• 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!

Government takes ownership of Class 365 fleet

Status
Not open for further replies.

aleggatta

Member
Joined
28 Sep 2015
Messages
537
I was the Fleet Support Engineer for HSBC on the 365 fleet for 8 years, supporting operation and maintenance of the fleet at Ramsgate and Hornsey, and was on the project team for the migration of the LSER units to WAGN.

All DC current collection equipment (shoe beams, cables, arc shields, fuse boxes etc) were removed during conversion at Doncaster works. One set were retained by Bombardier for possible pattern use at some point in the future but they were lost at Crewe works during the closure. The rest went in the skip. This was done as it was recognised at the time that the odds of 365's ever going back to DC operation were extremely long.

However, there are more significant issues with returning 365's to DC operation than just the missing current collection equipment. Just before the 16 units left Ramsgate it was found that the High Speed Circuit Breaker operation timings were out of spec and non-compliant with safety case requirements. Believed to be an age related issue, it was not closed out before the units left DC land and would prevent their return to DC operation.

There's also the small matter of many of the units having had their 50Hz monitors (known as Ansaldo's) removed and used on GEC traction equipped 465's. Unless something has changed since my last involvement then these are obsolete and no longer available, so that poses problems in its own right.

There is no "wiring loom" missing.

Operationally, 365's are not compatible with 465's except for recovery purposes. Auto couplers are wired slightly differently so train lines don't match and require the coupler switch be put in the "other" position, which means that some key train functions for normal operation don't work. But the bigger problem is that 365's are geared differently to 465's; 365's achieve a higher top speed by being higher geared, when compared to 465's, which means they don't accelerate as fast. If I remember correctly, 365's average 0.88ms2 and 465's average 1ms2. So coupling them together causes all kinds of issues.

Southeastern don't want 365's. Why would they want a small sub fleet that's not operationally compatible with any other stock they've got and that would require a whole new maintenance and material provision?


Now that's a response I like, full of the nitty gritty detail! Just one query from me - If the 365's were not compliant in regards to HSCB timings, would that also be a problem for the 465's(at the time)? I guess I'm really wondering if the 365 traction system operating in DC was ever the same as the 465 traction system (wiring/spec/design) notwithstanding the obvious additional hardware required for AC operation not being present on 465's
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
353
Now that's a response I like, full of the nitty gritty detail! Just one query from me - If the 365's were not compliant in regards to HSCB timings, would that also be a problem for the 465's(at the time)? I guess I'm really wondering if the 365 traction system operating in DC was ever the same as the 465 traction system (wiring/spec/design) notwithstanding the obvious additional hardware required for AC operation not being present on 465's

From what I remember the GEC 465's predate the need to check the HSCB timings as part of routine maintenance. I recall it being raised with LSER at the time and the old adage " don't go looking for a problem until you know what you are going to do when you find it" being applied. The qualified risk assessment of being a few milliseconds slower on HSCB operation when 50Hz was detected vs. grounding a whole fleet with no plan on how to return them to service came down very much on "if the signals aren't being f***d up by 465's leave well enough alone" (sic).

I don't recall the exact details of the differences between the respective traction packages; they are very close with some component parts being interchangeable, but are not identical.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
I don't recall the exact details of the differences between the respective traction packages; they are very close with some component parts being interchangeable, but are not identical.

I think NSE's original plan was for the Networker to be a standard train, and they probably would have ordered a lot more, given half the chance. Of course, it ended up morphing into the Electrostar eventually - does the Electrostar have any commonality with the Networker at all? I'm under the impression that the electronics are completely different, and effectively a generation on from the Networkers.
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
I use these units regularly and don't see the problem. The cleaning regime could be a bit better, especially dealing with bad smells, but the standard of the train is far superior to many in Northern land. I would probably even take one over a 331 as they feel more spacious and I have never really cooked on one despite the lack of AC. Northern have really stuffed up with their interior design of the new units.

It might just be my route is not too bad compared to others but I would have thought Victoria to Orpington is fairly typical?

The 465/9s are much nicer internally maybe that's what you use? Brighter, cleaner having had a deep refurb but many others never have.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I think NSE's original plan was for the Networker to be a standard train, and they probably would have ordered a lot more, given half the chance. Of course, it ended up morphing into the Electrostar eventually - does the Electrostar have any commonality with the Networker at all? I'm under the impression that the electronics are completely different, and effectively a generation on from the Networkers.
Yes, the Networkers (along with 323s and the 96 Tube stock) were first generation three-phase drives. These used Gat Turn Off thyristors, which can only operate a few hundred times per second, which explains both the distinctive sound and the electromagnetic compatibility issues of these trains. Later fleets used Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors, which can switch at much higher frequencies that generally don't conflict with what signalling equipment uses. Before someone picks me up on it and starts a tangent, the 323s have been upgraded with IGBTs but still have the same control software so still operate at the same frequencies the GTOs did.

