Jump to content
 

Washout at Dawlish


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, melmerby said:

 

Dapol or Hornby? Maybe a Baccy 45XX?

 

This morning at high tide there was more than just "mist" breaking onto the track and some of it got to the road in front of the Blenheim and it looked like a right soaking.

What was happening the wave would break against the wall go up above the top of the wall and then the onshore gale blew it across the tracks.

Admittedly not a direct strike but a fair amount of actual water.

Think you're right about the onshore gale blowing water onto the track. It was still noticeable that the amount of water landing on the track was less at the newly-installed bits of wall with the deflecting curve at the top than at the other bits of wall.

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

They have no other option only an IET can couple to another IET.  Welcome to the MDTR!

 

Time for a new sub-class, 57/4 anyone?

Rather than being Thunderbirds, they could be named after Stingray characters....

  • Like 3
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The reconfigured sea wall is doing what it says on the tin - wave return.  There is far less of the main wave coming over now.  It's mostly spray though a lot of it today.  

 

What remains unacceptable is the length of time these modern "Dawlish-resilient" trains sat down for.  It has been a day of severe weather but I suspect steam and Mk1 stock would have got through.  Locomotive-hauled trains in the diesel era have generally managed to get through including the overnight sleepers.  Even the much-maligned Pacers have got through.  But costly pieces of electronic kit with vulnerable parts exposed to poor conditions ..... 

 

Did we really need such expensive and technology-packed trains?  Safety systems are essential.  But do we really need all the other bits and bobs?  Some we do - maybe not all.  

 

What we need are trains which can cope with the conditions they are likely to meet on a fairly frequent basis.  We already have a more resilient railway along the sea-wall and are in no danger of getting an inland route any time soon.  

 

So make the trains fit for purpose.  

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

I'd keep a spare Prairie at Newton...

 

Well, not much further but between Paignton and Kingswear you have an assortment of GWR steam to choose from...

 

And while there are probably lots of rules that would say it can't be done, on a more serious note the Dartmouth Steam Railway does have a Class 37 that essentially would always be close(ish) by if an adapter could be created and kept in the area.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

 

 

What remains unacceptable is the length of time these modern "Dawlish-resilient" trains sat down for.  It has been a day of severe weather but I suspect steam and Mk1 stock would have got through.

 

Of course they would! steam locomotives are not equipped with fancy computer software to control the power applied to the driving wheels, the dampness of the coal or a whole host of other parameters.

 

The same is true to a degree with the HSTs (or diesel loco hauled stock) - decidedly basic traction control systems by todays standards with the added bonus of being able to site most of the electric gubbins inside the power car with a grater degree of protection form the weather.

 

3 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

 

So make the trains fit for purpose.  

 

Not going to happen!

 

To 'make the trains fit for purpose' as you put it will involve ripping out huge quantities of desirable equipment like regenerative braking and advanced AC traction packages in favour of 40 year old designs which are far less energy efficient, demand far more by way of consumables, etc.

 

As I said earlier the decision to go for a multiple unit platform has a lot to answer for however because with the vehicles all carrying passengers there isn't much room to put all the fancy kit in truly weather proofed locations as there would be with a dedicated power car.

 

So, as with XC passengers who have had to put up being dumped at Exeter for the best part of 20 years now, GWR passengers will simply have to get used to train disruption in bad weather because the next opportunity to truly fix the issues which give rise to the unreliability of the current trains won't happen for another 40 years when the IET fleet becomes due for replacement.

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing in the design, prototype testing, and acceptance phases of any new product is inherently artificial and can't necessarily replicate what mother nature does.  As such while it would be nice if the 80x units had handled today with no problems it shouldn't necessarily be a surprise that something happened given this was about as bad as any train could experience on that section of line.

 

The real question is what happens going forward and if Hitachi develops a fix - and for that we would need to know the details of the various legal agreements around the product (of which I am guessing no one posting on here has any direct knowledge).

 

And a potential outside influence could be the HS2 rolling stock procurement process, of which Hitachi is I believe a participant, which may make them inclined to find a solution even if not legally required to make their bid appear more attractive.

 

so perhaps before entirely condemning these units perhaps wait and see what happens the next time the sea attempts to drown the trains (and allowing time for a potential fix to be identified, tested, and rolled out).

