Hitachi trains grounded

[david.hill64]

9 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Which begs the question as to why the trains were not designed from the start with British conditions stipulated instead of buying adapted designs?  
 

The short answer is because it would have been illegal to require them to be suitable for British conditions. All rolling stock for EU main line railways by law has to comply with the Technical Standards for Interoperabilty and supporting Euronorms. Railways are not permitted to require more restrictive requirements for their system. The TSI has a gauging derogation for UK (so does acknowledge some differences to continental practice) but the loads that have to be carried by the structure, including body-bogie connections are mandated in EN12663.

 

Yes, Hitachi might have chosen to design something that could withstand greater loads but were under no immediate obligation to do so. I haven't seen the procurement specification but it is likely to have required compliance with applicable standards. If the real railway has a different environment Hitachi will argue that it is not its problem. Of course it may now be possible to migrate BS-EN standards to be more GB-centric but there will be issues with this too.

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Which begs the question as to why the trains were not designed from the start with British conditions stipulated

Who says they weren't?

 

11 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Something has been overlooked, or miscalculated, in the process of adapting to the smaller UK loading gauge.

How do you know?

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, david.hill64 said:

loads that have to be carried by the structure, including body-bogie connections are mandated in EN12663.

...which is a de facto global standard (expect, perhaps, the USA), not just in Europe.

[rodent279]

21 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Who says they weren't?

 

How do you know?

I don't. None of us do, it's all speculation, until we know facts. It could also be nothing to do with design, standards compliance etc, it could be just a manufacturing defect.

[david.hill64]

17 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

...which is a de facto global standard (expect, perhaps, the USA), not just in Europe.

Indeed it is: vehicles I am currently assessing for operation in Taiwan are designed to this standard. I suspect that as well as the US, Japan also does not use any EN standard for domestic builds. 

The point is that the UK was not able to specify load cases that may be more relevant. In the bad old days after the problems with 158's, BR engineers knew what was required and could guide the builder to an acceptable solution. It is only recently that severe yaw damper bracket problems have re-emerged and these are vehicles that comply with the TSI and supporting EN. This to my simple mind suggests that the load cases in the standard are not severe enough for vehicles operating on UK infrastructure.

Edited May 13, 2021 by david.hill64
spelling

[Coryton]

 

10 hours ago, woodenhead said:

We should have asked Branson!!

 

Pendolinos and Voyagers - ok interiors could have been better and maybe tilt on the 221s was overkill but they haven't fallen apart, neither have their Meridian relatives.

 

But that would have involved either an awful lot of running diesel under the wires or ending through trains to various places (which might have been the right solution).

 

Unless a bi-mode version of the Pendolino was produced but I can't see how that would have been particularly practical.

 

Personally, I would not have enjoyed seeing HSTs replaced by trains with cramped interiors and tiny overhead luggage racks due to a completely unnecessarily tilt profile, and with tiny windows to look out of. All subjective, I know, but I find Pendolino's one of the most unpleasant trains to travel in that I've ever come across.

 

8 hours ago, Railpassion said:

If trains need to be taken out out of use and stripped down it may be wise to refit the dreary interior with better seats, sensible lighting and more luggage space. A buffet would be nice too. The entire passenger environment could be enhanced whilst sets were away for repair. 

 

 

Again, it's subjective. I don't find the interior of 800's at all dreary, and a vast improvement over the final version of the GWR HSTs.

 

And I don't know if I've got used to them, or the seats have changed, or I've changed, but I no longer find them uncomfortably hard.

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

 

The point is that the UK was not able to specify load cases that may be more relevant.

Hmm... The way Interoperability works, each member state notifies the national technical rules that are necessary for technical compatibility with its network. There are a lot more UK specific cases than just the loading gauge.

 

So - yes - it starts with the TSIs/ENs hence EN12663 but this can then be supplemented by UK NNTRs, in this case GMRT2100. What's illegal (or at least was) is for GMRT2100 to mandate anything that is incompatible with EN12663 (unless justified by a special case) but it can certainly specify EN12663+ if this is justified for technical compatibility with the UK network.

 

Another (relevant) example is wheel profiles. Due to the different rail head profile and rail inclination, UK can't use the standard European S1002 wheel profiles hence the P1 to P11 profiles set out in GMRT2466. And so on.

 

For this reason,  RSSB has spent the last 10 years gradually revising the group standards to align them as best possible with the TSIs/ENs. A process it arguably doesn't need to bother with going forward although for now, all the TSIs have been adopted as UK National Technical Specification Notices (NTSNs) as a 'day 1' position from 1.1.21.

 

All explained here:

https://www.rssb.co.uk/standards/understanding-and-applying-standards/national-technical-rules

Edited May 13, 2021 by LNER4479

[Hobby]

8 minutes ago, Coryton said:

But that would have involved either an awful lot of running diesel under the wires or ending through trains to various places (which might have been the right solution).

