IET's grounded - what would you run?

[Bletchleyite]

You will probably find that the LSL HST trailers will be used to back fill either one or two castle sets, with the castle trailers being operated to or/from either Swindon or Reading. I would be very surprised if they are allowed to go into London Paddington, which is what you where suggesting over the weekend. The other point will be, is if any of the Laira based class 43 drivers have current knowledge further East than Swindon or Reading.

The only other alternative would be is if the LSL HST trailers could be hauled while in passenger use by class 57's?

It probably wouldn't make sense to run them into Paddington whether permitted or not. Reading is more sensible, to interchange with the EMUs. That way you save an hour and so can run more services with them.

 

[RobShipway]

It probably wouldn't make sense to run them into Paddington whether permitted or not. Reading is more sensible, to interchange with the EMUs. That way you save an hour and so can run more services with them.

Hence, why my first post in this thread had Reading as the interchange point.

 

[DJ_K666]

Clearly unacceptable for the same reasons put forward for MML HSTs. The days on slam door stock being acceptable to substitute are over, whatever the circumstances.

Doesn't matter if it's acceptable or not, it wouldn;t happen anyway. We're all doomed to plastic trash and rubbish seating.

PS. You didn't think I was being serious did you? Please read my signature. It gave me a great idea for a derisory tweet to GWR though.

 

[43096]

The only other alternative would be is if the LSL HST trailers could be hauled while in passenger use by class 57's?

And how, exactly, would the 57s do that? Couplers and electrical systems are totally incompatible.

 

[D365]

And how, exactly, would the 57s do that? Couplers and electrical systems are totally incompatible.

Obviously they’ll be rewired first.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, doesn't mean it should be acceptable. What happens when people go near the windows - it is just going to be a 'froth magnet' and that is the last thing needed when there is limited capacity.

Why shouldn't it. The railway is there to run trains, not pander to health and safety fanatics.

This is a serious emergency for the railway, and the key priority should be to ensure that the service is run.

 

[Neptune]

Why shouldn't it. The railway is there to run trains, not pander to health and safety fanatics.

This is a serious emergency for the railway, and the key priority should be to ensure that the service is run.

At the cost of H&S? Health and safety is there for a reason whether you like it or not.

 

[yorksrob]

At the cost of H&S? Health and safety is there for a reason whether you like it or not.

A couple of extra people patrolling the train. It will be a minor expense in comparison to this situation.

 

[D365]

Why shouldn't it. The railway is there to run trains, not pander to health and safety fanatics.

The same ”health and safety fanatics” are what lead the Class 80x units to be withdrawn.

You can’t run trains without them being safety compliant, and that compliance gets stricter with every year!

 

[RPI]

A couple of extra people patrolling the train. It will be a minor expense in comparison to this situation.

I suspect that they may use customer hosts for this if it happens, there's currently loads of them spare and are back to being "journeymakers" at stations for the time being

 

[anthony263]

Gwr could have some 143s from tfw

 

[yorksrob]

The same ”health and safety fanatics” are what lead the Class 80x units to be withdrawn.

You can’t run trains without them being safety compliant, and that compliance gets stricter with every year!

I don't really think you can compare the potentially catastrophic structural failure of the train carriage, with the potential for someone to harm themselves through stupidity or lack of attention. The latter will always be a factor on the railway and doesn't justify not running a service.

I suspect that they may use customer hosts for this if it happens, there's currently loads of them spare and are back to being "journeymakers" at stations for the time being

Now there's a practical, sensible solution that will potentially enable trains to run and passengers to get where they need to be.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I don't really think you can compare the potentially catastrophic structural failure of the train carriage,

Some of these ‘cracks’ are of the magnitude of less than 2 millimetres hence the risk assessment going on by Hitachi over what is deemed possible to get running again safely.

A lot of work is going on in the background to try and get a meaningful service up and running, however it must be done within the grounds of delivering a safe service both to passengers and staff.

Take for example slam doors trains require safe dispatch for a start so there’s some hoops that previously hadn’t existed to work through there etc, these can sometimes be worked though pretty quickly as proven with 387s now running today to Swindon.

 

[D365]

I don't really think you can compare the potentially catastrophic structural failure of the train carriage, with the potential for someone to harm themselves through stupidity or lack of attention. The latter will always be a factor on the railway and doesn't justify not running a service.

Which is true, either way the railway engineers have to quantify it (and mitigate any such hazards) through due diligence. For better and for worse, we have a responsibility to protect people from their own inattention!

 

[yorksrob]

Some of these ‘cracks’ are of the magnitude of less than 2 millimetres hence the risk assessment going on by Hitachi over what is deemed possible to get running again safely.

