Hitachi trains grounded

[Coryton]

3 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

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.

 

Ah fair point. It does get confusing sometimes when you can't see more than level of quoting in one place.

 

Elsewhere I read a comment that those who were critical of the IET procurement method should take note that Hitachi will have to cover all the costs for this happening. I'm not so sure it's that clear cut.

 

Putting contractual interfaces between different parts of what are from an engineering point of view all one system can lead to an awful lot of arguments.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

8 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

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.

Can't we just agree they were built to a price, like anything else, and now they have found to be unfit for purpose- a purpose that would have been defined to the nth degree in the procurement document. How good the DfT deal was with Agility will be tested after this weekend, does Hitachi owe the rail industry an eight figure sum in compensation for the shortfall in trains today, tomorrow and however long it takes or does the DfT just have to swallow the cost on top of the billions they are already pouring into the industry?

 

[Coryton]

2 minutes ago, nightstar.train said:

 

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.

 

And I wonder how that is resolved, given that Hitachi presumably don't have their own ability to go out and measure the track condition.

 

Or maybe they do? I suppose it depends what monitoring the trains themselves carry out.

[Davexoc]

9 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

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.

 

So are we assuming that DfT specified that they must negotiate R2 curves, forgetting that we've got some R1 stuff tucked away in the fiddle yards, and Hitachi built them for R2 minimum?

[charliepetty]

1 hour ago, lyneux said:

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

Oh No.   Seems as Australia has the same issues !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lyneux]

5 minutes ago, charliepetty said:

Oh No.   Seems as Australia has the same issues !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe they can lend us some XPTs?

[jim.snowdon]

The point is that the cause of the problem can be down to many and possibly multiple causes ranging from inadequate specification to inadequate design or manufacture and any number of points in between. I speak from experience as a now retired engineer who had responsibility for or involvement in several fleets of trains for different railways in my career. Getting to the bottom of it requires cross industry cooperation, which almost certainly will be going on behind the scenes, to the extent that it can without any party admitting commercial liability. Hitachi, I have no doubt, will be doing all that they can to get units back in service, as it is their commercial reputation that is on the line. The legal actions and recriminations come later.

 

Those who do know what is going on will not be permitted to voice comment in public, and have the sense no to. Beyond that, it can only be speculation.

 

[phil-b259]

21 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

And I wonder how that is resolved, given that Hitachi presumably don't have their own ability to go out and measure the track condition.

 

 

Ahem.... they did (though not at 125mph admittedly)

 

Please have a read of this http://www.traintesting.com/V-train.htm

[Davexoc]

Hitachi were caught out last year for this https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2020042700933/ , where they had been fraudulantly filling out quality/specifications on various metals going back more than 10 years. Not good if sub-standard materials have been getting through....

[DK123GWR]

24 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

 

So are we assuming that DfT specified that they must negotiate R2 curves, forgetting that we've got some R1 stuff tucked away in the fiddle yards, and Hitachi built them for R2 minimum?

I thought the minimum radius for an 800 was R3...

[lyneux]

I’d argue that a good engineer makes up for deficiencies or ambiguities in specifications.

 

In software engineering there is no point in waiting for the requirements to be perfect... it’s unlikely they ever will be. Having a vision of what good looks like is far more important.

 

Guy

[DK123GWR]

1 minute ago, lyneux said:

I’d argue that a good engineer makes up for deficiencies or ambiguities in specifications.

 

In software engineering there is no point in waiting for the requirements to be perfect... it’s unlikely they ever will be. Having a vision of what good looks like is far more important.

 

Guy

Over-engineering would come at a cost though - in terms of both money and weight (therefore energy consumption and money). If a manufacturer is given a spec, they have no choice but to trust that it is correct.

 

[jim.snowdon]

1 minute ago, lyneux said:

I’d argue that a good engineer makes up for deficiencies or ambiguities in specifications.

 

In software engineering there is no point in waiting for the requirements to be perfect... it’s unlikely they ever will be. Having a vision of what good looks like is far more important.

 

Guy

In the commercial world, a deficiency or ambiguity in a specification is worth gold dust to the contractor. The engineering will reflect exactly what the client has paid for, nothing more, and when it finally comes to light that the specification was wrong, the contractor has the client over a barrel commercially. It's where the astute contractor can make a lot of money.

 

[Coryton]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Ahem.... they did (though not at 125mph admittedly)

 

Please have a read of this http://www.traintesting.com/V-train.htm

 

Interesting. But that seems to be a test train for them to test their traction packages on the UK network, not for them to measure track properties.

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, lyneux said:

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

 

Dang, the whole service really has fallen over.

[TomScrut]

24 minutes ago, lyneux said:

I’d argue that a good engineer makes up for deficiencies or ambiguities in specifications.

