Jump to content
 

Class 800 fails near Exeter


Recommended Posts

It was coupled to another unit, which in theory should have been able to move it DIT in worst case, but software issues meant that it too decided to sit down. Maybe a 'dumb' loco, coupled but not electrically linked,would have worked better....

In which case you wouldn't have any brakes!

Although still quite a while off learning these, I can say there's no Air Brake Pipe, and like most (all?) modern units with automatic coupling, the brakes on each vehicle are directly controlled electrically.

How do you get round that if you cant get the electronics to work? Good question

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 9 or 10 car formation of these has substantially more seats than a 2+8 HST, it doesn't waste two car lengths on engines for a start - and whilst they are a long way from perfect, none of the seating in these is "Crammed in" - leg room is substantially better than GWR's HST sets in standard.

 

 

 

You are comparing it with the wrong version. Try a 2+9 ECML or a 2+8 MML set and even the late lamented GC. Just because the GW had the worst interior fit of all HSTs, even beating CC, does not mean the 800s are any good in terms of interior comfort or quality, While they do shift a bit on the juice this is hardly a glowing start. While HSTs had their faults when launched (remember the brakes) they had a lot more positive aspects than their predecessors

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case you wouldn't have any brakes!

Although still quite a while off learning these, I can say there's no Air Brake Pipe, and like most (all?) modern units with automatic coupling, the brakes on each vehicle are directly controlled electrically.

How do you get round that if you cant get the electronics to work? Good question

Brake van on the back!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Durrrrrr...... Gradients......

 

Getting all Americanised, Phil?  That's OK, I don't know where I am most of the times; ties, sleepers, switches, points, fills, cuttings, grades, etc, but most people know, even those who purport to dislike 'train stations'! :onthequiet:

 

Brian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are comparing it with the wrong version. Try a 2+9 ECML or a 2+8 MML set and even the late lamented GC. Just because the GW had the worst interior fit of all HSTs, even beating CC, does not mean the 800s are any good in terms of interior comfort or quality, While they do shift a bit on the juice this is hardly a glowing start. While HSTs had their faults when launched (remember the brakes) they had a lot more positive aspects than their predecessors

I'm comparing the version we have with the version we have!

 

This is the direct comparison that passengers will have.

 

It's a totally relevant comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the original interior fit out of the HST is especially fondly remembered.

 

I use the GWML reasonably often, and it's pretty clear that in every respect apart from cushion softness, 800s offer an improved passenger environment compared to HSTs.

 

The comparison on the ECML might well be different, but that's not relevant to passengers at Reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I don't think the original interior fit out of the HST is especially fondly remembered.

 

I use the GWML reasonably often, and it's pretty clear that in every respect apart from cushion softness, 800s offer an improved passenger environment compared to HSTs.

 

The comparison on the ECML might well be different, but that's not relevant to passengers at Reading.

Poor sod# at Reading is all I can say. Fortunately up here on the ECML we will still have some choice about our trains for a while with Hull Trains doing dirt cheap fares and not introducing their 800s until late 2019, if then.

I feel for those that use trains to commute as it must be pretty awful wherever you are, but is still a viable alternative to driving for most. However, for casual travellers such as myself, I can tolerate a certain amount of 'difficulty' and even cancellations and compared to most package flights, trains are a doddle.

What I do hope for though is decent customer service and that, most of the time, on the ECML is pretty good with loads of genuine customer focused activity. I do hope that this transfers to the new trains as it will make up for initial teething problems and maybe a 'different sort of comfort'.

 

Phil

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I don't think the original interior fit out of the HST is especially fondly remembered.

 

I use the GWML reasonably often, and it's pretty clear that in every respect apart from cushion softness, 800s offer an improved passenger environment compared to HSTs.

 

The comparison on the ECML might well be different, but that's not relevant to passengers at Reading.

