Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

--

On 10/09/2019 11:05, The Other Mike wrote:
Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

as good a piece of 'economical with the truth arse covering' as it is
possible to get.

Paraphrasing:
'The margins we maintain for these events are about 80% too low when we
have a grid full of renewable energy and interconnects'

But we are saying it was just a terribly rare set of events and had
nothing to do with renewable energy really'



--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

I have observed in recent times a new culture of buck passing not seen for
many long years. Let me just say this, the public are quite happy to accept
somebody made a mistake, as long as it gets fixed. That does not just mean a
bland statement of lessons will be learned unless they actually are.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2019 11:05, The Other Mike wrote:
Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

as good a piece of 'economical with the truth arse covering' as it is
possible to get.

Paraphrasing:
'The margins we maintain for these events are about 80% too low when we
have a grid full of renewable energy and interconnects'

But we are saying it was just a terribly rare set of events and had
nothing to do with renewable energy really'



--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on
the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections
combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a
rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

Thank you - an interesting read.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 10/09/2019 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:05, The Other Mike wrote:
Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

as good a piece of 'economical with the truth arse covering' as it is
possible to get.

Paraphrasing:
'The margins we maintain for these events are about 80% too low when we
have a grid full of renewable energy and interconnects'

But we are saying it was just a terribly rare set of events and had
nothing to do with renewable energy really'



Arse covering or political correctness? Havn't read final report yet but
I thought it was a sufficiently rare event to be broadly tolerable.

They've already said elsewhere that they will need to invest more and
increase margins as/if renewables grow.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:05, The Other Mike wrote:
Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

as good a piece of 'economical with the truth arse covering' as it is
possible to get.

Paraphrasing:
'The margins we maintain for these events are about 80% too low when we
have a grid full of renewable energy and interconnects'

But we are saying it was just a terribly rare set of events and had
nothing to do with renewable energy really'



Arse covering or political correctness? Havn't read final report yet but
I thought it was a sufficiently rare event to be broadly tolerable.

They've already said elsewhere that they will need to invest more and
increase margins as/if renewables grow.

The report is written by National Grid. They don't control who generates
and by what means - so it's hardly arse-covering.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 10/09/2019 13:37, charles wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:05, The Other Mike wrote:
Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

as good a piece of 'economical with the truth arse covering' as it is
possible to get.

Paraphrasing:
'The margins we maintain for these events are about 80% too low when we
have a grid full of renewable energy and interconnects'

But we are saying it was just a terribly rare set of events and had
nothing to do with renewable energy really'



Arse covering or political correctness? Havn't read final report yet but
I thought it was a sufficiently rare event to be broadly tolerable.

They've already said elsewhere that they will need to invest more and
increase margins as/if renewables grow.

The report is written by National Grid. They don't control who generates
and by what means - so it's hardly arse-covering.

They are resposnible I think for maintaining the balance and assessing
what margins are needed and I think mnaintaining that margin.


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 10/09/2019 12:08, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

Thank you - an interesting read.

Indeed.

They had ~1Gw of spare capacity, and lost a quarter of that on a CGT
station just along from the lightning strike. Well, that sort of thing
happens.

The rest of it they lost from a windfarm at the other side of the
country. Which is now being reconfigured, so that shouldn't happen again.

As a result of the swings a bunch of small generators (wind farms, solar
etc) also shut down. That's by design, and ate a big slice out of that
GW they didn't have any more. They should have more margin to cope with
that sort of thing, and that will of course reduce the efficiency of the
network more.

Then a valve failed at the CGT station, and they had to shut down the
rest of the turbines. They'll look into that, it shouldn't happen.

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Andy

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 10/09/2019 12:08, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
Report
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52346/download

Appendicies
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...52351/download

Thank you - an interesting read.

Indeed.

They had ~1Gw of spare capacity, and lost a quarter of that on a CGT
station just along from the lightning strike. Well, that sort of thing
happens.

The rest of it they lost from a windfarm at the other side of the
country. Which is now being reconfigured, so that shouldn't happen again.

As a result of the swings a bunch of small generators (wind farms, solar
etc) also shut down. That's by design, and ate a big slice out of that
GW they didn't have any more. They should have more margin to cope with
that sort of thing, and that will of course reduce the efficiency of the
network more.

Then a valve failed at the CGT station, and they had to shut down the
rest of the turbines. They'll look into that, it shouldn't happen.

