Hitachi trains grounded

[Supaned]

3 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

A bit late but my thanks to all those railway professionals who corrected by assumptions about differences between driving older and newer trains.

The interesting comment to me was about braking of class 47s. I realise that different trains will have different braking characteristics (eg express passenger and unfitted mineral at the extreme) but I had assumed that after so many years of first vacuum brakes and more recently air brakes the responses on different locomotive types would have been pretty well identical. No more LNWR Coal Tanks.

And yes, I had forgotten how much computerisation has affected the driving process, for good or bad.

I'll stick to my bicycle.

Jonathan

 

Different trains/locomotives of the same type will also handle differently with braking, depending on factors such as overall weight, brake pad/shoe wear, cylinder pressures, brake valve setup . No two are exactly alike, and that's the same even with modern trains with computer systems involved.

[Ian Hargrave]

I’ve just received a promotional email video from EMR announcing progress on the delivery of their Aurora fleet from Hitachi currently in production at Newton Aycliffe.Not perhaps the best of timing.On the other hand should there actually be a flaw in design or materials better to sort now rather than endure the prospect of a large section of Middle England without viable intercity rail links whilst a fix is applied.

[number6]

17 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The difference between a nationalised rail service and a privatised one in a nutshell. But saving the costs of storing and maintaining stock that was only used for six weeks in high summer was one of the prime targets of the Beeching plan, so a lack of contingency cover goes back rather further.

 

You hear this in the tales of the old ways of utilising rolling stock. What were the costs of leaving stock sitting around? How much maintenance did they require? Bit of an oil round, odd vacuum cylinder replacement, some cleaning? With excess or surplus vehicles available using them a few times a year may seem ridiculous but they got people to the football, off on holiday, back from war... If it was freight stock even less maintenance I'd imagine. Of course there is infrastructure like signalling and sidings required which were also in surplus back in the 50s.

 

You are always going to be chasing your tail in terms of fluctuations in flow, industry or season. Beeching was all about applying a different [some would say flawed] accounting method so 'useful' physical assets had to be got rid of. Many people have camper vans, open top cars and motorbikes sat in the drive not doing much all year and its cost is swallowed up as part of the advantage it offers when wanted.

 

The modern railway works on a model of minimum excess and very high utilisation, partly a result of the of the fragmentation of  privatisation but also exacerbated by it. I of course love the idea of lashing up stuff from the sidings and setting off on a mission. I pity the people who were tasked with those jobs when things went wrong back in the day. One of my favourite reads is Summer Saturdays in the West by David St.John Thomas and Simon Rocksburgh-Smith - which details the running of summer Saturday trains. Spoiler: Mostly chaos but got there in the end. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by number6
Spelling.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

They are made of aluminium.....

But Kobe steel make aluminium as well....also titanium and other metals.

 

Not that I wish to get in a conspiracy, he said she said debate, just information.

[Dunsignalling]

But returning (for instance) a stored HST to traffic after even a year out of use represents a very different challenge than reviving a 1930s loco-hauled, vacuum braked coach after a similar hiatus. It didn't matter if the steam heat worked because it was only going to get used in July and August.

 

Even 1970s-built trains are a light year from that, unless warm stored (expensively) moisture will get in to the electrical systems and it's pot-luck what will work when needed.

 

There is also an issue of where to keep all this stuff. Since the end of steam and the implementation of the Beeching Plan, the quantity of depots and sidings has been cut back to (and some would say, below) what is necessary to cover present-day needs, with little or no contingency capacity in many places. 

 

There is also the question of how to protect such assets whilst they are on stand-by. In the 1950s, stock was stored in open sidings behind ordinary railway boundary fencing. Try that today and three quarters of it would be vandalised beyond repair before it was needed. That's why withdrawn stock that is judged to have a potential for future use gets tucked away in military establishments. 

 

John

[Coryton]

3 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

But Kobe steel make aluminium as well....also titanium and other metals.

 

Not that I wish to get in a conspiracy, he said she said debate, just information.

 

Yes I thought at first the "Kobe Steel scancal" couldn't have anything to do with aluminium parts. But despite the name steel isn't all they sell.

