Let's hope lessons can be learned and this incident doesn't end up being buried in the general carnage that this week has brought re the 195s. My own 195 workings this week have gone pretty smoothly so far (touch wood). I know not many people who've driven them can say that.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Northern Class 195: Construction/Introduction Updates
- Thread starter Haydn1971
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Flirts don't seem to be setting the world alight with availability and reliability. I'd say the 195s are better.
It surprises me that the issues are with things like brakes and doors. They've all built trains with brakes and doors before.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but even hindsight is lost on some people making decisions on the introduction and operating procedures on these units. I agree that procuring from other manufacturers would probably have seen trains enter service quicker and having been more reliable. But irrespective, if you ordered a new fleet of trains, made the training course content substandard, didn't bother ordering a simulator to facilitate/supplement initial training (and in the longer term to help ongoing traincrew competence management) and you don't give traincrew any operating manuals for the new trains, the expected outcome would be broadly akin to we are seeing now.
It seems to just be staff getting used to the new trains. It wouldn't matter who had built them, the jump in technology moving forward 30 years from the units in use last week is huge.
While there have been lots of issues on the Calder Valley over the last two days, I would imagine that operation of 195s on the South Cumbria and Liverpool services has been fairly smooth because the staff are used to the issues that come with the units.
While there have been lots of issues on the Calder Valley over the last two days, I would imagine that operation of 195s on the South Cumbria and Liverpool services has been fairly smooth because the staff are used to the issues that come with the units.
Re doors - the issue is with the ASDO system, either being unreliable or with traincrew who aren't sure how to work it properly, or what procedures to carry out when it does turn unreliable.
Re brakes - the main issue is with a system whereby the units need a static brake test (effectively a driver-supervised self-test) every 26 hours. If it gets to 26 hours since the last time this brake test is carried out then the unit throws up some quite alarming fault messages on the computer system (TCMS) but it doesn't specifically say that what it needs is that this test is carried out, so drivers are sometimes unaware what is required, all they know is that the computer is telling them there's a problem with the brakes. There is no notification to the traincrew when this 26 hour time limit is about to elapse, nor is there any way for them to interrogate how long it has been since the test was last performed. The driver might take over a train unaware that it has been 25 hours 30 minutes since this test was last done. If this time elapsed, the driver is required to interpret the fault messages (which aren't explicit), communicate to the signaller to explain the circumstances, and to TOC control dept. what has happened and confirm what is required. They'd have to explain what is required to the guard too. The test itself takes just under four minutes, during which time the unit must be stationary but also must not undergo any condition which would ordinarily apply the emergency brake (such as any door open/released, DSD/vigilance not being reset, pass-com operated - the full list runs to over a dozen conditions). If the static brake test is successful, the fault alarms should clear and the train should be able to proceed normally. The driver would be required to contact the TOC control and the signaller again, and the guard, before arranging to proceed.
If the test fails, either because it detects an anomaly (however minor) with the braking system or because say something breaks the 'brake loop' while the test is being carried out, the train must then be shut down completely and restarted before another attempt can be made at the static brake test.
The logistics of the unit diagrams are such that every unit should have a static brake test done when it is prepared for service at whichever depot / sidings it is stabled (usually overnight), and that should suffice for the maximum length of its diagram for that day. But clearly this isn't always happening.
There are obviously several ways this situation can be improved - better training, clearer TCMS fault messages that the driver can act decisively on, more robust oversight of procedures on depots, more appreciation of the effect of the chain of effects of one person not doing their job right, even just allow drivers to check the time elapsed since the last brake test was done - this can be checked in real time by someone in an office at a laptop, but not by the driver - the one person who it really matters to and who is at the mercy of the procedure if it is about to run out.
Re brakes - the main issue is with a system whereby the units need a static brake test (effectively a driver-supervised self-test) every 26 hours. If it gets to 26 hours since the last time this brake test is carried out then the unit throws up some quite alarming fault messages on the computer system (TCMS) but it doesn't specifically say that what it needs is that this test is carried out, so drivers are sometimes unaware what is required, all they know is that the computer is telling them there's a problem with the brakes. There is no notification to the traincrew when this 26 hour time limit is about to elapse, nor is there any way for them to interrogate how long it has been since the test was last performed. The driver might take over a train unaware that it has been 25 hours 30 minutes since this test was last done. If this time elapsed, the driver is required to interpret the fault messages (which aren't explicit), communicate to the signaller to explain the circumstances, and to TOC control dept. what has happened and confirm what is required. They'd have to explain what is required to the guard too. The test itself takes just under four minutes, during which time the unit must be stationary but also must not undergo any condition which would ordinarily apply the emergency brake (such as any door open/released, DSD/vigilance not being reset, pass-com operated - the full list runs to over a dozen conditions). If the static brake test is successful, the fault alarms should clear and the train should be able to proceed normally. The driver would be required to contact the TOC control and the signaller again, and the guard, before arranging to proceed.
