|
Title: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: grahame on January 19, 2008, 07:48:36 This subject has come up "hidden" within a strong thread on More Train Less Strain, and it merits its own topic. Here's a crosspost to start it off:
Mada.. you state in a post further up i quote.... poorly maintained rolling stock... can prove this with evidence? because i know a lot of lads and lasses who work bloody hard at times when nearly eveyone is asleep to keep what stock we do have going and to get you to work. Do you actually think the trains get themselves fuelled,serviced for the days work ahead, and dont mention the clean word, if you see the bloody mess left by Passengers day in day it drives you to despair. Prehaps you should get yourself to a depot open day if they run any again ever and see what actually goes on before quoting poorly maintained rolling stock because that quote to me means you think people are not doing there jobs properly. Trains do an a lot of mileage a day, probably more than you do in your car in a week and old kit does break down so dont blame the maintainence staff they are really doing there best to give you a train to get to work on Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: grahame on January 19, 2008, 11:43:46 Rolling stock is built with a life expectancy, and it shows something called the bathtub effect with regard to reliability through its life. They start off unreliable, have a midlife where they run pretty darned well, then all the aches and pains of old age cause a progressively less reliable time before they are retired.
The Adalante units are, it could be argued, just coming off the end of their teething troubles .... and perhaps will be much more reliable for Hull trains and anyone else who runs them. Most of the rest are likely geting more and more difficult to keep running reliably. And with delays on completing all the facilities at the depot and staff having to work around that, it can scarceley make the job easier .... So even if we see a dramatic fall off in train reliability (and I understand / have seen figures to show that the reverse is happening) that's very unlikely to be down to the staff. Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: grahame on January 20, 2008, 06:52:00 I knew I had a picture somewhere ...
(http://www.wellho.net/pix/bathtubeffect.jpg) Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: Conner on January 20, 2008, 09:25:59 So where is are rolling stick in the picture?
The Adelantes are obviously still on the downards curve. The HST's must have been pushed back into the middle with new engines. The Turbo's don't seem to break down that often, I think they're in the middle. I am not to sure about the West Fleet though. I think they were starting to go back up because FGW said they're making technical modifications to improve reliabilty. Anybody else any other ideas? Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: gaf71 on January 20, 2008, 09:41:31 So where is are rolling stick in the picture? A lot of the problems with the 142's at Exeter are door faults, which often can't be replicated when on the depot. We are forever booking door( and heating) faults on these units, and they just come back NFF( no fault found). This is very frustrating for train crew, when you know you have had a problem with the unit, but i suspect it's a lot more frustrating for the maintenence staff.The Adelantes are obviously still on the downards curve. The HST's must have been pushed back into the middle with new engines. The Turbo's don't seem to break down that often, I think they're in the middle. I am not to sure about the West Fleet though. I think they were starting to go back up because FGW said they're making technical modifications to improve reliabilty. Anybody else any other ideas? Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: devon_metro on January 20, 2008, 10:33:24 Worse at Starcross/Eggesford as its such a high angle aswell.
Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: gaf71 on January 20, 2008, 18:02:20 Worse at Starcross/Eggesford as its such a high angle aswell. yes. Starcross on the upside is the worst place, because of the curvature and camber.Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: vacman on January 20, 2008, 18:26:42 I've seen a slight improvement on the 142's though with regards to door faults?? maybe it's the fact that they are being used more they have loosened up so to speak after their months in store.
Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: smithy on January 20, 2008, 18:38:37 the maintenance is crap simple as that!
when on spm overnight the servicing is done outside,but if they come in with a fault chances of getting in shed are slim,plus fgw are short on sets they simply cannot stop them so the same old rubbish is sent out day after day. Title: Re: Rolling stock maintainaince standards Post by: gaf71 on January 20, 2008, 22:09:28 I've seen a slight improvement on the 142's though with regards to door faults?? maybe it's the fact that they are being used more they have loosened up so to speak after their months in store. I agree, they are slightly better than when they arrived. It' s Grahame's 'bathtub principle' in action. :)This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |