LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

[swt_passenger]

I read somewhere it was the ECML under the control of York and Newcastle boxes.

So it may be the less, ie not as far as Berwick at all? Is it Morpeth next to the north?

 

[ainsworth74]

I read somewhere it was the ECML under the control of York and Newcastle boxes.

So it may be the less, ie not as far as Berwick at all? Is it Morpeth next to the north?

The issue lies in the area controlled by York IECC which is responsible for the ECML from just north of Joan Croft Junction (north of Doncaster) all the way through to just north of Northallerton. I've not heard of any issues with Tyneside IECC (controlling from where York IECC leaves off through to just south of Morpeth) but it could just be that York IECC has been drawing all the attention. The issues extending as far as Berwick is not something I've heard outside of this thread and I'm extremely doubtful that that is the case.

 

[corsaVXR]

Tony miles put a picture in Modern Railways of the banned "ladder" that the safety nannys have taken issue with. Excellent article in this months.
View attachment 54410
K

The 385s have this ladder to heaven also...

 

[ainsworth74]

Aha, I've just re-read the article published by Roger Ford in the October issue of Modern Railways (obviously the memory is starting to go!) and he has the following to say on the scale of the issue:

With legacy SSI in York IECC, Tyneside IECC and the Morpeth, Alnmouth, Tweedmouth and Edinburgh Signalling Centres there are likely to be multiple locations affected.

R. Ford, 'Informed Sources', in Modern Railways, (October 2018) p. 33.

So it could in theory be from Joan Croft all the way to Edinburgh that Isolating Surge Protection Units need fitting (hence the 200 tweeted earlier by Mr Ford)!

 

[swt_passenger]

Aha, I've just re-read the article published by Roger Ford in the October issue of Modern Railways (obviously the memory is starting to go!) and he has the following to say on the scale of the issue:


R. Ford, 'Informed Sources', in Modern Railways, (October 2018) p. 33.

So it could in theory be from Joan Croft all the way to Edinburgh that Isolating Surge Protection Units need fitting (hence the 200 tweeted earlier by Mr Ford)!

Thanks for chasing it all through!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 385s have this ladder to heaven also...

I thought 350s did but they don't, they have a run of parallel cables very neatly arranged below solebar level. I'm sure I have seen it on some other UK stock, though, and I've not seen a 385 in the metal so it wasn't one of those.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought 350s did but they don't, they have a run of parallel cables very neatly arranged below solebar level. I'm sure I have seen it on some other UK stock, though, and I've not seen a 385 in the metal so it wasn't one of those.

390 & 395 perhaps?

 

[Bletchleyite]

390 & 395 perhaps?

Could well be, I can't find a decent photo of the inter-coach bit of either. The 800s do have a very wide gangway unlike the 390s, though, if the 390 does have cables like those it'd be impossible to climb into the gap anyway as it's too narrow - the coach ends aren't tapered and the gangway itself is quite short.

 

[w1bbl3]

I wonder if the NR electro-magnetic compatibility(EMC) specification limits have changed to make their own signalling non-compliant (or it could be an aging effect)?

I'd expect it to be more case of the NR limits not being based on the kit in use or more to the point the actual EMC limitations of the kit in use. This maybe erroneous vendor specifications or records not having been taken when the kit was installed, quite possibly a legacy BR issue. Surely this one of things to be expected when interfacing a "new" train design with legacy equipment unless of course the specification is written to match emissions of a previously in use type on the route... oh wait DfT didn't do that.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could well be, I can't find a decent photo of the inter-coach bit of either. The 800s do have a very wide gangway unlike the 390s, though, if the 390 does have cables like those it'd be impossible to climb into the gap anyway as it's too narrow - the coach ends aren't tapered and the gangway itself is quite short.

I posted a pic of a 390 earlier in this thread. I thought the 395 appears somewhere in the main 800 thread but could be thinking of somewhere else...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I posted a pic of a 390 earlier in this thread. I thought the 395 appears somewhere in the main 800 thread but could be thinking of somewhere else...

Ta. As a climber (though one who isn't that stupid) the 800 one looks much easier to get up - a much wider space with big flat blocks to put your feet on rather than just the cables. In both cases the top "handhold" might be a little, shall we say, sizzling, though.

 

[samuelmorris]

Sorry if it was posted before and I missed it, but is there a link to what modifications GWR made that were satisfactory in that regard that the LNER units have not yet had? I haven't been able to work out what the difference is between the two yet.

 

[deltic08]

So it may be the less, ie not as far as Berwick at all? Is it Morpeth next to the north?

