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

[GodAtum]

How many remote communities have been affected by this failure? I can image some of the smaller villages in Devon and Cornwall rely on the train service.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I’ll be surprised it it’s depot pointwork, IIRC the IET depots were designed specifically for the needs of the fleet. Although of course North Pole was repurposed but I can’t imagine Eurostars could cope with super-tight turnouts...

 

[bengley]

That must be some pretty tough paint

They can just paint over the cracks with said paint. Problem solved.

 

[357]

They can just paint over the cracks with said paint. Problem solved.

I think masking tape could do just as much of an effective job...

 

[millemille]

Sikaflex221, holding the railway together since 1991....

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

We should just build all future trains out of duct tape, I’m pretty sure the Mythbusters proved it was essentially indestructible.

 

[Emaharg]

Without wishing to contribute to the wibble does anybody know if the following Ecs by Locomotive Services from Crewe to Laira today is relevant to these issues?

Realtime Trains - 587L 1245 Crewe H.S. to Laira T.& R.S.M.D.

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[DelW]

Before you can design a fix, you have to understand completely the cause(s) of the problem, which might include:

• Unexpectedly large loadings
• Unexpectedly frequent loadings
• Incorrect material quality
• Incorrect design assumptions
• Incorrect design calculations
• Incorrect manufacture
• Inadequate maintenance

or, quite possibly, a combination of two or more of the above.

I would imagine that a lot of work is going on at present to investigate these. Only when you're sure you've identified all the causes, can you design a repair to deal with them. While it's important to get repairs under way asap, it's even more important to be sure that they'll address all the causes, as a similar fault reappearing in a few months would be a much worse outcome.

I have much sympathy for those who no doubt worked long hours over the weekend devising emergency timetables, and for those who will be working long hours for weeks to come re-analysing the connections and coming up with a practical fix.

 

[Annetts key]

There has been a points failure between Newport and Bristol Parkway

Possibly the points failure at Patchway Junction.

 

[father_jack]

There has been a points failure between Newport and Bristol Parkway

Yes there was but reason for 1L01 delay was drivers taxi not show up.

 

[Failed Unit]

We should just build all future trains out of duct tape, I’m pretty sure the Mythbusters proved it was essentially indestructible.

You mean like the class 101 DMU before retirement. Duct tape and tin cans.

 

[REVUpminster]

Interesting train change today 1M41 Paignton -Bristol Temple meads extended to Swindon.

 

[RPI]

How many remote communities have been affected by this failure? I can image some of the smaller villages in Devon and Cornwall rely on the train service.

The vast majority of local services in Devon and Cornwall are unaffected, I'd say Pewsey is probably the most affected station!

 

[adc82140]

The vast majority of local services in Devon and Cornwall are unaffected, I'd say Pewsey is probably the most affected station!

Pewsey has a regular bus service in the form of the X5, which will take you to either Swindon or Salisbury for onward connections.

 

[lord rathmore]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.
The oft quoted withdrawal of the Bullied MN class steam locos due to crank axle failures was one of these common mode failures, as was the total suspension of the new AC electrics on Clydeside in the early 60s When transformers started failing. However the MNs weren’t the only class and substitutes were drafted in, and the Clydeside services were put back into steam working until the issue had been engineered away.
GWR & LNER don’t appear to have any backup, so it’s accountants 1 (og) engineering 0.

 

[Annetts key]

The vast majority of local services in Devon and Cornwall are unaffected, I'd say Pewsey is probably the most affected station!

The ‘local stoppers’ are still running as they are formed from other rolling stock. As are CrossCountry services. But obviously the long distance ‘fast’ services that were formed from IET/80x are missing.

 

[RPI]

The ‘local stoppers’ are still running as they are formed from other rolling stock. As are CrossCountry services. But obviously the long distance ‘fast’ services that the IET/80x were formed from are missing.

I know, I'm working on them....

 

[Mag_seven]

I'd say Pewsey is probably the most affected station!

Correct - no services at all today at Pewsey.

 

[REVUpminster]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.
The oft quoted withdrawal of the Bullied MN class steam locos due to crank axle failures was one of these common mode failures, as was the total suspension of the new AC electrics on Clydeside in the early 60s When transformers started failing. However the MNs weren’t the only class and substitutes were drafted in, and the Clydeside services were put back into steam working until the issue had been engineered away.
GWR & LNER don’t appear to have any backup, so it’s accountants 1 (og) engineering 0.

Didn't they have all their eggs in one basket with the HSTs

 

[Annetts key]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.
The oft quoted withdrawal of the Bullied MN class steam locos due to crank axle failures was one of these common mode failures, as was the total suspension of the new AC electrics on Clydeside in the early 60s When transformers started failing. However the MNs weren’t the only class and substitutes were drafted in, and the Clydeside services were put back into steam working until the issue had been engineered away.
GWR & LNER don’t appear to have any backup, so it’s accountants 1 (og) engineering 0.

