HS125's to Mexico.

[adb968008]

4 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

Yes, but you don't expect reputable Japanese companies to falsify QA documentation. I have a lot of sympathy with Hitachi.

Its not Hitachi i’m feeling sorry for, I just hope someday its not the passenger or their relatives.

However equally i’m hoping its not the taxpayer I have to feel sorry for too.
 

Also hope those defending them, wont be left exposed to questions, in an expensive enquiry that wont find anyone to blame some day.

Edited November 13, 2023 by adb968008

[david.hill64]

Don't forget that the corrosion problem with IET is nothing like the traditional corrosion problem with steel bodies stock. It is stress corrosion cracking, previously unknown in the rail environment and not covered by any standard.

 

Having said all of that, as a passenger I do not like the IET for the same reasons as noted above.

[PaulRhB]

5 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

yet HSTs are the ones being demonised for safety.

The HST’s aren’t being demonised 😉 They have however been found to be less capable in a crash compared to newer, if less comfy, stock. For its day the HST is superb and at lower speeds still adequate but in an extreme crash like Carmont and Ufton they lost significant structural integrity that contributed to deaths by not containing people inside. Compare that to the performance of the Pendilino at Grayrigg where it stayed structurally intact so lessened the injuries. 

[adb968008]

2 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

The HST’s aren’t being demonised 😉 

RMT threatening to blacklist them isnt demonised ?

 

https://railnews.mobi/news/2022/03/14-union-demands-withdrawal-of-all.html

 

 

[PaulRhB]

3 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

It is stress corrosion cracking, previously unknown in the rail environment and not covered by any standard.

It’s been known about for years in rail and wheel fatigue and a similar problem occurred with the 158/9 yaw dampers years ago.

 

Quoted by David here,

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

RMT threatening to blacklist them isnt demonised ?

 

https://railnews.mobi/news/2022/03/14-union-demands-withdrawal-of-all.html

 

 

 

With the circulation of Railnews? 😉 not really . . .

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Wasn't it established that the metal grade used in some of these coaches sourced from Kobe steel in Japan was not of the grade specified too ?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41591284

Kobe steel were falsifying records not only of the steel provided to Hitachi but also on aluminium provided to the aircraft industry. An accident due to metal fatigue is survivable at zero feet but not at thousands of feet. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by PhilJ W
autocorrect strikes again.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

The HST’s aren’t being demonised 😉 They have however been found to be less capable in a crash compared to newer, if less comfy, stock. For its day the HST is superb and at lower speeds still adequate but in an extreme crash like Carmont and Ufton they lost significant structural integrity that contributed to deaths by not containing people inside. Compare that to the performance of the Pendilino at Grayrigg where it stayed structurally intact so lessened the injuries. 

I think it's risky to draw too solid a comparison based on such limited numbers (and the last thing we want are enough examples to be more sure). Without knocking the Pendolino's design I do think there must've been a bit of luck involved that the outcome wasn't worse (people getting flung around isn't going to end well no matter how solid the train).

 

It may well be fair enough to say the HST's are a bit less sound in a serious accident, but as mentioned earlier it comes back around to how much of a difference is enough to get worried about, given no two designs, even new ones, will ever be identical. When you buy a car crashworthiness isn't your only consideration I assume.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Reorte

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Having seen what happened at c5mph at NL depot, between a HST and an Azuma… i’ll take the HST…

new skirt and off it goes.

The azuma needed nearly a year of rebuilding after it tried to rotate the coaches on its coupling.

 

sorry not convinced on IEP, it already had decades worth of equivalent corrosion issues in a critical place in less than 5.

 

Who’s kidding who ?

 

feels like getting rid of the old, to force in belief and trust the only alternative.

Similar thing happened was spun by the government with  the SA80 rifle.

 

 

You should be wary about assuming that all things behave the same way at all speeds!

 

IIRC one of the issues at play in the NH incident is that the impact speed was actually too low for the safety features within the coupling design of the IET to actually deploy!
 

Had the impact speed been just a little bit higher and the kinetic energy needing to be displaced higher then the couplings themselves would have failed in a controlled manor keeping everything in line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

But the 800 came off considerably worse.

I wonder how that will handle an incident at speed, looking at that image above, i’m tending to think concertina and Potters Bar style incident, or a Harrow style pile up… god forbid.

 

 

Such a comment shows a lack of appreciation of physics and kinetic energy!

 

One of the reasons the front of the Azusa came off worse is it has specifics been designed to crumple in a certain way to absorb energy in a collision - the HST cab (as befits a 50 odd year old design) was not and so superficially looks better - but I bet in a 100mph impact the HST can would offer far less by the way of protection to the driver!

 

Its a bit like comparing a 1980s car to one built today - in a low speed smash a modern car will look worse but at a higher impact speed it’s the 1980s car driver who is more likely to end up with significant injuries.

