fiftyfour fiftyfour

18 hours ago, rab said:

Imagine the chaos there'd be.

We think the service is bad now! 

You've totally missed the point then. If the operator was run as a not-for-profit by a collective of workers (under the overall umbrella of an arms-length company created by a trade union) you'd never, ever have a strike and other key indicators like sickness and staff turnover would be exponentially better. The collective/co-operative could employ its own management team based on their ability and with a genuine financial incentive in the success of the company rather than being on the management-go-round conveyor belt of people who foul up somewhere and then move onto the next company. It was tried with considerable success by some of the privatised bus companies back in the day (the largest was Yorkshire Rider) but their model was to make all the staff shareholders and ultimately they took the bag of silver dangled by a large plc and sold out to them. 

Trouble is that it's all too "non-tory" for the current government to contemplate or for those who have spent the last 42 years living under right  of centre governments to begin to understand.

Yes, I should have replied earlier as I fell into the trap of being quick to complain when something goes wrong and slow to say when something has been done well.

Steve has created a very useful new pack C4708 which gives you three "INTERCITY" wordings for swallow livery and you choose your own number, which the pack suggests must start with 47 but he did numbers that started with 43 just as happily when I ordered. This means that we can replicate the best livery ever to grace our rails once again when combined with Shawplan etched swallow birds as the old pack 1540 with its reflective birds hit production snags, and the cast birds are right for all but a couple of Class 43's post 1991 anyway. Along with other items ordered at the same time I've cleared the backlog on the area beyond the workbench, and got a pair of IC Swallow power cars without paying £550 (start price on a Hornby pair listed on eBay yesterday)!!

6 hours ago, Markmiller2008 said:

 

ETS is electric train supply, different to ETH, its the brackets to the ETS module underneath that have been found with cracks. 

 

The reason that the locos are always orientated the same way round is a driver/union agreement to drive from the cab furthest from the rad fans due to noise.

The Nature of the faults mean they cant just turn the locos, plus at the moment they cant move anywhere until a plan has been formulated for their repairs. 

 

Mark  

Am I missing something or how would turning the loco around ever mitigate against cracks on an underslung module?! I'm wondering why the TPE ones are still in traffic if this is a known issue now...

3 hours ago, ColinK said:

It is wrong to be discussing compensation at this stage as the cause of the problem is not known, it could be Hitatchi,  or the specification being wrong or the track. 

No it's not, it's highly pertinent. The industry has just come through a very costly pandemic under a government who wanted to trim rail spending BEFORE the arrival of covid and now want to slash it.  Who pays for this fiasco is central to a lot of supplier/customer relationships right across the industry.

14 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

So that's what's needed in new trains... Horsehair!

The modern day punter moans like crazy if they can't reach a plug socket or the WiFi isn't perfect- giving them non air-con, non heated, sprung suspension pre mid 1970's relics and they'd probably rather not travel...

11 minutes ago, Supaned said:

 

Nope, not fitted and never intended to be. The GWR ATP system is different to that used by Chiltern as well, to further complicate the matter.

 

As an aside to this , XC Voyagers are limited to 100mph from Westerleigh Junction to Bristol Parkway due to a lack of ATP as well.

Are the XC Voyagers not limited to 100mph Westerleigh Jcn-Bristol PW by physics anyway? Coming off the curve at Westerleigh assuming its still 30mph you'd have to really give it the gun and then be ready to use a lot of brake to stop at Bristol PW to top the ton between the two! They used to be allowed into Padd, probably still are but subject to restrictions on speed. The only reason the Network Measurement Train power cars are fitted with ATP (fact fans- they are the only non GWR stock to have received the GWML version of ATP) is to allow them to run full speed on those lines.

5 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

An idle thought, but in relation to potential use of HST's as replacements.  In their later days, they only operated on the Cotswold line under Grandfathers rights because of our short platforms and their coaches with slam doors overhanging by 3-4 coach lengths.   Would those rights have lapsed by now, so would HST's be forbidden from use  from Oxford to Worcester nowadays?

Not quite, they modified the HST fleet in 2006-2008 on GWR so they were all fitted with selective door opening, so since then any short platforms served both old with grandfather  (Cotswold line, Stonehouse) and new, no rights (Ashchurch, Ivybridge) would only have had doors actually platformed released.

37 minutes ago, Afroal05 said:

There are indeed some 387s on their way from C2C, 387301-306 are the numbers being bounced around. There was a hope that they could run under their own power onto the GWML today but I believe this is not possible because of a section of North Pole depot that they would have to traverse isn't energised. (My geography of track in London is poor though so I cannot verify that). Allegedly ROG have no 57s available to go and collect them and it may require GWR and 57306 to make a collection from East Ham. This would push their arrival back by a day or so and it isn't expected to see them in service before Thursday at the earliest.