Behind the scenes this ‘tied to a single supplier/manufacturer’ problem, either due to keeping things simple (only one type of equipment in operation and to service, makes management and maintenance cheaper and easier), contract or due to not owning the intellectual property rights to the design is more common than people realise.

But if something goes wrong, it can cause big problems.

 

[Domh245]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.

I'm sure that the schedulers, planners, driver managers, platform staff, fitters, and more all appreciate having a single fleet, for the 99.99% of the time when they're not grounded though. Deliberately making life harder every single day for the life of the fleet(s) because you're worried about rare events like this is a terrible idea

 

[Tempest3K]

Didn't they have all their eggs in one basket with the HSTs

To an extent - at least with HST you could remove affected vehicles and short form rather than losing entire sets so a lot more flex to maintain a service.....

 

[Annetts key]

Didn't they have all their eggs in one basket with the HSTs

Not quite as bad when HSTs were originally introduced, as there was a fleet of locos and coaching stock. Although running on only one power car, or having a loco drag a HST was just as likely...

 

[mike57]

According to the Hull trains website they are now running again

 

[lord rathmore]

I'm sure that the schedulers, planners, driver managers, platform staff, fitters, and more all appreciate having a single fleet, for the 99.99% of the time when they're not grounded though. Deliberately making life harder every single day for the life of the fleet(s) because you're worried about rare events like this is a terrible idea

Your point is valid only if total suspension of services has become an acceptable event. I am of the traditional view that providing a reliable service is the reason train operators are there at all. Having no backup systems at all seems very naive to me.

 

[43096]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.
The oft quoted withdrawal of the Bullied MN class steam locos due to crank axle failures was one of these common mode failures, as was the total suspension of the new AC electrics on Clydeside in the early 60s When transformers started failing. However the MNs weren’t the only class and substitutes were drafted in, and the Clydeside services were put back into steam working until the issue had been engineered away.
GWR & LNER don’t appear to have any backup, so it’s accountants 1 (og) engineering 0.

Ah, the usual tedious blame the accountants, which is normally a dead giveaway that the person saying it has minimal knowledge of how businesses actually work.

In reality, commonality of fleet is better in many ways: for maintenance, training, operational flexibility, customers and financially.

 

[DelW]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.

But the network as a whole isn't reliant on only one type of device - many parts of the country are completely unaffected by this. It's a relatively small number of routes that are affected, albeit including some important ones.

Your point is valid only if total suspension of services has become an acceptable event. I am of the traditional view that providing a reliable service is the reason train operators are there at all. Having no backup systems at all seems very naive to me.

But how much backup do you provide, and who pays for it? BR used to keep fleets of largely redundant vehicles for summer weekends and emergencies, but that was an expensive luxury. And there are back-up options - some of which are out and working today, others will be added in the next couple of days.

My car *might* not start next time I want to use it, but I don't keep a spare one on the drive "just in case"

 

[Watershed]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.
The oft quoted withdrawal of the Bullied MN class steam locos due to crank axle failures was one of these common mode failures, as was the total suspension of the new AC electrics on Clydeside in the early 60s When transformers started failing. However the MNs weren’t the only class and substitutes were drafted in, and the Clydeside services were put back into steam working until the issue had been engineered away.
GWR & LNER don’t appear to have any backup, so it’s accountants 1 (og) engineering 0.

If a similar problem had been discovered with Mk3 coaches 10 years ago, the effect would have been even worse. The benefits of multiple operators using the same class far outweigh the potential drawbacks.

 

[Domh245]

Your point is valid only if total suspension of services has become an acceptable event. I am of the traditional view that providing a reliable service is the reason train operators are there at all. Having no backup systems at all seems very naive to me.

It's ultimately a question of economics (much as you decry accounting). The cost of maintaining a backup (be that HSTs laid up in sidings, or running two separate fleets) will likely exceed the costs of any major disruption like this in short order, especially when you then start to consider the probabilities of showstopping disruption occurring.

The railways exist to provide a reliable service, but they don't exist in their own world, free of economics...

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.
The oft quoted withdrawal of the Bullied MN class steam locos due to crank axle failures was one of these common mode failures, as was the total suspension of the new AC electrics on Clydeside in the early 60s When transformers started failing. However the MNs weren’t the only class and substitutes were drafted in, and the Clydeside services were put back into steam working until the issue had been engineered away.
GWR & LNER don’t appear to have any backup, so it’s accountants 1 (og) engineering 0.

So what was different when Intercity routes only had HSTs isn’t that all eggs in one basket?