Further Class 180 Failure Issue on ECML

[GordonT]

1A87 the 1559 ex Bradford Interchange-Kings Cross coasted to a stand at St Neots this evening at 1811, where passengers were detrained at some point, with fire service attending due to smoke coming from 180114.

Is this likely to be "just one of these things"?

Or is there a possibility of too much being expected of limited and aging traction?

All lines were blocked for roughly 1 hour with consequential multiple delays.

 

[1D53]

180's have always liked a good fire, same as the whole 175's.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Occupational hazard with a cl.180. There a few possible causes for smoke or fires on these units, most having nothing to do with the standard of maintenance by the TOC.

 

[GordonT]

Occupational hazard with a cl.180. There a few possible causes for smoke or fires on these units, most having nothing to do with the standard of maintenance by the TOC.

Doesn't exactly convey reassurance or inspire confidence regardless of where the fault lies. In a world where H & S is king it seems a tad surprising that we are continuing to see repeated instances.

 

[yorkie]

1A87 the 1559 ex Bradford Interchange-Kings Cross coasted to a stand at St Neots this evening at 1811 where pax were evacuated and fire service attended due to smoke coming from 180114. Is this likely to be "just one of these things"?

It is where 180s are concerned; they are well known for having this problem

Or is there a whiff of a Rag, Tag and Bobtail outfit whacking its limited and aging traction at full speed up and down the ECML with potentially spectacular consequences? All lines were blocked for roughly 1 hour with consequential multiple delays.

If you are insinuating that GC aren't conducting proper maintenance, there is no evidence of that.

Have you seen these threads?

• BR Class 180 - Adelantes
• Now Grand Central have class 180 problems
• Class 180 Reliability Issues?
• Future of Class 180 Units Discussion
• Should Grand Central replace their 180s?
• Should class 180s be banned from the ECML?
• Broken down Grand Central Class 180

 

[Meole]

They are owned by Angel Trains a largely Australian owned ROSCO.

 

[GordonT]

It is where 180s are concerned; they are well known for having this problem

If you are insinuating that GC aren't conducting proper maintenance, there is no evidence of that.

Fine, but should the fact that the problems recur in spite of proper maintenance taking place not be a concern?

Have you seen these threads?

• BR Class 180 - Adelantes
• Now Grand Central have class 180 problems
• Class 180 Reliability Issues?
• Future of Class 180 Units Discussion
• Should Grand Central replace their 180s?
• Should class 180s be banned from the ECML?
• Broken down Grand Central Class 180

I hadn't but they appear to greatly substantiate the concerns to which my initial question alluded.

 

[43096]

They are owned by Angel Trains a largely Australian owned ROSCO.

Why does Angel being “largely Australian owned” have any relevance to smoking 180s?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Fine, but the fact that the problem extends beyond proper maintenance isn't great.

I hadn't but they appear to greatly substantiate the safety concerns to which my question alluded.

I don't believe have any in house mtce capability so they must be outsourced to an existing operator of depots. Do we know who?

 

[43096]

I don't believe have any in house mtce capability so they must be outsourced to an existing operator of depots. Do we know who?

Primarily Alstom at Crofton.

 

[800001]

No passengers were evacuated and all passengers remained in the train.

 

[HullRailMan]

Fine, but the fact that the problem extends beyond proper maintenance isn't great.

I hadn't but they appear to greatly substantiate the safety concerns to which my question alluded.

The general gist of your comments in this thread is you suggesting that Grand Central are knowingly sending out unsafe rolling stock in passenger service. That’s quite an allegation to make.

 

[fgwrich]

It is where 180s are concerned; they are well known for having this problem

If you are insinuating that GC aren't conducting proper maintenance, there is no evidence of that.

Have you seen these threads?

• BR Class 180 - Adelantes
• Now Grand Central have class 180 problems
• Class 180 Reliability Issues?
• Future of Class 180 Units Discussion
• Should Grand Central replace their 180s?
• Should class 180s be banned from the ECML?
• Broken down Grand Central Class 180

On that point though, their reliability has declined again since leaving the Western. Unfortunately, the only depot to ever really get to grips with these troublesome units, the legendary Old Oak Common, is now of course long gone and the technical know-how lost with it.

 

[GordonT]

No passengers were evacuated and all passengers remained in the train.

The train that is currently in the siding at St Neots at 2225.

The general gist of your comments in this thread is you suggesting that Grand Central are knowingly sending out unsafe rolling stock in passenger service. That’s quite an allegation to make.

Nope I have made no allegations. I am merely seeking informed opinion as to whether these instances are acceptable or unacceptable in terms of any risk. Hopefully the one thing that is not disputed is that the effect on multiple other services when they occur can be quite disruptive.

 

[55018ballymoss]

Whilst there are no allegations of unsafe practices or lack of maintenance by GC, it does seem that when it comes to train failures on the ECML it is predominantly GC and their 180 units.
Knowing the reliability issues with these units and the lack of successful rectification work/or ordering replacement new stock does cast GC in a bad light as by now you would have expected that they would have taken significant action.

 

[harz99]

@55018ballymoss ordering new rolling stock is probably not an option unless a longer term track access agreement can be reached.

