Most Unreliable Multiple Unit

[Nogoohwell]

458s certainly have a fun story. There were unusable in their first years, by 2010 they had become by far the most reliable EMUs in the country. The refurb brought them down a bit but SWT managed to get them back up to plain sailing. For a final twist they've been suffering again since 2017 after SWR decided maintenance on outgoing stock was optional!

They were doomed at birth, specified with couplers that would allow the units to rescue/be-rescued by Mk1's. The coupling was not consistent enough for the electrical connectors and caused lots of problems. It was one of the first things to get binned when converted to 458/5. Should never have been allowed in the first place. If they hadn't been fitted, you could argue Alstom might have stood a good chance of selling another 170 units, instead it went to Siemens!

 

[Domh245]

They were doomed at birth, specified with couplers that would allow the units to rescue/be-rescued by Mk1's. The coupling was not consistent enough for the electrical connectors and caused lots of problems. It was one of the first things to get binned when converted to 458/5. Should never have been allowed in the first place. If they hadn't been fitted, you could argue Alstom might have stood a good chance of selling another 170 units, instead it went to Siemens!

I think temperamental couplers was the least of the concerns that sent SWT away from Alstom!

 

[Miles Bown]

Shame the Class 424 never entered service, would have loved to have seen 50yr+ components and subframes trying to run modern trains! Surely would have been a contender for least reliable...

Isn't the traction package in the class 442s salvaged from the 4REP 'Bournemouth tractor' units? They've performed well over the years, considering those motors must be over 50 years old by now, if a little slow at acceleration.

 

[JohnElliott]

If you compare them to the sorts of EMUs the Southern were turning out at the time, they were practically space-age.

The 487s?

 

[lord rathmore]

Some yes - some no. The Cravens DMUs with Rolls Royce engines were something of a short-lived disaster. Unreliable, and some prone to catch fire.
And whilst excellent for their passenger environment, the engines on the Class 123 & 124 DMUs were rather troublesome in their later years.

You're right they were comfortable for the passenger, travelled on them many times from M/cr Vic.

 

[Journeyman]

The 487s?

Above-floor equipment compartment, manual couplings and control jumpers. They were a lot less sophisticated than 38s, despite modern appearances. They were more like Standard Stock technically.

 

[Bayum]

Brake resistors notwithstanding, Voyagers/Meridians seem to be incredibly overbuilt. Probably a combination of the train and the timetable, but several years ago I was on a 5 car 222 that managed to make up time despite only having 3 engines!

Hello, Gen3!

 

[craigybagel]

It does not surprise me that 180's and 175's are related. 8/14 175's have caught fire to some capacity.

There are 27 175s. Still not a great figure, though it is worth pointing out that in everyone of those fires it was safely contained under the solebar. Every one of those units is back out in service, and by and large they've settled down to become very reliable units. The 175s and 180s may have started out alike, but they've gone down very different paths since.

Heard some days all of Hull Trains' class 180s would be out of commission due to faults.

Also, class 153's are pretty bad. That's when they're working...

Class 153s are actually pretty reliable given the difficulties they face having to do everything alone! One thing I've noticed working recently with units that have come from a variety of different TOCs is that some were clearly cared for more than others.

Class 158's have a feeling of modernity, but it isn't uncommon for only one unit to turn up on Liverpool-Notts due to a technical fault. 156's can be tempremental too.

The 158s are one of the perpetually cash strapped British Rails worst legacies IMO. "Garden shed engineering" 30 years ago and we're still suffering the consequences now.

 

[Jozhua]

There are 27 175s. Still not a great figure, though it is worth pointing out that in everyone of those fires it was safely contained under the solebar. Every one of those units is back out in service, and by and large they've settled down to become very reliable units. The 175s and 180s may have started out alike, but they've gone down very different paths since.

Class 153s are actually pretty reliable given the difficulties they face having to do everything alone! One thing I've noticed working recently with units that have come from a variety of different TOCs is that some were clearly cared for more than others.

The 158s are one of the perpetually cash strapped British Rails worst legacies IMO. "Garden shed engineering" 30 years ago and we're still suffering the consequences now.

Are the 158s more/less reliable than 153/6 sets?

I'd of assumed the 158s would be a bit more reliable, but that just stems from them feeling more modern.

I'm guessing you're more knowledgeable than me about the engineering side of stuff, what would you say are some of the big factors making some units more unreliable than others? Is there much that can be remedied, especially later in life (when they're in their 30's)

 

[Scotrail314209]

The 334s were pretty terrible during the first few years. Sometimes a train would go out of service half way down the Ayr line and everyone would be chucked off at Kilwinning. It was pretty common for a driver to "reboot" the train while stopped at a station. I remember sitting in a pitch-black 334 with the doors locked and the lights off while the thing rebooted. You knew the reboot was finished when the incredibly noisy ventilation kicked in.