 

A "pantograph" coach was designed for the Voyagers a year or two ago I believe, full drawings produced so it could be done. Cancelled due to cost or no money to do it or some other reason.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Hobby

[St Enodoc]

2 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Hmm... The way Interoperability works, each member state notifies the national technical rules that are necessary for technical compatibility with its network. There are a lot more UK specific cases than just the loading gauge.

 

So - yes - it starts with the TSIs/ENs hence EN12663 but this can then be supplemented by UK NNTRs, in this case GMRT2100. What's illegal (or at least was) is for GMRT2100 to mandate anything that is incompatible with EN12663 (unless justified by a special case) but it can certainly specify EN12663+ if this is justified for technical compatibility with the UK network.

 

Another (relevant) example is wheel profiles. Due to the different inclination of the rails, UK can't use the standard European S1002 wheel profiles hence the P1 to P11 profiles set out in GMRT2466. And so on.

 

For this reason,  RSSB has spent the last 10 years gradually revising the group standards to align them as best possible with the TSIs/ENs. A process it arguably doesn't need to bother with going forward although for now, all the TSIs have been adopted as UK National Technical Specification Notices (NTSNs) as a 'day 1' position from 1.1.21.

 

All explained here:

https://www.rssb.co.uk/standards/understanding-and-applying-standards/national-technical-rules

We also use a number of GM/RTs, including 2100. They are called up in the relevant national and other standards.

[TomScrut]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which is important - the laws of physics don't always scale in a liner relationship with size!

 

Thus although shrinking the bodyshell might be easy enough doing so could result in it not being strong enough to resist certain forces.

 

10 hours ago, rodent279 said:

The bodyshells are also a bit longer (3m?) than class 395's-maybe that results in extra bending moments when jacking, or in resisting lateral movement?

 

Bending moment of a simply supported beam with a distributed load is proportional to its length squared.

 

One thing to bear in mind about comparisons with 395s are that as far as I am aware the only times they do anything remotely high speed is on HS1 which I expect is probably the best bit of track in the country.

Edited May 13, 2021 by TomScrut

[Fat Controller]

4 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

 

Bending moment of a simply supported beam with a distributed load is proportional to its length squared.

 

One thing to bear in mind about comparisons with 395s are that as far as I am aware the only times they do anything remotely high speed is on HS2 which I expect is probably the best bit of track in the country.

HS1, I think.

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

A "pantograph" coach was designed for the Voyagers a year or two ago I believe, full drawings produced so it could be done. Cancelled due to cost or no money to do it or some other reason.

 

We have been through this before MANY times!

 

Producing 'the drawings' is the easy(ish part) - but even then I doubt anyone would have actually done detailed design work. More like a scoping exercise to examine the potential costs (and confirm officialy what everyone knew privately) so it could be rejected.

 

In short its a non starter because:-

 

(1) The Voyagers ARE NOT WIRED UP TO TRANSMIT TRACTION POWER ALONG THEMSELVES. As such you would need to undertake a complete strip down and re-wire plus replace all the control gear and computer systems on ALL existing vehicles - which costs mega bucks.

 

(2) The jigs to make the vehicles themselves have long since been destroyed and therefore Bombardier would need to make them up again from scratch at considerable expense.

 

If you want bi-modes, particulalry InterCity vehicles then the ONLY way it stacks up financially is new builds.

[TomScrut]

15 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

HS1, I think.

Cheers, edited

[Hobby]

Do you have to shout, Phil, a simple and polite correction was all that was needed, that was OTT.

[boxbrownie]

13 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Which begs the question as to why the trains were not designed from the start with British conditions stipulated instead of buying adapted designs?  

 

 

But how do you know they weren’t specified for “British” conditions?

 

I would guess it’s a similar situation to designing a world market car, the main construction component will be common but certain items like springs, dampers, tyres, steering rack, emissions gear (even the colour of the trim) etc will be for the intended market.

 

The thread is getting clogged up with a lot of pure speculation (not necessarily pointing at you Gwiwer) and some quite nasty accusations directed at manufacturers, operators, governments, countries and the poor old Badger 

[alastairq]

Just now, Hobby said:

Do you have to shout, Phil, a simple and polite correction was all that was needed, that was OTT.

 Possibly suffering from a sudden format change?  I get that a lot with these forums. An accidental touch of an unwanted key, and suddenly everything goes to shouty mode, or crossing out mode..or even, disappears altogether, which is frustrating.

If not picked up straight away, it comes across as something very different.

[Just providing a 'benefit of the doubt' moment...                 }

[Gilbert]

Maybe we need a thread for the speculation and another one for reports etc on how the service is responding and what stand ins or contingencies  etc are planned or in use?

