Hull Trains 180 problems again

[Phlip]

Correct

Meanwhile today it looks like they only have 1 out of 4 180s fit for service + the HST

How does the government force an open access operator to give up their rolling stock?

 

[rustbucket]

How does the government force an open access operator to give up their rolling stock?

Should imagine it's not too hard for them as part of track access agreements - they never used to have too long an agreement at HT - certainly not a long one like now so back to the table often enough

 

[Phlip]

Should imagine it's not too hard for them as part of track access agreements - they never used to have too long an agreement at HT - certainly not a long one like now so back to the table often enough

That would be down to the ORR rather than the government.

As I recall HT switched to 180s about halfway through a 10 year track access contract. At the time they were operating their service with three out of four, 4 car 222s after Crofton dropped one of the them leaving it out of service for a couple of years. This was impacting service reliability and they were using a Class 86 with LHCS between Kings Cross and Doncaster on a weekend to provide extra maintenance time for the remaining three 222s. The 180s became available from First Great Western and they could have 4 of them, bringing the fleet back up to the normal size. The 180s could also give a much needed increase capacity (being 5, rather than 4 coaches). At the same time Midland Mainline wanted extra 222s to operate Corby services. So it was convenient for all concerned and a deal was done. I understand that there was some questions asked within First Group over whether it was the right thing to do, however.

 

[DarloRich]

It is interesting posters here don't seem to be asking why the class 180 trains break down. Are they not being maintained correctly?

 

[samuelmorris]

It just seems to be accepted that 180s go wrong, incessantly, and always have. It was discussed a few pages ago about the differences between the underfloor equipment design of the 180s vs other DMUs that fare much better with the same engines.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is interesting posters here don't seem to be asking why the class 180 trains break down. Are they not being maintained correctly?

I once chatted with someone who was involved with at Grand Central and the impression I got from that was it almost doesn't matter how well you look after them they're just riddled with fundamental issues. One thing we spoke about the way that water can drip down the side of the exhaust and make its way into various electrical systems including, I seem to recall, the brakes. Alstom also seem to be fairly useless at supporting them. When that HT 180 engine exploded and dropped off from the bottom of the vehicle Alstom's proposed solution was to fit the same sort of strapping as you see on holding the sides of lorries closed. Which I'm sure will withstand an exploding engine very well...

So, really, is there any point in asking why they break down? It's become clear that they're just terrible pieces of equipment riddled with flaws (which is a shame as the interior is one of the best long distance interiors fitted). Grand Central are struggling with them but it isn't as noticeable as they have slack in their fleet. About the only place that seemed to manage them was the second stint at GWR in Old Oak Common but even then I wonder how often they failed but no-one really noticed as they subbed in a Turbo or HST?

 

[Clarence Yard]

How does the government force an open access operator to give up their rolling stock?

If the owning group needs a favour from the DfT for another of it's operations. I'm not going to get into the detail of that deal here but the 222 units were not given up by Hull Trains lightly and the decision was taken at the very highest level within FG and imposed on the operator.

I have described the 180 units before as the DMU equivalent of the cl.50 locomotive. Great when they are working but absolutely awful when they don't. They need a lot of TLC and Crofton isn't the place to give them it. But having lost OOC, HT were a bit stuck for maintenance locations - others were approached but couldn't oblige.

 

[samuelmorris]

I once chatted with someone who was involved with at Grand Central and the impression I got from that was it almost doesn't matter how well you look after them they're just riddled with fundamental issues. One thing we spoke about the way that water can drip down the side of the exhaust and make its way into various electrical systems including, I seem to recall, the brakes. Alstom also seem to be fairly useless at supporting them. When that HT 180 engine exploded and dropped off from the bottom of the vehicle Alstom's proposed solution was to fit the same sort of strapping as you see on holding the sides of lorries closed. Which I'm sure will withstand an exploding engine very well...

So, really, is there any point in asking why they break down? It's become clear that they're just terrible pieces of equipment riddled with flaws (which is a shame as the interior is one of the best long distance interiors fitted). Grand Central are struggling with them but it isn't as noticeable as they have slack in their fleet. About the only place that seemed to manage them was the second stint at GWR in Old Oak Common but even then I wonder how often they failed but no-one really noticed as they subbed in a Turbo or HST?

I think the same 'solution' was used temporarily to keep the refitted 455's exploding traction controllers at bay wasn't it? Either way, not a great solution!

 

[DarloRich]

About the only place that seemed to manage them was the second stint at GWR in Old Oak Common

that is why i ask the question: What is happening now to make the failures worse than they were under GWR? Are the failures worse?

 

[ainsworth74]

What is happening now to make the failures worse than they were under GWR? Are the failures worse?

Perhaps a bit. I don't recall Old Oak managing to cause an engine to explode due to the way they looked after them! But are they that much worse? I'm not sure. GWR would have found it easier to absorb failures within their larger fleet of trains. Hull Trains lose one and they're probably into cancelling things.

