Ran out of fuel..?

[TDK]

And another one...Reports of 168111 having run out of fuel at Hatton whilst working the 07:35 from Stratford-upon-Avon.

It would be unusual for all 3 or 4 engines to run out of fuel at the same time though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They have a viewing glass on the fuel tank. You cant see it from in the cab, but it is there. The fitter will probably be relying on the overnight departure sheet to see how many miles are on the clock (so to speak) and it is fleet rather than the fitter on the ground who decide whether the train gets fuelled or not.

Something desperately needs to be done about the fuelling points at Chiltern though. Having Aylesbury and Wembley attempt to do everything clearly isnt working.

Chiltern could utilise Becot and Tyseley if a plan was put in place. The only solution with the 67's in my opinion would be to fuel them every time they went on Wembley, this in turn would prevent any 67 running out of fuel, however the logistics of this could be difficult with the capacity at Wembley already being high.

 

[Focalplane]

I was on the train, joining it at Warwick Parkway when it was running about 4 minutes late. The train was cold and the manager explained that the heating had been switched off at Moor Street to save energy.

The train went well through to Gerrards Cross though did appear to slow down more than usual through Princes Risborough.

It appeared to stop at Gerrards Cross as if at a signal. I doubt if it coasted in.

The Train Manager made the announcement that the engine had run out of fuel. After ten minutes we were told to detrain and move to the Up Platform, along with the local commuters, and were most were able to board the "sardine can" to Marylebone. I had to talk my way on as I had a connection with Eurostar.

Very disappointing as Chiltern's new service is slipping down hill after a very good start.

 

[TDK]

I was on the train, joining it at Warwick Parkway when it was running about 4 minutes late. The train was cold and the manager explained that the heating had been switched off at Moor Street to save energy.

The train went well through to Gerrards Cross though did appear to slow down more than usual through Princes Risborough.

It appeared to stop at Gerrards Cross as if at a signal. I doubt if it coasted in.

The Train Manager made the announcement that the engine had run out of fuel. After ten minutes we were told to detrain and move to the Up Platform, along with the local commuters, and were most were able to board the "sardine can" to Marylebone. I had to talk my way on as I had a connection with Eurostar.

Very disappointing as Chiltern's new service is slipping down hill after a very good start.

Maybe some confusion here - the heating had been switched off overnight and had not been switched on when the set came off the sidings, the heating was switched on after Solihull.

The train was running poorly from Leamington Spa and this was probably the reason for the slowing at Princes Risborough as the driver could have stopped there to investigate the problem however the engine righted itself and the driver continued as the fuel meter on the computer was still showning 300l plus of fuel the engine shut down just after High Wycombe and coasted from Seer Green to Gerrards cross as the drivers quick thinking and route knowledge told him that Gerrards Cross would be the best option to detrain passengers and keep a service running using the down line for both up and down trains, it was at this point that there was the thought of low fuel. You cannot blame anyone in particular or really Chiltern for a malfunctioning fuel sensor, it is the same as you getting in your car and the reading is a quarter of a tank and you run out of fuel I suppose.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Chiltern could utilise Becot and Tyseley if a plan was put in place. The only solution with the 67's in my opinion would be to fuel them every time they went on Wembley, this in turn would prevent any 67 running out of fuel, however the logistics of this could be difficult with the capacity at Wembley already being high.

Absolutely. I cant see Bescot being a solution due to lack of route knowledge, it isnt worth training an entire depot up to sign the yard and giving them a road refresh day to keep up knowledge of the place. Having a handful of drivers who do sign the place might be a short term solution but it is never good when relying on such a small number of people both from the company point of view (people being available) and the bad feeling it might cause amongst the rest of the depot in question.

Tyseley makes much more sense, but then one of the big reasons the Birmingham crew moved to Moor Street was to get away from Tyseley. I am sure you are aware of the number of problems and incidents at Tyseley and why Chiltern wanted out. A new fuelling point en route would be the best solution in my opinion. Whether it is at Stourbridge or Banbury or wherever isnt that much of an issue, but something needs to be done.

