Which train family of the millennium had the least inauspicious introduction?

[RacsoMoquette]

Greetings!

I recently purchased twelve RAIL magazines from 2000 to 2001, and one topic emphasized was the sheer poor performance of new builds such as the Alstom Coradia 1000 & Juniper, ADtranz Electrostar & Turbostar.

Both families were extremely troublesome and were many months (or even years!) behind delivery deadlines!

The 'Turbostar' Class 170s in particular were absolutely shambolic performers especially the NX Scotrail Class 170/4s, with reports of cracking of critical components in the exhaust system (potentially causing major safety concerns), ongoing failure of the software and cab electronics and poor lavatory design and retention tank faults.

One Central Trains Class 170 caught fire in the Peterborough area, due to a major fault with the exhaust system!

The 'Electrostar' also experienced issues akin to the Class 170s (albeit bar the exhaust system!).

I always thought the Turbostar & Electrostar were good solid performers (which they are now), however after reading their inauspicious introduction, does make you wonder whether quality control and Derby and Washwood Heath (Coradias) was negligent and shoddy, seeing as the output was riddled with problems from the moment the two three families left the production line!

 

[fgwrich]

Simple: the Desiro. Rarely have they had much of an issue and I don’t recall their introduction being particularly troublesome either. Strong, solid, well built performers. But then again, it’s what you get when you take a manufacturer like Siemens who “borrows” a 4 VEP to hammer around its own test track, while simultaneously modifying their test track to suit British conditions.

Edit, long day. Desiro’s aren’t inauspicious! Through all their faults, the *Stars have largely settled down to become reliable runners. Only the 390 has been Alstom’s most consistent reliable EMU with the 458 (thanks to the hard work of Wimbledon depot) behind it.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

I agree the Desiro and the Desiro Cities are extremely high quality performers and well designed for a passenger perspective! The 1st generation UK examples especially! However I seem to remember that the First Great Eastern Class 360s experianced their fair share of software issues during their early days! What was the introduction of the SWT Class 450 & 444 LM Class 350 and TPE 185s akin to?

Now you mention it, what is the current reliability figures of the Scotrail Class 334s? How has their reliable fared over the years?

Throughout their short life, how was the Class 460s reliability? I did not think it really improved nor reduce and they retained their megre figures right up until conversion.

 

[JKF]

Were the 333s any bother? Seemed like good trains when introduced on the routes out of Leeds, a real step up in quality, and I don’t recall any fuss about reliability etc, although I wasn’t really following trains in much detail at the time.

 

[Neptune]

Were the 333s any bother? Seemed like good trains when introduced on the routes out of Leeds, a real step up in quality, and I don’t recall any fuss about reliability etc, although I wasn’t really following trains in much detail at the time.

They were 1 month late into traffic but that was down to the networkwide post Hatfield meltdown. They’ve had their issues with the underframes but this has been monitored and resolved. Excellent units.

 

[skyhigh]

They were 1 month late into traffic but that was down to the networkwide post Hatfield meltdown. They’ve had their issues with the underframes but this has been monitored and resolved. Excellent units.

Bit of trial and error (in a manner of speaking) with the additional TSO vehicle though, wasn't there? Braking turned out to be a bit of an issue with one vehicle so much lighter than the others, which was later resolved with the addition of weights under the vehicle.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

In on of my 2000 RAIL Magazine issues, the Northern Spirit Class 333s were the only example of a new build of the time to be delivered and put in to service on time! The Class 332s were also on time being put in to service, and I Think the two units experienced hardly any technical complications!

 

[Neptune]

Bit of trial and error (in a manner of speaking) with the additional TSO vehicle though, wasn't there? Braking turned out to be a bit of an issue with one vehicle so much lighter than the others, which was later resolved with the addition of weights under the vehicle.

Now you’re stretching my memory! I believe it was an early issue on the first batch but by the time the 2nd batch arrived they’d resolved it. Not so much technical as a misjudgement as they worked very different services to the technically similar 332’s.

At the time they were quietly introduced with little fanfare or fuss in January 2001 there were the ongoing issues with both Adtranz and Alstom products. I’m fairly sure this must have influenced the decision by SWT to go for the large Siemens order to replace their slam door stock.

