Hitachi trains grounded

[phil-b259]

37 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Didn't the Mk3s have brake smell problems?

 

Yes but that wasn't anything to do with a fault with the train components themselves - it was merely that the air intakes of the air conditioning happened to be paced in an area where they could draw in the smell of the brakes being applied.

 

Very different from metal cracking with the potential to compromise the structural integrity of the coach!

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

16 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Lickey was always a problem. HSTs frequently arrived at New Street on one engine if the coolant was already a bit low as the slopping around in the tank when it hit the bank at speed led to the sensor being uncovered for long enough to raise a critical alarm. Conversely the other power car could appear overfilled if it had been topped up before leaving Bristol.

 

Very, very rarely the coolant level- usually the fan oil had run low or so thin it was ineffective through overwork, it was a flaw in the HST design that cooling capacity often struggled to cope with the amount of engine heat.

 

In answer to an earlier other posting that claimed the anoraks "loved the HST"- that is about as far from the truth as its possible to get. When HSTs came in introducing 125mph, air-con comfort to the GWML they were hated by time-warp idiots who thought that 90mph steam heat stock should prevail - it was the ordinary paying passenger that loved the HST for several reasons.

 

And in answer to a different earlier posting writing today's news off as overblown spotter wibble- I'd say the near total withdrawal of around 50% of this countries "Inter City" services is pretty big news, and when both main companies affected are delivering a "don't travel, not today and not tomorrow either" message the damage to the wider industry is immeasurable and at a time when commuter traffic is near zero and discretionary leisure travel was probably the only thing that would have kept the industry going.

[25901]

Good News, a written procedure has been drawn up and issued to all effected parties.

[jonny777]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

The units which have been found defective so far are the earliest Class 800s on GWR which have accumulated the highest mileages since entering service.  However, the nature of the defect, a metal fatigue fracture in the weld which joins the bolster carrying the yaw damper attachment and jacking point to the main body structure (see below), means that it can be expected to show up across the entire 80x fleet operated by GWR, LNER, TPE and HT as their mileages increase.

 

 

I discussed the problem a week ago with Mark Hopwood, GWR's MD and a long-standing personal friend, and at that time only a handful of cracks had been discovered and two or three units stopped for repair.  The cracks found at that time were above the motor not trailer bogies which is understandable given the higher stress they are subjected too.  Although concerned, he was of the opinion at that time that the issue was manageable and nowhere as serious as the problems involving the CAF built trains.  Obviously, things have moved on and it would appear further cracks have been discovered.  I haven't attempted to contact Mark for an update this morning as I figure he's probably more than a tad busy right now!

 

The entire fleet is currently undergoing checks at the various Hitachi depots and units given a clean bill of health are being allowed to return to service which is why, as I type this, limited services are returning to GWR and LNER.  Hopefully enough units will be released over the weekend to allow a near "normal" service to operate next week.  If a number of additional problems do emerge then there could be problems resourcing operations when services ramp up from May 17.

 

Repairs will not be easy.  The 80x have aluminium bodies and aluminium is more difficult to weld than steel.  It needs much higher degrees of heat and the material transmits this very effectively to places you really don't want it.  Like all modern trains, the 80x cars are stuffed full of sensitive electronics controlling everything from the train's performance to seat reservations and working the loo doors.  If subjected to large amounts of heat these component will fry and therefore before any welding can take place many of them will need to be removed.  Then once the weld repair has been completed and tested they will have to be refitted and themselves tested.  This could easily take one or two days per car whilst the weld repair itself might only take a hour or so.  And remember, there are 4 locations per car and the fleet numbers in excess of 1000 vehicles.

 

As noted by others, problems with yaw damper attachments are nothing new and have been cropping up ever since they first started being used - the Class 158s probably being  the most high profile case.  It is a high stress area which requires both very careful initial design and subsequent manufacture.  It's not always easy to get it right.

 

Meanwhile over a CAF...  The problem there is somewhat different.  It revolves around the design of the yaw damper attachment to the body which uses bolts in tee slots which are part of an extrusion attached to the body.  In one case, this assembly was torn way from the body and signs of the same problem potentially affecting other units led to at least 22 Class 195 DMUs and Class 331 EMUs being stopped.  The identical design is used on all the current CAF built trains in the UK, Classes 195 196, 197, 331 and 397 plus the Mk5 and Mk5s LHCS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hooray. Truth from a real expert, rather than speculative stuff from the armchair variety. 

 

However, I will don my tin hat.....

[Dunsignalling]

BBC News website carries a remark, supposedly from a technician, that fixing any found with the issue is likely to require the unit to be O.O.S for at least three days.

