Northern Class 195: Construction/Introduction Updates

quantinghome said:

Since 2000 'Northern folk' have seen the following new trains introduced: Voyagers, Pendolinos, Class 333s, Class 185s, Class 350s and Azumas. I don't recall any of these introductions causing the same level of problems we're seeing with Northern (Cross-country's Operation Princess was a disaster but that was down to timetabling rather than train reliability afaik).

Click to expand...

Just don't mention the Coradia family......

Llama said:

The doors closing prematurely issue is a software issue, for which instructions have been issued to both drivers and guards to perform certain actions in a certain way to prevent it happening. I'm not saying the crew were to blame as the only way to know for sure would be to interrogate the data recorder on the train. In short, every action or command carried out on these trains takes quite a few seconds for one computer system to communicate with the other systems.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I wonder if the brake test warning threw him off and he got some of the door steps wrong then. He seemed to be trying his best to get the thing going again and the Virgin station staff were trying to help. I felt sorry for the guard as she had to go down each carraige and let people know what was happening as she couldn't use the PA.

There are no 'door steps' as such for the drivers, only the instruction for the driver to wait until the doors are released before switching the cab desk off prior to changing ends. There is also an issue where the guard is instructed to operate the door controls for five seconds in order for the command to propagate correctly through the train. Both of these are software related.

The 5 seconds door release buttons instruction for guards has changed a couple of times. It was 3 seconds when I trained on them, then 5 seconds and now it’s only 5 seconds with SDO. Ok for a quick release on ASDO. Personally I press door release for 5 seconds everywhere as I don’t trust the units. They are awful to work from a guards point of view.

Spartacus said:

Just don't mention the Coradia family......

Click to expand...

Ah yes, Them! The point still stands though that many new train types have been rolled out with little fuss and it's nothing to do with grumbling Northerners. The 195s seem to have a host of issues that should have be ironed out long before them feeling the feet of passengers.

Neptune said:

The 5 seconds door release buttons instruction for guards has changed a couple of times. It was 3 seconds when I trained on them, then 5 seconds and now it’s only 5 seconds with SDO. Ok for a quick release on ASDO. Personally I press door release for 5 seconds everywhere as I don’t trust the units. They are awful to work from a guards point of view.

Click to expand...

That's as I understand it how the doors should be physically operated too. There's very little info though about what each of the traincrew grades' (drivers/guards) actual method of work is and that comes down to all political treading-on-eggshells going on.

Llama said:

That's as I understand it how the doors should be physically operated too. There's very little info though about what each of the traincrew grades' (drivers/guards) actual method of work is and that comes down to all political treading-on-eggshells going on.

Click to expand...

Very little info coming out regarding known faults with the exception of ASDO faults (Apperley Bridge on the down for instance). I’ve worked all variaties of traction out of Leeds since slam door days and this is the only one where I’ve ever felt out of my depth if anything goes wrong and I’m not on my own with that.

Some faults are just odd too and down to quirks of software. Heavy WSP activity under braking resulting in OTDR deactivating. AWS/TPWS faults when master switch put in neutral, amongst other gems.

Llama said:

Some faults are just odd too and down to quirks of software. Heavy WSP activity under braking resulting in OTDR deactivating. AWS/TPWS faults when master switch put in neutral, amongst other gems.

Click to expand...

Random and unpredictable faults (although it's being generous to describe them as faults) really doesn't give the train crew a fighting chance to deliver a reasonable level of service.

Any one having to work in this way in what is a 'safety critical' environment deserves my sympathy.

I wonder how far up the food chain at ASLEF, the RMT and Northern knowledge of these issues has progressed .

