• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transfer of TPE 350/4s to West Midlands Trains (LNR)

Status
Not open for further replies.

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
The contract incentivises a very low failure rate hence that is what is delivered.
When maintenance is done in house by TOCs (much more common for Bombardier) the TOC can chose what is the most economically sensible optimisation of maintenance. Southern have much greater freedom over unit mileage than SWT/SWR due to the nature of the contracts.
The manufacturer maintenance contracts also have lower unit utilisation levels to allow more time for maintenance so you end up needing slightly more units than the in-house approach.

Manufacturer maintenance contract margins are very much in operators crosshairs across Europe at the moment as that is the most obvious "fat" that can easily be trimmed to lean the overall system costs.
But presumably if it leads to lower fleet reliability then it has a negative effect on the service ultimately delivered?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
But presumably if it leads to lower fleet reliability then it has a negative effect on the service ultimately delivered?
Yep but there is a cost optimisation.
The way failure metrics are calculated on a distance/ time between failures mean that above a certain level (say MTIN of 50,000) there is very little gain in actual reliability in practice given the occurrence of other delay reasons and money can be better spent elsewhere.

Coupling issues e.g. joining and splitting in service are a major source of "delay" incidents so reducing joining/splitting on route or having large allowances for it to happen in termini can also effect failure rates.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Yep but there is a cost optimisation.
The way failure metrics are calculated on a distance/ time between failures mean that above a certain level (say MTIN of 50,000) there is very little gain in actual reliability in practice given the occurrence of other delay reasons and money can be better spent elsewhere.

Coupling issues e.g. joining and splitting in service are a major source of "delay" incidents so reducing joining/splitting on route or having large allowances for it to happen in termini can also effect failure rates.
Presumably though that's all part of MTIN as if a unit failed to couple with another that would create a TIN, therefore reducing the number of times units couple would be another means of increasing the MTIN without adjusting maintenance schedules.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Presumably though that's all part of MTIN as if a unit failed to couple with another that would create a TIN, therefore reducing the number of times units couple would be another means of increasing the MTIN without adjusting maintenance schedules.
Precisely hence the SWT practice of all day unit coupling where possible.

Allowing lots of time in termini for joining allow for several attempts if needed without causing a delay.

Basically the stats can be managed to certain extent to comparison should be done with care, it is the detail that matters in practice.
If most of the issues can be resolved in the 3-6 minute time scale the impact may not be that large in practice (e.g. lots of 700 and 345 issues fall into this bracket) as the shape of the delay curve matters.

worth having a look at this thread for some MTIN background:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/how-is-mtin-calculated.87260/
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
The Siemens maintenance contracts are very expensive and you end up paying for a level of maintenance that may not be worth it.

Well the fact that Siemens units are constantly winning Golden Spanners left right and centre for the last decade and often taking up the top few positions all to themselves suggest that such contracts work.

Skimping on maintenance doesn't work out in the long run, go see any units that have had maintenance expenses cut back or have come off maintenance contracts and see their reliability fall in some cases quite dramatically and lots of short forms, which I'm sure people in this thread have experienced.

The difference between Bombardier's approach and Siemen's approach is reflected in the respective fleets that were born around the same time and their respective reliability figures. I understand that there are terms to these contracts, but they offer railways protection to ensure a certain availability of units or get compensation, the fact these were not around really when Alstom sold a load of questionable reliability stock is a real shame.

If we are really going to go down the road of keeping trains reliable is expensive so lets just not be bothered that much about it then there are seriously troubled times ahead for the railway, as the railwaymen a decade ago would never allow such things as these contracts were in part born out in the UK of the desire for operators to avoid issues experienced with various Alstom Fleets. The problem is the bid managers and theory knowners without any operational experience don't care.

Manufacturer maintenance contract margins are very much in operators crosshairs across Europe at the moment as that is the most obvious "fat" that can easily be trimmed to lean the overall system costs.

You will find the bid managers and those who know the price and theory of everything and the practice of nothing have them in their crosshairs. The Railway engineers and the operations people who come from that background and know the reality and practice have a rather different opinion.

Generally the only time people claim figures are massages is when there side is losing, when their side is winning then suddenly the figures they cast doubt on the accuracy of suddenly become reliable.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,262
Their was an intention to though it was only after given to tpe that it was changed to /4s
They were never ‘given’ to TPE. It was a case of piggy backing onto an existing LM contract which was already underway, but they were always ordered for TPE.

Likewise, they were never actually ‘sub-leased from LM’ despite it being regularly described that way in various forums...
 

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,748
They were never ‘given’ to TPE. It was a case of piggy backing onto an existing LM contract which was already underway, but they were always ordered for TPE.
Yes i know iam trying to say once the units were finished for tpe that it was changed to /4
 

anamyd

On Moderation
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
3,011
They were never ‘given’ to TPE. It was a case of piggy backing onto an existing LM contract which was already underway, but they were always ordered for TPE.

