Greater Anglia's Stadler Flirt - Class 745 & 755

[Classsix T]

My first Flirt on the a.m. commute today, 422 doing the honours. 

18 late off Cambridge due to "a train fault" apparently.

 

C6T. 

[ruggedpeak]

4 hours ago, great central said:

 

That's just general muck I think you'll find. If you look at a lot of the GA stock it's not very clean. Might have expected them to keep the new units looking better to show how much of an 'improvement' they are over the old stuff.

Some of the 156s are really filthy, but it is a dirty time of year and the newly 'Abellioised' EMR units are starting to look similar.

It is not general muck - I travel around GA quite a bit and know what generic GA 'underframe dirt' looks like. This was definitely wet mud rather than dirt, and looks like it had been driven through muddy water.

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Zomboid said:

160 tons for a 4 car unit (if accurate) is 40 tons per vehicle. Which doesn't sound especially lightweight to me.

 

I don't think SWR have any plans to replace the 159s, so it'll be academic. The next franchise isn't for a few years, and if that franchisee wants new trains for the route they'll have a different catalogue to look in to what's out there now.

More relevant I suspect might be the unsprung weight on each axle - that was where the problems arose with the 142s on the Western where it was found ona. trial on the Exmouth branch that axles would 'unload' weight  frequently due to the effectiveness of the springing design.  The problem was apparently worse on jointed track.

[russ p]

I wonder if its electromagnetic interference from the AC traction motors somehow masking the train to track circuits.  After all they are fitted with track circuit actuators 

[Pete 75C]

37 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

It is not general muck - I travel around GA quite a bit and know what generic GA 'underframe dirt' looks like. This was definitely wet mud rather than dirt, and looks like it had been driven through muddy water.

 

Service between Norwich and Sheringham was suspended for a few hours a few days ago due to flooding at Worstead, field runoff. Might have something to do with it.

[Siggie in the east]

49 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

It is not general muck - I travel around GA quite a bit and know what generic GA 'underframe dirt' looks like. This was definitely wet mud rather than dirt, and looks like it had been driven through muddy water.

May also have been the unit that found the land slip between westerfield and woodbridge as quite a bit of mud was in the 4ft and cess.

Thanks

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, Pete 75C said:

 

Service between Norwich and Sheringham was suspended for a few hours a few days ago due to flooding at Worstead, field runoff. Might have something to do with it.

 

58 minutes ago, Siggie in the east said:

May also have been the unit that found the land slip between westerfield and woodbridge as quite a bit of mud was in the 4ft and cess.

Thanks

That's exactly what is looked like. Normal frame dirt doesn't have wheel spray up the sides like a car.

[great central]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

It is not general muck - I travel around GA quite a bit and know what generic GA 'underframe dirt' looks like. This was definitely wet mud rather than dirt, and looks like it had been driven through muddy water.

 

Hmm, if that's the case maybe they'd cope with the conditions at Dawlish better than a lot of 'modern' trains

[great central]

3 hours ago, russ p said:

 Are they as bad as when central had those 156s in 158 livery they were always absolutely filthy 

 

Actually it does seem that they might be getting cleaned a bit now but still look rather unkempt. Some of the meridians were absolutely filthy but they do have a habit of throwing oil up the sides.

[justin1985]

Talking of filthy units, the 156 working the Sudbury branch today has been de-branded with the Greater Anglia vinyl lettering removed. The shadows of the missing text are the only clean bits on the unit!

 

That 156 must be getting ready to leave the franchise soon then. Has there still only been one test trip of a 755 on the branch? 

[Trainshed Terry]

29 minutes ago, justin1985 said:

Talking of filthy units, the 156 working the Sudbury branch today has been de-branded with the Greater Anglia vinyl lettering removed. The shadows of the missing text are the only clean bits on the unit!

 

That 156 must be getting ready to leave the franchise soon then. Has there still only been one test trip of a 755 on the branch? 

 

Here is a silly question has the platform been lengthend at "Sudbury" if I remember the plateform was only long enough for a single car unit 156.

 

Terry.

[great central]

3 minutes ago, Trainshed Terry said:

 

Here is a silly question has the platform been lengthend at "Sudbury" if I remember the plateform was only long enough for a single car unit 156.

 

Terry.

The new units are supposed to have selective door opening but as far as I'm aware it didn't work properly at first. No idea if it's been sorted though, 'software issues'

[beast66606]

1 hour ago, great central said:

The new units are supposed to have selective door opening but as far as I'm aware it didn't work properly at first. No idea if it's been sorted though, 'software issues'

 

Apparently it's been fixed as the Ipswich / Cambridge services couldn't stop at all stations until it was - and now they stop.

