Hitachi trains grounded

[Mike_Walker]

1 hour ago, david.hill64 said:

Yes, what you post is all true, but it requires effort and agreement. UK could for example have put forward a legitimate case for electrification clearances to be a special case as these are closely aligned to gauging, but didn't so we end up with a network that isn't compliant with the TSI (not that it matters for existing installations) and an inability to afford future electrification projects because of the civil works requirements. (And I admit in this case the ORR wanting to take an unreasonably pessimistic view on safety and the application of electricity at work regs). Yes you can get derogations from TSI's (eg Crossrail) but these are in the gift of the European Commission.

 

The rolling stock TSI and EN12663 do not allow any specific exemption for UK to deviate from specified acceleration levels mandated in the standard (at least in the versions that I have - 2014) so unless I have missed something I'll stand by my statement that it would have been illegal to specify different load cases for the 800s. (Even if DfT had the gumption to understand it might be necessary).

 

Design scrutiny used to be a very valuable tool that BR used to ensure standards were interpreted correctly and it worked. BR had developed goal setting standards supported by codes of practice. Quite different to the continental approach where standards traditionally prescribed engineering solutions. BR representatives on the drafting committees lost the battle to continue the UK approach. Nowadays acceptance is based more towards ticking the boxes that the standard mandates. The absurdity of this approach was brought home to me when assessing Shinkanshen stock for Taiwan. Our newly recruited German engineer became very frustrated at the delay in getting his PC up and running. It transpired that he had brought with him the entire suite of DIN standards for rolling stock with him on CD and wanted to assess whether the design was acceptable or not by checking against these standards rather than assessing whether the vehicles complied with the contract. He didn't know how to do anything else. I think the industry generally has lost out by adopting the current approach, but I am probably in a minority.

 

So my point is that if the new vehicles are designed to EN12663, then CAF and Hitachi will probably have met the contract requirements, even if the vehicles are not robust enough to cope with UK conditions. (And I said before that I haven't seen the procurement specs and design calculations for these trains so readily admit I could be wrong). 

 

Only the lawyers will win.

 

 

Out of interest, how does us now being outside the EU affect our having to adhere to EU regulations?  I have in mind particularly the clearances for electrification which have added enormously to recent schemes in this country and appear to be totally unnecessary especially if one looks at the results of NR's close examination of clearances under the notorious Steventon bridge which now allows electric operation at almost full speed (110mph v 125mph).

[LNER4479]

16 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

Out of interest, how does us now being outside the EU affect our having to adhere to EU regulations?  I have in mind particularly the clearances for electrification which have added enormously to recent schemes in this country and appear to be totally unnecessary especially if one looks at the results of NR's close examination of clearances under the notorious Steventon bridge which now allows electric operation at almost full speed (110mph v 125mph).

Like many situations, on Day 1, nothing changes. RIR is amended by the EU exit regulations but that largely just changes the terminology - all the TSIs are adopted as National Technical Specification Notices, the Notified Bodies have become Approved Bodies and so on.

 

Over time, the standards might - and probably will - change. The issue is though that so much new kit has now been built to EU standards that changing it all brings its own issues. A risk-based approach, with a healthy dose of good 'ol British 'reasonableness', free from the need to comply with EU legislation going forward, may well be the order of the day. Only time will tell.

Edited May 13, 2021 by LNER4479

[boxbrownie]

Just announced on BBC apparently services will be back in action very soon, I heard (from the train room so might be a bit wrong) that Hitachi or the TOCs regard the cracks as safe and will repair as and when.

 

edit.....ah yes, should have read the post a couple above, same press release it appears.

Edited May 13, 2021 by boxbrownie

[boxbrownie]

That diagram shows the lifting point and the damper bracket attached, although so far Hitachi have not stated the cracks are a result of stress from the continuously under load bracket or the occasional lifting during servicing, I know which one my money is on 

[Ron Ron Ron]

11 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Just announced on BBC apparently services will be back in action very soon, I heard (from the train room so might be a bit wrong) that Hitachi or the TOCs regard the cracks as safe and will repair as and when.

 

edit.....ah yes, should have read the post a couple above, same press release it appears.

 

Link here....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57100278

 

 

.

[Oldddudders]

Having read the joint statement, this is as clear as Brown Windsor soup. Every train that has left the depot since it went live has been inspected by appropriate engineers and deemed safe to run. Last week there were concerns by those engineers, quite rightly voiced, and almost no trains left the depot. Now there are plans to do what? What has changed? The safety criteria? Have the engineers been told to shut up - there's too much money at stake? 

 

Somebody somewhere has climbed down. I do not like the sound of that. 

[Ian Hargrave]

5 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Having read the joint statement, this is as clear as Brown Windsor soup. Every train that has left the depot since it went live has been inspected by appropriate engineers and deemed safe to run. Last week there were concerns by those engineers, quite rightly voiced, and almost no trains left the depot. Now there are plans to do what? What has changed? The safety criteria? Have the engineers been told to shut up - there's too much money at stake? 

