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

[spark001uk]

Railcam now shows 5Z37 as 37668 and a "set" going to gwr to cover for iet.
Are there pc's ready to go at Laira still then?

 

[O L Leigh]

With modern trains it just takes a software failure to knock the whole thing out of action.

We used to have a railway with multiple classes of locomotive and a large fleet of carriages which were compatible with each other. (Yes, not everything - steam heat vs ETH, vacuum vs air brakes). There were spare locomotives around that could replace a failed one if required. In the summer a freight locomotive could haul a passenger train. We had multiple units with the same couplings - a loco hauled train could couple up to a failed EMU and push it to the next station. A diesel locomotive could haul coaches that would normally be pulled by an electric engine without needing to have fancy couplings and computers on board.

Things are different now.

For a start trains are a lot more reliable.

It doesn't mean that what the railways are doing now is wrong, or that the advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. But I don't really understand people trying to claim that actually there has been no loss of flexibility, when clearly there has, even if it is for very good reasons.

Because we're not just talking about the common or garden variety of train failure. What's going on here is not a failure of one vehicle within a set but a defect that potentially affects every vehicle in the fleet. As such, it's not possible to just remove the affected vehicle, reform and carry on. The parallel has been made with the grounding of the Mk4 fleet on the ECML, and it's a very valid parallel to make.

 

[AJG3]

I'm disappointed that modern technology could not have modelled stresses better to make this sort of unexpected failure a thing of the past. This seems akin to the 1950s DH Comet fatigues when all they had was a tank of water!

Having worked as an engineer in aerospace + other applications with high stressed components, and also having done lab-based fatigue experiments, I think their is too much faith placed in the answers which FEA packages produce to ensure stresses which are "acceptable" and which are not assumed to have cyclic excursions. In aerospace, there will be ground based fatigue rigs of substantial parts of the aircraft which have accumulated a lot more stress cycles than the prototype aircraft being flown by test pilots; that way if anything untoward happens to the rigs on the ground, a warning can be flagged up in good time.

 

[55002]

Railcam now shows 5Z37 as 37668 and a "set" going to gwr to cover for iet.
Are there pc's ready to go at Laira still then?

2 went from Long Rock to Laira yesterday. The 37 is a WCR loco and was showing at Carnforth in the early hours, seems strange that would work it when LSL have their own locos..I guess time will tell

 

[43096]

I find this analysis curious, given that TPE, Hull Trains, Avanti WC, East Coast Trains and EMR, as well as GWR with their 802s, all choosing the AT300 voluntarily and separately from the IEP. The Government-designed and run competitive programme might have been a mess and a shambles, but the actual end product has been pretty good for a new train.

That’s just hilarious. Pretty good? Poor ride, poor seats, and a fleet that has been grounded twice since introduction. If you hadn’t noticed GWR have just 3 of their 93 sets available today.

 

[DBS92042]

2 went from Long Rock to Laira yesterday. The 37 is a WCR loco and was showing at Carnforth in the early hours, seems strange that would work it when LSL have their own locos..I guess time will tell

Maybe a typo and 37688 was meant to be listed?

 

[Skymonster]

Of course even if the government had insisted on splitting their order into two different types of train to protect against events like this, how would they guarantee that two fleets built to the same specs at a similar time wouldn't suffer from similar problems? Would they have to insist that there were no suppliers of parts and materials in common?

No TOC is going to want to operate two different train types in the same role. All it would do is increase costs in terms of spares, depots, staff training etc. If there had been an alternative to Hitachi, then maybe LNER / TPE / HT might have gone for it and not have been impacted at the same time as GWR. But that still wouldn't help GWR much as their staff would not be trained on the alternative units, the units would not be route cleared, etc. I presume the independent selection of Hitachi by TPE / HT / AWC / EMR etc is based on it being a cost effective solution that has been accepted by the UK safety bodies. Having said that, if the Hitachi problem had come up two years from now it would likely have caused much more disruption, with Avanti and EMR also affected.

 

[PTtrainguy]

Anyone know if this disruption is likely to go into next weekend? I have a return booked next Saturday for Port Talbot Parkway to London Paddington and back. Spent over a hundred pound on non-refundable hotel tickets too.

 

[ScouserGirl]

Anyone know if this disruption is likely to go into next weekend? I have a return booked next Saturday for Port Talbot Parkway to London Paddington and back. Spent over a hundred pound on non-refundable hotel tickets too.

