• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Northern withdraws some CAF trains due to yaw bracket failures

Status
Not open for further replies.

365 Networker

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2019
Messages
399
I would count anything that's at Eastleigh or Wensleydale as past return without expense. 143s aren't viable as crew and fitters aren't trained on them.

That list is pretty useless- it includes units now scrapped, owned by 3rd parties, 'preserved' and parts donors.
Ok, how many from that list could actually be used? If it’s much less than 37 then they won’t be of much use.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
Ok, how many from that list could actually be used? If it’s much less than 37 then they won’t be of much use.
If extra vehicles are really needed, which has yet to be established, surely 153s would be more practical. The few remaining Pacers are out of the equation.
 

northernchris

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
1,509
If extra vehicles are really needed, which has yet to be established, surely 153s would be more practical. The few remaining Pacers are out of the equation.

Yes, this would be more logical. Are they still some ex EMR 153s in storage which could be used too?
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
I would count anything that's at Eastleigh or Wensleydale as past return without expense. 143s aren't viable as crew and fitters aren't trained on them.

That list is pretty useless- it includes units now scrapped, owned by 3rd parties, 'preserved' and parts donors.
Thanks. Fact checking went well, then - as I thought it might! :lol:
 

High Dyke

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2013
Messages
4,267
Location
Yellabelly Country
Undoubtedly, there has to be either a fix at CAF's expense or some other repercussions. You would hope such things were specified in the contract.
You can just imagine an engineer at Northern searching through the paperwork to find out the warranty expired just before the problem arose, and they never purchased an extended warranty plan.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
You can just imagine an engineer at Northern searching through the paperwork to find out the warranty expired just before the problem arose, and they never purchased an extended warranty plan.
"Sorry, we need to order a part. We'll phone you when it arrives in two weeks to arrange an engineer visit."
 

High Dyke

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2013
Messages
4,267
Location
Yellabelly Country
"Sorry, we need to order a part. We'll phone you when it arrives in two weeks to arrange an engineer visit."
Sounds just like me currently, waiting for the gas engineer to repair my central heating.

I would hope that CAF take it on the chin and sort the problem out. Equally, I could just imagine them arguing that it's been caused by natural wear & tear. It then does beg the question of how other products in their range have fared?
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
5,209
Have any 331s on the leeds side been lost to this yet?

I don't know but I can't see commuters at Fitzwilliam or Bentley being pleased with 319s!

Fortunately there are very few commuters until at least summer (when the AC of the 331 is welcome!)
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,948
Location
UK
I don't know but I can't see commuters at Fitzwilliam or Bentley being pleased with 319s!

Fortunately there are very few commuters until at least summer (when the AC of the 331 is welcome!)
I don't think 319s would be introduced on the east side. If this persists as an issue then it will simply see west side 331s temporarily transferred over to the east, with 319s covering - apart from Blackpool North, all west depots that sign 331s also sign 319s.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,948
Location
UK
319s on the east wouldn't actually be too different to the 322s that they replaced fairly recently
But it would still require some traction training vs none at all if more 319s were used in the west.
 

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,220
319s on the east wouldn't actually be too different to the 322s that they replaced fairly recently
They're a different class, so you'd need a conversion course, though admittedly it wouldn't be long. Unfortunately, 32x competence will be lapsing rapidly so it'll be like starting from scratch if 319s came over.

Ok, how many from that list could actually be used? If it’s much less than 37 then they won’t be of much use.
I make it 3x 142s and 6x144s, at the absolute most. It's a non-starter as the same competence issues will be coming up.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
But it would still require some traction training vs none at all if more 319s were used in the west.
They're a different class, so you'd need a conversion course, though admittedly it wouldn't be long. Unfortunately, 32x competence will be lapsing rapidly so it'll be like starting from scratch if 319s came over.
Indeed, I was talking more about from a passenger perspective. It would essentially be just having the old trains back again for a while. Staff training is a different issue.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,716
Location
Glasgow
You can just imagine an engineer at Northern searching through the paperwork to find out the warranty expired just before the problem arose, and they never purchased an extended warranty plan.
That would be a very poorly drafted warranty agreement in my opinion, but I've no idea how long they typically last for. It's not like a fridge freezer with a 5 year warranty or a laptop with a 3 year one, rather a different kettle of fish given trains are typically said to have a 35-40 year life span
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
1,988
Location
Dyfneint
This is a very partial interpretation.

Reliability in a product is a result of long production runs and a large enough body of people who have the knowledge and experience to be able to use the equipment effectively.

Ships, especially capital ships such as aircraft carriers and submarines, are built in penny numbers and then a couple of decades go by before any more are built. Each ship is essentially a prototype and by the time the next generation comes along the designers of the previous one have retired.

