Hitachi trains grounded

[Gilbert]

Does anyone know if 387s are operating west of Swindon?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Gilbert

[Mike_Walker]

8 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

Does anyone know if 387s are operating west of Swindon?

Not in passenger service at the moment.  There was a test run yesterday and crew training and route approval is underway for them to work through to Cardiff.  This will take some time to achieve and an interim stage may be to operate as far as Bristol Parkway.  You will appreciate that the situation is still very fluid with GWR management working horrendously long hours trying to keep some form of service operating.

 

The biggest issue is the 387s have only ever worked on LTV services for GWR which are all DOO-P which is not authorised west of Didcot.  Therefore no GWR guards/conductors/train managers - call them what you will - have trained on them whilst LTV drivers don't sign west of Swindon (They are stabled at Swindon but run ECS to/from Didcot and you don't have to carry a guard on a class 3 or 5 working), likewise HSS drivers have not been trained on 387s as there's never been a need for it.  So now either LTV drivers have to learn the road to Cardiff or HSS drivers learn 387s.  Either way, Covid  restrictions hamper this as you can only have one extra person in the cab under strict conditions which makes the whole process very long-winded.

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Mike_Walker
Additional details added.

[Gilbert]

Thanks Mike - that's really helpful

Chris

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Two thirds wont be bad - 66%, what is the contracted availability rate because the difference between that and the actual numbers will be key to how many services they have to cut.

 

The other question is whether 66% is the available to use number or that is the number of units fit to run and then maintenance has to be removed from that number too.

 

But at least there are trains

Probably the latter, and that's by the end of next week, not immediately.

 

Philip was asking about the resumption of the normal service, which (on GW) AIUI needs all bar four or five sets available.

 

Getting the glass more than a bit over half full is clearly still some way off.

 

John

 

 

[rodent279]

58 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

As I understand it, the vast majority if not all of the problems have been found on the non-driving vehicles.  Of the original yaw-damper cracks, all were above the motor not trailer bogies although I don't know if this holds true for the jacking point problem.

When you say non-driving vehicles, do you mean vehicles without a driving cab, or unpowered vehicles?

Just to avoid confusion, and to be pedantic!

[Mike_Walker]

9 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

When you say non-driving vehicles, do you mean vehicles without a driving cab, or unpowered vehicles?

Just to avoid confusion, and to be pedantic!

Those without cabs!   Sorry, industry convention...

[Coryton]

Just now, Mike_Walker said:

Those without cabs!   Sorry, industry convention...

 

Not in the industry, but it didn't occur to me that driving vehicle would mean anything other than...well...a vehicle the train is driven from.

 

 

[Coryton]

23 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Probably the latter, and that's by the end of next week, not immediately.

 

Philip was asking about the resumption of the normal service, which (on GW) AIUI needs all bar four or five sets available.

 

Getting the glass more than a bit over half full is clearly still some way off.

 

 

Were they previously planning on a resumption of the full timetable on Sunday?

 

The "pandemic" timetable they were running up until the cracks were found must have been possible with a significantly reduced number of units.

[Dunsignalling]

3 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

Were they previously planning on a resumption of the full timetable on Sunday?

 

The "pandemic" timetable they were running up until the cracks were found must have been possible with a significantly reduced number of units.

Not sure, but at least one other TOC (SWR) is going back to something much closer to normal from Monday.

 

John

[Siberian Snooper]

All this brings forward the need to get electrification extended to Bristol as at least the 387s could provide some sort of through service to Paddington, with or without guards/conductors/train managers and permit travel from the southwest to London with only a change at Bristol. Which is much better than the 2 changes currently required at Bristol and Swindon.

 

 

[Ian Hargrave]

15 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

All this brings forward the need to get electrification extended to Bristol as at least the 387s could provide some sort of through service to Paddington, with or without guards/conductors/train managers and permit travel from the southwest to London with only a change at Bristol. Which is much better than the 2 changes currently required at Bristol and Swindon.

 

 

There are a number of through Paddington-Plymouth direct services using IET units today btw, The South Wales mainline has a much improved service using them too. RTT also shows the service extended to PZ . 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Ian Hargrave
Adding text

[Coryton]

6 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

All this brings forward the need to get electrification extended to Bristol as at least the 387s could provide some sort of through service to Paddington, with or without guards/conductors/train managers and permit travel from the southwest to London with only a change at Bristol. Which is much better than the 2 changes currently required at Bristol and Swindon.

 

Or if you could use 387's on long distance services, run them to Cardiff and let Bristol have the 800's.

 

53 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Not sure, but at least one other TOC (SWR) is going back to something much closer to normal from Monday.

 

Interesting.

 

The Transport for Wales timetable change seems to be some minor tweaks and a few services removed.

 

[Oldddudders]

3 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

The thing that puzzled me when that drawing was first released is the red areas in each picture seem to be different parts of the box section, diagram 1 appears to highlight the damper bracket support section of the component, where as diagram 2 appears to highlight what I take to be the lifting pad area.....which is the opposite end.

