LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
5,657
Location
UK
Well it's their train, it's not hired in anymore, it's leased directly to VTEC (including the powercars)
However the NL102 diagram on Sundays is actually an EMT train, as it comes directly off an STP - SHF working.
The seating plan for the Sundays only 1845 LDS - KGX is completely wrong, shows a 9 car HST with coaches B - G & K, L, M, with a quiet coach.
Should be an 8 coach HST, with coaches A - H an no quiet coach.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Eric

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Messages
594
Location
West Yorkshire
No surprise to see the new Azumas will be diesel only mode north of York due to poor lineside infrastructure. Once again further proof that this Tory government doesn’t give a monkeys about the North.

It’s embarrassing that this wicked government have spent £2.7 billion on these Hitachi trains and yet they can’t be used to their full potential because the government hasn’t invested money in line side signals.

Embarrassing
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,256
Location
Mold, Clwyd
No surprise to see the new Azumas will be diesel only mode north of York due to poor lineside infrastructure. Once again further proof that this Tory government doesn’t give a monkeys about the North.
It’s embarrassing that this wicked government have spent £2.7 billion on these Hitachi trains and yet they can’t be used to their full potential because the government hasn’t invested money in line side signals.
Embarrassing
You mean because Network Rail didn't know (or didn't realise) that its infrastructure north of York wouldn't support 80x in electric mode?
Reading Roger Ford's article, it's not at all clear who is "at fault" here.
In this particular case, I'm sure DfT would have funded the upgrade had it been part of the NR plan (and some other deserving project would have been canned).
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
4,580
Location
Brentwood, Essex
No surprise to see the new Azumas will be diesel only mode north of York due to poor lineside infrastructure. Once again further proof that this Tory government doesn’t give a monkeys about the North.

It’s embarrassing that this wicked government have spent £2.7 billion on these Hitachi trains and yet they can’t be used to their full potential because the government hasn’t invested money in line side signals.

Embarrassing
I'm pretty sure that's only a temporary situation. Rather than have diesel mode only north of York, they're simply not running them at all until the issue is resolved. I haven't seen any official about a permanent diesel-only restriction north of York as if there is one that's going to add a fair hit to the journey times for the services that run fast to Darlington/Newcastle and from there to Edinburgh. If there is such a thing, I'm all ears. It'd be very disappointing.
 

Class37.4

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2018
Messages
125
Haven’t these trains been tested on the ecml for a considerable period and hence you expect that these problems would have been identified and sorted by now.

Similarly the alleged concern by the Rail regulator about people being able to climb on the cables given the length of time these trains have been running on GWR.

It just smacks of complete incompetence by the rail industry who are now seem to be incapable of delivering just about anything on time or on budget.
 

Grumbler

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2015
Messages
302
You mean because Network Rail didn't know (or didn't realise) that its infrastructure north of York wouldn't support 80x in electric mode?
Reading Roger Ford's article, it's not at all clear who is "at fault" here.
In this particular case, I'm sure DfT would have funded the upgrade had it been part of the NR plan (and some other deserving project would have been canned).
A similar thing with the introduction of the Swiss built class 92s on the southern region. BR at first tried to pin the blame for the interference with the signalling system upon the manufacturer, but it emerged that the problem was down to BR who had not taken into account the susceptibility of their equipment to electrical noise.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
1,359
Will the 800s be able to run the York - London stoppers on electric before the signalling issues are resolved?
 

Eric

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Messages
594
Location
West Yorkshire
I'm pretty sure that's only a temporary situation. Rather than have diesel mode only north of York, they're simply not running them at all until the issue is resolved. I haven't seen any official about a permanent diesel-only restriction north of York as if there is one that's going to add a fair hit to the journey times for the services that run fast to Darlington/Newcastle and from there to Edinburgh. If there is such a thing, I'm all ears. It'd be very disappointing.
It was in the Financial Times earlier this week. Really good article about the lack of foresight and investment.

Are the three trains that are here still going into service on December 4th or is the article right that it will now be next May ?
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
4,580
Location
Brentwood, Essex
I'm pretty sure service date is no longer going to be this year but I don't know if it's as far away as May.

Again re: that article, I heard about the interference issues weeks ago, but do we have an official source saying that situation is permanent? I find that a little hard to believe...
 

Class37.4

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2018
Messages
125
I would think the idea of permanent diesel north of York is inconsevable remember the majority of east coast IET are electric only and in that situation there would be considerable cost in making them all bi mode not to mention political embarrassment
 

superkev

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2015
Messages
2,238
Location
west yorkshire
Haven’t these trains been tested on the ecml for a considerable period and hence you expect that these problems would have been identified and sorted by now.

Similarly the alleged concern by the Rail regulator about people being able to climb on the cables given the length of time these trains have been running on GWR.