 

 

and all for the want of less than half a mile of electification. If they had done Acton Wells Jcn to Acton East Jcn as part of the CrossRail work they would have been able to swap units around between the two halves without the tunnel being open, been able to shift the 387's from GWR land to Ilford and back without the use of a diesel loco for any work they need that's outside the scope of Reading, and possibly had some freight or open access benefit as well....

2 hours ago, jools1959 said:

As far as I’m aware, they were just been “switched off” and two headed to Sims with their nameplates still attached.

a comment has been made about the nameplates, apparently Eversholt forgot to take them off and have now lost them- if SIMS are tipped off they can make a few quid profit on those!

5 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

 

There was an issue with the HST in the mid 80s, all staff at OC (HST and Factory) had to attend training on an updated Standing Order.

This was due to a change in the permissable length of cracks found in the brake discs, including moving the whole set to also inspect the parts hidden under the brake pads.

 

The reason, bits of metal were flying off. One time a section of brake disc narrowly missed a PW gang, and another incident took down a lineside post. IIRC at least one of those incidents was on the ECML.

 

The SO didn't call for squadron grounding, but it did make exam times quite a bit longer....

 

Various designs of disc were tried, but one piece variants meant that the wheel had to be removed from the axle, and that created scoring when pressed off, so compromised the integrity of the whole wheelset.

For those that remember, we knocked on the door of a fleetwide stop of the HSTs as late as '95. Thankfully inspections over pits didn't find a fleetwide issue with the retaining bolts on the #3 fuel tanks and 43190's disaster at Maidenhead was a one-off...

4 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

And it’s the only full set (7) operational spare. We must doff our hats to the much unjustly  maligned XC and their main fleet of now venerable 220/1. They must be up to their proverbial necks in it right now. Compliments to their long suffering train crews and the maintenance engineers at Barton that keep what is now the proverbial Thin Red Line of extensive IC workings operational.Don’t scorn the Voyagers. We need them.....and of course the small fleet of 125’s

Whisper it quietly (because they are so awful to travel on) but the Voyagers are reliable, and super reliable if you don't ask too much of them like tilting or joining/splitting with sister units too often. Ironically the covid timetable could be tweaked to provide even greater capacity as most turns are double sets (or HSTs), it's just a shame that every other hour they don't go south of Bristol in the daytime...

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

Chosen because it was probably a faster route to delivery and acceptance - a ready to go production line and a signed off design for UK trains plus a there are Hitachi maintenance depots all over the country now because of the massive fleet.

and there wasn't a massive amount of choice for off the peg bi-mode, 125mph units. Still isn't! Massive digression (please forgive) but Alstom missed a trick when they built the 4 extra WCML Pendos; they should have built a 5th one with a large diesel engine between the cab and the passenger area in each driving car and tried flogging it as a bi-mode with UK acceptance, albeit with C4 restriction and lardy-arse carriages...

7 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

 

Maybe I am wrong but I didn't think that bus drivers had to have specific training on each model of bus they might drive and sign off on them in the way the rail industry operates. Some companies (I can think of one locally) have very varied fleets.

 

Likewise, while bus drivers clearly have to know the route they're running so they take the right turns and don't miss stops, I didn't think there was a requirement to stay "current" on each route for safety reasons.

 

I've certainly seen signs to remind drivers which way to go, and I very much doubt that when routes are diverted all the drivers that might cover that route have to go out and drive round the diversion before they are allowed to carry passengers on it.

 

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.

56 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Rules are a box, which constrain behaviour.

Those constraints define safe working boundaries.

All rules are interpreted, some are more absolute (Yes/No) than others (Between A and E)

 

A good example of this is pilot man working, where a driver of one type can drive over an unfamiliar network with a guide who knows it.

Not everything is as black and white as being presented, there are always shades of grey, that are perfectly acceptable if implemented within the defined frameworks...

 

We don't do shades of grey, period. And there are not dozens of pilotmen/women sat around on call today just in case you want to run something over a route where it now normally does not run.

And you are getting confused about GWR- there are three (now four actually, but I will simplify for my audience) "groups" of staff- HSS, LTV and West (and former HeX) and each only holds competency on their own routes and their own tractions. For HSS that means Class 800 only apart from a few that do Class 57's, for LTV that means Class 800, Class 387 and 165/166, for West that means HST, Class 15x and 165/166. There are very few "crossover" staff, some West of England depots do a bit of everything but they are busy, err, doing a bit of everything. You could possibly cape the Gunnislake branch to run a Paddington service with a HST if they had been passed to run to Paddington as sliding door sets but the benefit would be negligible.

