Northern Class 195: Construction/Introduction Updates

[Chris217]

Pacers...welcome to 2020 hehehe.

 

[anamyd]

Pacers...welcome to 2020 hehehe.

yep, Pacers will definitely run into 2020, supposed PRM deadline or not.

 

[Mathew S]

yep, Pacers will definitely run into 2020, supposed PRM deadline or not.

In that sense, this design fault with the 195s and 331s may actually be helpful for Arriva and the DfT. By giving them a cast iron reason that the new trains can't be introduced, and someone external they can blame for it (CAF), it also creates a more politically acceptable justification for granting Pacers a short-term derrogation against the PRM-TSI and RVAR regulations; "Sorry people, but it's all the Spaniards fault."
Not, of course, a good thing; but potentially the face saving way out that Arriva and the DfT need.

 

[PR1Berske]

"Sorry, it's the Spaniards fault," certainly fits in with current political concerns, I suppose.

I will wait to see how this story is taken outside this forum. It's one thing for rail enthusiasts to say "This is why Pacers have been given an extension/reprieve". It's quite another thing for the general public.

 

[td97]

It was initially reported that the coupler issue shouldn't affect May introduction.

All @northernassist [URL='https://mobile.twitter.com/CAFRail_UK']@CAFRail_UK [/URL]unit testing has been suspended the TOC has confirmed. It's a mechanical fault, something described as not major. Shouldn’t affect plans for May introduction. This is why there is testing.

https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1106453692289609729?s=20
A coupler is hardly revolutionary technology and every past iteration has had a successful design, i.e. there's plenty of inspiration from already existing coupler designs to sort out a fix. A lot of CAF's reputation rests on them fixing the issue ASAP. I don't see why it should delay them until past May, never mind 2020.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Is this the first time this internal coupler has been used in the UK?

 

[anamyd]

It was initially reported that the coupler issue shouldn't affect May introduction.

https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1106453692289609729?s=20
A coupler is hardly revolutionary technology and every past iteration has had a successful design, i.e. there's plenty of inspiration from already existing coupler designs to sort out a fix. A lot of CAF's reputation rests on them fixing the issue ASAP. I don't see why it should delay them until past May, never mind 2020.

It's good that the issue has been caught before the end gangwayed DMUs for West Midlands Railway and Transport for Wales have started build.

 

[hwl]

Is this the first time this internal coupler has been used in the UK?

Yes. CAF make them in house.

 

[InOban]

Isn't it CAF which makes everything in-house? Starts with the iron ore, I thought.

If it's only an issue in extreme curves, could it not, like the 80*s, be given a one year authorisation to give time for a redesign?

 

[modernrail]

"Sorry, it's the Spaniards fault," certainly fits in with current political concerns, I suppose.

I will wait to see how this story is taken outside this forum. It's one thing for rail enthusiasts to say "This is why Pacers have been given an extension/reprieve". It's quite another thing for the general public.

It won't be their fault if it is a problem in the scope they were asked to achieve. The suggestion seems to be that is a problem of radial curve and not the coupler per se. The ORR appears to be saying pretty strongly that TOCs have been specifying against TSI requirements and not overlaying the detail of the actual infrastructure these trains will run on. If that is the case so suspect this might turn out to be a good old British screw up, our new national sport. I hope it isn't that because it would be depressing and another awful advert for the competence of the UK rail industry. CAF are unlikely to be on the hook for any of this from what I am reading so far.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It won't be their fault if it is a problem in the scope they were asked to achieve. The suggestion seems to be that is a problem of radial curve and not the coupler per se. The ORR appears to be saying pretty strongly that TOCs have been specifying against TSI requirements and not overlaying the detail of the actual infrastructure these trains will run on. If that is the case so suspect this might turn out to be a good old British screw up, our new national sport. I hope it isn't that because it would be depressing and another awful advert for the competence of the UK rail industry. CAF are unlikely to be on the hook for any of this from what I am reading so far.

The UK really could do with an exemption to the operational TSIs (not the likes of PRM-TSI) for domestic services where due to loading gauge non-UK-specific stock will never run. However if they managed to specify trains that weren't suitable for the lines they were built for, that is a monumental balls-up.

 

[modernrail]

The UK really could do with an exemption to the operational TSIs (not the likes of PRM-TSI) for domestic services where due to loading gauge non-UK-specific stock will never run. However if they managed to specify trains that weren't suitable for the lines they were built for, that is a monumental balls-up.

I am going from this and sorry that I don't know how to post in a forum compliant manner. https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...co-operation-to-ensure-progress-of-new-fleets

Always a risk that this is misreported or I am misreading it but this reads to me as another case of its not EU it's me?

 

[Bertie the bus]

It was initially reported that the coupler issue shouldn't affect May introduction.

https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1106453692289609729?s=20
A coupler is hardly revolutionary technology and every past iteration has had a successful design, i.e. there's plenty of inspiration from already existing coupler designs to sort out a fix. A lot of CAF's reputation rests on them fixing the issue ASAP. I don't see why it should delay them until past May, never mind 2020.