 

Similarly I understand that the main reason the coaches ended up like that was there was insufficient kinetic energy to invoke the safety features designed into the inter vehicle couplers on the IET. In a true collision the kinetic immense energy would end up breaking certain sacrificial elements in the coupling / drag box area causing the vehicle ends to squish together in a controlled manor and remain in line.

 

What the IET designers hadn’t however considered is the effects of a slow speed impact - and as such did not have suitable mitigations in place for the dispersal of low levels of kinetic energy within the coupling system - and it’s that which threw the vehicles out of line.

Edited November 13, 2023 by phil-b259

[adb968008]

Well you put your neck out there.

lets hope theres no reason to have to discuss theory to practice.

 

History is littered with lessons learnt off the back of infallibilities…

Titanic was unsinkable too.. until it hit an iceberg at an angle no one had considered.

 

if the 800 hit at a slightly faster speed would I assume it would have been a write off once those safety features deployed.

 

if i’m sceptical, its because not much is done without it being minimum cost, with extra savings, which usually is a result of a £10 saving meant oversight was missed on some critical feature that fails badly years later… rendering foolproof xyz to have been beaten by the fool after all.

if i’m still here in 2060, riding an 800 then i’ll celebrate your words, personally I reckon they will be gone before they hit 25, GWR contracted Hitachi until 2028 yes ? What if they say decide to RFO in 2028 and walk ?

Afterall theres no HS2a.. and with IEP fully delivered, and very little planned spend, its not as if theres much incentive to be competitive, dft reaps what they sow.

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by adb968008

[david.hill64]

12 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

It’s been known about for years in rail and wheel fatigue and a similar problem occurred with the 158/9 yaw dampers years ago.

 

Fatigue cracking and stress corrosion cracking are not the same thing at all.

[rodent279]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

if i’m sceptical, its because not much is done without it being minimum cost

Nothing new there. Biggest flaw in the HST was the slam lock doors. Air operated doors had been standard on new mainline stock in mainland Europe for years.

[Ron Ron Ron]

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

.......if i’m still here in 2060, riding an 800 then i’ll celebrate your words, personally I reckon they will be gone before they hit 25, GWR contracted Hitachi until 2028 yes ? What if they say decide to RFO in 2028 and walk?

 

 

Surely, there are two entirely different 8xx fleets operated by GWR, under different contract conditions?

The trains supplied under the IEP (between the DfT and Agility) and those additional trains ordered subsequently by GWR, under a more typical leasing contract.

 

The length of the IEP contract is fixed for 27.5 years.

Exit clauses are quite complex and IIRC, quite expensive to put into effect.

 

 

 

.

[PaulRhB]

6 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Fatigue cracking and stress corrosion cracking are not the same thing at all.

 

No it was a broad reference to cracking but cracking due to either is well understood in engineering so although not maybe known in rail design a company like Hitachi that manufactures heavy plant must have been aware of stress corrosion too? The failure appears to be the material used making it especially liable and it’s very odd not to have done material tests on batches which should have discovered it during production. The plates added will only slow it down too according to someone working on it. 
 

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

the 800 hit at a slightly faster speed would I assume it would have been a write off once those safety features deployed.

Much like cars yes they are designed to be sacrificial so a significant impact can write them off but equally certain structures can be cut off and replaced as a unit. What usually governs that is if the jigs still exist as unless specified in contracts they are usually dismantled at the end of production. That has affected ex BR stock too with doors for 158’s having to be custom made after minor crash damage. 
Note the 159 and 158 in the Salisbury crash both being written off in a mid speed impact even with a spare shell available because it was effectively a build from new and cost too much. 
 

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Well you put your neck out there.

lets hope theres no reason to have to discuss theory to practice.

Not really what he says is based on computer modelling which has been tested against real world examples to prove its accuracy over a long time now. They have modelled many historic incidents to compare computer predictions to what actually happened and where a good report is available they can match quite closely.
Unfortunately the Titanic example isn’t well recorded and as the actual damage has only been examined from what’s visible on the wreck after 100 years simulations of that are still based on a lot of supposition. They can’t even agree on exactly how it broke up at the surface which was witnessed. 
 

[DavidB-AU]

On 13/10/2023 at 03:28, 009 micro modeller said:

Have they been re-geared or adapted for the warmer climate in any way? I think the Australian XPTs are geared differently due to their 100mph line speed.

 

 

On 14/10/2023 at 04:31, PhilJ W said:

Not as far as I know, they actually travelled at 125 MPH on very few occasions, that is the fastest attainable speed. Gearing down for a lower speed will increase the likelihood of overheating anyway. The only probable change would be to increase the fuel capacity as the line they're intended for is over 900 miles long (when finished), three times the typical distance they ran in the UK.

 

They certainly were regeared. HST gear ratio is 59:23 and XPT is 65:20. The ruling gradient on NSW main lines is 1 in 40 with the Blue Maintains line a solid 1 in 33 slog from Springwood to Katoomba.

 

The maximum speed an XPT ever achieved was 193 km/h (120 mph) on a test run in 1992. Despite numerous attempts they never reached 200 km/h (125 mph).

