Class 800 - Updates

[Titan]

We had a failure at Devonport a couple of weeks ago, the driver wanted to 'turn it off and back on again' to reset the computers but wasnt allowed, the train sat there for 2 hours waiting for a Hitachi fitter to get to it, guess what he did to get it working again?

 

Demoralising and embarrassing doesnt even come close to covering it! 

 

Similar situation happened when the Networkers were introduced. No matter how bad you think the 800's are the Networkers were at least 10x worse.  BR's answer was to give the drivers mobile phones, so they could contact the engineers directly and they could talk them through the appropriate procedures, rather than having to rush a fitter to the train. Quite often the fix was to turn them off and on again, which took about 10 mins IIRC. The drivers would learn and remember what the fitters did to get it going.  Then when it happened again, rather than mess about with a middle man they did things they did not have permission to do, quickly got the train going again and informed control when it was more convenient...

 

It was pretty demoralising for the maintenance team when one day the miles per casualty average for the fleet fell to 46. (no, not 46,000, I really do mean 46)  To this day I don't know how it was possible for any train to be so abysmal.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Titan

[The Stationmaster]

Though the bi-mode capability did come in handy for other reasons, as it turned out.

 

I would be most interested to know what would have happened on the various occasions when IETs have been restricted to diesel power if they were electric-only. Would we have had a severe shortage of trains, or would a way have been found to keep them running on electric?

 

I think that several things ought to have happened (as did happen with Class 373) -

 

1. The diesel power spec for bi-modes would not have been down rated to reduce their performance to a level below that of HSTs

2. Exhaustive testing, particularly of electro-magnetic emissions, would have meant that they would not have entered service until they were fully compliant, with mods if needed, and could be signed off for all the routes they were to work over (which does leave a further question about the original spec).

3. They should have been introduced to service at a much slower rate and with in-service problems identified and fixes found (if not fully implemented) before the number in service was ramped up.

4. To cater for Point 3 above they should not, especially as a 'novel' train embodying new features and coming from a new 'performance unknown assembly plant' have been introduced against such a hard cascade programme or the cascade programme should have been stopped or eased until problems are sorted (that is 100% down to DafT in my view).

5. There appears to have been a lack of contractual rigour which is showing in all sorts of ways which could perhaps have helped encourage better testing, modification, and introduction if it had been better prepared.

 

So there needn't have been any problem introducing all electric trains provided that the trains themselves were properly ready and tested etc and the routes over which they were to run were similarly ready.  It strikes me that a big problem has been the element of rush driven by a very fixed HST (and subsequent) cascade programme which simply does not allow for the complexities and potential problems of a new type of train.

['CHARD]

 

So there needn't have been any problem introducing all electric trains provided that the trains themselves were properly ready and tested etc and the routes over which they were to run were similarly ready.  It strikes me that a big problem has been the element of rush driven by a very fixed HST (and subsequent) cascade programme which simply does not allow for the complexities and potential problems of a new type of train.

 

....and then the IETs' heavier examinations will hove into view as well.....

[The Stationmaster]

Because with very limited power it might be useful to choose where that power went?

 

A relatively simple matter to incorporate in the train's design if past examples are anything to go by.  All(!!!) it needs is a suitable pre-programmed system of load shedding so that, for example - stuck and stationary so power goes to such things as lighting and possibly aircon but when traction power is need the power available for other things is reduced to a basic minimum (probably lighting or part lighting).  As it was possible over 20 years ago to design exactly such a system for use with hauled coaching stock I can't see that it would be a major technical problem designing it for a bi-mode train's standby diesel generated power supply.

 

Such systems when developed in the past for British designed trains were wholly automatic in operation so there should be no need for any any sort of intervention from traincrew (except, possibly, for fault resets).  For those who don't know such a system was involved in the specification and design of the ENS sleeper trains although I don't know if it was ever fully tested.

[The Stationmaster]

....and then the IETs' heavier examinations will hove into view as well.....

 

Ever since the intention for more bi-mode units was  I have often wondered if anybody bothered to think about that little rub and its impact on availability?

['CHARD]

Ever since the intention for more bi-mode units was  I have often wondered if anybody bothered to think about that little rub and its impact on availability?

 

I foresee some major head-scratching....

[Siberian Snooper]

Similar situation happened when the Networkers were introduced. No matter how bad you think the 800's are the Networkers were at least 10x worse.  BR's answer was to give the drivers mobile phones, so they could contact the engineers directly and they could talk them through the appropriate procedures, rather than having to rush a fitter to the train. Quite often the fix was to turn them off and on again, which took about 10 mins IIRC. The drivers would learn and remember what the fitters did to get it going.  Then when it happened again, rather than mess about with a middle man they did things they did not have permission to do, quickly got the train going again and informed control when it was more convenient...