They've improved massively since the early days, and as far as I know their mean time between failure is pretty decent these days.

The 334s never got on well with snow at all (and still don’t). Frequent cause of breakdowns particularly in the winter was due to the snow.

The units seem to be plagued with issues even now, most noticeable being that really horrific squeak that the units make.

 

[Inversnecky]

Sixty posts so far.... Has any class of British multiple unit NOT been mentioned?!

The MU you are familiar with is the most unreliable!

 

[Efini92]

Class 195’s aren’t doing very well

 

[D6130]

Class 195’s aren’t doing very well

I've never had a 195 fail on me yet. (Famous last words!).

 

[craigybagel]

Are the 158s more/less reliable than 153/6 sets?

I'd of assumed the 158s would be a bit more reliable, but that just stems from them feeling more modern.

I'm guessing you're more knowledgeable than me about the engineering side of stuff, what would you say are some of the big factors making some units more unreliable than others? Is there much that can be remedied, especially later in life (when they're in their 30's)

I don't know much really, what I've been saying is more based on experience working as traincrew on them, and knowing which units fail more often then others.

I do also work for the TOC that currently is responsible for "Damien", so maybe that's colouring my judgement a bit though to be fair 158820 has mostly been behaving itself of late AFAIK.

 

[D6130]

I don't know much really, what I've been saying is more based on experience working as traincrew on them, and knowing which units fail more often then others.

I do also work for the TOC that currently is responsible for "Damien", so maybe that's colouring my judgement a bit though to be fair 158820 has mostly been behaving itself of late AFAIK.

Ha, ha! The TOC for which I worked also had a "Damien" class 158. (Yes, I'm looking at you 158 793!). Numerous drivers and guards will be able to regale you all with their tales of woe involving this unit. My abiding memory concerned a very hot, sunny evening a few years ago, when I was rostered to work the 16 18 Carlisle-Leeds. After my PNB I made my way to platform 6 to relieve the incoming Carlisle driver and noticed that he was running about 15 minutes late. Dark thoughts started to cross my mind and - sure enough - when 793 eventually arrived, my Carlisle colleague said "She's rubbish mate (or words to that effect!) - best of luck....I'm off home, eh?" " (Carlisle folk usually say "eh?" at the end of a sentence!). I set off with some trepidation, but all seemed to go well until reaching Ormside Viaduct, a couple of miles South of Appleby, in the dip right at the bottom of the long drag up to Aisgill Summit, where the leading engine suddenly stopped. After a slow (and for me, quiet!) climb, we arrived at Kirkby Stephen nearly ten minutes down and, with the assistance of the signalman, obtained several watering cans full of water. However she would only take one and a half cans before overflowing! So I restarted the engine and off we went, only for the engine to stop again before Birkett Tunnel. Examination at Garsdale revealed a hydrostatic oil leak, causing the radiator fans to fail. Engine isolated and soldier on. By now it was mainly downhill, but we lost our path from Skipton and arrived in Leeds over an hour late. Don't get me started on class 158 air-conditioning, especially on the ex-Metro 158/9s!

 

[Philip]

The 175s took too long to become what you'd describe as reliable units. Even 10 years after they entered service they were still breaking down a lot, even if not as bad as the first few years. It's only within the last decade they've been on a par with the likes of 185s, so if in the context of their whole time in service, they're one of the most unreliable.

 

[py_megapixel]

I've never had a 195 fail on me yet. (Famous last words!).

I went on one on the first day of service. The PIS didn't have a clue what it was on about.

Then I went on one about 7 months after they were first introduced. This was on the Calder Valley and the conductor was having issues at every stop because the SDO system was throwing a tantrum. I've heard this was a rather common issue with them.

I have also heard of them just packing up and refusing to move without a reboot.

Probably not the worst units especially considering their relative newness, and they have a nice onboard ambience - but they do have their flaws.

 

[D6130]

I went on one on the first day of service. The PIS didn't have a clue what it was on about.

Then I went on one about 7 months after they were first introduced. This was on the Calder Valley and the conductor was having issues at every stop because the SDO system was throwing a tantrum. I've heard this was a rather common issue with them.

I have also heard of them just packing up and refusing to move without a reboot.

Probably not the worst units especially considering their relative newness, and they have a nice onboard ambience - but they do have their flaws.