 

And indeed they appear to have falsified inspection data on aluminium products they have sold and "Hitachi said it had used Kobe Steel parts in trains built for the UK market".

 

None of which is to say that it has any connection with what's happening here.

[Artless Bodger]

11 hours ago, Reorte said:

A bit unfair on the Voyagers I think. Sure, I've had plenty of unpleasant journeys on them but it's been because of a lack of seat room (I'm 6'3" tall) and that they've usually been overcrowded. On the odd time I've been fortunate enough to have a table seat on a not so busy train they've been OK. Whilst I'm hardly a fan of them I think they've suffered mostly from being used on services they're too small for.

I must be the only person who actually preferred voyagers! My first trip was Portsmouth Harbour to Reading after a day on the IOW, nice fast though service and it was a hot day so the icy blast was comfortable, certainly beat changing at Guildford or Eastleigh and Basingstoke. I could do Reading - Newcastle on a voyager (5+ hours) comfortably, if I went via London after 2 hours in a Mk4 seat my back would be aching, by Newcastle I'd be standing to relieve the pain. At 5'10" I found I could see out of a voyager along the line of windows, in GWR tombstone seats only immediately to one side - bad crick in the neck after 30 mins and Reading  - Cardiff a sore trial, I'd have preferred a 165!

[Coryton]

7 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

But returning (for instance) a stored HST to traffic after even a year out of use represents a very different challenge than reviving a 1930s loco-hauled, vacuum braked coach after a similar hiatus. It didn't matter if the steam heat worked because it was only going to get used in July and August.

 

Even 1970s-built trains are a light year from that, unless warm stored (expensively) moisture will get in to the electrical systems and it's pot-luck what will work when needed.

 

There is also an issue of where to keep all this stuff. Since the end of steam and the implementation of the Beeching Plan, the quantity of depots and sidings has been cut back to (and some would say, below) what is necessary to cover present-day needs, with little or no contingency capacity in many places. 

 

There is also the question of how to protect such assets whilst they are on stand-by. In the 1950s, stock was stored in open sidings behind ordinary railway boundary fencing. Try that today and three quarters of it would be vandalised beyond repair before it was needed. That's why withdrawn stock that is judged to have a potential for future use gets tucked away in military establishments. 

 

All true I'm sure....but in a flight of fantasy I do wonder if we wanted to take a different approach to the "match demand to capacity" approach of the current railway we could build cheap and simple summer-only coaching stock without using any fancy technology that could be stored without much maintenance need. If top and tailed when in use then perhaps the crashworthiness requirements would be less onerous than for a unit.

 

Of course even if you did that, I suppose the next question is where you find a path for them.

 

4 minutes ago, Artless Bodger said:

I must be the only person who actually preferred voyagers! My first trip was Portsmouth Harbour to Reading after a day on the IOW, nice fast though service and it was a hot day so the icy blast was comfortable, certainly beat changing at Guildford or Eastleigh and Basingstoke. I could do Reading - Newcastle on a voyager (5+ hours) comfortably, if I went via London after 2 hours in a Mk4 seat my back would be aching, by Newcastle I'd be standing to relieve the pain. At 5'10" I found I could see out of a voyager along the line of windows, in GWR tombstone seats only immediately to one side - bad crick in the neck after 30 mins and Reading  - Cardiff a sore trial, I'd have preferred a 165!

 

My main problem with Voyagers is the interior layout.

 

If we could lay out all the standard coaches like the ones that a few sets (used to?) have in one coach with all the seats in bays round tables matching up with the (nice large) windows I think they'd feel like a completely different train.

 

And even as they are, I'd rather see the pretty parts of the WCML through a Voyager window than a Pendolino porthole.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Coryton

[boxbrownie]

40 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

A bit late but my thanks to all those railway professionals who corrected by assumptions about differences between driving older and newer trains.

The interesting comment to me was about braking of class 47s. I realise that different trains will have different braking characteristics (eg express passenger and unfitted mineral at the extreme) but I had assumed that after so many years of first vacuum brakes and more recently air brakes the responses on different locomotive types would have been pretty well identical. No more LNWR Coal Tanks.

