Hitachi trains grounded

[woodenhead]

11 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I think the point being made was that it seemed that no-one had contacted the bus companies to make the arrangements. You can't blame the drivers for not being thought readers.

Yes, we fully appreciate that a lot is going on behind the3 scenes and many people are working very hard. What the whole exercise is showing though is that the fragmented nature of the industry makes things much more difficult. In BR days a class 101 DMU was a class 101 wherever in the country it was. Now every operator seems to have different stock, and even if it is nominally the same there are differences which make training needed before they can be moved to another part of the country. What is essentially different for example between Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow suburban services which requires them to have different units? Alright, I know that stock is often moved around (and staff then have to be trained to use it) but there are far too many types, each of which will then have its own problems.

I know I am shooting myself in the foot, as what I am asking for has actually happened with GWR, LNER etc. So I will ask another question which no-one will be able to answer: what happened to thorough testing or prototypes before bulk orders? I thought we learned that lesson with the early diesel prototypes which were ordered in bulk before the prototypes had been tested (because of pressure from the then equivalent of the DfT).

Jonathan

It's not as though BR had a standard fleet;

 

EMUs for the West Coast were 303s in Scotland with sliding doors, slam door 304s for the North West into the Midlands and slam door 310s Midlands to London.

 

On the Great Eastern the mix was even greater 302, 305, 306, 307 and 308.

 

DMUs were generally designed for purposes and some were quite regional 104s being North West along with 108s, 107s in Scotland, 116 in Wales and 117 elsewhere on the Western.

 

Locomotives were more spread but even so their job determined their allocation.

 

It's not really that different today, although at the moment actually there is a lot of standardisation with recent units in the 7x families and the IEP.

[LNER4479]

13 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

So I will ask another question which no-one will be able to answer: what happened to thorough testing or prototypes before bulk orders? I thought we learned that lesson with the early diesel prototypes which were ordered in bulk before the prototypes had been tested (because of pressure from the then equivalent of the DfT).

I'm afraid BR's engineers well and truly blew their chance of ever being trusted with that approach again as a result of the APT. 15 years of research and development - and the bloomin' thing still wouldn't work properly when (briefly) introduced into service. Ever since then, the commercial guys have been in charge and the engineers continually pressurised to undertake the testing and commissioning in as short a time as possible within the overall project plan.

 

The result was the Cl.158 fiasco, which I well remember as a young engineer at the time. Particularly embarrassing, as it closely followed Metro-Cammell's almost flawless design and build of the Cl.156 fleet.

 

Meanwhile, the Cl.91 project decided to adopt a mid-way point. Build 10 then have a pause to allow some feedback from initial service before building the rest. Didn't really work. The then obsession with reducing unsprung mass (as a result of the early generations of AL electrics smashing the track to pieces) resulted in a complex bogie design with its quill shaft axle drive gearbox. 'Challenging' availability targets (28 out of 31) gave no flexibility to sort out ongoing reliability issues - let alone out-of-course deer strikes - but did at least give 89001 its moment in the sun.

 

I could go on. Rail vehicle engineering is a complex and, at times, intensely frustrating career path to follow and the man / woman who has the perfect answer to delivering every such project on time, to budget and with subsequent fit-for-purpose performance probably hasn't yet been born.

 

Sincerely,

 

A career UK rail vehicle engineer, (ex-uni BR engineering management trainee) 34 years experience and counting ...

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by LNER4479

[Coryton]

45 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

DMUs were generally designed for purposes and some were quite regional 104s being North West along with 108s, 107s in Scotland, 116 in Wales and 117 elsewhere on the Western.

 

 

But the majority of first generation DMUs could run in multiple with each other (blue square?) - and I believe could even have vehicles from different classes put together to form a single unit.

 

The controls in different classes always looked pretty similar to me.

 

Did drivers and guards have to go through a separate training course for each different class, and did each class have a specific area that it was allowed to operate in?

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Because designing from scratch would cost a lot more than adapting an existing design. That, and you should gain a benefit from the testing of the existing hardware. There weren't many BR, designed from scratch diesels that didn't have teething troubles. 

 

Ermm..

 

Except the 800s WERE designed from Scratch under the guidance of that Whitehall entity which thinks it knows everything there is to know about railways and train procurement.

 

Yes they may have been inspired by other designs but the UKs restrictive loading gauge and woeful electrification record means that pretty much every design for the UK is unique. 

[Gwiwer]

5 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

But the majority of first generation DMUs could run in multiple with each other (blue square?) - and I believe could even have vehicles from different classes put together to form a single unit.

 

The controls in different classes always looked pretty similar to me.

 

Did drivers and guards have to go through a separate training course for each different class, and did each class have a specific area that it was allowed to operate in?

