Reliability: TPE 350/4

[northwichcat]

As others have pointed out, the mayhem caused particularly north of the border by a fleat of 10 new trains that were ordered partly for there abilitty to work streight out of the box is worrying.

The real reason for TPE having 350/4s is because LM wanted EMUs that are compatible with their existing EMUs and nothing other than a 350 is compatiable with a 350. TPE's new trains got added on to the LM order as 40 carriages was deemed too small a quantity to warrant an order.

However, the public image TPE wanted to put across is statistically the 350/2s are the most reliable sub-fleet of trains so they ordered a fleet of trains of the most reliable model but with a modified interior for 'Intercity' style journeys.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But is it the trains or the OLE?

Well there's currently an overhead failure between Carlisle and Scotland which is causing cancellations and early termination of services but one TPE Edinburgh service which was unaffected by the overhead failures is showing as having left Manchester Airport late and then getting later en-route due to a train fault.

 

[sd0733]

The LM 350s seem to be having a bit of a dip in reliability at the moment too. On our cancellations reports each day there's quite often a 350 fault or 3 causing delays or cancellations whereas at one time it was very unusual to have any issues. By and large thought they still seem pretty reliable units.

 

[Wolfie]

The real reason for TPE having 350/4s is because LM wanted EMUs that are compatible with their existing EMUs and nothing other than a 350 is compatiable with a 350. TPE's new trains got added on to the LM order as 40 carriages was deemed too small a quantity to warrant an order.

As far as I am aware this is at best partially correct. There was an existing option in the LM contract which could be, and was, utilised. The alternative would have been a full procurement competition for TPE which would have taken much, much longer (and likely, as the legal work etc is much the same regardless of contract order size, wholly cost-ineffective - the latter might be what you meant above) .....

 

[Starmill]

Major delays tonight north of Carlisle, was due to travel on 1840 Glasgow C - Preston changing for Manchester, going now via Edinburgh.

Wires brought down I'll be surprised if it wasn't a 350

 

[harz99]

Major delays tonight north of Carlisle, was due to travel on 1840 Glasgow C - Preston changing for Manchester, going now via Edinburgh.

Wires brought down I'll be surprised if it wasn't a 350

Not sure what, if any, type involved. The problem appears to be between Carlisle and Gretna Junction as it's also affecting the GSW via Dumfries services.

The 1200 off MIA made it through without adding much to its deficit:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34633/2014/07/09

The next northbound service was cancelled at Carlisle:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y81888/2014/07/09

But southbound were passing the problem area okay:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y81771/2014/07/09

Unless anyone has actual knowledge I guess that's the best we can do.

And National Rail are saying no service for rest of day, hope they can get things running again for the morning!

 

[cjmillsnun]

The real reason for TPE having 350/4s is because LM wanted EMUs that are compatible with their existing EMUs and nothing other than a 350 is compatiable with a 350. TPE's new trains got added on to the LM order as 40 carriages was deemed too small a quantity to warrant an order.

hmmm, 360, 444 and 450 anyone?

I know technically the 360s are supposed to be "within class only" and the 444/450s would require pantos and transformers, however they are all effectively the same train.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Probably the only real difference will be the orientation of the mechanical and electrical aspects of the coupler head. What's the main class number where the TPE 350s are maintained?

 

[sd0733]

Not sure what, if any, type involved. The problem appears to be between Carlisle and Gretna Junction as it's also affecting the GSW via Dumfries services.

The 1200 off MIA made it through without adding much to its deficit:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34633/2014/07/09

The next northbound service was cancelled at Carlisle:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y81888/2014/07/09

But southbound were passing the problem area okay:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y81771/2014/07/09

Unless anyone has actual knowledge I guess that's the best we can do.

And National Rail are saying no service for rest of day, hope they can get things running again for the morning!

1S58 11:30 euston-glasgow was the culprit with a 390 (pretty sure said 119) being the unit involved. Due to the amount of damage the arm of pantograph had to be cut off the unit and a 57 summoned to drag it back to Polmadie. Line handback is expected at 05:00.

 

[harz99]

1S58 11:30 euston-glasgow was the culprit with a 390 (pretty sure said 119) being the unit involved. Due to the amount of damage the arm of pantograph had to be cut off the unit and a 57 summoned to drag it back to Polmadie. Line handback is expected at 05:00.

Thanks for that. At least this time it wasn't a 350/4!

