Reliability: TPE 350/4

[SpacePhoenix]

If all trains were switch over to using LED bulbs, how many extra hours could they get out of the emergency lighting?

 

[Starmill]

The 0700 Manchester Airport to Glasgow Central is being operated by a 185 this morning, and it originated at Manchester Piccadilly today.

 

[Blindtraveler]

That'll be fun, NOT!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would have thought that one a bit early to be busy for a Saturday?

Neil

 

[thealexweb]

I am regretting booking with Transpennine between Edinburgh and Bolton before and after Christmas. I doubt I will get my reserved seat

 

[harz99]

I am regretting booking with Transpennine between Edinburgh and Bolton before and after Christmas. I doubt I will get my reserved seat

Why? I always make sure I'm in plenty of time, suss out which platform the unit is on (even if not indicated there is only one FTPE train at EDB at one time) and go and stand by the doors appropriate for your seat. Works for me.

Oh, and if you have a reservation in coach D, hope it isn't a single 185! (The clever people at FTPE HQ swapped a few reservable seats between C and D after 13th October).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would have thought that one a bit early to be busy for a Saturday?

Neil

Can be very busy as the preceding Glasgow service from stations Preston on wards is 78' earlier. Often almost full on arrival Lockerbie 0929, and certainly on departure.

Those of us "in the know" would probably use one of the two later Virgin services for Glasgow, but the ordinary traveller doesn't think like that.:roll:

 

[thealexweb]

Why? I always make sure I'm in plenty of time, suss out which platform the unit is on (even if not indicated there is only one FTPE train at EDB at one time) and go and stand by the doors appropriate for your seat. Works for me.

Oh, and if you have a reservation in coach D, hope it isn't a single 185! (The clever people at FTPE HQ swapped a few reservable seats between C and D

I too take precautions of arriving in plenty of time and thinking through which door to stand in front of. Its factors beyond my control that I am concerned about e.g. shortforming, no seat reservations put out, etc.

And I just checked, none of my seat reservations are in Coach D.

 

[Starmill]

Would have thought that one a bit early to be busy for a Saturday?

Neil

It was on that trip, plenty of available seats on departure from Lancaster. I wonder what it was like on the way back...

 

[92002]

It was on that trip, plenty of available seats on departure from Lancaster. I wonder what it was like on the way back...

Passing through Strasbourg last week revealed that SNCF Alsace have recently taken delivery of 6 car Bi Mode units from Alstom. These obviously have compliant diesel engines.

So a few of these to fit the UK gauge could go to Cross Country and TPE.

Releasing 220/221s from XC and 185/350s first om TPE.

They could run on OHL where it is available and diesel where not.

Plenty of places for the 220/221s like Birmingham/Stansted, Liverpool/Norwich, Manchester/Cardiff for to name a few.

With displaced 158/185s going to replace 150/156/158s, cascaded to replace Pacers.

Why bother converting LU Tubes I ask.

 

[Chris125]

So a few of these to fit the UK gauge could go to Cross Country and TPE.

Continental designs do not fit our loading gauge, new DMUs would need to be a UK specific design.

Chris

 

[92002]

Continental designs do not fit our loading gauge, new DMUs would need to be a UK specific design.

Chris

Think we all probably know on here that continental designs don't fit the UK loading gauge.

However if these designs don't work in the UK you may be struggling for new trains. Like 350/450, 380, 444, 185, 390 et al.

So building a UK gauge Bi Mode does really not create a problem.

 

[edwin_m]

Think we all probably know on here that continental designs don't fit the UK loading gauge.

However if these designs don't work in the UK you may be struggling for new trains. Like 350/450, 380, 444, 185, 390 et al.

So building a UK gauge Bi Mode does really not create a problem.

What we don't know is how much the reduced profile would change the design. Because there is that much more to fit into a bi-mode, building a smaller one could be much more difficult.

 

[Nym]

If all trains were switch over to using LED bulbs, how many extra hours could they get out of the emergency lighting?