Thankyou. I thought I was being thick. It was this that first made me suspicious that the Joint Statement - being headed by Hitachi, who are merely the supplier - is a platitude to reassure those who have no need to know more. The issue of Japanese culture and the humiliation of admitting failure just adds to that. 

[john new]

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

As I understand it, the vast majority if not all of the problems have been found on the non-driving vehicles.  Of the original yaw-damper cracks, all were above the motor not trailer bogies although I don't know if this holds true for the jacking point problem.

As a layman that seems a logical probability deduction. An end coach in the rake has one point of coupling attachment to the rest of the train so a bogie has any wiggle, waggle and bounce forces from itself and one other - a car within the rake has two such attachments so will have additional stresses from elsewhere in the train also acting on it. Has that layman's logic any grounding in engineering theory? Genuinely interested.

[Mike_Walker]

First c2c unit in GWR passenger service: 387301 on 2K46, the 14:12 Reading - Newbury and 2K41, the 15:07 Newbury to Reading.  Possibly more 387s to come from another source.

 

Latest estimates are that it will take around 18 months to repair the GWR IET fleet.

[TomScrut]

How come a deal wasn't struck for GWR or LNER to run TPE/HT 802s? There's at least 1 TPE 802 gadding up and down the WCML on what I presume are mileage accumulation runs and at least 1 HT on driver training. Surely the current situation would mean they should do the right thing and help GWR out?

 

Or could the trains be not suitable for passenger carrying yet OK to drive otherwise in terms of the cracking issue? Either from a public liability perspective or from the train not having a payload.

[boxbrownie]

3 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Thankyou. I thought I was being thick.

That’s what they are hoping.....

[The Pilotman]

4 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

First c2c unit in GWR passenger service: 387301 on 2K46, the 14:12 Reading - Newbury and 2K41, the 15:07 Newbury to Reading.  Possibly more 387s to come from another source.

Ah, so that’s what went past me on the B&H this afternoon. I had to travel from Hayes to Newbury and back today and was quite surprised to see how many IETs (both 5 and 9 car sets) were out running, plus a few 12-coach class 387 formations enjoying a run on the main lines. 

[Ian Hargrave]

4 hours ago, TomScrut said:

How come a deal wasn't struck for GWR or LNER to run TPE/HT 802s? There's at least 1 TPE 802 gadding up and down the WCML on what I presume are mileage accumulation runs and at least 1 HT on driver training. Surely the current situation would mean they should do the right thing and help GWR out?

 

Or could the trains be not suitable for passenger carrying yet OK to drive otherwise in terms of the cracking issue? Either from a public liability perspective or from the train not having a payload.

 
From tomorrow,LNER reconnects with both Aberdeen and Inverness...obviously on bi mode. What excellent news just in time for the tourist season...COVID-19 permitting. Bravo to all who made this possible.

[DY444]

14 hours ago, TomScrut said:

How come a deal wasn't struck for GWR or LNER to run TPE/HT 802s? There's at least 1 TPE 802 gadding up and down the WCML on what I presume are mileage accumulation runs and at least 1 HT on driver training. Surely the current situation would mean they should do the right thing and help GWR out?

 

Or could the trains be not suitable for passenger carrying yet OK to drive otherwise in terms of the cracking issue? Either from a public liability perspective or from the train not having a payload.

 

Leaving aside the issue of whether they are required by their home operators they can't run at 125mph on the GWML as the rules are now so that's probably one factor.

[rodent279]

On 12/05/2021 at 20:46, woodenhead said:

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.

Even the legendary & much loved MK3, one of BR's best designs, was not a single homogeneous fleet. Although ostensibly the same vehicles were used in HST's and the loco hauled WCML rakes, you couldn't just drop an HST vehicle into a WCML rake, or v.v. You couldn't even simply transfer a whole rake from HST use to loco hauled use. There were arrangements for loco haulage of HST rakes, involving barrier vehicles and generator cars, but this was only a stop gap to get through the period when HST power cars were having coolant problems. There were also differences within the HST (& loco hauled?) MK3 fleets, which meant some could work on to the SR, some couldn't.

Point is, there's always been differences, though I'd agree the multiple different coupling systems etc doesn't make life easier, especially when a TOC either gets enlarged, or taken over.

[rodent279]

On 13/05/2021 at 13:52, 'CHARD said:

 

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

I take it the whole train has to be lifted in one move-you can't lift an individual vehicle?

[corneliuslundie]

Then let's go back to Mk 1s. Some currently for sale:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57099124

And plenty which could be borrowed, I'm sure.

Probably a bit rough riding at 125 mph though, and not too many locos around with steam heating (or vacuum brakes). Oh, well, only an idea. But comfortable seats.

Jonathan

 

[Mike_Walker]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I take it the whole train has to be lifted in one move-you can't lift an individual vehicle?

Correct.  Pretty impressive to watch until things go wrong as happened to that Hull Trains' 222 some years ago!

[rodent279]

2 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

Correct.  Pretty impressive to watch until things go wrong as happened to that Hull Trains' 222 some years ago!

Complete with bogies, or can they be detached?