That's a tweet from Richard Clinnick. Have you ever checked the accuracy of his tweets re: new stock? You'd be better off checking with Mystic Meg.

 

[hwl]

It won't be their fault if it is a problem in the scope they were asked to achieve. The suggestion seems to be that is a problem of radial curve and not the coupler per se. The ORR appears to be saying pretty strongly that TOCs have been specifying against TSI requirements and not overlaying the detail of the actual infrastructure these trains will run on. If that is the case so suspect this might turn out to be a good old British screw up, our new national sport. I hope it isn't that because it would be depressing and another awful advert for the competence of the UK rail industry. CAF are unlikely to be on the hook for any of this from what I am reading so far.

It looks like the aren't complying with lots of RSSB UK specific standards though.
Assuming a Rolling Stock manufacturer would know that they would need to comply appears to be the mistake. This isn't the first time CAF have supplied stock to the UK though it has been a while. One would hope that a manufacturer would be knowledgeable enough...

Agreed it look like a problem with the width of the box the coupler bar sits in rather than the bar itself.

 

[hwl]

The UK really could do with an exemption to the operational TSIs (not the likes of PRM-TSI) for domestic services where due to loading gauge non-UK-specific stock will never run. However if they managed to specify trains that weren't suitable for the lines they were built for, that is a monumental balls-up.

It looks like Northern /CAF /Eversholt didn't have a look at the track design hand book.
The manufacturer still takes a big reputation / general competency hit for supplying stock not meeting UK standards. Ignorance isn't an excuse and the documents are openly available.

 

[CAF397]

Yikes. That's one hell of a design screw up.

Apparently the units were designed with the European Interoperability regulations in mind. These coupling bar issues found out when the units were on tight British curves .

So on face value i'd day CAF designed the train correctly and it should be the ROSCO/TOCs who specified the minimum curve radius .

Also, given ORR recently authorised Northerns CAF units for introduction, one wonders how much work their inspectors did with the paperwork, or were they like the FAA and trusted the manufacturer too much?

 

[anamyd]

I don't know how to post in a forum compliant manner

I'm going to attempt to do that, because the site founder requested that I do it so I need to learn how. I think you just click on the "+" symbol and then "Quote". The quote tags are then inserted into the message body, and I'm assuming that you copy and paste the text from the site between the quote tags. You then correctly format the text. Let's see if this works!

RAIL Magazine website, 27/03/2019 - https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...co-operation-to-ensure-progress-of-new-fleets

EXCLUSIVE: New trains crisis: ORR demands co-operation to ensure progress of new fleets

Train operators, rolling stock owners, train builders and Network Rail must work together to ensure new trains are compatible with the UK’s infrastructure and operational systems.

So says the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), following delays to a number of new train fleets. The latest involves the suspension of testing of Northern’s CAF Class 195 diesel and ‘331’ electric multiple units, due to issues with the inter-car couplings coming into contact with the bodies on tight bends. Northern believes the problem will be rectified in time for the ‘331s’ to enter traffic from May.

An ORR spokesman told RAIL: “Authorisation of new trains into service, in essence, covers compliance with the relevant Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSI).

“While these TSIs include safety, they are not intended to provide complete coverage of all of the health and safety. Their primary purpose is to enable interoperable train operation across Europe and remove barriers to trade.

“The TOCs/ROSCOs/train builders/Network Rail need to work together to ensure that the new trains are compatible with the UK’s infrastructure and operational systems. We have seen examples of builders providing trains that are compliant with the TSI but have serious issues when presented to the TOCs. TOCs need to take the lead, by ensuring that they have effective systems in place to manage the change brought by new trains.”

The delays to CAF’s Northern units is the latest in a series of delays to new fleets, with Caledonian Sleeper Mk 5s, TransPennine Express Mk 5As, LNER Azumas, London Overground Class 710s and Govia Thameslink Railway Class 717s all yet to enter traffic having been planned for introduction last year. Northern had also hoped to put three Class 195 DMUs in traffic by the end of December, but was forced to scrap that plan.

 

[anamyd]

Oh whaddya know, it works!

 

[Mathew S]

A 195 (didn't catch the number) has appeared outside Newton Heath in the last hour or so, at the Manchester end of the depot.
Hopefully movement is indicative that something, at least, is happening.

 

[387star]

Really quite embarrassing in fact not much to praise recently

 

[anamyd]

A 195 (didn't catch the number) has appeared outside Newton Heath in the last hour or so, at the Manchester end of the depot.
Hopefully movement is indicative that something, at least, is happening.

I saw one moving in a very recent(ly uploaded) YouTube video and asked the uploader when it was filmed but haven't heard back.

 

[squizzler]

The issue is therefore not the non-compliance of the trains after all, they are perfectly compliant. Rather it seems to do with the Northern route metals failing to comply with the TSI definition of "a railway".