It just smacks of complete incompetence by the rail industry who are now seem to be incapable of delivering just about anything on time or on budget.
It does seem that todays extended testing and proving times are not much value add. The Scottish 385s where on test for what seemed like years only to be sidelined with windscreen problems.
K
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,021
Location
Redcar
Roger Ford has tweeted recently that Network Rail are in the process of fitting around 200 suppressors to the affected data links. The situation is very much temporary.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,497
Location
Ripon
I would think the idea of permanent diesel north of York is inconsevable remember the majority of east coast IET are electric only and in that situation there would be considerable cost in making them all bi mode not to mention political embarrassment
Another complete cock-up on Grayling's watch. How much longer can he continue?
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
5,657
Location
UK
Another complete cock-up on Grayling's watch. How much longer can he continue?
Mountains and molehills spring to mind, the IETs are being introduced into Hull & Leeds services first, so NR should fix it before they get introduced north of York..
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,497
Location
Ripon
Mountains and molehills spring to mind, the IETs are being introduced into Hull & Leeds services first, so NR should fix it before they get introduced north of York..
But we are told it stretches from Doncaster to Berwick. That is half the length of the ECML, a big fix.
 

The_Engineer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2018
Messages
524
You mean because Network Rail didn't know (or didn't realise) that its infrastructure north of York wouldn't support 80x in electric mode?
Reading Roger Ford's article, it's not at all clear who is "at fault" here.
In this particular case, I'm sure DfT would have funded the upgrade had it been part of the NR plan (and some other deserving project would have been canned).
Untrue. Look again at Roger's article (second column)...… to quote him:

I failed to report (in a previous MR issue) that although Class 800 emissions are greater than those of the Class 387, they are within the relevant Technical specification for interoperability (TSI) and also lower than the standard requested by Network Rail and published in draft. Hitachi have assured me that when running under electric traction, the Class 800 series is compliant with the relevant section of the TSI (EN50121) and also Network Rail's own standards.

And I believe Hitachi. (and trust Roger). Hitachi would have given design calculations that show this, factory test results too. And finally demonstrated by actual measurements taken at lineside during initial on-line tests in the UK, BEFORE Network Rail gave clearance to run in passenger service.

Given the Class 800 emissions are within limits defined in the original contract, then it directly follows the problem must lie in the fact that SOME of Network Rail's signalling equipment (in places) does NOT COMPLY with their own equipment interference susceptibility limits, at this time.

Though it is Network Rail's problem, I can see that it is in Hitachi's best interest NOT to upset their cutomer, but work with them to identify that signalling issue and help them find the quickest implementable solution…… But it is CLEARLY NOT Hitachi's fault. They have done everything in providing a compliant train concerning inference issues.

I think that's very clear. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,256
Location
Mold, Clwyd

Untrue. Look again at Roger' article (second column)...… to quote him:

I failed to report (in a previous MR) that although Class 800 emissions are greater than those of the Class 387, they are within the relevant Technical specification for interoperability (TSI) and also lower than the standard requested by Network Rail and published in draft. Hitachi have assured me that when running under electric traction, the Class 800 series is compliant with the relevant section of the TSI (EN50121) and also Network Rail's own standards.

Totally clear! And I believe Hitachi. (and trust Roger). Hitachi would have given design calculations that show this, factory test results too. And finally demonstrated by actual measurements taken at lineside during initial on-line tests in the UK, BEFORE Network Rail gave clearance to run in passenger service.

Given the emissions are within limits defined in the original contract, then it directly follows the problem must lie in the fact that SOME of Network Rail's signalling equipment (in places) does NOT COMPLY with their own equipment interference susceptibility limits, at this time.

Though it is Network Rail's problem, I can see that it is in Hitachi's best interest NOT to upset their cutomer, but work with them to identify that signalling issue and help them find the quickest implementable solution…… But it is CLEARLY NOT Hitachi's fault. They have done everything in providing a compliant train concerning inference issues.

I think that's very clear. Wouldn't you agree?


Yes, I did read all that, and it's my interpretation too.
I'm just cautious about blaming organisations until someone has allocated blame, or they have owned up.
It's interesting that a third party has been needed to get to the bottom of the problem (the same one as for the 390s at Proof House).
 

The_Engineer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2018
Messages
524
Yes, I did read all that, and it's my interpretation too.
I'm just cautious about blaming organisations until someone has allocated blame, or they have owned up.
It's interesting that a third party has been needed to get to the bottom of the problem (the same one as for the 390s at Proof House).
If Hitachi have so eloquently stuck their peg in the ground with their statement to Roger, though, shortcomings in the NR signalling is all it logically can be. Since the signalling was installed, I wonder if the NR electro-magnetic compatibility(EMC) specification limits have changed to make their own signalling non-compliant (or it could be an aging effect)?

The third party will be EMC expert engineers with respect to signalling, I should think. I don't think NR have those specialists in house, and Hitachi's experience is probably only with trains. It's probably the quickest route to identify the root cause of this problem and also design a solution (which is where I think Hitachi engineers can contribute).

I can understand NR being to reluctant to hold their hands up and say - sorry folks! It's all our fault - because as a DfT controlled organisation the politicians would not allow that. So politicians prevents the truth becoming public. Standard practice , methinks!!
 

Top