Jump to content

Hitachi trains grounded


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

Chosen because it was probably a faster route to delivery and acceptance - a ready to go production line and a signed off design for UK trains plus a there are Hitachi maintenance depots all over the country now because of the massive fleet.

and there wasn't a massive amount of choice for off the peg bi-mode, 125mph units. Still isn't! Massive digression (please forgive) but Alstom missed a trick when they built the 4 extra WCML Pendos; they should have built a 5th one with a large diesel engine between the cab and the passenger area in each driving car and tried flogging it as a bi-mode with UK acceptance, albeit with C4 restriction and lardy-arse carriages...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Bus drivers would generally get a familarisation on new types, but that may be limited to just showing them where the controls are and how they differ to other types. Difference on the railway is that a Class 800 is 45 years newer in design vs a HST and so is radically different to the extent of training pretty much from scratch traction-wise.

 

A bit like throwing somebody who had only ever driven a Morris Minor within 15 miles of home into a Tesla with eight times the power and festooned with unfamiliar gadgetry and expecting them to complete a trip to the other end of the country without incident.... 

 

John

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Question. The IEPs have been in service on GwR longer than LNER. Therefore fatigue cycles (breaking, track jolts, lifts etc) will be higher on the original class 800 5 cars. Therefore why has the lner fleet been withdrawn? Surely like in aircraft, a problem can be foind and  highlighted for checking after x amount of time, miles, cycles etc. Similarly the newer class 802 in gwr should not yet have the same wear as the 800s.

Is my thought process/logic completely wrong?

 

Also having heard and felt the suspension bottoming out on many class 800 runs im not surprised there are now cracks.

 

Finally there should be a thunderbird fleet of warm stord 9 -car hst kept for emergency fleets across the network. They have a hogh RA, and are very robust and reliable. Its an insult that a serviceable hsts are being scrapped when their replacements are not fit for purpose day in day out. If I were commuting now and would have a paragraph of choice words for the tocs involved.

Doesn't appear to be working like that.  It is reported that 32 cracks have been found across the GWR 802s, the newest (plus 3 TPE 802s have been stopped) whilst this morning only five units are reported as being available for GWR use which are 800002, 800006, 800009, 800014 and 800311 all of which are the earliest including, significantly, 002 which was one of the pre-production examples and did much of the early test running.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

and there wasn't a massive amount of choice for off the peg bi-mode, 125mph units. Still isn't! Massive digression (please forgive) but Alstom missed a trick when they built the 4 extra WCML Pendos; they should have built a 5th one with a large diesel engine between the cab and the passenger area in each driving car and tried flogging it as a bi-mode with UK acceptance, albeit with C4 restriction and lardy-arse carriages...

They probably knew by then that every TOC with HSTs or doing long distance was going to be steered in the direction of the 80x trains because they had the Government stamp of approval from day one.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

f somebody shot somebody with a nail gun on a building site and hadn't had the correct training then the lack of training card would be played by the "nailer". If they had then I expect they'd be charged with whatever offence best suited the damage done to the "nailee" unless a hole in the companies process was found.

 Exactly the reason why the MoD have world-class training regimes.

Training within the  UK's military is possibly one of the biggest budgets, for the above reason. No employee within the UK's military is expected to do any task for which they have not previously received training. Indeed, I would suggest 'training' is one of this country's finest exports?

 

I would be surprised if industries like road, rail or air transport didn;t have likewise?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mikejames said:

to be honest I'm confused

way up the thread people were saying 'blame the government - not the TOCS.'

Certainly the government specified these trains

but I would have thought that would be a functional specification

i.e these trains must be able to do this.....

run for so long between maintenance etc.

 

It would then be up to the manufacturer to design a train to these specifications.

 

I cannot see how the government (DFT) could be expected to detail design a bogie/link etc 

that doesn't crack

 

So what exactly did the DFT specify  incorrectly.

 

DFT seems to come in for a lot of stick on this website and it is probably generally justified

but I suspect not in this case.

 

thanks for clarification

mike james

 

Nobody is blaming them, but presenting the idea that it might not purely be Hitachis fault. As was already gone through earlier in the thread, DfT will have specified the track, gauging etc. for the trains to run on. IF (we don't know) the track isn't what it is said to be AND IF that variation from spec can be attributed to the break then how is it Hitachis fault?