[tgk300]

On 24/12/2019 at 11:22, The Stationmaster said:

More relevant I suspect might be the unsprung weight on each axle - that was where the problems arose with the 142s on the Western where it was found ona. trial on the Exmouth branch that axles would 'unload' weight  frequently due to the effectiveness of the springing design.  The problem was apparently worse on jointed track.

Interesting. Do you know if they ever did anything to solve/lessen the problem? The Exmouth branch, WoE line etc. are all my local lines so I am familiar with those routes but was not aware of this issue. Interms of weight on axles, the powercar has the higher loading - 27 tonnes on 2 axles apparently. I have come to the conclusion that the 114 tonnes I read by adding up all the weight plates on a 4 car unit does not include the bogies weight as someone on here has previously said that the total unit weight is quoted as 160 ish tonnes. So 114 without bogies and traction motors, 160 with bogies. I still don't know how much weight is on the four driven axles though. 

[charliepetty]

20 hours ago, great central said:

The new units are supposed to have selective door opening but as far as I'm aware it didn't work properly at first. No idea if it's been sorted though, 'software issues'

Two Car Class 156s fi easily into Sudburys platforms,    Charlie

[beast66606]

While I was out photographing a double (37) headed stock move at 07:40 I picked up these.

 

Eccles Road

27 December 2019

755422 on 1K61, 07:34, Norwich - Cambridge (08:51)

and
755410 on 2K58, 07:00, Cambridge - Norwich (08:27) - stopper

 

 

 

 

[colin penfold]

On 18/12/2019 at 09:09, russ p said:

 

Hiya Pete 

 

You are right about people abandoning GA to sheringham,  I got the train to Norwich for a beer on Monday teatime hardly anyone on it. I bet Sanders pyrotechnic coaches are rubbing their hands . Their reputation for reliability is horrendous but at the moment better than GA

 

As a resident on route 44 I think that "reputation" is completely undeserved and that Sanders provide an excellent reliable service which I have used successfully for 12 years. Perhaps that's why people, fed up with the Sheringham rail debacle would rather use bus all the way from Sheringham to Norwich rather than use the rail replacement.

[russ p]

59 minutes ago, colin penfold said:

 

As a resident on route 44 I think that "reputation" is completely undeserved and that Sanders provide an excellent reliable service which I have used successfully for 12 years. Perhaps that's why people, fed up with the Sheringham rail debacle would rather use bus all the way from Sheringham to Norwich rather than use the rail replacement.

 

 

I'm not sure colin, I dare not rely on Sanders, the amount of times I go for it and it doesn't turn up is unbelievable. 

The only one I trust vaguely is the lat one from Cromer as it has to return to its depot but odd times that has broken down and not turned up.

Also a failed sanders coach by the side of the A140 is almost as much a part of Norfolk life as flint cottages! 

[The Stationmaster]

On 25/12/2019 at 13:01, tgk300 said:

Interesting. Do you know if they ever did anything to solve/lessen the problem? The Exmouth branch, WoE line etc. are all my local lines so I am familiar with those routes but was not aware of this issue. Interms of weight on axles, the powercar has the higher loading - 27 tonnes on 2 axles apparently. I have come to the conclusion that the 114 tonnes I read by adding up all the weight plates on a 4 car unit does not include the bogies weight as someone on here has previously said that the total unit weight is quoted as 160 ish tonnes. So 114 without bogies and traction motors, 160 with bogies. I still don't know how much weight is on the four driven axles though. 

It's not just down to axle loading because fairly obviously - as you say - the weight of the vehicle will be carried on its axles.  What seems to be far more critical, as appears to have been the case with 142s is very low unsprung weight and on the Exmouth branch trial it was found that it, together with the way the springing was arranged to offer the smoothest possible ride, reduced the amount of continuous physical contact between wheel and rail.   Fit a Track Circuit Actuator and the problem is (usually) solved.

 

However as somebody has now mentioned audio frequency track circuits for the level crossings on the Cromer line we might well be back to a different problem which is simply the compatibility of electrical emissions terms between the trains and the track circuits.  That too is hardly novel in modern trains (it's one reason for extensive testing before trains enter traffic) and ought to have been picked up in both the spec and in testing but again we (I) might be barking up the wrong tree and we'll have to wait for the RAIB report for a (hopefully) comprehensive answer).

[tgk300]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

It's not just down to axle loading because fairly obviously - as you say - the weight of the vehicle will be carried on its axles.  What seems to be far more critical, as appears to have been the case with 142s is very low unsprung weight and on the Exmouth branch trial it was found that it, together with the way the springing was arranged to offer the smoothest possible ride, reduced the amount of continuous physical contact between wheel and rail.   Fit a Track Circuit Actuator and the problem is (usually) solved.

