Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,039
It's the "simple engineering" in the 442s that is causing the current problems!All this tech causing big problems, go back to simple engineering that actually worked properly.
It's the "simple engineering" in the 442s that is causing the current problems!All this tech causing big problems, go back to simple engineering that actually worked properly.
If the ball is in NR’s court then tbh I’d think NR would be reluctant to do much. No doubt there’ll be arguments going on in the background between NR and SWR. NR will most likely see this - rightly IMHO - as an issue for SWR to resolve. It is, after all, their assets that are causing the problems. My argument being that the NR infrastructure in question was there first, and was not a problem until the 442 came back.The issue has been confirmed as a track circuit in the Wimbledon installed after the removal of 442s from traffic on SWR but whilst they were still cleared in the sectional appendix. The ball is very much in NR’s court but there is a degree of confidence they will be back in time (hopefully earlier) for the Dec timetable.
The original 442 ‘tech’ that is causing interference dates back to the 70s, presumably that isn’t simple enough...All this tech causing big problems, go back to simple engineering that actually worked properly.
But that doesn’t win franchises, though. Stagecoach caveated their bid to say the DfT’s aspirations on the timetable were undeliverable unless NR upgraded the power supply. First went for the promise the earth and hope to negotiate it out later approach. I know which approach is more honest with the punters.There's me of the understanding that you do not introduce a fleet that will decimate your timetable which was already fragile during peak commuting hours, and set to become even more so with the proposed service enhancements (as was the case when the franchise was bid), even if that meant ordering new stock as a last resort and delayed capacity enhancements. Promising the earth and then totally screwing people's commute (even more) is not going to win any brownie points for anyone and crossing fingers hoping for the best is hardly the way to make a sound business case.
But that doesn’t win franchises, though. Stagecoach caveated their bid to say the DfT’s aspirations on the timetable were undeliverable unless NR upgraded the power supply. First went for the promise the earth and hope to negotiate it out later approach. I know which approach is more honest with the punters.
If the ball is in NR’s court then tbh I’d think NR would be reluctant to do much. No doubt there’ll be arguments going on in the background between NR and SWR. NR will most likely see this - rightly IMHO - as an issue for SWR to resolve. It is, after all, their assets that are causing the problems. My argument being that the NR infrastructure in question was there first, and was not a problem until the 442 came back.
I keep saying it: what happens if the problem persists even after units have been retractioned?
The real questions are these:
I’m guessing that the reason these ‘life expired’ units were even considered for reintroduction is down to mileage and condition rather than age. What I’m saying is that I’m sure the rail industry has a measure of merit for the age/mileage and condition trade off, and that this must have been pretty good.
- who is paying for this whole 442 debacle? Is it SWR? Government? Angel Trains?
- how much will the end cost be?
- when is there going to be some kind of investigation/inquiry into the whole debacle?
- when is someone ‘high up’ in SWR going to take some responsibility?
Regardless of the 442 refurbishment debacle, the whole thing has pretty much gone ‘tits up’ for SWR.
I didn’t think there were enough significant timetable changes planned to need the full number of 442s, only minimal changes are planned.So, we've got 10 weeks until the introduction of the December timetable when SWR needs 14 units available for service, plus sufficient drivers and guards trained.
Not going to happen, is it?
Time will tell on that - the 442s that did briefly run in service weren't converted, so that's the equivalent of the 769s only running as 319s and the conversion not even having started yet. At least the 769s that are still 319s do actually work.Northern - pacers replaced by bi-mode 769s is nowhere in sight, would suggest this project is overall more of a ‘farce’ than 442s?
If five is a “considerable number”...Scotrail - off lease HSTs aren’t exactly going swimmingly, whilst there are interference problems the vehicles have been discovered to have far more corrosion than previously thought. Currently requiring a considerable number of class 170s to stay on lease at considerable cost.
I think that's a considerable number, it's more than 'the odd one or two just in case'.If five is a “considerable number”...
New - there aren't really any suitable second hand ones and everything these days is IGBT based rather than Motor - Alternator etc.Just to be clear, if the 442s are awaiting static converters are these likely to be new or are they likely to be reclaimed from elsewhere (from where?)?
I may have dreamed it, but I thought I read somewhere that 3 are required per unit. That’s (3/5)*90... 54 that will be needed for the fleet.
Out of interest, does anyone know how much a new static converter would cost? I guess I’m correct in assuming that this will come out of contingency in the budget.
It would be interesting to see the original Project Management Plan for the 442 refurbishment.
According to Mellors in Modern Railways they do need 14 units in service in December. There are insufficient units to run the scheduled services with full length formations now and six additional units at least appear to be required on the Windsor side from December.I didn’t think there were enough significant timetable changes planned to need the full number of 442s, only minimal changes are planned.
six additional units at least appear to be required on the Windsor side from Decemb
It would be less effort and more preferable to scrap the whole life-expired fleet.
No, because there are additional Reading and Windsor services.Isn't this because they're taking 707s from the Windsor's to run Shepperton services?
Will we see the new timetable postponed if the 442s aren't ready?
As the retractioned 442 *with the new static converters* were starting to roll of the production line, they called it quits and were focusing on the retractioned ones which shouldn't have EMC issues to the same extent.Any news on whether the signal interference issue has been fixed?
I'm struggling to make sense of this - at the beginning of your message, did you mean non-retractioned?As the retractioned 442 *with the new static converters* were starting to roll of the production line, they called it quits and were focusing on the retractioned ones which shouldn't have EMC issues to the same extent.
No I meant retractioned.I'm struggling to make sense of this - at the beginning of your message, did you mean non-retractioned?
Indeed. Musnt forget that there are scheduled short formations currently while the 442s are off and this can only get worse from December with the additional services on the Reading/Windsor lines.Surely the minimum goal must be to reintroduce the limited diagrams that ran in August so other stock can be released.
Well some of these conversations like this and the 769s may teach a lesson, that we may be able to do work on old rolling stock, but that doesn't mean we should try and keep rolling stock, which is at the point in its life that 1 or 2 units get preserved and the rest go for scrap, in service.
Does anyone know if any mainline testing of the retractioned units has taken place? I’ve done a quick look at RTT for some random recent weekdays and can’t see anything.
Surely the minimum goal must be to reintroduce the limited diagrams that ran in August so other stock can be released.
Looks like First Group may have learnt looking at the West Coast Partnership as they have set it lower with only refurbishment of pendolinos and new trains to replace the voyagers, although knowing First Group this is probably because Virgin have done most of the investment before them...
Haven't XC's and ScotRail's HSTs had issues with new doors though? Chiltern's have been successful although Wabtec no longer fit mk3s with the style of doors on Chiltern's mk3s and changing the doors isn't quite like the 769s which are having engines installed for bimode compared to new doors replacing what was already there and toilet collection tanks which are just a tank which can be emptied put onto the output of the toiletsI don't think you can make blanket statements. Refurbed mk3s seem to have been very successful on Chiltern, and GWR's refurbed HSTs also seem to be successful. Meanwhile there are plenty introductions of new stock which have had significant problems and delays.
Thankfully the next big step is largely out of First Group's control with First Group only specifying the interior, looking at GWR HST refurbs and TPE First Group seem to be rather good at specifying interiors.I think it very much is. The big step has been done on VTWC already. The next big step is HS2.