Jump to content

Hitachi trains grounded


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Quite likely but of course that shows the ignorance of both Wolmar (as he regularly does anyway) and the Letters Editor for one very simple reason - it would be no different at all of the railway was nationalised.  On BR we had - under Govt pressure as well as common sense - trimmed resources down to a level looked at agahst by those running other state owned railways in Europe; putting it another way BR was sweating its assets.

 

 

 

Well possibly, but the point about a newspaper letters page is that if it was always filled by pedants arguing the fine detail of a subject, the majority of the readers would soon get bored; and few would be brave enough to throw themselves into a lion's den and write replies. Not good for circulation figures.

 

If, on the other hand, the contributors are being somewhat economical with the actualité, it will encourage those with robust views into an exchange of letters; which is precisely what the letters editor is looking for. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
55 minutes ago, D410Monarch said:

Christian Wolmer is suggesting that to be able to re-introduce the older stock within 48 hours and restore the service isn't the way to do it now , why not ? that sounds like exactly what we could do with right now ,surely better than cancelling everything with no solution in sight ?

 
Can I make a well meant suggestion as this is your first post on this forum which is that you read back through this thread where you will discover cogent reasons why this simply is vey difficult and in many cases cannot happen?

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

and all for the want of less than half a mile of electification. If they had done Acton Wells Jcn to Acton East Jcn as part of the CrossRail work they would have been able to swap units around between the two halves without the tunnel being open, been able to shift the 387's from GWR land to Ilford and back without the use of a diesel loco for any work they need that's outside the scope of Reading, and possibly had some freight or open access benefit as well....

 

Perhaps this episode might focus minds to get that done to make things far simpler in future, especially if it's only a short stretch

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

An idle thought, but in relation to potential use of HST's as replacements.  In their later days, they only operated on the Cotswold line under Grandfathers rights because of our short platforms and their coaches with slam doors overhanging by 3-4 coach lengths.   Would those rights have lapsed by now, so would HST's be forbidden from use  from Oxford to Worcester nowadays?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

An idle thought, but in relation to potential use of HST's as replacements.  In their later days, they only operated on the Cotswold line under Grandfathers rights because of our short platforms and their coaches with slam doors overhanging by 3-4 coach lengths.   Would those rights have lapsed by now, so would HST's be forbidden from use  from Oxford to Worcester nowadays?

Not quite, they modified the HST fleet in 2006-2008 on GWR so they were all fitted with selective door opening, so since then any short platforms served both old with grandfather  (Cotswold line, Stonehouse) and new, no rights (Ashchurch, Ivybridge) would only have had doors actually platformed released.

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

9 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

An idle thought, but in relation to potential use of HST's as replacements.  In their later days, they only operated on the Cotswold line under Grandfathers rights because of our short platforms and their coaches with slam doors overhanging by 3-4 coach lengths.   Would those rights have lapsed by now, so would HST's be forbidden from use  from Oxford to Worcester nowadays?

 

A concession would need to be granted to run no PRM compliant stock on the network (such concessions existed for GWR 143s until Dec '20, EMR HSTs have one at the moment for slam door stock) - that's for any HSTs borrowed or hired in from someone else (I think EMR's stock would be the only ones). Or this potential additional 2+4 with slam doors at Laira.

For sliding door modified stock like XC's and GWR's 2+4s only an amendment to the GWR safety paperwork which has assessed things like stepping distances to platforms and doesn't cover anywhere that GWR 2+4s currently run in service.

If you borrow stock from elsewhere it probably won't be able to go to Paddington as it won't be ATP fitted (I'm thinking borrowed in HSTs again.)

 

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

Saw a video of BBMF 91 operating the Bradford - K+ today 

 

Also seen West Coast bringing a black 5 to York, now then how many main line steam locos could we hire with rakes of charter stock as replacement for the Hitachis?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Perhaps we need to revisit the old principle of "if in doubt, make it stout and out of stuff you know about" that served railways so well for their first 150 years. It ain't Formula One, guys.

 

I think this is wrong. This seems to me to be the Railway Industry's 'Comet 1' moment. Where everything they have known about building rolling stock needs to be re-thought. Formula one may be at the cutting edge, but I would expect things that are used on F1 cars become common place. I'm thinking of things like generative design, metal printing and carbon fibre monocoques. I just hope the industry is not held back by the regulators. 

 

That yaw bracket is something that just cries out for a generative design solution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AMJ said:

Saw a video of BBMF 91 operating the Bradford - K+ today 

 

Also seen West Coast bringing a black 5 to York, now then how many main line steam locos could we hire with rakes of charter stock as replacement for the Hitachis?

 

Whilst some of this is presumably in jest - bringing in rakes of unusual trains will cause a problem in itself. At the moment the effort is to get trains in to move around passengers who are trying to go about their daily business (work or pleasure) and if we roll out novelty traction the trains are going to be full of enthusiasts everyday which I don't think really achieves the goal of trying to run a train service for Joe Public!