 

Implication is that those found to be OK will return to service on Monday.

 

John

[Ian Hargrave]

34 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

BBC News website carries a remark, supposedly from a technician, that fixing any found with the issue is likely to require the unit to be O.O.S for at least three days.

 

Implication is that those found to be OK will return to service on Monday.

 

John

And those currently found ok ? The implication here from that observation is that the cracking isn’t common throughout the fleet which is in itself concerning in that it maybe only a matter of time and intensity of use that such cracking manifests itself in those given a clean bill of health. We have already read posts that the problem has manifested itself due to possible design failure on the one hand or the variability of track quality on the other.

 

 These units were extensively tested before introduction into service and it has taken a couple or so years of high speed intensive use for these difficulties to occur.We live and expect our transport system to reflect life at an ever quicker and crowded pace.Are we maybe expecting too much ? The positive in this that the issue has been identified and is being dealt with hopefully with a long term rather than quick fix,whoever or whatever is responsible.

[Dunsignalling]

2 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

And those currently found ok ? The implication here from that observation is that the cracking isn’t common throughout the fleet which is in itself concerning in that it maybe only a matter of time and intensity of use that such cracking manifests itself in those given a clean bill of health. We have already read posts that the problem has manifested itself due to possible design failure on the one hand or the variability of track quality on the other.

 

 These units were extensively tested before introduction into service and it has taken a couple or so years of high speed intensive use for these difficulties to occur.We live and expect our transport system to reflect life at an ever quicker and crowded pace.Are we maybe expecting too much ? The positive in this that the issue has been identified and is being dealt with hopefully with a long term rather than quick fix,whoever or whatever is responsible.

The way it read was that every vehicle would have to be inspected, and that process would take up today and tomorrow, with fault-free sets being used to restore as much of the normal service as numbers permit thereafter.

 

John

[Bernard Lamb]

2 hours ago, MJI said:

This makes me think of this.

 

How did BR get it so right with Mark 3 and BT10?

All welding specifications in house on BR go back to a certain Mr Bulleid.

As a person with some experience of weld design and testing, I would love to see the data behind these parts and their assembly.

Bernard

[great central]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

 I would love to see the data behind these parts and their assembly.

Bernard

 

'Commercial confidentiality' or 'if we told you we'd have to kill you'?

[MJI]

1 hour ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Very, very rarely the coolant level- usually the fan oil had run low or so thin it was ineffective through overwork, it was a flaw in the HST design that cooling capacity often struggled to cope with the amount of engine heat.

 

In answer to an earlier other posting that claimed the anoraks "loved the HST"- that is about as far from the truth as its possible to get. When HSTs came in introducing 125mph, air-con comfort to the GWML they were hated by time-warp idiots who thought that 90mph steam heat stock should prevail - it was the ordinary paying passenger that loved the HST for several reasons.

 

And in answer to a different earlier posting writing today's news off as overblown spotter wibble- I'd say the near total withdrawal of around 50% of this countries "Inter City" services is pretty big news, and when both main companies affected are delivering a "don't travel, not today and not tomorrow either" message the damage to the wider industry is immeasurable and at a time when commuter traffic is near zero and discretionary leisure travel was probably the only thing that would have kept the industry going.

 

 

I liked the old stuff but I also liked the HSTs, they were exciting, and we still had 50 x class 50s to make things interesting.

[corneliuslundie]

Interesting. I have just seen a photo by Ken Mumford of the 10.40 from Swindon to Swansea (ex Paddington), a 5-car Azuma. Presumably it started its journey before the alert.

Jonathan

[Derekl]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

BBC News website carries a remark, supposedly from a technician, that fixing any found with the issue is likely to require the unit to be O.O.S for at least three days.

 

Implication is that those found to be OK will return to service on Monday.

 

John

From Roger Ford of Modern Railways on the Today program this morning. He gave a fairly comprehensive review including some of the detail above about the complexities of welding aluminum. Very helpful and informative.

[Mike_Walker]

8 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Interesting. I have just seen a photo by Ken Mumford of the 10.40 from Swindon to Swansea (ex Paddington), a 5-car Azuma. Presumably it started its journey before the alert.

Jonathan

As I said earlier, as units are checked and found to be fault free they are being returned to service.  On GWR we don't call them Azumas - we have our own pet names which I won't share here...

[corneliuslundie]

Ken Mumford calls them flying cucumbers. I imagine your pet name is not so complimentary. But they must have checked that unit quite fast as it left Paddington around an hour before that and presumably the depot at least 30 minutes earlier. Smart work by someone.

