• 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!

What is the cause of unreliability of Vivarail Class 230 trains?

Status
Not open for further replies.

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
that will be a relative concept! I am not convinced the problems have gone away. I think the cooler weather is masking the issue. I am also concerned about autumn performance and wheel damage.

Surely the risk of autumn wheel damage is little different to that they faced when working for LUL on the District line given the amount of that which is in the open ?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Surely the risk of autumn wheel damage is little different to that they faced when working for LUL on the District line given the amount of that which is in the open ?

no idea. They didnt have the extra weight of all the gubbins underneath or run in a 2 car formation on the underground
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Surely the risk of autumn wheel damage is little different to that they faced when working for LUL on the District line given the amount of that which is in the open ?
Not necessarily, the district line tracks were very busy with trains frequently passing over them 19 hours a day, the Marston Vale is much quieter allowing more build-up to occur on the rails.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Yes, it's just another reason why the trains are not of merchantable quality and urgently need replacement with something else.

A ridiculous hyperbolic statement - you have no idea what performance clauses LNW have with Vivarail. Either way, you're managing to conflate consumer legislation with corporate.

With three 15x, the line would have been near 100% reliable - it was only unreliable because there was no spare and they had to get one from Birmingham - it was reliable enough when a spare 150 was kept there as a matter of course or was no more than an hour away to get one from Wembley.
There were weekly failures on the 15xs on the route and keeping a 'warm' spare around "just in case" is a pretty poor use of a scarce resource.

With three 230s it's very poor. That's just not good enough, and Vivarail have had more than ample chance.
IN YOUR OPINION. Unless and until you can demonstrate that you're in full possession of the facts, this is just more hyperbolic nonsense.

The interior is nice (though I dislike the lighting) - but a nice interior is useless if the unit isn't going to reliably get you where you are going.
From somebody who has frequently professed their preference for 319s over 350s,, I'm not sure I'd place any store by your opinion on such matters.

I'd also support the cancellation of the TfW order, to be honest. The product needs to be ready before it was ordered, it clearly was not. Perhaps they should have funded a "free trial" by a TOC with the existing stock waiting in the wings ready.

Luckily, TFW aren't going to be listening to you. They'll be listening to people who know far more about these things.

I think they should be withdrawn because they are rubbish in reliability terms with no improvement in sight, not because they are unsafe. A long-term bus service pending something else being made available e.g. 150s from Wales on delivery of CAF units would be more use, at least you could rely on it being as per the timetable.
More hyperbolic nonsense.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
2 East Mids 153s on hire now. Not sure when will make it to Bletchley given the absolute calamity than is LNR this week.
EMR can really spare them considering they are already seriously short of rolling stock and often leave people stood on platforms with short forming.

Moan over - but I assume that these can’t be used beyond 2020 because of PRM issues. Or I wonder if dft will let this one go as a non compliant train is better than no train
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
EMR can really spare them considering they are already seriously short of rolling stock and often leave people stood on platforms with short forming.

Moan over - but I assume that these can’t be used beyond 2020 because of PRM issues. Or I wonder if dft will let this one go as a non compliant train is better than no train

Well - at present there's nothing to substantiate that (i) this is happening and (ii) they're for the Marston Vale. According to Wikipedia (not always the most reliable, admittedly) WMR are due to release their 170s to EMT for 2020 - could it be that the 153s are coming the other way to start this as EMT don't currently operate 170s and therefore will need to start driver training etc?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There were weekly failures on the 15xs on the route and keeping a 'warm' spare around "just in case" is a pretty poor use of a scarce resource.

There are daily failures on 230s. More than once daily in some cases.

If it is necessary to keep a spare around to ensure a reliable service then it is necessary, not a poor use of a resource.

IN YOUR OPINION. Unless and until you can demonstrate that you're in full possession of the facts, this is just more hyperbolic nonsense

The fact is that with three units they are unable to anything like reliably operate the timetable - that is unacceptable. If my car was that bad I'd soon get shut.

It's not hyperbolic - the service is utterly, utterly unacceptable and the cause of that is unreliable 230s. If they had three 15x I'm pretty much certain it would be near 100% reliable (dropping only the odd service to swap one out if it failed) - it was in the days when the units were based much closer.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Well - at present there's nothing to substantiate that (i) this is happening and (ii) they're for the Marston Vale. According to Wikipedia (not always the most reliable, admittedly) WMR are due to release their 170s to EMT for 2020 - could it be that the 153s are coming the other way to start this as EMT don't currently operate 170s and therefore will need to start driver training etc?

