Hull Trains 180 on fire again.

[Starmill]

According to HT's service alterations page, these trains have now been cancelled as well.

So I guess it is accurate to say that today the total number of passenger services run by Hull Trains was... 0?

 

[158756]

Can an open access operator have its access rights removed for any reason (other than safety or not paying)? Though if they keep catching fire you could argue they're dangerous anyway.

 

[Parallel]

The 180s were extremely unreliable with GWR too. I'm wondering what the future for the class is, whether it's worth basically re-building the underfloor configuration/mechanics like what happened to the ATW 175s or just looking to retire the class when possible. It's a shame really as from passenger comfort, they are great! Comfortable seats, lots of leg room, good carriage ambience. Also great modern looking trains externally. Just so hideously unreliable.

 

[Failed Unit]

So I guess it is accurate to say that today the total number of passenger services run by Hull Trains was... 0?

Correct.

 

[Phil G]

I remember them arriving on GW, they were terrible, constant door faults and the ride ar speed was awful, I remember being bounced around every time they went over points. Was so relieved when they were got rid of!

 

[jon0844]

t's a shame really as from passenger comfort, they are great! Comfortable seats, lots of leg room, good carriage ambience. Also great modern looking trains externally. Just so hideously unreliable.

And now it's getting colder, they're going to be nice and toasty inside! Who doesn't want to sit and relax in front of a nice warm open fire?

I remember back in 2006 when First took over as First Capital Connect and there were lots of discussions on how to fix the congestion problems. At the time there was talk of HSTs or 180s to run the Cambridge cruisers, and Elaine Holt CEO at the time said 'not over my dead body' regarding the 180s.

As that was some 12 years ago, even if Hull Trains had to get 180s at the time because that's all there was, why wasn't there a desire to replace them sooner?

I expect a lot of custom will be lost, not just from the cancellations now but the lack of trust (same reason weekend services on Great Northern must be WAY down) so with the loss of revenue AND the hefty 'fines' that will no doubt be coming, it really isn't good for anyone.

 

[infobleep]

I think you mean kings cross

Indeed I did. Apologies. It was late and I travelled more from Euston, so put that in error. It's late now too.

 

[infobleep]

It looks like this service passed through Wakefield (from Kings Cross!) at 0228 - I can well imagine the only reason for it skipping the stop is that the station is probably locked up for the night.

On the plus, at least that service was stranded for 2 hours in a station (Peterborough) rather than in the middle of nowhere

I had wondered if they were trying to make up some delay time but missing it out. Clearly at that time of night unlikely.

 

[swaldman]

GC are non-stop between Kings Cross and Doncaster/York meaning that the 180s probably don't need to do any heavy breaking, whereas the HT are required to thrash through Peterborough and up Stoke bank before a huge breaking effort for Grantham, calling at Retford as well before Doncaster. Might have something to do with it.

I was going to make some comment about braking vs breaking, but in this case the choice of words seems fairly appropriate

 

[Failed Unit]

I think GC has a less intensive utilisation compared to HT, which is probably helping but they also see a lot of cancellations.

As I said earlier in the set. The 180s seems to have a lot of dramatic failures, but in terms of reliabilty they are no worse than many other trains, including most of the new ones (although hopefully the latest gen trains will improve). It is entirely possible that in terms of MTIN the 180s will be more reliable than the new stock while the teething troubles are ironed out. Just hope they keep both fleets for some overlap while the Hitachi fleet climbs up the bathtub curve. Unless of course other franchises such as FGW suffer the pain and HT take the gain.

GC on the other hand are stuck with them.

 

[Andrewh32]

Looks very much like the first service this morning made it as far as Doncaster and was terminated.

To comment on the possible use of substitutes, the current open access agreement for Hull trains clearly states they may only use 180s nothing else hence why they have been hired in and nothing else.

 

[Failed Unit]

Looks very much like the first service this morning made it as far as Doncaster and was terminated.

To comment on the possible use of substitutes, the current open access agreement for Hull trains clearly states they may only use 180s nothing else hence why they have been hired in and nothing else.

Time as well. I would expect they would already have picked up the phone to GC. Anything else as others have pointed out will probably take a least 1 month to get into service (actually getting the legal agreements done, training the staff etc) by which point you would hope they would have enough 180s back again anyway. The hired the 86 and Mk2s because they knew they would need it no matter what for a period of time while a 222 was dead. I suspect that would be the only reason they would consider stock such as an HST, if they knew for certain they needed it for say 3 months work. But covering the odd fire probably would not be long enough even to consider a alien class.

I must admit it is very concerning, the Hull passengers will stay loyal but I am sure the ones from Doncaster, Retford and Grantham are avoiding booking HT at the moment following the last 12 months performance.

 

[F Great Eastern]

As that was some 12 years ago, even if Hull Trains had to get 180s at the time because that's all there was, why wasn't there a desire to replace them sooner?

Cost was prohibitive to procure them for what might only be a small number of years when Hull Trains didn't have certainty of paths for more than a small number of years ahead at that time.

 

[mpthomson]

- any airline with 2 engine fires on the ground in 6 months would surely no longer be flying the aircraft concerned for the time being

.

Two things, firstly aircraft tend to cause slightly more casualties if they completely stop working due to engine failure, the imperatives are very different. Secondly, depends on the reasons why the engine stopped, caught fire. Precautionary checks after one, of course. After a second, is it the same problem in which case ground them? If not then carry on after appropriate risk assessment.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Cost was prohibitive to procure them for what might only be a small number of years when Hull Trains didn't have certainty of paths for more than a small number of years ahead at that time.

