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

[Bikeman78]

Only if you use non-standard locos like 68+Mk5. If the locos are standard then you just use a different one.

Especially in Belgium. Most drivers signed all locos so an old banger could replace a modern loco, especially on the P trains, to keep the job going. I recall blagging a cab ride on a 25 on a tourist train to Blankenberge. The driver in question usually drove the 13s from Oostende to Eupen and mentioned "I haven't driven one of these for years!"

 

[Steve Harris]

Nothing is going to get fixed any time soon. The only way the units will be back in service quickly is if a decision is taken that some level of cracking is safe to live with, with frequent inspections to ensure it doesn’t breach the defined safe limit.

And one would assume that will be lead by knowledge of what is actually causing the cracking/problem in the first place.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

The 800s have grown on me but they ride atrociously between Bristol Parkway and Swindon. The carriages shudder at line speed, I don't know why that section of line is so bad. I've been on seven vice eight HSTs but also plenty of five vice 10 800s. Never had either fail on me completely. Had one journey where all five toilets on a five car 800 were locked out of use.

 

[Fisherman80]

The vehicle bodies are made from relatively lightweight welded aluminium. Where the bogies sit under the front and back of the vehicle there are heavy duty lumps of aluminium called "bolsters" welded to the body. Much, much stronger than the normal body these bear the weight of the body and all the forces that go with that. To the bolster are attached yaw dampers (shock absorbers) which control the rotation of the bogie under the vehicle and there are also jacking points/lifting pockets in the bolsters to allow the vehicle to be lifted for maintenance. This video gives an idea of the jacking process...

A few weeks ago some cracks were found where the the yaw dampers attach to the bolster on a few GWR operated trains, the highest mileage/oldest ones, and a warning notice was sent o the rest of the rail industry to tell anyone else with a similar train to check for these same cracks. As far as is known publicly no-one else found the same cracks BUT over the weekend some new cracks were found in the lifting pockets of GWR trains and this resulted in all Hitachi trains in the UK being subject to examination, in some cases the trains not being allowed into passenger service until they'd been given the all clear.

Hitachi 80* trains operated by GWR, LNER & TPE have been found with these cracks and 385's operated by Scotrail have also been found with cracks.

Thanks for that explanation!

 

[Pete_uk]

Two things, firstly if we used inspection pits these jacking points would not be needed??

Secondly, why would cracks on a part of the train used only occasionally be such a risk to the whole unit? Is it because the underlying cause may cause problems elsewhere?

 

[Irascible]

Compliance is a bit of a moot point when the trains are falling apart.

If, and it's a big if, it is a non-standard material issue; Find all of the bolsters that are fabricated from non-standard material, identify what material they are actually made from, run the FEA with the actual material details, see if the FEA results match reality (which validates the process and gives confidence that the original FEA with the correct material holds water and needs no rework), replace the bolsters with those fabricated from the correct material, tea and medals all round.

Making the vehicle ready for repair (removing bogies and the like, bonding out electrical equipment etc.), cutting out the old bolsters, welding in new ones, repainting, refitting all removed equipment, testing and so on will take several weeks per vehicle.

Maybe some new bodyshells made of the correct material to create a float to support a rework program might be an option.

But all pure speculation.

Thanks for the list - I asked about compliance because presumably they'd be unusable in service until the compliance was demonstrated again? not sure what wiggle room there is there. It is most definitely a speculative scenario - and obviously not one I'd wish on anyone -but I wanted to establish some vague time frame ( and some idea of procedure, out of interest ).

Let's hope there's no major disassembly needed no matter the cause...

Secondly, why would cracks on a part of the train used only occasionally be such a risk to the whole unit? Is it because the underlying cause may cause problems elsewhere?

Cracks in stressed areas are a weak point, and want to spread.

 

[millemille]

Two things, firstly if we used inspection pits these jacking points would not be needed??

Every maintenance depot has pitted roads for underframe examination and light repair work, but how would you propose changing bogies/wheelsets/traction motors/power packs/cooler groups/transformers/inverter modules if you can't lift the vehicle?

 

[VP185]

Secondly, why would cracks on a part of the train used only occasionally be such a risk to the whole unit? Is it because the underlying cause may cause problems elsewhere?