The Hereford thread states that they are for relieving overcrowding on that line, not for the MV.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Post not relevant- answered above.

Well - at present there's nothing to substantiate that (i) this is happening and (ii) they're for the Marston Vale. According to Wikipedia (not always the most reliable, admittedly) WMR are due to release their 170s to EMT for 2020 - could it be that the 153s are coming the other way to start this as EMT don't currently operate 170s and therefore will need to start driver training etc?

Just to fill the gaps. Although off topic.
EMR struggle daily to deliver their service. So can’t afford to let anything go without cancelling / short forming more of their own services.

in December 156s will leave Anglia for EMR. This will release some 153s (which could go to cover the 230s)

The 170s and driver training will happen next year. But 153 release is possible. As you say, no credible evidence yet they will replace the 230s. But my question still applies can they? Or will the non-compliance prevent this?
 
Last edited:

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Post not relevant- answered above.



Just to fill the gaps. Although off topic.
EMR struggle daily to deliver their service. So can’t afford to let anything go without cancelling / short forming more of their own services.

in December 156s will leave Anglia for EMR. This will release some 153s (which could go to cover the 230s)

The 170s and driver training will happen next year. But 153 release is possible. As you say, no credible evidence yet they will replace the 230s. But my question still applies can they? Or will the non-compliance prevent this?
Compliance is out the window for several TOCs, if some get let off, others will want to know why they don't. If none of them get let off, there'll be chaos.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Just to fill the gaps. Although off topic.
EMR struggle daily to deliver their service. So can’t afford to let anything go without cancelling / short forming more of their own services.

in December 156s will leave Anglia for EMR. This will release some 153s (which could go to cover the 230s)

The 170s and driver training will happen next year. But 153 release is possible. As you say, no credible evidence yet they will replace the 230s. But my question still applies can they? Or will the non-compliance prevent this?

Don't the 153s have a problem with Disability access?
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Don't the 153s have a problem with Disability access?
Yes. No accessible toilet. The solution is simple. Lock it out of use for everyone. EMR will couple them to other trains such as a 156 post December. They have no PIS either.

to me perfect fine as a standby for the 230 if they have problems.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
There are daily failures on 230s. More than once daily in some cases.

More hyperbole - not substantiated by the facts.



If it is necessary to keep a spare around to ensure a reliable service then it is necessary, not a poor use of a resource.

No - because if that "spare" could be used to relieve overcrowding on a more important service then that's a far better use of a scarce resource - basic economics that one.

The fact is that with three units they are unable to anything like reliably operate the timetable - that is unacceptable. If my car was that bad I'd soon get shut.

Again, hyperbole, where the facts that don't substantiate your claims.

It's not hyperbolic - the service is utterly, utterly unacceptable and the cause of that is unreliable 230s. If they had three 15x I'm pretty much certain it would be near 100% reliable (dropping only the odd service to swap one out if it failed) - it was in the days when the units were based much closer.

I can recall the rantings on here about the almost day in, day out failures when the 15xs were on the route.

How often do YOU use the service to make the statement it's unacceptable ? Are you a regular user of it ? Because most of the time you're ranting on about the poor service between Bletchley and London - so what do you use and how often? Looking at LNW over the last week or so the bigger issues seem to have been infrastructure problems and staffing, not unit reliability.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Yes. No accessible toilet. The solution is simple. Lock it out of use for everyone. EMR will couple them to other trains such as a 156 post December. They have no PIS either.

to me perfect fine as a standby for the 230 if they have problems.

EMRs solution is probably the more sensible in that they are providing capacity on routes but also maintaining the facilities.

I happen to agree that for the use the 153s have a toilet is probably non-essential, however once again you only need to look at the wibble on here whenever a unit on a shorter route turns up with the toilet locked out of use - conveniently ignoring the fact that services like Welwyn / Hertford / Stevenage - Moorgate are longer in duration and have *never* had a toilet on them, same for many LUL services.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I can recall the rantings on here about the almost day in, day out failures when the 15xs were on the route.

Correct, and that wasn't OK either. Three reliable units are required. If they aren't going to do that, they might as well pull it and put buses on - at least they would be trustworthy.

