GWML Electification

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

What I believe is the first electrically hauled charter, using a GBRF class 87, ran between Didcot Parkway and Paddington yesterday.

 

Of course, whether it should have run is still under debate...

 

Simon

Edited September 21, 2018 by St. Simon

[37114]

 

 

Of course, whether it should have run is still under debate...

 

Simon

Why?

[Zomboid]

It's possible that 87s don't have clearance to run on the GWML under their own power.

They'll be a very different characteristic in terms of EMC (different amount of electrical noise at different frequencies) than 800s and 387s.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I understand the Cl.87 got up to 100mph between Reading and Padd.

[jim.snowdon]

It's possible that 87s don't have clearance to run on the GWML under their own power.

They'll be a very different characteristic in terms of EMC (different amount of electrical noise at different frequencies) than 800s and 387s.

That of a classic AC tapchanging transformer/rectifier locomotive with DC traction motors.

 

If the signalling system is so finely tuned to the operation of just 387 and 8xx stock, then we really are doing things the wrong way round. It is the rolling stock that has to be compatible with the signalling equipment, and not the other way round. That does presuppose that NR's signalling engineers can define a single standard to which the signalling equipment designers can work.

 

Jim

[jonny777]

I read on another group that class 800 drivers have a list of which units to use on diesel east of Didcot, with a couple of passengers saying their journey to Paddington on one of the new units was entirely on diesel power. 

 

There must be a valid reason for this, surely? 

Edited September 22, 2018 by jonny777

[Zomboid]

That of a classic AC tapchanging transformer/rectifier locomotive with DC traction motors.

 

If the signalling system is so finely tuned to the operation of just 387 and 8xx stock, then we really are doing things the wrong way round. It is the rolling stock that has to be compatible with the signalling equipment, and not the other way round. That does presuppose that NR's signalling engineers can define a single standard to which the signalling equipment designers can work.

 

Jim

I imagine any issue wouldn't be actual incompatibility (certainly when only one locomotive is considered), more that the question of whether it would work hadn't been assessed before it actually ran.

 

That's only speculation though.

[Fat Controller]

I read on another group that class 800 drivers have a list of which units to use on diesel east of Didcot, with a couple of passengers saying their journey to Paddington on one of the new units was entirely on diesel power. 

 

There must be a valid reason for this, surely? 

There are several issues, I believe:-

Stock has to be rotated to have pantograph heads inspected at defined intervals, which is something that can only be carried out at a very limited number of locations. If a train runs beyond the specified time, then it has to run on diesel only until the inspection has been carried out.

Those drivers who were trained on the units when they first started running under diesel power last year may not have had subsequent training to upgrade to electric operation.

To deal with one variable like this is difficult enough; to have two such constraints must make daily diagramming of stock and rostering a real headache. I remember the early days of Eurotunnel, when only certain drivers were qualified to work on the Tourist shuttles; it was fine (normally) if there was no sort of disruption, but it only took one driver going sick to throw things into disarray

[The Stationmaster]

That of a classic AC tapchanging transformer/rectifier locomotive with DC traction motors.

 

If the signalling system is so finely tuned to the operation of just 387 and 8xx stock, then we really are doing things the wrong way round. It is the rolling stock that has to be compatible with the signalling equipment, and not the other way round. That does presuppose that NR's signalling engineers can define a single standard to which the signalling equipment designers can work.

 

Jim

 

 

Quite agree Jim.  87s (unlike 90s) have never to my knowledge had a reputation in respect of emissions so I can't really see why there should be a problem provided they are physically gauge cleared.  To my mind the only potential area might be the relative 'stiffness' of the ohle west of Airport Junction and its impact on the pan carbon (as has been the case on the 387s) but this was basically a single trip job over a fairly short distance so unless carbon wear was already approaching limits it shouldn't be a problem, there definitely ought not to have been a problem with pan upforce.

 

And as you say the signalling system and infrastructure should be to normal national standards, not something special for a particular route and, as has long been the case, and it is newly introduced traction which has to be tested and cleared to ensure compliance with a national standard.  The only route specific standard would be any older infrastructure equipment (e.g certain early types of jointless track circuit) which has not been modernised to current standards and I can't see that occurring on the electrified part of the GWML which is all of relatively recent fit and which has in any case been cleared for Class 800s.

 

Suggesting that technical/interference clearance (beyond gauging) is needed for each and every type of traction running over it on a recently modernised route (or any other route come to that) strikes me as a total, and excessively bureaucratic, nonsense which effectively says that the current traction testing regime is not reliable.  Or maybe national infrastructure standards are a bridge too far for NR?