A lot of work is going on in the background to try and get a meaningful service up and running, however it must be done within the grounds of delivering a safe service both to passengers and staff.

Take for example slam doors trains require safe dispatch for a start so there’s some hoops that previously hadn’t existed to work through there etc, these can sometimes be worked though pretty quickly as proven with 387s now running today to Swindon.

It's fairly recently that GWR were operating slam door sets West of Bristol. Presumably it wouldn't take too much to resurrect those procedures.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2021 ==

Which is true, either way the railway engineers have to quantify it (and mitigate any such hazards) through due diligence. For better and for worse, we have a responsibility to protect people from their own inattention!

This is true. At the same time, such mitigations around slam doors as an example, exist and are well tried and tested.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the last 10 years, say, how many people have been killed or seriously injured as a direct result of slamdoors and the windows thereon?

Of those, how many did not involve the person being stupid and hanging out of said window? (I'd figure 0; CDL solved the "doors opening randomly and dropping people out" issue).

 

[A0]

I don't agree. It will just have been cheaper not to.

No, @JonathanH is right and you're wrong.

There are plenty of examples where back-ward compatibility hasn't been possible with software (not just on railway use), usually because the subsequent version has resulted in a change to the architecture or data structure, usually driven by a technological advance.

If you want evidence of this, try installing and running an early version (Windows 98 or earlier) on a brand new PC - it won't work.

Once again, you're pontificating about things without demonstrating your competence or credibility for making such statements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, @JonathanH is right and you're wrong.

There are plenty of examples where back-ward compatibility hasn't been possible with software (not just on railway use), usually because the subsequent version has resulted in a change to the architecture or data structure, usually driven by a technological advance.

If you want evidence of this, try installing and running an early version (Windows 98 or earlier) on a brand new PC - it won't work.

Once again, you're pontificating about things without demonstrating your competence or credibility for making such statements.

OK, will this do - I'm an IT professional with 20 years' experience in the industry, and I know how to make disparate systems talk to each other?

All it requires is an abstraction layer. For instance, you can run Win98 on a brand new PC using a 32 bit virtual machine. Indeed I've done exactly that (edit: actually, I half recall it's Win95 OSR2, I can't remember, but that's older!) for my Dad who wants to run a decidedly old piece of family tree software on his brand-new PC because he knows it well and getting the data out would be a lot more effort (though it'll have to happen at some point).

You can literally make anything talk to anything - there are no barriers at all, because between hardware and software it is possible to make anything look like anything else to the thing it's talking to. The problem is that it costs money, because you have to build and extensively test (particularly in safety-critical applications) that abstraction layer. Which is why the railway won't have done it (and as I mentioned possibly because they deliberately didn't want GWR to be able to nick the HEx units).

Generally, backwards compatibility is not provided because it is unjustifiably expensive in that context. Not for any other reason.

FWIW I do think the railway should have done that work and created a multiple working and autocoupler standard for multiple units. BR managed to do it with the 14x and 15x, and very useful it was too. Though that's a costly project and for another thread. However to me in this case not maintaining backward compatibility when modifying units that were compatible to start with was a poor choice, even if making them compatible required e.g. ETCS to be isolated when coupled to an older unit.

 

[JN114]

OK, will this do - I'm an IT professional with 20 years' experience in the industry, and I know how to make disparate systems talk to each other?

All it requires is an abstraction layer. For instance, you can run Win98 on a brand new PC using a 32 bit virtual machine. Indeed I've done exactly that (edit: actually, I half recall it's Win95 OSR2, I can't remember, but that's older!) for my Dad who wants to run a decidedly old piece of family tree software on his brand-new PC because he knows it well and getting the data out would be a lot more effort (though it'll have to happen at some point).

You can literally make anything talk to anything - there are no barriers at all, because between hardware and software it is possible to make anything look like anything else to the thing it's talking to. The problem is that it costs money, because you have to build and extensively test (particularly in safety-critical applications) that abstraction layer. Which is why the railway won't have done it (and as I mentioned possibly because they deliberately didn't want GWR to be able to nick the HEx units).

Generally, backwards compatibility is not provided because it is unjustifiably expensive in that context. Not for any other reason.

While they do mean the same thing; the inference from “it will have been cheaper not to” and “because it is unjustifiably expensive” is very different.

In the former case you sounded as if you were advocating that it should have been done; hence the comments from others.

 

[A0]

OK, will this do - I'm an IT professional with 20 years' experience in the industry, and I know how to make disparate systems talk to each other?

