LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

Bornin1980s · 1 Dec 2018

hwl said:
Bombardier (as Adtranz) and Porterbrook (ROSCO - see Ian W's comments on dealing with it as the project engineer) went through exactly the same issues with the original electrostars the 357 and got a low EMC design which everyone apart for Hitachi for the IET have copied the thinking of since.

Hitachi will have done the EMC testing statically in factory conditions and the reality in that real world conditions and measurements are different.

They are also now causing issues with newer equipment that is fully compliant not just older equipment on the East Coast as originally through.

Hitachi tried to be clever with weight saving by using new traction electronics with a reduced the IGBT switching frequency (to reduce weight through lower electronics cooling requirements (lower total switching losses) etc) and ditching a few other interference reducing features (e.g. choke) to hit the weight target, the end result is far higher emissions than if they had just used the same equipment off the 395s (Javelins). Chosing a lower IGBT switching frequency means a bigger heavier choke "If" you fit one - Opps. "if" only in the case of Hitachi as everyone else does...

One of Hitachi's senior staff has previous jobs reputations for always fighting their corner even when completely in the wrong which didn't make them popular then especially as they managed the PR element well to claim they were right, it looks like the same has happened again.

I don't understand. Ian Walmsley once wrote that, during 357 testing, a passing Class 90 briefly drove the monitors off the scale; because of its age, it was allowed to run with significantly higher emissions than legally allowed for new trains. And Class 90s use the ECML without trouble. If the IETs have higher emissions than the older trains, how were they ever approved in the first place?

Also, am I of the understanding that even older trains with tap changers and rectifiers didn't produce such emissions at all? If so, why can't they be built like that again?

RailUK Forums

ainsworth74 · 1 Dec 2018

Bornin1980s said:
If the IETs have higher emissions than the older trains, how were they ever approved in the first place?

Because they met the specification they'd been given.

43096 · 1 Dec 2018

ainsworth74 said:
Because they met the specification they'd been given.

Reading Modern Railways in recent months, that appears to be a matter of conjecture. What is clear is that they are far worse EMC-wise than any other new train.

trebor79 · 1 Dec 2018

Bornin1980s said:
Also, am I of the understanding that even older trains with tap changers and rectifiers didn't produce such emissions at all? If so, why can't they be built like that again?

Because nobody uses DC motors anymore. They are heavier and have higher maintenance requirements than AC induction motors.
For the past 2 decades or so, modern power electronics have enabled AC induction motors to achieve similar torque and speed characteristics to DC machines. Hence there is no longer an advantage which makes the increased life cycle cost of the DC machine worthwhile.
It's obsolete technology. That's why.

hwl · 1 Dec 2018

ainsworth74 said:
Because they met the specification they'd been given.

But they haven't been fully approved / signed off, hence why Hitachi are modifying them.

ainsworth74 · 1 Dec 2018

43096 said:
Reading Modern Railways in recent months, that appears to be a matter of conjecture. What is clear is that they are far worse EMC-wise than any other new train.

My impression had been that they'd met the specification was so lax that they didn't bother with as much EMC suppression as they could have to keep weight down? That has certainly been my reading of what's been going on!

The second point I certainly agree with. There have been graphs published in Modern Railways which illustrated the point quite dramatically!

43096 · 1 Dec 2018

ainsworth74 said:
My impression had been that they'd met the specification was so lax that they didn't bother with as much EMC suppression as they could have to keep weight down? That has certainly been my reading of what's been going on!

There is clearly not an agreement on the issue, otherwise why are Hitachi modifying the trains (at no little expense) and NR modifying the infrastructure (also at no little expense).

hwl · 1 Dec 2018

trebor79 said:
Because nobody uses DC motors anymore. They are heavier and have higher maintenance requirements than AC induction motors.
For the past 2 decades or so, modern power electronics have enabled AC induction motors to achieve similar torque and speed characteristics to DC machines. Hence there is no longer an advantage which makes the increased life cycle cost of the DC machine worthwhile.
It's obsolete technology. That's why.

I'd say AC induction motors with 3 phase drives exceed DC motor characteristics.

Agree on the rest DC definitely obsolete.

ainsworth74 · 1 Dec 2018

43096 said:
There is clearly not an agreement on the issue, otherwise why are Hitachi modifying the trains (at no little expense) and NR modifying the infrastructure (also at no little expense).

Well I'm not sure that it is clear what's actually happened! The impression I had was that originally NR were going to modify their signalling as it was their signalling that was at fault by not being as immune as expected. But Hitachi have then ended up agreeing to modify their units as well as NR modifying the signalling as it's been pointed out that their emissions are insanely high in comparison to other units even if they happened to comply with the specification. It is, in effect, a grand old railway muddle.

trebor79 · 1 Dec 2018

hwl said:
I'd say AC induction motors with 3 phase drives exceed DC motor characteristics.