 

There are several issues, I believe:-

Stock has to be rotated to have pantograph heads inspected at defined intervals, which is something that can only be carried out at a very limited number of locations. If a train runs beyond the specified time, then it has to run on diesel only until the inspection has been carried out.

Those drivers who were trained on the units when they first started running under diesel power last year may not have had subsequent training to upgrade to electric operation.

To deal with one variable like this is difficult enough; to have two such constraints must make daily diagramming of stock and rostering a real headache. I remember the early days of Eurotunnel, when only certain drivers were qualified to work on the Tourist shuttles; it was fine (normally) if there was no sort of disruption, but it only took one driver going sick to throw things into disarray

As far as I know Brian - and I might be wrong - both of Hitachi's main depots have facilities to enable pan examination and servicing and I think it might also be possible at Swansea.  However I understand they have encountered recruitment difficulties at North Pole so that could possibly be a factor.

 

 If pantograph heads cannot be, or are not being checked and serviced at the correct intervals then it is down to Hitachi (unless there is a problems with NR's catenary - which is known to be 'stiff' anyway).   Hitachi have a contract to deliver a particular number of diagrams per day to GWR and i would have hoped that it was a comprehensive contract with penalties for any shortcomings (although I suspect that the contract is nowhere near as comprehensive as it should be judging by the number of misformed trains and trains entering service with various features seemingly not working, or alternatively Hitachi simply aren't delivering what they should).

[Banger Blue]

I read on another group that class 800 drivers have a list of which units to use on diesel east of Didcot, with a couple of passengers saying their journey to Paddington on one of the new units was entirely on diesel power. 

 

There must be a valid reason for this, surely? 

 

 

There are several issues, I believe:-

Stock has to be rotated to have pantograph heads inspected at defined intervals, which is something that can only be carried out at a very limited number of locations. If a train runs beyond the specified time, then it has to run on diesel only until the inspection has been carried out.

Those drivers who were trained on the units when they first started running under diesel power last year may not have had subsequent training to upgrade to electric operation.

To deal with one variable like this is difficult enough; to have two such constraints must make daily diagramming of stock and rostering a real headache. I remember the early days of Eurotunnel, when only certain drivers were qualified to work on the Tourist shuttles; it was fine (normally) if there was no sort of disruption, but it only took one driver going sick to throw things into disarray

 

 

Quite agree Jim.  87s (unlike 90s) have never to my knowledge had a reputation in respect of emissions so I can't really see why there should be a problem provided they are physically gauge cleared.  To my mind the only potential area might be the relative 'stiffness' of the ohle west of Airport Junction and its impact on the pan carbon (as has been the case on the 387s) but this was basically a single trip job over a fairly short distance so unless carbon wear was already approaching limits it shouldn't be a problem, there definitely ought not to have been a problem with pan upforce.

 

And as you say the signalling system and infrastructure should be to normal national standards, not something special for a particular route and, as has long been the case, and it is newly introduced traction which has to be tested and cleared to ensure compliance with a national standard.  The only route specific standard would be any older infrastructure equipment (e.g certain early types of jointless track circuit) which has not been modernised to current standards and I can't see that occurring on the electrified part of the GWML which is all of relatively recent fit and which has in any case been cleared for Class 800s.

 

Suggesting that technical/interference clearance (beyond gauging) is needed for each and every type of traction running over it on a recently modernised route (or any other route come to that) strikes me as a total, and excessively bureaucratic, nonsense which effectively says that the current traction testing regime is not reliable.  Or maybe national infrastructure standards are a bridge too far for NR?

 

As far as I know Brian - and I might be wrong - both of Hitachi's main depots have facilities to enable pan examination and servicing and I think it might also be possible at Swansea.  However I understand they have encountered recruitment difficulties at North Pole so that could possibly be a factor.

 

 If pantograph heads cannot be, or are not being checked and serviced at the correct intervals then it is down to Hitachi (unless there is a problems with NR's catenary - which is known to be 'stiff' anyway).   Hitachi have a contract to deliver a particular number of diagrams per day to GWR and i would have hoped that it was a comprehensive contract with penalties for any shortcomings (although I suspect that the contract is nowhere near as comprehensive as it should be judging by the number of misformed trains and trains entering service with various features seemingly not working, or alternatively Hitachi simply aren't delivering what they should).

 

There is a list which appears daily in the Late Notices

FC is spot on with both reasons. Most units which appear on the list are due to the pan checks but can be down to other minor issues which require a diesel only restriction on the unit.

