Most Unreliable Multiple Unit

[LowLevel]

The West Midlands T69 trams were "ok", but were reputedly garden shed style engineering with every vehicle being different (much like class 153 in that respect!) in little ways and in the end there was a shortage of spares. I remember them being involved in a few farces over the years but they were comparatively well behaved for an AnsaldoBreda product.

 

[Wyrleybart]

That certainly wasn't the case in their second incarnation with FGW, when cancellations were actually pretty rare. Old Oak Common had got the measure of them by then, though evidently not without a lot of effort!



It's the 180s' engine raft design, I believe, that's particularly troublesome - others will know more.

AIUI there was an electrical conduit routed straight above the engine on the class 180. Not helpful if the and class engine got little hot and bothered. Also class 175 and class 180 were built with retarders but these had to be isolated, which I assume has led to an increase in brake pad wear.

Earlier comments were that 180s had plenty of built in power which is correct, so a 180 could operate on 4 out of 5 engines, but those remaining 4 work harder and can become warmer, which leads to increase pressure. Lose a second engine and the remaining 3 are working hard and getting very warm. Before you know it those remaining engines are shutting down as they cannot cope with the demand on them.

Class 172 and 195-197 are fitted with automatic gearboxes similar to a rubber tyred buses. So although the driveline has hydraulic connections, there is a gearbox involved. If you listen to a class 172 starting away from a station stop you can clearly hear the gear changes - presumably also the CAF designs which I havn't experienced.

 

[47271]

So bad is the 180, it's the only train type I actively avoid when I'm planning a journey.

Not only the terrible reliability but also the shocking cabin vibration, those wobbling tables are quite something.

 

[Journeyman]

London Underground's 1938 Stock rightfully had an excellent reputation as it performed extremely well for many years - 80 in the case of the Island Line units, and many made it to 45 or so in London. However, when introduced, there were a lot of teething problems. Effectively all the components were miniaturised - motors and compressors were much smaller than their predecessors in order to fit under the floor, and the PCM control system was also a new design, much smaller than anything that went before it. The braking system also had a number of upgrades.

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

The design was basically sound, but pretty complex for its day, and it took a good few years for the trains to properly settle down in service. It was undoubtedly made worse by war breaking out very soon after their introduction, as it would have been very hard to gently nurse them into reliable operation in such challenging conditions.

 

[Mat17]

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

Most 'heritage' DMUs beyond cravens, 114s and Bedpan units. So class 108 etc.

Also no one has mentioned class 150 either!

 

[superkev]

AIUI there was an electrical conduit routed straight above the engine on the class 180. Not helpful if the and class engine got little hot and bothered. Also class 175 and class 180 were built with retarders but these had to be isolated, which I assume has led to an increase in brake pad wear.

Earlier comments were that 180s had plenty of built in power which is correct, so a 180 could operate on 4 out of 5 engines, but those remaining 4 work harder and can become warmer, which leads to increase pressure. Lose a second engine and the remaining 3 are working hard and getting very warm. Before you know it those remaining engines are shutting down as they cannot cope with the demand on them.

Class 172 and 195-197 are fitted with automatic gearboxes similar to a rubber tyred buses. So although the driveline has hydraulic connections, there is a gearbox involved. If you listen to a class 172 starting away from a station stop you can clearly hear the gear changes - presumably also the CAF designs which I havn't experienced.

The class 185s have the same gearbox I believe so do they have active retarders. Have the 180 retarders has been reactivated.
I'm sure I read somewhere the Cummings 750hp engines fitted to the 180s 185, 220 221 had been derated to 700hp on some.
Re the Mechanical ZF 6 speed box fitted to the 172's, 195s I read that Chiltern were considering changing there handfull of 172s to the reliable but thirsty 170 Voith box. Theres also talk elseware on this forum of them going to WM railways.
K

 

[Energy]

I read that Chiltern were considering changing there handfull of 172s to the reliable but thirsty 170 Voith box. Theres also talk elseware on this forum of them going to WM railways.

I believe you could get a 172 new with a Voith gearbox its just nobody did because it used more fuel and had worse acceleration. Remember that the Chiltern units were follow ons to the LO units.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Electrostar, Desiro, Class 365, most PEP and Mk3-derived units...

Class 365s were a disaster when they were introduced with all sorts of problems and were much later into traffic than planned.

