Northern Class 195: Construction/Introduction Updates

[anamyd]

Gap probably

still no context...?

 

[LOL The Irony]

still no context...?

The gap the coupling has to turn in, I'm guessing.

 

[anamyd]

I read it as them saying our tracks aren't the right type for their special little train, basically admitting they screwed up. Considering they helped build the 332's, I'm surprised this is an issue.

The trains were built to the European TSIs, but the Northern railway wasn't. CAF did what they were told to do. Doubtless everyone involved is blaming each other. Does anyone know whether or not a fix been implemented at all on any units yet...?

 

[anamyd]

The gap the coupling has to turn in, I'm guessing.

...is 5mm too narrow...?

 

[LOL The Irony]

...is 5mm too narrow...?

I think they mean a 5 mil gap needs adding to allow them to turn properly on tight curves.

 

[Greybeard33]

As the saying goes: "Rules [including TSIs] are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."

It would appear that the engineers involved in the specification, design and acceptance of the CAF units collectively fall into the latter category....

 

[anamyd]

That seems to imply that the issue is with the permanent way rather than the stock, which is contrary to what we have been told in internal communications.

Yes, but surely the issue with the stock wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't an issue with the permanent way (the permanent way not complying with the European TSIs which the modern trains are built to!) - basically the trains will have to be modified to work safely on old tracks, right...?

 

[anamyd]

I think they mean a 5 mil gap needs adding to allow them to turn properly on tight curves.

so basically it's 5mm narrow right now

 

[anamyd]

As the saying goes: "Rules [including TSIs] are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."

It would appear that the engineers involved in the specification, design and acceptance of the CAF units collectively fall into the latter category....

So you're implying that the specs should have been exceeded (where allowed) and not merely met...?

 

[Greybeard33]

So you're implying that the specs should have been exceeded (where allowed) and not merely met...?

Quite. Much of the infrastructure predates the TSI. Unless the TOC had agreed with Network Rail that the infrastructure would be upgraded before the new trains were introduced, the specification should have detailed the minimum curve radius actually required.

Equally, even if omitted from the specification, the manufacturer should have reviewed UK national requirements.

 

[Llama]

Without divulging too much, the couplers on the CAF units weren't made to the spec and modifications are needed.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Like Hitachi's issues on signalling interference, TSI conformance works both ways.
Both stock and infrastructure have to conform if that's what the train technical spec said.

Wouldn't this be less of an issue if stock and infrastructure were under common ownership and management?

 

[js1000]

Uh... what a mess...

 

[Glenn1969]

So how long is it likely to be before Northern can introduce its new trains to passenger service? Are we talking later this year, 2020 or later?

 

[_toommm_]

So how long is it likely to be before Northern can introduce its new trains to passenger service? Are we talking later this year, 2020 or later?

December 2019 I believe...

 

[LOL The Irony]

So how long is it likely to be before Northern can introduce its new trains to passenger service? Are we talking later this year, 2020 or later?

December 2019 I believe...

I read end of June according to someone from Northern. Afterall, it's just a bigger/longer bracket that needs fitting (apparently).

 

[Chester1]

Wouldn't this be less of an issue if stock and infrastructure were under common ownership and management?

Yes, but only if the right and left hand worked together!

December 2019 I believe...

Is it really that bad? Isn't there staff training taking place on the limited routes that they can run on?

Delaying 331s is less of an issue because 319s and 323s can cover until they enter service. If necessary Porterbrook could lend extra 319s. They are not as good but more or less all the planned EMU services would be ok to run in May and December. Not having the 195s in service by the PRM deadline would be a nightmare.

I read end of June according to someone from Northern. Afterall, it's just a bigger/longer bracket that needs fitting (apparently).

That sounds more realistic. If Northern thought it would not have enough units for the December timetable change it would be getting derogations for 153s and anything they could obtain (that is not a pacer). They don't seem to be in panic mode (yet).

