GWR IET diagrams.

[whole diary]

[grahame]

on posting above, I got this as an error message

Database Error: MySQL server has gone away
File: /home/firstgreatwestern/httpdocs/coffeeshop/Sources/Subs.php
Line: 2642Database Error: MySQL server has gone away
File: /home/firstgreatwestern/httpdocs/coffeeshop/Sources/Load.php
Line: 2006

delete once read, Graham....

Odd.  Will leave as a flag just for the moment; doing a major database dump this morning and don't want to fiddle for about an hour.  Could  be a loading issue. Will look a little late.

I too had a similar message just now

Been working on it ... keeping an eye open.

[grahame]

It would indeed be unusual to withdraw one from service because one of the engines was out.  I have seen several running in service with one engine out before, and as Broadgage says power output increases in the remaining engines.  Perhaps there was more to it than that?

The switch from TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) supplied daily maintenance to manufacturer supplied daily maintenance has some consequences.

We have already seen the loss of a lot of engineers described as excellent from GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) at St Phillip's Marsh to Hitachi at Stoke Gifford which - couple with a lot of "new" units such as 165 and 166 seems to have lead to a reduction in St Phillps Marsh being able to get though so many repairs / services at it was doing.  Are we now seeing a second effect?

Where the TOC is responsible for both maintenance (turning out the units) and timekeeping / performance, it's in their financial interest to run a service even if it's on one (HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) power car - they'll be penalised less for a late service than no service, and the penalties in both scenarios fall on them.   However, with a 3rd party doing the maintenance and financially responsive for it, might it not be in the TOC's interest not to accept the unit, claim compensation from the 3rd party for not supplying to contract, and carry near-double the number of passengers in the train 30 minutes later?

I hope I'm being unduly cynical - I'm sure these things are carefully organised to avoid scenarios and temptations such as the ones I speculate about above.

[ChrisB]

I think that has happened, yes. It is for Hitachi to keepspares ready in fase tge operator refuses to accept one at start of service...

[a-driver]

As I suspected, IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) units are being failed far more often for faults that other stock might be continued in operation with. An example from Friday evening....a 5car IET removed from service at Swindon owing to one of the diesel engines failing....doesn't that leave at least two others under a 5car? But as these are maintained by Hitachi, out of service it came at ran ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) to the Hitachi depot. Whether another was released by Hitachi - ? - but that service went no further.

I thought that the 5 car units had 3 engines the output of which was restricted in normal operation, but that would run at full power if one engine failed.
Therefore seems very odd to withdraw from service due to an engine out.
One of the alleged advantages of DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) is the ability to proceed under reduced power when one engine fails.

Unless the engine was out due to it being out of fuel, wasn’t there a bit of service disruption that day with a person hit by a train near Southall. Other than that, the only other issue would be relating to the compressors.

[ChrisB]

Yes, it was the same day as the 'hit by a train' disruption, but according to the TM^‡(resolve), that service wasn't physically affected by it

[CMRail]

Temple Meads sees 9car units today.