Mike_Walker

8 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

Does anyone know if 387s are operating west of Swindon?

Not in passenger service at the moment.  There was a test run yesterday and crew training and route approval is underway for them to work through to Cardiff.  This will take some time to achieve and an interim stage may be to operate as far as Bristol Parkway.  You will appreciate that the situation is still very fluid with GWR management working horrendously long hours trying to keep some form of service operating.

The biggest issue is the 387s have only ever worked on LTV services for GWR which are all DOO-P which is not authorised west of Didcot.  Therefore no GWR guards/conductors/train managers - call them what you will - have trained on them whilst LTV drivers don't sign west of Swindon (They are stabled at Swindon but run ECS to/from Didcot and you don't have to carry a guard on a class 3 or 5 working), likewise HSS drivers have not been trained on 387s as there's never been a need for it.  So now either LTV drivers have to learn the road to Cardiff or HSS drivers learn 387s.  Either way, Covid  restrictions hamper this as you can only have one extra person in the cab under strict conditions which makes the whole process very long-winded.

12 hours ago, rodent279 said:

This picture of the driving car of 800032 at Bristol in 2018 seems to show a slightly different design of bracket mount. Are the failures on any particular type of car?

As I understand it, the vast majority if not all of the problems have been found on the non-driving vehicles.  Of the original yaw-damper cracks, all were above the motor not trailer bogies although I don't know if this holds true for the jacking point problem.

A very learned discussion of the possible causes and the metallurgy thereof is going on on the WNXX forum at http://www.wnxxforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31507.  You should be able to view as a guest if you are not a member.  A lot of detailed info being posted by experts but in a way the rest of us can understand.  Well worth a trawl through on a wet afternoon - well it is here in the Thames Valley anyway!

4 minutes ago, Calidore said:

Heading back through King’s Cross, 91110 just came to a stand on platform 1 (thought I’d seen a 91 here for the last time long ago!). There do seem to be a fair few LNER units available — 801210/215/216 all in attendance.

But note all are 801s - the all-electric version.  They seem hardly affected, it's the heavier bi-modes that are and on GWR, the 802s are the worst.

3 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Or has someone in that area of expertise been roundly told that they have insufficient knowledge of the subject matter (as per this poster although the finger was "not specifically pointed") and to "revise their opinions".

 

This is not a matter to be brushed under the carpet.  But if the problem was never a problem in terms of operational safety in the first place, as is now being suggested (though not explicitly stated) by the press release, then someone's over-cautious but no doubt safety-focussed comments may need to be dealt with appropriately.  

You are taking a very unfair view. 

These trains were found to have cracks.  Initially, nobody knew how serious or extensive the problem was so, as a precaution, the entire fleet was stopped for investigation.  After a herculean effort which has involved engineers from Hitachi, the TOCs and Ricardo Rail (as independent overseers) an understanding has been reached as to what is and is not safe allowing trains to be returned to service subject to close and regular examination.  Nobody is being "told that they have insufficient knowledge of the subject matter", far from it.  Some of the most experienced engineers in the field here and in Japan are on the case.

Please stop posting such negative comments as you have over the last couple of days which only show you have little understanding of the problem or how today's railway works. 

At the end of the day, nobody is going to sign off an unfit unit for service and lay themselves open to criminal charges should something go wrong.

4 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

Or....

 

We've found some cracks. That doesn't look good! We'd better take the trains out of service while we work out how serious this is and whether trains can still run with some level of cracking and if so what that level should be.

 

OK a few days later we now have criteria for when we can put trains back in service and many have passed.

 

I forget where I read it now but I thought that there was supposed to be oversight from a independent organisation so we aren't relying on the say-so of those with a lot to lose for every day a train is idle.

 

 

Correct, Ricardo Rail are the independent overseers.

1 hour ago, david.hill64 said:

Yes, what you post is all true, but it requires effort and agreement. UK could for example have put forward a legitimate case for electrification clearances to be a special case as these are closely aligned to gauging, but didn't so we end up with a network that isn't compliant with the TSI (not that it matters for existing installations) and an inability to afford future electrification projects because of the civil works requirements. (And I admit in this case the ORR wanting to take an unreasonably pessimistic view on safety and the application of electricity at work regs). Yes you can get derogations from TSI's (eg Crossrail) but these are in the gift of the European Commission.

 

The rolling stock TSI and EN12663 do not allow any specific exemption for UK to deviate from specified acceleration levels mandated in the standard (at least in the versions that I have - 2014) so unless I have missed something I'll stand by my statement that it would have been illegal to specify different load cases for the 800s. (Even if DfT had the gumption to understand it might be necessary).

