AWC Derailment (03/11): speculation regarding alternative provision, unit reconfigurations, etc

[43096]

Here’s a more up to date photo this year, it’s now even in Avanti livery!

390033

Avanti Training School Crewe 6th July 2024

www.flickr.com

It still doesn’t make it suitable for a return.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Maybe enough in both of 390033 and 390117 to make a serviceable car?

From the photos of 117 there's no obvious indication of any major structural damage. - the fibreglass nose section has been ripped off, but the main structural bulkhead behind it looks OK so far as can be seen in the photos.

And (to repeat again) 390 033 was written off because nobody was prepared to guarantee that the bodyshells weren't weakened. That concern will still apply.

 

[357]

Maybe enough in both of 390033 and 390117 to make a serviceable car?

Doubtful the situation with 117 is that bad to be honest.

And there are remaining issues with 033 that will need to be overcome.

I honestly think there will be a few short forms for some months and then 117 will be back in use

 

[DaveyJones]

From the photos of 117 there's no obvious indication of any major structural damage. - the fibreglass nose section has been ripped off, but the main structural bulkhead behind it looks OK so far as can be seen in the photos.

And (to repeat again) 390 033 was written off because nobody was prepared to guarantee that the bodyshells weren't weakened. That concern will still apply.

It wouldn't surprise me if it's a month or so - I wouldn't be surprised to see 117 back in traffic before Christmas (25)

 

[35B]

Maybe enough in both of 390033 and 390117 to make a serviceable car?

From the photos of 117 there's no obvious indication of any major structural damage. - the fibreglass nose section has been ripped off, but the main structural bulkhead behind it looks OK so far as can be seen in the photos.

And (to repeat again) 390 033 was written off because nobody was prepared to guarantee that the bodyshells weren't weakened. That concern will still apply.

And, as has also been pointed out upthread, the maintenance regime for the Pendolinos is based on keeping all vehicles in the set on a common repair cycle. That's why the extension of the sets to 11 cars was so tricky, and the numbering seems so random.

 

[800001]

BBC Look North reporter just quoted a network rail spokesperson, who say they will be attempting to move the derailed train tonight.

 

[Efini92]

Have you been inside it? What have they done on the inside where they plated over the two doors in the buffet coach? Always wondered that (only seen it from outside)?

I remember it smelling very damp.

 

[Bevan Price]

Were both driving cars from 390033 scrapped, or do any parts still exist that could be used to repair this derailed Pendo?

 

[Nym]

I remember it smelling very damp.

So not keeping the heaters running then. Decorative scrap would be the likely thing they are currently.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Were both driving cars from 390033 scrapped, or do any parts still exist that could be used to repair this derailed Pendo?

I think you need to read the multiple earlier posts...

But to summarise yet again, the whole unit was written off because nobody was prepared to guarantee that the bodyshells weren't weakened due to the forces they had been subjected to. The first-class driving car is at the Avanti training centre at Crewe (probably minus traction motors, control electronics, etc), but the issue with potential weakening of the bodyshell will still apply. The standard-class driving car, which was leading when the unit derailed and was much more badly damaged, was scrapped soon after the completion of the accident investigation.

The photos of 117 show no evidence of structural damage - only to the cosmetic / aerodynamic bits which are designed to be easily replaced (and Alstom will probably have them in stock as damage is not that uncommon).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2025 ==

So not keeping the heaters running then. Decorative scrap would be the likely thing they are currently.

Believe it or not, those two vehicles are listed for preservation! I can certainly see that it's worth preserving selected Pendolino vehicles, but those wouldn't be the obvious choice - especially the buffet given the patching-up it's had.

Incidentally, have they reconfigured the buffet area on it to match the refurbished Pendolinos? Anyone know? If not then it's probably of limited use for training now.

 

[390136]

There's a hot spare at Wembley, which will be used once AWC return to full service in the coming days. Or, some careful manipulation of maintenance diagrams will cover it (there's one at Polmadie)

There's usually a spare 807 knocking about at Oxley also.

Also 390033 is out of the question, it's currently dead but also a ton of parts have been used for in service trains.

 

[Sorcerer]

In short, 390 033 has been written off for almost 18 years, so trying to source anything from that unit is practically a lost cause. Additionally there is no reason to believe 390 117 is sufficiently damaged enough that it can't be fixed in due course. The driving coach sustained relatively minor damage at the front and has otherwise performed exactly as it should've done in such an incident. I think for now Avanti will probably need to source a spare set, though I don't expect this to be an 807 unless it replaces a 390 on the second Liverpool service or the Birmingham semi-fast where it isn't used already so that the freed up unit can fill in for the Scotland route.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Just one point regarding the comments that "there doesn't appear to be any structural damage": the thing with a lot of structural damage is that it isn't necessary visible to the naked eye. More modern vehicles are designed to absorb impacts rather than transferring those forces to neighbouring vehicles. Some of those forces are absorbed by components designed to be sacrificial such as the front fairings (if that's the right term) but depending on the forces involved some may be absorbed by crumple zones.
Once a crumple zone is compromised, any repair needs to be able to withstand and absorb the same forces that it did originally. This was one of the reasons every vehicle in the Grayrigg unit was written off- even though the vehicles at the rear of the formation didn't appear to be as badly damaged as those at the front, there were still concerns that if they were returned to service and involved in another incident, would they withstand the impacts as well as vehicles which hadn't been compromised?

