https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf

This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.

On 07/04/2022 14:57, Tweed wrote:
> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>
> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>
>

And a more digestable read at
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-61021701

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 14:57, Tweed wrote:
>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>
>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>
>>
>
> And a more digestable read at
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-61021701
>

Unfortunately the BBC report misses some of the key issues, as it’s a
rehash of the executive summary, which itself skates some of the issues.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>
> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>

No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
too.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>
>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>
>
> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
> too.
>
>

To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
The loads were greater in the latter.

Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
standards about fatigue cracking.

They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
note this had not been a problem before in other trains.

The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
costs to fix.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:58:40 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-
>on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>
>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>
>>
>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>> too.
>>
>>
>
>To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>The loads were greater in the latter.
>
>Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>standards about fatigue cracking.
>
>They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>
>The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>costs to fix.

Seems to becoming more of a problem these days. Seems all the CAF Brum trams
have cracks too:

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2022-03-20/west-midlands-metro-tram-services-su
spended-until-further-notice

You can understand it on a 125mph train but on a tram that probably rarely
exceeds 40mph thats got to be a pretty lousy design and/or build quality.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:58:40 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-
>> on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>
>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>> too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>
>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>
>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>
>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>> costs to fix.
>
> Seems to becoming more of a problem these days. Seems all the CAF Brum trams
> have cracks too:
>
> https://www.itv.com/news/central/2022-03-20/west-midlands-metro-tram-services-su
> spended-until-further-notice
>
> You can understand it on a 125mph train but on a tram that probably rarely
> exceeds 40mph thats got to be a pretty lousy design and/or build quality.
>
>

Seems the 80x lifting point cracking had nothing to do with loads. The
stresses were incorporated during construction and the cracks simply
propagated over time. There was a direct correlation between age of train
and the appearance of cracks. Distance travelled wasn’t correlated. So this
may be the trams’ downfall. The 80x yaw damper cracks were due to loads
caused by use.

I wonder if this is down to loss of knowledge as older engineers are
replaced by younger ones who uncritically believe everything their CAD
package tells them.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>
>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>
>>
>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>> too.
>>
>>
>
> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
> The loads were greater in the latter.
>
> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
> standards about fatigue cracking.
>
> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>
> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
> costs to fix.
>
>

Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
substitute stock.

And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
bodies?

Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>
>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>> too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>
>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>
>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>
>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>> costs to fix.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
> substitute stock.
>
> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
> bodies?
>
> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>
>

Seems some interesting kit is being developed for the repairs:

In order to repair the yaw damper / anti-roll bar area of the bolster it is
necessary to cut out the weld line between the solebar and bolster, and
also to machine perpendicular to the yaw damper mounting face. A joint
venture between Rolls Royce & Unipart Rail has developed a vehicle-mounted
three-axis milling machine that allows the task to be performed in a
consistent and repeatable way

On 07/04/2022 17:27, Tweed wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:58:40 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-
>>> on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>
>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>
>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>
>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>> costs to fix.
>>
>> Seems to becoming more of a problem these days. Seems all the CAF Brum trams
>> have cracks too:
>>
>> https://www.itv.com/news/central/2022-03-20/west-midlands-metro-tram-services-su
>> spended-until-further-notice
>>
>> You can understand it on a 125mph train but on a tram that probably rarely
>> exceeds 40mph thats got to be a pretty lousy design and/or build quality.
>>
>>
>
> Seems the 80x lifting point cracking had nothing to do with loads. The
> stresses were incorporated during construction and the cracks simply
> propagated over time. There was a direct correlation between age of train
> and the appearance of cracks. Distance travelled wasn’t correlated. So this
> may be the trams’ downfall. The 80x yaw damper cracks were due to loads
> caused by use.
>
> I wonder if this is down to loss of knowledge as older engineers are
> replaced by younger ones who uncritically believe everything their CAD
> package tells them.
>

I'm guessing that this plays a role in it. Replacing experienced and
salaried engineers in favour of younger people who might not have the
practical experience, are more inclined to work for a notably lower
salary or even wages can invariably impact the quality of finished products.

Many managers don't seem to care less about the final product in the
name of an improved net profit, as a result. Instead, they seem more
inclined to coast on momentum from the company's earlier reputation or
quality.

I'm sure that this has existed for a long time, though I seem to see it
more often these days.