Anyone got comparative miles per casualty figures for the GWR, GC and HT fleets? That might be quite illustrative.

 

[Kite159]

Perhaps a bit. I don't recall Old Oak managing to cause an engine to explode due to the way they looked after them! But are they that much worse? I'm not sure. GWR would have found it easier to absorb failures within their larger fleet of trains. Hull Trains lose one and they're probably into cancelling things.

Anyone got comparative miles per casualty figures for the GWR, GC and HT fleets? That might be quite illustrative.

I would say during the 2nd time with GWR, they weren't worked that hard compared to currently. No (booked) weekend work, and the only time at 125mph between Didcot & Paddington [with typically two station stops], the rest of the time pottering around on the Cotswold line (i.e. not at 125mph)

 

[Railperf]

I used the 180s just before they were moved off GWR. They were worked hard enough on the 125mph sections..stopping at Slough and Reading fast line. It wasn't unusual to have one subbed by an HST while it was a rare occurrence to get one running on all 5 engines.

 

[GrimShady]

I once chatted with someone who was involved with at Grand Central and the impression I got from that was it almost doesn't matter how well you look after them they're just riddled with fundamental issues. One thing we spoke about the way that water can drip down the side of the exhaust and make its way into various electrical systems including, I seem to recall, the brakes. Alstom also seem to be fairly useless at supporting them. When that HT 180 engine exploded and dropped off from the bottom of the vehicle Alstom's proposed solution was to fit the same sort of strapping as you see on holding the sides of lorries closed. Which I'm sure will withstand an exploding engine very well...

So, really, is there any point in asking why they break down? It's become clear that they're just terrible pieces of equipment riddled with flaws (which is a shame as the interior is one of the best long distance interiors fitted). Grand Central are struggling with them but it isn't as noticeable as they have slack in their fleet. About the only place that seemed to manage them was the second stint at GWR in Old Oak Common but even then I wonder how often they failed but no-one really noticed as they subbed in a Turbo or HST?

Alstom seriously proposed securing the engines with a rachet strap?

 

[a_c_skinner]

My recollection is that when they left GWR to Grand Central they were a lot more reliable and IIRC some pundits pointed to better maintainence at (was it?) Heaton.

 

[Tracked]

How does the government force an open access operator to give up their rolling stock?

Sounds like the rolling stock's given up for them ...

 

[InTheEastMids]

Given the increasingly solid rumours about their future, how do people think Etches Park will cope with them?

 

[ainsworth74]

Alstom seriously proposed securing the engines with a rachet strap?

I have no reason to doubt what I was told even if it seems crackers!

 

[Steve14]

If I was Hull Trains,
- I’d press ahead with getting rid of the 180s
- Cascade 4 more HST sets to run the route
- Keep the HSTs until the 800s are in full operation
- Stick the 180s in the bin or flog them back to whoever they leased it off.

I know it’s easier said than done but realistically speaking, if I got a train that set on fire and had engines exploding; that itself rings alarm bells and questions the safety of 180s.

 

[GrimShady]

I have no reason to doubt what I was told even if it seems crackers!

Oh I believe you alright!

They would have lasted about a week tops on the underside of a 125mph DMU!

Imagine that coming off a fouling rear bogie!

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh I believe you alright!

They would have lasted about a week tops on the underside of a 125mph DMU!

Imagine that coming off a fouling rear bogie!

The impression I got was that the suggestion was "politely" put to one side....

 

[700007]

To my understanding, the terrible reliability of the class 180 from what I have gathered in tidbits around the forum seems to be a combination of the following:

• Alstom providing poor aftercare support for these trains

• The batch consistently being split up and sent to different depots and companies for maintenance every so often throughout their lifetime. As every engineer has his style of maintaining things and as the fleet kept having problems, it was hard to keep track of what work had been carried out on each train - this seems to be one of the main reasons

• Lack of slack in the fleet particularly the Hull Trains lot who especially without the help of the HSTs were sent out day in, day out with several mechanical failures, limping along the ECML with less than five engines to avoid a (part) cancellation. This caused them to be overworked and for what should have been critical work that needed to be carried out effectively being pushed back to an undecided date. Even when the trains genuinely couldn't work and were being maintained, there was heavy time pressure to get the train fixed out as soon as possible, to avoid further cancellations. This led to a lot of botch, half-done 'patchwork' jobs being done that ultimately weren't sustainable in the long run.

• Crofton depot seem to get a lot of hit on this forum. I am not aware or familiar with their maintenance styles because I don't use their services on a regular but several posters have claimed they are unfortunately poor at what they do.

To parrot other posters here, as an irregular class 180 user, it is a shame the trains are as horrible as they are mechanically speaking, because as a passenger they are indeed one of the best intercity trains I have ridden when it comes to comfort. Manufacturers should try and mirror the class 180 design and layout when producing new trains.