No one can say as off yet

 

[bb21]

Given the unwieldy nature of this thread and the fast development of this incident, in order to avoid several conversations criss-crossing each other in this thread, please use the following threads for continued discussion in the following areas:

• any general questions and updates on travel arrangements (including any confirmed unusual traction) to please use this thread in the Fares Advice & Policy forum;
• any updates on speculative alternative traction to please use this thread in the Speculative Ideas forum;
• any request for advice on specific journeys and trips please create a new thread in the Trip Planning & Reports forum as per normal arrangement;
• any other discussion of the theme of "my ideas for xxx" to please continue in the Speculative Ideas forum, either in a suitable existing thread or a new thread if necessary;

Other discussion points may be further split out as time goes along.

Existing posts will not be moved across due to excessive workload, however please note further discussion on these topics will be deleted in order to keep this thread more manageable.

Thank you.

 

[AdamWW]

Because we're not just talking about the common or garden variety of train failure. What's going on here is not a failure of one vehicle within a set but a defect that potentially affects every vehicle in the fleet. As such, it's not possible to just remove the affected vehicle, reform and carry on. The parallel has been made with the grounding of the Mk4 fleet on the ECML, and it's a very valid parallel to make.

Hang on. The whole fleet hasn't been grounded. Some are now out following inspection even on GWR.

Now maybe each set that has been declared unfit has faults in every single coach. But if not, then being able to reform sets easily would let you put together some intact trains.

Then what you’re describing isn’t an issue of common design, but preferring fixed unit designs that can’t easily be short formed. But even then, you assume that there weren’t circumstances in which, say, the whole HST fleet could be grounded - problems with wiring or AC units, unsafe couplers, a flawed brakes design etc. could easily have grounded an entire fleet pending fixes.

No I'm not assuming that nothing could have grounded the HST fleet. I am indeed saying that there is a disadvantage to fixed unit designs.

If you have a situation where you are finding flaws in some carriages which renders them unfit to run, you can run more trains if you can mix and match the good ones than if you have to take an entire 9 coach set out of use because of a fault in one carriage. I'm not sure why that appears to be such a controversial view.

It doesn't mean that running fixed unit trains is wrong. It does mean that they have some disadvantages, along with their advantages.

BR had a dual-sourcing policy after BREL was privatised, but that didn't necessarily work too well.
There were problems with one or other of the split fleets for Super Sprinters (155/156) and Networkers (465/466) and others.
HSTs were equipped with two types of engine and electrical equipment.
Every repeat 80x order also reduces the overall fleet costs and improved productivity at the maintenance depots.

Dual sourcing was about controlling costs though, wasn't it? Not reliability.

What two types of engine were used? I know that some of the equipment was dual sourced but didn't they all start out with Valentas?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Listening to LBC and they just ran an advert for LNER shouting the virtues of the Azumas and all the places you could go (if they weren't broken).

Oops!

 

[Failed Unit]

Because we're not just talking about the common or garden variety of train failure. What's going on here is not a failure of one vehicle within a set but a defect that potentially affects every vehicle in the fleet. As such, it's not possible to just remove the affected vehicle, reform and carry on. The parallel has been made with the grounding of the Mk4 fleet on the ECML, and it's a very valid parallel to make.

How long does this knowledge last officially. Just surprised how quickly after a class leaves a TOC your hear knowledge has lapsed. Recent examples are Covid and some crews struggling to keep the knowledge up on less frequently used routes / traction at there depot.

One thing that does stand out in this situation is the time it has taken to discover it. The 158s were still on the production line so the old stock was not displaced as badly (along with pre privatisation it was easier to shuffle stuff around). If this had happened during the ramp up process the old stock could be returned. But in GWRs case - I think no-one will disagree that keeping old stock just in case after this period of time would be excessive.

 

[Fudgefrog]

That’s just hilarious. Pretty good? Poor ride, poor seats, and a fleet that has been grounded twice since introduction. If you hadn’t noticed GWR have just 3 of their 93 sets available today.

I’ve used LNERs 800s and 801s and GWR and TPE’s 802s regularly over the last few years and they’re perfectly fine units, current issues notwithstanding. The standard class seats aren’t always as comfortable as some of the stock they replaced, and first class is a downgrade compared to both LNER and GWR’s MK3s/MK4s, but there’s nothing especially wrong with either as a product. I’ve been stranded or seriously delayed by HST fails a lot over the years on the East Coast and GWML, had such poor ride quality on a GWR HST that it caused internal cables in my laptop to disconnect, and never had any comparable problems on an 80X unit. I may also have got lucky, but I’ve been shortformed on HSTs a number of times - shorter sets, carriages out of use etc. - and so far that’s never happened on a 80X. From this one passenger’s perspective, although I preferred aspects of the HSTs and 225s, they’ve been good all-round replacements relative to the needs of today.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

How long does this knowledge last officially

6 months after last driving a type of train or a route is the time which a drivers knowledge will officially lapse.

