Do the Shinkansen in Japan seem to suffer this greatly? Why have Hitachi found it so difficult to translate design and construction practices from one place to another?
Has the track got that much worse since the days of the HST? Obviously individual sections will improve as they are re-laid and then deteriorate over time, but that's just the usual life cycle. It rather strikes me that if Hitachi are hoping to pin all this on track quality that they didn't understand the track quality in Britain and didn't do the required due diligence. It's hard to escape the conclusion that these trains are badly designed and built and not fit for purpose.There have been suggestions that track quality and track-laying methods in the UK might be a factor.
Correct they don’t. Whilst Stress corrosion is suspected, it hasn’t been confirmed and there are still other possibilities.Though supposedly Hitachi still don't yet know what is causing the cracks or how quickly they are propagating/occurring, so I'm guessing Hitachi are just trying to buy some more time by saying they have a solution only for it to be thrown out, they BS up some excuse that the government fall for and they get more time.
The politicians will believe the “BS excuses”. The civil servants can advise ministers on the matter but ultimately it’s the secretary of state that gets the final say on whether to accept what Hitachi say.The idea of every civil servant on the project being so lackadaisical that they "fall for some BS excuse" is what strikes me as the BS.
Not quite the same issues but the Shinkansen fleets definitely do have their problems. Many Shinkansen trains don’t make it past 20 years in service, indeed withdrawals of N700 series Shinkansen units built in 2007 have already began, a service life of just 14 years.Do the Shinkansen in Japan seem to suffer this greatly? Why have Hitachi found it so difficult to translate design and construction practices from one place to another?
Not sure about GWR, but I know the LNER unit that was equipped with the sensors, 801228, was not used at all in passenger service whilst fitted with the sensors.The units with sensors were fitted to measure the forces on the components in “service” (actually mostly done on special test runs), not to measure the propagation rate of the cracks. Hitachi, for obvious reasons, as well as the DfT wanted to know if the units were being subjected to infrastructure forces that exceeded the ones they were specified to cope with.
Hitachi were supposed to have taken that into account when designing the units.There have been suggestions that track quality and track-laying methods in the UK might be a factor.
Are they not on the second generation now of the N700 design though?Not quite the same issues but the Shinkansen fleets definitely do have their problems. Many Shinkansen trains don’t make it past 20 years in service, indeed withdrawals of N700 series Shinkansen units built in 2007 have already began, a service life of just 14 years.
Depends how you define generations. There’s the original N700, and there’s the N700A, which all of the original N700s were eventually converted to. Last year the N700S was introduced but the name is a bit misleading as it’s actually a new design that’s simply taken some features from the N700. 9 of the earlier N700s have been withdrawn and a quick look at entry and exit from service dates shows some of them only actually lasted 12 and a half years in service.Are they not on the second generation now of the N700 design though?
Not quite the same issues but the Shinkansen fleets definitely do have their problems. Many Shinkansen trains don’t make it past 20 years in service, indeed withdrawals of N700 series Shinkansen units built in 2007 have already began, a service life of just 14 years.
Given that the N700 Shinkansen was effectively one of Hitachi’s flagship products, if even they’re only lasting 13-14 years in service, it doesn’t bode well for the 80xs which are having more issues at a younger age.
Depends how you define generations. There’s the original N700, and there’s the N700A, which all of the original N700s were eventually converted to. Last year the N700S was introduced but the name is a bit misleading as it’s actually a new design that’s simply taken some features from the N700. 9 of the earlier N700s have been withdrawn and a quick look at entry and exit from service dates shows some of them only actually lasted 12 and a half
Given that the N700 Shinkansen was effectively one of Hitachi’s flagship products, if even they’re only lasting 13-14 years in service, it doesn’t bode well for the 80xs which are having more issues at a younger age.
It wasn't the civil servants that fell for it, it was the politicians. Civil servants can (and indeed are expected to) challenge ministers over poor decisions and advise against them by providing all the relevant facts, but ultimately the final say lies with the Secretary of State - Andrew Adonis when the contract was negotiated, Justine Greening when it was signed.They fell for the BS of the whole IEP project, with its contract terms weighted in Agility's favour, so why would that change now? Civil servants shouldn't be involved with anything related to train engineering, let alone designing the trains.
I've read that the short service lives of Shinkansen trains are entirely intentional. After fifteen to twenty years of intensive use, replacement is considered more cost-effective than refurbishment, especially as they might be full of obsolete electronics that are already difficult to maintain. On top of that they may not be as fast as newer trains. (This doesn't apply to N700s on the Tokaido Shinkansen, where top speed is limited by tight curves.) All this means that the manufacturers "value engineer" the trains for a short life to reduce manufacturing costs.
Though this very much depends on _why_ they’re being withdrawn. If they’re knackered after that length of service it’s a worry. But my understanding is that the newer models of Shinkansen are an upgrade in terms of performance, so the Japanese have decided it’s worth doing a full fleet replacement to maintain consistency.
