Grayrigg Pendolino

[Crossforth]

I understand this may be a sensative issue for some people, but can anyone tell me the location of the different carriages of 390033.

I know that 69133 and 69833 are at the Talent Academy in Crewe and I understand that two more cars are at Long Marston (I don't know which cars these are).

The reason I am asking is that a friend and I are currently writing a report into the crash for our fault finding course on the NR Apprentice scheme. Any help would be great

 

[jonesy3001]

This your best bet there is a segment on it further down the page and a link about the accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390

 

[sprinterguy]

As well as vehicles 69133 and 69833 in use as training vehicles at Crewe, MF 69633 and MS 69733 can be found at the fire training college at Moreton in Marsh. They are visible in this photo here:
http://pathetic.org.uk/secretive/m96/photos/pages/DSC99999_JPG.shtml

The two vehicles out of 390033 that are stored at Long Marston are 69433 and 69533, both first class vehicles.

I believe that the other three carriages have been scrapped.

 

[Jordeh]

As well as vehicles 69133 and 69833 in use as training vehicles at Crewe, MF 69633 and MS 69733 can be found at the fire training college at Moreton in Marsh. They are visible in this photo here:
http://pathetic.org.uk/secretive/m96/photos/pages/DSC99999_JPG.shtml

The two vehicles out of 390033 that are stored at Long Marston are 69433 and 69533, both first class vehicles.

I believe that the other three carriages have been scrapped.

Is there anything stopping them being used to extend some of the 9-car Pendolinos? Presumably this idea has been put forward before.

 

[Crossover]

Is there anything stopping them being used to extend some of the 9-car Pendolinos? Presumably this idea has been put forward before.

Probably the cost of proving them to be railworthy again...I believe this may be part of the reason the unit became an insurance write off

 

[Nym]

Proberbly due to the costs of inspecting the structure post accident being prohibitve, thanks to having to stip out the interior to do it...

 

[daikilo]

Probably the cost of proving them to be railworthy again...I believe this may be part of the reason the unit became an insurance write off

This would probably require first demonstrating what crash-loadings they actually sustained and, if these can be calculated and were above design loads, that they had not resulted in weakened structures. If an insurance company has declared a write-off, recover, remanufacture and rebuild is the only way forward.

 

[HSTEd]

But haven't accident damaged Mark 4s been returned to service before now?

Was it simply that the accident was more serious than in those cases or was it to do with it being possible to obtain new Cl390 stock whereas the Mark 4 production line is gone permanently?

 

[Nym]

Mk4s didn't get turned upside down and thrown down an embankment at 85mph...

 

[daikilo]

But haven't accident damaged Mark 4s been returned to service before now?

Was it simply that the accident was more serious than in those cases or was it to do with it being possible to obtain new Cl390 stock whereas the Mark 4 production line is gone permanently?

If you have a mathematical method to calculate the crash loadings on a mark 4 rake which hits a wall of unknown flexibility at say 100mph and shows that the last vehichles do not exceed their design loads, then you can inspect and possibly return to service. If not, you can't. Simple.

 

[43167]

Mk4s didn't get turned upside down and thrown down an embankment at 85mph...

Great Heck?

 

[ValleyLines142]

Great Heck?

No, the train involved in that was travelling at over 120mph.

It's the Grayrigg derailment! 390033 flew down an embankment at 96mph.

 

[Darandio]

No, the train involved in that was travelling at over 120mph.

It's the Grayrigg derailment! 390033 flew down an embankment at 96mph.

It might be worth you reading the previous posts again, this explains why Great Heck was mentioned.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Mk4s didn't get turned upside down and thrown down an embankment at 85mph...

Well, maybe not at 85mph, (I believe the 225 was alleged to be doing 88mph when it hit the 66) but lets have a look at some random images from around that time and place......

No, your right, I can't see any coaches that have rolled down an embankment there.

By contrast there are clearly many vehicles that overturned at Grayrigg. Just look at these random images showing the horror that met the rescuers....

So I can see why no 390 coaches were repaired and the Mk4s were, I mean, there is no comparison really.

 

[Nym]

OK, point taken...

Perhaps its something to do with Mk4s being easyer to reform?

 

[sprinterguy]

All of the mark 4s involved in Great Heck were written off and scrapped, as well as some of those involved in the Hatfield accident. Although those that were appeared to be in a much poorer structural condition than the carriages of 390033 at Grayrigg from a cursory glance. I mean, DVT 82221 that was involved in the Great Heck crash was entirely demolished, and the restaurant vehicle that went into the catenary mast at Hatfield (10327) was in no great shape either.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there anything stopping them being used to extend some of the 9-car Pendolinos? Presumably this idea has been put forward before.