The only valid thing to compare in those cases is the seating arrangement, not the trains themselves; for that passenger at Reading it would only be fair to say that the 800s have better seating (although cushion softness matters on runs > 1 hour), and maybe that they're more likely to get a seat. Of course that's still an improvement and probably all they're really going to care about but it is more a reflection on the seating than the platform it's on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only valid thing to compare in those cases is the seating arrangement, not the trains themselves; for that passenger at Reading it would only be fair to say that the 800s have better seating (although cushion softness matters on runs > 1 hour), and maybe that they're more likely to get a seat. Of course that's still an improvement and probably all they're really going to care about but it is more a reflection on the seating than the platform it's on.

Hmm - I'm not sure about that. As a commuter at Reading who fondly remembers the original 1976 interiors of the HSTs (lighter, airier, quieter and smoother than any train I'd travelled on before), I haven't heard a single comment from other travellers about how they prefer the HSTs to the 800s. I have, however, heard many disparaging comments about the 'grotty old trains' and how much nicer the new ones are. As I've mentioned in the main Class 800 thread, I've seen examples where passengers at Reading and Didcot will deliberately choose an 800 for the improved ambience compared to an HST when both are on offer at adjacent platforms. Personally I agree with Stationmaster Mike that the 387s are preferable to the 800s in many ways, and the handful of limited stop services worked by the 387s along the Main lines are my usual choice where possible. Performance is obviously slightly slower than the 800s, but journey times of less than 12 minutes from Reading to Didcot are pretty impressive for a suburban train.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was coupled to another unit, which in theory should have been able to move it DIT in worst case, but software issues meant that it too decided to sit down. Maybe a 'dumb' loco, coupled but not electrically linked,would have worked better....

 

In which case you wouldn't have any brakes!

Although still quite a while off learning these, I can say there's no Air Brake Pipe, and like most (all?) modern units with automatic coupling, the brakes on each vehicle are directly controlled electrically.

How do you get round that if you cant get the electronics to work? Good question

 

That is my immediate concern. The way trains has traditionally coupled here in the UK has been with a continuity of air. Even if sprinters and EMUs use wires to apply the brakes there is always a balancing main res pipe. 

Do IETs have a res pipe in the coupling heads to supply air ? I guess so, but if one or other unit is losing it, the problem needs to be isolated. 

 

The previous generation of "express units" the 22x DEMUs have Dellner couplers which couple sets together, but they still have air, and even if the electronically applied brake is incapacitated the units can be configured to operate in the traditional two pipe rescue and recovery mode at reduced speed. So in the case of the 802s, if you had an issue with auto coupling, the driver should have been able to configure the trains to run in R&R mode albeit with someone in the cab of the trailing unit to apply the parking brake in case of emergency.

 

Obviously, if a piece of equipment failed on one of the sets resulting in air loss which the driver was unable to isolate, then it would be game over anyway.

 

I suspect that lessons were learnt and Messrs GWR and HRE were in complete understanding after their meeting on Monday morning.   .   

Edited by Covkid
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hated the HSTs when they arrived in 1976. They had displaced loco hauled trains, had smelly brakes (for a while); but worst of all they continued the move away from Mk2a style seating which (to me) was the pinnacle of open carriage design. High backed seats with wings to rest my head on when dozing off. 

 

I don't want to be able to see all the way down the carriage every time I look up, because if I can, so can everyone else. I like the 800s; and the ones I have travelled on have seemed an improvement on the Mk3s. I don't want luggage racks at the end off the carriage. I want to put my bag above my seat. 

 

Fit an 800 with Mk2a seating and luggage racks and I will be very happy. 

 

.....from Mr Grumpy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Answering the Captain's queston I believe the train formed of two 5 car class 802s  failed near Hele & Bradninch at around 1720ish with 380ish pax on board. The brakes had applied due to an air leak on one of the units, and a Hitachi engineer was got to the site around 1845. A little after 2200 the decision was made to evacuate the train onto the ballast and a short walk to a Voyager which had been sent in to rescue the stranded folk.

 

i believe the two units still coupled together were able to move off site under their own power to Stoke Gifford depot just after midnight.

 

It has been suggested that a component in the air system was not fully tightened up at build stage and worked loose. The train was assembled in Pistoia in Italy in a factory Hitachi acquired from Ansaldo Breda.       