I believe aviation is similar for traction knowledge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't get the ride issue. They ride the same as 350s, which, OK, aren't smooth as the proverbial, but aren't awful otherwise. Indeed, apart from the inferior seats, the whole package feels very similar to a Class 444 indeed (or the "Class 344" I've long mooted being needed).

I also don't see bits falling off 350s despite them sometimes being a *bit* rough.

 

[pistonvalve]

Where are these 800's manufactured?

 

[Davester50]

I’ve used LNERs 800s and 801s and GWR and TPE’s 802s regularly over the last few years and they’re perfectly fine units, current issues notwithstanding. The standard class seats aren’t always as comfortable as some of the stock they replaced, and first class is a downgrade compared to both LNER and GWR’s MK3s/MK4s, but there’s nothing especially wrong with either as a product. I’ve been stranded or seriously delayed by HST fails a lot over the years on the East Coast and GWML, had such poor ride quality on a GWR HST that it caused internal cables in my laptop to disconnect, and never had any comparable problems on an 80X unit. I may also have got lucky, but I’ve been shortformed on HSTs a number of times - shorter sets, carriages out of use etc. - and so far that’s never happened on a 80X. From this one passenger’s perspective, although I preferred aspects of the HSTs and 225s, they’ve been good all-round replacements relative to the needs of today.

Seats worse than a 40 year old train? Not an improvement.
The ride, and reliability of a modern train should be better than a 40 year old train.

They're okish, but could, and should be so much better, and for the cost, that's an issue.

 

[AdamWW]

I’ve used LNERs 800s and 801s and GWR and TPE’s 802s regularly over the last few years and they’re perfectly fine units, current issues notwithstanding. The standard class seats aren’t always as comfortable as some of the stock they replaced, and first class is a downgrade compared to both LNER and GWR’s MK3s/MK4s, but there’s nothing especially wrong with either as a product. I’ve been stranded or seriously delayed by HST fails a lot over the years on the East Coast and GWML, had such poor ride quality on a GWR HST that it caused internal cables in my laptop to disconnect, and never had any comparable problems on an 80X unit. I may also have got lucky, but I’ve been shortformed on HSTs a number of times - shorter sets, carriages out of use etc. - and so far that’s never happened on a 80X. From this one passenger’s perspective, although I preferred aspects of the HSTs and 225s, they’ve been good all-round replacements relative to the needs of today.

Maybe I've been unlucky but I have been on severely short-formed IET's - 5 coaches vs 10.

I am a bit surprised that on such new trains I've seen loose and even missing ventilator grilles on toilet doors. Maybe you just can't get the parts these days.

 

[43096]

I’ve used LNERs 800s and 801s and GWR and TPE’s 802s regularly over the last few years and they’re perfectly fine units, current issues notwithstanding. The standard class seats aren’t always as comfortable as some of the stock they replaced, and first class is a downgrade compared to both LNER and GWR’s MK3s/MK4s, but there’s nothing especially wrong with either as a product. I’ve been stranded or seriously delayed by HST fails a lot over the years on the East Coast and GWML, had such poor ride quality on a GWR HST that it caused internal cables in my laptop to disconnect, and never had any comparable problems on an 80X unit. I may also have got lucky, but I’ve been shortformed on HSTs a number of times - shorter sets, carriages out of use etc. - and so far that’s never happened on a 80X. From this one passenger’s perspective, although I preferred aspects of the HSTs and 225s, they’ve been good all-round replacements relative to the needs of today.

So you accept that they are inferior to what they replaced.

I find it astonishing that someone would pay the same (or more) for an inferior product - and think that’s OK.

 

[Taunton]

Indeed, especially as at the moment we have fleets from two unrelated builders (CAF and Hitachi) suffering from somewhat similar issues, of cracking at high-stress attachments to their bodyshells.

I wonder if they both used the same proprietary element analysis software package.

 

[O L Leigh]

Hang on. The whole fleet hasn't been grounded. Some are now out following inspection even on GWR.

Yes, I am aware of the situation. The parallel with the Mk4 problems are that they both affected a single fleet of trains requiring them all to be withdrawn from service, inspected and their issues rectified. Issues surrounding flexibility do not have any bearing on this.

Now maybe each set that has been declared unfit has faults in every single coach. But if not, then being able to reform sets easily would let you put together some intact trains.

Maybe, maybe not. The problem is that we don't know the extent of the problem and whether or not it affects single vehicles or entire sets, therefore it is not known whether or not forming up hybrid units is even a possibility. However, what is certain is that such an exercise is an extremely time-consuming and operationally and administratively awkward. Making up one good unit from two bad ones is not an uncommon practice, but shuffling an entire fleet of trains around is a whole other order of magnitude.

 

[Domh245]

Where are these 800's manufactured?