On 07/04/2022 17:30, Recliner wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>
>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>> too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>
>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>
>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>
>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>> costs to fix.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
> substitute stock.
>
> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
> bodies?
>
> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>
Does DfT have the option to tell them to f* off if more incidents occur
between now and then? Can they just say, for example: "Here, take a very
large sum of cash and disappear," treating the equity hit just as a
write-off?

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 17:30, Recliner wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>
>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>
>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>
>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>> costs to fix.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
>> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
>> substitute stock.
>>
>> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
>> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
>> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
>> bodies?
>>
>> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
>> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>>
> Does DfT have the option to tell them to f* off if more incidents occur
> between now and then? Can they just say, for example: "Here, take a very
> large sum of cash and disappear," treating the equity hit just as a
> write-off?
>

I don’t think it’s wise to tell them to go forth and multiply until they’ve
fixed all the wonky trains.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>
>This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.

Thanks for yjr link. I haven't read it yet, but I will when I've got
enough time.

On 07/04/2022 17:27, Tweed wrote:

> I wonder if this is down to loss of knowledge as older engineers are
> replaced by younger ones who uncritically believe everything their CAD
> package tells them.

Has there ever been an engineering problem which someone hasn't blamed
on young engineers not being as good in ye olden days?

--
Arthur Figgis

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 17:27, Tweed wrote:
>
>> I wonder if this is down to loss of knowledge as older engineers are
>> replaced by younger ones who uncritically believe everything their CAD
>> package tells them.
>
> Has there ever been an engineering problem which someone hasn't blamed
> on young engineers not being as good in ye olden days?
>
>

We normally try to blame the bean counters first

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 17:27, Tweed wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:58:40 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-
>>>> on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>>
>>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>>
>>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>>> costs to fix.
>>>
>>> Seems to becoming more of a problem these days. Seems all the CAF Brum trams
>>> have cracks too:
>>>
>>> https://www.itv.com/news/central/2022-03-20/west-midlands-metro-tram-services-su
>>> spended-until-further-notice
>>>
>>> You can understand it on a 125mph train but on a tram that probably rarely
>>> exceeds 40mph thats got to be a pretty lousy design and/or build quality.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Seems the 80x lifting point cracking had nothing to do with loads. The
>> stresses were incorporated during construction and the cracks simply
>> propagated over time. There was a direct correlation between age of train
>> and the appearance of cracks. Distance travelled wasn’t correlated. So this
>> may be the trams’ downfall. The 80x yaw damper cracks were due to loads
>> caused by use.
>>
>> I wonder if this is down to loss of knowledge as older engineers are
>> replaced by younger ones who uncritically believe everything their CAD
>> package tells them.
>>
>
> I'm guessing that this plays a role in it. Replacing experienced and
> salaried engineers in favour of younger people who might not have the
> practical experience, are more inclined to work for a notably lower
> salary or even wages can invariably impact the quality of finished products.

Do we know if this happens in Japan, where these trains were designed? I
thought they respected engineers greatly.

>
> Many managers don't seem to care less about the final product in the
> name of an improved net profit, as a result. Instead, they seem more
> inclined to coast on momentum from the company's earlier reputation or
> quality.

For decades, CEOs have been incentivised to get the stock price up, which
tens to put the focus on the short-term. But the Agility Trains contract is
designed to do the opposite.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 17:30, Recliner wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>
>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>
>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>
>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>> costs to fix.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
>> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
>> substitute stock.
>>
>> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
>> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
>> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
>> bodies?
>>
>> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
>> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>>
> Does DfT have the option to tell them to f* off if more incidents occur
> between now and then? Can they just say, for example: "Here, take a very
> large sum of cash and disappear," treating the equity hit just as a
> write-off?
>

Agility owns the trains, not the DfT.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 17:30, Recliner wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>>
>>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>>
>>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>>> costs to fix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
>>> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
>>> substitute stock.
>>>
>>> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
>>> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
>>> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
>>> bodies?
>>>
>>> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
>>> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>>>
>> Does DfT have the option to tell them to f* off if more incidents occur
>> between now and then? Can they just say, for example: "Here, take a very
>> large sum of cash and disappear," treating the equity hit just as a
>> write-off?
>>
>
> I don’t think it’s wise to tell them to go forth and multiply until they’ve
> fixed all the wonky trains.
>
>

I wonder to what extent the problems are a result of pushing a regional
narrow-gauge Japan train too far?

The original A-train travels much slower, and has shorter carriages. It
also doesn't carry large donks under the floor. So these AT-300 bodies will
be much more highly stressed than any other A-trains.

