LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
1,871
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.
That wouldn't be much good as you'd then have exposed live conductors.
Also a risk that the connectors drop out due to train movement.

Perhaps they will have to put some kind of fairing over then, or daub them with anti-climb paint, or perhaps even move the cabling and piping.

Whatever the solution, it a bit carp that the issue has been raised after entry into service.

I actually think it's a non-issue and typical of the sort of thing that comes out of a desktop risk assessment. I can think of multiple ways of getting into the roof any any train in a station without much difficulty.
But for sure someone is going to make someone else spend a lot of money mitigating said "problem".
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mordac

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2016
Messages
1,881
Location
Birmingham
That wouldn't be much good as you'd then have exposed live conductors.
Also a risk that the connectors drop out due to train movement.

Perhaps they will have to put some kind of fairing over then, or daub them with anti-climb paint, or perhaps even move the cabling and piping.

Whatever the solution, it a bit carp that the issue has been raised after entry into service.

I actually think it's a non-issue and typical of the sort of thing that comes out of a desktop risk assessment. I can think of multiple ways of getting into the roof any any train in a station without much difficulty.
But for sure someone is going to make someone else spend a lot of money mitigating said "problem".
It does seem a bit fishy.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
5,841
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
I don't think it may be the cables that is the issue, but the step like appearance of the electrical boxes. Perhaps a Pendolino style fairing covering the sides of them will be used, thus leaving the cables where they are but deterring anyone from climbing on the boxes.
 

northernbelle

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2018
Messages
294
I don't think it may be the cables that is the issue, but the step like appearance of the electrical boxes. Perhaps a Pendolino style fairing covering the sides of them will be used, thus leaving the cables where they are but deterring anyone from climbing on the boxes.
It's the cables and their proximity to one another that is the issue. They create, in the ORR's words, a "ladder" like appearance that people might be tempted to climb.

The inter-vehicle connections did not form part of the approval process when the GWR Class 800/2s were approved, but it's since been added as a result of a fatality at Manchester Piccadilly caused by a man climbing on to the roof of a Pendolino using these cables.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,781
The inter-vehicle connections did not form part of the approval process when the GWR Class 800/2s were approved, but it's since been added as a result of a fatality at Manchester Piccadilly caused by a man climbing on to the roof of a Pendolino using these cables.
If that’s the case that’s triggered the issue, presumably they’ll be looking at 390s as well.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,401
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

GWR units had some modifications after introduction, ORR are basically saying the risk is acceptable to keep using already approved units but that they shouldn't allow the commissioning of new units until a permanent fix is available as that would increase the chances.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,534
Location
Macclesfield
...but it's since been added as a result of a fatality at Manchester Piccadilly caused by a man climbing on to the roof of a Pendolino using these cables.
Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. :-\ There was a widely publicised incident involving a passenger climbing onto the roof of a Voyager via (I think) a vehicle end at Durham a couple of years ago that I thought might have influenced the ruling.
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,069
Location
Somerset
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)
Yes, I believe that portable RETB equipment does exist and has been used on steam specials, and presumably can therefore be used on an IET.
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
720
Location
Cumbria, UK
There's a similar inter-coach cable configuration on the ETR 470s which are/were operated under the Cisalpino name in Switzerland and Italy. I can recall no account of anyone climbing on the cables to access the roof.
 

goblinuser

Member
Joined
12 May 2017
Messages
292
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.

Honestly, that does look very clime-able, especially so to children and intoxicated adults.
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
483
Do the ORR and Unions not come in at the design and mock-up stage, VR and simulator stage to approve train designs? If not, how silly. Clearly It is feasible that some problems would only emerge under test. However, with all the modern tools to visualise designs, this sort of thing should not be happening. Frankly, with this design, a kids drawing would have shown up the problem.

What a silly waste of money and time.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
5,017
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Do the ORR and Unions not come in at the design and mock-up stage, VR and simulator stage to approve train designs? If not, how silly. Clearly It is feasible that some problems would only emerge under test. However, with all the modern tools to visualise designs, this sort of thing should not be happening. Frankly, with this design, a kids drawing would have shown up the problem.

