Hitachi trains grounded

[62613]

37 minutes ago, rab said:

In the drawing office where I worked, we always tried to

keep the software on all our computers at the same level.

That way anyone could read a file created on any computer.

 

Same here! Would have thought it was the normal way of doing things. All machines updated at the same point as well.

[Wheatley]

Five and a bit pages of discussion about standardisation later, the fact remains that UK railways have never had a single standardised system of braking, coupling or MU control on every train. That would suggest that the end user has never considered it necessary or even desireable. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Well, I can't see any cracks from where I'm standing...

[Coryton]

4 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Well, I can't see any cracks from where I'm standing...

 

 

Steady on now....pictures of a Hitachi train in this thread?

[rodent279]

58 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Well, I can't see any cracks from where I'm standing...

Saltford/Newton St Loe?

[Dunsignalling]

9 hours ago, Wheatley said:

Five and a bit pages of discussion about standardisation later, the fact remains that UK railways have never had a single standardised system of braking, coupling or MU control on every train. That would suggest that the end user has never considered it necessary or even desireable. 

BR as a whole might not, but the Southern Region got pretty close to making anything they had work with almost everything else they had. Including diesel locos (Class 33/1) being able to work in multiple with EMUs.

 

John 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

8 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Saltford/Newton St Loe?

Spot-on! From the hillside by Newton St Loe - A4 road in foreground.
The old MR line between Mangotsfield and Bath, as you'll know, was so close here. Wonder what would've happened if BR had built a connecting line in the early 1950s between the two? 

Anyway, a bit off-topic.

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Spot-on! From the hillside by Newton St Loe - A4 road in foreground.
The old MR line between Mangotsfield and Bath, as you'll know, was so close here. Wonder what would've happened if BR had built a connecting line in the early 1950s between the two? 

Anyway, a bit off-topic.

<Even more thread drift>I've run and cycled along that railway path a few times in the last decade, and going back a bit further, my dad fired along it, from Nottingham. I think I know the very field you were in, it's a good spot, haven't been there for a while, but I've been using my Zenit EM recently, which doesn't lend itself to pulled shots.</even more thread drift>

Edited May 18, 2021 by rodent279

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

BR as a whole might not, but the Southern Region got pretty close to making anything they had work with almost everything else they had. Including diesel locos (Class 33/1) being able to work in multiple with EMUs.

 

John 

And with most diesels being blue star, and dmu's being blue square, BR didn't do too badly elsewhere.

My point though, is that if braking systems are controlled through software, via an auto coupler of some description, then two units built from different manufacturers, with auto couplers that are mechanically compatible, should have software that uses a common protocol to control brakes.

It then does not matter about what manufacturer, software revision etc, if they work to a common protocol, different software will be able to talk to each other and control the brakes.

That is how is done in many other areas-it's why your can use a 10 year old Nokia phone on a new network, with network infrastructure provided by a mix of different manufacturers.

I'm not suggesting that all units should be able to work in multiple with full functionality, but basics such as brakes, and perhaps doors, if they are controlled by software, should use a common protocol, that removes dependence on software manufacturer/revision.

Edited May 18, 2021 by rodent279

[rodent279]

Ok, back on topic.

Question for those who are experts in welding, especially fsw. I can understand vehicles needing to be stripped of electronics, or having the electronics isolated, for conventional arc welding of some description to happen. I disconnect the alternator on my car before I do any welding.

FSW, as I understand it, involves a rotating tool, which creates heat as it rotates, and causes the metal to plasticise, and mix together, forming the weld. There is no electric arc, so why is it necessary to strip/isolate the electronics?

[Bernard Lamb]

36 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Ok, back on topic.

Question for those who are experts in welding, especially fsw. I can understand vehicles needing to be stripped of electronics, or having the electronics isolated, for conventional arc welding of some description to happen. I disconnect the alternator on my car before I do any welding.

FSW, as I understand it, involves a rotating tool, which creates heat as it rotates, and causes the metal to plasticise, and mix together, forming the weld. There is no electric arc, so why is it necessary to strip/isolate the electronics?

