Great Western Coffee Shop

........is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of these (more than usual) at the moment especially affecting services between London & Reading? Is the rolling stock starting to feel its age a bit (like me!)  ;)

A couple of 180 diagrams were covered by Turbos one day last week, could have been that?  The Turbos are very reliable considering how intensely they're worked but at over 20 years old they are starting to show their age.  For most of the fleet a looming semi-retirement to the west looks likely (after a refresh presumably) where they'll be able to rest a little!

FGWs 166221 from my knowledge is still at Wolverton Works and has been since early March for a C6 overhaul. So that a turbo out of use and then there's usually another that's at Ilford for bogie replacement. And again with 180s and HSTs alike having problems and shortages those diagrams where appropriate have to be covered.

Don't forget there's also an HST away too, on a rotating basis until early next year.

From Journeycheck - "1112 Paddington - Reading Will be formed of 2 coaches instead of 5.
This is due to an earlier train fault".

......another one, seems to be virtually a daily event now

To be fair, a 2-car would be enough for that sort of service at that time of day.  More worrying are peak time services that are more regularly short-formed.  Another 180 failed this morning (with an ATP fault at Paddington), so there's a 3-car Turbo now covering that diagram for the day.

And the 1520 Oxford to the Cotswold Line cancelled due to a failed train, usually a turbo in my recent experience.

14:37 Oxford to London Paddington due 16:31 Will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 5.

And the 1457 Padd - Oxford stopper has conked out at Reading.  FGW don't deem this to be a cancellation, but if you're waiting at Tilehurst, Pangbourne etc you probably would.

"Train fault" apparently.........same as the 1648 Reading to Paddington which has just been cancelled.

Air Con issues apparently.

The 180 that forms the 1552 from PAD to the Cotswold Line failed outside Oxford on its earlier inward working, meaning a 3car turbo substitution. A door issue apparently

...and the air con wasn't too brilliant on the replacement turbo on the 15:52. Trolley host was handing out free water once he had managed to release the windows.

19.18 from Paddington to Oxford, 2 carriages instead of 3 so nice and cosy.. (It used to be a 180 too for a while)

Looking back over my text alerts which cover Padd-->Maidenhead for the 6pm-7.30pm peak and the reverse in the morning:

06/06 - 19:05 will have 2 not 3
06/06 - 07:13 will have 3 not 5
04/06 - 07:23 will have 3 not 5
04/06 - 07:08 (HST) cancelled
03/06 - 19:18 will have 2 not 3
03/06 - 06:53 will have 5 not6
03/06 - 07:17 will have 3 not 5
28/05 - 07:13 will have 4 not 5
27/05 - 19:42 will have 3 not 4

and so on and so on....

....thanks - so there is definitely a pattern emerging...a more recent phenomenon?

By my records this pattern started on 10/04.  Before that they were an infrequent occurance.

Since that time (and of course my alerts only cover the small subset of trains that I'm interested in) I have received 39 messages specifically about short formations.

Equally I've been on trains during this period that were short-formed and didn't receive a message!

That's probably when the first turbo went for it's C6?....now on a rolling basis....

You'll have to forgive me but I'm not sure what a C6 is......but would this just represent one 3 car unit?

The effect seems a little disproportionate if that's the case

Does this mean that this will carry on indefinitely? (or at least until they've all be done?)

A C6 exam - every unit has go through one every xx thousand miles.....(don't know what xx is, possibly digfferent for each type of stock too)

Bear in mind that all turbos are out during the peaks, so there will be planned shortforms while these are going on. If units then fail also, unplanned further shortforms are needed.

Yes, the planned shortforms (which should show p on journeycheck alerts - if you notice one every day, that'll be one of these) will continue until all those needing a C6 have had it done.

Thanks for the explanation..........I wonder why FGW don't try to explain this to customers rather than this (from today?)

"12:21 London Paddington to Great Malvern due 15:11 Will be formed of 2 coaches instead of 5.
This is due to an earlier train fault"

..........unless there are a load of trains falling over as well as being overhauled of course?

I reckon people would be more understanding if posters were displayed explaining the ongoing maintenance programme and its effects?

Certainly a thought...I suspect they do have at least one out with a fault too.

-just had a quick look on Journeycheck - as of now there are 11 updates/cancellations/formation updates etc listed and EVERY SINGLE ONE is due to "train fault/earlier train fault"!

Admittedly not all are Reading to Paddington services but this must be becoming a real concern?

At the Community Rail Conference last week it was stated that many of the unit problems in the West relate to the issues caused by the closure at Dawlish.  Many units could not get to depots for routine maintenance and they are now playing catch-up.  This of course doesn't explain the problems in the east of the area.

