Mike_Walker

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.

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Are these units lifted up that often to cause cracks ?
 

or

is the crack representing itself in a location of a strong point as a result of  a greater than expected force being imposed at a weaker point that manifests itself at the point of greatest resistance  ?.. if that stress force is generated from motion.. that would be a problem to continued use wouldnt you agree ?

It might not fall apart whilst moving, but if you cant lift it at a strong point without considerable damage.. its equally a bit useless.

 

is it just a case of identifying an issue, benchmarking it across the fleet and the monitoring it going forwards for a future decision ..maybe its within a certain tolerance ?

 

Ironically 800109 only emerged last week for testing following its rather high impact low speed incident.

 

 

Whilst the number of times the units have been lifted to date, if ever, the same jacking points are used to support the vehicle when over a bogie-drop which is used fairly often - for motor or wheelset changes for example.  Therefore the cracks could lead to failure in such circumstances.

Should the worst happen then it would not lead to a catastrophic failure in itself.  Should the attachment of the yaw damper fail the damper could flail around and strike some lineside object which could in turn lead to a derailment.  Remember what happened to D1007 at Longfield Junction, Ealing back in 1973.  The same applies to the CAF units although the method of attachment is different on those units.

8 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Interesting. I have just seen a photo by Ken Mumford of the 10.40 from Swindon to Swansea (ex Paddington), a 5-car Azuma. Presumably it started its journey before the alert.

Jonathan

As I said earlier, as units are checked and found to be fault free they are being returned to service.  On GWR we don't call them Azumas - we have our own pet names which I won't share here...

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Is that attachment plate/bracket welded to the skin of the car-body?

As I understand it, it is a large unit which goes completely across the underside of the body.  The body itself is constructed from extrusions not a framework with a skin applied.

1 minute ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Even our beloved "Thousands" had to be stopped for checking cracks, back in the 60s. And before that the "Kings"... 
Just add your favourite loco class to the list.

Agreed, but back then the affected locos/units amounted to only a small part of the fleet and could be covered by other types.  No so today regrettably.

1 minute ago, Zomboid said:

Mechanical boxes used colour lights reasonably frequently.

 

Another example of the thing you're asking about is Eastleigh to Romsey via Chandler's Ford, which was controlled (including the double to single junction at Eastleigh) from the mechanical box at Romsey, until that box closed and control moved to wherever it is.

Eastleigh PSB

2 hours ago, meil said:

4. set instrument to TRAIN ON LINE and then send 4

 

Should be LINE CLEAR not Train On Line.

Yes, that confirms it's an up train but the reporting number appears to be displayed on the frame not chalked on the smokebox door - far too neat for one thing!  My earlier comments about it being left from a previous assignment remains.  At that time up expresses on the Joint Line were 1Axx if they'd originated at Wolverhampton, Birmingham or Shrewsbury and 1Vxx if they'd originated at Birkenhead.  DMU services to/from Marylebone were 2Cxx.

As I said previously, it was not uncommon for trains to display completely wrong reporting numbers back in those days unlike today when it is imperative that every train displays it's own unique ID even if it is no longer shown to the outside world.

9 minutes ago, nicktamarensis said:

Thanks chaps. The photo taken from the footbridge to the west of the station was definitely of a down train passing the HW 'Middle 'box coming in from the West Wycombe direction, carrying Class A lamps and with the 'B10' reporting number - not chalked but boarded. As you say, the lamps by this date would indicate '1' as a prefix.

Chris - this was a query in conjunction with the Transport Treasury not BRILL or Bylines!

Nick. 

Then it would be an up train, not down.  The fact that the number was chalked on the smokebox suggests it was left from a previous assignment - in 1962 1B10 was the 10:45 Paddington - Weston-Super-Mare - not uncommon in those days.

8 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

 

Morning Mike. 

 

Thanks for the kind words. It just takes practice and continuing experimentation. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes it doesn't.  Either way, you learn something. 

 

Rob. 

Hi Rob,

Yes, but it's plucking up the courage to dive in!

Mike

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

There were several diagrams of B set coaches, and the E129 that is the prototype for the Airfix coach was never used as an individual coach, so the inner short buffers never had to be used with ‘normal’ stock.  The final diagram of B sets, the E147, were in some cases given normal buffers and thus could be used as individual coaches, and I believe some were in their later lives in Devon and Cornwall.   These were flat ended coaches with 9’ ‘pressed steel’ bogies. 

Really?  I've always been under the impression they were based on the E140 design.  There was a version of those with 9' bogies which were E145.

12 hours ago, big jim said:

There are a couple of SP speed restriction board on a couple of curves on the chilterns at high Wycombe and aynho jn that don’t apply to certain sprinters!

 

if your in a 165/168 etc the speeds don’t apply but if you have a ‘sprinter’ with a centre gangway such as 156 or 158  then you must go at the slower SP speed as there are signals on the curves that are obscured by the centre gangway 

 

as for HST speeds, after Solihull heading toward Marylebone then the loco hauled chiltern services (class 68 and previously 67) adhere to the HST speeds 

Here's a picture of the speed boards mentioned, or least the up direction AWIs for them between West Wycombe and High Wycombe.

When they went up they caused some astonishment not least to Chiltern's drivers as no "Sprinters" are scheduled to use the line.  Questions were asked by Chiltern management and the answer came back it was to allow for operating Class 158s over the route.  Some will remember that around the time Wrexham & Shropshire was being set up there was a rival plan put forward by Arriva Trains Wales to run a service from Aberystwyth to Marylebone which would have used 158s.  The issue was that with their gangwayed cabs there was thought to be reduced signal sighting around the curves through High Wycombe station compared to say a 165 or 168 hence a lower speed was posted under the SP category.  There is a similar restriction on the down line approaching Aynho Junction for the same reason.

The 60 PSR applies to all other passenger trains whilst 35 applies to freight trains.

The irony was that by the time the signs went up the Arriva plan had been abandoned.