As for staffing, check the LNR timetable thread for my vitriol about the incompetent staffing/diagramming messing up the WCML services (and to some extent the MV as well), and check RTT (or ask @DarloRich) if you want to know just how bad it has got and how it is not at all hyperbole to say the service is at the point of total unacceptability.
 
Last edited:

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
no idea. They didnt have the extra weight of all the gubbins underneath or run in a 2 car formation on the underground
Actually they probably are lighter after having the very heavy PCM camshaft mechanism and large motor alternator removed, also the DC motors changed for AC and no longer drag around a trailer car with compressor and fan alternator attached.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Correct, and that wasn't OK either. Three reliable units are required. If they aren't going to do that, they might as well pull it and put buses on - at least they would be trustworthy.

As for staffing, check the LNR timetable thread for my vitriol about the incompetent staffing/diagramming messing up the WCML services (and to some extent the MV as well), and check RTT (or ask @DarloRich) if you want to know just how bad it has got and how it is not at all hyperbole to say the service is at the point of total unacceptability.

But to have 3 "reliable" units around means having a unit sitting around doing nothing "just in case" - that's a poor use of scarce resources.

The MV is NOT an important line. And if I were LNW / WMR and the choice was between having a service leaving New Street overcrowded, leaving passengers behind and cancelling an, at best, half-full Marston Vale service, I know what I'd do. Sorry - but that's the choice.

The MV has never been a priority - even under BR days it tended to be run with the oldest, most decrepit DMUs that were 3rd or 4th hand at best. Whether EWR changes that, who knows, but it's not a heavily used line, the journey time owing to the number of minor stations is poor - if you're going from MK to Bedford the Stagecoach X5 is a better bet being more frequent and faster (45 min from MK city centre to Bedford Bus station) - even if you extended the Marston Vale to MK Central, you'd still be looking at a slower journey.

The D train reliability isn't the best, but then I can't think of any new stock which hit the ground running - probably the best comparison for the D trains is the PPM over at Stourbridge and that took a while to bed in as well.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But to have 3 "reliable" units around means having a unit sitting around doing nothing "just in case" - that's a poor use of scarce resources.

The MV is NOT an important line. And if I were LNW / WMR and the choice was between having a service leaving New Street overcrowded, leaving passengers behind and cancelling an, at best, half-full Marston Vale service, I know what I'd do. Sorry - but that's the choice.

But then in that case they should institute an emergency timetable on the MV so it requires only one unit and have one running and one spare. You could run either a 2 hourly clockface service, or you could do something like the old Ormskirk-Preston of an irregular timetable with the unit just going back and forth and waiting 5-10 minutes at each end (which I think would get you a service roughly every hour and a half). As it interacts with very little else bar a freight or two, it's not one that would be hard to change. Yes, I do like Takt, but not at the expense of a usable service. And TBH I preferred the old oddly timetabled Ormskirk-Preston service I grew up with than the present unreliable hourly clockface one.

The point I'm making is that the railway should not offer a timetable it cannot deliver. If only two units are available to the MV and a third spare is non-viable, you need to operate a one-unit service.

Under no circumstances is an unpunctual, unreliable service acceptable in my eyes. You need to operate the timetable you can reliably and punctually operate using the units and crews you have, and publicise that timetable in advance.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
It's not acceptable but unfortunately as A0wen's put it, it's all a matter of priorities. The lines that concern TOCs the least will always receive a poor service because attention is focused elsewhere. The only way that will ever be resolved will be if sufficient DMUs exist to create a working surplus or all of the poorer relations are electrified. I don't see either of those things happening in my lifetime (and the D78s on which the 230s are based are older than I am).
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
As for staffing, check the LNR timetable thread for my vitriol about the incompetent staffing/diagramming messing up the WCML services (and to some extent the MV as well), and check RTT (or ask @DarloRich) if you want to know just how bad it has got and how it is not at all hyperbole to say the service is at the point of total unacceptability.

They have actually been better over the last 3 weeks with MOST ( not all) issues caused by staff shortages.

But to have 3 "reliable" units around means having a unit sitting around doing nothing "just in case" - that's a poor use of scarce resources.

The MV is NOT an important line. And if I were LNW / WMR and the choice was between having a service leaving New Street overcrowded, leaving passengers behind and cancelling an, at best, half-full Marston Vale service, I know what I'd do. Sorry - but that's the choice.

