they cover mainline runs at up to 100mph alongside Electrostars of half their age and a third more power, with relative ease.
They are MKIII EMUs, they are not perfect and do sometimes fail in heavy service, but if the trains had a mind of their own, they would regard their duties on NW metals as a holiday compared with heavy intensive service on Thameslink.
So over a year after their introduction up there, the only reason for such poor reliability can be their support. Any endemic 'defects' on transferred units should have been fixed by now.

 

[Loop & Link]

Today's incident though was a fault with the OHL rather than unit fault though.....

 

[b0b]

I wouldn't doubt that, but I think it's safe to rule out anything as straightforward as the brakes not coping with the stopping services.

not to mention the 319s spent over a decade traveling between the two closest stations on the network (according to the regular trivia thread), where a failure would result in a total collapse of the service....

 

[AM9]

not to mention the 319s spent over a decade traveling between the two closest stations on the network (according to the regular trivia thread), where a failure would result in a total collapse of the service....

Are they the two stations seperated by a 1:29 gradient?

 

[Bantamzen]

They are when the maintenance understands them. I can't remember Thameslink having anywhere near 25 of their 86 319s out of use resulting from random pattern failures. That includes right up to 2014 when they were all in far more intensive use than their NW duties demand.

I'm assuming that at least some training was offered by to the maintenance crews in the NW when the 319s started to migrate? If so perhaps some additional support might be needed until such time that they become familiar enough with them to keep them operating to requirements? And aside from being EMUs, is there anything in particular about the 319s that might need a bit more familiarity to help prevent these failures?

 

[AM9]

I'm assuming that at least some training was offered by to the maintenance crews in the NW when the 319s started to migrate? If so perhaps some additional support might be needed until such time that they become familiar enough with them to keep them operating to requirements? And aside from being EMUs, is there anything in particular about the 319s that might need a bit more familiarity to help prevent these failures?

Maybe if there have been significant failures on the thyristor drive control system, that should be addressed, but otherwise they are fairly conventional MKIII units like the 321s already with the northern area franchise.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Today's incident though was a fault with the OHL rather than unit fault though.....

The fault on 319377 was initially reported as loss of line light, then ADD activation (even though the unit was on the move unaided by then), then an errant dropper on the OLE (which may or may not have been like that before 319377 got there).

319366 and 319361 then had door faults.

319380 was 'failed' this morning for a "gangway treadplate issue".

Are they the two stations seperated by a 1:29 gradient?

1:37 I thought.

I'm assuming that at least some training was offered by to the maintenance crews in the NW when the 319s started to migrate? If so perhaps some additional support might be needed until such time that they become familiar enough with them to keep them operating to requirements? And aside from being EMUs, is there anything in particular about the 319s that might need a bit more familiarity to help prevent these failures?

Staff at Allerton have, apparently, had help from persons who previously worked on the 319s down south, though I don't know how much, but reports are that the units were 'modified' at Wolverton "to improve reliability" and require Guards to operate the doors from the public area rather than the rear cab.

 

[edwin_m]

TPE's class 350s were incredibly unreliable when first introduced, despite being in all key respects identical to the 350s on LM which have won various awards for reliability. Both sub-classes are maintained by Siemens.

Getting the local maintenance staff familiar with the units seems to make a huge difference.

 

[Bovverboy]

The fault on 319377 was initially reported as loss of line light, then ADD activation (even though the unit was on the move unaided by then), then an errant dropper on the OLE (which may or may not have been like that before 319377 got there).

I'm a bit new to the ins and outs of EMUs, so please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Line Light - a light in the cab which is illuminated when the pantograph is in contact with a live overhead wire
ADD - Automatic Dropping Device, drops the pantograph if a fault with the pantograph or overhead line is detected

The problem which delayed 319377 appears to have been with the overhead line rather than the pantograph, this is evidenced by the fact that, after having lost 65 minutes between Eccles and Newton-le-Willows, the unit then apparently ran at normal line speed between Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown. So if there was nothing wrong with the unit, why would the service need to be terminated at Earlestown? And what happened to it after that? (There's no further trace of it on Realtime Trains.)

The following '0738' Victoria to Lime Street (which I reckon would already be a double, being effectively the combined 0738 and 0802 Victoria departures - it didn't actually depart until 0813) was terminated at Newton-le-Willows. First instinct would be to suppose that it was terminated in order to go forward to assist 319377 - but the latter doesn't appear to have been in need of any assistance.
What happened to this presumed double after Newton-le-Willows? Here again, there's no trace of it on Realtime Trains.