I don't think the bodyshells have much in common either - the Networkers are welded aluminium and the Stars are panels bolted together with aircon in removeble roof-mounted pods instead of being underfloor in the 158 and 166.

But they do all use variations of the same bogie. BR intended to have a "second-generation Networker" which would have had the Advanced Suburban Bogie that eventually appeared in modified forum under 172s and Aventras. It would no doubt have included the latest electronics as well.
 
Last edited:

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
the Networkers are welded aluminium and the Stars are panels bolted together

This is incorrect. All Networkers and Electostars (and Aventras) are of similar construction. The sides, roof and floor are made of double skinned aluminium extrusions (planks) welded together. These panels are then bolted together at the corners using huckbolts. You can see the bolt holes in the picture of Aventra side panels at Derby shown below.

tn_gb-greateranglia-aventra-derby-wall.jpg
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
This is incorrect. All Networkers and Electostars (and Aventras) are of similar construction. The sides, roof and floor are made of double skinned aluminium extrusions (planks) welded together. These panels are then bolted together at the corners using huckbolts. You can see the bolt holes in the picture of Aventra side panels at Derby shown below.

tn_gb-greateranglia-aventra-derby-wall.jpg

There surely must be some differences, as it was highlighted in the aftermath of the Ladbroke Grove collision that the body shell of the leading 165 vehicle disintegrated as a result of failing along the weld lines, and I’m sure it was stated that an Electrostar type shell wouldn’t have failed in the same way. Although to be fair it was never said that an Electrostar would have performed materially better in terms of survivability, just that the failure mode would have been different. One wonders if, for example, a bolted shell might fail with the bolts shearing under stress. I’m open to correction on all of this as I’m simply a layman on this - fortunately this hasn’t ever been tested in practice.
 
Last edited:

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
This is incorrect. All Networkers and Electostars (and Aventras) are of similar construction. The sides, roof and floor are made of double skinned aluminium extrusions (planks) welded together. These panels are then bolted together at the corners using huckbolts. You can see the bolt holes in the picture of Aventra side panels at Derby shown below.

tn_gb-greateranglia-aventra-derby-wall.jpg

The Networkers are 100% all welded. No bolts. The class 168 was the first to use bolts.
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
The Networkers are 100% all welded. No bolts. The class 168 was the first to use bolts.
That is interesting as I believed the huck-bolting went back to 158s albeit they used single skin extrusions. Did they go back to welding as they thought it was stronger? (criticism of 158s as Garden Shed engineering)
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
891
Location
ECML
I have no idea if the previous posters know the difference between a Huckbolt (which I believe is actually a trademarked kind of fastener) and a standard threaded bolt which you would buy from an Ironmongers or DIY shop.

As I have previously worked in the aerospace industry which means I have come into contact with Huckbolts, I would like to point out (so non engineering posters/forum members can understand), that a huckbolt has a round head (bolts typically have a hex head) with a serated shaft, which a collar is clenched onto (therefore it cannot be unscrewed, as no thread, and has to be drilled out to be removed).

In my opinion a huckbolt is more akin to a rivet (with a collar) than a bolt and nut.

I hope my piece of info helps and if anyone can explain better, feel free
 
Last edited:

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
That is interesting as I believed the huck-bolting went back to 158s albeit they used single skin extrusions. Did they go back to welding as they thought it was stronger? (criticism of 158s as Garden Shed engineering)
The criticism of the 158s as “garden shed engineering” was about the defects on delivery not the method of construction. Unless anyone can say authoritatively any different then AFAIAA the 158 bodies were welded not bolted.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Certainly I don't recall Modern Railways mentioning Huckbolts until the advent of the Turbostar/Electrostar, when it was described as a new construction technique.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
The 158, 165 & 166 used extruded body length planks for the floor, roof & sides. The dragboxes were cast aluminium and the ends were fabricated aluminium.

Once the planks were welded, they were machined, any cast components welded on (partitions, dragboxes) and then placed in a rotating jig for everything to be welded together.

Pic here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/colingarratt/8507468902/in/album-72157632850715219/

The 168 onwards went to bolted construction as it was easier to repair and because it allowed greater flexibly in body length, door window position etc.
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
The 158, 165 & 166 used extruded body length planks for the floor, roof & sides. The dragboxes were cast aluminium and the ends were fabricated aluminium.

Once the planks were welded, they were machined, any cast components welded on (partitions, dragboxes) and then placed in a rotating jig for everything to be welded together.

