Entire 800/801/802 fleet stood down for safety checks

[AdamWW]

If a similar problem had been discovered with Mk3 coaches 10 years ago, the effect would have been even worse. The benefits of multiple operators using the same class far outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Although as has been pointed out above, with an 800 it just takes a problem with one coach to put up to 9 coaches out of service even if 8 of them are completely fine.

With HSTs or Mk 3 loco hauled trains you'd just live without that coach.

Of course even if the government had insisted on splitting their order into two different types of train to protect against events like this, how would they guarantee that two fleets built to the same specs at a similar time wouldn't suffer from similar problems? Would they have to insist that there were no suppliers of parts and materials in common?

I think if you were going to extreme lengths to avoid something like this, the only practical way would have been to renew half the fleet early enough, wait a decent length of time, then deal with the other half.

 

[MingTMerciless]

Sikaflex221, holding the railway together since 1991....

Oii I that was my idea! (and posted on a another forum)

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Without wishing to contribute to the wibble does anybody know if the following Ecs by Locomotive Services from Crewe to Laira today is relevant to these issues?

Realtime Trains - 587L 1245 Crewe H.S. to Laira T.& R.S.M.D.

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Nobody seems to know what this is!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although as has been pointed out above, with an 800 it just takes a problem with one coach to put up to 9 coaches out of service even if 8 of them are completely fine.


With HSTs or Mk 3 loco hauled trains you'd just live without that coach.

With the current situation you'd still have to check all of them, and if it affected the power car the outcome would be the same.

 

[ScouserGirl]

Nobody seems to know what this is!!

Someone said HST to me???

 

[CBlue]

With loco hauled trains it just takes a loco failure to knock the whole thing out of action.


This feels somewhat like bibble over wanting everything to be "proper trains" and therefore loco hauled?

 

[55002]

Nobody seems to know what this is!!

Railcam has it as 5Z37 and someone has put up it’s a set going downtown replace the 800s..what that “set” is it doesn’t say

 

[JonathanH]

Nobody seems to know what this is!!

It certainly isn't the Midland Pullman set as that is on the Settle & Carlisle line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With loco hauled trains it just takes a loco failure to knock the whole thing out of action.

Only if you use non-standard locos like 68+Mk5. If the locos are standard then you just use a different one.

This feels somewhat like bibble over wanting everything to be "proper trains" and therefore loco hauled?

They do have a certain flexibility advantage.

 

[ScouserGirl]

It certainly isn't the Midland Pullman set as that is on the Settle & Carlisle line.

Kick it off and bring it down here haha

 

[ABB125]

Nobody seems to know what this is!!

I'll aim to go and see it when it passes me

 

[1D53]

5Z37 is currently unallocated in the magic box.

 

[BayPaul]

Putting reliance on only one type of device to cover an essential service puts any system at serious risk of Common-Mode Failure. So having ALL your trains from one class might seem attractive to the accountants but it leaves an operator wide open to one fault causing no trains, and here it’s happened.
The oft quoted withdrawal of the Bullied MN class steam locos due to crank axle failures was one of these common mode failures, as was the total suspension of the new AC electrics on Clydeside in the early 60s When transformers started failing. However the MNs weren’t the only class and substitutes were drafted in, and the Clydeside services were put back into steam working until the issue had been engineered away.
GWR & LNER don’t appear to have any backup, so it’s accountants 1 (og) engineering 0.

It is also worth saying that if the fleet was split in half, the impact of a major event like this would be halved, but the average frequency would be doubled, as there are twice the number of different parts to go wrong. Say a typical class needs the whole fleet withdrawn once every 20 years due to an issue like this. With a uniform fleet, you get one massive period of disruption, then 20 years of good running. With two fleets you would get periods of (lesser but still severe) disruption every 10 years. So you don't gain much benefit from disruption reduction, and still have all of the operational and financial challenges.

 

[Fudgefrog]

Although as has been pointed out above, with an 800 it just takes a problem with one coach to put up to 9 coaches out of service even if 8 of them are completely fine.

With HSTs or Mk 3 loco hauled trains you'd just live without that coach.

Then what you’re describing isn’t an issue of common design, but preferring fixed unit designs that can’t easily be short formed. But even then, you assume that there weren’t circumstances in which, say, the whole HST fleet could be grounded - problems with wiring or AC units, unsafe couplers, a flawed brakes design etc. could easily have grounded an entire fleet pending fixes.

This is an unfortunate blip in what has arguably been a successful roll out of a brand new train type, that has delivered considerably savings and performance upgrades over the older BR stock (whatever one’s thoughts might be about seats, onboard ambience etc.). British-built Electrostars were grounded after it was discovered the power supply was too poor for them to operate. Heathrow Express/Connect had to move to skeleton services after major corrosion was discovered in their Class 332 fleet. Boeing 787s and 737-MAX aircraft both had to be grounded because of design flaws. These things happen, the question in my mind is more how efficiently and responsibly Hitachi, the TOCs and others involved will move to fix or alleviate the problem.

 

[scotrail170407]

Nobody seems to know what this is!!