While FSW is a very efficient method for manufacture it does require the materials to be firmly held in position.  It also generates a certain amount of heat. Can they get the areas to be repaired in place in an FSW welding machine? Or are they considering repairs on the vehicles using a different process? Are the electronics going to be at risk from the heat? Without detail drawings I cannot make further comment. So far nobody is willing to post such information.

Bernard 

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Ok, back on topic.

Question for those who are experts in welding, especially fsw. I can understand vehicles needing to be stripped of electronics, or having the electronics isolated, for conventional arc welding of some description to happen. I disconnect the alternator on my car before I do any welding.

FSW, as I understand it, involves a rotating tool, which creates heat as it rotates, and causes the metal to plasticise, and mix together, forming the weld. There is no electric arc, so why is it necessary to strip/isolate the electronics?

Apart from the heat issues, I would suspect that there's the possibility of electrical currents being generated during the process, and these can be deadly to electronics.

 

Mark

[frobisher]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

BR as a whole might not, but the Southern Region got pretty close to making anything they had work with almost everything else they had. Including diesel locos (Class 33/1) being able to work in multiple with EMUs.

 

Mind you wasn't that more as a result of trying to maintain common working practices rather than compatibility (note the DEMUs couldn't work with the EMUs) and the 455s and 456s were notable as an example of this being somewhat misapplied (Souther Region doing a "not invented here" with regards a new MU standard)?

[frobisher]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

And with most diesels being blue star, and dmu's being blue square, BR didn't do too badly elsewhere.

 

And of course the fact that pretty much all of the AM series of EMUs had a common MU standard (which of course was different but similar to SR's one).

[boxbrownie]

12 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Well, I can't see any cracks from where I'm standing...

Middle left of the bushes I see a crack there......oh no, just a hiker taken short.....

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Ok, back on topic.

Question for those who are experts in welding, especially fsw. I can understand vehicles needing to be stripped of electronics, or having the electronics isolated, for conventional arc welding of some description to happen. I disconnect the alternator on my car before I do any welding.

FSW, as I understand it, involves a rotating tool, which creates heat as it rotates, and causes the metal to plasticise, and mix together, forming the weld. There is no electric arc, so why is it necessary to strip/isolate the electronics?

From the picture I saw shown briefly on TV news (not to say they were given the correct picture, but looked convincing) it appeared to be a crack on the beam/box section to which the yaw damper bracket bolts, it was a heavy bit of ally section to which FSW is not so suited being rather more difficult to access both sides without completely dismantling the whole frame, needed more of a seam weld along the crack propagation.

 

That is only my opinion of a brief view of what might have been not even the correct section being shown, as has been said above, not very much actual information so far.

 

TBH it’s all guess work here anyway.

[Dunsignalling]

39 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

And of course the fact that pretty much all of the AM series of EMUs had a common MU standard (which of course was different but similar to SR's one).

But, back then, there was little or no territory in which 25kv and SR third rail electrification overlapped. There was therefore no anticipated scenario in which the two categories of unit would meet buffer-to-buffer.

 

Any disadvantage would therefore not become apparent, unlike the current situation, where units that are very similar to one another, and work over common routes, are either unable to couple at all, or cannot work together if they will.

 

The dominant SR standard (as has been pointed out, there were a few exceptions) worked well within the relatively self-contained Southern Region of the time. Much has changed since, and a similar level of compatibility, even within  the bounds of the former SR, would be much harder (if not impossible) to achieve now. That said, I consider it should be possible to get a lot closer to it than is currently the case. 

 

John

Edited May 18, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Oldddudders]

3 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

But, back then, there was little or no territory in which 25kv and SR third rail electrification overlapped. There was therefore no anticipated scenario in which the two categories of unit would meet buffer-to-buffer.

Blame Thameslink. That all started with a £100k study paid for by the GLC, which the then L&SE Sector latched onto. After that the toothpaste was out of the tube, especially when Eurostar electrified the WLL. 

[corneliuslundie]

Just go back to five link couplings and side safety chains. I have a feeling that they were "standard" longer than most modern trains' lives.

And a wire between the vehicles to actuate the brakes.

Simples.

