All HST's are Useless?

petermakosch · Post by **petermakosch** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:45 pm

I read somewhere or something, that when the HST's were brought into service, they were excellent.
Then (and i dont know why) GNER ruined a load pulling loads of trains and things, so now all the HST's have bad engines.

Does anyone know about anything even like this? Or did i dream it?
BTW: It could have been GNER because they were pulling 225 sets? I duno!

thedarkness · Post by **thedarkness** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:00 pm

Before Lucazone posts another picture of an arrow pointing to the search button, there was an article on here a while ago.
When the 225 Sets arrived, they didnt have DVT's, so HST power cars were used instead. Apparently they disconnected the the transmission package, so the engine ran, but didnt provide any movement force to the wheels, the downside of this was that the cooling fan didnt run, and alot of engines over heated.
I've have done something similar to a 158 that was in trouble before. You disconnect the transmission, but you also have to shut down the engine on that coach, because otherwise the engine revs its guts out when the drive takes power.
This used to mean using an emergency headlight or tail light respectively, as the coach was without power, but i believe its now been altered so 1 engine can supply power to both coaches

nightbeaver911 · Post by **nightbeaver911** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:02 pm

Dates back to the Hatfield disaster, when all those speed restrictions were imposed and all the trains ran late trains got back to the depot later than scheduled but still left at the same time so route maintanence was not carried out when it should of been and now its caught back up with them as they are unreiable. Or thats the story I heard, I dont know if anyone knows any different. Other than the fact they are darn old. Dont know about the GNER bit, they want 9 trailers in their HSTs but they wont be able to cope.

Which is why last year MML used two class 47s and MK2s on some of its servivces.

This is what I heard, not sure if its true or not, just thought id say that before every1 bites my head off.

mikey2001 · Post by **mikey2001** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:20 pm

Some of the older HSTs have clocked over five million miles (most of it at high speed). This may explain why some are becoming a tad unreliable in recent times.

petermakosch · Post by **petermakosch** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:50 pm

not to mention being 20 years old!

simont · Post by **simont** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:13 pm

More than 20.

jonhewes · Post by **jonhewes** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:40 pm

I wonder how long it is until TOCs realise that fixed formation and multiple unit trains don't offer the same flexability and reliability of properly maintained locomotive and coach stock.

These days if a Virgin Voyager or Pendelino develops a fault they whole train has to be taken out of service, whereas with a loco and coaches, if either the loco or a coach develop a fault, its just a case of changing the offending vehicle.

thedarkness · Post by **thedarkness** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:44 pm

jonhewes wrote:I wonder how long it is until TOCs realise that fixed formation and multiple unit trains don't offer the same flexability and reliability of properly maintained locomotive and coach stock.

These days if a Virgin Voyager or Pendelino develops a fault they whole train has to be taken out of service, whereas with a loco and coaches, if either the loco or a coach develop a fault, its just a case of changing the offending vehicle.

Blimey, you been reading my mind?

Elojikal · Post by **Elojikal** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 3:20 am

The anti-MU brigade seem to have got a bit frisky as of late.

If a carriage in a loco hauled train develops a fault then usually the whole formation is shunted into a siding. The time lost replacing this formation or even detaching one coach shouldn't be anymore than it takes to replace a faulty MU with one of the many other MU formations a TOC will have stabled...

If the loco develops a fault then usually an additional loco is attached to the front and the faulty loco runs dead to its destination. It takes time to find a spare loco and if its travelling a long distance then it may not even be used the entire distance. I'm sure I read somewhere of a Class 47 hauled cross country service from Manchester to Brighton that had its 47 develop a fault. It was hauled dead by another 47 to Kensington Olympia where a Class 73 was then attached.

This raises another point.. especially for the anti-MU brigade who seem to like throwing up comments about certain MU's being old and out of date, most loco hauled services are run with loco's up to 40 years old. It's not uncommon for one dead 47 to be hauled by another Class 47 which itself breaks down. Some of the electric loco's introduced in the early 80's are only a decade younger than the HST's...

The HST's record of reliability started to go down back in the 80's barely 15 years after they'd be introduced. This funnily coincided with British Rail degrading their level of maintaince to save money. There are millions of MU, both disel and electric, across the world which run reliabily everyday, even more reliabily than some loco hauled services. It's all to do with the standard of maintaince, yes?

jonhewes · Post by **jonhewes** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:01 am

Even up until the 80s, most major towns or cities had a loco depot, so it wouldn't be too hard to find a replacement loco.

As for TOCs having spare rakes of MUs. If this was the case, why aren't they used to supplement existing rakes at peak times? The truth of the matter is, is that they don't have many servicable MUs readily available.

Most multiple unit services that I've seen fail, have been cancelled, with passenges being advised to catch the next one.

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 12:26 pm

jonhewes wrote:Even up until the 80s, most major towns or cities had a loco depot, so it wouldn't be too hard to find a replacement loco.

Yeah, right... For Waterloo-Exeter, the nearest depots for locomotives were/are: Old Oak Common, Eastleigh, Bristol Bath Road/Barton Hill, and Plymouth Laira. That's a minimum of 1 hour away from any failed train, in the case of Eastleigh. More for the others, particularly Old Oak.