Significantly less than you might be thinking...

 

[Class377/5]

Change = ££££

And the current situation is no-one involved in acquiring rolling stick believes the extra cost justifies the out lay. That's your major stumbling block than no-one has figured a solution for. Hence suggestions like the D Train.

 

[55z]

Ardwick has been struggling to get to grips with the 350/4 being new and have neglected the 185's to a certain extent but they are maintained by the manufacturer so there is no excuse for a full fleet of both 350/4's and 185's in service. From the December timetable 2 extra 185 diagrams are to be introduced so Ardwick better get their act together. The 1622 Liverpool to Scarborough should be a 6 car 185 with the other extra unit being used on the Newcastle to Liverpool circuit. The turnrounds at Lime Street for the Newcastle trains will be 64 minutes going back to Newcastle. The Scarborough to Liverpool will return to Scarborough. This is to improve reliability as currently turnrounds at Liverpool are tight.

 

[al.currie93]

Think we all probably know on here that continental designs don't fit the UK loading gauge.

However if these designs don't work in the UK you may be struggling for new trains. Like 350/450, 380, 444, 185, 390 et al.

So building a UK gauge Bi Mode does really not create a problem.

It's definitely possible, providing components fit into the train. However what it does mean is that, sometimes extensive, design changes are required, which up the cost greatly. One problem of procuring trains from foreign manufacturers when we have a particularly unique loading gauge.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Wel we're now just over a year since the first 2 of these went into service and we still seam to have issues with reliabilitty and performance. A bit sad really given they were punted as being solid reliable work out of the box units.

 

[Class377/5]

Wel we're now just over a year since the first 2 of these went into service and we still seam to have issues with reliabilitty and performance. A bit sad really given they were punted as being solid reliable work out of the box units.

They are working better than the 377/6s from Bombardier.

 

[WatcherZero]

Pretty solid mid table performance wasn't it in the annual performance awards, considering they are brand new and performance increases over time, and also this is the most strenuous route they've been used for it wasn't as bad as people made out.

 

[deltic08]

Pretty solid mid table performance wasn't it in the annual performance awards, considering they are brand new and performance increases over time, and also this is the most strenuous route they've been used for it wasn't as bad as people made out.

How can this be a strenuous route with only seven intermediate stations in 210miles. I can think of EMUs that have had a far harder life from birth. There have been days as recently as late October/early November when only 4 out of 10 sets have been in traffic.

 

[WatcherZero]

Running maxed performance most of their route with on intercity duties when they were designed as suburban stock, high availability requirement meaning little time for preventative maintenance, lot of early issues with brand new pantograph design causing dewirements, pantograph having had to be specially developed as no other rolling stock has two pantographs so close causing wire oscillation.

 

[Starmill]

Running maxed performance...

Aren't they only running at 100? Despite being capable of 110, which the /1 and /3 are operating at?

 

[deltic08]

Running maxed performance most of their route with on intercity duties when they were designed as suburban stock, high availability requirement meaning little time for preventative maintenance, lot of early issues with brand new pantograph design causing dewirements, pantograph having had to be specially developed as no other rolling stock has two pantographs so close causing wire oscillation.

Sorry but I have to ask again. Why was a new design of pan required when other 350s operate without a new design? Why does a four car 350/4 cause overhead problems when as far as I know four car 387s do not. Are 350/3s causing the same problems and having the same bedding in failures?

starmill beat me to my next question.

 

[edwin_m]

There are some differences in the operating regime of 350/4 from the rest of the 350s which may make a difference to the likelihood or consequences of failure:

- Mk3 overhead on the northern WCML is more fragile than the Mk1 equipment where the other 350 fleets operate.
- Strong crosswinds on northern WCML increase dewirement risk.
- A single failure has a bigger impact on a small fleet.
- Diagrammed to be in use all day, whereas many other 350s are idle off-peak, so greater mileage and also less scope to swap a unit.
- Diagrams go a long way from home depot so getting a replacement unit or even a fitter could take a very long time.
- More diagrams probably running as single units, so no chance of continuing with a dead unit coupled to a working one or shunting a defective cab into the middle of the formation.