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

I’m not sure anyone would want that situation.

 

Not only would it be dangerous, but damage to the jacks/depot infrastructure could cause more issues, as without said infrastructure no other units could be lifted in the meantime, causing fleet attrition due to maintenance backlog.

 

A few years back 222103 had an indepot collapse, the unit was out of service for 2 years. They didnt quit and give up, nor did they pull Rocket out of the NRM.

 

The filing cabinet was moved, they were able to overcome the paperwork issues, objections etc, and operate a slam door HST in the interim.

 

Indeed the spirit of GC and HTs is the spirit we need, they more than any other operator have overcome unbelievable number of operational issues over the years...and with regard to safety andwith regards to who is allowed to press which button.

You just don't get it. Slam door HSTs were the norm back in 2005 or whenever it was that 222103 got dropped. You keep ranting on about filing cabinets, and you quoted something like "sat with their feet up citing the rule book" after a list that laughably included green godesses.

Staff could be retrained on older stock, vehicles could be brought back out of storage and given exams or overhauls they need to get them back in service, dispensations could be granted for non PRM stock to be brought back to cover the shortfall. They are long term solutions, not overnight ones. You (and it's not just you) seem to think that drivers and guards working for GWR can just change back into their old uniforms and regain the traction competencies they held back then- it doesn't work like that. When the HSTs were introduced on Hull Trains (for example) that was after weeks of training had been carried out and using stock that was then common on the route and thus they had station staff competent in their dispatch and didn't need a PRM exemption.

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

Suggestions elsewhere that a plan B for GWR is forming to keep people moving.

Details as yet unconfirmed but 387s beyond Didcot possible and Castle sets to Reading.

 

 

Just about possible to do a "two halves" service divided at Didcot, there are some "West" crews that sign as far as Didcot so in theory could work Cattle Class HST from the West/South Wales/Bristol to there with passengers forward on a 387. I did ask and Class 387s are not allowed west of Didcot in passenger service as that stretch is not approved for DOO operation, and no guards exist that sign 387's. 

The most workable solution is probably to concentrate the "passed as OK" Class 800's on an hourly Reading-Bristol, hourly Reading-Cardiff and hourly Reading-Exeter on the basis that Class 345's (of which there are 20+ spare per day) and Class 387's can do Reading-Paddington, and west of Exeter/west of Cardiff there are other TOCs and/or other tractions which can probably deal with the current loadings. Probably best to send all the Oxford passengers to Marylebone, or get them to change at Reading into XC.

35 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

When fire services went on strike, Green goddesses appeared.

When covid came, private ambulances were commandeered.

When civil emergencies occurs the army can be called.

When volcanoes explode the navy was commandeered.

When war breaks out cruise ships were requisitioned.

When cars break, rentals cars can be called.

 

When trains break, everyone makes a brew and puts there feet up, quotes the rule book and becomes an expert on why not.

 

however,

 

I have hopes that those doing their job, will do it... the experts, who are probably too busy to be in this room, will gather something i’m sure, and the next 24 hours will reveal.

 

 

 

I suggest you re-read what "Hobby" wrote as they put it far better than I could. The railway defines standards, they are enshrined in law and very strictly enforced by HMRI and other authorities. The staff involved are not being deliberately obstructive, they are following what they are told to do. Staff in every safety critical role everywhere on the railway are trained in what they do, and we don't cut corners or bluff our way into delivering a safe service with an "it'll be OK" attitude. The modern railway requires a modern approach, and that includes managing the liability towards our passengers and colleagues and ensuring every bit of paperwork is done before any task is carried out. You expect some kind of blitz spirit where we just string together a few old trains out of scrapyards and get on with the job- the gulf between what you think is possible and what is actually possible is immeasurable. 

3 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

Any predictions what this might mean for a 08:50 GWR train from Truro to Reading tomorrow morning?

What doesn't help the WoE to London cause this weekend is an Axminster to Exeter block on the South Western. GWR says come back next week, maybe.

35 minutes ago, charliepetty said:

LSL Could be running 2 X HSTs on the ECML with an LSL driver & LNER Pilotman.

 

That would help a bit.

 

The EMUs around Leeds, IF someone had took steps of route gauging etc could be running Kings Cross services (2 X 4 Car sets).

 

There are Class 68s & 67s and Mk 4 Sets all over the place so make anw  effort to get some back into use.