 

It was pretty demoralising for the maintenance team when one day the miles per casualty average for the fleet fell to 46. (no, not 46,000, I really do mean 46)  To this day I don't know how it was possible for any train to be so abysmal.

When we first got busses with microprocessor engine management systems, the first thing we were told, when they didn't work or didn't work properly was too switch everything off for a few minutes and then try again. Most of the time that worked, if that failed, it was time to radio in.

[surfsup]

We had a failure at Devonport a couple of weeks ago, the driver wanted to 'turn it off and back on again' to reset the computers but wasnt allowed, the train sat there for 2 hours waiting for a Hitachi fitter to get to it, guess what he did to get it working again?

 

Demoralising and embarrassing doesnt even come close to covering it! 

 

 

Having witnessed a pair of 802s having to be reset a number of times to allow the rear unit to be unlocked (and to allow the service to operate as a 10 car!) I can fully understand your and your colleagues frustrations. They were embarrassed, frustrated with the conflicting information being given to them by those higher up and having to explain to some fairly frustrated passengers why their last service of the evening to Plymouth would have to run with only half the number of vehicles in use. Needless to say I was called over to try and explain to those passengers what was happening, and in the end the service left nearly 58 minutes late as a result with the front 5 coaches full and standing with the rear 5 locked out of use.

 

Whether it's just me or not, but stabling issues at Long Rock aside, I do find it disappointing that the 9 cars are more often than not being "poached" to substitute for the main 800 fleet  operated services at the moment. If it was up to me, I would also like to see a change of future plans, instead of having the 9 cars work the Exeter Semi Fasts and Plymouth and Penzance getting the 5/10 car splitters. I would rather like to see it operated the other way around, with the 9 cars working to Penzance, and the 5/10 car splitters either splitting at Exeter  - Sending 5 to Paignton and 5 to Plymouth.   

Edited December 11, 2018 by surfsup

[Ken.W]

Whether it's Hitachi or the DfT at fault for the HML debacle I couldn't say for sure, but if I had to pick one, then the large corporation which has built many, many trains over the years would be the one that I would suggest is more likely to know what it's doing.

So one didn’t know what they were doing

While the other should have but said or did nothing?

Edited December 11, 2018 by Ken.W

[Davexoc]

2. Exhaustive testing, particularly of electro-magnetic emissions, would have meant that they would not have entered service until they were fully compliant, with mods if needed, and could be signed off for all the routes they were to work over (which does leave a further question about the original spec).

If the EM emmissions are that bad, what are they like for the passengers? H&S advisors are asking questions about EM radiation exposure in the workplace around large motors and controllers, something that is alleged to possibly cause cancers and mental disorders.

 

Dave

[nightstar.train]

So one didn’t know what they were doing

While the other should have but said or did nothing?

Either:

A) The DfT gave Hitachi the wrong timetable for the HML, and the trains are built to spec

Or

B) The DfT gave Hitachi the right timetable for the HML, and the trains are not to spec.

 

Either way it’s a tremendous foul up, absolute debacle.

 

Does anyone know if the trains would perform to spec if they and their engines uprated to full power? That seems the obvious (and only) solution. Obviously that’ll come at a significant matienance penalty which someone will have to pay, and increased fuel consumption.

[Gwiwer]

 

 

stabling issues at Long Rock aside, I do find it disappointing that the 9 cars are more often than not being "poached" to substitute for the main 800 fleet  operated services at the moment. If it was up to me, I would also like to see a change of future plans, instead of having the 9 cars work the Exeter Semi Fasts and Plymouth and Penzance getting the 5/10 car splitters. I would rather like to see it operated the other way around, with the 9 cars working to Penzance,

Oh dear.  Are we still going with Plan A?  5 cars to Penzance is just not enough.  The 8-car HSTs already run full at times and overload in summer.  2x5-car 8xx will cause operational issues ranging from access / egress at short platforms to berthing at Long Rock and catering provision but is about the level of provision required.  Failing which a 9-car set with through access for all which is probably the better option.

 

The much-vaunted "half-hourly service" through Cornwall has yet to materialise and even when it does this will not eliminate the inevitable peaks and troughs in demand.  There is a need for maximum capacity into Plymouth around 8 - 9am for example and no amount of extra service provision is going to remove people's need to be at work, education, hospital appointments or other reasons for travel.  There is near-constant demand for travel to London but with significant peaks very early in the morning and again once the cheaper fares become valid.  And the same considerations apply in reverse.  Stopping everything out of Paddington at Reading doesn't help; surely the electrified local services have some capacity and can offer reasonable journey times?  If the Reading stops were pick-up only westbound and enforced as such then some of the overcrowding on Penzance services would be shifted elsewhere.  And if a 5-car 8xx worked a "local" for the likes of Newbury, Pewsey, Westbury, Castle Cary and arguably Tiverton Parkway then the longer-distance trains could run Reading - Taunton - Exeter for a modest step back to where journey times were 25 years ago.