 

It's like attempting to claim on your cars (or tyres) warranty for damage caused by a pothole. Hitting potholes at speed is not what a car is designed to do, and it's not the car or tyre manufacturers fault that the roads are a mess.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alastairq said:

I would be surprised if industries like road, rail or air transport didn;t have likewise?

 

The Rail set-up has a lot in common with the Services, no doubt you'll be aware of what a Form 1 is? Well we have them as well! 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

A bit like throwing somebody who had only ever driven a Morris Minor within 15 miles of home into a Tesla with eight times the power and festooned with unfamiliar gadgetry and expecting them to complete a trip to the other end of the country without incident.... 

 

John

 

One example I saw on the road the other day, was an old couple stuck on a hill in a car, in the middle of a 2 lane road. It looked like a courtesy car, and I expect that given they were trying to get going, stalling and rolling back, that one or both of two things had happened.

 

They normally drive a car with a manual handbrake.

 

They normally drive an automatic.

 

If they were unfamiliar with a manual, or didn't know how to use the electric parking brake, especially on the hill start, then that is probably why the problem happened. I.e. unfamiliarity or lack of training.

 

I really felt sorry for them, but there were several blockers to be helping them...

 

COVID

Insurance

My 2y old daughter being with me, and I wouldn't be leaving her in my car

 

If I went in with my WW2 attitude and something went wrong, I think the consequences could be worse than them being stuck on a hill.

Edited by TomScrut
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Bus drivers would generally get a familarisation on new types, but that may be limited to just showing them where the controls are and how they differ to other types. Difference on the railway is that a Class 800 is 45 years newer in design vs a HST and so is radically different to the extent of training pretty much from scratch traction-wise.

 

As one of the GWR project team summed it up: transferring from a HST to an IET is the rail equivalent of going from a Spitfire to the new Lightning.  The change was so dramatic several drivers (and train managers) chose to transfer or leave the industry rather than learn the new regime.  The same also happened elsewhere including Virgin when the Pendolinos arrived.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, caradoc said:

What this topic has show is that when it comes to running a railway (just like refereeing a football match), those who don't do it believe they know far better than those who do it for living. 

 

I think train design and manufacture needs adding to that list too.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 Yes there is!

No company would allow a driver to take charge of a vehicle worth a heck of a lot of money without having undergone some familiarisation with the operation, and driving, of that vehicle.

No Company employs a driver without first assessing their driving competence.  Most, if not all bus companies actually require their drivers to undergo regular and frequent driving assessments and refresher training. [My last employer, EYMS, compelled drivers to undergo annual driver refresher training]

Certainly, that was the case when I started bus driving for London Transport in 1972!  [Finished in 1997, went into the driver education industry] Back int eh1970's, London Transport employed teams of driver assessors who would ride, incognito, behind every driver they employed, at least once or twice a year...More so if the company had received passenger complaints,  or the drive had accrued a collison record.

 

I'm not arguing that bus companies don't require drivers to have on-going training and assessment.

 

But I would be surprised if a bus company with a rag-tag collection of second hand buses requires their drivers to have specific training on each type of vehicle. I could be wrong.

 

But I've certainly been on buses where the driver was armed with only a map for the route and with helpful passengers shouting out turns.

 

I've also twice (pre smart phones) acted as unpaid navigator on a rail replacement bus and once on National Express because the drivers had no idea where they were supposed to go.

 

While I wasn't very impressed, I didn't then and don't now see that as a safety risk.

 

Clearly for many very good reasons railways don't work like that.

Edited by Coryton
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

But I've certainly been on buses where the driver was armed with only a map for the route and with helpful passengers shouting out turns.

 

I've been on buses that went the wrong route entirely.

On one occasion a driver completely missed out a town and on realising, turned towards the town along a different route and arrived at the bus stop facing the wrong way.

A three point turn ensued in a not particularly easy location to the amusement of passengers and consternation of the local traffic.

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I do agree with you, I was being sarcastic about certain posters responses in here.

I do expect some solutions to appear, but know they take time.

 

 

 

I'm not sure who you're referring to but I can't say I've noticed a great deal of 'won't do' posts. There have been various 'can't does' which have been explained in the main.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an old engineering solution to something that doesn't work.  Use a bigger hammer!