 

[Focalplane]

As a passenger on the train with connections to make to Europe I found the explanations honest and informative. I was certainly not confused by what was going on, but definitely disappointed, having shelled out £51 for the privilege of standing, holding my luggage, in a vestibule with my face pressed against a route map that was too close for me to read, being a long-sighted pensioner. In such circumstances, Gerrards Cross is quite a long way from Marylebone.

 

[Pumbaa]

You cannot blame anyone in particular or really Chiltern for a malfunctioning fuel sensor, it is the same as you getting in your car and the reading is a quarter of a tank and you run out of fuel I suppose.

Umm - yes we can blame. Credit to the driver for stopping at a sensible place, but a big finger wag a) to Chiltern not having adequate stabling and fuelling facilities, b) either a failure of maintenance on Chilterns behalf for a dodgy dial or c) the crap installation of the fuel gauge by either DBS, Chiltern or CAF.

 

[TDK]

As a passenger on the train with connections to make to Europe I found the explanations honest and informative. I was certainly not confused by what was going on, but definitely disappointed, having shelled out £51 for the privilege of standing, holding my luggage, in a vestibule with my face pressed against a route map that was too close for me to read, being a long-sighted pensioner. In such circumstances, Gerrards Cross is quite a long way from Marylebone.

Yes indeed, I can well imagine how your journey must have been, but in hind sight the train would have not been abale to reach any other point that was any use to passengers, by stopping at Gerrards Cross at least passengers were able to get to London instead of sitting on a train between stations. It's not only the fuel that is a factor on the distance/time a train can coast it is also the air in the main reservoir tank, if this drops below a certain level the brakes apply and that is the end of the journey, the engine provides the air via a compressor when it is running and uses air for many of it's systems, so really I think Gerrards Cross was the only option as any further and the air could have well dropped below it's operating pressure..

 

[barrykas]

Tyseley makes much more sense, but then one of the big reasons the Birmingham crew moved to Moor Street was to get away from Tyseley. I am sure you are aware of the number of problems and incidents at Tyseley and why Chiltern wanted out. A new fuelling point en route would be the best solution in my opinion. Whether it is at Stourbridge or Banbury or wherever isnt that much of an issue, but something needs to be done.

It has been known for Chiltern to request Stourbridge to carry out fuelling and CET tanking on outstabled units before...though that means paying London Midland to do so of course. Ideally, there'd be a fuelling road at Banbury to cover the "middle" of the route, with the added benefit of allowing other TOCs (and FOCs) to refuel there to recoup some of the costs.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[TDK]

Umm - yes we can blame. Credit to the driver for stopping at a sensible place, but a big finger wag a) to Chiltern not having adequate stabling and fuelling facilities, b) either a failure of maintenance on Chilterns behalf for a dodgy dial or c) the crap installation of the fuel gauge by either DBS, Chiltern or CAF.

The sensor could have been the original and things like sensors fail from time to time and to predict a failure of a sensor is an impossible task, stabling is available at many places but Birmingham is the best option for the loco hauled sets starting from there, the cleaning, the prepping and also for security. As for fuelling, Chiltern have managed for a long time with the fuelling points they have at Wembley and Aylesbury and also using Tyseley on an AD HOC basis. To install a fuel point is not an easy procedure,

a. Environmental issues
b. access to site
c. Cost
d. Planning permissions.

I would imagine that lessons have been learnt from this unfortunate failure and will be addressed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It has been known for Chiltern to request Stourbridge to carry out fuelling and CET tanking on outstabled units before...though that means paying London Midland to do so of course. Ideally, there'd be a fuelling road at Banbury to cover the "middle" of the route, with the added benefit of allowing other TOCs (and FOCs) to refuel there to recoup some of the costs.

Cheers,

Barry

I didn't think there was a fuelling point at Stourbridge Barry!

 

[barrykas]

I didn't think there was a fuelling point at Stourbridge Barry!