What a silly waste of money and time.
These designs are in use successfully in other European countries at least, its here in the UK that we seem to mitigate for every idiot that might do something or go somewhere they are not supposed to. Quite honestly even if those were hidden, or relocated (something I imagine would be a huge job) some idiot would still be trying to climb onto the train somewhere, or more likely ending up down the side when rushing for a train clearly closing up & departing.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,180
Location
Redcar
A brief reminder that we have quite literally just done the 'trespassers are stupid and deserve whatever they get and we mollycoddle everyone these days!' or 'there is a duty to ensure that everyone is as safe as possible and what was fine years ago isn't anymore!' debate on the Tyne Yard thread. I see absolutely no reason for the same people to rehash, yet again, the same arguments on this thread.

If you really really want to then feel free to start a new thread in General Discussion on the topic of trespass and duty of care. It is off-topic on this and nearly every other thread and will be deleted as such.
 

Metal_gee_man

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
454
What's interesting is the class 395 SE HS trains are Hitachi AT300s so are the 800/01/02s but the 395s don't have such large gaps, and some aerodynamics to reduce the gap!

Interestingly though, have the 800/801/802s been designed to handle tighter twists and turns further up the ECML? Obviously if they need to handle tighter curves they'll need bigger gaps between carriages and can't have vanity panels placed on the end of each carriage to stop idiots being idiots!
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,414
What's interesting is the class 395 SE HS trains are Hitachi AT300s so are the 800/01/02s but the 395s don't have such large gaps, and some aerodynamics to reduce the gap!

Interestingly though, have the 800/801/802s been designed to handle tighter twists and turns further up the ECML? Obviously if they need to handle tighter curves they'll need bigger gaps between carriages and can't have vanity panels placed on the end of each carriage to stop idiots being idiots!
A more obvious difference is the 395 is 20m stock (i.e., each car is 20m long), as is common in the former SR. The AT300s are the first 26m stock to actually enter service in the UK.
 

Metal_gee_man

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
454
A more obvious difference is the 395 is 20m stock (i.e., each car is 20m long), as is common in the former SR. The AT300s are the first 26m stock to actually enter service in the UK.
I'm aware of the length difference but with longer carriages won't a longer wheelbase/boggie base make them articulate at the gap much more, equally they must also make a bit more noise and wear out parts a bit more than a shorter carriage round tighter bends than a 20m carriage
 

Rob F

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2015
Messages
265
Location
Notts
I'm aware of the length difference but with longer carriages won't a longer wheelbase/boggie base make them articulate at the gap much more, equally they must also make a bit more noise and wear out parts a bit more than a shorter carriage round tighter bends than a 20m carriage
Isn’t the extra length of an IET coach over a Mk 3 between the bogie and the coach end, i.e. the gap between the bogies is about the same?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,781
Yup, standards dictate the distance between bogie centres. If I remember correctly it's 16m.
I thought it was 17m according to a Hitachi data sheet I found a few years ago. Still in the Mk3 ballpark though, rather than excessively longer. There’s been a few discussions of it in these forums over the years.
 

dp21

Member
Joined
10 May 2017
Messages
352
I thought it was 17m according to a Hitachi data sheet I found a few years ago. Still in the Mk3 ballpark though, rather than excessively longer. There’s been a few discussions of it in these forums over the years.
You may indeed be correct.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,781
The 390s are over 15 years old. They have grandfather rights. This kind of thing mainly affects trains not yet in service.
I don’t think it is that black and white. If ORR reckon it’s a safety issue that’s been disregarded I’d expect age won’t come into it.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,801
I can think of multiple ways of getting into the roof any any train in a station without much difficulty.
But for sure someone is going to make someone else spend a lot of money mitigating said "problem".
Such as just stepping onto an empty wagon on any stationary freight train in a station, when they are awaiting a signal or have come to a stand? Fair enough not likely to lead to electrocution but the consequences could be equally dangerous and yet they don't have fences around them or anti climb paint on them.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
5,787
Location
Somewhere
The vinyl application around the door seems slightly better than on the GWR examples (ie it actually wraps around the edge rather than stopping at it), shame about the headlights though and the gap between the red and the yellow on the nose.
 

Top