Reliability: TPE 350/4

[thealexweb]

Expected by who? At face value 225s would be complete overkill for TPE.

Right now TPE is struggling to run some services with six car Class 185s and eight car Class 350s. Factor in five more years of passenger growth and is it really that overkill for TPE to be running 9+2 services?

 

[northwichcat]

Expected by who? At face value 225s would be complete overkill for TPE.

DfT reportedly asked Siemens how easy it would be to convert 350/4 interiors to be the same as 350/3 in the event of them being transferred to LM in the future. Together with new EMUs expected for North TPE and the option of Liverpool-Scotland portions being added on to Manchester Airport-Scotland being considered it's made 350/4s at TPE look temporary opposed to long term.

 

[Wolfie]

DfT reportedly asked Siemens how easy it would be to convert 350/4 interiors to be the same as 350/3 in the event of them being transferred to LM in the future. Together with new EMUs expected for North TPE and the option of Liverpool-Scotland portions being added on to Manchester Airport-Scotland being considered it's made 350/4s at TPE look temporary opposed to long term.

Perhaps my comment lacked clarity.

I had no problem with the 350s being with TPE for the short term part. There are too few of them for a start and it would be a no-brainer for them to go to LM (although there would probably be moans about new stock - even if unreliable - being moved from the North). This would release the 319s that LM are getting and perhaps even some 323s too....

It was the 225 bit to TPE that I questioned (replacing new trains in the North with old "London" trains - well the ECML does run from there!).

 

[Solent&Wessex]

And yet again 350401 fails this morning with a recurring brake fault, again, causing chaos. Another 185 pinched from the North Route causing evening peak short formations, along with short formations on the Scottish services as a result of a 185 in a 350 diagram. No other 350s available for service.

 

[northwichcat]

Perhaps my comment lacked clarity.

I had no problem with the 350s being with TPE for the short term part. There are too few of them for a start and it would be a no-brainer for them to go to LM (although there would probably be moans about new stock - even if unreliable - being moved from the North). This would release the 319s that LM are getting and perhaps even some 323s too....

It was the 225 bit to TPE that I questioned (replacing new trains in the North with old "London" trains - well the ECML does run from there!).

I was actually picking up on the bit about 350s going to LM. While it would be a logical move and has been looked at - DfT aren't always logical.

The 225s have 535 seats. Obviously more could be accommodated if the amount of FC seating was reduced or the buffet carriage converted to a standard carriage. TPE do run services with over 400 seats so 225s on those services would be 20% more seating with provision for increasing seating further. Obviously there wouldn't be many objections about replacing new with old on here as loco-hauled is automatically seen as 100% better than multiple units.

 

[harz99]

I was actually picking up on the bit about 350s going to LM. While it would be a logical move and has been looked at - DfT aren't always logical.

The 225s have 535 seats. Obviously more could be accommodated if the amount of FC seating was reduced or the buffet carriage converted to a standard carriage. TPE do run services with over 400 seats so 225s on those services would be 20% more seating with provision for increasing seating further. Obviously there wouldn't be many objections about replacing new with old on here as loco-hauled is automatically seen as 100% better than multiple units.

Are there any issues with train length at Oxford Road and Manchester Airport?

All the other stations on the Scottish route are either already served by 9 car services or have been in the past. So presumably reformed sets of 1 first, 1 first buffet and 6 standard would work with approx. 450 standard and 50-60 first seats, and two accessible toilets per set.

 

[Wolfie]

I was actually picking up on the bit about 350s going to LM. While it would be a logical move and has been looked at - DfT aren't always logical.

The 225s have 535 seats. Obviously more could be accommodated if the amount of FC seating was reduced or the buffet carriage converted to a standard carriage. TPE do run services with over 400 seats so 225s on those services would be 20% more seating with provision for increasing seating further. Obviously there wouldn't be many objections about replacing new with old on here as loco-hauled is automatically seen as 100% better than multiple units.

A question for you... do the Mk4s comply with all of the disablility rules? I have some doubts (eg toilets)...

 

[harz99]

A question for you... do the Mk4s comply with all of the disablility rules? I have some doubts (eg toilets)...

They already have accessible toilets as built in both standard and first.

 

[Wolfie]

They already have accessible toilets as built in both standard and first.

Yes, I know... BUT there is accessible and compliant and the two are different! Look at the accessible toilets fitted into some 319s which are non-compliant for example...