All it requires is an abstraction layer. For instance, you can run Win98 on a brand new PC using a 32 bit virtual machine. Indeed I've done exactly that for my Dad who wants to run a decidedly old piece of family tree software on his brand-new PC because he knows it well and getting the data out would be a lot more effort (though it'll have to happen at some point).

You can literally make anything talk to anything - there are no barriers at all, because between hardware and software it is possible to make anything look like anything else. The problem is that it costs money, because you have to build and extensively test (particularly in safety-critical applications) that abstraction layer. Which is why the railway won't have done it (and as I mentioned possibly because they deliberately didn't want GWR to be able to nick the HEx units).

There are barriers - mainly compatibility - as ever if you throw enough time and money at the problem you can engineer a workaround and that's exactly what the example you've cited with your dad's PC is - a workaround, a frig. You can't just drop in a Windows 98 disk and install - instead you have to go to the effort of setting up a 32bit VM and running it through that.

Your throwaway comment was implying that it hadn't been done to save 5p - whereas the truth was far more subtle - your bit in bold is correct, the sentence which follows it is tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff. It will have been put through a cost/benefit analysis. And a significant cost with negligible benefits and a high level of risk (and such backward compatibility introduces risk) will never make the cut, except *in safety critical environments and there is a specific requirement which has to be met*.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are barriers - mainly compatibility - as ever if you throw enough time and money at the problem you can engineer a workaround and that's exactly what the example you've cited with your dad's PC is - a workaround, a frig. You can't just drop in a Windows 98 disk and install - instead you have to go to the effort of setting up a 32bit VM and running it through that.

A properly designed abstraction layer is not a "workaround". It is a system designed to integrate two disparate systems.

A "workaround" might be, in the rail context, to run a cable through the cab window to couple the electrical systems instead of the autocoupler box. (Not suggesting this, just an example of something that is a "frig" or "bodge").

VMs are used all over the industry, by the way. It's pretty likely this very Forum is running on one!

Your throwaway comment was implying that it hadn't been done to save 5p - whereas the truth was far more subtle - your bit in bold is correct, the sentence which follows it is tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff. It will have been put through a cost/benefit analysis. And a significant cost with negligible benefits and a high level of risk (and such backward compatibility introduces risk) will never make the cut, except *in safety critical environments and there is a specific requirement which has to be met*.

Which is rather different from "it's physically impossible", because it isn't - no interface is physically impossible, some are just too costly.

Yes, that does mean you'd be able to interface Colossus to an iPhone. Would anyone need to? Probably not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2021 ==

While they do mean the same thing; the inference from “it will have been cheaper not to” and “because it is unjustifiably expensive” is very different.

In the former case you sounded as if you were advocating that it should have been done; hence the comments from others.

My personal view is that the railway should have a unit autocoupler standard fitted to all self-powered units, yes. However that is one for another thread. I would be interested to know how much was saved in this case by making the units incompatible, if it wasn't much then to me it would be justified here too.

My points here are refuting @A0wen's suggestion that it is physically impossible. It's not. No interface is physically impossible. Some are just too costly.

 

[A0]

A properly designed abstraction layer is not a "workaround". It is a system designed to integrate two disparate systems.

A "workaround" might be, in the rail context, to run a cable through the cab window to couple the electrical systems instead of the autocoupler box. (Not suggesting this, just an example of something that is a "frig" or "bodge").

VMs are used all over the industry, by the way. It's pretty likely this very Forum is running on one!



Which is rather different from "it's physically impossible", because it isn't - no interface is physically impossible, some are just too costly.

Yes, that does mean you'd be able to interface Colossus to an iPhone. Would anyone need to? Probably not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2021 ==



My personal view is that the railway should have a unit autocoupler standard fitted to all self-powered units, yes. However that is one for another thread. I would be interested to know how much was saved in this case by making the units incompatible, if it wasn't much then to me it would be justified here too.

My points here are refuting @A0wen's suggestion that it is physically impossible. It's not. No interface is physically impossible. Some are just too costly.

An abstraction layer is a workaround - because it is working around the fact two systems are not compatible, which may be due to age, different technical architecture or various other factors.

As an IT PM with 10 + years experience in large companies, I'm well aware of what VMs are and how they are and can be used.

But in a domestic setting (which was the example you gave) they are pretty much unused except by a few IT techies who want to do stuff, usually "for fun" or "because they can". (Qualification, yes much of what is posted on the internet is almost certainly on VMs, but domestic users don't go setting that stuff up, they just buy a device, plug it in, enter some details and get on and use it, they don't consciously go out and use VMs).

