Chiltern Railways train stuck for 5 hours

[RPM]

It went to all the way to Marylebone not Wembley. There was a football game at Wembley, seems a strange thing to stick it in the middle of that. But given Chilterns current seemingly endless capacity to inflict misery on their passengers perhaps one more strange decision makes little difference.

Getting it straight to Wembley LMD would have required messing around with shunt moves, which may well have impacted on the football traffic. Better to put it away in the Wall Siding at Marylebone until things quieten down, then move it to Wembley later. Which is what happened.

 

[12LDA28C]

It went to all the way to Marylebone not Wembley. There was a football game at Wembley, seems a strange thing to stick it in the middle of that. But given Chilterns current seemingly endless capacity to inflict misery on their passengers perhaps one more strange decision makes little difference.

Wembley Depot, where the 68s and stock are maintained... which is not accessible directly from the Up Main line, so easier to send it all the way to Marylebone to reverse to Wembley when a path was available. Nothing 'strange' about it.

 

[gazzaa2]

It went to all the way to Marylebone not Wembley. There was a football game at Wembley, seems a strange thing to stick it in the middle of that. But given Chilterns current seemingly endless capacity to inflict misery on their passengers perhaps one more strange decision makes little difference.

There was football on, and Solihull who are right on that route from Moor Street, but fortunately they didn't sell that many tickets as they play in Wembley again this week and with it being play offs it was short notice - also not a big fanbase. Therefore they took a few thousand rather than tens of thousands, or it would have been more chaos.

 

[peteb]

Rugby Thunderbird loco has been axed, no longer one there.

Though "Les Ross" class 86 noted there today parked up. No use to Chiltern however!!

Unless Chiltern have off-hired a load of 68's since shrinking their loco hauled services,couldn't they simply ditch the DVT and top and tail with Class 68's? Or am I missing something fundamental to do with the set layout and controls?

 

[najaB]

Unless Chiltern have off-hired a load of 68's since shrinking their loco hauled services,couldn't they simply ditch the DVT and top and tail with Class 68's? Or am I missing something fundamental to do with the set layout and controls?

If it's top-n-tail then they've doubled their fuel bill, for one thing.

 

[43096]

People want a reliable, resilient railway that's also cheap - that combination doesn't exist in the real works.

Instead we have an unreliable, non-resilient railway that is expensive.

 

[peteb]

If it's top-n-tail then they've doubled their fuel bill, for one thing.

Couldn't they run one idling just in case? I would have thought fuel consumption minimal. But I guess it's cheaper to pay compensation to the odd trainload of pax delayed 5 hours than it is to make contingency plans? But reputational damage, what cost?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Unless Chiltern have off-hired a load of 68's since shrinking their loco hauled services,couldn't they simply ditch the DVT and top and tail with Class 68's? Or am I missing something fundamental to do with the set layout and controls?

The DVT is where the Guard's office, generator set (when they're working), PA kit, bike space and wheelchair ramp (longer and narrower than those used for the DMU fleet) are located, among other things. Not insurmountable, but would almost certainly result in a loss of passenger capacity, which is the last thing Chiltern need given their chronic overcrowding.

 

[MCR247]

Couldn't they run one idling just in case? I would have thought fuel consumption minimal. But I guess it's cheaper to pay compensation to the odd trainload of pax delayed 5 hours than it is to make contingency plans? But reputational damage, what cost?

Whilst I don’t know for sure, I dont imagine that effectively having a couple of 68s idling all day would use minimal fuel. Have you heard how much racket they make?

 

[Bevan Price]

Network Rail is responsible for clearing the line when a train fails, and I have purloined resources from other operators in such a situation, but it depends on not just having a loco available but also a Driver with the necessary route knowledge, and time to carry out the assistance; And the effect on other services, including those of the purloined-from company, has to be taken into account.

In this incident, bearing in mind that it occurred on a Sunday, were there actually any other resources available which could have cleared the line any more quickly?

Yes - long gone are the days when depots kept a few "spare drivers" waiting to cover staff sickness / train failures, etc.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes - long gone are the days when depots kept a few "spare drivers" waiting to cover staff sickness / train failures, etc.

Simply untrue. Rostered spare, standby and cover drivers are part of daily diagrams.