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

The trains should have coped with the low frequency. It was within their
operating spec.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir Campestris
wrote:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In message , at 10:43:54 on Wed, 11
Sep 2019, charles remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not *less*.
--
Roland Perry

On 12/09/2019 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:43:54 on Wed, 11
Sep 2019, charles remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not *less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator reset?

SteveW

In article ,
says...

On 12/09/2019 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:43:54 on Wed, 11
Sep 2019, charles remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not *less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator reset?

SteveW

It boils down to Siemens not building units to specification shutting
down when the supply frequency dropped below 49Hz for 16 seconds,
although the design parameter was 48.5Hz.

Siemens then implemented a software "upgrade" which removed the ability
of drivers to undertake a "Battery Reset" on some units - those with the
older software could repower, those on the new release needed the
attention of technicians - and getting them to the right trains took a
long time. These are the dangers inherent with implementing software
upgrades on these trains which have not been properly tested.

Jim

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/09/2019 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:43:54 on Wed, 11
Sep 2019, charles remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not *less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator reset?

The word used was 'technician'.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 12/09/2019 22:36, Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/09/2019 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:43:54 on Wed, 11
Sep 2019, charles remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and
required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not *less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator reset?

SteveW

Old version of software - press buttons to reset (driver resets)
New version of software - plug laptop into diagnostic port (tech resets)

In message , at 22:36:39 on Thu, 12 Sep
2019, Steve Walker remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not
*less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator
reset?

That's the sensitivity involved. "Something this bad must be
investigated by a fitter, not just the driver".
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 22:36:39 on Thu, 12 Sep
2019, Steve Walker remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not
*less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator
reset?

That's the sensitivity involved. "Something this bad must be
investigated by a fitter, not just the driver".

Not when the train stranded and full of passengers.

and it's in themiddle of nowhere, so how does the tech get there? and how
long does it take?

Mind you I was on an Edinburgh to London train last year which stopped at
Berwick and it took nearly an hour to get the brakes released!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In message , at 15:04:42 on
Fri, 13 Sep 2019, Tim Streater remarked:
Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not
*less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator
reset?

That's the sensitivity involved. "Something this bad must be
investigated by a fitter, not just the driver".

Not when the train stranded and full of passengers.

The software which needs tickling by the fitter doesn't have a concept
of "train stranded and full of passengers".

So regardless of the loading, it still needs a fitter.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:33:38 on Fri, 13
Sep 2019, charles remarked:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 22:36:39 on Thu, 12 Sep
2019, Steve Walker remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and
required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software update -
not the individual trains.

And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not
*less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator
reset?

That's the sensitivity involved. "Something this bad must be
investigated by a fitter, not just the driver".

Not when the train stranded and full of passengers.

and it's in themiddle of nowhere, so how does the tech get there? and how
long does it take?

That's a question for the people who approved the software update.

Mind you I was on an Edinburgh to London train last year which stopped at
Berwick and it took nearly an hour to get the brakes released!


--
Roland Perry

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
So regardless of the loading, it still needs a fitter.

sigh yes, currently that is the situation, and arses should be kicked
until is is no longer the situation. Requiring a fitter to visit a
stranded train full off passengers is just ********.

I fully agree. If a product is designed so it fails in a way that is
"irreparable" by the end user, because the mains frequency varies by 2 Hz,
and doesn't at least enter a limp-home mode until the root cause is righted,
then that is a very poor design. Thus the *cause* of all the delays to rail
passengers in my view is not the slight reduction in mains frequency - it's
the failure of the product to tolerate that and recover gracefully from it.
The designers of the train have a much bigger case to answer than the
designers of the UK mains grid system. If really necessary, the trains
should have cut power to the motors for the time that the mains was out of
spec, but should have reapplied it as if nothing had happened once the mains
gets back to spec.

Sadly, leaving passengers stranded on a train away from a station, or
leaving drivers trapped on a motorway without being able to turn round or
take another route, is regarded as socially acceptable, instead of being
regarded as "we must move heaven and earth to get things going as soon as
possible".

On 13/09/2019 14:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:36:39 on Thu, 12 Sep
2019, Steve Walker remarked:

Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and
required
a site visit...

Because they were in the middle of a software update. One might wonder
why that was not completed *before* the train is back in service.