 

However as somebody has now mentioned audio frequency track circuits for the level crossings on the Cromer line we might well be back to a different problem which is simply the compatibility of electrical emissions terms between the trains and the track circuits.  That too is hardly novel in modern trains (it's one reason for extensive testing before trains enter traffic) and ought to have been picked up in both the spec and in testing but again we (I) might be barking up the wrong tree and we'll have to wait for the RAIB report for a (hopefully) comprehensive answer).

 

I get what you're saying, and agree with you that we will just have to wait for the RAIB report. My knowledge of trains and their compatability with the electrical circuits is almost non existant, can anyone which such knowledge tell me if it is a major issue? What I mean by that it, if there is a compatability issue with the electrical circuits for the level crossings on the Cromer Line, is it a simple (ish) fix, or is it a major crisis situation that could cause significant problems and/or cost some serious money? 

 

It would of taken a massive balls up to have occured on either the part of NR, Stadler or GA for the trains not the be compatible with the electrical circuits, although anything is possible. 

 

Regarding the my axle load comments, they were not about the continuous contact between both the wheel and the rail head, but more about the fact that if the 4 car unit does weight 160 tonnes empty, and the driving car weighs 27 tonne, then that leaves 36 tonne out of 160 on driving wheels, therefor leading to a lot of wheelslip. This maybe fine for the GA route, but if they were bought by say SWR or GWR for their routes, only having 22.5% of the total weight avaliable for adhesion won't be good. I reckon that on any major gradients (1:37 Exeter St Davids to Exeter Central) these units would slip to a stand. 

 

Does anyone on this forum know how much a 4 car unit unit weighs in total and how much of that is on the two power bogies?

[beast66606]

@tgk300

Cromer has been resolved / worked around by installing treadles - the sledgehammer approach to train detection

Edited December 27, 2019 by beast66606

[Satan's Goldfish]

39 minutes ago, tgk300 said:

 

I get what you're saying, and agree with you that we will just have to wait for the RAIB report. My knowledge of trains and their compatability with the electrical circuits is almost non existant, can anyone which such knowledge tell me if it is a major issue? What I mean by that it, if there is a compatability issue with the electrical circuits for the level crossings on the Cromer Line, is it a simple (ish) fix, or is it a major crisis situation that could cause significant problems and/or cost some serious money? 

 

It would of taken a massive balls up to have occured on either the part of NR, Stadler or GA for the trains not the be compatible with the electrical circuits, although anything is possible. 

 

Regarding the my axle load comments, they were not about the continuous contact between both the wheel and the rail head, but more about the fact that if the 4 car unit does weight 160 tonnes empty, and the driving car weighs 27 tonne, then that leaves 36 tonne out of 160 on driving wheels, therefor leading to a lot of wheelslip. This maybe fine for the GA route, but if they were bought by say SWR or GWR for their routes, only having 22.5% of the total weight avaliable for adhesion won't be good. I reckon that on any major gradients (1:37 Exeter St Davids to Exeter Central) these units would slip to a stand. 

 

Does anyone on this forum know how much a 4 car unit unit weighs in total and how much of that is on the two power bogies?

 

I can't answer the specific weight question, but given that these units cope with some substantial gradients in other countries (I.e. the old gotthard route across the alps) then I suspect Stadler shouldn't find UK gradients much to worry about if there is a request for these elsewhere.

[tgk300]

Forgive me if linking to external sites is disallowed, I am new here, but looking at this page https://anonw.com/2019/08/06/my-first-rides-in-a-class-755-train/  it seems to state that the whole train is 114 tonne, which to me is way off. 

 

The author of this page seems to off photographed the PP, PTSW and DMS2 but not the DMS and PTS. Is there any chance that the total unit weight inclusive of bogie weight maybe stated on either the unphotographed DMS or PTS? I know that on the 150/0 and 150/2 units used on my local line the indiviual car weights are stated on each plate, and then the total unit weight is stated on one of the driving cars. I did read somewhere that a 4 car unit is 160 tonne with the bogies, and 114 without. 

[Grovenor]

The author of the post you referenced gives this data from the vehicle plates:
 

Quote

 

The weight of each car is as follows.

PowerPack – PP – 27.9 tonnes

Intermediate Car – PTSW – 16.0 tonnes

Driving Car – DMS2 – 27.2 tonnes

Adding these up gives a train weight of 114.3 tonnes.

 

AFAIK these should be all up weights including bogies. As the motor bogies are the two end bogies, ie the non-articulated ones the axleload on the motored axles will be around 9t, or a total adhesive weight of 36t.

All of which look perfectly reasonable to me.

Regards

[tgk300]

41 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

the sledgehammer approach to train detection

 

Has this solved the issue entirely or is there still some concern?