800 and 801s had bodyshells welded in Kasado (JP), with the rest of the parts assembled in Newton Aycliffe. The 802s were welded and assembled in Pistoia (IT) - though the panels used to construct those Italian welded bodyshells were Kasado produced. There are a handful of prototype units from each fleet that were fully Kasado built

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Where are these 800's manufactured?

In Kasado, Japan, in Newton Aycliffe Co Durham, and some (802) in Pistoia, Italy.
All assembled to the same design from Japanese main parts with some European and UK components.
Bodyshells are all from Japan.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Sorry to appear lazy, but (assuming it is known) can someone summarise what the problem(s) with these units is(are) please?

 

[LAX54]

Sorry to appear lazy, but (assuming it is known) can someone summarise what the problem(s) with these units is(are) please?

"Inspection has identified cracks on the lifting points under the carriage of some Class 800 trains. Safety is our number one priority and as a precaution this continues to impact the number of trains that can run in service.

But then anything metal, does stand a chance in cracking does it not ?

 

[edwin_m]

I find this analysis curious, given that TPE, Hull Trains, Avanti WC, East Coast Trains and EMR, as well as GWR with their 802s, all choosing the AT300 voluntarily and separately from the IEP. The Government-designed and run competitive programme might have been a mess and a shambles, but the actual end product has been pretty good for a new train.

It also meant Hitachi had a design ready for these orders. I imagine the other suppliers wouldn't have wanted to spend a lot of money developing a product and putting in a tender for a small order with a low probability of winning.

I did work experience at BAe in Filton, and got a small tour of an Airbus testing facility. They continue stress testing aircraft elements long after the planes have started production and are flying around. When they notice a crack developing after so many hours of "service" they design a part to bolt/rivet over the crack and send it out to their customers telling them where to fit it.

I guess you can overbuild parts and sections, but you want to avoid that everywhere for weight, cost and efficiency reasons. I don't imagine it's much different for rail.

Trains are a lot less weight-critical than aircraft, and a bit of extra metal in critical areas doesn't cost that much, so I would guess the tendency for rail is not to design anything you think will be marginal for fatigue life. Having said that I seem to recall the weight targets in the IEP spec were considered quite demanding.

If you have a situation where you are finding flaws in some carriages which renders them unfit to run, you can run more trains if you can mix and match the good ones than if you have to take an entire 9 coach set out of use because of a fault in one carriage. I'm not sure why that appears to be such a controversial view.

Identical designs subject to identical stresses for the same length of time are likely to suffer the same amount of fatigue, so it one car of a train is showing cracks it's a good guess that the others will do so before long. Admittedly there are at least three design variations around the bogie-body interface (the inside and outside frame bogies and reportedly a different design for the end cars) but I'm pretty sure you need some of all three to make up a viable train.

There might be scope for this sort of re-formation but a lot more understanding would be needed of how these cracks are developing. If there is a crack it concentrates stress on the area around where it ends, which may already be close to its fatigue life, so the crack may accelerate and turn quite quickly into something really alarming.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2021 ==

But then anything metal, does stand a chance in cracking does it not ?

Well yes, but it's the job of designers and computer software to ensure that the amount and type of material in a particular area is enough to withstand the stresses and fatigue cycles it will experience.

 

[AdamWW]

Identical designs subject to identical stresses for the same length of time are likely to suffer the same amount of fatigue, so it one car of a train is showing cracks it's a good guess that the others will do so before long. Admittedly there are at least three design variations around the bogie-body interface (the inside and outside frame bogies and reportedly a different design for the end cars) but I'm pretty sure you need some of all three to make up a viable train.

There might be scope for this sort of re-formation but a lot more understanding would be needed of how these cracks are developing. If there is a crack it concentrates stress on the area around where it ends, which may already be close to its fatigue life, so the crack may accelerate and turn quite quickly into something really alarming.

Hmmm. Are we then seeing a clear pattern where all trains above a certain mileage are too badly affected to run and those under it are OK?

I didn't think that was the case.

 

[fgwrich]

Listening to LBC and they just ran an advert for LNER shouting the virtues of the Azumas and all the places you could go (if they weren't broken).

Oops!

Someone in EMR’s publicity department is equally having a laugh at Hitachi’s expense today too. Perhaps unfortunate timing, but photos of EMRs 810s being welded by Hitachi Engineers, with lines like “Grab your Popcorn and Settle In”... ooops!

 

[cf111]

I quite like travelling on the Azumas, going down the ECML without the constant squeaking of the Mk. 3 gangways at 125mph is a pleasure. Just my luck that I had my first "post-lockdown" jaunt planned from Aberdeen to York this coming Saturday, of course things may have settled by then.