Hitachi trains grounded

[Mike_Walker]

4 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Complete with bogies, or can they be detached?

Either, depends on what work is being undertaken although it would be rare to remove all.  Most depots have a bogie drop table where a single bogie can be lowered and removed, the body being supported by jacks.  Most modern stock is designed to remain permanently coupled apart from major works visits due to complex electronics that are distributed throughout the train.

[Ian Hargrave]

14 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
From tomorrow,LNER reconnects with both Aberdeen and Inverness...obviously on bi mode. What excellent news just in time for the tourist season...COVID-19 permitting. Bravo to all who made this possible.

  The 12:00 KX -Inverness isn’t quite what it seems. 800112 to Edinburgh and800107 onwards. Repositioning move or being cautious ?

[Ian Hargrave]

9 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

  The 12:00 KX -Inverness isn’t quite what it seems. 800112 to Edinburgh and800107 onwards. Repositioning move or being cautious ?

In contrast,the 14:00 KX -Aberdeen is for 800109 throughout 

[boxbrownie]

1 minute ago, Ian Hargrave said:

In contrast,the 14:00 KX -Aberdeen is for 800109 throughout 

Arriving 10:00 tomorrow morning 

[Banger Blue]

GWR have 37 sets out today. Also the sets left at various sidings should be moved throughout today:

 

800021 at Gloucester & 800317 at Hereford > Stoke Gifford

800031, 800308 at Worcester & 802006 at Oxford > North Pole

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 13/05/2021 at 17:32, Oldddudders said:

I was told in the mid-70s that the WCML timetable planners had to allow for daily tamping possessions because of wear on the track. 

Correct Dudders. The state of the track on the southern end was so bad that it was reduced to two tracks at some point between Wembley and Rugby from 1000 to 1500 (IIRC) on weekdays. Birmingham services had 15 minutes added to allow for a double section weave or Northampton diversion with squadron tamping taking place on the Fast lines. During his time as Chairman, Sir Peter Parker described BR as being "At the crumbling edge" with regard to the state of the infrastructure. The situation was repeated with Hatfield and the circle seems to have turned again.

[TomScrut]

6 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Leaving aside the issue of whether they are required by their home operators they can't run at 125mph on the GWML as the rules are now so that's probably one factor.

 

I'd have thought the operators may have been helpful, surely such a stock crisis would take precedence over mileage accumulation and training?

 

But yes I had forgotten about ATP being needed on the GWML.

[Oldddudders]

6 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Leaving aside the issue of whether they are required by their home operators they can't run at 125mph on the GWML as the rules are now so that's probably one factor.

On the GWML, of all routes, the memory of Southall is likely to be a disincentive to give any easement......

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I take it the whole train has to be lifted in one move-you can't lift an individual vehicle?

No different from the way a Class 373 Eurostar half set had to be lifted - it's not at all easy to lift individual vehicles in an articulated train

[RJS1977]

Can't help wondering if it would be easier to keep the train still and lower the track....

[Oldddudders]

Just now, RJS1977 said:

Can't help wondering if it would be easier to keep the train still and lower the track....

Is that lateral thinking - or vertical?

[The Stationmaster]

37 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

I'd have thought the operators may have been helpful, surely such a stock crisis would take precedence over mileage accumulation and training?

 

But yes I had forgotten about ATP being needed on the GWML.

If a set is on mileage accumulation that is what it is doing - pending acceptance.  So it can't be used in traffic (unless 'mileage accumulation' means somethinmg different since the days when i was involved with it).

[The Stationmaster]

1 minute ago, RJS1977 said:

Can't help wondering if it would be easier to keep the train still and lower the track....

Which is of course exactly what is done to remove a bogie on a drop pit

[simontaylor484]

I would assume Hitachi would provide a safe system of work for lifting the vehicles from their bogies 

[Wheatley]

1 hour ago, TomScrut said:

 

I'd have thought the operators may have been helpful, surely such a stock crisis would take precedence over mileage accumulation and training?

 

But yes I had forgotten about ATP being needed on the GWML.

HT only ordered 5 to start with, and if they're still accumulating mileage that suggests they don't actually have all 5 yet. Some of the 195/331 mileage and training runs were done with passenger footboards and other non-essential bits missing. A unit which has not yet run enough miles to be accepted into traffic by its leasee cannot be sub-leased by the TOC which has not yet accepted it to a third party to run in traffic. 

