Dawlish Sea Wall

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

Supporters of IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) felt that I was being unduly negative, and pointed out that coping with Dawlish conditions was an "essential requirement" written into the specification.
When the new trains failed to operate reliably under known adverse conditions, it was revealed that the "essential requirement" was in fact only a requirement for decorative finishes to survive, with no requirement that the trains actually work.

Where on earth did you get that from? It falls in the technical category known as "bollocks".

This is from Rail Magazine (HRE is Hitachi Rail Europe):

HRE spokesman Sam Fisk told RAIL on February 14 2017 that tests have been carried out to ensure the ‘802s’ can withstand rough weather on the Dawlish Sea Wall section. When weather is poor, or there are rough seas, Class 220/221 Voyagers are currently unable to run along the route.

Fisk explained that brake resistors positioned on top of the roof of the HRE trains are partly raised, whereas on a Voyager they are in a well. He said rigorous testing has shown that water brushes off the raised component. The exhaust pipe is not connected to any electrical supplies, so any water that does go down it does not affect the train.

He added that because the vehicles are also powered independently, should there be a failure somehow caused by the water, the train can still continue in traffic.

Basically, Hitachi screwed up. Not the only example, either. And note that 800s are better off than 802s, not having brake resistors on the roof. They just weren't intended to go past Exeter, though required to be able to do so.

I got it from a respected member of this forum, who stated on this forum that the "essential requirement" refered to decorative finishes and not to functioning.

[REVUpminster]

Something wrong at Dawlish? Wrong road running, trains cancelled two hours before high tide.

[IndustryInsider]

As bobm said, a signal has sustained damage and is in danger of being hit by trains at Starcross.

[grahame]

As bobm said, a signal has sustained damage and is in danger of being hit by trains at Starcross.

From Journeycheck

Cancellations to services between Newton Abbot and Exeter St Davids

Due to a safety inspection of the track between Newton Abbot and Exeter St Davids all lines are closed.

Train services running through these stations will be cancelled or revised. Disruption is expected until 13:00 14/02.

Further Information

The combination of a predicted high tide and the effects of damage to a signal yesterday may have an adverse effect on the operation of train services this morning. An update will be provided with further details as soon as possible.

If you hold a valid single, return, or weekly ticket, you will be able to claim compensation for delays of 15 minutes or more. Please keep your ticket and visit GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway).com/DelayRepay

[Bmblbzzz]

The planning documents for the Marine Parade section reckoned a 100 year design life.

The drawings for the section just started, (Coastguards to Colonnade), also include a predicted mean high water level (MHWL) in 2115 of about 90 cm above the 2017 value.

How much sea level rise has there been in the 150 or whatever years since the railway was built? How were Victorian railways expected to cope with this section? Or was it simply accepted that they wouldn't run in bad weather?

[a-driver]

The report I saw suggests the Exeter to Plymouth IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) quoted in the article was NOT hit by the sea but was running in “special mode” when it came to a stand.  Anyone know more?

Once on the move, after crossing back over at Teignmouth to the down line, it then ran empty to Laira.

"Special Mode" is initiated by the driver through the train management system.  It has only been bought in recently following previous failures of IET's on the seawall.  "special mode" was Hitachi's answer to those previous failures, all it enables is several more attempts at restarting failed engines before they eventually lock themselves out of use. 

Normally you can restart the engines and leave them in a idle state which effectively dries out the engine.  If you put any load through the engine too soon it just shuts down again thats why they can normally resume working after a period of time.

[eightonedee]

How were Victorian railways expected to cope with this section?

Presumably - stoke up the firebox, close the firebox door as you approach Dawlish, pull your coats up over your ears and press on for Teignmouth!

[ellendune]

How were Victorian railways expected to cope with this section? Or was it simply accepted that they wouldn't run in bad weather?

I don't know of any steam locomotive that ever had a brake resistor mounted on its roof. 

[TonyN]

Remember Brunel's original intention was to use the Atmospheric system along the sea wall.

[ellendune]

Remember Brunel's original intention was to use the Atmospheric system along the sea wall.

They had no brake resistors either!

[broadgage]

And neither steam locomotives nor the atmospheric railway had computers that under adverse conditions tend to stop everything and may not even allow re-starting.
A significant number of IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) failures have been "computer says no" rather than a physical component breaking, catching fire or dropping of.

[paul7575]

Some time ago I found a technical paper that described numerous failures and closures of the sea wall.  Serious damage had reportedly occurred every 10 years or so ever since opening.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420921000480?via%3Dihub

Although the 2014 closure was spectacular and probably the longest unplanned closure, it’s definitely not the case that all was well between first opening and recent times.  Brunel’s original wall past Dawlish didn’t last very long and was completely rebuilt at one stage.

[trainbuff]

And neither steam locomotives nor the atmospheric railway had computers that under adverse conditions tend to stop everything and may not even allow re-starting.
A significant number of IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) failures have been "computer says no" rather than a physical component breaking, catching fire or dropping of.

I used to live in a block of flats in Plymouth City centre. Also in the block were a Mr and Mrs Downton. They had lived there since the blocks had been built in 1953. He was a fireman and later drive for the Southern Region based at Friary initially.

He recounted a story to me, about a time during the exchange WR/SR^‡(resolve) workings that going along the Wall, a large wave crashed down on their locomotive extinguishing the fire and drenching them!

I have no reason to disbelieve him and never asked if it were possible. We had been talking about the voyagers dislike of salt water, that the IETs seem to have as well.

Seems that the problems have always been there, just in different guises

[broadgage]

It seems unlikely, but just about possible that a freak wave would extinguish the fire in a steam locomotive.
Most of the fire is somwhat enclosed and protected against waves. There are only three routes by which significant water could enter.
Down the chimney, only a limited opening, and most of the water would pool in the smokebox rather than pass through the tubes and into the fire.
Via fire box door, possible especialy if the door was left open to warm and dry the crew after the previous soaking.
Up wards via the ashpan, unlikely unless there was standing water up to that level.

So unlikely, but just about possible in truly extreme conditions. Or of course the fire might not have gone completly out, but been discouraged to the extent that steam pressure was lost.
Any water entering via the chimney would probably evaporate before reaching the fire, but in so doing would absorb a lot of heat from the boiler and reduce the steam pressure.
Coal in the tender that was soaked by a wave would still burn but less effectively than dry coal.

[IndustryInsider]

Potentially dangerous for the driver and fireman I’d have thought.