LNER to buy 10 tri-mode trains from CAF

[62613]

21 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

My secretary refused to type it !

 

21 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I wouldn't dare to have asked my secretary to type a letter to someone with that name - she'd have been incapable due to her laughter!

Perhaps she thought it was a wind - up! I have heard of a referee called Richard Cockhead

[Michael Hodgson]

5 minutes ago, 62613 said:

 

Perhaps she thought it was a wind - up! I have heard of a referee called Richard Cockhead

Richard??  Wasn't he a Dick??

[Mike_Walker]

34 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

Eh?

I recall that the Luton Airport fire is thought to have started in a diesel powered vehicle not an electric one.

[Hroth]

21 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

I recall that the Luton Airport fire is thought to have started in a diesel powered vehicle not an electric one.

 

Some finger pointing is that it was a Diesel/Hybrid vehicle.

 

[ruggedpeak]

23 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

I recall that the Luton Airport fire is thought to have started in a diesel powered vehicle not an electric one.

An initial statement was made to that effect to the media, but it has been widely criticised for that given that nothing about the fire resembled a diesel fire. It is widely agreed by those with relevant experience and competence that the fire was initiated by a hybrid battery system, probably in a diesel hybrid vehicle. It was not however the diesel fuel system that caught fire, The early stages of the Luton fire can be viewed on youtube, it is clearly not a diesel fire, nor does it look anythign like a fire started via the 12v system.

 

Official sources have made various references to it being a "diesel vehicle", a "diesel SUV" and definitely not an "electric vehicle". Technically correct but misleading, and note no reference to 'hybrid'. I'd suggest doing some research on hybrid SUV fires, a recurring theme that has seen houses and car dealerships damaged and destroyed. A lot of red herrings being put about.

 

With reference to trains, and the speed of the Luton car and Paris bus fires, imagine a hybrid or battery train going up like that in an enclosed or large station like Liverpool Street or Kings Cross, or a tunnel. Let's hope the train tech is safer than that for cars.

[ruggedpeak]

Just now, Hroth said:

 

Some finger pointing is that it was a Diesel/Hybrid vehicle.

More than some, highly likely based upon substantive evidence and the opinions of those who actually understand vehicle fires.

[Michael Hodgson]

56 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

With reference to trains, and the speed of the Luton car and Paris bus fires, imagine a hybrid or battery train going up like that in an enclosed or large station like Liverpool Street or Kings Cross, or a tunnel. Let's hope the train tech is safer than that for cars.

 

I don't understand why there is such a fire risk wih these batteries.  I have heard it said by firemen that the house fires started by e-scooters and the like tend to be cut-price replacement batteries rather than the manufacturer's original.  I have also heard (possibly incorrectly) that normal fire-fighting techniques like hose pipes or foam don't put them out once they've started, and clearly the fire brigade had massive problems fighting the Luton Airport fire, despite all airports having a lot of specialist equipment on site, so it wouldn't be delay in reaching the scene.  I can't help wondering what they should use, and whether some sort of built-in automatic equipment should be part of the design of vehicles.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[ruggedpeak]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

I don't understand why there is such a fire risk wih these batteries.  I have heard it said by firemen that the house fires started by e-scooters and the like tend to be cut-price replacement batteries rather than the manufacturer's original.  I have also heard (possibly incorrectly) that normal fire-fighting techniques like hose pipes or foam don't put them out once they've started, and clearly the fire brigade had massive problems fighting the Luton Airport fire, despite all airports having a lot of specialist equipment on site, so it wouldn't be delay in reaching the scene.  I can't help wondering what they should use, and whether some sort of built-in automatic equipment should be part of the design of vehicles.

In simple terms the fires are self-feeding and oxygenating, like rocket fuel. Once they start you can't put them out by breaking the fire triangle (removing heat, fuel or oxygen) as the battery has all those elements inside it. The fires also takes hold quicker for the same reasons. I would note that the data is clear, these issues are specific to hybrid vehicles and not full EV's. For some reason some hybrids have a higher rate of spontaneous combustion than either petrol/diesel or full EV.

 

Current designs of these batteries is such that if they heat up they vent flammable gases to prevent explosion, normally out of one side of the car, however those gases are flammable and create a flame thrower effect to anything near the vent. So the fire can spread quicker than a conventional fire where flames tend to go upwards initially. And petrol/diesel fires tend to start in the engine bay and will burn for a while within the engine bay before breaking out (hence not opening the bonnet of a car on fire to put the fire out). Everything about the lithium battery fires is different from a petrol/diesel fire, including the smoke and aftermath. You need vast amounts of water to continously drench a battery fire. And even then they can reignite for days afterwards.

