failed 92 on 1S25! (14/04/15)

[Blindtraveler]

You make a valid point, one which I had overlooked

 

[Failed Unit]

Serco partnered with GB, someone else partnered with DBS.

New stock needs 92s, simple as that. They will just take some time to shake down. What's wrong with the 73s?

Lot's of people sat in arm chairs devoid of facts and/or experience.

90s and 67s also fail. I really don't see the issue.

Oh yes. Like the 67 that failed hauling the sleeper near Edinburgh park recently. Got me a detour via dalmeny.

 

[ac6000cw]

Surely the difference with the 73s is that they will be fresh from overhaul when they start to be used whereas 92028 is not one of the engines which GBRf have put through Loughborough. Have 92018 or 92033 had significant failures yet?

The 73's are being completely rebuilt with new engines and electrical equipment (apart from the motors), not just overhauled, so will be almost 'as new'. And GBRf are doing the right thing with the 92's by having them overhauled by the company that built them originally (they were, after all, in part designed to haul sleeper trains). After years of being almost the 'unwanted stepchild' it's time they were used as intended....just give them a bit of time to settle down (and for the staff to get used to their foibles).

 

[Domh245]

The ECS move from Carlisle to Polmadie seems to have sat down somewhere between Penrith and Carlisle, loosing 138 minutes in the process. Seems to be going again now

 

[HSTEd]

Is there going to be enough time for cleaning before it starts its southbound trip?

 

[Trainfan344]

141 minutes down at Beattock summit

 

[CosherB]

there are a few folks on here that seem to rejoice at the failure of something 'different' or 'new', and are normally utterly blinkered to the facts and the bigger picture. an almost hysterical reaction to some gremlins with one loco AND the carriages. GBRf will get it sorted. as for those that regularly belittle the complete rebuild of the 73s with a brand new engine ..... how about some facts to back up your assertions? maybe the sunshine doesn't agree with some people ..... :roll:

 

[CallySleeper]

Is there going to be enough time for cleaning before it starts its southbound trip?

At this rate, might make it back to Polmadie before 7. ECS (both of them) are due out at the latest at 9.07.

More to the point what's going to be dragging 1C11/1M11 tonight.

 

[Trainfan344]

What's hauling the ECS at the moment?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Appears to have got to Newton West Junction, no report since.

 

[Darandio]

What's hauling the ECS at the moment?

90037 took over at Crewe this morning/lunchtime.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Now then, I will state my case right from the start. I don't sign 92s. However, I have driven them (under the appropriate instruction). They are unreliable. End of.

Between Weaver Jnc and Winsford (ish) they regularly throw their teddy out due to the traction current being higher than 25kv. Other electric trains cope with it. They are also renowned for dropping a converter at the slightest provocation, leading to a drop in available power output. Dropping the pan, taking the BIS (Battery Isolating Switch) out and rebooting the computer is something well known to the guys who sign them. It is a temporary fix to an underlying reliability issue.

Interestingly, DBS have now decided to use their fleet of 90s in place of 92s North of London as, (according to a DI) the price to maintain one 92 for a year is the same to maintain two 90s. Two 90s in multiple are also more powerful than a single 92 and more reliable.

Bad news for the passengers, but the reliability aspect of the 92s has been known about for a long time. No one likes to see anyone f*ck things up, but I can't help but feel that choosing 92s as your prime traction on a prestige service like the sleepers is a mistake.

 

[87031]

Yeah it's not a good start for Serco already becoming reliant on 87002 and the prospect of an 86/7 coming out of hiding as well (dunno about ETH).

The signs where not good before they took over the franchise, farce of a website no response to emails (still the case) and traction problems a plenty already. Last nights cancellation of the Lowland sleeper would out any potential new customers off the service all together, for what there paying it's a poor show.

 

[CosherB]

Yeah it's not a good start for Serco already becoming reliant on 87002 and the prospect of an 86/7 coming out of hiding as well (dunno about ETH).

The signs where not good before they took over the franchise, farce of a website no response to emails (still the case) and traction problems a plenty already. Last nights cancellation of the Lowland sleeper would out any potential new customers off the service all together, for what there paying it's a poor show.

So, hypothetically, if you were working for Serco or GBRf, what would you do?

 

[87031]

Serco must of been advised of the options available so maybe it came down to money in which case maybe the choice was wrong. If i was in charge i would found out who was accountable and get some answers? what would you do?

To me it's one of the pitfalls of the private sector the fact they cant just steal a 90 from somewhere to cover is the problem.

Looks like there gonna have to struggle till the new stock arrives.

 

[CosherB]

Serco must of been advised of the options available so maybe it came down to money in which case maybe the choice was wrong. If i was in charge i would found out who was accountable and get some answers? what would you do?

To me it's one of the pitfalls of the private sector the fact they cant just steal a 90 from somewhere to cover is the problem.

Looks like there gonna have to struggle till the new stock arrives.