On 07/04/2022 18:14, Tweed wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 17:30, Recliner wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>>
>>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>>
>>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>>> costs to fix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
>>> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
>>> substitute stock.
>>>
>>> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
>>> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
>>> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
>>> bodies?
>>>
>>> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
>>> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>>>
>> Does DfT have the option to tell them to f* off if more incidents occur
>> between now and then? Can they just say, for example: "Here, take a very
>> large sum of cash and disappear," treating the equity hit just as a
>> write-off?
>>
>
> I don’t think it’s wise to tell them to go forth and multiply until they’ve
> fixed all the wonky trains.
>

I was referring to the contract for HS2 stock. That is, if there are
more incidents with the IETs, then can they on that basis cancel the HS2
contract?

On 07/04/2022 22:55, Recliner wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2022 17:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>>>> costs to fix.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
>>>> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
>>>> substitute stock.
>>>>
>>>> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
>>>> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
>>>> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
>>>> bodies?
>>>>
>>>> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
>>>> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>>>>
>>> Does DfT have the option to tell them to f* off if more incidents occur
>>> between now and then? Can they just say, for example: "Here, take a very
>>> large sum of cash and disappear," treating the equity hit just as a
>>> write-off?
>>>
>>
>> I don’t think it’s wise to tell them to go forth and multiply until they’ve
>> fixed all the wonky trains.
>>
>>
>
> I wonder to what extent the problems are a result of pushing a regional
> narrow-gauge Japan train too far?
> The original A-train travels much slower, and has shorter carriages. It
> also doesn't carry large donks under the floor. So these AT-300 bodies will
> be much more highly stressed than any other A-trains.
>

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 18:14, Tweed wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2022 17:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>>>> costs to fix.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
>>>> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
>>>> substitute stock.
>>>>
>>>> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
>>>> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
>>>> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
>>>> bodies?
>>>>
>>>> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
>>>> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>>>>
>>> Does DfT have the option to tell them to f* off if more incidents occur
>>> between now and then? Can they just say, for example: "Here, take a very
>>> large sum of cash and disappear," treating the equity hit just as a
>>> write-off?
>>>
>>
>> I don’t think it’s wise to tell them to go forth and multiply until they’ve
>> fixed all the wonky trains.
>>
>
> I was referring to the contract for HS2 stock. That is, if there are
> more incidents with the IETs, then can they on that basis cancel the HS2
> contract?
>

Hitachi would then immediately announce the closure of the Newton Aycliffe
factory. One of the key reasons the HS2 contract was shared between Alstom
and Hitachi was to keep Derby and Newton Aycliffe open.

On 08/04/2022 00:15, Recliner wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 18:14, Tweed wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2022 17:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to the wrong
>>>>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it adds is
>>>>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was incorrect,
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended only for
>>>>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for calculating the
>>>>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first train test
>>>>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were found.
>>>>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>>>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of it, but
>>>>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make trains
>>>>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding that
>>>>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>>>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such things
>>>>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>>>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report did
>>>>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for the
>>>>>> costs to fix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I wonder what the penalties are on Agility for failing to supply the
>>>>> contracted number of trains each day? LNER and GWR have had to rely on
>>>>> substitute stock.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I see the repairs are now expected to take six years, even longer than
>>>>> the five years which had previously been expected. I wonder if some of the
>>>>> more damaged car bodies will be scrapped and replaced with new-build
>>>>> bodies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hitachi will be designing and building the HS2 carriage bodyshells; let's
>>>>> hope it's learned the lessons from the IET.
>>>>>
>>>> Does DfT have the option to tell them to f* off if more incidents occur
>>>> between now and then? Can they just say, for example: "Here, take a very
>>>> large sum of cash and disappear," treating the equity hit just as a
>>>> write-off?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t think it’s wise to tell them to go forth and multiply until they’ve
>>> fixed all the wonky trains.
>>>
>>
>> I was referring to the contract for HS2 stock. That is, if there are
>> more incidents with the IETs, then can they on that basis cancel the HS2
>> contract?
>>
>
> Hitachi would then immediately announce the closure of the Newton Aycliffe
> factory. One of the key reasons the HS2 contract was shared between Alstom
> and Hitachi was to keep Derby and Newton Aycliffe open.
Noted.

