Return to Archive -by date - by topic.

INFORMED SOURCES January 2007

Networkers to get chrysanthemum power

Courtesy HSBC we will now find out how the much vaunted Japanese kit will cope on the toughest environment around

Perfectly timed for the train reliability theme in this month's column, is the news that Hitachi Europe is expected to retrofit HSBC Rail's fleet of 97 Class 465/0 and 465/1 Networker electric multiple units with new traction inverters. These are, of course, the BREL -built Networkers for which Brush supplied the three-phase drive traction packages.

In addition to supplying the replacement drives, which will power the existing traction motors, Hitachi will also be responsible for the removal of the existing equipment, installation of the replacement kit, commissioning and putting the units back into revenue service.

Table 1

Nertworker ownership and performance

* Two car.

Table 1 summarises the Class 465 fleets. Essentially they were built in four batches.

Brel and Metro-Cammell put in bids for the initial batch of 100 four car unit when Network SouthEast began the Networker revolution. British Rail preferred the BREL design, but Metro-Cammell protested and a compromise was reached: each company was awarded an initial batch of 50 units. In a febrile political climate, follow-on orders were also divided, with Brel getting the four cars and Metro-Cammell, by then part of GEC Alsthom, the two cars.

Do not be confused by the Class 465/9. These are refurbished Class 465/2s which Southeastern uses on longer distance duties.

On current performance, the Angel owned Metro-Cammell units are significantly more reliable than the HSBC/ BREL trains. As you can read elsewhere in this issue, Angel has funded reliability improvements on the traction packages of its fleets through Alstom's TLS Preston operation.

Significant

From now on we are talking about the Brel-built fleets. According to Ikon Risk Consulting, which is advising Hitachi on the repowering project, the Class 465 traction package is a ‘significant source of fleet unreliability'. As C E M Joad was won't to say, it all depends what you mean by ‘significant'.

It is true that traction equipment failures can generate large numbers of impact minutes should a train sits down blocking the track. But on commuter stock, doors are likely to generate more fault.

Collectively, in Period 7 (September-October 2006) the two fleets generated 50 faults, or, on average, just under two faults per day. That is from all causes.

Now, I don't have a detailed breakdown of the causation of these failures. And, according to Ikon, their consultancy project will include an analysis of failure modes, reliability targets and lifecycle cost models ‘to provide final reassurance to HSBC that the performance objectives of the upgrade will be met'.

This process is called ‘benchmarking' and it seems a bit late in the day to find out what you are talking about. But, assume that 25% of faults are down to traction package failure, then we are talking about around three faults per week.

Impact

Of course, what really matters is impact minutes generated by a failure. These have £ signs attached and Table 2 shows the allocation of faults across the Southeastern fleet.

Table 2

Southeastern EMU reliability

With the Brel Networkers responsible for 38% of Southeastern's technical delays we can start to quantify the cost of failure. Year-old data gives an average of 35 impact minutes per delay across the Southeastern fleets. Let's be pessimistic and assume that when a traction package fails, a Networker sits down big-time.

So 50 impact minutes average? A rule of thumb is that while a failure in the throat of a London terminus can cost £200 a minute or more, the average across the DC network is nearer £50. From which we can deduce, cautiously, that three traction package faults a week at 50 impact minutes per fault and £50/minute equates to £7500 per week or, rounding up £400,000 a year.

Now let's see how this stacks up against the cost of two three phase drive inverters per Class 465, plus a lot of fiddly reengineering, rewiring, a new safety case and so on. Time for optimism, so price the job at an informed £250,000 per Hitachi drive.

With 97 units and two drives each, we are talking an investment of nearly £50 million which implies an increase in lease rentals of £4million a year. That may sound a lot, but in fact represents around 10% of the current lease rentals for the HSBC Networkers.

What is clear, is that the savings on impact minutes won't come near covering the cost of the repowering. But this is not a simple business case.

First, the Networker fleet represents a long term asset for HSBC, with the potential to run on into the 2020s if the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations can be squared.

Second, while Informed Sources suggest that this project had its genesis in Connex SouthEastern days, less charitable Informed Sources suggest that Govia may have struck a hard bargain when renegotiating lease renewals when the franchise was relet. Some of the cost of repowering could be seen as a ‘discount' from HSBC to ensure continuing se.

Finally, Hitachi is desperate to get a foothold in Europe . The Class 395s for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Domestic Services is one thing, performing well in the rough and tumble south of the Thames will be an excellent reference, justifying a loss-leader.

There may be a new train order hiatus, but there is no shortage of interesting, and even provocative, traction and rolling stock issues to feed this column.

Continues.........