Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by richa2002, 16 Feb 2015.
It's the "simple engineering" in the 442s that is causing the current problems!
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:
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?
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.
Regardless of the 442 refurbishment debacle, the whole thing has pretty much gone ‘tits up’ for SWR.
The original 442 ‘tech’ that is causing interference dates back to the 70s, presumably that isn’t simple enough...
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.
"Promise the earth"? They offered a new timetable and new services which the DfT had asked for, and a fleet of new trains which are late because the manufacturer hasn't built them yet. Some of the new services won't happen because some passenger groups found the trade-offs unacceptable, but many of them will. I doubt that the refurbished 442s' problems will prevent them entering service eventually. Stagecoach were in a better position to work out that the DfT's timetable aspirations wouldn't work because they'd been running the show for 20 years. What is it that First are hoping to negotiate out?
are there going to be any more diesel hauled movements from bornemouth to eastleigh? as i missed the last couple which was a shame as thats not something you see every day
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?
Not a problem unique to SWR reintroducing previously removed traffic trains and possibly highlights the complexities of the modern industry, not defending this but it is a national problem not just one route as you make out.
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. Indeed Scotrail has refused to accept any further conversions until the multitude of problems with the existing conversions are resolved, reliability has been poor.
XC - same issue with HSTs thus meaning trains which should have been strengthens are still running round as single voyagers.
Despite the above problem there are multiple threads on Rail Forums where can we bring stored HSTs back to....
Northern - pacers replaced by bi-mode 769s is nowhere in sight, would suggest this project is overall more of a ‘farce’ than 442s?
I didn’t think there were enough significant timetable changes planned to need the full number of 442s, only minimal changes are planned.
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.
If five is a “considerable number”...
I think that's a considerable number, it's more than 'the odd one or two just in case'.
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.
New - there aren't really any suitable second hand ones and everything these days is IGBT based rather than Motor - Alternator etc.
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.
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?
The same could be said of HSTs, for SWR though instead of reintroducing the 442s surely a order of 7XXs but with a IC specified interior and doors at the ends of the carriages would have been better?
Think 444s but a more modern design which surely would have been cheaper then messing around with what ought to be scrap bound!
No, because there are additional Reading and Windsor services.
Any news on whether the signal interference issue has been fixed?
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.
I'm struggling to make sense of this - at the beginning of your message, did you mean non-retractioned?
No I meant retractioned.
The original plan was to re-traction but retain the original auxiliary converters from the dark ages but that failed on EMC reasons when the started testing the retractioned ones in 2018 hence the big delayed till they could get some suitable static converters that were EMC compliant.
The static converters started to be delivered early in the summer and the first retractioned unit to have the new static converter started testing in late August.
Hence as soon are they had some faith in the new static converters working (about 1 test run???) they pulled the plug on trying to get the original electrical spec 442 working and focusing everything on the retractioned + new static converter units getting them tested and in service.
The key question is how are the 442 test runs going....
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.
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.
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.
With the signals, NR will probably tell them that the trains are the issue as none of the modern trains, such as the desiros, don't have issues. NR won't spend the money so elderly trains can use the tracks when we aren't sure how long these trains will be in service. If NR were going to change the signalling they would probably go for ETCS / ERTMS.
This hopefully teaches First group not to bid on things which fall through, abellio also should learn from over bidding, such as on Greater Anglia (the delays on aventras aren't their fault but there are reports of the 379s staying).
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...
I 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.
I'm not aware of any 442 testing seeing done since they were removed, re-tractiined or otherwise. Since they were removed I don't think there have been any unassisted 442 moves allowed at all anywhere outside of a depot. A couple have moved from Bournemouth to Eastleigh and vv but loco hauled.
I think it very much is. The big step has been done on VTWC already. The next big step is HS2.
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 toilets
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.
even tho they stopped testing im sure the 5Q...or what ever it was still shows up on rtt most days of the week unless another train took over that - does state runs as required next to them though