However with various churn and trainees, there's always an element of overtime available. Some TOCs may rely on this more than others & goodwill is not exactly at a premium right now with current industrial action. So there are gaps left uncovered, so spares are utilised for booked work before the day has even begun. And this doesn't account for any other incidents that might have happened in the day already.

 

[david1212]

I don't know about facts of this matter, but it's very likely that anything in a convenient place to assist the dead locomotive was of the wrong colour (FOC).

We've had it before where a GBRF Freight has failed, but DB etc 'can't' (won't) help, so a GBRF loco has to traverse the country to come and assist.

Standing joke of the privatised railway. In these cases, Network Rail should call the shots, make the plans, and TELL whoever the FOC closest is, that they WILL be assisting.

It would also help if trains had universal couplings! (buffers, and chains)

Back in time if nothing nearer there would be locomotives and crew at Reading available to set off at short notice assist failures. Prior to HST AFAIK the only compatibility requirement was air or vacuum brakes and planning would have a dual braked loco available.
If 90 minutes to arrive on the scene then 30 minutes to hook up the passengers stranded would have been at Banbury within 2h30 mins to transfer to the next Marylebone service and the line would be clear.
Better than a train to train transfer then taken in the wrong direction to Leamington to transfer to a southbound service that had to take turn to pass the failure.

While the thread emphasis is on Marylebone <> Birmingham disruption XC services must have been affected too.

 

[12LDA28C]

Unless Chiltern have off-hired a load of 68's since shrinking their loco hauled services,couldn't they simply ditch the DVT and top and tail with Class 68's? Or am I missing something fundamental to do with the set layout and controls?

If you're suggesting that trains run top-and-tail regularly in normal service, that's a very expensive way of mitigating the risk of a loco failure, not to mention the fact that it's not desirable to have 68s on the London end of the stock due to pollution/noise concerns at Marylebone, and where would the guard's accommodation be?

 

[BanburyBlue]

So how did this work in reality...

• Southbound Chiltern train breaks down at Fenny Compton.
• Decision made at some point to evacuate the train, and move passengers to another train.
• Passengers moved onto a northbound train and taken to Leamington Spa.
  • Does this mean passengers had to physically climb down onto the track to get to replacement train (sorry if obvious question, but sounds horrific for people with walking difficulties, or with children, lots of luggage etc.)?
  • Was the replacement train ECS, or was it another live service that was stopped by the stranded train?
  • Assuming on the stranded train the Chiltern staff was the driver and guard only?
• Once at Leamington Spa had to wait for the next southbound service to take on their way?

I know these things happen, but must have been distressing for a lot of the passengers on board.

 

[12LDA28C]

So how did this work in reality...

• Southbound Chiltern train breaks down at Fenny Compton.
• Decision made at some point to evacuate the train, and move passengers to another train.
• Passengers moved onto a northbound train and taken to Leamington Spa.
  • Does this mean passengers had to physically climb down onto the track to get to replacement train (sorry if obvious question, but sounds horrific for people with walking difficulties, or with children, lots of luggage etc.)?
  • Was the replacement train ECS, or was it another live service that was stopped by the stranded train?
  • Assuming on the stranded train the Chiltern staff was the driver and guard only?
• Once at Leamington Spa had to wait for the next southbound service to take on their way?

I know these things happen, but must have been distressing for a lot of the passengers on board.

Yes, passengers would have had to physically climb down from the stranded train and back up onto the other train, which was 1R39 the 1435 MYB-BMO. No doubt the train would have been particularly busy due to the WCML being closed.
There would be no other staff on the failed train unless anyone was travelling passenger on the train, although at least two members of NR staff were on site to assist with the evacuation.
A bus shuttle between Banbury and Leamington Spa was provided less than an hour after the initial failure was declared, although trains were still able to run northbound initially until the block was taken in order to facilitate the evacuation.

 

[infobleep]

2 hours isn't that bad, i was on that Desiro that broke down near Northampton earlier in the year and was stuck on it for about 2 hours that time until de-trained, and the unit was not moved for some time later on. Maybe we should get rid of EMUs because of that just like someone earlier suggested getting rid of loco hauled trains because of one incident.