As an aside the original plan was for only the first 8 units to be made 4 cars with a renumbering plan in place to make them 333101-108. This was decided against in the end as the remaining units had their 4th cars funded and were being built as the first batch arrived.

They really have been stalwarts of the Leeds NW Triangle services since introduction and seem to be liked by crews and passengers alike.

 

[Mat17]

The 175s were abysmal iirc, only beaten by the 180s.

 

[QSK19]

I agree the Desiro and the Desiro Cities are extremely high quality performers and well designed for a passenger perspective! The 1st generation UK examples especially! However I seem to remember that the First Great Eastern Class 360s experianced their fair share of software issues during their early days! What was the introduction of the SWT Class 450 & 444 LM Class 350 and TPE 185s akin to?

The 360s certainly do feel like the outlier in terms of the Desiro’s lifelong reliability (the 350s and 4xx Desiros seem to have been solid from the beginning), although circumstances have hindered them in recent times (the much discussed difficult introduction at EMR and poorly-located maintenance facilities with respect to the MML being a couple); but with some TLC, they’ll be back to the normal Desiro high standard.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

I would assume the Desiro City Class 700s, 707s and 717s also had a reliable and mainly trouble free introduction? At the moment the Desiro City family seem to be solid, reliable workhorses.

Now you’re stretching my memory! I believe it was an early issue on the first batch but by the time the 2nd batch arrived they’d resolved it. Not so much technical as a misjudgement as they worked very different services to the technically similar 332’s.

At the time they were quietly introduced with little fanfare or fuss in January 2001 there were the ongoing issues with both Adtranz and Alstom products. I’m fairly sure this must have influenced the decision by SWT to go for the large Siemens order to replace their slam door stock.

As an aside the original plan was for only the first 8 units to be made 4 cars with a renumbering plan in place to make them 333101-108. This was decided against in the end as the remaining units had their 4th cars funded and were being built as the first batch arrived.

They really have been stalwarts of the Leeds NW Triangle services since introduction and seem to be liked by crews and passengers alike.

It most certainly was! South West Trains were extremely exasperated with Alstoms General incompetence to produce a reliable train, so instead they turned to the much more reliable competing “Siemens Desiro” range of EMUs. They have certainly stood the test of time for reliability and modern appearance. The latter Alstom stock have had their fare share of corrosion trouble over they years aside from their dodgy mechanics and software!

 

[Samzino]

Second the 450 and 444 Desiros especially as even now the Desiros look like they could do another 2 Decades of work comfortably.

 

[Fundee on Tay]

Surely the 139 was relatively inauspicious

 

[SargeNpton]

The biggest glitch that I can think of with the 350s were when the 350/2s came into service.

In the early days, when coupling a 350/2 to a 350/1 the two units didn't always recognise each other, requiring half a dozen attempts at coupling/uncoupling. Can't be sure but it was intimated that a difference in the software between the two tranches was the reason.

 

[172007]

Class 172 has to be a contender. The only snag at introduction was an issue with the exhaust system which was found to be a fault with the testing equipment and not the train. The units rarely cause any real issues at all considering they use an internal combustion engine and all its associated extra complexity than say Electrics like Desiro's.

Technically the 172 is a turbo star though so early class 170 issues could be counted as a negative with regards the OP's question remit.

 

[Samzino]

Class 172 has to be a contender. The only snag at introduction was an issue with the exhaust system which was found to be a fault with the testing equipment and not the train. The units rarely cause any real issues at all considering they use an internal combustion engine and all its associated extra complexity than say Electrics like Desiro's.

Technically the 172 is a turbo star though so early class 170 issues could be counted as a negative with regards the OP's question remit.

I'd say it falls under the Turbostar family yes.

 

[RailWonderer]

I think people get too hung up on early technical and mechanical issues of trains in their first few weeks and months of service. The disruption is only temporary when you consider a 35-40 year service life. It's issues like the yaw damper cracks on the IETs and Class 180 fires that are most concerning, when reliability issues flare up too frequently after the introductory period.