What should GWR do about severe conditions on Dawlish?

[najaB]

If this really is going to be a common event I have to question the wisdom of spending so much money clinging to such an exposed alignment.

"So much money" for the things suggested so far is a tiny amount as compared to a diversionary route.

 

[HSTEd]

"So much money" for the things suggested so far is a tiny amount as compared to a diversionary route.

I'm referring to the sums spent already shoring up the line to avoid it being washed away and wish will continuing to be expended maintaining it in perpetuity against rising sea levels and the like.

And now, even despite this expenditure, we apparently still can't maintain a reliable railway over the alignment.

 

[najaB]

I'm referring to the sums spent already shoring up the line to avoid it being washed away and wish will continuing to be expended maintaining it in perpetuity against rising sea levels and the like.

Oh, that's a piffling sum compared to a new route. It's been reported to be around £80M. Which will get you a little less than 1km something like 2 to 3km of new line.

 

[AM9]

The Ardrossan line does not run with 25kV live whilst being lashed with seawater ! When strong winds are forecast and coincide with high tide the service through, not Saltburn but Saltcoats (and Craigendoran too) is withdrawn in advance. And if the OLE trips out 3 times it will not be re-energised until inspected. Apart from the risk of waves damaging and possibly stranding trains in a dangerous situation, sea-borne debris can be washed up and strike trains. Running trains in such conditions is neither sensible or safe.

Apart from the videos online showing the trains passing through wave breaks and spray at Saltcoats, - easily as violent as the videos of 800s dying at Dawlish.

 

[Bald Rick]

If this really is going to be a common event I have to question the wisdom of spending so much money clinging to such an exposed alignment.

As has been done to death elsewhere, the sea defences protect the town as well as the railway. And without them, there would be no line to Torbay.

Besides, as this has made abundantly clear, it’s not the infrastructure that’s the problem...

 

[Falcon1200]

Apart from the videos online showing the trains passing through wave breaks and spray at Saltcoats, - easily as violent as the videos of 800s dying at Dawlish.

Those videos, unless they are historic, do not show the most severe conditions experienced at Saltcoats, by any means !

 

[AM9]

Those videos, unless they are historic, do not show the most severe conditions experienced at Saltcoats, by any means !

That's irrelevant. The sea at Saltcoats is giving those trains more of a soaking than the recent videos of 802s at Dawlish where one of them actually fails whilst on camera. It's not the line that needs fixing (unless it subsides), its the 802s that need to be fit for purpose. After all, the 380s are just ordinary 25Kv EMUs.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh, that's a piffling sum compared to a new route. It's been reported to be around £80M. Which will get you a little less than 1km something like 2 to 3km of new line.

Well I believe the shortest of the proposed GWR DALs was only 13km! But I concede the point.

As has been done to death elsewhere, the sea defences protect the town as well as the railway. And without them, there would be no line to Torbay.

Well, if we built one of shorter DAL-type proposals I'm pretty sure it would still have a line to Torbay! (You didn't think I would mention Okehampton did you?! )
But I agree it has been done to death.

Besides, as this has made abundantly clear, it’s not the infrastructure that’s the problem...

Whilst it is notionally the train that is at fault, this is only a problem because the interaction of the infrastructure and the rolling stock.

Removing either solves this problem.

 

[Falcon1200]

its the 802s that need to be fit for purpose. After all, the 380s are just ordinary 25Kv EMUs.

I do actually agree, but the point I was making in responding to your earlier post was that trains do not run through Saltcoats under live OLE in severe weather conditions, for more than one reason.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst it is notionally the train that is at fault, this is only a problem because the interaction of the infrastructure and the rolling stock.

It’s the interaction between Mother Nature and the rolling stock!

 

[43096]

It’s the interaction between Mother Nature and the rolling stock!

It’s also reasonably foreseeable conditions that the trains will have to operate under. Or put simply, the trains aren’t fit for purpose.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Whilst it is notionally the train that is at fault, this is only a problem because the interaction of the infrastructure and the rolling stock.

It is only a problem because the manufacturer of the rolling stock hasn't delivered according to the contract surely?
All of this talk about GWR needing to do something or there needing to be significant infrastructure work (or even a new line) seems to be ignoring this fact.
I know I mentioned it early on in thread so I don't want to bang on about it too much - but other trains can deal with the conditions just fine. So why aren't we pressuring Hitachi to actually deliver on the contract they agreed to? It seems mad to me!

 

[najaB]

It is only a problem because the manufacturer of the rolling stock hasn't delivered according to the contract surely?
All of this talk about GWR needing to do something or there needing to be significant infrastructure work (or even a new line) seems to be ignoring this fact.
I know I mentioned it early on in thread so I don't want to bang on about it too much - but other trains can deal with the conditions just fine. So why aren't we pressuring Hitachi to actually deliver on the contract they agreed to? It seems mad to me!