The MV has never been a priority - even under BR days it tended to be run with the oldest, most decrepit DMUs that were 3rd or 4th hand at best. Whether EWR changes that, who knows, but it's not a heavily used line, the journey time owing to the number of minor stations is poor - if you're going from MK to Bedford the Stagecoach X5 is a better bet being more frequent and faster (45 min from MK city centre to Bedford Bus station) - even if you extended the Marston Vale to MK Central, you'd still be looking at a slower journey.

The D train reliability isn't the best, but then I can't think of any new stock which hit the ground running - probably the best comparison for the D trains is the PPM over at Stourbridge and that took a while to bed in as well.

lets just hang on a minute. This might all be right in the past but now I live on the line and use it every day therefore the importance has gone up by several orders of magnitude! ;)
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,901
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
is this actually happening? My LNWR source said it was in the works but that they WERENT for the Vale
Monday it was, today they realised the crew are out of ticket on them and they didn’t plan refreshers so off is what my (not particularly pro) bert has reported

Given what they are doing this week, it’s clear they can’t even see the left hand from the right hand
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Monday it was, today they realised the crew are out of ticket on them and they didn’t plan refreshers so off is what my (not particularly pro) bert has reported

Given what they are doing this week, it’s clear they can’t even see the left hand from the right hand

gee whizz!
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
My willingness to be fair to LNWR has been exhausted. Last night was the final straw.

Mine went ages ago. They implemented a mainline timetable that was never going to work, and are not doing anything visible about that either.

Mine went last week. Stood on a rammed Euston to Crewe service, there only became empty seats at Stafford. Quarter to four on a Tuesday hardly seems rush hour to me, but clearly the service needs more than a single 4 car unit. The guard was very good and very apologetic, but "this service is always very busy" announcements don't do much to make standing for two hours less annoying.
 

DannyMich2018

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2018
Messages
732
Mine went last week. Stood on a rammed Euston to Crewe service, there only became empty seats at Stafford. Quarter to four on a Tuesday hardly seems rush hour to me, but clearly the service needs more than a single 4 car unit. The guard was very good and very apologetic, but "this service is always very busy" announcements don't do much to make standing for two hours less annoying.
I thought all the Euston-Crewe services were now supposed to be pairs of 350s? Last time I went Nuneaton back in June all the ones I seen were 8-cars.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
If we accept RealTime trains as being accurate then the problems currently seem to be more to do with late running (presumably the much mentioned door closing delays).
On Wed 23, Thurs 24 and Fri 25 there were no cancellations at all, Saturday of course was the day of the fire and 15 trains were cancelled. Monday there was 1 cancellation due to a train problem and then none on Tuesday or (at the moment) today. So there doesn't seem to be a pattern of daily cancellations but on some days 10 or more trains are reaching Bedford 5 minutes late or worse.
 

big all

On Moderation
Joined
23 Sep 2018
Messages
876
Location
redhill
If we accept RealTime trains as being accurate then the problems currently seem to be more to do with late running (presumably the much mentioned door closing delays).
On Wed 23, Thurs 24 and Fri 25 there were no cancellations at all, Saturday of course was the day of the fire and 15 trains were cancelled. Monday there was 1 cancellation due to a train problem and then none on Tuesday or (at the moment) today. So there doesn't seem to be a pattern of daily cancellations but on some days 10 or more trains are reaching Bedford 5 minutes late or worse.

you need to work out what is prevalent each time and work out any patterns like units/vehicles involved
times off day and weather conditions even crew involved in case a particular driving or operating style is better or worse for the units.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
is this actually happening? My LNWR source said it was in the works but that they WERENT for the Vale

They aren't - they are for lengthening some of the services on the New Street-Worcester-Hereford route.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
you need to work out what is prevalent each time and work out any patterns like units/vehicles involved
times off day and weather conditions even crew involved in case a particular driving or operating style is better or worse for the units.
Absolutely....Not to mention factors external to the trains altogether. Hopefully their operators will be doing just this. I'm just trying to get some objectivity into the debate.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
I thought all the Euston-Crewe services were now supposed to be pairs of 350s? Last time I went Nuneaton back in June all the ones I seen were 8-cars.

Most are. But it could have been a unit failure - better to run a 4 car than cancel throughout.

"Pinching" another unit would have meant a far busier peak service, probably already overcrowded, would have been even more rammed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top