How do you work that out when I already posted it was Berwick from what I read somewhere?

 

[swt_passenger]

How do you work that out when I already posted it was Berwick from what I read somewhere?

I was probably sidetracked when you wrote “under the control of York and Newcastle boxes”. So I took that as being no further...

 

[92002]

The 385s have this ladder to heaven also...

There is quite a simple and easy fix to the problem.

Insert a 2m high piece of rubber sheeting between the coaches. The rubber will bend with the coaches.

 

[deltic08]

I was probably sidetracked when you wrote “under the control of York and Newcastle boxes”. So I took that as being no further...

Well to be honest I had forgotten the smaller boxes north of Newcastle and assumed it extended to Marshall Meadows.

 

[gsnedders]

I'd expect it to be more case of the NR limits not being based on the kit in use or more to the point the actual EMC limitations of the kit in use. This maybe erroneous vendor specifications or records not having been taken when the kit was installed, quite possibly a legacy BR issue. Surely this one of things to be expected when interfacing a "new" train design with legacy equipment unless of course the specification is written to match emissions of a previously in use type on the route... oh wait DfT didn't do that.

The DfT didn't specify this; the DfT merely specified that it had to comply with relevant standards, which is what is always done. If NR's equipment doesn't conform to their own standards, that's NR's problem, given NR could potentially change the maximum EMC emissions as far as I'm aware. Neither the DfT nor any other rolling stock customer should have to figure out what's acceptable on every mile of track.

 

[Roger100]

EMC is a complex animal. Different trains will have different patterns of emissions within the specified standards. And while line side equipment may comply fully with these standards, local wiring between such equipment can vary and upset the whole system. This is one reason why testing periods for new trains can be very long - an imperfect installation may be OK for Class 91 vehicles but can be an unknown quantity for new train never before run on the line. Emissions aren't a simple concept like weight or width or height.

But it will be sorted. NR have fixed the issue on the Paddington to Didcot section, and test trains have been running in electric mode all the way to Bristol. This is even more of a challenge as the lines were previously diesel-only and the OHLE installation needs to be tested as well. The ECML problem may not hold up LNER's 800s - HSTs are now the exception on the GWML and GWR are running bi-modes all the way to Penzance despite the electrification delays.

 

[JaJaWa]

Can't see there being much change. They're hardly likely to rip out the seats and replace them with better ones. It'll be a splash of colour here and there and perhaps some bistro style seating in the buffet car.

They are. Virgin had already contracted for the seat moquettes etc. to be ripped off and replaced with red ones, which is why LNER had to go with a red livery.

 

[trebor79]

Be the same rubbish seats though won't they. Like I said, a splash of colour here and there.

 

[gallafent]

There is quite a simple and easy fix to the problem.

Insert a 2m high piece of rubber sheeting between the coaches. The rubber will bend with the coaches.

Sounds like a plan. The aerodynamics would surely be improved by that too. Then again, the large number of boxes all over the rooves are probably a bigger concern from that perspective. Fairly baffling to me that both aren't faired in (likewise the actual size of the gaps between carriages compared with e.g. TGV or talgo 250 is remarkable, … though I can understand that more easily due to requirements for use on branch lines with tight curves combined with very long carriages, lack of articulation, etc. … but even so the gap, and the lack of a cover for it, even a sliding or flexible one, does seem odd).

 

[greyman42]

Be the same rubbish seats though won't they. Like I said, a splash of colour here and there.

Yes, the longer that they are delayed the better for the passenger.

 

[59CosG95]

Can report that 800107 is now also in the new Azuma livery (albeit only half done at this point in time).

 

[yorksrob]

Saw my first one in Leeds station today. Looked quite sleek, but will be a lot better in "Brown Derby" livery (as I like to call it).

 

[uxm]

Any information on the seats? Will they be similar to the GWR variant or a lot more comfortable?

 

[Jonny]

The 385s have this ladder to heaven also...

Any other AT200 or AT300 unit classes similarly affected?

 

[ainsworth74]

Any information on the seats? Will they be similar to the GWR variant or a lot more comfortable?

I was chatting with someone who has been on an LNER IET and they've confirmed that they're, as has been widely expected, identical to those fitted to the GWR IETs.

 

[uxm]

I was chatting with someone who has been on an LNER IET and they've confirmed that they're, as has been widely expected, identical to those fitted to the GWR IETs.

I think this is it.

 

[hexagon789]

I think this is it.

They look a bit better than the GWR one's.

 

[DanNCL]

I think this is it.

They're not what's been fitted in the end - LNER have got the same seats as GWR on their 800s instead...