Could've sworn there was, though I may have misread the relevant paperwork and it's just CET, with units going to Wembley for fuel after they get into London. And I forgot Stourbridge was a Chiltern facility, not London Midland. Mea culpa.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It has been known for Chiltern to request Stourbridge to carry out fuelling and CET tanking on outstabled units before...though that means paying London Midland to do so of course. Ideally, there'd be a fuelling road at Banbury to cover the "middle" of the route, with the added benefit of allowing other TOCs (and FOCs) to refuel there to recoup some of the costs.

Cheers,

Barry

There is no fuel road at Stoubridge. There is room for a fuel derek, and there is a permenant CET facility, which like the rest of Stourbridge yard is staffed and managed by Chiltern. LM/Central have stabled units there in the past, the old Stourbridge town car used to stable there regularly when it was heavy rail and of course they (Central at the time) would have to pay Chiltern for that, not vice versa.

 

[Schnellzug]

Mmmm...I have seen a vid on you tube, or somewhere, of a Dubdee (sorry younguns, a steam engine) with a rake of coal empties, crawling through Wakefield (their stronghold) having plainly run out of coal...it is great to see, but importantly it was still running, OK at about 5 mph.

If I can find the link!

That happened to Dominion of New Zealand just a little while ago ...

 

[HSTEd]

Short of topping up every train after every run there isnt much that can be done to stop this from happening due to sensor failure.

EDIT:

I imagine there are insurmountable fire hazard issues with actually installing fueling equipment at Marylebone or Moor Street?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

There isnt space at Marylebone. Moor Street is a bit tight too, and that is before you consider the location of both stations. One is in central London, the other is 50 yards from the Bullring, which is the busiest shopping centre in the country. Large amounts of fuel being stored at or piped into either location is going to be almost impossible to get permission for.

The London end isnt too bad. Wembley is in a decent place from an operational point of view and maybe it could have done with a third fuel road (it has two at the moment with little room for expansion because of where the shed was built in the yard) but if that is supported by something else then it will be fine. Banbury is the obvious place, there is a lot of room there even if it means messing about with where units get stabled overnight but I think a lot of the industrial land by the station (known locally as the Tramway) is going to turned into housing, probably to capitalise on its close proximity to the station as Banbury is an excellent commuter town for London and Birmingham and if that goes ahead then it will probably put the kibosh on any plans for a fuel road there. Stourbridge is the other place, there is a lot of room there but does the fact that only about a quarter of drivers at Chiltern actually sign the route to Stourbridge present a problem?

I have to stress that this is all just idle speculation on my part, but then if this is not the correct forum or thread to speculate such stuff then I dont know where is.

 

[Schnellzug]

Short of topping up every train after every run there isnt much that can be done to stop this from happening due to sensor failure.

EDIT:

I imagine there are insurmountable fire hazard issues with actually installing fueling equipment at Marylebone or Moor Street?

there used to be a DMU depot at Mary le b, didn't there, until it was redeveloped?

 

[hougtimo]

I think it is calculated on miles rather than hours.

So what if a unit gets in a massive delay somewhere and is idling for hours...?

 

[GB]

Umm - yes we can blame. Credit to the driver for stopping at a sensible place, but a big finger wag a) to Chiltern not having adequate stabling and fuelling facilities, b) either a failure of maintenance on Chilterns behalf for a dodgy dial or c) the crap installation of the fuel gauge by either DBS, Chiltern or CAF.

Your joking right?

 

[RPM]

there used to be a DMU depot at Mary le b, didn't there, until it was redeveloped?

That's right. I believe the land sale provided a lot of the money for the NSE Total Route Modernisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what if a unit gets in a massive delay somewhere and is idling for hours...?

Not really my area, but I would assume there is a margin allowed for idling.

 

[Pumbaa]

Your joking right?

No I'm not - the railways are not exempt from criticism when they muck up.

TDK has already pointed toward that c) was the attributable factor and other staff have acknowledged that the stabling and fuelling facilities are being saturated with stock, meaning that stock doesn't get refuelled as regularly.