So you accept that the carriage stock is partially to blame, which would have afflicted any company taking over the franchise?

GBRf have signed a 15 year deal with Serco to supply locos and drivers, and as GBRf have no alternatives to the 92s, they're going to have to work together to make them reliable. It's all very well the media reporting that the deal is worth up to £100 million to GBRf, but that's not cash in the bank that they can throw at any problem. Hiring in locos from DBS to cover is, at best, a loss of face, and at worst, very expensive for GBRf.

I think that we should cut them some slack at the moment, they've not even had the franchise for a month yet! They've committed to new carriages as a franchise commitment, and they'll need some time to sort out teething issues with the 92s and, yes, the 73s when they finally arrive. New electric locos are a very long way off .....

 

[MCR247]

Now then, I will state my case right from the start. I don't sign 92s. However, I have driven them (under the appropriate instruction). They are unreliable. End of.

Between Weaver Jnc and Winsford (ish) they regularly throw their teddy out due to the traction current being higher than 25kv. Other electric trains cope with it. They are also renowned for dropping a converter at the slightest provocation, leading to a drop in available power output. Dropping the pan, taking the BIS (Battery Isolating Switch) out and rebooting the computer is something well known to the guys who sign them. It is a temporary fix to an underlying reliability issue.

Interestingly, DBS have now decided to use their fleet of 90s in place of 92s North of London as, (according to a DI) the price to maintain one 92 for a year is the same to maintain two 90s. Two 90s in multiple are also more powerful than a single 92 and more reliable.

Bad news for the passengers, but the reliability aspect of the 92s has been known about for a long time. No one likes to see anyone f*ck things up, but I can't help but feel that choosing 92s as your prime traction on a prestige service like the sleepers is a mistake.

Fair enough, you have experience with 92s. However, I still think saying that choosing 92s was a mistake is unfair. It was always said that Hull Trains swapping 222s for 180s was a massive mistake due to their unreliability at the same. But with the exception of some bad days where they've run a reduced timetable, 180s are doing ok on the whole. The same was said when FGW took 180s back, yet they're doing ok. 458s with their shocking history were doing ok before they decided to mess around with them

What I'm saying is that unreliability isn't permanent.

 

[87031]

i don't really see the rolling stock is to blame it was never a problem with 90s or 87s, 86s when they worked all the sleepers. Obviously this is the 92s first time at fixed passenger workings so i guess no one could of anticipated the problems ahead.

 

[kermit]

there are a few folks on here that seem to rejoice at the failure of something 'different' or 'new', and are normally utterly blinkered to the facts and the bigger picture. an almost hysterical reaction to some gremlins with one loco AND the carriages. GBRf will get it sorted. as for those that regularly belittle the complete rebuild of the 73s with a brand new engine ..... how about some facts to back up your assertions? maybe the sunshine doesn't agree with some people ..... :roll:

You make a valid point. I feel immense sympathy for the people on the ground trying to run this service, and the passengers. But the truth of the matter here is that, once again, privatisation is the issue.

There are enough resources left on our railways (just) for these situations to be dealt with, drawing temporarily on availability of any motive power to hand. But the resources scattered about up and down the wcml belong to a variety of competing private companies - not good news when flexibility and prompt innovation is required.

Then you have a company like Serco getting involved. Readers may not be familiar with their modus operandi, but they basically exist to sniff round public service contracts, and bid on the basis of cutting resources to the bone and beyond. Their business model puts profit before service, because good service inevitably costs money. "Cheaper fares" cry the privateers. Ask the customers how they feel about that on a wet and windy Carstairs platform at 3am.

And in the end, I mourn for the lost opportunity to run a coherent public transport system that puts passengers first. How many of Serco's disappointed and inconvenienced passengers will risk a trip on the sleeper next time? And so starts a vicious circle of dwindling receipts and further cost cutting.

 

[Darandio]

There are enough resources left on our railways (just) for these situations to be dealt with, drawing temporarily on availability of any motive power to hand. But the resources scattered about up and down the wcml belong to a variety of competing private companies - not good news when flexibility and prompt innovation is required.

It is worth nothing that when the initial GBRF locomotive failed, it was rescued by a Freightliner locomotive and taken to Crewe. From there, a DB Schenker locomotive has taken it north.

If that isn't drawing temporarily on available motive power, I don't know what is. Whether it's all done in an acceptable timescale is another argument.

 

[Failed Unit]

Fair enough, you have experience with 92s. However, I still think saying that choosing 92s was a mistake is unfair. It was always said that Hull Trains swapping 222s for 180s was a massive mistake due to their unreliability at the same. But with the exception of some bad days where they've run a reduced timetable, 180s are doing ok on the whole. The same was said when FGW took 180s back, yet they're doing ok. 458s with their shocking history were doing ok before they decided to mess around with them

What I'm saying is that unreliability isn't permanent.