 

Design scrutiny used to be a very valuable tool that BR used to ensure standards were interpreted correctly and it worked. BR had developed goal setting standards supported by codes of practice. Quite different to the continental approach where standards traditionally prescribed engineering solutions. BR representatives on the drafting committees lost the battle to continue the UK approach. Nowadays acceptance is based more towards ticking the boxes that the standard mandates. The absurdity of this approach was brought home to me when assessing Shinkanshen stock for Taiwan. Our newly recruited German engineer became very frustrated at the delay in getting his PC up and running. It transpired that he had brought with him the entire suite of DIN standards for rolling stock with him on CD and wanted to assess whether the design was acceptable or not by checking against these standards rather than assessing whether the vehicles complied with the contract. He didn't know how to do anything else. I think the industry generally has lost out by adopting the current approach, but I am probably in a minority.

 

So my point is that if the new vehicles are designed to EN12663, then CAF and Hitachi will probably have met the contract requirements, even if the vehicles are not robust enough to cope with UK conditions. (And I said before that I haven't seen the procurement specs and design calculations for these trains so readily admit I could be wrong). 

 

Only the lawyers will win.

 

 

Out of interest, how does us now being outside the EU affect our having to adhere to EU regulations?  I have in mind particularly the clearances for electrification which have added enormously to recent schemes in this country and appear to be totally unnecessary especially if one looks at the results of NR's close examination of clearances under the notorious Steventon bridge which now allows electric operation at almost full speed (110mph v 125mph).

13 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Which begs the question as to why the trains were not designed from the start with British conditions stipulated instead of buying adapted designs?  
 

It isn’t a matter of where they were built. What matters - and what will need to come out in the wash - is the flawed decision-making which afflicted the train procurement process and the GWR electrification fiasco which resulted in hasty changes. 
 

Some of those chickens may already be home to roost. 
 

 

Ask the DfT but unfortunately the prime mover of the project is no longer on the planet to answer for, or see the damage he has done.

4 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Possibly, or was that a guess? 

No, as I understand it they are very difficult to spot by eye.  The first instance only came to light when a fitter shone a powerful torch on it when doing something totally unconnected.

6 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Was up in GW land this afternoon and saw two IETs in service on the Reading - Newport route; 800006 and 800009. So a few are still about.

 

You saw the entire operational fleet!

1 minute ago, Andrew Young said:

just need the fire alarm to go off to achieve that!

Which is exactly what happened a couple of years ago.  There actually was a small fire in the Cardiff ROC.

9 minutes ago, flapland said:

I wonder if Hitachi and others are concerned that the causes of the weld/crack issue could also be affecting other areas including perhaps some of those in this shot. 

 

Perhaps a complete strip out of one set is required to ensure their isn't more hidden issues. 

This shows the cab which is built up in a completely different way to the made body which is constructed from aluminium extrusions.

1 minute ago, uax6 said:

 

Mr Vine is a terrible broadcaster, not a touch on JY, and seems to have an editiorial staff that is equally badly informed, his program is the only one of R2 that actually makes me want to throw the radio down the box steps....... I'm guessing they will wheel in Christian Wholmer as well, another badly informed fool. Roger Ford would be the bloke I'd call.

 

Andy G

Better off listening to The Goons on R4 Extra instead - probably makes more sense!

Superb. Inspired by a photo taken by Keith Pirt in 1957 I presume.

1 minute ago, roythebus1 said:

That's been discussed elsewhere.  It's one on Irish Rail's Mk4 sets built by CAF.

1 minute ago, Afroal05 said:

 

I don't know when the rhetoric will change but it probably ought to at some point. I suspect that PR will be last to hear about a lot of the plans as they keep changing. The plan and the route forward seems to change with every hour as new information emerges or another 800 is failed.

 

There are now only two units on the Reading - Newport circuits, 800006 and 009.

 

It is suggested each unit will take days to fix. If the fix can only be completed at heavy maintenance depots - North Pole and Stoke Gifford then that could clearly take a very long time to fix.

 

 

I'm inclined to agree although I think there is probably some middle ground between saying that there will be disruption for a few days which gives a false impression that everything will be right by the weekend and saying that it is the end of the world and don't bother getting a train this side of Christmas.

 

Which Christmas?

8 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

And for any who consider this to be a peculiarly British malaise ...

 

A story of another fleet of European high speed trains from a few years back:

 

https://dutchreview.com/featured/fyra-the-dutch-high-speed-rail-debacle/

 

If you don't have time to read it all, this should give you a flavour:

 

Facing security concerns and strong criticism from passengers and politicians alike, the Fyra was suspended indefinitely on January 18th [2013] - a little over a month since it first began servicing the originally envisioned route between Amsterdam and Brussels. Dutch Railways held manufacturer AnsaldoBreda responsible for the technical issues; AnsaldoBreda maintained that the issues were minor and would be resolved in a matter of days. However, a day later on January 19th it was announced that the technical issues with AnsaldoBreda’s V250 trains were not going to be addressed any time soon. At this point, 9 trains had already been delivered and the HSA had already paid €100 million euro to AnsaldoBreda, whilst the National Society for Belgian Railways had paid €35 million, ensuring that a lengthy legal battle between the manufacturer and the operators is ahead.