 

When the 91s were withdrawn after Eschede, Northern Spirit lent its 3 Class 321s to help run a skeleton service as I think did WAGN ? but both TOCs had plenty of other units to cover the shortfall.

 

No TOC would be expected to compromise its own services by giving up a sizeable chunk of its fleet, regardless of the ins and outs if whether it was technically, contractually or legally possible. 

[TomScrut]

4 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

HT only ordered 5 to start with, and if they're still accumulating mileage that suggests they don't actually have all 5 yet.

 

They do have all 5, but there is at least 1 doing driver training for the new open access operator running from Scotland who's name escapes me.

 

TPE are running at least one 802 up and down the WCML on mileage accumulation.

 

5 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

No TOC would be expected to compromise its own services by giving up a sizeable chunk of its fleet, regardless of the ins and outs if whether it was technically, contractually or legally possible. 

 

Maybe not, I'd have thought it would have been possible to make it financially worthwhile given the amount of money being lost elsewhere.

[Mike_Walker]

11 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

They do have all 5, but there is at least 1 doing driver training for the new open access operator running from Scotland who's name escapes me.

 

TPE are running at least one 802 up and down the WCML on mileage accumulation.

 

 

Maybe not, I'd have thought it would have been possible to make it financially worthwhile given the amount of money being lost elsewhere.

However, now that the franchise agreements have been replaced by EMRAs, the Secretary of State can order stock to be moved from one TOC to another.  Ironically, this does not apply to LNER or Northern as they are under the auspices of Directly Operated Railways!

[rab]

I know I'm going to get flack for this, and I'm sure others who are

more in the know will come up with valid counter arguments, but

it seems to me that the flexibility of modes of transport reduces

as the number of people carried per unit increases.

 

if a car breaks down, another one can be borrowed or hired and

with a few minutes of becoming familiar with the new vehicle,

the driver can continue their journey.

 

if a bus or coach breaks down, it may take a bit longer to obtain

a replacement, but provided it is the same class of vehicle, the

journey can be continued by the original driver.

 

I'm not very informed with how the airline industry works, but

I guess a few more restrictions start to come in; pilots only trained

on certain types of aircraft, certain aircraft not able to land at

certain airports due to runway length etc.

 

When we come to railways, the restrictions become worse.

Drivers, and other crew have to be trained up on each type of train.

They have to have refresher training if they haven't been on that type

after a certain period. (This may of course apply to aircraft too).

Drivers have to be familiar with routes, and again need regular

route refresher training.

Trains are restricted to certain routes for all sorts of reasons.

 

Tin hat on, searching for a deep trench

Edited May 15, 2021 by rab
Afterthought

[cunningduck]

17 minutes ago, rab said:

I know I'm going to get flack for this, and I'm sure others who are

more in the know will come up with valid counter arguments, but

it seems to me that the flexibility of modes of transport reduces

as the number of people carried per unit increases.

 

if a car breaks down, another one can be borrowed or hired and

with a few minutes of becoming familiar with the new vehicle,

the driver can continue their journey.

 

if a bus or coach breaks down, it may take a bit longer to obtain

a replacement, but provided it is the same class of vehicle, the

journey can be continued by the original driver.

 

I'm not very informed with how the airline industry works, but

I guess a few more restrictions start to come in; pilots only trained

on certain types of aircraft, certain aircraft not able to land at

certain airports due to runway length etc.

 

When we come to railways, the restrictions become worse.

Drivers, and other crew have to be trained up on each type of train.

They have to have refresher training if they haven't been on that type

after a certain period. (This may of course apply to aircraft too).

Drivers have to be familiar with routes, and again need regular

route refresher training.

Trains are restricted to certain routes for all sorts of reasons.

 

Tin hat on, searching for a deep trench

Is this why trains (and those damned flying machines) are so much safer than road transport?

[jamie92208]

Airline pilots do have specific types of aircraft on their licences. A lot of the 737MAX saga was due to Boeing trying to make the MAX handle the same way as previous 737's so that Pilots didn't need much training on the new aircraft. They did the same with the 757/767 which is why the 757 has a long spindly undercarriage in order that the cockpit, and thus the pilots eye level is the same height above the runway on both aircraft. The downside was that landing a 757 in a crosswind was tricky.

