Reliability: TPE 350/4

[northwichcat]

One Edinburgh diagram is now showing as 6 cars instead of 8. A Cleethorpes diagram is now showing as "will now be formed of the usual number of coaches." I imagine the closure of Selby-Hull has meant it's easier to provide 2 x 185s to run the 8 car 350 diagram than usual without shortforming too many North/South TPE services.

Looks like this failed train: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34621/2014/08/01/advanced
Later ran ECS to Glasgow: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O20040/2014/08/01/advanced

And is now running this delayed service: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34300/2014/08/01/advanced

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

There can't be much difference in utilisation and operation between the LM 350s used between Euston and Crewe, and those used by TP between Manchester and Glasgow/Edinburgh.
Both are intensive diagrams of about 3 hours with plenty of 100/110mph running.
The LM operation doesn't seem to suffer from cancellations or short-forming.
Or maybe it is just not reported.

 

[northwichcat]

.
The LM operation doesn't seem to suffer from cancellations or short-forming.
Or maybe it is just not reported.

LM have 67 x 350s so if 90% are in service that's 7 not-in-service.

TPE have 10 x 350s so if 90% are in service that's 1 not-in-service.

Maybe only having the smaller number not-in-service makes it harder to cover problems without using DMUs to cover?

 

[edwin_m]

LM's service is also more peaky so they probably have scope to do maintenance on some units during the inter-peak and also to swap a set during the off-peak period. Once a TPE unit sets out from Ardwick it is on its own for six or seven hours.

Having said that the 350s are supposed to be some of the most reliable units in the country so it is difficult to understand why these ones seem to be having so many problems.

 

[fowler9]

LM have 67 x 350s so if 90% are in service that's 7 not-in-service.

TPE have 10 x 350s so if 90% are in service that's 1 not-in-service.

Maybe only having the smaller number not-in-service makes it harder to cover problems without using DMUs to cover?

True, economy of scale etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

LM's service is also more peaky so they probably have scope to do maintenance on some units during the inter-peak and also to swap a set during the off-peak period. Once a TPE unit sets out from Ardwick it is on its own for six or seven hours.

Having said that the 350s are supposed to be some of the most reliable units in the country so it is difficult to understand why these ones seem to be having so many problems.

LM run a service from Birmingham to Liverpool half hourly for most of the day. It isn't really a peaky service, they don't double up in the peak hours.

 

[edwin_m]

LM run a service from Birmingham to Liverpool half hourly for most of the day. It isn't really a peaky service, they don't double up in the peak hours.

True, but most of the fleet is on London commuter work. They have scope to put a unit on an easier diagram if it has a potential fault, or possibly to do a unit swap with a Birmingham-Northampton to get it back to depot. And if the worst happens there's another train half an hour later, unlike Glasgow and Edinburgh which only get Manchester trains every two hours each.

 

[Starmill]

The 1200 MIA - EDB was a pair of 185s yesterday - is that normal?

 

[fowler9]

True, but most of the fleet is on London commuter work. They have scope to put a unit on an easier diagram if it has a potential fault, or possibly to do a unit swap with a Birmingham-Northampton to get it back to depot. And if the worst happens there's another train half an hour later, unlike Glasgow and Edinburgh which only get Manchester trains every two hours each.

Yeah that is very true.

 

[al.currie93]

This definitely seems a bit of a blow for Siemens' reputation! And I agree with the post about it being the wrong train for the job.

 

[northwichcat]

The 1200 MIA - EDB was a pair of 185s yesterday - is that normal?

Yes. That's part of the Saturday diagram diagrammed for class 185 running: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34632/2014/08/03/advanced to allow more 8 car 350 operations.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The lack of spare units must be having a big impact, with LM having 7 spare (assuming 90% utilization), they can have a couple of units in the depot being looked over for any potential problems and still have a couple of spare units to cover breakdowns whereas TPE haven't got the spare units to do that.

