Hitachi trains grounded

[Talltim]

An

5 hours ago, Talltim said:

That works ok for freight, it’s when you include all the controls for doors, PA etc it gets more complicated. 
That doesn’t mean you can’t have one standard tho, and the data side of it could use standard networking protocols (obviously that wasn’t a thing when autocouplers for units were introduced here), meaning that the functions are separate from the carrier and not dependent on a specific physical configuration of connections

Just thought this morning that the AAR standards are used a little bit in this country, on the Chiltern LHCS rakes if I recall correctly. What they do for the extra functions I don’t know

[rodent279]

5 hours ago, Talltim said:

That works ok for freight, it’s when you include all the controls for doors, PA etc it gets more complicated. 
That doesn’t mean you can’t have one standard tho, and the data side of it could use standard networking protocols (obviously that wasn’t a thing when autocouplers for units were introduced here), meaning that the functions are separate from the carrier and not dependent on a specific physical configuration of connections

Even if the electrical connections are standard, you still have to have compatible software. I think it is the case that there are EMU's around that have compatible couplers, both mechanically and electrically, but have software that is incompatible. I can't remember whether it's Electrostars, or Desiros, but they are in use with different operators.

And of course, that software is a safety critical system, as not only does it control functions such as power and braking, but also door opening, closing and interlocking.

Edited May 16, 2021 by rodent279

[Mike_Walker]

10 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

That is pretty much what happens. Trains which run lines covered by both systems have both systems on board. There's no switching between them as such as the systems each look out for their own transponders - TPWS looks out for its own, and ATP for its own, and the trains respond accordingly.

 

(In fact the GWML is fitted with both TPWS and ATP as TPWS was installed first, so was already there, and any units/locos limited to 75mph or less have no need for ATP),

Wrong,  GWML ATP predated TPWS.  Perhaps you were thinking of AWS?

[rodent279]

I guess in all this, we're forgetting that whatever the issue is with the cracks on the IET/Azuma* fleet, it will be resolved, and we haven't had a De Havilland Comet scenario with an accident/s, with loss of life, to identify & resolve it.

Grounding a large fleet of trains, with loss of service might be a pain, but killing people isn't an option.

 

*I got scolded by the official GWR Instagram account once, for publishing a photo of an IET at Paddington, and calling it an Azuma!

Edited May 16, 2021 by rodent279

[Mike_Walker]

10 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

 

Vinyl also does a good job of concealing rust

 

In the case of the 80x, none of the cracks were covered by vinyl.  They were covered with paint which initially flexed obscuring the cracks in their early stages.   Additionally, most of the cracks are in a position where they only become visible with the aid of mirrors.

[rab]

21 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

My understanding is that the aircraft industry doesn't trust welds, as cracks can propagate along a rapidly, causing it to fail. A single rivet failing isn't in itself likely to be serious, and is easier to detect.

That's how it was explained to me, anyway.

I'm sure I've heard of aluminium parts such as wings being glued together on aircraft?

And rivets go in round holes.

Round holes help to stop crack propogation.

Edited May 16, 2021 by rab

[Mike_Walker]

18 minutes ago, Talltim said:

An

Just thought this morning that the AAR standards are used a little bit in this country, on the Chiltern LHCS rakes if I recall correctly. What they do for the extra functions I don’t know

The Chiltern DVTs were fitted with the AAR control system as that was what was used on the Class 67s they worked with (and the 66s) and therefore the intermediate cars are through wired.  However, when they changed over to Class 68s they had to be fitted with AAR jumpers and translators as they do not use the AAR control system.  That is why only the Chiltern-liveried 68s plus 68008/009 (which are in DRS livery with AAR jumpers) can work Chiltern services.

[rab]

11 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Flak

I 'c' that now.

[boxbrownie]

11 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

 

 

Why not get as many different styles of electrical plugs and sockets fitted to you house and appliances and see how you get on.

 

That is the allegory. Period.

We did have for about 20 years they were the standard 2A 5A 15A and even 30A......all different sizes, some people got on alright with them into the 70’s (and I expect there are still some houses still so fitted!)