If the test fails, either because it detects an anomaly (however minor) with the braking system or because say something breaks the 'brake loop' while the test is being carried out, the train must then be shut down completely and restarted before another attempt can be made at the static brake test.
The logistics of the unit diagrams are such that every unit should have a static brake test done when it is prepared for service at whichever depot / sidings it is stabled (usually overnight), and that should suffice for the maximum length of its diagram for that day. But clearly this isn't always happening.
There are obviously several ways this situation can be improved - better training, clearer TCMS fault messages that the driver can act decisively on, more robust oversight of procedures on depots, more appreciation of the effect of the chain of effects of one person not doing their job right, even just allow drivers to check the time elapsed since the last brake test was done - this can be checked in real time by someone in an office at a laptop, but not by the driver - the one person who it really matters to and who is at the mercy of the procedure if it is about to run out.
Last edited:
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
If the doors not working is down to staff training problems, then somebody needs a rocket (and a P45).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If a mandated brake test is not being carried out as part of procedure of taking a train out of the depot each morning, this is a very serious safety issue and might highlight other safety non-observations that could lead to a serious incident.
If this happens even once, people need disciplining for not observing correct procedure and the procedures need tightening.
There are a couple of loophole diagrams where units don't have a full prep at start of day (due to being stabled at outstations where lack of access below solebar precludes doing a full prep) - we have no 'part prep' procedure, only a 'prep cab' procedure which doesn't include (and doesn't have time allowance built in for) static brake tests on these units. This issue was addressed on the east side of the company with a notice and extra time built in to the relevant diagram. Northern still functions as two separate companies as far as operations are concerned so the equivalent instruction and added time allowance is yet to appear diagrammed for units which stable overnight at more westerly outstations (eg Chester)...
Last edited:
I forgot my EVC Brake test this morning. It was 04XX and I simply forgot. Are you suggesting that I should be disciplined for it ? How would you tighten a procedure that involves a manual test where a step is often forgotten ?
We have a similar test and similar issues with 700s.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Why, then, doesn't the railway use checklists in the manner of aviation, where something getting forgotten kills people?
OK, someone could just tick everything and get on with doing things the way they used to, but then that's wilful.
I would say that traction related things are getting complicated enough that basic aviation style checklists should become standard for certain scenarios.
And it is also right what was said up-thread that a lot the drivers on these new units are more used to 142s etc which are just slightly more complicated to work than Laurel & Hardy's handcart. Even 101s were more technically challenging, apart from the doors. Pacers and Sprinters are the railway equivalent of twist & go mopeds.
And it is also right what was said up-thread that a lot the drivers on these new units are more used to 142s etc which are just slightly more complicated to work than Laurel & Hardy's handcart. Even 101s were more technically challenging, apart from the doors. Pacers and Sprinters are the railway equivalent of twist & go mopeds.
You would have to ask 'The Railway' I just work there.
Indeed. There is a difference between willfully doing something against the procedure and someone simply getting it wrong or forgetting. As Llama points out, if the test is missed then the unit itself has built in protection. Our do the same. It will throw the brakes on and lock them until the test is carried out. The safety aspect is taken care of by building in a safeguard directly into the train.
On the other units I drive, this test doesn't exist. I can drive them all day without carrying out a brake test, static or otherwise. On one unit I drive they have added an interlock protection and it prevents a static brake test being carried out. :/
Traction tests and procedures are pretty bespoke to each individual traction. As long as the unit enters service safe then all is good. I'm not implying that it allows for people to be sloppy or shouldn't carry out the procedures correctly, just that there are protections in place and units still go out safely. There is always going to be something that slips through the net.
Punishing people for human error isn't ideal and a rather antiquated approach. If this is an issue with our units and an issue with Llamas then I would suggest that it is more complicated than it appears.
When I first signed 700s I would do everything as per the manual. Literally checklist style. There are plenty of Drivers I know who still use some kind of checklist for various tasks.
I would agree that new units are getting very complicated.
What are they like to drive ?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think I'd probably suggest that the successful approach of using this in aviation - every time - may well be the way to go. Tick your way through a list with a biro and sign the bottom to say you've done it.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
I hope it works better than the ones you see in public bogs.