Pic here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/colingarratt/8507468902/in/album-72157632850715219/

The 168 onwards went to bolted construction as it was easier to repair and because it allowed greater flexibly in body length, door window position etc.

Great picture of the Networker. How did the dual sourcing of them work. Did BREL design them and then, under instruction from BR/NSE, pass the design and construction methods to Metro Cammell? Or did Metro Cammell only fit out prebuilt bodyshells at Washford Heath
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
353
Great picture of the Networker. How did the dual sourcing of them work. Did BREL design them and then, under instruction from BR/NSE, pass the design and construction methods to Metro Cammell? Or did Metro Cammell only fit out prebuilt bodyshells at Washford Heath

GEC & BREL bodies for the class 465/466 are different designs, designed fabricated by each company independently. The procurement specification gave the critical dimensions/appearance that had to be complied with in order to match the Networker "look".

The GEC shells were fabricated in Valencia and then shipped to Washwood Heath. It is said that this why you can hear liquid sloshing around inside the body panels on the GEC units when they brake and accelerate in service; they were shipped from Spain without any windows in and if they shells were not sufficiently well protected/encountered bad weather/placed on deck rather than below deck on the ferry during the road trip to Birmingham then water got into the extruded sections and it has proved impossible to get out since...
 
Last edited:

urpert

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Messages
1,164
Location
Essendine or between Étaples and Rang-du-Fliers
GEC & BREL bodies for the class 465/466 are different designs, designed fabricated by each company independently. The procurement specification gave the critical dimensions/appearance that had to be complied with in order to match the Networker "look".

The GEC shells were fabricated in Valencia and then shipped to Washwood Heath. It is said that this why you can hear liquid sloshing around inside the body panels on the GEC units when they brake and accelerate in service; they were shipped from Spain without any windows in and if they shells were not sufficiently well protected/encountered bad weather/placed on deck rather than below deck on the ferry during the road trip to Birmingham then water got into the extruded sections and it has proved impossible to get out since...

That’s fascinating, I always assumed the (very obvious) water had got in more recently due to poor maintenance!
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
353
That’s fascinating, I always assumed the (very obvious) water had got in more recently due to poor maintenance!

No. It's been sloshing around in the extrusions for as long as I can remember.

I've been involved with Networkers, in one form or another, for about 25 years.

Started on the production line at Washwood Heath at the tail end of Networker build, a Slade Green maintenance fitter then defect technician and then fleet tech officer for LSER in the late 90's/early 00's for 4 years, 8 years as fleet support engineer for the 365's at LSER and WAGN, back to SE for another 4 years spell in fleet tech office and projects and maintenance planning leaving in 2014.

Not had much to do with them since but I keep an eye on what they're up to these days...
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
I always thought that a most unusual arrangement, having 2 rival companies building almost identical looking trains to a set specification. I assume some politics were at play there, to spread the work around hence the BREL/Brush and Metro Cammell/GEC pairings, though the 365s mixed this up by combining BREL/ABB bodywork with GEC Alsthom traction!
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
353
I always thought that a most unusual arrangement, having 2 rival companies building almost identical looking trains to a set specification. I assume some politics were at play there, to spread the work around hence the BREL/Brush and Metro Cammell/GEC pairings, though the 365s mixed this up by combining BREL/ABB bodywork with GEC Alsthom traction!

The lines were blurred before 365's. 466's have GEC bodies and traction with SRP (BREL) bogies.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
I have no idea if the previous posters know the difference between a Huckbolt (which I believe is actually a trademarked kind of fastener) and a standard threaded bolt which you would buy from an Ironmongers or DIY shop.

As I have previously worked in the aerospace industry which means I have come into contact with Huckbolts, I would like to point out (so non engineering posters/forum members can understand), that a huckbolt has a round head (bolts typically have a hex head) with a serated shaft, which a collar is clenched onto (therefore it cannot be unscrewed, as no thread, and has to be drilled out to be removed).

In my opinion a huckbolt is more akin to a rivet (with a collar) than a bolt and nut.

I hope my piece of info helps and if anyone can explain better, feel free
Thanks for your explanation of what it seems are correctly termed “Huck® bolts”. It’s worth a quick trip to YouTube, as there are many animations of how they are installed, indeed there are a number of descriptions of them as a type of rivet.
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
GEC & BREL bodies for the class 465/466 are different designs, designed fabricated by each company independently. The procurement specification gave the critical dimensions/appearance that had to be complied with in order to match the Networker "look".

The GEC shells were fabricated in Valencia and then shipped to Washwood Heath.