It’s the risk of a piece of metal becoming detached whilst the train is in motion.

 

[millemille]

Thanks for the list - I asked about compliance because presumably they'd be unusable in service until the compliance was demonstrated again? not sure what wiggle room there is there. It is most definitely a speculative scenario - and obviously not one I'd wish on anyone -but I wanted to establish some vague time frame ( and some idea of procedure, out of interest ).

Apologies, I get where you are coming from now.

Right now the trains that are still in service will be covered by a stand alone, specific, Risk Assessment for this scenario.

Qualified and competent engineers will have identified, based on what has been found and what is known about the fit/form/function of the affected parts of the train, the consequence - in engineering terms - of the cracks as they stand right now and also them progressing. These will then have been turned into operational hazards (derailment, collision, separation etc.). The likelihood and severity of the consequence of the hazard being realised will then have been calculated by specialist safety engineers, which when combining the likelihood and severity gives the overall risk rating. What will then be added to the risk assessment is what mitigating actions could be taken to either reduce the likelihood of the hazard being realised or the consequence of it being realised. And then the residual risk, after the mitigating actions are taken, is calculated.

The mitigating actions right now are the initial inspection, against a pass/fail criteria, and ongoing inspections to look for either new cracks or the progression of the existing cracks.

The residual risk will be considered by the holder of the certificate to operate trains ("The Safety Case), looking at the level of risk is imported by the cracks over and above the risk already accepted in operating the trains normally and if the combined total risk is still acceptable the trains can run.

The Risk Assessment will be constantly updated as more data emerges and a better understanding of rate of crack progression, root cause etc. comes to light. The Risk Assessment will remain in place until either the trains are repaired and returned to the approved configuration/design or until a modified design goes through a change approval process - which will be where compliance is demonstrated.

 

[robbeech]

"I haven't driven one of these for years!"

Which is of course not what we would consider acceptable in the UK, and for good reason.

 

[edwin_m]

Two things, firstly if we used inspection pits these jacking points would not be needed??

Secondly, why would cracks on a part of the train used only occasionally be such a risk to the whole unit? Is it because the underlying cause may cause problems elsewhere?

Although the cracks are around the jacking point, the metal in that area contributes to the overall strength of the bodyshell.

Every maintenance depot has pitted roads for underframe examination and light repair work, but how would you propose changing bogies/wheelsets/traction motors/power packs/cooler groups/transformers/inverter modules if you can't lift the vehicle?

The alternative is a bogie drop, a short piece of track that can be lowered to remove a bogie into a pit and out to one side, and may also be used for other items of underfloor equipment. A bogie drop is probably easier if only one bogie needs changing, but if all of them are to be swapped out then it's easier to lift the whole train via synchronised jacks. With the number of connections between vehicles, lifting a single vehicle is not now preferred.

However the bogie drop needs the body to be supported while the bogie isn't there, which is done by attaching props to the jacking points, so they are still needed. They are also necessary for re-railing a derailed vehicle.

 

[millemille]

Although the cracks are around the jacking point, the metal in that area contributes to the overall strength of the bodyshell.

The alternative is a bogie drop, a short piece of track that can be lowered to remove a bogie into a pit and out to one side, and may also be used for other items of underfloor equipment. A bogie drop is probably easier if only one bogie needs changing, but if all of them are to be swapped out then it's easier to lift the whole train via synchronised jacks. With the number of connections between vehicles, lifting a single vehicle is not now preferred.

However the bogie drop needs the body to be supported while the bogie isn't there, which is done by attaching props to the jacking points, so they are still needed. They are also necessary for re-railing a derailed vehicle.

A bogie drop isn't a lot of use for changing a power pack or cooler group or inverter module or transformer or any of the other equipment that requires a vehicle to be lifted.....