Agreed. Look at some of the dross EMT got when the started the franchise. Who could tell now the got some of the worse 153s and 158s on the network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

i don't really see the rolling stock is to blame it was never a problem with 90s or 87s, 86s when they worked all the sleepers. Obviously this is the 92s first time at fixed passenger workings so i guess no one could of anticipated the problems ahead.

Previous franchise holders are known to cut down maintenance at the end of the franchise. It isn't their problem when things fail.

 

[87031]

You make a valid point. I feel immense sympathy for the people on the ground trying to run this service, and the passengers. But the truth of the matter here is that, once again, privatisation is the issue.

There are enough resources left on our railways (just) for these situations to be dealt with, drawing temporarily on availability of any motive power to hand. But the resources scattered about up and down the wcml belong to a variety of competing private companies - not good news when flexibility and prompt innovation is required.

Then you have a company like Serco getting involved. Readers may not be familiar with their modus operandi, but they basically exist to sniff round public service contracts, and bid on the basis of cutting resources to the bone and beyond. Their business model puts profit before service, because good service inevitably costs money. "Cheaper fares" cry the privateers. Ask the customers how they feel about that on a wet and windy Carstairs platform at 3am.

And in the end, I mourn for the lost opportunity to run a coherent public transport system that puts passengers first. How many of Serco's disappointed and inconvenienced passengers will risk a trip on the sleeper next time? And so starts a vicious circle of dwindling receipts and further cost cutting.

Really well put you only get one chance to make a first impression and unfortunately Serco's aint good. That sleeper at Colwich last night would of been rescued far earlier in the B.R days. Even if they would of had to get an 85 from somewhere. It's all about money now and what you say about Serco is a worry i find it poor they have not responded to an email i sent 2 days ago and i have sent twice!! Fancy uniforms and menus is not going to hide over the cracks.

 

[CosherB]

i don't really see the rolling stock is to blame it was never a problem with 90s or 87s, 86s when they worked all the sleepers. Obviously this is the 92s first time at fixed passenger workings so i guess no one could of anticipated the problems ahead.

Hardly a fair comparison! When the likes of the 86s/87s hauled the sleeper, the stock wasn't 30 to 40 years old and due for replacement!

Also, DBS did occasionally use 92s for the sleeper, so not the first time on this duty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0gVwejQqYhttp://

Have you tried phoning Caledonian Sleeper and talking to someone directly, rather than using the e-mail approach? Normally works much better .....

 

[Jamesb1974]

Previous franchise holders are known to cut down maintenance at the end of the franchise. It isn't their problem when things fail.

The loco that failed (92 028) belongs to the company that won the new contract? How does the fit into your argument?

 

[Failed Unit]

The loco that failed (92 028) belongs to the company that won the new contract? How does the fit into your argument?

Do you know the root cause?

 

[87031]

Hardly a fair comparison! When the likes of the 86s/87s hauled the sleeper, the stock wasn't 30 to 40 years old and due for replacement!

Also, DBS did occasionally use 92s for the sleeper, so not the first time on this duty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0gVwejQqYhttp://

Have you tried phoning Caledonian Sleeper and talking to someone directly, rather than using the e-mail approach? Normally works much better .....

Scotrail always emailed back usually within the hour...no excuse for lack of contact. As for the rolling stock i disagree Mk3s are still used with HSTs effectively so you cant blame the coaches. The problem lies with the traction.

 

[MCR247]

As for the rolling stock i disagree Mk3s are still used with HSTs effectively so you cant blame the coaches. The problem lies with the traction.

What? Firstly, the failure that this thread was originally started because of has been attributed to the coaches as well as the loco. Secondly, what have HST MK3s (which aren't even the same as LH Mk3s!) got to do with anything?

 

[CosherB]

Scotrail always emailed back usually within the hour...no excuse for lack of contact. As for the rolling stock i disagree Mk3s are still used with HSTs effectively so you cant blame the coaches. The problem lies with the traction.

Have you enquired regarding the availability of 87001 from the NRM?

 

[HLE]

Wonder if the Bulgarians fancy swapping the 92's with the 87's? Or the Hungarians with the 86's?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Have you enquired regarding the availability of 87001 from the NRM?

Wheel it out! Probably be more reliable than the 92's even if it has stood still for years !

 

[87031]

Have you enquired regarding the availability of 87001 from the NRM?

yes they have a BOGOF offer on with 87035 from the Crewe Heritage Centre
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What? Firstly, the failure that this thread was originally started because of has been attributed to the coaches as well as the loco. Secondly, what have HST MK3s (which aren't even the same as LH Mk3s!) got to do with anything?

Dunno someone decided to bring rolling stock into the thread

 

[MCR247]

Dunno someone decided to bring rolling stock into the thread

Yes and its because the stock was at least part of the reason for the failure on the 14th.
I'm asking why the fact that HST Mk3s "work effectively" (do they never fail or have problems?) means that 92s must be at fault?