There is a noticeable number of people out and about for the XC HST in the Swindon area, I can only imagine how that might be amplified if there were steam engines, 37s and other novelty traction!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
Can I make a well meant suggestion as this is your first post on this forum which is that you read back through this thread where you will discover cogent reasons why this simply is vey difficult and in many cases cannot happen?

I realise it can't happen now , but it would be great if it could ,the point I was making was that replacing the broken new stuff with the older stock is very much what we would all like to happen but has unfortunately been consigned to the history books

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
28 minutes ago, AMJ said:

Saw a video of BBMF 91 operating the Bradford - K+ today 

 

 

 

And here it is on the second leg of its diagram today (11th May 2021), 1D09, 10.03 London Kings Cross to Leeds, approaching Sandal & Agbrigg on the outskirts of Wakefield.

563994393_911101D09SandalAgbrigg11052021-RMweb.jpg.fadea0f389a550328f4b65e3b54607fb.jpg

 

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Afroal05 said:

There are indeed some 387s on their way from C2C, 387301-306 are the numbers being bounced around. There was a hope that they could run under their own power onto the GWML today but I believe this is not possible because of a section of North Pole depot that they would have to traverse isn't energised. (My geography of track in London is poor though so I cannot verify that). Allegedly ROG have no 57s available to go and collect them and it may require GWR and 57306 to make a collection from East Ham. This would push their arrival back by a day or so and it isn't expected to see them in service before Thursday at the earliest.

 

There are confirmed as three 387/3s going to GWR short term, which is half the c2c 387 fleet.  Am told  this is the working (RTT)

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

  • RMweb Gold
35 minutes ago, Afroal05 said:

If you borrow stock from elsewhere it probably won't be able to go to Paddington as it won't be ATP fitted (I'm thinking borrowed in HSTs again.)

 

I'll stand corrected, but believe ATP isn not required into Paddington, as long as the speed doesn't exceed 90mph?  (Might be 75mph - not 100%) but either way I believe the safety documentation for HSTs is now only valid as far East as Swindon for GWR.  What it would take to renew and sign off that paperwork, I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

and all for the want of less than half a mile of electification. If they had done Acton Wells Jcn to Acton East Jcn as part of the CrossRail work they would have been able to swap units around between the two halves without the tunnel being open, been able to shift the 387's from GWR land to Ilford and back without the use of a diesel loco for any work they need that's outside the scope of Reading, and possibly had some freight or open access benefit as well....

But it couldn't be done because it was physically impossible so it had to be taken out of the plan - simples.  Alas stringing up ohle isn't just abut masts and catenary but very much about electrical clearances and the necessary did not exist on the Poplar Branch (aka Acton Bank) nor could they be created.

 

They might well - hopefully - exist now that the A40/Western Avenue bridge has been rebuilt but rebuilding that bridge was not an option at the time of Crossrail electrification because there wasn't the money for it in the Crossrail scheme (nor would anyone expect such financial provision for it of course in that scheme).

  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

 

I'll stand corrected, but believe ATP isn not required into Paddington, as long as the speed doesn't exceed 90mph?  (Might be 75mph - not 100%) but either way I believe the safety documentation for HSTs is now only valid as far East as Swindon for GWR.  What it would take to renew and sign off that paperwork, I don't know.

 

To paraphrase and quote sections of the document governing ATP:

A train with defective ATP must not enter passenger service on any line fitted with ATP. (A train without ATP should be treated in this instance as defective)

The affected cab is boxed in and a multi only restriction applied Maximum speed 100mph for all movements over ATP fitted lines, passenger, or ECS.

Trains with defective ATP can be routed via non-ATP fitted lines (e.g. Relief Lines Hayes & Harlington to Didcot Parkway) and may remain in passenger service providing that all other in-cab systems are working normally. The consent of Network Rail must be obtained. To note, it is not permissible to send a passenger train with known defective ATP in the leading cab in passenger service from Reading towards London via the Relief Lines.

 

So in short, no, it can't happen without a changing of the rules between GWR and Network Rail which I suspect is unlikely.

 

As for where 2+4s can go that is much easier. The Statement of Compatibility (or SOC) governs that and as has been demonstrated with 387s to Swindon in passenger service this can potentially be changed very quickly. HSTs are already cleared in the sectional appendix, it is simply a matter of risk assessing the new locations for stepping distances, stopping locations etc.

 

Edited by Afroal05
Typos
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, D410Monarch said:

I was making was that replacing the broken new stuff with the older stock is very much what we would all like to happen 

 

Only until the new stuff is repaired. Or did you mean permanently in which case, no thanks. 