Reportedly 37688

Unsure on the coaching stock but presumably mk2s

 

[JonathanH]

Reportedly 47593 + 47805

Unsure on the coaching stock but presumably mk2s

Why Mark 2s? LSL have a Mark 3 rake.

 

[43096]

arguably been a successful roll out of a brand new train type, that has delivered considerably savings

Considerable savings? The IEP project was exceptionally poor value for money and is massively inflating costs for the operators forced to use them.

 

[73128]

Still not including SWR, despite the routes west of Salisbury being available until the weekend.

mentioned right now:

Due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time at London Paddington fewer trains are able to run on all lines. Disruption is expected until the end of the day.
Impact:
Train services between London Paddington and Plymouth via Taunton and Exeter St Davids have been cancelled or revised. Pewsey will not be served.
Customer Advice:
.
Whilst Pewsey railway station will not be served by any train services, road transport will operate between Pewsey and Newbury.
.
With effect from Monday 10th May 2021 - CUSTOMERS INTENDING TO MAKE LONG DISTANCE JOURNEYS ON THIS ROUTE ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO CONSIDER DEFRRING THEIR JOURNEY UNTIL A LATER DATE. CUSTOMERS WHO DO INTEND TO TRAVEL LONG DISTANCES ON THE ROUTE SHOULD BE AWARE THAT MOST JOURNEY TIMES WILL BE CONSIDERABLY EXTENDED, AS THOSE SERVICES THAT DO OPERATE ARE LIKELY TO BE EXCEPTIONALLY BUSY, CONNECTIONS CANNOT BE GUARANTEED AND IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE LATE NIGHT JOURNEYS AT ALL AS A RESULT.
.
We have had to adapt many of our High Speed service timetables into a series of separate shuttle services. This has been done to ensure that we are able to advertise and operate a limited but robust service using the resources that we have available to us. As a result, certain journeys which were previously through services will now require one or more changes of train to cover the same journey which may make them unattractive to those with large amounts of luggage or to anyone with mobility problems.
.
All of the through train services between London Paddington / Reading and Taunton / Exeter St Davids / Plymouth / Penzance, in both directions, have been withdrawn (a few of these services will operate between Plymouth and Penzance only utilising other carriages).
.
The local train services in Devon and Cornwall are not affected and will continue to operate as scheduled; it is only the through services to / from London Paddington which have been withdrawn.
.
CrossCountry train services between Bristol Parkway / Bristol Temple Meads and Taunton / Exeter St Davids / Plymouth / Penzance will continue to operate as normal and GWR ticket holders may use these services. However, there are no through train services between London Paddington and Bristol Temple Meads or Bristol Parkway so to connect into those services from London Paddington will require at least one other change of train.
.
South Western Railway (SWR) do offer a service to and from Exeter St Davids on which GWR tickets will be accepted. Whilst this would afford a connection at Exeter St Davids into / out of train services to destinations in Devon and Cornwall there are currently NO through services between London Waterloo and Exeter St Davids as an amended (Covid) timetable is in operation on that route so SWR services to / from Exeter St Davids only operate as far as Salisbury where connecting trains are available to London Waterloo, Westbury, Southampton, Portsmouth, etc. so that route may afford some journey options for those customers who would otherwise have used GWR services and changed at Westbury.
.
In addition to the revised train service arrangements GWR ticket holders may utilise the following First Kernow local bus routes, should they assist with individual journeys -
Route A17 Penzance - St Erth / St Ives
Route T1 Penzance - St Erth / Hayle / Camborne / Redruth / Truro
Route T2 Carbis Bay - Hayle / Camborne / Redruth / Truro
Route 27 Truro - St Austell
Route 87 Truro - Newquay
Route 91 Truro - Falmouth
Route U1 Truro - Penryn - Falmouth
Route U2 Redruth - Penryn - Falmouth

 

[Fudgefrog]

Only if you use non-standard locos like 68+Mk5. If the locos are standard then you just use a different one.

Or HSTs - remember MK3s required extensive rewiring to make them suitable for push-pull LCHS use. If half your 43s had gone down with a common fault or safety issue, you’d have nothing to haul the carriages with?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Considerable savings? The IEP project was exceptionally poor value for money and is massively inflating costs for the operators forced to use them.

That doesn't make the trains rubbish, though. In many ways they are pretty good.

 

[Fudgefrog]

Considerable savings? The IEP project was exceptionally poor value for money and is massively inflating costs for the operators forced to use them.

I find this analysis curious, given that TPE, Hull Trains, Avanti WC, East Coast Trains and EMR, as well as GWR with their 802s, all choosing the AT300 voluntarily and separately from the IEP. The Government-designed and run competitive programme might have been a mess and a shambles, but the actual end product has been pretty good for a new train.

 

[DelW]

Of course even if the government had insisted on splitting their order into two different types of train to protect against events like this, how would they guarantee that two fleets built to the same specs at a similar time wouldn't suffer from similar problems? Would they have to insist that there were no suppliers of parts and materials in common?