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

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Of course they would! steam locomotives are not equipped with fancy computer software to control the power applied to the driving wheels, the dampness of the coal or a whole host of other parameters.

 

The same is true to a degree with the HSTs (or diesel loco hauled stock) - decidedly basic traction control systems by todays standards with the added bonus of being able to site most of the electric gubbins inside the power car with a grater degree of protection form the weather.

 

 

Not going to happen!

 

To 'make the trains fit for purpose' as you put it will involve ripping out huge quantities of desirable equipment like regenerative braking and advanced AC traction packages in favour of 40 year old designs which are far less energy efficient, demand far more by way of consumables, etc.

 

As I said earlier the decision to go for a multiple unit platform has a lot to answer for however because with the vehicles all carrying passengers there isn't much room to put all the fancy kit in truly weather proofed locations as there would be with a dedicated power car.

 

So, as with XC passengers who have had to put up being dumped at Exeter for the best part of 20 years now, GWR passengers will simply have to get used to train disruption in bad weather because the next opportunity to truly fix the issues which give rise to the unreliability of the current trains won't happen for another 40 years when the IET fleet becomes due for replacement.

 

Given what's been going on with the IET fleet over the past year or so, and the fact that they are made from "the wrong sort of aluminium", I suspect they will have become more trouble than they are worth long before their planned 40-year lifespan is up.

 

When their replacements are being designed, it just needs railway engineers to design-out the problems rather than trying to work around them. They don't put weather-sensitive equipment on top of airliner fuselages; why would you do it on a train that's much the same shape?

 

That will mean convincing the bean counters that omitting a few seats to get the more vulnerable bits indoors will be a price worth paying in the next generation of units, even if it means adding an extra car to make up for the losses elsewhere. 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

IIRC the specification was 'Dawlish resilient' rather than 'Dawlish proof' In that sense they have done the job as they can cope with far more in terms of sea spray than the Voyagers - though not a full on drenching by storms with 70mph winds.

 

More widely though I suspect the bigger issue is the adoption of a multiple unit configuration - the lack of space means you are more likely to get critical components put on exposed locations like the roof where as if you had a traditional power car setup they could better be protected from the elements.

 

Of course its also true that due to technological advances the trains are far more sophisticated and full of computers which have a tendency to shut things down when they see something they don't like as opposed to a basic setup where monitoring is limited and you rely on the driver to sense something is wrong and take action themselves.

 

Irrespective of what the specification said there were several reports that Hitachi insiders were adamant that adverse conditions at Dawlish would not affect the units.  Some even posted comments to that effect on other fora.  I think the expectation in the industry was that Hitachi would make sure there was not a repeat of the Voyager fiasco. 

 

As an old, world weary engineer myself with numerous laps around the block, I appreciate that modern systems have a high degree of monitoring and self protection.  That isn't really the problem here though (and nor was it with the Voyager).  The problem is a combination of bad design and the imposition of arbitrary limits on remedial action.

 

Take the Voyagers.  I accept that there is a contradiction in the requirement to facilitate cooling of the rheo grids by maximising airflow and keeping them dry at Dawlish.  However the rheo brake is not critical to the movement of the train; yes it is highly desirable as it reduces brake pad wear and there is scope for using the generated power to augment battery charging and the like to save fuel, but it is not a critical component.  However the Voyager traction systems are designed to shut down if a fault is detected in the rheo brake, such as an earth fault in the grids caused by salt water to pick a totally random example.  That is bad design because you are allowing a non-critical piece of equipment to immobilise the train.

 

Similar thing with the IET.  The systems shut down when the water gets in.  Ok fine but the train imposes an arbitrary limit on the number of attempts allowed to get going again.  When those attempts have been exhausted the thing is immobilised.  If the protection and monitoring equipment can protect the equipment then let it; don't impose an additional arbitrary constraint above that.  We saw exactly the same thing with the Siemens 700/717 fiasco a couple of years ago when it locked the driver out.  This sort of silo design decision making is all too common when the true imperative is to clear the line. 

Edited by DY444
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mdvle said:

Testing in the design, prototype testing, and acceptance phases of any new product is inherently artificial and can't necessarily replicate what mother nature does.  As such while it would be nice if the 80x units had handled today with no problems it shouldn't necessarily be a surprise that something happened given this was about as bad as any train could experience on that section of line.