I've got an even better idea, let's just get rid of trains full stop. Then there would be no issues but also no trains. Still, there are always winners and losers.

 

[birchesgreen]

I've got an even better idea, let's just get rid of trains full stop. Then there would be no issues but also no trains. Still, there are always winners and losers.

Do you work for the DfT?

 

[infobleep]

Reading through their social media on Sunday (Twitter/X) Chiltern's customer service leaves a lot to be desired.

In what way?

Do you work for the DfT?

No, and I wasn't thinking of doing so. I don't work for the Treasury either.

 

[peteb]

Whilst I don’t know for sure, I dont imagine that effectively having a couple of 68s idling all day would use minimal fuel. Have you heard how much racket they make?

Yes, but not sure how loud on idle!

If you're suggesting that trains run top-and-tail regularly in normal service, that's a very expensive way of mitigating the risk of a loco failure, not to mention the fact that it's not desirable to have 68s on the London end of the stock due to pollution/noise concerns at Marylebone, and where would the guard's accommodation be?

Possibly just couple another 68 to the DVT end? So set remains same config, just with extra loco. But take your point about noise if both locos working. It's a shame they (the 68's) can't run "dead" rather than "idling" (or can they?).

 

[najaB]

Yes, but not sure how loud on idle!

Noise is quite subjective, but when Scotrail used them for a while on the Fife Circle trains, you could feel (not just hear) them over Princes Street traffic at the top of the Waverley Steps when they were at Platforms 19/20 (so about 75m away).

 

[stuartl]

So how did this work in reality...

• Southbound Chiltern train breaks down at Fenny Compton.
• Decision made at some point to evacuate the train, and move passengers to another train.
• Passengers moved onto a northbound train and taken to Leamington Spa.
  • Does this mean passengers had to physically climb down onto the track to get to replacement train (sorry if obvious question, but sounds horrific for people with walking difficulties, or with children, lots of luggage etc.)?
  • Was the replacement train ECS, or was it another live service that was stopped by the stranded train?
  • Assuming on the stranded train the Chiltern staff was the driver and guard only?
• Once at Leamington Spa had to wait for the next southbound service to take on their way?

I know these things happen, but must have been distressing for a lot of the passengers on board.

Don't they usually pull the relief train alongside the failed one, then open adjacent doors, place a walkway between the trains and pasengers just walk across without needing to climb down onto the track ?

 

[dk1]

Don't they usually pull the relief train alongside the failed one, then open adjacent doors, place a walkway between the trains and pasengers just walk across without needing to climb down onto the track ?

Usually some sort of ramp is used to cross between trains if possible.

 

[Horizon22]

Don't they usually pull the relief train alongside the failed one, then open adjacent doors, place a walkway between the trains and pasengers just walk across without needing to climb down onto the track ?

Yes a train-to-train evacuation ramp is normally used.

 

[43066]

It is a total disgrace that a single point of failure - a locomotive - can ruin the service between the UK's two largest cities for five hours. The railway deserves all the pelters it can get for this, and then some. That is not a criticism of operational decisions or frontline staff but the kneejerk reaction of some posters to just smartarse back at criticism is really not on.

Yet loco hauled passenger stock runs in daily service, and has done so for decades (thinking of 91s), so clearly something more went wrong here than just the choice of traction type.

Criticism where it’s due is to be welcomed, but that doesn’t include sweeping comments damning an entire industry based on one partially understood event, and nonsensical comparisons with fatality response times in Germany, which it turns out are similar to here(!).

Note also that this criticism isn’t even from people directly affected by this incident, which would be very understandable, but from those who look for reasons to moan, and make lazy comparisons with systems abroad that invariably don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Why are we running a tiny subfleet of locomotives on this route? Why aren't we keeping rescue locos in the best positions? Why wasn't the rescue done sooner? How many people won't bother returning to the railway after this?

The points re. the rescue situation have been pretty comprehensively answered above. It sounds as though the rescue loco in this instance had a further issue once it arrived. Not ideal, it is what it is, Sod’s Law etc. I guarantee nobody involved enjoyed it…

As for how many people affected won’t return to the railway, almost certainly all of them will return. How many people permanently abandon any mode of transport due to a one off delay?