And yes, I had forgotten how much computerisation has affected the driving process, for good or bad.

I'll stick to my bicycle.

Jonathan

It’s not just types of Loco, my Uncle who was a 50 year cleaner/fireman/driver ending as Top Link at the + alway told me of “favourite” Locos which drove better than others, and conversely always dreaded getting some which drove like a bag of spanners strapped to your back.

 

There was one particular 40 I was cabbing with him once and he demonstrated that at a few particular speeds the front pilot axle bounced and rattled, it had been looked at several times and always was the same!

 

He retired not long after it all went franchised and he said he was lucky, he sat on the Railways Board for a while at the request of John Prescott but he only lasted a few months before seeing the light and giving up, it was chaos.

[APOLLO]

Fabricate some big thick steel plates  and steel castings for awkward shapes, all bolted to the aluminium body at multiple points to spread the load / stress. Job sorted.

 

Jacking point failure point area I presume. Looks to be  Just not "beefy" enough (if as welded below).

 

 

Bogies swivel, move up and down, sometimes quite violently. look at the weld surface area second picture - not much. Yes this is not the jacking point of an 800 (see above), but the fixing area etc look the same.

 

 

 

Trains were once built like brick sh*t houses and lasted for ever structurally - now built to a cost, weight, etc.

 

Didn't Hornby have a workable bogie fix for their 800 model !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

3 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Fabricate some big thick steel plates  and steel castings for awkward shapes, all bolted to the aluminium body at multiple points to spread the load / stress. Job sorted.

 

Jacking point failure point area I presume. Looks to be  Just not "beefy" enough (if as welded below).

 

 

Bogies swivel, move up and down, sometimes quite violently. look at the weld surface area second picture - not much. Yes this is not the jacking point of an 800 (see above), but the fixing area etc look the same.

 

 

 

Trains were once built like brick sh*t houses and lasted for ever structurally - now built to a cost, weight, etc.

 

Didn't Hornby have a workable bogie fix for their 800 model !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

Unfortunately, creating places where aluminium and steel come into direct contact opens a whole other can of (tin) worms as the two react chemically with one another, causing corrosion. 

 

John

[Andy Hayter]

9 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Fabricate some big thick steel plates  and steel castings for awkward shapes, all bolted to the aluminium body at multiple points to spread the load / stress. Job sorted.

 

 

Brit15

 

 

What about galvanic corrosion?

 

John beat me to it.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Andy Hayter

[uax6]

11 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Fabricate some big thick steel plates  and steel castings for awkward shapes, all bolted to the aluminium body at multiple points to spread the load / stress. Job sorted.

 

Jacking point failure point area I presume. Looks to be  Just not "beefy" enough (if as welded below).

 

 

Bogies swivel, move up and down, sometimes quite violently. look at the weld surface area second picture - not much. Yes this is not the jacking point of an 800 (see above), but the fixing area etc look the same.

 

 

 

Trains were once built like brick sh*t houses and lasted for ever structurally - now built to a cost, weight, etc.

 

Didn't Hornby have a workable bogie fix for their 800 model !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

The second photos show the CAF arrangement of fixing the yaw damper bracket to the body by the use of slots and t-bolts. As has been said there is a lot of force on the yaw dampers, so that thin Ally slot is subjected to a lot of stress cycles, and inevitably with fail. There needs to be a bit more meat there....

 

Andy G 

[woodenhead]

Just now, uax6 said:

There needs to be a bit more meat there....

 

I think would be another whole problem waiting to happen, very poor strength profile, tends to rot quickly unless cured and what will Vegans think, they'd have to boycott using an alternative mode of transport.

[boxbrownie]

51 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I think would be another whole problem waiting to happen, very poor strength profile, tends to rot quickly unless cured and what will Vegans think, they'd have to boycott using an alternative mode of transport.

Aha but they could use the best....Kobe Beef.....hand reared and fed with beer.....hang on, did somebody say Kobe before? 

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Artless Bodger said:

I must be the only person who actually preferred voyagers! 