 

[SeanG]

I've received this message from a few people with no connection to GWR or ASLEF (I've removed the name and job title) :

Colleagues,

Here are some points the I picked up at the meeting:

Overview:
5 trains currently remain in service,
The number of trains might fluctuate due to routine maintenance, other issues, etc,
Some trains may be returned to service tomorrow, but the return of significant numbers to service is a long way off,
Cracks found in 2 places – around the yew damper bracket bolster, and behind the lifting (jack) pocket bolster,
Was initially thought they could be score marks on the body vinyl,
Risk assessment regarding the cracks around the yew damper were that they were ok to continue in service,
The number of cracks then found behind the lifting pocket bolster were so numerous that the fleet was withdrawn by Hitachi,
Longest crack found so far = 285mm,
86 out of 93 trains affected (mixture of yaw damper and lifting pocket issues),
7000 grade aluminium which requires highly specialist welding to the point it will have to be overseen by The Welding Institute (TWI),
Intention for 800013 to have first welding and be tested, 800026 to have parts removed for analysis,
Any work or assessments will be overseen by an independent party (Ricardo Rail), so there can be no accusation of Hitachi/GWR ‘marking their own work’,
Nothing will be underwritten that is not safe,
Process/work to follow this sign-off procedure:
GWR/Hitachi,
Ricardo Rail,
ORR/DfT,
Work being done, and the process followed for safety validation, etc, to be communicated out to GWR staff via the FastLine for reassurance, etc,
Strict criteria for return into service will be put in place,
No exact/precise roadmap for return of trains, but as it stands only 8 would be available today,
The concern is that metal would come free from the set at high speed, rather than a structural failure being encountered,
Will be looking at whether this has been caused or exasperated in some way by infrastructure issues in the Western Region (track issues) by the use of instrument trains when possible.

Plan:
Currently running 87% of trains,
Only station unserved is Pewsey,
Helped by other TOC’s:
CrossCountry – additional trains Bristol – Swindon,
Chiltern – additional trains Oxford – Marylebone,
SWR – additional trains Exeter – Waterloo,
TfW – additional trains Cardiff – Swansea,
From Tuesday looking at extending 387’s from Didcot to Swindon by use of guard,
Possibility of increase in 2+4’s on Cardiff – Swansea and Exeter – Penzance services,
Turbo’s being used on Cotswold and Bedwyn services,
Units on Swindon – Gloucester,
Have had some offers of help from outside parties, but most unfeasible. Possibility of using ‘spare’ TPE 800’s, but issues with no ATP, and the TMS would not be aligned for use on GWR services,
Involvement of reps to continue,

Colleagues:
Working to home spare/white space agreement, but issues because work is coming from control rather than resources,
More structured workings and diagrams expected later in the week.

Further calls between the GWR Exec and TU FTO’s to be arranged going forward. TU’s asked for total transparency and clear detailed communication to be put out to reassure colleagues.

Feel free to cascade this information out to your local reps, etc, as I know there will be a lot of people seeking reassurance/answers.

Yours fraternally
XXXXX
XXXXX
ASLEF | 77 St John St | Farringdon | EC1M 4NN

 

[reddragon]

Wow! That's bad.

 

[talltim]

Yours fraternally?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yours fraternally?

Could be worse, could have included the word "comrade"

 

[SuperNova]

Have had some offers of help from outside parties, but most unfeasible. Possibility of using ‘spare’ TPE 800’s, but issues with no ATP, and the TMS would not be aligned for use on GWR services,

There are no spare TPE 802's. Already running a reduced service to Newcastle as 5 trains have cracks and Rail North would have to approve the loaning of any trains, which is highly unlikely.

 

[joig]

Two things, firstly if we used inspection pits these jacking points would not be needed??

Secondly, why would cracks on a part of the train used only occasionally be such a risk to the whole unit? Is it because the underlying cause may cause problems elsewhere?

Where the bogies sit under the front and back of the vehicle there are heavy duty lumps of aluminium called "bolsters" welded to the body. Much, much stronger than the normal body these bear the weight of the body and all the forces that go with that. To the bolster are attached yaw dampers (shock absorbers) which control the rotation of the bogie under the vehicle and there are also jacking points/lifting pockets in the bolsters to allow the vehicle to be lifted for maintenance."
I have taken this from a pervious message. I think what it means the jacking points and suspension are attached to this large aluminium casting. Any cracks in this are will make for a very unsafe train.
"

 