 

North Pole isn't the problem, the checks can be carried out there. Stoke Gifford may have the ability / infrastructure but what it does lack (at the moment) is live OLE! (Go Live date should be 13th Oct)

[Coryton]

 If pantograph heads cannot be, or are not being checked and serviced at the correct intervals then it is down to Hitachi (unless there is a problems with NR's catenary - which is known to be 'stiff' anyway).   Hitachi have a contract to deliver a particular number of diagrams per day to GWR and i would have hoped that it was a comprehensive contract with penalties for any shortcomings (although I suspect that the contract is nowhere near as comprehensive as it should be judging by the number of misformed trains and trains entering service with various features seemingly not working, or alternatively Hitachi simply aren't delivering what they should).

 

It is mentioned below that the (isolated) Catenary at Stoke Gifford isn't live yet...I don't know if Hitachi are to blame for that.

 

As for the contract, it would be somewhat unfortunate if we're in for more than twenty years of trains turning up in random orientations because someone didn't think of it when writing the contracts.

 

I don't know if they are splitting units in service yet - it doesn't seem to be happening in Cardiff. If they are, then the apparent randomness over which set gets which coach numbers is presumably going to mean that even when the seat reservations are working, people are going to end with reserved seats that don't go where they want.

 

It is rather disappointing how long it seems to be taking to get the on-board software to behave. I realise that no matter how much you test things there will be problems that arise when you start using something for real, but then again we'd get through a lot of airliners if all the software that sits between the pilot and the controls these days was full of bugs that only appeared when you actually flew a new plane for the first time.

[Geoff Endacott]

At least with trains it's only the software that crashes.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Coryton]

At least with trains it's only the software that crashes.

 

Quite.

 

My point being that I suspect it would have been perfectly possible to get the on-board software to work from the start if it was considered important enough to put sufficient time and money into it.

 

OK that sort of effort isn't exactly justified for handling seat reservations and destination boards, but I'm surprised how difficult it seem to be to get it all to work properly.

 

It's all very well saying that trains have to have displays for people who can't hear the announcements...but shouldn't they actually give the correct information?

[caradoc]

Do the Class 800s actually need to be under live OLE for a pantograph check, ie is it more than a visual examination of the pan and particularly the head and carbons ?

[St. Simon]

Why?

 

We (our own educated guesses of course) are not quite sure whether the 87s (or anything over than 88s, 387s or 800s) have been compatibility checked with the OLE west of Hayes.

 

EDIT: From what I know, there doesn't seem to be any problems (well, none discovered) between the Class 87s with the signalling on the GWML.

 

Simon

Edited September 22, 2018 by St. Simon

[woodenhead]

"Network Rail apologise for the late running GBRF special, this is due to it being the wrong kind of electric."

[Banger Blue]

Do the Class 800s actually need to be under live OLE for a pantograph check, ie is it more than a visual examination of the pan and particularly the head and carbons ?

I think it’s a bit more than just visual inspections, the OLE would be isolated if someone was up there anyway. It does need to be live though for any post work testing.

 

I don’t know the actual is & outs though, I’m not an engineer.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Banger Blue

[EmporiaSub]

 

I don't know if they are splitting units in service yet - it doesn't seem to be happening in Cardiff. If they are, then the apparent randomness over which set gets which coach numbers is presumably going to mean that even when the seat reservations are working, people are going to end with reserved seats that don't go where they want.

 .

I've been on trains that split at Swansea, with a 5 car going forward to Carmarthen.

Not sure what happens to the 5 car left behind?

[jim.snowdon]

We (our own educated guesses of course) are not quite sure whether the 87s (or anything over than 88s, 387s or 800s) have been compatibility checked with the OLE west of Hayes.

 

EDIT: From what I know, there doesn't seem to be any problems (well, none discovered) between the Class 87s with the signalling on the GWML.

 

Simon

Having OLE designed to suit particular trains would be nearly as bad. The primary requirement is that the wire is within the standard height and stagger limits, and that the pantograph uplift force is not excessive.

 

Jim

[St. Simon]

Having OLE designed to suit particular trains would be nearly as bad. The primary requirement is that the wire is within the standard height and stagger limits, and that the pantograph uplift force is not excessive.

 

Jim

It's not that the OLE is designed for a particular train, it's just the specific checks, that all trains have to go under to make sure they can run using the OLE, haven't necessarily been done for the 87s

 

Simon

Edited September 23, 2018 by St. Simon

[The Stationmaster]

There is a list which appears daily in the Late Notices

FC is spot on with both reasons. Most units which appear on the list are due to the pan checks but can be down to other minor issues which require a diesel only restriction on the unit.