After that though the WAGN ones settled down to be incredibly reliable.

 

[Llama]

The ZF transmissions don't allow the unit to coast, there's always significant mechanical drag which slows the unit, so gets overcome with having to take a small amount of traction power just to maintain constant speed where a unit with say Voith transmission would coast freely. Claims of economy are most likely exaggerated. But what do I know, only drive the things.

319s and 325s have GTO thyristors and probably a few other similar vintage units (and locos), 323s certainly weren't the first with those.

 

[Mordac]

I do find that rather interesting, given that these days the 323s are considered very good for reliability and I believe are quite well liked by staff and passengers.

Idk about staff, but while I find them alright, well liked might be pushing it. Lighting is depressing and the 3+2 seating made circulation pretty tough in the peaks (remember those? )

The new PIS is crap too.

 

[Llama]

323 cabs get very warm in the summer and the wind noise from the cab doors above 80 is horrible.

 

[Wyrleybart]

323 cabs get very warm in the summer and the wind noise from the cab doors above 80 is horrible.

Weren't there a couple of cases of cab doors blowing open when 323s were used on the Birmingham-Liverpool services some years ago ?

 

[Llama]

It wouldn't surprise me, the noise is from air getting under the seals, it starts off roaring at lower speeds as you pass other trains too.

The 323 at North Rode that hit the car certainly got its cab door blown open (and off). Not sure whether the wind noise from the gaping door or from the drivers trousers was louder at that point.

 

[D365]

Class 365s were a disaster when they were introduced with all sorts of problems and were much later into traffic than planned.

After that though the WAGN ones settled down to be incredibly reliable.

Seems to be the course for ”cutting edge” EMUs - the 323s were noteworthy in this regard - but I hadn’t heard it about the 365s before. Thanks.

I was going to ask if that might have had a bearing on the decision to base the 325s on the 319, instead of the Networker platform. But from what I recall, it was more likely due to EMC compatibility.

 

[DB]

Also no one has mentioned class 150 either!

They aren't unreliable - just unpleasant to travel on!

 

[TB]

How the 180's keep finding new homes (that aren't scrapyards) i don't know. From a passenger perspective, from my experience i've always found them quiet and comfortable units, but the failure rate and propensity to catch fire is worrying.

Of units i have more experience of using/seeing, the 333's are a bit of an oddball fleet. They can be very reliable for months at a time, but then it seems like one fails and the rest follow! They also had/have a habit of grinding to a halt and when another is coupled up to rescue, the fault transfers and there are then 2 units knackered!

I wouldn't count them as among the most unreliable, by any means, but they have their moments.

 

[Energy]

How the 180's keep finding new homes (that aren't scrapyards) i don't know. From a passenger perspective, from my experience i've always found them quiet and comfortable units, but the failure rate and propensity to catch fire is worrying.

In the case of Grand Central, they must have got them at a good deal, for Hull Trains it was originally a couple to cover for a damaged 222 before they decided to take on more and for EMR they are temporary cover for a couple years to replace HSTs, mainly because nothing else is available short term.

 

[D6130]

How the 180's keep finding new homes (that aren't scrapyards) i don't know. From a passenger perspective, from my experience i've always found them quiet and comfortable units, but the failure rate and propensity to catch fire is worrying.

Of units i have more experience of using/seeing, the 333's are a bit of an oddball fleet. They can be very reliable for months at a time, but then it seems like one fails and the rest follow! They also had/have a habit of grinding to a halt and when another is coupled up to rescue, the fault transfers and there are then 2 units knackered!

I wouldn't count them as among the most unreliable, by any means, but they have their moments.

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.

 

[AverageTD]

Weren't the 323's very troublesome when introduced? It's funny that some of the most unreliable units have come to settle down and provide an extremely good service (458s, 175s, 323s etc). All the junipers struggled to find their feet to start with, the 458s being in-and-out of service for 10 years before they finally became one of the most reliable fleets ever iirc.

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!

 

[Clarence Yard]

In the case of Grand Central, they must have got them at a good deal, for Hull Trains it was originally a couple to cover for a damaged 222 before they decided to take on more and for EMR they are temporary cover for a couple years to replace HSTs, mainly because nothing else is available short term.

No, it wasn’t quite like that. The cover for 222103 initially came from elsewhere - the swap to 180 was done because there was a DfT/FG deal, at the very highest level, (which involved something else that needed settling between the parties) to release the 222s and replace them with the 180s. There was no decision to take on more - it was always going to be total fleet replacement.

