• 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!

Most Unreliable Multiple Unit

Status
Not open for further replies.

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,302
Could the 484 be the most unreliable multiple unit?

Scheduled to come into service on 1-Apr, but five and a half months later, not a wheel turned in passenger service... 100% failure, complete line closure, RRBs...
Or, as in a similar case where I was once told by an EMT director in the early days of their franchise, "15886x is the most reliable in the fleet: it never fails. It's also never been off Eastcroft depot since it transferred to us!"
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

_toommm_

Established Member
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
5,856
Location
Yorkshire
Could the 484 be the most unreliable multiple unit?

Scheduled to come into service on 1-Apr, but five and a half months later, not a wheel turned in passenger service... 100% failure, complete line closure, RRBs...
Is that not at least in part due to the engineering works overrunning on the line?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,092
It’s (roughly) miles per incident.

A fixed formation fleet of 8 car units, formed of two technically half units but counted just as one does, say, a million miles a period, and has 50 faults. Thats 20,000 miles per incident.

An almost identical fleet formed of 2x4 car units on exactly the same resource plan will do 2million miles a period, 50 faults, 40,000 miles per incident.
I know we can twist the figures various ways, but the number of delayed/cancelled cars and services, car miles planned and car miles lost, is exactly the same. Although the fault may be on the "other" unit, both have the delay. The number of faults where the train is split up and the second unit carries on (and to time!) is pretty small.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,272
Location
St Albans
Still not sure it's a valid comparison though as you can't send out half a 700 on its own. A service diagrammed for 8 car 319 could run 4 car if needed; on a service diagrammed for 8 car 700 they have to either find a complete 700 or cancel it.
But a 700 has a far higher capacity than a 4-car unit, so the following train would better clear the additional passengers. In many cases, (and especially in the TL core) recovery of failed units in a conventional consist of 4-car units could be difficult with adverse 1:29 gradients out of the section.

I know we can twist the figures various ways, but the number of delayed/cancelled cars and services, car miles planned and car miles lost, is exactly the same. Although the fault may be on the "other" unit, both have the delay. The number of faults where the train is split up and the second unit carries on (and to time!) is pretty small.
A 700 doesn't need splitting, - a unit with one half inoperative is capable of pushing a whole failed unit up the gradients with minimal delays.
 
Last edited:

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
It’s (roughly) miles per incident.

A fixed formation fleet of 8 car units, formed of two technically half units but counted just as one does, say, a million miles a period, and has 50 faults. Thats 20,000 miles per incident.

An almost identical fleet formed of 2x4 car units on exactly the same resource plan will do 2million miles a period, 50 faults, 40,000 miles per incident.
I'm afraid that's statistical nonsense. You're claiming that if a given half-unit failed at 20'000 miles, the other half would've continued another 20'000 miles to fail at the 40'000 miles MTIN - but that's statistically improbable - the counter doesn't reset just because one half failed. You also seem to assume all issues are due to uncorrelated hardware issues in a half-unit - but what about all the failures caused by external issues that would affect both units (examples include some power fluctuation that knocks out a pair of units together but in just one location). You'd need to look at the distribution of failures to come up with a realistic estimate of the new MTIN, and doubling it is not the answer.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,211
You're claiming that if a given half-unit failed at 20'000 miles, the other half would've continued another 20'000 miles to fail at the 40'000 miles MTIN - but that's statistically improbable - the counter doesn't reset just because one half failed.

I’m not claiming that at all.


You also seem to assume all issues are due to uncorrelated hardware issues in a half-unit - but what about all the failures caused by external issues that would affect both units (examples include some power fluctuation that knocks out a pair of units together but in just one location).

That is true, and most unit failures are in one ‘unit’ (or in a 700, half unit). Of course there are some that affect both / all units, of which coupling / uncoupling is typically the most common.

So yes, the number wouldn’t be double, but it wouldn’t be far off.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,272
Location
St Albans
I’m not claiming that at all.




That is true, and most unit failures are in one ‘unit’ (or in a 700, half unit). Of course there are some that affect both / all units, of which coupling / uncoupling is typically the most common.

So yes, the number wouldn’t be double, but it wouldn’t be far off.
The coupling between the two halves of a 700 is only ever operated in a depot, unlike normal MUs that can be split several times a week in service. On that basis a coupling failure in service is extremely unlikely. Even a total power failure in service on one half unit wouldn't normally stop the other half dragging the consist clear.
 

plugwash

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2015
Messages
1,563
The issue I see with "miles between technical incident" is it doesn't distinguish different types of incident. Presumablly an incident could be anything from "one diesel engine out of four failed, and the train carried on pretty much as normal" to "the train became completely immobile and the line was blocked for hours".
 

SolomonSouth

On Moderation
Joined
25 Feb 2021
Messages
315
Location
Gravesend
The issue I see with "miles between technical incident" is it doesn't distinguish different types of incident. Presumablly an incident could be anything from "one diesel engine out of four failed, and the train carried on pretty much as normal" to "the train became completely immobile and the line was blocked for hours".
Fair point
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,272
Location
St Albans
The issue I see with "miles between technical incident" is it doesn't distinguish different types of incident. Presumablly an incident could be anything from "one diesel engine out of four failed, and the train carried on pretty much as normal" to "the train became completely immobile and the line was blocked for hours".
So how would the class 700s fare when the ac power dipped out of spec causing them to fail safe. The whole MML south was blocked, more because there weren't enough support staff to reboot the on-board system than the fact that they tripped in the first instance.
This attempt to apply a badge of quality to diverse in-service trains by a simple wooly metric is making the whole exercise about as useful as 'Top Trumps' cards for enthusiasts.
Add to that the fact that a train that is diagrammed on a gentle lightly loaded 60 to 80mph service with stops every 20 miles against that same train being thrashed at 100mph between stops every 5-10 miles with full loads of passengers would have significant impacts on a 'reliability' metric.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,211
The coupling between the two halves of a 700 is only ever operated in a depot, unlike normal MUs that can be split several times a week in service. On that basis a coupling failure in service is extremely unlikely. Even a total power failure in service on one half unit wouldn't normally stop the other half dragging the consist clear.

Sorry, yes, I was referring to coupling / uncoupling of ‘normal’ units, not 700s.


The issue I see with "miles between technical incident" is it doesn't distinguish different types of incident. Presumablly an incident could be anything from "one diesel engine out of four failed, and the train carried on pretty much as normal" to "the train became completely immobile and the line was blocked for hours".

An incident is anything that causes a delay to services that is reported on the network delay reporting system (typically a delay of 3 minutes or more).
 
Joined
24 Jun 2014
Messages
433
Location
Derby
Diesel Electric Multiple Unit.

In pure fantasy land I would have a voyager underneath (although smaller engines) and the 180s body and interior.

BR originally classed HSTs as DEMUs - that's why they were allocated 2XX set numbers (2XX being the TOPS series numbers for DEMUs)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top