 

The real question is what happens going forward and if Hitachi develops a fix - and for that we would need to know the details of the various legal agreements around the product (of which I am guessing no one posting on here has any direct knowledge).

 

And a potential outside influence could be the HS2 rolling stock procurement process, of which Hitachi is I believe a participant, which may make them inclined to find a solution even if not legally required to make their bid appear more attractive.

 

so perhaps before entirely condemning these units perhaps wait and see what happens the next time the sea attempts to drown the trains (and allowing time for a potential fix to be identified, tested, and rolled out).

 

Except that the Voyagers had been shutting down along there for 20 years because of a design flaw so it wasn't exactly an unknown.  The issue is not about stopping the water getting in; it's about providing a way to recover the train when it does.  That's the flaw with the Voyagers and the IET.

 

The Siemens units that were out of spec wrt to frequency drift and locked out the traction packs have not been fixed by bringing them into spec.  They've been fixed by providing a means to get them going again if they lock out due to frequency drift.

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

  • RMweb Gold

Nothing new under the sun with respect to designers who know best. 30 years ago the Networker 465s showed no enthusiasm for running when snow got into the under-gubbins. The 'wrong sort of snow' was famously blamed by the Director of Operations. In fact the former Divisional Traction Engineer on the South Eastern - Networker territory - had warned about snow ingress. He had, after all, a dozen or more years experience with EPBs during hard winters.

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

Nothing new under the sun with respect to designers who know best. 30 years ago the Networker 465s showed no enthusiasm for running when snow got into the under-gubbins. The 'wrong sort of snow' was famously blamed by the Director of Operations. In fact the former Divisional Traction Engineer on the South Eastern - Networker territory - had warned about snow ingress. He had, after all, a dozen or more years experience with EPBs during hard winters.

Yes an infamous "British failing".

I seem to remember several European countries also suffered but our brit-bashing media didn't mention that.

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

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

The 'wrong sort of snow' was famously blamed by the Director of Operations. In fact the former Divisional Traction Engineer on the South Eastern - Networker territory - had warned about snow ingress. He had, after all, a dozen or more years experience with EPBs during hard winters.

He probably knew a bit about traction motor design, too, having in a previous life worked on the original design of motor for the Brush Type 2 at Loughborough, before coming to BR.

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

Although not Dawlish related, to continue with the wrong type of snow.  This predates the Networkers and is to do with the BedPan electrics which failed during an early encounter with snow.  A jouralist said to a BR official "so you're saying it's the wrong type of snow" the response to that was positive. The term came from journalism rather than the railways.

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

26 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Nothing new under the sun with respect to designers who know best. 30 years ago the Networker 465s showed no enthusiasm for running when snow got into the under-gubbins. The 'wrong sort of snow' was famously blamed by the Director of Operations. In fact the former Divisional Traction Engineer on the South Eastern - Networker territory - had warned about snow ingress. He had, after all, a dozen or more years experience with EPBs during hard winters.

 

14 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

He probably knew a bit about traction motor design, too, having in a previous life worked on the original design of motor for the Brush Type 2 at Loughborough, before coming to BR.

 

This is how mis-information spreads.  "The wrong type of snow" was coined  before the Networkers were even  designed, let alone built, so a bit difficult for the director to blame trains that did not even exist yet!  The motors on Networkers are completely impervious to snow, as indeed are all AC traction motors. There are no exposed conductors inside, and Brush demonstrated their traction motor for the Networkers running under water at full rated load, complete with the cooling fans pushing the water through the motors without issue. Just try that with an EE motor...

 

In fact due to the previous "wrong type of snow" incidents, a lot of design and testing effort was put in to making them as snow proof as possible.  I personally attended the climatic testing at Vienna where we put them through hell.  All aspects were tested, from wipers, to couplers. saloon heating, door operation as well as the traction package, all at -20 and with headwinds of up to 70mph in severe Blizzard conditions.  They were cold soaked overnight, and observing a block of ice at -20c that had a compressor inside just start up and provide air (albeit a bit slower than normal to begin with since the oil was so thick) which was something the current BR designs had problems with.