 

[Energy]

No, it wasn’t quite like that. The cover for 222103 initially came from elsewhere - the swap to 180 was done because there was a DfT/FG deal, at the very highest level, (which involved something else that needed settling between the parties) to release the 222s and replace them with the 180s. There was no decision to take on more - it was always going to be total fleet replacement.

Interesting, didn't know about that.

 

[Recessio]

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...

 

[LowLevel]

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...

I doubt it. The below floor stuff on those trains was largely bulletproof. If anything went wrong I imagine it would have been in the interface between old and new.

 

[RJ]

AIUI there was an electrical conduit routed straight above the engine on the class 180. Not helpful if the and class engine got little hot and bothered. Also class 175 and class 180 were built with retarders but these had to be isolated, which I assume has led to an increase in brake pad wear.

Earlier comments were that 180s had plenty of built in power which is correct, so a 180 could operate on 4 out of 5 engines, but those remaining 4 work harder and can become warmer, which leads to increase pressure. Lose a second engine and the remaining 3 are working hard and getting very warm. Before you know it those remaining engines are shutting down as they cannot cope with the demand on them.

Class 172 and 195-197 are fitted with automatic gearboxes similar to a rubber tyred buses. So although the driveline has hydraulic connections, there is a gearbox involved. If you listen to a class 172 starting away from a station stop you can clearly hear the gear changes - presumably also the CAF designs which I havn't experienced.

The 172s and CAF units both have the Rolls Royce engine and a ZF 6 speed transmission so sound very similar to the untrained ear.

- Class 172 to 100mph

- Class 195 (high revs)

The class 185s have the same gearbox I believe so do they have active retarders. Have the 180 retarders has been reactivated.
I'm sure I read somewhere the Cummings 750hp engines fitted to the 180s 185, 220 221 had been derated to 700hp on some.
Re the Mechanical ZF 6 speed box fitted to the 172's, 195s I read that Chiltern were considering changing there handfull of 172s to the reliable but thirsty 170 Voith box. Theres also talk elseware on this forum of them going to WM railways.

The 185s have the same gearbox as the 180s - 3 speed and manufactured by Voith -https://youtu.be/HsE7AgasLGs

The ZF transmissions don't allow the unit to coast, there's always significant mechanical drag which slows the unit, so gets overcome with having to take a small amount of traction power just to maintain constant speed where a unit with say Voith transmission would coast freely. Claims of economy are most likely exaggerated. But what do I know, only drive the things.

319s and 325s have GTO thyristors and probably a few other similar vintage units (and locos), 323s certainly weren't the first with those.

Interesting point, they don’t coast. The 195s go one step further than the 172s and are configured to use quite engine braking quite aggressively, which can be heard from 7:17 -

. Haven’t been on a 172 recently but they don’t do what the 195s do when braking to that extreme. Interesting that the engine remains at a stable temperature when accelerating but needs help with cooling when the train slows down!

I wonder if the economy comes during the acceleration stage where the engine spends less time at full RPM than it would with a hydraulic transmission.

 

[Jozhua]

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

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 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.

I've had three trains fully break down, having to limp into the nearest station for all passengers to alight, or not manage to leave the station at all. One was a HST that broke outside Birmingham, having already lost one of the 43's, making it a bit underpowered. Then a 153/6 broke down and limped into Derby, everyone had to change trains. Then there was a Pacer that went poof in a puff of smoke trying to leave Manchester Victoria. The only other service that took an extended leave of absence was a 319, but that was because a bird's nest fell on the OLE at Oxford Road and it went boom (sparks everywhere!).

150s are a bit cruddy but never had one go wrong on me. Neither with any modern units, although this is likely because I haven't spent much time on trains from this century.

 

[MissPWay]

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!

That’s probably more to do with the timetable being so padded to accommodate a 50 car Thameslink moving fresh air from Bedford to St Pancras every ten seconds.

 

[LowLevel]

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

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 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.

I've had three trains fully break down, having to limp into the nearest station for all passengers to alight, or not manage to leave the station at all. One was a HST that broke outside Birmingham, having already lost one of the 43's, making it a bit underpowered. Then a 153/6 broke down and limped into Derby, everyone had to change trains. Then there was a Pacer that went poof in a puff of smoke trying to leave Manchester Victoria. The only other service that took an extended leave of absence was a 319, but that was because a bird's nest fell on the OLE at Oxford Road and it went boom (sparks everywhere!).