It wouldn't surprise me if what went into the press-releases doesn't exactly match what went into the contract.

 

[irish_rail]

RealTime Trains lists all the failed trains as 802 types:

1A77 0835 Plymouth to London Paddington. Set 802109 (9 car). Became 5Z74 1445 Exeter St Davids to Stoke Gifford (ECS).

1C70 0704 London Paddington to Paignton. Set 802104 (9 car).

1C72 0804 London Paddington to Penzance. Set 802101 (9 car). Became 1Z99, the rescue train.

But I don’t know how accurate this information is.

Thats interesting, as from memory, both 109 and 104 had 2 engines out last time I drove them (pretty recently too), and 101 has always been a black sheep.
Makes you wonder if all engines had been operative would this complete failure have occurred?

 

[stuu]

It is only a problem because the manufacturer of the rolling stock hasn't delivered according to the contract surely?
All of this talk about GWR needing to do something or there needing to be significant infrastructure work (or even a new line) seems to be ignoring this fact.
I know I mentioned it early on in thread so I don't want to bang on about it too much - but other trains can deal with the conditions just fine. So why aren't we pressuring Hitachi to actually deliver on the contract they agreed to? It seems mad to me!

The contract says "Full Functionality of the IEP Trains must be maintained during and after exposure to salt water spray and such exposure must not cause excessive cosmetic degradation of exposed surfaces, components and equipment"

It doesn't give a definition of spray, surprisingly, as there would seem to be a lot of wiggle room around whether or not what happens at Dawlish is spray or something else

 

[AM9]

The contract says "Full Functionality of the IEP Trains must be maintained during and after exposure to salt water spray and such exposure must not cause excessive cosmetic degradation of exposed surfaces, components and equipment"

It doesn't give a definition of spray, surprisingly, as there would seem to be a lot of wiggle room around whether or not what happens at Dawlish is spray or something else

Then that is a serious failure of whoever raised the requirement specification. If it turns out that Hitachi hide behing a poor spec. that also refelects badly on them, but the onus is on the purchaser (DfT) to specify if the failures currently being encountered represent a supplier contract non-compliance or a failure of the purchaser to adequately define the requirement including all likely environments that the equipment is required to operate in.

 

[najaB]

If it turns out that Hitachi hide behing a poor spec. that also refelects badly on them...

If I deliver what was ordered, how does that reflect badly on me?

 

[AM9]

If I deliver what was ordered, how does that reflect badly on me?

Because a responsible supplier will identify a shortfall in a requirement specification and inform the customer.Where we are now, there is much criticism about Hitachi's failure or maybe inability to provide a weatherproof train. Given that Japan is not a desert land, they clearly know what rain is so that reflects badly on their capabilities. Have you never seen how a company that says "well that's what you asked for" loses credibility with their prospective customers?

 

[Meerkat]

Because a responsible supplier will identify a shortfall in a requirement specification and inform the customer.Where we are now, there is much criticism about Hitachi's failure or maybe inability to provide a weatherproof train. Given that Japan is not a desert land, they clearly know what rain is so that reflects badly on their capabilities. Have you never seen how a company that says "well that's what you asked for" loses credibility with their prospective customers?

How would they know its a shortfall? The customer might well mean that they want the train to be spray proof but they arent paying for it to be wave proof.
Do we know that Hitachi didn't ask for clarification and were told "spray not wave"?

 

[AngusH]

I can't help wondering if the contract should have been written in the form

"The train must be capable of operating along the Dawlish coast route in all sea states up to sea state 9"

(or 4 or 12 or whatever seems to fit)

The general form sounds good, but seems difficult to pin down.

 

[Meerkat]

I can't help wondering if the contract should have been written in the form

"The train must be capable of operating along the Dawlish coast route in all sea states up to sea state 9"

(or 4 or 12 or whatever seems to fit)

The general form sounds good, but seems difficult to pin down.

The only way to really define it would be an artificial test (X amount of water per square metre, of Y salt content, hitting at speed Z from angle W etc etc)
Not only would the engineers know exactly what they are facing they could probably mock up an artificial version (if they dont already have one the film industry could do it pretty easily)

 

[AM9]

The only way to really define it would be an artificial test (X amount of water per square metre, of Y salt content, hitting at speed Z from angle W etc etc)
Not only would the engineers know exactly what they are facing they could probably mock up an artificial version (if they dont already have one the film industry could do it pretty easily)

And did they? There are plenty of internationally agreed ways to specify salt water spray resistance, from a mist up to a deluge. * 'Wave' is an exaggeration because it implies total immersion. Waves at Dawlish hit the wall and send a splash up towards the tracks. It's surprising if the specifiers didn't consult the experts on that, there are plenty around in both ship and aircraft industries. Are some posters here trying to defend those responsible for procuring these trains that are tailor-made for services from London to Penzance?