If its HSTs, it could well do. If turbos/Adelantes then, agreed, no

Here is a list of shortforms this afternoon caused by the unavailability of one Class 180

Think that's two Adelantes? :-)

Just serves to highlight the fragility & lack of robustness of the service if one or two missing sets can create all these problems

Unless one of the two workings was booked for 2x ThamesTurbo (2-car + 3-car) and one has been uncoupled to cover the Adelante diagram?

All down to the DfT unfortunately, and their failed franchises....

..........what is? Reliability? Maintenance schedules?  ???

The maintenance schedules...the Delay in bringing in IEP means the HSTs are having to go through further exams...they were due for retirement around now

To add to ChrisB point about DfT and failed franchises, it's also their policy on rolling stock procurment which hass delayed the provision of obviously needed new DMUs for most current franchises and to allow withdrawl of the very unreliable 14Xs over and above those cascaded form electrification schemes.

This has meant the current fleet is being worked to its maximum which obviously means they get to their maintenance exams quicker and as the HST/Turbo/180 fleets were delivered quite quickly units are coming up for their exams one after the other which means that with intensity of the diagrams any unit failing in service will inevitably mean that trains will be cancelled or short formed as there are no spare units to cover.

It would be an interesting statistical exercise to measure unit availability, realiabilty and utilisation against each other. We know from Hull Trains experience with their 222s when they started they had 5 units for 4 diagrams and were working up to a very good (for a diesel) mileage between failures. Then some one dropped a unit on the floor and wrote it off so they were down to to 4 for 4 and the following year their miles per failure decreased significantly but their utilisation increased.

Let's not forget that many of the problems can be traced back to the unexpected growth of passenger numbers.

The forecasts for the 2005 franchise in GW land, leading to the rolling stock requirements and SLC, were based on 0.8% growth on the 2004 survey figures.    So a service with 100 passengers on in 2004 was expected to be carrying between 108.29 passengers (statistically) 10 years later.

What has happened in many parts is that growth has been 8.0% - all I have done is move the digits around from 0.8% but the effect of the compound growth is to bring 215.89 passengers after 10 years.

You could suggest the forecast growth was wrong ... but then people would have equally complained if there had been huge stock investments based on a need to carry 216 people, but only 108 routinely turned up.  It's probably fair to say that the forecasters and decisions were made on the low-growth, pessimistic side and that decisions have been very much risk-averse.

Cut 3 car trains to 2 cars, cut 4 car trains to 3 cars, cut 5 car trains to 3 or 4, pull a couple of carriages out of HSTs and cut passenger numbers by a half.  You'll have a much more comfortable journey, you'll have much more spare stock around (indeed, be able to withdraw some of the older stuff), and you'll have what was expected to happen 10 years ago.

The one big huge problem with the FGW Class 180 fleet is engine cooling issues.  There was a design flaw their from build which needs rectifying, as Hull Trains have done with some major investment of around ^1m to ^2m.  Problem there is no financial sense to do this under a short term franchise (remember Hull Trains is an 'open access' operator and are not held by such constraints).  Its also not worth investing in a fleet which is soon to be replaced by the IEPs.

Turbo's don't fair well in the heat either (coolant pipes splitting seems to be a problem a present)  A Turbo engine provides more power with a cold air intake, so in high temperatures there is no noticable drop in engine performance.  On a 166 this is not helped with the air con using, I think its about 50hp, of a 350hp engine.  Class 166 radiators aren't the best of designs either.  They are positioned at virtually a 45 degree angle under the train which as result, sucks in a considerable amount of dirt and debris off the track which in turn blocks the radiators, the engine overheats and reverts to just idling.  Again, a lot of problems stem from the fact the Turbo fleet is so intensively used.  Ideally they would want to jet wash the radiators out overnight but there simply isn't the time to do this.  I would imagine as well, the engine running hot also affects the saloon temperature considerably as well. 

Growth has been unprecedented though.  When the franchise was initially let it was intended that FGW would give up 6 Turbos!!

I caught a 2 car turbo the other day that is normally a 3 or 5 car and was quite full as it was short formed, although it was not quite at crush load. The drop in performance was noticeable, leaving reading on time I think we were a few minutes late by the time I got to Langley, I dread to think what it was like once it got to Hayes & Southall.

It appears that the short formed 2 cars really struggle at high loads, noticeably more so than 3 or 5 cars thus compounding the problem.

The worst at the moment, as 'a-driver' mentioned is Class 166s when the temperature rises above 20 degrees.  Since the Air-Con was upgraded some of them would really struggle to pull the skin off of a rice pudding!  Regarding the Air-Con things seem a little better this year with more carriages working, but there have still been several failures to cool properly already and windows opened as a result, so if we have a couple of prolonged hot spells like last year I fear that come the latter part of the summer finding a carriage that is working will be a bit of a challenge!