Agree on the rest DC definitely obsolete.

Yes 3 phase AC definitely better.
I used to work in a factory where we still had the odd DC drive. They were usually on standby duties and were far less reliable than inverter driven AC motors. There was always lots of head scratching when the electronics went wrong and spare parts were difficult to acquire.
One set of 4 DC pumps were used on duty for 6 months of the year. These motors were stripped down for brush replacement etc without exception. AC stuff just sat untouched until the factory started up again.

800001 · 1 Dec 2018

Spur365 said:
Pictures are out internally of the seats and interiors. Very much red! I’m sure pics will leak soon...

Yes very red, however it certainly does make interior look very good.

superkev · 1 Dec 2018

Has there been any news about the issue with the coach interconnecting cables which some safety nanny rejected.
Pics posted earlier in this thread attached of an 800 and probably a paddedcellino.
K

swt_passenger · 1 Dec 2018

superkev said:
Has there been any news about the issue with the coach interconnecting cables which some safety nanny rejected.
Pics posted earlier in this thread attached of an 800 and probably a paddedcellino.

The author of post #330 writes quite confidently that it isn’t a problem, so hopefully he’ll let ORR know not to bother with their investigation. (Always assuming the original story was right.)

Martin222002 · 2 Dec 2018

ainsworth74 said:
Well I'm not sure that it is clear what's actually happened! The impression I had was that originally NR were going to modify their signalling as it was their signalling that was at fault by not being as immune as expected. But Hitachi have then ended up agreeing to modify their units as well as NR modifying the signalling as it's been pointed out that their emissions are insanely high in comparison to other units even if they happened to comply with the specification. It is, in effect, a grand old railway muddle.

What seems to have happened is that the DfT has turned round to Hitachi and said 'we are not paying Network Rail to make the rail network compatible with your trains given that your competitors products don't cause these issues'.

Obviously this is at odds with what Network Rail are doing on the northern ECML, but I get the impression that the EMC problems aren't limited to the the northern ECML. It's just that the northern ECML EMC issues are much greater than anywhere else. That's my take on it anyway.

superkev · 2 Dec 2018

Martin222002 said:
What seems to have happened is that the DfT has turned round to Hitachi and said 'we are not paying Network Rail to make the rail network compatible with your trains given that your competitors products don't cause these issues'.

Obviously this is at odds with what Network Rail are doing on the northern ECML, but I get the impression that the EMC problems aren't limited to the the northern ECML. It's just that the northern ECML EMC issues are much greater than anywhere else. That's my take on it anyway.

Sounds like 6 of one and half dozen of the other so a belt and braces solution.
K

SansHache · 2 Dec 2018

swt_passenger said:
The author of post #330 writes quite confidently that it isn’t a problem, so hopefully he’ll let ORR know not to bother with their investigation. (Always assuming the original story was right.)

There was an incident at Manchester Piccadilly (incidentally 12 months ago today) where a passenger attempted to climb onto the roof of a Class 390 and was electrocuted. As a result of this incident ORR have been examining the arrangement of inter-car cables more stringently. Class 390 has fewer cables between vehicles than the Class 80x vehicles and they are partially shrouded by body-end fairings.

swt_passenger · 2 Dec 2018

SansHache said:
There was an incident at Manchester Piccadilly (incidentally 12 months ago today) where a passenger attempted to climb onto the roof of a Class 390 and was electrocuted. As a result of this incident ORR have been examining the arrangement of inter-car cables more stringently. Class 390 has fewer cables between vehicles than the Class 80x vehicles and they are partially shrouded by body-end fairings.

I was aware of that, it was mentioned (post #64) back when we first had this discussion in early October. People are really just asking if a decision has been made...

greyman42 · 3 Dec 2018

swt_passenger said:
The author of post #330 writes quite confidently that it isn’t a problem, so hopefully he’ll let ORR know not to bother with their investigation. (Always assuming the original story was right.)

I think that it is highly unlikely that the ORR will take any notice of my opinion, but the 800s on GWR seem to be running without any such mishaps.

swt_passenger · 3 Dec 2018

greyman42 said:
I think that it is highly unlikely that the ORR will take any notice of my opinion, but the 800s on GWR seem to be running without any such mishaps.

That was the exact issue being discussed back in October, that it was obviously now too late to withdraw the GW trains, but because no existing trains had yet gone off lease from the ECML, so they could be barred from use on that route until fixed.

ainsworth74 · 3 Dec 2018

An informed source (who I trust completely) has told me that all the LNER 800s were stopped by DfT on Saturday and again today (note that there are not usually any in use on Sunday's anyway). It also not clear when they'll be allowed to resume using them. This is due to the "cable ladder" issue.

greyman42 · 3 Dec 2018

swt_passenger said:
That was the exact issue being discussed back in October, that it was obviously now too late to withdraw the GW trains, but because no existing trains had yet gone off lease from the ECML, so they could be barred from use on that route until fixed.