 

27 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

 

I'll stand corrected, but believe ATP isn not required into Paddington, as long as the speed doesn't exceed 90mph?  (Might be 75mph - not 100%) but either way I believe the safety documentation for HSTs is now only valid as far East as Swindon for GWR.  What it would take to renew and sign off that paperwork, I don't know.

 

I was thinking the same thing, we used to work Voyagers into Padd at 90, so assume they aren't ATP fitted? 

Edited by Hobby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Hobby said:

 

No thanks. 

 

 

I was thinking the same thing, we used to work Voyagers into Padd at 90, so assume they aren't ATP fitted? 

 

Nope, not fitted and never intended to be. The GWR ATP system is different to that used by Chiltern as well, to further complicate the matter.

 

As an aside to this , XC Voyagers are limited to 100mph from Westerleigh Junction to Bristol Parkway due to a lack of ATP as well.

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

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, jonny777 said:

 

Well possibly, but the point about a newspaper letters page is that if it was always filled by pedants arguing the fine detail of a subject, the majority of the readers would soon get bored; and few would be brave enough to throw themselves into a lion's den and write replies. Not good for circulation figures.

 

If, on the other hand, the contributors are being somewhat economical with the actualité, it will encourage those with robust views into an exchange of letters; which is precisely what the letters editor is looking for. 

Not 'possibly' but factually - all you need to do is ask those of us who were there and had to deal with that sort of thing at short notice in the lad st 7-8 years of BR's existence  (and had been involved in such events over a decade or two).   So nothing pedantic about it all  - Wolmar's letter is totally out of contex, and as I said it implies comparing apples with kiwi fruit.  The only response it needs is ti say that he's talking about an irrelevance (which somebody might indeed do)..

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AMJ said:

Saw a video of BBMF 91 operating the Bradford - K+ today 

 

Also seen West Coast bringing a black 5 to York, now then how many main line steam locos could we hire with rakes of charter stock as replacement for the Hitachis?

 

None at all.

 

The Hitachi trains are stopped for safety concerns. 

 

They are't going to replace them with 1950s  slam door rolling stock proven to be unsafe in a major accident , nor 1930s steam locos, particularly with that TOC and their past safety record regarding isolation of vital in-cab equipment.

 

As has been alluded to elsewhere, any such unusual workings will quickly become a magnet for enthusiasts rather than actually providing a public transport SERVICE, and judging by the misbehaviour on the EMR HSTs, it simply isn't worth the effort.

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

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Interesting photo re the amount of Aluminium welds on these trains. Quite complex up front.

 

image.png.bf44fcd66c73d28c6f9532d26f2d8782.png

 

Brit15

Looks like most of that is the skeletal structure, the actual skin appears to be riveted as should be the norm, welding thin ally can seriously affect the malleable characteristics effectively causing it to easily fracture under stress, hence riveting.

 

Same can happen when making acute bends in panels during pressing, which is why in the past alloy vehicle bodies were strictly for low production, better materials and press methods make it easier today.

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

11 minutes ago, Supaned said:

 

Nope, not fitted and never intended to be. The GWR ATP system is different to that used by Chiltern as well, to further complicate the matter.

 

As an aside to this , XC Voyagers are limited to 100mph from Westerleigh Junction to Bristol Parkway due to a lack of ATP as well.

Are the XC Voyagers not limited to 100mph Westerleigh Jcn-Bristol PW by physics anyway? Coming off the curve at Westerleigh assuming its still 30mph you'd have to really give it the gun and then be ready to use a lot of brake to stop at Bristol PW to top the ton between the two! They used to be allowed into Padd, probably still are but subject to restrictions on speed. The only reason the Network Measurement Train power cars are fitted with ATP (fact fans- they are the only non GWR stock to have received the GWML version of ATP) is to allow them to run full speed on those lines.

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

2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

Welding can play havoc with roller bearings.

 

Why...a little bit of arching through stainless steel never hurt the running qualities :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Are the XC Voyagers not limited to 100mph Westerleigh Jcn-Bristol PW by physics anyway? Coming off the curve at Westerleigh assuming its still 30mph you'd have to really give it the gun and then be ready to use a lot of brake to stop at Bristol PW to top the ton between the two! They used to be allowed into Padd, probably still are but subject to restrictions on speed. The only reason the Network Measurement Train power cars are fitted with ATP (fact fans- they are the only non GWR stock to have received the GWML version of ATP) is to allow them to run full speed on those lines.

 

40 on the curve at Westerleigh now old chap,

 

Yes , you'd still need a fair wind to get anywhere near 125 before Winterbourne though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ardbealach said:

Funny you should mention Wolmar -   This irrelevant piece of nonsense made it into the 'Letters to the Editor' in today's Times.   The problem is that people believe what Wolmar puts into print.  [Alisdair] 

img091 (2).jpg

 

What were the couple doing to catch fire ???. Typical waffle from the go to "expert" 

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...