 

[harz99]

Yes, I know... BUT there is accessible and compliant and the two are different! Look at the accessible toilets fitted into some 319s which are non-compliant for example...

I think they were/are exempt as they were built and in traffic before 31st December 1998. Also my understanding is that the Mallard refurb incorporated any necessary improvements to maintain compliance with the then known legislation.

Can't find any documentation to back that up though. Sorry.

 

[edwin_m]

31/12/1998 was the date for the RVAR regulations which were very prescriptive but only applied to trains going into service after that date. A number of dodges happend such as the first MML Turbostars going into service for a few journeys in late December that year, and Central having to stick "train crew only" stickers on their door close buttons due to the poor wording of the regs.

However the 2020 deadline is retrospective so all stock remaining in service on that date must have certain accessibility measures in place. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be worrying about 150s, Pacers and other pre-1997 stock. However it is more flexible than RVAR so should avoid some of the sillier things that happened in 1997.

 

[voyagerdude220]

I think 350402 had issues between Lancaster and Preston this afternoon. It was working 1M97 12:12 Edinburgh to Manchester Picc, departed Lancaster at 14:35 and arrived at Preston at 15:47. Trust says "M6 EMU other."

 

[driver9000]

Are there any issues with train length at Oxford Road and Manchester Airport?

Manchester Airport is 8 car maximum and Oxford Road can only take an 8 car 350 fully on platform 4, when they call at platform 2 heading to Scotland the doors on the rear set are locked out of use as the train doesn't quite fit. This is because the train has to stop a bit further back to enable the Driver to see the right sided signal.

 

[thealexweb]

Manchester Airport is 8 car maximum and Oxford Road can only take an 8 car 350 fully on platform 4, when they call at platform 2 heading to Scotland the doors on the rear set are locked out of use as the train doesn't quite fit. This is because the train has to stop a bit further back to enable the Driver to see the right sided signal.

Will this problem be resolved in the coming years when Manchester Oxford Road gets its Northern Hub upgrades?

 

[DarloRich]

perhaps a less than simple question but why are the TPE 250's so unreliable when the LM ones seem cast iron reliability wise?

 

[Chrism20]

perhaps a less than simple question but why are the TPE 250's so unreliable when the LM ones seem cast iron reliability wise?

The only thing I can think of that is massively different between the two is the TPE ones are worked to the bone with very little downtime whereas LM (no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong) have time between the peaks to carry out minor maintenance etc.

They run Euston to Birmingham no problem which is a decent distance albeit not as far and Manchester to Edinburgh/Glasgow so there clearly isn't an issue with them covering distance.

 

[DarloRich]

The only thing I can think of that is massively different between the two is the TPE ones are worked to the bone with very little downtime whereas LM (no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong) have time between the peaks to carry out minor maintenance etc.

I am not sure they do have much day time down time.

They run Euston to Birmingham no problem which is a decent distance albeit not as far and Manchester to Edinburgh/Glasgow so there clearly isn't an issue with them covering distance.

They run Euston - Crewe via Stoke as well. The mileage for some of the diagrams must be fairly long as well

They are maintained by Siemens (Like LM) in a custom built depot (like LM) they are a variant of a reliable train set used by lots of TOCS yet only the TPE ones seem to have reliability issues - I dont get it.

I cant think of the last time i was on a LM 350 that failed. (Even a 350/3)

 

[Silverlinky]

The only thing I can think of that is massively different between the two is the TPE ones are worked to the bone with very little downtime whereas LM (no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong) have time between the peaks to carry out minor maintenance etc.

They run Euston to Birmingham no problem which is a decent distance albeit not as far and Manchester to Edinburgh/Glasgow so there clearly isn't an issue with them covering distance.

Very little, if any maintenance is carried out between the peaks with the LM units, of course there are units on the depot which may be having faults rectified or due for exams etc, but ad-hoc maintenance? No!

If anywhere knows where to look for the EMU reliability figures (I don't) then please do so, seeing the reliability of the 350/3's may dash those thoughts that the problems are only affecting the /4's!

 

[Chrism20]

Well in that case I haven't at clue. It's a shame as they are decent enough trains for the journey and fairly comfortable.

Other than first being sandwiched into the middle of the train which appears pretty odd the design of them is fine.

 

[northwichcat]

They run Euston to Birmingham no problem which is a decent distance albeit not as far and Manchester to Edinburgh/Glasgow so there clearly isn't an issue with them covering distance.

