Major disruption out of London Kings Cross (28/5)

[Failed Unit]

I know they do. But as I said need permission from Hitachi to use it.
Lner are not allowed to just fire up the engine and use it.
So to do what they did last night using them to move from Kings Cross last the affected area, Hitachi have to give lner authority to use the engine to move the train.

In normal circumstances Hitachi only allow the generator unit to provide hotel power while a train is stuck with out power, not to physically move a train.

In the past lner did use engines, multiple trains worked Northallerton to Darlington when there was an overhead issue, that wouldn't be allowed now, as its too much pressure for the one engine.


Forgive me if I am wrong. But wasn’t this the whole point of specifying the engine in the first place. To keep the service running around such an incident?

Forgive me if I am wrong. Isn’t this kind of incident exactly why the engine was specified in the first place. To keep the service moving and rescue a fail train?

 

[Ianno87]

Forgive me if I am wrong. But wasn’t this the whole point of specifying the engine in the first place. To keep the service running around such an incident?

As I recall, the main point is to keep things like air conditioning running when the power is isolated, and limp a failed train to the next station.

 

[43096]

Reasons rather than excuses. What would you have done differently?

Ah the usual response from the railway, getting all defensive. For a start, there needs to be a re-write of processes if anyone thinks that time is acceptable. It keeps happening and the same excuses get trotted out.

If anyone on the railway thinks the time it’s taken to clear the line is acceptable then they’re part of the problem.

 

[Failed Unit]

As I recall, the main point is to keep things like air conditioning running when the power is isolated, and limp a failed train to the next station.

I guess that is why the latest generation at battery only then.

 

[dk1]

Oh dear, it sounds like a day to forget but these things happen. Today is another day and the sun is shining.

 

[Ianno87]

Ah the usual response from the railway, getting all defensive. For a start, there needs to be a re-write of processes if anyone thinks that time is acceptable. It keeps happening and the same excuses get trotted out.

If anyone on the railway thinks the time it’s taken to clear the line is acceptable then they’re part of the problem.

OK, please detail the revised process, and how long you think it should take. I'm assuming you wouldn't make a comment like that ablut how things could apparently apparently done better unless you were reasonably sure you could back it up.

 

[Bigfoot]

If anyone on the railway thinks the time it’s taken to clear the line is acceptable then they’re part of the problem.

Lets have rewiring teams sat on standby for every inch of overhead 24/7. And Pway for every inch of track. And s&t. All on top of the usual inspections/work that takes place. Can't have those to be on call for issues as they might not be quick enough.

Lets have BTP and undertakers waiting for every inch incase there is a fatality. Plus a driver that signs the route and traction, and on board staff.

Just sweep 'em up and keep running.

Could things be improved yes. At what cost?

 

[800001]

Forgive me if I am wrong. Isn’t this kind of incident exactly why the engine was specified in the first place. To keep the service moving and rescue a fail train?

To rescue the failed trian yes. And lner did that for other services, but now Hitachi and MTU won't let them, with out there permission which isn't alway granted.

Eg line damage at Colton a few weeks ago, trains had to sit until power was back as they were not allowed to move with the engine.

An extremely ridiculous situation.

 

[Ianno87]

An extremely ridiculous situation.

Depends what the reason for not moving under the power engine is. I.e. if it's a strain on the capability of the engine, it should only be being used for that purpose as a last resort (otherwise it may fail when it is genuinely needed)

 

[Aictos]

CSL2 Code Black declared (the highest severity) due to overhead wire damage between Kings Cross and Finsbury Park. Internal reports suggest the OLE is on the floor in Copenhagen Tunnel.

Major disruption expected until the end of the day.

Advice for passengers travelling

Thameslink were saying it was a OLE issue that they as in Network Rail had reduced to being between Finsbury Park and St Pancras this morning with nothing moving using the Canal Tunnels (Kings Cross was open with no issues).

As to internal reports, well even National Rail have stated it was a issue between Finsbury Park and St Pancras Int with no trains expected to run until tomorrow. As Copenhagen Tunnel is a different location altogether, I expect the initial reports were wrong.