 

That depends though if they are allowed to spend the time and money going beyond specification. More strength normally would mean either more time (in engineering), better process, better material or more material. That all costs money and therefore would likely not be allowed.

 

35 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

The point is that the cause of the problem can be down to many and possibly multiple causes ranging from inadequate specification to inadequate design or manufacture and any number of points in between.

 

I agree, exactly what I was getting at earlier.

 

53 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Can't we just agree they were built to a price, like anything else, and now they have found to be unfit for purpose- a purpose that would have been defined to the nth degree in the procurement document. How good the DfT deal was with Agility will be tested after this weekend, does Hitachi owe the rail industry an eight figure sum in compensation for the shortfall in trains today, tomorrow and however long it takes or does the DfT just have to swallow the cost on top of the billions they are already pouring into the industry?

 

 

Yes and that's the crux of the issue really isn't it. I expect it will be disputed for a long time IF Hitachi have a case.

 

30 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

Hitachi were caught out last year for this https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2020042700933/ , where they had been fraudulantly filling out quality/specifications on various metals going back more than 10 years. Not good if sub-standard materials have been getting through....

 

An example of how something can break without it being the engineers' fault!

 

29 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

I thought the minimum radius for an 800 was R3...

 

R2, there was a mis specification on Hattons site IIRC. I have run an 800 on R2, and checked clearances on an 800 at R2 67mm too. The box also says R2.

 

I aren't sure if I will have gauging issues on my new layout when my 2 LNER ones come, if so the gauging specification for the layout wasn't written correctly! (I did do a fair bit of work on the track geometries to ensure they did pass but I sold my GWR 800 before I built it)

 

58 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

And I wonder how that is resolved, given that Hitachi presumably don't have their own ability to go out and measure the track condition.

 

Or maybe they do? I suppose it depends what monitoring the trains themselves carry out.

 

If the DFT spec said something generic like "needs to work on ECML and GWML" then bidders would probably have had to have done a full on track and gauging survey which in turn would have added a lot of money to the cost of the tender.

[GoingUnderground]

And sometimes even the best and most conscientious engineers make mistakes. Remember the problem with the Hubble space telescope mirror, ground to the wrong profile because someone misread a drawing. 

 

We are all human, and to err is human.....

[D826]

7 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

800s with suspension problems on the WR? Bit of deja vu there.... just no available steam fleet to come to the rescue this time! 

Those 800s had superb names, and made a much much better noise too Phil, especially double headed to the west.  When men were men and inhaled blue smoke on the road west...not just from their Woodbines and Players, also from MAN and Maybach ! (With a single pair of Paxmans) !  

[APOLLO]

Reliable High speed ECML ? 

 

Deltic plus eight - no contest.   Come on smell the noise !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Or a bit further west --- Real class ---- !!

 

 

Proper trains. Not tinfoil ones.

 

Brit15

[TomScrut]

2 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

High speed ECML ?

 

100mph doesn't count as high speed AFAIK

[corneliuslundie]

So which firm of lawyers should I buy shares in?

Hat, coat, etc

But I am afraid that as so often they will probably be the only winners.

And bad timing, as there are have been and are going to be several ECML closures for upgrading work but I think the route is open at the moment.

Jonathan

[MJI]

20 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

100mph doesn't count as high speed AFAIK

 

They have been caught going faster.

[Andrew Young]

8 hours ago, great central said:

There's these, recently parked up at Ely, some trailers at the back of the site as well. 

All it would need is a few drivers and guards to come and pick them up

 

Shame their traction competency will have lapsed then... that lot at Ely are only good for the scrapyard!

[Coryton]

19 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

And sometimes even the best and most conscientious engineers make mistakes. Remember the problem with the Hubble space telescope mirror, ground to the wrong profile because someone misread a drawing. 

 

We are all human, and to err is human.....

 

If you'll indulge a slightl;y off-topic post, the issue with Hubble wasn't as simple as misreading a drawing.

 

There was an error in the construction of the optical device used to measure the form of the mirror, consequently it was very carefully ground to the wrong shape.

The same device was then used to check that the mirror had been ground correctly...and of course it said it had.

 

The error was such that it wasn't actually possible to move a lens in the test device to where they thought it needed to be, so rather than stopping and looking for a possible error they modified the hardware to get the additional motion.

 

Two independent measurements were also made and (correctly) said the mirror was wrong..but they were dismissed as measurement errors as they were using cruder methods.

 

Unfortunately I don't find this at all surprising, having seen the extent to which corners get cut when building satellite hardware when the schedule starts to bite, despite the huge consequences of an error.

 

More information if anyone is interested here.

[boxbrownie]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

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!

And they used a particular type of resin for the brake friction material binder.