Whilst it doesn't appear that the forces involved in this morning's derailment would be great enough to write any vehicles off, I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility until inspections and assessments are made. Crash safety isn't just about the strength or rigidity of the vehicle, it's about absorbing the forces whilst protecting the survival space.
To steal a meme from the "Well There's Your Problem" podcast, it's no good just making the train more rigid, if the forces of the impact turn the occupants into chunky marinara.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Just one point regarding the comments that "there doesn't appear to be any structural damage": the thing with a lot of structural damage is that it isn't necessary visible to the naked eye. More modern vehicles are designed to absorb impacts rather than transferring those forces to neighbouring vehicles. Some of those forces are absorbed by components designed to be sacrificial such as the front fairings (if that's the right term) but depending on the forces involved some may be absorbed by crumple zones.
Once a crumple zone is compromised, any repair needs to be able to withstand and absorb the same forces that it did originally. This was one of the reasons every vehicle in the Grayrigg unit was written off- even though the vehicles at the rear of the formation didn't appear to be as badly damaged as those at the front, there were still concerns that if they were returned to service and involved in another incident, would they withstand the impacts as well as vehicles which hadn't been compromised?

True - time will tell!

A complication if there is any damage (and the same would apply applies to 80x units too) is that the bodyshell is extruded aluminium, which is significantly more difficult to repair than the main alternative construction method of steel skin over steel framework.

 

[Tony2]

From the photos of 117 there's no obvious indication of any major structural damage. - the fibreglass nose section has been ripped off, but the main structural bulkhead behind it looks OK so far as can be seen in the photos.

And (to repeat again) 390 033 was written off because nobody was prepared to guarantee that the bodyshells weren't weakened. That concern will still apply.

Same happened with 43030 at Carmont, despite looking unscathed it never worked for ScotRail again.

Doesn’t mean the contemporary insurers are correct though.

In contrast Southall crash 43163 in 1997 was utilised afterwards. That would have experienced a far greater force on impact.

70012 was also dented far worse with a broken back, General Electric straightened the frames and it has run again.

British Rail used to have a make 1 good out of 2 policy, nowadays the insurers call the shots over the experts.

My own experience with insurers leaves me less than impressed! I witnessed my neighbour’s bins demolish my wall in 101mph winds a decade ago. Wind then picked up one of the bins and it flew over into my garden! The lazy insurer didn’t believe me and cited wear and tear with neglected pointing being, in his opinion, the cause. So I did my own structural report, photographing bricks split clean in half which was clear evidence of impact damage. My complaint got found in my favour and I got the wall rebuilt. Then they doubled my premiums as I was too much of a nuisance, so I went elsewhere! Tail wagging the dog symptoms of a broken country. Just my opinion though.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Same happened with 43030 at Carmont, despite looking unscathed it never worked for ScotRail again.

Doesn’t mean the contemporary insurers are correct though.

They'll have looked at the cost of getting that repaired and re-certified, and compared it with the age of the vehicle (quite old), future life expectancy, and whether there were others available immediately if required (there were - lots still at Ely).

In contrast, 390 033 was only a few years old (about 4 years - not sure exactly when that particular one entered use). The engineers who advised them clearly weren't prepared to guarantee that the aluminium bodyshells hadn't been weakened. The case must have been convincing as no insurer is going to completely write off what was (in train terms) a nearly-new, multi-million pound asset unless they have to. The chances that an engineer now would be prepared to give an assurance that the remaining driving car still retains full strength is close to nil.

 

[Tony2]

Then we have truly lost essential abilities in this country, when compared to these two being brought back to life after the state they were left in during 1970 as shown in this Rail Express report:

The bizarre – and genuine – sight of No. 368 damaged in a light engine collision with classmate No. 363 on the Granton branch, Edinburgh, on August 27, 1970.

Class 40 mystery... solved! | Rail Express

The bizarre – and genuine – sight of No. 368 damaged in a light engine collision with classmate No. 363 on the Granton branch, Edinburgh, on August 27, 1970 ...

www.railexpress.co.uk

15 years later I’d still see both locos happily pottering around the country, despite engines shifting on mountings, bent body frames and even bent bogie frames.