In message <ufudncfZTKrk09L_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
21:50:00 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 07/04/2022 17:27, Tweed wrote:
>
>> I wonder if this is down to loss of knowledge as older engineers are
>> replaced by younger ones who uncritically believe everything their CAD
>> package tells them.
>
>Has there ever been an engineering problem which someone hasn't blamed
>on young engineers not being as good in ye olden days?

Children have always been bad:

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt
for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter
in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants
of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the
room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company,
gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize
their teachers. Socrates 400BC.
--
Roland Perry

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 17:27, Tweed wrote:
>
>> I wonder if this is down to loss of knowledge as older engineers are
>> replaced by younger ones who uncritically believe everything their CAD
>> package tells them.
>
> Has there ever been an engineering problem which someone hasn't blamed
> on young engineers not being as good in ye olden days?
>
>

I also wonder if modern management processes are at fault. Everything today
is done against a list of requirements. Everyone is very good at meeting
and versifying against requirements. However, if something doesn’t appear
in the requirements in the first place it tends never to be considered.
Hence my poke against them moaning about the lack of standards about
fatigue cracking. Sure, if there were standards it would likely have
generated requirements. Engineering has an element of creative thinking,
it’s not just following a recipe.

On 07/04/2022 17:56, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 17:27, Tweed wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:58:40 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04-07-orr-final-report-
>>>>
>>>> on-hitachi-rolling-stock-cracking.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is well worth a read if you have the time. It has been amazingly
>>>>>> polite in my opinion. I’ve drawn my own conclusions from it, but I’ll
>>>>>> develop these in the discussion that hopefully follows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No real surprises: we already knew the problems were connected to
>>>>> the wrong
>>>>> material choice, poor welding and lack of heat treatment. What it
>>>>> adds is
>>>>> that the stress and fatigue analysis at the design stage was
>>>>> incorrect,
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To add to the above, I picked out the use of track data intended
>>>> only for
>>>> use in checking passenger comfort was ok, as an input for
>>>> calculating the
>>>> loads on the bogies. Also the data obtained on the initial first
>>>> train test
>>>> runs didn’t match up with test data obtained after the cracks were
>>>> found.
>>>> The loads were greater in the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Looks to me like an attempt to make the trains lighter (thus the use of
>>>> class 7000 aluminium alloy which is stronger so you can use less of
>>>> it, but
>>>> is very prone to fatigue cracking), rushing to prove they can make
>>>> trains
>>>> faster than anyone else (inadequate testing and poor quality welding
>>>> that
>>>> was not checked properly) and to cap it all they blame a lack of rail
>>>> standards about fatigue cracking.
>>>>
>>>> They are supposed to be an engineering company and should take such
>>>> things
>>>> into account, standards or no standards. Probably also in the desire to
>>>> show how efficient they are they removed all the margins. The report
>>>> did
>>>> note this had not been a problem before in other trains.
>>>>
>>>> The only good thing is it seems Hitachi are entirely on the hook for
>>>> the
>>>> costs to fix.
>>>
>>> Seems to becoming more of a problem these days. Seems all the CAF
>>> Brum trams
>>> have cracks too:
>>>
>>> https://www.itv.com/news/central/2022-03-20/west-midlands-metro-tram-services-su
>>>
>>> spended-until-further-notice
>>>
>>> You can understand it on a 125mph train but on a tram that probably
>>> rarely
>>> exceeds 40mph thats got to be a pretty lousy design and/or build
>>> quality.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Seems the 80x lifting point cracking had nothing to do with loads. The
>> stresses were incorporated during construction and the cracks simply
>> propagated over time. There was a direct correlation between age of train
>> and the appearance of cracks. Distance travelled wasn’t correlated. So
>> this
>> may be the trams’ downfall. The 80x yaw damper cracks were due to loads
>> caused by use.
>>
>> I wonder if this is down to loss of knowledge as older engineers are
>> replaced by younger ones who uncritically believe everything their CAD
>> package tells them.
>>
>
> I'm guessing that this plays a role in it. Replacing experienced and
> salaried engineers in favour of younger people who might not have the
> practical experience, are more inclined to work for a notably lower
> salary or even wages can invariably impact the quality of finished
> products.
>
> Many managers don't seem to care less about the final product in the
> name of an improved net profit, as a result. Instead, they seem more
> inclined to coast on momentum from the company's earlier reputation or
> quality.
>
> I'm sure that this has existed for a long time, though I seem to see it
> more often these days.

Basically from Thatcher's deification of management, regardless of
ability, onwards.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.