 

Somebody somewhere has climbed down. I do not like the sound of that. 

 

Doctor Pangloss...”All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds”. ( Voltaire “Candide” )

[APOLLO]

1 hour ago, HillsideDepot said:

From https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hitachi-rail-global/pressreleases/hitachi-rail-and-rail-industry-agree-service-recovery-plan-to-get-trains-back-3099440 

 

 

 

Looks odd to me, not in the centre (of the cross beam) so asking for lots of stress to be induced when lifting.

 

Brit15

[Coryton]

21 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Having read the joint statement, this is as clear as Brown Windsor soup. Every train that has left the depot since it went live has been inspected by appropriate engineers and deemed safe to run. Last week there were concerns by those engineers, quite rightly voiced, and almost no trains left the depot. Now there are plans to do what? What has changed? The safety criteria? Have the engineers been told to shut up - there's too much money at stake? 

 

Somebody somewhere has climbed down. I do not like the sound of that. 

 

Or....

 

We've found some cracks. That doesn't look good! We'd better take the trains out of service while we work out how serious this is and whether trains can still run with some level of cracking and if so what that level should be.

 

OK a few days later we now have criteria for when we can put trains back in service and many have passed.

 

I forget where I read it now but I thought that there was supposed to be oversight from a independent organisation so we aren't relying on the say-so of those with a lot to lose for every day a train is idle.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Coryton

[Wheatley]

23 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Somebody somewhere has climbed down. I do not like the sound of that. 

Or the collective Hitachi/ORR/TOC engineering teams now have a full and accurate picture of the problem, which we (and the press) don't. 

 

Edit - i.e. what Coryton said at the same time !

 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Wheatley

[Gwiwer]

21 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Have the engineers been told to shut up - there's too much money at stake? 

 

Somebody somewhere has climbed down

Or has someone in that area of expertise been roundly told that they have insufficient knowledge of the subject matter (as per this poster although the finger was "not specifically pointed") and to "revise their opinions".

 

This is not a matter to be brushed under the carpet.  But if the problem was never a problem in terms of operational safety in the first place, as is now being suggested (though not explicitly stated) by the press release, then someone's over-cautious but no doubt safety-focussed comments may need to be dealt with appropriately.  

[Mike_Walker]

4 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

Or....

 

We've found some cracks. That doesn't look good! We'd better take the trains out of service while we work out how serious this is and whether trains can still run with some level of cracking and if so what that level should be.

 

OK a few days later we now have criteria for when we can put trains back in service and many have passed.

 

I forget where I read it now but I thought that there was supposed to be oversight from a independent organisation so we aren't relying on the say-so of those with a lot to lose for every day a train is idle.

 

 

Correct, Ricardo Rail are the independent overseers.

 

[Mike_Walker]

3 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Or has someone in that area of expertise been roundly told that they have insufficient knowledge of the subject matter (as per this poster although the finger was "not specifically pointed") and to "revise their opinions".

 

This is not a matter to be brushed under the carpet.  But if the problem was never a problem in terms of operational safety in the first place, as is now being suggested (though not explicitly stated) by the press release, then someone's over-cautious but no doubt safety-focussed comments may need to be dealt with appropriately.  

You are taking a very unfair view. 

 

These trains were found to have cracks.  Initially, nobody knew how serious or extensive the problem was so, as a precaution, the entire fleet was stopped for investigation.  After a herculean effort which has involved engineers from Hitachi, the TOCs and Ricardo Rail (as independent overseers) an understanding has been reached as to what is and is not safe allowing trains to be returned to service subject to close and regular examination.  Nobody is being "told that they have insufficient knowledge of the subject matter", far from it.  Some of the most experienced engineers in the field here and in Japan are on the case.

 

Please stop posting such negative comments as you have over the last couple of days which only show you have little understanding of the problem or how today's railway works. 

 

At the end of the day, nobody is going to sign off an unfit unit for service and lay themselves open to criminal charges should something go wrong.

[Phil Bullock]

25 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Looks odd to me, not in the centre (of the cross beam) so asking for lots of stress to be induced when lifting.

 

Brit15

Just as long as the cross beam hasn’t come off the treadle ....

 

 

[david.hill64]

45 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Looks odd to me, not in the centre (of the cross beam) so asking for lots of stress to be induced when lifting.

 

Brit15

And if you look at the upper diagram, the affected area is above the yaw damper bracket, while the lower diagram shows the lifting point highlighted...................

[corneliuslundie]

It is confusing, but it is labelled as the lifting point in the upper diagram. Are we looking at the other side in the lower diagram?

Jonathan

[APOLLO]

6 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

And if you look at the upper diagram, the affected area is above the yaw damper bracket, while the lower diagram shows the lifting point highlighted...................