Did you read that on another forum because that is pretty much what I posted on there, or do you have access to the 6 page log on this incident?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case you wouldn't have any brakes!

Although still quite a while off learning these, I can say there's no Air Brake Pipe, and like most (all?) modern units with automatic coupling, the brakes on each vehicle are directly controlled electrically.

How do you get round that if you cant get the electronics to work? Good question

Ken,

 

I am not for one minute doubting you, but it would seem that the lack of a brake pipe is a spectacular misjudgment on the part of the specifiers/procurers (DfT) of the trains. It means that a failed train cannot be rescued by anything else. All well and good if you believe the Japanese hype that their trains never fail, but if you have to drag an unbraked 9 or 10 car train it will be at very low speed...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

In which case you wouldn't have any brakes!

Although still quite a while off learning these, I can say there's no Air Brake Pipe, and like most (all?) modern units with automatic coupling, the brakes on each vehicle are directly controlled electrically.

How do you get round that if you cant get the electronics to work? Good question

 

So how do the brakes work Ken?  I can understand it being an electrically controlled brake - they've been around for yonks of course.  But all the electrically controlled continuous brakes I'm aware of on British trains use an air brake which therefore means an air supply to each vehicle from a central compressor and if the continuity of that pipe is broken it will apply the brakes.  So is the brake on the Class 800 100% electric with an electrical device, say, keeping a spring loaded pad off the brake disc or some such arrangement?  Knorr Bremse press announcements imply that the train has an EP brake and states they are supplying compressors for the trains (a compressor per set is the way it reads) which in turn implies that there will be an air pipe through the train and that that part of the braking system will be basically like any other EP brake albeit more sophisticated.

 

Presumably there is also, as on a 373 for example, what amounts to a direct admission air valve which enables the Driver to make an emergency application of the brake if the electronics aren't playing ball and which probably works (as it does on a 373) by opening the train air pipe to atmosphere?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the air go through the coupling, a system which has been commonplace on MU stock for at least a couple of decades.

I did a bit of Googling and found this:-

https://www.railway-technology.com/uncategorised/newsknorr-bremse-deliver-braking-systems-hitachi-class-800-series-trains-uk/ which makes mention of the use of air in the braking system. The system seems to be the latest iteration of 'EP' brakes, a concept that's older than I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do the brakes work Ken?  I can understand it being an electrically controlled brake - they've been around for yonks of course.  But all the electrically controlled continuous brakes I'm aware of on British trains use an air brake which therefore means an air supply to each vehicle from a central compressor and if the continuity of that pipe is broken it will apply the brakes.  So is the brake on the Class 800 100% electric with an electrical device, say, keeping a spring loaded pad off the brake disc or some such arrangement?  Knorr Bremse press announcements imply that the train has an EP brake and states they are supplying compressors for the trains (a compressor per set is the way it reads) which in turn implies that there will be an air pipe through the train and that that part of the braking system will be basically like any other EP brake albeit more sophisticated.

 

Presumably there is also, as on a 373 for example, what amounts to a direct admission air valve which enables the Driver to make an emergency application of the brake if the electronics aren't playing ball and which probably works (as it does on a 373) by opening the train air pipe to atmosphere?

Hi Mike,

 

Sorry if my post was confusing, I was meaning that the brake control through the train is directly done electrically to each vehicle instead of via an air brake pipe, although the brakes themselves are still air operated. Similar in principle to pacer / sprinter etc.

My comments were in relation to the preveous post which I was replying to suggesting;

"Maybe a 'dumb' loco, coupled but not electrically linked,would have worked better...."

... in which case there'd be no way of getting a brake through the train.

 

Doesn't the air go through the coupling, a system which has been commonplace on MU stock for at least a couple of decades.

I did a bit of Googling and found this:-

https://www.railway-technology.com/uncategorised/newsknorr-bremse-deliver-braking-systems-hitachi-class-800-series-trains-uk/ which makes mention of the use of air in the braking system. The system seems to be the latest iteration of 'EP' brakes, a concept that's older than I am.

 

The air connection through the auto-couplers on MU stock is Main Reservior Air only, there's no Air Brake Pipe on these sets

So yes basically a form of electronic EP brake, so if you can't get the electrics through, you don't get the brakes off.