TPE are using them on a service with an Intercity style stopping pattern, while LM services using them are usually stoppers or semi-fasts, so the TPE ones run at higher speeds for a longer periods. Apparently TPE find the wheels on the 350s go flat very quickly using them on Manchester Airport to Scotland routes.

 

[edwin_m]

If anywhere knows where to look for the EMU reliability figures (I don't) then please do so, seeing the reliability of the 350/3's may dash those thoughts that the problems are only affecting the /4's!

"Golden Spanners" article in Modern Railways for January gives Miles per Technical Incident for all fleets (so bigger numbers are better reliability).

350/2 and 350/1 are second and third in the table for new generation EMUs at 131220 and 100645 MTIN respectively over a year. For 350/4 the equivalent figure is 12840, so reliability is ten times worse than the older classes. 350/3 doesn't feature as it is probably too new to have any figures, and I agree it would be very interesting to see them!

 

[Class377/5]

There's also a different between the two TOCs that TPE only had high milage diagrams to run units on where LM had diagrams that vary a lot, ie only come out for a peak run. Sustained long runs every day is far more tougher on units than varying the types daily.

 

[Chris125]

Will this problem be resolved in the coming years when Manchester Oxford Road gets its Northern Hub upgrades?

IIRC the Northern Hub plans cater for 8x23m carriages, including all 4 platforms at Oxford Road.

 

[thealexweb]

IIRC the Northern Hub plans cater for 8x23m carriages, including all 4 platforms at Oxford Road.

That's a good start but considering that Bolton to London Euston services featured in both First and Virgin's 2012 WCML bids Oxford Road presumably needs to be ready for Pendos.

 

[Class377/5]

That's a good start but considering that Bolton to London Euston services featured in both First and Virgin's 2012 WCML bids Oxford Road presumably needs to be ready for Pendos.

That was for the 6 car Pendos.

 

[Chrism20]

TPE are using them on a service with an Intercity style stopping pattern, while LM services using them are usually stoppers or semi-fasts, so the TPE ones run at higher speeds for a longer periods. Apparently TPE find the wheels on the 350s go flat very quickly using them on Manchester Airport to Scotland routes.

Thanks, I know TPEs ten were just bolted on from the option in the other order but surely you would have thought that all this (How the train would handle the longer distances etc) would have been taken into consideration.

Or were they just told that's it and get on with it?

 

[deltic08]

Very little, if any maintenance is carried out between the peaks with the LM units, of course there are units on the depot which may be having faults rectified or due for exams etc, but ad-hoc maintenance? No!

If anywhere knows where to look for the EMU reliability figures (I don't) then please do so, seeing the reliability of the 350/3's may dash those thoughts that the problems are only affecting the /4's!

Why not change the /3s with the /4s and see if the /3s suffer the same problems on Scottish services and the /4s are better out of Euston?

 

[harz99]

Why not change the /3s with the /4s and see if the /3s suffer the same problems on Scottish services and the /4s are better out of Euston?

I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the 350/3s that were on loan to TPE for the games last summer having any major problems and they saw the same use as the 350/4s do, indeed they propped up the service for several weeks whilst 4s were being fixed.

I think many of the early problems with the 350'4s stemmed from them having a different design of pantograph, and crew familiarity with new trains. Those are matters which should be resolved by now.

 

[northwichcat]

I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the 350/3s that were on loan to TPE for the games last summer having any major problems and they saw the same use as the 350/4s do, indeed they propped up the service for several weeks whilst 4s were being fixed.

I think many of the early problems with the 350'4s stemmed from them having a different design of pantograph, and crew familiarity with new trains. Those are matters which should be resolved by now.

I think reliability was worse after the Edinburgh festival than before TPE subleased a couple of 350/3s.

TPE did plan to not use 2 x 350/3 formations to allow First Class passengers to have the option of sitting in 'proper' First Class but some days they did so it didn't work.

 

[Grumpy]

Thanks, I know TPEs ten were just bolted on from the option in the other order but surely you would have thought that all this (How the train would handle the longer distances etc) would have been taken into consideration.

I don't quite understand the excuse that they are working longer distances and therefore the MTIN should suffer.

By working longer distances they are stopping/starting and using the doors etc. on fewer occasions per mile than units on short distance services.
In past years "Golden Spanners" the better figures obtained by some fleets, in comparison with similar units operated by other TOC'S has been explained away as being a result of less demanding longer services.