As other posters have said, it was cheaper to withdraw the unit as an insurance write-off than to return certain vehicles out of the set to passenger service.

Plus, it's not as simple as just inserting any old vehicles into the Pendolinos to extend them. Of the two additional vehicles being inserted into the Pendolinos to make them into 11 carriage formations, one is a trailer standard and the other a motor standard. The motor standard will become the centre vehicle in the train and carries a third transformer and other electrical gubbins that the other motor vehicles do not have. Additionally, a Pendolino in 9 carriage formation has three trailer vehicles; one the additional ninth vehicle in the centre of the formation, and the other two the pantograph cars. The central trailer vehicle of 390033 (68833) was one of the carriages that didn't survive, and I suspect that the two pantograph cars, 69533 and 69833 which are still extant, would probably need some sort of system reboot or rewire (plus the transformers and pantograph removing) to make them compatible as basic trailers.

 

[dubscottie]

Some of the Heck Mk4's were repaired at Crewe.

The issue with the 390's is that they are made from extrusions which nobody has worked out how to repair sections of yet. (cant weld seams inside them, so the whole section has to be replaced).

With a Mk4 ist is easy enough to cut and weld in new steel but with extrusions a whole new panel (or plank as they are known) has to be made and somehow attached. there was talk of producing new planks to repair 390033 during the current build, however it was cheaper just to build a new unit.

 

[sprinterguy]

Some of the Heck Mk4's were repaired at Crewe.

Wait a minute, out of:

11224
11213
10322
12306
12525
12516
12412
12413
12206

Which were involved in the Great Heck accident, which ones are still extant?

Even allowing for the conversions from TSOs to FOs and other renumberings that occured during the Mallard refurbishment that has served to muddy the waters, I can't find mention of any of these carriages beyond the lists of vehicles withdrawn awaiting disposal.

 

[43167]

Glad I wasnt the only one thinking that. Think the TSOE & last TSO may have been repairable, but ended up been scrapped.

 

[BestWestern]

So, just to clarify then, none of the Heck MK4's were repaired, all were withdrawn and scrapped? What a waste of a train, such a tragedy in so many ways Are any still lingering or have they all been broken up? Highly speculative I know, but how much of the cost of all that carnage is likely to have been charged to the Land Rover driver's insurers?!

Am I right in recalling that it was the same 91 in both Heck and Hatfield?

 

[sprinterguy]

Am I right in recalling that it was the same 91 in both Heck and Hatfield?

Yep, 91023, since renumbered to 91132.

 

[Darandio]

Yes, originally 91023, after the refurbishment shortly after the Heck crash it was renumbered 91132 instead of 91123.

 

[BestWestern]

Yes, originally 91023, after the refurbishment shortly after the Heck crash it was renumbered 91132 instead of 91123.

To 'disguise' its unfortunate identity? I presume it was lucky enough to have been on the rear in both incidents?

So how was the loss of a whole rake of MK4's absorbed into operations, were there sufficient spares around to make up a replacement set?

 

[ainsworth74]

I presume it was lucky enough to have been on the rear in both incidents?

Actually it was on the front at Hatfield but managed to remain upright (along with two coaches behind it) after hitting the rail whilst the coaches behind these three all derailed. At Great Heck it was indeed on the rear.

 

[BestWestern]

Actually it was on the front at Hatfield but managed to remain upright (along with two coaches behind it) after hitting the rail whilst the coaches behind these three all derailed. At Great Heck it was indeed on the rear.

A very lucky escape

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That's because the rail shattered underneath the train isn't it? So the first part got across the defective rail as it disintegrated from the forces of the train?



( Incidentally I have heard a few people refer to 91 132 as 91 666. )

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That's because the rail shattered underneath the train isn't it? So the first part got across the defective rail as it disintegrated from the forces of the train?

I believe so. Running contact fatigue on the rail (or something like that).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Rolling contact, not running?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Rolling contact, not running?

Yes that's it. I knew it began with an R! Couldn't remember the rest though.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

All those different theories about what exactly causes it... I wonder if anyone has examined whether the use of LWRT is a factor - think of the flexing the rails will get as the train moves round the hundreds of curves between the steel mill and the worksite? Then think of what happens if you flex a small piece of metal backwards and forwards in your hands...