Likewise, they were never actually ‘sub-leased from LM’ despite it being regularly described that way in various forums...
I remember reading one of London Midland's own press releases not long ago saying that the order for the new 350s included units for First TransPennine Express!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,262
I remember reading one of London Midland's own press releases not long ago saying that the order for the new 350s included units for First TransPennine Express!
That’s right. I think there was also a time that Southern were directed by DFT to add units that would go straight to another TOC. Basically acting as a bulk-buy agent...
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
350/2's to the MML for the new "local" service Corby-St Pancras.

Would be a great fit to go with the Drivers they will get from LNW, already signing the traction. (the recent recruitment drive for Kettering/Corby has attracted a fair amount of interest from Drivers at LNW who live over that way and are based at Northampton/Bletchley)
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,262
350/2's to the MML for the new "local" service Corby-St Pancras.

Would be a great fit to go with the Drivers they will get from LNW, already signing the traction. (the recent recruitment drive for Kettering/Corby has attracted a fair amount of interest from Drivers at LNW who live over that way and are based at Northampton/Bletchley)
You mean there’s an advantage to be had at the recruitment stage if you can bring your own rolling stock? :)
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Precisely hence the SWT practice of all day unit coupling where possible.

Allowing lots of time in termini for joining allow for several attempts if needed without causing a delay.

Basically the stats can be managed to certain extent to comparison should be done with care, it is the detail that matters in practice.
If most of the issues can be resolved in the 3-6 minute time scale the impact may not be that large in practice (e.g. lots of 700 and 345 issues fall into this bracket) as the shape of the delay curve matters.

worth having a look at this thread for some MTIN background:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/how-is-mtin-calculated.87260/
That's my thread ;)
But thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten all about posting this...
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
You mean there’s an advantage to be had at the recruitment stage if you can bring your own rolling stock? :)

Lol.....yeah why not!! They are after "about 40 drivers" and there are 37 units! One of two would have to go without their own personal mark 2 but i'm sure EMT could let that slide and not hold it against those unfortunate enough to miss out! :D:D:D:D
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
Is there any point replacing 318s dating from 1986 with 321s dating from 1990?
I wouldn't have thought so. The 318s and 320s work in multi and cross cover the diagrams. They all had a lot of money spent on them.
 

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,748
I wouldn't have thought so. The 318s and 320s work in multi and cross cover the diagrams. They all had a lot of money spent on them.
as have all units including the 350/2s it’s unfortunate that toc cant sell their own units since they dont get money back for investing in their trains
 

Wivenswold

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2012
Messages
1,478
Location
Essex
350/2's to the MML for the new "local" service Corby-St Pancras.

Would be a great fit to go with the Drivers they will get from LNW, already signing the traction. (the recent recruitment drive for Kettering/Corby has attracted a fair amount of interest from Drivers at LNW who live over that way and are based at Northampton/Bletchley)

There's a strong rumour floating around that Corby will get the ex-GA 360s. If so, they're due a refurb and repaint anyway so there won't be too much training for LNW trains. They'll have a much better view too.
 

MatthewRead

On Moderation
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
1,636
Location
West london
350/2's to the MML for the new "local" service Corby-St Pancras.

Would be a great fit to go with the Drivers they will get from LNW, already signing the traction. (the recent recruitment drive for Kettering/Corby has attracted a fair amount of interest from Drivers at LNW who live over that way and are based at Northampton/Bletchley)
360's are meant to be taking over those services.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
350/2's will remain at LNW for longer than originally envisaged due to the delay in the 730 program.

12 month lease extension arrangement has been rumoured
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
Nope, I was thinking of the 321/4s (ex WCML/ECML) that haven't yet been sent to Kilmarnock for conversion into Class 320/4s. The Renatus 321s have plenty life left in them yet, and I have an inkling they won't be bound for ScotRail after GA...

I think its been said elsewhere on this board that Class 321s were going to be used as a test bed for Hydro Flex?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
I think its been said elsewhere on this board that Class 321s were going to be used as a test bed for Hydro Flex?
Yes and no; Eversholt/Alstom plan to use them for a "321 Breeze" project to power them with hydrogen fuel cells, however Porterbrook & the University of Birmingham beat them to it with the HydroFLEX 319 (now with the Class number 799).
 

bussnapperwm

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2014
Messages
1,506
Would it be viable to convert the /2s to DC so they could then work with 444/450 stock in SWRland? Number them 451s?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Would it be viable to convert the /2s to DC so they could then work with 444/450 stock in SWRland? Number them 451s?
I've asked the question before, and the answer is no. They could be converted to DC, it's true, but where would you store 37 4-car units that are surplus to requirements? The biggest problem for me is the power supply down on the Wessex route, which is pretty much at bursting point...again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top