Things fail yes, and if CAF/DBS/Angel know that the fuel sensors will wear out or stop working after so many years, they are at fault for not either instigating a programme of sensor replacement or replacing them with sensors that do work for longer. Either way they both mitigate a problem.

The crux of it is that even though it is an unfortunate and rare accident, there is still a causal factor(s) and those parties responsible (either Chiltern, DBS, Angel or CAF) should bear that responsibility, not just shrug it off.

 

[junglejames]

TDK has already pointed toward that c) was the attributable factor and other staff have acknowledged that the stabling and fuelling facilities are being saturated with stock, meaning that stock doesn't get refuelled as regularly.

Things fail yes, and if CAF/DBS/Angel know that the fuel sensors will wear out or stop working after so many years, they are at fault for not either instigating a programme of sensor replacement or replacing them with sensors that do work for longer. Either way they both mitigate a problem.

But do they know how frequently they will fail? Has it happened before? perhaps there is no set pattern to when they fail (this being very likely).
Whilst some failures could be stopped with better maintenance, certain things will be very difficult to stop, and its a tad unfair to blame the TOC for it. This may just be one of those cases.
As for fuelling points though. Well that is the fault of the TOC. They need another fuelling point. Allowing the locomotive to get down to just 300 litres is daft.

 

[150219]

Not really my area, but I would assume there is a margin allowed for idling.

Yes, sir. There is indeed. The most recent case where I can remember trains being left running for a continuous period was during the snow fall last winter, where some units were "trapped" for three days.

Allowing the locomotive to get down to just 300 litres is daft.

Without wishing to upset the apple cart, it isn't daft. If 300 litres is enough to get a train from 'a' to 'b' then that is a sufficient quantity. Getting to zero litres and having prior conscious knowledge of that fact would be daft, but that isn't the case.

 

[fgwrich]

Can i just ask, Where does CAF come into this? As the 67s were built by Almost / Alstom....Rather than CAF!

 

[RPM]

Didn't they assemble them under sub contract to Alstom or did I imagine that?

 

[Schnellzug]

Can i just ask, Where does CAF come into this? As the 67s were built by Almost / Alstom....Rather than CAF!

They were built by Meinfesa at Valencia which was a subsidiary of Alstom, I believe. Now I think it's been sold again to Vossloh. CAF is a separate company, based in Beasain in the Basque Country.

 

[fgwrich]

Hence as to why Vosslohs Eurolight range of locos is based upon the design of the then Alstom designed 67 -It's just been re-designed and built upon really...

 

[GB]

No I'm not - the railways are not exempt from criticism when they muck up.

TDK has already pointed toward that c) was the attributable factor and other staff have acknowledged that the stabling and fuelling facilities are being saturated with stock, meaning that stock doesn't get refuelled as regularly.

Things fail yes, and if CAF/DBS/Angel know that the fuel sensors will wear out or stop working after so many years, they are at fault for not either instigating a programme of sensor replacement or replacing them with sensors that do work for longer. Either way they both mitigate a problem.

The crux of it is that even though it is an unfortunate and rare accident, there is still a causal factor(s) and those parties responsible (either Chiltern, DBS, Angel or CAF) should bear that responsibility, not just shrug it off.

So if you had a car that you regularly maintained at the correct service intervals you would then blame yourself if your car then developed a faulty sensor in between the services?

How are CAF/DBS/Angel supposed to know if something is about to fail (or has failed) if there are no warning signs or the item is well within its life cycle? Should every part be replaced "just in case" dramatically pushing up costs?

I am also struggling to see where TDK wrote that cost is the "attributable factor" in this incident.

 

[TDK]

They were built by Meinfesa at Valencia which was a subsidiary of Alstom, I believe. Now I think it's been sold again to Vossloh. CAF is a separate company, based in Beasain in the Basque Country.

Only the bogies were designed and are of Alstom origin as the Americans could not design a bogie for a loco capable of 125mph running, it is a shame the bogie was not a co-co as more HP and also a lower RA would have been a lot better. The 67 is a GM loco with Alstom bogies I believe