After the 1021 ex-Lime Street was terminated at Broad Green, it subsequently moved again at 1055, operating as 5J30, 1055 ECS Broad Green to Victoria. Does anyone know in what circumstances a train needs to be ascribed a path and train description, and when it can be moved without those formalities?

 

[Class377/5]

TPE's class 350s were incredibly unreliable when first introduced, despite being in all key respects identical to the 350s on LM which have won various awards for reliability. Both sub-classes are maintained by Siemens.

Getting the local maintenance staff familiar with the units seems to make a huge difference.

The bath tub curve of failures of units (high at the start and end of life) at the start of introduction is often change. People get used to doing things one way. Plus it takes a while to get to know the quirks of a unit which doesn't help with failures.

 

[Loop & Link]

I'm a bit new to the ins and outs of EMUs, so please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Line Light - a light in the cab which is illuminated when the pantograph is in contact with a live overhead wire
ADD - Automatic Dropping Device, drops the pantograph if a fault with the pantograph or overhead line is detected

The problem which delayed 319377 appears to have been with the overhead line rather than the pantograph, this is evidenced by the fact that, after having lost 65 minutes between Eccles and Newton-le-Willows, the unit then apparently ran at normal line speed between Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown. So if there was nothing wrong with the unit, why would the service need to be terminated at Earlestown? And what happened to it after that? (There's no further trace of it on Realtime Trains.)

The following '0738' Victoria to Lime Street (which I reckon would already be a double, being effectively the combined 0738 and 0802 Victoria departures - it didn't actually depart until 0813) was terminated at Newton-le-Willows. First instinct would be to suppose that it was terminated in order to go forward to assist 319377 - but the latter doesn't appear to have been in need of any assistance.
What happened to this presumed double after Newton-le-Willows? Here again, there's no trace of it on Realtime Trains.

After the 1021 ex-Lime Street was terminated at Broad Green, it subsequently moved again at 1055, operating as 5J30, 1055 ECS Broad Green to Victoria. Does anyone know in what circumstances a train needs to be ascribed a path and train description, and when it can be moved without those formalities?

2J30 detrained passengers and had to detrain passengers to run with the EBS/TIS raised and go ECS as 5J30

 

[driver_m]

Guessing here even though it's been pointed out before. When they were down south they were often in 8/12 formation so would that have made a difference being able to at least run on half/two thirds power if one unit was broke. Now they're often on their own the problems can't be hidden as well. Are they simple units or complex ones?

 

[Class377/5]

Guessing here even though it's been pointed out before. When they were down south they were often in 8/12 formation so would that have made a difference being able to at least run on half/two thirds power if one unit was broke. Now they're often on their own the problems can't be hidden as well. Are they simple units or complex ones?

12 car 319s are banned in service and subject to a 75mph speed on AC and must only have two pans raised. They only operated in 4/8 cars with many 4 cars until the introduction of the 377/387s in recent years.

And for the record the 319s only have two motors so can only run with one set out if in an 8 car. Four car its out straight away on TL. (Rule is more than 51% of traction power so 50% fails that requirement).

 

[Carlisle]

12 car 319s are banned in service and subject to a 75mph speed on AC and must only have two pans raised. ).

I'm sure I can recall seeing a few 12car 319 services running on the Brighton main line in Connex days

 

[childwallblues]

Today's incident though was a fault with the OHL rather than unit fault though.....

Spot on there. The problem was I understand in the Manchester area. I caught the 0912 LIV-NCL to Victoria and there were two 319s in the sidings outside the station.

 

[Domh245]

I'm sure I can recall seeing a few 12car 319 services running on the Brighton main line in Connex days

They did exist - My understanding is that the 319/2 sub class were dedicated to the Brighton Express services. They were also not hindered by Pantograph contact issues (bypassing the 75mph speed limit) - the pantographs having been removed, and had guards on board to circumvent DOO issues.

 

[edwin_m]

And for the record the 319s only have two motors so can only run with one set out if in an 8 car. Four car its out straight away on TL. (Rule is more than 51% of traction power so 50% fails that requirement).