It's the same problem as the stop and start railway electrification programmes in this country. It's not contempt - it's the nature of the beast.
The procurement itself was the issue in the carriers case; the general specification and the intent was for ships convertible between what we have now & conventional catapult launch/arrested landing. The story I was passed was that the actual procurement wasn't worded sufficiently tightly & the supplier decided to work with the letter rather than basically ask if the procurer was sure this is what they wanted, so while the carriers are technically convertible it'd cost the same as building a new carrier. That lack of desire to deliver good value seems very common in recent years. I wasn't really referring to anything particularily to do with engineering itself ( although the horror stories I get from people in engineering right now would make me pretty nervous if I wasn't fairly sure production lines had always been that way... ).
 

xtpe

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2020
Messages
29
Location
Blackpool
I don't think 319s would be introduced on the east side. If this persists as an issue then it will simply see west side 331s temporarily transferred over to the east, with 319s covering - apart from Blackpool North, all west depots that sign 331s also sign 319s.
Blackpool North (Northern and Xtpe sign 331 and 319)
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
The procurement itself was the issue in the carriers case; the general specification and the intent was for ships convertible between what we have now & conventional catapult launch/arrested landing. The story I was passed was that the actual procurement wasn't worded sufficiently tightly & the supplier decided to work with the letter rather than basically ask if the procurer was sure this is what they wanted, so while the carriers are technically convertible it'd cost the same as building a new carrier. That lack of desire to deliver good value seems very common in recent years. I wasn't really referring to anything particularily to do with engineering itself ( although the horror stories I get from people in engineering right now would make me pretty nervous if I wasn't fairly sure production lines had always been that way... ).
From memory - and I worked on the carrier project many years ago - there were multiple designs originally from the original two bidding consortia. The bigger issue was not the carriers themselves, but (as is usual), the MoD couldn't decide what it wanted to fly off the carriers - it's very hard to design and build an aircraft carrier when the customer can't decide what type of aircraft it wants to use. In any case the MoD was part of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance that built the ships, so only has itself to blame!
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,219
This is a very partial interpretation.

Reliability in a product is a result of long production runs and a large enough body of people who have the knowledge and experience to be able to use the equipment effectively.

Ships, especially capital ships such as aircraft carriers and submarines, are built in penny numbers and then a couple of decades go by before any more are built. Each ship is essentially a prototype and by the time the next generation comes along the designers of the previous one have retired.

It's the same problem as the stop and start railway electrification programmes in this country. It's not contempt - it's the nature of the beast.
I really suspect that it's the dire nature of government procurement, or the state of UK shipbuilding, not a fundamental issue with procuring ships. Cruise ships are incredibly complicated, are all short runs or unique, and almost all are delivered on time, on budget, and work straight out of the box. I often wonder what the railways could learn from the marine industry.
 

Harvey B

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2019
Messages
984
I don't know but I can't see commuters at Fitzwilliam or Bentley being pleased with 319s!

Fortunately there are very few commuters until at least summer (when the AC of the 331 is welcome!)

I don't think 319s would be introduced on the east side. If this persists as an issue then it will simply see west side 331s temporarily transferred over to the east, with 319s covering - apart from Blackpool North, all west depots that sign 331s also sign 319s.
If thats the case then couldn't the 333s do Leeds - Doncaster
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Just a reminder this thread is to discuss what is actually happening relating to the subject described in the title

If anyone wishes to post any ideas/suggestions for alternative provision, please do so in the
Speculative Ideas forum section, thanks :)
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
The procurement itself was the issue in the carriers case; the general specification and the intent was for ships convertible between what we have now & conventional catapult launch/arrested landing. The story I was passed was that the actual procurement wasn't worded sufficiently tightly & the supplier decided to work with the letter rather than basically ask if the procurer was sure this is what they wanted, so while the carriers are technically convertible it'd cost the same as building a new carrier. That lack of desire to deliver good value seems very common in recent years. I wasn't really referring to anything particularily to do with engineering itself ( although the horror stories I get from people in engineering right now would make me pretty nervous if I wasn't fairly sure production lines had always been that way... ).
That is very different from the story which I heard and read about in journals such as Flight and Aviation Week.

The carriers were designed from the outset to be compatible with the F-35B, the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing version of Lockheed's Joint Strike Fighter. This version was considerably more expensive that the more conventional F-35A which does not have the extra lift fan behind the pilot, the downward swivelling engine exhaust nozzles and the bleed air system for low speed attitude control. However operationally it uses the experience which the Navy built up over many years of Harrier operations.

A Secretary of Defence — whose name I can't remember — decided that he would would change the order for F-35Bs to F-35As and save a shed load of money. This decision came as a great surprise to the ship builders who would have had to have redesign the flight deck completely and install sufficiently large steam generators to power the catapults in a ship which had largely been designed. The latter was somewhat difficult as the ships were to be powered by gas turbines with no capacity to generate steam in the quantities required. It was also a surprise to Lockheed as its production planning would have to have been completely re-jigged and an additional effect was that the unit price of the F-35B would have increased because of the smaller volumes. The US Marine Corps, one of the major operators of the 'B' variant was not amused.

