Entire 800/801/802 fleet stood down for safety checks

[Class 170101]

ex

I did idly wonder earlier if you could run a 378 as far as Bristol Parkway to plug one of those gaps.

In theory you could get to Cardiff Central (as discussed above for Rugby Specials) but it was mentioned earlier that crews don't sign this yet.

 

[Ianno87]

387

"The is the London Overground service to...Bristol Parkway"

 

[urpert]

Thanks all, I did of course mean 387!

 

[RobShipway]

Robbies, as nice as it is to see you back, I don't get what you're trying to achieve with this speculation. Train compliance certification in the UK is very strict. Before being allowed anywhere near a running line, Hitachi would have demonstrated to the safety bodies that their trains are fit for purpose.

I agree with your comment, but would those same safety bodies be aware of stresses the trains are likely to have when in use? As has pointed out in this thread other trains have had similar issues in the past, so if those safety bodies where around at the time of those issues, I would hope that they would have learned what to be looking for in the safety of the trains. Surely, people from the safety bodies should have been taken for a ride on a class 800 and heard the stresses and the ride quality that people have mentioned in this thread with the class 800 trains.

The safety bodies are people, just like you and me. As much as they do an excellent job in making sure people are safe to travel, like any person, things can be missed or daily wear and tear on the units may not have been appreciated as to how the class 8xx would be affected. But as has been said, this has happened to other trains within a few years of service. I just think that maybe, lessons prior to the IET trains being built could have been learned.

 

[TRAX]

I know this new issue seems to affect jacking points, but they did have similar problems with the yaw dampers (on Civities too), which is rather ironic given that this is one of the parts designed to make the ride smoother !

 

[Kettledrum]

Thank goodness LNER did put some of the withdrawn trains into storage in a way that can be brought back into service. Standard fleets are all very well, except they lack resilience when safety defects arise. With all train companies also ordering the Hitachi product one does wonder if we are putting all our eggs in the one basket.

 

[D365]

Thank goodness LNER did put some of the withdrawn trains into storage in a way that can be brought back into service.

Only because they will be coming back into service post-COVID!

 

[AdamWW]

it just felt like BR painted a different colour. LNER seems to push image over all else, which is an attitude that seems to have been inherited from Virgin and may well indeed be led from the top by Horne. I found that to some extent EMT "felt" the same when he was over there. A bit like the way any bus company that has or has had anything to do with Alex Hornby is always big on image.

First took over a management buy-out, didn't they? So there's a direct line back from now to BR management, unlike the more complex path with the East Coast franchises. Maybe that has something to do with it?

 

[edwin_m]

From a technical point of view, they are bolted beneath underframes, so increase weight (and thus load being swung around on poor track) on the yaw dampers. Being so low their centre of gravity is below the body mount of the yaw damper so any movement is more like a heavy pendulum.

It could be the pendulum effect that is contributing to the cracks if they were designed more for steadying the body, than a body with a huge lump of metal hanging from it.

Also if the cracks are related to jacking points, they could be something to do with the extra weight increasing the stress when they are jacked up. Either way a better picture could be established fairly quickly by seeing if the straight electric units on LNER are currently free of cracks.

But it was envisaged that some of these units would be bi-mode right from the start, so the design should have allowed for the stresses resulting from the extra weight of the diesel. It's very unlikely they would have tried to shave a bit of weight off the electric versions by slimming down the metal around the jacking points.

 

[richardcoughla]

"The is the London Overground service to...Bristol Parkway"

I wouldn't mind that for £1.55

 

[dk1]

Given vehicles without engine rafts are affected his comment is somewhat odd...


Their units are the newest and the lowest mileage so had the best chance of not being affected.

Yeah I did think that may the case.

IF that were the case (which it isn’t) why would they have built them that way then, given that there is no possible way to upgrade the infrastructure they run on during their entire service lifetime.

Nobody is stranded. It’s lunch time.

Got 3 trains checked

It’s just agenda fuelled I’m afraid. Best to be ignored.

Cheers!!

 

[55002]

Who would have checked 800101 at Inverness last night? 800105 came in from Glasgow, hence Polmadie last night must be ok, it’s going back out on 1430 to Edinburgh

 

[Bletchleyite]

accompanied by a "bang" or thump I've noticed on occasion

If suspension hitting the stops occasionally made units fall to bits in and of itself, then I'd be amazed any Pacers or Merseyrail units made it past the 1980s. 507/508s hit the stops at every single rail joint between Kirkdale and Walton for most of the 80s and 90s.

 

[Horizon22]

Swansea-Paddington is hoping to get an hourly service up and running pending some further checks - its where the GWR IETs are being concentrated at this time.

 

[AdamWW]

Nobody is stranded. It’s lunch time.

I think if I needed a GWR train to get home from London, given that they are telling people not to travel and saying that there may be no service and there are no alternatives available, I might not be so sanguine.

 

[shyanthony]

Class 92? That would be spectacular!

I kid of course, just an amusing typo.

Unfortunately, it was a typo.
T'was meant to be Class 91**

 

[Thunderer]

FWIW I'd suggest "due to urgent safety checks on our trains" is probably a reasonable way of explaining it to the public. The use of the word "safety" will itself bring understanding.

"An unexpected number of trains needing maintenance at the same time" just gives rise to "well, what incompetence led to that?" - which isn't the situation at all.