Yes, the PIS does seem to be an ongoing issue right enough. I made an essential journey from Hebden Bridge to Burnley and back this afternoon - on the same unit and with the same crew both ways - to receive my first Covid vaccination. After leaving Hebden the visual screens were showing that the next station was New Pudsey, while the audible announcements were saying that it was Hebden Bridge. Still some software issues to be sorted out it would seem.

 

[Jamesrob637]

The 175s took too long to become what you'd describe as reliable units. Even 10 years after they entered service they were still breaking down a lot, even if not as bad as the first few years. It's only within the last decade they've been on a par with the likes of 185s, so if in the context of their whole time in service, they're one of the most unreliable.

They still aren't the best if TfW Journey Check is to be believed. A fair few Manchester get truncated at Crewe due to faults and units already being 30-60min late.

 

[craigybagel]

They still aren't the best if TfW Journey Check is to be believed. A fair few Manchester get truncated at Crewe due to faults and units already being 30-60min late.

Journey check isn't telling the full story. Most of the time a Crewe turn back is caused by another unit holding that one up somewhere on its 6 hour journey from West Wales. If it was struggling so much it was running that late, they wouldn't turn it around at Crewe only to pick up the same delays on its return journey - it would be taken out of service altogether.

 

[LowLevel]

Ha, ha! The TOC for which I worked also had a "Damien" class 158. (Yes, I'm looking at you 158 793!). Numerous drivers and guards will be able to regale you all with their tales of woe involving this unit. My abiding memory concerned a very hot, sunny evening a few years ago, when I was rostered to work the 16 18 Carlisle-Leeds. After my PNB I made my way to platform 6 to relieve the incoming Carlisle driver and noticed that he was running about 15 minutes late. Dark thoughts started to cross my mind and - sure enough - when 793 eventually arrived, my Carlisle colleague said "She's rubbish mate (or words to that effect!) - best of luck....I'm off home, eh?" " (Carlisle folk usually say "eh?" at the end of a sentence!). I set off with some trepidation, but all seemed to go well until reaching Ormside Viaduct, a couple of miles South of Appleby, in the dip right at the bottom of the long drag up to Aisgill Summit, where the leading engine suddenly stopped. After a slow (and for me, quiet!) climb, we arrived at Kirkby Stephen nearly ten minutes down and, with the assistance of the signalman, obtained several watering cans full of water. However she would only take one and a half cans before overflowing! So I restarted the engine and off we went, only for the engine to stop again before Birkett Tunnel. Examination at Garsdale revealed a hydrostatic oil leak, causing the radiator fans to fail. Engine isolated and soldier on. By now it was mainly downhill, but we lost our path from Skipton and arrived in Leeds over an hour late. Don't get me started on class 158 air-conditioning, especially on the ex-Metro 158/9s!

The hydro oil system on them seems to be very prone to leaks.

I once worked 158785 into Norwich as a guard. Just the once at Ely I couldn't get the door interlock but recycled the doors and everything worked so we carry on. Handed it over to a newish Norwich guard and went for my PNB. Came back nearly an hour later to get a coffee and get ready for my next bit to find them still sat there so I went over to see what was what. "Can't get interlock" they said as the Anglia fitter (long before they'd all TUPE'd to Stadler) poked about in the relay cupboard. "Be our guest and have a look round if you want, we are about out of ideas". I had a wander through and heard the door alarms going then noticed the one of the doors still had it's floor level service lights on. I went to the cab and got the Tommy bar and whacked the locking arm in and out a few times and "pssst", off go the lights and off come the brakes.

"Excellent!" Said maintenance control when I rang them, "do you want a fitters job?".

All in vain though because in the mean time the back car had vomited it's hydro oil all over the track and died

Piled the passengers and crew on to my unit with their train cancelled (3 of us in the back cab including my mate from Norwich perched on the secondman's desk and a full standing load of passengers). We abandoned 785 in favour of a right time start for the next crew to sort out tripping it back to the depot on the back of their train

 

[Mikey C]

Given the issues with 175s, 180s, 334s and 458s there's an argument that the 390s are just the exception that proves the rule.
If a car manufacturer had one model that had bulletproof reliability but four others at the opposite end of the scale, how do you think their public reputation would be overall?

The 95 Underground stock was built at a similar time to the Junipers - it uses the same Onix equipment - yet has operated very reliably.