 

Even when the 13A square 3 pin came in many old house soldiered on with the old standard, they never became illegal to use, just fit new.

 

Anyhoo, that’s a just a casual flippant observation. 

[Coryton]

1 minute ago, boxbrownie said:

We did have for about 20 years they were the standard 2A 5A 15A and even 30A......all different sizes, some people got on alright with them into the 70’s (and I expect there are still some houses still so fitted!)

 

I'd say that was a single standard that deliberately used incompatible plugs for different current ratings - round pin plugs didn't have fuses.

 

(And going even more off-topic, I think that's why they are still used for theatre lighting because you don't really want a fuse blowing during a performance somewhere you can't easily get to.)

[boxbrownie]

1 minute ago, Coryton said:

 

I'd say that was a single standard that deliberately used incompatible plugs for different current ratings - round pin plugs didn't have fuses.

 

(And going even more off-topic, I think that's why they are still used for theatre lighting because you don't really want a fuse blowing during a performance somewhere you can't easily get to.)

Yes, correct.....an early attempt at safety in domestic electricity supply, although there was nothing to stop you wiring a 15 amp appliance to a 2A plug and trying that for fun, but back then people took responsibility for their own actions, now it’s a different story.

[Michael Hodgson]

9 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Yes, correct.....an early attempt at safety in domestic electricity supply, although there was nothing to stop you wiring a 15 amp appliance to a 2A plug and trying that for fun, but back then people took responsibility for their own actions, now it’s a different story.

A 2A socket??  Nah, you couldn't always find one of them - you used be able to get bayonet plugs so you could run it off the lighting circuit.

 

I've also seen domestic consumer units that were designed with fuses on both the live and neutral terminals.

I've yet to see a fuse on the earth pin but nothing would surprise me.

[phil-b259]

16 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

 

It is the part of my truth that you have not commented upon that I find most revealing.

 

Do you not like my motorcycle or is it a little too welded in an aluminium sort of fashion for your liking ?

 

Motor vehicles be they on two, four (or even more) wheels are not things which interest me regardless of what is used to make them.

 

I have seen the photo of your bike - very 'metalley' and no doubt it took considerable skill to make. Not my cup of tea visually, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

Edited May 16, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

8 hours ago, Talltim said:

And they were talking about new build, as a hypothetical for GWR instead of the IEPs. Thus there would be no need for a strip down and it may have been worth building new jigs for a full fleet build.

Your post would be rude even if they were talking about converting the existing trains, but as they weren’t it’s both rude and irrelevant.

 

(1) It was not clear they were talking about a large batch of new build trains - and IIRC that has NEVER been seriously suggested by Bombardier themselves. All previous work done on the concept by Bombardier and others was about modifying the existing Voyager / Meridian fleets.

 

(2) Given the passing of time since the Voyager / Meridian fleet was completed, I find it extremely hard to believe a almost two decade old design would have been dusted off by Bombardier as their HST replacement offering. More likely a totally NEW design would be offered taking advantage of technological advances and looking very different.to the Meridian / Voyager fleet - and most likely still made of Aluminium extrusions welded together as that is the 'standard' approach in train building nowadays.

Edited May 16, 2021 by phil-b259

[boxbrownie]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

A 2A socket??  Nah, you couldn't always find one of them - you used be able to get bayonet plugs so you could run it off the lighting circuit.

 

I've also seen domestic consumer units that were designed with fuses on both the live and neutral terminals.

I've yet to see a fuse on the earth pin but nothing would surprise me.

Very true, but the three pin plugs were an attempt at getting all the “appliance” use in the houses to be earthed, but people still used to plug their Iron in to a light socket for example.......high load, no earth and possibly damp clothes? 

[RJS1977]

To get a bit more on topic, I saw a Hitachi unit approaching Reading station from the east this morning - sorry, too far away to see the number.

