LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by snowball, 28 Sep 2018.

  1. absolutelymilk

    absolutelymilk Established Member

    Messages:
    1,115
    Joined:
    18 Jul 2015
    Presumably this won't affect testing?
     
  2. Sean Emmett

    Sean Emmett Member

    Messages:
    265
    Joined:
    9 Mar 2015
    Baffling to say the least as there was an IET on test halted by signals in P3 at Doncaster on Saturday for 10 mins or so, approx. 17.45 hrs.

    I didn't feel the urge to do any climbing...
     
  3. 800001

    800001 Member

    Messages:
    469
    Joined:
    24 Oct 2015
    LNER driver training still on going
     
  4. gsnedders

    gsnedders Established Member

    Messages:
    1,265
    Joined:
    6 Sep 2015
    It's unlikely to do automatic brake applications, what it's likely to do is engage the friction brakes sooner (potentially entirely in preference to regenerative braking) to keep them in use and free of snow (in combination with regular brake applications).
     
  5. Randomer

    Randomer Member

    Messages:
    132
    Joined:
    31 Jul 2017
    If the ORR think the risk is sufficient to not allow further IEPs into service how can they justify GWR running identical units in passenger service (in areas with OLE which I presume is the real risk factor for climbing)? Seems like a baffling decision to me, either the class is safe to use in service or it isn't. Or the ORR are unwilling to essentially collapse the GWR service despite a known risk.

    Unless GWR have deployed some kind of risk control measures that LNER etc. are not doing at this time?
     
  6. IanXC

    IanXC Emeritus Moderator

    Messages:
    5,666
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2009
    I wonder if we are back to the curse of increased clearances?

    Is there a meaningful difference between the minimum clearance between the 'top step' and the wires on the ECML (at historic standards) and the GW (at modern standards)?
     
  7. cactustwirly

    cactustwirly Established Member

    Messages:
    4,647
    Joined:
    10 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Sunny Tuscany
    Sounds like a load of rubbish to me!
    Surely if it was a problem, then it would have been picked up last year when the GWR 800s enterered service.
     
  8. broadgage

    broadgage Member

    Messages:
    1,008
    Joined:
    11 Aug 2012
    Location:
    Somerset
    Surely the alleged risk is not to passengers on board the trains, but to foolish persons on the platform who might climb atop the train and either fall off, strike a bridge, or be blown up by the overhead.
    In that case a train empty of passengers but running for driver training would seem to present a similar risk to such foolish persons.

    Although I do not think much of the GWR IETs, for reasons given elsewhere, this objection seems ridiculous.
     
  9. superkev

    superkev Established Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2015
    Location:
    west yorkshire
    Someone trying to justify their job me thinks. Something I learnt many years ago was to always leave a few minor issues for people doing checks to find as it justified there existence.
    Perhaps with us seemingly heading for 3rd world travelling access to the roof could be most useful.
    K
     
  10. twpsaesneg

    twpsaesneg Member

    Messages:
    309
    Joined:
    21 Jul 2009
    In stations, yes. Generally most if not all newly wired stations will be designed to ~4750mm wire height, we never used to be constrained by that - normal minimum of 4165mm could be used if necessary.
    However, if there is something deemed "climbable" on the IEP's it wouldn't make any difference.

    I would have thought whatever it is that the ORR have identified can be removed / screened to stop access hopefully reasonably easily.
     
  11. Ploughman

    Ploughman Established Member

    Messages:
    2,240
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Did I see one of these units this afternoon waiting at Temple Hirst to come off the Selby lines between Doncaster and York?
     
  12. Darandio

    Darandio Established Member

    Messages:
    7,069
    Joined:
    24 Feb 2007
    Location:
    Redcar
    There was a Selby to Doncaster run this afternoon.
     
  13. broadgage

    broadgage Member

    Messages:
    1,008
    Joined:
    11 Aug 2012
    Location:
    Somerset
    Does anyone know what part of an IET has been deemed to be climbable ?
    Having a good look at one, the only climbable feature that I can see are the numerous power cables and air hoses that link one vehicle to the next, It does not look easy to alter the design to render climbing harder.
     
  14. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    19,847
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    That’s the only area the earlier quote (in post 39) mentions.
     
  15. deltic08

    deltic08 On Moderation

    Messages:
    2,299
    Joined:
    26 Aug 2013
    Location:
    Ripon
    Why are we bothering with this at this stage? It should have been picked up much earlier at the design stage.

    If any idiot tries to gain access to the roof by climbing up cables and is electrified, then it is nobody else's fault. Just natural selection.

    DB Schenker has been prosecuted recently for allowing a 13 year old youth to climb ontop of a wagon in Tyne Yard which blew off both his legs. It was reported he was 500 yards inside the boundary fence and clearly was trespassing. He was where he shouldn't have been and now some one else has been blamed for his own misdemeaner. He should be grateful he wasn't killed. Typical British attitude.
     