 

We will see what the Luton investigation says but I parked there a few months before. You won't get any form of fire appliance anywhere inside the parking structure, which is a lightweight steel structure. A 4x4 fire vehicle might get in but it will only have a small number of probably foam extinguishers on board which are precisely no use at all for a battery fire, and will only suppress a conventional engine fire for a few minutes (unless you hit it almost immediately and get lucky!). So there is no realistic possibility of getting to fight the fire, but frankly if I was looking at the CCTV as is publicly available I'd be evacuating the area ASAP. The fumes fill the area quickly and with a lightweight construction, significant heat is going to create a growing risk of structural collapse or failure. You can't have people, even firefighters, in that area once it took hold. Don't forget most of Luton's fire kit is huge for tackling airliner crashes!

 

All of which makes the prospect of hybrid trains in a tunnel a bit scary.

[Michael Hodgson]

6 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

All of which makes the prospect of hybrid trains in a tunnel a bit scary.

Yes, but not just trains.  Doesn't this call into question the whole international trend to stop using internal combustion and a general move to this new technology for all transport?  How will our cities sruvive if these vehicles are everywhere and nobody can put them out when they do catch fire?  It would be like building our housing estates inside a petrol refinery and giving the residents free cigarattes.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

I recall that the Luton Airport fire is thought to have started in a diesel powered vehicle not an electric one.

Is being talked about as having started in a diesel Range Rover.  That diesel Range Rovers built over the past several years have all been hybrids seems not to have been mentioned and the film & photos of the explosion don't look anything at all like the sort of fire/explosion you would get from diesel fuel tank.  In fact it looks just like a battery explosion - coming from the place where the battery is sited on a diesel hybrid Range Rover and not from the location of the fuel tank.

 

I have never seen a battery explosion except on film etc but I have been within no more than 30 yards of diesel fuel tank popping off (on a Class 31) and it wasn't anything like that explosion..  And our BR fire training involved each of us taking the course having to extinguish a diesel fire (using a steel tray of diesel about a yard square with it all burning before we had to extinguish it).   So I definitely know what a diesel fire looks like having also witnessed one on an HST power car with a ruptured fuel tank.

[ruggedpeak]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Yes, but not just trains.  Doesn't this call into question the whole international trend to stop using internal combustion and a general move to this new technology for all transport?  How will our cities sruvive if these vehicles are everywhere and nobody can put them out when they do catch fire?  It would be like building our housing estates inside a petrol refinery and giving the residents free cigarattes.

There seems to be issues with hybrid systems. The problem needs to be fixed or the technology stopped until it is solved. Here in Switzerland and some other places they have been studying issues like fighting EV fires in tunnels and are adapting to it. However hybrids seem to be a trickier issue to address.

Edited November 14, 2023 by ruggedpeak

[Michael Hodgson]

The public will stop travellling by rail altogether if there is so much as one fire on a passenger train in circumstances resembling the Summit Tunnel fire of 1984.

 

However I would not expect a similar reaction if we lose a few more multi-storey car parks or even lose a traffic jam on the North Circular.

[ruggedpeak]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The public will stop travellling by rail altogether if there is so much as one fire on a passenger train in circumstances resembling the Summit Tunnel fire of 1984.

 

However I would not expect a similar reaction if we lose a few more multi-storey car parks or even lose a traffic jam on the North Circular.

I may be fear-mongering (probably need to join Just Stop Oil!!) but that is my concern.

 

Luton appears to be a hybrid igniting in a lightweight framed but high capacity car park with limited or less fire protection or suppression systems. Major issues with car parks were identified after the Liverpool Echo car park disaster in 2018. One of the interesting things from that incident, aside from car parks probably needing sprinklers, is that cars have become far more flammable over recent decades. This is not counting EV's or hybrids, normal petrol and  diesel cars are now made from far more combustible materials, and the building regs were based upon the low flammability of the cars in the 1960's. Worth a read, exactly the same trends in train design to swap metal for plastics etc to reduce cost, weight etc....

 

Add in some lithium batteries and 🔥🔥🔥

 

https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf

[AMJ]

Friends who work at various TOC's question the quality of CAF trains as they have given them an expansion of the acronym "Cheap As F".  I'd be thinking that the build quality, reliability and comfort are the reasons why they are built down to a price.

 

Perhaps they are thinking of releasing the 5 car units.  The services that these were doubled up on could be run using one 10 car train plus only need one set of catering staff.

 

Another thought might be to take out of use some of the 5 car units and place the centre cars into others to lengthen to 9.

[DY444]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Is being talked about as having started in a diesel Range Rover.  That diesel Range Rovers built over the past several years have all been hybrids seems not to have been mentioned and the film & photos of the explosion don't look anything at all like the sort of fire/explosion you would get from diesel fuel tank.  In fact it looks just like a battery explosion - coming from the place where the battery is sited on a diesel hybrid Range Rover and not from the location of the fuel tank.