 

[craigybagel]

Ha, ha! The TOC for which I worked also had a "Damien" class 158. (Yes, I'm looking at you 158 793!). Numerous drivers and guards will be able to regale you all with their tales of woe involving this unit. My abiding memory concerned a very hot, sunny evening a few years ago, when I was rostered to work the 16 18 Carlisle-Leeds. After my PNB I made my way to platform 6 to relieve the incoming Carlisle driver and noticed that he was running about 15 minutes late. Dark thoughts started to cross my mind and - sure enough - when 793 eventually arrived, my Carlisle colleague said "She's rubbish mate (or words to that effect!) - best of luck....I'm off home, eh?" " (Carlisle folk usually say "eh?" at the end of a sentence!). I set off with some trepidation, but all seemed to go well until reaching Ormside Viaduct, a couple of miles South of Appleby, in the dip right at the bottom of the long drag up to Aisgill Summit, where the leading engine suddenly stopped. After a slow (and for me, quiet!) climb, we arrived at Kirkby Stephen nearly ten minutes down and, with the assistance of the signalman, obtained several watering cans full of water. However she would only take one and a half cans before overflowing! So I restarted the engine and off we went, only for the engine to stop again before Birkett Tunnel. Examination at Garsdale revealed a hydrostatic oil leak, causing the radiator fans to fail. Engine isolated and soldier on. By now it was mainly downhill, but we lost our path from Skipton and arrived in Leeds over an hour late. Don't get me started on class 158 air-conditioning, especially on the ex-Metro 158/9s!

Thanks, I love stories like this - even if I do sympathise with the hassle it must have caused

 

[scotraildriver]

I must be lucky. I've never had a 158 fail on me. Rubbish air con and occasional leaky cab roofs but never an actual failure.

 

[LowLevel]

I must be lucky. I've never had a 158 fail on me. Rubbish air con and occasional leaky cab roofs but never an actual failure.

No hydro oil, water pump belt going on holiday, engine failure (thought it was coming through the floor), a fire caused by an oil leak being blown against the exhaust and setting fire to wiring insulation, WSP fault, DSD fault, DKS wouldn't switch on because it was insistent there was another on even though there wasn't (had a spate of that coupled to 156s), engine totally dead and wouldn't turn over due to starter motor being stuck in...

I could carry on, I have always been a bit of a jonah, if it is going to happen to anyone it will happen to me

 

[Llama]

It's not possible for a truly honest and competent driver to get on a 195, drive it and not have any reason to have made a single entry into the defect book.

Unfortunately they tend to work 'enough' that they'll still move. One of the most common simple faults causing train failure is the compressor on a two car unit (just the one compressor on them) stopping working.

A lot of the 195s are totally without saloon heating in at least some vehicles at the moment, very noticeable in recent low temperatures.

 

[TB]

When we first received the 333s, they were a total step change from what we had experienced before and a lot of the older drivers, especially those who had started on steam and were approaching the end of their careers, found it very difficult to get to grips with things like computer diagnostics. Added to that, there were a lot of problems with the software in the early days, which the Siemens engineers at Neville Hill put down to the shaking that the units received on the less-than-perfect permanent way on parts of the Airedale and Wharfedale lines. You would be tramming along quite nicely for four or five trips and then, suddenly, the Train Management System VDU would start bleeping and a spurious fault would be flashing on the screen....usually when you were braking on the approach to a station stop. A few seconds later, another fault would show and before you knew it, every fault in the book was flashing and bleeping. If you were unlucky, the brake would be unceremoniously dumped. If you were lucky, it would let you get into the station. The procedure then was to phone/radio the signaller, put down the pan, switch-off the unit, wait 30 seconds, switch the unit back on again, put the pan back up again, contact the signaller again and away you go.....nine times out of ten. Just like re-booting a computer, which was effectively what it was. If it didn't clear the 'faults, then you had big problems! You also had to inform the conductor of course, because sometimes when you switched-off the unit the doors closed automatically and during the hours of darkness, the saloon lights went off. All this took time of course and caused delay.

Yeah, can remember talking to a conductor on a 333 stuck at Guiseley once due to a bridge bash and his exact words were "Gimme a 144 any day. At least with them, if something goes wrong, you just **** it with something heavy and it works again!"

The Jeremy Clarkson Repair Method!

 

[bramling]

The 95 Underground stock was built at a similar time to the Junipers - it uses the same Onix equipment - yet has operated very reliably.

Yes the 95 stock is a superb train, ultra reliable. Interestingly the similar 96 stock (actually built earlier) is starting to become a problem child.

It has been suggested that the 95 stock managed to avoid the curse of Alstom’s lack of after-care by being directly owned and maintained by them.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I went on one on the first day of service. The PIS didn't have a clue what it was on about.

I went on one in July of 2019. If you pressed the door open button before the doors were released, that pair would refuse to open and the guard would have to intervene. I don't know if it's still the case.

 

[zn1]

all squadrons have a few ladies that dont like to play, its ironic that we think they all have a personality, have moods like their builders and operators, lets face it, if a unit or loco doesnt want to play it will not...the next day they will be the perfect companion

that im afraid is life