There are many spare MUs 'available', usually being cleaned or serviced, in off-peak periods. With Intercity services, this is reduced, as there is no 'peak' period (or not to the same extent as the commuter services), thus available units are being used.

As for the Anti-MU brigade, the only time an MU with multiple power cars (as opposed to a DM-DT set) should have serious problems is when the whole power system goes down (particularly EMUs). Other problems include neutral sections or pantograph failure. Modern MUs, particularly Voyagers and Pendolinos, should be able to 'rescue' themselves - it's called redundancy. The same is true of HSTs, which are operationally DEMUs, admittedly with Type 4 diesel engines. Failure of a coach means failure of a set - why the GWML has so many HST maintenance depots (which are, from Left to Right: Penzance Long Rock, Plymouth Laira, Swansea Landore, Bristol St Phillips Marsh, London Old Oak Common). That way you can deploy a replacement set quickly.

Who remembers the performance and reliability record of Cross-Country pre-Princess? The best thing about those services was not that it was a Class 47, but what came to rescue said '47' when it inevitably broke down! I recall Class 58s and even double-headed Class 73s getting as far as Birmingham!

I'd argue that fixed-formation MUs, particularly in multiple, are more flexible in the event of failure. If the rear portion of a train goes haywire, you simply move the passengers into the front, cut the rear portion out and carry on. Yes, it'll be overcrowded, but at least the train will get there.

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 1:20 pm

mattvince wrote:I'd argue that fixed-formation MUs, particularly in multiple, are more flexible in the event of failure. If the rear portion of a train goes haywire, you simply move the passengers into the front, cut the rear portion out and carry on. Yes, it'll be overcrowded, but at least the train will get there.

But if the rear portion of a loco hauled has problems, that carriage could even be removed, increasing train performance!

jonhewes · Post by **jonhewes** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 1:29 pm

Even Lincoln had two loco depots, which later just became stabling points up until the mid-80s.

Back in the heyday of locohauled trains, nearly every medium-large station would have had a stabling point with a few locos available for use.

The picture you paint of locohauled trains only seems to concentrate on the performance of poorly maintained, life-expired loco&coaching stock.

If correctly maintained, and run on a non-skeletal infrastructure, loco&coaches can offer far more flexability and reliablity than any DMU.

The fact that if a single HST coach breaks down, the entire HST set is remdered a failure, is an example of how fixed formation stupidness has affected our railway.

I'd argue that with a correctly maintained and funded infrastructure, loco&coaches would be far more useful than DMUs. To me a DMU standing at a station, dwarfed in length by a platform built in the days when we had proper, longer trains, symbolises how badly or railway has deteriorated.

slipdigby · Post by **slipdigby** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 2:12 pm

jonhewes wrote:Even Lincoln had two loco depots, which later just became stabling points up until the mid-80s.

Back in the heyday of locohauled trains, nearly every medium-large station would have had a stabling point with a few locos available for use.

Used how often exactly? You can't have millions of pounds of equipment led about just in the off case something goes wrong. Im not opposed to the odd "thunderbird" at strategic locations, but what you propose would be ridiculously costly

The picture you paint of locohauled trains only seems to concentrate on the performance of poorly maintained, life-expired loco&coaching stock.

If correctly maintained, and run on a non-skeletal infrastructure, loco&coaches can offer far more flexability and reliablity than any DMU.

In what way?

Off peak demand: Loco runs around with 4 carriages. 4 remain in siding
Peak time demand: Loco runs around with 8 carriages.

......is about as different as:

Off peak demand: DMU diagram runs around as single unit. Another single unit sits in siding
Peak time demand: DMU diagram runs around as 2 units.

Explain what you mean please

The fact that if a single HST coach breaks down, the entire HST set is remdered a failure, is an example of how fixed formation stupidness has affected our railway.

Hmmmmm. Class 47 + LHCS falls over on Shap due to a brake failure on one of the middle carriages. What's the difference between that, a HST or a Voyager doing the same? From an operational point of view there isn't surely (In this case the GWML being shafted for a few hours)

I'd argue that with a correctly maintained and funded infrastructure, loco&coaches would be far more useful than DMUs. To me a DMU standing at a station, dwarfed in length by a platform built in the days when we had proper, longer trains, symbolises how badly or railway has deteriorated.

So basically you believe a railway should be operated on the basis of aesthetics and "what looks good"?

The first part of your point is the main point here, "with a correctly maintained and funded infrastructure". Irregardless of whether the network is operated by DMU's or LHCS, this is the major issue facing the railways today in terms of capacity, reliability and redundancy in times of crisis.

Slip

Horgy · Post by **Horgy** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 2:14 pm

jonhewes wrote:As for TOCs having spare rakes of MUs. If this was the case, why aren't they used to supplement existing rakes at peak times? The truth of the matter is, is that they don't have many servicable MUs readily available.

Well, yes, they do. Take a look at Slade Green Depot, or the carriage sidings at Hither Green, lots of stuff there!

If you introduced this extra stock like you say we should, what would happen then if that stock broke down? Then there are no margins for maintenance..

There's also the issue of no free paths, no platform, no staff, etc..

Horgy