I know the Core has a fixed rigid steel bar instead of the regular OLE cabling but why not for the Canal Tunnels?

 

[800001]

Depends what the reason for not moving under the power engine is. I.e. if it's a strain on the capability of the engine, it should only be being used for that purpose as a last resort (otherwise it may fail when it is genuinely needed)

That is the exact reason. However lner have used that engine in situations before, then all of a sudden one day, a maintenance guy said you shouldn't be using that engine, but lner had used it for situation they were originally told they were allowed to.

Then all of a sudden MTU and Hitachi put a stop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is the exact reason. However lner have used that engine in situations before, then all of a sudden one day, a maintenance guy said you shouldn't be using that engine, but lner had used it for situation they were originally told they were allowed to.

Then all of a sudden MTU and Hitachi put a stop.

As they have electric transmission I'm confused as to why it would put pressure on it. It would surely run at the same speed and load as the same engine would when fitted in greater numbers as a prime mover on bi mode units, and the electronics would give the traction motors what that produced, thus moving the unit at a crawl?

It is nothing like towing a lorry with a car, where you might overstress the directly connected engine or burn out the clutch.

Do I detect a software fault here, perchance?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So are we saying LNERs 800s (bi-modes) were used in diesel mode to pass the blockage, while 801s (having just the one donkey engine) would not normally have been permitted to move but last night were given that permission by Hitachi?
Either way it proves the worth of the limp-home capability.
If this had been Euston and the de-wirement was in Primrose Hill tunnel I suspect the disruption would have been worse (except for Voyagers).
Presumably this was the "old" (1970s) wiring that was damaged, not the newly installed wiring for the present King's Cross remodelling work?

 

[APT618S]

In the past lner did use engines, multiple trains worked Northallerton to Darlington when there was an overhead issue, that wouldn't be allowed now, as its too much pressure for the one engine.

Remember being on an 801, possibly last year, and there was a problem with the overhead between Retford and Doncaster. The train stopped and after perhaps 15-20min (preheating engine ?) we proceeded for a few miles on diesel. It was dark so difficult to judge speed, acceleration did not seem too bad but we only reached maybe 30-50mph, not sure if it was limited or simply the balancing speed reached.

 

[bengley]

I don't understand all this wibble about the coupler adapter. Every 700 unit has an adapter on board. I doubt this was the reason for the delay.

 

[SouthStand]

This need for/lack of compatible couplers is ridiculous in the 21st century.

Correct.

The issue isn't with the legacy couplers. There were only really 2 kinds of unit couplers until 2000ish, and pretty much anything that mechanically coupled would be fine.

Now there are many more types of couplers, and even for those trains that are mechanically compatible, there will be lots of combinations that won't be electrically (or software) compatible!

The fault can be laid squarely with the DfT and ORR for not mandating common coupler standards across the industry. It's not impossible, there is just no incentive to do it now.

Also correct.

Ah the usual response from the railway, getting all defensive. For a start, there needs to be a re-write of processes if anyone thinks that time is acceptable. It keeps happening and the same excuses get trotted out.

If anyone on the railway thinks the time it’s taken to clear the line is acceptable then they’re part of the problem.

That's a given on here.

 

[Robertj21a]

The issue isn't with the legacy couplers. There were only really 2 kinds of unit couplers until 2000ish, and pretty much anything that mechanically coupled would be fine.

Now there are many more types of couplers, and even for those trains that are mechanically compatible, there will be lots of combinations that won't be electrically (or software) compatible!

The fault can be laid squarely with the DfT and ORR for not mandating common coupler standards across the industry. It's not impossible, there is just no incentive to do it now.

Precisely my point, thank you.

 

[Supercoss]

I don't understand all this wibble about the coupler adapter. Every 700 unit has an adapter on board. I doubt this was the reason for the delay.