The general design life of Shinkansen fleets is 20 years, and the majority of them do (just about) achieve that, but some of the newer Shinkansen fleets haven't been lasting that long. The N700s as I mentioned above have began to be withdrawn after just 12 years in some cases and have had many issues, not least an issue involving cracked bogies (caused by improper welding preparations) which required all the bogies from one of the manufacturers to be replaced. Another Shinkansen fleet that isn't going to last the 20 year design life is the E3-2000 series units on the Yamagata Shinkansen which were delivered in 2009 - they will all be withdrawn by 2024. That example is particularly poor as the Yamagata Shinkansen is the least demanding of the all the Shinkansen routes, and is the most comparable of the Shinkansen routes to any of the operations the 80xs have in the UK.I think Shinkansen lifespans is just what they design them for, isn't it? regardless, if the 395s are OK - and I haven't heared any disasters there, it's been 12 years - I don't think the IET is going to suffer from being designed for a too short lifespan. Many other possible engineering issues, but not that particular one. Hitachi have built a huge number of domestic units in Japan, some of them way older than the average Shinkansen set. The fact that the 395s are the only rest-of-world units without problems isn't really doing their chances of expanding outside Japan much good though...
I think some of the seriously cool looking 500 series Shinkansen sets are still running, they're getting close to 25 years now
700 Series and new are 2 words that don't go together.N700S was introduced but the name is a bit misleading as it’s actually a new design
They have also suffered from cracks, to their deflector mountings (which is arguably a worse issue).Hitachi don't seem to be doing well outside of Japan at all, with the 395s being an outlier.
They have also suffered from cracks, to their deflector mountings (which is arguably a worse issue).
An earlier post of mine should help.Is that discussed here anywhere? I'm not putting the right keywords in the search box if it is. If it isn't, mind a quick paragraph detailing what & when?
Don't forget that the 395 runs on pretty good nick track with HS1 only being young compared to the rest of the UK network.I think Shinkansen lifespans is just what they design them for, isn't it? regardless, if the 395s are OK - and I haven't heared any disasters there, it's been 12 years - I don't think the IET is going to suffer from being designed for a too short lifespan. Many other possible engineering issues, but not that particular one. Hitachi have built a huge number of domestic units in Japan, some of them way older than the average Shinkansen set. The fact that the 395s are the only rest-of-world units without problems isn't really doing their chances of expanding outside Japan much good though...
I think some of the seriously cool looking 500 series Shinkansen sets are still running, they're getting close to 25 years now.
I've read that the short service lives of Shinkansen trains are entirely intentional. After fifteen to twenty years of intensive use, replacement is considered more cost-effective than refurbishment, especially as they might be full of obsolete electronics that are already difficult to maintain. On top of that they may not be as fast as newer trains. (This doesn't apply to N700s on the Tokaido Shinkansen, where top speed is limited by tight curves.) All this means that the manufacturers "value engineer" the trains for a short life to reduce manufacturing costs.
An earlier post of mine should help.
Page 21 of the interim report goes into detail.GWR withdraw some 800's due to cracks (ORR Report now published)
What the situation is for the trains that have been bought outright by the leasing companies, I don't know. I can only hope that the purchasers have some cast-iron guarantees that won't crack under stress... I'd have more confidence in a leasing company's contract with Hitachi than I would with...www.railforums.co.uk
Back when the Shinkansen was a star for the APT designers to look at, there were significant areas of design where it was determined not to be worthwhile trying to save design effort by copying what the Japanese were using, track interaction (of which British research was at the forefront) being one of them. But the Shinkansen engineers (obviously) didn't find that aspect unacceptable in their own conditions, and AFAIK there hasn't been much desire to copy technology in the opposite direction since. So probably what we are basically seeing is the shower of sparks when two styles of thinking on the same subject that have each been developing in their own way for several decades are suddenly forced into contact.
Only for some of the time....Don't forget that the 395 runs on pretty good nick track with HS1 only being young compared to the rest of the UK network.
The non HS1 line speeds are generally at much lower speeds that the class 800 and have regular station stops.Only for some of the time....
I've noticed a lot more 10 car GWR sets out recently - is this a sign that their availability is improving?
Can't they weld some aluminium over the effected area? That always got my brother's car through its MOT
Can't they weld some aluminium over the effected area? That always got my brother's car through its MOT
Nah it'l be fine . On my first car I added a thin sheet of aluminium to the top of the wing on the underside with pop rivets. It was necessary because the wing mounted aerial had fallen out of the wing !. Result was brilliant radio reception. At the MOT the tester congratulated me on my resourcefulness. I thought he was going to pull me up on it being an injury hazard to any poor pedestrian that might slide over my car. He said in fact the standard aerial was in any case more likely to cause an eye injury.Hope he had an aluminium car!
That could make it the most appropriate! As long as it’s not on the insulators or anything that should flex you’d be alrightMy Grandfather swore by Araldite but during an A.Level Physics lab session I found that Araldite conducts electricity which really disappointed me. So would not be any use for pantograph repairs !.
Oh yes, of course . It was not a good conductor though. It was to seal around some electrodes that sat in electrolyte and affected the results without being obviously conductive !. I was the smart alec that decided to not trust the equipment and do my own measurements without any electrolyte in !.That could make it the most appropriate! As long as it’s not on the insulators or anything that should flex you’d be alright
The final ORR report has been published this morning, and can be read here.I half heard an article on the Radio 4 Today programme this morning about the programme to repair / prevent cracks on the Class 800 etc IET & Azumas. I didn't catch much beyond it saying there's an estimated 6 year period to complete all repairs.
Nothing more on the BBC website at 0905 today.
Is anyone able to cast any further light on this?
(I see that the original thread from #LowLevel is closed, if there are more significant and interesting developements there is possibly a case to reopen that one.)
Thanks