[BayPaul]

verview:
5 trains currently remain in service,
The number of trains might fluctuate due to routine maintenance, other issues, etc,
Some trains may be returned to service tomorrow, but the return of significant numbers to service is a long way off,
Cracks found in 2 places – around the yew damper bracket bolster, and behind the lifting (jack) pocket bolster,
Was initially thought they could be score marks on the body vinyl,
Risk assessment regarding the cracks around the yew damper were that they were ok to continue in service,
The number of cracks then found behind the lifting pocket bolster were so numerous that the fleet was withdrawn by Hitachi,
Longest crack found so far = 285mm,
86 out of 93 trains affected (mixture of yaw damper and lifting pocket issues),

A footlong crack! It certainly doesn't seem overly cautious to take the whole fleet out of service.

 

[irish_rail]

There are no spare TPE 802's. Already running a reduced service to Newcastle as 5 trains have cracks and Rail North would have to approve the loaning of any trains, which is highly unlikely.

Why on earth would rail North not approve the loan of a few trains when entire parts of the country are going to be without a service for months on end? This goes way above pointless bodies such as Rail North. Heaven forbid Manchester to York may need to go half hourly or whatever.
Gwr need something and they need it now, 802s or otherwise.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yours fraternally?

Standard procedure for the Brothers.

 

[172007]

Standard procedure for the Brothers.

And Sisters. We are all referred to as Bro's and Sister's at ASLEF meetings.

 

[DanNCL]

Why on earth would rail North not approve the loan of a few trains when entire parts of the country are going to be without a service for months on end? This goes way above pointless bodies such as Rail North. Heaven forbid Manchester to York may need to go half hourly or whatever.
Gwr need something and they need it now, 802s or otherwise.

It’s not just that though, Northallerton has lost almost all of it’s northbound services, and Chester-le-Street is left unserved for most of the day. Sending the TPE 802s to GWR is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Bald Rick]

And Sisters. We are all referred to as Bro's and Sister's at ASLEF meetings.

Well that’s relatively new.

But Watch out for the apostrophe police.

 

[Southern Dvr]

As said previously, you’re only going to create more long term issues by moving the units to GWR because when (and it will be when) the cracks start to appear on them they’ll be a long long way from home and be taking up room at another operators depot.

 

[snowball]

My late father used to work for a trade union. Internal letters within the union began "Dear Sir and Brother".

 

[800001]

It’s not just that though, Northallerton has lost almost all of it’s northbound services, and Chester-le-Street is left unserved for most of the day. Sending the TPE 802s to GWR is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

But still has lner calling there every 2 hours and Chester le Street has hourly busses running, as I said yesterday, not ideal but at least they are getting people moving to the nearest stations of Durham and Newcastle where there tickets will then be accepted on Lner and Cross Country.

Not every decision the TOCs make will please everyone, but they are doing the absolute best they can with the deck of cards dealt to them

 

[Failed Unit]

What is the situation at LNER with respect to units out of service. (or in service if that list is shorter)

 

[simon7929]

Not sure if there is any truth?

Quality Test Fraud Found at Hitachi Metals

Tokyo, April 28 (Jiji Press)--Hitachi Metals Ltd. has been found to have falsified quality test results…

www.nippon.com

 

[800001]

What is the situation at LNER with respect to units out of service. (or in service if that list is shorter)

Last count I saw was 22 units out of use due to cracks. Mainly the 800/1, 800/2 fleets.

The following is based of the lner 10am update, and also includes units which are on maintenance

We have a total of 31 Azuma units (for 48 diagrams)

• 0 class 800/1 bi-mode 9 Car units (for 9 diagrams)
• 0 spare class 800/1 bi-mode 9 car units (for 0 spare diagrams)
• 4 class 800/2 bi-mode 5 car units (for 5 diagrams)
• 0 spare class 800/2 bi-mode 5 car units (for 2 spare diagrams)
• 7 class 801/1 electric 5 car units (for 6 diagrams)
• 0 spare class 801/1 electric 5 car units (for 2 spare diagrams)
• 20 class 801/2 electric 9 car units (for 24 diagrams)
• 0 spare class 801/2 electric 9 car units (for 0 spare diagrams)

We also have 1 MkIV set (for 1 diagram)