The Golden Spanners figures show the 350/4 as having 12840 miles per technical incident over a period of a year, which is down among the Networkers and 334s and about half as good as the next worst Desiro (Heathrow Connect). The latest four-weekly figure for the 350/4 is 9232 which doesn't suggest that reliability is improving! The 350/3 doesn't make it into these figures as it presumably hasn't been in service long enough.

Rather contrary to what I suggested above, the primary delay per incident is 21.2min for the 350/4 but 42.2min and 63.6min for the 350/2 and 350/1 on London Midland, so LM takes over twice as long to deal with a problem as TPE do. These figures are first, third and fourth highest for new generation EMUs and the DC Desiros aren't great on this measure either though Greater Anglia and Heathrow Connect do better. I wonder if Siemens' maintenance arm needs to be paying more attention to supporting operators to get incidents resolved more quickly?

 

[Class377/5]

Sorry but I have to ask again. Why was a new design of pan required when other 350s operate without a new design? Why does a four car 350/4 cause overhead problems when as far as I know four car 387s do not. Are 350/3s causing the same problems and having the same bedding in failures?

starmill beat me to my next question.

The 387s have had 18 months of extended testing thats still on going and currently are not actually allowed to run over 100mph in passenger service.

Also note the 387s don't generally operate on thier own, have compatible stock closer and can be replaced by other stock at each end of the route.

Don't forget a 350 failure that require assistance means two units out of service creating large gaps in an hourly service.

 

[Blindtraveler]

If 8 out of 10 units ran doubbled up perminantly with 2 at Ardwick what kind of service could provided? 2 hourly? Or is not doable.

 

[northwichcat]

Don't forget a 350 failure that require assistance means two units out of service creating large gaps in an hourly service.

If a 350/4 (not running in multiple) develops a fault but is able to continue in service then it's next southbound service is terminated short at Piccadilly, with the unit returning to Ardwick and a 185 taking the next northbound service possibly starting short at Piccadilly. That has been a common occurrence over the past few months. The 185 is usually made available ASAP by short forming other TPE services, if the failure happens outside the peak periods then they'll be a 185 available at Ardwick but taking it will mean York-Manchester services will operate as 3 cars instead in 6 in the peak period.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If 8 out of 10 units ran doubbled up perminantly with 2 at Ardwick what kind of service could provided? 2 hourly? Or is not doable.

There's 8 diagrams needed currently to provide a 2 hourly Man Airport to Edinburgh service and a 2 hourly Man Airport to Glasgow service, so 4 diagrams would mean the equivalent of cancelling either all the Edinburgh services or all the Glasgow services. That would create all kinds of capacity problems between Manchester and Preston given TPE no longer run an hourly Manchester Airport to Barrow or Windermere service, which they did when Virgin operated a 2 hourly Voyager service between Manchester and Scotland.

 

[Blindtraveler]

If 8 out of 10 units ran doubbled up perminantly with 2 at Ardwick what kind of service could provided? 2 hourly? Or is not doable.

 

[cjmillsnun]

They really could've done with an extra couple of units.

 

[Chrism20]

They really could've done with an extra couple of units.

Wasn't the order actually an 'Option' from the LM order? I might be wrong there but I am sure I read that it was but yes probably another four minimum would have been advantageous.

The other option is running the Edinburgh and Glasgow services together and splitting them at Carstairs (Similar to how XC services operated all those years ago) but that obviously reduces the frequency from Lockerbie and any station south of it, as someone said the Windermere and Barrow has already been reduced so probably not an option. By combining them if there is an issue there is always another set attached and the only single running would be between Carstairs and Edinburgh/Glasgow but this would also require a drivers up here at Carstairs to take the second set onwards so probably not a good idea after all.