  16. atraindriver

    atraindriver Member

    Messages:
    427
    Joined:
    11 Sep 2014
    Location:
    Everywhere and nowhere, baby
    Whether you like it or not, and clearly you don't, we have for a long time had laws in this country which say that you can't make it easy for an idiot to be an idiot, and if you do then you will be held liable should said idiot do something idiotic.
    Unless you're going to mount a campaign to get those laws changed, there's no point complaining here.
     
  17. neontrix

    neontrix Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    6 Jan 2017
    If the cable 'ladder' between cars is genuinely dangerous, than all IEP's should be stopped from running. Like others have said, this seems like someone justifying their job's existence.
     
  18. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    19,847
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    How do the 80x compare to this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/manofyorkshire/7020844563
    Surely such a worthwhile proposal to ensure our health and safety should be made retrospective? :rolleyes:
     
  19. neontrix

    neontrix Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    6 Jan 2017
    Looking at this image, the gangways between cars seem much wider. I suppose the thinking is that you could probably actually climb up, between the two cars. Could it be solved by fixing some mesh or net between the cables so that you can't climb up it?
     
  20. js1000

    js1000 Member

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    14 Jun 2014
    Meh...

    Part of me thinks what is the difference between this and jumping off an overhead bridge onto the roof of an electric train? It happens. We need to start prioritising people using common sense over the threat of litigation.

    [​IMG]
     
  21. quantinghome

    quantinghome Member

    Messages:
    681
    Joined:
    1 Jun 2013
    From the railnews site:

    A spokesman explained: ‘The reason is the connectors and the possibility they could be used as a ladder to climb on the roof. Hitachi made some modifications before they entered service with GWR. We are writing to the company to ask for further controls.’

    It's not clear to me whether the 'further controls' are controls applied by GWR which have not been applied on LNER, or additional controls over and above what GWR have applied. Either way it doesn't sound like something ORR have just dreamed up.

    https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2018/10/10-december-launch-for-ecml-azumas.html
     
  22. fgwrich

    fgwrich Established Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2009
    Location:
    Between Edinburgh and Exeter
    Looking at the gap between the 390 and the 800s, I can understand why there might be some concern. The 390 has London Underground style "fins" (admittedly for aerodynamics) making the gap closer together and covering the cable plug sockets. Those cables also look like they are just plugged into the next coach and could be undone either with some force. i.e by stepping on on it or giving it a good tug, whereas the 800s cables appear to be more securely held in. The gap is also considerably wider as well.

    The sad fact is, having witnessed a pair of idiots climb on top of a moving freight waggon and nearly get themselves zapped by the 25KV above them, I can understand why the ORR have raised this concern. Given that you've also got the bus bar running over the top of the corridor, you really don't have to reach the roof before your at risk of being zapped by some considerable voltage.
     
  23. Bantamzen

    Bantamzen Established Member

    Messages:
    2,884
    Joined:
    4 Dec 2013
    Location:
    Baildon, West Yorkshire
    Reading some of the subsequent posts to yours, I think you've summed it up nicely.

    If the train manufacturers / TOCs / DfT / ORR all tried to mitigate for every action by every idiot who thinks they are bulletproof, no trains would ever leave the depots again. It would however be interesting to know what modifications GWR made to their 800s that satisfied ORR.
     
  24. snowball

    snowball Established Member

    Messages:
    4,707
    Joined:
    4 Mar 2013
    Location:
    Leeds
    According to the new issue of Rail, page 7, LNER are considering a demo run to Thurso.
     
  25. sprinterguy

    sprinterguy Established Member

    Messages:
    9,923
    Joined:
    4 Mar 2010
    Location:
    Macclesfield
    RAIL magazine have explained that further mitigations will have to be applied to the GWR fleet, but they are being permitted to remain in service as the risk is not commensurate with the scale of disruption it would cause if the greater part of a whole fleet were pulled from service:
     
  26. Kite159

    Kite159 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    12,850
    Joined:
    27 Jan 2014
    Location:
    West of Andover
    The ORR does make a bit of sense, as an idiot could climb on those cables between the carriages to reach the roof, they look strong enough to be able to support the weight of said idiot.
     
  27. DanNCL

    DanNCL Member

    Messages:
    935
    Joined:
    17 Jul 2017
    Doesn't the Far North line use RETB? If so then I find it extremely unlikely that LNER will send an 800 to Thurso as they aren't fitted with RETB
     
  28. corsaVXR

    corsaVXR Member

    Messages:
    72
    Joined:
    22 Oct 2007
    My expectation is that if you have cables like that, where a climb risk is determined, then the cables should only able to support a small downwards load (say 10 kilos) before the connector detaches.

    Of course, that would lead to the climber ending up under the wheels, but at least that death doesn't smell as bad.
     
  29. Kite159

    Kite159 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    12,850
    Joined:
    27 Jan 2014
    Location:
    West of Andover
    Isn't there portable RETB equipment which can be fitted within the cab? (i.e. when you get Fort William bound freight services, or other charter services north of Inverness)
     
  30. DanNCL

    DanNCL Member

    Messages:
    935
    Joined:
    17 Jul 2017
    Didn't know about that. In that case it probably would be possible to send an 800 up to Thurso, but it's very unlikely to happen.
     

Share This Page