 

[Blindtraveler]

So all sleapers Canx tonight? Or 67 hauled to/from CAR? Sorry Off Topic

 

[chris89]

So all sleapers Canx tonight? Or 67 hauled to/from CAR? Sorry Off Topic

Going by Scotrail Twitter they are all Cancelled.

https://twitter.com/ScotRail/status/486942593994227712
https://twitter.com/ScotRail/status/486942871669706752
https://twitter.com/ScotRail/status/486943070538452992

Last one says they are acting as stationary Hotels at Euston, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

Chris

 

[northwichcat]

hmmm, 360, 444 and 450 anyone?

I know technically the 360s are supposed to be "within class only" and the 444/450s would require pantos and transformers, however they are all effectively the same train.

Well you're moving the goalposts there. You could probably modify the 323s to be compatible with 350s but as it stands they aren't compatible with each other, likewise a 444 or 450 could not run in multiple with a 350 as it stands. The 350/1 are converted 450s.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Well you're moving the goalposts there. You could probably modify the 323s to be compatible with 350s but as it stands they aren't compatible with each other, likewise a 444 or 450 could not run in multiple with a 350 as it stands. The 350/1 are converted 450s.

If 450s, 350s and 444s had both pans (and transformers) and shoes, what would stand in the way of them being used with each other?

 

[sd0733]

Doubt there would be anything really. A 350 with a pan and dc technically already exists as a 350/1 so fit a pan to a 450 and you've basically got a 350 again, 444s work with 450s so can't see why they wouldn't work together. May need a software tweak or two but that would probably be all.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Doubt there would be anything really. A 350 with a pan and dc technically already exists as a 350/1 so fit a pan to a 450 and you've basically got a 350 again, 444s work with 450s so can't see why they wouldn't work together. May need a software tweak or two but that would probably be all.

Would 444s and 450s if converted to dual voltage need a few switchs added to the cab (raise/lower pantograph, input select, etc)?

 

[northwichcat]

If 450s, 350s and 444s had both pans (and transformers) and shoes, what would stand in the way of them being used with each other?

As I said the goalposts have been moved since I made a comment. Siemens would not have been able to offer LM an AC version of the 444 2-3 years ago as they had thrown away the jigs, while a 450 which can run on overheads is a 350. Therefore, the options were 350s, 380s or Desiro Cities with only 350s compatible with EMUs already in the LM fleet.

 

[Class377/5]

As I said the goalposts have been moved since I made a comment. Siemens would not have been able to offer LM an AC version of the 444 2-3 years ago as they had thrown away the jigs, while a 450 which can run on overheads is a 350. Therefore, the options were 350s, 380s or Desiro Cities with only 350s compatible with EMUs already in the LM fleet.

The 380 is a AC 444 really, just an updated design so Siemens could have offered a AC 44 variant 2-3 years ago as they offered it up 5 years ago to Scotrail.

Stating the 350/450 etc are not compatable then you have to accept the 377/6 and /7's were not compatable with the rest of the 377 fleet as they have required a software change. Indeed all 377s on Thameslink are not compatable with Southern units due to software issues (can only couple in an emergency) so its not changing the goalpost but being truthful as the units are mouldar designed and can easily work togther if required.

 

[northwichcat]

Stating the 350/450 etc are not compatable

For crying out loud I was talking about what Siemens could have offered LM that are compatible with their existing EMUs. Which routes are you, SpacePhoenix and cjmillsnun proposing LM could run with DC only 450s? If it's none then I don't see why they were brought up in the first place!

 

[beano900]

Well TPE introduced a number of 350/4 diagrams from the May timetable change and almost every day either the 8 car 350/4 diagram runs as 4 cars or a 185 (nabbed off North TPE) fills in for a 350/4 or both. Today the unit which should be strengthening the 14:50 Scarborough-Liverpool service from Leeds onwards has been taken to replace a failed 350 on the 14:00 Airport-Edinburgh and 18:13 Edinburgh-Airport.

I wondered where the other half of 'my' train keeps disappearing to! So, the 'train fault' that they use as the excuse for the short formation is actually a fault with these fancy new trains?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[starrymarkb]

As I said the goalposts have been moved since I made a comment. Siemens would not have been able to offer LM an AC version of the 444 2-3 years ago as they had thrown away the jigs,

If LM wanted enough 444 derivatives they could easily make new jigs quick enough. The plans will be archived.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

For crying out loud I was talking about what Siemens could have offered LM that are compatible with their existing EMUs. Which routes are you, SpacePhoenix and cjmillsnun proposing LM could run with DC only 450s? If it's none then I don't see why they were brought up in the first place!