 

Jamie

Edited May 15, 2021 by jamie92208

[Oldddudders]

23 minutes ago, rab said:

When we come to railways, the restrictions become worse.

Drivers, and other crew have to be trained up on each type of train.

They have to have refresher training if they haven't been on that type

after a certain period. (This may of course apply to aircraft too).

Drivers have to be familiar with routes, and again need regular

route refresher training.

Trains are restricted to certain routes for all sorts of reasons.

Trains with people in them have been running for 191 years, I think, and really quite a lot of understanding about what makes train travel safe has come up in that time. Much of that valuable knowledge has been acquired in the worst of circs, because people died. None of the restrictive practices that you identify is there for the fun of it. The TOCs (prior to Covid, since when lots of things have changed, but safety priorities haven't) would much rather run on a cavalier basis, because it is cheaper and more flexible. Maintaining trains in the most effective way is also very costly - but it is essential. Ensuring traincrew, signallers and other key safety-critical personnel are in top-notch nick when taking duty gives them the best chance of performing optimally, so rest periods are important, and route and traction-training critical for those onboard.

 

We can either maintain high levels of safety and security, or we can save a bit of money and risk loss of life. Not a choice to me. 

[Dunsignalling]

The current disruption is, perhaps ironically, an effect of the nearest the UK rail industry has got to a standard fleet of equipment since the trains they replaced were new.

 

Whether the movement to individual designs for each line is perpetuated now privatisation is being unpicked remains to be seen, but if new stock continues to be specified by the DfT, future procurement is likely to involve greater uniformity.

 

That said,  it has become evident that the apparent uniformity of the various incarnations of the 8xx family is, to a considerable extent, only skin deep. Trouble is, it's one of the uniform bits that's caused all the grief!

 

Rather less extreme than cars, though which increasingly look almost identical but where any common parts are usually hidden from view.

 

John

Edited May 15, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[rab]

22 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Trains with people in them have been running for 191 years, I think, and really quite a lot of understanding about what makes train travel safe has come up in that time. Much of that valuable knowledge has been acquired in the worst of circs, because people died. None of the restrictive practices that you identify is there for the fun of it. The TOCs (prior to Covid, since when lots of things have changed, but safety priorities haven't) would much rather run on a cavalier basis, because it is cheaper and more flexible. Maintaining trains in the most effective way is also very costly - but it is essential. Ensuring traincrew, signallers and other key safety-critical personnel are in top-notch nick when taking duty gives them the best chance of performing optimally, so rest periods are important, and route and traction-training critical for those onboard.

 

We can either maintain high levels of safety and security, or we can save a bit of money and risk loss of life. Not a choice to me. 

I wasn't stating inflexibility as a criticism.  In fact it was anticipation of a comment of that sort that I found myself looking at comparisons with other modes of transport and arriving at the conclusion that the more people you attempt to transport in one group, the less flexible the system becomes, because, as you say, more people, more lives at risk. (Although there is the point of view that protecting one life is as important as protecting hundreds).

I realised after posting that I had omitted marine transport, which involves even more people.  Again I'm not aware of procedures there, but I suspect that may shoot down my argument in flames.

[Gilbert]

5 minutes ago, rab said:

I realised after posting that I had omitted marine transport, which involves even more people.  Again I'm not aware of procedures there, but I suspect that may shoot down my argument in flames.

There's no place for intelligent humility on RMweb..just saying.....

[Coryton]

47 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Airline pilots do have specific types of aircraft on their licences. A lot of the 737MAX saga was due to Boeing trying to make the MAX handle the same way as previous 737's so that Pilots didn't need much training on the new aircraft. 

 

I believe that the MCAS system (responsible for fatal crashes) would have been needed even without a desire to match the performance of previous generations because otherwise the way the MAX responded to the controls wouldn't have met the certification requirements (see page 10 in this FAA document).

 

I have seen it suggested that Boeing deliberately omitted information on the system from the manuals because there was strong pressure for there not to be any additional training to transition from the previous generation.

 

The root cause is the effect of bolting large modern jet engines onto an airframe originally designed for much older engines of a radically different shape - it's the lift from the engines that causes it to handle differently.