I understand what you are saying but you could argue that if there is a safety issue on one electrified route then it is the same issue for another electrified route.

800001 · 4 Dec 2018

ainsworth74 said:
An informed source (who I trust completely) has told me that all the LNER 800s were stopped by DfT on Saturday and again today (note that there are not usually any in use on Sunday's anyway). It also not clear when they'll be allowed to resume using them. This is due to the "cable ladder" issue.

They have been out on test today, Between Doncaster and Peterborough.
9 car sets are due to start lner training this week.

ainsworth74 · 4 Dec 2018

JamesGar said:
They have been out on test today, Between Doncaster and Peterborough.
9 car sets are due to start lner training this week.

My post and the information within remains accurate but could do with some clarification on my part (for which I apologise!). LNER 80xs were stopped by the DfT on Saturday and Monday over this issue. However they are not the only company currently operating 80xs on the ECML. LNER run a number of 80xs under their safety case to train their crews and to allow units that are about to be accepted by LNER to accrue sufficient fault free miles prior to acceptance. These run under 5Qxx headcodes and were stopped by the DfT as mentioned.

However, GBRF also run some 80xs using sets which will be LNER sets in the future but are currently being used primarily to prove the train/infrastructure interface (i.e. prove the extent of the interference issues). These generally run under 5Zxx headcodes and were on the move between Peterborough and Doncaster yesterday and as yet not subject to the same stop order that has been applied to LNER.

Again my apologies for the confusion caused!

BRX · 4 Dec 2018

Seems a bit odd that the safety issue would be any different depending on who is operating them.

Mordac · 4 Dec 2018

BRX said:
Seems a bit odd that the safety issue would be any different depending on who is operating them.

The dispassionate observer might even be tempted to concluse there is no real issue other than some overpaid jobsworth trying to justify their position.

800001 · 4 Dec 2018

ainsworth74 said:
My post and the information within remains accurate but could do with some clarification on my part (for which I apologise!). LNER 80xs were stopped by the DfT on Saturday and Monday over this issue. However they are not the only company currently operating 80xs on the ECML. LNER run a number of 80xs under their safety case to train their crews and to allow units that are about to be accepted by LNER to accrue sufficient fault free miles prior to acceptance. These run under 5Qxx headcodes and were stopped by the DfT as mentioned.

However, GBRF also run some 80xs using sets which will be LNER sets in the future but are currently being used primarily to prove the train/infrastructure interface (i.e. prove the extent of the interference issues). These generally run under 5Zxx headcodes and were on the move between Peterborough and Doncaster yesterday and as yet not subject to the same stop order that has been applied to LNER.

Again my apologies for the confusion caused!

Thanks for clarifying, must admit i had only seen they had been out via Facebook so hadnt looked at head codes.

Still seems odd, that LNER can't use there's but gwr can still continue.

LNW-GW Joint · 4 Dec 2018

BRX said:
Seems a bit odd that the safety issue would be any different depending on who is operating them.

One safety case will potentially involve passenger use, the other won't.

BRX · 4 Dec 2018

LNW-GW Joint said:
One safety case will potentially involve passenger use, the other won't.

But if someone's going to try climbing onto the roof I doubt it matters to them whether the unit is in passenger use or not; just whether it's sitting at a platform.

Grumbler · 4 Dec 2018

BRX said:
But if someone's going to try climbing onto the roof I doubt it matters to them whether the unit is in passenger use or not; just whether it's sitting at a platform.

Just affix a sign "TRESPASSERS WILL BE ELECTROCUTED". Sorted.

GreatAuk · 4 Dec 2018

Bornin1980s said:
I don't understand. Ian Walmsley once wrote that, during 357 testing, a passing Class 90 briefly drove the monitors off the scale; because of its age, it was allowed to run with significantly higher emissions than legally allowed for new trains. And Class 90s use the ECML without trouble. If the IETs have higher emissions than the older trains, how were they ever approved in the first place?

I haven't actually seen that article and I don't know the details, but it won't be a simple case of 'more' or 'less'. The emissions will fit a particular profile, and if the IET has higher emissions at a particular frequency which equipment happens to be susceptible to then it might cause problems.

In addition the class 90 is a single locomotive, while the azuma is an EMU. This will change the total amount of interference produced, and for example power cables running the length of the train might cause a lot more interference than that same cable running the length of a single locomotive.

Also, it has apparently actually been demonstrated the the azumas do interfere with signalling systems whereas the existing trains don't - whatever the actual reason, the azumas are not compatible with the infrastructure, but older train are.

LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

Member

RailUK Forums

Forum Staff

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

On Moderation

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member