Just a reminder as to what I've said before regarding the Air-Con on Class 166s though for the regular travellers:  If it's not working in one carriage, or even one part of a carriage, other areas on the train may well be nice and cool, so do walk through the train to check if you can.

Turbos don't have SDO and so can't work in multiple on the Cotswold Line - even two 2-car units would be too long for some platforms.

If this happens, the rear set will be locked out at Oxford or Worcester before proceeding

Indeed, as seen here at Kingham:

(http://www.systemed.net/temp/turbo_6coach.jpg)

When this happens we get 2 problems we 've discussed before, which I've seen on the 1837 Oxford - Padd stopper which has 5 cars but stops at Appleford.  So back unit is locked out of use until Didcot.  Problems are:

1 - the CIS says it's a 5 car train, when in fact only the front 2 cars are in use as far as Didcot. 

2 - the yellow cant rail lights light up even on locked sets when the doors are released.  I know that these lights are not "doors unlocked" lights, but that is how all passengers perceive them. So at Oxford and Radley passengers are trying to get in the rear coaches when they can't. 

So we get passenger frustration/panic, and delays to trains.

I was on a 166 taking the 1418 Paddington to Thatcham on Monday of this week (9th June), and it did seem to struggle, accelerating a lot more slowly than usual and taking a long time to get up to max. speed on the non-stop PAD to RDG run.

Then, as we approached Thatcham, water starting pouring (like a shower!) out of the roof at the join between the passenger cabin and the vestibule near where I was sat. I assume this was an over-working/failing aircon unit. I told the driver, who said he would get it looked at.

Oh dear - that was a problem last year with a few of the few that were actually working!

Sounds like we're getting back to the situation where the kit works as long as the sun isn't shining/the rain isn't falling and it's not too hot or cold? So I'm thinking we should make the most of a semi reliable service in April/May, Sept/Oct but it's fingers crossed and pray to whatever God you hold dear for the rest of the time? Heaven help us if it starts snowing!  ::)

My experience of the 166s over the last couple of weeks is that the air conditioning is a vast improvement on the old system, but still far from perfect. The old system used to only work very rarely, the new system seems to work a bit more often than that.

For balance I was on another 166 THA-PAD earlier today and the aircon was working well - it actually felt cool stepping on board :-)

Can I just double-check here.

To me "No SDO" means that doors can't be opened / released along a part of the train backwards or forwards of particular points.   Is it possible to do single door opening (when not running driver only)?  And if a single door is opened in that way, it it then possible for the train manager to open a second door with an outside release, as is done on 15x units sometimes?

I'm looking into the art of the possible should these units head out further west and be serving the likes of Avoncliff and Dilton Marsh.

Not easily, except locking doors out of use ( leaving the one working)...but I hate to think of the problems getting everyone out in an emergency if you did do that.

You would have to lock entire coaches out of use basically

The difference between the Sprinters and the Turbos Grahame is that on Sprinters the guard has full control over the doors. The guard can release the local door (the one they are standing at) and all doors.

On the Turbos the driver controls door operation. They only have the option of releasing all doors. On Turbo services worked with a guard, the guard communicates to the driver using the "10 Bell" system.

The rulebook prohibits two doors on the same side of a carriage being locked out of use, along with the first set of doors in the leading carriage and the last set of doors in the rear carriage. As Chris says, if you lock out a door the emergency egress handles don't work as the door is locked. The rulebook says in these circumstances you must lock each affected carriage out of use.

The convention when a Turbo running in multiple has to stop at Appleford, Culham and along the Cotswold route is to lock out the rear unit(s).

So Turbos will need some kind of modification in the future to stop at stations such as Dilton Marsh, Melksham and others. There is rolling stock out there that has been retrofitted with guard door operating panels in the saloon so this may be considered in the future for the Turbos.

That's a very fair assessment.  And when it's working the windows locked shut makes it a very pleasurable experience.  The trouble is, when it's not working and now that the windows are locked shut, it very quickly becomes a greenhouse.  So staff have to be more proactive in checking (and to be honest some just don't give a monkeys) in order that windows can be locked shut or open as the circumstances dictate.  For example, a lovely warm day like today and if the air-con isn't working the windows have to be open, but should it then be a much cooler evening/night then the windows have to be locked shut again as the passengers can no longer do so.

All in all, when it's working it's a better environment, and when it's not it's potentially a worse environment.

Were the class 150s retrofitted with intermediate door controls? Did the 150/2s get these from new?

Both 150/1s and 150/2s were only retrofitted with them. The 150/2s were fitted with intermediate door controls by Wessex when they refurbished the units and the 150/1s were fitted with them by FGW when they transferred to them.

Many thanks for filling me in on the operation of 16x doors; interesting to note that 150 retrofit wasn't a show stopper. I am far better informed now`!

