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

[popeter45]

Hmm. Are the bi modes older? Or does this suggest that whatever is going on, it's more likely to happen to a bi mode?

suggestion is its related to the Bi-Modes being heavier so more stress on the jacking points

 

[Horizon22]

GWR will be down to just 2 sets tomorrow, so a reduction in the Reading <> Newport service further.

 

[Failed Unit]

Hmm. Are the bi modes older? Or does this suggest that whatever is going on, it's more likely to happen to a bi mode?

The bi-modes are older.

 

[Pokelet]

There's one abandoned in the up sidings at Oxford as well.

Currently residing at WOS are 800008 and 800031. There might be another but couldn't be sure. (Apologies for the low light)

 

[sonic2009]

Currently residing at WOS are 800008 and 800031. There might be another but couldn't be sure. (Apologies for the low light)View attachment 95946

With Stoke Gifford not too far away can't they be moved under special circumstances ie 5mph to enable them to be looked at?

 

[Domh245]

With Stoke Gifford not too far away can't they be moved under special circumstances ie 5mph to enable them to be looked at?

Depends if there's room at Stoke Gifford for them. With the vast majority of GWR's units stopped, I'd wager that there isn't much room left

 

[Steve Harris]

With Stoke Gifford not too far away can't they be moved under special circumstances ie 5mph to enable them to be looked at?

Have they actually got space at Stoke Gifford ??

Edit: see post above.

 

[fgwrich]

suggestion is its related to the Bi-Modes being heavier so more stress on the jacking points

But, that suggestion was shown to be likely incorrect by both the electrics and the 385 fleet showing the same symptoms.

 

[43096]

The majority of the affected LNER units are bi modes so they have lost about half the bi mode fleet. Their electric only fleet is much less affected.

More than half by my-reckoning. Could only find 3 5-car 800s in service (and no 9-car 800s) earlier today when I looked at RTT.

 

[800001]

Now now people were enjoying a perfectly good conspiracy theory about LNER wanting to hide that the problem was with their shiny new Azumas and you've just come along and posted facts and things. Very unsporting

I retract everything I said

 

[AdamWW]

But, that suggestion was shown to be likely incorrect by both the electrics and the 385 fleet showing the same symptoms.

Given how many units are out of action, there ought to be sufficient statistics to see if there is a correlation there, given that there are coaches with diesel generators in the "pure" electric sets too.

 

[kez19]

I believe it's simply that Scotrail run a reasonable alternative service on that route - and by curtailing these trains it allows more services to run with decent-length trains on the 'core' ECML route.

I noticed this when Stonehaven was closed, it does make sense I guess

 

[Chingy]

At 5mph, that would be an 11hr - 12hr trip roughly.

 

[kez19]

The bi-modes are older.

Can I ask this, in relation to the Intercity versions how have they managed it compared to the Azuma? (may already been answered)

 

[800001]

This is just a question (general), but why is it that the trains to Aberdeen affected mostly? (I could be misreading this), I’m aware for us ours are bio mode? Diesel to Edinburgh Haymarket and from Haymarket to London electric? This question isn’t aimed at LNER but it feels the further north you are, your service is affected and it’s either hop on another train to catch up or get a coach if it’s available (I know it’s a uk wide issue but have always wondered why this happens)

I read that the Scotrail sets between Glasgow and Edinburgh are caught up in this too (sure it was a thread unless I read in here lol)

Because 10 out of the 13, 9 carriage bimodes which operate the Inverness and Aberdeen services have cracks

 

[kez19]

Because 10 out of the 13, 9 carriage bimodes which operate the Inverness and Aberdeen services have cracks

Add to that where I am situated isnt electrified either

 

[Pokelet]

With Stoke Gifford not too far away can't they be moved under special circumstances ie 5mph to enable them to be looked at?

Railmiles hasn't got a route Worc-stoke Gifford but WOS-BTM is 66 miles so you're looking at 11 hours minimum, I can't see that fitting in any kind of service pattern.

 

[gordonjahn]

Is there a picture of where the cracks are on the trains? Theres a lot of technical language flying around which I don't understand!

I've been trying to work this out - there are pictures on https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/fatigue-cracks-sideline-gwr-class-800s/59012.article and it refers to inside frame bogies, so I found an image of one of these too on the modeling forum: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117154-hornby-announce-class-800-iep/page/33/ .