[NIK]

Hi,

 

Will Hornby remake their 'jacking/damper' brackets on their model Hitachi units in dodgy Mazak so they can recreate the real thing?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Steadfast]

It was mentioned in the in depth and highly informative thread on the WNXX forum that there are different grades of aluminium, and the aerospace industry tends to use a different grade to railways. Different grades and alloys will have different molecular structure, brittleness, ductility, ability to be worked, ability to be welded etc, of course making some grades more susceptible to cracks than others.

Here's a quick sample to give an example https://www.metalsupermarkets.com/7-things-consider-choosing-aluminum-grade/

I well recommend registering for the WNXX forum, even if the IEP cracking discussion is all you ever read.

 

Jo

Edited May 16, 2021 by Steadfast

[Steadfast]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Its interesting to note that BR developed the BSI automatic coupler - which was fitted to the entire Sprinter and Pacer fleets - but again this was when you had a national body coordinating such things.

Whilst BR developed many things in house, the BSI wasn't one of them. It was bought in from Bergische Stahlindustrie in Germany, and was quite widely used on trams and metro systems before BR. Tyne and Wear Metro was one of the first UK applications.

 

Jo

[The Stationmaster]

I do seriously wonder about some of the (largely irrelevant) comments which have recently appeared in this thread but then RMweb is known for thread drift so I suppose it was inevitable.  

 

Having worked in an operating company where our trains had 5 (five) different track to train signalling systems one of the rarest technical failures (about as rare as hen's teeth) was in those systems and they weren't as complex as the four different radio systems the trains had to use.  Always difficult to fit new such equipment to old trains (ask anyone who has had to try to design ERTMS into existing British trains) but in new builds with established equipment there will be very few problems.

 

Now couplings.  Interesting area but one critical factor needs to be taken into account  - the need, or lack of need, to work different types of train with each other and much of that is a software/electrical and braking control issue rather than anything else.  BR basically had three different types (Note *) of auto coupling on passenger stock  and I can tell you from experience that trying to couple a train with one type of coupling to a train with a different type of coupling could be nigh on impossible even when doing exactly what was required in an emergency situation..  Note * - you could perhaps preseent as two and a bit because two types were basically teh same as each other but had variopus opeartional differences which meant that they could not entirely be used in the same way.

 

The march of time has effectively added another type - the Scharfenberg - plus a sub-type of that coupling (the Dellner).  And that in coupling terms is it - we've gone from 3 types to about to four and a bit types.  However the critical part is the 'and a bit' because that is where compatibility issues start to come out due to differences in the positioning of things th like through electrical circuits and the way they couple.  In fact I should really say four and two bits because some sorts of 80X trains are not wholly compatible with another sort of 80X train although they will physically couple to each other - back to software.  So the question really is not about couplings per se - where basically only one type has been added to the previous three (or two and a bit) - but about software and other incompatibilities when different versions of trains are coupled.

 

In everyday working with trains doing what they were designed to do in the area they were meant to be doing it there should be no problem in normal operation because all trains will have similar operating characteristics.  The real problem - which is not insoluble but can cause additional delays - is dealing with failed trains and moving them out of the way.

 

As for the needs for training when different tuypes of train are moved into an area where they haven't previously operated that has long been happening and will continue to happen with increasingly complex trains.  One way round it would be very every operator to have exactly the same type of train.  Ah, back to Page 1 because look what has happened with those who have the increasingly widely used 80X series trains.  There is perhaps some virtue in having eggs in more than one basket?

[Michael Hodgson]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

The march of time has effectively added another type - the Scharfenberg - plus a sub-type of that coupling (the Dellner).  And that in coupling terms is it - we've gone from 3 types to about to four and a bit types.

We've got at least four and a half coupling types in OO too.  The half is the tension lock whose hook has fallen off.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

We've got at least four and a half coupling types in OO too.  The half is the tension lock whose hook has fallen off.

Or the Kadee from which the knuckle spring as gone AWOL, like the one I fixed yesterday. It's been so long since I had to fit one that it turned into a bit of a performance. 

 

John

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I do seriously wonder about some of the (largely irrelevant) comments which have recently appeared in this thread but then RMweb is known for thread drift so I suppose it was inevitable.  