 

[stuu]

The only way to really define it would be an artificial test (X amount of water per square metre, of Y salt content, hitting at speed Z from angle W etc etc)
Not only would the engineers know exactly what they are facing they could probably mock up an artificial version (if they dont already have one the film industry could do it pretty easily)

Yes it wouldn't be very hard to measure the volume per square metre reaching the railway at different wave heights at Dawlish and then use that as the benchmark to test against

 

[AngusH]

The only way to really define it would be an artificial test (X amount of water per square metre, of Y salt content, hitting at speed Z from angle W etc etc)
Not only would the engineers know exactly what they are facing they could probably mock up an artificial version (if they dont already have one the film industry could do it pretty easily)

Yes, absolutely this is needed for the engineering staff.

But there also needs to be an overriding statement as to what the requirement actually is.

"Operate on Dawlish route in weather conditions up to a certain severity"

Or better,

"operate on Dawlish route in any conditions when the line is considered open to traffic"

If you don't put something in a contract explicitly you can't expect the other side to do it.
(Unless required by law obviously)

Possibly Hitachi would have come back and said "impossible" and something else could be worked out,
but at least it would be a clear requirement.

The original IEP spec is not in any way clear enough in my view on this issue.

 

[AM9]

Yes, absolutely this is needed for the engineering staff.

But there also needs to be an overriding statement as to what the requirement actually is.

"Operate on Dawlish route in weather conditions up to a certain severity"

Or better,

"operate on Dawlish route in any conditions when the line is considered open to traffic"

If you don't put something in a contract explicitly you can't expect the other side to do it.
(Unless required by law obviously)

Possibly Hitachi would have come back and said "impossible" and something else could be worked out,
but at least it would be a clear requirement.

The original IEP spec is not in any way clear enough in my view on this issue.

Given the problems that the 80xs are having elsewhere, it would seem that sea spray isn't the only specification disconnect

 

[Annetts key]

Given the problems that the 80xs are having elsewhere, it would seem that sea spray isn't the only specification disconnect

You may have to be more specific

 

[AM9]

You may have to be more specific

The bogie/anti yaw component mounting arrangements are either a design/manufacture failure or an inadequate specification on track quality. The same could be said for the CAF MUs.

 

[Irascible]

It’s also reasonably foreseeable conditions that the trains will have to operate under. Or put simply, the trains aren’t fit for purpose.

Quite. One might think this was some sort of novel, unexplored operating environment...

If there's stock which *can* operate in these reasonably infrequent blowups, then there's no point looking at expensive new lines. Who knows how long building one would take, anyway.

The bogie/anti yaw component mounting arrangements are either a design/manufacture failure or an inadequate specification on track quality. The same could be said for the CAF MUs.

Hitachi units have had more physical issues than the bolsters/damper brackets, as explored in other recent threads.

--

Nice clickbait/troll thread title btw, well done

 

[BayPaul]

Yes, absolutely this is needed for the engineering staff.

But there also needs to be an overriding statement as to what the requirement actually is.

"Operate on Dawlish route in weather conditions up to a certain severity"

Or better,

"operate on Dawlish route in any conditions when the line is considered open to traffic"

If you don't put something in a contract explicitly you can't expect the other side to do it.
(Unless required by law obviously)

Possibly Hitachi would have come back and said "impossible" and something else could be worked out,
but at least it would be a clear requirement.

The original IEP spec is not in any way clear enough in my view on this issue.

It really annoys me when lawyers take a simple requirement, and change the language to more legal speak, but lose the original meaning, which feels like is what has happened here. Everyone knows that this wording was intended to get the trains through Dawlish in poor conditions, so why not use the word Dawlish, and wording like you suggest, to avoid any possible ambiguity.

 

[AM9]

Quite. One might think this was some sort of novel, unexplored operating environment...

If there's stock which *can* operate in these reasonably infrequent blowups, then there's no point looking at expensive new lines. Who knows how long building one would take, anyway.


Hitachi units have had more physical issues than the bolsters/damper brackets, as explored in other recent threads.

--

Nice clickbait/troll thread title btw, well done

Then if the specifications were written correctly, the remedy to these 'physical problems' should be addressed by the appropriate party. If the DfT thinks that Hitachi has a case to answer, it would seem that the HS2 rolling stock bids might not have been given due diligenct which of course would include a detailed compliance analysis. I'm not defending Hitachi of the DfT here because as supplier ande purchaser they aredeemed to be technically competent in order to be party to the contract.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Dec 2021 ==

It really annoys me when lawyers take a simple requirement, and change the language to more legal speak, but lose the original meaning, which feels like is what has happened here. Everyone knows that this wording was intended to get the trains through Dawlish in poor conditions, so why not use the word Dawlish, and wording like you suggest, to avoid any possible ambiguity.

If Dawlish is a quantifiable level of stress conditions (i.e. with verifiable figures) suitable for definition in a legally enforcable contract then it should be. If it means somthing intangible to different parties then it is worthless.