@JN114 hit the nail on the head - your post suggested it was easy and should have been done and the only reason it wasn't was to save a couple of quid. The reality is that requirement wasn't seen as essential by the project owner / sponsor, the additional cost couldn't be justified or wouldn't yield any benefits and would introduce unnecessary risks onto the project - risk of cost increase as problems are found during design, build and test leading to extended timeframes and late delivery. It's why in any project the requirements need to be properly gathered, graded, costed and approved by the sponsor.

 

[Killingworth]

The upshot of all this is to underline the way we've developed a patchwork railway that makes mutual assistance in times of crisis very difficult, well nigh impossible.

Harping back to a youthful memory of a Saturday special from Newcastle to Scarborough the dust came out of the cushions in a cloud and the musty smell was all pervading. Beeching was right to do away with all those rakes parked in sidings for over 300 days of the year, but at least they could be deployed almost anywhere. What I see parked around the country today mostly looks ready for scrap thanks to neglect in the latter days of service, and that's without looking underneath. Certainly not many look ready for return to front line service to help now.

Whatever we do we're going to see more over worked and tired units retained in use beyond their sell by dates. East Midands Meridians are already looking shabby. No doubt they'll have to soldier on a little longer to cover for redesign work on the 810 units already under production.

The implications for a quality railway aren't good for those in the affected areas of the country, be it short forms, reduced timetables or shabby trains!

 

[Bletchleyite]

@JN114 hit the nail on the head - your post suggested it was easy and should have been done and the only reason it wasn't was to save a couple of quid. The reality is that requirement wasn't seen as essential by the project owner / sponsor, the additional cost couldn't be justified or wouldn't yield any benefits and would introduce unnecessary risks onto the project - risk of cost increase as problems are found during design, build and test leading to extended timeframes and late delivery. It's why in any project the requirements need to be properly gathered, graded, costed and approved by the sponsor.

Which is just a different way of saying exactly the same thing - they chose not to do it for financial reasons (or reasons of quicker delivery, which are also essentially financial). Not that it was impossible, because it demonstrably was not.

 

[A0]

Which is just a different way of saying exactly the same thing - they chose not to do it for financial reasons (or reasons of quicker delivery, which are also essentially financial). Not that it was impossible, because it demonstrably was not.

But it was the emphasis you put on it - which @JN114 pointed out.

You implied it was a simply done because somebody wanted to save a couple of quid. The process is more complex than that and the cost would have been weighed up to see if it offered sufficient benefits - saying that something wasn't done because the costs outweighed the benefit or that it wasn't felt to be worthwhile is very different to implying the decision was about minimising the cost (i.e. cutting corners, doing the bare minimum etc).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2021 ==

The upshot of all this is to underline the way we've developed a patchwork railway that makes mutual assistance in times of crisis very difficult, well nigh impossible.

Harping back to a youthful memory of a Saturday special from Newcastle to Scarborough the dust came out of the cushions in a cloud and the musty smell was all pervading. Beeching was right to do away with all those rakes parked in sidings for over 300 days of the year, but at least they could be deployed almost anywhere. What I see parked around the country today mostly looks ready for scrap thanks to neglect in the latter days of service, and that's without looking underneath. Certainly not many look ready for return to front line service to help now.

Whatever we do we're going to see more over worked and tired units retained in use beyond their sell by dates. East Midands Meridians are already looking shabby. No doubt they'll have to soldier on a little longer to cover for redesign work on the 810 units already under production.

The implications for a quality railway aren't good for those in the affected areas of the country, be it short forms, reduced timetables or shabby trains!

BIB - no different to under BR where there were traction classes confined to certain regions which you couldn't move around, different types of coupling (not compatible with one another) - after all it was BR that introduced the Mk3 coach, loco hauled ones being electrically incompatible with HST ones. If anything we have *far more* standardisation now than we did under BR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it was the emphasis you put on it - which @JN114 pointed out.

You implied it was a simply done because somebody wanted to save a couple of quid. The process is more complex than that and the cost would have been weighed up to see if it offered sufficient benefits - saying that something wasn't done because the costs outweighed the benefit or that it wasn't felt to be worthwhile is very different to implying the decision was about minimising the cost (i.e. cutting corners, doing the bare minimum etc).

And that is down to opinion on your view on whether the extra money would have been well-spent or not. Clearly GWR's opinion was that it was not, but mine tends towards that it was.

And there I think the discussion ends - we simply do not agree.

 

[A0]

And that is down to opinion on your view on whether the extra money would have been well-spent or not. Clearly GWR's opinion was that it was not, but mine tends towards that it was.

And there I think the discussion ends - we simply do not agree.

It's nothing to do with opinion. A project sponsor will have an approved budget and an agreed scope. It is down to the project sponsor to determine the value of such a change - as they are ultimately accountable for the money spent.