 

[87015]

The lack of spare units must be having a big impact, with LM having 7 spare (assuming 90% utilization), they can have a couple of units in the depot being looked over for any potential problems and still have a couple of spare units to cover breakdowns whereas TPE haven't got the spare units to do that.

They certainly should have more than 90% peak utilisation, that would be very wasteful for such a fleet given the overcrowding out of Euston on 8 car trains let alone around Birmingham on 3 and 4 car units... Bletchley got far more out of the 321s, 95% is more the ballpark figure for a modern EMU fleet.

Then again, this is the same LM who don't want to pay to use the 350/3s until December.

 

[northwichcat]

Then again, this is the same LM who don't want to pay to use the 350/3s until December.

Is that LM or DfT? When Northern first got the cascaded LM 150s they only put 8 in to service straight away as direct replacement for the 180s and the 4 x 156s which left almost immediately after. The rest got put in to service at the following December timetable change. This was down to subsidy level not changing until the December timetable change. (LM is also a subsided franchise.)

 

[Silverlinky]

They certainly should have more than 90% peak utilisation, that would be very wasteful for such a fleet given the overcrowding out of Euston on 8 car trains let alone around Birmingham on 3 and 4 car units... Bletchley got far more out of the 321s, 95% is more the ballpark figure for a modern EMU fleet.

Then again, this is the same LM who don't want to pay to use the 350/3s until December.

I don't know if "not wanting to pay" is fair to say!! Its true they are cutting costs across the operation, but at the moment with the Summer timetable the same as last winters there is no need for the extra units at this time from a running perspective.
I'm sure that if they could have done they'd have delayed delivery of the units, but as they were being built by Siemens and coming off the production line then that wasn't an option....Siemens want their money after all!
So they get their money off Angel Trains....and then Angel want their money too so they lease the units to LM......LM's only saving grace is that they're not having to pay track access charges on them nor maintenance costs yet! But they are paying something,,,,and they've recouped some of these costs by subleasing to TPE.
I believe too that LM have only just started the traincrew training courses for the new units, so they've got time to train everyone up before December!

 

[sd0733]

I don't know if "not wanting to pay" is fair to say!! Its true they are cutting costs across the operation, but at the moment with the Summer timetable the same as last winters there is no need for the extra units at this time from a running perspective.
I'm sure that if they could have done they'd have delayed delivery of the units, but as they were being built by Siemens and coming off the production line then that wasn't an option....Siemens want their money after all!
So they get their money off Angel Trains....and then Angel want their money too so they lease the units to LM......LM's only saving grace is that they're not having to pay track access charges on them nor maintenance costs yet! But they are paying something,,,,and they've recouped some of these costs by subleasing to TPE.
I believe too that LM have only just started the traincrew training courses for the new units, so they've got time to train everyone up before December!

They told us they were entering service in December as per the agreement with the DfT so that could be read that they are only permitted by government to use them in December or it could mean that they are unwilling to pay any different than specified originally. However, I have been told (it could be a rumour however-you know what the messroom is like for those!) That once the TPE units are back and sufficient crews are competent on the /3s that one or two will come into service to release a /1 and /2 fleet for a rolling programme of GSMR fitting.
At my depot all the guards sign the units, by way of a brief, and most if not all the drivers sign them.

 

[Starmill]

Yes. That's part of the Saturday diagram diagrammed for class 185 running: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34632/2014/08/03/advanced to allow more 8 car 350 operations.

I observed the service on friday running 15 minutes late at Lancaster.

 

[harz99]

Interesting running on this service:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34640/2014/09/12

As far as I know despite being pathed as 185s it was 350s.

In any event the pair had electrical connection problems and needed splitting and recoupling at both Penrith and Lockerbie.

Local info tells me that the electrical connections between units were pretty dirty, and needed a makeshift clean to enable a better connection.

Could this be one of the problems, and could it be solved by each coupler being covered in a bag type thingy to protect from dirt ingress?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Interesting running on this service:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G34640/2014/09/12

As far as I know despite being pathed as 185s it was 350s.

In any event the pair had electrical connection problems and needed splitting and recoupling at both Penrith and Lockerbie.