Indeed, especially as at the moment we have fleets from two unrelated builders (CAF and Hitachi) suffering from somewhat similar issues, of cracking at high-stress attachments to their bodyshells.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It is also worth saying that if the fleet was split in half, the impact of a major event like this would be halved, but the average frequency would be doubled, as there are twice the number of different parts to go wrong. Say a typical class needs the whole fleet withdrawn once every 20 years due to an issue like this. With a uniform fleet, you get one massive period of disruption, then 20 years of good running. With two fleets you would get periods of (lesser but still severe) disruption every 10 years. So you don't gain much benefit from disruption reduction, and still have all of the operational and financial challenges.

BR had a dual-sourcing policy after BREL was privatised, but that didn't necessarily work too well.
There were problems with one or other of the split fleets for Super Sprinters (155/156) and Networkers (465/466) and others.
HSTs were equipped with two types of engine and electrical equipment.
Every repeat 80x order also reduces the overall fleet costs and improved productivity at the maintenance depots.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm not wading through 40+ pages to see if anyone else has raised this point, so I apologise if I'm just repeating something already said.

There are also issues with traincrew competency if you're going to go down the reserve traction route. It's not much good having a fleet of [insert preferred traction here] laid up in sidings if you've got no-one to work them. Route and traction retention costs money because you generally have to release traincrew from their usual duties, and quite a few TOCs have cut back on things like diversionary routes in order to reduce the number of route-refresh turns in the rosters.

 

[millemille]

Oii I that was my idea! (and posted on a another forum)

I was sticking the cabs of 465's on with Sikaflex in 1991, so ner!

 

[AdamWW]

With the current situation you'd still have to check all of them, and if it affected the power car the outcome would be the same.

True, but two rakes each with one power car out of action still gives you one good rake.

With loco hauled trains it just takes a loco failure to knock the whole thing out of action.

This feels somewhat like bibble over wanting everything to be "proper trains" and therefore loco hauled?

With modern trains it just takes a software failure to knock the whole thing out of action.

We used to have a railway with multiple classes of locomotive and a large fleet of carriages which were compatible with each other. (Yes, not everything - steam heat vs ETH, vacuum vs air brakes). There were spare locomotives around that could replace a failed one if required. In the summer a freight locomotive could haul a passenger train. We had multiple units with the same couplings - a loco hauled train could couple up to a failed EMU and push it to the next station. A diesel locomotive could haul coaches that would normally be pulled by an electric engine without needing to have fancy couplings and computers on board.

Things are different now.

For a start trains are a lot more reliable.

It doesn't mean that what the railways are doing now is wrong, or that the advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. But I don't really understand people trying to claim that actually there has been no loss of flexibility, when clearly there has, even if it is for very good reasons.

It is also worth saying that if the fleet was split in half, the impact of a major event like this would be halved, but the average frequency would be doubled, as there are twice the number of different parts to go wrong. Say a typical class needs the whole fleet withdrawn once every 20 years due to an issue like this. With a uniform fleet, you get one massive period of disruption, then 20 years of good running. With two fleets you would get periods of (lesser but still severe) disruption every 10 years. So you don't gain much benefit from disruption reduction, and still have all of the operational and financial challenges.

I think it depends what you think the railways are for. If you think they are an essential service and the most important thing is to always keep something running, then no.

If you think they should just be a nice thing to have and it's OK to tell people occasionally they have to drive or stay put, then yes.

The impression I get (and I may be wrong) is that over time the general view has shifted from the former to the latter.

 

[Emaharg]

Someone said HST to me???

If the HST is ex Midland or ECML, it might not be fitted with ATP required for GW mainline into Paddington, coaches maybe useful for GWR power cars though. Such a shame there is no light engine moves from Kidderminster to pick up the rake, according to real time trains.

 

[55002]

5Z37 likely to be 37 688 hauling ex HST stock. Possibly staycation express? Two power cars went from Long Rock to Laira yesterday.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I find this analysis curious, given that TPE, Hull Trains, Avanti WC, East Coast Trains and EMR, as well as GWR with their 802s, all choosing the AT300 voluntarily and separately from the IEP. The Government-designed and run competitive programme might have been a mess and a shambles, but the actual end product has been pretty good for a new train.

All these bar EMR were First Group procurements, probably with some sort of frame agreement with Hitachi which made repeat orders cheaper.
The first of these, for GWR south-west services, was heavily influenced by DfT who were extremely keen for 80x to be ordered.
The rest just followed on with the same basic spec.
EMR (Abellio) is a bit different, but again the DfT will have leaned on them to get them out of having cancelled the full MML wiring, requiring bi-modes.
So I think "voluntarily" is pushing it a bit, and no doubt they got a good price from Hitachi.
Bombardier and Alstom also didn't really have anything to compete in the UK, for what are quite small orders compared to the original IEP.

 

[OldNick]

I did work experience at BAe in Filton, and got a small tour of an Airbus testing facility. They continue stress testing aircraft elements long after the planes have started production and are flying around. When they notice a crack developing after so many hours of "service" they design a part to bolt/rivet over the crack and send it out to their customers telling them where to fit it.

I guess you can overbuild parts and sections, but you want to avoid that everywhere for weight, cost and efficiency reasons. I don't imagine it's much different for rail.