There simply wasn’t anything in the market that HT could procure. Only when the 802 units became available could HT think about replacing the 180 fleet and they were pretty quick at making their interest known and getting their new TAA approved on the back of the procurement.

 

[londonmidland]

Don’t know if this has been mentioned already but just seen a HT 180 dumped at Sandy and another one further up the line north of Peterborough.

 

[chrisdmadd]

nightmare for them, they do have some major failures of their 180s and GC dont seem quite as bad. They are all looked after by the same people at crofton so it does seem to be down to luck or maybe the way they run theirs in service.

Today was day two of 100% cancellations. 0% PPM

 

[F Great Eastern]

There simply wasn’t anything in the market that HT could procure. Only when the 802 units became available could HT think about replacing the 180 fleet and they were pretty quick at making their interest known and getting their new TAA approved on the back of the procurement.

My information was that there was no business case for new stock without the relevant track access rights.

 

[ainsworth74]

My information was that there was no business case for new stock without the relevant track access rights.

It would seem that both could be true. Until they had the relevant track access rights there was no case for new stock. Until there was an available design they could buy off the shelf that ticked the boxes for them there was no overwhelming imperative to negotiate a significant extension to their track access rights.

I mean even the dates line up quite nicely. They announced their intention to procure the new trains in September 2015 (IETs having only been in production the year before) and then in March 2016 they gained a ten year extension on top of their existing rights to see them through to 2029 which allowed them to proceed with actually signing on the dotted line.

As far as I can see both statements are true.

 

[Andy Pacer]

nightmare for them, they do have some major failures of their 180s and GC dont seem quite as bad. They are all looked after by the same people at crofton so it does seem to be down to luck or maybe the way they run theirs in service.

Today was day two of 100% cancellations. 0% PPM

The 0906 from Hull did run as far as Doncaster this morning.

 

[westv]

When I looked at the weekend the 06:26 to London was ok but I've turned up at Hull this morning and only running to Doncaster. So a flippin' freezing cold wait there as I'd assumed I wouldn't need my coat today.

 

[Phlip]

In terms of using HSTs: Would it be possible to hire an FGW HST along with FGW crew that could be used under FGW's safety case? The crew obviously wouldn't sign the route so HT would also need to provide crew.

 

[JN114]

In terms of using HSTs: Would it be possible to hire an FGW HST along with FGW crew that could be used under FGW's safety case? The crew obviously wouldn't sign the route so HT would also need to provide crew.

No, the GWR HST fleet is stretched very thinly as it is - there aren’t any spare to operate in place of short IETs never mind working for other operators.

 

[Clarence Yard]

My information was that there was no business case for new stock without the relevant track access rights.

The two are interlinked. A ROSCO will not get involved in short term deals with an OAO for new rolling stock.

So if you want new stock you have to have a long term business case that stacks up. In that business case you estimate the length of TAA you need to achieve a return on your investment.

When you put your TA application in and the ORR examines it in detail, those assumptions are tested and if they are correct you get the term you want.

The granting of the TAA means you can then conclude the rolling stock negotiations with the ROSCO, hopefully on the basis of their quote, which you included in that business plan to the ORR.

In the car of HT there were 2 options for the business. Go for a s.22 TA application for a few more years with the 180 fleet or go for a s17 or s.18 with new. HT chose new as it was felt the 180 fleet wasn't something HT wanted to stick with. I likenened them to be the dmu equivalent of class 50 locos. When they work they are brilliant but when they go wrong they can go very badly wrong.

 

[Crossover]

I had wondered if they were trying to make up some delay time but missing it out. Clearly at that time of night unlikely.

In the evnt, it actually lost about 4 minutes doing the non-stop run - max made up time would likely be maybe 3-4 minutes on missing a call like that so I would imagine that it would have called if it could have done. The open data feed suggests it still went through platform 2 - this may have been ARS (Automatic Route Setting) as I believe the area uses and this could account for the delay between Sandal and Agbrigg and Wakefield Westgate if the route wasn't set as it approached

The 0906 from Hull did run as far as Doncaster this morning.

Don't quote me on it, but I believe this would still represent a PPM failure (terminated short or missed stops)

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Don't quote me on it, but I believe this would still represent a PPM failure (terminated short or missed stops)

Yes, it constitutes a PPM failure if it doesn't call at all scheduled stations. Scheduled stations are defined as per the confirmed timetable at approx 22:00/23:00 the night before.

 

[DaiGog]

As others have said, hiring something in would only be done if there is a significant long-term risk, for example when Crofton dropped the 222 some years back.

In response to the airline comparison, after the Grantham incident, the third serviceable unit was 'grounded' until the checks had been made and the unit confirmed to be safe. Unfortunately, other gremlins are currently prohibiting it from running south of Doncaster.

 

[Sean Emmett]

Sat on 15.12 at Hull. Advised that will need to change at Doncaster for connection to KGX.

No explanation given so far...

 

[theblackwatch]

I notice that on Hull Trains' website it says

Customers with Hull Trains only tickets valid on a partially or fully cancelled service may use these on any alternative Hull Trains service until the end of the day on Friday October 12th 2018.

From this, am I right in assuming there is no ticket acceptance from LNER or Grand Central for those with HT only tickets at present?

 

[HowardGWR]

When I looked at the weekend the 06:26 to London was ok but I've turned up at Hull this morning and only running to Doncaster. So a flippin' freezing cold wait there as I'd assumed I wouldn't need my coat today.

Are there no waiting rooms at Doncaster? Genuine question as I haven't been there.