Jump to content
 

Hitachi trains grounded


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

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.

 

Do we know how many units were found to have the cracking, or evidence of an onset of cracking?

 

800's and 802's or just the latter?

GWR & LNER?

Other TOC's (or OA) units?

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Do we know how many units were found to have the cracking, or evidence of an onset of cracking?

 

800's and 802's or just the latter?

GWR & LNER?

Other TOC's (or OA) units?

 

.


Short answer....no. I would think TOC’s /Hitachi would treat that as classified information. Note the press release was short on details but rather better on optimism.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
29 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

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.


Yet TPE 802’s seemingly unaffected. They are however relatively new units 

Edited by Ian Hargrave
Adding text
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
38 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

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.

Some EMUs and the early WCML electrics had a reputation as track smashers. Some stock that rode rough was tested on the ECML and it was found to be the track not the stock's design that was causing the rough ride (Details forgotten*). A combination of design (the weight/motor vibrations?) and/or track and use differences in the specific non-801 stock and how it is used perhaps.

 

I guess if we wait long enough we will find out, but not now due to commercial sensitivity.

 

*Possibly the River tanks.

Edited by john new
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A very learned discussion of the possible causes and the metallurgy thereof is going on on the WNXX forum at http://www.wnxxforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31507.  You should be able to view as a guest if you are not a member.  A lot of detailed info being posted by experts but in a way the rest of us can understand.  Well worth a trawl through on a wet afternoon - well it is here in the Thames Valley anyway!

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, john new said:

Some EMUs and the early WCML electrics had a reputation as track smashers. Some stock that rode rough was tested on the ECML and it was found to be the track not the stock's design that was causing the rough ride (Details forgotten*). A combination of design (the weight/motor vibrations?) and/or track and use differences in the specific non-801 stock and how it is used perhaps.

 

I guess if we wait long enough we will find out, but not now due to commercial sensitivity.

 

*Possibly the River tanks.

You're right - it was the SR River class 2-6-4Ts, after the Sevenoaks derailment, in, I think, 1927?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, john new said:

Some EMUs and the early WCML electrics had a reputation as track smashers. Some stock that rode rough was tested on the ECML and it was found to be the track not the stock's design that was causing the rough ride (Details forgotten*). A combination of design (the weight/motor vibrations?) and/or track and use differences in the specific non-801 stock and how it is used perhaps.

 

I guess if we wait long enough we will find out, but not now due to commercial sensitivity.

 

*Possibly the River tanks.

It's not always the vehicles one might instinctively expect to cause trouble that do so, either.

 

Back when SWT introduced the 159 units to the Waterloo-Exeter route, there was still a fair bit of 60' track towards the western end. One of our local PWay managers at the time expressed the opinion that their air suspension was impacting the joints rather harder than the much heavier Class 50s and 47s had.

 

John

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
32 minutes ago, MarkC said:

You're right - it was the SR River class 2-6-4Ts, after the Sevenoaks derailment, in, I think, 1927?

And after the Hither Green derailment in 1967, the stability of the 6-car DEMUs was tested on ECML with no hint of culpability found. A broken rail was the cause, and Civil Engineers' heads rolled. 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, john new said:

Some EMUs and the early WCML electrics had a reputation as track smashers.

I was told in the mid-70s that the WCML timetable planners had to allow for daily tamping possessions because of wear on the track. 

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

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

One of my Uncles worked at Dexion, there for life he was......Hemel Hempstead?

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

A very learned discussion of the possible causes and the metallurgy thereof is going on on the WNXX forum at http://www.wnxxforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31507.  You should be able to view as a guest if you are not a member.  A lot of detailed info being posted by experts but in a way the rest of us can understand.  Well worth a trawl through on a wet afternoon - well it is here in the Thames Valley anyway!

Looks like I have to register, oh well I’ll guess.....it’s not raining here anyway :D

Edited by boxbrownie
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I was told in the mid-70s that the WCML timetable planners had to allow for daily tamping possessions because of wear on the track. 

Must have been all those tanks they were transporting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I will ask again.

 

image.png.6805b5da21f6900833ceb8bb084c9fe4.png

 

The lifting point is NOT in the centre of the cross coach bolster (which supports the bogie). 

 

Arrangement seems to be as these photos below, (not sure what class of train the first one below is), but in both photos the jacking point is clearly marked, AND in both photos is situated off bogie centre. Jacking will cause twisting stress in both the bolster and the body due to it not being in the centre with the heavy bogie / wheelsets / transmission.. A plate welded onto the side of the body seems to be the only strengthening. 

 

A VERY poor design, let an Aircraft designer (NOT from Boeing !!!) look at it, they are the experts with Aluminium stress engineering.