 

The XPT power cars were about 80% redesigned from the class 43. The body is shorter but wider and higher with a heavier frame to take AAR automatic couplers. As a result they have a 19t axle load. Other modifications include 50% larger radiators to handle the heat, much larger air filters to handle dust and downrating the original Valenta engines to 1477 kW (1980 hp). When rebuilt with VP185 engines they were similarly downrated to 1492 kW.

 

They have the same fuel capacity as the HST, 4500 litres. They were not intended for the long journeys they make now, they were only intended for short, limited stop services of 300-400 km (200-250 miles). The longest run they make now is 987 km (614 miles) to Brisbane and they are refuelled en route at Grafton, 695 km (431 miles) from Sydney.

 

 

For the trailers, they are a unique Comeng design and the only thing in common with the HST is the BT10 bogie. Structurally they are more closely related to Budd Metroliners than anything else with corrugated stainless steel throughout.

[Johann Marsbar]

Away from the debate on the state the HST's are in, I did notice yesterday on another Forum that it is suggested a couple of sets might be heading to British Columbia for tourist service as well.....

[009 micro modeller]

59 minutes ago, DavidB-AU said:

They certainly were regeared. HST gear ratio is 59:23 and XPT is 65:20. The ruling gradient on NSW main lines is 1 in 40 with the Blue Maintains line a solid 1 in 33 slog from Springwood to Katoomba.

Exactly - was the XPT designed for 100mph really, rather than 125?

 

 I was simply wondering if the exported HSTs in Mexico had been similarly regeared as part of their refurbishment but it seems not.

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

 

 

They certainly were regeared. HST gear ratio is 59:23 and XPT is 65:20. The ruling gradient on NSW main lines is 1 in 40 with the Blue Maintains line a solid 1 in 33 slog from Springwood to Katoomba.

 

The maximum speed an XPT ever achieved was 193 km/h (120 mph) on a test run in 1992. Despite numerous attempts they never reached 200 km/h (125 mph).

 

The XPT power cars were about 80% redesigned from the class 43. The body is shorter but wider and higher with a heavier frame to take AAR automatic couplers. As a result they have a 19t axle load. Other modifications include 50% larger radiators to handle the heat, much larger air filters to handle dust and downrating the original Valenta engines to 1477 kW (1980 hp). When rebuilt with VP185 engines they were similarly downrated to 1492 kW.

 

They have the same fuel capacity as the HST, 4500 litres. They were not intended for the long journeys they make now, they were only intended for short, limited stop services of 300-400 km (200-250 miles). The longest run they make now is 987 km (614 miles) to Brisbane and they are refuelled en route at Grafton, 695 km (431 miles) from Sydney.

 

 

For the trailers, they are a unique Comeng design and the only thing in common with the HST is the BT10 bogie. Structurally they are more closely related to Budd Metroliners than anything else with corrugated stainless steel throughout.

Have any withdrawn XPT's been sold for service elsewhere?

[DavidB-AU]

4 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Exactly - was the XPT designed for 100mph really, rather than 125?

 

Yes. It was only "based on" the HST with a lot of redesign.

 

30 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Have any withdrawn XPT's been sold for service elsewhere?

 

All are still in service, less 2 trailers with accident damage. They are likely to remain in service until 2027 as the previous state government botched the replacement (a variant of the CAF Civity). 

[009 micro modeller]

51 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Have any withdrawn XPT's been sold for service elsewhere?

 

15 minutes ago, DavidB-AU said:

All are still in service, less 2 trailers with accident damage. They are likely to remain in service until 2027 as the previous state government botched the replacement (a variant of the CAF Civity). 

I’m wondering if, in some ways, they would have been better in places like Mexico and Africa than the HSTs are - weren’t they adapted to the Australian climate as well?

[Coldgunner]

Wonder if we could get an XPT shipped back to the UK for display? Might be a nice comparison with our native units and show what BR engineering did abroad.

 

Weren't they fitted with a beefier cooling system and air filters for the Aussie environment?

[009 micro modeller]

2 minutes ago, Coldgunner said:

Wonder if we could get an XPT shipped back to the UK for display? Might be a nice comparison with our native units and show what BR engineering did abroad.

 

Weren't they fitted with a beefier cooling system and air filters for the Aussie environment?

Obviously not an issue for static display but out of interest, would it be able to run here? Not sure if they are larger than the actual HSTs.

[Coldgunner]

2.89m wide and 4.22m high according to wiki, compared to 2.74m wide of the HST (also according to wiki). Couldn't find the height of the UK unit, but sure someone might have the info to hand. Dunno whether the XPT units fit Berne gauge? 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Coldgunner

[rodent279]

Stronger couplers as well, presumably AAR type buckeye (UK buckeye couplers are 3/4 height, so i assume not compatible).

[Johann Marsbar]

This was posted on YT yesterday...

 

 

AAR couplers have now been fitted to the ends of the power cars, though there is a rather pronounced size difference between the loco and the HST set!