There were conversion courses between types.  Whilst fundamentally similar they were not identical in configuration or handling.  There were, for example, the higher-power "Buxton" units and the Inter-City classes which were sometimes driven from a half-width intermediate cab rather than a full-width one without a gangway to contend with.  There would have been different training for the hydraulic types (classes 115 and 127 if memory serves) and whilst it was in some cases possible to form a scratch set with blue-star vehicles of other classes this was not universally true.  

 

Of EMU types the SR required crews to be familiar with each separate type they would work though a line was drawn in the sand and all 4-Sub variants were considered to be one type iirc.  It only took a short conversion course to acquire knowledge of closely-similar types such as Cep, Cig and Vep.  I once found my train delayed at Liverpool Street as the rostered Ipswich guard was unfamiliar with the stock (a 307) relatively recently after the electrification reached that town; most trains were 86-hauled or class 309 units.  

 

There has long been a regional and local element to British railway traction.  It may be thought of as a hang over from the very early days when pre-grouping locomotive engineers designed according to their local needs.  The theory of driving a steam locomotive is universal but the reality of handling a Midland 4-4-0 would have differed from that of  Highland Railway types or of the smaller GWR and constituent engines.  

 

Even the much-praised HST fleet, superficially standard, had many differences when you looked.  Three generations of power unit meant the entire fleet was not identical for most if their lives.  Formations varying between 7 and 9 trailers and now 4.  The long swing-link ban over SR electrified lines.  Even the differing current draw from the power unit of the original ECML sets with twin catering vehicles and a full meals service in operation.  

 

We have seldom enjoyed anything "standard".  

[Gwiwer]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

that Whitehall entity which thinks it knows everything

Yet clearly knows nothing about 26m vehicles being too long for many platforms and causing unrealistic PTI gaps.  For one thing.  The same power and seating capacity could have been fitted into 20m vehicles but at a different cost.  When you design to the lowest cost you design out what matters.  

[roythebus1]

Have a look at the later variants of the BR class 47 fleet, the 73/0, 73/1 to name a few. All had variants that required additional driver training. The same still applies, do the "sitting around" drivers have the traction knowledge 

 

What I find amazing is the lack of coupling standardisation and signalling equipment. Back in the day it was possible to couple most things to most things with a great big hook, maybe put some air or vacuum pipes up, ding ding and away.

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Gwiwer said:

 

 

As advertised "Around 75% of Plymouth - Penzance services will operate normally" but why not run them hourly and extend them all to Exeter with the booked workings through to Bristol or Cardiff as they still are?  GWR must have a few drivers sitting spare for the moment.  The stock is there and passed for the route.  At least they would meet the SWR trains and cut out one change.  

 

 

Unless you are privy to the arrangements for GWR drivers that's a pretty bold (and rather naïve) assumption to make!

 

As has been noted the Pandemic has made driver training  particularly problematic as social distancing isn't an option in train cabs. Then you add in those who may have been shielding (and will most likely need refresher training before being allowed to drive alone again) plus the natural turnover of people retiring / moving on.

 

Being in a 'customer facing' role I get that you (and many other platform staff, train conductors, ticket office staff) will have been getting it in the neck from angry / upset / distressed passengers with no way of adequately resolving the situation, but casting aspersions about other front line staff / managers (e.g. driver roster clerks) isn't really on.

[irishmail]

21 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

But the majority of first generation DMUs could run in multiple with each other (blue square?) - and I believe could even have vehicles from different classes put together to form a single unit.

 

The controls in different classes always looked pretty similar to me.

 

Did drivers and guards have to go through a separate training course for each different class, and did each class have a specific area that it was allowed to operate in?

When I was trained on DMU's  I think it covered all or most of the blue square DMS's.  I worked on 101's 104's & 117's.  For EMU's I  trained on 313's then had conversions for 317 & 321 units.  

AC locos I learnt 86. 87 and 90's at the same time.

[Gwiwer]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

casting aspersions about other front line staff / managers (e.g. driver roster clerks) isn't really on.

No aspersions were cast.  My comment is based on feedback from Long Rock depot.  Drivers willing and ready to work, type-trained and signing up to Exeter but with no marrow available.  

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

If they have passed the required safety checks then what are their grounds?  If not then what are their plans to get people moving?  

 

 

If they returned them to service and something broke off at 50mph it could still do a lot of damage if it hit a passenger or track worker.

 

The chances of that happening may have been assessed as 'low' by Hitachi - but that won't mean anything to the Legal profession. In fact I'm pretty sure there would be an army of Lawyers only too willing to sue for negligence in the courts!

 

IIRC the 800s were withdrawn for a few weeks after introduction because someone in  the legal department spotted the prospect of idiots using the inter vehicle cables as climbing frames at stations and getting themselves electrocuted. 