I'm going to attempt to do that, because the site founder requested that I do it so I need to learn how. I think you just click on the "+" symbol and then "Quote". The quote tags are then inserted into the message body, and I'm assuming that you copy and paste the text from the site between the quote tags. You then correctly format the text. Let's see if this works!

Not the only one of us to be called out on this. Incidentally I expressed discomfort whether this policy accords with copyright law. I've no problem denying clicks to outfits such as facebook but understand many independents need the advertising revenue.

 

[modernrail]

The issue is therefore not the non-compliance of the trains after all, they are perfectly compliant. Rather it seems to do with the Northern route metals failing to comply with the TSI definition of "a railway".



Not the only one of us to be called out on this. Incidentally I expressed discomfort whether this policy accords with copyright law. I've no problem denying clicks to outfits such as facebook but understand many independents need the advertising revenue.

When I an specifying for other infrastructure types I would start with min standards, add in derogations, add in matters relating to specific context (so anything from the colour of paint to use to how you get the kit in and out of where it needs to be to install and maintain). You then check there is no conflict against the 3 categories and also cater for the risk of change in law between signing the contract and delivery (or longer of the kit is supplied on an availability basis) . Is that not what happens with rolling stock? I would have thought if it did, something like this would be spotted pretty easily. Specifying the curve is not exactly an unimportant matter. We know we have some very naughty ones, for instance on the way into Harrogate from Leeds.

It doesn't feel like the TSI being incorrect, just that they didn't go through the other steps properly...but I am no expert on rail procurement.

 

[squizzler]

It doesn't feel like the TSI being incorrect, just that they didn't go through the other steps properly...but I am no expert on rail procurement.

I fixed my original post with a smiley for avoidance of doubt that I was being tongue in cheek!

 

[Bornin1980s]

The issue is therefore not the non-compliance of the trains after all, they are perfectly compliant. Rather it seems to do with the Northern route metals failing to comply with the TSI definition of "a railway".

Exactly, our railway system can never be made compatible with the rest of Europe. I suspect this may actually be a key reason for our poor fit in the EU. For instance, it is significantly easier for continental countries to export stock to us than us to them, but the common competition laws never took account of this, leading to a shrinkage of train building in this country.

That said, I don't think the problems are limited to this country. Famously, a whole fleet in France, built to TSI standards, was found to be too wide for its intended route, which wasn't fully upgraded.
I wonder if CAF's unfamiliarity with tight curves is related to their experience being mainly in broard gauge, with standard gauge experience mainly in high speed stock. Both of these disallow the tightest curves. Maybe they should have used an internal coupler already proven in this country. This highlights the fact that total interoperability is not achievable, even on the continent.

Even with such absurdity, however, wouldn't it much easier if the ones ordering and specifying the stock also owned the infrastructure?

 

[Bertie the bus]

If it's only an issue in extreme curves, could it not, like the 80*s, be given a one year authorisation to give time for a redesign?

I have no idea what the definition of a tight curve is but I would have thought both Farington and Todmorden curves probably fall into that category. As both are on the Blackpool – York route, which is expected to be operated by 195s, I would suggest give it a year and hope for the best probably isn’t the best strategy.

It is also possible the curve between Allerton and Liverpool South Parkway could be classed as tight. If so then not even being able to get units off the depot without putting stress on the coupler would be even worse.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That said, I don't think the problems are limited to this country. Famously, a whole fleet in France, built to TSI standards, was found to be too wide for its intended route, which wasn't fully upgraded.
I wonder if CAF's unfamiliarity with tight curves is related to their experience being mainly in broard gauge, with standard gauge experience mainly in high speed stock.

They've had a presence in the UK since 1997, even though they had help from Siemens, it's no excuse. The 333's are CAF and seem to operate on the same track without issue.

 

[Spartacus]

That said, I don't think the problems are limited to this country. Famously, a whole fleet in France, built to TSI standards, was found to be too wide for its intended route, which wasn't fully upgraded.
I wonder if CAF's unfamiliarity with tight curves is related to their experience being mainly in broard gauge, with standard gauge experience mainly in high speed stock. Both of these disallow the tightest curves. Maybe they should have used an internal coupler already proven in this country. This highlights the fact that total interoperability is not achievable, even on the continent.

In fairness CAF aren't without experience of tight curves in the UK, platform 5 at Shipley is quite similar to Todmorden.

 

[Bungle965]

They've had a presence in the UK since 1997, even though they had help from Siemens, it's no excuse. The 333's are CAF and seem to operate on the same track without issue.

However 333s also throw wobbles whenever they're attempted to be coupled.
That's probably just down to the fact that they aren't regularly used in doubled up formations.
Sam

 

[modernrail]

Interesting that this keeps slipping back to people think CAF is at fault. Personally, I am putting my money on it being error or omissions in the scope produced by Northern and relevant ROSCO. Perhaps we will never know, but I think the ORR statement means the manufacturer should receive the benefit of the doubt and the burden is on Northern/ROSCO.