Eventually sense prevailed and the ships were built as intended. In any event I cannot imagine how a 'ski jump' flight deck profile can in any way be compatible with the design requirements of steam catapults. Unless, of course, the ship is very much larger than those built.
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,081
Pacers can't just be brought back. In December last year almost all the sets had bad wheel flats and I doubt they have been repaired there were also parts shortages. Many crews no longer have them on their traction cards and those that do will probably need refreshers as they were only on a few routes between October and December so not many of Northerns crews will have been on them in the last 6 months.

Watersheds suggestion of moving some 331s to the east with 319s covering is most likely in my opinion. Adding in the extra 769s and retained 153s then I don't think the impact will be too bad.
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
5,209
Adding in the extra 769s and retained 153s then I don't think the impact will be too bad.

Much as it should've resumed tomorrow or even on the 29th of March, Southport to Alderley Edge (or lack thereof) is probably a bit of a get out of jail free card for Northern right now as that would've probably thrown up more issues when 769s inevitably start breaking down on... oh I'm gonna guess day one?!
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
1,988
Location
Dyfneint
From memory - and I worked on the carrier project many years ago - there were multiple designs originally from the original two bidding consortia. The bigger issue was not the carriers themselves, but (as is usual), the MoD couldn't decide what it wanted to fly off the carriers - it's very hard to design and build an aircraft carrier when the customer can't decide what type of aircraft it wants to use. In any case the MoD was part of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance that built the ships, so only has itself to blame!
Yes, pretty much what I got from ( not MoD ) civil service folk ( along with bemoaning how it should have gone & the usual grumbling about backsides & elbows ) ... but the whole point of this wasn't to take apart that project ( which has been done to death elsewhere no doubt ) but that govt ( or near-govt ) procurement process and the vendor interface to it does not seem to be producing quality, on a reasonably regular basis. It's definitely not all bad because I've noticed plenty of projects on time & mostly on target & under or on budget, but I don't know, there just seems to be a disturbingly frequent lack of desire to do the best possible within parameters. ( And no that's not limited to public procurement either ). I suspect it's a far older problem than me, perhaps I'm just expecting too much - products generally do their job well enough even if not as well as they could. I may be a little jaded by a long period of contracting too.

That's drifting a little off topic & is pretty subjective, although tangentially related to this problem. I can't quite work out from that pic in post 10 which part failed, is that part of the frame sheared off or was it a bolt that failed? finding a useful pic of the area on an unaffected unit is apparently beyond me atm.
 

superkev

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2015
Messages
2,682
Location
west yorkshire
Watersheds suggestion of moving some 331s to the east with 319s covering is most likely in my opinion. Adding in the extra 769s and retained 153s then I don't think the impact will be too bad.
I dont think any of the east sides 4 car 331s are affected (yet) for some reason.
Perhaps the east side routes being relatively straight are not as taxing on the yaw damper mounts.
K
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
1,988
Location
Dyfneint
I dont think any of the east sides 4 car 331s are affected (yet) for some reason.
Perhaps the east side routes being relatively straight are not as taxing on the yaw damper mounts.
K
Speculating, it could even be a maintenance issue causing over-stiff dampers & not necessarily a design problem ( although that wouldn't be promising for later in life when the frame has had more stress... ). Quite interested in this one.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
948
The procurement itself was the issue in the carriers case; the general specification and the intent was for ships convertible between what we have now & conventional catapult launch/arrested landing. The story I was passed was that the actual procurement wasn't worded sufficiently tightly & the supplier decided to work with the letter rather than basically ask if the procurer was sure this is what they wanted, so while the carriers are technically convertible it'd cost the same as building a new carrier. That lack of desire to deliver good value seems very common in recent years. I wasn't really referring to anything particularily to do with engineering itself ( although the horror stories I get from people in engineering right now would make me pretty nervous if I wasn't fairly sure production lines had always been that way... ).
One of the issues that affects military procurement revolves around the use of OF4-6 ranks (Lt Col - Brigadier in Army terms, Commander- Commodore in Navy terms) at Main Building and other procurement sites. These officers are only in post for 2-3 yrs and are looking for their 'OJAR (which is the Officers' annual appraisal) moment' to ensure promotion or continued employment as OF6 ranks are only guaranteed employment to the end of their current post, they have to compete for new ones or retire. This results in tinkering with specs during lengthy procurement projects and sub-optimal specs and outputs. Recent and not-so-recent military procurement history is littered with examples of this.
 

Nogoohwell

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2020
Messages
52
Location
London
Wonder if the length of the train has a bearing on stress between the bogies and frame? The longer the train the greater the area to absorb the forces as the stress passes through the train.

It would be really funny if CAF designed the yaw damper mounting based on the stresses on a 4 car unit and never checked with shorter formations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top