If that's the case why would the 465 pictured in a previous post be being welded in a jig at Washwood Heath Met Cam? Also when did Washwood Heath last make any bodyshells? 156s and Mk4s were outsourced I believe. D78 stock?
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
353
If that's the case why would the 465 pictured in a previous post be being welded in a jig at Washwood Heath Met Cam? Also when did Washwood Heath last make any bodyshells? 156s and Mk4s were outsourced I believe. D78 stock?

Because it's one of the trial fit shells.

The first couple of trains are built as far as possible at the factory to trial fit to check that the design goes together as intended, modifications are made to designs and procedures when needed and then production gets outsourced and goes into full flow.

On Jubilee line stock the first 3 train sets were trial fit, shells were made in Valencia - because by this time the limited fabrication facilities that had been left at Washwood Heath for Networker had gone - but came in unpainted and without glazing, doors etc. to allow us to make all the modifications - and there were a lot of them - and then once trial fit was done the shells came in fully painted, with doors and glazing fitted and ready to go into full production flow.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
I think the picture in the link I posted was taken at ABB York not Met Cam. I have found two more taken by the same photographer (Colin Garratt) in an ABB publicity document I have.
Networker1.png

Networker2.png

It shows the "Minster Jig" at York and a body getting welded.

Feel free to delete if there are copyright issues.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
I always thought that a most unusual arrangement, having 2 rival companies building almost identical looking trains to a set specification. I assume some politics were at play there, to spread the work around hence the BREL/Brush and Metro Cammell/GEC pairings, though the 365s mixed this up by combining BREL/ABB bodywork with GEC Alsthom traction!
When I was aged 4/5 (born in 1995) I was able to distinguish the different sounds and relate it to how their bodies looked inside and out, but I hadn't learned about class numbers, and certainly not sub-classes until about aged 12/13. On the few occasions I got to ride on 365s when they were with Connex (mainly summer specials to Margate from Dartford), that was a real "curveball" to my mind, not least with the very well furnished interiors they had with Connex. When I realised as a teenager they were 365s all along it explained everything.
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
891
Location
ECML
Thanks for your explanation of what it seems are correctly termed “Huck® bolts”. It’s worth a quick trip to YouTube, as there are many animations of how they are installed, indeed there are a number of descriptions of them as a type of rivet.
Your Welcome :)
 
Joined
24 Jun 2014
Messages
432
Location
Derby
The lines were blurred before 365's. 466's have GEC bodies and traction with SRP (BREL) bogies.

From memory, this isn't quite right.

The Met-Cam built class 465s had SRP bogies, but because of some issues, didn't the 466s have Derby built series 3 bogies? Have used Derby deliberately because I can't remember if the plant was BREL or ABB at the time the bogies were manufactured!

I can't remember what the problem which caused the change of supplier between 465 and 466 bogies was, but there were some problems with SRP on the class 465s and certainly views were expressed within BR that they had copied the BR designed series 3 bogies without agreement (ownership of the series 3 bogie design went from BR to BREL at privatisation, and the Sale of BREL Agreement gave BR rights to use the design free of charge); I think the problem was got round by SRP making minor changes like, say, changing some parts from fabrications to castings., the end result being "different" 'H' framed bogies which looked very similar
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
353
From memory, this isn't quite right.

The Met-Cam built class 465s had SRP bogies, but because of some issues, didn't the 466s have Derby built series 3 bogies? Have used Derby deliberately because I can't remember if the plant was BREL or ABB at the time the bogies were manufactured!

I can't remember what the problem which caused the change of supplier between 465 and 466 bogies was, but there were some problems with SRP on the class 465s and certainly views were expressed within BR that they had copied the BR designed series 3 bogies without agreement (ownership of the series 3 bogie design went from BR to BREL at privatisation, and the Sale of BREL Agreement gave BR rights to use the design free of charge); I think the problem was got round by SRP making minor changes like, say, changing some parts from fabrications to castings., the end result being "different" 'H' framed bogies which looked very similar

You're right, got my classes and bogies base about apex.

But the point is the same, 466's were a hybrid of GEC & BREL/ABB before 365's came along...
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
There's a little more to it than this, Basically BREL was sold off to ASEA Brown Boveri (ABB) which later merged with Daimler Benz to form ABB Daimler Benz Transportation (AdTranz) this was later bought out by Bombardier. Turbo stars and electrostars are essentially AdTranz products developed from the networker. The heritage and development of the design can clearly be seen through the various sub classes of Chilterns 168s.

GEC also retains a lot of British engineering heritage in that English Electric was merged into the company many years ago, GEC of course now being part of Alsthom.
 

Doomotron

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2018
Messages
1,173
Location
Kent
Do the DFT now own all of the 365s that are stored, with the rest running with GTR?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top