All the CAF trains bought by Northern, Caledonian sleeper and TPE seem to have or had problems. Suppose you get what you pay for.
I hope the good people of Birmingham (and possibly Newcastle if the CAF tender is accepted) are ready for there recently ordered CAF trams. Perhaps CAF trams are more reliable than there trains.
Oh for the days when BR just whistled up another batch of proven units from York or Derby works. Minimal crewe training too.
K

I sign both 331's and 195's and I know where people are coming from with these issues.
I don't think CAF thought they'd be having the problems they're having and Arriva most definitely didn't when they got them.
Some of the faults are so niggly and frustrating.
Windscreen wipers attached with a nut that works it's way loose with the momentum of the wiper. I mean that's just basic stuff. Tcms littered with "faults" that when you investigate are not there.
When they get on top of these units,and they eventually will,they'll be ok. It's just in the meantime

Llama said:

The doors closing prematurely issue is a software issue, for which instructions have been issued to both drivers and guards to perform certain actions in a certain way to prevent it happening. I'm not saying the crew were to blame as the only way to know for sure would be to interrogate the data recorder on the train. In short, every action or command carried out on these trains takes quite a few seconds for one computer system to communicate with the other systems.

Click to expand...

Just how are the systems communicating with each other then, via HTTP on web services hosted on a mini windows PC running IIS?! How can it take the reported 5 seconds (I read elsewhere here) for the commands to work their way down given one of the usual advantages of computers is their high speed!?

195117 having problems at Hebden Bridge on the delayed 0605 to Manchester. An “air fault that has to be reported although we can still run” according to the guard. 34 late and counting

SteveM70 said:

195117 having problems at Hebden Bridge on the delayed 0605 to Manchester. An “air fault that has to be reported although we can still run” according to the guard. 34 late and counting

Click to expand...

Possibly the oft quoted brake test issue? I’ve have thought by now crews would have been briefed to carry this out at the start of every day?

Spartacus said:

Possibly the oft quoted brake test issue? I’ve have thought by now crews would have been briefed to carry this out at the start of every day?

Click to expand...

No idea. The guard said the train was capable of moving, but because the alarm was a red light rather than amber they needed a phone call from an engineer to give permission for them to move. Eventually left about 55 late, and absolutely crawled out of the platform

Spartacus said:

Possibly the oft quoted brake test issue? I’ve have thought by now crews would have been briefed to carry this out at the start of every day?

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like that to me, possibly a main res pressure sensor fault? The cold weather seems to be having some new effects on these units, or maybe it's just confirmation bias with cold weather and newer faults emerging. There were reports last night of a 195 that suddenly and implausibly decided it had no Adblue in one vehicle and wouldn't let that vehicle's engine run.

Edit, or obviously it could be one of the seemingly infinitely varied spurious software issues, I have had a 195 which gave spurious warnings that an air compressor wasn't running (if it wasn't running I'd have known very quickly - 2-car 195s only have one compressor so we'd have soon failed with loss of main air pressure).

The brake test issue takes four minutes. It must be carried out on a full train preparation, this is usually done by depot drivers on maintenance depots prior to a unit turning a wheel, and is a specified procedure that takes 20 minutes per individual unit. If a full train preparation isn't booked to be carried out then specific but lesser checks (known as a safety check, or cab prep, with its own timing allowance) are carried out, however there is no brake test required (or possible within the timing allowance) as part of such checks, and no separate time allowance on a diagram is allocated to perform such a test. Some diagrams (driver and/or unit diagrams) may have enough padding time to permit a brake test to be separately inserted into the driver's diagram prior to a unit entering service, but if they don't have enough padding time then the brake test can't be diagrammed as all diagrams have to be workable - it's not acceptable for diagrams to be issued which would by default always result in late running.

Llama said:

Doesn't sound like that to me, possibly a main res pressure sensor fault? The cold weather seems to be having some new effects on these units, or maybe it's just confirmation bias with cold weather and newer faults emerging. There were reports last night of a 195 that suddenly and implausibly decided it had no Adblue in one vehicle and wouldn't let that vehicle's engine run.

Edit, or obviously it could be one of the seemingly infinitely varied spurious software issues, I have had a 195 which gave spurious warnings that an air compressor wasn't running (if it wasn't running I'd have known very quickly - 2-car 195s only have one compressor so we'd have soon failed with loss of main air pressure).

The brake test issue takes four minutes. It must be carried out on a full train preparation, this is usually done by depot drivers on maintenance depots prior to a unit turning a wheel, and is a specified procedure that takes 20 minutes per individual unit. If a full train preparation isn't booked to be carried out then specific but lesser checks (known as a safety check, or cab prep, with its own timing allowance) are carried out, however there is no brake test required (or possible within the timing allowance) as part of such checks, and no separate time allowance on a diagram is allocated to perform such a test. Some diagrams (driver and/or unit diagrams) may have enough padding time to permit a brake test to be separately inserted into the driver's diagram prior to a unit entering service, but if they don't have enough padding time then the brake test can't be diagrammed as all diagrams have to be workable - it's not acceptable for diagrams to be issued which would by default always result in late running.