 

Quite.  The absence of black smoke from incomplete combustion which is a feature of most diesel fires and the flame thrower effect from the precise point on the left hand side where that manufacturer places the hybrid battery in that particular vehicle type.  If it looks like a duck etc.

Edited November 14, 2023 by DY444

[nightstar.train]

2 hours ago, AMJ said:

Another thought might be to take out of use some of the 5 car units and place the centre cars into others to lengthen to 9.

 

I would doubt that that will happen. The trains are owned by Agility trains and LNER pay them to provide X number of trains per day.  

Also I'm not up on the intricacies of the LNER service pattern. The rational behind the 5 car units was to allow services splitting on route. Do they do that? 

[AMJ]

@nightstar.train LNER planed to use 2*5 cars on K+ to LDS then split into Bradford/Skipton and Harrogate.  Most of the Bradfords seem to be 91's

[Steven B]

Class 93 plus some extra CAF coaches to make the soon to be spare Transpennine Mk5s sets up to 10 vehicles?

 

 

[mac1960]

What are they going to do with Mk 5 coaches as I am told they are the most comfortable on Trans Pennine route, but no diesel no go, so what are they going to do with them or replace locomotive with ?

[Reorte]

20 hours ago, mac1960 said:

What are they going to do with Mk 5 coaches as I am told they are the most comfortable on Trans Pennine route, but no diesel no go, so what are they going to do with them or replace locomotive with ?

Could they run on an electrified route with an 88?

[C126]

On 14/11/2023 at 13:17, Michael Hodgson said:

The public will stop travellling by rail altogether if there is so much as one fire on a passenger train in circumstances resembling the Summit Tunnel fire of 1984.

 

This is all making me nervous of travelling in the Channel Tunnel, with such motor-cars on the Shuttles...

[phil-b259]

On 15/11/2023 at 12:36, Steven B said:

Class 93 plus some extra CAF coaches to make the soon to be spare Transpennine Mk5s sets up to 10 vehicles?

 

 

 

22 hours ago, mac1960 said:

What are they going to do with Mk 5 coaches as I am told they are the most comfortable on Trans Pennine route, but no diesel no go, so what are they going to do with them or replace locomotive with ?

 

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

Could they run on an electrified route with an 88?

 

Please remember that one of the main drivers for ditching the Mk5s is the need to cut costs as instructed by the DfT! Yes it also has the side benefit of reducing driver training needs but if the stock was that essential to the franchise and withdrawing it meant unpalatable service cuts then replacements would be required.

 

Also given the DfT are still in 'cuts mode' they are not going to allow any operator to go round increasing their fleet size with a bunch of MK5s, particularly as said TOC will also need top lease a loco to haul them!

 

There is also the fact that a loco + separate coaches is not an efficient use of platform space - a multiple unit configuration with underfloor traction equipment ensures the maximum amount of passenger space per train length.

 

That means the Mk5s are likely to end up overseas rather than reused in the UK - particularly as once EMR gets their Hitachi fleet there will be a large number of Meridan units ending up off lease and which represent a far easier proposition for TOCs due to their on board traction equipment.

 

The purchase of new CAF trains is a like for like swap for the 10 class 91 formations LNER still use due to their age, unreliability, etc and as has been alluded to is far more likely to Hitachi being unwilling to supply any more IETs at a sensible price than a deliberate decision to go elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

9 minutes ago, C126 said:

 

This is all making me nervous of travelling in the Channel Tunnel, with such motor-cars on the Shuttles...

 

However the Channel Tunnel is packed full of extensive safety measures - including the service tunnel into which folk can escape if needs be....

 

You are in far more danger travelling through the likes of the Dartford tunnel - even though its much shorter its age means it completely lacks any sort of safe escape route....

 

 

[31A]

50 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Yes it also has the side benefit of reducing driver training needs but if the stock was that essential to the franchise and withdrawing it meant unpalatable service cuts then replacements would be required.

 

 

I thinks saying it's cost driven is an over simplification.  Trans Pennine will be keeping all their Class 185 DMUs, whereas under the original franchise plan a lot of them were to go off lease.  So in effect you could see the Mark 5s as being replaced by the 185s which would originally have been lost (although I don't know how the numbers actually stack up), which at the same time will greatly simplify their staffing requirements.  I do believe the main driver for this is the need to stabilise TPE's reliability and hopefully regain some of their credibility (which is also having a negative effect on railways generally in the North), rather than being cost driven.

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

However the Channel Tunnel is packed full of extensive safety measures - including the service tunnel into which folk can escape if needs be....

 

You are in far more danger travelling through the likes of the Dartford tunnel - even though its much shorter its age means it completely lacks any sort of safe escape route....

 

 

I dont like either prospect really.

 

Like all these things, action will only be taken after its happened.