 

Having worked in an operating company where our trains had 5 (five) different track to train signalling systems one of the rarest technical failures (about as rare as hen's teeth) was in those systems and they weren't as complex as the four different radio systems the trains had to use.  Always difficult to fit new such equipment to old trains (ask anyone who has had to try to design ERTMS into existing British trains) but in new builds with established equipment there will be very few problems.

 

Now couplings.  Interesting area but one critical factor needs to be taken into account  - the need, or lack of need, to work different types of train with each other and much of that is a software/electrical and braking control issue rather than anything else.  BR basically had three different types (Note *) of auto coupling on passenger stock  and I can tell you from experience that trying to couple a train with one type of coupling to a train with a different type of coupling could be nigh on impossible even when doing exactly what was required in an emergency situation..  Note * - you could perhaps preseent as two and a bit because two types were basically teh same as each other but had variopus opeartional differences which meant that they could not entirely be used in the same way.

 

The march of time has effectively added another type - the Scharfenberg - plus a sub-type of that coupling (the Dellner).  And that in coupling terms is it - we've gone from 3 types to about to four and a bit types.  However the critical part is the 'and a bit' because that is where compatibility issues start to come out due to differences in the positioning of things th like through electrical circuits and the way they couple.  In fact I should really say four and two bits because some sorts of 80X trains are not wholly compatible with another sort of 80X train although they will physically couple to each other - back to software.  So the question really is not about couplings per se - where basically only one type has been added to the previous three (or two and a bit) - but about software and other incompatibilities when different versions of trains are coupled.

 

In everyday working with trains doing what they were designed to do in the area they were meant to be doing it there should be no problem in normal operation because all trains will have similar operating characteristics.  The real problem - which is not insoluble but can cause additional delays - is dealing with failed trains and moving them out of the way.

 

As for the needs for training when different tuypes of train are moved into an area where they haven't previously operated that has long been happening and will continue to happen with increasingly complex trains.  One way round it would be very every operator to have exactly the same type of train.  Ah, back to Page 1 because look what has happened with those who have the increasingly widely used 80X series trains.  There is perhaps some virtue in having eggs in more than one basket?

<Thread drift>Could/should(/are?) the basics such as braking controls at least be standardised, so that two different trains with mechanically compatible couplings could at least be used to move one another, with passengers on board, to clear the line? Even if full functionality is not available, it ought to be possible to at least move a failed unit to either a station, or a place of safety where passengers can get off?</thread drift>

[phil-b259]

22 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

<Thread drift>Could/should(/are?) the basics such as braking controls at least be standardised, so that two different trains with mechanically compatible couplings could at least be used to move one another, with passengers on board, to clear the line? Even if full functionality is not available, it ought to be possible to at least move a failed unit to either a station, or a place of safety where passengers can get off?</thread drift>

 

As has been noted a 377 can physically couple to a 387 to clear the line, but the faulty unit will be towed with no brakes due to incompatible software. You may well find the same is true with IET units.

 

Naturally the ORR expect this to be a 'last resort measure' and only for passenger evacuation / transportation to the nearest loop / siding where the defective train can be dumped out the way as towing unbraked stock is usually done in the middle of the night to minimise the consequences should it become separated from the towing unit.

 

 

 

[Note it is now a mandatory requirement that all pieces of rolling stock working over Network Rail Infrastructure MUST be fitted with a working automatic braking system. Vehicles with inoperative brakes will only be permitted if the affected vehicles are sandwiched by sufficient fitted vehicles providing enough brake force to stop the formation if a coupling breaks.]

Edited May 16, 2021 by phil-b259

[caradoc]

Incompatible couplers are nothing new ! In Scotland we sometimes we used to assist a failed 303 with a 314 (buckeye/tightlock), or vice versa.... and the 314s were introduced in 1979. No doubt similar problems occurred on the GN, where BR introduced, in 1976, two brand new fleets of EMU with the same, different, two couplers. Standardising BSI couplers on Sprinters, and Tightlocks on EMUs, was a step forward however, but why two different designs ?!!