Click to expand...

So what do you reckon is the solution to this? Given that it’s highly unlikely they’ll alter the trains to remove the requirement for a daily brake test. Surely a 4 minute delay on the first service is preferable to a 40 minute delay on a peak time service?

superkev said:

All the CAF trains bought by Northern, Caledonian sleeper and TPE seem to have or had problems. Suppose you get what you pay for.
I hope the good people of Birmingham (and possibly Newcastle if the CAF tender is accepted) are ready for there recently ordered CAF trams. Perhaps CAF trams are more reliable than there trains.
Oh for the days when BR just whistled up another batch of proven units from York or Derby works. Minimal crewe training too.
K

Click to expand...

The good people of Birmingham already have CAF trams running. They don't seem to break down that often either that I can see, although I don't live near the line.

mrcaa said:

So what do you reckon is the solution to this? Given that it’s highly unlikely they’ll alter the trains to remove the requirement for a daily brake test. Surely a 4 minute delay on the first service is preferable to a 40 minute delay on a peak time service?

Click to expand...

From my experience of rail a 4 minute delay on the first service soon turns into 49 minutes delay on a peak service.

the 4 minute delay is never recovered. The path is lost. It creeps upwards during the route as it misses it path through the congestion of the cities and the passes said delay onto other services.

mrcaa said:

So what do you reckon is the solution to this? Given that it’s highly unlikely they’ll alter the trains to remove the requirement for a daily brake test. Surely a 4 minute delay on the first service is preferable to a 40 minute delay on a peak time service?

Click to expand...

The diagrams need to be altered to take into account the time required to prepare the train. The train should never, ever go out late for a routine matter (even if that routine matter is not daily), only in the event of an actual fault.

(Edit: this is a bit like "work to rule" - this would never cause disruption were people not pressured to do things too quickly!)

Am I very fortunate to have made over 20 journeys so far in 3-car Class 195 units with no problems whatsoever?

Spartacus said:

The continuing battle of wipers.

Click to expand...

I thought that finished back in 1918!

Xenophon PCDGS said:

Am I very fortunate to have made over 20 journeys so far in 3-car Class 195 units with no problems whatsoever?

Click to expand...

Go and buy a lottery ticket.

Failed Unit said:

From my experience of rail a 4 minute delay on the first service soon turns into 49 minutes delay on a peak service.

the 4 minute delay is never recovered. The path is lost. It creeps upwards during the route as it misses it path through the congestion of the cities and the passes said delay onto other services.

Click to expand...

They'll probably just suggest you start 4 minutes earlier then. In all seriousness though if it needs to be done daily it needs to be done daily and they'll need to find a way to slot it in oitherwise you're going to have incidents like that regularly.

What does this daily test do? Why does it take 4mins? Is it something the unit can do keyed out, could it be set to do it when idle/remote/on a change over? Could it be speeded up? Is it something that could be done while the train is being cleaned/fuelled or otherwise idle?

Do the depots do it after every exam / train prep to at least get it out of the way for 27hours and so any detected faults can be fettled?

Do other units do it?

129 at Nottingham yesterday. Would it have been used for route knowledge for the Leeds to Nottingham service or Liverpool to Nottingham route. The unit stayed about 30 minutes before departing.

aleandrail said:

129 at Nottingham yesterday. Would it have been used for route knowledge for the Leeds to Nottingham service or Liverpool to Nottingham route. The unit stayed about 30 minutes before departing.

Click to expand...

The are scheduled to take over the Nottingham- Leeds and Lincoln - Leeds service so expect it is driver training for them.

ic31420 said:

What does this daily test do? Why does it take 4mins? Is it something the unit can do keyed out, could it be set to do it when idle/remote/on a change over? Could it be speeded up? Is it something that could be done while the train is being cleaned/fuelled or otherwise idle?

Do the depots do it after every exam / train prep to at least get it out of the way for 27hours and so any detected faults can be fettled?