 

If an HST can run Paddington - Penzance in 4h 30m as used to be the case on summer Saturdays (nominally fast to Plymouth but with a crew change stop at Exeter) then the same should be possible of an IET.  Currently the best timing is the 4h 58m of the early morning up Penzance which is AFAIK still an HST duty; most other trains take more like 5 1/2 hours.  In 2019 that really will not be good enough.

[royaloak]

I think that several things ought to have happened (as did happen with Class 373) -

 

1. The diesel power spec for bi-modes would not have been down rated to reduce their performance to a level below that of HSTs

2. Exhaustive testing, particularly of electro-magnetic emissions, would have meant that they would not have entered service until they were fully compliant, with mods if needed, and could be signed off for all the routes they were to work over (which does leave a further question about the original spec).

3. They should have been introduced to service at a much slower rate and with in-service problems identified and fixes found (if not fully implemented) before the number in service was ramped up.

4. To cater for Point 3 above they should not, especially as a 'novel' train embodying new features and coming from a new 'performance unknown assembly plant' have been introduced against such a hard cascade programme or the cascade programme should have been stopped or eased until problems are sorted (that is 100% down to DafT in my view).

5. There appears to have been a lack of contractual rigour which is showing in all sorts of ways which could perhaps have helped encourage better testing, modification, and introduction if it had been better prepared.

 

So there needn't have been any problem introducing all electric trains provided that the trains themselves were properly ready and tested etc and the routes over which they were to run were similarly ready.  It strikes me that a big problem has been the element of rush driven by a very fixed HST (and subsequent) cascade programme which simply does not allow for the complexities and potential problems of a new type of train.

1. The DaFT 'knew' that distributed power would provide better acceleration than power cars, even though they have less horsepower overall.

2. They were late being delivered and as the HSTs had been promised to Scotrail there wasnt the option to slow down or delay introduction while they were tested.

3.  see 2^^.

4. Amen to that.

5. I am sure whoever drew up the contracts for DaFT either got a big fat bonus from Hitachi or is now employed by them, cynical or what.

[Ken.W]

Neither the driver or Guard have access to the necessary controls plus the way the contracts are written we arent allowed to touch most of the MCBs except in an emergency, but what do I know, I just drive the things!

We had a failure at Devonport a couple of weeks ago, the driver wanted to 'turn it off and back on again' to reset the computers but wasnt allowed, the train sat there for 2 hours waiting for a Hitachi fitter to get to it, guess what he did to get it working again?

 

Demoralising and embarrassing doesnt even come close to covering it!

 

Typical of the pettiness going on with Hitachi, I’ve heard from our drivers who’ve already learned them that we’re allowed to touch virtually nothing. Turn off and back on’s standard procedure with 91 failures too.

I said previously regarding the issue with us not getting sets for training that as we should now have our own trains they “wouldn’t let us play with there’s”...

Well this came to light when, on the first day of this, a training class (from KGX) turned up at the Doncaster Depot...

And Hitachi refused to let any LNER staff even on the depot!

Similar situation happened when the Networkers were introduced....

The drivers would learn and remember what the fitters did to get it going. Then when it happened again, rather than mess about with a middle man they did things they did not have permission to do, quickly got the train going again and informed control when it was more convenient....

But that was BR when we all worked for the same company, we wouldn’t get away with that now

It’s all tied up in inter-company contracts now, and Hitachi don’t want us touching anything

Edited December 11, 2018 by Ken.W

[The Stationmaster]

Either:

A) The DfT gave Hitachi the wrong timetable for the HML, and the trains are built to spec

Or

B) The DfT gave Hitachi the right timetable for the HML, and the trains are not to spec.

 

Either way it’s a tremendous foul up, absolute debacle.

 

Does anyone know if the trains would perform to spec if they and their engines uprated to full power? That seems the obvious (and only) solution. Obviously that’ll come at a significant matienance penalty which someone will have to pay, and increased fuel consumption.

 

I would be very surprised if any sort of timetable (apart from diagram requirements) was included in the specification but what should have been included (and I believe was at least in part included) would be a performance specification and the performance specification should take into account the performance needed to operate all the timetable commitments the train would be expected to work.

 

But we do know that DafT 'wrote down' the required power output on diesel and rejected Hitachi's original proposal to provide 'power cars' in order to achieve the original specified performance required on diesel power.  Assuming Hitachi have delivered what was specified then the simple answer is that the spec was wrong.  If the trains cannot achieve the specified power output and reliably meet the performance spec then the trains are wrong.   Overall I would be surprised if Hitachi did not design the trains to comply with the performance spec as that would put them in a very expensive contractual situation.