Local info tells me that the electrical connections between units were pretty dirty, and needed a makeshift clean to enable a better connection.

Could this be one of the problems, and could it be solved by each coupler being covered in a bag type thingy to protect from dirt ingress?

What state was the retractable cover in that's supposed to protect the electrical connections?

 

[harz99]

What state was the retractable cover in that's supposed to protect the electrical connections?

Don't know as I wasn't there (I did say local info), but I have never noticed a unit without its cover in place when not coupled to another. Have to assume if the connections were dirty so would the cover be?

 

[northwichcat]

The 1109 Glasgow Central to Manchester Airport was terminated at Piccadilly today and the train was run to Ardwick due to a train fault. Not sure what unit is was. The 15:00 Manchester Airport to Glasgow was started from Piccadilly at 15:45 using a 185 that arrived from Ardwick with reservations being cancelled throughout.

 

[harz99]

Don't know as I wasn't there (I did say local info), but I have never noticed a unit without its cover in place when not coupled to another. Have to assume if the connections were dirty so would the cover be?

I checked again with the local people who were there and deffo was 2x350 and the cover was in place and filthy as were the contacts.

Notable that the pair worked back from EDB to MIA around 30' late throughout and apart from a 7-8 minute stop at CAR seem to have had little problem
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 1109 Glasgow Central to Manchester Airport was terminated at Piccadilly today and the train was run to Ardwick due to a train fault. Not sure what unit is was. The 15:00 Manchester Airport to Glasgow was started from Piccadilly at 15:45 using a 185 that arrived from Ardwick with reservations being cancelled throughout.

And got as far as Preston where it sits, presumably due to the job being stopped after a person hit by a train near Penrith.

 

[harz99]

The 0422 ex GLC was cancelled this morning due to a "defective train", we had a coach at 0550 from LOC to CAR which had been arranged at around 0100, so more shortage of stock. My journey was unaffected as we were changing down the line anyway to get to BHM.

 

[northwichcat]

Two Scottish diagrams appear to be operated by 3 car 185s today.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder why the problems with the /3s and /4s, when LM's 350/2s have won reliability awards year on year?

Neil

 

[ainsworth74]

My suspicion is that Ardwick are still getting used to the type as are the train crews. So the people maintaining them aren't yet fully clued up on how to keep them in tip top condition in the same way that LM depots are. Also both train crew and depot staff are probably erring on the side of caution when it comes to faults. So a minor fault that down in LM land would still see a unit in service because everyone knows that this is absolutely fine might well be given much more serious treatment by staff that are new to the type.

Either that or Siemens forgot how to build 350s...

 

[Wolfie]

I wonder why the problems with the /3s and /4s, when LM's 350/2s have won reliability awards year on year?

Neil

Maintenance? Thus far the 350/3s were operated by TPE and subject to their maintenence regime (Siemens but used to dealing with diesels ie 185s). It will be very interesting to see how the 350/3s perform when in regular operation with LM and maintained by the same folk achieving the high figures for 350/2s (and indeed 350/1s)....

 

[northwichcat]

The 350/4s were needed in service almost straight away. With the 350/3s they've not all been rushed in to service so maybe if any teething problems are noticed they'd fix them before being introduced on LM routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maintenance? Thus far the 350/3s were operated by TPE and subject to their maintenence regime (Siemens but used to dealing with diesels ie 185s). It will be very interesting to see how the 350/3s perform when in regular operation with LM and maintained by the same folk achieving the high figures for 350/2s (and indeed 350/1s)....

I don't see why they shouldn't be as good as LM's other 350s, as they are near enough identical.

Neil

 

[87015]

I don't see why they shouldn't be as good as LM's other 350s, as they are near enough identical.

Neil

They are actually diagrammed hard at TPE though, not sat around to be mollycuddled on shed like LM making excuses why not to pay for strengthened services...

 

[Starmill]

They've been delivered for a whole year now too. How long does it take to get a sound maintenance regime sorted?