It was the fleet of trains that was in the middle of a software
update -
not the individual trains.

Â*And the update was what made the trains *more* sensitive, not *less*.

Being sensitive I can live with, but why on earth did they need an
Engineer to attend a reset each one for what should be an operator reset?

That's the sensitivity involved. "Something this bad must be
investigated by a fitter, not just the driver".

No the software should know it was an external event and that it has
been fixed so a restart should just be something the driver or guard can do.

After all the system spotted the problem and went "safe" so restarting
should still be OK even if it detects the same fault and shuts down
straight away.

On 13/09/2019 15:33, charles wrote:


Mind you I was on an Edinburgh to London train last year which stopped at
Berwick and it took nearly an hour to get the brakes released!


but that's a fault on the train, the grid failure wasn't a fault on the
train.

On 13/09/2019 16:33, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
So regardless of the loading, it still needs a fitter.

sigh yes, currently that is the situation, and arses should be kicked
until is is no longer the situation. Requiring a fitter to visit a
stranded train full off passengers is just ********.

I fully agree. If a product is designed so it fails in a way that is
"irreparable" by the end user, because the mains frequency varies by 2
Hz, and doesn't at least enter a limp-home mode until the root cause is
righted, then that is a very poor design. Thus the *cause* of all the
delays to rail passengers in my view is not the slight reduction in
mains frequency - it's the failure of the product to tolerate that and
recover gracefully from it. The designers of the train have a much
bigger case to answer than the designers of the UK mains grid system. If
really necessary, the trains should have cut power to the motors for the
time that the mains was out of spec, but should have reapplied it as if
nothing had happened once the mains gets back to spec.

No it should not have, the driver may have been investigating what had
happened and it would be bad to start the train without him being there.
It didn't need a technitian to visit to check if the software was
working which is the only reason I can think of why they would need a
technitian to restart the system.


Sadly, leaving passengers stranded on a train away from a station, or
leaving drivers trapped on a motorway without being able to turn round
or take another route, is regarded as socially acceptable, instead of
being regarded as "we must move heaven and earth to get things going as
soon as possible".

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 13/09/2019 15:33, charles wrote:


Mind you I was on an Edinburgh to London train last year which stopped at
Berwick and it took nearly an hour to get the brakes released!


but that's a fault on the train, the grid failure wasn't a fault on the
train.

Indeed it nothing to do wqithntehgrid,, just rotten train software.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:53:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/09/2019 13:37, charles wrote:

The report is written by National Grid. They don't control who generates
and by what means - so it's hardly arse-covering.

They are resposnible I think for maintaining the balance and assessing
what margins are needed and I think mnaintaining that margin.

The balance ahead of time is in the main determined between the generators and a
party operating on behalf of the 'consumers' i.e. the utilities, based on NG
demand forecasts and those of the utilities

The actual balancing in 'real time' is purchased on a commercial basis by NG
from the generators

The operational margins are determined to cover the largest generation /
transmission system loss.

The actual margin is achieved by reserving system support generation for
frequency/reactive purposes, normally with 'headroom' above the actual plant
output, this could be as little as 2% across the conventional plant fleet.

Maintaining the generation is the function of the generation supplying party.

NG is not permitted to own, operate or directly despatch generation. It can only
instruct a generating party to supply at a particular time on the basis of a
previously agreed price.



--

On 17/09/2019 11:00, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:53:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/09/2019 13:37, charles wrote:

The report is written by National Grid. They don't control who generates
and by what means - so it's hardly arse-covering.

They are resposnible I think for maintaining the balance and assessing
what margins are needed and I think mnaintaining that margin.

The balance ahead of time is in the main determined between the generators and a
party operating on behalf of the 'consumers' i.e. the utilities, based on NG
demand forecasts and those of the utilities

The actual balancing in 'real time' is purchased on a commercial basis by NG
from the generators

The operational margins are determined to cover the largest generation /
transmission system loss.

The actual margin is achieved by reserving system support generation for
frequency/reactive purposes, normally with 'headroom' above the actual plant
output, this could be as little as 2% across the conventional plant fleet.

Maintaining the generation is the function of the generation supplying party.

NG is not permitted to own, operate or directly despatch generation. It can only
instruct a generating party to supply at a particular time on the basis of a
previously agreed price.



Thanks mike



--
€œThe ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.€�

Herbert Spencer