Unlike the HST where the Brake Conrol Units on the power cars, though electrically linked, only control brake pipe pressure, and if you can't get the electrics through you can isolate them and pipe a brake through as with normal hauled stock

Edited by Ken.W
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the HST where the Brake Conrol Units on the power cars, though electrically linked, only control brake pipe pressure, and if you can't get the electrics through you can isolate them and pipe a brake through as with normal hauled stock

 

 

Unless the front one (E70) is isolated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unlike the HST where the Brake Conrol Units on the power cars, though electrically linked, only control brake pipe pressure, and if you can't get the electrics through you can isolate them and pipe a brake through as with normal hauled stock

 

 

Unless the front one (E70) is isolated.

 

 

No, isolating both the E70s (and DSDs) on a HST will allow you to pipe the brake through from an assisting loco to loco haul the set.

This relates to the earlier suggestion of a loco being coupled to the failed 800, without the electrics through, to haul it, and that this couldn't be done as there's no Air Brake Pipe so though control of the brake isn't possible.

On the HST, besides an electrical brake control failure, this would also overcome a Main Res failure, by 'single piping' the brake coupling the Brake Pipe only.

 

Is it another case of not specifying provision for recovery in the event of failure?

 

Jim

 

 

So, basically, yes

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that the lack of a brake pipe is a spectacular misjudgment on the part of the specifiers/procurers (DfT) of the trains. It means that a failed train cannot be rescued by anything else. All well and good if you believe the Japanese hype that their trains never fail, but if you have to drag an unbraked 9 or 10 car train it will be at very low speed...........

 

That is pretty much the scenario we are in in the industry. There are multiple types of couplers, some mounted at different heights to others, some of the same type but with the electric connections mounted above or below, and due to IP, a manufacturer of one design of train, will not have another manufacturer's train be able to couple.  If you consider there are are maybe ten different manufacturers trains operating on the UK network you realise the scale of the issue.

 

Obviously trains are never supposed to fail, but they do.  It would be inconceivable that a train which has every car powered with a diesel engined generator set would become incapacitated but I recall at least one class 47 hauling a voyager back to Bombardier's Central Rivers. 

 

i am of the opinion that in the Hele & Bradninch incident it would have been safer for the customers if the defective five car unit had it's brakes totally isolated then moved by the other unit at extreme walking pace - say 3mph to a place of safety.  This would be in preference to evacuating people in pitch dark after ten o clock at night onto ballast to walk to another train.  Rules dictate that unbraked passenger trains cannot move, but those same rules were written prior to the industry changing onboard braking systems creating the problems we have like the H&B incident.  in addition, the railway is a fundamentally safer place now than 30 years ago, because staff are fundamentally safer.  Many of the bends and scrapes and busted shed doors were often because staff were driving from the wrong end, or not even driving, but thar no longer happens.  I just wonder whether the rule book in cases of emergencies like this might need a revisit, particular for consideration of evacuation of trains.       

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, isolating both the E70s (and DSDs) on a HST will allow you to pipe the brake through from an assisting loco to loco haul the set.

This relates to the earlier suggestion of a loco being coupled to the failed 800, without the electrics through, to haul it, and that this couldn't be done as there's no Air Brake Pipe so though control of the brake isn't possible.

On the HST, besides an electrical brake control failure, this would also overcome a Main Res failure, by 'single piping' the brake coupling the Brake Pipe only.

 

 

 

So, basically, yes

 

Yes true but I wasn't working on the assist scenario.

If you isolate the front E70 on an HST it cannot go forward as this one realises the brakes (Both front and rear apply them) so an HST can only be driven from a cab which has on operable E70.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<<<<<<<<<<<<There are multiple types of couplers, some mounted at different heights to others, some of the same type but with the electric connections mounted above or below, and due to IP, a manufacturer of one design of train, will not have another manufacturer's train be able to couple.  If you consider there are are maybe ten different manufacturers trains operating on the UK network you realise the scale of the issue.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

So its back to three link then? :scratchhead:

 

Brian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...