A 319 has four motors. I assume you intended to say two motor bogies, and that there are failures that will prevent both motors on one bogie operating.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm a bit new to the ins and outs of EMUs, so please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Line Light - a light in the cab which is illuminated when the pantograph is in contact with a live overhead wire....

When the unit is receiving power from somewhere.

....ADD - Automatic Dropping Device, drops the pantograph if a fault with the pantograph or overhead line is detected....

If memory serves, on a 319 the ADD is pretty basic, if the pan raises above a certain height, or if the 'head' becomes damaged, the air supply is lost and the pan lowers quickly, and it is not possible to raise the pan again without a 'fitter'.

....The problem which delayed 319377 appears to have been with the overhead line rather than the pantograph, this is evidenced by the fact that, after having lost 65 minutes between Eccles and Newton-le-Willows, the unit then apparently ran at normal line speed between Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown. So if there was nothing wrong with the unit, why would the service need to be terminated at Earlestown? And what happened to it after that? (There's no further trace of it on Realtime Trains.)....

The unit was restricted to 20mph from just outside Patricoft to Earlestown, at that point it was 'rescued' by another unit.

....The following '0738' Victoria to Lime Street (which I reckon would already be a double, being effectively the combined 0738 and 0802 Victoria departures - it didn't actually depart until 0813) was terminated at Newton-le-Willows....

I honestly don't know if it was a double, but only 4 car could be used to carry passengers due to platform lengths. I rather suspect the 0802 remained in the reversing siding at Vic to pick up a later working (the 1102 possibly).

....First instinct would be to suppose that it was terminated in order to go forward to assist 319377 - but the latter doesn't appear to have been in need of any assistance....

It is exactly why it was terminated. It would have taken a long time for 377 to get back to Liverpool at 20mph, and caused much disruption to other services.

....What happened to this presumed double after Newton-le-Willows? Here again, there's no trace of it on Realtime Trains....

It rescued 377.

After the 1021 ex-Lime Street was terminated at Broad Green, it subsequently moved again at 1055, operating as 5J30, 1055 ECS Broad Green to Victoria. Does anyone know in what circumstances a train needs to be ascribed a path and train description, and when it can be moved without those formalities?

Headcodes starting 1 or 2 are passenger trains, headcodes starting 3 and 5 are ECS workings. In both cases the former are classified 'express' workings. Since the train was no longer in service, it becomes a 5 headcode.

I'm sure I can recall seeing a few 12car 319 services running on the Brighton main line in Connex days

On DC, there are fewer restrictions, Also, I believe 12 car trains had Guards on them. 'Thameslink' services had many restrictions on use of 12 car trains, caused by provision of DOO equipment, platform lengths, number of pans raised at once and route restrictions.

 

[Bovverboy]

Originally Posted by Bovverboy
After the 1021 ex-Lime Street was terminated at Broad Green, it subsequently moved again at 1055, operating as 5J30, 1055 ECS Broad Green to Victoria. Does anyone know in what circumstances a train needs to be ascribed a path and train description, and when it can be moved without those formalities?

2J30 detrained passengers and had to detrain passengers to run with the EBS/TIS raised and go ECS as 5J30

That doesn't answer my question, but perhaps the answer is that a path and train description always have to be ascribed if a train is to move a significant distance along a line. There has to be a point where those things are not necessary, though.

In the event, the 319 which was terminated at Earlestown, and the following unit which was terminated at Newton-le-Willows, and which presumably provided the power for the complete ensemble, apparently continued to Lime Street as 5F29 (0915 ex-Earlestown, actual departure 0911), then to Allerton Depot as 5Z85 (0950 ex-Lime Street, actual departure 1007).

While we're on the subject of 2J30/5J30, I wonder if you could tell me what would be likely to be happening between 1030 (when 2J30 arrived at Broad Green) and 1055 (when it continued to Manchester Victoria). Twenty-five minutes seems an awfully long time to detrain a handful of passengers (and I doubt that there would have been many on a train departing Lime Street at 1021).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Maybe if there have been significant failures on the thyristor drive control system, that should be addressed, but otherwise they are fairly conventional MKIII units like the 321s already with the northern area franchise.

Though Allerton staff won't come into contact with 321s all that much...!

 

[Bovverboy]

Originally Posted by Bovverboy
....The following '0738' Victoria to Lime Street (which I reckon would already be a double, being effectively the combined 0738 and 0802 Victoria departures - it didn't actually depart until 0813) was terminated at Newton-le-Willows....