Please can we get some welders in and mend these trains with a larger lump of metal.

 

Some years ago I heard of a conference of railway technicians who were discussing why the 1/2" bolts that hold brake pads on kept shearing despite all the calculations that they were strong enough.  

A voice from the back of the hall said Why don't we just drill them out to 5/8"?  :P

  • Like 4
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I've been on buses that went the wrong route entirely.

On one occasion a driver completely missed out a town and on realising, turned towards the town along a different route and arrived at the bus stop facing the wrong way.

A three point turn ensued in a not particularly easy location to the amusement of passengers and consternation of the local traffic.

Even worse if its a double decker and there's a low bridge.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Coryton said:

I've also twice (pre smart phones) acted as unpaid navigator on a rail replacement bus and once on National Express because the drivers had no idea where they were supposed to go.

 

While I wasn't very impressed, I didn't then and don't now see that as a safety risk.

 

Although it can be a serious safety risk when a driver takes an unsuitable route, as the recent spate of double decker buses hitting railway bridges shows. This is a recent example - three children badly injured; 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-56996555

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Are you 95? :lol:

 

No, it was tongue in cheek aimed at some of the blitz/Dunkirk comments on here....

 

But the reasons for not driving the car up the hill for them I'd hope were pretty obvious.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TomScrut said:

 

No, it was tongue in cheek aimed at some of the blitz/Dunkirk comments on here....

 

But the reasons for not driving the car up the hill for them I'd hope were pretty obvious.

It was just the WW2 spirit, it made me chuckle, a friend of my wife's was posting memories this morning about WW2 and he was only one when it ended :)

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Although it can be a serious safety risk when a driver takes an unsuitable route, as the recent spate of double decker buses hitting railway bridges shows. This is a recent example - three children badly injured; 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-56996555

 

 

And the thing with that in terms of driver training would be that whilst common sense would suggest that the bridge is height marked and the buses (legal requirement) have vehicle size within eyesight of the driver, it shouldn't have happened, I expect the argument would revolve round whether they got a bit of paper saying "don't take vehicles X Y or Z on this route, low bridge" or words to that effect as to whether it was the drivers responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I've been on buses that went the wrong route entirely.

On one occasion a driver completely missed out a town and on realising, turned towards the town along a different route and arrived at the bus stop facing the wrong way.

A three point turn ensued in a not particularly easy location to the amusement of passengers and consternation of the local traffic.

 

I was waiting for a bus once with a few other people. A bus turned up and stopped on the other side of the road, heading the other way, and the other passengers just crossed the road and got on. Presumably this wasn't the first time it had happened. I'm glad they knew what to do because I would have just stood there.

 

I've also been on a few buses where the driver hasn't quite got the right route first time.

 

8 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Although it can be a serious safety risk when a driver takes an unsuitable route, as the recent spate of double decker buses hitting railway bridges shows.

 

 

Indeed. Though given that drivers should know how tall their vehicle is and all such bridges should be clearly signed, it ought not to happen.

 

We get quite a few  lorry bridge strikes but so far as I know we just rely on lorry drivers reading low bridge signs correctly to avoid this.

 

I used to live somewhere where a route was operated by double deck buses during the day, with a diversion round a very low bridge under a canal, and the minibuses in the evening that took a more direct route.

 

I was always a little worried about what might happen when a driver moved from an evening to a day shift...

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I do expect some solutions to appear, but know they take time.


I am interested to see objectors throw up arguments about increasing use of class 345’s...

 

Producing new diagrams for several hundred staff and trains isn't an overnight job. Who's to say they aren't already looking into that as one of many different scenarios they'll be looking at. we simply don't know what GW management are up to but I'd be surprised if your suggestion isn't one of the alternatives. What we also don't know is if they've got a "fix", how many units are actually out of service and so on. It could be that they have enough units to do some sort of service and the repaired ones may come in quickly. At least that is what we all hope!

 

No one is ruling anything out at the moment, but some of the suggestions that have been made are unworkable, I'm sorry if by having to knock some of them on the head causes you issues and you feel the need to be sarcastic but I'm sure, like us, you'd rather have a safe railway to travel on. 

  • Like 6
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...