More seriously, there were real problems with compatibility on the LB&SCR when it came to control pipe connections between locos and carriages, in one case leading to an accident. So it is not a new issue.

Jonathan

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, frobisher said:

 

And of course the fact that pretty much all of the AM series of EMUs had a common MU standard (which of course was different but similar to SR's one).

The key point here is that all of those emu's, whether or not they could work in MU, could at least couple up, with functioning brakes. So a failed unit in a tunnel could at least be shoved out of the way, with pax onboard, fully braked. Maybe not at full line speed, but at least moveable, and braked.

AIUI, there are emu's around, with mechanically compatible couplers, that can couple up, but because of software that can't talk to each other, can't work the brakes from each other.

Edited May 18, 2021 by rodent279

[NIK]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

BR as a whole might not, but the Southern Region got pretty close to making anything they had work with almost everything else they had. Including diesel locos (Class 33/1) being able to work in multiple with EMUs.

 

John 

Hi,

 

Were the Class 33/1s only compatible with 3/4TCs trailer units?. Then the Class 33/1 could be controlled from the driving cab of the TC.

 

Perhaps you were thinking Class 73 Electro Diesels?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Dunsignalling]

17 minutes ago, NIK said:

Hi,

 

Were the Class 33/1s only compatible with 3/4TCs trailer units?. Then the Class 33/1 could be controlled from the driving cab of the TC.

 

Perhaps you were thinking Class 73 Electro Diesels?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

Possibly, but I once saw a 4REP+TC+TC+33/1 formation and the 33 was powering though it was on the back, and I inferred that the input from the driver of the REP was getting through to it. Also, 33/1s could often be seen awaiting the call as Woking's "Thunderbird", interchangeably with 73s.

 

On reflection, of course, there might have been a driver aboard the 33/1. AFAIK , a 33/1 could work in multiple with a 73 (though possibly not the first series), and those could work with EMus. By extrapolation, a 33/1 + EMu should function, even if it might rarely become necessary.

 

John  

Edited May 18, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Blame Thameslink. That all started with a £100k study paid for by the GLC, which the then L&SE Sector latched onto. After that the toothpaste was out of the tube, especially when Eurostar electrified the WLL. 

And the WLL was something of a peculiar bit of electrification.  Plus the way in which it was used was - to my eyes - even more peculiar when units came to a stand on North pole bank to changeover from ohle to 3rd rail and vice versa.  However I suppose at least doing it that way avoided the possibility of carrying on with the pan up and inadvertently removing it as it hit the Westway bridge just after the overhead had come to an end and before the pan had time to auto-llower from o the overheight position (as happened with a 373 on one occasion after it had incorrectly left NPI on 25kv power). 

[NIK]

43 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Possibly, but I once saw a 4REP+TC+TC+33/1 formation and the 33 was powering though it was on the back, and I inferred that the input from the driver of the REP was getting through to it. Also, 33/1s could often be seen awaiting the call as Woking's "Thunderbird", interchangeably with 73s.

 

On reflection, of course, there might have been a driver aboard the 33/1. AFAIK , a 33/1 could work in multiple with a 73 (though possibly not the first series), and those could work with EMus. By extrapolation, a 33/1 + EMu should function, even if it might rarely become necessary.

 

John  

Hi,

 

Yes, sorry I took Class 33/1 to work with EMUs to mean the Class 33/1 could control the drive system of the EMU rather than the EMU driving cab being used to control the power unit of the Class 33/1.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Not Captain Kernow]

11 minutes ago, NIK said:

Yes, sorry I took Class 33/1 to work with EMUs to mean the Class 33/1 could control the drive system of the EMU rather than the EMU driving cab being used to control the power unit of the Class 33/1.

There were many booked workings with the 33/1 + TC + EMU combination.  The driver was located in the front cab of the train in whatever formation and controlled the EMU and the Class 33/1/.  It didn't matter if the 33 was at the back, front, or even in the middle, there was no need for a driver to be actually in the 33 unless it was leading.

 

Regular saturday booked working Portsmouth to Waterloo as below, 4-CIG + 4-TC + 33/1