I honestly don't know if it was a double, but only 4 car could be used to carry passengers due to platform lengths. I rather suspect the 0802 remained in the reversing siding at Vic to pick up a later working (the 1102 possibly).

Yes, that's indeed what appears to have happened.

Originally Posted by Loop & Link
Today's incident though was a fault with the OHL rather than unit fault though.....

Spot on there. The problem was I understand in the Manchester area. I caught the 0912 LIV-NCL to Victoria and there were two 319s in the sidings outside the station.

The 319 nearest to Victoria would have been waiting to work the 1002 to Lime Street, having arrived with the 0820 from there. (I believe it had been scheduled to do 0816 Lime Street-Airport and 0940 return - both cancelled).

The second 319 would have been there to work the 1102 to Lime Street - presumably having remained at Victoria after cancellation of the 0802 journey.

 

[Class377/5]

I'm sure I can recall seeing a few 12car 319 services running on the Brighton main line in Connex days

South Central ran 12 cars on occasions with a guard,they never work this way on Thameslink.

A 319 has four motors. I assume you intended to say two motor bogies, and that there are failures that will prevent both motors on one bogie operating.

It has a two motor groups set up so it doesn't matter. Its still only two grouping so when one goes your on half power straight away. And to be fair I was trying to keep it simple.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....While we're on the subject of 2J30/5J30, I wonder if you could tell me what would be likely to be happening between 1030 (when 2J30 arrived at Broad Green) and 1055 (when it continued to Manchester Victoria). Twenty-five minutes seems an awfully long time to detrain a handful of passengers (and I doubt that there would have been many on a train departing Lime Street at 1021).

Fault finding and attempting to rectify, conversations with the signaller and operations control, decision making, checking everyone is off the train (there is potential for people to remain on the train otherwise) and probably more besides. Given that 2J28 (0920 LIV-MCV) had been cancelled there may have been a will to get the service moving if at all possible.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Oh yeah, it doesn't matter how many times you can make a PA announcement "this train terminates, all change, please leave the train, do not board, not for public use, the train on P7 will go first etc..." People will still board, people will still not detrain, they will still ask "is this the train to some obscure destination the traction and livery has never been....." And it takes time. Especially when you are ridiculously late and due to legal break requirements need dinner/toilet and going to delay the back working and your bait is still frozen with no time to reach the mess facilities! (1E79!)

 

[Bovverboy]

Originally Posted by Bovverboy
....While we're on the subject of 2J30/5J30, I wonder if you could tell me what would be likely to be happening between 1030 (when 2J30 arrived at Broad Green) and 1055 (when it continued to Manchester Victoria). Twenty-five minutes seems an awfully long time to detrain a handful of passengers (and I doubt that there would have been many on a train departing Lime Street at 1021).

Fault finding and attempting to rectify, conversations with the signaller and operations control, decision making, checking everyone is off the train (there is potential for people to remain on the train otherwise) and probably more besides. Given that 2J28 (0920 LIV-MCV) had been cancelled there may have been a will to get the service moving if at all possible.

Indeed, no-one wants to terminate a train, and it would take time to establish that doing that was the only option. I didn't think that one through far enough.

It seems a little suspicious, though, what happened to the train after arrival at Victoria. Arrives 1131, departs for reversing siding 1138, sets off back 1153 (into departure platform 1154). There's nothing there that looks greatly different from any other ex-Liverpool arrival, so, whatever the problem with the doors, it looks as though it didn't take long to fix. The train did leave Victoria 6L for no obvious reason, but I don't think that it would have been allowed into the departure platform had there still been a problem with the doors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by Bovverboy
....The problem which delayed 319377 appears to have been with the overhead line rather than the pantograph, this is evidenced by the fact that, after having lost 65 minutes between Eccles and Newton-le-Willows, the unit then apparently ran at normal line speed between Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown. So if there was nothing wrong with the unit, why would the service need to be terminated at Earlestown?

The unit was restricted to 20mph from just outside Patricoft to Earlestown, at that point it was 'rescued' by another unit.

There seems to have been a delay of about half an hour before the unit was allowed to continue to NLW at 20 mph. However, according to RTT, it then did NLW to Earlestown, start to stop, in two and a quarter minutes, which is pretty well what any other service train would have taken. That's what inspired me to assert that it ran at full line speed between those points. It certainly wasn't being pushed by 2F29, that was still the wrong side of Astley at the time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by Bovverboy
....First instinct would be to suppose that it was terminated in order to go forward to assist 319377 - but the latter doesn't appear to have been in need of any assistance....

