LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

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

  1. trebor79

    trebor79 Member

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    8 Mar 2018
    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".
     
  2. Mordac

    Mordac Established Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    Joined:
    5 Mar 2016
    Location:
    Belfast
    It does seem a bit fishy.
     
  3. fgwrich

    fgwrich Established Member

    Messages:
    4,950
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2009
    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.
     
  4. northernbelle

    northernbelle Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Wednesday
    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.
     
  5. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,581
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    If that’s the case that’s triggered the issue, presumably they’ll be looking at 390s as well.
     
  6. WatcherZero

    WatcherZero Established Member

    Messages:
    8,918
    Joined:
    25 Feb 2010

    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.
     
  7. sprinterguy

    sprinterguy Established Member

    Messages:
    9,353
    Joined:
    4 Mar 2010
    Location:
    Macclesfield
    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.
     
  8. broadgage

    broadgage Member

    Messages:
    863
    Joined:
    11 Aug 2012
    Location:
    Somerset
    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.
     
  9. themiller

    themiller Member

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    4 Dec 2011
    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.
     
  10. goblinuser

    goblinuser Member

    Messages:
    287
    Joined:
    12 May 2017
    Honestly, that does look very clime-able, especially so to children and intoxicated adults.
     
  11. modernrail

    modernrail Member

    Messages:
    105
    Joined:
    26 Jul 2015
    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.
     
  12. Bantamzen

    Bantamzen Established Member

    Messages:
    2,028
    Joined:
    4 Dec 2013
    Location:
    Baildon, West Yorkshire
    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.
     
  13. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,597
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    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.
     
  14. Metal_gee_man

    Metal_gee_man Member

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    28 Oct 2017
    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!
     
  15. gsnedders

    gsnedders Established Member

    Messages:
    1,076
    Joined:
    6 Sep 2015
    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.
     
  16. Metal_gee_man

    Metal_gee_man Member

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    28 Oct 2017
    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
     
  17. mark-h

    mark-h Member

    Messages:
    195
    Joined:
    14 Jan 2015
    Am I the only one thinking that cloth and duct tape would provide a (at least interim) solution.
     
  18. Rob F

    Rob F Member

    Messages:
    110
    Joined:
    17 Dec 2015
    Location:
    Notts
    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?
     
  19. notlob.divad

    notlob.divad Member

    Messages:
    983
    Joined:
    19 Jan 2016
    At 125mph?
     
  20. sprinterguy

    sprinterguy Established Member

    Messages:
    9,353
    Joined:
    4 Mar 2010
    Location:
    Macclesfield
    Yes, distance between bogie centres on the IETs is allegedly similar to that of a mark 3.
     
  21. dp21

    dp21 Member

    Messages:
    328
    Joined:
    10 May 2017
    Yup, standards dictate the distance between bogie centres. If I remember correctly it's 16m.
     
  22. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,581
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    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.
     
  23. SPADTrap

    SPADTrap Established Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    Joined:
    15 Oct 2012
    You are, yes.
     
  24. dp21

    dp21 Member

    Messages:
    328
    Joined:
    10 May 2017
    You may indeed be correct.
     
  25. Bornin1980s

    Bornin1980s Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    4 Apr 2017
    The 390s are over 15 years old. They have grandfather rights. This kind of thing mainly affects trains not yet in service.
     
  26. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,581
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    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.
     

Share This Page