 

[Hobby]

It would be sensible, but I recon it would last all of... one post... before it went back to what we have now!

[Mike_Walker]

13 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Which begs the question as to why the trains were not designed from the start with British conditions stipulated instead of buying adapted designs?  
 

It isn’t a matter of where they were built. What matters - and what will need to come out in the wash - is the flawed decision-making which afflicted the train procurement process and the GWR electrification fiasco which resulted in hasty changes. 
 

Some of those chickens may already be home to roost. 
 

 

Ask the DfT but unfortunately the prime mover of the project is no longer on the planet to answer for, or see the damage he has done.

[boxbrownie]

12 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

 

 

A career UK rail vehicle engineer, (ex-uni BR engineering management trainee) 34 years experience and counting ...

 

Well at least we now know who to point the finger at........thanks for popping over the parapet 

 

Seriously though, an interesting insight and good to get some actual facts.

[boxbrownie]

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which is important - the laws of physics don't always scale in a liner relationship with size!

 

Thus although shrinking the bodyshell might be easy enough doing so could result in it not being strong enough to resist certain forces.

I cannot believe a company such as Hitachi is going to do a “quick cut and shut” to fit U.K. LG, any modifications would have been fed into the computer along with material strengths intended lifetime cycles, stress predictions and I don’t really believe you think that also.

 

Mind you their TVs were carp! 

[eastglosmog]

34 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

But how do you know they weren’t specified for “British” conditions?

 

I would guess it’s a similar situation to designing a world market car, the main construction component will be common but certain items like springs, dampers, tyres, steering rack, emissions gear (even the colour of the trim) etc will be for the intended market.

 

The thread is getting clogged up with a lot of pure speculation (not necessarily pointing at you Gwiwer) and some quite nasty accusations directed at manufacturers, operators, governments, countries and the poor old Badger 

Quite agree - it was bad enough when my cat Badger was blamed for killing birds two years after he had died, but blaming him for causing cracks in trains 6 years after his death is a bit much!

[david.hill64]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

Hmm... The way Interoperability works, each member state notifies the national technical rules that are necessary for technical compatibility with its network. There are a lot more UK specific cases than just the loading gauge.

 

So - yes - it starts with the TSIs/ENs hence EN12663 but this can then be supplemented by UK NNTRs, in this case GMRT2100. What's illegal (or at least was) is for GMRT2100 to mandate anything that is incompatible with EN12663 (unless justified by a special case) but it can certainly specify EN12663+ if this is justified for technical compatibility with the UK network.

 

Another (relevant) example is wheel profiles. Due to the different inclination of the rails, UK can't use the standard European S1002 wheel profiles hence the P1 to P11 profiles set out in GMRT2466. And so on.

 

For this reason,  RSSB has spent the last 10 years gradually revising the group standards to align them as best possible with the TSIs/ENs. A process it arguably doesn't need to bother with going forward although for now, all the TSIs have been adopted as UK National Technical Specification Notices (NTSNs) as a 'day 1' position from 1.1.21.

 

All explained here:

https://www.rssb.co.uk/standards/understanding-and-applying-standards/national-technical-rules

Yes, what you post is all true, but it requires effort and agreement. UK could for example have put forward a legitimate case for electrification clearances to be a special case as these are closely aligned to gauging, but didn't so we end up with a network that isn't compliant with the TSI (not that it matters for existing installations) and an inability to afford future electrification projects because of the civil works requirements. (And I admit in this case the ORR wanting to take an unreasonably pessimistic view on safety and the application of electricity at work regs). Yes you can get derogations from TSI's (eg Crossrail) but these are in the gift of the European Commission.

 

The rolling stock TSI and EN12663 do not allow any specific exemption for UK to deviate from specified acceleration levels mandated in the standard (at least in the versions that I have - 2014) so unless I have missed something I'll stand by my statement that it would have been illegal to specify different load cases for the 800s. (Even if DfT had the gumption to understand it might be necessary).

 

Design scrutiny used to be a very valuable tool that BR used to ensure standards were interpreted correctly and it worked. BR had developed goal setting standards supported by codes of practice. Quite different to the continental approach where standards traditionally prescribed engineering solutions. BR representatives on the drafting committees lost the battle to continue the UK approach. Nowadays acceptance is based more towards ticking the boxes that the standard mandates. The absurdity of this approach was brought home to me when assessing Shinkanshen stock for Taiwan. Our newly recruited German engineer became very frustrated at the delay in getting his PC up and running. It transpired that he had brought with him the entire suite of DIN standards for rolling stock with him on CD and wanted to assess whether the design was acceptable or not by checking against these standards rather than assessing whether the vehicles complied with the contract. He didn't know how to do anything else. I think the industry generally has lost out by adopting the current approach, but I am probably in a minority.