150s are a bit cruddy but never had one go wrong on me. Neither with any modern units, although this is likely because I haven't spent much time on trains from this century.

Despite what some might call significant abuse of their capabilities 153s generally are quite reliable. OK, if they have an engine failure they're much less likely to be able to limp home (but do have the delightful innovation of being able to transfer the toilet header water should they lose coolant) and they're usually easy enough to fix when they do go wrong. For many years the East Midlands service relied on kicking out a 153 when all else failed.

It is important to note that the East Midlands unit fleet has never really been representative of the normal way of working with some off peak spares etc - since 2015 in particular every possible unit has been needed in service and with 30 year old trains that will always affect your availability. You would be lucky to have one 153 spare at Nottingham during the day.

The depots at Eastcroft and Etches Park have worked miracles since 2008 with the dud hand they were issued - a disparate fleet comprising mostly units other TOCs wanted rid of.

Class 156 has issues with the door runners (lots was spent on the ex EMT Porterbrook units to replace the whole door step assembly but that work hasn't been carried out on the Angel 156s or ex GA fleet and it still relies on plastic wheels that get damaged) and they all get a bit hot and bothered when it's warm.

My mileage on the EM 15x fleet is well into 6 figures and I've never required rescue, have only rescued another train once and have had to come out of service in a controlled manner less than 5 times.

 

[Jozhua]

Despite what some might call significant abuse of their capabilities 153s generally are quite reliable. OK, if they have an engine failure they're much less likely to be able to limp home (but do have the delightful innovation of being able to transfer the toilet header water should they lose coolant) and they're usually easy enough to fix when they do go wrong. For many years the East Midlands service relied on kicking out a 153 when all else failed.

It is important to note that the East Midlands unit fleet has never really been representative of the normal way of working with some off peak spares etc - since 2015 in particular every possible unit has been needed in service and with 30 year old trains that will always affect your availability. You would be lucky to have one 153 spare at Nottingham during the day.

The depots at Eastcroft and Etches Park have worked miracles since 2008 with the dud hand they were issued - a disparate fleet comprising mostly units other TOCs wanted rid of.

Class 156 has issues with the door runners (lots was spent on the ex EMT Porterbrook units to replace the whole door step assembly but that work hasn't been carried out on the Angel 156s or ex GA fleet and it still relies on plastic wheels that get damaged) and they all get a bit hot and bothered when it's warm.

My mileage on the EM 15x fleet is well into 6 figures and I've never required rescue, have only rescued another train once and have had to come out of service in a controlled manner less than 5 times.

Oh, yeah, I will add that I have nothing but respect for the depots who have had to deal with an aging fleet with effectively zero spares and duds from other TOCs.

Especially with the 153 fleet, I remember when I was commuting on the Matlock line how just one of the two booked 153 units would arrive, leading people to be left on the platforms once we left Belper.

Peak time cancellations were a couple of times a year, commuting about four days a week.

Considering many of the areas see an hourly service, the pressure of making sure it runs is pretty immense!

But yeah, it's not the fault of EMT (now EMR), it was the fault of government locally and nationally that ignores the needs of the railways and the people who rely on it.

I hope the 170's will provide a needed boost in capacity, speed and reliability, even if they are aging somewhat too.

 

[Jamesrob637]

If there is "a fault on this train" on a Northern electric service, it'll be in the following order from most to least likely:

319
331
333
323

but the 319s are a lot more unreliable than the rest - the gap between the others is marginal. 321s are gone so don't count anymore.

 

[318259]

Given the issues with 175s, 180s, 334s and 458s...

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.

If there is "a fault on this train" on a Northern electric service, it'll be in the following order from most to least likely:

319
331
333
323

but the 319s are a lot more unreliable than the rest - the gap between the others is marginal. 321s are gone so don't count anymore.

A "fault on the train" doesn't necessarily mean there's a technical fault with the actual train, in the same way that "signalling problems" doesn't always mean there's a problem with the signals. Sometimes it's a euphemism for somebody screwing up. For the same reason, I'd say "the website was down because of a minor technical problem that I've fixed" rather than "I missed out a semicolon in my code and took the whole site down".