Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 16:55 05 Dec 2022
* Train strikes: RMT union rejects offer to stop Christmas walkouts
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 30/03/23 - Railfuture Annual, Leeds

On this day
5th Dec (1927)
Post Office Underground opens to Paddington (*)

Train RunningShort Run
12:42 Great Malvern to Weymouth
17:26 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
19:07 London Paddington to Bedwyn
Delayed
16:13 Par to Newquay
PollsThere are no open or recent polls
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
December 05, 2022, 05:05:06 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[310] End date for Castles - initially a Rumour Mill thread
[69] Rail unions strike action 2022/2023
[53] Drayton Green
[41] Advent Quiz - December 2022
[38] Where would YOU like to go in 2023?
[20] Trial of new revenue protection technology
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 38
  Print  
Author Topic: Problems with IET trains from April 2021  (Read 55972 times)
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 11303


View Profile Email
« Reply #135 on: May 09, 2021, 11:15:14 am »

I see that there are some EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) shuttles between Didcot and Swindon today, I assume these are class 387. 0946 and 1105 from Didcot are a couple of examples.
Well done GWR (Great Western Railway) and glad that weeks of training wasn't required as some have predicted.
Although as I type this I see that the 1105 is now canceled , hopefully I haven't posted this too soon. Smiley

There are a couple of BRI» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains)-DID» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) returns running too....an IET (Intercity Express Train) I’m assuming?

The 1105 DID-SWI» (Swindon - next trains) is a service to BRI (arr 1200), so I certainly doubt this was even a 387
« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 11:23:41 am by ChrisB » Logged
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4572


View Profile Email
« Reply #136 on: May 09, 2021, 11:17:29 am »

I see that there are some EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) shuttles between Didcot and Swindon today, I assume these are class 387. 0946 and 1105 from Didcot are a couple of examples.
Well done GWR (Great Western Railway) and glad that weeks of training wasn't required as some have predicted.
Although as I type this I see that the 1105 is now canceled , hopefully I haven't posted this too soon. Smiley


Haven't GWR Run 387s to Cardiff for the rugby? A 12 coach train would mop up the crowds!
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 11303


View Profile Email
« Reply #137 on: May 09, 2021, 11:20:54 am »

Not yet, have they? It is their intention eventually, I agree
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 37319



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #138 on: May 09, 2021, 11:47:08 am »

From the Scotsman

Quote
ScotRail said a “small number” of its class 385 electric trains – which run on routes such as the main Edinburgh-Glasgow line – were affected.

Some of the fleet of 70 Hitachi-built trains, which are less than three years old, are undergoing further checks.

and

Quote
Disruption to ScotRail services today has been avoided by a strike by conductors and ticket examiners called by the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)), which has forced the cancellation of most trains.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5192


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: May 09, 2021, 12:42:26 pm »

I think the 12 car 387 to Cardiff is definitely an approved and accepted use of them, from a track access point of view, but it’s not at all clear if the necessary staff training has ever successfully taken place.  Late evening empty stock services for route knowledge training were in the timetable at one stage, possibly from Dec 2020, but I suspect that and associated guard training may have been curtailed by subsequent events…

Paul
Logged
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1601


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: May 09, 2021, 12:45:49 pm »

Does anybody know what the situation is with units that appeared to be sitting in Eastleigh a few weeks ago?
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 37319



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #141 on: May 09, 2021, 01:15:45 pm »

Does anybody know what the situation is with units that appeared to be sitting in Eastleigh a few weeks ago?

Might there be a couple (!) of 345s somewhere accessible to Paddington and not otherwise needed until next year?  To take over the 387 diagrams to places like Newbury and Didcot, with 387s then running services beyond Didcot even as far as Cardiff?  Known types and in the area already ...

There are also 11 stored, unallocated class 153s.   They would need derogations to run on their own or in groups, but perhaps they could come back short term to allow a temporary reverse cascade - stock for Swindon - Cheltenham and Swindon - Temple Meads shuttles, for example.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 01:22:29 pm by grahame » Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9481


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: May 09, 2021, 01:21:18 pm »

At last...a sensible, potentially workable suggestion!

Though I doubt they’d run west of Reading, a Turbo or two might be able to be found for that.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 06:09:53 pm by IndustryInsider » Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 37319



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #143 on: May 09, 2021, 01:26:19 pm »

At last...a sensible, potentially workable suggestion!

Thank you.

I will point out that I edited my original post while you were commenting / not sure how easily the stored 153s could be turned on, and that was NOT what you were commenting on.   RichardB probably not thrilled at the idea of 3 x 153 on St Ives, 4 x 153 on Falmouth, and a couple on either Newquay or Looe. 
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 6524


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: May 09, 2021, 01:28:56 pm »

I expect Hitachi (and others) are peering under all A-trains right across the world. They are all made much the same way, and the issue seen here is closely linked to both the design of the bogie mountings (bolsters) onto the body shells and the manufacturing processes. This is increasingly true of trains (and of a lot of other things too) as production has shifted to factories using robots and processes that need to be designed together with the end product.