No passengers were evacuated and all passengers remained in the train.

And presumably when the train was declared a failure the passengers were subsequently detrained and transferred to?

 

[Gaspode]

They are owned by Angel Trains a largely Australian owned ROSCO.

Angel Trains is a company incorporated and registered in the United Kingdom. Who their parent is has no relevance to the issues discussed here.

 

[MCR247]

Whilst the 180s certainly have earned a reputation for fires, I imagine regulators would mainly be concerned if there was a sudden increase in how often they occurred, and also the risk of injury when they occur.

Of course, I’m not an expert, but it doesn’t seem like they happen too often, and I can’t recall them being too serious (such as flames entering the saloon, for example).

So I wouldn’t have thought 180s would at the moment be considered an unacceptable risk.

 

[Magdalia]

Who their parent is has no relevance to the issues discussed here.

Actually it is very relevant. The parent company dictates the corporate strategy, in particular the attitude towards driving down costs by saving on maintenance, and the amounts extracted from the company via dividend payments to the parent company.

 

[harz99]

Actually it is very relevant. The parent company dictates the corporate strategy, in particular the attitude towards driving down costs by saving on maintenance, and the amounts extracted from the company via dividend payments to the parent company.

Unless you can produce some actual evidence relating to GC making savings on maintenance of their 180s, your inferences are just speculation.

 

[43096]

Actually it is very relevant. The parent company dictates the corporate strategy, in particular the attitude towards driving down costs by saving on maintenance, and the amounts extracted from the company via dividend payments to the parent company.

Are Angel responsible for maintenance on the 180s though? If they’re on a dry lease then GC are responsible for everything.

 

[185143]

Whilst the 180s certainly have earned a reputation for fires, I imagine regulators would mainly be concerned if there was a sudden increase in how often they occurred, and also the risk of injury when they occur.

Of course, I’m not an expert, but it doesn’t seem like they happen too often, and I can’t recall them being too serious (such as flames entering the saloon, for example).

So I wouldn’t have thought 180s would at the moment be considered an unacceptable risk.

Which would no doubt lead to the fleet being pulled for urgent checks, as happened with the 175s, as well as the IETs and 332s with cracks in the not too distant past.

There's plenty of precedent that action will be taken should they suddenly be deemed an unacceptable risk.

 

[Magdalia]

Unless you can produce some actual evidence relating to GC making savings on maintenance of their 180s, your inferences are just speculation.

I am not making any inferences. I'm merely pointing out that the parent company decides the corporate strategy so it is incorrect to say that the identity of the parent has no relevance.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The 180s have earned a reputation for a propensity to catch fire due to historically that being the case, don't know if it's true now though. Electric Cars have a propensity to catch fire if you ask some people but any more than petrol, you don't really see that comparison and no one thinks too much of it if a petrol car catches fire, I wonder if the 180s suffer the same bad press

 

[Wyrleybart]

Occupational hazard with a cl.180. There a few possible causes for smoke or fires on these units, most having nothing to do with the standard of maintenance by the TOC.

Agree. There was a point around a year ago where a number of GC class 180s were temporarily reformed with cars from different units. AIUI the off leased ex AWC class221s were brought in to held catch up with the work needed on the class 180s. As far as I know there are now just two units containing a vehicle from each other's formation, which is evidence enough for me that maintainers have used the 221s as breathing space to get the fleet into shape.

Another indicator for me was the four ex FHT class 180s sat at Ely. AFAIK GCR only actually used one of the four temporarily although two were technically added to the GCR fleet temporarily. Surely if the GCR fleet were in such an allegedly poor condition more use would have been made of the stored vehicles.

I am confident that if there were any real concerns over the 180s then the ORR would have slapped an improvement order on the fleet.

 

[Spartacus]

There was certainly a time when 180 fires became 'regular', though nowhere as frequent as they became with 175s, but perhaps I've been lucky but I can't remember the last time I was on duty and one had big issues like that, they've actually been doing well lately.

 

[357]

Realtime Trains | 5H17 1423 St Neots to Crofton Depot | 06/05/2024

Real-time train running information for 5H17 1423 departure from St Neots to Crofton Depot on 06/05/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Now making its way to Crofton. Interestingly it's timed for 56mph max.

 

[jammmmmsssssss]

Realtime Trains | 5H17 1423 St Neots to Crofton Depot | 06/05/2024

Real-time train running information for 5H17 1423 departure from St Neots to Crofton Depot on 06/05/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Now making its way to Crofton. Interestingly it's timed for 56mph max.

I think there's a glitch with rtt understating speeds on vstp schedules

 

[dan4291]

Realtime Trains | 5H17 1423 St Neots to Crofton Depot | 06/05/2024

Real-time train running information for 5H17 1423 departure from St Neots to Crofton Depot on 06/05/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Now making its way to Crofton. Interestingly it's timed for 56mph max.

Love the very apt headcode, which GC use quite a lot for these sorts of workings!

 

[swt_passenger]

I think there's a glitch with rtt understating speeds on vstp schedules

According to a recent post in the general RTT discussion, the underlying VSTP speed data problem has only recently been fixed, so RTT will be having to remove their correction factor. Been there for years, something to do with miles per hour being stored as metres per second, IIRC.