It is exactly why it was terminated. It would have taken a long time for 377 to get back to Liverpool at 20mph, and caused much disruption to other services.

Sorry to challenge you on this one! Had 319377 continued from Earlestown to Lime Street at 20 mph it would have reached there c.0915, in the event it didn't get there until 0937.

There were probably other considerations taken into account.

 

[bengley]

12 car 319s are banned in service and subject to a 75mph speed on AC and must only have two pans raised. They only operated in 4/8 cars with many 4 cars until the introduction of the 377/387s in recent years.

And for the record the 319s only have two motors so can only run with one set out if in an 8 car. Four car its out straight away on TL. (Rule is more than 51% of traction power so 50% fails that requirement).

The pantograph restriction only applies to Stone Faiveley pantographs - if all three are Brecknell Willis they can run with all three up

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....It seems a little suspicious, though, what happened to the train after arrival at Victoria. Arrives 1131, departs for reversing siding 1138, sets off back 1153 (into departure platform 1154). There's nothing there that looks greatly different from any other ex-Liverpool arrival, so, whatever the problem with the doors, it looks as though it didn't take long to fix. The train did leave Victoria 6L for no obvious reason, but I don't think that it would have been allowed into the departure platform had there still been a problem with the doors....

There are 'fitters' at Victoria who may have traveled to the reversing siding with the unit, the fault may then have been fixed and the unit return to the station, only for the fault to return? Or another fault occur? Perhaps staff for the service were delayed elsewhere?

....There seems to have been a delay of about half an hour before the unit was allowed to continue to NLW at 20 mph. However, according to RTT, it then did NLW to Earlestown, start to stop, in two and a quarter minutes, which is pretty well what any other service train would have taken. That's what inspired me to assert that it ran at full line speed between those points. It certainly wasn't being pushed by 2F29, that was still the wrong side of Astley at the time....

What speed would the unit normally get to in that distance? Allowing for breaking in time for Earlestown of course. What sort of time difference would that incur?

Also, timing points aren't specifically at the station (though they can be), I doubt 319377 spent four minutes sat at Newton-le-Willows.

....Sorry to challenge you on this one! Had 319377 continued from Earlestown to Lime Street at 20 mph it would have reached there c.0915, in the event it didn't get there until 0937.

There were probably other considerations taken into account.

2F59, 1F05, 2F63 and 2F65 perhaps?

The pantograph restriction only applies to Stone Faiveley pantographs - if all three are Brecknell Willis they can run with all three up

That was not the instruction given to drivers when I was working down there.

 

[Bovverboy]

Originally Posted by Bovverboy
....There seems to have been a delay of about half an hour before the unit was allowed to continue to NLW at 20 mph. However, according to RTT, it then did NLW to Earlestown, start to stop, in two and a quarter minutes, which is pretty well what any other service train would have taken. That's what inspired me to assert that it ran at full line speed between those points. It certainly wasn't being pushed by 2F29, that was still the wrong side of Astley at the time....

Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
What speed would the unit normally get to in that distance? Allowing for breaking in time for Earlestown of course. What sort of time difference would that incur?

I should have said 'normal' line speed, rather than 'full' line speed. It wouldn't have reached 'full' line speed, but my point was that 319377 didn't take any longer to get from NLW to Earlestown than any other train would have done.

Originally Posted by Bovverboy
....Sorry to challenge you on this one! Had 319377 continued from Earlestown to Lime Street at 20 mph it would have reached there c.0915, in the event it didn't get there until 0937.

There were probably other considerations taken into account.

Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
2F59, 1F05, 2F63 AND 2F65 perhaps?

2F59, 1F05, and 2F63 would have been past Huyton long before 319377 could have got there (c.0900). Priority could have been given to 2F65 (0902 ex-Huyton), that would have given 319377 about a ten minute start on 1F06 (0915 ex-Huyton). The latter wouldn't have come anywhere near to catching the former by Lime Street.

Not that I think it would have been necessary to give preference to 2F65 anyway. With scheduled stops at Roby, Broad Green, Wavertree Technology Park, and Edge Hill, it wouldn't have been delayed by a 20 mph ECS (or non-stop passenger) working.