Maybe, maybe not.
When I first started, we had log books in the cab with checklists and other bits and bobs. Even with checklists there is human error to contend with. Aviation isn't bulletproof and still has its own problems.
Tenuously on topic. With 700s we had a checklist of procedures that we had to carry out. Guess what.. The procedure was wrong :/
@Llama are you getting regular traction and software updates and learning points with each incident ?
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,265
I find it astonishing that a train operator can fail to get basic things right like staff training on new trains. Let's have no more excuses about historical underinvestment, or blaming Network Rail and the unions. This is sheer incompetence. I could understand it happening at the start of the rollout, but if Northern haven't learned from this and continue to make the same mistakes with the rollout then it's their own look-out.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
....................... which means the management must be hopeless?
It would appear that they do get the basics of staff training right but many of the issues result from day to day operation, not the theory. Until the trains operate with passengers those issues aren't well defined.
The Calder Valley route brings with it the challenge of the driver switching ends at Bradford and having to set the train up again quickly. I'd imagine that is adding to the challenge this week.
Cavendish1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 5
I am guessing there are problems again today, was held at the top of Mile Platting bank for 195001 to pass, was displaying Not in Service, but was absolutely jam packed full. Expected to see it in the bay at Victoria on arrival, but presume it had carried on it's journey (Chester??). Two car 195 not good on rush hour morning service!
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,265
It's curious concept that staff training could be got right without addressing issues resulting from day to day operation. But for the sake of the argument let's agree that it is for some reason impossible to fully train staff in day to day operations of trains prior to their launch into revenue service (not sure why but let's go with it)...
In that case, anticipating that there might be issues, surely you would start running a single train in passenger service at off-peak times, say a Sunday morning? Problems can then be picked up, lessons learned and rolled out to staff before it becomes a massive problem and results in a service meltdown in the morning rush hour.
Don't think it helps that for my depot the 195 training has just 4hrs practical handling of the unit and it's on a route you don't sign.
Then a short pass out on the unit which again is usually on a route you don't sign.
I think there'd be a benefit to learning or at least passing out over the route you'll actually end up driving the units over.
Then a short pass out on the unit which again is usually on a route you don't sign.
I think there'd be a benefit to learning or at least passing out over the route you'll actually end up driving the units over.
I've noticed that recent driver training has generally taken place over sections of route which aren't the most congested. I haven't heard of any taking place through the Castlefield corridor, for instance, and that section now has 2 x 195 each way, most hours. A fair bit has taken place on the WCML between Warrington and Preston, and I think you'd manage to squeeze 1tph between Manchester Piccadilly and the Airport, if you were determined enough.
I think it's only right that maintenance of existing services should take precedence, and training needs fitted round.
superkev
Established Member
Isnt it amazing with trains getting ever more complicated they dont have aircraft style procedure/checklists.
I understand some drivers make there own and swap them with colleges. Not the best way to do it as each may differ.
K
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 895
I asked "the checklist question" back when that Caledonian Sleeper had that overrun at Waverley a few months back.
In my limited experience checklists and a "checklist-culture" - that is actually paying attention to the checks - are embedded in aviation whether you're flying an ancient single-seat glider with four instruments or an A350. They have been for decades, even for extremely simple aircraft, so the difference between rail and aviation can't just be down to complexity of the equipment.
In my limited experience checklists and a "checklist-culture" - that is actually paying attention to the checks - are embedded in aviation whether you're flying an ancient single-seat glider with four instruments or an A350. They have been for decades, even for extremely simple aircraft, so the difference between rail and aviation can't just be down to complexity of the equipment.
EE Andy b1
Established Member
Simple, if it all goes badly wrong in the air you could die, if it all goes badly wrong on rails, more likely inconvenient delays!!
So a no brainer, if you want to stay alive in the air, you do your full checklist, every time.
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 895
That's true to an extent, but also major (and minor) rail accidents are things that exist.
I worked out from the printed timetable that nine units are required to work the Leeds - Man Vic/Chester services. Today I've seen five 195s (001, 104/07/10/17), two 158s (755 and 872) and 150104, coming through Littleborough. So there's one I've not seen. No idea if these units have been on the line all day - I assume the 150 was a substitution (it worked the 14.18 from Leeds).
The diagrams are here
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-with-subsequent-changes.193088/#post-4253496
and later in the thread the initial allocations for the day. 195002 and 195007 were out earlier but got swapped and put on a Liverpool to Manchester Airport diagram.
- Status