 

So my point is that if the new vehicles are designed to EN12663, then CAF and Hitachi will probably have met the contract requirements, even if the vehicles are not robust enough to cope with UK conditions. (And I said before that I haven't seen the procurement specs and design calculations for these trains so readily admit I could be wrong). 

 

Only the lawyers will win.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by david.hill64
Edited to include a dig at DafT

[Calidore]

To bring this back to operations for a moment — LNER’s 801229 and Hull’s 802304 currently on the stops at KGX heading for Edinburgh and Hull, respectively. They’re cutting a pretty lonely figure...

Edited May 13, 2021 by Calidore

[HillsideDepot]

From https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hitachi-rail-global/pressreleases/hitachi-rail-and-rail-industry-agree-service-recovery-plan-to-get-trains-back-3099440 

 

Quote

PRESS RELEASE - 13 MAY 2021 09:49

 

Hitachi Rail and rail industry agree service recovery plan to get trains back

 

 

 

Hitachi Rail, train operators, and government have agreed, with oversight from the Office of Rail and Road, a service recovery plan to safely reintroduce more 800 Series and 385 Series trains to the network.

The fleet of 800 series trains was removed from service as a precaution at the weekend when cracks were found on some trains.

 

Following extensive safety checks on their trains, Transpennine Express, Hull Trains and ScotRail have been able to operate services across all of their routes since last weekend.

 

After further rigorous safety checks involving ORR’s HM Railway Inspectorate, GWR and LNER will now begin reintroducing trains with a more regular service for passengers. Trains on some routes may be less frequent than usual and train availability could vary, for a number of reasons, so passengers should continue to check with the operators before they travel.

 

Passengers are being advised to check the latest travel advice from their train operator. Eligible passengers are also being encouraged to claim refunds.

 

Service Recovery Plan

The service recovery plan follows joint work between Hitachi Rail, train operators and the regulator around the safe return to service of some trains. Since discovering the faults, Hitachi Rail engineers and independent experts have completed rigorous tests and research to gain a clearer understanding of the cracking issue.

 

Based on the work undertaken to understand the issue, and after extensive engagement, Hitachi Rail and train operators, working with the rail regulator, have put in place suitable criteria for the trains to meet before they can re-enter service.

 

The service recovery plan includes thorough inspections by specialist teams before trains leave the depot. Trains will only re-enter service if they meet agreed safety criteria. Working with Hitachi Rail, the rail regulator will continue to carry out rigorous oversight to ensure robust processes are being followed.

 

Over time, trains will be subject to a Forward Repair Plan, which will ensure the long-term continued safe running of the fleet.

 

Andrew Barr, Group CEO of Hitachi Rail, said:

“Today’s agreement sets out our joint plan for the phased reintroduction of our trains into service, which will continue to deliver the highest possible safety standards. Safety remains our number one priority, and we and our partners have worked round the clock to agree an approach that allows the return of trains to service where they have been deemed safe.

 

“With our service recovery plan now underway, the operators will begin reintroduction of trains as they are individually approved and deemed safe. We would like to thank our partners for their ongoing support as we work collectively to reintroduce more trains into service.”

 

Robert Nisbet, director of nations and regions at the Rail Delivery Group, said:

“The safety of passengers has been the absolute focus for each of the organisations involved in making decisions about these trains over recent days. After some incredibly hard and detailed work, Hitachi’s engineers have worked with train operators and the rail regulator to safely bring some trains back into service. Over the coming days we will be able to get passengers on the affected routes moving again, but for now passengers should continue to check before they travel.”

 

HM Chief Inspector of Railways at the Office of Rail and Road, Ian Prosser CBE said:

“We’ve engaged with Hitachi and the train companies to oversee their development of a safe and suitable plan.

“We’re also continuing to provide the rigorous oversight needed to make sure the right checks are being carried out so that the trains are able to re-enter passenger service safely.”

 

Mark Hopwood, GWR Managing Director, said:

“Our customers have shown great patience over the past couple of days, and I am grateful for their understanding as we have worked with Hitachi to allow trains to return safely. This news will allow us to run some additional services today and reintroduce more consistent robust timetables for customers after the weekend.

 

“The industry has come together to help support those travelling – with other operators allowing each other’s tickets to be used on their networks; adding in extra shuttle services to help move people; and in sharing rolling stock to provide it to those who need it most.”

 

David Horne, LNER Managing Director, said:

“I am pleased we have been able to work as an industry to agree a service recovery plan with Hitachi and industry partners that will allow trains to return safely to our route. We are continuing to work together to begin the return of Azuma trains into service from next week. Customers should continue to check before they travel with LNER and I apologise for the disruption caused.”

 

ENDS