 

 

[Coryton]

17 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Yet clearly knows nothing about 26m vehicles being too long for many platforms and causing unrealistic PTI gaps.  For one thing.  The same power and seating capacity could have been fitted into 20m vehicles but at a different cost.  When you design to the lowest cost you design out what matters.  

 

Isn't the bogie spacing and door positioning similar to a Mk 3, with the space between the doors and coach ends taken up by toilets, luggage and bike storage etc?

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

No aspersions were cast.  My comment is based on feedback from Long Rock depot.  Drivers willing and ready to work, type-trained and signing up to Exeter but with no marrow available.  

 

Fair enough -  though I find it hard to believe there won't be a good reason their offers of help have not been taken up. Could be as simple as the planners within GWR being so stressed out / overworked its got missed.

 

17 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Yet clearly knows nothing about 26m vehicles being too long for many platforms and causing unrealistic PTI gaps. 

 

Or comfortable seats... 

[LNER4479]

30 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Ermm..

 

Except the 800s WERE designed from Scratch under the guidance of that Whitehall entity which thinks it knows everything there is to know about railways and train procurement.

 

Ermm..

 

The 800s are derived from the Hitachi AT300 product family. They have four 'A-Train' product families designed for export; it's all described on the Wikipedia page so I'm not revealing anything that isn't already in the public domain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_A-train

The 395s were the first example of the AT300s in the UK. It's a modular design concept. Yes, the bodyshell design will need adapting for the UK loading gauge and the bi-mode traction package certainly adds a degree of novelty but fundamentally it is not designed from scratch.

 

Of course, as has already been commented on here extensively, that might yet prove to be part of the problem - the use of a Japanese design origin train in UK conditions. I don't know enough about the design details to comment further - and wouldn't anyway if I did.

Edited May 12, 2021 by LNER4479

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

I think the point being made was that it seemed that no-one had contacted the bus companies to make the arrangements. You can't blame the drivers for not being thought readers.

Yes, we fully appreciate that a lot is going on behind the3 scenes and many people are working very hard. What the whole exercise is showing though is that the fragmented nature of the industry makes things much more difficult. In BR days a class 101 DMU was a class 101 wherever in the country it was. Now every operator seems to have different stock, and even if it is nominally the same there are differences which make training needed before they can be moved to another part of the country. What is essentially different for example between Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow suburban services which requires them to have different units? Alright, I know that stock is often moved around (and staff then have to be trained to use it) but there are far too many types, each of which will then have its own problems.

I know I am shooting myself in the foot, as what I am asking for has actually happened with GWR, LNER etc. So I will ask another question which no-one will be able to answer: what happened to thorough testing or prototypes before bulk orders? I thought we learned that lesson with the early diesel prototypes which were ordered in bulk before the prototypes had been tested (because of pressure from the then equivalent of the DfT).

Jonathan

I think a lot of testing is done-these trains have been running since about 2016, and it was a couple of years before they entered service. Plus of course, the trains they are based on have seen a lot of service for some time. But whatever system you're introducing, be it a train, computer system, or whatever, it's very difficult to test it under every possible set of circumstances, because there are so many variables.

25 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Ermm..

 

Except the 800s WERE designed from Scratch under the guidance of that Whitehall entity which thinks it knows everything there is to know about railways and train procurement.

 

Yes they may have been inspired by other designs but the UKs restrictive loading gauge and woeful electrification record means that pretty much every design for the UK is unique. 

Even though they are an adaptation of an existing design, because of the restricted UK loading gauge, they are to all intents and purposes a new design. The trains they are based on, the A in Japan, are wider, and higher, so the bodyshell cannot be the same design, even if some of the structural elements are.

Add in the diesel engines, extra weight not in the original trains, and whatever other things spec'ed by the DfT, and really you have a new train.

[corneliuslundie]

So we should have listened to Brunel. Then we could have had the off the shelf product - with new bogies of course.

Hat, coat . . 

Jonathan

[woodenhead]

We should have asked Branson!!

 

Pendolinos and Voyagers - ok interiors could have been better and maybe tilt on the 221s was overkill but they haven't fallen apart, neither have their Meridian relatives.

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

 

The 395s were the first example of the AT300s in the UK. It's a modular design concept. Yes, the bodyshell design will need adapting for the UK loading gauge and the bi-mode traction package certainly adds a degree of novelty but fundamentally it is not designed from scratch.

 

 

 

Which is important - the laws of physics don't always scale in a liner relationship with size!

 

Thus although shrinking the bodyshell might be easy enough doing so could result in it not being strong enough to resist certain forces.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

We should have asked Branson!!

 

Pendolinos and Voyagers - ok interiors could have been better and maybe tilt on the 221s was overkill but they haven't fallen apart, neither have their Meridian relatives.