 

[samuelmorris]

To my understanding, the terrible reliability of the class 180 from what I have gathered in tidbits around the forum seems to be a combination of the following:

• Alstom providing poor aftercare support for these trains

• The batch consistently being split up and sent to different depots and companies for maintenance every so often throughout their lifetime. As every engineer has his style of maintaining things and as the fleet kept having problems, it was hard to keep track of what work had been carried out on each train - this seems to be one of the main reasons

• Lack of slack in the fleet particularly the Hull Trains lot who especially without the help of the HSTs were sent out day in, day out with several mechanical failures, limping along the ECML with less than five engines to avoid a (part) cancellation. This caused them to be overworked and for what should have been critical work that needed to be carried out effectively being pushed back to an undecided date. Even when the trains genuinely couldn't work and were being maintained, there was heavy time pressure to get the train fixed out as soon as possible, to avoid further cancellations. This led to a lot of botch, half-done 'patchwork' jobs being done that ultimately weren't sustainable in the long run.

• Crofton depot seem to get a lot of hit on this forum. I am not aware or familiar with their maintenance styles because I don't use their services on a regular but several posters have claimed they are unfortunately poor at what they do.

To parrot other posters here, as an irregular class 180 user, it is a shame the trains are as horrible as they are mechanically speaking, because as a passenger they are indeed one of the best intercity trains I have ridden when it comes to comfort. Manufacturers should try and mirror the class 180 design and layout when producing new trains.

I found the GC 180s quite comfortable when I used them but even from the inside they felt like they might disintegrate at any moment, the number of loud cracks, bangs and squeaks at speed really was quite alarming.

 

[Erniescooper]

Alstom seriously proposed securing the engines with a rachet strap?

No they didn’t propose securing the engine with a ratchet strap. After the broken crank in 180110 that smashed the back of the engine off including the rear mountings so that the engine ended up about six inches out of the ballast a ratchet strap was added as a temporary belt and braces measure while a permanent measure was looked at.

 

[Erniescooper]

It is interesting posters here don't seem to be asking why the class 180 trains break down. Are they not being maintained correctly?

I was talking to someone regarding the latest problems and apart from the smashed engine in 110, 111 has had underframe wiring damage due to poorly fitted exhaust clamps which makes it number four for that particular failure in a couple of years

 

[Erniescooper]

Perhaps a bit. I don't recall Old Oak managing to cause an engine to explode due to the way they looked after them! But are they that much worse? I'm not sure. GWR would have found it easier to absorb failures within their larger fleet of trains. Hull Trains lose one and they're probably into cancelling things.

Anyone got comparative miles per casualty figures for the GWR, GC and HT fleets? That might be quite illustrative.

About three years ago GWR were at 4k MTIN MAA but they were always hampered by low mileage, GC about 16k and for quite a while Hull had managed to get theirs over 20k and were the most reliable fleet on the east coast. Both GC and Hull now stand at about 8k.

 

[Erniescooper]

I once chatted with someone who was involved with at Grand Central and the impression I got from that was it almost doesn't matter how well you look after them they're just riddled with fundamental issues. One thing we spoke about the way that water can drip down the side of the exhaust and make its way into various electrical systems including, I seem to recall, the brakes. Alstom also seem to be fairly useless at supporting them. When that HT 180 engine exploded and dropped off from the bottom of the vehicle Alstom's proposed solution was to fit the same sort of strapping as you see on holding the sides of lorries closed. Which I'm sure will withstand an exploding engine very well...

So, really, is there any point in asking why they break down? It's become clear that they're just terrible pieces of equipment riddled with flaws (which is a shame as the interior is one of the best long distance interiors fitted). Grand Central are struggling with them but it isn't as noticeable as they have slack in their fleet. About the only place that seemed to manage them was the second stint at GWR in Old Oak Common but even then I wonder how often they failed but no-one really noticed as they subbed in a Turbo or HST?

Strange you should mention the water getting in at the exhaust as Alstom wrote a really good modification that was also fitted to the 175 which has an identical exhaust. When fitted to the 175 we never had a single one leak after it was done at Chester, when the same job was done at a different depot on 180 we still kept having issues.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The people who are specifying and writing the bids are usually not the same ones who are working in engineering or operations, which explains a lot.....

Both Abellio and the incumbent Stagecoach had it in their plans to use 180s to replace the short HST sets.

 

[whhistle]

Both Abellio and the incumbent Stagecoach had it in their plans to use 180s to replace the short HST sets.

Can you confirm your source for what Stagecoach had planned?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Can you confirm your source for what Stagecoach had planned?

Angel Trains and it has been quite widely reported also (much to everyone’s supririse that people would ever consider leasing them).

 

[whhistle]

Angel Trains and it has been quite widely reported also (much to everyone’s supririse that people would ever consider leasing them).

Right. Can you provide any links to any reliable sources?
Not saying you're wrong, just want to read more.