[david.hill64]

If the EM emmissions are that bad, what are they like for the passengers? H&S advisors are asking questions about EM radiation exposure in the workplace around large motors and controllers, something that is alleged to possibly cause cancers and mental disorders.

 

Dave

Passengers are sitting in something close to a Faraday cage so have a degree of protection. (Mobile phone signals come through the glass). Having said that I think there were problems when the 317s were introduced and it was found that spanners could stand on end on the floor of the motor car supported by the large magnetic field from the choke. I would hope that designers are more aware of these issues now.

[nightstar.train]

Passengers are sitting in something close to a Faraday cage so have a degree of protection. (Mobile phone signals come through the glass). Having said that I think there were problems when the 317s were introduced and it was found that spanners could stand on end on the floor of the motor car supported by the large magnetic field from the choke. I would hope that designers are more aware of these issues now.

“Well boss I was going to type that report on my train journey down here, but we accelerated away from York quite hard and the train wiped my hard drive”.

[Ken.W]

“Well boss I was going to type that report on my train journey down here, but we accelerated away from York quite hard and the train wiped my hard drive”.

 

Not on diesel it won't

[Trog]

Passengers are sitting in something close to a Faraday cage so have a degree of protection. (Mobile phone signals come through the glass). Having said that I think there were problems when the 317s were introduced and it was found that spanners could stand on end on the floor of the motor car supported by the large magnetic field from the choke. I would hope that designers are more aware of these issues now.

 

I heard about that at the time although I was told that bunches of keys would slide across the floor towards it, and that a steel plate was going to be put in to block the field as otherwise it was a potential death zone for anyone with a heart pacemaker.

[caradoc]

I would be very surprised if any sort of timetable (apart from diagram requirements) was included in the specification but what should have been included (and I believe was at least in part included) would be a performance specification and the performance specification should take into account the performance needed to operate all the timetable commitments the train would be expected to work.

 

But we do know that DafT 'wrote down' the required power output on diesel and rejected Hitachi's original proposal to provide 'power cars' in order to achieve the original specified performance required on diesel power.  Assuming Hitachi have delivered what was specified then the simple answer is that the spec was wrong.  If the trains cannot achieve the specified power output and reliably meet the performance spec then the trains are wrong.   Overall I would be surprised if Hitachi did not design the trains to comply with the performance spec as that would put them in a very expensive contractual situation.

 

One would have thought that whatever train was to replace the HST would be specified to, at the very least, match its performance, if not improve on it given 40 additional years of railway development and experience. That this is clearly not the case, on diesel power anyway, is an indictment of the process and its management. It will be interesting to see how the Highland Main Line issue is resolved - Being cynical, perhaps a way to abandon the through London service will be found and the problem will then disappear ?

[Zomboid]

Just make the HML London service a ScotRail one and continue to use HSTs... The real solution is to electrify to Inverness and Aberdeen, but even with the Scottish government being relatively pro-electrification, that's not in any danger of happening quickly enough.

 

In reality, imagine someone somewhere is arranging a trial with an 802. I'd certainly hope the question is being asked, but will the additional power be enough? Sounds like the 800 is vastly underpowered for that route, not just a little bit.

[Coryton]

Just make the HML London service a ScotRail one and continue to use HSTs... The real solution is to electrify to Inverness and Aberdeen, but even with the Scottish government being relatively pro-electrification, that's not in any danger of happening quickly enough.

 

I suspect taking up a path further south on a shorty HST wouldn't be too good a plan.

[Zomboid]

I'd imagined that in that fantasy world they'd form a couple of full length HSTs. From traveling on it (only south of Edinburgh) a full set is only just big enough.

[Coryton]

I heard about that at the time although I was told that bunches of keys would slide across the floor towards it, and that a steel plate was going to be put in to block the field as otherwise it was a potential death zone for anyone with a heart pacemaker.

 

I remember many years ago a TV programme experimenting to see what could damage the data on floppy disks (remember those?)

 

If I recall correctly, soaking in beer was fine but putting it on the floor of a tube train not so good.

 

As for EMC from the class 800's, I have always though the problem with electric trains and signalling was conducted interference through the running lines not radiation from the trains but maybe it's just something I assumed rather than read.

 

Interesting question about the Health and Safety aspect of EM emissions though. Maybe it would be safer to put electric motors in some kind of dedicated vehicle rather than under the floor.

 

You could even have some flexibility by making that vehicle detachable so that it could be swapped for a similar vehicle with a diesel engine in for routes off the wires.

[Coryton]

I'd imagined that in that fantasy world they'd form a couple of full length HSTs. From traveling on it (only south of Edinburgh) a full set is only just big enough.

 

Fair enough.

 

There should be plenty of MK3's going spare soon so maybe our fantasy HSTs can have some extra coaches and three power cars.

 

Not quite sure they'd fit the stations though.