I don't know about facts of this matter, but it's very likely that anything in a convenient place to assist the dead locomotive was of the wrong colour (FOC).

We've had it before where a GBRF Freight has failed, but DB etc 'can't' (won't) help, so a GBRF loco has to traverse the country to come and assist.

Standing joke of the privatised railway. In these cases, Network Rail should call the shots, make the plans, and TELL whoever the FOC closest is, that they WILL be assisting.

It would also help if trains had universal couplings! (buffers, and chains)

This is a perfectly valid criticism of the current set up. Unfortunately it isn’t at all clear that Labour’s proposals to nationalise the current system will address it, as FOCs will remain outside the publicly owned net.

 

[Parham Wood]

Maybe the critical question here is why was a loco that seemed to have a history of intermittent issues be allowed into service? Also why had the issues not been rectified? I say this more from a learning aspect rather than criticism. It may be the loco was required to avoid otherwise cancelling services, may be spares were not immediately available, maybe a full issue investigation would take a long time adding to any loco shortage issues or with age or bad design manufacture the loco requires almost complete rebuilding and critical part renewal.

 

[43096]

Yet loco hauled passenger stock runs in daily service, and has done so for decades (thinking of 91s), so clearly something more went wrong here than just the choice of traction type.

Loco hauled has been running longer than that. Almost 200 years!

Criticism where it’s due is to be welcomed, but that doesn’t include sweeping comments damning an entire industry based on one partially understood event

But it isn’t the first time, is it? Or second… Or third… Or…

 

[MCR247]

Yes, but not sure how loud on idle!


Possibly just couple another 68 to the DVT end? So set remains same config, just with extra loco. But take your point about noise if both locos working. It's a shame they (the 68's) can't run "dead" rather than "idling" (or can they?).

Trust me - still loud! And incredibly bass-y you can feel them as much as you can hear them!

 

[12LDA28C]

Yes, but not sure how loud on idle!


Possibly just couple another 68 to the DVT end? So set remains same config, just with extra loco. But take your point about noise if both locos working. It's a shame they (the 68's) can't run "dead" rather than "idling" (or can they?).

I don't see why a 68 couldn't be 'dead' on the rear of the formation but again, a 68 arriving at the buffer stops at Marylebone is less than ideal. I'd imagine a loco on each end may also cause problems for fuelling and maintenance at certain locations.

Maybe the critical question here is why was a loco that seemed to have a history of intermittent issues be allowed into service? Also why had the issues not been rectified? I say this more from a learning aspect rather than criticism. It may be the loco was required to avoid otherwise cancelling services, may be spares were not immediately available, maybe a full issue investigation would take a long time adding to any loco shortage issues or with age or bad design manufacture the loco requires almost complete rebuilding and critical part renewal.

Are you aware of the nature of these 'intermittent issues' and can say with certainty that the cause of Sunday's failure was a recurrence of a previously identified fault? If not, then you seem to be reading rather more into the situation than is necessary. As for suggesting the loco involved would need 'almost complete rebuilding' well I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion.

 

[Bevan Price]

Simply untrue. Rostered spare, standby and cover drivers are part of daily diagrams.

However with various churn and trainees, there's always an element of overtime available. Some TOCs may rely on this more than others & goodwill is not exactly at a premium right now with current industrial action. So there are gaps left uncovered, so spares are utilised for booked work before the day has even begun. And this doesn't account for any other incidents that might have happened in the day already.

Agree - still some standby rostering, but nowhere near as many as there used to be. In a combined about 7 years (2 separate spells) of commuting into Manchester (1960s & 1970s), I never encountered a train cancelled due to staff shortages (or any other reason). Something always turned up, albeit occasionally a bit late.

And also, there were fewer problems in the steam age. A qualified driver would be able to work just about any steam loco, regardless of its class, provided it was capable of moving the train.

 

[Horizon22]

Agree - still some standby rostering, but nowhere near as many as there used to be. In a combined about 7 years (2 separate spells) of commuting into Manchester (1960s & 1970s), I never encountered a train cancelled due to staff shortages (or any other reason). Something always turned up, albeit occasionally a bit late.

Never? I think that's some rose-tinted glasses I'd have to say!