Do other units do it?

Click to expand...

This test tests the functionality of the whole braking system, so it's about as important as things get on a train. On Northern's older units the equivalent test is done by the driver manually applying different brake 'steps' (pressures) and checking that the brake readings behave properly and do what's expected of them in each step. On most of Northern's fleet the braking system is an 'energise to release' Westcode 'three step' system where braking positions relate to semi-fixed braking efforts. Positions are release, step 1, step 2, step 3 (aka full service) and emergency (brake control wires earthed so that the energise-to-release aspect is failsafe).

Edit 2: on the CAF stock the brake is a different system, is computer controlled rather than electro-pneumatic and is continuously variable rather than 'stepped' all of which add a complicating factor for an equivalent brake test.

The test takes four minutes because it does. We aren't furnished with the technical details, but the brake test applies varied pressure to each axle in turn (while keeping enough brakes applied in a controlled way to avoid any gravity related issues) in a way that tests the application and release of the whole system throughout the train, and presumably verifies the communication signals passed amongst the systems responsible for brake control. It takes four minutes regardless of whether it's a two car set or a twelve car lash-up - any coupled units can be set from one cab on the whole train to perform their brake test simultaneously.

It can't be done while keyed out/idle/remote or on a crew changeover because the unit is hardwired in a way that makes that impossible, no drivers desk on causes an emergency brake application for obvious reasons. Any door open or released causes emergency brake application. This will not be changed. You'd need to read the various group standards documents available from the RSSB for the technical reasons why all trains are designed this way.

Could it be sped up? Probably, but not significantly, and will no doubt cost money. Faster/cheaper/more reliable - pick two.

Whilst cleaned/fuelled/otherwise idle? Possibly, but the brake test would still need carrying out as part of a full prep procedure because it is a vital part of that procedure, the full prep is the most appropriate time to carry it out because there is documented evidence of when full preps were carried out, and they are more likely to be carried out reasonably soon before a unit is due to come in to service. If a unit arrived on a depot on a Saturday night at 0200, it was cleaned and fuelled an hour later and the brake test carried out while being cleaned/fuelled rather than on full prep. There would have to be a separate procedure instigated for recording the carrying out of the brake test in isolation outside of a full prep, and even then let's say that unit isn't going to be due off the depot til 0400 Monday morning, after a full prep but without a brake test. An hour after it comes on to the main line, it is going to need a brake test.

Edit - I should add that there would not usually be a driver present while the unit is being cleaned, fuelled or idle - so you'd be adding workload and therefore needing more drivers.

When a full prep is carried out the documented evidence of that unit being prepped is only valid for a limited period of time, after which the unit needs prepping again.

The ORR would be very interested in any TOC/FOC whose safety case didn't require testing brakes as part of a full prep procedure before venturing on to the national network.

Do other units do it? Yes, a lot of new traction units are the same.

Llama said:

This test tests the functionality of the whole braking system, so it's about as important as things get on a train. On Northern's older units the equivalent test is done by the driver manually applying different brake 'steps' (pressures) and checking that the brake readings behave properly and do what's expected of them in each step. On most of Northern's fleet the braking system is an 'energise to release' Westcode 'three step' system where braking positions relate to semi-fixed braking efforts. Positions are release, step 1, step 2, step 3 (aka full service) and emergency (brake control wires earthed so that the energise-to-release aspect is failsafe).

.....

The ORR would be very interested in any TOC/FOC whose safety case didn't require testing brakes as part of a full prep procedure before venturing on to the national network.

Do other units do it? Yes, a lot of new traction units are the same.

Click to expand...

Thanks very much for the detailed explanation there, Llama.

Karl said:

Thanks @Whisky Papa. I love the Capybara by the way!

Click to expand...

Sorry I missed this, I've been away for a few days. Interesting comments from other posters re the name Caldervale too. I had never thought of the Vale of York portmanteau, it may be the explanation although the fact that York and Selby line trains were covered in another Metro timetable makes me slightly sceptical.

Thanks for the compliment on the avatar - it does capture certain aspects of my appearance and personality quite well . However it is in fact a coypu rather than a capybara, one of the feral population in Prague that I photographed earlier in the year.