 

After some contemplation, the National Society for Belgian Railways dissolved their contract with AnsaldoBreda. On May 31st, the company’s CEO presented an impressive list of technical issues that engineering firms Mott McDonald and Concept Risk found with AnsaldoBreda’s V250 trains:

• Large-scale problems with the infiltration of water in the trains;
• Erosion and rustiness around the trains’ axels’, with rust appearing on one particular axis after just a few kilometers had been travelled;
• Poor fitting of the hydraulic and electrical cables onto the trains (these were placed on the bottom of the train, allowing it to incur damage due to the weight of the trains)
• Technical differences between the various train sets, since the mechanics had each manufactured the train sets in their own ways;
• Problems with the braking system, which was designed for speeds of up to 160 kilometers per hour, and not approved for use at speeds of up to 250 kilometers per hours (moreover, the wintry circumstances required an even lower speed, since the brake path was longer in wintry conditions)
• The batteries, which are located under the passenger cabs, could ignite. There have been images of damage that occurred after a battery caught fire near the Dutch town of Watergraafsmeer. One image shows a burnt carpet on the floor of a passenger cab.

(The Italian manufacturer AnsaldoBreda (an inexperienced newcomer to the industry) won the contract to supply the trains for the new service. After requesting qualifications from a host of train builders, AnsaldoBreda was eventually selected because of their competitive pricing. The price per seat of their trains was about half that of Siemens’ ICE trains, or Alstom’s TGV trains.)

Fortunately in this case the issues were discovered early before the full fleet had been received and the stock to be replaced was still available and could be quickly brought back.  Here, the whole fleet is "in service" and those replace either turned into razor blades or on their way to that fate.

Perhaps coincidental, but that Italian Ansaldo/Breda plant was later acquired by Hitachi and was responsible for building the Class 802 variant.

17 hours ago, steve fay said:

A nice 3D printed mile marker on Sonning Cutting 

Err…  Why 40 3/4 ?   That's out towards Pangbourne, Sonning Cutting is roughly 32 1/2 to 33 3/4.

Reports coming in that ScotRail have found cracks on some of their Hitachi Class 385s.  Subject to confirmation.

13 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Bus drivers would generally get a familarisation on new types, but that may be limited to just showing them where the controls are and how they differ to other types. Difference on the railway is that a Class 800 is 45 years newer in design vs a HST and so is radically different to the extent of training pretty much from scratch traction-wise.

 

As one of the GWR project team summed it up: transferring from a HST to an IET is the rail equivalent of going from a Spitfire to the new Lightning.  The change was so dramatic several drivers (and train managers) chose to transfer or leave the industry rather than learn the new regime.  The same also happened elsewhere including Virgin when the Pendolinos arrived.

46 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Question. The IEPs have been in service on GwR longer than LNER. Therefore fatigue cycles (breaking, track jolts, lifts etc) will be higher on the original class 800 5 cars. Therefore why has the lner fleet been withdrawn? Surely like in aircraft, a problem can be foind and  highlighted for checking after x amount of time, miles, cycles etc. Similarly the newer class 802 in gwr should not yet have the same wear as the 800s.

Is my thought process/logic completely wrong?

 

Also having heard and felt the suspension bottoming out on many class 800 runs im not surprised there are now cracks.

 

Finally there should be a thunderbird fleet of warm stord 9 -car hst kept for emergency fleets across the network. They have a hogh RA, and are very robust and reliable. Its an insult that a serviceable hsts are being scrapped when their replacements are not fit for purpose day in day out. If I were commuting now and would have a paragraph of choice words for the tocs involved.

Doesn't appear to be working like that.  It is reported that 32 cracks have been found across the GWR 802s, the newest (plus 3 TPE 802s have been stopped) whilst this morning only five units are reported as being available for GWR use which are 800002, 800006, 800009, 800014 and 800311 all of which are the earliest including, significantly, 002 which was one of the pre-production examples and did much of the early test running.

4 minutes ago, MrSimon said:

The private ambulances are always there, at massive additional cost to the nhs to cover gaps

Don't get me started on that one !!

Just now, adb968008 said:

Dont GWR operate HSTs any more then ?

 

Yes, but they are confined to the WoE Class 2 services and have only 4 cars.  as already discussed there are issues of competency which prevent their wider use.

9 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

Out of curiosity how difficult would in depot recovery be if it failed mid lift, and how would that knock onto other units maintenance schedules?

Modern units such as the IETs are semi-permanently coupled so the whole unit is lifted simultaneously.  It doesn't take much to imagine what the effect of the failure of a single jacking point would be.  It would take a serious amount of time to recover and each depot has only one road equipped with jacks.  Something like that happened to one of Hull Trains' Class 222s if you remember.