Pacers ride like an absolute cart but don't suffer this problem. It's not about the ride.

True, but Pacers don’t have the wear and tear of high speed 125mph clanking around like an old cart. Surely the higher speeds would have the potential to cause more damage?

 

[Energy]

Swansea-Paddington is hoping to get an hourly service up and running pending some further checks - its where the GWR IETs are being concentrated at this time.

Presumably other IET services have the sleeper for any essential passengers?

 

[CBlue]

I assume you meant to write something like "Don't pretend they didn't have faults"?

Yes, shows I need another coffee!

 

[Wolfie]

I assume you meant to write something like "Don't pretend they didn't have faults"?

I think that the second "n't" (i.e. in weren't) was erroneous and introduced a double negative.

 

[Roose]

Part of addressing the problem is communicating with your customers. And I don't just mean by Twitter, either.

Priorities.

They clearly communicated 'We have problems. Don' t travel.'

 

[AdamWW]

Priorities.

They clearly communicated 'We have problems. Don' t travel.'

Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I would expect more than that from any company that claims to take customer service seriously.

It's human nature that most people will expect an explanation rather then just being told they can't have what they need and were reasonably expecting to get - surely good customer service recognizes that?

I don't suppose the social media team are busy re-arranging services themselves and I'm sure they're not in the depots looking for cracks.

After all, in times of lesser disruption there is normally a reason given for delays and cancellations - so why is it suddenly unreasonable to expect the same when the disruption is much, much greater?

 

[robbeech]

Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I would expect more than that from any company that claims to take customer service seriously.

It's human nature that most people will expect an explanation rather then just being told they can't have what they need and were reasonably expecting to get - surely good customer service recognizes that?

I don't suppose the social media team are busy re-arranging services themselves and I'm sure they're not in the depots looking for cracks.

After all, in times of lesser disruption there is normally a reason given for delays and cancellations - so why is it suddenly unreasonable to expect the same when the disruption is much, much greater?

Their hands are clearly tied.

A perfect running service that rarely has problems would not see the public respond as they have. The fact the public see the railway in such a negative light is at least partly responsible for the public’s response.
Add to that the initial statements made by other operators making it appear like they’re trying to hide and you’ve a recipe for losing even more trust from the public.

 

[Horizon22]

Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I would expect more than that from any company that claims to take customer service seriously.

It's human nature that most people will expect an explanation rather then just being told they can't have what they need and were reasonably expecting to get - surely good customer service recognizes that?

I don't suppose the social media team are busy re-arranging services themselves and I'm sure they're not in the depots looking for cracks.

After all, in times of lesser disruption there is normally a reason given for delays and cancellations - so why is it suddenly unreasonable to expect the same when the disruption is much, much greater?

It is unreasonable. It's like when a company can't provide its core service (KFC not having chicken was one). I think its evidently explained (on GWR's website at least) what the problem is. It's also very much a live situation so it is better to not give out false information and tell people to expect the worst.

 

[AdamWW]

It is unreasonable. It's like when a company can't provide its core service (KFC not having chicken was one). I think its evidently explained (on GWR's website at least) what the problem is. It's also very much a live situation so it is better to not give out false information and tell people to expect the worst.

I was responding to the line "They clearly communicated 'We have problems. Don' t travel.'"

Are you saying that I'm being unreasonable in thinking that I should be given any more information than that?

If you are, I strongly disagree.

Yes GWR have indeed explained the problem but from what I've read, at least at the start LNER were being a lot less forthcoming.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that any speculative posts need to be posted in the Speculative Ideas section please.

 

[cuccir]

Blimey! Just catching up.with this one. Glad this is happening at a time where rail demand remains low.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The other thing that has changed since the 1980s / 90s is the safety factor. I suspect, perhaps a bit unfairly, that BR might not have withdrawn an entire fleet on the suggestion of individual sets having some structural fatigue cracks that probably don’t pose an immediate safety threat, and might have inspected sets as they circulated through depots. The fact that today this is not acceptable, even in trainfleets that must visit a depot every 36h maximum, I find quite reassuring to be honest.

 

[AdamWW]

It would be interesting to know if they are generally finding problems in just one place per set, or whether it's appearing in multiple locations and on more than one carriage.

If there are plenty of unaffected carriages, in a similar situlation HSTs would have presumably offered a bit more flexibility in putting together useable rakes from what was available. (And loco hauled rolling stock perhaps even more so).

 

[robbeech]

Whilst I think many people are doing their absolute best at keeping as many people as they can moving it’s a real shame that we have already got reports of ....

*refunds being refused because the train was reinstated and people were told not to travel

*tickets being rejected on alternative operators services despite it being an official alternative.

*lots of people being charged admin fees.

*passengers being told to use delay repay when they don’t travel (cracking fraud case coming up in September 2022, I look forward to the thread)

* passengers told that they must have a new seat reservation or they can’t travel, then the actual trains that run being a free for all

*passengers thrown off at random stations due to overcrowding

* people made to surrender their advance singles and buy SVRs for a service 2 hours later. Then having their refund on their original train rejected.

It’s a real shame that these sorts of issues (which are nearly all resolved with a fight) do seem to crop up every single time there is disruption anywhere.

little wonder passengers get angry.