Anyone else is an interested (and unless they have visibility of the details) and uninformed observer.

No doubt if they'd spent a huge sum of money on this which had resulted in a delayed introduction and this problem with the IETs had never happened you'd have been on here complaining about delays, costs and excessive over-specifying / gold plating. The saying about running with the fox and hunting with the hounds springs to mind.

 

[Annetts key]

... doing the bare minimum etc...

BIB - no different to under BR where there were traction classes confined to certain regions which you couldn't move around, different types of coupling (not compatible with one another) - after all it was BR that introduced the Mk3 coach, loco hauled ones being electrically incompatible with HST ones. If anything we have *far more* standardisation now than we did under BR.

Err, firstly, the railway has a history both past and present of doing the bare minimum. The various alterations to Bristol East junction up to last year, for the past twenty years being one example, because everyone knew that ‘soon’ it would be redesigned...

The companies since BR was killed off are just as guilty of this. Network Rail is doing it right now with the resurfacing of part of the platforms at Bedminster, Bristol.

Before BR was formed, we had many separate railway companies. Even many, many years after BR was formed, many regions continued to set their own standards or had their own procedures and technical documents.

But BR was trying to move to national standards in some areas.

Privatisation however has definitely moved us backwards. Each TOC does have to comply with national standards, but nearly anything not specified by those standards can be different to any other TOC.

There are usually good or reasonable reasons behind the differences. But it does make trying to use railway vehicles in an area / on a line that they were not originally intended to operate on, rather difficult. Not only for use in unusual circumstances (like the present 80x problem), but also later on when you want to cascade vehicles...

Hence in the longer term, it may actually be more expensive. But alas, most financial decisions are made with far more attention given to the shorter term.

 

[A0]

Err, firstly, the railway has a history both past and present of doing the bare minimum. The various alterations to Bristol East junction up to last year, for the past twenty years being one example, because everyone knew that ‘soon’ it would be redesigned...

The companies since BR was killed off are just as guilty of this. Network Rail is doing it right now with the resurfacing of part of the platforms at Bedminster, Bristol.

Before BR was formed, we had many separate railway companies. Even many, many years after BR was formed, many regions continued to set their own standards or had their own procedures and technical documents.

But BR was trying to move to national standards in some areas.

Privatisation however has definitely moved us backwards. Each TOC does have to comply with national standards, but nearly anything not specified by those standards can be different to any other TOC.

There are usually good or reasonable reasons behind the differences. But it does make trying to use railway vehicles in an area / on a line that they were not originally intended to operate on, rather difficult. Not only for use in unusual circumstances (like the present 80x problem), but also later on when you want to cascade vehicles...

Hence in the longer term, it may actually be more expensive. But alas, most financial decisions are made with far more attention given to the shorter term.

BIB - simply untrue. Financial decisions will be based on several factors, including whether it is capital investment (being written off over several years), revenue expenditure (paid for in year), expected life of any assets, running costs of assets etc etc.

The reality is, though you may not believe it, even in the longer run it isn't cheaper to do the things you suggest.

The move increasingly with rolling stock has been to procure it with a specific use in mind for its whole life - not new, BR did exactly the same - see class 313 and 507 EMUs which most of the fleet have spent their whole life working on the routes they were designed for - same was true of the 91s & Mk4s and more recently the Pendolinos, the class 700s and class 395s. Cascading stock isn't ideal - driver competence is probably the biggest single challenge, which is why there has been an increasing move to homogenised fleets.

 

[Annetts key]

The reality is, though you may not believe it, even in the longer run it isn't cheaper to do the things you suggest.

The move increasingly with rolling stock has been to procure it with a specific use in mind for its whole life - not new, BR did exactly the same - see class 313 and 507 EMUs which most of the fleet have spent their whole life working on the routes they were designed for - same was true of the 91s & Mk4s and more recently the Pendolinos, the class 700s and class 395s. Cascading stock isn't ideal - driver competence is probably the biggest single challenge, which is why there has been an increasing move to homogenised fleets.

And what exactly do you think I was suggesting? As I never said what I would like to be done. And whatever my own personal thoughts on what may look like a sensible system, technology moves on and I would not want improvements in technology to be restricted by overly restrictive standards and regulations. So there will never be full interoperability for everything. Same as there will never be completely homogenised train fleets across the country.

So if I go out and look at the railway vehicles that travel through BTM, I won’t see any cascaded railway vehicles then? I think not.

And no one has a crystal ball that can accurately tell us what will happen tens of years into the future. Would it be financially okay then to scrap nearly new railway vehicles if say a future government had very different ideas about our railways?