 

[anamyd]

Without divulging too much, the couplers on the CAF units weren't made to the spec and modifications are needed.

I already knew that modifications would be needed; I just don't know what the plans are (if any) to actually make said modifications! What spec are your referring to...? European TSIs, or specs that were apparently not given to CAF, relating to the Northern railway's metals...?

 

[anamyd]

Quite. Much of the infrastructure predates the TSI. Unless the TOC had agreed with Network Rail that the infrastructure would be upgraded before the new trains were introduced, the specification should have detailed the minimum curve radius actually required.

Equally, even if omitted from the specification, the manufacturer should have reviewed UK national requirements.

So both sides are to blame really...

 

[LOL The Irony]

CAF should've built a single 2 car 195 production prototype and tested that then these issues probably would've been ironed out.

 

[deltic08]

I think they mean a 5 mil gap needs adding to allow them to turn properly on tight curves.

If it is only 5mm extra width on the drag box, it could be sorted in 5 minutes with a grinder. It must be more than just clearance on this.
As far a track infrastructure is concerned, the tightest curve on the line will be a 15mph turnout or crossing of which there are thousands on the system. There is one on the southern throat at Harrogate station replacing a 25mph one. That's enhancement according to Network Rail.

 

[Spartacus]

CAF should've built a single 2 car 195 production prototype and tested that then these issues probably would've been ironed out.

Then they wouldn’t have won the contract. One of the big reasons they did was the speed of production. Even with this delay they’ll probably be in service before other manufactures could have had stock built.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As with the majority of major engineering projects that have gone wrong recently. Somewhere in there he spec was far from perfect. Its like a computer programme. Crap in, crap out!

 

[hwl]

As with the majority of major engineering projects that have gone wrong recently. Somewhere in there he spec was far from perfect. Its like a computer programme. Crap in, crap out!

Yep, way to many times to little resource and too much of hurry initially to properly scope things.

The classic civils saying " you pay for the ground survey now or later " springs to mind, except you usually pay more later!

 

[Ken H]

Quite. Much of the infrastructure predates the TSI. Unless the TOC had agreed with Network Rail that the infrastructure would be upgraded before the new trains were introduced, the specification should have detailed the minimum curve radius actually required.

Equally, even if omitted from the specification, the manufacturer should have reviewed UK national requirements.

Notwork rail, and railtrack before it have/had no idea of the conditions/dimensions of their infrastructure. I expect in Br days 'old Fred' in the engineering office would have known and alerted someone. but we lost all that with privatisation and track/trains separation.

 

[hwl]

Notwork rail, and railtrack before it have/had no idea of the conditions/dimensions of their infrastructure. I expect in Br days 'old Fred' in the engineering office would have known and alerted someone. but we lost all that with privatisation and track/trains separation.

They do. The TOC/ROSCO didn't tell CAF to comply with all the UK standards. If the unit complied with UK standards the last 100+ posts wouldn't have been written (including this one ).

 

[hwl]

If it is only 5mm extra width on the drag box, it could be sorted in 5 minutes with a grinder. It must be more than just clearance on this.
As far a track infrastructure is concerned, the tightest curve on the line will be a 15mph turnout or crossing of which there are thousands on the system. There is one on the southern throat at Harrogate station replacing a 25mph one. That's enhancement according to Network Rail.

Grinding it out could probably wipe out the structural integrity of the drag box regards keeping the vehicles aligned in a high speed derailment, hence no quick 'n' dirty approach.

The maximum curvature and rate of change of curvature of a new 15mph set of points is less than a 1980's set.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Are our curves really tighter than anywhere on the continent?

 

[The Northern Star]

There was meant to be one 195 running the Barrow - Airport line on the 20th of May but there are talks of that NOT happening now...

 

[EE Andy b1]

So how many Class 195, 2 car or 3 car have now been built and can the rest be rectified on the production line?
Maybe the later built sets with mods could be put into traffic sooner.