 

There were 'How Many' Class 90's & Mk4 Grand Central West Coast sets, some Mark4 sets are parked it Worksop

 

Not sure if BR would have done nothing.

 

Charlie

In your fantasy universe how many crews do you think are sat around waiting for a call, where is the second LSL HST anyway, how does that comply with PRM regulations, who is going to be the guard on that, who is going to dispatch it from stations since LNER competency to dispatch slam doors is now confined to Wakefield and Doncaster only, how are you going to get the actual LSL set or your imaginary second LSL set onto the ECML to start with. So only about five reasons why item 1 couldn't happen, I'm not even going to bother going through the rest. 

8 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

The post I am referring to was way back at the start to do with the track the trains are supposed to run on. That's what I am presuming the post I am replying to is referring to. If the track isn't to specification that's not Hitachi's fault.

Can't we just agree they were built to a price, like anything else, and now they have found to be unfit for purpose- a purpose that would have been defined to the nth degree in the procurement document. How good the DfT deal was with Agility will be tested after this weekend, does Hitachi owe the rail industry an eight figure sum in compensation for the shortfall in trains today, tomorrow and however long it takes or does the DfT just have to swallow the cost on top of the billions they are already pouring into the industry?

16 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Lickey was always a problem. HSTs frequently arrived at New Street on one engine if the coolant was already a bit low as the slopping around in the tank when it hit the bank at speed led to the sensor being uncovered for long enough to raise a critical alarm. Conversely the other power car could appear overfilled if it had been topped up before leaving Bristol.

 

Very, very rarely the coolant level- usually the fan oil had run low or so thin it was ineffective through overwork, it was a flaw in the HST design that cooling capacity often struggled to cope with the amount of engine heat.

In answer to an earlier other posting that claimed the anoraks "loved the HST"- that is about as far from the truth as its possible to get. When HSTs came in introducing 125mph, air-con comfort to the GWML they were hated by time-warp idiots who thought that 90mph steam heat stock should prevail - it was the ordinary paying passenger that loved the HST for several reasons.

And in answer to a different earlier posting writing today's news off as overblown spotter wibble- I'd say the near total withdrawal of around 50% of this countries "Inter City" services is pretty big news, and when both main companies affected are delivering a "don't travel, not today and not tomorrow either" message the damage to the wider industry is immeasurable and at a time when commuter traffic is near zero and discretionary leisure travel was probably the only thing that would have kept the industry going.

On 26/04/2021 at 22:08, 3rd Rail Exile said:

A rake of Intercity liveried Mk3s - the 91s worked with Mk3s and ex-HST power car DVTs as the Mk4 rakes weren't ready...

and the TGS wants the buffers left on at the van end...

I fear there may still be some comment made officially about the ongoing use of 45 year old stock with its 1970's crash worthiness and/or the wisdom of having a lot of weight at the back of a train and the effect that has on the coaches when in a collision like this. 

Ufton Nurvet was an unfortunate one, if it had struck the car any differently and if there hadn't been the start of a loop just after the crossing that train would probably have been derailed but stayed upright and aligned. Proves that sometimes all you need is an element of bad luck, same went for Great Heck which would have had a different outcome if it hadn't been for the freight on the down.

18 hours ago, john new said:

Sorry but I totally disagree. I would rather be late home because my train back from London is running slowly through the New Forest in gale conditions (and able to stop if the driver sees a downed tree) than have it crash at line speed and derail. It is the same reason as the need when driving the car to go more slowly in bad/wet weather; sadly something many motorists don’t seem to do.

You may be patient and not mind how long it takes (Totton to New Milton at 20mph is probably going to stick an hour on the journey and by necessity cut the service by at last half due to crew and stock displacement) but how frequently is it windy, or at least windy enough for there to be some risk that a tree has fallen? We cannot have zero risk, and the fact that Carmont is the first weather related fatal accident in decades suggests the level of aversion to risk had been about right. And I still stand by my point; your train arrives at Southampton and they decide that it's not going any further because its been a bit windy and eventually direct you onto replacement road transport which do YOU think poses the largest risk to your safety, the train running at line speed or the bus running along the A31 at 60mph?

4 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

The train wasn't going to end up at its destination, and it was running on the only route open in central or eastern Scotland, and already had three identified locations on that route where there had been landslips or flooding.

 

That's far from "just in case".

But it was still the middle of August on a railway that is resilient to all weathers. It appears you are advocating blanket closure or effective closure of the railway network after heavy rainfall (or indeed after any weather incident including wind or snow), which would certainly reduce the risk to railway staff and passengers. My point is that by making the railway that fickle will force passengers to use other less safe modes.