Both were in service yesterday on LIV-BPN services.331022 and 331031, which had both been out of service since the yaw damper problem was first reported, are both back in service this morning. Is the temporary fix starting to be applied?
You were quick. The emails only just been received lolYes there is a temporary fix being applied with the previously mentioned 331s been the first to get the modification
I'm SPT I've got time on my handsYou were quick. The emails only just been received lol
Hoping to get them all done in the next few days.Is the temporary fix starting to be applied?
That's encouraging, and much quicker than I expectedHoping to get them all done in the next few days.
Yes that is the modification being applied, hopefully they will all be back in service by the weekend.Is the fix in the picture from post #233 above the one being applied. If so looks quite substantial and permanent.
Thanks
K
Liverpool to Manchester Airport express service to resume on Monday. That resumption was delayed from the May timetable change so seems as if Northern are now on top of this issue.
No, every hour throughout the day. They took the place of the TPE Liverpool - Scarborough services when they were diverted to run via Chat Moss.Aren't those only in the peaks anyway even non COVID?
Aren't those only in the peaks anyway even non COVID?
That looks like it will spread the load over a wider area to prevent future damage to the T slots, but it’s not clear to me if it will also be a satisfactory repair to any T slots that are already damaged/broken?Yes that is the modification being applied, hopefully they will all be back in service by the weekend.
Majority of Barrow/Windermere to Manchester via Preston have been 195’s anyway. There has been one daily diagram of a 156 from what I’ve seen whilst working. The rest have been 195’s.What are the chances of these being back on Barrow services on Monday, I'm travelling between Barrow and Preston and could do with the superior wifi before I get in a Pendo to Euston !
I believe it's just a temporary fix to get all the sets back into use while a proper repair is worked out - the trial unit definitely still had a visible crack when I saw it last. Mind you, I've been off a couple of weeks, and given how quickly things are changing they could well have a permanent fix nowThat looks like it will spread the load over a wider area to prevent future damage to the T slots, but it’s not clear to me if it will also be a satisfactory repair to any T slots that are already damaged/broken?
If it spreads the load widely enough, then maybe it doesn't matter that part of the T-slot is damaged.That looks like it will spread the load over a wider area to prevent future damage to the T slots, but it’s not clear to me if it will also be a satisfactory repair to any T slots that are already damaged/broken?
Surely they will have or had fixed it to some degree either way having seen pics of 195021 a few weeks ago (on this thread I think) a permanent solution is on the drawing boards be interesting to see if ride quality improves a little bitIf it spreads the load widely enough, then maybe it doesn't matter that part of the T-slot is damaged.
Possibly, but doesn’t seem the best quality engineering to hide something that’s damaged. Be interesting to see if it really is a “temporary” repair as well…If it spreads the load widely enough, then maybe it doesn't matter that part of the T-slot is damaged.
As it's only bolted on, it could be removed periodically for inspection. If the structural analysis suggests it will last indefinitely, and the inspections show no deterioration, then there's no real reason to touch the aluminium.Possibly, but doesn’t seem the best quality engineering to hide something that’s damaged. Be interesting to see if it really is a “temporary” repair as well…
I don’t think any of the dampers at the cab ends have as much issue with stress as the engine weight is towards the rear of the carriage which is where most cracks had been found. I’m not sure if I am completely correct here but I believe they didn’t give very much specification requirements to caf at first hence these issues the coupler issue was noticed I believe after testing on the Furness line going around the extremely tight curve at CarnforthWe were out on Saturday 5/6/21 and seen a 195/0 (024?) with the modification. But what we did notice was that the mod. had only been applied to the gangway end brackets and not to the cab end brackets. This got us thinking on a three or four car set have the mods. been done to all of the brackets on the intermediate coaches.
This also lead us to thinking could? this also be related to the first set of problems with these units, the intermediate couplings. The last part is only a guess but normally one fault can lead onto another one.
It matters.If it spreads the load widely enough, then maybe it doesn't matter that part of the T-slot is damaged.
Do you know for certain that it matters or is this your opinion? Apologies if I've missed it, but I've not seen any official information that the solution is temporary.It matters.
This is only a temporary solution anyway, as eventually it will cause the same damage to the T-slots - it'll just take longer as there are more attachment points. Unlike steel, aluminium does not have an endurance threshold and will suffer fatigue at any loading.
I know - my job and background is as a metallurgist, albeit not in the rail industry.Do you know for certain that it matters or is this your opinion? Apologies if I've missed it, but I've not seen any official information that the solution is temporary.
1 word - CAF.I (and a lot of colleagues and other technical railway observers) can't believe that it was ever accepted into production, let alone service - this issue was clearly inevitable.