 

Are there two lifting points per bogie side - i.e Eight per coach ? Diagram is not clear

 

Brit15

[boxbrownie]

2 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Are there two lifting points per bogie side - i.e Eight per coach ? Diagram is not clear

 

Brit15

Maybe they don’t want it too clear......

 

[Re6/6]

Brilliant Phil!

['CHARD]

25 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Are there two lifting points per bogie side - i.e Eight per coach ? Diagram is not clear

 

Brit15

 

Four Mechan jacks are used to perform synchronised lifts of each vehicle in a train, one per corner.

[rodent279]

7 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Four Mechan jacks are used to perform synchronised lifts of each vehicle in a train, one per corner.

And I'd guess that any lack of synchronisation between the 4 jacks would lead to higher stresses in the lifting points and plates.

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Yes, what you post is all true, but it requires effort and agreement. UK could for example have put forward a legitimate case for electrification clearances to be a special case as these are closely aligned to gauging, but didn't so we end up with a network that isn't compliant with the TSI (not that it matters for existing installations) and an inability to afford future electrification projects because of the civil works requirements. (And I admit in this case the ORR wanting to take an unreasonably pessimistic view on safety and the application of electricity at work regs). Yes you can get derogations from TSI's (eg Crossrail) but these are in the gift of the European Commission.

 

The rolling stock TSI and EN12663 do not allow any specific exemption for UK to deviate from specified acceleration levels mandated in the standard (at least in the versions that I have - 2014) so unless I have missed something I'll stand by my statement that it would have been illegal to specify different load cases for the 800s. (Even if DfT had the gumption to understand it might be necessary).

 

Design scrutiny used to be a very valuable tool that BR used to ensure standards were interpreted correctly and it worked. BR had developed goal setting standards supported by codes of practice. Quite different to the continental approach where standards traditionally prescribed engineering solutions. BR representatives on the drafting committees lost the battle to continue the UK approach. Nowadays acceptance is based more towards ticking the boxes that the standard mandates. The absurdity of this approach was brought home to me when assessing Shinkanshen stock for Taiwan. Our newly recruited German engineer became very frustrated at the delay in getting his PC up and running. It transpired that he had brought with him the entire suite of DIN standards for rolling stock with him on CD and wanted to assess whether the design was acceptable or not by checking against these standards rather than assessing whether the vehicles complied with the contract. He didn't know how to do anything else. I think the industry generally has lost out by adopting the current approach, but I am probably in a minority.

 

So my point is that if the new vehicles are designed to EN12663, then CAF and Hitachi will probably have met the contract requirements, even if the vehicles are not robust enough to cope with UK conditions. (And I said before that I haven't seen the procurement specs and design calculations for these trains so readily admit I could be wrong). 

 

Only the lawyers will win.

 

 

That is how I was taught to do things and I find the modern approach rather strange.

In my day a drawing was produced and before being issued it was checked by QA. It had to be in the accepted format which as well as the usual details had to have data presented in a certain way and had to be in accordance with strict rules as to what had to be included and what, just as importantly, had to be left out. QA would check that any information was correct to the relevant standards. This included material specifications, weld design and a host of other things. A testing and checking procedure would also be written up at this stage. 

These ideas seemed to be pretty wide in their use at that time as we would talk to people in other companies to check if our procedures were in line with theirs. An example of this was that their was an unofficial round robin of tensile testing of steel. This involved Dexion, where I worked, two of the big motor car companies and a steel mill. Knowing that we all got results that were pretty close gave us confidence in both the equipment and the procedures, as well as letting the mill know that what their test certificates stated could and would be checked.

Bernard

[Calidore]

Heading back through King’s Cross, 91110 just came to a stand on platform 1 (thought I’d seen a 91 here for the last time long ago!). There do seem to be a fair few LNER units available — 801210/215/216 all in attendance.

[Mike_Walker]

4 minutes ago, Calidore said:

Heading back through King’s Cross, 91110 just came to a stand on platform 1 (thought I’d seen a 91 here for the last time long ago!). There do seem to be a fair few LNER units available — 801210/215/216 all in attendance.

But note all are 801s - the all-electric version.  They seem hardly affected, it's the heavier bi-modes that are and on GWR, the 802s are the worst.

[Ian Hargrave]

1 minute ago, Calidore said:

Heading back through King’s Cross, 91110 just came to a stand on platform 1 (thought I’d seen a 91 here for the last time long ago!). There do seem to be a fair few LNER units available — 801210/215/216 all in attendance.

 
LNER have ECML online timetables for today & tomorrow. The situation appears much improved .No service as yet to Aberdeen or Inverness though. The bi mode Azuma seems a rare bird.Presumably they are a more complex unit to access for examination and possible repair.The inference one might take from this and the situation on the GWR is that the faults are mainly with those units bi modally configured but there is little hard evidence as yet to support this.Full marks to LNER for the way it’s providing up to date information on its website