 

[35B]

Then we have truly lost essential abilities in this country, when compared to these two being brought back to life after the state they were left in during 1970 as shown in this Rail Express report:

The bizarre – and genuine – sight of No. 368 damaged in a light engine collision with classmate No. 363 on the Granton branch, Edinburgh, on August 27, 1970.

Class 40 mystery... solved! | Rail Express

The bizarre – and genuine – sight of No. 368 damaged in a light engine collision with classmate No. 363 on the Granton branch, Edinburgh, on August 27, 1970 ...

www.railexpress.co.uk

15 years later I’d still see both locos happily pottering around the country, despite engines shifting on mountings, bent body frames and even bent bogie frames.

There are some slight differences between a steel locomotive being able to haul loads, and an aluminium frame with longitudinal welds that may open up like that 40 in an incident. The energy involved operating at high speed is also very much more.

That’s about the fundamental constraints of the chosen technology, not whether the skills remain.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Then we have truly lost essential abilities in this country, when compared to these two being brought back to life after the state they were left in during 1970 as shown in this Rail Express report:

The bizarre – and genuine – sight of No. 368 damaged in a light engine collision with classmate No. 363 on the Granton branch, Edinburgh, on August 27, 1970.

Class 40 mystery... solved! | Rail Express

The bizarre – and genuine – sight of No. 368 damaged in a light engine collision with classmate No. 363 on the Granton branch, Edinburgh, on August 27, 1970 ...

www.railexpress.co.uk

15 years later I’d still see both locos happily pottering around the country, despite engines shifting on mountings, bent body frames and even bent bogie frames.

A steel-bodied loco is in no way comparable to an aluminium, monocoque high-speed EMU - the two materials have very different properties. A steel skin over a steel framework is also very different to aluminium extrusions.

It's worth noting that with steel vehicles, major repairs do still sometimes take place - e.g. there was that 455 which had a cement mixer fall on it from a bridge, and it was repaired using a long-stored Mk3-based driving car from an experimental EMU, chopping off the cab and splicing on the undamaged end from the broken vehicle, to create a replacement intermediate vehicle. There is no way this sort of thing would be attempted with aluminium-bodied vehicles.

 

[Falcon1200]

Then we have truly lost essential abilities in this country, when compared to these two being brought back to life after the state they were left in during 1970 as shown in this Rail Express report:

There are many examples of BR locos which were scrapped rather than repaired; For example, while 512 Class 47/48 were built, there were never 512 in service at the same time, as 4 were withdrawn early on; Including D1734 in 1965 and D1671 in 1966, locos just a few years old.

 

[43096]

Then we have truly lost essential abilities in this country, when compared to these two being brought back to life after the state they were left in during 1970 as shown in this Rail Express report:

The bizarre – and genuine – sight of No. 368 damaged in a light engine collision with classmate No. 363 on the Granton branch, Edinburgh, on August 27, 1970.

Class 40 mystery... solved! | Rail Express

The bizarre – and genuine – sight of No. 368 damaged in a light engine collision with classmate No. 363 on the Granton branch, Edinburgh, on August 27, 1970 ...

www.railexpress.co.uk

15 years later I’d still see both locos happily pottering around the country, despite engines shifting on mountings, bent body frames and even bent bogie frames.

We also know that BR did not always repair locos to "as new" condition. For example, 47849 was rejected from the Class 57 programme because it had a twisted frame sustained in the Eltham Well Hall derailment in 1972 - so that repair was obviously not correcting all the damage. Given the change from BR being self-insured to post-privatisation insurance cover being required, insurers are not going to let anything like that through - it is their liability after all.

 

[43096]

They'll have looked at the cost of getting that repaired and re-certified, and compared it with the age of the vehicle (quite old), future life expectancy, and whether there were others available immediately if required (there were - lots still at Ely).

I am not convinced the 43030 was that badly damaged, and was eminently repairable. I suspect - given the histrionics from ASLEF after Carmont - that they considered it better not to return it to service and thought it better to write the entire set off.

 

[Callum450]

Believe it or not, those two vehicles are listed for preservation! I can certainly see that it's worth preserving selected Pendolino vehicles, but those wouldn't be the obvious choice - especially the buffet given the patching-up it's had.

I wonder where those two coaches of 390033 at the Avanti Training Academy will end up when the time comes? I would like to see it at the Crewe Heritage Centre alongside the APT or the Virgin liveried Class 87 they have. (87035)

Incidentally, have they reconfigured the buffet area on it to match the refurbished Pendolinos? Anyone know? If not then it's probably of limited use for training now.

As far as I'm aware the interior hasn't been refurbished. I can't really see much reason why it would need to be as the interior of 390033 is only seen by AWC staff and the occasional enthusiast.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

I can't really see much reason why it would need to be as the interior of 390033 is only seen by AWC staff and the occasional enthusiast.

It's used for training catering staff. If the layout of the buffet area is completely different to the sets in service then it will be of limited use for training.