 

image.png.88dd6dbaaa9096f80ffce8656dce6d31.png

 

image.png.ebf79cf75df5f1fd2cb29ce7e7306583.png

 

Expensive and long winded fix needed I reckon. Melt 'em down turn them into cans and send them to Heinz in Wigan - we'll fill 'em full of beans - save a seat for me, the wife needs a new ironing board !!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

One of our local PWay managers at the time expressed the opinion that their air suspension was impacting the joints rather harder than the much heavier Class 50s and 47s had.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I was told in the mid-70s that the WCML timetable planners had to allow for daily tamping possessions because of wear on the track. 

 

Now this IS a subject that I could write a long post about - vehicle ride and wheel-rail interaction. I spent the first six months as a management trainee at the RTC learning about all this. A most fascinating subject (another that a career can be based around) and by no means irrelevant to the matter in hand.

 

However, I'll post some pretty pictures instead which might be of interest. From over 30 years ago, this is how vehicle acceptance used to be done:

 

DSC01250.JPG.9111bb6f1584c8efb24b69e91d791182.JPG

Hook loco up to two coaches and a suitable(-ish) loco, toddle off to Old Dalby and push and pull as hard as you can (I think we got about 105mph at best)

 

DSC01251_1.jpg.e06a9a81fdf14eac5d0fcbc807dd00e3.jpg

 

DSC01251_2.jpg.24c42d908f90f949fd8164151dee826c.jpg

  • Like 17
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

That whole piece, the jacking point and the yaw damper attachment point looks to be lacking in its surface area, where it attaches to the body. My area of expertise is marine engineering, so I'm not qualified to give an expert opinion on railway rolling stock.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

ITV news south west have just shown a picture of the crack (sorry not quick enough to catch it) and to me it looks like it’s on the yaw damper bracket, I could be confusing things a bit, but it didn’t look like a straight bit of “jacking” point section.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
46 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Looks like I have to register, oh well I’ll guess.....it’s not raining here anyway :D


GCHQ/ CIA monitoring for security clearan:jester:ce .Mine is in process. Actually,we really have had a good deal of informative and authoritative posts on this forum tbh...for which as a complete engineering dummy I thank individual rail professionals/veterans for shining light on a difficult and complex subject area. I struggle to keep up but I’m slowly getting there. Knowledge,as is said,is power.Many thanks,each and all.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Ian Hargrave said:


GCHQ/ CIA monitoring for security clearan:jester:ce .Mine is in process. Actually,we really have had a good deal of informative and authoritative posts on this forum tbh...for which as a complete engineering dummy I thank individual rail professionals/veterans for shining light on a difficult and complex subject area. I struggle to keep up but I’m slowly getting there. Knowledge,as is said,is power.Many thanks,each and all.

GCHQ.....now you’ve done it......next thing you’ll be mentioning the Bude section! :triniti:

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
22 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

ITV news south west have just shown a picture of the crack (sorry not quick enough to catch it) and to me it looks like it’s on the yaw damper bracket, I could be confusing things a bit, but it didn’t look like a straight bit of “jacking” point section.

Just to clarify-by "yaw damper bracket", do you mean the piece of black (cast?) metal connecting the damper to the bolster on the body?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

One of my Uncles worked at Dexion, there for life he was......Hemel Hempstead?

If you started there and fitted in you were there for life.

You were still looked after long after the founder had retired and died.

All now gone in Hemel and the site is the main Royal Mail depot.

Bernard

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Hobby said:

Do you have to shout, Phil, a simple and polite correction was all that was needed, that was OTT.

 

Its a suggestion that has, over the years been made many many times on multiple threads (sometimes more than once in the same thread) and continually debunked as not remotely economic / practical.

 

Playing what amounts to 'Wack a Mole' in such a manor gets rather frustrating.....

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

GCHQ.....now you’ve done it......next thing you’ll be mentioning the Bude section! :triniti:

 

Is that a black helicopter I hear hovering above your house? 

 

Keep well away from your windows.....

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Just to clarify-by "yaw damper bracket", do you mean the piece of black (cast?) metal connecting the damper to the bolster on the body?

It looked to be the body part above (to which the bracket is bolted) the yaw damper bracket, it was a white/light colour, it definitely was not the section circled in red in the picture above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Just to clarify-by "yaw damper bracket", do you mean the piece of black (cast?) metal connecting the damper to the bolster on the body?

It looked to be the part of the box section to which the yaw damper is bolted, not at the lifting pad end.9B2A9DD9-F968-4340-ACD8-EE4520DB2470.jpeg.b2ab89c96f85bd98619a9b761cc4bb2f.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
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...