There are reports of a few (latest is 9 out of 70) Scotrail class 385s failing this inspection, but so far no class 395s (which are of course much older). I've not heard anything reported from the rest of the world either - yet. For 80xs, the older fleets contain more units failing inspection, and the oldest are GWR (Great Western Railway)'s. That is what you'd expect if fatigue is involved, and that is the usual cause of cracking in aluminium-alloy structures. Of course that only answers one kind of "why"; for others the answer might be errors in the requirement, the design in several areas, or the manufacturing process (for example).

One of the things that should become clear (to Hitachi, at last) from wider A-train inspections is whether the problem can be narrowed down to a time period or something about how or by whom things were made. One interesting point is that most of the body shell is made from extruded "planks" supplied by Kobe Steel. Now those parts are not implicated at all in this, but Kobe Steel does have a bit of a reputation, and that involved supplying substandard materials and parts, and in alloys as well as steel. So, who made that bolster part (or parts)? Did Hitachi buy that in from Kobe Steel too?

This sort of common liability to a failure, which can ground large numbers of units, isn't restricted to a class or type. If it can affect A-trains as a whole, or even a large fraction of them, then other makers' families could have the same kind of commonality. Even in the past, we might have seen that with a standard bogie design; the same thing is as likely to affect any part of a train from now on. From that point of view, any reduction in the number of train makers in the UK (United Kingdom) market could be a risk (see under "resilience").

IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) was conceived as a common design for anywhere across the country, so in that sense it courted such a risk. But it also introduced Hitachi as a domestic supplier (this was their strategic plan, piloted by the class 395 programme). Since then the UK market has also gained CAF and Stadler; both marginal before that. So it turns out that we are not now looking at three suppliers, or fewer if mergers are allowed, as looked likely about ten years ago. But nothing guarantees that all the suppliers will get orders - that's down to how well they compete to get them.

So, when the decision that IEP should be a single nationwide design was made, was this resilience issue considered? I've had a quick look at the Foster report, which does not mention the subject. But then IEP was conceived as a replacement for the High Speed Train's (HST (High Speed Train))s, and they were a nationwide common design. So I expect it was not seen as a separate concern. And it is at core an engineering issue, so should not be decided in advance on political or administrative grounds. And there, the approach was to push all liability onto the supplier for the full 27.5 years of the contract -  the ultimate in incentivisation - removing all need for the customers to consider reliability issues.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym
« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 08:55:05 pm by VickiS » Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 11303


View Profile Email
« Reply #145 on: May 09, 2021, 01:35:27 pm »

The problem in running alternative stock on lines that don't currently run these is staff training.

Rightly, there are training requirements/knowledge that has to be maintained. Even if you can locate these staff from elsewhere, they all have to be trained - and that will take weeks. Until Hitachi agree that the problem will keep their trains off the rails for that length of time, realistically, TOCs (Train Operating Company) (and the DFT (Department for Transport) who would be funding this training under the ERMA) won't agree to it happening....
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4229


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: May 09, 2021, 01:45:52 pm »

Thanks stuving for this extensive explanation. 

And there, the approach was to push all liability onto the supplier for the full 27.5 years of the contract -  the ultimate in incentivisation - removing all need for the customers to consider reliability issues.


This indeed is the modern fallacy, transfer all the risk to the supplier in the contract.  Works fine until you realise those bits of the risk that can't be transferred in practice.  Like not having any trains to run a service with.  The operators could seek damages for lost income which would cost Hitachi a huge amount if the court agreed, but there would still be no trains.   
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5087



View Profile
« Reply #147 on: May 09, 2021, 02:03:24 pm »

Most press releases and other statements seem to imply that disruption will be over in a week or two at the most.
Does anyone here believe this ?

AFAIK (as far as I know), all GWR (Great Western Railway) IETS have now been checked and all but 5 have failed such checks. So statements about "working day and night to check trains" are irrelevant.
It seems probable that those 5 will develop cracks.
I am not aware of ANY units yet being repaired.
Nor am I aware of any proposed timetable for repairs.

Repairs to structural aluminium are a considerable challenge, and remember that if a unit is stopped for ONE crack, that ALL similar parts should presumably be repaired/replaced/strengthened on a precautionary  basis. No point in repairing the parts above one side of one bogie only for the other side to crack after a week in service.

How long will this take ? for 20 repairs to a 5 car unit and for 36 repairs to a 9 car unit.
My guestimate is two months for the first train whilst the technique is refined, and then one train a week thereafter.
Say a couple of years.
All the (over) complex electronic equipment would have to be disconnected or removed before electric welding. Some probably wont work afterwards.

It might actually be quicker to scrap the body shells and build new improved ones, not scrap the whole unit of course, engines, traction motors, cab equipment, and internal fit out would be re used.
The drawback of this, apart from cost, would be that TPTB (The Powers That Be) might declare them to be "new trains" rather than repaired existing trains. Whole new approval process ?

Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6163


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: May 09, 2021, 02:13:14 pm »


The drawback of this, apart from cost, would be that TPTB (The Powers That Be) might declare them to be "new trains" rather than repaired existing trains. Whole new approval process ?


That's one of the reasons it won't happen.
Logged

Now, please!
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 37319



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #149 on: May 09, 2021, 02:25:31 pm »

Silly question ... I know they're not easy to couple and uncouple within the sets, but is there any possibility of making up some more good ones by switching a few carriages around?   Sure, chances are they they, too, will need attention in time but to my logic if there are five totally good, there's probably quite a few more with good carriages to mix and match. 
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 38
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page