 

Some minor issues were discovered, which allowed for modifications before introduction in service.  Unfortunately of course they are still constrained by the limitations of the third rail in snow, but then so were the EPBs...

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

  • RMweb Premium

AIUI the major issue with the Voyagers is that the roof mounted rheo grids are flat and in a well so when the Dawlish Train Wash is in action the sea water lands on the grids and cannot escape.  Those on the 802s are mounted directly on the top of the roof and are in a very shallow inverted vee shape so that water that lands on them can instantly escape or boils off as steam.

 

Yesterday’s incident was caused not by water on the grids, in any case the rheostatic  braking on the 802s is currently isolated, but by water entering the mostly enclosed underbody compartments containing the diesel engines, alternators and associated control equipment.  This caused these components to shut down and they could not be restarted until they had dried out.  One can perhaps question the design but it’s difficult to see what alternative arrangement could have been come up with.

 

When the 802s were being procured (remember, by FirstGroup not the DfT as in the case of the 800 and 801 fleets) GWR were assured by Hitachi they would be ”Dawlish resistant” not “Dawlish proof”.  For much of the time the former does seem to be the case, the IETs seem to cope in conditions where XC stop their Voyagers, but events such as yesterday are extreme although probably becoming more common.  It is worth noting that the reconstructed sea wall at Dawlish appears to have done its job, both 1A77 and 1C70 seem to have been swamped on the section between Dawlish and Teignmouth which hasn’t been dealt with although proposals have been put forward.  The rescue unit was standing outside Dawlish station for some time before it failed preparing for the coupling so it was probably the cumulative effect of the spray that caused it to shut down.

 

The P&D might have a Class 37 but is it equipped for main line operation?  For that it needs to have OTMR, TPWS and GSM-R radio even for occasional rescue missions.  Who would pay for that?  It would also need the approval of Hitachi which on previous form seems unlikely.

 

For those who haven’t heard, 800002 failed at Ruscombe at 23:30 on the 21st November with a seized axle caused by a failed bearing.  It sat there for the whole of Monday blocking the Up Main between Twyford West and Maidenhead East and was only moved to Slough’s Up Goods Loop early on the Tuesday morning.  Why did it take so long to recover?  Well, it required a wheel skate and it seems there is only one suitable for an IET and at the time it was at Millerhill in Edinburgh and had to be brought down to Ruscombe.  Hitachi bean counters probably take the view it is better to have just one skate and take a risk, the financial penalties of an event such as Ruscombe being preferable to the cost of providing multiple skates which might be used only once in a blue moon.  By the way, the hapless 800002 spent the rest of the week at Slough as NR had the Relief Lines closed overnight all week for maintenance.  It finally left at a minute to midnight on the Friday and took 4½ hours to get back to the Mother Ship at the North Pole.

 

As I say, welcome to the MDTR!

Edited by Mike_Walker
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

So 465s didn't have issues any more than EPBs? And Allan Barter was talking though his (hard) hat?

Unfortunately Networkers had lots of other issues, even on a nice sunny day, so it was a bit difficult for the snow to make them any worse than they already were, and wrong to use it as a scapegoat.  Not only that, But if you are going to name drop, I was working directly with Richard East, Networker Project Engineer, and Barry Cottham, Networker Fleet Engineer, both of whom would be better informed than Allan Barter.

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

  • RMweb Premium

It's worth noting that the only damage suffered by HSTs along this stretch as far as I know was the occasional cracked outer window pane caused when Mother Nature decided to throw Dawlish beach onto the railway!  Same goes for Sprinters and Pacers although some of you might remember that 143613 was flooded internally late in its career when a window smashed!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
47 minutes ago, Titan said:

Unfortunately Networkers had lots of other issues, even on a nice sunny day, so it was a bit difficult for the snow to make them any worse than they already were, and wrong to use it as a scapegoat.  Not only that, But if you are going to name drop, I was working directly with Richard East, Networker Project Engineer, and Barry Cottham, Networker Fleet Engineer, both of whom would be better informed than Allan Barter.

I worked with (and drank beer with) all three of those fine engineers at various times and I would say that none was better-informed than either of the others. They were all experts, complementing each other's abilities.

Edited by St Enodoc
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Friendly/supportive 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...