 

IIRC Alstom did offer several potential solutions when the DfT were looking at the 'HST replacement' options but in their usual way Whitehall dismissed things put forward by the railway industry in favour commissioning their own product. The resulting process is best described as 'how NOT to procure rolling stock' - as others have highlighted about the only thing they got right was the penalty clause for not presenting the required number of units each morning...

[rodent279]

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which is important - the laws of physics don't always scale in a liner relationship with size!

 

Thus although shrinking the bodyshell might be easy enough doing so could result in it not being strong enough to resist certain forces.

The bodyshells are also a bit longer (3m?) than class 395's-maybe that results in extra bending moments when jacking, or in resisting lateral movement?

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, roythebus1 said:

What I find amazing is the lack of coupling standardisation and signalling equipment. Back in the day it was possible to couple most things to most things with a great big hook, maybe put some air or vacuum pipes up, ding ding and away.

The more you want to do with them the more complex and incompatible things end up. There have been considerable variations in signalling in the past too, but they (mostly) didn't have any equipment on the train itself other than the driver observing them and responding as appropriate. It's all inevitable if you want more such functionality out of your gear. At some point (in the not forseable future) the rate of change of technology might slow down and then it'll probably standardise.

[Davexoc]

55 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I think a lot of testing is done-these trains have been running since about 2016, and it was a couple of years before they entered service. Plus of course, the trains they are based on have seen a lot of service for some time. But whatever system you're introducing, be it a train, computer system, or whatever, it's very difficult to test it under every possible set of circumstances, because there are so many variables.

 

There may have been a lot of testing, but all the monitoring would have been done on new, or nearly new equipment. Now with a few years of wear put on the earliest ones, could it be the case that with a certain amount of wheel wear, the bogies start to hunt at a certain speed, which sets up an oscillation that the yaw damper can't fully control, and the stresses induced are resulting in cracks appearing in the aluminium framework?

 

Get the worst one and drag it up to Old Dalby, festoon it in cameras and sensors and see what happens at different speeds. At least if something does fall apart/off, it is in a safer environment.

[Railpassion]

With the implications into the worrying collision and derailment at Marsh Lane in Leeds still being investigated and modelled, Hitachi may have more problems to contend with. 

 

If trains need to be taken out out of use and stripped down it may be wise to refit the dreary interior with better seats, sensible lighting and more luggage space. A buffet would be nice too. The entire passenger environment could be enhanced whilst sets were away for repair. 

 

Meanwhile the railway is paying Jaguar prices for a Honda Accord.

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

16 minutes ago, Railpassion said:

With the implications into the worrying collision and derailment at Marsh Lane in Leeds still being investigated and modelled, Hitachi may have more problems to contend with. 

 

If trains need to be taken out out of use and stripped down it may be wise to refit the dreary interior with better seats, sensible lighting and more luggage space. A buffet would be nice too. The entire passenger environment could be enhanced whilst sets were away for repair. 

 

Meanwhile the railway is paying Jaguar prices for a Honda Accord.

 

 

 

 

Please note the interior fit out of the 800s was decided by the DfT  - and they are the ones forcing the use of uncomfortable seats and minimal catering on the industry. Somehow I doubt that mentality will have changed - if anything they will be focused on getting some cash back from Hitachi to fill the massive hole in the Government finances caused by having to subsidise TOCs during the Pandemic.

 

IIRC GWR could have specified a better interior on the 802s they ordered for South West services but this would have drawn unfavourable comparisons with the DfT procured 800s - and as GWR are operated under a management contract for the DfT then I don't see that changing. Similarly with LNER and TPE interior changes are not going to be on the agenda for as long as the DfT is calling the shots.

 

As to your dinal observation - thanks to the brillant minds at the DfT deciding they would be the ones leasing the trains direct, the GWR 800s cost double what any TOC pays to lease its stock (including GWRs 802) and what's worse the lease runs for 27 years 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by phil-b259

[Railpassion]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Please note the interior fit out of the 800s was decided by the DfT  - and they are the ones forcing the use of uncomfortable seats and minimal catering on the industry. Somehow I doubt that mentality will have changed - if anything they will be focused on getting some cash back from Hitachi to fill the massive hole in the Government finances caused by having to subsidise TOCs during the Pandemic.

 

IIRC GWR could have specified a better interior on the 802s they ordered for South West services but this would have drawn unfavourable comparisons with the DfT procured 800s - and as GWR are operated under a management contract for the DfT then I don't see that changing. Similarly with LNER and TPE interior changes are not going to be on the agenda for as long as the DfT is calling the shots.

 

 

 

Indeed, the specification was the problem - even Hitachi told them that. At least the Japanese ambassador got a comfortable chair in Phil Hammond's office, and our man in Tokyo went on to lead Hitachi Europe.