 

North Pole isn't the problem, the checks can be carried out there. Stoke Gifford may have the ability / infrastructure but what it does lack (at the moment) is live OLE! (Go Live date should be 13th Oct)

 

Live ohle is the last thing you want in the vicinity when carrying out pantograph exams and maintenance - in fact the whole point of such exams is that the ohle must not be live and must have been earthed (unless that has been overlooked) when the pan is being checked and maintained and carbons are being changed.  What you do need is the correct maintenance access platform and if Hitachi have commissioned a major depot like Stoke Gifford without one they're a pack of naive idiots.

 

Or are we back to the 387 problem of the 'stiff' catenary causing excessive wear of the carbons and the pans going into auto-lower because the carbons are not being replaced frequently enough?  If GWR can solve the problem with only one depot (Reading) equipped to carry out pan exams on its 387 fleet while still having trains oustabled elsewhere it wouldn't seem to be too difficult a job for Hitachi with the facility to easily carry put the work available at North Pole; jus a simple matter of getting the diagrams right to circulate sets via North Pole. 

[The Stationmaster]

Do the Class 800s actually need to be under live OLE for a pantograph check, ie is it more than a visual examination of the pan and particularly the head and carbons ?

 

See my post above - the answer is resounding 'no' (unless you want to electrocute your maintenance staff on a regular basis - and I'm sure Hitachi don't want that).  And don't forget to earth the ohle after the power is turned off as teh residual current is more than enough to cause harm - as has happened in the past.

 

Quite.

 

My point being that I suspect it would have been perfectly possible to get the on-board software to work from the start if it was considered important enough to put sufficient time and money into it.

 

OK that sort of effort isn't exactly justified for handling seat reservations and destination boards, but I'm surprised how difficult it seem to be to get it all to work properly.

 

It's all very well saying that trains have to have displays for people who can't hear the announcements...but shouldn't they actually give the correct information?

 

It took up to Version 17, over several years,  to get the software more or less right on the Class 373 (the only bit which wasn't finalised as far as I know was the printed messaging system but that was down mainly to Railtrack not getting on with long promised updating of Shore-to-Train radio.   But Eurostar did work at it very hard to get the problems sorted.

It's not that the OLE is designed for a particular train, it's just the specific checks, that all trains have to go under to make sure they can run using the OLE, haven't necessarily been done for the 87s

 

Simon

 

I'm sorry to say it Simon but Class 87s having been running under numerous different types of ohle, including converted 1500vdc, plus all the different Marks and variants of BR ac catenary on various parts of the former BR network for over 40 years so I would think that by now everybody ought to be more than fully satisfied that they can operate under correctly installed catenary which is compliant with national standards.   The only potential problem - as I have already mentioned - is the 'stiffness' of series 1 catenary affecting carbon wear on the pan but if there are other differences then the simple answer is indeed simple - 'there's something wrong with GWML catenary'

[Fat Controller]

I'd be very surprised if the various depots didn't have inspection platforms for pantographs and other roof-level equipment; Hitachi have had a decade's experience of such work at Ashford, which is so equipped. What may be causing problems is the time it takes to isolate the catenary, put earths in place, do the work and then repeat the preceding procedure in reverse. I must ask our rolling-stock people how long such a procedure takes; I suspect it would be an hour or two per pantograph. 

[Zomboid]

I'm sorry to say it Simon but Class 87s having been running under numerous different types of ohle, including converted 1500vdc, plus all the different Marks and variants of BR ac catenary on various parts of the former BR network for over 40 years so I would think that by now everybody ought to be more than fully satisfied that they can operate under correctly installed catenary which is compliant with national standards. The only potential problem - as I have already mentioned - is the 'stiffness' of series 1 catenary affecting carbon wear on the pan but if there are other differences then the simple answer is indeed simple - 'there's something wrong with GWML catenary'

By far the most likely outcome would be that everything is fine.

But running a train on that assumption would result in lots of trouble if it turned out that there was a problem, even if it turned out to be a one off failure rather then a systemic issue.

[caradoc]

Of course working on a pantograph requires the OLE to be both isolated and earthed, but I would expect any depot carrying out such work to be equipped with isolation/earthing switches, locked by the fitter doing the work, to simplify the process. Plus a bi-mode train has the great advantage anyway that it can move itself to an unwired road to allow such work !

 

Scotrail has a large fleet of EMUs and only one maintenance depot for them (Shields), but I was not aware during my career (which at one time included being responsible for presenting a large part of that fleet for maintenance at the designated time) of any particular issue with pan exams. What we did occasionally get was a pattern of carbon damage on multiple sets, and the means of checking the fleet for further problems was to station a fitter at an appropriate place (the footbridge at Hyndland station being one) to check every passing train; Not high-tech or complicated but effective. Then, sets could be withdrawn from service for repair if necessary, and by checking the recent workings of each affected set we could narrow down the likely location of the fault causing the damage.