Are you able to fact check your statement, whilst very unit has a set of hose attachments for the rescue pipe
No adapter couplings are carried on board the fleet of 115 units , they are depot or outstation based

Products - Dellner

www.dellner.com

 

[Robertj21a]

14 hours, time will be spent making site ( in tunnel) safe getting roof access to cut off and secure pantograph, moving and securing damaged overhead line to allow failed train to be recovered, the minute the last passenger is removed from the train it becomes an empty train in an engineers possession so takes time to issue permits for safe work, earth up overheadsm get roof access equipment
Assisting loco can be on site in 10 minuytes but no use until overhead cables made safe and secured.i

I'm not claiming to have any expertise at all on this issue (!) but 14 hours seems an incredible amount of time to do that. Any idea what would be needed to halve that time?

 

[Failed Unit]

I don't understand all this wibble about the coupler adapter. Every 700 unit has an adapter on board. I doubt this was the reason for the delay.

Can an 80x couple with 7xx? Things are better on the ECML now if the can. But we have gone backwards from BR in this respect that a pacer could rescue a 170 if needed. However you would always get failed 158 next train is a HST so the problem is always the same.

 

[matacaster]

Is there a case for putting securely fixed overhead rails in key tunnels rather than catenary?

 

[bengley]

Are you able to fact check your statement, whilst very unit has a set of hose attachments for the rescue pipe
No adapter couplings are carried on board the fleet of 115 units , they are depot or outstation based

Products - Dellner

www.dellner.com

You're right. I am thinking of a more recent traction I've signed - it's been over 3 years since I last drove a 700.

 

[cactustwirly]

Are you able to fact check your statement, whilst very unit has a set of hose attachments for the rescue pipe
No adapter couplings are carried on board the fleet of 115 units , they are depot or outstation based

Products - Dellner

www.dellner.com

It still doesn't take very long at all to drive a coupler adapter from Hornsey to the incident though

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there a case for putting securely fixed overhead rails in key tunnels rather than catenary?

Must be sometimes, because they already do it when necessary.

 

[eMeS]

It still doesn't take very long at all to drive a coupler adapter from Hornsey to the incident though

How heavy is a "coupler adapter"?
Does it need special gear to assist when being fitted? Can it be fitted wrongly? Just curious...

 

[Dr Hoo]

The issue isn't with the legacy couplers. There were only really 2 kinds of unit couplers until 2000ish, and pretty much anything that mechanically coupled would be fine.

Now there are many more types of couplers, and even for those trains that are mechanically compatible, there will be lots of combinations that won't be electrically (or software) compatible!

The fault can be laid squarely with the DfT and ORR for not mandating common coupler standards across the industry. It's not impossible, there is just no incentive to do it now.

Could you clarify what legal powers and functions the DfT and ORR have to mandate common coupler standards?

It would also be helpful if you could clarify the role of the independent RSSB (Rail Safety & Standards Board) in this area, as I was under the impression that 'standards' were their responsibility.

On a historic note I well remember the mid-late 1970s, when I was travelling into King's Cross on a regular basis. It was wonderful to see how BR managed to operate a mixture of vacuum-braked and air-braked locomotive-hauled trains, HSTs and brand new Class 313 and 312 EMUs (with the last three new fleets not working with each other).

Some things never seem to change.

 

[DelW]

I'm not claiming to have any expertise at all on this issue (!) but 14 hours seems an incredible amount of time to do that. Any idea what would be needed to halve that time?

As an engineer with no recent connection with railways, but with experience of dealing with the aftermath of structural failures, it seems to me to be remarkably quick, especially as much of that period was in the middle of the night.

Tackling a job like that without developing a well considered and reviewed plan of work, and careful assessment of the stability of the damaged structure, is a recipe for causing further damage, and potential injury to those carrying out the work. And my cases didn't have to take account of 25kV electrical systems either.

 

[GNER 91128]

Hi,

801 units, both 9 and 5 car have 1 GU on the 822 car.

I shunt regularly using these engines and today a 9 car 801/2 ran from KGX to Potters Bar I believe on the GU. Seen passing Bounds Green:

Curious to know what the flashing light on the last car is for?

 

[Darandio]

Curious to know what the flashing light on the last car is for?

On some stock I believe it means the guards panel is still 'keyed' in on that particular coach.

 

[choochoochoo]

Curious to know what the flashing light on the last car is for?

Aren't we supposed to report any illuminated Body Indicator Lights to the signaller ?