Jonathan

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I just call the whole lot IETs...

[lyneux]

For all the people who don’t think there is much of a problem. This is Paddington right now.

 

Only one hitachi set and that didn’t look like it was in service.

 

The depot at North Pole was stuffed full of them on the way past.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

I’m not sure blaming civil servants is constructive either. A cracked part... much more likely to be the fault of the engineering team. Engineers don’t like to be wrong (or told what to do). It’s just lazy to blame ‘faceless’ civil servants.

 

Guy

[Bernard Lamb]

22 minutes ago, great central said:

 

'Commercial confidentiality' or 'if we told you we'd have to kill you'?

I have worked on rather more sensitive jobs than trains.

I could come out of retirement and along with a couple of former colleagues we could come and check them out.

It would cost mind.

Bernard

[ejstubbs]

15 minutes ago, lyneux said:

For all the people who don’t think there is much of a problem. This is Paddington right now.

 

 

Wow, that looks a lot more serious than few cracked welds!

Edited May 8, 2021 by ejstubbs

[lyneux]

3 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Wow, that looks a lot more serious than few cracked welds!

Bloomin’ iPhone...

[Ron Ron Ron]

3 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Wow, that looks a lot more serious than few cracked welds!

Yep !

The world has been turned upside down by this crisis.  

 

 

.

[black and decker boy]

23 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Ken Mumford calls them flying cucumbers. I imagine your pet name is not so complimentary. But they must have checked that unit quite fast as it left Paddington around an hour before that and presumably the depot at least 30 minutes earlier. Smart work by someone.

Jonathan

They knew of the problem and the stand down yesterday and will have been checking units overnight (and probably any on depot yesterday would have been checked already) so will have had a small number of units available this morning.

 

Suggestion elsewhere that a significant number in one of the sub fleets have failed checks 

 

It will be a rollercoaster weekend at Agility & the TOCs as the extent of the issues becomes clear and any plan B takes shape. 

[TomScrut]

10 minutes ago, lyneux said:

I’m not sure blaming civil servants is constructive either. A cracked part... much more likely to be the fault of the engineering team. Engineers don’t like to be wrong (or told what to do). It’s just lazy to blame ‘faceless’ civil servants.

 

I don't think anybody is blaming anybody, or discounting anybody from potential blame either.

 

As far as I am aware these things were bought to a specification written by the DFT. If the train meets the specification but fails in service then the specification is wrong. That's why that point was made.

 

Even IF it is Hitachi's fault there are likely to be plenty of other things inside their organisation that might have led to the fault other than just saying "engineers".

 

Sometimes engineers are to blame, sometimes a design is not good enough due to factors out of the engineers' control, sometimes a perfectly good design is badly executed (for whatever reason), sometimes the customer asks for the wrong thing. I aren't making any assumptions as to who's fault it is.

 

P.s. spot the engineer 

[Coryton]

2 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

As far as I am aware these things were bought to a specification written by the DFT. If the train meets the specification but fails in service then the specification is wrong. That's why that point was made.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

Surely the specification won't have prescribed the detailed design and manufacturing process for the trains.

 

Or are you suggesting that the specification may be at fault because the DfT didn't think to explicitly say "Mustn't develop potentially catastrophic failures in the first 27.5 years"?

 

 

 

 

 

[TomScrut]

3 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

Surely the specification won't have prescribed the detailed design and manufacturing process for the trains.

 

Or are you suggesting that the specification may be at fault because the DfT didn't think to explicitly say "Mustn't develop potentially catastrophic failures in the first 27.5 years"?

 

The post I am referring to was way back at the start to do with the track the trains are supposed to run on. That's what I am presuming the post I am replying to is referring to. If the track isn't to specification that's not Hitachi's fault.

[nightstar.train]

3 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

Surely the specification won't have prescribed the detailed design and manufacturing process for the trains.

 

Or are you suggesting that the specification may be at fault because the DfT didn't think to explicitly say "Mustn't develop potentially catastrophic failures in the first 27.5 years"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The specification will have included details of expected track condition and standards. From these Hitachi will have made calculations as to forces that will be experienced by the bogies, yaw damper and bracket it is attached to. If the track condition has varied widely from the specification and thus the bogies etc are experiencing much higher forces then the specification is at fault. Hitachi have met the specification but the real world is not matching up. That’s one possible scenario. Other scenarios are that the track is meeting all the specifications given to Hitachi and Hitachi got their sums wrong and under engineered it, or that they got the sums right but the manufacturing was deficient so the as built train isn’t as designed. Another possibility is that Hitachi have ordered materials from a suppler and the supplier has delivered something out of spec.