 

Nope, I prefer them to HSTs. The ride is much smoother and I can live with the noise. The key thing with them is to get the right seat, do that and any journey is fine. I used to make an annual trip to Aberdeen from Brum and if I couldn't get into 1st then a certain seat in F was very comfortable for the 8 hour journey...

 

1 hour ago, Coryton said:

My main problem with Voyagers is the interior layout.

 

If we could lay out all the standard coaches like the ones that a few sets (used to?) have in one coach with all the seats in bays round tables matching up with the (nice large) windows I think they'd feel like a completely different train.

 

Catch 22. When they have done surveys of XC passengers (they are done by an independent company, not XC) having a seat is always number 1 priority for people. Put in all table seating (like Virgin did on theirs a few years ago) and you reduce the number of seats. Not an issue when you run 10 car sets as they do but is if it's a 4 car... I remember talking to one of the guys who was involved in their initial purchase, two things he pointed out was that had the bearded one not been so obsessed with tilting we could have had a fleet of 5 cars (probably with a larger body profile as well) with the money saved, and the big mistake with the disabled toilets in C and B, which could have just been ordinary ones and freeing up more room. Someone supposedly misread the accessibility regulations!

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Unfortunately, creating places where aluminium and steel come into direct contact opens a whole other can of (tin) worms as the two react chemically with one another, causing corrosion. 

 

John

Yes indeed - I served in 2 ships where, to keep weight low, the wheelhouse was constructed of aluminium. How it was secured to the rest of the accommodation block, whilst ensuring no physical metal contact between steel & aluminium, thus setting up a galvanic cell & hence corrosion issues, was a nightmare...

 

Mark

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

What about galvanic corrosion?

 

They sound like a pop group.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Didn't Hornby have a workable bogie fix for their 800 model !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There's your answer then.  Scale up the Hornby ones.  You could could knock that up very quickly in CAD.

How long would it take to a 3D printer to produce that in plastic?

[Coryton]

12 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Catch 22. When they have done surveys of XC passengers (they are done by an independent company, not XC) having a seat is always number 1 priority for people. Put in all table seating (like Virgin did on theirs a few years ago) and you reduce the number of seats. Not an issue when you run 10 car sets as they do but is if it's a 4 car... I remember talking to one of the guys who was involved in their initial purchase, two things he pointed out was that had the bearded one not been so obsessed with tilting we could have had a fleet of 5 cars (probably with a larger body profile as well) with the money saved, and the big mistake with the disabled toilets in C and B, which could have just been ordinary ones and freeing up more room. Someone supposedly misread the accessibility regulations!

 

Of course. There's a good reason that they are crammed with seats the way there are, unpleasant as it is.

 

Hence my phrasing "If we could" lay them out...

 

 

[APOLLO]

I wonder what the interim / final solution will be ? - Live with the cracks and constantly check ?

 

Yes aluminium and steel is not a good combination. Perhaps Aluminium plates . castings etc. Looking at the non 800 photo above the yaw damper plate has been ripped off, taking some coach frame metal with it - weld failure or structural fatigue (or both) ?

 

Brit15

 

 

[Reorte]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

Of course. There's a good reason that they are crammed with seats the way there are, unpleasant as it is.

 

Hence my phrasing "If we could" lay them out...

 

 

So should the Voyagers have gone to where the short HST sets have gone and full sized HSTs gone to where Voyagers are currently used? (which come to think of it would be turning back the clock in places). I suppose there's also the possibility that the short HST sets were formed by keeping the least knackered bits?

Edited May 10, 2021 by Reorte

[woodenhead]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

They sound like a pop group.

Big in Japan apparently 

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

What about galvanic corrosion?

 

John beat me to it.

Is there scope to use a layer, e.g. mastic, between the surfaces, and sleeves on bolts or similar to reduce the metal to metal? 

[Coryton]

13 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Is there scope to use a layer, e.g. mastic, between the surfaces, and sleeves on bolts or similar to reduce the metal to metal? 

 

There certainly are ways of preventing galvanic corrosion by using coatings or intermediate materials.

 

I have no idea what would be suitable in this case and I'm not going to suggest anything as the things I have been involved in are a long way from large chunks of railway train.