Two carriage units at Melksham, where the doors are not at the outer ends, call for accurate stopping but it can be  (and is sometimes) done.  I'm not sure how awkward that would be on a regular hourly basis.

Remember Turbos have 23m carriages compared to the 20m carriages of 150s too, so that may make a difference at Melksham. The unions are unlikely to accept the current method of door control on the Turbos when they move West anyway.

Be interesting to see if the DOO operation is maintained :-)

seems to have been on the rise again this week with loads of short formations/"train faults" both on local and long haul services, lots of comment on the FGW Twitter feed regarding this too, especially affecting long distance trains around holiday times when loadings are heavier......any thoughts from those in the know?

The local Thames Valley fleet is currently stretched to the limit.  At least 2 3-car trains are out for a start for a refresh/refurbishment and installation of a wheelchair accessible toilet.  Any day to day failures will result in a short formed train as there is no spare capacity.

The fleet really is being stretched to the absolute limit these days, unlike in times gone past.

That would be good for revenue, the driver could sell tickets through the window before opening the doors :D

Ah OK so the trains are as knackered as the signals!  ::)

Yep, hence both being in the process of being replaced.

Strictly, no....exams are due on set mileage, don't have to be knackered. And being fitted with accessible toilets ditto

   
    31/08/2014 09:17
Route affected

    All routes through Reading
     


    Over-running engineering work at Reading is causing delays of up to 45 minutes to trains running through the station.

    This is mainly affecting services towards Basingstoke, Newbury and Didcot Parkway.

    South West Trains are not currently affected by this disruption.

    There is no firm estimate yet of how long the disruption is likely to continue, however delays are expected until at least 10:30

   

     
      ...............sorry, I forgot about the engineering work!  :-[

Looking at current train running there are already 14 short formations listed between now and midnight on the Thames Valley lines...........all down to "train faults" - judging by the comments of those in the know this is as much down to planned servicing/refits so why not say so?

.....or are we really looking at this situation for the foreseeable future as the remaining units are being flogged to death and are reaching the end of their useful/reliable life, with nothing in reserve?

Concerning for those of us further West that these are the units coming to replace the current stock of 150s/158s. And to think we were so close to getting a brand new fleet of four car DMUs on the Cardiff-Portsmouth line a few years back until Dft changed its mind. :(

Nothing in reserve as these are away having accessible toilet etc fitted.

If they had no faulty units, I suspect a full service would run - it's the lack of standbys that cause the shorts. So they are correct in stating faulty trains.

Fatalities will also cause the loss of a unit until it's fixed & cleaned....no fault of the operator.

A quick look at the current shortages:

A 15:27 London Paddington to Oxford due 17:17
C 15:40 Bedwyn to London Paddington due 16:57
B 16:37 Oxford to London Paddington due 18:31
A 17:37 Oxford to London Paddington due 19:31
C 17:44 London Paddington to Reading due 18:44
B 18:42 London Paddington to Bourne End due 19:29
C 18:48 Reading to London Paddington due 19:46
B 19:34 Bourne End to Maidenhead due 19:45
B 19:49 Maidenhead to Bourne End due 20:00
C 19:50 London Paddington to Banbury due 21:23
A 19:57 London Paddington to Oxford due 21:44
B 20:05 Bourne End to Maidenhead due 20:16
C 21:38 Banbury to London Paddington due 23:24
C 23:49 London Paddington to Reading due 00:56

Services "A", "B" and "C" could run into each other (I may not be 100% there with my guesses) and that looks like a total of perhaps 4 or 5 carriages less operating that is required from a fleet of 152.   Yes, that's 3.3% of the fleet out when it should be in, and I suspect uncomfortable on the 17:44 and more so on the 18:42 out of Paddington  (5 rather than 6, and 4 rather than 2 carriages).  I count 51 departures in the 2 hours from 17:00 to 18:59, none cancelled and 2 short formed.   So about 2% capacity down.  2% more than it should be (and all in one train group) - but worth quoting what is running at full strength as wells what isn't to see it in perspective.


Gawd I hope not is we're to get those as hand-me-downs in the Bristol area!

Probably due to the agreed "reasons" with ATOC, such as those for delays.

"Short formed due to Brussels interference, it's not broke but we have to fix it" is probably not one of them  ;D

Ah but the Thames Valley outers are getting stuff even older and possible more decrypted the 319's.

To be fair the FGW 165/6 fleet are possible the hardest working DMU's in the UK certainly with one of the most intensive diagrams and are by and large very reliable.
Some of the failures could be down to the number of maintenance fitters being on leave, could be a shortage of en-parts that are refurbished off site, could be a coincidental mix of both these, genuine failures and units out for person hit

Fair point and certainly puts it into perspective but that 2% needs to be looked at in the context of a service already bursting at the seams with overcrowding so actually means a great deal more than if there was slack to be taken up?