Stick a transformer and a pan on a 450 and you've basically got a 350 (if I remember correctly from elsewhere the 350/1s were originally an order of 450s for SWT but got diverted to LM. If a transformer and pan were installed on a 444 I can't see why they wouldn't happily work with a 350 (apart from maybe the couplers being the other way around.

If LM were to order an AC version of the 444s (with the new style cab to meet crash regs), they could use the new 444 derivitives for fast trains, a mix of them and 350s for semi-fast and 350s for stoppers (possibly use all 350s for peek-time trains to get the maximum number of people onboard).

 

[fowler9]

Well TPE introduced a number of 350/4 diagrams from the May timetable change and almost every day either the 8 car 350/4 diagram runs as 4 cars or a 185 (nabbed off North TPE) fills in for a 350/4 or both. Today the unit which should be strengthening the 14:50 Scarborough-Liverpool service from Leeds onwards has been taken to replace a failed 350 on the 14:00 Airport-Edinburgh and 18:13 Edinburgh-Airport.

Cheers mate, you've just explained why I chose not to catch that service from South Parkway to Lime Street. I thought that was normally 2 units so when one turned up absolutely rammed I decided to swerve it. Tis needs to be sorted because, as is obvious it isn't just people on the routes they are meant to serve that are being affected (Not that I mean my journey of some 10 minutes was a major issue, didn't bother me, felt bad for anyone on that Scarborough Liverpool though).

 

[sd0733]

Stick a transformer and a pan on a 450 and you've basically got a 350 (if I remember correctly from elsewhere the 350/1s were originally an order of 450s for SWT but got diverted to LM. If a transformer and pan were installed on a 444 I can't see why they wouldn't happily work with a 350 (apart from maybe the couplers being the other way around.

If LM were to order an AC version of the 444s (with the new style cab to meet crash regs), they could use the new 444 derivitives for fast trains, a mix of them and 350s for semi-fast and 350s for stoppers (possibly use all 350s for peek-time trains to get the maximum number of people onboard).

Was never going to happen for a little fleet of 10 trains though. Standardisation was always going to win hence more 350s.

 

[harz99]

More 350/4 problems today resulting in another large chunk of service caped and various pax inconvenienced.

0812 ex EDB started on time, -1 ex LOC, -21 ex CAR, -27 ex PRE, -39 ex WGN, -50 at Man where it was caped at 1217.

Rtn working of 1200 ex MIA caped to MAN, started MAN at 1238 -22, and ran to LAN where it was caped at 1340 -26.

A coach which I travelled on was provided from CAR at 1415, LOC 1500, EDB ?? I assume it worked back to at least LOC at some time after 1612.

1612 ex EDB caped to PRE, started PRE 1847 and arrived MIA 1932 -5.
Rtn working of 2000 to EDB left 2002 -2, lost a few minutes en route to LOC, where it departed -8, and finally arrived EDB -1. Whether or not this was the same unit as had problems earlier I don't know.

 

[harz99]

Another day when doubled up 350/4s develop problems en route:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34621/2014/08/01/advanced

By all accounts several 8 car workings have been reduced to 4 cars with some diesel substitutions today as well.

I find it intriguing that the paired LM/FTPE sets seem to be operating perfectly okay, could that be simply because they are never split from each other?

 

[Blindtraveler]

I dont know, but iether way I think its safe to say that my prognostications back in 2011 that we have the wrong train for the job have been proven and its unfare not just on WCML Customers but the users of North TPE Core who quite frankly are having the **** taken out of them.

 

[northwichcat]

Another day when doubled up 350/4s develop problems en route:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34621/2014/08/01/advanced

By all accounts several 8 car workings have been reduced to 4 cars with some diesel substitutions today as well.

I find it intriguing that the paired LM/FTPE sets seem to be operating perfectly okay, could that be simply because they are never split from each other?

12 services currently showing as short formations, pretty much all either 4 coaches instead of 8 on Scottish services or 2 coaches instead of 4 on Selby services.

http://www.journeycheck.com/tpexpress

 

[Blindtraveler]

Are these all 350 related do you think or are the 170s becoming alergic to the heat again?

 

[harz99]

Are these all 350 related do you think or are the 170s becoming alergic to the heat again?

350s I think. I believe some are out of hours for maintenance; as an aside I see 350405 still has the large scar on one of the cab sides unrepaired.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Hmmm. I dont know enough about the maintainance side really but could this have been avoided?