Putting these together and trying to work out what I'm looking at, I think it's the area in the red circle but not 100% sure:

 

[Sleepy]

Earlier it was mentioned GWR aren't advertising the Sleeper as an option, expect this is to allow any one potentially stranded overnight to get to/from Plymouth/Cornwall. Looking at down services for the rest of the week still some berths bookable.

 

[Irascible]

I design, in conjunction with my design engineers, bits of trains that have to demonstrate compliance with GMRT2100. I do long hand calculations the old fashioned way to help with the design process and then the CAD package has FEA functionality but once the design is complete it goes to a specialist structural analysis consultancy who use a full monty FEA package to do the full, formal analysis to demonstrate compliance with GMRT2100.

This is the established, accepted methodology for at least the last 20 years in the UK. The FEA packages are not rail specific and panels of clever people, far far cleverer than the likes of me, have written the standards for others to follow. The UK rail industry demonstrates safety through compliance with standards.

If the worst case scenario arises & the material used for build is demonstrably out of spec, would that presumably make the entire fleet non-compliant? the obvious next question is what the heck do "they" do to demonstrate compliance again?

 

[scotraildriver]

View attachment 95950

Our (Scotrail) class 385s are undergoing more extensive checks overnight tonight but it is at the opposite end to your red circle, under the arrow for the jacking point. Same design.

 

[talltim]

I've been trying to work this out - there are pictures on https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/fatigue-cracks-sideline-gwr-class-800s/59012.article and it refers to inside frame bogies, so I found an image of one of these too on the modeling forum: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117154-hornby-announce-class-800-iep/page/33/ .

Putting these together and trying to work out what I'm looking at, I think it's the area in the red circle but not 100% sure:

View attachment 95950

The close up pics are of the cracks discovered a week or so ago and the subject of the network notification. You’ve correctly identified them as being where the yaw damper bracket attaches.
The current cracks are at the other end of the bolster, where the jacking points are.
Your photo shows the smaller version of the bolster, as on the unmotored bogies. The pics of the cracks are of the chunkier bolster style used for the motored bogies.

 

[Domh245]

I've been trying to work this out - there are pictures on https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/fatigue-cracks-sideline-gwr-class-800s/59012.article and it refers to inside frame bogies, so I found an image of one of these too on the modeling forum: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117154-hornby-announce-class-800-iep/page/33/ .

Putting these together and trying to work out what I'm looking at, I think it's the area in the red circle but not 100% sure:

View attachment 95950

What you've highlighted (rail gazette article included - check the date!) is the issue that occurred a couple of weeks ago with the yaw damper brackets. The current issue is the square underneath the little yellow sticker at the other end of that 'protrusion'

I think talk of inside frame bogies is a bit irrelevant - no one type seems to be affected more or less than the other as far as I can tell?

 

[millemille]

If the worst case scenario arises & the material used for build is demonstrably out of spec, would that presumably make the entire fleet non-compliant? the obvious next question is what the heck do "they" do to demonstrate compliance again?

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.

 

[gordonjahn]

What you've highlighted (rail gazette article included - check the date!) is the issue that occurred a couple of weeks ago with the yaw damper brackets. The current issue is the square underneath the little yellow sticker at the other end of that 'protrusion'

I think talk of inside frame bogies is a bit irrelevant - no one type seems to be affected more or less than the other as far as I can tell?

Thanks (and to the others, but struggling to multi quote on phone) - hadn’t checked the date. If both ends of the same bracket can be affected I can see that might be very bad!!

Can see exactly why they’ve been stood down!

 

[HST274]

Anyone know if Hitachi have actually managed to fix/patch up any cracks yet, or if they are still figuring out the main problem. Sorry if it is mentioned earlier in the thread.
-Robert

 

[Bald Rick]

Anyone know if GWR have actually managed to fix/patch up any cracks yet, or if they are still figuring out the main problem. Sorry if it is mentioned earlier in the thread.
-Robert

GWR won’t be doing anything. It will be Hitachi.

 

[HST274]

GWR won’t be doing anything. It will be Hitachi.

Message amended

 

[Tw99]

Anyone know if Hitachi have actually managed to fix/patch up any cracks yet, or if they are still figuring out the main problem. Sorry if it is mentioned earlier in the thread.
-Robert

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.

 

[HST274]

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.

Understood. I'm sure if the former happens they will be thinking of ways to assure the general traveller that cracks does not mean the train will fall apart at any given moment